Stay in the loop

Get our top OU and Norman stories in your inbox. Free newsletter sign up

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday the gist of Oklahomans for Responsible Economic Development’s petition to turn the Rock Creek Entertainment District to a public vote is insufficient.

According to an update on the city of Norman’s website, the entertainment district project will move forward as originally planned. 

Oklahoma Supreme Court gives green light to Rock Creek Entertainment District.

According to the majority opinion, the gist suggests that the incremental taxes would last for a period of up to 25 years, rather than ending at the first of three occurrences:

• When funds have been provided to allow non-City parties to service debt in an amount of $230,000,000 in principal plus interest

• When a total of $600,000,000 in tax collection is provided

• After the passage of twenty-five years from the creation of the TIF districts 

The majority opinion states that the gist does not provide potential signatories with a clear understanding of how long the incremental taxes would last.

The majority opinion states that the gist “does not provide a potential signatory with sufficient information to make an informed decision about the true nature” of the ordinance and the Rock Creek Entertainment District plan

Additionally, the majority opinion states that the gist inaccurately conveys that the ordinance and the Rock Creek Entertainment District plan authorize $600,000,000 in project costs in addition to $230,000,000 in financing, rather than $600,000,000 and $230,000,000 as two of three separate triggers.

The dissenting opinion, written by Chief Justice Dustin P. Rowe, states that the gist is not inaccurate, misleading or fraudulent, but it “synthesizes the technically complex governing documents that — in themselves — are difficult to decipher.”

According to the dissenting opinion, the gist is not required to paraphrase all governing documents but needs to provide enough context to be easily understood by signatories.

Paul Arcaroli, ORED member, told OU Daily Tuesday, shortly after the decision, he was disappointed by the ruling. 

“The process of direct democracy is difficult in the country, it’s in the state, and that's just proved how impossible direct democracy really is, so I think that's very sad for Norman and sad for our community,” Arcaroli said. 

Read more about the entertainment district:

Arcaroli said ORED would continue to look at other options available but the organization does not have any immediate plans. 

"There are some things we can look at and we will keep you in the loop. We are disappointed but as President Bartlett says on 'The West Wing,' 'What's next?'" Arcaroli said. 

In a statement posted to social media Tuesday, OU wrote the ruling marked a pivotal milestone for the city and university.

"We move forward purposefully, guided by a shared commitment to smart, responsible growth that will bring lasting opportunities by unlocking what's next: a place where students, professionals, and families can live, work, and thrive."

According to the statement, OU has worked with the County Trust and advanced a design-build request for proposal to ready the project for execution.

OU Athletics posted on X that the ruling will allow a transformational opportunity for the community.

"The future is brimming with possibilities for the city of Norman, Cleveland County, our university athletics programs, and student athletes," the post reads.

Norman Mayor Stephen Tyler Holman said in a Tuesday evening phone call while his is disappointed about the ruling he is happy residents are no longer waiting in limbo for a decision.

"Almost 11,000 people signed a petition (because) they felt really strongly that this public financing proposal should go to a vote of the people. It was almost double the amount of signature they needed," Holman said. "People were driving themselves to petition locations...to have that many people sign a petition and it just be throw out is disappointing."

Holman said while he isn't exactly sure what the next steps are at the moment, residents must come together to find a way to move forward.

"If there are still opportunities for the public to pursue this, to get this in front of voters for a decision, then I encourage them to continue doing that," Holman said. "And so we'll see what happens from here."

Cleveland County Commissioner Rod Cleveland, in a Tuesday press release, wrote he was thrilled by the Supreme Court's ruling.

"I am thrilled to see this project advance after more than 12 years of dedicated work on my part to bring it to fruition," Cleveland wrote. "This development represents smart, responsible growth that does not raise property taxes while delivering significant benefits to our community's quality of life."

Photos: Proposed University North Park arena, Rock Creek entertainment district renderings

Rendering of the University North Park arena and associated entertainment district proposed to be constructed along Interstate 35 between Rock Creek Road and Corporate Center Drive in north Norman.

Cleveland wrote that OU Athletics stands as Cleveland County's largest economic driver. 

"Sports and entertainment districts like this one have proven successful across the country, creating vibrant hubs where people eagerly visit, spend their time and money, and build lasting connections," Cleveland wrote. 

Background

Around 1 a.m. on Sept. 18, 2024, Norman City Council approved the University North Park entertainment district 5-4. During the meeting, over 70 residents voiced support and opposition to the district and its TIF model. 

On Sept. 20, 2024, three Norman residents filed a petition to turn the district to a public vote. 

Organized by the nonprofit Oklahomans for Responsible Economic Development, petitioners collected 11,602 signatures over 30 days, exceeding the 6,098 required by law. Of the 11,602 submitted, 10,698 signatures were certified by City Clerk Brenda Hall. 

On Nov. 19, 2024, Nimmo, Allison, McKown and Quinn filed the legal notice opposing the petition.  According to the 119-page notice, the protest challenged the gist of the petition and argued it did not comply with Oklahoma Statutes, which require a referendum petition to summarize the nature of the proposed referendum vote in a manner that can be understood by those who do not practice law.

This story was edited by Natalie Armour and Macey Thaxton.

OU Daily standards

See an error? Earning trust is our duty. We correct errors atop stories. Identify an error, request a takedown or get in touch.

Independent and free since 1916: OU is committed to our editorial independence. You can help ensure our reporting remains strong and accessible to all invested in OU and Norman.

Want to comment? We value dialogue on issues we cover. On our social media accounts, we moderate disparagements, arguments and attacks, including those directed at our staff — and ban those repeatedly failing civility. The editor considers guest column submissions.