Property as part of an enterprise zones mean it is by definition unproductive, undeveloped, underdeveloped, or blighted for the purpose of TIFF financing, and therefore it automatically qualifies under the Local Development Act.

Because it automatically qualifies, the court says it doesn't violate the constitutional provision or the 8521 and two, the but for test in the local development act.

The AG is weighed in since then when asked how the city's compliance with those two provisions measured.

They say districts in historic preservation reinvestment or enterprise areas are per se consistent with such guidelines.

So you see a difference there when we look at historic preservation reinvestment or enterprise areas.

Currently, all of our TIFFs that are in existence are in enterprise areas.

So that but four test does not apply.

They have per se met that for the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

So the example of the University North Park District.

It's a great example.

Many of us would view that as not being economically depressed, not being undevelopable.

It's flat fronts.

Prime I 35 property.

It's completely developed all the way around it.

So it's a prime target to be developed on its own, but because of that first one, it is in an enterprise, a grandfathered enterprise zone.

That is what qualified the original UMP TIF and this new one as well.

Correct.

Okay, so and that's important because in this ordinance, we are implementing a BUT 4 test even for enterprise zones or historic preservation areas or reinvestment areas.

So under the Local Development Act, if it's not one of those areas, you see the butt four tests that I read earlier over there in the left column, and then you have you go through those remaining legislative guidelines.

Under this ordinance, we're talking about implementing a test regardless of whether that project is in a historic preservation reinvestment or enterprise area.

So that would require an analysis to look at whether, and this is what's in the ordinance right now, whether to I'm sorry, whether investment development and economic growth in that area would be difficult but uh possible with TIFF assistance in line with the city goals.

So Griffin is the example we talked about last week, right?

Blank property essentially uh it's got some buildings on it, but it's a primarily largely undeveloped.

And so if someone were to buy it, would it develop?

Sure, it could.

But would it develop with affordable housing?

Would it develop uh with all the public infrastructure needs that are there that need to be addressed?

There's asbestos we know in some of the older buildings.

So there are things that would make it difficult, not impossible.

Uh but TIF assistance could help it develop in a way that meets the council's goals.

And so that's what based on our discussion last week, that's what's in the ordinance right now in 12 702 A2.

Again, if it's an area that's not in a historic preservation reinvestment or enterprise area, it still has to meet the test in the local development act.

Uh but for those areas that don't have to meet that test.

This is a test that that we would be implementing that they don't currently have to meet.

And is that the case made for the entertainment district?

Is that most of us believe that the property could ease could develop on its own if the owners of it allowed it to?

Um, that it would be very attractive for that.

Their argument is well, but without this TIF, we can't get this development.

That could be type of development.

This is this entertainment district.

It would otherwise maybe just be commercial or just apartments or whatever it may be, but that's the argument that they're making for why they wanted this.

Yeah, and I think the key here is um in this language is it has to be in line with the city's goals.

Ultimately, it comes down to you guys to make that determination.

And what we're trying to set up here is a process where you get more information and you get more input.

And I'll go through the input here in a minute.

But uh the ordinance also talks about you have to make a determination that use of a TIFF is an appropriate incentive tool.

Are there other tools out there that could be used instead?

Are there other ways to finance the project that are more appropriate?

Uh, the area proposed for designation as a TIFF district is projected to increase in real property taxable value within the first five years.

That's that's not will it uh increase within the first five years regardless of the TIF, but but will the financing provide some development quickly?

It's not going to take all 25 years to see anything, but will we start to see some movement and some turnover there in the taxable value quickly?

Proposed districts and urban areas are expected to support development or revitalization within the project area.

That's a change we made, and at the end I'll highlight all the changes from last week, but across properties of multiple properties of separate ownership.

That might be a duplication there.

Um, and then the TIFF is expected to support and encourage development that will have a positive net fiscal impact on the city as a whole.

That's not a requirement under the local development act.

So that's an important consideration for us as well.

Um when you go through how these proposals get analyzed, there's nothing in the local development act that talks about you know what kind of information has to be provided to the city to look at these proposals and analyze them.

There's no formal citizen input until the public hearings on the project, other than three at-large members that are appointed to the statutory review committee.

Here we would be implementing a lengthy uh economic and risk analysis of the proposal.

That's in section 12-703B.

Uh, and then in 12-706, we would be implementing some standards for how we would uh evaluate a proposal after the project plan is adopted.

So if someone's coming to ask for assistance and development financing, how are we going to evaluate that?

Um we also propose an ad hoc stakeholder committee to review those proposals.

This would be uh seven members representing businesses, residents, and nonprofits within the project area or within a specified radiance radius thereof, so uh impacted directly or indirectly uh by the project based on radius, and then it would go through the economic development advisory board.

Uh that's a board where you will uh through your typical nomination and appointment process, appoint the members.

It requires members to serve with certain kinds of experience.

Um, and they would review and make recommendations on that analysis and uh the impacts to the taxing jurisdictions.

Then we pick up the the process in the local development act, so we don't replace it at all, we're just supplementing it.

You have the statutory review committee made up by statute has to be made up of taxing jurisdiction representatives, plus three additional members representing the public at large.

At least one has to represent the business community.

If there's retail, you have to have someone that represents uh retailers.

They are charged with making findings and recommendations as to the conditions establishing the eligibility of the district.

They have to include the analysis used to project revenues over the life of the project plan, effect on the taxing entities, and appropriateness of approval of proposed plan and project.

Consider and determine whether the proposed plan and project will have a financial impact on any taxing jurisdiction and business activities within the proposed district.

Those things get included in the project plan, and that's presented to the statutory review committee based on their feedback and then voted on and brought forward to you all.

But note that it doesn't require them to find a positive impact.

So that's where you know our process and getting more financial information and more information before you use important.

Then it goes through planning commission review, two public hearings.

The first to provide information and answer questions, and then second is for the public to express their views.

That's all set by statute, and then consideration by council.

So I wanted to highlight real quick just what changed and what's on your agenda tonight versus last week based on your feedback.

We talked about Griffin and that example earlier, and and uh I noted this change, but we've got in there that as part of the city requirements that tax increment financing be used in those cases where investment development and economic growth in line with the goals of the city is difficult but possible with TIFF assistance.

Again, if it's not one of those three areas, historic preservation, reinvestment, or enterprise zone, it has to meet the butt for test in the local development act anyway.

Uh but this is really for those areas where uh the legislature said they per se qualify.

So that gives you some more information and ways to analyze it.

How do we ensure dedicated sales tax funds are preserved?

We we talked about uh PSST and Norman Ford and Transit a little bit last week.

I've had another meeting with Council Member Kirby, appreciate that.

Uh wanting to make sure we protect those sources of funds, um and you see that in section 12-702 C.

We've got already a general preference for TIFF districts that only capture act warm, so that preserves the sales tax.

But if a TIFF district is proposed to capture the sales tax, we've added a provision in 12-703A to F that uh that proposal shall be limited to non-dedicated sales tax revenue only.

So we're protecting those revenue streams going forward.

Uh we had concerns about uh the disc the this was the discussion about um multiple properties of separate ownership and and we talked about Oklahoma City and how the Scurvin Hotel is a good example of this, how they will do a uh project area that's broader, and then you have an increment district that's for a particular site, so the Scurvin Hotel, Devon Tower, uh things like that, and and didn't want to close the door on that if that is an appropriate proposal at some point.

So we changed that to project area as discussed last week so that it's it's benefiting more properties across the whole project area, and then cleanup items.

Uh there was some language in 12 706 uh C2 that dealt with canop cannibalization and that section really deals with uh businesses moving into a TIFF and wanting an incentive, uh but I didn't want to limit the canal cannibalization issue to just that, so moved that over to uh 12-706.

