OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

November 25, 2025 City Council Conference: Economic Development Discussion

Public Meetings & Live-Streams — Tuesday, November 25, 2025
BodyNorman, Oklahoma
SessionPublic Meetings & Live-Streams
DateTuesday, November 25, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:21:48

Transcript — Verbatim
0:02

Always good to go.

0:06

I think we're sorry, maybe one day my wife was laughing.

0:20

All right, we'll go ahead and get started now.

0:21

We got a few people still trickling in, but it is five o'clock.

0:25

So welcome to the Tuesday, November 25th meeting of the City Council Conference.

0:32

Today we have two items on the agenda.

0:35

The first being a discussion regarding entering into a contract with the Cleveland County Economic Development Coalition.

0:44

I believe we have presentation from you.

0:47

Okay, excellent.

0:47

I'll turn it over to you, Ms.

0:48

Walker.

0:49

Thank you.

0:50

All right.

0:50

We've got two items on your agenda this evening related to economic development.

0:55

The first one is as Councilmember Peacock said is the uh Cleveland County Economic Development Coalition proposed contract.

1:02

As I was preparing for this, I realized when we last presented this in June, we've had four new council members since.

1:08

So I've got a little bit of history in here that might be a repeat for some of you.

1:12

In 1996, the city, the chamber, and OU joined together to create the Norman Economic Development Coalition.

1:20

You can see the scope of services there, engaging in industrial and business solicitation activities on behalf of the city, chamber, and OU, acting as our economic development office, stimulating, encouraging, and promoting opportunities related to OU and partnerships with their faculty and jobs for students and faculties.

1:47

Make recommendations to further other mission, and then provide a plan of economic development to the participating parties.

1:55

Each entity in the beginning provided $75,000 in funding annually and had board representation.

2:03

Annual audits and budgets were to be furnished to OU city in the chamber, and NEDC was forbidden from using any of that funding to engage in political activity.

2:12

You'll see there it was defined to include not just supporting or opposing a candidate or a political party, but also supporting or opposing a state or local question.

2:22

It was amended, I think four times over the years, but hasn't really been amended since 2009 and not substantively even longer than that.

2:31

In 1997, it was amended to provide for quarterly activity in the form of a summary instead of just providing meeting minutes, uh, financial reports uh to the city, university, and chamber, and then they changed the uh renewal provision so that it was an automatic renewal and less terminated, subject to the appropriation of funds.

2:50

2004, a one-page amendment to increase the funding to 100,000 from each participant.

2:57

In 2008, that went up to 125,000.

3:00

And then in 2009, the Moore Norman Technology Center joined as a participating entity.

3:05

The termination language uh that had previously previously been in the contract was removed, and the contract is just automatically removed renewed uh subject to council and the other parties' appropriation of the funding.

3:18

So when you add all that up, since 1996, the city has contributed just over three million dollars to NEDC for its operations.

3:26

In addition to that, in 2022, council approved a sub-recient agreement uh with NEDC where we provided ARPA funding and uh the amount of one million dollars for their incubator program development.

3:41

You can see that at the old Copelands uh location uh just uh east of Sprouts, and that's under construction currently.

3:52

Uh we were advised um uh several months ago uh that the uh NEDC was going to be expanded and replaced by the Cleveland County Economic Development Coalition.

4:05

Technically, NEDC still exists, but the Cleveland County Economic Development Coalition is a registered trade name for NEDC.

4:13

The mission has been expanded to elevate the economy of Cleveland County as a whole, not just Norman.

4:18

Um and they've presented a proposed contract.

4:21

We talked with council about this in June, and there was not a consensus to move forward with the contract as it was.

4:27

And so uh we've been working on that and and um trying to determine what direction to go.

4:34

So the scope in this new contract, as I said, it's much broader for Cleveland County, not just Norman, but it is pretty similar.

4:41

It's been modernized a little bit, talks a little bit more about marketing and using site selectors and things like that that weren't in the original contract.

