Good evening and welcome to the City Council Norman Utilities Authority, Norman Municipal Authority, Norman Tax Increment Finance Authority, and Norman Parking and Transit Authority meeting of April 28th, 2026.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Councilmember Gandisbury?

Here.

Councilmember Peacock.

Absent.

Councilmember Bruce?

Here.

Councilmember Grant.

President.

Councilmember Kirby.

Here.

Councilmember Hinkle?

Here.

Councilmember Blodgett?

Here.

Councilmember Dixon?

Here.

Mayor Holman.

Here.

Please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

All right.

Proclamations.

Items one and two will be acknowledged with one vote.

Item number one is a proclamation proclaiming Friday, April 15th, 2026 as Peace Officers Memorial Day, and the week of May 10th through May 16th, 2026 as National Police Week in the City of Norman.

Item number two is a proclamation proclaiming Friday, May 22nd, as May 22nd, 2026 as Poppy Day in the City of Norman.

I'll entertain a motion to acknowledge receipt of the proclamations.

Motion.

Second.

The motion on the floor is to acknowledge receipt and proclamations.

Council members, you may cast your votes.

And whereas it is important that all citizens know and understand the duties, responsibilities, hazards, and sacrifices of their law enforcement agency, and that members of our law enforcement agency recognize their duty to serve the people by safeguarding life and property, by protecting them against violence and disorder, and by protecting the innocent against deception and the weak against oppression.

And whereas residents of Norman are encouraged to wear a blue ribbon or display blue ribbon at their home or place of business during National Police Week as a visible sign of remember remembrance for those law enforcement officers who have given their lives in the line of duty as a and as a sign of support for those who continue to serve our community.

Now, therefore, I, mayor of the city of Norman, Oklahoma, do hereby proclaim Friday, May 15th, 2026 as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week of May 10th through May 16th, 2026 as National Police Week in honor of those law enforcement officers who, through their courageous deeds, have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their community or have become disabled in the performance of duty, and let us recognize and pay respect to the survivors of fallen heroes.

Do hereby I do hereby invite all citizens to attend the Norman Law Enforcement Memorial Service on Friday, May 15th, 2026 at 9:30 a.m.

at Legacy Park Amphitheater, located at 1898 Legacy Park Drive.

Passed and approved this 28th day of April, 2026.

Thank you very much for talking.

All right.

Would represent from the American Legion Post like to join me here at the podium.

Whereas America is the land of freedom, preserved and protected willingly and freely by citizen soldiers.

And whereas millions who have answered the call to arms have died on the field of battle, and whereas a nation at peace must be reminded of the price of war and the debt owed to those who have died in war.

And whereas the red poppy has been designated as a symbol of sacrifice of lives in all wars, and whereas the American Legion Auxiliary has pledged to remind America annually of this debt through the distribution of the memorial flower, and now, therefore, I, mayor of the city of Norman, Oklahoma, do hereby proclaim Friday, May 22nd, 2026, as Poppy Day, and ask that all citizens pay tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of freedom by wearing the memorial poppy on this day, passed and approved this 28th day of April 2026.

Congratulations.

Thank you for the question.

You can get a picture over here if you want to.

And if you would like to say a few words for one.

On behalf of Post 88, a Norman here, and on all the veterans that have served on all previous wars and future wars, we thank you for recognizing us.

Something that has been going on since World War One.

The poppy is a symbol of the blood that was shed in Flandersville in World War One, and something that we honor and we thank you for this honor that you've bestowed upon us.

Thank you so very much.

All right, council announcements, and we'll start in Ward 1.

Hello, Ward 1 and all the Norman.

Just got a couple.

It was a pretty good turnout, pretty good food and camaraderie there.

Also, thanks to all the volunteers that showed up to help clean up Reefs Park for Earth Day, and then everybody that showed up for Earth Day the next day to help celebrate, had a great women's softball game going on next door at the same time and a lot of legal little league games going on at the same time, so it may kind of fun day at the park.

And then also special thank you all to my nonprofits that know who they are that helps keep things moving and going in Norman Force.

I appreciate y'all.

Thank you.

Ward three?

No announcements.

Ward four.

Good evening, Ward 4 and City of Norman.

I'd also like to extend a congratulations to the Norman Music Festival organizers.

The weather held out, and I expect when we get an update on uh sales and number of people that attended, that it's gonna be a great uh number compared to last year.

Also, congratulations to city staff on our great Earth Day celebration and to those kids that won the Water's Worth at poster contest.

I'd also like to congratulate the first courthouse neighborhood leadership team on another successful neighborhood cleanup.

And if you're we are the City of Festivals, so if you're interested, Pride Weekend takes place this weekend, Friday through Sunday, with an events at Andrews Park on Saturday.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ward five.

No comment.

Thank you, Ward Six.

Good evening, everyone.

I just want to say thank you to all of the staff volunteers and sponsors who helped put on Norman Fest Norman Music Fest this past weekend.

It was a really good time.

And also want to recognize my friend Antonio in the audience coming from Thunderbird Clubhouse.

I appreciate you being here.

And that's all I have for tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ward 7.

Yes, hello, Ward Seven and Norman.

I also wanted to give a big shout out to everyone that attended the Earth Day Festival at Reeves Park.

It was a really fun day.

And it was uh fun hosting uh with Councilmember uh Grant.

Uh she did a great job with MCing it, and I enjoyed helping her out with that.

Um, but also um I want to give a big huge shout out to Michelle Loudenback.

Um, her and her colleagues did an amazing job putting that festival on.

And um I want to give a shout out to the students of Terra Verde because they came in there and just almost did a clean sweep on all the poster awards.

I think there was maybe one other um student from Lincoln Elementary, so shout out to her as well.

But um almost a clean sweep by Tara Verde.

So uh good job uh to them.

And that's all I got.

Thank you.

Ward eight.

Uh I'd like to just quickly recognize a few of the um boys or a few of the um high school basketball all-state players uh here in Norman.

Um the boys' team, uh the state champion boys team, um Montreal Combs Pierce uh from Norman High is on the All-State team.

Um Casen Robinson and Bo Billingsley, and not to be outdone.

The um women's basketball team had their own uh all-state player in uh Eddie Hibble.

So just want to shout out to those uh just absolute phenomenal athletes in Norman.

That's it for me.

Thank you.

Um I also want to extend my uh thank you and appreciation to the organizers of Norm Music Festival and Earth Day, um, an entire weekend, literally Thursday all the way to Sunday of uh festivities and events related to both.

Um it takes a lot to put on both of those things, and um in the Norm Music Festival side, it's pretty much all volunteers and uh sponsors from mostly locally owned businesses too.

So there's a couple bigger corporate but uh sponsors, but Fowler Automotive is a big one that's local, and um so many others that are local that really make it happen every year, and it's kind of done on a shoestring, honestly.

And so I'm always impressed by what the volunteers of Norm Music Festival are able to pull off.

And thankfully, this year the weather held out, and um in my experience, it was extremely busy downtown Thursday night, Friday night, and all day Saturday and Saturday night, and uh was really exciting to see.

And Earth Day um at Reese Park is always an amazing time and to showcase how Norman is leading the way in the state of Oklahoma when it comes to environmental initiatives and and things like that.

So I also appreciate Michelle and her staff and everything they've they're doing to uh you know keep pushing those that information out to our residents to know how we can do a better job in Norman uh with environmental stewardship.

And then also just wanted to mention um uh thanking all the organizers uh for the trip to Washington DC last week that some of us were able to make and meet with the congressional representatives from Oklahoma, including our new uh Senator Alan Armstrong, um, getting the opportunity to meet with them one-on-one and discuss uh some issues the relevant to Norman uh like infrastructure, uh housing, um health insurance and general health care issues uh that we face in Oklahoma that are impacting uh municipal budgets, uh as we just discussed in our prior meeting, and for anybody that would like to watch that on YouTube, um health care costs and things like that that we're seeing that are having a real serious impact on municipal budgets and our ability to uh provide adequate services to our residents and take care of our um in Norman, our nearly thousand city employees.

And so having the opportunity to talk to the federal representatives about those local Norman issues and make sure that they are aware of what we're dealing with here in Norman I found to be very important.

And uh Councilmember Grant and I were able to kind of wander around the Senate office building and uh ended up in Senator Armstrong's office and ended up getting about a 10 minute one-on-one with him.

Um so uh that was really nice to be able to just talk about some city of Norman related issues and get to know him a little bit more, especially uh since he was just thrown into that position.

And and so uh I was really thankful for that opportunity.

And uh since we drove, we were we had the opportunity to meet with the mayors of Nashville and Knoxville as well and discuss um uh those are also SEC cities, so discuss issues similarly that they have with uh universities in their cities and friction that may exist, successes that they have working together in Nashville, they have a pretty controversial stadium project too uh for the Tennessee Titans, and so being able to discuss um our situation in Norman with the mayor of Nashville and uh what similarities they've faced uh in that regard, and and then things like housing and infrastructure, which uh they struggle with, we struggle with, and um and same thing in that in Knoxville as well.

So I found it a really uh a very good opportunity to build some relationships with other elected officials that face similar issues that we do, and maybe on a different scale, and um and also get more familiar with our federal representatives in Washington, and especially Congressmember Cole, who is currently in a position of of pretty significant power in regard to being the chair of the appropriations committee in Congress.

So I appreciate everybody that helped organize that and the opportunity to uh for us to get city issues at the forefront of it.

So with that, we'll go ahead and get started with the consent docket.

This is on the agenda so that the city council by unanimous consent can designate those routine agenda items that they wish to be approved or acknowledged by one motion.

If any item proposed is not meet with approval of all council members, that item will be heard in regular order.

Staff recommends that items three through item 21 be placed on the consent docket.

I'll entertain a motion to place items three through twenty-one on the consent docket.

Motion I second that motion.

And uh Mr.

We have had a request to have a uh report on consent docket number eighteen.

Okay, and so the motion on the floor would be to place items three through twenty-one, except for item eighteen on the consent docket.

Do we need any anything special for that to pull it off?

No, okay.

Are we pulling item 18 from the agenda or just having a special presentation?

We were gonna ask Mr.

Mattingley to come up and answer some questions on okay, okay.

Then yeah, does it need to be it's not being pulled off?

No, just for QA.

Yeah, okay, or maybe a motion.

And you want to do this before we vote on the okay, got it.

It's fine.

Okay, Mr.

Matting?

Yeah, Chris Mattingley, Utilities Director.

Item 18.

Yeah, all this item is.

I'm sorry, it's uh our water.

Can you hear me?

Uh we use the lake water year-round, and we usually use wells.

A federal year each year on October 1.

And um our wells, we had trouble with them November, December this past year.

So we got a little bit behind on our balance, and so we usually use so much whale water, so we don't have to we save up the lake water because we're only allowed to use three billion gallons a year, 3.3 with the Dell City portion.

So, what happened is uh we were a little behind, we got 50% left of our water.

We have five months to go to get through September, and we just thought uh Midwest City hasn't been using their full allocation, so we just threw an offer at them to see if they would sell us 300 million gallons, similar to the Dell City contract, it just shores up our water supply and make sure we're gonna be good for summer.

Probably the minute I buy this, well, it's gonna start raining really hard or something.

But we've been in a drought pattern up to this date, so our usage is a little heavier than normal.

So just being safe and making sure we got plenty of water.

Okay.

Councilman Kirby.

Will this be the only time we need to buy water for the year?

Do you think?

And will this come with like uh water restrictions for odds and even days, or is this just a purchase that we don't have to do water restrictions for the yards?

So in Norman, we practice odd even every day all the time, and so it's not really uh uh it's a it is mandatory already.

We always practice that.

Uh, we don't see ourselves needing to ration, but this will just help it, it'll give us another 300 million gallons to have towards our we usually use around five billion in a year, and so it just helps shore it up a little stronger for us.

And we just I I can't predict the future, you know.

If it comes really hot and everything, we might get tight, but this will help us.

So that was that was a goal.

Councilmember Grant.

Um, out of curiosity, if we don't use all of them and we purchase them, do they roll over to the next year?

No, it's it's insurance.

It's kind of I'm buying it just because I think we need it and just and let's say we get into scenario where we could we sell it back to no, no, it's kind of uh it's kind of Dell City.

Same thing.

We have a contract they do with this each year.

So uh October 1st, they we just buy 300 million's worth of their allocation, and we pay them 204,000 is what we paid this year, and we try to we just say we use it first, but we have to use it to use it because you pay for it, you don't get it back, and then this Midwest City, we were just looking at that, being that we struggle with the whales in November December, and we're like, well, let's just get 300 million if they're willing to, and they're usually not willing to.

We've asked them for a permanent contract, and they have some big businesses they think might come to Midwest City, so they haven't been up for sell putting it on a contract every year.

But this year they said, Yeah, we think we could part with 300 million, and you need it, so that'd be great.

So we will use the water that we purchase it first, yeah.

Perfect.

So that could save us on purchases we make with OKC.

Uh we'll probably use we only we buy one million gallon a day from Oklahoma City, so that's 365 million in a year.

But what it's gonna allow us to do, we'll probably be able to rest the wells a little more.

Um, without this, we'll probably run the wells hard, and it just doesn't feel good when you have to run them hard.

It's nice when you can do two weeks on, one week off, keep the Aqua for all happy, and just you know good stewards of the water.

Okay, I appreciate the explanation.

No, thank you.

Councilmember Hinkle.

So we use all of our allotment from Lake Thunderbird, all of the reserve from Lake Thunderbird.

We buy all of the reserve from Midwest City and Dell City.

Dell City has a we have a contract with them each year to use 300 million gallons of their water.

Uh Midwest City is usually they don't want to enter that contract, but this year we just offer them this contract a one-time deal, and they said yes.

And then how many gallons a day are we buying from Oklahoma City?

Uh one million gallons a day, so that's 365 million.

Thank you.

Yeah.

And Chris, uh just for clarification in case anybody didn't get it.

The lake looking at the water in it is 100% and it's utilized split between the city of Norman, the city of Dell City, and the city of Midwest City.

Right.

We have a larger allocation than both of them, and we have generally exceeded it or needed to based on population growth and demand.

Midwest City and Dell City haven't have not exceeded their allocation, does it say the least?

Yes.

And we've we first fully utilized our allocation in like 1998.

Yeah.

So we always use our three billion.

Uh we just recently entered this Dell City contract, which was great because they always had an extra 300 million they're not using, so we've got that under contract now.

We pay them, they need our money, and we we like their water just to put it in our portfolio.

So and it's 68 cents a thousand, which is really a good price if you go look for raw water.

Thank you.

Um any other questions.

Um, and I just need to clarify for council before we continue on.

We're not pulling item 18 off of consent, are we?

Correct?

Okay.

So the vote, or excuse me, the motion on the floor is to place items three through 21 on the consent docket.

You may cast your votes.

All votes have been passed in the motion to place items three through 21 on the consent docket, passes unanimously.

All right, I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent docket.

Motion to approve.

Second the motion.

Are there any comment further comments from council regarding the consent docket?

That's old.

Okay.

Councilmember Bruce on the donations.

I'm just very grateful as a council member.

I'm I'm grateful that there's individuals in the city corporations and businesses that are willing to donate to the city of Norman for different causes.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Okay, so the mo any other comments from anybody seeing none.

Okay, the motion on the floor is to approve the consent docket.

Council members, you may cast your votes.

All votes have been cast in the motion to approve the consent docket passes unanimously.

All right, non-consent items.

Item 22 conducting and closing the first public hearing for the FYE 2027 City of Norman proposed operating and capital budgets.

And I'll retain a motion to open the public hearing.

Motion to open the hearing.

