All right, everyone, it's 5 30.

So we'll go ahead and get started with the uh city council special meeting for Tuesday, November 4th, 2025.

We have three items on the agenda, and the first one is a discussion regarding three unrelated persons and residential zoning.

Uh long time policy and human normans.

So we have uh planning director Jane Hudson here to talk about this.

Thank you, Mayor.

Council.

So uh we're here tonight to go over what we actually talked about at uh community planning and transportation back in March, I think is when it was.

I don't remember exactly, but this item is actually planned to go before planning commission next week.

And so when we do have ordinance changes, I'd just like to come back to you one more time before you hear it on uh planning commission, and then you guys will obviously see this in uh upcoming meetings.

So just uh a brief summary of what we went over uh previously.

Um the three unrelated definition has been part of the zoning ordinance since 1954.

Uh the complaints that you do get from your constituents uh are generally about traffic, parking, and noise.

Uh the city addresses occupancy to help ensure health and safety of the residents and to protect the quality and character of the neighborhoods.

That's our main concern.

Life safety, obviously, is is number one.

So we've had many people ask uh why eliminate this uh it's we say ordinance, but technically it's really the definition of family that we're looking at, but it is in the zoning code, so this is going to be an ordinance amendment.

And you know, many of the discussions were about the the cities that are facing the housing crisis, the rising uh housing costs over the past several decades.

It's been a huge discussion for many, many years.

Um removing this or you know, updating this definition, it would allow a greater flexibility and affordability affordability in housing choices.

Uh more often, I mean to refer back to the COVID, you know, things have changed greatly since that time, and so we are seeing many seeking to live in cooperative housing roommates.

Uh and right now, the way we have it set up, many of those uh housing structures, you know, they're discriminated against under this current occupancy limit.

Uh we have low-income who can't afford to live on their own and they struggle to find existing market rate affordable housing choices, so they try to cohabitate and share the rent, and sometimes we end up with four or five, and then that really does reflect back on this this definition of family.

And I think probably one of the things that I talked to to you about this last time was um the enforcement of this is difficult.

It falls back on the individual that's calling in.

They call into code compliance, and um it requires a large amount of staff time to research and administer.

It's difficult to prove the family relations.

We've been through this many, many times over the years, and we do we run into that every time.

As I said, the neighbors that call in, they're asked to spend time completing the investigation.

We need uh logs of vehicles, tag numbers, dates, times, and it becomes a task, and it also creates an issue between them and the individual that they're you know reporting watching and reporting on.

Right.

And so also this uh you know impacts specific groups as I've kind of gone over, but we have multi-generational uh low-income houses, and then we also have the students.

We are a college town.

And to go back, it's frustrating to the residents that call in and think that you know we can just immediately do something about this, and it takes time, and then sometimes it's not even something that we can take to court and and get enforced, and so that's disappointing for them, and I get that.

Um, again, the number of complaints, you know, in 2023, we had a total of 19.

Uh none resulted in citations.

They were either closed due to insufficient evidence, or uh the property owner provided proof of compliance.

2024, we had eight, same thing.

Uh ended up in municipal court up at um the remaining cases were closed due to insufficient evidence, and then in 2025, we've had one, and it's my understanding that case is still active, or has it been closed?

I believe it might have been closed due to insufficient evidence.

Okay, so considerations to changes.

Uh, the family definition is utilized within the code, included uh the zoning district.

Um, and the code was adopted in 1954, so we do think that it is outdated.

Uh, does it solve an issue?

Probably, but there's also other city codes that could help alleviate some of the problems because, like I said, the complaints that we we get are parking, noise, uh, party houses disturbing the peace, and so we do have other ordinances in place that we can take care of some of those issues should they become a problem.

Our existing uh definition of family.

I won't read all of that to you, but I will show you what our proposal is.

Family means a single family comprised of one of the following.

It's a number of persons cohabitating in a single dwelling and includes a group home.

So we've kept the group home so that doesn't fall between the cracks and we lose any of those uh abilities there.

We also uh have to change one thing in the dwelling unit, so that's why this is on here.

It's included in the ordinance change as we move forward, and it's that last statement referring to the quasi unit quarters, and so the definition would just be removing that last statement that we had here.

So that's uh all I have for you.

This will be on planning commission uh next week, and then we will see you uh at counsel for a vote, probably January.

Okay, thank you, Jane.

And council Murray.

