Meeting for Thursday, May 14th.

Our first agenda item is a discussion regarding possible charter amendments related to the tax increment financing.

Hi, okay.

I've got a um just can I talk through this?

Um I wanted to start with the case I mentioned the other night when we were talking about whether we could put something on the agenda to require uh potentially a supermajority vote or something like that on the in the charter.

Uh there's this case out of Norman from 1966, um, that that kind of dealt with this issue of creating a higher threshold for voting.

In that case, the applicant had some property that was zoned agriculture, he wanted to rezone it to multifamily.

The planning commission said we really think it should be single family, so no.

It was challenged.

Um, and what the court said is in the absence of an express requirement to the contrary, either in the charter or in state statute under which the powers exercised, a majority vote is sufficient to amend the ordinance.

Um, so you had that issue where it was conflicting with a state statute and it wasn't addressed in the charter.

Um, and so as we were talking through this, one of the ideas was uh could we put something in the charter to authorize a supermajority or some higher threshold vote before adopting TIFFs.

Um the local development acts expressly covers the voting threshold uh for a TIFF district, it says um it's a majority uh if it's in accord with the recommendation of the statutory review committee.

If it's not in accord with that recommendation or conditions set forth by the review committee, it has to be by a two-thirds majority vote.

Our charter now and back in during this 1966 case says council adopts things by majority vote.

Uh, there are a couple of exceptions.

One we adopted after that case to allow us to do supermajorities for certain zoning actions, and then we have a provision that allows for a higher threshold for the emergency clause, which you guys uh saw just on Tuesday night.

Um so to in order to be able to implement that, it would have to be more than an ordinance.

It would need to be in the charter.

Um, and so I've got on the back side of this a potential amendment that could be proposed.

It's got some blanks in there.

Um, I don't want to say this is without risk because the local development act has not been uh challenged on this issue.

Uh so there isn't really any case law uh addressing that.

It's not quite the same as that development industries case because in that case, state law authorized cities to exercise zoning powers, and we don't get that same grant under the local development act.

Uh so that's a potential uh issue if it were to be challenged.

Um, and and the LDA, the local development act directly addresses voting threshold, but I do think uh we have some good arguments if it's in the charter, better arguments if it's in the charter versus the ordinance.

And so you can see there in the language.

I I just kind of looking around in the charter to see where it might fit logically.

Uh Article uh seven, section one of the charter talks about ordinances and five members of council constituting uh a quorum and the affirmative vote of those five being necessary to adopt motions, resolutions, ordinances, etc.

Um, I'm just adding there except as otherwise provided.

Um, and then section two would provide for an affirmative vote of six members uh to adopt any ordinance that would create a tax increment financing district that apportions more than some percentage of city sales tax uh as increment as defined by the local development as it may be uh local development act as it may be amended from time to time.

I just thought I'd throw that out there for discussion purposes.

Um were there enough to go?

Okay, sorry.

I just threw that out there for discussion purposes, whatever uh you know you guys are wanting to do.

That's just an idea based on some of our previous discussions.

So I'm hearing charter amendment, but there's not been any case law.

So if somebody wanted to challenge it, if what would happen, it just wouldn't go to a vote for the charter change, or it gets changed by a vote and then gets challenged.

Right, it could that could happen either way.

I think I think it could be challenged if council adopts it within the 30-day period, but I think someone could challenge it as applied later if if that becomes an issue.

And and that's not to say it can't be done, we just can't guarantee an answer on that question.

We just can't guarantee an answer on that question.

Um just because the local development act is implementing a very specific constitutional provision.

I I suspect the court would say this is a matter of statewide concern and the municipality can't trump whatever's in that act uh with its own requirements.

Um but if you look at the development industries case, I do think there's some some authority there that helps strengthen our arguments if it's in the charter versus the ordinances.

Okay, I'm willing to explore charter route.

I don't know what the other council any thoughts?

Yes, sir.

If we okay, so um if we were to do a charter amendment, the that second one ordinance creating tax increment finance districts from doing it as a if a TIFF is over at or over a certain percent threshold of city sales tax because that's our primary funding source for the operations, it does impact other taxing jurisdictions if it's property tax too, but the city of Norman operates on sales tax.

And I don't know if those other jurisdictions want to require a public vote to approve property tax-based TIFFs, maybe they could explore that.

Um, but sales tax is what affects our bottom line.

Right, and that keeps this local concern only, so that's part of the reason why I think you know we focused on that, and and I think that's a good reason to focus on it, you know, for future legal arguments that we may have to make.

Yeah, let's keep it you know to sales tax, um, and then also consider a percentage and not an actual route about um and then um so the have you guys done your this legal staff done much looking into the Bethany situation and how that happened, what are the implications of it?

I know there's some negative side or things that have or consequences of it perhaps that they're facing that they didn't anticipate.

Yeah, I don't recall uh the exact circumstances that led to it.

I talked to their city attorney shortly after it was adopted to try and get a sense of of what they were shooting for there, and um it actually is so general it it um bans the use of public funds as an incentive for anything, and I think there's some potential there where they're um potentially impacting things that we do if we have something similar, some things that we do where we are giving money to nonprofits and other people, other entities to do things um in the city.

So I think it's it seemed pretty broad.

He seemed pretty concerned about it, but um, I I think it I want to say it was actually proposed at the council level as a charter amendment.

It wasn't an initiative petition, but I don't think I can check it's been wasn't challenged or anything since it's not been challenged, and then from what I understand they haven't had any TIFFs come forward since then, or I don't know.

No, and I I don't know that they had any actually got adopted before that.

So trust um okay.

I think they had proposed some sort of incentive to a business outside of the TIFF process, and clarify from the other day, we can't the council just as a matter of this new TIFF policy can't require a higher council threshold.

Really the only way to do it is through this charter amendment.

Yeah, yeah.

I think it you're really um setting it up for a challenge if you put it in the ordinance uh using that Norman case that I referenced.

And so I can't remember the vote on the original campus corner to if that was unanimous by council back then or not.

I'm not sure.

But I don't remember it being controversial as far as that goes.

And then the original University of North Park was a five to four council vote, and then the center city TIF was a nine unanimous council vote with no protest.

Um and then the new University North Park TIFF, a five to four vote with a lot of protest and controversy.

And so I think for me, that's what the aim is to try to avoid in the future is uh massive commitments with one vote threshold, and uh ending up in a situation like this where we have a one vote threshold of council, we have a big citizen petition, thousands of people sign it, it gets litigated for over a year and then gets thrown out, and then now we're stuck in this situation of it was approved by council, so people that are for it or feel like they have the green light to go forward.

Uh those that signed the petition and want it to go to a vote feel like they're it's like a just left hanging with no resolution on that end of it.

So and I feel like something like that, if it can't get six council votes, then maybe it's not worth doing, or private investors should cover the cost of it.

That's my opinion.

Yeah, on it for now.

Um council member Dixon.

Thank you.

Is are we planning on sending this through the um charter review commission as we've done previous charter changes in the past.

And they told me that we don't have to invoke another committee.

Yeah, there's not a requirement to appoint a charter review commission except once every 10 years.

Our last one met in 19 and 20, and those amendments were adopted to 2022.

The recent amendments adopted this last April were proposed by council and didn't go through a charter commission.

Council, I would say if we if there are, especially if there are additional amendments that council may want to explore, then that might be something we should do if we're like, well, actually want them to we want a deeper look into the charter as a whole, or we have multiple questions.

We might then I mean I I wouldn't be opposed to it if that was the case.

Makes perfect sense.

And I should say a similar question was considered by the 1920 Charter Review Commission.

I think the specific question was to include on the ballot something that would require a uh vote of for any TIFF over five million dollars.

The commission never reached consistent consensus on what to do with that.

Um so if it failed and council didn't put anything before the voters.

And I was gonna say I got uh email from Catherine that has the minutes of all those, and I want to say that page is 25 in that document, if you would like it.

Yeah, it's the final report.

We we assembled summaries for every single thing that they considered, but so it might be useful because there's other issues that continue to circulate that they considered and didn't move forward to the voters if you want to look at um other issues that might be good for a charter review.

Uh yeah, I was gonna say if it sounds like a worthy topic for uh a priority for the treaties.

Uh yes, council member Himbold.

Just a question for clarity on charter amendments that we vote on.

Do we have to have a supermajority on those?

I can't remember.

No, so those can be five to four.

I suggesting we also think about that.

I mean if we're gonna want to look at the charter change, we might as well make it equal on both sides.

So if we're changing changing rules and changing rules, then don't want to be too controversial in the ability to change those rules.

We don't want to set future council up for issues either.

So yeah, agreed.

Yes, council member Bruce.

Got a question on uh rewarding on tax finance districts, the very last paragraph we talked about percent portions more than blank percent.

What are you thinking there regarding what percentage we're talking about?

Well, I was leaving that up to you guys.

Uh we've had TIFFs that uh I'm not talking about the number, it's how you present the number.

So there's two different ways to present it.

So 4.125, right, is the tax, and there's a certain it could be uh you know more than two percent, or if you look at it differently, say well, 80 percent of you know I mean, yeah, so what number do you use for that?

Yeah, so uh I use the terms from the local development act to hopefully clear that up.

Apportions more than if it was UMP one, it was apportioning 60 percent of the city's portion of the sales tax uh increment or as increment.

So it's really trying to get to just that city portion.

Um it may be if we adopt this ordinance that prohibits uh um apportioning non-dedicated or dedicated portions of the sales tax, we might want to put you know that in there, um, but I didn't put it in there because that ordinance is not on the books yet.

I'm glad you did it because that's that makes sense.

Yeah, okay.

Um is that it?

Uh Mayor Holden.

Yeah.

I mean um the question about what it could be or should be I mean I thought about 25% or 50% of that or a percent of the general fund um if it exceeds whatever percent of the general fund it would require that threshold.

But then it's like okay if we set it at 25% so someone just if it's a 24% then it requires five votes.

But if it's one more percent then it requires 4.9 so I don't know if it has to be even a set percent or if it'd be better if it was whatever percent of the most recently approved or I don't know well and I didn't put a dollar amount because you know that was one of the things the Charter Review Commission struggled with last time is five million dollars even in 2019 is a lot of five million dollars today.

And the center city TIF is over 50 projected to be right um so that's about the original percentage is is a better way to go but I hadn't thought about percentage of the general fund.

Just that being the kind of for me the precipice or whatever for it's the general fund protect the general fund.

So yeah I don't know if they're if looking at it that way might be better than just saying well 25% anything over 20 25% of what um 25% of the increment but I think maybe the percent of the general fund might be something to consider.

I would add to that I'm kind of curious about center city campus corner that was a percentage of both Apple and sales tax what made what percentage was that for the city I don't remember I wish Anthony Francisco was under he lived that one more than I did that was already uh over and done with when I started at the city but um it was sales tax and property tax it was only around a two million dollar TIFF somewhere in that range um I think it was thought that that uh property tax would be paying the bulk of it uh but some inventory was moved and something happened that lowered the property tax uh taxes that were received within campus corner and so it ended up being more sales tax funded than anticipated but not over whatever the project plan had authorized um I think I would like more info around a percentage uh what at what point the city thinks uh this is going to be a real big impact I imagine 25% could be that or maybe it's 50 I don't know yeah and and Catherine I think the the initial calculations when you were working on um what Griffin starting with zero in council's master plan the number that stuck in my mind is that was about it it it had the possibility of generating about 60 million and I don't remember if that was just on the ad valorum side or if if we anticipated some commercial um impact from 12th Avenue front.

It was definitely more ad velorum uh than sales tax but I don't remember the percentage we were talking there we may not have gotten quite that far but um yeah that was part of the tip district master money it was more ad valorum heavy because it was sitting there with zero based you know zero taxable value right now so well I was gonna say mixed use too that's version of yeah and so that depends on you know that master the plan the council developed for that area it had more uh residential and things like that than it did commercial but yeah I would be kind of curious like if 25% was a major sacrifice or not I I guess it depends on the area because sales tax is still a little so um but yeah that's my only question about picking a percentage is what's the threshold where it could have really long lasting effects I mean sorry we could do a like a provision where it's a percentage threshold or a dollar amount threshold and that way it gives a little bit of scale for the projects that are presented so we could be like 10% of whatever up to X amount of dollars.

Okay.

I did say that if you were going to use sales tax, you it's because you're anticipating that there will actually be that gain that makes it worth it all, right?

So I think it comes down to a little bit of a value judgment what that is.

Um yeah, I don't know.

Uh I don't figure I don't think we're gonna figure it out today.

So um if staff would um we'll take a stab at some analysis based on the proposed 2627 fiscal year budget.

So if we look at that budget and say what kind of percentages of sales tax would have an impact, then we're using that set of numbers to apply.

Um we'll work on when we come up with something that we think makes sense, we'll put that back on the agenda, bring it back to you if that works for you.