Um look, yeah, it's in um it's part of the analysis and the economic and risk analysis done.

Um, and then added a section for applicability because we do have contracts and things outstanding.

Um we already have a process under this inner city TIF, for instance, that was adopted by council for evaluation of applications.

Um I don't want to add inadvertently do anything that conflicts with things already adopted.

So this added this section will uh be a ensure the ordinance is applicable uh from date of adoption forward for for any TIFF that's applied for at that point.

Uh with that, it's on your agenda for first reading tonight.

That's just provides notice by title.

Our typical process would be to have it on your agenda May 26th for second reading.

But if if there's more discussion to be had, uh we can always postpone the second reading to a date certain to give us more time to talk about it.

Uh, but I uh we just wanted to keep it moving forward after the discussion last week.

So happy to do whatever council wants.

If there was uh if we wanted to, as part of this new process, require a higher uh vote threshold of council with this fee, so then it could be included in that.

I don't think so.

There's a city of Norman case, coincidentally, from long before any of our time, uh, where we required a um by ordinance a three-fourths vote for certain zoning items based on the number of protests that were received, and that was challenged, and the court said um in the absence of an express express requirement to the contrary, either in statute uh or charter, you cannot require uh higher threshold of voting.

Our charter says only five votes uh to pass an item, so we would need to make a change to our charter in the charter implement that to say that specifically TIFFs over an X amount of sales tax would require a supermajority of council or X amount of council.

Yeah, yeah, something like that.

And and I think that's on the agenda for oversight on Thursday.

So but we don't have the ability to require future councils to be a supermajority.

Based on that case, I don't think so.

I think it need to be a charter amendment.

Okay, and that is a companion but separate conversation in the specific part.

Okay, okay.

Any other questions, council about this conservers?

Okay, in the city of Norman, how many how much open areas left really related to store preservation or investment or in product areas?

We have quite a bit of enterprise zone areas in Norman.

Um it covers um the core quite a bit of core Norman, all of Griffin.

Um, it covers some of South Norman.

Uh there's some even further east in ward five, so there's quite a bit of that.

You know, more our historic districts, those are smaller.

But it is just it doesn't just cover uh development of vacant land, it covers redevelopment of properties too.

So even where we see things that aren't that are built out, it could possibly be used to redevelop those areas.

So we're gonna do this test this but four test.

It's an additional so let me stop on the butt four test.

They're doing a butt for test and they're providing that to the city, and then we're gonna go to third party for evaluation, and then the city staff assesses those evaluations from the kind from the developer or from the developing the specific property as well as the feedback from the hard gun.

Also, that's going through your stakeholder committee or your citizens committee.

And what's the benefit from the citizens committee?

Their role really is to uh provide input to look for opportunities where there might be things that could be placed in a project plan that could benefit the neighborhood.

Um and just determine overall the the um appropriateness of the project and make a recommendation to you all.

One of the complaints we get is that there's not a spot for the citizens to, especially those who are impacted, to weigh in on the project until the very end.

Um historically, it's the three people that are appointed to the statute review committee aren't necessarily impacted uh residents, and so this is to give an opportunity for those folks to have some some way in early on in the process.

I would think your uh your property owner and your developer you're gonna limit a property when they do their butt for test, they have a methodology.

Your hard gun, your hard contractor to understand that methodology and say, you know, I see it, I understand it.

I'm gonna apply that and others to come up with a better picture, and then I'll add this delta of think that committee would look that delta a little bit and assess that and give some type of a written product back to the city.

Yeah, and they'll I mean I would imagine they'll be able to make a recommendation on that includes like most of our committees includes uh, you know, their um findings on anything that's presented to them.

Uh, we also have the e-dab review, uh, which will be focused especially on the economics.

Um, so that'll be important for uh the council as well.

In the back of my mind, I'm thinking Oklahoma City, I'm thinking uh I'm thinking that's around the other surrounding municipalities.

This butt for addition when they're looking at historical preservation reinvestment enterprise areas.

Do we require the butt for analysis for those areas?

I have not found any ordinances uh that require anything additional above the local development act in Oklahoma.

Um, I've looked, I know Oklahoma City doesn't have one.

They do have an entire department that deals with these, and so there may be some internal analysis going on that's not codified.

Um I know for instance, they they have a preference for pay as you go projects, they don't want to issue a lot of debt for a project.

They like to do projects where if they're incentivizing you know the scurve and hotel, the scurven hotel is only entitled to get back the increment that the Scurban Hotel generates.

Um, and that's a preference you see in the way they implement their project plans, but I don't know of anything codified like this.

Um just to also say that citizens committee would also have business owners like small business owners when we talk about doing an east downtown TIFF, we know that there are certain projects requested, especially alley improvements that are not gonna be in the CIP budget anytime soon.

So I think that could pass for like we won't get this, and then uh the alleys won't be fixed.

The business owners won't have the capacity to do the other space because they have property that fit fronts the alley.

And then um, I was gonna say we do committee orientation.

Um I don't know that it has to be in there, but I just want to make it clear that whoever is coming into this process and has a vested interest, whether in a neighborhood, nonprofit, or a small business, or developer for something like Griffin.

Um, I imagine the developers probably know, but I would just like to make sure that they have the education for this work because it's not like TIFF money is monopoly money, it's not limitless, and there's controls to how much you'll get out of a project or a district for the project area.

Um, and then on eDAB, do we make it so that we have to have an economist on uh that board?

It I think the language is someone with a background in uh economics, finance, or banking or something along the songs.

I'd have to look at that language again, but there's a qualifier for for that, it's not specific for just one.

But if we wanted to make eBAP more robust, we would tackle that in another um maybe a retreat topic or whatever that just outlines that we just want to have really great uh I guess technical plus whatever we decide makes sense for that.

Yeah, that's something we can always look at.

It would be an easy ordinance amendment to change that.

Okay, well, those are just my questions.

Thank you.

Any other questions for city staff on this policy?

Questions, comments from council.

Um Catherine said, Um, would be on the 26th agenda for a public hearing and council consideration.

Um, if anybody doesn't feel comfortable with that, can request can make a motion during the meeting to postpone, or you can let staff know before um that you have concerns or that you want to continue discussing it, or if you have any other things that you want to add or try to subtract, whatever it may be.

Um, so I don't know of any new TIFFs that are coming up right now that we have to put this in place for.

So if anybody needs more time to think about it or have anything else you want to add to it, there's time.

Uh, but if not, then as it is, it would be on the 26th agenda.

And then, of course, like I said, if in that meeting uh we've decided that we're not ready yet, it can always be postponed then as well.

So any other final questions, comments, councilmember Kirby.

Is the reason we don't use bonds for this is because we're trying to keep our property taxes low.

It depends, it's been discussed uh at different times, and it just depends on what you're asking for and how much the impact of the property tax on it and things like that.

We talked about it with the arena, for instance.

We we said you know, even the first arena, I think that was a proposal.

Like, what if we just do the parking garage with geo bonds and then the arena itself is less of a draw, and and there just wasn't the support to do that.

Um, so it depends.

Um if it's a public utility like the bonds we did recently, you know, that's a 50% vote.

There's not a millage limit.

If it's something that's appropriate under uh Article 10, Section 35, that has a millage limit, so you can't raise perhaps enough money for the project.

You know, we have to kind of go into all those considerations, but it's possible uh that components of a project or all of the project could be funded by geobonds depending on what the project is.

And in the reason the public don't get a vote is because of the state constitution and the way the charters are yeah, it's uh the local development act only uh calls for a vote in the initiative and referendum process, and so there's some law out there that says the state can't or the election boards can't run elections if it's not authorized by state law, and so uh that's really been the hiccup there.

