OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

City Council Study Session Summary - January 20, 2026

Public Meetings & Live-Streams — Tuesday, January 20, 2026
BodyNorman, Oklahoma
SessionPublic Meetings & Live-Streams
DateTuesday, January 20, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:03:17

Transcript — Verbatim
0:07

The same thing that happened to the uh the Humphreys massive apartment complex noise got some group of material.

0:16

Is that what happened today at OAC?

0:18

I don't know.

0:19

That's what I was doing.

0:20

Internal, yeah, they got to it so quick.

0:27

I think it takes to like have the buildings.

0:34

Like they can go run and windows.

0:36

I was hoping it's a question.

0:39

All that's not for the 31st.

0:41

Oh, yes, yes.

0:42

Yep.

0:43

Okay.

0:45

Okay.

0:51

All right, let's go ahead and get started so we can get through these five items.

0:55

Um it is five o'clock.

0:56

So we'll go ahead and get started with the city council study session for Tuesday, January 20th, 2026.

1:03

We have five items on the agenda.

1:05

And the first one is a discussion with bond council regarding technical aspects of general obligation bonds and applicable state law provisions as they relate to the city's planned voter propositions regarding the issuance of general obligation bonds to fund the street maintenance bond program and construction of a homeless shelter.

1:26

And uh I think our bond council has to be in Chicache for a meeting uh at six.

1:33

So if yeah, if you guys want to take it from here.

1:36

Most of you, I think know Nate, but Nate Ellis has served as our bond counsel for many years, and he regularly advises us on all things bond related, but specifically uh general obligation bonds before we take something to forward to the voters and to counsel for a vote.

1:51

We work very closely with Nate to draft language uh for the proposition, and so uh the language in the ordinance you see is is is bond language that will get those bonds sold on the market after uh approved by the voters.

2:04

So we wanted to make Nate available to you all in case you have any questions about that and just to kind of chat about some of the language.

2:12

Okay, well, good evening, Nate LS Public Finance Law Group.

2:17

I don't have a formal presentation for you, but I mean, just generally speaking, when we'll go into the voters to issue general obligation bonds, there's a couple of parameters that we have to observe.

2:28

We um there's there's a couple of different areas of bonds that we issue.

2:33

What the city has historically done, I don't think exclusively.

2:37

Come over here, so you can see all our spinning around looking out of the back of your head.

2:43

Um what we've historically issued is um Article 10, Section 27 bonds, and so the requirements there are that it's a 50% majority vote, uh, which is different from what we see on school bonds, those are Article 10 Constitution Section 26 that requires a 60% vote.

3:03

And uh the this uh section 27 provision allows cities to do the 50% vote for roads and bridge type projects, so that transportation, and then it can be done for public utilities.

3:18

Now we think utilities, we think water and sewer lines, things like, but really a public utility is just about everything you can imagine that a city might engage in.

3:27

So I mean cemeteries or public utilities, homeless shelter, community facilities, things like that.

3:33

Those are all things that would qualify as as a public utility, but the requirement is the city has to exclusively own the property, has to exclusively own the building, the assets, whatever the case may be.

3:46

And so that that sometimes presents some long-term challenges because there's not really good ways to you can't buy it and then turn or build it and then turn around and lease it to somebody else for them to operate the facility on your behalf.

4:00

So uh exclusively owned, and so again, the city's used that numerous times over the years.

4:06

Uh the I think the most recent one we did, the municipal um complex improvements that were actually voted in 2008, and we finally were able to issue in 2020.

4:17

Uh, that's an example of community facilities uh that we did here as well.

4:22

So um so we have to identify what um what we're specifically issuing.

4:28

We've got language in there about it be to exclusively own or exclusively owned by the city, and you see we don't have that in streets because why streets aren't really owned by the city, they're in right of way, so it's actually owned by the property owners, so that's why there's that exception.

4:45

And then we have to go in and we have to identify with respect to each uh proposition that we have.

4:51

We have to identify how we're going to spend at least 70% of the funds.

5:00

So if we have $35 million in streets, we need to identify where we're going to spend at least 75% of that or 70% of that number.

5:05

Norman historically has taken the approach of let's identify where we're going to spend 100%.

5:12

I mean, I think that's a good practice, but that's that's not that's more than what's actually required.

5:18

And then the projects that you specifically list, you have to complete those projects, and you need to spend at least 85% of what you said you were going to spend on those projects.