All right, um there any more questions for Catherine about uh putting things to vote and whatnot or charter change questions.

Look forward to more discussion, yeah.

Same all right.

Thank you, Catherine.

Thank you.

Um next up is a discussion of interim solutions for homelessness.

And what is that?

Can you present to me?

Um we've got a team of uh staff members participating in the effort uh an interim.

Interim can mean two things, and and we would love to zero in on interim being uh 60 to 90 days while a uh capacity expansion is implemented at the existing shelter versus interim being 18 months before the new shelter is open.

Um in conversations with our current operators at City Care.

Um they recommended strongly uh a move to bring folks into shelter services uh as efficiently uh and timely as possible through their data and even the knowledge of uh our two staff members that participate in that outreach activity.

Um 18 months in a tent really doesn't advance the the uh individuals any closer to being housed.

The data strongly supports in shelter services the ability to get housed uh goes up pretty dramatically to the point where CityCare said, look, um we we believe so strongly in the need to get people out of tents and into shelter, uh we'll bring money to the table.

Uh if that meant you know how how much do fire sprinklers cost, uh you let us work on bringing some cash to the table for an 18-month investment in the current shelter.

Um we believe we have access to some kennels that could be configured in and around uh the existing shelter.

Um if council believes that endeavor is worthwhile, then the interim conversation has to do with now in 60 to 90 days when new beds become available in the existing shelter building.

So um we've had uh lots of conversations in the last couple of days regarding what a 90-day interim solution may look like, and um I don't know, Anthony's probably uh most immediately versed on what is possible for this 90-day window should council decide to go through the exercise, take city care up on their offer to bring some money to the table and expand capacity in the current facility.

Um so a lot of conversations staff has been having to try to one, I think try to take what council gave us um on Tuesday and work that into like a little bit more refined uh idea to give you guys today.

Um I think just to start off with what we heard Tuesday is you know council really would like there to be uh a temporary solution um in some shape or form uh in the interim.

I I I think that today I think we definitely need because a lot of these I think are contingent on the idea that we're going to have the better interim solution in that shelter expansion.

So I would like to preface this by saying these interim 90 days really are kind of in expectation of there being some additional shelter beds open up at the current shelter.

So with that being said, I think that of course all options should be presented to council that you know are available.

The first option I think is and to be blunt, returning sort of to the status quo of you know, again, which is kind of how we've always most cities, I think would operate, which is where we you know provide the current shelter capacity that we're able to provide, and um anything above that, then you know we do what we do, which is enforced laws, right?

So if again the alternatives to that, right, would be providing additional types of shelter locations, right?

So either that's an indoor location, um, which is I think in my opinion, the best option for everybody involved when possible, and if you know, council also has the option of you know, if they wouldn't want to pursue an indoor option, or if they wanted to pursue something alternative if that option wasn't available, an outdoor potential solution.

Um, and so again, I think those are kind of the three potentials we're looking at here.

And this is what we've been working on in the interim.

I mean, well, we've always been working on that indoor solution, haven't we?

Um, and we're making progress, right?

But this will always be a problem, right?

The amount of people at the camp now plus the amount of people at our current shelter exceed our future shelter amount, right?

So all that being said, we'll never stop seeking these solutions.

So uh that being said, each of those presents, and I'm you know, of course, the attorney for the city, so I'm gonna have to also inform you about the risks of each potential option.

So those options also come with a wide variety of risks, and of course, as you know, there is that risk of you know that the current shelter, yes, but also if we're having an outdoor solution, the risks are gonna magnify.

And also, when council is acting in a very, you know, in rushed capacity in a short time frame, those risks, which are what they are on any good day, are going to be heightened by a large degree because you could only do so much.

And I think we've learned this lesson ourselves, you know, when you rush into a solution.

So I think that council at the very least should take this, you know, whichever alternative you guys want to pursue, you know, you also have to consider as a board, you know, what are those risks associated with each options, and then weigh the policy benefits for each.

So um, and it's you know, one of my roles is to inform you of those risks.

So I think going back, the you know, status quo, it is what it is.

Council obviously it's not okay with that, so that's why we're pursuing so many solutions.

So here are some potential solutions, in addition to I think again, those increased shelter capacity beds at the current shelter.

So um we have been uh you know, again, barrel is already empty, but we're scraping the bottom again.

So part of that is returning to old solutions to seeing if anything has changed, right?

So one of those solutions potentially, potentially, potentially, again, we've had three days.

Uh so very, very preliminary, but we were wanting to bring it to you.

So is we had a conversation with the uh State Department of Mental Health today, and um considering that one, we're currently on Francis Kate right now, and we'll, you know, talking about the status of that, also kind of doing a recap of the encampment issue and the DEQ issues that you know kind of brought us into the current situation that we are, and you know, the city and the state, uh there is a very good conversation, uh, you know, wanting to explore potential interim solutions indoors on current state property, and they're you know, willing to look into any of the current buildings that are on that campus.

Again, we've toured those buildings several times.

Um, you know, I'm assuming that they haven't put you know heating in buildings that didn't have heating before, etc.

etc.

You know, um, you know, lead paint.

I mean, don't look the walls, but um, you know, like kind of sort of things in terms of uh some risk there, but again, we're willing to look at those options, and they're gonna provide us with what they have now that they've moved some of the people out.

Uh, I don't know if that's changed much, but willing to look at those, and then also um potential for outdoor options did explore that.

So again, I think it was clear last meeting that council doesn't want anything on a park property.

Um, and and Francis Kate is likely not the solution.

This is why I think we were uh looking to move it to a different location.

So with that in mind, and also with in mind the huge risk not only to the city, but also to again the stability of any solution on current shelter property that the where the current or the future shelter will be housed, um knowing that that location is also extremely not ideal, uh looking at other alternative options in kind of the same area, which a lot of that state property, um again, potentially uh had this conversation today, uh the state is willing to consider uh allowing the city to enter into some sort of agreement or um temporarily in the interim as we work on shelter bed solutions.

Um I'm we're talking like 30 90 days, right?

Um, to relocate uh the encampment to uh state property under some sort of lease and again who gets that risk, we would get that risk, right?

Um the state is not going to be, I'm assuming willing to share in the risk because it is high risk, very high risk, and um we would be responsible for management again for an indoor solution.

We would not open the doors to any city building and say, here's your shelter solution and then walk away, right?

The responsible, you know, approach to that is to not only offer the solution, but to offer a dignified, responsible managed solutions.

So in that event, right, keep in mind that that outdoor component would still have probably a substantial cost associated with it, even for an intra-90-day period.

So and again, there is no plan, there is no um, you know, uh you know, we have not had the luxury of working, you know, two months on or you know, that's even a small amount of time on how would we do it well, right?

So um just there's some risks obviously associated with that, but um that is kind of the potential proposition that we are looking into for an outdoor solution.

And there could be some again, along with that, maybe some there are some buildings maybe in those some areas, you know, on Grimfin campus that we could use indoor bathrooms, which is you know, hey, that's a a little more of an improvement there, and you know, maybe showers and stuff like that, limited limited facilities.

And it's we're really glad to hear City Care's looking uh investing in the sprinkler situation.

Um kudos to whoever got those kennels.

Um for the outdoor costs, if you're have access to indoor bathrooms, you know, let's just say entities helping provide those party potties now.

They wanted to put money towards the management of this outdoor situation, like there's community investment to help make up what it would cost us.

Um, do you have an in for someone in those discussions?

An in for or like you mean do we have an in if someone wants to give us a check?

Yeah, I mean, like we're we would take that.

Absolutely, yes.

Yeah, um, do you have an estimate for what no, uh unfortunately?

I wish I did.

Um a conversation from an hour and a half ago.

That's all right.

So we're still talking about it on Tuesdays.

Yeah, and again, this is gonna require some you know creative uh solution uh making if if it does happen.

Um again, just notice.

No, we do we even know what the risks are?

It's kind of preliminary, right?

So um uh just keep that in mind.

Um if your minds are open to it, keep them wide open.

Um no, no idea.

But again, the I think the dignified and responsible solution requires, you know, again, we're we can't just open any building and say this is your shelter solution.

We can't just open any property and say this is your shelter solution.

It requires management.

So, what level of management that is going to require is going to also have to be a discussion of council is how much money do we want to um you know spend on this to mitigate risk when there's a lot of risk.

And I was gonna say too, what about uh what about Cara and Amanda as a part of the management strategy if we were working outside?

I mean and indoors.

I'm so okay.

Um so consider you're looking at this from a risk perspective, right?

You have employees that you hired between four days and three weeks ago.

Now you're entrusting them with a high risk operation.

Um then also taking trust change.

And and and please, as someone who has like been so excited, and like I literally think we have a dream team on our hands.

That's a lot to ask.

And I'm not, and then I'm not speaking for them, and I'm not, but I'm just saying, like, you know, I I don't know if that is the greatest sport fifth day assignment for someone to have.

Um I was gonna say, since we have to be creative, I mean we could be working with our uh others in the community outside the city, and their part could be more manageable if they were just doing updates with whatever entities uh because it could be more than one that are helping with management, but then the question becomes what does that look like in a contract or agreement with the city?

Like you're working with us to help us manage this.

We obviously will have requirements, um, like case managers, things like that.

Well, maybe um, and again, it really depends on can't you use an independent contractor to run the operation like we do for the shelter?

Absolutely.

Um again consider, you know, those have we already reached out to some potential partners?

Sure.

Uh consider the cost, one that would potentially create, but I would advise that like that does create some burden shifting opportunities for liability.

Um that would be preferable.

Um, but also comes at a cost.

So uh if uh that is I think the idea if it were to happen.

Um I don't think anyone on staff, even the ones that you know we've hired kind of for this expertise in the area are necessarily, you know it would be I think it would be preferable to have you know someone like uh an actual agency that has a little bit more staffing power, stuff like that.

Um we flesh that out a little bit more by Tuesday, because I would understand also not knowing who that would be by Tuesday, uh, but just to kind of put feelers out there and see who's interested.

Yeah, yeah, so like we're already on that.

So that's definitely an option.

Um again, uh the give and take, you know, obviously on that.

So the burden shifting there, potentially again, state shifting burden to city.

City could, you know, potentially burden shift to anyone who's willing to take on that endeavor.

Um, but again, I don't think we're ever ever going to be in a situation where we can shift all the risk, especially in such a high-risk endeavor, um, which is again why I think that from a risk perspective, yes, but also from a uh knowing council's goals of you know, you know and then also hearing, I think a lot from the same partners that we're working with to try to you know work towards this solution.

I I will say a lot of them have said, for example, it is that it is not a dignified solution potentially, and so that is I think why we're pushing so heavily for an indoor solution, because I think that is out of and I think everyone agrees that's the best option, right?

Um so and then so I think that we there has been a lot of pushback from service providers on an outdoor option, I will say.

Okay.

Um are there any thoughts on council?

Can we start maybe by um I I think staff uh really needs direction specifically, like because I think you could probably break this down into two different um considerations.

First is permanent indoor or like or you know, not permanent, but like indoor expansion beds for current shelter, and then you could also I think people take them in two parts.

Yeah, um, I'm in favor obviously of expanding because that is and again now there's kennels, so there's even less reason to say no, I can't do that.

Uh and then knowing that that case management will be consistent is I think hugely important to someone's success, even though we know that there is you know a bottleneck on housing.

Um I realize some people will be harder to house for different reasons that don't have to deal with having a pet.

Um I am we can get to number two in a second.

Uh thoughts on council Mayor Holman?

The so city care willing to pitch in for updates, updating the building.

Um is there an idea of what is the we have a contract with them for a certain amount for operations?

The time period wouldn't be changing from seven people.

Correct.

So would adding X number of beds require them to add people, and if so, what would they potentially initially an extra body, and it's it just boils down to a line of sight.

Uh if uh Wyance are building superintendent and his team, uh the goal is to open up the line of sight as much as possible just to make supervision easy while the uh clients are asleep.

City care crews are wide awake and eyes open, just you know, making sure things uh operate smoothly.

So depending on how the inside of that building can be modified with a door here and a firewall there, uh they may need an extra body, and basically our and Anthony, of course, familiar with the contract.

It's on a reimbursement basis.

Would we need to modify that contract?

Or is it would we just need to potentially uh appropriate an additional dollar amount for the reimbursement?

They have a budget, and so it would be an amendment to the budget, which is very simple.

Um, and again, it it depending on the amount could be approved by the city manager.

Um, you know, or you know, again, just be a contract amendment.

Uh again, contract need will probably for the next fiscal year will have to be in front of you.

Um in June.

I don't think it will be on that contract because we don't necessarily have that worked out yet, but it's very simple to add that, and you can do it quickly.

And there still aren't any other buildings to move the gray street shelter to until the new ones built.

Agreed, yes.

The same the Rick Center at Used B.

Griffin is still in the same condition, I guess.

Uh, I'm sure it's deteriorated since then.

Uh okay.