Second to open the hearing.

The motion on the floor is to open the public hearing.

Council members, you may cast your votes.

All votes have been cast in the motion to open the public hearing passes unanimously.

All right.

Recognize Clint Mercer, finance director, to make a presentation.

Thank you, Mayor.

Council Clint Mercer, Finance Director.

Um got a presentation here.

Um it's my pleasure to present to you uh the city manager's proposed budget for the fiscal year 26-27.

This is the first of two formal budget hearings.

Uh it's the it's gonna be the fourth public meeting in the budget process for this year.

It represents months of dedicated work and a collaboration of management and staff.

Following the hearing, we will have continued study sessions.

Uh May 5th, we will cover the capital budget.

Uh May 19th will be the enterprise funds.

We'll have a second public hearing on May 26th.

Uh, additional, we we could have an additional study session if we so needed it on June 2nd.

The uh council will consider the final budget document for adoption on June 9th, and then uh just to let you know also that the proposed city budget is on the city's website.

Okay, next is kind of what is a budget document.

Uh it's a comprehensive policy document, it reflects the values, proprietary uh proprieties, uh, priority, excuse me, and strategic vision of the city.

It's an operational guide that holds management and departments accountable.

It's a vital communications tool that transparently illustrates how valuable resource resources are allocated to support the city's goals.

Our budget process has been recognized since 1991 by the government finance officers association and underscores the quality and integrity of the budget process.

Okay, this is a pie chart that shows all funds uh for the projected revenues for fiscal year 2027, which is 302 billion dollars.

Um the largest contributor is the general sales tax at 33 percent.

The second is fees and charges at 24 percent, and third is other taxes at 13 percent.

Uh this represents a five percent decrease from the prior year primarily in bond proceeds and other revenue.

This is uh a pie chart of the total projected expenses for fiscal year 2027, which is about 302 million.

Uh the largest uh contributor there is public safety at 23 percent.

Second is strategic support at 15 percent, and third is capital improvements at 15 percent.

This represents a point five percent increase from the prior year budget, primarily to to interfers.

This pie chart shows the revenues for the general fund for 2027 and is roughly 113 million.

Um the largest contributor there is sales and use tax at 64 percent.

Second is internal services charges at 8%, and third is franchise taxes at 7%.

This represents a six percent increase from the prior budget, primarily from cost allocation charges and sales and use taxes.

And just at this time, I wanted to remind uh everyone that the city that Oklahoma is unique in that uh cities cannot use property taxes for operating expenses.

The only state in the union that does that.

Next is the general fund expenses uh for fiscal year 2027.

That's approximately 113 million.

The largest uh contributor there is police at 27 percent, second is public works at 20 percent, and third is fire at 19 percent.

This represents a one percent increase from the prior budget, primarily due to subsidies to the insurance fund.

And that's all I have.

Thank you.

Seeing none.

This is an opportunity for members of the public to make comments regarding this item.

Remarks should be directed to council only.

Madam Clerk, is there anyone signed up to speak on this item?

Yes, Mayor.

Stephen Ellis.

Mayumi.

Hello, uh, Miami Windler Ward 2.

So in the budget document, um things that I look at are the estimate incomes or you know, revenues, that kind of thing.

Um where do those estimates come from?

Um are they based on the last year?

Are you expecting percentage increases from the previous year?

And why are you doing that?

Um, are we getting more revenue?

Um, shouldn't we just assume that things are going to be flat and base our budget on that?

And if we get more, then great.

That can go into the you know emergency fund, brandy day fund, all that stuff.

Um that's all just think about budgeting and actually spending within our means.

Thank you.

Russell Rice Russell Rice, word two.

Um pull this picture up real quick at sliding through it real quick.

I was just kind of curious like what the difference is in the uh public safety and the blah blah blah.

I can't see it on that one.

Hold on.

Public safety and the strategic support and criminal justice, because like sounds similar.

Just trying to spread up the police spending.

Also, uh, what happens to the income that the police department makes?

So they send somebody out to uh teach blah blah blah, and they charge X amount of dollars.

Where does that money go?

Because I know that they're doing that.

So I was just curious because it's not on the income sheet.

So thank you.

Have a good day.

Thank you.

Chelsea Gravel?

I'm good, thank you.

Carlinda That's all, Mayor.

Anyone else that has not spoken on this item that would like to speak about it?

Please.

Um, uh my name's Antonio Geringer, and I believe I don't know the exact number, I think I'm I'm from Kyle's ward.

Okay, ward six.

Ward six.

I um Councilman.

And it's something I I've been concerned about recently is the fact that our largest um expense in the city is our police force.

Yeah, I think public safety is important.

I really do.

But how does that compare to other cities our size?

And and how are we going to contain that cost uh over um time?

I um that is my my main concern that we use that money effectively to reduce crime, but also that it just isn't increase exponentially.

And that's my only um concern on that topic.

Thank you.

Anyone else that hasn't spoken that would like to speak on this budget hearing item?

Seeing none.

Okay.

Any further comment questions from council on the budget item?

Okay.

Um do have a couple just based on the comments.

Um for Clint or for the city manager, whatever it may be.

Um what would be we discussed in the prior meeting and several others that we've had throughout the year, but leading or biggest cause that you see for increase in expenses for the city budget overall.

Um the single largest factor we've been dealing with in terms of cost increases is attributable uh to uh the cost of health care.

Uh we're hearing similar reports from private businesses here in Norman that uh just the cost of health care overall is increasing at a far greater pace than other inflationary factors.

We've actually held relatively stable in the price of energy, the price of fuel.

Um we've even seen some softening in construction cost increases uh in the past year.

So the biggest driver in the proposed budget is the cost of health care.

And and I'll ask Mr.

Mercer to correct me.

No, I would agree.

I would agree.

And we went over that in a little bit more detail in the prior meeting, which I think is was live streamed and should be available for anybody where we got into a little bit more detail about that health care issue.

Um then the question about where do where does budgeting our budgeting estimates come from and why do we use whatever methodology we use?

So um historically um a place to begin is uh the concept of trend analysis.

Where are we going based on uh where have we been?

Uh we've been looking at uh relatively flat sales tax growth projections for the last three years.

Uh as of our April sales tax deposit, we are 1.77% ahead of where we were last year.

Um and we had a really big December retail event that showed up in our February sales tax check that was actually about 13% bigger than the February sales tax check the year before.

We are not banking that that big giant February bump happens again.

Uh our general fund sales tax revenue estimate for next fiscal year is one percent higher than this fiscal year.

So it's actually a little lower than where we stand today, and that is we will always err on the side of a conservative revenue estimate.

That's sales tax.

The next component we address in that same vein is use tax.

So that's sales tax you pay when Amazon delivers goods to your door.

Uh we are projecting a four percent increase in use tax as uh boy that uh ability to buy online from the comfort of your home continues to grow here in Norman, and that is very much in line with what that particular line item has done uh over the last three or four years.

So we are confident in our conservative revenue estimates.

Okay.

And um the revenue from police department from whatever it may be, tickets or that goes into our fines and forfeitures.

That's what I'm sure.

Yeah, fines and forfeitures within the general correct.

Okay.

And then I guess I would assume that in most cities the question about um whether the police specifically are the biggest budget item in a city budget.

I would assume that's probably the case in every city or most cities.

Uh uh almost every city, I think in the U.S.

would have a similar reflection of the percentage of the general fund consumed in the delivery of public safety services, and it is uh historically true that uh the police department is um the most expensive level of service to provide.

Uh it is 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Our second largest expense is not the fire department, it's actually public works.

So uh the fire department comes in third, and it does reflect um priorities of council's investment in public safety and its balance with other quality of life uh delivery of service.

So it that that's in competition with uh road maintenance, parks, and recreation services, uh, and then the ability to support uh development services through uh the community development department.

And so with 30 27 percent for the police department and 20 uh percent for public works and 19 and a half roughly for the fire, about 70 percent of our total general fund is just those three departments.

Uh infrastructure and then police and fire public safety stuff.

And police department is the largest single department in terms of uh positions.

I believe we're sitting on 171 sworn uh police positions, and um I'm gonna we're close, we're about 150 sworn uh fire personnel.

And I'll let the fire chief shake his head yes or no.

Uh but much appreciated, Chief.

So that that's our current allocation of staff.

Yeah, always a concern because those are our big expenses, but also those are typically things that require 24 hour services and multiple shifts of people and things like that.

So I I'd appreciate that question.

Were there any other questions from council out there?

Okay.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Mercer.

Um I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

The motion on the floor is to close the public hearing.

Council Mercy may cast your votes.

All votes have been cast and the public hearing is now closed.

The next public hearing for the FYE 2027 budget is scheduled for May 26th, 2026.

For anybody interested in the in that and uh putting together any further questions you might have about the city budget.

Um that'll be another opportunity to bring those up here in this meeting.

So all right, item one uh item 23 is an ordinance amending section 36-201 of the code.

So to adopt or reject the ordinance on second reading section by section.

Is there a representative of the applicant?

Mr.

Rieger is here.

I am thank you, Mayor.

Sean Rieger representing Ken and Sarah Hall.

And if you have not had the great pleasure to know Ken Hall, I encourage you to do so.

He's one of the great gifted artists of our community.

He's here tonight with us.

He did a project for you recently called the Gentle Giant.

If you haven't seen this, you need to see this.

It's an incredible sculpture down at the transfer station uh in Norman, just a really gifted piece of art.

So I encourage you to go look at that.

Ken and Sarah have a house on East Frank, 521 East Frank.

A little blurry here, but it's a house just south uh of the senior wellness center over by the North Border Hospital Complex.

And I'll be very brief on this item tonight.

This has flown through the process with unanimous plan commission.

Nobody even came to Planning Commission to speak, and I don't think the commissioners even had a question for us at Planning Commission.

So I'll be very brief on this.

But it's currently an R1 single family house.

It's proposed to go to a SPUD, simple planned unit development.

And this is now we're starting to see AIM, and you're starting to see AIM a lot in our presentations because it's the most recent planning document we have in Norman.

It was adopted last June, and AIM Norman really changed a lot of how we're thinking about Norman in terms of density, in terms of uses, in terms of character.

And this is an example of that tonight.

This area, this neighborhood, which was zoned R1, AIM now says should be mixed use.

So AIM says the land use of this neighborhood should be mixed use, and that is exactly what Mr.

Hall has proposed for you tonight is to take an existing house and turn it into an existing, I mean into a mixed use uh feature.

So it's an existing house on East Frank.

The zoning is simple change from R1 to SPUD.

We've written a spUD that would allow for basically low-intensity, low impact uh commercial on the ground floor, just personal services, and in this case, a uh tattoo shop that uh Ken Hall is extremely well known for in the community, and it does incredible work.

Uh and so everything else from R1 would remain exactly as it is.

So it's a simple change to allow first floor commercial of low intensity, very low intensity, personal services only.

He would do this by appointment, and R1 remains otherwise, all the uses of R1 are there and as they would be.

So I would uh tell you that unanimous at Planning Commission.

Again, nobody spoke at Planning Commission.

Commissioners didn't ask us a single question.

Staff did write, and I'll read this.

The proposal is consistent with AIM Norman land use plan and character area policies as it preserves the existing structure without significant changes to height setbacks or massing, thereby maintaining compatibility with adjacent properties.

The proposal maintains the existing residential character of the property and does not disrupt the residential fabric of the area, but additionally the integration of commercial and residential uses within the single structure supports the establishment of a mixed use environment.

And we put up there it's wholly consistent with AIM Norman.

This is in my experience the first time we had consistent across the board on those staff reports you read, and I appreciate Jane and Laura giving us that on this item.

We frankly, I don't think I've ever gotten that before.

There's usually one or two inconsistence of for some reason or another.

This one had consistent every single bullet point consistent.

So we appreciate that very much.

With that, I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them, and I thank you very much for your consideration.

All right, Councilmember Grant.

Yes.

Um I just want to address some questions that have come up throughout this process and just have uh clarity in case other people don't know the answer as well.

Sure.

Um so one resident asked if uh Mr.

Hall would be moving his whole business from Main Street to here.

As I understand it, that is not the case.

Um how many rooms will be used for a tattoo studio?

Uh the whole commercial floor, the first floor is allowable for use.

I don't know the exact number of rooms that would be allowed before a context of what you need to know from a legal standpoint.

The first floor is what's designated as commercial use for for the these services.

And not the second floor.

Uh and there is a resident on the second floor, correct?

Correct.

There will be, yes.

And then uh there's only three uh public parking spaces that they're allowed to use.

Correct.

The way the PUD is written is that we're uh limited to three public spaces on the street, and then there's parking on the site to the extent that it's paved.

You can park anywhere on a site that is paved, basically.

Okay, and then um I have a question for planning director Jane Hudson.

I um you know, recently we updated allowable or home occupations, uh tattoo shops or home tattooing studios were not one of them.

Um is that something we might consider in the future?

Absolutely.

You know, we're getting ready to engage for the update of the zoning code.

So I I I see a lot of things that will be updated and allow more mixed uses within some of the residential neighborhoods.

And then uh one of our recent changes was allowing stylists to practice at home, and they also had restrictions on how many cars could be parked and the like.

Okay, so um just because we don't have that in our current home occupations, the spot is uh why this is coming forward.

This is coming forward more because it's the mixed use.

Okay.

So um it's a rental property if it was uh uh owner occupied.

I'd have to look at the code again.

Okay, but I believe that that's more the case.

This is a mixed use as opposed to being the owner occupied.

Okay, I mean we verify that.

Uh yeah, I'm curious if people who rent homes can also do the home occupation.

But I have my zoning code, I'm gonna go look at that and I'll let you know.

Okay, thank you.

Any uh councilmer Kirby?

My question is for planning as well.

Yes, sir.

Being the age of this house, they say it's around the 1950s, 60s is when it was built, uh smaller pipes and whatnot.

Will since it is going to be for a tattoo, did y'all verify like what they're gonna be doing with their ink with schools and paint, you have to have separator sinks so it don't get down the drain and into our watershed.

So, with this being a tattoo shop, have we looked forward into the code on will they have to update like the kitchen sink and the bathroom sinks to add separators to make sure none of the ink gets out to our watershed?

So, two things.

Uh, part of that will be controlled by the health department, and actually this one was uh they applied for it a couple months ago, and we delayed it uh a month or two because um I wanted to make sure that they visited with the uh building official on how they would be able to permit that use on the ground floor.

So uh all of that has been discussed with the building official, and I believe that uh Ken actually met with them as well, but I know for a fact that uh Reger's representatives did.

Can you answer that question, Mr.

Rieger?

Yeah, I don't know that we got that specific.

I think the key point is we have to meet all those codes.

We have not written anything in this FUD, anything in the zoning that wouldn't limit us or would give us any exemptions or any outs.

We have to meet every one of those codes.

So if if he opens as a business just as anybody else would, he has meet the the health codes and all of the codes that applied in the state statutes, everything else.

So we've not changed any of that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other comments or questions from council?

Okay.

All right, this is opportunity.

This is an opportunity for members of the public to make comments regarding this item.

Madam Clerk, is there anyone signed up to speak on this item?

Yes, Mayor.

Uh Stephen Ellis.

Okay.

Russell Rice.

You thank you.

Carlinda Gravel, Word 4.

I'm excited about this.

So I want you to know that first.

But also have some concerns.

See, this is my neighborhood.

And I'm a stakeholder in this neighborhood.

And if you don't know what that means, you need to look that up.

Because we're first courthouse.

The first courthouse.

Now what that means is that we are CDBG.

And for years since we were inducted, 1974, CDBG became available.

