This video presents the City of Norman's proposed ordinance amendments for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) policy, which establishes a 'but for' test requiring analysis of whether development would be difficult but possible with TIF assistance, while protecting dedicated sales tax funds and implementing stakeholder review processes. Additionally, the council discusses challenges managing homeless encampments at Kate Park, including legal constraints from state land leases, the Safe Neighborhood Act, and the need for shelter expansion, outreach teams, and designated camping policies to address the housing crisis affecting approximately 641 people on the Section 8 waiting list.
拡張機能をインストールして、あらゆる動画内を即座に検索しましょう
City Council Conference, 5/12/26追加:
property as part of an enterprise zones mean it is by definition unproductive, undeveloped, underdeveloped or blighted for the purpose of TIFF financing and therefore it automatically qualifies under the local development act. Because it automatically qualifies, the court says it doesn't violate the constitutional provision or the 8521 and two the but for test in the local development act. Uh the AG has weighed in since then when when asked how's the city's compliance with those two provisions measured? They say districts in historic preservation, reinvestment or enterprise areas are per se consistent with such guidelines. So you see a a difference there when we look at historic preservation, reinvestment or enterprise areas. Currently all of our tiffs that are in existence are in enterprise areas. So that but for test does not apply. They have per se met that for the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
>> So the example of the University North Park District, >> it's a great example. Many of us >> would view that as uh not being economically depressed, not being undevelopable. It's flat, >> right?
>> Fronts, it's completely developed all the way around it.
>> So, it's a prime target to be developed on its own. But >> because of that first one, it is in an enterp a grandfathered enterprise zone.
Mhm.
>> That is what qualified the original UMP and >> correct >> this new one as well. Is that >> correct?
>> Okay. And that's important because in this ordinance we are implementing a but for test even for enterprise zones or historic preservation areas or reinvestment areas. So under the local development act, if it's not one of those areas, you see the butt four test that I read earlier over there in the left column and then you have you go through those remaining legislative guidelines. Under this ordinance, we're talking about implementing a test regardless of whether that project is in a historic preservation, [cough and clears throat] reinvestment, or enterprise area. So that would require an analysis to look at whether and this is what's in the ordinance right now whether to I'm sorry [clears throat] whether um investment development and economic growth in that area would be difficult but uh possible with tiff assistance in line with the city goals. So Griffin is the example we talked about last week, right? Blank property essentially. It's got some buildings on it, but it's primarily largely undeveloped. And so if someone were to buy it, would it develop? Sure, it could. But would it develop with affordable housing? Would it develop uh with all the public infrastructure needs that are there that need to be addressed? There's as best as we know in some of the older buildings. So there are things that would make it difficult, not impossible. Uh but tiff assistance could help it develop in a way that meets the council's goals. And so that's what based on our discussion last week, that's what's in the ordinance right now in 12-72 A2. Again, if it's an area that's not in a historic preservation, reinvestment, or enterprise area, it still has to meet the test in the local development act.
Uh but for those areas that don't have to meet that test, this is a test that that we would be implementing that they don't currently have to meet. And is that the case made for the entertainment district is that most of us believe that the property could eas but without this tiff we can't get this development >> this type of development >> this this entertainment district >> it would otherwise maybe just be commercial or just apartments or whatever it may be. But that's the argument that they were making for [clears throat] why they wanted this.
>> Yeah. And I think the key here is um in this language is it has to be in line with the city's goals. Ultimately, it comes down to you guys to make that determination. And what we're trying to set up here is a process where you get more information and you get more input.
And I'll go through the input here in a minute. But uh the ordinance also talks about um you have to make a determination that use of a tiff is an appropriate incentive tool. Are there other tools out there that could be used instead? Are there other ways to finance the project that are more appropriate?
Uh the area proposed for designation as a tiff district is projected to increase in real property taxable value within the first five years.
That's that's not will it uh increase within the first five years regardless of the tiff but but will the financing provide some development quickly? It's not going to take all 25 years to see anything but will we start to see some movement uh and some turnover there in the taxable value quickly. Uh proposed districts and urban areas are expected to support development or revitalization within the project area. That's a change we made and at the end I'll highlight all the changes from last week but across properties of multiple properties of separate ownership. That might be a duplication there. Um and then the tiff is expected to support and encourage development that will have a positive net fiscal impact on the city as a whole. That's not a requirement under the local development act. So that's an important consideration for us as well.
um when you go through how these proposals get analyzed, there's nothing in the local development act that talks about, you know, what kind of information has to be provided to the city to to look at these proposals and analyze them. Uh there's no formal citizen input um until the public hearings on the project other than three at large members that are appointed to the statutory review committee. Here we would be implementing a lengthy uh economic and risk analysis of the proposal. That's in section 12-703b.
Uh and then in 12-706, we would be implementing some standards for how we would evaluate a proposal after the project plan is adopted. So if someone's coming to ask for assistance in development financing, how are we going to evaluate that? [clears throat] Um we also propose an ad hoc stakeholder committee to review those proposals.
This would be uh seven members representing businesses, residents, and nonprofits within the project area or within a specified radiance radius thereof. So uh impacted directly or indirectly uh by the project based on radius. And then it would go through the economic development advisory board. Uh that's a board where you all uh through your typical nomination and appointment process appoint the members. requires members to serve with certain kinds of experience.
Um, and they would review and make recommendations on that analysis and uh the impacts to the taxing jurisdictions.
Then we pick up the the process in the local development act. So we don't replace it at all. We're just supplementing it. You have the statutory review committee uh made up by statute has to be made up of taxing jurisdiction representatives plus three additional members representing the public at large. At least one has to represent the business community. If there's retail, you have to have someone that represents uh retailers.
They are charged with making findings and recommendations as [clears throat] to the conditions establishing the eligibility of the district. They have to include the analysis used to project revenues over the life of the project plan. effect on the taxing entities and appropriateness of approval of proposed plan and project. Consider and determine whether the proposed plan and project will have a financial impact on any taxing jurisdiction and business activities within the proposed district.
Those things uh get included in the project plan and that's presented to the statutory review committee based on their feedback and then voted on and brought forward to you all. But note that it doesn't require them to find a positive impact. So that's where you know our process and getting more financial information and more information before you is important. Uh then it goes through planning commission review two public hearings. The first to provide information and answer questions and then second is for the public to express their views. That's all set by statute and then consideration by council.
So, I wanted to highlight real quick just what changed in what's on your agenda tonight versus last week based on your feedback.
We talked about Griffin and that example earlier and and I noted this change, but we've got in there that as part of the city requirements that tax increment financing be used in those cases where investment, development, and economic growth in line with the goals of the city is difficult but possible with TIFF assistance. Again, if it's not one of those three areas, historic preservation, reinvestment, or enterprise zone, it has to meet the but four tests in the local development act anyway. Uh but this is really for those areas where uh the legislature said they per se qualify. So that gives you some more information and ways to analyze it.
How [clears throat] do we ensure dedicated sales tax funds are preserved?
We we talked about uh PSST and Norman Ford and Transit a little bit last week.
I've had another meeting with Council Member Kirby. Appreciate that. Uh wanting to make sure we protect those sources of funds. Um and you see that in section 12-722C.
Uh we've got already a general preference for TIF districts that only capture act. So that preserves the sales tax. But if a tiff district is proposed to capture the sales tax, we've added a provision in 12-73A2F that uh that proposal shall be limited to non-dedicated sales tax revenue only.
So we're protecting those revenue streams going forward.
Uh we had concerns about uh the dis the this was the discussion about um multiple properties of separate ownership and and we talked about Oklahoma City and how the Scurvan Hotel is a good example of this how they will do a a project area that's broader and then you have an increment district that's for a particular site. So, Scurvvin Hotel, Devon Tower, uh things like that and and didn't want to close the door on that if that is an appropriate proposal at some point. So, we changed that to project area as discussed last week so that it's it's benefiting more properties across the whole project area. And then cleanup items. There was some language in 12-76 uh C2 that dealt with can cannibalization and that section really deals with uh businesses moving into a tiff and and wanting an incentive. Uh but I didn't want to limit the cannibalization issue to just that. So moved that over to 12-706.
