City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the city council Norman Utilities Authority, Norman Municipal Authority and Norman Tax Increment Finance Authority meeting of March 24th, 2026. Madame Clerk, will you call the role? Council member Gandisberry here. Council member Peacock here. Council member Bruce here. Council member Grant present. Council member Noire here. Council member Hinkle here. Council member Blahett here. Council member Dixon here. Mayor Holman

here. Please join us in the pledge of allegiance. All right. First item is a proclamation proclamation of the mayor of the city of Norman, Oklahoma, proclaiming Friday, April 24th, 2026 as Arbor Day in the city of Norman. I entertain a motion to acknowledge receipt of the proclamation. So moved.

Second. The motion on the floor is to acknowledge receipt of the proclamation. Council members, you may cast your votes.

All votes have been cast and the motion to acknowledge receipt of the proclamation passes unanimously.

All right. And I would recognize Tori Tedar Laughland, commissioner from the parks board to join me at the podium. Okay. A proclamation of the mayor of the city of Norman, Oklahoma, proclaiming Friday, April 24th, 2026 as Arbor Day in the city of Norman. Whereas Oklahoma has recognized Arbor Day through observance and ceremonies for more than 100 years. And whereas we recognize the importance of planting trees to beautify our parks and public places and around our homes and businesses. And whereas we recognize the environmental, social, and economic benefits of trees such as providing shade, creating a sense of community and visually pleasing neighborhoods, reducing home heating and cooling costs, reducing air pollution, noise pollution, and soil erosion, and enhancing property value and economic vitality of business areas. And whereas it is the purpose of Arbor Day to encourage the planting of trees in urban and rural areas, promote proper management of trees, and to remember the many benefits we receive from trees. And whereas Norman has been has been awarded for the 22nd consecutive year Tree City USA status by the Arbor Day Foundation. And whereas the city utilities department, division of environmental resilience and sustainability doers, city of Norman parks and recreation and Norman Board of Park Commissioners have scheduled an Arbor Day observance Sunday, April 26th, 2026 at 3 p.m. at the Earth Day Festival in Reeves Park with a tree planting and presentation. Now therefore, I, mayor of

the city of Norman, Oklahoma, do hereby proclaim Friday, April 24th, 2026, as Arbor Day in the city of Norman, and encourage all citizens to observe Arbor Day by planting an Oklahoma proven tree for the benefit of all citizens and that of future generations. Passed and approved this 24th day of March, 2026. right here if you'd like to say a few words.

I'm not going to take much of your time, but I do want to thank council um for this proclamation, but I also want to thank past councils and future councils for hiring a Forester. um we haven't always had one and uh Collins Inc. is just really really great. It really gives a the citizens of Norman a resource to go to for good tree advice. Um the right tree in the right place keeps us from um many fumbles down the road. So, thank you for your support of this. Thank you so much. Have a good day.

All right. All right, next up, council announcements. And we'll start in Ward One. All right, I Hello, Ward One. Everybody's here tonight. Thank y'all for coming out. Just got a couple people that I want to thank for what they're doing in the community. I want to thank Barry Traml and his group over in Ward One that has a thing called the table where they pick up the homeless, bring them in for dinner and actually serve them restaurant style and talk to them, worship with them and things over at Antioch Church first and third uh Mondays of every month. Also got a chance to meet with Elena this weekend. Her and her husband run an organization called the Hugs Ministry. They was set out here on Porter at church out there this weekend giving away things and being able to just help some of our community that was in need with certain things. Also, we've been asking for this organization to come into town with their showers and different things. And today was the first time they made it to Norman, but it's an organization called Be Heard and they bring in the shower units and supply showers for homeless that want to take that option and everything. There was today at the mental health on Alama from what the guys said when they were done at three they had a pretty good turnout there also. So

very good. Um thank you council or W two. Thank you. Uh so I didn't realize until just a little bit ago that tonight was council member Noire's last meeting with us. Uh and I know it's just been a short time but I want to say that it's been a pleasure serving with you man and uh you've been an asset to the team and I'm really we're going to miss your presence up here. All right. W three.