Um I'm supportive, as I said, in the previous committee, but of course special.

And so right now I've got a historic district that's upset with student housing.

Umverted into student housing, and then another neighborhood, not a historic district.

Somebody's I write turning a garage into another room, and that is potentially gonna be five students also there, and um both areas think that the three unrelated rule will help them.

Uh, and I don't think it will, but when we talk about some of these pressures that are in different neighborhoods, and this is like luxury student housing.

This is not something that's like they're poor and they need to split five bedrooms in a house.

Um what mechanisms could we give those residents um to address those specific issues about that type of housing?

So I think it would fall uh back to, and and I'm not familiar with the cases, but um or the areas, but um, I think that they would be looking at the I mean if there's uh parking issues, uh nuisance, uh nuisance house nuisance parties, littering, disturbing the peace, etc.

I mean, they could always call in and um PD can come out and discuss with the the residents any of the issues or concerns that they might have.

I know that we have people that that call code and again you know have complaints and such, and I know it's I know it's not always the solution when you reach out to the property owner that is renting these properties to students and such, but I think that that's really one of the first places to start and let them know that that the adjacent property owners are having a problem with the tenants that are living there, and should that not uh be a solution, then again, I think that we would go back and we would tell them if you if you feel like this is a nuisance house, we need to have something that's you know, a record with PD that they're causing a problem in the neighborhood.

Questions for us I've often had that same marketing kind of view of it is that we have existing city ordinances and ways to address noise and parking and trash, and just a blanket ban on more than three people living together, and why three, why not four, why not two?

Uh you know, it seems it's always seemed arbitrary to me.

And a relic of 1954, uh whatever the motivation may have been then, uh, but one single person living next door to you can be an awful neighborhood and could park on the grass and have trash and be have parties.

Um I recently lived next door to six students.

There was a big house next door, and never had any problems with them for two years.

No bad parking, no parties, no trash.

They were very respectful, and that's not always the case, we know.

Um, but it's just like there were six of them, they didn't cause any problems.

I've had a neighbor before who was just one person, was real problematic.

So I've just always felt that it was the rationale for it, I could understand about those issues, but that we have other existing ways to address those specific things, instead of just saying that nobody over three people can live here.

Well, if there's trash being left out, we can do something about that.

If there's cars parking on the grass, we can do something about that.

If people want to get rid of street parking, which I don't think you should do because it helps slow down traffic on the street.

Uh, but if that's an issue, you can petition to have parking removed from the street.

Uh so I think there's and then noise, of course, if there's a nuisance house, if there's noise violations, I think there's ways to address that that are probably going to be faster than this process of investigation and all this.

So and just given the numbers of cases that are filed but dismissed because there's no evidence, it's pretty telling to me as well.

And staff just reminded me I forgot about this, but uh we do get these calls, code gets these calls, legal gets these calls, and one of the things that they're working on is um essentially an FAQ sheet of the reason is is we had a uh neighbor call in.

There's a a new tenant next door, it's uh four college students.

They didn't know when trash pickup was, they didn't know about water bills, they didn't know about polycars, they didn't know these you know guidelines that they need to follow.

And so uh staff has been working on an FAQ sheet that we hope to have online.

Again, it's not a it's not a solution to concerns that neighbors are having in the sense that if they need to call in for PD, definitely that's what they need to do.

But if this is something that will help them, we had this one lady the one that we're making this you know, in response to her, is you know, she said that the kids didn't even know when the trash needed to be picked up, and so she's really kind of being a mentor to them and helping them to first time they're living on their own.

Well, and like you said, ideally the property owner can educate their tenants on those things, right?

And if there's some communication, uh councilman graham?

I'll just say in that particular instance, communication is broken down and they're no longer having a really low-key barbecue to welcome the students because they're mad about the other five-bedroom house.

And they tried to reach out to that property owner and talk to the lawyer who was not helpful.

So it's a little bit of a quagmire over there.

Uh, but my other thought was when we previously discussed this, we said that we would keep in provisions for safety, and so I think some of the concern for residents is if you have five students in a house, is that really ten?

And then my question would be when is when is it too many people for fire code to buy that house?

Well, and I would add to that how is it relevant if they're family or not by a legal definition?

So if you have a parents and they have nine kids and there's 11 people in a four-bedroom house, is that illegal in Norman?

It's only illegal if you're not related under our definition of what a family is.

The current, correct.