Um I think I put it Look, yeah, it's in um it's part of the analysis in the economic and risk analysis done. Um and then added a section for applicability because we do have contracts and things outstanding.
Um we already have a process under the center city tiff for instance that was adopted by council for evaluation of applications. Um I don't want to inadvertently do anything that conflicts with things already adopted. So this addit this section will be ensure the ordinance is applicable from date of adoption forward for for any tiff that's applied for at that point. Uh with that it's on your agenda for first reading tonight. This just provides notice by title. Our typical process would be to have it on your agenda May 26 for second reading, but if if there's more discussion to be had, we can always postpone the second reading to a date certain to give us more time to talk about it. Uh but I we just wanted to keep it moving forward after the discussion last week. So happy to do whatever council [clears throat] wants.
>> If there was um if we wanted to as part of this new process require a higher uh vote threshold of council. Would this be something that could be included in that?
>> I don't think so. There's a city of Norman case, coincidentally from long before any of our time, uh, where we required by ordinance a threeforce vote for certain zoning items um, based on the number of protests that were received and that was challenged and the court said um, in the absence of an express requirement to the contrary either in statute or charter, you cannot require a higher threshold of voting. Our charter says only five votes to pass an item. So, we would need to make a change to our charter >> in the charter implement >> to say that specifically tiffs over an x amount of sales tax would require a supermajority of council or x amount of counsel.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Something like that. And and I I think that's on the agenda [clears throat] for oversight on Thursday. So, >> but we don't have the ability to require future councils to do supermajority >> based on that case. I I don't think so.
I think it' need to be a charter amendment.
>> And that is a companion but separate conversation this specific part. Okay.
>> Okay. Any other questions council about >> in the city of Norman? How many how much open areas left relate related to historic preservation or investment or enterprise areas?
>> We have quite a bit of enterprise zone areas in Norman. Um it covers um the core quite a bit of core Norman, all of Griffin. Um it covers some of South Norman as there's some even further east in W five. So there's quite a bit of that. Historic preservation areas are are you know more our historic districts those are smaller but it is it doesn't just cover development of vacant land.
It covers redevelopment of properties too. So even where we see things that aren't that are built out. It could possibly be used to redevelop those areas.
>> So we're going to do this test this butt four test. It's an additional So let me stop on the butt four test. So in my mind, I'm thinking the developer or the project owner or a limited space.
They're doing a butt for test and they're providing that to the city and then we're going to go to third party for evaluation and then the city staff assesses those evaluations from the con from the developer or from the whoever's developing the the specific property as well as the feedback from the hired gun. Also, that's going through your stakeholder committee or your citizens committee.
>> And what's the benefit from the citizens committee? [clears throat] >> Their role really is to uh provide input to look for opportunities where there might be things that could be placed in a project plan that could benefit the neighborhood.
um and and just determine overall the the um appropriateness of the project and make a recommendation to you all. One of the complaints we get is that there's not a spot for the citizens to especially those who are impacted to to weigh in on the project until the very end. Um, historically it's the three people that are appointed to the statutory review committee aren't necessarily impacted uh residents and so this is to give an opportunity for those folks to have some some weigh in early on in the process.
I would think your uh your property owner your developer limited property when they do their butt for test methodology your hired your hired contractor understand that methodology and say you know I see it I understand it I'm going to apply that and others others to come up with a better picture and then I'll have this delta of and I think that committee would look that delta a little bit and assess that and get some type of a written product back to >> the city.
>> Yeah. And they'll I mean I would imagine they'll be able to make a recommendation on that includes like most of our committees includes uh you know their findings on anything that's presented to them. We also have the EDAB review which will be focused especially on the economics.
Um so that'll be important for the council as well. In the back of my mind, I'm thinking Oklahoma City. I'm thinking uh more. I'm thinking surrounding other surrounding municipalities. This but for addition when they're looking at historic preservation [clears throat] reinvestment enterprise areas do not require the but for analysis for those areas.
>> I have not found any ordinances uh that require anything additional above the local development act in Oklahoma. I've looked I know Oklahoma City doesn't have one. They do have an entire department that deals with these and so there may be some internal analysis going on that's not codified.
I know for instance they they have a preference for pay as you go projects.
They don't want to issue a lot of debt for a project. They like to do projects where um if they're incentivizing you know the Scurvan hotel, the Scurvvin Hotel is only entitled to get back the increment that the Scurban Hotel generates. Um and that's a preference you see in the way they implement their project plans. But I don't know of anything codified like this.
>> Um just [clears throat] to also say that citizens advoc committee would also have business owners like small business owners when we talk about doing an east downtown tiff. We know that there are certain projects requested especially alley improvements that are not going to be in the CIP budget anytime soon. So, I think that could pass a butt for like we won't get this and then uh the alleys won't be fixed. The business owners won't have the capacity to do the elevator space because they have property that fronts the alley. And then uh [clears throat] I was going to say we do committee orientation. Um, I don't know that it has to be in there, but I just want to make it clear that whoever is coming into this process and has a vested interest, whether they're a neighborhood nonprofit or a small business or developer for something like Griffin, um, I imagine the developers probably know, but I would just like to make sure that they they have the education um, for this work because it's not like tiff money is monopoly money. It's not limitless and there's controls to how much you'll get out of a project or a district for the project area. Um, and then on EDAB, do we make it so that we have to have an economist on uh that board?
>> It I think the language is someone with a background in economics, finance, or banking or something along those lines.
I'd have to look at that language again, but there's a qualifier for for that.
It's not specific for just one. But if we wanted to make EDAB more robust, we would tackle that in another um maybe a retreat topic or whatever that just outlines that we just want to have really great uh I guess technical plus whatever we decide makes sense for that.
>> Yeah, that's something we can always look at it. It would be an easy ordinance amendment to change that.
>> Okay. Well, those are just my questions.
Thank you. Any other questions for city staff on this policy?
Questions, comments from council?
Like Katherine said, um would be on the 26th agenda for a public hearing and council consideration. Um, if anybody doesn't feel comfortable with that, can request can make a motion during the meeting to postpone or you can let staff know before um that you have concerns or that you want to continue discussing it or if you have any other things that you want to add or try to subtract, whatever it may be. Um, so I don't know of any new tiffs that are coming up right now that we have to put this in place for. So if anybody needs more time to think about it or have anything else you want to add to it, there's time. Uh but if not, then as it is, it would be on the 26th agenda. And then of course, like I said, if in that meeting, uh we decide that we're not ready yet. Can always be postponed then as well. So any other final questions, comments? Council member Kirby, >> is the reason we don't use bonds for this is because we're trying to keep our property taxes low. It depends. It's been discussed uh at different times and it just depends on what you're asking for and how much the impact of the property tax and things [clears throat] like that. We talked about it with the arena for instance. We we you know even the first arena I think that was a proposal like what if we just do the parking garage with geo bonds and then the arena itself is less of a draw and and there just wasn't the support to do that. Um, so it depends. Um, if it's a public utility like the bonds [clears throat] we did recently, you know, that's a 50% vote, there's not a millage limit. If it's something that's appropriate under article 10, section 35 that has a millage limit. So, you can't raise perhaps enough money for the project. You know, we have to kind of go into all those considerations, but it's possible uh that components of a project or all of a project could be funded by geo bonds depending on what the project is. And then the reason the public don't get a vote is because of the state constitution and the way the charters are.
>> Yeah. It's uh the local development act only uh calls for a vote in the initiative and referendum process. And so there's some law out there that says the state can't or the election boards can't run elections if it's not authorized by state law. And so that's really been the hiccup there.
[clears throat] Um, so >> I was thinking if the if the shelter was like $10 a year for the median income for that go bond, like what would a the yearly property tax bill for 300 or 250 million bond would be?