Um I was thinking if the if the shelter was like ten dollars a year for the median income for that go bond, like what would a the yearly property tax bill for 300 or 250 million dollar bond would be a lot I guess it would be the whole county.

I don't know.

It's a good question though, it's a good question.

Um councilmember Bruce, uh definitely uh like further appropriate incentives.

No, I don't think we've used those to my knowledge to integrate to normally and when is when is when is something too small for TIFF?

I give you unsolicited proposal for a TIFF, when is it too small?

There isn't really a hard and fast rule on on the size of the TIF.

I think what we'd have to consider is you know, is it worth the the effort or is there another way to fund it that's not so lengthy of a process?

You know, if it's just a fifty thousand dollar TIFF, that might not be worth all of this.

That might be worth finding another way to complete the project if that's what council wants to do.

So if I'm thinking about it, and I know other than one of these areas where I have money to invest in one of these areas.

Okay, I'm not looking at a big thing, a small footprint, and that's what I want to do.

Yeah, I think the preference really is um because of that language we talked about earlier dealing with the project areas.

We want to look bigger picture.

There might be individual projects within that bigger picture, but we want to look at it a little more holistically and not just do tiny, tiny one-off TIFFs.

If that makes sense.

But someone may have a hard time getting financing to do something of that caliber.

A TIFF could maybe help.

That's what I think.

Okay.

I mean, that sounds like the Scurvins deal right there was the historic building.

They weren't converting it to a different use.

It was always a hotel, but it had been abandoned for a long time.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any final comments, questions from council on this one?

Okay.

All right, then we'll move on to the second item, which is a discussion regarding ordinance 0-2526-67, an ordinance of the council of the city of Norman, Oklahoma, amending article 12 of the transient guest room tax, sections 12-501, 12-503, and 12-504 of the city code to clarify certain definitions and provide a clearer process for documenting exemptions from the transient guest room tax and providing for the severability thereof.

Yeah, so this will be quick.

The changes we're making is a change to the definition definition of hotel.

There's a weird reference to uh bedrooms in that definition.

I did some research and it goes back to um bed and breakfast.

Uh we somehow in the early 2000s inadvertently did away with an inspection requirement, and so they changed that bedroom count to both bring in the inspection requirement back and then to also um somehow tie it to the three unrelated rule in our zoning ordinance for single family, although that wouldn't apply because these are not permanent residents, but uh that's that's was the history I could find.

So just kind of cleaning that up and and taking that out, and that definition really doesn't um take into account a lot of the new types of lines that we have now, and so I think that will help kind of clarify that.

Um we also you know, the exemptions section of the ordinance clearly says, you know, government employees are exempt, tribal, uh federal, state, and government um, and permanent residents.

But when you look in the definition sections, permanent residence focuses on that 30-day timeline of what how long you're staying, and so we want to clear that up and so and tie those two sections together so you see a change there where we are um adding to that definition that this yes, this does include residents of Norman.

Um, and then it's also talking about how they can prove their residency because that's been another question.

Well, how do we show it?

Um, interestingly, the ordinance from 1980 uh required that everyone who wants an exemption to go to the finance director and get a certificate.

That doesn't seem real workable in the yeah, the online world of reservation making and so trying to work something in that's that's a little more realistic.

That really hasn't happened much over the years, and what we've created over the years is a form where each hotel, when they remit their tax, they have to outline exactly what exemptions were granted and why.

Um, and so we'll be using that form going forward, um, but they will be required to provide the proof of that exemption at the point of sale, so at the hotel when they check in.

If you're a permanent resident of Norman and you're the guest staying in the hotel, you show your ID that has your Norman address or a water bill.

Um, if you are um, you know, they're representing the government.

Um, I know when I stay uh for a conference for the city or something, the city pays for that.

That's proof that I'm there on government business.

Um, if it's a nonprofit, it would be the same kind of exemption form they show to be exempt from sales tax.

So trying to keep it pretty simple, make it at the point of of sale rather than trying to make it hard and go through the finance director and keep up with all these exemption forms.

Um so that's those are the things being cleaned up with the ordinance.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

That's also on first reading tonight.

And on that too, um, what does one of the questions I know I've seen is what does a resident of Norman do if they if a hotel says they don't recognize it or know about it or have any way to account for it?

What they've been doing is calling either finance or our office, and we we've been working through those issues with that.

So contact the city action center.

Yeah, and we'll do when we when we send out the information with the new rate increase, we've got that form that um we send out every year to the hotels for the exemptions, and so we can do some education with that to make sure everyone's on the same page uh about how that works.

Councilman.

Can we just put a thing on the website that says this is the law in Oklahoma or in Norman, Oklahoma, and that way if they're at the hotel, they can be like all two.

Yeah.

The mayor says it doesn't apply to me.

Council McCrueb.

Would you change with the wording of the bed and breakfast?

Uh will it have an impact on ones and like Word Five over there?

Whispering pines.

Have you had any contact with them on how this would impact them in any way, shape, or form?

No, when I was reading through the legislative history, they actually put that language in there to make sure it encompassed all of the bed and breakfasts.

So I don't anticipate any change for any of them.

Okay.

Any other questions, comments about this side on council?

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Item number three discussion regarding homeless camps in public parks.

Response to the situation Kate Park.

Um which is kind of a result of the clearing out of the encampment by hand food and shelter, and has just been a continual issue that we've been dealing with and discussing for a number of years, encampments and parks and encampments in general, and how they're how we deal with them and where do people go when we do break them up and things like that.

We have city attorney here, and we have um appreciate the opportunity to get in front of the whole council.

Um, and we're not going to bring you a problem without bringing you some options and some potential courses of action for your consideration as well.

Um the municipal code, the city charter says the city manager is responsible for the implementation of uh all the ordinances and rules and regulations in the Norman municipal code.

Uh I don't write a lot of tickets.

We have several uh employees that do write a lot of tickets uh through code enforcement uh through our building inspection program through our enforcement of environmental quality issues, uh, and through the Norman Police Department.

That's where the lion's share of the enforcement activity takes place.

Um the way the municipal code is written currently, there is not a provision for uh overnight stays in a park.

So we are kind of at quandary.

Our our uh co enforcement and our police department, they don't they don't really have a mechanism just to say, well, we're just gonna turn a blind eye to that one for the next uh 18 months and call it call it good.

This particular park has uh some unique features that make it perhaps even more challenging.

Um provision in the lease uh between the city of Norman and the state of Oklahoma indicates that uh in the lease it says this land must be used as a public municipal park, uh, provided the lease hereby made shall lapse and possession of such tract of land shall revert to the state of Oklahoma in the event such tract of land shall cease to be used as a municipal park.

So it becomes a campground.

It's definitely not in conformance with the municipal code as it relates to a recreational park, and potentially that lease is null and void, and that property goes back to the state department of mental health, and they're right back to the same situation you had behind uh food and shelter being on state land and their desire to enforce uh no trespassing.

What we believe we have an opportunity to do, and we had conversations before a ballot measure was put together on a permanent shelter location.

We kind of weighed the opportunity to make some improvements at the existing shelter site to expand capacity, and at the time that question was being circulated.

We recognize that well, whatever we invest there, it's gonna be disposable.

We're gonna scrape it off uh when that property sells if if we are successful in building a new shelter.

Well, now the uh voters have given us uh eight million dollars and put us on task to build that permanent shelter location, and we know we're looking at about an 18-month window, so it's a little more finite today than it was before that question was asked.

Um so we look at now we're kind of a cost-benefit analysis.

Do we spend some more money, increase capacity at the current shelter, uh recognizing it's disposable, or do you spend that amount of money or potentially more on our current uh program, which is you you can't be in this park.

Where can I go?

I don't really have a place to send you, but you can't be here.

Then the cleanup effort begins.

We haul off several tons of waste and uh write checks to contractors and wait for the next camp to form.