So it just again, I I know this law has never been challenged in court, but it's always felt like to me that it was flimsy if it ever really did get pushed to and as far as building code, uh, they can have sample.

I mean, yeah, a lot.

I would say at that point, if it's a car issue, it would be code enforcement or parking enforcement that there's like 10 cars at a house.

And again, if if they're not parking on the grass and legally parked in the street, then they're compliant.

Yeah.

Then again, they might shut down one side of the street.

I'm just thinking about like all the things uh all the conversations I've had with different neighborhoods that are just at their wits' end with either Airbnbs or people who are outside investors buying houses and turning neighborhoods into student housing.

So it's a real frustration.

I'm supportive of this because I also see the flip side where it's people who can't afford to live on their own, otherwise all teaming up so that they can, and I mean business owners that have businesses downtown, like they rent a house and there are four of them there, so I definitely respect the affordability component, but there's this other stuff that maybe some of it will be addressed through uh parking and noise and trash, but yeah, the frustrations there, and I know they're listening tonight, so yeah, it would we would definitely have to be adequately enforcing the existing ordinances, which I know we enforce them, but and again, if that if that could possibly get the issue addressed faster than this whole process does, that would be a big deal.

Uh councilmember Bruce?

I really haven't done my homework on this, I'm sorry, but I'll I won't do any um so three unrelated persons.

Um four is too many, unrelated five's too many.

Is that is that what the word is basically three, but four is too many, five's too many.

Well, that's what we're talking about.

I you know, for the ordinance itself, that's the definition that we've had since 1954.

We have uh single family homes in single family neighborhoods that have four bedrooms, so and we've had areas that you know we look at uh requiring a special use if they have uh more than three bedrooms, but it's well what exactly what becomes the negative impact, you know, to the people that are trying to live there, to the people that are trying to rent and um keeping it at three it's it's um it's an obscure number.

So let's say I had a million dollar house and I want to run it something for three years.

So there's no limit on dollar value of the house, and I could have 10 people in there.

Let me ask this if I had a house and I wanted to convert to a boarding house, what would I have to do with the city?

What type of codes would I have to do with the city?

What I want to have a business amendment boarding house.

Boarding houses in regards to yeah, so that would be special use.

It depends on the district.

Yeah, so it would depend on the district.

We have to look and see.

But it would probably be a rezoning request for special use.

I mean, we again if you're in standard in regular uh R1 district.

So if I had a million dollar house and I put it on the market, you're because of attorney saying I want to rent their house to my second house.

I mean just thinking through that.

So rooming house, do you need there's just saying like a rooming house has to have a special license?

It's a house model or a house director on site manager or something like that.

Right.

That is also like a little ordinance.

Yeah.

I get I can see the sensitivity in certain neighborhoods and certain uh additions.

Uh given the size of the house and the size of land associated with house, and we have one three.

I can imagine the other neighbors would say, Hey, that might be too much.

So boarding houses not allowed in R1, even with special easy.

Unless it's an Oxford house.

Well, that's totally different.

Yeah, it's a different allowed by that's federal law.

Uh I think you have to be an R3 to even get into special use.

That's not there either.

Yeah, boarding house or rooming houses in R3 is special use.

Oh no, that I don't mind.

It's 3658.

Oxford houses.

I just don't know how many of those are in normal.

That might be an option for affordability for folks.

I'm just boarding houses.

How many there are all of those resorts?

That was previously the women's shelter.

All the others are sororities and fraternities.

Okay.

That's what they fall under.

Okay, that's for any other questions we council.

Any other questions?

Council members reaching.

No, I just need to do a little bit more homework or more understanding.

Yeah.

Any other yeah, Councilmember Gansford?

I'd just like to say that definitely favor this, you know, last couple meetings that we've had last night's deal with the standard and nothing that some of us was able to attend.

We're talking more and more about people utilizing smaller spaces to get more accomplished and to not increase the footprint within the town as much as absolutely necessary.

And you know, I truly believe that if somebody has a four or five bedroom house and no special health no council McGrant, no saying you know, four business people together on one house.

That isn't to me, that's an amazing type of situation.

There all that money is that's staying in our economy, but only utilizes so much.

Okay, any other comments, questions?

Council about this.

So planning commission in December, you say next Thursday.

Next Thursday.

Okay.

Okay, so in front of council, and we only have one meeting in December, January.

Okay.