>> A lot.
>> I guess it would be the whole county. I don't [laughter] know. It's a good question though. It's a good question.
Councelor Bruce in the past appropriate incentives >> and I don't think we've used those to my knowledge in any great and when is when is when is something too small for TIF?
If I give you unsolicited proposal for a TIF when is it too small?
>> There isn't really a hard and fast rule on on the size of the TIFF. I think what we'd have to consider is, you know, is it worth the the effort or is there another way to fund it that's not so lengthy of a process. You know, if it's just a $50,000 tiff, that might not be worth all of this. That might be worth finding another way to to complete the project if that's what council wants to do.
>> So, if I'm thinking about it and I live in one of these areas or I have money to invest in one of these areas, I'd be making a call to see I'm not looking at big. I'm looking at a small footprint. this what I want to do.
>> Yeah, I think the preference really is um because of that language we talked about earlier dealing with the project areas. We want to look bigger picture.
There might be individual projects within that bigger picture, but we want to look at it a little more holistically um and not just do tiny tiny oneoff tiffs.
That makes sense.
One I thought about is if there was an office building in downtown Norman that wasn't going to be needed for offices anymore and could be converted to apartments potentially, >> but someone may have a hard time getting financing to >> do something of that caliber. TIFF could maybe help. That's what I think. Okay. I mean, that sounds like the Scurbans.
>> Yeah.
>> Deal right there was the historic building. They weren't converting it to a different use. It was always a hotel, but it had been abandoned for a long time. It's a dollar per square foot, not a pencil out on its own.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Any final comments, questions from council on this one? Okay. All right.
Then we'll move on to the second item which is a discussion regarding ordinance 0-2526-67 an ordinance of the council of the city of Norman Oklahoma amending article 12 of the transient guest room tax sections 12-501 12-503 and 12-504 of the city code to clarify certain definitions and provide a clearer process for documenting exemptions from the transient guest restroom tax and providing for the severability thereof.
>> Yes. So, this will be quick. Um, you know, there's nothing like a public education campaign to help you realize that you think the ordinance says it's not how the community is perceiving it or maybe there's pieces of it that are confusing. And so, uh, we want to kind of clarify some things and take this opportunity to do it now so that it'll all be in [clears throat] place in time for the July one increase. Uh the changes we're making is a change to the definition definition of hotel. There's a weird reference to uh bedrooms in that definition. I did some research and it goes back to um bed and breakfast. Uh we somehow in the early 2000s inadvertently did away with an inspection requirement.
And so they changed that bedroom count to both bring in the inspection requirement back and then to also um somehow tie it to the three unrelated rule in our zoning ordinance for single family, although that wouldn't apply because these are not permanent residents, but um that's that's was a history I could find. So just kind of cleaning that up and and taking that out.
that definition really doesn't um take into account a lot of the new types of laws that we have now. And so I think that will help kind of clarify that. Um we also, you know, the exemptions section of the ordinance clearly says, you know, government employees are exempt, tribal, federal, state, and government um and permanent residents.
But when you look in the definition sections, permanent residence focuses on that 30-day timeline of what how long you're staying. And so we want to clear that up. And so and tie those two sections together. So you see a change there where we are um adding to that definition that this yes, this does include residents of Norman. Um and then it's also talking about how they can prove their residency because that's been another question. Well, how do we show it? Um, interestingly, the ordinance from 1980 uh required that everyone who wants an exemption to go to the finance director and get a certificate. That doesn't seem real workable and the yeah, the online world of reservation making and >> and so trying to work something in that's that's a little more realistic.
That really hasn't happened much over the years. And what we've created over the years is a form where each hotel when they remit their tax, they have to outline exactly what exemptions were granted and why. Um, and so we'll be using that form going forward. Um, but they will be required to provide the proof of that exemption at the point of sale. So at the hotel when they check in, if you're a permanent resident of Norman and you're the guest staying in the hotel, you show your ID that has your Norman address or water bill. Um, if you are um, you know, they're representing the government. Um, I know when I stay uh for a conference for the city or something, the city pays for that. That's proof that I'm there on government business. Um, if it's a nonprofit, it would be the same kind of exemption form they show to be exempt from sales tax. So, trying to keep it pretty simple, make it at the point of of sale rather than trying to make it hard and go through the finance director and keep up with all these exemption forms. Um, so that's those are the things being cleaned up with the ordinance. I'd be happy to answer any questions. That's also on first read.
>> And on [clears throat] that too, um, what does one of the questions I know I've seen is what does a resident of Norman do if they if a hotel says they don't recognize it or know about it or have any way to account for it.
>> What they've been doing is calling either finance or our office and we we've been working through those issues.
>> So, contact the city >> action center.
>> Yeah. And we'll do when we when we send out the information with the new rate increase. We've got that form that um we send out every year to the hotels for the exemptions and so we can do some education with that to make sure everyone's on the same page about how that works.
Council wrinkle, >> can we just put a thing on the website that says this is the law in Oklahoma or in Norman, Oklahoma? And that way if they're at the hotel, they can be like, [laughter] >> Paul, too.
>> Yeah. The mayor says it doesn't apply to me. [laughter] >> Uh, council, >> would you change with the wording of bed and breakfastes? Uh, will it have an impact on ones in like W five over there whispering pines? Have you had any contact with them on how this would impact them in any way, shape, or form?
>> No. When I was reading through the legislative history, they actually put that language in there to make sure it encompassed all of the bed and breakfast. So, I don't anticipate any change for any of them.
>> Okay. Any other questions, comments about this item, council?
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
>> Okay. Item number [clears throat] three, discussion regarding homeless camps and public parks in the response to the situation at K Park.
um which is kind of a result of the clearing out of the encampment behind food and shelter and has just been a continual issue that we've been dealing with and discussing for a number of years, encampments and parks and encampments in general and how they're how we deal with them and where do people go when we do break them up and things like that.
We have city attorney here and we have manager pile.
>> Um, appreciate the opportunity to get in front of the whole council. Um, and we're not going to bring you a problem without bringing you some options and some potential courses of action for your consideration as well. Um the municipal code, the city charter says the city manager is responsible for the implementation of uh all the ordinances and rules and regulations in the Norman municipal code. Uh I don't write a lot of tickets. We have several uh employees that do write a lot of tickets uh through code enforcement uh through our building inspection program um through our enforcement of environmental quality issues uh and through the Norman Police Department. That's where the lion share of the enforcement activity takes place. Um the way the municipal code is written currently there is not a provision for uh overnight stays in a park. So we are kind of at quandry. Our our code enforcement and our police department they [clears throat] they don't they don't really have a mechanism just to say well we're just going to turn a blind eye to that one for the next uh 18 months and call it call it good. This particular park has uh some unique features that make it perhaps even more challenging. Uh one provision in the lease uh between the city of Norman and the state of Oklahoma indicates that uh in the lease it says this land must be used as a public municipal park. uh provided the lease hereby made shall lapse and possession of such tract of land shall revert to the state of Oklahoma in the event such tract of land shall cease to be used as a municipal park. So it becomes a campground. It's definitely not in conformance with the municipal code as it relates to a recreational park and potentially that lease is null and void and that property goes back to the state department of mental health and they're right back to the same situation you had behind uh food and shelter being on state land and their desire to enforce uh no trespassing.
what we believe we have an opportunity to do. We we had conversations before a ballot measure was put together on a permanent shelter location. We kind of weighed the opportunity to make some improvements at the existing shelter site to expand capacity.
And at the time that question was being circulated, we recognized that well, whatever we invest there, it's going to be disposable. we're going to scrape it off uh when that property sells if if we are successful in building a new shelter. Well, now the uh voters have given us uh $8 million and put us on task to build that permanent shelter location. And we know we're looking at about an 18-month window. So, it's a little more finite today than it was before that question was asked.