So uh the current process does not lend itself to a solution.

Uh we are literally uh playing the whack-a-mole game, and it's from one camp to another.

Um, as sad as it sounds, that is actually an acceptable process in the municipal code.

It to go through the enforcement action is literally chasing people off of where they currently are without the ability to say, oh, but you can go here.

So the opportunity to potentially add uh enough beds to account for uh this population in a shelter where you're currently investing in uh management and oversight with a third party provider, uh, may make the most fiscal sense in the long run, too.

Councilman Grant.

Um, and also that happened last week, it got signed.

But House Bill 3985, which is the Safe Neighborhood Act.

Uh, Governor just signed.

Uh, basically says that if we and it I'm as I understand it, doesn't come into effect till November but says that we the city can be sued it for these encampments, and we know there are other encampments on private lands, and this will not be this current situation won't be the only situation we'll have to do with no doubt in my mind.

It's kind of beach.

So um, you know, we have some runaway, but you know, just thinking we need a long-term or longer term solution.

Um it was pointed out that our even though it is 2026, there is not any actual official updated census data.

And Norman's population in the 2020 census is actually 128,000.

So we are under that threshold of the law if that's what, unless it specifies otherwise.

The most recent data that we have officially says that our population is slightly under that.

So that'll be interesting to see how that plays out, or if the bigger cities OKC and Tulsa decide to pursue litigation over being singled out.

So, like the city of Broken Arrow, which has 120,000 people, or us at 128.

We wouldn't have to apply uh abide by this new state law, but OKC and Tulsa do.

And then if we just grow by 2,000 more people, then now all of a sudden we do.

But broken arrow is still slightly below, so they don't have to.

I mean, it just seems legally indefensible to me.

But anyway, uh Councilman Peacock, and then we'll go on the yeah, yeah.

Uh just one to talk about all options.

You know, what what's the possibility or the realistic option of relocating this campsite down to the shelter land that we have that's currently vacant?

Because the fact that that's going to be uh active construction zone, kind of the the nail in the coffin on that idea.

Absolutely.

Uh, and there's a lot of underground work that'll have to take place since it's it's uh native soil.

There isn't uh a sewer system or a water system uh in existence, and of course, grading and grubbing to make sure it drains in accordance with the drainage plan, and you should have uh a contract for those architectural and engineering services uh coming to you in perhaps the next couple of weeks on an upcoming council uh meeting.

Actually, it is through that process where we've identified capital that was set aside to pay for architectural and engineering work for the shelter.

Uh, when the bonds were approved, it we establish a capital project, and that's where the bond proceeds will be drawn from.

And in that uh deposit will be dollars available for architectural and engineering work.

So the money we set aside to do that work in advance would be available for us to expand capacity at the current uh shelter site, potentially eliminating the need for fire watch.

So you may pay for an additional set of eyeballs in uh supervision and then save some money on the fire watch exercise that happens hourly.

Council, I guess mine's gonna kind of pig back on Peacock a little bit there and some ideas that I had and stuff like that.

Um I definitely know all my dealings with homeless and my friends that live down there and live out wherever I definitely hate the idea of moving somebody from one state property with their tent belongings to another piece of state property with their tinted belongings and everything.

To me, that's not a humane solution to the problem at all and everything, even though I want them to be able to be somewhere, you know.

But my thought process have to spend my fair amount of time down by food and shelter and everything for the last couple weeks, and everything is we do have our property fenced off now.

It doesn't run through Bishop Creek at all and everything like that, where we would be protecting Bishop Creek now.

And you know, let's say that it's a month down the line before we have to worry about utilities and everything like that.

That's still a month to add on to city care or do something in a more legit way and everything like that, and by time.

I'm afraid that if we basically ask our police not to enforce Kate's park, that any day Governor State could get a wild hare and say, okay, we're taking that back and then we're at ground zero again, you know, and everything like that.

And I don't like that idea whatsoever.

The thing I like about our property being where it is, thanks to our good friends at food and shelter and also at over the chair center and everything.

That's where a lot of our people in Cates go now during the daytime.

That's where they go eat, that's where they go take a shower, that's where they go get a lot of their services already.

The people that lived there on the state property, they got evicted out of there somewhat, you know, and everything like that.

That's one reason why they chose theirs, because they had tons of services there that they're used to, a bus stop that they're used to, and everything like that.

So I just think that if we could find some way to make something work there, you know, not I'm one of those I don't like attendance much as the next person because I just with bad weather in Oklahoma, that's just to me not safe either.

But if it allows us to build on the city care, find another means with all of our nonprofits that we've been having meetings with and everything else to find who owns what building, who owns what that we can get a permit for, whatever to open up.

I just think that having to move somebody every week's not good for them, not good for their mental capabilities, not good for anything about it.

We know basically we think um expansion efforts at the existing shelter, probably a 60-day extra exercise, um, some construction that uh city crews could handle along with uh contract through the state contract for uh fire sprinkler addition.

We think the riser, the connection of the water system will be uh available and an advantage to the future redevelopment of that site after the new shelter is is operational.

So we're really looking about a 60-day challenge before we have uh additional shelter capacity.

My thoughts have definitely been about our existing owned property because it is not a city park and it's no longer state-owned, it's not owned by the state.

And I figured we were a couple months away from actually moving any dirt around or doing anything yet.

Um, and I can't think of anywhere else.

There's no other park I can think of that's suitable that's big enough or suitable to accommodate this, and uh that might not it wouldn't run into this issue with the parks, and so my thought has been if we were able to put a caution tape around the perimeter of the our property and say this is where the boundary is, can't go beyond some, it's got construction right now.

Then while either the temporary expansion of the indoor shelter, or take that time that 30 days or 60 days, whatever we have, to like this is a ticking clock, we have this much time where the state's not gonna intervene, it's not a city park, so there's not a legal issue that I know of yet.

Um we've got this much time to get these people into a better situation somewhere in housing in whatever it may be, but it could it could address this immediate situation for now, but it's not gonna address the continual issue, of course.

So that's where I've been leaning to is that is the existing property that we own allowing this encampment to move there.

Um mayor, city manager.

Before before we hop too far into this, the since we sign a contract in two weeks, which will be in front of you for our architect, we'll um they'll release surveyors uh out there to start surveying the property.

So any obstructions that are on the property would delay the surveying of the property, which would delay any earth work that goes on, and then we also have uh the state has a project, there's a sewer line that runs right underneath that, which is uh belongs to the state that means uh they have a contract out, which will be replaced any time within the next month, and we don't necessarily control that timing of it once again.

If there are people on the property, that would delay the replacement of the sewer line, which runs right on underneath that property.

And to also put into perspective, that sewer line is being replaced, and the reason that the encampment behind um the shelter or food and shelter was actually cleared out was because there were two open DEQ complaints issued.

The the issue was I think brought to the attention of DEQ because there was a sewer bypass into Bishops Creek from that sewer line from which was located the manhole on our property.

I don't love the idea of in you know moving a campsite to again until that sewer line is fixed, where raw sewage could again bypass on that location.

I don't think that's another health and safety issue that is recognized by DEQ that was reported, which is why they're replacing that sewer line as quickly as they are.

So um just be aware that that could be a health and safety issue, not just for Bishop Creek, which we should all be concerned about, yes, but also for the people that can move that.

So please keep that in mind as well.

Council Member Grant and Council Member Blood.

Um, yes.

Um I um I am just well, I was all for that until now.

Um, but um I'm all for um just like I'm sorry, but I have to ask this first.

What about the OU motel?

Like, what is the status on that?

Uh it's under private ownership.

Um I have no idea what the condition of that property is like on the inside.

Okay.

I'm just passing that question on.

It was asked to me.

Um, okay.