That's been was my main one is about all um having to amend the contract and what that cost is.

What is the cost of installing new stuff?

The cost of new contract, and then where does that come from?

Um, and then other than that, I mean I'm I'm not hearing or seeing any other options from anybody about where to what to do until the new shelter's done.

Um, yeah, and is Anthony described, you know, an option and how it has worked historically is when a campus disbanded, the individuals find themselves a new spot.

And typically in not too uh distant a future, the phones began to ring and new complaints about new camps popping up.

That has been the way.

Um the concept of taking another interim step to the future permanent shelter location, uh buys a couple weeks versus maybe that 90-day interim step uh still on state land, you know, not not too far from uh Cape Park.

Um if this were easy, we'd already done it.

So now it's down to the hard parts and the really tough uh questions.

In terms of resources we have, uh we've got uh HVAC systems that had been removed from other facilities that are available to provide the climate control in an expanded shelter here.

Um city crews to be able to install a firewall here and uh add additional restroom capacity.

Most of that will be done in-house uh resources that are available uh to to make that step come from uh the initial budget to obtain architectural and engineering work on the permanent shelter location that um as we begin to pay those bills to the architect and to work on the site plan and and some artist renderings uh once the ballot was approved by the voters, those expenses now will shift to the capital project where funds will be deposited with anticipated architectural and engineering work built in.

So what we'd initially set aside for that work is available to help cover the cost of this interim solution.

And so also I would just like to this doesn't I I just want to from a staff perspective and from direction, we will still need direction from council on what to do with individuals, even if we do an outdoor even if we do an outdoor, because again, that the outdoor solution, no matter what it is.

I mean, think about our unsheltered pit count, right?

And think about the people who aren't visible right now at Francis Cape Park, those people need solutions too, and we can't provide solutions for all of those people on this, you know, the what staff's been working on.

So, like when the next group maybe come to Francis K, you will still have that same question.

Now you will just have two other shelter solutions, and then we'll be looking at again what what is the solution for those individuals next, right?

So I I think again, I just want to make sure that this I just want to keep council's attention to the fact that this will not go away necessarily.

So um I don't want to overpromise as a you know as staff that this will solve that solution because I don't think it will.

Okay.

Well, for solution one, which is a fed expansion.

Umorman, were you done on that point?

And it was council member Bruce had raised his hand.

Yeah, so uh solution one being the gray street expansion.

So have we heard anything from the business community, downtown business community, local business community about an expansion of that capability?

No, sir.

Um I know that city care has made a lot of strides in working with those communities.

I mean, for example, some individuals I know that have been heavily against you know the shelter being located downtown.

Um have been potential board members for city care.

So um I I will at least attest to our contractors an amazing uh ability to work with the um downtown community.

Um and we like I don't honestly.

I mean, the last time I think wasn't the last shelter contract on the consent agenda.

Yes, right.

When did that ever happen?

Um, and I don't I I just don't get as many complaints personally from the downtowners that I I ever got before.

I'd like to add on that understanding, and let me add on to about inside sheltering, instead of you know external park area, etc.

I'm pleased that you're interfacing with the state open mental health.

I I get you guys have a uh site profile when they're going to move out when you're gonna start transitioning.

I wouldn't call it that um formal of a we we we are aware of what they've told us.

So you've done your analysis as it relates to hey, this is what we anticipate may happen in the future related to that hospital moving.

Oh, yeah, yes, for looking at the tsunami your uncle for the future.

I would tsunami of demand.

Yes, but I'd also put that in the category two because we will talk about that other outdoor situation in the future, but this is just for the expansion because I think staff just really wants clear direction on that.

I understand.

So I'm thinking well, there's buildings over there building 85 on that they're vacating, and I don't know if they put some of those or not already.

Yeah, I don't know.

So the what we understand in that transition plan is patients are already being served out of the Oklahoma City site, and it is my understanding that by December 31st, all of the patients under Griffin's care will be served in OKC.

The uh understand I want you to keep those pipes open with the Oklahoma Mental Health regarding opportunity because I think you're gonna need more of a transition area on Reefs than what you're anticipating now.

Does that make sense?

Yes, sir.

Um I thought I saw another council member raise our hand.

I don't want to have it okay.

We can always come back to you.

Um, council member Dixon and then Hinkle.

Um I was just gonna say I've had four um business owners downtown uh reach out to me, and they're not interested at all in adding beds downtown.

Um they're still having issues with the number that are currently in the shelter.

Um and so I I would not be interested in in adding beds downtown on gray.

I mean, we're it sounds like we're over a quarter million dollars in construction um to add these beds, and we're not gonna get that out of it in 18 months when we sell it.

Um I mean, if somebody would like to, I mean, I think that the real solution is churches and nonprofits, uh, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

Umprofits reached out to you.

None to me.

Uh talked to Councilmember Gannisbury today, and he was going to um call um some churches.

Um council member Kirby couldn't be here, had a health appointment.

He said he wasn't for a park option, which the future the item two is that I think he would be for this, but he did say, and then count former council member no fire also reached out that there is an entity with land that would like to turn it into a halfway house, which I asked for clarification meant like um wraparound services, more transitional housing than permanent supportive housing is the vibe I got.

Um I said I was supportive of zoning.

The conversation was maybe they might be interested in doing an outdoor solution until there was an indoor solution.

Um I would say if anybody's in opposition to expanding the current site, um, that they definitely be reaching out into these communities and giving us solutions because the four business owners I don't think are reflective of the entire downtown.

And um further opposition to that, the alternative is people camping in their alcoves or out on their stoops.

Um businesses downtown allow people to sleep under their awnings.

So uh it's a variety.

I would prefer that um people be at a safe outdoor thing, and that's for item two, but item one makes it so that they are engaging with case management and have a safer place to be because uh I mean I've discussed it in the future that we should probably have like a inclement weather plan, but mostly thinking about winter.

Uh it's just not safe to be outside.

But I also think the summer is not a great time to be outside either.

So um do you have any thoughts about like what churches that you're aware of uh have land or would you be supportive of them if they wanted to take on that outdoor campaign?

Absolutely.

I'd um I mean I've spoken to former councilmember Hall about um thought there was one like ready to go, ready to jump out there.

Um I don't know where we're at on that.

Um it's it's a very frustrating um pushing a rope trying to get you know some stuff opened up on where you think they would be more than willing.

Or if those business owners might be willing to help with people getting into housing if they are not interested in having um people downtown.

There's people already ready to go.

Uh Councilmember Dixon, we we sense that frustration in that as an organization, we pride ourselves on solving problems.

Um most of the problems we're faced with are within our subject matter expertise.

We can build bridges and provide recreational opportunities and public safety issues as well as anybody.

And here is a challenge where I mean we believe the lion's share of the obligation should be that of the state and county department of health, and we are the ones faced with the with the issue, and and we're trying to solve it in in arenas that are just not our wheelhouse, uh, being asked to address things that the charter never anticipated, and uh that is that sense of frustration.

This is the single most challenging issue local governments ever been asked to address, and not a single city government has solved the problem.

Um also since he texted me, I assume he's okay with me mentioning it's Hope Ministries House, if you're familiar.

Um I but I'll just say that former council member No Fire said he had talked to Commissioner Hughes in November about uh this particular plot and people's interest.

I think there is an entity that like funds Hope House uh or Hope Ministry House, and the long term plan came from them to have like a halfway house.

Um Councilmember Henkel and then Bruce.

Can I just ask for click out?

Who else is presenting on this today?

Anyone just questions?

Here to answer questions.

So by all means, just in case there was anybody presenting, I just wanted to invite you to come sit with us.

Um okay, so I got a lot of thoughts on this, and I did receive calls today from downtown business owners who were not a fan of the expansion just because it was temporary seven years ago and it's continued to be that way.

Um how many people are at the camp right now?

Do we know?

Um I heard 50.

Yesterday 35.

There are 50 tenths.

There's 50 tents as of today.

50 tenths so potentially a hundred people.

Less than like 60.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Um the capacity of our current shelter 54 is bank is based off of square footage and the fact that it doesn't have sprinklers, or is there a threshold of different factors?

Yeah, that there are spaces in the building that should not be occupied just based on access to wiring and where firewalls are and the limitation in plumbing.

So are we even providing enough square footage per space for an individual to safely be in that building, sprinklers or not?

Um, I think that's where the current occupancy came from.

Um, to add sprinklers um makes the fire marshal much happier about not relying solely on fire watch.

Um and basically the absence of climate control has limited what spaces in that building could be occupied in the heat of summer and cold of winter.

Uh, we do have a mechanical system that we could install in climate control back portion of the building, and if it's fire sprinkled, it it could be occupied.

So those have been the limiting factors to so we're looking at another temporal uh expensive temporary solution that it was already controversial and has been on both sides.

Okay, correct.

So several months back, I suggested that we explore the options of creating a 501c6, something that would allow churches and other partners that have missions that are in regard to this to pull the resources together and make a greater impact.

So that's gonna be after my time, obviously, but I would still like to explore that through whatever channels that we can because I think that that opportunity really does have some legs for property purchase.

Uh, so where we can get ourselves out of this safety is always my top priority.

So safety for the people that are unhoused, and you know, I don't want them to be intense, that's already a bad situation, and I don't ever want to make a bad situation worse.

I also want to look out for the Norman residents and their safety, uh business owners, things like open flames and uh our liability as a city, and especially with our liability of the current encampment being on a state park, um, and Governor Stick kind of doing what he wants to do.

I mean, if he says I'm taking away all state parks, then you know, if he terminates our lease on all our state parks, then we lose Sutton Wilderness too.

Uh, and that's concerning to me.

Um I guess he I liked the opportunity of pursuing the state property if that pans out, but I know that that's kind of a long shot anyway.

The well, like can you be more like state property?

Well, if they're if they're gonna vacate some property and potentially let us a new so your point of liability, since you said safety was your number one concern.

I would you know advise that even if you don't add a single bet, you sprinkle that building.

Okay.

Um if safety is the concern.

That was my uh that's what I advised, you know.

Originally, I like that that does not again, it is yes, it's only gonna be open for a certain amount of time, but there are gonna be people in there for that amount of time without a sprinkler system, and if you don't sprinkle that building, that is not as safe as it should be.

And it's been that way for seven years or however long not in that building.

Well, for however long we've been in that building, yes, not three.

But three years, 2023.

And again, I just want to point out that I think that the reasoning, so again how this is all evolved has been kind of on a makeshift basis um for a certain extent.

But as we've said temporary, no, it makes it permanent, and then it's we're in it for you know as long as we are.

So again, I just want to, and not saying that we're gonna be in a you know this for longer than we expect.

I you know, everything's pointing to we're gonna be in that new shelter facility in there, but in terms of liability risk, and if we are you know moving toward safety, then I I still think same as I did then that you should sprinkle that building, even if you don't add capacity because it adds safety.

Okay, right.

So um just wanted to point that out.

But also in that same vein, even if we were to move it to state-owned property, that is not a you know, I would I would say that that would be a again interim solution, like interim interim solution.

And and and again, interim solution, we are just extending what you should maybe thinking about.

That is this it is an opportunity to add more beds where we don't have them.

Um, but we would only be adding beds until we added new beds to that shelter.

So again, I don't necessarily think unless you just want to add beds for 30 days and then go back to not having those beds, you shouldn't do that, right?

It's really meant as, and we're we are trying to find based on what we are understanding council wanting, you know a way to get to the next ish solution.

Um and the next dissolution right now for I think purposes of this meeting is do we expand the current shelter?

If so, what can we do to keep people inside until we can do that, right?

Um if we don't do that, I don't think we do the interim solutions because that's what those are intended for.

Is it specifically inside or is it just off of the Francis K property?

So I again because that's my concern.

Like, do we have yes safety?

Do we have I mean we have to get off of out of the park?

We can't set a precedent for park camping, correct?

I mean, that's if we allow camping to happen in that park, you will lose the park, then we will lose the park.

That part potentially set in there could be no ability, it's on safety property.

No, those two leases are independent of each other, and yeah, written very differently.

Written very differently.

So that's for sure.

And so Francis Kate Park.

Um now again the person who holds that is the state.

Sure.

Right.

And they can enforce however they want to.

No, I mean, keep in mind the state is willing to enter into an MOU or a lease.

Okay, we lease Francis Kate Park to provide an outdoor solution for the same people who are at Francis Kate.

So that's contingent on your shelter.

Potentially, yes.

And again, so they're willing to work on interim solutions.

Again, I think it is very, very clear that in the long term, Francis Kate Park is not the one.

No, no.

In the interim, unless there is another option that we're looking at, I don't think it's the one.

Um, I don't think it's an interim solution unless you have again something a little bit more into screen site.

Also knowing that we're not gonna fit all the people that are at the Franciscate encampment in the new expansion.

And it's a lot of people, we don't know how many beds we're gonna be able to fit.

Um, because we we we have the ability to recommend this is where you you might go, um, if that interim solution exists.