We had 88 and 89, the Oklahoma Historical Society came into the city to determine what was historical, what wasn't.

That's how Andrews Park went into the historical society in 2000.

All of the properties in this whole area, including first courthouse, original town site neighborhood, not to be confused with the original town site plat.

And we're concerned because this is the first, right?

Now the reason the neighbors from First Course out courthouse are not here is because they're busy trying to figure out how to eat.

So if you haven't driven through our neighborhood, please do.

We want to move forward with this, but we have some concerns because in all of the documents and all of the studies that the entire city of Norman has done have been striving to protect us from business encroachment.

So I don't know if you know, but that's one of the things that is involved in this is that the new businesses that came in on Porter Robinson or Gray in my neighborhood, because that's my boundaries, they had to build a six-foot masonry wall to separate the neighborhood from the businesses because we were being we were being consumed by businesses.

Now I realize the goal is to fill our our neighborhood with businesses in light of purchasing Griffin property, but I think property owners need to know this is the plan when they buy a property because this is a residential neighborhood.

So my primary customers are or uh people are the children and the church, and it's great, and it's busy and it's loud at certain times of the day, and I love it, and then other times it's quiet and it's a peaceful neighborhood, and we've been striving for that.

And you need to look through the documents because two things were vital in all the money, and this is federal money.

You gotta really look at this.

We're talking federal money.

These plans are federal documents, and what has happened is we've been striving, and the Porter Corridor was supposed to save us, but the Porter Corridor got approved in 2010, and it's been 16 years, and it just got finished, and we already got rezoned.

Griffin Hospital.

That was our nurses.

Who's gonna who's gonna be the property owners?

Who's gonna be the stakeholders in our CDBG oldest neighborhood?

By the way, that courthouse, 1893.

We've got all those newspapers.

It's it's incredible.

I'll share more about that.

I've only got 41 seconds left.

All I ask is that you carefully consider this and don't show favoritism, right?

So if Ken Hall and I love the sculpture, love it, love all that he's doing, but don't show favoritism.

So that means when other citizens come to have rezoning for the ADUs and this mixed use, you don't get to show favoritism.

Okay, don't do that.

We see y'all doing that.

Don't do that.

Okay, have a good night.

Thank you.

That's all I have, Mayor.

Anyone else who has not spoken about this item that would like to speak?

Seeing none, okay.

Are there any final comments from council regarding this item?

Councilmember Grant?

Councilmember Grant.

I would like to invite Planning Director Jane Hudson back.

Yes, yes, uh, just some points of clarification.

Um could you explain the difference between the mixed use that's allowable here versus the Porter Corridor overlay?

So the this is not actually in the commercial porter corridor overlay limit.

It's within the Porter Corridor District, but it's not part of the commercial porridge overlay district, commercial portion.

And then uh as far as ADUs go, was it 2023 or 2024?

We approve them by right everywhere they're allowed in the city, uh, excluding where they are not allowed by HOAs or other regulatory entities.

All right.

Um that was really it.

Um I don't know.

Okay, Councilmember Bruce.

Hey Jane.

I I just want to clarify my mind when it comes to land use uh in the aim and aim plan if I have a neighborhood that's in a mixed use area, but it has an covenants with an HOA.

And I'm uh I I own a say I own a R1 there and I have a house.

A covenant's prohibited business, but I'm in a mixed use designated area in the aim use plan.

I I would think I'd be grandfathered in that hey, I I can't put uh business in the bottom of my in my home, my house, because my covenant is prohibited.

Your covenants control.

Okay.

Okay.

Councilmember Green.

Somebody trying to push the button or councilmore grant or yeah, Mr.

Reger.

Want to clarify one thing real quick.

It's just uh uh aim is just the land use, it's not the zoning.

So you know aim doesn't give you a right to do anything.

You still have to come through this process to get the zoning fixed.

So uh and one other thing on the current commercial corridor, uh Porter, we were I remember doing zonings back when that came around, and that was more for C2, very intense zonings that is where that line was drawn, and we had the markers and so sort of a different context than this one.

Thank you.

Councilmember Grant.

Did you um I thought I saw Rick was gonna say something?

Um Jane did answer that question.

We were talking about what does the land use plan Trump covenants know the covenants are the final say?

Absolutely.

So that's Rick and I were just conversing on that one.

The other thing that we were sort of talking about is the issue that covenants are private, so that's between the private property owners.

We wouldn't have anything to do with the covenant part of that.

All right.

Uh my final comment is that I am supportive, so I'm gonna forecast my vote and say that I will be voting for this uh SPUD to be approved.

And uh just to clarify too, they're this approving this would not allow for this house to be torn down in a drive-through commercial business to be put in, correct?

That's correct, Mayor.

The only thing that would be allowed is what they've asked for in the SPUD document under the uh allowed uses.

Anything else would have to come back correct council okay.

Thank you.

Um I would you know I would agree the Porter Corridor study is uh nearly 20 years old, um and a lot of things have changed on Porter, and that might be something that the uh neighborhoods that are along the Porter Corridor might want to think about um looking into an update or something like that to address current um changes in the neighborhood and what the neighborhood is interested in seeing in the future, um things that might have changed since 2008-90.

So but I appreciate the clarification on those items and the questions from the audience.

Um any final questions, comments from council not seeing any?

Okay.

The motion on the floor is to adopt the ordinance on second reading section by section.

Council members, you may cast your votes.

All votes have been cast in the motion to adopt the ordinance on second reading section by section passes unanimously.

I'll entertain a motion to adopt or reject the ordinance on final reading.

Motion to adopt second to adopt by column reading.

The motion on the floor is to adopt the ordinance on final reading.

Council members, you may cast your votes.

All votes have been cast in the motion to adopt the ordinance on final reading, passes unanimously.

All right, item 24 ordinance uh 0-2526-43 amending section 36-201 of the code so as to remove the tract of land generally located south of West Main Street, west of Ed Noble Parkway, north of West Lindsay Street, and east of 36th Avenue Southwest from a PUD planned unit development and place the same in a PUD planned unit development.

I'll entertain a motion to adopt or reject the ordinance on second reading section by section.

Motion to adopt.

Second to adopt.

Is there a representative here?

Yes.

Good evening.

My name is Libby Smith on behalf of the applicant.

And then we have a full team.

BJ Hawkins with TEC, the traffic engineer is here, and Mohammed Khan with SMC, the project engineer, is also here.

So a lot of you may recognize this area.

We came through and rezoned this property in 2024.

And so now we're coming back to request an amendment to that PUD so we can update the site plan and change a few of those uses.

This is Bob Moore Farms North, south of Main Street, and then east of 36th Ave.

So currently the land use is kind of a mixture.

You can see we have a mix of urban high, urban living center, and mixed use, and then the character area is corridor.

The existing zoning is that plan unit development that was from 2024.

This is the existing approved plan unit development site plan.

It's probably kind of easier to see on that top picture.

All of the red buildings were planned to be commercial.

And then as part of this request, we're coming back to amend the site plan and request to remove those commercial uses and do entirely multifamily residential instead.

This is those site plans side by side.

That 2024 one is on the left, and then our new proposed site plan is on the right.

So there won't be any cut through traffic from Main Street down to Willow Bend Road.

So here's the site plan, and then I'll zoom in a little bit, but this is the whole property.

You can see that all of the kind of active development is on that north half.

And then here's that zoomed in a little bit so you can see better.

But we're proposing a total dwelling units of 804 with a maximum height of four stories, and then all those access points will be gated, and then also have extensive on-site amenities and green space.

So here's the preliminary plat.

We're gonna separate into two lots.

This is planned to be two phases of development, and so each lot corresponds to a phase.

We're proposing 43% green space, which is a substantial increase in green space from the original 2024 proposal.

We'll also have a lot of on-site amenities for the residents, including pickleballs, uh pickleball courts.

You can see on the north kind of edges, um, pools, clubhouse, and then extensive walking trails.

And here are some renderings of what we expect the um development to look like.

You can see one of those landscaped green space areas is the main picture, and then some interior renderings as well.

So we I do want to go through some of the um concerns from the library that we have addressed.

Um, this is the site plan as originally filed back in January or February when we filed this application.

Um the library's main concern was with this Norman Center Court Drive, and so this is as proposed.

You can see that it was a connected driveway with the library's driveway.

So the library reached out before planning commission and let us know that they did not like that design.

And so we immediately uh contacted the engineer and did redesign that as a floor amendment at planning commission.

And so this is the plan site plan that was approved at planning commission.

We uh moved that driveway, the access to our property away from the library's uh existing driveway, and so those will be separated.

And then we are aware that um this has not completely resolved the library's concerns legally.

I think this does what we need it to do to protect the library's property.

Um I believe they're concerned that we still may be able to encroach on that property legally.

We're not entitled to uh no matter what the site plan shows or it doesn't show.

So we think that this does resolve the library's concerns with that driveway.

Oops.

So as part of this request, we are requesting to close part of Norman Center Court and redesign that cul-de-sac.

This is part of the phase one, phase two discussion.

Phase one of the development, we won't change the cul-de-sac at all.

You can see it highlighted how access will be taken off the existing or uh from the cul-de-sac, and then in phase two, we'll come through and redesign the cul-de-sac.

Umce we're ready to do phase two construction, we'll go through and vacate the right-of-way in district court, which is what would return fee title to us and entitle us to develop on it.

Um we also are concerned about a library, or the library is also concerned about a legal description error.

Um, but that will be addressed during the vacation of the district court.

Um, and so years down the road, once phase two is ready.

Um, there's a little sliver of the vacation area that is in front of the library's property.

And so once we vacate that little sliver title to that will just go back to the library, and so we won't be able to cut off that driveway from access or anything at all.

And so here's just kind of a summary of the request, a description of the proposal.

Um, the main request is to remove those commercial uses and go entirely multifamily residential, and then to revise that site development plan.

This did receive unanimous approval at Parks Board and a unanimous recommendation of approval at Planning Commission with that amended site plan.

So that I'll take any questions.

Okay.

Are there any questions from council?

Councilmember Bruce.

No, I I don't have any questions of Ms.

Smith.

I I have some questions of Miss Patton.

Okay.

The okay.

Are there any questions for the applicants attorney?

Or anyone, let's see.

Okay, um.

The in the original one that we approved, there was I guess a scaled down height as you went to the south closer to the existing neighborhood.

Is that still the same?

So the original 2024 PUD had a maximum height of six stories for the majority of the development, and then scaled down to three stories along Willowbend Road, and we've just went to four stories across the whole development.

So even along there, it's it would be increased from what was originally approved.

Yes, I think the setback is a little bit greater, and we're proposing a lot more landscaping as a buffer.

Um haven't seen resistance to that.

No, we haven't had any neighborhood complaints.

Okay, and then um connection to Ed Noble Parkway.

I recall there being those trails and paths.

Um there wasn't a road connection to it, but that the development was connected to it.

And that was really one of the main selling points to me, anyway, was access for benefit for all the businesses on Ed Noble Parkway if all these residents are able to walk to it.

Yeah, so we'll still propose all the sidewalks on our property.

I don't think that we can connect directly to Ed Noble Parkway because there is adjacent property, but we'll go all the way around the kind of water feature, and then if they can connect on their side, then that would finish the connection.

It'll connect to your edge of your property.

Right.

And then the other property, and I would have to at some point.

Yeah, okay.

I think that's really important.

Um, and again, that's something I've used to kind of sell.

This was that this is something Edinburgh Parkway needs, is a lot of people living next to it that can have easy access that uh may not require them to drive to support the restaurants, the new restaurant that'll be on the water there.

Um residents of this place being able to walk over there, I think would be really beneficial.

Um so that was an important one.

I wanted to clarify.

Then if I recall the original one, there was one access point on 36th Avenue, and this one has is that three, or is that just is it still one, but with we've removed all of the accesses off of the 36th.

And so there'll be two access points on the north and then three off Willow Bend.

Okay, and because of that, um Willow Bend has not it doesn't meet the standard still for needing a traffic light or anything on 36th.

And because of that, um Willow Bend has not it doesn't meet the standard still for needing uh a traffic light or anything on 36th correct.

Okay.

So it's still under that threshold.

Uh where it lines up with Western View Drive.

Right.

Okay.

Um and there's not a middle left turn lane right there currently.

I can't recall if what we originally approved included improvements.

To add a left turn lane on 36th Avenue.

Um but there's a hill crest right there.

And it's a pretty busy intersection already right now.

Uh some great friends have lived in that addition right there, that neighborhood.

So uh any improvements to 36th Avenue, any widening for the city.

I don't think any are warranted right now.

But I would invite BJ to talk about it.

Yeah, that'd be great.

BJ Hawkins, Traffic Engineering Consultants, 2770 Washington Drive.

Uh we looked at this just as we did the last one.

Uh we tried to analyze the signal, the intersection to see if it met any signal warrants.

The city had previously looked at it, maybe because of some complaints like you're mentioning.

It didn't come close to meeting any of the warrants, even with us projecting to 2030 for the first phase, 2035 for the second phase, it didn't even come close to being operating at poor conditions.

So it's still operated at a level service D, which is two before you even get to unacceptable.

We did look at the option similar as last time to potentially doing a road diet and then doing a three-lane section with the turn lane.

There's enough traffic that it actually does degrade 36th Avenue, but it is an option in the future.

The city is always looking for opportunities to do a road diet and more bicycles.

Three-lane road diet would accommodate it would give you the term.

Exactly.

A lot of money.

They would not want to continuously widen.

I may remember last time, but the other option would be to widen that intersection at Willow Bend in Western View, correct, and add a middle left turn lane.

Yes.

Okay.

All right, thank you for that.

And then um and then my other questions are related to the library stuff too.

So they would be just a regular speaker, not a representative.

It's up to you if you want to allow that.

Ms.

Patton would she did sign up to speak.

Would you like to speak on behalf of the library?

Thank you.

Uh my name is Rebecca Patton.

I represent the Pioneer Library System, which owns the land at 300 Norman Center Court, uh, where the Norman West Branch Library is located.

My address is 765 ASS Suite 202 in Norman.

I ask that the PUD ordinance be revised to clearly incorporate the Planning Commission action approving the proposed site plan on the caveat that the access to the development won't be a shared driveway with the library.

I asked that the PUD ordinance expressly state this condition directly instead of by reference to an amendable site plan.

I also asked that the right-of-way closure be revised to exclude that sliver of Norman Center Court right-of-way at the entrance to the library driveway.

The plan regarding the PUD ordinance.

If the PUD ordinance simply expressly states no shared access across the library driveway, the standard is definite and is not left to interpretation.

The planning commission was attentive to the library's concerns and approved the applications with the caveat, as you'll see in the minutes from the planning commission, that access into the development won't be a shared drive with the library.

The applicant failed to include this language in the PUD ordinance after the planning commission meeting, or in response to the library requests.

So now we're making that request here.

Regarding the right-of-way closure, which is item 25 of the agenda, the right-of-way proposed for closure includes a portion of Norman City, Norman Center Court that provides access to the library driveway.

Easements are perhaps more significant in this development than in others.

The initial development was haphazard and problems have been fixed over the years with a series of easements relating to access.

The applicant has promised to follow up the right-of-way closure with a judicial action to vacate unspecified easements.

Closing the library's access to its driveway by closing the Norman City Center Court right-of-way and vacating the dedication to the city would be a significant problem.

So on behalf of Pioneer Library System, I asked the council to add a statement to the PUD ordinance that recognizes a prohibition against the use of the library property for access to the development.

And second, to require the applicant to amend its right-of-way closure to remove the piece of Norman City Court that provides access to the library driveway.

Doesn't really get to the point.

So I'd be glad to answer questions if anyone.