Um so, we look at now we're kind of a costbenefit analysis. Do we spend some more money, increase capacity at the current shelter, [clears throat] uh recognizing it's disposable, or do you spend that amount of money or potentially more on our current uh program, which is you you can't be in this park. Where can I go? I don't really have a place to send you, but you can't be here. Then the cleanup effort begins. We haul off several tons of of waste and uh write checks to contractors and wait for the next camp to form. So uh the current process does not lend itself to a solution. Uh we are literally uh playing the whack-a-ole game and and it's from one camp to another. Um as sad as it sounds, that is actually an acceptable process in the municipal code.
to go through the enforcement action is literally chasing people off of where they currently are without the ability to say, "Oh, but you can go here." So, the opportunity to potentially add uh enough beds to account for this population in a shelter where you're currently investing in uh management and oversight with a third party provider uh may make the most fiscal sense in the long run, too. Council Grant.
>> Um, and also that happened last week. It got signed, but House Bill 3985, which is the Safe Neighborhood Act, uh, Governor S just signed, basically says that if we, and it, as I understand it, doesn't come into effect till November, >> but says that we, the city can be sued for these encampments. And we know There are other encampments on private land and this will not be this current situation won't be the only situation left.
>> No doubt in my mind it's >> so um you know we have some runway but you know just thinking we need a long term a longer term solution.
Um, and it was pointed out that our even though it is 2026, there is not any actual official updated census data. And Norman's population in the 2020 census is actually 128,000. So, we are under that threshold of the law.
if that's what unless it specifies [clears throat] otherwise. The most recent data that we have officially says that our population is slightly under that. So, um that'll be interesting to see how that plays out or if the bigger cities OKC and Tulsa decide to pursue litigation over being singled out. So, like the city of Broken Arrow, which has 120,000 people or us at 128, we wouldn't have to abide by this new state law, but OKC and Tulsa do. And then if we just grow by 2,000 more people, then now all of a sudden we do. But Broken Arrow is still slightly below so they don't have to. I mean, it just seems [laughter] legally indefensible to me. But anyway, uh, Councilman Peacock and then we'll go on. [clears throat] >> Yeah. Uh, just wanted to talk about all options. You know, what what's the possibility or the realistic option of relocating this campsite down to the shelter land that we have that's currently vacant? Is the fact that that's going to be a active construction zone kind of the the nail in the coffin on that idea?
>> Absolutely. Uh and there's a lot of underground work that'll have to take place since it's it's uh native soil there. There isn't a sewer system or a water system uh in existence and of course grading and grubbing to make sure it drains in accordance with the drainage plan. And you should have uh a contract for those architectural and engineering services uh coming to you in in perhaps the next couple of weeks. at an upcoming council uh meeting.
Actually, it is through that process where we've identified capital that was set aside to [clears throat] pay for architectural and engineering work for the shelter. Uh when the bonds were approved, it we establish a capital project and that's where the bond proceeds will be drawn from and in that uh deposit will be dollars available for architectural and engineering work. So, the money we set aside to do that work in advance would be available for us to expand capacity uh at the current uh shelter site, potentially eliminating the need for firewatch. So, you may pay for an additional set of eyeballs in uh supervision and then save some money on the firewatch exercise that happens hourly.
>> I guess mine's going to kind of pig back on Peacock a little bit there and some ideas that I had and stuff like that.
Um, I definitely, you know, all my dealings with homeless and my friends that live down there and live out wherever, I definitely hate the idea of moving somebody from one state property with their tent belongings to another piece of state property with their tenant belongings and everything. To me, that's not a humane solution to the problem at all and everything, even though I want them to be able to be somewhere, you know, but my thought process after spend my fair amount of time down by food and shelter and everything for the last couple weeks and everything is we do have our property fenced off now. It doesn't run through Bishop Creek at all and everything like that where we would be protecting Bishop Creek now. And you know, let's say that it's a month down the line before we have to worry about utilities and everything like that.
That's still a month to add on to city care or do something in a more legit way and everything like that. And by time, I'm afraid that if we basically ask our police not to enforce Kate's Park that any day Governor Stick could get a wild hair and say, "Okay, we're taking that back." and then we're at ground zero again, you know, and everything like that. And I don't like that idea whatsoever.
The thing I like about our property being where it is, thanks to our good friends at Food and Shelter and also at over [laughter] Sheriff Center and everything, that's where a lot of our people in Kate go now during the daytime. That's where they go eat. That's where they go take a shower.
That's where they go get a lot of their services already. the people that lived there on the state property, they got evicted out of there somewhat, you know, and everything like that. That's one reason why they chose theirs because they had tons of services there that they're used to, a bus stop that they're used to and everything like that. So, I just think that if we could find some way to make something work there, you know, and I I'm one of those I don't like to attend as much next person because I just with bad weather in Oklahoma, that's just to me not safe either. But if it allows us to build on the city cares, find another means with all of our nonprofits that we've been having meetings with and everything else to find who owns what building, who owns what that we can get a permit for, whatever to open up. I just think that having to move somebody every week's not good for them, not good for their mental capabilities, not good for anything about it. cleaning up. Basically, >> we think um expansion efforts at the existing shelter, probably a 60-day e exercise um some construction that uh city crews could handle along with a contract through the state contract for a fire sprinkler addition. We think the riser, the connection to the water system will be uh available and an advantage to the future redevelopment of that site after the new shelter is is operational. So, we're really looking about a 60-day challenge uh before we have uh additional shelter capacity.
>> My thoughts have definitely been about our existing owned property because it is not a city park >> and it's no longer stateowned.
>> It's not owned, but state >> and I figured we were a couple months away from actually moving any dirt around or doing anything yet. Um, and I can't think of anywhere else. There's no other park I can think of that's suitable that's big enough or suitable to accommodate this. And uh, that might not that wouldn't run into this issue with the parks. And so my thought has been if we were able to put a caution tape around the perimeter of our property and say this is where the boundary is, can't go beyond it.
>> It's got construction right now. Then while either the temporary expansion of the indoor shelter or take that time that 30 days or 60 days, whatever we have to like this is a ticking clock. We have this much time where the state's not going to intervene. It's not a city park, so there's not a legal issue that I know of yet. Um, and we've got this much time to get these people into a better situation somewhere. in housing in whatever it may be, but it could it could address this immediate situation for now, but it's not going to address the continual issue, of course.
So, that's where I've been leading to is is the existing property that we own allowing this encampment to move there.
um mayor, city manager, before before we hop too far into this, the soon as we sign that contract in two weeks, which will be in front of you for our architect, we'll um they'll release surveyors uh out there to start surveying the property. So any obstructions that are on the property, would delay the surveying of the property, which would delay any earth work that goes on. And then we also have the state has a project. There's a sewer line that runs right underneath that which is uh belongs to the state that needs uh they have a contract out which will be replaced anytime within the next month and we don't necessarily control that timing of it. Once again, if there are people on the property that would delay the the replacement of that sewer line which [clears throat] runs right on that property. And to also put into perspective that sewer line is being replaced and the reason that the encampment behind the shelter food and shelter was actually cleared out was because there were two open DEQ complaints issued.
The the issue was I think brought to the attention of DEQ because there was a sewer bypass into Bishop's Creek from that sewer line from which was located the the manhole on our property. I don't love the idea of in, you know, moving a campsite to again until that sewer line is fixed where raw sewage could again bypass on that location. I don't think that's another health and safety issue um that is recognized by DEQ that was reported which is why they are replacing that sewer line as quickly as they are. So, um, just be aware that that could be a health and safety issue, not just for Bishop Creek, which we should all be concerned about. Yes. But also for the people that are moving. So, please keep that in mind as well.
>> Grant.
>> Um, yes. Um, [clears throat] I, um, I am just, well, I was all for that until now. Um, but, um, I'm all for um, just like I'm sorry, but I have to ask this first. What about the U Motel?
Like, what is the status on that?
>> Uh, it's under private ownership. Um, I have no idea what the condition of that property is like on the inside.
>> Okay. I'm just passing that question on.