We don't have the ability to force anybody to go anywhere.

So we can enforce you cannot be here.

That is very enforceable, but we cannot say you must go.

You must go there.

So that's a challenge the to Lieutenant McWorder and his team face.

So everything's giving people the option if you can't be in the park, you can be here, and potentially if the state comes through, you can also be there.

I I would this is how I would think about it is you can't be in the park.

For some of you, we can offer you an outdoor shelter.

Okay.

If that is what council wants to do, and then the rest of you, we will also we've there that will likely just be what the status call is before, which is enforcement.

So again, I think no matter what, unless we you know do something differently, like again, no matter what solutions you want and how many beds or how many you know shelter options you want to open up to the population.

I I still think because even no even again, there are people who will not want to stay in a sanctioned encampment for XY reason, right?

There will still be those people that you will have to unfortunately say I've met one of them, and he's definitely not stand on Francis Kate, he's somewhere and so there's still no solution for that.

So again, um I I I really think that the way that the the reality we're in is this is a discussion about whether or not we should add current capacity to shelter population, and if if not, I mean I don't I I I'm not necessarily getting the feedback that um no, we don't want to expand the current shelter.

Yes, we want to instead do an outdoor encampment.

Um that's kind of the thing, like kind of how how many options do you want us to pursue?

Um I'm gonna obviously for the first part expanding beds.

Um did you have to add on to that?

Oh, yeah, I'm not done.

Okay, you can go ahead or I can do after you're because the ultimate goal for this part of it is to make sure staff understands if we're expanding current shelter capacity.

So I always view the situation with uh the unhoused in anywhere as kind of like a broken piano, and we have to put all fix all of these piano keys to make the piano play right, and sometimes we have to do temporary solutions to get everything working.

Um I know that we've made a call to the faith community, and I know individuals want to help as much as they can.

Um but as a temporary solution to help potentially ease some of the burden on what the shelter would intake and what's happening on the campsite.

I'd like to propose an emergency ordinance for residential camping to where if there is an individual that wants to allow somebody to camp on their property, it's under their insurance, and they take the liability, they can come to the city and apply for a free permit so we know who's doing it, and we can have a team that manages it.

I mean, if we're talking 65 people, that's not terrible to manage if it's kept up with.

Um, I see a lot, I've got a lot of rules set to me today for what a outdoor encampment would look like.

I think that those rules would be more easily enforced by a property owner that was uh taking on the risk and um you know opening their good nature to somebody in that capacity.

I think all of the rules that I was sent today would be fantastic uh if those were enforced on a on a smaller level, reducing camp sizes down to one essentially.

Um of course we're um not limited by homeowners associations or landlord lease rental agreements or anything like that.

And they can stay, I mean, there's not a limit on where they can stay until the emergency ordinance ends.

So if it ends up being 18 months, then you have people that are aren't displaced for 18 months, and we have the shelter open.

And and your honor, in that space, we do anticipate continued throughput of the existing shelter beds.

So well, and I'm not I'm not saying that that's gonna take care of everybody, but that will give churches space to open their doors, their congregation members to open their yards if they want to, people that are already involved.

I mean, we have several organizations that are already very familiar with the population that we're trying to help.

So, you know, they I'm sure they would be more than willing to help us manage those matches or something along those lines to where if it provides stability from now until 18 months from now for 15 people, then that's a better solution.

Um I'm not opposed to that, but uh just for staff's clarity or for the expansion of the current shelter.

I would like to explore other options first.

Um in that, and look at a couple of attorneys in here, ordinances or something we do uh that is in our wheelhouse to um with council consensus uh work on that draft uh that we would bring to you as soon as possible.

Tuesday.

Go uh, and and then the opportunity to say if that draft meets your um your standard, uh we would notice it for first reading and second reading and go through that process.

So that's still a little ways out, just recognize that I mean we can go as fast as we can go, and ordinances require well and verse reading seconds.

Just like anything that we do, I don't want it to be rushed, but you know, obviously we're on a time commitment here, but there needs to be guardrails on it, and there's a lot of examples of how encampments are publicly managed.

I think that a lot of those rules could be applied on an individual level for somebody who is extending that courtesy.

Um I was just gonna say, just because we are missing another set of council members, uh, should they email if they're sorry, go ahead.

Okay, uh I would just say that council member Gannisbury is for sure listening right now for open meetings purposes.

Uh he's not kind of want to avoid including council members who aren't at the meeting currently in the discussion to the meeting because then they aren't at the meeting, but they're still contributing to the meeting.

So yeah, um definitely no, I know, I know uh yeah, not chatting with anybody not sitting here, but also recognize uh we don't have everybody here.

Um so council member Bruce.

I caught uh at the very last about the 215 uh thousand dollars for upgrade of the grace for uh sprinklers.

My following conversation that would be the same.

It's part of it, yeah.

That so it started as any uh discussion about incre like adding sprinklers, and then I think it ended up being more than that, so that the amount you're referencing is including adding bathrooms, like it is essentially making it much it's a lot more than what I think just adding sprinklers.

There's also a mention in first command about willingness of selling city care to partner with the city for a certain amount to make that happen, you know.

I don't I don't know if that was part of the 250 or is something separate, but has there been any getting any thought about sensibilizing the nonprofits with that 250 and creep to increase their capacity in terms of I'm assuming you're capacity for housing, the shelter uh shelter, like for example, if we just thinking where you're going, like if we dedicated that or if we put that towards uh like Salvation Army or someone to increase their capacity, or like someone currently existing, I would hope the city has a good idea, the non-profits within or without within or outside of the continuing care or the mature nonprofits that you do an RFI with and say, Hey, I have this opportunity.

Are you interested in increasing your capacity?

So we are giving grants or something like a grant to do that in lieu of yeah, spend it this way or spend it that way.

We could absolutely do that if that was the direction council wanted to go.

So I would think almost a two-prong approach, because I know you're gonna have softly with no, I want to go to shelter, but I'm gonna camp something to think through.

Okay, so Mayor Holman.

Um the expanding the existing shelter isn't ideal, and we've been discussing it many times uh throughout the years.

Um but I just don't see any other option in the immediate term.

I think the the uh proposal from Councilman Hinkle about emergency ordinance for residential camping is is very worth exploring.

Um and we've I've had some residential property owners uh actually ask about that express that they would be they would like to be able to they own multiple properties and they'd like to be able to allow that on their property.

So and they're actually someone that doesn't support the shelter, they don't support it and they voted no and they advocated against it, but they've asked I would but I'd like to use my private property to let people camp on it.

Any speculations on that?

Like they're expecting a rent.

No, no, okay.

Um so that's just one anecdote anecdotal resident uh property owner in the first courthouse and original town site neighborhood.

So uh so and again the perspective of the current shelter being temporary, I mean again food and shelter opened in downtown in 1981 and operated a shelter and dining room there from 81 to 2016, and then there was no shelter downtown for two years.

And then we opened the overnight shelter in the library across the hallway.

And then we moved it to uh Comanche, and then in 20 winter 2022, we opened the current one, so almost four years this coming winter.

So I mean there's been a homeless shelter in downtown Norman longer than I've been alive.

And there's only been a two-year period in my entire lifetime where there wasn't one.

So it's not new.

It's not a new thing.

And it predates many of the businesses that exist in downtown, actually.

So I just don't see any other immediate option.

And one of my questions about if we for the police and others is if we kick, if we say you can't be in the park and we don't have shelter space for you, and they say, where do I go?

And we say, well, we don't know.

And they say, well, then I'm not leaving this spot.

Solution that leads to is well, we're going to arrest you, right?

Eventually, yes.

So you do arrest them for trespassing.

And you take them to the Cleveland County jail.

I mean, I don't know on a daily basis.

How full is the county jail of violent criminals and it's run by the sheriff's office, we don't keep track of that.

Okay.

So I mean, the question about someone, a homeless person who's arrested for trespassing and taken to the county jail, how long are they generally going to be there?

That's an Anthony question.

Um charge, I mean, usually they get out within the day.

Like just trespassing.

I don't told the police.

I'm not gonna do what you said, I'm not gonna leave this spot after you told me to.

Would you say that's rare?

I mean, most people move on their own.

When they they're offered several opportunities and resources and for you if they ask that question of, hey, where do I go?

It's a progressive street that we don't know.

And probably a lot of them don't want to get arrested.

The vast majority of them will find somewhere else to do.

In the case that you do have to arrest them, or that you end up arresting them for a trespass, they're not gonna be in the jail.

Because I've heard people say, why can't we just put them arrest them, put them in the jail?

The jail's not gonna keep them, right?

Not long.

And Griffin isn't gonna take them either in keeping.

If you're arrested during business hours, they're gonna take you to court to postpond, and more likely than not, you're gonna be a hard by the judge.

If you're arrested after hours, you would be arraigned that next day.

If you're arrested on the weekend, for example, you're arrested on Friday, it would be possibly till Monday.

But usually if you're arrested, if I were arrested today, I'd be arranged tomorrow.

And more likely than not, and the judge is gonna go are you because we have to pay to keep you in jail, and our judges are more likely than not gonna have warranty to come to court.

We've got a community docket for homeless people that they're really good about showing up.

So a day, maybe two or three days, depending upon when we get arrested.

And it's probably the same if it's loitering, trespassing, not there's a lot of people.

You have a difficulty with bordering because they're a First Amendment concerns about ordering.

But I know it's not law yet, we may not meet the population threshold, but that new governor signed law about motoring and forcing hasn't been challenged yet, but in that particular provision with regard to loadering issue because what does that mean?

And we could talk about it from the perspective of and this has come up in the past, it's been questions like I've gotten concerns about well, I was in the park this afternoon and there was a homeless person there and they scared me, and I want you to make them leave.

During the day, I can't make you leave a park.

The park is not only it's open to the public, it's a designated public forum.

So we've been talking about the issues of things like noise and arguing that you saw in some of those rules.

Some of those are First Amendment concerns that we don't have the ability to do anything about.

I don't have the ability to tell somebody in a park during the day, during those times from whatever we set the park hour, we don't have the ability to tell you you can't be there.

Um the issue often comes after hours, and that becomes the question, but even then you're back to the issue of most of the time they're probably gonna leave.

What do we do in the interim?

But that's why we're struggling with the rules issue because we as the government have a lot of limitations in that particular form with regard to what we can and can't do.

Um they have limitations for police officers because the issue reading things like um no disturbing to peace.

If I'm making noise when the police officer gets there, if I'm not making noise, it's not an offense that was committed in his presence, so there really isn't that you can do about that.

Um would be helpful if it were moved to some place other than a park, because again, you have a lot of First Amendment concerns with regard to what you can and can't do in that particular form.

Um that was my main, yeah.

And and it in this is why we have these conversations because it it's it's there's a lot.

Um in the conversation today, and and uh Mr.

Puritan's persistence um with the state and those challenges, the the the building that we all thought was a much better option than the gray street shelter uh was the big gymnasium.

One of the issues that we recognized at the time was uh climate control, they had a big boiler that had been fired up in a decade, which was not gonna be feasible, but a uh a dual pack, uh heater air conditioning unit that we have.

Um it wasn't it wasn't an inventory at the time we had that conversation.

If we are having a conversation about do we spend disposable money to make capacity, that thought of if if we could get in front of the Department of Mental Health to say you lease us that building for 18 months and we're out because we're added to the new location, and the investment was the same, we think you check a lot of boxes.

One, you free up Gray Street for the council's long-term vision of selling that and developing multi-story mixed use.

That that could happen much sooner than 18 months.

So there is there's value in accelerating that particular effort.

Um, when we were talking about that move to the big building on the Griffin campus, we really have resources available, but the resources became available because the voters approved uh the permanent shelter going forward, and now we have a partner in city care who would still be the operator, but potentially to move the whole shelter to that other building.

That that conversation wasn't really a thing until today.

Um because we've tried, but we're in a different place, and I think the State Department of Mental Health is in a different place too.

So I I do want to caution on that.

So one, I don't know if that building even has running water anymore.

No, yeah, we thought we might have to turn it back on at a plumbing.

Also, we looked at that building, it was about it took take about three to six months to get ready at about a half million dollars.

Um that's how we looked at that one.

And I don't I don't think it's gotten any better.

Um has not gotten better.

They they did not seem very optimistic, but I asked them to look anyway.

But keep in mind that was not the solution that they're prepared to offer.

The solution that they're prepared to offer is I think they're uh again, it's can kind of contingent on the like the interim solution there, needing like a stopgap measure for that, because again, they're operating on their own timeline.

And I said, well, what you know, because that that was my first thought too.

It's like, hey, can we increase capacity even more than you know, and then also have a better building?

Well, one, I don't think the building's gonna be better, and two, I don't think we have 18 months over there if we do it.

I don't think they're comfortable that it didn't sound like they were comfortable with that.

It is very, very limited.

That was a 90-day conversation, they were up to 90 days.