Good evening, Norman. W three. Uh just a couple announcements. Uh hey, I appreciate the face tof face discussions and the stopping and discussing and and talking. Emails are good, too, but I really like the face to face. Uh with that, there's going to be a town hall for W 3 uh in Sooner Mall this Monday, 30th of March at 7 o'clock, and it'll be held down by J C Penneyy's area. With that, that's all I have. Thank you. W four.

Yes. Good evening, Ward 4, City of Norman. Um, first I'd like to thank Trent Bagot for serving on the historic district for Ward 4. We always appreciate people stepping up to serve. Um, also our first W 4 quarterly meeting will happen this Saturday, March 28th, uh, from 9:30 to 11:00 a.m. at 2:25 North uh, Webster, which is the development center. on the topics we'll cover it will be neighborhood organizing keep Norman neat along with other environmental awareness programs. Uh we'll have the April 7th ballot proposals and go over those briefly and then any other ward relevant updates. And also I would like to say it's been a pleasure serving with you council member Noire. I'm sad you can't stay till July.

Thank you Ward five. Good evening, Norman and Ward Five. I see a lot of Ward Five out here, so I appreciate that. It's a great sendoff. Uh, as they said, this is probably my last council meeting, barring something weird happening, and I have been incredibly thankful for the uh, opportunity for this experience. It has been extremely enlightening. I would also like to thank my wife and kids for my wife. She is didn't start off liking this all that well, but she has become the greatest researcher and she is more in tune with politics at the city and state level than I am at this point. So, great things there. And then my kids for understanding the reason that dad is never home. I'm con this I would like to say that uh some of the things I've learned on council is our city staff has a wealth of experience and they put in a lot of time and effort into everything that you guys see and everything that you don't. This place is a well-run machine compared to most actual cities regardless of what you all come up here and see. And along those same lines, just keep in mind that everybody up on this dis does this for just about free and we all put in 20, 30, 40 hours a week as well. It's a full-time second job for most of us. And so I would like you to keep that in mind whenever you're interacting with anybody because everybody here has a reason that they want Norman to be a better place and we're all just really kind of differing on how to get there. And if you keep that in mind whenever you're talking to people, you'll find out that you can come to an agreement a lot more easy than otherwise. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you, Ward Six.

Yes. I also want to say thank you to Council Member Noire for your service. I just got used to sitting next to you and you're leaving, so I I'll miss you. Um, also want I always like to thank people who are signing up or uh renewing a new term for boards and commissions. We have a a very longtime uh person who's given a lot of service to the city of Norman uh a W six resident named Amanda Narin who is uh rejoining the central Oklahoma master conservancy district for another term. So her uh institutional knowledge and just the knowledge she brings in general to that group um is very valuable. So we are lucky to have a volunteer like her in our city. And then last and most important um happy birthday to my daughter. Tonight's her birthday. So, that's all I got.

Thank you, Ward 7.

Um, yes. Uh, good evening um to all of you that are here and to all of Norman, especially W 7. Um, I just have a couple reminders. I wanted to remind everyone that there is an election coming up on April 7th. So, that's very important. Please get out and vote. And um uh medieval fair is coming to W 7 um at Reeves Park April 10th through 12. So um that'll be a good time. This is not necessarily in my ward, but I wanted to um I have kids, so I want to remind um everyone that on April 3rd, there is the spring egg hunt at Andrews Park from 5 to 7 p.m. So that would be a good time if you have some children. Thank you. That's it.

Thank you. W eight.