Okay.

And was your um was the draft wording given to planning directorate related to uh the ordinance associated with I'm saying was was your draft language or was draft language given to the planning directorate?

I I send it to everybody, yes.

I understand that the applicant prepares the PUD ordinance.

So then I turned to after the planning commission meeting and before the first reading here, I approached the applicant and said, attorney, and said, would you be willing to add the language to the ordinance?

And the response was we'll ask the applicant, and that was the last I heard.

They didn't do it, and and and the uh ordinance presented for first reading didn't include the language.

I understand that that Ms.

Smith is is aware of the uh requested uh addition to the ordinance.

Yes.

Um is the planning directorate aware.

I think so.

So a couple things.

When we were at Planning Commission, they made a on their motion, it said the caveat.

You've read it, I believe you've seen the emails from Ms.

Patton about the the motion that was made.

Okay.

So they made that as their motion, and that was recommended as approval to come forward to you.

In the ordinance, they did not recommend that it go in the ordinance.

That was in their motion.

If you, as counsel want to put that in the ordinance, then you can.

And yes, I'm very aware uh Ms.

Patton has sent me several emails.

She came in and visited with me uh in the very very beginning, and that was one of the things that we talked about.

The site plan that she saw was the original site plan that was submitted.

That one goes to uh the development review team, and we look at all of that, and those are when we send comments back to the applicant to say you have to change this, and that's what they did.

So it if if you want to see that in the ordinance, then council has to direct that.

So it's it's an anomaly to put something like this in an ordinance further clarification that uh that um that library land will not be built upon for an entrance.

That's correct.

And I also want to add that while the zoning code does allow there to be administrative changes.

They we do not allow them an applicant to all of a sudden go across somebody else's property.

That's not one of the administrative changes that can occur by any means.

But nothing prohibits it, nothing, I mean, if if it nothing nothing prohibits the addition of the language because it's a a moot, it is a it is a it's a point that would not be upheld by law.

Uh I mean would be uphill by law if the library's land was encroached upon.

Right.

And the site plan shows that there's no encroachment at this point, and that's what they have to develop with, and that's what's shown on the the preliminary plat as well.

And then any variation that may occur in the future related to plus or minus certain percent related to that entrance is allowed as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's property, the library's property correct.

There could be a small shift of a couple feet one way or the other, but not impacting negatively impacting in another uh person's property.

Uh thank you.

Uh my next question is really for Ms.

Smith.

Yep.

Uh Ms.

Smith.

Yes.

Ms.

Smith, have you if you had the time to read the recommended additions to the ordinance?

Yes, I have.

Do you have any concerns with it?

Yes, um, like Ms.

Hudson said, that this would be fairly unusual to kind of put in the PUD what is already not allowed by law.

Um, and we're concerned with unintended consequences when in the future, you know, title companies pull title commitments and see that there's a building restriction on this property.

Um, and we're concerned with our own development and with the library's development, where something weird like this in a PUD could raise concerns with the future of the properties.

Is there anything in the draft language that you would strike to take away those concerns?

Um overall, I think that generally we don't want to have anything that could be construed as constricting with existing law.

Um specifically the restriction against sub subsequent owners concerns us.

So the last line or the last few words, last four words or any subsequent owner is your concern.

In addition to just clouding the title of this properties.

Yeah, it's it what's meant to me, it's a point that well, if it's going to uh facilitate harmonious relationships with neighbors, why not?

I think it's polling title in the future where any time a title company title reviewer sees something out of the ordinary, it raises red flags.

Okay.

Council.

Councilmember Hinkle.

So really at the end of the day, we're we're viewing the library land as private property, and this is private property, and so one set of private property is not going to encroach on another private property because that's illegal.

Correct.

And so putting additional language into a precedent essentially is going to make it harder for this any either of these properties to do anything down the road when it comes to title work or potentially lending or deed exchange or any of those things that could happen down the road.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilmember Dixon.

Um I was gonna ask Jane, Scott, Rick, if the um Ms.

Patton's claim that the site plan can be changed administratively to incorporate other people's property, but it I think Jane answered that that doesn't seem to be correct.

The answer to that question is no.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilmember Gansbury.

To me, it looks like on this east side for sure, you know where the X's are on the map that was given and everything like that.

Also, I would hope that as a good faith that somebody could put something in writing that says that you know there won't be something going across that line, and also the aesthetic look of just the surrounding thing and knowing that the function that that private property serves for our community and everything like that, and the access point needing to be definitely defined there, and you know, possibly buses and things like that to go in and out of there also and everything like that that have to have better access exiting and entering the building and everything than having some kind of block in the way.

I would just hope that there would be some kind of good effort there put forward to try to find some kind of compromise in some kind of form rather than just so we'll settle itself later on.

I don't mind taking out that or any other property owner.

Any sense of a property owner that is what he suggested?

Let's uh let me let Ms.

Smith answer Councilmore Gansbury's question, then we'll I'm sorry, are you referring to the uh right-of-way closure?

Yes, on the east on the east side there, and that thing.

I mean to me, it seems like if I was an entity coming in and asking for a change and everything, and I had somebody such as the property owner as a public library being my tenant that's on the other side that the residents that's gonna live in the area are going to greatly appreciate having right there in the front yard that there's that room to work with them on making sure that accesses it be able to be had and everything, and I don't see why it's such a sticking point of why we can't come to some kind of conclusion on that to guarantee it for the future of both properties, you know, and everything like that, rather than leaving a legal limbo later on to be decided after the fact.

I've made some decisions recently on council that I made on that same theory of legal limbo, and it's now it's come back and bite me in you know, because it didn't work out legally afterwards, you know, and stuff like that.

So let me dive into the discussion a little bit too.

Uh you know, when we do uh well, just kind of talk at length here a little bit.

Today, I got it what's called a title objection letter.

In law, we get these things.

And when a property is being bought, commercial property by somebody else, they go deep into title commitments and title issues, and they look at all the ordinances and they look at all the backdrop information, and the buying attorney sends you a long letter.

It's called a title objections letter, and they tell you to fix these things, and what they're looking for is oddities, oddities that somehow make their client fearful that they can't do something.

Um I want to be very clear.

We are not fighting the library at all.

Immediately, when we were told that we had a mistaken drawing that showed the driveways connected, we immediately corrected it before playing commission.

What is frankly odd about this is that they are asking us to draft into a legal document a law, a PU that we can't trespass on their property.

They're asking us to write sort of a double law.

That becomes confusing to people.

Because as attorneys, we start asking, why is that sentence in there?

We already, as been said several times, we already can't go onto their property.

So why was that sentence rented into there?

That's how we attorneys think.

And so somebody's gonna start questioning why does it say we're not allowed to develop onto their property?

We know that.

So there must be a reason.

And so then the title objection letter comes, and we have to go figure that out.

One other issue is if these properties ever chose to do anything in combined fashion, they're redeveloping the east side of their property right now, and they chose to actually combine forces and do something together.

I don't know if they will or not, they couldn't just do it.

They'd have to come back through an entire rezoning process.

Because this would be a law that says they're not allowed to collaborate, they're not allowed to do anything together.

We'd have to go through a rezoning just to if they ever chose to combine driveways.

It's just frankly odd.

And there is no issue here.

I I respectfully uh disagree with Ms.

Patton.

I don't understand the issue at all as to why we're being asked to write into PUD that we can't break the law.

It doesn't make sense.

And for title attorneys and real estate people, we get very nervous about writing stuff into legal documents that will create oddities of title and record, because then bankers sometimes read that stuff too and say, I'm not going to loan millions of dollars on that property because I don't know what that provision means, but I'm not going to my loan committee and trying to explain later that it's somehow defaulted because there's a weird provision that says something doesn't make sense to me.

So I want to be very clear.

We're not fighting the library.

We love the library.

We love our neighbors.

But I have to protect my client from doing something very odd and out of ordinary practice on a PUD when we already addressed this.

We already dealt with this.

We already fixed this.

And I encourage you to ask your staff, Mr.

Sturts, Mr.

Knighton.

Is there any issue remaining here?

I'm not aware of any.

And I would encourage you to ask your legal professionals if they're aware of any.

I don't think there is any.

We're not fighting the library.

But I will fight oddities that are put against my client to say do this for no apparent reason that then potentially cause my client unindended consequences later on.

We will fight that.

That's not fighting the library, who is awesome to our community.

But I'm not going to let somebody junk up our title just because somehow they can't let it go.

They can't let it go that a drawing before was a mistaken and was already corrected, yet they want something else.

That's what we can't do.

I hope that makes sense.

Please.

And when we bought the borders building in 2011, we still had to go back and fix it.

And so there are mess that there's odd stuff in this title.

And this isn't going to be anything particularly unusual.

It may be unusual in the ordinary scope of things, but it's not unusual for this development.

And my client is willing to take the risk that our subsequent sale of the property, if this is a pro if this creates a title problem.

So I would ask that the Planning Commission's recommendation be incorporated into the zoning ordinance and that the right-of-way closure not be approved until the legal description for what's to be closed is corrected.

If the city council closes the right-of-way, and and then that sliver, then when we can't just leave it open like that.

So I would ask to include the language in the ordinance, strike that last clause about future owners, and don't approve the right-of-way closure, which is I which is agenda item 25 until we have the legal description corrected.

Thank you.

If I may mayor, uh that's the second issue.

She brought up a legal description.

What happened is once we corrected at their request the access point, there is a tiny, and I mean tiny, you may have seen it, she emailed it to you, but a tiny sliver of a legal description that just didn't get changed for the right-of-way vacation.

By law, when we vacate, they will own that sliver.

They will own that edge.

So we're not in control of that either.

It's again our issue.

Rick Brittany and I talked about this earlier today.

There's there's just no issue there again.

Uh, and that can be dealt with at uh district court level when we vacate, we we can correct that sliver legal description.

There's no real reason to deal with it at this point, is sort of the understanding I think I came to with the with the city attorney.

So again, really not an issue, and no reason to delay anything here.

These are, I guess what I would just say in general is this issue was up before Planning Commission, it was corrected at Plan Commission immediately, as soon as we learned of it.

It was corrected at Plan Commission immediately, as soon as we learned of it.

And that's really the end of it.

I don't know why this has continued on with emails and and constant uh pushing to correct something that's no longer an issue.

I just don't understand.

I love the library, they're awesome people, they're awesome for our community, but this is a non-issue.

Thank you.

Councilman Councilmer Grant.

Just I'm sorry, I'm sorry, we can't just turn it into a courtroom.

I'm sorry, between the two attorneys going back and forth.

Uh but you don't necessarily own that necessarily revert back to us because we bought a plan in law that's a good idea.

I understand Councilman Grant.

Uh yes, I would like to ask planning director Jane Hudson to answer a couple questions.

Yes.

Um so we established that it would be odd to put that in the uh SPUD ordinance.

But as I understand it, when things are laid out on the site plan and in the SPUD narrative, that you know, you that is enforceable.

Uh and it doesn't have to be in the ordinance to be enforceable.

Correct.

And again, I just want to reiterate one more time.

When that discrepancy was seen, that was at the development review team stage.

That was prior to planning commission.

That site plan that had the discrepancy on it was not sent to planning commission.

That was the staff's review that was during our review internal.

So the the discrepancy was never reviewed by planning commission or you um so if this were to be approved, what is on the site plan and what is in the spUD narrative would guarantee that the library access would remain and there would be no um encroachment or building upon their land.

Correct.

And then my next question is for Rick.

Uh with the issue with the row, is that something that could be amended?

Uh the issue with the what?

The right of way.

And that's and that sliver, is that something that can be amended on the floor, or is that that is really the issue with regard to the court.

When you a roadway is constructed, as a general rule, the city has an easement with regard to the adjoining property owner.

And once that once the city stops using it for that purpose, the lot reverts back to the original owner, the abutting property owner.

Um so in this set of circumstances, if that roadway was vacated, it should go back to the abutting property owner.

And just to follow up on what Mr.

Reger was saying, hopefully, to try to get this off high center.

The first issue with regard to developing on their property, that would be trespassing.

Our trespassing ordinance requires notice to the trespassing party either in writing or verbal.

There isn't anything that prohibits the library from sending the developer a notice saying don't trespass on my property.

Um if that were to occur, I'm not so sure that we could use a PUD narrative as the notice in order for us to be able to move forward with the trespass if that occurred.

We still would probably be saying you need to go back to the person that was trespassing and either in writing or verbally give them notice, and should it happen again, then we can move forward with your trespass.

So it really comes down to an issue of not necessarily the underlying conduct, but how does it get documented?

It could be documented in a simple letter saying you don't have a right to trespass on my property.

Um that takes it out of the chain of titles, so it doesn't create that issue, but it would give us the ability to um enforce that ordinance if something did happen to where there was an actual trespass, and actually that's probably the cleaner way to go because that's what we're gonna be looking for.

We're gonna be looking for something from the property owner saying I've given this person notice not to trespass.

Um and if you do it now, we already know you have notice.

If something happens and then you do it, we're probably gonna be saying, I'll probably can't prosecute you this time.

We're gonna have to wait till another incident occurs before we can do that.

And that seems like that would get that particular issue off high center, and you could move forward.

So if the library were to notice the developer now, then uh whenever if there should be a violation.

Yeah, and our preference would be to do it in writing.

I mean, that's why a lot of times for private property owners, we would request that they have a no trespassing sign because that's clear notice that you can't trespass on that property.

And obviously, there are occasions when you know if it's just verbal, well, one person gonna say I told you, and the other person's gonna say no, you didn't, and um that creates a dispute in court that sometimes is difficult for judges to resolve.

If it's in writing and it's delivered, that part of that particular prosecution is pretty easy to establish.

Okay, I appreciate the extra information.

Thank you.

Councilman Bruce, did you have yeah, I I've got a question for uh Sean.

So you mentioned a sliver of uh the sliver of land there for number 25.

So I'm I'm thinking this thing is 18 inches long to it was tiny.

Yeah, I I don't remember the exact dimension, but it's a foot wide little sliver.

Yeah.

And so what happens with that?

I mean, what was your recommendation on that?

Well, I think at district court we would amend the legal description so that it's not an issue in that way at all, is really what we would do and and correct the legal description so that there's no issue.

By the way, when we go to district court to do a vacation, we would correct the legal description, they would get notice again in district court vacation actions.

We have to re-notify everybody again.

The library would get notice again, and then they can come to court and I don't know what they would want to argue, but if they wanted to argue something again then court, they would have the right to do that.

It's another forum.

Uh we would simply clean up that legal description tiny little sliver.

I mean, if you saw the email from it was that's I don't know what the dimension is, but it is extremely tiny, and we would just simply clean it up then.

So and um I did also uh for either Sean or Libby um on the connection issue.

Uh can you show me the slide that shows the one that we already approved, the previous one the 2024 PED?

Yes, yeah, like that.

Yeah.

So this one um shows on here the actual trails connecting to the edge of the property line.

Um the new one doesn't at all.

So when you say that it will, there it's not in the drawings, it's not in writing.

Um there is an existing trail.

I don't know that it was constructed to be this way, but there is an existing trail from the edge of that call of the circle there that will be vacated that connects to a bridge over that pond that connects to Ed Noble Parkway right now.

So in your current site plan, you show the elimination of the connection actually, and do not show any current connection at all.

And what I see is a perimeter fence all the way around the property that will cut it off from being connected to any of the commercial around it, including the library.

So would be pedestrian access.

Um there are sidewalks throughout the interior and will be sidewalks along Willowbend and 36, which is required for any plat.

Um I'm not sure that the design of the sidewalks is finalized yet.

It'll kind of depend on how the landscaping and everything goes.