4:48

Um it does not say that they act as the city's economic development office essentially, but they would still continue to do those similar type activities for every participant within the uh organization.

5:02

Um still looking for collaboration and partnerships with the private sector, other cities and Cleveland County, um, and then would make reports and recommendations to the city as it deems necessary.

5:16

The term of that contract was uh to begin July 1st of 2025 and go through June 30th, and then it would be renewed automatically, subject to an appropriation of funds.

5:26

The termination provisions back in uh this version, and so there would be a 90-day option for the city to terminate before the end of the fiscal year, so it would not automatically renew.

5:37

Um you recall I said in the original contract we had a prohibition about using the funding for political activities.

5:43

This contract is a little bit different, it just prohibits using that funding to support or oppose a candidate or a political party.

5:52

It's silent on the question of uh other advocacy in that realm.

6:00

Uh the board membership is historically the city manager served on the board.

6:04

The contract says he would continue to do that and serve on the nominating committee.

6:08

The bylaws, which I was able to get a copy of a portion of says the city manager or his professional employee designate would serve.

6:17

Um the funding for cities is one dollar per capita.

6:21

Um if you have 15% of the population in Cleveland County.

6:26

So basically Norman and Moore would be funding at $1 per capita.

6:30

For us, that's $130,000 forty-six dollars as of July 1st, 2023.

6:37

There is no obligation in the current contract to provide in the current proposed contract to provide reports of activities or finances, including audit and budget information.

6:48

So when we talked about it in June, I went back over the minutes and these were the concerns that were expressed then uh concerns over lack of financial documentation.

6:57

Uh council members wanted to see the audits, wanted those quarterly reports to compete continue and expressed a need for transparency and accountability.

7:05

Uh, there was a concern expressed about funding equity.

7:09

We've contributed since 1996.

7:12

Would we have the same our vote have the same weight as people who are just now joining?

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Economic Development█████████████████████████████████████████████77%
Public Engagement███5%
Contract Management███5%
Procedural██3%
Land Use Planning█2%
Education And Workforce█2%
Tax Increment Financing█2%
Budget Equity Analysis█1%
Homelessness█1%
Summary of Proceedings

November 25, 2025 City Council Conference: Economic Development Discussion

On November 25, 2025, the Norman City Council held a conference to deliberate on two primary economic development strategies: entering a new contract with the Cleveland County Economic Development Coalition (CCEC, succeeding the Norman Economic Development Coalition) or utilizing the dormant Norman Economic Development Authority (NEDA). The meeting featured a presentation by City Manager Ms. Walker detailing the history of the existing coalition, the proposed changes for 2025-2026, and the Council's significant concerns regarding transparency, accountability, and contribution equity. Council members engaged in a roundtable discussion regarding the organization's refusal to provide audits, the political activity clauses, and the comparative economic performance of Norman versus neighboring cities.

Consent Calendar

  • None. The agenda consisted entirely of discussion items with no routine approvals or unanimous actions scheduled for immediate action.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • No public comments were recorded during this segment of the transcript.

Discussion Items

  • Cleveland County Economic Development Coalition (CCEC) Contract Proposal:

    • Context & History: Ms. Walker presented that the City has contributed over $3 million to the organization since 1996. The organization is rebranding/collapsing into the Cleveland County Economic Development Coalition, expanding its scope from Norman to the entire county but maintaining similar functions.
    • Prohibition on Political Activity: The proposed contract removed the explicit prohibition against using funds to support or oppose state/local questions, retaining only the statutory ban on supporting/opposing candidates or political parties. Ms. Walker emphasized the legal risks and the need for caution regarding public funds.
    • Lack of Transparency: The new contract does not require the submission of annual audits or detailed financial reports to the City.
    • Councilmember Nofire's Position: Expressed deep concern and disheartenment regarding the refusal to provide audits, noting that even with previous contractual obligations, the organization refused. She argued that public dollars demand public oversight and requested a true Return on Investment (ROI) layout for the $3.1 million contributed, skeptical of claims that all economic growth was directly driven by the coalition despite their claims of a billion-dollar impact. She questioned why the organization refuses to release data when their own auditors have found nothing out of bounds.
    • Councilmember Dixon's Position: Expressed that the request for audits, open meeting act compliance, and open records act compliance is standard for other contractors and that the refusal is unusual. He questioned the equity of the per-capita rate ($1 per resident) compared to the County's contribution and noted the organization's claim that historical contributions do not influence current board representation.
    • Councilmember Hinkle's Position: Expressed that economic development is a critical part of solving homelessness and that spending only $1 per person ($130,446 total) is insufficient compared to Broken Arrow ($400,000 minimum) or Edmond ($800,000). She argued that if the Council does not want to support economic growth, they should explicitly state that, but emphasized that the investment is necessary to raise median income levels which have been falling.
    • Councilmember Grant's Position: Stated he did not receive the October 17th email regarding audit availability and remains skeptical of the $1 billion economic impact claim without verified breakdown. He recommended reviewing the history of all previous contracts and is willing to meet again to dig into the data.
    • Councilmember Gansbury's Position: Expressed a "hiccup" with the leadership's operational style and concerns over a "pay-to-play" model where larger corporations might receive preferential treatment. He felt the organization's refusal to compromise on audits and transparency broke the mediation process and recommended organizing a meeting with leadership before the December 31st founding partner deadline to seek a compromise.
    • Councilmember Moore's Position: Expressed that not participating leaves Norman without a seat at the table, reducing his voice and ability to compete for opportunities. He highlighted the potential of the Oklahoma Aviation Academy ($53 million project) as an example of the strategic value of the coalition, noting that the coalition successfully navigated state funding requirements by broadening the scope beyond just Norman.
    • Councilmember Jackson's Position: Stated that if the audits exist and are clean (as claimed), there is no reason for them not to be shared, and refusing to do so suggests something is being hidden. He reiterated that Norman is falling behind in median income and needs to act, but insisted on accountability before approval.
    • Staff & Director Response: The Director (Lawrence McKinney) acknowledged the issues but stated in writing that he was not open to contract changes regarding audits, political language, or Open Meeting/Records Act compliance for the public funds portion. He claimed the audits have been clean and current through FY2024.

  • Norman Economic Development Authority (NEDA):

    • Status: A public trust authority created in 2012 to facilitate long-term contracts, debt issuance, and property acquisition, but currently inactive with no dedicated funding source or active projects.
    • Potential Use: Discussed as an alternative to the CCEC. It could be funded via the proposed $130,000 per capita allocation to provide targeted incentives, tenant improvements, or acquire/hold property for redevelopment (e.g., Gray Street, RTA stations).
    • Capabilities: The NEDA can hold property, issue debt, and make long-term investments that the general fund cannot. Council serves as the trustees.
    • Comparison: Unlike the CCEC, the NEDA would allow for a more direct, city-focused approach to economic development, potentially allowing for incentives for mixed-use development and affordable housing.

Key Outcomes

  • No Vote Taken: The Council took no formal vote on the CCEC contract or NEDA funding tonight. The item was designated as a discussion to allow Council members time to digest the written responses from the CCEC Director.
  • Action Items: Staff will not bring forward an action item immediately. The Council will review the provided information and may convene a study session or meeting with the CCEC Director prior to the December 31, 2025 deadline for "founding partners."
  • Directives: Mayor and Council members expressed a need for further transparency, specifically requesting to see the ARPA and general audits to verify the claimed $1 billion economic impact. Concerns regarding the lack of board representation equity for new joiners versus historical contributors were highlighted as unresolved.
  • Next Steps: A follow-up discussion is anticipated on the Council meeting scheduled for either December 9th or December 16th, pending preparation and potential meeting with the CCEC leadership.