Um so I was another idea I had was, and I know this is a deaf of a definitely a long shot, but we're just trying to think of anything we can think of now.

But um just trying to come up with a way of like incentivizing maybe a private landowner to offer up some land um as as an area um as a temporary encampment until the shelter is built, and it could be somehow managed by city care because I wouldn't want to just be like, hey, let us use your land, and then it and whatever happens, happens.

Thanks.

You know, so I would definitely want it managed, but I just think that maybe we could possibly come up with a way of incentivizing a private landowner to just offer up a a little bit of land just so they're not moved from place to place.

That's completely ineffective.

Um so um, so that was one thing I wanted to throw out.

The main thing I wanted to throw out though is that since we do have time between now and when the um sh permanent shelter is built, I would love to see us um coordinate an outreach team.

And this team could consist of, I know we have a homeless coalition, so um they could be um part of that, or one or two of them.

Um it could put our nonprofits, cheat church leaders, behavioral health person, um, even a nurse or an EMT, uh, maybe a housing specialist.

But I would just love to see some form of outreach team that is a buffer between NPD and the um unhoused people, and that's nothing at all against uh Norman police.

I know y'all are just doing your job.

Um, but it's so maybe y'all aren't being called out so often to go take care of that.

It could be just an in-between person or group that is the first response, like um, so I would love to see something like that coordinated.

We were talking about the TIFF earlier and talking about how we'll have a committee for that.

Well, let's do a committee for this because this is actual people.

Um, so I would love to see that.

I did some uh I did some research, and um other on I I looked up other cities around the same size as Norman, that this has been successful for them having this outreach team, and so it brought up Oklahoma City, and in fact, Oklahoma City was first on the list of how well this has worked for them having an outreach team for Collins, Shawnee, Oklahoma, Eugene, all of I mean it just went on and on of all these um cities that are approximately the same size as normal.

I know it's I know Oklahoma City is uh it's larger, but it said it was first because of how well it has worked for them.

The other ones were around the same size, and and talked about how this has really helped curb things in a positive way, having that outreach team.

So I don't really have the best solution of what can happen, but what we're doing right now is not working at all.

Um we're just gonna keep meeting back here over and over again over this, but I do think an outreach team could help a lot.

So, Councilmember Blodgett, I would like to introduce Amanda, our new outreach team coordinator just came on board with us last week.

Um, and she and uh Kara Thank you.

Um they are uh the tip of the spear, they do work very closely with uh our partners in the continuum of care.

They also do coordinate quite closely with Lieutenant McWarter and the PACE team.

That pace team was designed specifically to address the needs of this population and develop those uh long-term relationships, and and they really do have um uh uh a positive response.

Uh what we saw behind food and shelter on state land, the state called and their their enforcement arm is a county sheriff's office, and they called the county sheriff, uh and the response was go put them all in jail.

And we said that's not how that works.

And we stepped in and said, let's begin the outreach.

We're gonna pick a date on the calendar, we're gonna work towards that, we're gonna work towards getting these people into programs uh and uh into shelter and into housing.

And uh had uh reasonable success with the uh initial population, and what we found is there were a handful of folks behind food and shelter at the end of the day who were unable to move into a sheltered situation because they had pets, and Kara on the team began looking for an opportunity to how can we shelter, how can we um account for the pets and allow that uh pet owner into shelter services so we can get them uh the help they need.

The challenge that that we're struggling with is what we're seeing at Kate Park today.

Uh day one, there were 11 people out there, and now there's 30 tenths and potentially 60 people out there, and there isn't a mechanism to say that's that's all, or here's the number, here's the limit.

Um, and we hear the stories about well, my friend told me this is where we're supposed to go.

This number could grow into a big giant number um without the capacity to manage the population.

So we don't we're we're scratching our heads trying to come up with an answer to say, how do you say this is how many people we think we can support in this capacity?

If we're able to add 60 beds, that's about how many people we think are currently at Francis Cape Park.

But we think next week there could be 75 people there, and I can't squeeze another 15 beds out of shelter.

Um, and then we're gonna have to address what happens if they say, Well, I can't go to the new shelter.

You guys just expanded because I have a dock.

18 months from now, we will have that solution.

Between now and then, we're we're gonna pickle council.

Um, so I guess that answered my expansion asked, like, are we gonna try and put a couple counts in?

Sounds like no.

Um had I mean, if you've not had that conversation.

We could take that and add them, right?

Um potentially, and we have do we do have some animal welfare experts uh on staff just to make sure the conditions were safe for those uh animals as well.

Um I'm leaning towards honestly a community call because I feel like the city has done a lot, and these are systemic issues why we're here because I'm gonna hop into housing here in a minute.

But um I think that if the county, as I hear it, gave food and shelter 80k for outreach manager or coordinator or whatever that rule is.

I wouldn't be so wrong to ask our community partner, hey, we're struggling over here, and also technically that all this counties is being suable if they're not enforcing um and they're already over 130, unfortunately.

Yes.

Um so and then to the housing issue.

We're like in a bottleneck, as I understand it at the current shelter.

There are 14 people that could be housed right now, which would be 14 beds that people at Kate Park could occupy if they were able to.

Um, so like is in a funding issue why we can answer that after going to meeting that had last week.

Well, we also do we have COC in here?

Let's kind of answer, can't you?

Um about HUD and stuff.

Yeah, and and in talks with the housing authority, the there are 641 people on the waiting list for section eight, and they are not issuing vouchers because of budgetary issues.

Um, I'll be perfectly honest with you, there are no housing resources.

Um, the home together committee has been meeting, talking about formulating a plan to go to the faith-based community that's very preliminary months out from anything, you know, coming together for that.

Um, it's it's it's a situation that that we have not been in in quite some time.

So that's how many people are waiting, but they're also not issuing any.

So that's how many people are waiting, and that list will just keep growing every day until yeah, they are still accepting people to get on the waiting list.

The OFA waiting list as well as the Oakland City Housing Authority, they have closed their waiting list because they are thousands.

You know, there's there's there's no hope.

And that's all federal funding.

Yes, all federal funding.

As ours is it all comes from HUD and because you know, with the economy we were in, wages are stagnated, rents have increases, so it's costing more for the housing authority to keep people on the Section A program that are currently on it, so they can't afford when someone turns one in, they can't afford to issue a new one at this point.

Um, and uh when you're saying faith-based organizations, is there a number given that haven't identified in Norman?

No, they are um the the group is primarily came out of this ANIA study that was this last summer.

This group is is working together to approach you know the faith-based organizations, yeah.

And then um to your knowledge, do we have any that's uh I guess it's Oklahoma statutes titled 74, and it's uh authority to permit church buildings to accommodate temporary overnight visitors for specific purposes.

It basically says um they've got to meet some guidelines like you can't charge for a bed and breakfast hotel, motel for uh the code occupancy rating purposes, all that um churches which temporarily accommodate overnight visitors as provided in the section, shall have one of the following an automatic sprinkler system in the area of overnight accommodations.

I imagine most churches have the sprinklers, and maybe not all.

Um a hardwire standalone fire and smoke alarm in the area of overnight accommodations, in addition to an exit door or window opening directly to a public way, exit court or a yard area.

It says nothing in the Oklahoma uniform building code or any code adopted by any political subdivision of the state or in any rules or regulations, blah blah blah.

Uh essentially, like if we as the political subdivision choose not to give the churches or churches a hard time, like we allow this to the use, like the community call could say, Hey, are you a church that meets the uniform building code as in the section?

Are you interested in potentially taking a few people and maybe we could support you?

I don't know.

Um I I think that is is fraught with all kinds of drawbacks.

You know, we investigated the possibility of having a weather-triggered overflow type shelter, and we we could not get there just because the requirements, you know, you are talking about a population that needs lots of oversight, okay.