Um, if there's no further questions or comments about this subject, look forward to seeing that come back and okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your time, ladies.

And then item number two is a discussion regarding a proposed bond election for a hundred touch base with council.

Um handful of years ago, uh council had a series of ballot questions.

One of those ballot questions had to do with uh funding for the construction of a permanent shelter facility.

And it was very hot topic at the time the conversation started.

We had some other ballot questions preparing to move before the voters, and council took the opportunity to add a question about um voter support for a five million dollar uh pot of money to build a permanent shelter facility.

At the time that conversation happened, we we did not know where we did not know what it would look like or how it would function.

We did not know who would operate such a facility.

And as vague a concept as the question was, I think it received about 48% voter support with a with a less than complete picture, and we understood that at the time the question was being posed.

Uh Mrs.

Walker put together the ordinance that council adopts to put a thing on a ballot, and as our conversations advance with the State Department of Mental Health and OMES about uh a site on Griffinland for potential permanent shelter location.

Some of those questions we couldn't answer before answers are becoming clear, and we know we've got uh an opportunity for uh ballot in February and or April.

I wanted to have a short conversation with council to see if there was interest in bringing such an ordinance forward, maybe on the same ballot as other questions council may wish to advance with more clarity this time the question would go out uh on a piece of land, we'll be able to identify on a map uh with a site plan that we would be able to identify and with potential operators uh that we would be able to identify and obviously help educate the public as to what that question means long term for shelter services in Norman.

So uh fortunately, Mrs.

Walker has that ordinance on uh on her hard drive and was able to uh provide copies for council uh just to refresh everybody's memory.

And now that I'm thinking that may even be before council member peacock and council council member grants you were on that one.

So it it's been a while.

Uh only our our both seasoned veterans uh remember that particular conversation, but it it may be time for uh reconsideration of the concept.

So uh obviously don't need uh all the details worked out, but just looking to see if there was consensus for council to consider such a question on a ballot in the not too distant future.

Councilman Grant?

I feel like I'll have support, but it'd just be nice to have some data that says actually, you know, this is exactly where Norman would like to see this kind of resource.

I do think having a budget, uh location, a provider, all that would go a long ways, but it would just be nice to know if that actually is does bear out responses.

Um we we've had in conversation with uh the folks at CityCare about long range plans.

They've recently built facilities in Oklahoma City with a design to provide uh overnight services as well as day services and uh laundry and and um kenneling space available, and they are working on a site plan for uh such a concept uh regarding a piece of property on Griffin land, and um there is an opportunity with a one-time investment to reduce over time ongoing support for shelter operations.

Uh, our our friends at CityCare have a high degree of confidence in their ability to uh fundraise on an annual basis to cover the lion's share of uh maintenance and operations cost related to uh a new facility, obviously, in a in a preferred location designed specifically for the purpose that it was built for.

So it it could absolutely be seen as an investment that that could return uh nicely to the general fund of the city of Norman.

Councillor Pico.

Yeah, just you know, as City Manager Pyle alluded to, you know, Marilyn and I were the only only holdovers from the last time we tried this.

And you know, I hear a lot of comments about how residents already voted on this, they voted it down, so we don't want it, but I'd like to remind people that at that same vote um they also voted down the senior bonus center, uh, additions to the YFAC, improvements to Ruby Grant, um, improvements to Reeves Park, parks maintenance facility, and if I remember right, there was even a small business support fund in on that vote um during COVID, which was also voted down.

So to say that we don't want the model of the police department is also on there.

So there was a lot of great projects that were on there that were also voted down with the HOMA shelter being the only one that nearly passed.

And so to say that we voted down, we don't want it.

I would argue that we want a lot of the things on the list that were voted down.

And so I am not willing to put all my eggs in that basket that I think we should take another stab at it and see if voters have different change of opinion, uh, especially now that we have a lot of the details filled in.

So I'm supportive as well.

Um just wanted to mention that.

Yeah.

Well, we have um, yes, that proposition was put together very quickly in response partly to COVID.

Um, and the anticipation that uh this issue could cause an increase in homelessness.

Um, and it has um, but no location, no design, no plans, no budget for operation, really.

Um we were two years in, we had operated the shelter out of the old library at that point.

Yeah, two two winters.

And so we were just really asking for a five million dollar check to figure it out later.