Meeting Transcript

Always good to go. I think we're sorry, maybe one day my wife was laughing. All right, we'll go ahead and get started now. We got a few people still trickling in, but it is five o'clock. So welcome to the Tuesday, November 25th meeting of the City Council Conference. Today we have two items on the agenda. The first being a discussion regarding entering into a contract with the Cleveland County Economic Development Coalition. I believe we have presentation from you. Okay, excellent. I'll turn it over to you, Ms. Walker. Thank you. All right. We've got two items on your agenda this evening related to economic development. The first one is as Councilmember Peacock said is the uh Cleveland County Economic Development Coalition proposed contract. As I was preparing for this, I realized when we last presented this in June, we've had four new council members since. So I've got a little bit of history in here that might be a repeat for some of you. In 1996, the city, the chamber, and OU joined together to create the Norman Economic Development Coalition. You can see the scope of services there, engaging in industrial and business solicitation activities on behalf of the city, chamber, and OU, acting as our economic development office, stimulating, encouraging, and promoting opportunities related to OU and partnerships with their faculty and jobs for students and faculties. Make recommendations to further other mission, and then provide a plan of economic development to the participating parties. Each entity in the beginning provided $75,000 in funding annually and had board representation. Annual audits and budgets were to be furnished to OU city in the chamber, and NEDC was forbidden from using any of that funding to engage in political activity. You'll see there it was defined to include not just supporting or opposing a candidate or a political party, but also supporting or opposing a state or local question. It was amended, I think four times over the years, but hasn't really been amended since 2009 and not substantively even longer than that. In 1997, it was amended to provide for quarterly activity in the form of a summary instead of just providing meeting minutes, uh, financial reports uh to the city, university, and chamber, and then they changed the uh renewal provision so that it was an automatic renewal and less terminated, subject to the appropriation of funds. 2004, a one-page amendment to increase the funding to 100,000 from each participant. In 2008, that went up to 125,000. And then in 2009, the Moore Norman Technology Center joined as a participating entity. The termination language uh that had previously previously been in the contract was removed, and the contract is just automatically removed renewed uh subject to council and the other parties' appropriation of the funding. So when you add all that up, since 1996, the city has contributed just over three million dollars to NEDC for its operations. In addition to that, in 2022, council approved a sub-recient agreement uh with NEDC where we provided ARPA funding and uh the amount of one million dollars for their incubator program development. You can see that at the old Copelands uh location uh just uh east of Sprouts, and that's under construction currently. Uh we were advised um uh several months ago uh that the uh NEDC was going to be expanded and replaced by the Cleveland County Economic Development Coalition. Technically, NEDC still exists, but the Cleveland County Economic Development Coalition is a registered trade name for NEDC. The mission has been expanded to elevate the economy of Cleveland County as a whole, not just Norman. Um and they've presented a proposed contract. We talked with council about this in June, and there was not a consensus to move forward with the contract as it was. And so uh we've been working on that and and um trying to determine what direction to go. So the scope in this new contract, as I said, it's much broader for Cleveland County, not just Norman, but it is pretty similar. It's been modernized a little bit, talks a little bit more about marketing and using site selectors and things like that that weren't in the original contract. Um it does not say that they act as the city's economic development office essentially, but they would still continue to do those similar type activities for every participant within the uh organization. Um still looking for collaboration and partnerships with the private sector, other cities and Cleveland County, um, and then would make reports and recommendations to the city as it deems necessary. The term of that contract was uh to begin July 1st of 2025 and go through June 30th, and then it would be renewed automatically, subject to an appropriation of funds. The termination provisions back in uh this version, and so there would be a 90-day option for the city to terminate before the end of the fiscal year, so it would not automatically renew. Um you recall I said in the original contract we had a prohibition about using the funding for political activities. This contract is a little bit different, it just prohibits using that funding to support or oppose a candidate or a political party. It's silent on the question of uh other advocacy in that realm. Uh the board membership is historically the city manager served on the board. The contract says he would continue to do that and serve on the nominating committee. The bylaws, which I was able to get a copy of a portion of says the city manager or his professional employee designate would serve.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com