Norman City Council Meeting: TIF Charter Amendments and Homelessness Interim Solutions - May 14, 2026
Norman City Council Meeting: TIF Charter Amendments and Homelessness Interim Solutions
This meeting on May 14, 2026, covered two major topics: a discussion of potential charter amendments to require a supermajority vote for tax increment financing (TIF) districts, and a discussion of interim solutions for homelessness, particularly addressing the growing encampment at Francis Kate Park and the potential expansion of the Gray Street shelter.
Discussion Items
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Charter Amendment
City Attorney Catherine Purdon presented a draft charter amendment that would require a supermajority (six out of eight council members) to adopt any ordinance creating a TIF district that apportions more than a certain percentage of city sales tax as increment. She noted that the Local Development Act (LDA) already sets voting thresholds (majority if in accord with the review committee, two-thirds if not) and that a charter amendment would have legal risks but stronger arguments than an ordinance. Council members discussed the history of TIF votes (e.g., University North Park TIF passed 5-4 with controversy, Center City TIF 9-0) and the need to protect the general fund. They debated whether to use a percentage of sales tax, a dollar amount, or a percentage of the general fund as the threshold. Council member Hinkle suggested considering both a percentage and a dollar amount. Staff will analyze based on the proposed FY 26-27 budget and bring back a proposal.
Homelessness Interim Solutions
Staff presented three options: (1) status quo (enforcement without a place to go), (2) indoor expansion of the Gray Street shelter with City Care willing to contribute funds for a sprinkler system and additional beds, and (3) an outdoor sanctioned encampment on state property (with the State Department of Mental Health willing to discuss a short-term lease, possibly for 90 days). Staff emphasized the risks of any outdoor option, including liability, management, and lack of dignified services. Council members expressed varied views:
- Council member Dixon opposed expanding the downtown shelter, citing business owner concerns and the temporary nature of the current shelter.
- Council member Hinkle supported an emergency ordinance allowing private residential camping with permits, shifting liability to property owners.
- Mayor Holman favored expanding the shelter and pursuing state property options.
- Council member Bruce suggested an RFI for nonprofits to increase capacity.
- The encampment at Francis Kate Park has grown to 50 tents (approximately 100 people) and is in a floodplain, with safety and health risks. Staff reported that self-enforcement has led to felonies and that the city is not managing the site.
Key Outcomes
- No formal votes were taken on either agenda item.
- For TIF: Staff will analyze appropriate percentage thresholds based on the FY 26-27 budget and bring back a proposal for council consideration.
- For homelessness: No consensus was reached on enforcement timing. Council members were split on whether to provide a 72-hour notice to vacate the park or to continue allowing the encampment while pursuing other solutions. Staff will continue working on multiple fronts: expanding the Gray Street shelter (contingent on council direction), drafting an emergency ordinance for private residential camping, issuing an RFI for nonprofit capacity, and negotiating with the State Department of Mental Health for potential use of state property. The council will revisit the issue at a future meeting.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com