Cleveland Co. moves forward with requests for proposals tied to Rock Creek project

NORMAN, Okla. (KFOR) — A controversial entertainment district project in Norman's Rock Creek district appears to be moving forward after Cleveland County leaders gave the next stop in the process the go-ahead Thursday.

The project, funded in part by at least $600 million of the City of Norman's potential sales tax revenue, has seen mixed reaction from the community since a Fall 2024 City Council vote allowing it to move forward. A Norman grassroots organization called Oklahomans For Responsible Economic Development [ORED] petitioned to send the matter to a public vote, garnering well over the thousands of signatures. However, a Cleveland County district court judge threw the petition out after other citizens sued, saying the gist of the petition was insufficient. Opponents of the project filed an appeal to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which has placed the case on its fast-track docket.

The Cleveland County Recreational and Entertainment Facilities Authority previously voted to move forward with an economic development agreement tied to the project. That agreement sets strict guidelines for milestones in the phased planning process, with a new county arena, as an anchor project. The University of Oklahoma also has a vested interest in replacing its basketball/gymnastics arena. The agreement says the arena must be finished and ready to move into by January 2029, a topic that was the focus of discussion at another authority meeting on August 7.

The project is also split into phases, with development plans for each requiring approval from the City of Norman and Cleveland County 90 days before work can start. Floyd said the proper steps really need to get moving by October 2025 to avoid any delays.

"We want the court to rule," said county representative and attorney David Floyd. "We don't want to overstep ourselves, but at some point we have to act."

Floyd stated that in his legal opinion, the Supreme Court appeal didn't grant parties an injunction to delay the legal deadlines of the agreement. Legal representation for ORED has argued that the appeal is the equivalent of an injunction.

"Why would you rush a thing if you don't know if there will be a vote or not?" asked ORED member Cynthia Rogers. "Somehow this very long process will be disturbed by three weeks or a couple of weeks, or a month? So, I don't feel like that argument holds water."

Rogers said she and fellow ORED member Paul Arcaroli attended the less than 10-minute authority meeting on Thursday. The agenda, similar to agendas for other authority meetings, did not give the public the opportunity to weigh in.

"They're saying, eh, the three of us, the four of us know better, and that bothers me," said Arcaroli.

Thursday's vote didn't include an official draft of a request for the authority to vote on, but Floyd did share contingency plans included in a working copy that address court concerns.

"In the event of an adverse ruling from the Supreme Court, the authority can end the RFQ process, pause it, delay it, do whatever needs to be done until the voters have a chance to weigh in," said Floyd.

Floyd also said the draft will say there's no liability or costs for the county if bidders have to spend anything out-of-pocket, but voters axe it. That request language hasn't been finalized, but News 4 was told by a county spokesperson there would not be another vote to do so. Any final language will be shared in a public document. News 4 will share those details when they're available.

Arcaroli says he doesn't feel like county leaders are listening to their constituents.

"To see our leaders, our elected leaders, effectively just ignore us, that's very disturbing," said Arcaroli.