Well, I wanted the 18 month conversation, but I don't think they're so they were willing to do that if we were expanding Gray Street, correct?

That's the I it was a short-term kind of thing.

It would so that that ability to use state property.

Um, I don't think that's gonna happen in the long term.

So again, like I from a staffing perspective, I think I don't want this to be an underprom like an overpromise under delivery type situation.

I want to make sure it's absolutely clear.

Even if we do an outdoor or indoor, whatever you have you, there will never not be the situation where we kind of need that because it sounds like we're getting some different direction in terms of okay, there's not a legal place for people to go at night.

I don't think that I don't see any of these solutions.

I don't think I can be as creative as I can be and get you a situation where I will never see a trespassing docket on the community docket again, right?

I would love that, trust me.

Um that is the goal.

Uh, but uh again, we are still going to be faced with those difficult situations regardless of the proposed solution.

So I I just don't want us to again, it sounds like we're focusing a little bit on a solution.

Um where that is maybe the end result, but I don't think we get there.

And so as staff, I don't want to necessarily be uh have it under the impression that that is what we're prepared to offer.

I don't think we can offer you that.

Um, so just keep that in mind.

Um, but that being said, can we, if you want expanded shelter capacity, we will do everything in our power to get you that.

If you want um outdoor shelter capacity, um we will do everything in our power to get you that.

And how we can do that is just um keep in mind those other things that that would potentially solve for those people in those encampment or in that proposed solution, we still have the problem for everyone who doesn't fit in that one.

So just one of the I would say for the people that we know are coming in the future that uh we're not done with this discussion, so we'll figure it out as it evolves.

But um, I definitely want to see the gray street expanded, especially if that helps us get an outdoor solution, and I am not opposed to an emergency ordinance for private property, especially knowing that there are potentially people who are doing one, or maybe there's somebody who would be willing to do something slightly larger.

238 unsheltered people is a lot, and I don't know that we have 238 individual property owners who would step up.

Um and then council member Hinkle, you said something about a 501c6.

Yeah, that was uh a vehicle, yeah, by which um you facilitate the cooperation of the faith-based community uh in total by providing an entity to support and not necessarily putting the burden on a church, but if they could help on the funding side, kind of the thought process was that a lot of our local churches have missions where they do outreach and things like that, but sometimes the impact doesn't always land in the most effective way.

So kind of giving a concentrated pipeline that could be directed to where everybody that was contributing had a seat on the board and everybody can talk about the projects that they did, but it was just an organized effort.

Um, I think that can make a lot of impact down the road.

Question around that is does the city have to do it, or would an entity like home together Norman.

Well, I you know, I think if there was a an entity that wanted to pop up and do the fundamental.

But if it was something that we could assist with to help prop it up and just to give it some legs to where it moved faster and got established, then for that.

I mean, and and we would obviously want to seat at the table too, uh, because we would want to be a partner in that because we would be trying to make help direct the impact for what the research that we show sees and keeping the continuum of care in the loop and yes, and I was gonna say we haven't talked about the home base uh study and action plan in a long time, but there's a list of things where we all need to come up on, and the very last one uh was collaboration and coordination for the effective use of our limited resources, and so uh definitely I think we need to shore up there, and maybe the next time we get an update, we'll have some more progress on that action plan.

Well, that to council member Bruce's point earlier when he was saying, you know, hopefully there's nonprofits and um organizations like that that step up.

If we were to take the money that we were to spend on the sprinkler and you know, ask for RFPs from nonprofits to see what they could do with that money, that wouldn't be a bad thing.

It may not be as fast, but again, if we had something already propped up to where everybody was consolidating your efforts, it could say the sprinklers, the city care so that they were gonna get money to do.

I'm not sure.

I mean, there's there's other rooms than that.

I would definitely love to do it.

Um just you know, I've been for the sprinklers for a long time because I don't think fire watches for what you could get for uh just taking care of the sprinklers.

And I also think it comes back to like thank goodness we have not had anything bad happen in that shelter, but I don't think to our community it would look good if something did, and they're like you could have took the opportunity to sprinkle this and you chose not to.

And I think about that for other conversations too, when it's like you could if you have the money, you should do it.

I just am concerned that there are spaces in that building that are uninhabitable, whether sprinklers are installed or not.

I mean, there's dangerous space in there that we're not using now for the people that are in there.

So is that the space we would be using to expand in staff is saying no?

Well, you add more people in there, they're gonna spread out wherever you double the capacity of maybe what's in there, then we don't know for sure.

Because I I think we're stuck in the situation of, and I think if I understand correctly, staff wanting clarity on the expansion at Gray, is that you want to be able to start chasing down those costs and what it will look like if we try to expand and then come back on Tuesday with like an update.

Um do I understand that correctly?

If if there is consensus of the council, we will uh tighten up cost estimates and even uh we'll call it a site plan, what it looks like on the inside of that building to get that work done.

And I think we can bring you something on Tuesday to show you what that expansion looks like inside the facility.

Um I think we can also uh initiate the effort on a draft uh urgency ordinance um to coincide with the ribbon cutting of the permanent shelter location.

Uh so we've got multiple fronts going.

Um obviously continued outreach to the faith-based community to see if we can't get uh hope.

Oh, hope ministry.

Yes, uh, to see what they've got uh in the works, and now of course the the question of the day.

Uh right now we have 60 plus people in Francis Kate Park in violation of the municipal code and in violation of the lease, and uh we need to be able to provide direction to uh the pace team as to what we do between now and Tuesday.

Um well, I'm gonna say I know I actually did get reached out by people in my neighborhood who live closer to the encampment than people who don't uh who don't want to see us shuffle people around.

And prevailingly that is the message I'm getting.

Um I would like to um give people reprieve until we have somewhere they can go, and hopefully, do you think by Tuesday the state will have like been able to say if they can work with us on the option so we don't have to use the park?

Um say that when we're talking about.

So you think by Tuesday we could know for sure if the state was going to open up that land that they were interested in doing the MOE with us about probably not.

Okay, um, I I mean we would work on gain, but I I again that's contingent on if the shelter expansion happens.

I because again if the shelter expansion isn't happening, the 90k this one options are available.

Gotcha, yeah.

To your point, like I under, you know, again, I just want to that is not an option.

I think at the end of the day, it that will not also be a solution to whether or not you shuffle people around.

Um, because you're at the even with that solution, even with that proposed solution, you're still gonna probably be shuffling people around.

You're just shuffling less people around.

Um, but it is also uh again, this is a high risk short term solution.

Um, so I can't make any promises, and honestly, uh from a risk perspective, they may very well say no.

Um, and again, it is not vetted uh on any level, even from council.

So let alone the state.

So I I I anticipated taking a little longer than I don't think we could get you an answer Tuesday, no.

Okay, then you can add uh correct me if I'm wrong the numbers two weeks ago we were at 11 this Monday.

We were 42 or 50, and we're at the two or three every single day.

Like we're getting as that group grows, we are having more and more problems, and yes, they have their own rules, they're also taking hand their own enforcement action there.

That's probably assaulting each other.

We have a felony yesterday from an assault because they enforce their own rules.

Um there are compounding problems, and when and if unfortunately that goes south, especially as weather continues to move in next week.

There's significant safety concerns we have.

They're in a floodplain.

We know there's a I mean it's Oklahoma and it's May.

And as that group grows, if they go south, the ability to resolve that is a big concern for our people.

Um and I know uh they're not here unless we've got fire departments having similar issues now that it's a warm.

And and to major barbers' point, some of the rules they've enacted uh for themselves, the rules themselves are in conflict with the municipal code.

So the rules talk about you know putting away your cigarette butts, there's no smoking in parks, period.

That's not negotiable uh in the municipal code.

It's it's spelled out can't smoke in parks, and they're talking about when and where they can smoke and how to dispose of cigarette butts.

So there's a lot of challenges.

But um is there is there middle ground where we I mean again, we're gonna have to find temporary solutions for 18 months, probably to just bridge us, keep bridging us on these gaps.

But is there a middle ground where we can relax the campsite rules for that property until Tuesday, still enforcing ordinary laws?

From the perspective of there's no I'm I mean one of the things he just asked if there was capacity in Oklahoma City, and the answer to that is no.

Oklahoma City is always at capacity, just as we're always at capacity, and the only time that that is not as true is when they're doing inclement weather, and then they're at capacity within hours.

So there are no open shelter beds that I'm aware of in the OKC metro area or in Norman.

I and again, I just want to prepare counsel for the reality.

Even if I was so good at my job that I could get you a however many, you know, I I I'm not gonna be able to get you a 60 outdoor camping um plot, right?

If if that's if that's the case, you are still gonna, I think even Tuesday, or no matter how like it will still be uh an issue of that call will still have to be made eventually.

Um so I just want to prepare council for that eventually.

I think um I think we see it coming.

Yeah, yeah.

Um council member Bruce and Dixon.

Yeah, I just want to pull on the thread some more on that RFI.

So I can see where an R5 would go out to the nonprofits about if you receive the grant by this amount of dollars, how fast and how many, how much capacity could you increase?

And you'd get your question answered, and you'd also add a statement uh in your RFI, unsolicited proposals are welcome.

Somebody turn around and say, hey, you give me 10,000, this is what we can do for you, and let's make a deal.

I mean, I don't know.

Really, as a COC, I I don't know this, but you know, you know every organization do you give them research?

Well, I can squeeze this out what I currently have by doing these other things.

My my procedures, my policies would change to get that additional capacity.

Does that make sense?

Quickly.

I mean, that's worth a shot.

It might be 10 more, it might be two more.

I don't know, but that's really in your wheelhouse.

I I think that the issue with that becomes is we only have three shelters, three play three entities that provide emergency shelter in Norman.

City care, they've already said what they're willing to do.

Uh the Salvation Army, they are currently have contracted beds.

They have taken one of their family beds and they're using it as storage currently because they're having to look at doing the construction they need to do for phase one and phase two, which only increases their capacity by 10 beds when they're done.

And women's resource center, and that is just for victims of domestic violence.

So there is no other nonprofit that I'm aware of that would have the ability to expand capacity and still, I mean, like if food and shelter decided to take a ringer and say we'll open our dining room, well, they're still violating fire code to do that.

So there's just not anybody that can expand capacity, and I would just give in a moment, like to say churches and nonprofits both are in horrific funding binds right now.

So you might get somebody who'll say, Yeah, give me 50,000 and I can do this because they're desperate for cash, but their ability to actually provide the service, I would have personally would have serious questions about whether they can actually expand capacity.

Um I have a question about uh if we were hit up by entities that wanted to step up, um, could one of our processes be like you need to connect with the COC and be actively working with them because they have a by name list.

Like I I hear you um Heidi on uh the risk and like is it being managed well?

I mean, this is how we got into this situation was they were on state land and everybody was trying to blind eye and it was unmanaged.

Um I wouldn't say I mean I'm sure people were going out there trying to help, but there was no kind of um like sanctioned and can't make kind of management going on.

Um but if we did have people that wanted to do that, I that I assume the COC would want them to be hitting Oh, yeah.

Anybody that's doing anything with homelessness and resourcing, we want them to be involved.

We want to share our knowledge with them, we want to be networked with them, we want to be provide, you know, don't provide food, these people provide food, like this is what you want to provide.

It's just there's not like even Hope House, if it's who I think you're talking about, they don't even have their 501c3, and their plan is to try to do granted the big caveat.

If we're both talking about the same people, their model is a for-profit transitional housing model.

Okay.

So that's not even that's not even a thing.

That just came up in a brief conversation with the former council member on fire.

Yeah.

But I mean, you know, if there is somebody out there, is there somebody out there that's passionate that wants to do it?

Yeah.

Do we does the COC want to talk to them?

Yes, we want to support them.

If you can expand capacity, how can we help you?

But the issue is always at the end of the day gonna be how are you gonna fund it?

True.

And then also to uh council member Hinkle's point with this emergency ordinance if somebody's gonna take on a tent, I would definitely want them to be still networking with the CSE.

Um, so you know, we're talking about creating that.

Um okay, back to council member Chris.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Um I understand, and I could be totally wrong.

I mean, I understand there are organizations that provide services that are not part of the COCI.

I don't know why.

I don't know why you wouldn't be.

That's another discussion, but there are well.

There's a there's a certain level of maturity.

I don't know how you evaluate, but to the certain level of maturity, but I I would welcome an RFI, a response to an RFI from those organizations, but I don't know who they are.

You know, but it it's a relief valve.

Why you wouldn't want to increase a capacity of those that provide this service within or without the COC.

I don't I don't know, given this in the current environment, but to me, as a prior contracting, this is an easy touch base.

Oh, I did my RFI, I asked for unsolicited proposals, I got none.

Or no, I got one, and they can do this for 10,000.

Is it worth that 10,000?

I don't know.

It's just an easy, it's an easy checkoff.

Why we did it?

We did that, we did that.