Uh, thank you. Just want to um thank Dr. Edgar Oar. He's the W 8 rep on the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District. It's the group that really kind of controls Lake Thunderbird. Um, so glad to have him staying on there. Um, Parks and Wreck hosted um I'm forget the name at the Shamrock Run at Legacy No at Ruby Grant Park a couple weeks ago. Um, Nathan Maddenald is extremely fast. Um, Scott Sts can run extremely long ways. Um, council member elect JC Deck was there. Uh, she was really fast and ran a long way. Uh, because it was a 5K, a onem fun run. Then I participated in the onem beer mile. Um, I think I had more fun than anybody else there. Um, but we also have coming up um at Legacy Park in W 8 on Saturday, May 9th is the Office Olympics um a 5K and Dunder Dash. If you're a fan of the show, The Office uh Dunder Mifflin and all that, it's coming up. Um and that is it for my announcements.

All right. Thank you. Um just a couple for me. one Wednesday, tomorrow at 5:30 p.m. at the Young Family Athletic Center, we'll be having a ribbon cutting for some new amenities which include six dedicated pickle ball courts designed for open play, leagues, lessons, and tournaments. Two sand volleyball courts to expand volleyball programming and adult league play. A 50ard turf field to support youth skills training camps and community events. and a new courtyard with a shade with shaded seating. So, um expanding the WAC already and so we'll be having a ribbon cutting for some of that those new features um out there at 5:30 and would invite anybody interested to come check it out. And then also uh we have an arts council forum tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. um downtown at main site um to talk about arts issues in Norman um the visitor tax um all those types of things that we've been talking about in Norman for a long time and then what are the future plans and where do different uh council members stand on those issues. So looking forward to that and then also I'm looking forward to being a judge this Saturday at the chocolate festival. Encourage everybody to check that out. And then also Skate Loma is having their competition at our skate park this Saturday and I was asked to be a guest judge to that. So I'm going to be I'm not a skater either, but I'm gonna I've definitely eaten a lot of chocolate in my life. So I'm going to eat some chocolate and judge that and go skate some go judge some skaters. So fun day in Norman on Saturday for sure. I would encourage everybody to stop by and check that out, too. And then um council member Belage had already talked about the medieval fair which will happen before our next council meeting. So, absolutely encourage everybody to go check that out if you get a chance and hopefully the weather holds out this year for him. Um, a few months ago, I signed up to be a substitute teacher for Norman public

schools because being mayor only pays $100 a month and real estate was slow and and one night a week at the bar isn't enough either. So, I signed up to be a substitute and um I hadn't been able to take an actual job yet and about a month ago this today one came up to teach 8th grade science at Irving and I signed up for it not knowing the type of council meeting that I might be having tonight. So, um but it was a lot of fun. The class was actually in my English and home room seventh grade class when I was at Irving. So, that was kind of neat. Um and uh the kids were really awesome. So, I just told them I'd give them a shout out at the council meeting tonight. and um and they desperately need substitutes. Um if you are available and you can uh loan any time to that, they are in desperate need, they have openings. They're offering full-time positions for the rest of the year to substitute teachers right now. So, uh if you can and have any kind of knowledge or will willingness to do that, I encourage you to check it out. Um and then also, um also just wanted to thank Council Member Noire. Um, thank you for, uh, putting yourself out there, for being willing to represent the largest geographic ward in Norman, um, that has a lot of different issues that we know of that it can be very complicated and is very spread out. So, it can be hard to gather, you know, feedback from all the constituents in W five. So, I appreciate you being willing to do it. And I think you've done a really great job since you've been up here. And so, I hope you will definitely stay engaged with city issues. And then the last thing just wanted to encourage everybody like others mentioned to make sure you vote on April 7th. There are five ballot items. So don't skip any of them. And then if you live in Ward 5, make sure you vote in the council runoff election. Two great candidates. Um there's still plenty of time to learn about each one of them and where they stand on the issues that are important to you. And like we've mentioned many times, a lot

of city elections are decided by very few votes. So make it count. Okay. All right. Thank you. and we'll move on to the consent docket. This item is placed on the agenda so that the city council by unanimous consent can designate those routine agenda items that they wish to be approved or acknowledged by one motion. If any item proposed does not meet with approval of all council members, that item will be heard in regular order. Staff recommends that item two through item 30 be placed on the consent docket. I'll entertain a motion to place items two through 30 on the consent docket. Motion. Second. The motion on the floor is to place items 2 through 30 on the consent docket. Council members, you may cast your votes.