And so I am supportive of putting forward a proposal um that has an identified location, has identified budget, has doesn't have to be completely designed, but just a very basic conceptual, this is where it would look how much space it would take up, what services it actually is providing, service provider, um and not in downtown, not downtown and close to existing services ideally.

Um, all of those things I think would have made a difference then, and if we had those details now would make a difference.

Um then we can get into about how much it would be, but also is it just by itself?

Because um, I've definitely floated the idea of a public safety bond that is includes um fire, police and a shelter, and fire being.

I thought about how could we fund the three new fire stations that the public safety study talks about.

But the easy part there would be building them.

How we staff those stations is another issue that I'm not certain about.

But we know that fire station one and fire station two both need to be rebuilt.

Fire station one for sure, it's undersized, does twice as many calls as all the other stations, um, and it's the oldest one.

And so if we were able to build a new fire station one and maybe Ann's admin, fire admin.

We need a new police department.

We have interest in the land of the where the police department currently sits for development.

That building is old and outdated.

It would cost a lot of money to remodel.

That many would say is not worth that, and would be better just building a new one.

And so those three things shelter, fire station, police station, all public safety issues.

I view homelessness as a public safety matter.

So that's just something to consider if we wanted to do something like that, or if it's standalone by itself, or if it's coupled with those two other things, or whatever, and when if we think it's something that could be put together by April, and do how much how many things do we want to put on the ballot in April?

Charter amendments and uh street maintenance bond, etc.

So those are all things that have been online about this.

Councilmember Grant.

Oh, actually, Councilmember Grant.

Oh, yeah, he called me.

Um I agree with that.

I I think I would be more comfortable if this were lumped into a lot of not a lot, but some other things too.

I also view this as a public safety uh concern, but I'm also not opposed to it being a standalone something if if it's done the right way.

So uh my question with it being a general obligation bond if we're issuing debt that we'd have to service, this is something that we're gonna have to pay to the general fund to service.

No, sir.

Okay, um and what it sounds like there may be interest in in polling this a couple of different flavors uh to see if we can bring you back a package that we believe the community sees as most palatable, whether it's one question with several line items in it or separate questions.

Um but I think we can probably gather good data polling what the package looks like Councilmember Grant.

Yeah, um I'm more in favor of standalones, just thinking that there could be two other things on the ballot with it as well, and then also thinking about the history.

Um but that might be one of those things where if we're surveying, we could find out if people would support all of them together under a public safety bond.

Um just my thoughts on how to put those together.

Councilmember Grantsbury.

This was definitely one of the big ticket items during my running for election of them when I was out talking about constituents and things, and I feel like it's a very high need right now for our community.

I believe that, especially with the federal government, the way it's looking right now, SNAP benefits and all of our neighbors out helping neighbors right now.

It just kind of reminds us the importance of helping others, and this is our way of kind of giving back to that.

But with you mentioning it also kind of lumping maybe police and fire into that, I definitely would be supportive of if we could lump in somehow getting a new fire department out by 36 on their wish list to help with those times and response times to get under five minutes Southeast Thursdays.

Yes, yes, or to get under that five-minute response time that they've been really really trying for and everything along with it.

But with us having an election coming up and everybody besides me and Kim out there knocking doors, it's a perfect time for us to be mentioning as we're campaigning out there about it, the importance of this for our community.

Yeah, and like I said about building a new fire station, just the staffing part of it, and where do we come up with the funding to staff that station?

And just for your conversations, door knocking.

Um fire station construction, seven million-ish for a building, uh million five for the vehicles, and about 1.5 million dollars a year to keep the bodies in it.

So just numbers for your pocket.

But yeah, we do know that according to the assessment, we need we will need three new stations in the next 20 years or so.

Uh, council member board.

Uh I just wanted to say kind of piggybacking off what uh Gansbury said.

But when I was running um and I was out campaigning, um people were calling me that were not from Ward 7, but were business owners downtown, and they just were like, I see you're running.

Um, I need you to know that this is my major concern.

And so I think that um we'll have a lot more buy-in this time because it was it it was a lot, and even after I was elected, I had um some business owners from downtown call me and say, Hey, congratulations that you were elected, but I need like what are what are your thoughts on this?

Like this is a problem.

So um I I'm a thousand percent supportive of it, and just wanted to say that I think that this time there'll be a lot more buy-in.

Councilman P.

Yeah, just to that point.

I think that the sooner we can get it on a ballot, the better.

And so, like, I want to take the time to gauge you know resident sentiment and all that, and make sure the question is structured quite right.