5:31

Now, if you get grant funds that come in from other locations that can offset that and maybe change that dynamic a little bit, but generally you've got to you've got to identify what you're gonna build, you're gonna identify generally how much it's gonna cost, and then you gotta spend the money on that.

5:45

So you're pretty restricted, um, uh much more so than you would be with sales tax proceeds or utility revenues and and kind of picking what what you want to utilize those for as far as projects.

5:57

Um just because people ask, sidewalks don't fall under that and require a 60% vote to do a sidewalk bond program.

6:07

Yeah, to do exclusively a sidewalk uh program, yeah, really pro and the problem that we get into is that kind of exclusive.

6:18

Yeah, it's that exclusive ownership.

6:20

So I mean, when you have a sidewalk that's part of a road improvement, you know, that's transportation, it's getting you know, people that are walking that mode of transportation out of the way of of others.

6:30

So there's the ability to integrate some of those projects when they're when they're combined projects, but just exclusively sidewalk.

6:38

Yeah, it would it would likely need to be a 60% because the city's not going to own all the all the property along the road.

6:45

Now Norman's tried that before maybe in the 90s or before I was even on council and it didn't pass, from what I understand.

6:53

But um Councilman Pegar, real quick.

6:56

Um, you said the city has to exclusively own it and cannot lease it.

7:01

Um that doesn't preclude us from hiring an operator, though, does it?

7:06

Yeah, you you have the ability, you could you could have people operate the facilities, you can enter into operation agreements.

7:13

I mean, there's there's elements of the state law of exclusive ownership and control of the facility from a state law standpoint.

7:21

Then when we issue bonds, we typically do them on a tax exempt basis.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Homelessness████████████████████████████████████████40%
Transportation Safety██████████████14%
Legal Issues████████8%
Procedural██████6%
Public Engagement█████5%
Public Transportation█████5%
Arts And Culture████4%
Parks and Recreation████4%
Affordable Housing███3%
Summary of Proceedings

City Council Study Session - January 20, 2026

The City Council of Norman convened on January 20, 2026, to discuss five critical agenda items aimed at funding and managing essential city services. The session featured detailed presentations from bond counsel, public works officials, legal staff, and representatives from City Care regarding the city's financial instruments for street maintenance, housing bond propositions, and homelessness strategies. Key discussions centered on the technical requirements for general obligation bonds, the specifics of a five-year street maintenance plan, a comprehensive overview of homelessness due diligence and the proposed shelter model, a transient guest tax increase, and proposed charter amendments.

Consent Calendar

  • No routine consents were addressed during this study session as all items were subject to discussion and debate.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Council Member Pegar: Expressed support for the necessity of sidewalk maintenance, characterizing it as "low-hanging fruit" given the high community demand, though noted the city's unique ownership cost structure makes it expensive compared to other municipalities.
  • Council Member Grant: Expressed strong appreciation for the transparency in the street bond presentation, specifically the clarification that road repairs are not contingent on the proposed Turnpike alignment. Council Member Grant also voiced full support for the City Care partnership, noting their rapid integration and positive outcomes as evidence of due diligence. Council Member Grant advocated for holding the ballot in April to ensure maximum voter participation and opposed postponing the Auditor qualification amendment.
  • Council Member Nofire: Expressed love and support for City Care's passionate work, noting the service is "needed" and praising their data-driven approach to reducing homelessness duration.
  • Council Member Bruce: Expressed concern regarding the rigidity of the listed 100% street projects in the bond proposition, seeking assurance that the capital budget provides sufficient flexibility for emergent tactical repairs. Council Member Bruce also inquired about the maturity models for shelters, accepting the response that success is measured by competitive grant acquisition.
  • Rachel Freeman (City Care): Expressed a clear position that the new shelter will not double the city's budget, estimating only a 15% increase, and asserted that the city will not need to underwrite operational costs in perpetuity. She affirmed her organization's commitment to being a "good neighbor" and fully supports community fundraising efforts across Cleveland County.

Discussion Items

  • Bond Counsel Legal Technicalities (Nate Ellis):

    • Explained that Article 10, Section 27 of the Oklahoma Constitution allows cities to issue bonds for transportation and public utilities via a 50% majority vote, distinct from the 60% requirement for school bonds.
    • Clarified that for public utilities (like a homeless shelter), the city must "exclusively own" the facility, though it may hire an operator; however, it cannot lease the asset to a private entity for their exclusive control.
    • Noted that streets are categorized under the "right of way" owned by property owners, hence the exception for the exclusive ownership rule, whereas sidewalks exclusively require a 60% vote due to ownership issues.
    • Confirmed that the 70% spending rule for identification must be met, but Norman historically identifies 100% of funded projects to ensure compliance.