Well, I could if I can just well it's actually decided.

There are you can Joshka.

Um we you know, we have we've just been reviewing that stuff in Financial Committee too at the Social and Voluntary Services Commission.

So we partner with a lot of those agencies now.

So I hear what you're saying, and I agree with it.

Um that we can we have the contacts that we can explore with that.

Um, but we're also talking about making cuts to those organizations because the city is stressed for resources just as much as those organizations are stressed for resources, and sometimes it's not always and I'm I'm not using this as a slide against food and shelter at all because I love what they do and it's amazing.

But when we ask them to go outside of their mission, it didn't turn out very well.

And so if we put other organizations in that position, then we could potentially have a sticky situation.

So I just that's why I just want guardrails.

I understand exactly, but I think that for those people that currently deal with shelter, whether it's two bodies or 50.

Why wouldn't you touch space with those people regarding hey, got an opportunity?

I mean, I'm I'm I'm under duress.

The city for hey, we're gonna provide some.

I'm squeezing everything I can squeeze.

Here's my RFI, just for knowledge sake.

And hey, I still suppose proposals would be appreciated for you to act on it it's just a way, an easy way if you're a contracting guy to say, okay, I got I I have this much more capacity for this cost.

And we had an RFP that we've done for shelter services and operators, so that we've got a thing we could plagiarize ourselves, I think pretty efficiently and bring to you a draft of what that RFIRFP would look like for your consideration in the near future.

It like very, I mean, again, I mean, uh, like what you're saying, it would probably be something similar to like listen, if you if you've got an idea, you come you come to us and we will entertain it.

Um, and then I think yeah, we can yeah, absolutely.

That's easy.

All right, uh idea either is council member Dixon to kind of piggyback on Council Member Bruce'sville.

Uh my friend Christina, she's been talking to me for a while.

You know, there's her and numerous other um former employees from food and shelter who didn't stay on with city care, and like I think they would love the opportunity to if we said, hey, church A, you know, can you do this?

You know, and we we do have some people that are experienced with this population and kind of working at shelters, um, but for a short-term deal.

Um you know, they say, okay, yeah, we could take this many people for 10,000 bucks, and then that pays for Christina and somebody else to provide the oversight of those five people, 10, 15.

I mean, that's just an idea to kind of how to make your idea work.

Um I ask, have we recently broken up an encampment?

McWar Lieutenant has been a participant, all the ones we've done in the last year and a half.

I mean, were there the people that moved next to food and shelter?

Were they coming from an encampment that we broke up recently?

No.

What typically we saw what that happened in that area is it's right behind where you get food.

So we had one, and we had two, and no one stopped them and said you can't be there.

So it got more and more because they were allowed to be there, and it's right next to food.

So why wouldn't you be there?

And so we went from two to what we ended up with.

And then when that when they were told they couldn't be there anymore, and that stopped, then we shifted other places.

Okay.

And this is and individually, right?

Just because you don't just because it's not like you have a 30 person encampment um that you bring up on Monday.

Trespassing is the number one citation given, non-traffic citation given in the city of Norman.

Umless I'm I yeah, no, I'm gonna bet money on that.

Uh and it by probably a high degree.

So like maybe there's not a large scale encampment.

But I'm sorry, it is every day.

And it might not be on public property, and it might not be as visible, but that's because it's like ones and twos, maybe.

But again, I uh it is it is if not a daily basis, an every other day basis, and multiple day times per day.

Right.

So again, kind of back to my point is like we will always have this issue, and I think that you know, from a staffing perspective, we continue to deal with this issue on that any given day.

So it's very difficult to because like do we keep in like is it just Francis Kate?

Is it you know, Sutton?

Is it um all these other parks that like what is council's intention?

Because also at a certain point, I think should we start like again, knowing how many temporary solutions we've had for a long time, like at what point do we need to start managing what is currently on there now?

Because I'll I'll be honest, it's gonna take a long time potentially for this council to you know work like work on these solutions, right?

Um, so like at what point do we start managing?

Because otherwise we are you know throwing throwing the doors open and saying, here's your shelter solution while we figure out how to solve homelessness.

Um from staffing perspective, it puts us in a difficult position because we need to know how to manage that, if at all.

Um, but we're not getting that, I think.

Uh if we just continue to move it from meeting to meeting.

Right.

And the longer we don't enforce it, Francis Cape Park, the bigger the disruption's gonna be.

More people will be disrupted.

Is there a reason we haven't enforced that our overnight state of parks on Francis Kate?

Um our well, such a uh a disjointed um enforcement effort behind food and shelter.

The district attorney stepped in and said, every you know, stop your enforcement efforts until we confirm whether or not the state's request was uh complete.

Our thought was, well, all but 11 had already moved on, that it would have been, you know, we I was kind of hopeful the the 11 would stay where they were behind food and shelter until the DA at least uh got their uh got their act together.

Um so we started the conversation.

Our goal was to get that back, that issue back in front of the whole council as quickly as possible.

Um to make the one thing we know how to do well is go through the process of decommissioning a campsite.

We put up the notice, we do the outreach, we guide people to where services are available, and then for those who remain, that's when you start getting notices that hey, if you're here still here by this day, you're gonna get a ticket and then you're gonna go to jail.

Um, and and it's just a matter of an understanding from council that I mean that can start tomorrow morning.

That we we can do that.

Uh this explosion in the population there at uh Francis Cape Park is why we try to stay in front of that as as much as possible.

Okay, I mean Anthony's talking about management.

Could we just cap it like nobody else gets added to it over the force?

That and that's again we're backing ourselves into it a solution here.

Like, I mean, could you I mean, yeah, I mean, but then like where did they who's who's first?

Yeah.

Um I do want to ask caravans uh what deal with the growth is and if that can be managed.

The question is, what is the deal with the growth and can it be managed?

Yes, like if I went out there and they told us it was 35, and they also keep a registry, right?

Yep.

Um is that registry shared with K and Amanda?

Like, do they also know that they show you guys the sort of registry they had started making?

No, we've just been going out in counting, and while we're out of people.

Can I kind of curious because we're kind of in this weird situation of like this is how the ported potties exist, this is how the trash is getting picked up.

And like again, though, if that self-enforcement piece, there still has to be the backstop, which would be PD.

If let's say that they set a cap and then they don't follow that cap, PD would have to be called and enforced.

Right.

But I'm sorry.

I like that becomes unmanageable, and also the self-enforcement piece.

I mean, we're looking at someone potentially having a felony because of the enforcement of the rules itself.

And are you all aware of the service?

I don't know which and my whole idea which one of that's significantly wounded from that.

That's why that's arrest like somebody got severely hurt.

So it is not something that we can I I do not advise that the city not take a proactive approach in managing a situation and just allowing it to continue until we figure something out.

Um, because it is already at the point where it is unmanageable.

And we are just gonna continue to grow as evidenced by my five days of being here so far.

It has grown by 15, I think, since I've started with the city of Norman.

And I'm not unfamiliar to homelessness and Norman.

I've worked in Norman for almost seven years at a housing program, and I've worked in mental health that whole entire time.

Campgrounds, I mean, there's yeah, it's not a solution to homelessness.

It is not working towards housing at all.

And in kind of our opinion, is if we don't start enforcing it, they're gonna get comfortable and stay there, and they're not gonna be fully engaging in services in order for change to happen, you have to get uncomfortable.

Okay, that was city care's position too.

Yeah, maybe something that looks like you want to say something.

Yeah, just I just keep coming back to the same point though of okay, we enforce them, but where do they go?

Where are they gonna go?

Kick them off Kate Park.

Where are they going?

And and and again, then let them let them stay there and manage it.

That's the thing, is like from a staffing back.

Yeah, no direction is not direction, yeah, right.

So uh it and and it either you on either you manage it or you don't.

I don't think just ignoring it and not managing it until you figure out how to manage it is the way to do it.

Like again, keep in mind we go back, yeah.

We go back to the status quo, right?

But even managing it, you're still gonna have that status quo.

Like that will never not be the status quo.

Well, they're gonna have people you're turning away the question's gonna be where do they go?

So we have we ponder status quo.

That's the one that's what has been happening for the last five years.

But are we ever going to be in the position where we tell every single person you have a place to go?

No, but are we able to make policy decisions that allow them to have a place to go by expanding the shelter, creating shelter space, creating shelter beds, even creating out or uh you know camping areas, yes, but I again saying we're not staff is just in a very uncomfortable position in terms of we still don't we're in a we're putting them in the position of saying it is technically illegal for you to be there until we figure out otherwise.

They still do not have the like uh kicking it down to the next meeting to the next meeting to the next meeting doesn't give them a place to be because they are still technically it is still technically illegal, and you're facing the situation we're gonna be in the middle of a meeting and there's going to be an incident down there, or the EU's gonna come in because it's also on Bishop Creek, and we have no direction from council on what to do, and so we are then make put forced in the uncomfortable situation of how do we manage this when we have no direction?

Okay, well, I will clear some of the perspective, and then other council members should weigh in.

But I would like to just start managing it and working with what's out there and figuring it out, and maybe if that means a cap, and then also there cannot be street justice in the camp.

Um we'll have to caravans would have to work with the COC and city attorney's office to like manage what we have now.

I would go in that direction.

I can't say that the others agree to that, but uh I don't think that displacing people is I think there are some people who need that stability.

I do hear that it's people will get comfortable, but I don't think this is a long-term solution for too much longer, honestly.

So um and I have a question, and this is uh an attorney question.

The the concept that caravans is responsible for this encampment.

We have we don't have a relationship with caravans other than they submit mileage for reimbursement for transportation services to the homeless population.

So if there is going to be a city reliance on a nonprofit, we need a contract to be unpapered is that doesn't give me any comfort at all to say who is responsible for what um and the concept of well, there's a set of rules.

The city didn't participate in any set of rules because we have rules in the municipal code that is our set of rules, and it says you can't smoke here, and it says you can't do drugs here, and it says a whole bunch of things that are currently being allowed to happen in a city park in violation of the municipal code.

So that's a that's uh it's an issue.

Yeah, I would want a contract, and I feel I don't know, I know you gotta talk to your board members, but that would be something I think those rules were submitted to you guys um with the expectation that there could be a discussion of a compromise that would be the beginning of the conversation with you guys.

Um I also think that private security would would possibly solve some issues here, private security that had a good relationship with MPB as well as the camp leadership.

Um something we're interested in and we will work on, or get an in-con donation from some people that if it's something you guys would consider, yes, we can have private security.

Yeah, I was still from our side of the same thing.

It's still today illegal.

So I'm still what you're and I get what you're trying to get you, and I appreciate that.

And private security does play a part.

You're still asking our guys to decide which laws are reinforcing and which people and which parts I would and that puts my team in a really rough spot.

Can I I would just potentially, and I understand no one wants the status quo, no one wants the status quo, but from my like if I have to draft something, if I have to you know put together like a contract or anything like that, like considering that the status quo is where we were like four weeks ago, right?

And if council wants to move quickly on this issue, returning to the status quo until we can have a good concrete, well thought out solution, and then implement that solution is so much easier because otherwise I don't want this council to get in a position that other previous councils have gotten into, which is in like you again, yes, we're returning to the status quo that we have been in since I've been here, but I would rather in a way be in that status quo for the short term than be stuck again for the next five years I'm here fixing and having I mean the worst time, I'll be honest, with a not well thought out solution that was made the cart before the horse.

So um we're talking previous shelter situations or a lot of things, and and so I mean, but yes, and again what we're trying to do at this meeting is come up with a set of circumstances in 30 minutes or an hour or two hours, and then again, I staff is not being given the opportunity to bring you guys like what we normally do is bring you guys a solution, and then you guys determine what it is or not.

You guys are saying you're saying we are already doing this, go make it XYZ, but like it it's it's a challenge to make what is currently happening legal.

It's that is a it's a huge list.

It's almost impossible, and you're not like I I think that if we're going to do that because the people who are in that camp need a solution, I want a good solution, and those people deserve a good solution, but I don't think this is how we get a good solution, and I think that from my experience on the back end of things, trying to do it from kind of backwards.

Well, not even start from scratch, we're starting from an unmanaged situation and trying to manage that situation instead of starting out with a managed situation, right?

So I would advise if if if you were to ask me to put all of that into place, give us the time to not start from where we are now, but kind of to start from you know a situation, and again, that's gonna take time, y'all.

We can't let it be unmanaged.

I can't, I don't have the time to put that into place if we are constantly worrying about the management of what is going on there now.

We can't put good found a good foundation in place when we are dealing when my whole entire week this week has not been on permanent supportive housing, it has not been on crimson flaps or anything like that.

It has been on managing the untenable situation that we are in, and I can't focus on anything else, so I'm not gonna have time to focus on how to make it the best it could possibly be, because I'm dealing with something that is not a good situation, right?

So status quo with direction from council to I said my piece, but uh council member Henkel had his uh hand up.