But I also don't want to miss an opportunity where everybody's very motivated to find a solution, a long-term solution, and so um, I think we need to get the voters as quick as possible.

Yes, Council Grant.

Yes, I was to that point.

I think April is a good time to get it out.

Okay, council member Bruce.

Got a learning opportunity for me.

So the uh homeless shelter community facility.

So when we say the term homeless shelter, do we mean emergency shelter?

Or I mean, what's the you know, mission creep?

Uh, you know, what is what is the vision for that homeless shelter?

Um, Councilmember Roosevelt, that that concept has evolved pretty dramatically since 2019 when we operated um what was deemed the emergency shelter in the former central library, now the development center.

Um it we we put it together in about eight days uh on a shoestring budget to provide some indoor spaces for folks to come in and crash on a mat from November uh through March.

Uh over a few evolutions of where the service would be provided.

There was recognition that we actually have more people die of exposure in the summertime than we do in the winter time, and that mission grew to a 12-month shelter scenario, and now what we're seeing in uh neighboring agencies, it's one thing to provide care at night so your people are not sleeping exposed, but to actually try to change their course in life, the ability to provide day services and housing assistance and job counseling and help them recover uh documents they need to be successful uh in securing work, like uh I can't find my birth certificate or I don't have a social security card.

Those are the kinds of services that get provided uh during the day.

Our current provider in city care, these are services that they have been providing in uh Oklahoma City for a long time now with a good track record and been on board with us since January, and they recognize the demand for service and their inability to really solve problems on an individual basis because it's 7 a.m.

we send them out the door and close it behind them.

Just a follow-up.

So when one you know, you have these continuum care, and you have all these NPAs that are out there, and they have their own roles and their own missions, and then you have this need that's a flexible need depending on the individual for segue into one of those NPAs for additional assistance.

So that's that requires a little thought how how this homeless shelter is going to operate.

Does that make sense?

It does.

Um, in the continuum of care, we have 40 agencies in the Cleveland County Continuum of Care.

Only two of those agencies state homelessness in their core mission.

So although uh a lot of our other agencies may touch on aspects of our homeless population, the focus on just addressing the needs of the homeless boils down to food and shelter in the Salvation Army, and now uh the folks at city care have added to it.

So the mission is not as broad when we think about it from the continuum of care perspective.

Some of those agencies do provide some support service, drug and alcohol counseling, behavioral health services, those may be aspects that the continuum of care helps support, but literally three in Cleveland County that say homelessness is our mission.

Council.

Wow, the 40, and there's only two that offer yeah, yes to set.

Um I was just gonna say I I support this.

Um I mean, I I voted uh yes for the last um city care budget for our shelter on Gray Street.

Um I think City Care's does a fantastic job.

Um not just housing people, they're actually finding them housing.

Um really like it.

Um I hope there's enough time to really like educate everybody, just the residents in Norman um about this.

Um I'm just a little worried, it's a little short, and if it doesn't pass, then we can't say, well, we didn't, you know, it was just five million with kind of trust us, we'll figure it out later.

You know, we've got a plan, we've got an operator currently that's doing a great job.

Um, that's the only worry I have, but I it might be unfounded.

Um, but I want to see it on a ballot, and when does the April ballot?

That's good.

January, uh, as we have first and second reading in January.

Um, a couple of things I want to point out about this particular question that we did last time that was asked under a particular section of the constitution that requires just a simple majority vote.

If you can do this for any public facility, which is a facility for the public good, basically or public use.

Um, and it has to be owned exclusively by the city for the duration.

Um, so I just wanted to make sure that was out there.

The other question I think is when you talk about it being a separate question, are you talking about it being a separate question of the same ballot as the other questions, or potentially a ballot of its own?

Um April I mean, I think, and let everybody else can tune in or chime in, but um that if it were to be by itself, that would just mean that we have charter amendments, street maintenance bond, and a single question about funding.

Then potentially the public safety question would be a separate question if you asked it at that time.

I I would look at shelter, fire station, police station being a single ballot question.

Okay, because a one single public safety bond to fund three facilities.

Okay.

And I'm just maybe it includes two states.

I don't know, but those are all asked under the same section of the constitution, so they can definitely be combined.

Replace the fire replace the police department, replace fire station one, and build a shelter.

That we would own the city would own the building.

I envision the city owning a building and leasing that out for not one dollar.