  • Street Maintenance Bond Program (Scott Sturz, Public Works):

    • Presented a five-year ($35 million) bond program (2026–2031) renewing the existing tax. The program aims to increase pavement condition scores from the mid-60s to the upper-70s.
    • Discussed the classification of road repairs into five categories: urban concrete, urban asphalt, urban reconstruction, preventative maintenance, and rural asphalt.
    • Reaffirmed that the Turnpike alignment is not a factor in street selection, noting the closest parallel roadway is a mile away.
    • Clarified that I-35 frontage roads are the city's responsibility, not ODOT's, and are currently in poor condition. ODOT's eight-year plan does not include converting frontage roads to one-way traffic in that stretch.
    • Explained that preventative maintenance (crack sealing) extends asphalt life significantly and that the city's internal crew is weather-constrained, necessitating contracts for larger projects.

  • Homelessness Shelter Strategy (Anthony, Shannon Stevenson, Rachel Freeman):

    • Provided a historical overview from 2019 to present, detailing the transition from temporary sites (Comanche, Gray Street) to a planned permanent facility.
    • Outlined the due diligence process, noting that multiple locations were vetted (Hunter Drive, 718 North Porter, Griffin Hospital) and rejected due to infeasibility, cost, or accessibility issues.
    • Confirmed that 718 North Porter was rejected because the building could not accommodate the shelter's elevator access needs and was not ADA compliant.
    • The new facility will be located at the property currently owned by the city (next to the Health Department), chosen for its proximity to resources.
    • Operational Model: Defined the shelter as a "night shelter" (flow system) that partners with Food and Shelter for daytime services, not a 24-hour facility. City Care will operate the shelter with a focus on housing navigation.
    • Financials: Rachel Freeman stated that including housing navigation increases costs by approximately 15%, not 100%. The city expects to reduce operational subsidies over time through grants (e.g., medical respite beds paid for by hospitals) and community fundraising.
    • Risk Management: Addressed liability concerns; City Care will carry insurance as required, and the contract will delineate the city's responsibility for building maintenance versus the operator's responsibility for daily operations and staff conduct.

  • Transient Guest Tax Increase (Kathleen Walker, Mason Olson):

    • Proposed increasing the tax rate from 8% to 10% and adding an RV provision.
    • Presented two distribution splits:
      • Proposal 1: Parks receives the entire 2% increase.
      • Proposal 2 (Preferred): Visit Norman receives 50%, Parks receives 30% (including 1.75% increase), and Norman Arts Council maintains 20%.
    • Identified a dedicated portion (approx. 0.25% to 0.5% of the rate) to fund a permanent Public Arts program, estimated at over $118,000 annually.
    • Noted that Norman is currently at the top of the comparable SEC/Texas cities' range (8.5% to 9.25%) and proposed 10% would be competitive.
    • Clarified that the Arts Council portion is independent of the general arts funding they receive from TIFs and other sources.

  • Charter Amendments (City Clerk):

    • Discussed two proposed amendments: extending the Council term start date to 60 days post-election (instead of five months) and adding qualifications for the City Auditor.
    • Consensus Decision: Council decided to split the amendments; the Auditor amendment will proceed to the April ballot, while the Council term extension will be postponed to a future election (potentially June) to reduce ballot fatigue.

Key Outcomes

  • Bond Proposals: Approved for inclusion on the April General Election ballot, contingent on second reading confirmation.
    • Street Maintenance Bond: $35 million over five years (renewal of existing tax).
    • Homeless Shelter Bond: Authorization for general obligation bonds to fund construction of a new homeless shelter facility.
    • Transient Guest Tax: Proposed increase to 10% with the 50/30/20 split (Visit Norman/Parks/Arts).
  • Charter Amendments Amendment: Council voted to strike the Council term extension item from the April ballot, isolating the City Auditor qualification amendment for the April election while postponing the term change.
  • Operational Agreement: Council directed staff to finalize contracts with City Care for the new shelter, maintaining the "city-owned, contractor-operated" model with specific KPIs and risk mitigation clauses.
  • Ballot Scheduling: Finalized April 22nd as the likely election date, with a note to the City Clerk office by Thursday noon regarding any further objections to the ballot contents.
  • Public Education: Staff directed to ensure website updates include interactive maps for the street bond and comprehensive data on homelessness efforts prior to the vote.