Yeah, I just I know we don't have a spot to start clean right now.

Um so and I don't again, I don't want to rush into anything, I don't want to displace anybody.

I know we're in a sticky situation with the site because the cat's already out of the bag and there's no putting it back in there.

Can we relax the trespassing and no camping in the park law until Tuesday while we continue to firm some other things up, still enforcing common regular laws like no smoking in the parks, no drug use, the things that are not there?

Can we move yeah, things like assault you know?

Can we move can we allocate some money to moving the port potties?

Like if we have to move them, that's fine.

We can put a little bit of money towards that just to get them away from Bishops Creek.

Um allocate resources to Norman PD for overtime if there's for a temporary amount of time to help manage it and enforce the laws because if we put money towards a private security company, they can't enforce any laws anyway.

They have to call Norman PD to come out and enforce the laws.

So is that your I just we're not gonna come up with the perfect solution today.

We're anything that we can do to make it just manageable to buy us a little bit more time is better than every other option to me at this point.

Uh if that's your final thought, I'm gonna move on to council member Dixon.

Uh I'll just say I'm not.

I mean, I'm not sure we could legally spend money doing something that's illegal.

Um I mean, I'll meet with Rick on that later, but um, I think whenever it was 11 people, uh, we missed a good opportunity to kind of break it up then.

Um the next best one was 20 tents, the next best was 30.

And now the next best time to break it up and enforce the laws is I think 50 tenths is where we're at today.

Um telling where we're gonna be on Wednesday.

Um it's gonna get more difficult and it's gonna be more inhumane on more people the longer we let this go.

And at some point it does have to get broken up.

Um so I I'm not in favor of letting it go.

Um I'm in favor of enforcing laws as they're written currently.

And I apologize, but I have to do it with other cancer.

So that was my final comment.

Okay.

Councilmember Bruce final thoughts.

Yeah, who owns a learning just a food and shelter.

State Department of Mental Health.

You know, I I don't know the status of conversations with that group, but it's an opportunity.

There are still tents visible on the north side food and shelter on state land right now.

When you say it's an opportunity, say, look, I like to buy another AK land from this is where it's located at a half acre, you know.

So I think again willing to continue that discussion.

I think so far, Daryl, I don't know, but you I don't know if I have I I mean so again, we'll work on a I don't have consensus to work on the solution for Tuesday.

Do you do not?

Um yeah, do not have consensus to um but we have consensus for staying where they're at.

Is that is that accurate?

I mean the last person, oh council member Bruce, are you okay with them staying where they're at now?

No, I'm I'm not okay.

Okay, so you got two that are um Mayor Holman, last thoughts.

Uh I am for continuing to pursue the negotiation with the state and pursue the stipulations that they set forth that they might be willing to work with us on.

And if that means expansion of the existing shelter in that meeting that they are willing potentially to work with us on some space over there, then that is the only option that we came into the meeting with really that I've seen is because again it's the same thing.

Okay, we go over there and force the law, which is reasonable, that is the law that it's written.

And uh, but okay, those folks just go and pitch the tent in another spot, and we do the same thing again next week, and or whenever it becomes a complaint.

So maybe it doesn't become a complaint again for a couple weeks, or maybe at all.

But I I just pretty much assume that in the entire metro area, any signific any wooded area enough where you can't see through it.

I assume there are people camping in it in the entire metropolitan area.

If there's a wooded area, I think that there are people camping in.

Maybe not a big encampment, but I would almost guarantee there's a couple people camping in every wooded area in the entire city of Norman and more in OKC and Edmund, everywhere.

And as long as they're on private property or hidden or I mean there's tons of private property in the metro area that has foreign owners, out of state owners that nobody's been on for years, and we nobody knows what's there, nobody checks on the city of OKC isn't enforcing code in 621 square miles.

We have 200 square miles, obviously, we're not looking in every wooded area in the whole city.

So it's just it's there, and I agree with Anthony that's the designated campground, a bigger shelter.

None of it's going to solve the underlying issue of homelessness that we're seeing, and how people are finding themselves so desperate that they're willing to pitch a tent in the middle of a park, not even under a tree, just out in the middle of a field when it's you know, it was over 90 yesterday, at least by my car's temperature gauge.

And so that to me is like an ultimate act of desperation.

Who would do that if you had any other option?

And the people I talked to out there at the encampment.

Everyone that I asked, if there was indoor shelter, would you take it?

Said yes.

I didn't talk to every single person out there.

I'm sure there's several who would have told me no, I can't or won't because of whatever circumstance.

Uh, but the the few that I asked directly said, yeah, I would I would much prefer to be inside than be sleeping in this park right now.

I can tell you that.

So and one of them, you know, I guess used to work in the shelter as a case master.

So and the other one I talked to graduated from Norman North in 2009, and younger than me, but had gray, full gray beard and gray hair.

And dumb.

He's like in 34.

And so that's just uh the fresh same frustration.

I'm just kind of rehashing stuff, but is enforce it and then what enforce it again and again endlessly, it seems.

But I'm I'm for uh pursuing the option that's been presented to us that the state seems to be willing to maybe willing to work with us because I don't see any other options.

So I'm for doing the expansion temporary expansion, and if that gets the state to let us use some of their space for temp for 90 days, even I'll take it.

Um and if so it I'm kind of hearing um and if other council members have we're working on we're working on the conversation with the state.

If it's connected to we will if you add beds discussion to continue uh in the interim, what we have recognized every time we have uh initiated enforcement uh activities, i.e.

the pace team shows up, Kara shows up, and uh they begin the outreach that the numbers begin to diminish.

And right now there is no path to reducing the number of folks at Francis Cape Park other than our usual and customary process, which is we pick a date on a calendar, we start working with that population to say on this date, everybody left is gonna get trespassed, and every everything on site will be disposed of.

So you haven't, you know, from start date to the date on the calendar to begin to make provisions for where you're gonna be, because it won't be in Kate Francis, Francis Cape Park uh beyond X date.

That aside from that, we don't really have a mechanism to say, oh, sorry, we're we're full at 60 because next week it there will be more.

That's we it's happening.

So uh we would recommend in the interim, we've got fronts to work on, and we tell the police department, pick a date on the calendar, and it's status quo, because that's not the ultimate solution, that's not the ultimate even interim solution at Francis K Park.

And if that location is other state land, they're gonna get displaced anyway.

Um speaking of enforcement and having consensus from all council, is that something?

I mean, we're kind of split, it sounds like, or I was like Mayor Holman, Councilmember Hinkle and myself.

That doesn't reflect council member Kirby, Councilman.

Organisbury, Councilman Wog.

Uh, could we peacock?

And this is uh this is can maybe a procedural question.

So Tuesday night study session.

Could we list it as a special session?

And I gotta get a vote, and what I if I get five thumbs up, we do it one way, and if I get five thumbs up to do it a different way, we go that way, and literally hammer it out where we're beyond consensus, gotta have a vote.

Honestly, procedurally it's illegal now.

Um, so again, it's like in a way, like how do you vote on whether to keep something illegal illegal?

I was thinking more if it's like for I don't know.

And that's a thing too, right?

Like again, like let's say we have to put a let's say, okay, um assuming you're not willing to keep it open-ended to say, like again, it's very hard to draft that.

Because I like because you it's it's well, I guess you could make it as easy as do you, you know, maybe allow is Francis Kate Park open 24-7, which again doesn't necessarily mean in an encampment uh is allowed there, one, but because again, if this were on private property, this would be a health and safety violation, it would be a public, we would consider it a public nuisance, and we would enforce, right?

So that does not solve, I think, the issue of from a staffing perspective.

At what point do we step in?

Right?

Because that part is the part I think is more important than do you leave it open?

Is again, do you manage it?

How do you manage it?

Like at the point where you say leave it open, but without here's how we think you need to manage it, like without the authority to manage it, but just leave it open, we are creating potential, because again, like you were saying, I absolutely agree.

Who would go set a tent in the middle of a public park?

Well, the person who is told again that that is the place where you go where you're not subject to enforcement.

So when again, when I have charges every single day for those people, I mean, that is why it's growing at an exponential rate that it is.

So without the means to manage it, like I feel like you have it, it's not you you should really if you're gonna do one, you have to we we also have to have the authority to step in, but just giving an open-ended mandate to say open it up.

You you can't just open the doors to the building and say, here you go.

We have to have the tools to manage this, but we're not being given that as well, and that's what we're asking.

I think so definitely to recommend telling Lieutenant McGorder and and our social outreach team um to commence that decommissioning process, start directing people back to services while we work on the solution with the State Department of Mental Health and RFP RFI for the expansion of those services and an ordinance to allow individuals and uh church groups to take campers in in this interim period.

That would be manageable from our perspective and keep you in uh compliance with the existing laws of the city of Norman.

Not I there's not an ideal answer out there at all.

But that allows you to stay compliant.

Um everybody said their piece, and I know it's real fuzzy.

Um I guess is it helpful if the other council members weigh in at all later on?

I mean yes and no, I I don't, you know, again, I'd rather it happen at an open meeting.

Um, and I you know, of course, we don't have all of counsel here, but again, that's because we did have counsel here, but then we kicked it to this meeting, right?

Um, you know, and in time issue, yeah, it was a time issue.

I understand that voting for how do you vote to not enforce the municipal code?

Yeah, they're voting as much as just saying we're comfortable with this date because other organizations have helped figure out okay, they're gonna be out by this date.

Maybe this is a they're helping people, however.

Um in the case, because I mean on that note, I mean, when we do clear an encampment, we say we're gonna give you two weeks or whatever, right?

So we're basically saying though that we're ignoring the law for two weeks until we get you out of here, not necessarily.

You're you're trespassing on private property, and we're telling you you have to leave, but we're telling you you don't have to leave until in here 15th.

Yes, so you're saying like yes, technically, but we're still saying you have to leave, and we're giving a date certain because one, I think those people deserve a little certainty, and two, um, again, you know, it is that is that is what we feel like how we can be compassionate in that situation to allow them again as much time as they can to prepare for that.

We're not gonna go in and surprise people, no, but also we're not gonna leave it open-ended because we have to go in, and for if, but for example, the reason that you know, I think for parks specifically, we don't necessarily give them 72 hours because it's already posted, right?

That's a lot of the times when we do that, it's for sometimes, and again, and it's also not for when they're in a drainage channel and it's gonna rain.

But it's for properties that are unposted, and then we go in and then we post it, right?

All parks are posted.

It is not legal again.

I'm not gonna give person who's walking or the PD is not gonna give a person who is walking their dog after a closing hours, right?

72 hours to leave, right?

But we're also not gonna ticket that person.

We also don't ticket the person who is speeding, you know, every single time either, right?

No, but it is also with the expectation that they cannot do that, yeah, right.

And so I I that is what I am not loving, is we're allowed we're we're saying it's still illegal, but you're gonna be there, and we don't know how long you're gonna be there for and not want to be there for.

Um so if we said you have to be out of Cape Park by next Friday at 5 p.m., that would satisfy that is a direction, yes.

Um that again, it is something.

And I think that allowing us to kind of manage it to some extent in terms of keeping cap is that like 32 hours or something.

That I mean 72 hours, I think that would get us ahead of the storms too.

Yeah, so three days.

When you say storms, do you mean weather?

Yes.

And and I would also you know, prefer now that he says that if that is again, although the practice has kind of been not 72 hours, but in larger encampments, we typically that is a policy with pretty consistency, I think is important for yeah, specifically for this one.

Like I, in fact, while we're here, we just got another email from actioner of another bar in the direction for night shift tonight as hey go make contact with them, be reasonable, asking to move on.

Because again, then that we do that every we did that legacy trail twice last week.

We have this one tonight.

Like, this is a common occurrence a little differently.

Different with the one behind food and shelter because that was not a park.

So we were able to say, well, coming on April 28th.

Yeah, they were able to say on April 28th, we're coming in ready.

Yes.

And so again, keep in mind in a situation of an officer who's going to enforce it from George Park tonight, right?

We're not being consistent in that application either.

Um, but also when you want like again, if the expectation is to leave it open but not manage it, if you don't want officers to say you you're trespassing here and you don't have a place to go, they're going to tell them to go to Francis Kate.

And isn't that honestly, if I'm in a position where I have to do that, I'm gonna tell them where to go.

So um I feel like there has to be an expectation one way or another.

I'm not trying to advocate for one specific one necessarily.

I just want us to be able to have the direction to manage one way or another.

But 72 hours, I think is consistent with um practice if we want to put a date certain on it.

And Karen Amanda and the rest of the outreach community from community mental health and all of the usual and customary participants engage in that.

It's it's as that's that's as compassionate as the system has provided so far.

It's professional.

They're getting professional uh outreach and contact in that process while we work on all these other alternatives.

Okay, maybe just got a question hypothetical as soon state comes back to you after you've talked to them, so yeah, you got this temporary uh reprieve for a while, you can use it, and then you know I'm thinking, well, you keep you keep mentioning management oversight, management oversight, so I'm looking for a framework.