Um I don't think there are current plans to fence the whole property.

Uh it's just those vehicular access points that are gated because we do want walkability throughout the site.

Um and there are two embark stations right here.

Um so walkability was a big consideration with this design.

Yes, and um that driveway that we've been talking about that for the library, that south side of the library, um, the sidewalk on Norman Center Court terminates on the south side of that driveway at the entrance to where this property would be, or this development would be.

So would that with the development people living in these apartments would be able to walk to center court drive and walk to the library, right?

Right.

Okay, and then that existing connection on what's currently the track Norman Center Court roundabout, I guess, sort of roundabout, that's gonna be removed in this current plan.

There is an existing trail that goes from that to the pond across the top of the pond and connects to Ed Nowa Parkway right now.

So and then on the previous site plan it showed uh shows the trail connecting at least to the property line.

And so like you said, what happens on the other side if they maintain that or eliminate it, who knows?

But um that it at least is always there on this property side that that connection would be there.

And I definitely want to make sure that remains the case.

And so if we need to put it in writing or whatever we need to do just to make sure that stays the case.

Not that this existing trail has to be maintained exactly the way it is where it is, but that a connection to the east to Ed Noble Parkway is maintained somehow.

Yeah.

I'm not sure that that has been you know complicated, but we're definitely willing to do that.

Um but I don't know with that design since it's not finalized if we would want to uh put it in like that commitment.

So finalized as then you have to come back to us when it is ready.

I think that because if not, then I want to make sure it that you have to do it.

I want to make you do it.

Okay.

Yeah.

So I was just talking to Mohammed over here.

Mohammed Khan, you guys all know Mohammed with SMC.

So I think if I understood the question, mayor, is there will still be a sidewalk around the colour sec?

Is that the question correct?

Um in the original site plan, yeah.

There it shows the trails that are going around the pond connecting to the edge of the property to where it would connect to Ed Noble Parkway.

On the east side, you're saying over there.

Yeah, we can on the original one if you look just to the and right now at in the current condition on the edge of that roundabout that's on the on Norman Center Court Drive, there's a path there that already connects it to Ed Noble Parkway right now that you could walk across.

So we need to connect to that path is what you're saying.

Um I'm not saying you have to maintain the exact spot where that's at because your building might be in the way or whatever, but okay that that connection be maintained on your side of it anyway.

I'm gonna ask Mohammed to clarify that.

I think we could I wish there was a satellite picture we could show you right now.

Yeah, we don't have a good picture.

Mohammed Khan with SMC Consulting 85 West Main 73106.

So, like Sean earlier said there will be a pedestrian circulation throughout this development as well as around that call disect there.

Uh this is a gated community.

Uh so the idea is also provide privacy uh for the residents there.

Um the the connection uh even this exhibit illustrate that there would be connection to the sidewalk along Willow Bend and at anywhere where there is not a sidewalk along Willow Ban or 36.

We'll we'll construct that sidewalk there as well.

Yeah, Willowbend doesn't connect to Edinburgh Parkway though.

So that doesn't really address what I'm asking for.

Yeah, uh so walkability is a main uh objective for us as well.

So what you see here graphically may not be true representative of what final construction plans would look like.

So definitely there will be pedestrian circulation throughout uh around these detention pond as well as for the south of it it interior circulation is wonderful, but um this site needs to connect to Edenoba Parkway.

So I get that it's gated, but the original one that we approved already had that connection and we need to maintain it.

I see where you're talking about, Mayor.

On the right side, right by the lake, basically.

Is that what you're talking about?

Yeah, because we can show that.

Yeah, that's north of the room.

I was confused on where you were talking about.

I thought you were talking about up on Center Court.

But there's a sidewalk that comes in right north of that detention area that we can connect to.

Yes, and it's it's that's not a it's a gravel path now.

Yeah.

Uh and there's a dam in between the pond and the the rest of the pond that goes next to the river or the waterside restaurant.

Yeah.

And um so just maintaining a connection to Ed Nova Parkway, however, it needs to be done.

Um there's an existing one there, so ideally being able to preserve that connection.

I that'd be fine.

We can do that, yeah.

And if you want to, if it's a gate where the residents use it to go through it and whatever, but um that they have the the main point just being that residents of however many units you said uh 804 units that they'd be able to get to Ed Noble Parkway without having to drive all the way around the whole thing.

We're happy to commit that.

However, you want us to commit that if you want us to I don't know how it would need to be written or to just make sure that however you need to design it.

I don't want to lock you in on how you need to do it, but that a connection to the east to Ed Noble Parkway or to the property line be maintained.

Okay for the resident.

We could do it as a PUD amendment to put it in as a sentence in the pod.

We could we'd be happy to do that.

There's an access paragraph in the pod.

We could put a sentence in that says we shall maintain the sidewalk connection to Ed Noble Parkway.

Not sure I know what that how you would describe that, but just north of that detention point.

Yeah.

We can be great.

And your trait you got a trail going past there.

We've seen a little leg that continues over to the east.

We had it shown previously.

And yeah, the original one had that connection there.

So we can do that.

And like I said, that was a main highlight of the whole kind of the thing was the connectivity to the commercial area and all that.

So I just wanted to get that out there.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Kahn.

Um, there's potentially there was um a tip potential amendment for that to just have that.

No, no.

We haven't done public comment.

Right.

And then um I also did just want to read the motion from the planning commission in regard to that stuff was made by Commissioner McDaniel, and it was to approve the caveat that the drive will not be shared with binary library section system.

And that was um approved by the planning commission.

So okay.

Um let's look at some.

Are there any, let's see, this is an opportunity for members of the public to make comments regarding this item.

Madam Clerk, is anyone signed up to speak on this item?

Uh yes, Mayor.

Caroline Dunworth.

Dolworth, excuse me.

Hello.

I didn't mean to make this much of a fuss over this, but the the main part about a library is access and people coming and going.

And that library in particular, people tend to come in and go.

Um they come around to drop books off, and that particular drive, which may look just like um a back alley or something to you, is now going to become even more important because we have put in some outdoor programming space because we tried to do outdoor programming space on a hot asphalt, and it doesn't work well.

So we put that in, and now that is actually blocking uh an additional way that people could have gone around the building.

Uh we didn't know this was coming when we planned that.

We just thought this would be a great place to do that.

It separates staff parking from public parking.

But now a uh customer will come in to that parking lot, and if they're dropping off books, they're gonna come around to that back.

Uh in addition, trucks and buses and all the other things, and we get semis full of books.

They come two to three times a week.

They actually come in that way and have to back in, and then they have to turn around and and come back out.

So our biggest concern was not that you guys are gonna trespass or build some little thing on our on our land.

It is that people coming and going out of that area won't be blocked by cars waiting for a gated community, or the way it is now, if you've ever seen it, some cars will turn right and go around the thing, and some people go uh really in the opposite direction.

It it's not clear which direction you're supposed to really go.

And I just think this complicates it if they're if they're so close and the gates are so close that cars are sitting there waiting to get into a a gated community and we have cars and trucks going out.

That was our main concern.

It's just it's just the access to um what's gonna become a busier road.

So thank you.

Thank you for listening to me.

Yes, thank you.

Russell Rice uh Russell Rice word too.

I have actually spent a lot of time back there.

Um I volunteer for a nonprofit that works with the unhouse.

And uh there's there's some of them back there, so the library is super important.

Uh it is one of the only places the unhoused can be uh legally during the daytime in the summer and the winter.

And with the main one closed, it's you know, it's difficult.

So doing whatever possible to keep making sure this thing stays open is very high on our priority list.

So if they're going to avoid the library and build the rest of the thing without asking for any TIFF or taxpayer monies, let them do it.

Like it's the correct way to do development, right?

Buy the land, you develop the land, sell the land, profit instead of making the city pay for it first.

Uh thank you.

Have a good day.

Thank you.

Chelsea gravel.

Chelsea Gravel Word 4.

Um, that was a really long hour to talk about 18 inches.

Um please do what you can for our library.

Our libraries are very important to the city of Norman.

We only have two now.

Uh our east and west are tiny in comparison to our three-story that's closed over here.

They please do what you can.

Put this in the ordinance, make sure that we are being held accountable.

Our poor library, I don't know if you guys are library goers.

Life is really busy, and we all only have 24 hours in a day.

This library has gone above and beyond over on the West Side, East Side, West Side, they are doing great.

Norman should be so proud of our libraries.

And all we can do as citizens is to support what our public providers are doing with our police, with our libraries.

One of my questions, though, for this issue is a trespass enforcement agreement.

That could also be used in this case, potentially to maintain people, keep staying off the property.

You wouldn't have to write a written notice to keep people off your property.

It's already in written whenever you have the trespass enforcement agreement, so people wouldn't be able to park in this spot.

Maybe that would be an option for our library to get to use, so they're not having to actually write a don't block this for our deliveries and such.

Yeah, I just really really listen to what our library is saying here.

These are some really important conversations they are having.

They are bringing up some really important topics, and I don't think that they have been given open communication with the steps of this process.

I'm really starting to see that is that there is a problem whenever we're coming into this of developing our land where we all need to be working together, and our library would like for you guys to work with them.

And we've already spent an hour on 18 inches.

Don't you think that an hour wasn't worth this conversation?

Like it's super important.

But a trespass enforcement agreement or a quick no would also suffice.

So don't block my driveway.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Carlinda.

Carlinda Gravel, Ward 4.

So we're discussing a problem that could result in a court case after the fact.

That doesn't seem right.

That we have pertinent information that is obviously a problem, that all the information was not brought to you.

So we have some serious issues on this topic, and why is why has this happened?

Because by the time it comes to you, you're the last line of defense.

All this should have already been identified.

And I certainly don't understand why we're identifying a problem and then talking about going to court after the fact instead of resolving it now.

I mean, we found it.

I I want to know what the legal aspects are of needing it to be resolved now instead of saying, oh, well, we know there's a problem, you're just gonna have to go to court to deal with that later.

Is that not what you guys are here for?

Is when you find issues uh with something that needs to be resolved, that is it something we should resolve instead of saying, because what's gonna happen is if we solve it now, there doesn't have to be legal fees.

If the library belongs to the city, I know we have a city attorney team, but we're gonna have legal fees.

We have to pay for those.

We have to pay for court costs, we have to pay for all that.

We have a team of a planning commission that knows good and well what they're doing.

We we have a lot of experts in our city that know how to solve this problem.

There should never be an issue ever that comes to your to you that has a plan to go to court later.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Did Stephen Ellis make it?

Okay, that's all I have, Mayor.

Anyone else from the audience who has not spoken on this item that would like to speak on it?

Please.

Cindy Rogers Ward 4.

Well, since my bestie isn't here, I'm gonna do his PUD uh reminder.

So my version.

Remember that a PUD is special permission zoning to do something different than what you would be allowed to do otherwise.

So with it comes strings.

And I I guess I was a little bit confused by the idea of constraining future owners of what they can do.

I mean, that's exactly what a PUD is for, to provide assurances to the property owners that might be impacted.

So I I don't know the nuances of what it does to title stuff, but I understand the nuances of of assurances for neighbors and why we set up PUDs and let people work things out.

So I appreciate the comments and I appreciate um.

I really think the walkability, the connectivity part of that needs to be in writing so that we make sure that happens.

If we want our town to be connected and people to walk and move about without their cars, you gotta make it so.

Um and there's already a nice path connecting there, so a couple paths.

I think the library definitely needs to be protected because you know we've all seen those developments where it's not really a road, but the developer left some gravel, and then people use it for an access point and it becomes a problem.

Uh the developers like it's not me, people are gonna do what they're gonna do.

So I think we need to be very mindful of that situation.

I've seen that happen about, but um, I think asking for particular assurances in a PUD document is completely appropriate since a PUD is special permission zoning.

Um the idea that oh, if they want if the property owners want to agree about it later, they have to come back for rezoning.

Absolutely, that's why you do PUDs because if you want to change something, you have to come back and work it out and go through the process.

So I don't see that as a reason not to put uh some simple requests about XR assurances in writing at this point in time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else that would like to speak that has not spoken on this item?

Uh Ms.

Patton, do you have any final things?

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Are there any final comments from council regarding this item?

And Councilmember Dixon.

Um Mr.

Mayor, I would like to uh propose a um kind of friendly amendment on the uh walkability portion.

Um in section three.

Um I'd like language that says pedestrian access shall be provided to the eastern edge of the property for future pedestrian access to Ed Noble Parkway.

Okay.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All right, motion and a second.

Is there any council comment on that proposed amendment?

Seeing none.

Is there any public comment on the proposed amendment to uh put in writing the pedestrian access to the Ed Noble Parkway?

Please thank you.

Okay.

Any final comment from council on the proposed amendment?

Okay.

Then motion for B to adopt.

So the motion on the floor is to adopt the amendment as stated by council member Dixon, which is to amend Section 3 C point five to add the language.

Pedestrian access shall be provided to the eastern edge of the property to provide for future pedestrian access to Ed Noble Parkway.

Okay.

You may vote.

All right, council members, you may cast your votes.

Hang on.

All right.

And the motion to the motion passes by a vote of seven to one on the amendment voting against uh council member Kirby.

Okay.

And the motion on the floor is to adopt the ordinance on second reading.

Are there any other comments or anything by council?

Yes, seeing none.

As amended.

As amended, the motion on the floor is to adopt the ordinance on second reading section by section as amended.

Council members, you may cast your votes.

All votes have been cast in the motion to adopt the ordinance on second reading section by section as amended, passes by a vote of seven to one with council member Kirby voting against.

Uh Councilmer Cansbury.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see that.

I apologize.

I'm sorry.

Um, by a vote of six to two with council member Kirby and Councilmember Gandisbury voting against.

And I'll entertain a motion to adopt or reject the ordinance on final reading.

So approved.

Is there a second?

Okay.

The motion on the floor is to adopt the ordinance on final reading.

Council members, you may cast your votes.

All votes have been cast and the motion to adopt the ordinance on final reading passes by vote of six to two with council member Kirby and Councilmember Gandisbury voting against.

All right.

Item 25 is ordinance 0-2526-46 cloing closing a specific portion of the right-of-way for Norman Center Court located in Strawberry Lake Section 2 in Norman.

I'll entertain a motion to adopt or reject the ordinance on second reading section by section.

Second.

There is a companion item.

This this is a companion item to the previous item.

Would the representative of the of the applicant like to say anything else?

Okay.

And are there any questions from counsel regarding this item?

Seeing none.

Okay.

This is an opportunity for members of the public to make comments regarding this item.

Madam Clerk, is there anyone signed up to speak on this item?

Ms.

Mayor, Stephen Ellis.

Rebecca Patton.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but um the the notion that we can leave this space uh in limbo really doesn't work because um because there's all these easements um that affect the area and the notion that it goes back to the owner if the right-of-way is closed doesn't solve the problem because I don't think we know who the owner is in this case.

Um so I would ask that the right-of-way closure be deferred until they can bring uh a corrected legal description of the uh the right-of-way area to be closed.

Thank you.

Uh Caroline Dalworth.

Okay.

Uh Russell Rice.

You Chelsea Gravel?

Carlinda.

I agree with her.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's all, Mayor.

Anyone else from the audience that has not spoken on this item that would like to speak?

Seeing none, okay.

Are there any final comments from council regarding this item?

Councilmember Bruce.

I just want to clarify and point from Sean Rigor.

Remind me again, how the how is this resolved that this footprint of a area?

Of the sliver that we're talking about?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So the sliver, let me try to explain as best I can.

So when the access point was changed, so the legal description of the of the vacation of the right-of-way uh of the of the land area that would be vacated as a public right-of-way was based on the drawing that basically was previously corrected.