Meeting Transcript

The same thing that happened to the uh the Humphreys massive apartment complex noise got some group of material. Is that what happened today at OAC? I don't know. That's what I was doing. Internal, yeah, they got to it so quick. I think it takes to like have the buildings. Like they can go run and windows. I was hoping it's a question. All that's not for the 31st. Oh, yes, yes. Yep. Okay. Okay. All right, let's go ahead and get started so we can get through these five items. Um it is five o'clock. So we'll go ahead and get started with the city council study session for Tuesday, January 20th, 2026. We have five items on the agenda. And the first one is a discussion with bond council regarding technical aspects of general obligation bonds and applicable state law provisions as they relate to the city's planned voter propositions regarding the issuance of general obligation bonds to fund the street maintenance bond program and construction of a homeless shelter. And uh I think our bond council has to be in Chicache for a meeting uh at six. So if yeah, if you guys want to take it from here. Most of you, I think know Nate, but Nate Ellis has served as our bond counsel for many years, and he regularly advises us on all things bond related, but specifically uh general obligation bonds before we take something to forward to the voters and to counsel for a vote. We work very closely with Nate to draft language uh for the proposition, and so uh the language in the ordinance you see is is is bond language that will get those bonds sold on the market after uh approved by the voters. So we wanted to make Nate available to you all in case you have any questions about that and just to kind of chat about some of the language. Okay, well, good evening, Nate LS Public Finance Law Group. I don't have a formal presentation for you, but I mean, just generally speaking, when we'll go into the voters to issue general obligation bonds, there's a couple of parameters that we have to observe. We um there's there's a couple of different areas of bonds that we issue. What the city has historically done, I don't think exclusively. Come over here, so you can see all our spinning around looking out of the back of your head. Um what we've historically issued is um Article 10, Section 27 bonds, and so the requirements there are that it's a 50% majority vote, uh, which is different from what we see on school bonds, those are Article 10 Constitution Section 26 that requires a 60% vote. And uh the this uh section 27 provision allows cities to do the 50% vote for roads and bridge type projects, so that transportation, and then it can be done for public utilities. Now we think utilities, we think water and sewer lines, things like, but really a public utility is just about everything you can imagine that a city might engage in. So I mean cemeteries or public utilities, homeless shelter, community facilities, things like that. Those are all things that would qualify as as a public utility, but the requirement is the city has to exclusively own the property, has to exclusively own the building, the assets, whatever the case may be. And so that that sometimes presents some long-term challenges because there's not really good ways to you can't buy it and then turn or build it and then turn around and lease it to somebody else for them to operate the facility on your behalf. So uh exclusively owned, and so again, the city's used that numerous times over the years. Uh the I think the most recent one we did, the municipal um complex improvements that were actually voted in 2008, and we finally were able to issue in 2020. Uh, that's an example of community facilities uh that we did here as well. So um so we have to identify what um what we're specifically issuing. We've got language in there about it be to exclusively own or exclusively owned by the city, and you see we don't have that in streets because why streets aren't really owned by the city, they're in right of way, so it's actually owned by the property owners, so that's why there's that exception. And then we have to go in and we have to identify with respect to each uh proposition that we have. We have to identify how we're going to spend at least 70% of the funds. So if we have $35 million in streets, we need to identify where we're going to spend at least 75% of that or 70% of that number. Norman historically has taken the approach of let's identify where we're going to spend 100%. I mean, I think that's a good practice, but that's that's not that's more than what's actually required. And then the projects that you specifically list, you have to complete those projects, and you need to spend at least 85% of what you said you were going to spend on those projects. Now, if you get grant funds that come in from other locations that can offset that and maybe change that dynamic a little bit, but generally you've got to you've got to identify what you're gonna build, you're gonna identify generally how much it's gonna cost, and then you gotta spend the money on that. So you're pretty restricted, um, uh much more so than you would be with sales tax proceeds or utility revenues and and kind of picking what what you want to utilize those for as far as projects. Um just because people ask, sidewalks don't fall under that and require a 60% vote to do a sidewalk bond program. Yeah, to do exclusively a sidewalk uh program, yeah, really pro and the problem that we get into is that kind of exclusive. Yeah, it's that exclusive ownership.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com