I don't know.

But that provider operates the service, and through time, the city doesn't have to not contribute anything to operating it, but that the amount that the city right now, all of it is whittled down to where we provide the building.

We provide and we do like our other facilities where we do the utilities.

I was gonna say it's a very similar structure to a lot of our other facilities that are managed by nonprofits.

But operations being through the nonprofit that fundraises and does it themselves ideally, so that's where Peacock.

Oh, wait, actually, Councilman Gansbury Peacock and I'd piggybacking on blodge it again that thing um with her talking about the businesses.

I know personally, and I feel like most of us at the table have been in the room and at meetings with the Norman Chamber of Commerce and heard their upper management talk about how great they think it would be for a permanent homeless shelter of some kind in a nice area that's made for that specific need, and to be able to move Gray Street away from the downtown Maine.

So I would challenge basically all of our business community and all of our chamber members to kind of just take a deep dive into this for themselves, see what kind of solutions are out there, possibly be able to back this councillor Pico.

I was just gonna say, Yeah, I'm in support of uh a PSST question where it lumps in all three of the projects together.

Um a public safety sales tax question or a public safety bond question, a public safety bond, yeah.

Police fire.

Yeah, two use of the acronyms.

Um yeah, I I would I would be in favor of that, but just again saying like if we do lump police and fire in it, I don't want to drag the timeline out, you know, a year trying to get those projects perfect.

I mean, I feel like we've got this one, we need to move forward with this one.

If we can get the other two in a timely fashion uh integrated into a question, I would support that.

I would think if we can identify where new police department and where new fire station one goes, and that I don't know that we have to have a design for them, but where are they going?

How much of the how much they cost, obviously?

Budget location for those two.

Uh and then counselor Dixon, and then I was just gonna say, can the can the language be um so that um maybe Parks and REC could build a temporary building that's not gonna be you know the end result of what the the bond money would build for the shelter, um, but we could get people in that quickly quicker than we could, you know, some kind of a metal building, um get them out of Gray Street into that with the knowing that we're definitely not gonna tear down that building whenever the brick and mortar you know is built, and then that original temporary building could be repurposed as storage dog kennels.

Is there yeah, as long as the building is going to be utilized for a public utility under that constitutional provision, I think that's probably fine.

It's something we'll be clear about in the education piece.

Um, and it would be included in that dollar figure.

Just thought I saw both of you put them up at the same time.

I would just ask that if we do not have uh fire and police identified by January that we're still going ahead with the shelter portion and putting it on by itself.

Yeah, that can be done.

That question is actually the easiest because we use what we've written before.

We'll update our numbers, um, so that can be done pretty quickly.

Okay.

Council.

I just wanted to say that I actually think it's brilliant to include police and fire in it.

Um, because a lot of people that are in big support of police are not in big support of the homeless.

So if we could bring those people in because they see the benefit for the police and fire, I think that that would benefit it more.

And um if that package can't be put together moving forward in April with just that standalone question.

I mean, yes, along with charter and et cetera, but if it's just the shelter and I think we'll learn a ton from um Councilmember Grant's idea to survey and hold people.

Yes, and if staff can see yeah about the fire station one absolutely um the other question that we'll face out there is that uh fire station five.

There's a project to replace it that was approved by voters in 20 in the PSST part two, and um paying off the radio system and the emergency operations center have been the holdup on fire station five replacement.

And so uh we've talked about it somewhat recently, and it's I think 20 as soon as those are paid off 2027, March of 2027 is when the radio and EOC, I guess, are paid off.

That frees up the PSST funds to do fire station five.

But that'll be a question is why should we vote for replacing fire station one number five hasn't been replaced yet?

But that would be the reason why is that that's a sales tax based and to pay off these other big ticket items before they could do station five, and station five is the last of the PSST capital projects.

Um it'll be completed.

So just throwing out there because that may be a question you get as to why we should or shouldn't do this.

Um any other questions or comments about this subject?

Our direction is clear.

Thank you, council.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, item number three is a consideration of adjourning into an executive session as authorized by Oklahoma statutes under Title 25 307 B3 to discuss the possible purchase of real property on the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse property between Alameda and Main Street.

So we need a motion to adjourn, so move a second.

Second, okay.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Uh you want to take a break for a few minutes?

Yeah, might be nice.

Uh Josh.

I like how you put it in the agree.

Between food and shut up, we need to.