What didn't get corrected was the legal description.

So it left a slight when they changed that access point.

Uh when they change that access point right there to that, which is what corrected everything.

The legal description, I never have a pointer on this thing, but the legal description of that little sliver of the vacation of the area didn't get corrected.

It's a minor thing.

It's almost what we would call a scrivener's error in the law.

But in this two-step process, and we had this conversation today with the city attorney.

Uh that can be corrected in the district court proceeding.

And a comment was made earlier that you know there's no need to go sue each other.

I think I hope that's not what was said.

We have to go to district court when you vacate an easement.

We're not suing the library.

That was said by a citizen, I think.

We're not suing the library, and you did something wrong.

We did more.

It's it's called a vacation district court action.

It's a friendly lawsuit that through by state statute to vacate that right-of-way, which is owned by the public.

You the public don't have the right to just sign a deed over to anybody.

Has to go through district court.

First through here, then through district court.

Everybody's re-notified.

And the legal description is what's used in the district court action as the legal document that vacates that easement.

That's where it truly matters.

And so that's where it would be corrected, is in that court proceeding.

And so we would correct the legal description, then it would be re-notified to everybody in the area, everybody within 350 feet, and then they would be able to verify again that we've done it right, and then the court would hear any arguments against that.

Usually in those easement vacations, OG, Cox, uh ATT always writes letters into the court saying they want to preserve easements or things like that.

Anyone can do that, even neighbors can write into the court or appear in court in front of the judge and say we think they have this wrong and can block us in that regard.

I've had that happen before, whether neighbor showed up in a vacation action and said, hey, I don't agree with that.

And we can go through a basically a trial proceeding to see if the court thinks it's wise or not.

So that's a long answer to your question, but that's how that would be resolved is through a simple correction of the legal description, and in the district court filing, it would be filed correctly.

And we're talking about a tiny little sliver of land that I think you saw.

So that's how it would be correct.

Okay.

See none.

Okay.

Um what would um if we is it possible to postpone this for that action to take place and then come back?

What would be the implications of that?

Postpone for the district court action to happen first.

We can't do that.

Okay.

As did you see you need us to do this before you can do that?

Correct is what you're saying.

Um the comment from Ms.

Patton about close or postponing closing the right-of-way postponement until the scriveners are error could be fixed.

Uh we'd have to come back and uh revote on it.

I guess we can get you that the legal description changed if that's if that's if you just want the corrected legal description.

I think we maybe have it.

Did you fix it today?

We can make an amendment to take the ordinance.

Okay.

As amended, just like before.

Okay.

I mean, this was right before the meeting.

We learned this issue today.

And so we have the correct legal description.

I don't know that your staff has seen it yet or reviewed this yet.

So uh I wouldn't want them, but I think you wouldn't want your staff to review that first too.

So uh so we haven't corrected just nobody's seen it yet.

It was just done today.

So uh I don't know if you want to what's it uh would you read that or would you mind reading it?

It's a meets and bounds, so it's the long version.

Okay, yeah.

Um I could read it to you, but it wouldn't make any sense to me or you, and so it is a portion of the existing right-of-way beginning at the southeast corner.

Well, yeah, etc.

But yeah.

Go ahead, Mohammed.

Okay.

Uh again for the record, Mohammed Khan.

I'll let Sean read the legal description.

But uh this legal description contains what is going to be corrected and what is along on frontage.

So again, I would just say from my perspective that we're not going to encroach on any other's property.

And if any right-of-way is vacated, the record owner of the property is entitled to a return of their right-of-way.

Uh yeah.

So what you want to read is one option.

Uh, we could take a brief recess and allow the attorneys to take a look at that.

Or we could postpone until two weeks.

Um, but if there's a thought that they could maybe figure this out in the next 10 minutes or so or 15, whatever, and uh get that hashed out, and then we can do an amendment to it right here and not make you come back, but whatever the council might.

Councilmer Gansbury.

Okay, I would think it would be only appropriate for the other side's legal to be able to look at it as well in a group setting.

I would agree if that's we don't have a problem with the recess.

We would appreciate that very much if if you would appreciate that if you would allow us that opportunity tonight.

Okay, member councilmer Kirby.

Mr.

Mayor, I would like to know if we would offer the same courteousness to every other resident in Norman, or if it's only because of the particular person that we're offering it to.

Yes.

Um, I'd be willing to offer this to anybody if there was a uh scrivener error like this that could be corrected like this, then yes, um, I would be.

And uh and I appreciate that comment because I agree we need to make sure that we're consistent if anybody else were to come up, whether it's just because it's a library or because they have Mr.

Riga representing them, um, shouldn't matter in that regard.

So uh whatever the council would prefer to do in this regard.

Councilmember Gansbury.

Rather than maybe taking a break, coming back and realizing there's still work to be done and wasting everybody's time that's an audience for other things other than this tonight and stuff, maybe.

I I would respectfully request that the plenary plaque be approved.

I think that that item and the zone the zoning has been approved.

So uh all we're talking about is the vacation of easement legal description, I believe.

So just this item.

Yeah, so I I'm okay with that.

Okay, I understand that.

I don't want to push anybody into a quick decision.

We never want to do that.

So I I totally respect that.

Um, but the plenary plan I think is not relevant to this item.

I wouldn't respectfully request that that be considered tonight.

Um I'm open to whatever the council would like to do.

Councillor Hinkle.

Is that what you want to do?

In the interest of the title work being cleared up this morning, it's just title work or uh just a legal description, so it's not groundbreaking information.

I mean, it's something that's going to be redone before the final mortgage and everything is filed anyway.

So if both parties are in agreement to take a fifteen minute recess where they can review the title work that was completed today, then that would be my motion.

Okay.

Then we will take a recess for 10 minutes, come back and uh if we can't, then we will postpone or we'll go from there.

We are in recess for 10 minutes.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Everybody's back.

Scott.

Scott.

He was just here.

How did he do that?

Just waiting on Scott.

He probably went back for one piece case.

There we go.

How we go.

Sorry.

Oh right.

All right, we'll go ahead and resume.

Um let's see, where should we pick up there?

Um so we we just finished up uh the final comments for council.

So I don't know if there's uh if anyone wants to make an amendment or a motion.

Would uh yeah, please.

What transpired?

Yeah.

Follow-up.

All right.

Um first of all, we thank you guys so much for the recess.

Um we met with staff and um the library's attorney and we did reach an agreement um to amend the legal description with this um new legal description.

So if you don't mind, I would love to propose some language.

Please.

Okay.

Um we would propose to amend the attachment A as shown on page eleven twenty-three of your packet and also amend paragraph four of ordinance number twenty-five twenty-six-forty-six to reflect the amended right-of-way closure description.

Do you have that in writing?

Thank you.

Do I have a motion to amend?

Um amended item.

Is there any questions or comments from council on this amendment?

Seeing Council Murganzbury.

I'd just like to say that thank both parties and legal for taking that fifteen minutes for those that are here for other things that might be coming up later.

Thank you for holding on and everything.

Like somebody said, you know, an hour of getting somewhere, but it feels good knowing that we're getting to conclusion that works for the parties that are involved in this situation.

So I think it's a very well 15 minutes span.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

So the motion on the floor is to amend attachment A, page eleven twenty-three of the packet and also amend paragraph four of ordinance oh two five two six dash four six to reflect the new right-of-way description, legal description.

And um this would be an opportunity for anybody in the public in the audience to speak on this amended or this amendment.

Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this amendment?

Saying none.

Okay.

Any final comments from council on the am item as amended?

Seeing none.

Okay, then council members, you may cast your votes on the item as or on the amendment.

On the amendment.

All votes have been cast in the motion to adopt the ordinance on second reading section by section as amended.

Or I'm sorry, excuse me.

All votes have been cast and then the amendment.

The amendment passes by a vote of eight to zero.

Sorry, it's good enough.

Okay.

Okay.

And then the motion on the floor is to adopt the ordinance on second reading as amended, section by section.

Council members, you may cast your votes.

All buts have been cast in the motion to adopt the ordinance on second reading as amended section by section passes unanimously.

I'll entertain a motion to adopt or reject the ordinance on final reading.

As amended.

As amended.

Second.

Motion to adopt.

And a second, the motion on the floor is to adopt the ordinance on final reading.

Council members, you may cast your votes.

And a motion to adopt the ordinance on final reading as amended passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Item number 26, a revised preliminary plat for Bob Moore Farms, a planned unit development locate generally located one quarter mile south of West Main Street on the east side of 36th Avenue Southwest.

I'll entertain a motion to approve or reject the preliminary plat.

Second.

This is a companion item to the previous two items.

Would the representative of the applicant like to make any further presentation?

Okay.

And this is an opportunity for members of the public to make comments regarding this item.

Madam Clerk, is anyone signed up to speak on this item?

Yes, Mayor.

Stephen Ellis.

I'm going to pass.

I have your Rebecca Patton.

No.

Caroline Dolworth.

None.

Russell Rice.

Chelsea Gravel.

Carlinda Gravel.

That's all I have, Mayor.

Anyone else from the audience that hasn't spoken on this item like to speak on it?

Seeing none?

Okay.

Are there any final comments from council regarding this item?

Seeing none.

Okay.

All right.

The motion on the floor is to approve the preliminary plat.

Council members, you may cast your votes.

All right.

Item 27, a resolution amending all affected maps within the AIM comprehensive plan and any of the seven district distinct improved plans in order to update affected maps with the most recent demonstrated alignment of the access Oklahoma termpikes according to the information announced by the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority.

I'll entertain a motion to adopt or reject the resolution.

Motion to adopt second.

The planning department.

So we'll just go over those.

So the first one is the character area map.

Hopefully it's easier to see on your screens, but the new alignment is shown on each of these in our uh future land use map.

The future land use map with the transportation uh hierarchy overlaid.

This is the transportation map, and then the project priority map in the transportation plan.

So uh pretty short and sweet.

There's also um a new disclaimer under the maps that would replace the one that previously said that we would update with any new map.

But essentially that uh should the a new announced or a new alignment be announced, we would come back and do it again.

So are there are there any questions or comments from council regarding this item seeing none?

Okay, and then this is an opportunity for the public to make it.

I think Councilmember Kirby, yeah, question.

So even though this is still involved in lawsuits and is not written in concrete, we're gonna change it every time the OTA decides to shift it a little bit one way or another.

Um is that is that the plan, number one, and two, is there a way to get an exact guesstimation of what this route is running?

Like if we're at Alameda, is it a sixteenth of a mile east, uh quarter of a mile east from 48th, uh half a mile.

I mean, you got a lot of people gonna be in the path of this, and like I said, it's still in the lawsuit.

Nobody agrees with it, so I'm trying to figure out the exact reason why we need to portray it into a map on the City of Norman aim plan when it could change.

I mean, we we've had the one that runs uh north and south over off the 8472nd area got changed after everybody said it won it, and it did, and now there's still a lot of legality going on over there at the river, and we're gonna dot this line down across here.

And I just want to know why.

I mean, why are we wasting the time to draw on a line that could a hundred percent change with the uh case at the at the court level um since these are planning documents, people look at these before they buy property or just to kind of see what's going on?

Um so the committee thought it would be best to keep everything up to date so when people are looking at this, they have the most current information.

So whatever OTA puts out, yes, we would be updating it uh if they were to change it.

I don't know if Scott might have a little more info about your question about it.

It just seems kind of like some unnecessary stress.

I mean, I don't out of all the houses I've ever bought, I checked the school district, I've checked a lot of things, but the thing I never did was pull an aim plan and go, hmm, wonder what this town's gonna do with this aim plan over the next 20 years that could or could not happen.

Uh but I do see it that now people could spend every waking minute of every day staring at that road, wondering if it's gonna come through their house, and it's adding a lot of stress.

I would think about people in the route that don't need to be added because this might not even come through there.

Uh for four years, my family worried if it was gonna run right through them when it was over 72nd and 84th, and then it got moved.

People built new houses and moved on the aspect that it was gonna come right through their house because that's what they said, and then it moved.

So now, you know, they moved their whole life after 25 years because the turnpike said, hey, we might run through there, and the court said, hey, no, you can't.

So I'm just wondering as a city, why are we taking the uh route for the turnpike through a possible route that it might not even make it when we've already been proven it's been moved before uh I think the only response I have for that is the committee asked us to keep it updated.

Uh and that was in the plan that was adopted by council, so we are doing as directed to the AM committee.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Blodgett.

Um yes.

Um I want to uh sympathize with uh council member Kirby, and as you all know, I um don't ever vote in support of anything OTA is trying to do because I do sympathize with Ward 5 and anyone affected.

However, I don't really think that that's the issue uh today, right now.

I think that um it is important for planning um uh department to keep everything current and up to date.

So if people are trying to possibly move in the path where the turnpike is gonna go, they need to know that up front.

And I do realize it it changes a lot.

I realize that.

But I do think that everyone in the public knows that the turnpike um is happening in Norman, and so I do believe um that if they were to they were gonna move to Norman, that is that is definitely one of the things that they would consider when trying to choose their home.

And so um uh I think it is I'm in support of this because I think it's very important to keep these maps uh current and and it's not gonna make or break the um term pike, unfortunately.

Um that's not what we're voting on, and I wish that we were.

And so um for that reason I'm I am definitely in support of y'all keeping everything current.

Thank you.

Okay.

This is an opportunity for members of the public to make comments regarding this item.

Madam Clark, is anyone signed up to speak on this item?

Yes, Mayor.

Uh Stephen Ellis.

Skeevelis Ward 4.

Sorry I was late today.

Uh I want to start by emphasizing uh the first point that Councilmember Blodgett discussed was just in general cooperation with the OTA is a bad deal for the city of Norman because I think it makes it more likely uh that they will uh do the turnpikes to the way that they want to because they are gonna be perceived as the city of Norman cooperating them.

I think it's important that the city of Norman withdraw cooperation to the extent possible.

I know that caps out of the bag a little bit, but uh I think that helps people who are pushing against the turnpike.

Uh but the second point actually, I think um uh uh echoes Councilmember Kirby's point a little bit more, uh, which is that there's uh actually a tremendous amount of uncertainty here, especially given that Norman does in fact have cards to play, at least about the nature and character of the turnpike, right?

We're gonna ask them to do certain kinds of things, we're going to make sure that they comply with our uh rules and regulations, and I think that just their unilateral planning for where they're gonna slap a road across Norman is highly uncertain.

And I I get the point that we want people to be able to look forward and see what's possibly gonna change, but given that we're not all that certain about how things are gonna go, it could be quite misleading for them.

And I think at a minimum, the city of Norman should say, look, we should have, I mean, we should have a map that we keep about where the turnpike is proposing to go.

So I don't think we should be misleading about anything.

If somebody comes to Norman and says, hey, what's the deal over here?

We should let them know what the proposal is.

But I don't think our planning documents should reflect anything other than our planning.

And um, I don't I don't think we should uh accept impositions from the OTA on our planning documents.

Uh you know, I I think there should be something on the planning documents that says, oh, also, you know, check our map of where OTA says they're gonna go.

But we're we're not signing on to this.

I think that's actually kind of important for the people who are still continuing to fight the turnpike.

So my suggestion is not, oh, let's pretend like it's not coming.

We know that there are lots of fights ahead about where it's gonna go, how it will work, but uh I don't think that we should write it into our planning documents in a way as like, hey, this is what we think should happen, right?

Our planning documents are largely aspirational.

Our aspiration should be to not have the damn turnpike.

So let's act like that when we do our planning documents.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Russell Rice.

Uh Russell Rice word two.