It was asked to me. Um, okay. Um, so I was another idea I had was, and I know this is a definitely a long shot, but we're just trying to think of anything we can think of now, but um just trying to come up with a way of like incentivizing maybe a private land owner to offer up some land um as as an area um as a temporary encampment until the shelter is built and it could be somehow managed by city care because I wouldn't want to just be like, "Hey, let us use your land and then it and whatever happens happens. Thanks." You know, so I would definitely want it managed, but I just think that maybe we could possibly come up with a way of incentivizing a private land owner to just offer up a a little bit of land just so they're not moved from place to place. That's completely ineffective. Um so um so that was one thing I wanted to throw out. The main thing I wanted to throw out though is that since we do have time between now and when the um permanent shelter is built, I would love to see us um coordinate an outreach team. And this team could consist of I know we have a homeless coalition. So um they could be um part of that or one or two of them.
Um, it could put our nonprofits, ch church leaders, behavioral health person, um, even a nurse or an EMT, uh, maybe a housing specialist, but I would just love to see some form of outreach team that is a buffer between NPD and the um, unhoused people. And that's nothing at all against uh, Norman Police. I know y'all are just doing your job. Um, but it's so maybe y'all aren't being called out so often to go take care of that. It could be just an in between person or group that is the first response like um so I would love to see something like that coordinated.
We were talking about the tip earlier and talking about how we'll have a committee for that. Well, let's do a committee for this because this is actual people. Um so I would love to see that. I did some uh I did some research and um other on I I looked up other cities around the same size as Norman that this has been successful for them having this outreach team and so it brought up Oklahoma City and in fact Oklahoma City was first on the list of how well this has worked for them having an outreach team for Collins Shaunie Oklahoma Eugene all I mean it just went on and on of all these um cities that are approximately the same size as nor I know it's I know Oklahoma City is is larger but it said it was first because of how well it has worked for them. The other ones were around the same size and and talked about how this has really helped curb things in a positive way having that outreach team. So I don't really have the best solution of what can happen but what we're doing right now is not working at all. Um, we're just going to keep meeting back here over and over again over this, but I do think an outreach team could help a lot.
>> So, Council Member Blahett, I would like to introduce Amanda, our new outreach team coordinator. Just came on board with us last week. Um, and she and uh Cara, >> thank you. Uh, they are uh the tip of the spear. They do work very closely with uh our partners in the continuum of care. They also do coordinate quite closely with Lieutenant Mcuarter and the PACE team. That PACE team was designed specifically to address the needs of this population and develop those uh long-term relationships and and they really do have um a positive response. uh what we saw behind food and shelter on state land.
The state called and their their enforcement arm is a county sheriff's office and they called the county sheriff. Uh and the response was go put them all in jail. And we said that's not how that works.
>> And we stepped in and said let's begin the outreach. We're going to pick a date on the calendar. We're going to work towards that. We're going to work towards getting these people into programs uh and uh into shelter and into housing. and uh had uh reasonable success with the uh initial population.
And what we found is there were a handful of folks behind food and shelter at the end of the day who were unable to move into a sheltered situation because they had pets. and Cara on the team began looking for an opportunity to how how can we shelter how can we u account for the pets and allow that uh pet owner into shelter services so we can get them uh the help they need. The challenge that that we're struggling with is what we're seeing at Kate Park today. Uh day one there were 11 people out there and now there's 30 tents and potentially 60 people out there and there isn't a mechanism to say that's that's all or here's the number here's the limit. Um and we hear the stories about well my friend told me this is where we're supposed to go. This number could grow into a big giant number um without the capacity to manage the population. So, we don't we're we're scratching our heads trying to come up with an answer to say how do you say this is how many people we think we can support in this capacity. If we're able to add 60 beds, that's about how many people we think are currently at Francis Kate Park, but we think next week there could be 75 people there and I can't squeeze another 15 beds out of the shelter. Um, and then we're going to have to address what happens if they say, "Well, I can't go to the new shelter. You guys just expanded because I have a dock. 18 months from now, we will have that solution. Between now and then, we're we're in a pickle.
>> Council grant.
>> Um so I guess that answered my expansion ask like are we going to try and put a couple kennels in? Sounds like no.
>> Um h had >> I mean if somebody had that conversation us we could take that and add them, right?
>> Uh potentially. And we have do we do have some animal welfare experts uh on staff just to make sure the conditions were safe for those uh animals as well.
>> Um I'm leaning towards honestly a community call because I feel like the city has done a lot and these are systemic issues why we're here because I'm going to hop into housing here in a minute. But um I think that if the county, as I hear it, gave food and shelter ADK for a outreach manager or coordinator, whatever that role is, I wouldn't be so wrong to ask our community partner, hey, we're struggling over here. And also technically, that role is counties as being suable if they're not enforcing. Um >> and they're already over 130, unfortunately.
>> Yes. Um, so and then to the housing issue, we're like in a bottleneck as I understand it at the current shelter.
There are 14 people that could be housed right now, which would be 14 beds that people at Kate Park could occupy if they were able to. Um, so like is it a funding issue why we can't >> I can answer that after going to a meeting that I had last week.
>> Well, we also do we have COC in here?
>> Lisa can kind of answer, can't you?
um >> about HUD and stuff.
>> Yeah. In in in talks with the housing authority, the there are 641 people on the waiting list for section 8 and they are not issuing vouchers because of budgetary issues. Um I'll be perfectly honest with you, there are no housing resources. Um the home together committee has been meeting talking about formulating a plan to go to the faith-based community that's very preliminary um months out from anything you know coming together for that. Um you know it's it's it's a situation that that we have not been in in quite some time that there just are no resources available in the community.
>> So that's how many people are waiting but they're also not issuing any. So that's how many people are waiting and that list will just keep growing.
>> Yeah.
>> And every day until >> Yeah. They are still accepting [clears throat] people to get on the waiting list. The OFA waiting list as well as the Oklahoma City Housing Authority. They have closed their waiting list because they are thousands.
>> You know, there's there's there's no hope.
>> And that's all federal funding.
>> Yes.
>> All federal funds >> as as ours is. It all you know it all comes from HUD. in [clears throat] because you know with the economy we were in wages are stagnated, rents have increased. So it's costing more for the housing authority to keep people on the section 8 program that are currently on it. So they can't afford when someone turns one in, they can't afford to issue a new one at this point.
>> Um okay. So there's that. And uh when you're saying faith-based organizations, is there a number given that have identified in Norman?
>> No, they are um the the the group is primarily came out of the Zenia study that was this last summer. This group is is working together to approach, you know, the faith-based organizations, you know. And then um to your knowledge, do we have any that's uh I guess it's Oklahoma statute. It's title 74 and it's uh authority to permit church buildings to accommodate temporary overnight visitors for specific purposes. It basically says um they've got to meet some guidelines like you can't charge for bed and breakfast, hotel, motel for the code occupancy rating purposes, you know, all that. Um, churches which temporarily accommodate overnight visitors as provided in the section shall have one of the following. An automatic sprinkler system in the area of overnight accommodations. I imagine most churches have over sprinklers and maybe not all. Um, a hardwire standalone fire and smoke alarm in the area of overnight accommodations in addition to an exit door or window opening directly to a public way, exit court, or yard area. It says nothing in the Oklahoma uniform building code or any code adopted by any political subdivision of the state or in any rules or regulations blah blah blah. Uh essentially like if we as the political subdivision choose not to give the churches or churches a hard time like we allow this as a use like the community call could say hey are you a church that meets the uniform building code as in the section. Are you interested in potentially taking a few people and maybe we could support you? I don't know. Um >> I I think that is is fraught with all kinds of drawbacks. You know, we investigated the possibility of having >> a a weathert triggered overflow type shelter and we we could not get there >> just because of the requirements. You know, you were talking about a population that needs lots of oversight.