And that that is a a hard and true fact that you cannot take people from a tent and put them in the church basement without lots of people to watch over them, especially if you start talking about waiving building code requirements, you know.

You know, that's that's the one thing we have learned in our in our shelter experience is that you think this is going to be great.

Everybody's going to want to come in here and just go to sleep.

That is the last thing that happens.

I'll just tell you from my experience.

So, and I think that I don't know what it says about zoning, but I think that we would run into some zoning issues for overnight accommodations and things like that.

Um but I would want to like say if a church organization were to come to us whether it's a weather emergency, because I do think we'll have to address a long-term plan even for the winter season that's coming, like not wait until November, December, but do it maybe starting in summer.

They're working on that, but what I'm saying is that for the months of discussion trying to work this out, we couldn't get there before winter ended, and we're talking about a two-month gap here.

We're not going to get there.

So, yeah.

Right.

Um, okay.

Um, I am glad about the community resource manager.

I was wondering uh how that's part of because I've considered like Cara and Amanda the missing a missing puzzle piece.

Um, we did share uh at a retreat early in council member grant's tenure.

That if you have an idea, put it on the board, and if the issue is we don't know how to pay for it, that's okay.

Money presents itself in strange ways, and in this particular instance, opioid abatement funds presented themselves, and it took a couple years, and those positions that you have requested through that retreat are now on board.

Well, um, just to before we kick it down to David, I would just like to put out there if there are organizations, whether churches or community activist groups that want to work with the city and or like head up these other levels of government, because again, this is a systemic problem.

Um, you know, I would like to think that we would be open to ideas, even if we can't use them right away, it might be something that might help in the future.

So thank you.

That 641 is that normally alone?

That is the Norman Housing Accords.

That's just 641 people in Norman Norway for housing back.

And I have gone through the process and met the preliminary threshold getting writing list, and they're just waiting for their number.

What's more games?

Well, just to piggyback on what Helen just said, especially those churches and businesses that are around where resources are already built in to help with this client and everything would be even greater and we appreciate it and everything for sure.

My question just for my own knowledge and everything, because I'm not really for sure.

If you go over there, Alameda Mental Health and go backwards and then over towards the church and everything.

How much property does the church own that's not being utilized by them currently?

And does the city have any property back there at all, or is it all state?

Um there is private ownership uh with the uh Alameda Church of Christ.

Um Chick-fil-A, Walgreens, some private ownership, and then the lion's share of it is uh state-owned land.

We can probably take a quick eyeball at a property line if we can see it uh in Google and get an idea if it's a quarter acre or yeah, an acre and a half.

Goes up to Apache, a lot of it's part of it.

Oh, yeah, well, they they the big parking lot to the north.

So most of there's this park lots that have been turning to park lot already.

Yep.

And can I I also talked to their leadership back when we did that stakeholder meeting uh in the lead up to the shelter being passed?

And they definitely is sometimes no people.

Um sometimes you might have a couple people back there, but uh I'm just thinking if we could fence off some you know if they let us borrow or at least some of their property.

I wish Councilmember Codgett and House.

Um, I just have a request.

Um I'm just gonna put it out there until we have a place for um these the unhoused um friends to go, just some kind of solution.

Um is it too much to ask to end the 10 p.m.

curfew.

I'll ask Mr.

Knighton for a when you say in the 10 p.m.

curfew, what do you mean?

And and I'm thinking about it in terms of do you mean a specific location or do you mean the 10 p.m.

curfew in general?

In general, everywhere because the 10 p.m.

opening up all of our public parks for people to be there after hours.

I think what we've been struggling with is the issue of when I've and I talked to council member Grant over a week or so ago and talked a little bit about we've talked a little bit about this in the past, we've talked about about it with prior mayors.

When I look at the issue of camping, there are things like a certain area can only support X amount of people.

Um so when I go, for example, if I go down on the Blue River go camping, they've got designated campsites that people go camp at, and we know that this is your area, this is your area, and so on and so forth.

You probably would want to set something up like that.

You would want to designate a specific area for people to go camp in.

I think what we've been looking at and what the city manager was talking about is we have a definition of parks in our ordinances, and it particularly references it's for recreational activities.

So we go there for recreational activities.

You're sort of transitioning that from recreational activities more to habitation, but we don't we'd have any rules with regard to how where you can be, when you can be there, what are the rules and regulations that go with your occupation of that particular area?

And what the legal staff has been discussing is really easier to figure that out on the front end and then implement it as opposed to doing it the way we're doing it, which is a little bit backwards.

We've already allowed that particular use, and now we're struggling with okay.

How do we go about figuring out it's things like what we talked about before is it's easy if I'm leasing you a residence?

I know there's a landlord tenant relationship there, I know what the statutes are, I know where to go to figure out what my rights are.

When you allow this type of a use, if I if I say I've identified a campsite area and you can camp here, what kind of a relationship am I entering with you?

Because that has benefits and burdens, responsibilities with regard to okay, what are my obligations and what are your obligations?

Um we haven't done that on the front end, so we're a little bit struggling to try to figure out okay, exactly what are the rules.

For example, if if I'm out there causing a problem, can the police come and tell me I can't be here anymore?

Well, it appears as though if we're saying you have a right to be in this spot, you have a right to be in that spot.

Um, and in absence of some other potential ordinance violation, something along those lines, if I have a right to be in the park, I have a right to be in the park.

Um, okay.

So what we've been talking about is the issue of could you, you probably could.

I think I think the better way to go about it would be to specifically designate which park, which area are you talking about, as opposed to saying we're getting rid of that limitation citywide.

Okay, and I understand that.

Thank you.

Um, but my next question is um, could so you're talking about the NPD coming out and um because there is someone out there causing problems and that and I can definitely see that happening.

Um, but can they come out and deal with the person that is you know behaving badly and and deal with that person individually instead of dealing with everybody just for existing?

So um so I have talked with um people since this has been such a thing, I've been talking with people, and they have told me that, and these are people that do go out and talk to them regularly, um almost daily, and they said that they uh most of them there want to um have rules set upon them and they want to abide by the rules because they don't want to have to leave.

And so what I'm just trying to say is it's not all of them, and so if we could just handle it on a more individual basis, hey, you you know, you are in trouble because you're acting, you know, horribly and you can't stay here, because then that makes it hard for everyone else.

And so if we could just deal with him or her, and you gotta go, I'm so sorry, but everybody else, you're good because you are following the rules, and this is very temporary, so it's very frustrating to me because it's so temporary.

And so, to me, if they could just stay there and it become a thing to where we make it more um stricter or whatever for them to be there, and then the right ones will stay there and abide by those rules and just deal with it on an individual basis of who should be in trouble instead of just I I'm gonna penalize you all and make you all keep leaving and going all these different places just because they exist.

I mean, that is just crazy to me.

I'm sorry.

Thank you, though.

No, it I think you're we are the question you're asking is yes, you could do it that way, but I'm thinking about it in terms of how we would enforce, for example, noise.

If I'm making a loud noise at my house and my neighbor calls the police, the police are gonna come and give me a ticket, and I don't have to leave.

I'm leave my but there's already, and and thank you, there's already noise problems at the fraternities and sororities that aren't being enforced, and so we can't just say noise because there's worse cases and normative noise.

The issue comes down to for us, comes down to does somebody complain?

Because if I'm making noise and my neighbor complains, they're gonna come, they're gonna respond to that call.

And if the circumstances are appropriate, if there's probable cause to believe that I violated the ordinance, they're gonna give me a citation.

But when we're talking about it in this context, in the context of I'm in a park, do I have a right to be there?

If we're saying that you have a right to camp, the answer is yes.

If I'm being a problem, there's some problems they could remove you for, there's some problems that they can't remove.