Some of you guys, ladies and folks were elected with the promise that you guys would not have the turnpike.

So let us not capitulate anything.

You don't give up water wells for any amount of money.

I know there's more to it than everyone thinks, but you don't capitulate.

You don't you don't give them an inch because they're going to take a mile.

They wanted the wells, they got the wells.

Next, they just want to ease their maps in.

What's next?

Do they buy in the sheriff's department lunch because they can't afford it?

Uh or does it stop?

Right.

You gotta quit giving gotta go given that inch because you're gonna take two miles.

Do not give them anything.

Make them take it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kelsey Gravel, Carlinda Gravel.

Carlinda Gravel word for I agree with you.

I believe we should give property owners the same opportunity that developers and investors have.

I am a property owner and in my own property here in the city of Norman.

And as not a wealthy person, those of us who are not wealthy need to know what our opportunities are for this massive 30-year investment.

Takes 30 years to pay house off.

They're thinking about extending it longer than that.

Property owners need to know what they're getting into.

There's a lot more now than we've ever had, right?

We only had like commercial zonings and residential zonings, and then we had our roadways.

This is pretty basic.

Things are very complicated.

I'm gonna go a step further.

I think you should do a mail out.

You should do a mail out to everybody in the city.

You've already seen what you've dealt with with the zoning that comes up here.

Nobody even knows we have new zoning laws.

You come up here, there's the cut the code is changed for parking, the code has changed.

We need to know about that.

All of the property owners need to know if they're gonna put $500,000 of their life savings earning into a property that's dead once they buy it, or if you buy a property and a business is going in next door, or you buy a property and you got good green space, and ADUs are going in next door.

You have you you've you're doing a disservice from the sit for the citizens to not let people who want to buy into Norman.

What might happen is if we don't do it, people might think, oh no, I'm staying completely away from there because the turnpike's going in and I don't know where.

And I will not invest my money into a place that could be determined dead or a bad investment.

So I think it's a wise decision to do this, and I would ask you to take it a step further and do a mail out.

Make sure you've contacted every citizen in the city of Norman to let them know what has changed with the zoning in their neighborhood, so they also can plan ahead.

What kinds of changes have been made?

Because people don't know, and then when you do go to do something, they come up here and they're mad.

They don't have to be mad if you let us know ahead of time.

So I think it's a great idea.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's all I have, Mayor.

Anyone else from the audience who has not spoken on this item that would like to, please come on up.

I came on time but did not sign up in advance.

Uh Cindy Rogers, still ward four.

Um so I guess my concern, and this is tangentially related directly to this item.

I was on the AIM uh housing subcommittee, and you know, we started with a map that had turnpike's roots on it, and that absolutely influenced what happened in the AIM process.

So I I agree that you should give people a heads up of what might happen, but I think this challenges us, and I know the next item is related to that, um, to rethink what happened in the AIM process, which was based on you know, a different alignment of the turnpike in the north-south part.

And um, thankfully it's a living document, and we can change it, but I think that needs to happen because if you're planning and your zoning and the decisions you're gonna make is influenced by where you think the turnpike is gonna be, then changing that is gonna change those decisions as well.

So um, I'm inclined to uh I guess agree with with my uh with with Dr.

Ellis.

Sometimes I agree with them that uh alerting people to where the turnpike we think it will be is appropriate.

I I'm not sure that putting it on our city zoning maps isn't uh some way of being complicit with the turnpike.

So I mean, I'm I'm not paid the big bucks to sit up there, but I think I would vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, please.

Sorry, my allergy meds have already worn off for the day.

Um I I'm not really sure what I want to say about this.

I know I'm not for the turnpikes in any way, and I know that we're talking about this that goes down here, but we also have everything that goes above, and we have access roads that are going to be built, and we have changes in the traffic coming off of the turnpike and going down into the rest of Norman on I-35, and we have new things constructed.

So there's a lot of people involved in a lot of different ways besides just what's gonna be running north and south here.

But I think that putting a map up gives the wrong impression, and people get their hopes up and then they get their hopes down.

And I think at some point in this process, we need to start looking at taking the maps that they're giving us and putting them, putting them on top of a mapping something like in Onyx or some of these other things where you can you can already go and see who the property owners are on the maps, who's got that stuff.

Take these maps and actually overlay them to scale so that if you're gonna publish something instead of having it something like this, have the turnpike authority show you legal descriptions.

You know, this is gonna be a hundred feet, you know, from the east half of the northwest quarter or whatever to a hundred and twenty feet proceeding north and then going down from whatever and doing that.

But I think that having stuff like this is a scare tactic, and it's not good for the people that live in any of these areas that are being affected.

And I think at some point we do need to look at putting an overlay down, having the turnpike authority putting it on scale so we can take it and overlay it, and people have a better idea until such time as the turnpike authority is mandated to put notices on property so that when you buy it, it's kind of like an easement or something that this is a pro in the area of a proposed turnpike, which they have the ability to do but have not done so far.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further public comment on this item?

Seeing none.

Okay.

Are there any final comments from council regarding this item?

Councilmember Grant Council Morgan?

Councilman uh Grant, and then Gasbury.

All right, yes.

Uh I I'm in support of having the maps reflect the most current information.

Um to council member bodgett's point.

This isn't litigating whether a turnpike is allowed or not.

It is just for public information.

And I would say that we also had this discussion with the town hall with primarily Ward 5 and the AIM committee explaining why we were even doing the maps, which was that we could not ignore the fact that the turnpike um had alignments out, and I think it was really wise to say that as that changes it.

We should change it in our um Norman document.

Um, and I don't know if it was put out there or not, but the next couple items have been pulled.

Uh so as this continues to develop, um, I think we'll see that our aim norman document evolves.

That's it.

Council McGansbury.

Yes, I'd just like to say that.

Being one that deals a lot with mental health and his profession, I do know that I've talked to a lot of people that are in this direct line and the PTSD that it causes them daily, knowing that they're in the line, then one day they're not in the line, then they're in the line, all that stuff like that.

I know that there's certain clients that I have that live out in that area that will look at this map every day with that PTST stress.

There's other ways to find this information.

I understand the city's need for it to be there from a city standpoint, but just for those people that I know personally out there that will struggle with this, I'll be a no tonight.

Um similar feeling as my colleagues.

Um our current map shows the previous alignment that the OTA had published, and since then they've changed it and have a new published alignment, and um having it lightly shaded to show people where an official state document shows it being as proposed.

I can see uh councilmer Gansbury's standpoint, people could look at that and uh feel a certain way.

Others that may be looking at property in that area may want to see this map and see that this is this is what is proposed officially in that area.

So I think it's a good idea for us to show at least lightly shaded what the plans that OTA has published for those reasons.

So I I think it's a good idea to keep it current for as long as it exists as an official document anyway.

Um so with that, if there's any other final comment on it, Councilmer Kirby.

I just want to remind everybody of the point that the last time we put that north-south on a map immediately after a substation was filed to be built, and we spent the next two years, and now a substation is being built on somebody's front door, and that substation was not announced until after we put the path on the map and kind of gave them an idea of right where that might be going.

So just want to note that that was imminent domain that took them people's property because somebody thought a turnpike could go there and now it's not.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

All votes have been cast in the motion to adopt a resolution passes by a vote of six to two with council member Gandisbury and Councilmember Kirby voting against.

All right.

And items 28 and 29 have been withdrawn from staff.

Um of the city by adding a new section to Article 32-6 impoundment of vehicles titled record services.

I'll entertain a motion to adopt or reject the ordinance on second reading section by section.

Motion to adopt I would like to recognize staff to make a presentation about this.

Whoever it may be.

Currently, we have four tow services on our record rotation list that allows you to do either by rotation or you can call the record service closest to where the vehicle is to be towed.

We use a record rotation.

We have four record services on this rotation.

Three of them are up north off of Rock Creek Road.

The other one is down south off of Classen.

That's actually located in Newcastle.

It's across the river, just across from the casino.

And the difficulty that the police department was having was the notion of towing somebody's vehicle involuntarily and then having them have to go not only outside the city limits to pick up their vehicle, but also having to go outside the county because that tow service is actually located in McLean County.

We talked about it in a study session, and council's sort of directive was to give the police department the ability to create those rules so that they can require that a tow service that's on this police department's record rotation actually have an impound lot in the city of Norman.

So that's what this ordinance does.

It just exercises council's authority under that provision in Title 47 to regulate the record towing service that the police department uses to tow those vehicles.

Okay, are there any questions from council uh regarding this item?

Councilmember Hingle.

Yeah, I'll say as uh somebody who has had my vehicle towed before once you live through that once, that's something that you will always try to avoid ever again.

Um and had at the time had I luckily I had the means to go get my vehicle out of the tow yard and my paperwork and my title and all of the things that you're required to do.

Um but for people who are already on an income gap or something to that effect if their vehicle gets towed and they have to go through getting their title work and their insurance and all that stuff, and then going outside of the county and outside of the city limits to retrieve their vehicle, then I just feel like that is a uh unnecessary burden on the residents of Norman uh to compound on a burden that of being towed already is so um I I would be in support of the Norman PD making the call on this.

Thank you.

Um any other councilmember grant?

Uh yes, my comments follow Councilmember Hinckwells.

Um I can appreciate that there are other folks out there without the same income.

And it already is a hassle to get your car out of a tow lot.

So I will be in support of this ordinance.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay.

This is an opportunity for members of the public to make comments regarding this item.

Madam Clerk, is anyone signed up for this item?

Stephen Ellis.

Steve Ellis, Ward 4.

Um I was actually a little confused.

I I didn't look at the actual wording of this proposition.

Um and that the title language wasn't very clear.

But um if I understood correctly, the proposal was to give the Norman police the discretion to determine these sorts of facts.

So I'm just confused as to why we're not just making it part of the ordinance that you've got to be in town to be a record service for this kind of stuff, right?

I mean I I completely agree.

I have a uh toe story myself.

My uh when my older sister was in the hospital during COVID, uh, my younger sister who lives here in Norman borrowed her car and it was uh stolen and wrecked uh by some joy riders.

So uh I hadn't I haven't had my car towed before, but I had to go to the impound yard for that, and it was a total hot mess for a variety of reasons.

One of which is that the police didn't tell us it was wrecked, so we grabbed some keys and we're ready to drive it home and actually had to have it towed back to my house, right?

So I mean, you know, having having your car impounded is a giant hassle.

It would have been much worse uh had ours not been in Norman proper.

That's where the record yard was.

But given what everybody said, why don't we just make it part of the rule as opposed to handing it off to the police, right?

Uh I don't I don't really understand why we're doing it the way that we're doing it.

So my suggestion is let's just change the law.

Let's not change who has discretion over what.

I mean I I hate to mention this because you know it sounds like maybe you're you know attacking the police force or something, but you know, we've we just had the sheriff of our county resign for corruption kinds of reasons, right?

Why open ourselves up to those kinds of things?

Let's just make it the rule.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Russell Rice.

Chelsea Gravel.

That's all I have, Mayor.

Anyone else in the audience that hasn't spoken would like to speak on this item?

Seeing none.

Are there any final comments from council regarding this item?

Councilmember Hinkle.

Councilman Hinkle and Grant.

Councilman Hinkle and Grant.

Make one statement about the letting the police uh kind of make this decision and not just changing the ordinance.

We've seen in the past where uh satellite offices and things pop up and then are used as a um kind of like a way around the the law.

So you may have your tow yard and blanchard and your satellite office in Norman, which allows for you to have a Norman residence, but you actually still get your vehicle towed to Blanchard.

So allowing the police to use this discretion gives us a little more of an agreement, I think, in my mind.

And I can help you with that.

This ordinance specifically says the contractor provider of a return services for the North East Farmers I'm in office, and then not an order of the medical requirements of the city of Norman tweet 72nd Avenue, West 72nd Avenue and East 84th Avenue.

So there is a provision in the ordinance already that requires that those contractors have a office and an impound lot within the city limits of Norman.

The issue about discretion for the police department, the police department on its record rotation list also has a list of equipment that the tow service has to have so that they can tow different types of vehicles.

And those things change over time, and those are issues that we didn't want to have to bring back to you every time they want to change the policy with regard to what a rotate what a record service may or may not have to have equipment-wise.

They have the discretion in this ordinance to set those policies.

But again, with regard to the issue of do they have to be in the city limits or Norman, that is specifically outlined in the ordinance councilmember grant?

Actually, Councilmember Hinkle covered it, and I was gonna ask Rick for uh why we were doing this our way, and he already answered it, so um just in a sort of relation um part of being in the SEC mayor's group.

Just last week I got it in our group text.

We got a text from the mayor of Gainesville, Florida, Harvey Ward, University of Florida, uh saying, good evening.

We're considering ending the practice of Rome towing in Gainesville.

I'm not sure if we have that going on here, but it's never been great here, but we accept it as a necessary evil for decades lately, it's become especially problematic.

And I believe our commission and I are simply over it.

I'm curious how or if any of you use it in your cities, um, and I might be convinced to change it in an overnight only practice, but basically the issue of towing practices of uh we've been discussing them in the mayor's group, so uh just like other college towns.

Um, not that this is specifically related to university, but um that this I responded that well, we're actually discussing uh altering our policies a little bit, actually, based on feedback from our police departments.

So um an issue that kind of everybody's discussing in some way.

So and I think if we felt like um that we need to make any further adjustments, we can bring it back and um do that if we need to.

Okay, all right.

Any other final comment questions, council?

All right.

Motion on the floor is to adopt the ordinance on second reading, section by section.

Council members, you may cast your votes.

All votes have been cast in the motion to adopt the ordinance on second reading section by section passes unanimously.

All right, I'll entertain a motion to adopt or reject the ordinance on final reading.

Motion to adopt second.

The motion on the floor is to adopt the ordinance on final reading.

Council members, you may cast your votes.

All votes have been cast in the motion to adopt the ordinance on final reading passes unanimously.

All right, miscellaneous comments.

This is an opportunity for citizens to address city council due to open meeting act regulations.

Council is unable to participate in the discussion during miscellaneous comments.

Remarks should be directed to the council as a whole and limited to four minutes or less.

Yeah, somebody signed up.

Yes, Mayor.

Uh Stephen Ellis.

First of all, I have no idea.

Steve Ellis ward four still.

I have no idea how I keep getting first on this because I think I uh signed up on Sunday night, so uh I don't know what happened.

Uh so first of all, thanks for the clarification on the final item.

That made sense.

I didn't realize that there are geographical restrictions in the ordinance because it wasn't in the title, but uh good decision.

Uh here's my actual comment for miscellaneous, though.

Uh, I want to thank everyone who worked to prevent what would have been an unmitigated disaster at food and shelter today.

Uh, a lucky combination of uh the Cleveland County Sheriff's Office screwing up and some last-minute accommodations helped us uh to mitigate what I think would have been a really big disaster of just arresting a bunch of people at the shelter camp.

Uh it was still a mess, however, uh, and things were very closely run, and I think we need to be a lot more careful.

Um I I was late tonight because I was celebrating uh with one of my graduate students who defended her dissertation today.

So congratulations to uh Dr.

Violet Victoria.

Uh the dissertation was in large part about why it was important to have sort of a regulative ideal when you're making policy kinds of decisions.

She works in finance, and when you get down in the weeds, it's sometimes easy to sort of lose the thread.

And um, one of her points was that we need to keep our eye on the purpose or telos in Greek, so we talked about a lot about telos today.

Uh, whenever you're making certain kinds of decisions to make sure that the decisions in detail are decisions that accord with your sort of higher order values that are ultimately driving them.