Okay. And and that that is a a hard and true fact that you cannot take people from a tent and put them in the church basement without lots of people to watch over them. Especially if you start talking about waving building code requirements. You know, you you know that's that's the one thing we have learned in our in our shelter experience is that you think this is going to be great. Everybody's going to want to come in here and just go to sleep. That is the last thing that happens. I'll just tell you from my experience. So, and I think that I don't know what it says about zoning, but I think that we would run into some zoning issues for overnight accommodations and things like that.
>> Um, so, >> but I would want to like say if a church organization were to come to us, whether it's a weather emergency, because I do think we'll have to address a long-term plan even for the winter season that's coming, like not wait until November, December, but do it maybe starting in summer.
>> They're working on that. But what I'm saying is that for the months of discussion trying to work this out, we couldn't get there before winter ended and we're talking about a two-month gap here. We're not going to get there. So, >> yeah.
>> Right.
>> Um Okay. Um I am glad about the community resource manager.
I was wondering uh how that part of because I've consider like Cara and Amanda the missing a missing puzzle piece um >> as we did share uh at a retreat early in council member Grant's tenure that if you have an idea put it on the board and if the issue is we don't know how to pay for it that's okay. money presents itself in strange ways and in this particular instance opioid abatement funds presented themselves and it took a couple years and those positions that you had requested through that retreat are now on board. Well, um, just to before we kick it down to David, I would just like to put out there if there are organizations, whether churches or community activist groups that want to work with the city and or like hit up these other levels of government because again, this is a systemic problem. Um, you know, I would like to think that we would be open to ideas even if we can't use them right away, it might be something that might help in the future.
So, thank you.
>> That 641 is that Norman alone county?
>> That is the Norman housing. That's just 641 people in Norman are waiting for housing.
>> They have gone through the process and met the preliminary threshold to get anointing list and they're >> just waiting for their councel just said especially those churches and businesses that are around where resources are already built in to help with this client and everything would be even greaterly appreciated and everything. For sure. My question just for my own knowledge and everything because I'm not really for sure. If you go over there in Alama Mental Health and go backwards and then over towards the church and everything, how much property does the church own that's not being utilized by them currently? And does the city have any property back there at all or is it all state?
>> Um, there is private ownership uh with the uh Alama Church of Christ. um that Chick-fil-A, Walgreens, some private ownership, and then the lion share of it is stateowned land. We can probably take a quick eyeball at a property line if we can see it uh in Google and get an idea if it's a quarter acre or yeah, >> an acre and a half >> goes up to Apache.
>> Oh, yeah. They they the [clears throat] big parking lot to the north.
>> So most nurses park lot. I've been turning the parking lot already.
[clears throat] >> Y >> and can I I also talked to their leadership back when we did that stakeholder meeting in the leadup to the shelter being passed and they definitely their their limit is sometimes no people. Um sometimes you might have a couple people back there but um >> I was thinking if we could fence off some you know if they let us borrow at least some of their property. I wish >> council budget in members.
>> Um I just have a request um and I'm just going to put put it out there until we have a place for um these the unhoused um friends to go just some kind of solution. Um is it too much to ask to end the 10 p.m. curfew?
>> Ask Mr. maintenance for a [clears throat] >> when you say in the 10 p.m. curfew, what do you mean? And and I'm thinking about it in terms of do you mean a specific location or do you mean the 10 p.m.
curfew >> in general every >> because at 10 p.m. opening up all of our public parks for >> people to be there after hours. I think what we've been struggling with is the issue of when I and I talked to council member Grant oh a week or so ago. We talked a little bit about we've talked a little bit about this in the past. We've talked a bit but about it with prior mayors.
When I look at the issue of camping there are things like a certain area can only support x amount of people. Um, so when I go, for example, if I go out on the Blue River, go camping, they've got designated campsites that people go camp at and we know that this is your area and this is your area, so on and so forth. You probably would want to set something up like that. You would want to designate a specific area for people to go camp in.
I think what we've been looking at and what city manager was talking about is we have a definition of parks in our ordinances and it particularly references for recreational activities.
So we go there recreational activities.
We're sort of transitioning that from recreational activities more to habitation, but we don't really have any rules with regard to how where you can be, when you can be there, what are the rules and regulations that go with your occupation or that particular area. And what the legal staff has been discussing is really easier to figure that out on the front end and then implement it as opposed to doing it the way we're doing it, which is a little bit [clears throat] backwards. We've already allowed that particular use and now we're struggling with okay, how do we go about figuring out things like what we talked about before is it's easy if I'm leasing you a residence. I know there's a landlord tenant relationship there. I know what the statutes are. I know where to go to figure out what my rights are. When you allow this type of a use, if I if I say, I've identified a campsite area and you can camp here, what kind of a relationship am I entering with you?
Because that has benefits and burdens, responsibilities with regard to, okay, what are my obligations and what are your obligations? Um, we haven't done that on the front end.
So, we're a little bit [clears throat] struggling to try to figure out, okay, exactly what are the rules? For example, if if I'm out there causing a problem, can the police come and tell me I can't be here anymore? Well, it appears as though if we're saying you have a right to be in this spot, you have a right to be in that spot. um in in absence of some other potential ordinance violation, something along those lines, if I have a right to be in the park, I have a right to be in the park.
>> Okay.
>> So, what we've been talking about is the issue of could you you probably could. I think I think the better way to go about it would would be to specifically designate which park, which area are you talking about as opposed to saying we're getting rid of that limitation citywide. Okay. And I understand that.
Thank you. Um but my next question is um could So you're talking about the NPD coming out and um because there is someone out there causing problems and that and I can definitely see that happening. Um but can they come out and deal with the person that is you know behaving badly and and deal with that person individually instead of dealing with everybody just for existing. So um so because I have talked with um people since this has been such a thing. I've been talking with people and they have told me that and these are people that do go out and talk to them regularly um almost daily and they said that they um most of them there want to um have rules set upon them and they want to abide by the rules because they don't want to have to leave. And so what I'm just trying to say is it's not all of them.
And so if we could just handle it on a more individual basis, hey, you you know, you are in trouble because you're acting, you know, horribly and you can't stay here because then that makes it hard for everyone else. And so if we could just deal with him or her and you got to go, I'm so sorry, but everybody else, you're good because you are following the rules. And this is very temporary. So it's very frustrating to me because it's so temporary. And so to me, if they could just stay there and it become a thing to where we make it more um stricter or whatever for them to be there and then the right ones will stay there and abide by those rules and just deal with it on an individual basis of who should be in trouble instead of just I I want to penalize you all and make you all keep leaving and going all these different places just because they exist. I mean, that is just crazy to me.
I'm sorry. Thank you though.
>> No, I think you're we the question you're asking is yes, you could do it that way. But I'm thinking about it in terms of how we would enforce, for example, noise. If I'm making a loud noise at my house and my neighbor calls the police, the police are going to come and give me a ticket and I don't have to leave. I don't have to leave my house.
>> But there's already and and thank you.
There's already noise problems at the fraternities and sororities that aren't being enforced. And so we can't just say noise because there's worse cases in Norman of noise.
>> The issue comes down to for us comes down to does somebody complain? Because if I'm making noise and my neighbor complains, they're going to come.
They're going to respond to that call.
And if the circumstances are appropriate, if there's probable cause to believe that I violated the ordinance, they're going to give me a citation. But when we're talking about it in this context, in the context of I'm in a park, do I have a right to be there?
If we're saying that you have a right to camp, the answer is yes. If I'm being a problem, there's some problems they could remove you for. There's some problems that they can't remove.
>> And that's fine. And remove who needs to be removed. I'm all for that. I mean, do it because I want the other ones to be able to stay.
>> The issue comes back to for them making sure there's clarity on who has a right to be there, who doesn't have a right to be there, do I have a right to remove you, do I not have a right to remove you? because they put themselves at risk for civil liability if they do something they're not supposed to do.
>> I understand. And to protect them and the unhoused people in that community, >> we should write something up that says who can be there and who can't be there.
And then they know this is what we go by.