Have been cast and the motion to place items 2 through 30 on the consent docket passes unanimously. I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent docket. Motion. Second. Are there any comments from council regarding any item on the consent docket? Seeing none, the motion on the floor is to approve the consent docket. Council members, you may cast your votes.

Then the motion to approve the consent docket passes unanimously.

And I just need to make a real quick correction. I just got a message that the arts forum tomorrow has been cancelled. So that tomorrow that Okay. So if anybody got that announcement from me as an update.

Okay. Non-consent agenda item number 31. Consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection, amendment, and/or postponement of contract K-2526-139 by and between the city of Norman and the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority for the East West Connector utility relocation agreement for the relocation of water wells and water lines generally between 48th Avenue Northwest and 24th Avenue Northwest. I'll entertain a motion to approve, reject, or amend, or postpone the contract. Motion to approve. Second.

I would like to recognize Assistant City Attorney Beth Muckla to give a presentation.

Thank you, Mayor and City Council. Again, my name is Beth Muckla. I'm with the uh city attorney's office. I am here to present um actually both items K2526-139 and K2526-156, which are items 31 and 32. Um I will give brief background explanation, but my focus will be on explaining the contracts themselves, which is why I was going to address them both because they have very similar formats. Um, I'll tell you what the terms say, what they mean for the city of Norman, and then if you wish, other city staff is here to go into more detail regarding discussions, uh, the projects we're talking about and impacted city infrastructure. So, this first slide, um, the photo here is showing the root of the east west connector, uh, which is one component, as you know, of the OTAA access Oklahoma project. uh it shows its route as it affects the city of Norman and that little red box actually zeros in on where we're going to go with the first contract and the next slide. Um but what I would like to uh talk to you about is the uh impacted city infrastructure which in this case involves water lines, water wells and roadway and drainage infrastructure. So this relates to the first contract uh-139 which is the uh water line relocation and uh this depicts in blue the water waterline infrastructure that's affected uh it's going to be replaced uh moved expanded and I'll go into more detail on that. the numbers 17, 18, 19, and 20. Those represent the water wells uh that we're talking about in that agreement as well. Following that line vertically there, this shows all of that same infrastructure with the overlay of uh

the east west connector. And of course, you can see uh 36 uh northwest and Indian Hills Road there. Uh so this uh agreement essentially as you can see it cites Oklahoma law relevant statutes but what it is really uh breaking down to and the discussions broke down to was how can we deal with this impacted infrastructure and what is the best approach for the city of Norman in a in doing so. So, what we ended up with in this agreement, um, and that I'm going to try to point out are cost benefits, uh, positive cost impacts for projects and upgrades that were already planned by the city of Norman. So, um, obviously that's early accomplishment of these projects, which, you know, we're talking about today's dollars, not tomorrow's dollars. Um, and then less disruption of rights of way, meaning we aren't going to have to come through this area for two separate projects to do it. By doing some of these planned future projects right now, we're avoiding that and getting it done and impacting that right ofway only once to do it. And so both of these agreements have a format basically broken down in the shells, OTAA shell and the city shell. Uh so for this agreement the water agreement the OTAA is going to be responsible to implement our standards while they are constructing these re relocations and these betterments. They are also going to be responsible to cover 100% of design costs uh for the relocation and any betterments that we are asking for. They're going to cover all of those design costs and any necessary relocation betterment acquisitions.