And that's fine, and remove who needs to be removed.

I'm all for that.

I mean, do it because I want the other ones to be able to stay.

The issue comes back to for them making sure there's clarity on who has a right to be there, who doesn't have a right to be there, do I have a right to remove you, do I not have a right to remove you?

Because they put themselves at risk for civil liability if they do something they're not supposed to do.

I understand, and to protect them and the unhoused people in that community.

We should write something up that says who can be there and who can't be there, and then they know that's what this is what we go by.

Yeah, and that's what I've talked about with the city manager specifically, and some of the some of the alternatives I have listed are designated camping policies, occupation, occupancy caps, and spacing requirements, administrative protocols, sanitation requirements, and waste disposal plans, environmental setbacks for waterways and structured outreach and cleanup procedures, so that we know, for example, when I said if you have a campsite and I designate this as being your area, you have a right to be here.

You also have a right to exclude other people.

So if I'm encroaching into your area, these guys don't know that.

If I were to go out there right now and look at the different tents, I don't know who's supposed to be there, who's not supposed to be there.

So if I'm in your tent and the police come and they say and you say I'm in your tent and you want me out, and I'm I'm not leaving.

Well, when they come, they had no idea who's supposed to be there or not.

And I understand that it is definitely not the perfect situation by any means.

But it's temporary.

But I do think you can resolve those issues on the front end.

If you've got some of these rules set out so that we know before you get there, these are what the rules are, these are what you agreed to buy abide by.

It's much easier for them to enforce.

It's much easier for them to keep order when that's necessary, as opposed to kind of just throwing everybody out there and not having any idea who's supposed to be where, so on and so forth.

It it would almost be better, for example.

If you had to come, if we set up specific areas, and this is campsite number one, and this is campsite number two, and you come to the city clerk's office, first come, first serve, you have a right to be a campsite number one.

So that if something is a problem and they have to go out there and you can show them this is my campsite, I'm supposed to be here, I don't want this person here, so on and so forth.

It makes it much easier for them to know what the rules are to be able to take enforcement action on that one person that's causing the problem.

And I can see that almost like there needs to be something.

You have to come and register, like what your camp spot number will be, and that actually seems doable to me.

Right.

Um so um that would work because it's temporary, and we're just gonna keep meeting here again.

And something we can none of us can forget about in this room is that the shelter bond passed, and it passed not just by one or two votes.

I mean, the voters spoke up and was like, yes, let's do this.

And so I think even just because of that, it's up to us to do something now until that can be built.

So uh we had the similar conversation about state parks and how state parks allow camping, but you have to pay for it and register spot and all that.

But it's regulated, but it is a it is something that's done in parks as a park function.

Yes, it's changed.

So council Bruce, and then the uh as far as Oklahoma Department Mental Health, uh keeping that pipe open regarding potential use of from purchasing additional land would have been nice.

The other comment I had as far as uh is that door closed?

I mean, is there's not answering the phone or um, yeah.

Mr.

Parenton's been making contact and it it they are in a state of disarray, I think at best.

Um they are being contacted by the development communities.

How trying to put money in your pocket so you guys can go do what you need to do, and this real estate could be freed up for uh higher and better use, and um it's it's just a challenge to get anybody to pick up the phones.

So, who owns the land north of food and feed or uh food and shelter?

All state.

Okay.

The um what about city code?

Let's see if I'm R1, R2, R3.

Is there anything wrong with me sitting up a tent in my yard?

Or someone you know, someone just wants to do that.

I mean is there something like silence?

I mean you're anyone who is R1R2 who say yeah, I don't feel bad about this.

I'd like to help.

Actually, I think Rick could answer that because we had a situation.

And technically, no, you can't.

It's a minimum housing issue.

Because our minimum housing code says you have to have certain minimum amenities when you're offering housing to people.

What's that housing say you put your ten here?

But it is so what happens to all these guys that have property other people are squatted on their on the parking and approval.

Well, if we got notice of that, we probably would send code out there to invest to investigate, and if necessary, we might we probably would tell them that that's about how.

I mean, the example is if you live in your house and you're you didn't have heat, and we knew about that.

We would post your that structure if you're not having.

Um, if you didn't have water, if you didn't have sewer, we would post it as being not habitable.

When you have that issue on somebody's private property, you run into those issues of it not being habitable.

And then, of course, the issue that we had over here is just across the railroad tracks.

Of course, a lot of the neighbors were complaining about those issues.

We did have code go over and work in ultimately we did have to tell that property, or you cannot you cannot lodge somebody in your backyard in a tent for some long term period.

Now, obviously, we think about it specifically in terms of things like what if my little kid wants to go out and spend a night in the tent in the backyard.

Can you do that?

Yeah, the answer is yeah, probably can, but he's not living there.

Um it's more of a temporary state.

We talked the mayor talked about we talked about a discussion earlier about the issue about state parks, and it was the recreation versus habitation issue because in state parts in state parks, you're not allowed to stay there more than a 16-day time period at it.

Um so it's like we're we're trying to sort of mash together some rules that we know we currently exist with regard to existing places where you can't actually camp and try to mesh those into this set of circumstances to see what fits and what doesn't fit.

Um some of them are appropriate, some of them are not appropriate, but it's things like sanitation um is a big issue.

Things like I said before, when I go to a state campground, this is my campsite, I pay the game ranger to occupy this space for this time period, which arguably gives me the ability to exclude people if I choose to.

Um under these circumstances, that the lack of sort of rules, and I under what council member blogged is saying is the difficulty is the lack of rules that can be enforced ultimately means we just tell them that we gotta get out because we don't really know.

Well, I just can't.

I get it, I get it.

So, what's causing this surge in demand?

Great question.

We talked about a bottleneck and people getting out of the way.

Shelf what's causing the unsheltered five central increase.

641 people are with own house.

So un shelter increase.

Unshelter.

No, I know, but I'm saying those people might be getting evicted or whatever that's on the list and everything, that adds to the problem.

I mean, wages are low, health care is poor.

Um economically, Oklahomans for the most part are not doing well unless you're in the top tier.

Umklahomas don't have health care, education is difficult, child care is not existing.

So what I'm saying, when it causes an increased demand is the passage of the vote on the bottom of the proposition, what causes increase?

Hey, I what caused people to go to food and shelter and place their encampment?

What cost that?

I don't think there's an increase.

I think it's pretty much the same.

We just end up wrecking place that place, and when we go do enforcement here, they move over here, and then we go do an enforcement here, they move some places.

I think the numbers are probably pretty successful.

Is that the case?

Councilmer Grant.

Okay.

Um I was gonna say too, I had teed up oversight to also talk about camping and ordinances, and I would love to continue that part of the discussion there.

Uh just because we're running out of time, uh just wanted to throw that out there that uh if we run out of time in this meeting, we can definitely pick it up again.

Councilman Cansbury and then Dixon.

I once again I like to talk about the shot clock in the room and everything like that coming down too, and everything.

And even though I've heard great conversation and uh sum up for the first time about this issue and everything like that, you know, and it's sadly not a problem that we can fix in an hour.

You know, and everything like that, but I think that we need to think about discussing real quick what is our recommendation for Kate's parked in and everything like that, and what's our you know I'm saying move forward and everything like that, because we got people that's still going to be there to nine tomorrow night and the next night, and some clarification helps those that are on the ground helping them know which way to go.

Councilmember Dixon works out great.

Um that I just want to clarify.

Did I hear earlier in the meeting that since Kate Park is being used as a campsite or leases up, or at least is terminated per the language in the contract with the state?

So that's what the language would indicate.

So the state gets no.

So this is the actions of these people have cost us one city park.

Like we do not have like according to at least according to what Daryl said, as soon as we allowed that to happen or didn't stop it, it reverts to the state's control, it's not ours anymore.