>> Yeah. And that's what I've talked about with the city manager specifically. And some of the some of the alternatives I have listed are designated camping policies, occupation occupancy caps and spacing requirements, administrative protocols, sanitation requirements and waste disposal plans, environmental setbacks for waterways, and structured outreach and cleanup procedures. So that we know, for example, when I said if you have a campsite and I designate this as being your area, you have a right to be here. You also have a right to exclude other people. So, if I'm encroaching into your area, these guys don't know that. If I were to go out there right now and look at the different tents, I don't know who's supposed to be there, who's not supposed to be there. So, if I'm in your tent and the police come and they and you say I'm in your tent and you want me out and I'm not leaving, when they come, they have no idea who's supposed to be there or not.
>> And I understand that. It is definitely not the perfect situation by any means, but it's temporary, >> but I do think you can resolve those issues on the front end. If you've got some of these rules set out so that we know before you get there, these are what the rules are, these are what you agree to abide abide by, it's much easier for them to enforce, it's much easier for them to keep order when that's necessary as opposed to kind of just throwing everybody out there and not having any idea who's supposed to be where, so on and so forth. It it would almost be better, for example, If you had to come, if we set up specific areas and this is campsite number one and this is campsite number two and you come to the city clerk's office, first come, first serve, you have a right to be a campsite number one. So that if something is a problem and they have to go out there and you can show them this is my campsite, I'm supposed to be here. I don't want this person here. So on and so forth. It makes it much easier for them to know what the rules are to be able to to take enforcement action on that one person that's causing the problem.
>> And I could see that almost like there needs to be something. You have to come and register like what your camp spot number will be. And that actually seems doable to me. Um so um that would work because it's temporary and we're just going to keep meeting here again. And something we c none of us can forget about in this room is that the shelter bond passed and it passed not just by one or two votes. I mean the voters spoke up and was like yes let's do this.
And so I think even just because of that it's up to us to do something now and until that can be built. So, >> we had the same similar conversation about state parks and how state parks allow camping, but you have to pay for it and register and give them a spot and all that, but it's regulated, but it is a it is something that's done in parks as a park function.
>> It's changed. So, Council Bruce and then Grant, >> the um as far as Oklahoma Department of Mental Health, keeping that pipe open regarding potential use of purchasing additional land would have been nice.
>> The other comment I had as far as uh is that dope door closed? I mean, is there's none answering the phone?
>> Um yeah, Mr. Purton's been making contact and it it they are in a state of disarray, I think, at best. um they are being contacted by the development communities. H how trying to put money in your pocket so you guys can go do what you need to do and this real estate could be freed up for uh higher and better use and um it's it's just a challenge to get anybody to pick up the phone up there.
>> So who owns the land north of food and feed or food and shelter?
>> All state.
>> Okay. The um what about city code? Let's see if I'm R1, R2, [clears throat] R3.
Is there anything wrong with me sitting up tent in my yard or someone you know someone who wants to do that? I mean >> is there something silent?
>> I mean anyone who is R1 R2 say hey feel bad about this. I'd like to help.
>> Actually I think Rick could answer that because we had a situation.
>> We had that issue before and technically no you can't. It's a minimum housing issue because our minimum housing code says you have to have certain minimum amenities when you're offering housing to people. Well, it's not housing say you put your 10 here.
>> But it is.
>> So what happens to all these guys that have properties right here that people are squattering on their on the [clears throat] property approval? Well, if we got notice of that, we probably would send a code out there to invest to investigate and if necessary, we might we probably would tell them that that's not happen. I mean, the example is if you live in your house and you're you didn't have heat and we knew about that, we would post your that structure that you're not habitable. Um, if you didn't have water, if you didn't have sewer, we would post it as being not habitable.
When you have that issue on somebody's private property, you run into those issues um of it not being habitable. And then of course the issue that we had over here is just just across the railroad tracks. Of course a lot of the neighbors were complaining about those issues. We did have code go over and work and ultimately we did have to tell that property owner you cannot you cannot lodge somebody in your backyard in a tent for some longterm period. Now obviously we think about it specifically in terms of things like what if my little kid wants to go out and spend a night in the tent in the backyard? Can you do that? Yeah, the answer is yeah probably can. But he's not living there.
Um it's more of a temporary state. We talked the mayor talked we talked had a discussion earlier about the issue about state parks and it was the recreation versus habitation issue because in state parks in state parks you're not allowed to stay there more than a 16-day time period at a um so it's like we're we're trying to sort of mash together some rules that we know currently exist with regard to existing places where you can't actually camp and try to to mesh those into this set of circumstances to see what fits and what doesn't fit. that um some of them are appropriate, some of them are not appropriate. But it's things like sanitation um is a big issue. Things like, like I said before, when I go to a state campground, this is my campsite. I pay the game ranger to occupy this space for this time period, which arguably gives me the ability to exclude people if I choose to. and under these circumstances that the lack of sort of rules and I what council member Blahett is saying is the difficulty is the lack of rules that can be enforced ultimately means we just tell everybody you got to get out because we don't really know.
>> Well, I understand that. I I get it. I get it. So, what's causing this surge in demand?
>> Great question.
>> We talked about a bottleneck and people getting out of I understand the housing shelter. What's causing the unshelter increase >> 641 people are waiting on house >> unshelter increase unshelter >> I know but I'm saying those people >> might be getting evicted or whatever that's on the list and everything that adds to the problem I >> mean wages are low health care is poor Oklahoma's one of the worst states in the country in all of those categories um economically Oklahoma's for the most part are not doing well unless you're in the top tier um Oklahomaans don't have health care. Education is difficult.
Child care is non-existent.
>> So what I'm saying what it causes increased demand is [laughter] the passage of the vote on the bottom the proposition. What causes increase? Hey, what caused people to to go to food and shelter and place their encampment? What what caused that?
>> I don't think there's an increase. I think it's pretty much the same. We just move around from place to place and when we go do enforcement here, they move over here. And then we go do enforcement here, they move some places. I think the numbers are probably Council Grant.
>> Okay. Um I was going to say too, I had teed up oversight to also talk about camping and ordinances and I would love to continue that part of the discussion there. Uh just because we're running out of time, but just wanted to throw that out there that uh if we run out of time in this meeting, we can definitely pick it up again. Councilman Gansbury and then Dixon.
>> I once again I'd like to talk about the shot clock in the room and everything like that coming down too and everything. And even though I've heard great conversation and I sum it some for the first time about this issue and everything like that, you know, and it's sadly not a problem that we can fix in an hour, you know, and everything like that. But I think that we need to think about discussing real quick what what is our recommendation for Kate's Park then and everything like that and what's our you know what I'm saying move forward and everything like that because we got people that's still going to be there tonight tomorrow night and the next night and some clarification helps those that are on the ground helping them know which way to go.
Council >> Dixon works out great. Um, piggybacking off that, I just want to clarify, did I hear earlier in the meeting that since Kate Park is being used as a >> campsite, are leases up? Are leases terminated per the language in the contract with the state?
>> So, >> that's what the language would indicate.
>> So, the state so this is The actions of these people have cost us one city park.
>> Like we do not have like according to that lease, according to what Daryl said, >> as soon as we allowed that to happen or didn't stop it, it reverts to the state's control. It's not ours anymore.
Is that right?
>> It it could absolutely be interpreted that way.
And I I'd also just say I'm 100% against um using city parks as homeless encampments. Normal public schools is going to be out next Thursday. Uh these parks are for kids or for families to enjoy and you you can't if you've got an encampment in the park and I'm just 100% against that.
Just real quick, in the event the state does take it back over, what they they show up, put a fence around it, and basically say it's not able to be used anymore as >> I would assume what would happen is they would contact the sheriff for the highway patrol and say, "Go clear our land."
>> Yes.