So it's possible to sort of wonder from action to action because of various kinds of external pressures, and it's very easy to make mistakes if you don't also consider your higher order values there.

That's relevant now, I think, because Norman voted in Prop 5 to treat the unhoused people with a certain amount of dignity, right?

The idea was to respect their humanity and realize that they're people too, citizens of Norman, that we owe something to.

But I think we completely lost track of that in the proposal to clear that encampment.

Um, especially given that there's literally no place for people to go legally.

The idea that the city and the county and various social services would tell unhoused people look, I have no place for you to go.

You just can't be here.

Be sure to stay out of sight, right?

I understand that the cops were calling this uh Operation Simba, which came from the movie The Lion King, where the cops get everything where the light touches, and you've got to go out of their jurisdiction.

That I think is really kind of ridiculous.

And I think it's cruel and pointless to drive people away like that.

I think that we should recognize that.

I think it took us a long time to sort of get to that point because we weren't paying attention to our sort of regulative ideal that dignity is the goal.

And it's possible to provide the social services that were provided out there during the push without also adding the punishment part of it of driving people out of the encampment, which would be worse for literally everybody, right?

So let's keep our eyes on the prize when we make decisions about sorry, some of these are really really hard to read because people didn't turn the page.

So Russell okay.

So if I'm out of order, I apologize.

All right, go.

Um so today could have gone a lot worse than it did.

Uh right now, for the unhoused, as Professor Ellis was stating, uh, could have gone a lot worse today.

Currently, they're just paused in where they're at, and they're not being chased around right now.

And so they're just the unhoused are being paused where they're at until a little bit more humane solutions, I believe, can be found for them.

Because uh, once again, there was like 15,000 people that voted that we should have a homeless shelter.

And I don't think that uh those 15,000 people would be very happy if they found out that a day or day or two after music, uh the Norman Music Fest, you somebody kicked the homeless people out of their places.

Y'all stayed there so we could make our tax dollars.

Now you gotta go.

Uh it's not right.

Uh once again, uh today did not end the way that I thought it would.

And there is some hope at the end of the day, which is unusual on moving day to the whack-a-mole game.

So thank you all very much.

I'm gonna leave it at that and hope that it gets better day after day for them.

Thank you.

Caleb McKee.

Uh reader did all the time.

Mayumi Windler.

Hello again, Miami Windler, uh, Ward Two.

So the TIFF.

Remember that.

We do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chelsea Gravel.

Chelsea Gravel Ward 4.

Thank you so much for spending so much time on the topics tonight.

Um, your community, our community, you're my neighbors, you're city council for right now, but you'll be my neighbor again when you're done representing.

And thank you for all the time you spent tonight.

I'd like to speak on the dignity that I'm seeing in our community with everything going on.

Um, I drove past food and shelter, and I would like to uh congratulate all of the police and sheriffs that are out there.

They are showing true kindness and love and dignity to the people that are in the encampment right now.

It smells so bad out there.

These poor folks are out there using the restroom in a five-gallon bucket.

That is nowhere legal.

If County had come in before this had come out, before our encampment had broken out and decided that this was the land they wanted the encampment on.

I know that I'm the biggest outspoken whatever person you guys think because of the homeless.

I'm not anti-homeless, I'm not anti-help.

I'm anti-criminals.

I'm anti-drug addicts.

I'm anti that coming into my community, into your community, into the homes that my neighbors live in.

Um, but I'm not against helping people.

We fall into a category though, where the people that are in this encampment are falling under a category where they can't stay in the shelter because they're either mentally ill, they have dogs, they're addicted to drugs.

They cannot behave because of their circumstance, because their situation.

And if County had determined that they wanted that land to be an encampment 30 days before the encampment had broke out, they could have voted and said yes, county land, good to go.

We'll have a sharps container, we'll offer restrooms, we'll do a daily check, we'll come in every 30 days and make sure nobody's keeping somebody tied down in their tent.

That's all they had to do.

That's all they had to vote on.

That's all they had to come out and say county land, we will take it.

Pick a different piece of county land.

Pick it now.

Vote for it.

Pick it before an encampment starts out on it, and you can have an encampment.

You just have to do it legally.

This isn't legal.

This is this is an absolute mess.

I mean, my neighbors are talking about what they're smelling on their doorsteps over there.

You can drive down the street and smell it.

I saw an arm stick out of uh a drain, like the little little bitty drain, the water drain, the little bitty one, not the big one.

An arm stuck out and grabbed the tummy of a puppy, itty bitty thing, and sucked it inside.

Why?

Because they're living in our drains.

That's what's going on over there.

This is not dignity.

This is disturbing.

This is what we're teaching our children is okay.

They're playing, they're playing cowboys and Indians that are camping homeless people.

This is not Norman.

Um, what are we gonna do?

You guys have the opportunity.

We've got FEMA tents.

Maybe we can't do FEMA, but we've got other options right here.

We have people that can't stay in a shelter that we can't put back in jail, that are addicted to drugs, and it's a true, true illness being addicted to something, having pain, having lost somebody, having a lot of these people have children that they can't see.

They went to jail, they have felonies, nobody will rent to them.

This is not an option.

What we are moving forward in addressing homelessness is not addressing homelessness.

It is a major crime problem.

And that is the portion I'm addressing.

And the folks that are out here in our encampment need an option.

They need a place to go, even if that's a garage, something that our city and our county are in control of, that we can maintain, that we can keep take care of people.

I'm not against helping people.

I'm against being followed.

I'm against people getting into my house.

I don't know how many times I don't come here and tell you guys what I go through.

I'm a beautiful young woman who is 34 years old.

Do you know how easy I've made myself a target?

Do you know what they say about me though?

They say she doesn't hate homeless people.

She's so nice.

She won't help us, though.

Why?

Because I'm in the poorest neighborhood as well.

I don't have a dollar to give to the homeless asking for one.

I hope that you guys will help them.

Thank you for your dignity.

Thank you.

Carlinda.

Carlinda Gravel Ward 4.

So it's legal to have a homeless encampment in state property.

It's legal.

We could do it.

Did you get that part?

It just has to be planned 30 days in advance.

You can't you can't just spring it.

You have to have a dumpster, a sharps container, and a portabody.

Has to have inspections.

It's campsite.

It's legal.

We can make it legal if we want to.

Now let's talk about something else.

Norman Music Fest was great.

We had a great, great weekend.

Can't wait to see those statistics that council member Grant's playing and bring in.

Love to see the comparison.

I've been doing a little walk down history lane in Norman.

Looks like we're gonna have to have a few meetings.

City manager, city attorney, maybe the mayor.

We're gonna have to have some people because there have been some streets that have been misnamed in my neighborhood.

You're driving down a street, and all of a sudden a street sign is put.

And it's a different name.

It's not okay.

Okay.

It's recent.

Along with some other stuff.

Now, I'm gonna get my data together.

But right now, I'm gonna tell you that I live in Collie's edition in First Courthouse.

I have found finally multiple photos of the actual structure and the stones.

The 504 East Gray was not built from the stones, which is in the city documents that say that it was built from the stones of the courthouse.

It was not.

The courthouse was not built out of those stones.

The first common school was now there's more on that, but right now I want to tell you that we border Carter, both sides of Gray, the east side of Porger, and the South Side of Robinson.

You're gonna hear a lot about this neighborhood in the future.

Why?

Because I've been doing some research on my neighborhood, and I found some city documents about my neighborhood, and I'm not happy with what I found.

So we'll need to fix that.

But in the meantime, we're also the only neighborhood that borders Griffin property.

The only residential neighborhood that borders Griffin property.

The part that between Maine and Robinson, that's us.

So we're important.

Now there's been some stuff going on for the last 30 years in this city.

And I found some documents, and I'm really angry about that.

So my neighborhood will not be forgotten as long as I'm living.

Because it isn't right.

My neighborhood will not be destroyed.

My neighborhood will not be used for other purposes.

My neighborhood, first courthouse, neighborhood, part of the first courthouse and the original town site plat in the city of Norman.

And we are important, and you're gonna hear more from me about that because I found some very serious problems in the past 30 years regarding my neighborhood.

And it involves some of you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's all I have, Mayor.

Spoken that would like to make a miscellaneous comments, please.

You just you didn't actually X, so I didn't know what you wanted to talk on, Cheryl.

I apologize.

That's okay.

I I decided to hang around.

Um I was gonna come on those two things that were up for consideration.

They got pulled, and I thought I would take advantage of the time to where it's not everybody screaming at everybody else on ward-fied stuff and all of this kind of things, and I was just going to tell you what I thought and what I've learned, and if maybe it helps you with something, that's that's my goal.

So I'll try to talk quickly because I know you're gonna hit that button because everybody's ready to go home.

But um, first off, I I think we need to have a moratorium on our building in Norman.

We don't have the infrastructure just to take what we have now and take care of it.

Case in point, my mother is 90 years old.

She bought a house that had been a uh sale, what do they call it, model home for two years?

She's been living in it 13 years, so no of it, no other owners.

A year and a half ago, we pulled up uh the plumbing in the front because there was a leak in the yard, and we found that the pipe coming out from the meter to the house was not up to code.

Okay, somebody inspected that, or maybe they didn't.

We're now having to replace half of her driveway.

We got to tearing that up because of the erosion from underneath from the thing that washed it down and all this kind of stuff, long story short.

Concrete's about that thick.

I believe it's supposed to be six to eight inches, and it's like this.

So she's she's been living on this.

Somebody's not inspecting and doing what they're supposed to do.

So until we can make sure that we can have those things, we need to put a halt on the more on the building anywhere in Norman until those things are taken care of and resolved it because what's gonna happen in that whole neighborhood 20 years from now, everybody's driveways will have been caved in, these people are gonna be old, nobody's gonna do it, and you're gonna be looking at low-income housing of a very nice, what used to be a very nice house that you're jumping across things to get into.

That's that's my first thing.

I don't want you putting more building into ward five because that property was guaranteed to us by your forefathers in 1961, 62, 63, and there when they put that in and said we're preserving the watershed.

At that time, I think Norman was only about 15 square miles.

And they said at that point this needs to be protected when it only had 15 miles of people living in it.

And look what you have now.

So I think that that's important that we make sure we're not taking advantage of somebody not looking.

It's ethical, you know, it's moral and it's stewardship to take care of what's been entrusted to you to do that.

Another example is we're purchasing water from Midwest City.

Why is that?

Well, Midwest City is basically a landlocked town.

They're not going to get any bigger because they're limited.

If we would make the same, put the same standards on us of limiting on what we have, we wouldn't have to go borrowing from other people.

So if you stop the growth until everything is fixed, you wait until you have the capacity to support it, then I think you're doing smart.

But when we spend money that we don't have on things that we don't know yet, and and population is decreasing, we're not going to have any more people coming in to buy a lot of these houses.

You've got to protect the water quality.

It's good water for us, and we made those choices.

We paid the maintenance, we should do it.

Y'all are paying the maintenance to do it, be good stewards of what you have.

Let's see here.

The uh allowing developers to purchase farmland and then rezone it, that's all backwards.

You need to sell farmland to farmers.

Farmers can't afford it.

You can't go out right now and buy form farm.

And once you citify citify the country, you don't ever get it back.

You've got foundations and oil spills and everything that came out of that house, it's staying on that property, and you're you nobody's gonna clean it up and take out all of that stuff to redo a pasture that they could farm.

So once you've done those things, they're gonna be versus walks.

Thank you very much.

American Legion left office.

Oh, please.

Still here.

Still here.

Cynthia Rogers, ward four still.

Uh couple items.

Uh I was surprised to hear about us uh needing to buy more water.

Um I will just tell you that the AIM plan did not think about water uh availability and our access to water resources, which um I think that was a thing that should have been considered in how many people can we fit.

Um I would also say the AIM plan, we should consider changing the name, the category of urban reserve, which was sort of established when we thought the turnpike was gonna be very disruptive and a certain path.

Um we should change that and call it rural reserve because the language that goes with it says preserving the rural character.

Calling it urban reserve is uh mischaracterizing it, and people uh will use that to say, oh well, it said urban.

So I know those items were taken off the agenda tonight about the 30-acre minimum, but I would go farther to think that we should think about that.

Um also I want to comment about what happened two weeks ago.

Um I was very discouraged that uh councils in action actually councils unwillingness to actually have a public discussion so the public could more clearly understand uh why the um idea of a declaratory judgment was uh reconsidered after the study session.

I think uh the comments made by council suggested a large degree of confusion.

Um I think that the public deserves some opportunity for clarity.

Um I don't think councils in action and not having a conversation then helped to provide any sort of clarity to the question of whether council can have a legislative referendum, which would be something that council puts up to a vote of the people, and for instance, you could have a legislative referendum to repeal the arena TIF ordinance.

Um so there seems to be some confusion about that.

Do you have the power to have a legislative referendum?

Yes, you do.

Section um 18-4A of the state constitution gives you the power, it gives people the power of an initiative and referendum.

Um votes, but it also gives uh municipalities this power too.

So you do have the power and the authority to be able to do that.

There was some question about whether, well, the election board won't put this on the ballot.

Well, so that could be answered if you propose to put on a vote of repeal of the TIFF ordinance to the vote of the people, and the election board says no, you can't do that, then you can go get that answer resolved.

But if the constitution says you have that power, I don't know how the election board can tell you otherwise.

But you could get that resolved perhaps with a declaratory judgment.

Um what if other people don't like other parties don't like that you're trying to have uh put a repeal ordinance to the people again?

You could get that legal issue resolved.

Um, but what we have now is that there's no clarity, and it seems like you're talking in circles.

We can't do it because of this, because of that, but we haven't gotten any clarity or movement to trying to figure out answers to that.

So I'd encourage you to think about your power to use a referendum, a legislative referendum.

Um, pretty much you can put anything to a public would like to make miscellaneous comments.

Seeing none.

Any final comment from council?

Councilmember Grant.

Uh I just wanted to speak to the water plan in AIM Norman.

Um, it is one giant document online, and I can share that link.

But on page 147 is the beginning of Aime Norman's uh master plan for water.

Um, I had a constituent reach out to me over the weekend asking about indirect potable reuse of all things.

So this is how I got down this rabbit hole of trying to get her the water plan.

Um we've actually had, I believe it was a study session or maybe a committee that talked about the future.

So what I broke out for her because it contains indirect potable reuse was the water master plan recommendations, and uh on page 152 is a timeline, and the recommendations say about uh, you know, it starts with 25, ends with 2045, and it talks about buying water, uh, eventually moving towards indirect potable reuse.

So I do want to put out there that there actually is a plan um for, and it's in the master plan uh how we implement these things in the future.

So I'm happy to post that later so that other folks can actually read it and see all the details.

Um, and I know it's a mighty document, but it is my intention through Ward 4 quarterly meetings to take pieces of the AIM Norman plan and talk about them.

Um it's very unusual to do these plans in 20-year segments.

You should do them in 10-year segments that match the census data, and it is also very unusual to do all the master plans at once.

Um, but we did that because this community struggles to be on the same page, and for all that effort, we did pass it eight to one.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmore Gansbury.

Yeah, I'd just like to say for all my friends and family that have the privilege to have a house and to be able to watch this on YouTube.

I've heard you, I've heard you for the last week, ever since I've got back from Washington, DC, I've spent every night with those that don't have and the friends that I have out there at food and shelter.

They ain't usually able to hear this now, but they already know because I told them before I even came here tonight.

Every night I go out there, I talk to them.

We're working, we're working, we're working, but I want a humane outcome for everybody involved that works for everybody involved and everything.

But my mission and my goals in life does not change just because of a crisis that we're dealing with right now.

I'll still be there after the crisis is over.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay.

And this meeting is adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.