Is that right?

It it could absolutely be interpreted that way.

And uh I'd also just say I'm 100% against um using city parks as homeless encampments, normal public schools is gonna be out next Thursday.

Normal public schools is going to be out next Thursday.

These parks are for kids or for families to enjoy, and you you can't if you've got an encampment in the park.

And I'm just 100% against that.

Council McGee got just real quick.

In the event the state does take it back over, what if they show up, put a fence around it, and basically say it's not it would be used anymore as part?

I would assume what would happen is they would contact the sheriff for the highway patrol and say go clear our land is how I would expect it to happen if that's like they did at the property behind food shop to the guys.

At least they would as food ships.

Okay.

Councilor Hinkle and Kirby.

Could we potentially do an emergency ordinance to allow for maybe front yard camping?

Because again, we're talking about a temporary time period.

We're all we're all looking at permanent solutions for a temporary time period.

But if there's no covenants of an HOA or no other historic rules or anything that'll would stand in the way, could you potentially allow like one camper for a temporary amount of time, and then our new department can kind of help monitor where those people are and check up on them too, like we would appoint and time count.

And that way people that want to extend whether it doesn't have to be a church, but maybe there's church members, and that opens up more properties, and this is a temporary ordinance that allows for the encampment to not be in a public park and also be on somebody's property that has insurance, maybe even put an application process in really quick, where if you want to house somebody that is camping in your front yard, you have to fill out the application, your insurance goes on file with the city, and we know that you're doing that.

So if there is an incident, the police or care team or whoever knows exactly when to respond.

Um, and that would kind of achieve the goal of council member grants pool to the faith community and anybody else that wanted to take on that because again it is temporary.

Um, and the object being never to further displace people that are already displaced.

That is that's never a goal of mine.

Um but I also don't want to put the little the city at any more liability if a fire started or Governor Stitt decides to start enacting stuff tomorrow instead of November.

Um, but at least that would ensure the property that's there because the homeowner would already have the insurance and it would be an emergency release with us where we would allow it and keep it on file and have this very quick temporary system that we could put together and it runs 18 months, we have a shelter open and the ordinance was potentially runs 60 days to 90 days, and we expand your capacity here and you bring them back.

So, Mr.

Naton, that would be a legal question if such a uh temporary ordinance could be implemented.

Sure.

Want to talk about it in oversight?

And and yeah, so after I've got a just a quick comment after Councilmember Kirby.

Councilman Kirby.

I'm with that.

We went from 30 to 60 in a matter of what two weeks or less.

So our situation's not getting no better.

No, sir.

And changing the rules, as Scott, uh Mr.

Dixon just said, from park to bark, uh, don't help the situation.

And when we go start changing policies to make it where we can do campgrounds and parks, then it's harder to undo that policy and say 60 days when something's open.

Uh the city did vote for a shelter by a majority.

Uh, several wards voted against it by a majority, uh, and we have very opinionated people in them wards.

Um growing up, one of my best friends 33 years ago got took down in a park in Norman.

They cut out an eyeball, they cut out a testicle.

It was a bad situation.

The guy's never been caught to this day.

They knocked on every door, they went to every house, they did everything they could.

That's what I worry about because school does let out in six days, and kids are gonna go to the parks while their parents are at work because both parents work nowadays, it's not a single parent home, and we have 60 individuals at the worst time in their life that need our help, but we also have 128,000 residents who need to rely on the city that we're not gonna let their children be harmed in the way that this individual was harmed 33 years ago.

Never in my lifetime do I want to see that happen to another individual, woman, man, child, it don't matter.

You never heal from that, you never come back from that.

I keep hearing liabilities of lawsuits, but I don't hear any of us who are stewards of this community accepting the liability that that happens to somebody we made the decision to put them in that place.

So I would like to think, I mean, I don't know if food for friends can open their doors at night and let them sleep in the kitchen like they can in the winter.

We need to make sure our unhoused or protected in a safe manner, but we also have to represent Norman as a community and make sure nothing ever happens in the manner that happened over on Lindsay Street.

Okay, Mr.

Mayor, can I uh just get quick consensus?

Uh council's comfort with uh making a capital investment in the existing shelter and picking up potentially 60 beds, yes.

It's state contract.

You're not saying 60 actually saying 60 total, correct?

No, I think uh extra I wouldn't put a number on it.

That's not our decision, that's more up to make room for as many as possible.

Okay, I just want to make sure that we can commence that activity as early as tomorrow.

Uh the resources have been budgeted and there are contracts at the state that would allow us to move very quickly.

But the situation right now still exists.

Are the people at Cape Park going to be uh evicted out of there tonight or tomorrow?

Um, if if it is council's direction that we start working on uh an ordinance solution, my guess is our police department would really appreciate that type of clarity uh before they're uh re-engaging.

Right now the rules say they can't be there.

So if there is uh action to change the rules to allow them to be somewhere or somewhere else, uh at least that gives us uh a target to work towards.

Isn't there any poor we need to get over the next term?

Is there any portion of our property that's not in the way of that pipe for this week that we could tell them to move over there?

Just get this situation with Cape Park.

Don't you own 30 acres just north of the Robinson water plant and just south of Alameda?

We don't we think that's a that's probably a transportation and services issue at that point.

So how do you get the population there and then back to services of the that's kind of the other problem over here is they have to walk, and that's what a lot of the visible complaints have been.

I walk three miles a day feeding and doing my job.

Oh, yeah.

I hate to be a but we have we have buses, we have able, we have a we have terabans.

Um here's we gotta get over there.

But here's my thing.

I I'm saying that if we are going to evict these people out of Cape Park because of these circumstances, then I'm for letting them relocate over to our property for at least this week.

And that just kicks us down the road for another week, but it addresses the situation tonight.

I would be in support of that only because I think the clock is ticking on the state's phone call to say we're taking our private piece of property back.

So then they get kicked off the land and we lose the park, which just didn't seem to.

I mean, nobody wins in that scenario.

So we have to pay to put a gate in or take a fence panel down.

There's already gates.

I mean, it's just the thing that we also have.

We're just gonna be kicking them off there at some point soon too.

Sure, sure.

But at least something could open up.

But yeah, state's not gonna force our hand on it.

We would need to think we would need a time limit on that to get that move to occur in a timely manner and everything like to allow for a timely manner for everybody to move right with our resources and stuff like that.

You know, so not just it's not something that can just happen in like that, you know, and everything like that.

So I mean we're going to work and educate people that are there on what's happening and kind of get resources together for that.

I'd say my suggestion would be to do that and then we'll revisit it again on Tuesday, Thursday, and then again probably Tuesday.

We'll just keep talking about how many days are you, you know, are you gonna allow?

I mean, we can't just like he's saying it can't be in 24 hours, so you know Thursday, Friday, Monday, seven days till next Tuesday.

There you go.

Because we need more information about this pipeline thing.

Set seven days at least puts a time limit on the phone.

Just want to remind everyone about there is possible open sewage is pouring out of a pipe there, and once we sign a contract with an architect, they're able to start surveying, and every day that somebody's on that property is a day longer that we cannot start that project.

Will that start before Tuesday?

Next Tuesday?

No, two Tuesdays before you have two weeks away.

Right from now, but sewage is there's possible sewage on raw sewage on that property.

Yeah, I'll go.

Making it clear.

I'll go ahead and follow up my original comment with that.

I'm only in favor of it like over the minimum amount of time.

Absolutely possible.

As soon as we find another option, I don't think of any other option.

I just I don't know where to tell these people to go.

So to explore an emergency ordinance for oversight if we could do that.

Yes.

Okay.

I see consensus for that.

We'll make it so.

Thank you, council.

Much appreciated.

All right.