>> How I would expect it to happen if that happened, >> just like they did at the property behind food and shelter. The guy said they said they would shelter. Okay.
council and >> could we potentially do an emergency ordinance to allow for maybe front yard camping because again we're talking about a temporary time period. We're all we're all looking at permanent solutions for a temporary time period. But if there's no covenants of an HOA or no other historic rules or anything that would stand in the way, could you potentially allow like one camper for a temporary amount of time and then our new department can kind of help monitor where those people are and check up on them too like we would a point in time count. And that way people that want to extend whether it doesn't have to be a church, but maybe there's church members and that opens up more properties and this is a temporary ordinance that allows for the encampment to not be in a public park and also be on somebody's property that has insurance. Maybe even put an application process in really quick where if you want to house somebody that is camping in your front yard, you have to fill out the application, your insurance goes on file with the city and we know that you're doing that. So, if there is an incident, the police or care team or whoever knows exactly when to respond. Um, and that would kind of achieve the goal of council member Grant's pull to the faith community and anybody else that wanted to take on that because again it is temporary. Um, and the object being never to further displace people that are already displaced. That is that's never a goal of mine. Um, but I also don't want to put the the city at any more liability if a fire started or Governor Stit decides to start enacting stuff tomorrow instead of November. Um, but at least that would ensure the property that's there because the homeowner would already have the insurance and it would be an emergency release with us where we would allow it and keep it on file and have this very quick temporary system that we could put together. And it runs 18 months. We have a shelter open and the ordinance >> potentially runs 60 days to 90 days and we expand the capacity here and you bring them back. So, Mr. Knight, that would be a legal question if such a a temporary ordinance could be implemented.
>> Sure. [laughter] >> Want to talk about an oversight >> and and Yeah. So, after I've got a just a quick comment after Council Member Kirby, >> I'm with that. We went from 30 to 60 in a matter of what two weeks >> or less.
So, our situation's not getting no better.
>> No, sir.
>> And changing the rules, as Scott, Mr. Dixon just said, from park to bark, uh, don't help the situation. And when we go start changing policies to make it where we can do campgrounds in parks, then it's harder to undo that policy and say 60 days when something's open. Uh, the city did vote for shelter by a majority.
Several wards voted against it by a majority. Uh, and we have very opinionated people in them wards. Um, growing up, one of my best friends 33 years ago got took down in a park in Norman. They cut out an eyeball. They cut out a testicle. It was a bad situation. The guy's never been caught to this day. They knocked on every door.
They went to every house. They did everything they could. That's what I worry about because school does let out in six days. And kids are going to go to the parks while their parents are at work because both parents work nowadays.
It's not a single parent home. And we have 60 individuals at the worst time in their life that need our help. But we also have 128,000 residents who need to rely on the city that we're not going to let their children be harmed in the way that this individual was harmed 33 years ago. Never in my lifetime do I want to see that happen to another individual, woman, man, child, it don't matter. You never heal from that. You never come back from that. I keep hearing liabilities of lawsuits, but I don't hear any of us who are stewards of this community accepting the liability that that happens to somebody. We made the decision to put them in that place. So, I would like to think I mean I don't know if Food for Friends can open their doors at night and let them sleep in the kitchen like they can in the winter. I don't know if we can get a church like the one on Porter who done the hugs program who has a huge amount of property that like they said they could set up uh portaotties and whatever they dumpsters anything we need to make sure are unhoused are protected in a safe manner but we also have to represent Norman as a community and make sure nothing ever happens in the manner that happened over on Lindsay Street.
>> Okay, Mr. Mayor, can I uh just get quick consensus uh council's comfort with uh making a capital investment in the existing shelter and picking [clears throat] up potentially 60 beds?
>> Yes.
>> It's state contract.
>> You're not saying 60. You're saying 60 total. Correct.
>> No, I think uh >> extra.
>> I wouldn't put a number on it. That's not our decision. That's more up to >> But we would make room for >> as many as possible.
>> Okay. I just want to make sure that >> okay >> and we can commence that activity as early as tomorrow. Uh the resources have been budgeted and there are contracts at the state that would allow us to move very quickly.
>> But the situation right now still exists. Are the people at Kate Park going to be evicted out of there tonight or tomorrow? Um, if if it is council's direction that we start working on uh an ordinance solution, my guess is our police department would really appreciate that type of clarity uh before they're uh re-engaging. Right now, the rules say they can't be there.
So, if there is action to change the rules to allow them to be somewhere or somewhere else, uh at least that gives us a target to work towards.
>> Is there any port we need to get over next room? Is there any portion of our property that's not in the way of that pipe that for this week that we could tell them to move over there?
>> Just get this situation with Cape Park.
>> Don't you I'm 30 acres just north of the Robinson water plant just south of Alama.
>> We don't we it's probably a transportation and services issue at that point. So, how do you get the population there and then back to >> services? It's got another problem over here is they have to walk and that's what a lot of the visible complaints have been.
>> I walk three miles a day feeding and doing [clears throat] my job.
>> I hate to be but we have we have buses we have able we have we have teravans.
Like I said, it's not ideal but >> so here's we got to get over there. But here's my thing. I I'm saying that if we are going to evict these people out of Kate Park because of these circumstances, then I'm for letting them relocate over to our property for at least this week and that just kicks this down the road for another week. But >> it addresses the situation tonight.
>> I would be in support of that only because I think clock is ticking on the state's phone call to say we're taking our piece of property back. So then they get kicked off the land and we lose the park which just doesn't seem I mean nobody wins in that scenario.
>> Do we have to pay to put a gate in or take a fence panel down?
>> I mean it's just the thing >> we're just going to be kicking them off there some point soon too.
>> Sure. Sure. But at least >> something could open up.
>> But yeah state's not going to force our hand on that. that we would need a think we would need a time limit on that to get that move to occur in a timely manner and everything like to allow for a timely manner if everybody to move right with our resources and stuff like that you know so not just it's not something that can just happen in like that you know like that so >> we're going to go down and educate people that are there on what's happening and kind of get resources together for that >> I would say my suggestion would be to do that and then we'll revisit it again on t Thursday and then again probably Tuesday.
>> Keep talking about it.
>> How many days are you going to give them? Are you going to allow I mean we can't just like he's saying it can't be in 24 hours. So are you doing Thursday, Friday, Monday?
>> Seven days till next Tuesday.
>> There you go.
>> Because we need more information about this pipeline thing.
>> Seven days at least puts a time. I just want to remind everyone about there is possible open sewage is pouring out of a pipe there and once we sign a contract with an architect they're able to start surveying and every day that somebody's on that property is it a day longer that we cannot start that project.
>> Will that start before Tuesday next Tuesday?
No, two Tuesdays before you have >> maybe two weeks away right from now. But sewage is there's possible sewage on raw sewage on that property.
>> Making it clear.
>> I'll go and follow my original comment with that. I'm only in favor of it like at the minimum amount of time.
Absolutely possible.
>> As soon as we find another option, I >> can't think of any other option.
>> I just I don't know where to tell these people to go.
to explore an emergency ordinance for oversight if we could do that.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> I see consensus for that. We'll make it.
So, >> thank you, council. Much appreciated.
All
関連おすすめ
Guess Which Country Trump Is Threatening To Bomb Next! w/ Chris Hedges
thejimmydoreshow
5K views•2026-05-30
Why Was There No Mention of Israel or Gaza in The DNC's Autopsy Report
wearefindout
227 views•2026-05-29
Trump Just Got HUMILIATED... And It's Going VIRAL
harryjsisson
46K views•2026-05-29
Potential Iran deal is 'a big defeat' for US: John Bolton | Elizabeth Vargas Reports
NewsNation
1K views•2026-05-29
Russia Clashes With Romania, U.S. And EU At Security Council Meeting | DWS News | AC1F
dwsofficial
344 views•2026-06-02
Independence Calendar (Episode #25) - With Cory Morgan & Keith Wilson
JohnBoltonAB
3K views•2026-05-31
BREAKING: TRUMP ADMITS HE LIED ON CIA
DarrenMonroePolitics
10K views•2026-06-01
Why Reynosa Is Burning Now: The Truth Explained
THEFACTFACTORYF
560 views•2026-05-30