What is that?

Is it what is that?

That's a great question.

That's a great question.

And that is one that honestly, I as a staff person am not looking forward to having to write.

Um, because again, we don't have a contractor to write it for us.

We don't have a good example other than the shelter, and this is not a shelter.

I don't have bathrooms, I don't have um any of the tools to make this work well.

Um and again, you know, I so do I have an answer for that?

Absolutely not.

Should there be an answer for that?

Yes.

But keep in mind, if that is the direction, know that I can't promise you a good result.

Um I I'm I'm not gonna tell you, I'm not gonna sit here and tell you that we could do a great job of that because again, at least we have service providers in Oklahoma who provide indoor shelter, right?

This is, I mean, again, and to be honest, the best practice for outdoor shelters is to not have one, right?

Ivy.

That is correct.

I I I don't know what to give you.

Well, for what I understand, you can't get into the city shelter as far as additional capacity until the sprinklers is put in from when I from it from an interstate.

Potentially capable, because that was the other thing.

So we'll came in, and then we're into okay, well, how do we minimize, how do we minimize things?

You say to RFI, ordinance, potential ordinance, uh, emergency ordinance, you're interfacing with a state for hey, I need to have a reprieve for a little while, it gives me 30 days, whatever it is to think through this thing, and and uh okay, if the state comes back and says, hey, yeah, we're gonna let you use it, then it's like, okay, what's my plan?

What's my plan as far as management oversight, this management framework to manage that camp.

And then the the other thing in my mind is someone's gonna I think I don't know if it's you or someone on staff is gonna try to say, hey, can I buy some more property from you?

Because you know, when I'm thinking, I'm I'm just thinking it's always good to have a transition area when you have a shelter.

North, south, east, and west.

That's almost like a campus.

I mean, well, okay, it's like this is turned to a canvas.

So the question of it that has to visually be asked to do our due diligence, but uh it seems like a multiple pronged approach that you've been guided down to it's not pretty, it's not pretty.

If it were easy, it would have been done.

And there are no easy solutions.

Well, I mean, so maybe um if it helps, I think that again, that 90 day in the interim to get it to the shelter, right?

If it were even possible, I think that is again another best case scenario of you know the time limit management piece, right?

Which is what we're asking here.

Um I understand it's I don't know what the answer is.

Um but I I think an answer is needed.

Um well uh I would just say that I'm not opposed to speaking on Tuesday uh about a time limit.

I do hear the weather portion.

I did ask the folks that are camping what they do when it's inclement weather.

They were jokesters, they said depending on a warning or a watch, you go out and watch, maybe crack beer if it's the sirens going off.

Um but others told us that they find spaces, not necessarily maybe the proper EAs don't know that they're there, but they take shelter in people's sheds and other places, so um I'm also weighing with that if we are telling people to be gone by this weekend that they're just gonna end up in people's yards, so um I don't know if that encampment will stay there during the bad weather or how that will work, but uh I would definitely get the other council members' input.

Um I appreciate the difficulty that staff is facing uh given we're so split on this.

And we appreciate the position the council's in.

This is just the toughest challenge put before any elected body.

This is it, this is the big thing.

Uh I would say if you guys really want clear direction for this weekend, I hope council member Gandisbury, Kirby, Bloodgett, and Peacock uh can finally also provide that clarity, which I'm not gonna reach out to them.

I assume staff can and get that will be our mission and yeah.

All right, if there's nothing else, I'm gonna yes, maybe some clarity for going forward for this weekend.

What's our expectations?

72 hours tomorrow.

Starting tomorrow.

So that would be so they'd have to be out of the park by Monday at Monday.

And the weather is when it's on and off all weekend, but looks like our highest chance are announced Monday of the more significant concerns.

All right.

Um not for doing that, but I'm gonna leave it to the other council members say.

So they agree to Monday night, end of day, not in the morning.

But I don't without them having somewhere to go, I just don't.

I know the Supreme Court changed how things can go, but uh before that we couldn't tell them to leave without giving them a place to go, right?

Sort of no, so that wasn't really no, that wasn't the case.

So in the Ninth Circuit there was a little bit of that, but again, keep in mind what and again, I'm not saying we have to tell them there is like if you want them to stay at Francis Cate, I'm not saying don't do that.

I'm saying if you do that at the very same time, give staff the authority to put rules in place to manage to put a cap limit because what you will have is what happened in the Ninth Circuit in Arizona, right?

Which is there was an area of the city that the city threw their hands up and said we're not gonna enforce, right?

And then they were sued, and then you know, they got an injunction at the state level because they weren't, and it's called a state created danger, right?

And you know, when there are things happening in that encampment that and then it's not being managed, right?

When there's weather that comes and it isn't a floodplain, again, when we're not managing where it is at, right?

The fact that if a flood comes and someone is asleep in their tent and it gets washed away, that is on us because we did not manage it, right?

And so that we don't have that authority, right?

Because we're not giving food so again, so keep in mind, yes, in Phoenix at that same time, there is also the expectation, because there is a federal injunction at the same time saying you are not enforcing correctly, right?

It was a fine line.

What went away with that Supreme Court decision was that case, right?

That does not relieve council of the you know responsibility to manage health and safety, right?

And and you know, to have that authority.

So that's where I'm struggling in that, but also the inconsistent application across parts one, and also allowing it to be illegal now and continue to be illegal until we make a different call, which we may or may not get consensus to do, and how many times have this, you know, have we found ourselves in a very prolonged situation because it's difficult for a body to get you know consensus because that's how democracy works, right?

So um it yes, uh what you're saying, but we were never in that position, one because we're not in the ninth circuit, but again, that didn't mean you just can't enforce either.

Um but so yeah, um I was thinking of the case in Oregon.

Yeah, grants pass that's one, yes, that couldn't kick them out of the parks if we didn't have somewhere else for them to go, I think.

Yeah, I mean it's it's more of like the public camping.

Um, and it was more of like you can't, it's it's more of like you can't let them I guess not sleep there, right?

It's the stuff associated with it, right?

It it's a little more nuanced than that in terms of you can't say you can't necessarily sleep somewhere or like anywhere on city property or anywhere on that, right?

That's different.

I we the the court would never ever in a million years say you can't sleep in a floodplain, they would never ever restrict a city from being able to do that, but right now I am being restricted from doing that, it's different.

So we do have enforcement efforts that will be underway in other parks tonight.

I I don't know.

What is that is that the intent of council?

I mean, it I'm assuming how I thought we had agreed to it this past Tuesday was that we were mindful of cake specifically because we pick Cape Park because it is the best and safest place for people to camp.

No, it is the one that we found itself on our doorstep.

Have we made the decision for the safety of those people?

No, right?

That's what I'm saying.

Allow us the ability if you're going to allow it to happen to make it a at least safer or you know, manage it from a safety perspective or something.

Um again it I so what is um that look like because I'm obviously not wanting to kick people out of caves, and I don't disagree to the management part of it, but what does that mean?

And if it's like we're figuring out the seat of our parents, okay.

Um does it mean like uh like the assault that happened there, you know, that's enforcing they went to jail, right?

And that's what's gonna end up happening, right?

Now that person who shouldn't have been put in that position because we should have been managing it in the first place, is now has a felony potentially on their record because they were tasked with enforcement, right?

Not us, the governing body who has the responsibility to do it, but that person, right?

And I'm sorry, I shouldn't be um getting heated, but that is what we are asking, and that is the reality that we are seeing.

I don't like seeing someone who I've worked with on the community docket, who I've worked to get housed, who I've worked to get resources to be put in that position, right?

Well, I am supportive of staff being able to enforce uh that's like I said, it's not an easy thing.

Can I just I've spent a lot of time over the past year or two, and especially the past two weeks, looking at what sanctioned encampments look like, and they first of all, you you cannot do a sanctioned encampment without waste management, without bathrooms, without water.

There's no sanctioned encampment that I'm aware of that has been in any way successful that doesn't have at least and security.

Almost all of them have fencing, and they have one way in and one way out.

People you have to know who's in there, you have to be able to most of them, not all of them, but the majority of them require people to be engaging in services so that it doesn't become just a place that somebody lives in a tent, and all of those things take time, all of those things take effort, and you have to have a managing body, whether that be it becomes a program of the city of Norman or there's a nonprofit that wants to do it, but they have rules and regulations, and it's not one page.

It's two pages that people sign and say, I won't do drugs.

I you know, I all the laws that are enforced in public areas, and it has a process, but you have to start there.

You can I don't think you can back into it.

I don't think you can say you have not been doing this for three weeks, and now we're gonna come in today, and it has to have a number, like how many people are going to be there, and how much square footage is each person gonna have.

And most of them say only one person in a tent.

So I mean, there are all of these processes and rules around sanctioned encampments that you start with that process.

You start with those rules.

And I don't, I mean, at this point, how do you how do you determine how many people are gonna be in Cape Park?

I mean, what is that number?

And how do you enforce that?

And how do you decide who the 50, you know, if that's 50 tents, how do you decide who those 50 are?

And I mean, there's just all kinds of it just begets question upon question about what your process and what your procedure is, and there are people out there who have done it, and you can find those things, but none of those places started with we're in a floodplain, they've made their own rules.

Here's a lease that we're in violation of that could trigger state enforcement, right?

And it if it's run by a person or an entity or something like that, then they can call the police and say we're trespassing them because they've broken our rules.

And the only way that this will work out, because I have also done some research in my five days of being employed with the city of Norman, is you need very intensive case management.

There is not enough case management in Norman to case manage Kate Park, let alone more people that may be coming in at some point.

It has to be very small caseloads, and it's not enough for Cara and I to handle or an outreach worker from central Oklahoma.

There needs to be more partners in this to make it successful, and the successful portion is that case management, that housing focused entity, and in the community, we don't have enough of that right now.

And I know Heidi can attest to that.

I can attest to that for my time working here in Norman for six and a half years.

There is not enough case management for a long time.

There was one person doing outreach, and she's sitting next to me now, employed by the city of Norman.

Now we have two people here, plus somebody from central Oklahoma.

That's still not enough, and it can't just fall on three people to get this all done.

Where's the state?

Where's the county?

Where well it's a federal, it's 40 years of bad federal public policy, and I think it is unfair for the people sitting at this table to put themselves in the position where they have to solve something that nobody can solve because it's based on 40 years of bad public policy.

It's like when the feds come in and say, We're gonna give California five million dollars to solve this problem, and California goes, we need 500 million dollars to solve this problem, and then people go, Well, why don't you solve the problem?

Like, well, give me 500 million dollars and I got a shot.

It's so under-resourced, and I we do this every day.

Every one of us understands it's a horrible thing that we're asking, it's a horrible thing to say.

We're going to displace you from where you are.

Not one person sitting here wants the council to have to say that.

But when you look at safety of people, and when you look at what the long-term implications of it are, it's really really difficult because it's a really really difficult problem.

And know that all of us are doing it every day.

So it's not that we it's not that anybody is like, hey, you know, there's a spotlight on Francis Kate Park.

What they're describing happens every day all over town.

Sometimes it's at the river, sometimes it's another park, sometimes it's in BNSF right away, sometimes it's on private property, sometimes it's on public property every day.

Those, I mean, that's why Lieutenant McGarder and the pace team, if it was they they wouldn't need to be a team, they wouldn't need to be a unit of the Norman Police Department if we were only talking about Franciscate Park.

They they do this all week long every week for the last two years.

This is what they've been doing.

All right.

Like I said, I do support if we're having people at Kate there being enforcement to protect folks.

Well I hate to end on this note but um like I said I do support if we're having people at Kate there being enforcement to protect folks I hear you city attorney Purton when we talk about people catching felonies because that does not help them get housed and it certainly does not create safety um and hopefully other council members will weigh in and give clearer direction if this is not clear enough.

Is there any other comments before we adjourn?

I'll just jump in and say I'd support the 72 hour deal just because displacing 50 people is less inhumane than displacing 65 tenths or 75 tenths I think the longer it goes on just the the more the inhumane the breakup's gonna be so I would support the 72 hour anybody else's thoughts on that and we're advising them to go where those of us who are going to be in communication with them with with storms coming to where can they go where they're legal and not in a floodplain and not exposed to storms um I don't have an answer for that but I can work on it um I mean um there is no answer I think there are potentially better answers but we're not giving ourselves the ability to look at alternatives.

Oh I want to exploit no no no as in like then your future as in like in terms of maybe at least identify a place not in the floodplain a different like some place that is a little safer that is not going to potentially be subject to DEQ enforcement or anything like that.

For all ears we exactly but I can't I can't provide that I can't provide that and anyone council do we do we have a place that's not in a floodplain that we can tell people to go not legally city doesn't own a bunch of surplus property we just we don't what we don't have it on the balance sheet all right seeing no further comments I'm gonna adjourn this meeting thank you