uh they will cover 100% of the construction costs of impacted city rightofway infrastructure and then they will pay 100% of the relocation cost of the water wells the four water wells I showed in that uh early graphic the city's responsibility will be to of course provide the design requirements so that we can make sure they are following our guidelines and then to review and approve that um we shall cover the cost for the construction of betterments and the relocation of infrastructure that are in shared rights of way. We will of course allow them to get in to complete the work and then with respect to the water wells we will be responsible to plug and remove them by the end of this year. This next slide uh goes into the numbers you're actually seeing in the agreement. So, as you can see, the city's responsibility uh for the waterline relocation component com component is just over 1.9 million. And so, what that represents is uh impacted infrastructure of approximately 20,000 linear feet. Again, OTAA is going to be covering 100% of the cost of city right-of-way infrastructure, which uh is approximately 11.6 million in their responsible cost for the waterline component component. the uh city will be covering the cost of shared rideway relocation and any extensions or extra areas that we added into this agreement. So that cost comes to about 775,000. And then I want to discuss two specific betterments which uh represent planned future projects as well. Um the first is an increase in size of approximately 5200 linear feet of line from 10 in to 12 in. Um, and what I want to point out in particular about this is the cost,

what that cost we're paying represents. As you can see, it's just over 416,000. But what happens is the 10 in has to be relocated anyway. So 100% of that cost is covered by the OTAA. So the only cost that that 416 comes from is literally the difference in the size of pipe between 10 in and 12 inch. we are literally only representing uh responsibility for the increase that we're asking for there. And on a later slide, we'll get into more detail, but I believe the cost of that planned future project in today's dollars is around 2.5 million. So that's being accomplished for just over 400,000. And so the same calculations apply to the next betterment, um which is 3,300 feet linear feet of line, but it's a doubling in size. So, we're seeing a higher number there. I think that last slide is going to show that to be a today's dollars $5 million project for the city um uh being done for just over 772. So, that's how we get to the $ 1.9 million uh city responsibility for the water line. As you can tell probably from the face of the agreement, um the water well component is entirely OTAA responsibility. What happened there is um we have four wells all of which are about 75 years old. We've burned through a lot of useful life needless to say. Two of them are already inactive. The other two that are active um one of them is actually temporarily out of service. Uh so obviously these would need to be relocated and we'd be looking at that cost ourselves. So what city staff did was they went and they estimated what would it cost to relocate these wells. Um and that's $ 8.95 million and the OTAA accepted that number. So for the future relocation cost of that well uh we're at a net zero with with that payment.

This is an exhibit to the agreement and I just wanted to show it because it's very similar to the graphics that show the impacted infrastructure. This goes into a bit more detail. You can see where city the city's trying to be pretty efficient, ask for some abandonment of stuff we don't need, some increases on other stuff. Everything uh that was added took into account the credits of stuff that was removed. Um and if you want more detail, I'm sure that our staff can provide that. But the numbers on a whole that I've presented all represent that baked into it. And this is a good graphic to show you what's happening. Uh, and so that was uh all that I had for the waterline agreement. I'm happy to take questions now, but I can also go on directly to the contract for the roadway and drainage.

Questions waterline part or you want to wait till she's done and then take them all at the same time? Okay, proceed.

Thank you. Okay. So, as you all um are aware, I'm sure the uh impact to the city project we're talking about here is the 36th Avenue Northwest bond project that we've been planning for years. This uh slide shows you the different phases. Uh phase one is Tecumpsa to just past Franklin Road. Phase two uh which looks black there, but it's actually a dark blue I think uh is uh just above that to the Indian Hills intersection. uh better graphic up there to see the circle, but that circle is the intersection uh that we have always known was going to be um impacted since uh the east west connector was announced. Phase three is the last leg that goes up to city limits. And then of course uh the uh portion that's within more is also shown there past the city limit. This slide shows you our estimated cost uh for the construction of this project as a whole. And as many of all of you of course are aware, uh we've been awarded federal funds to take care of that. And so obviously going into that, the city staff was thinking very hard about how to maximize the situation and not uh forgo any benefits of the grant funds we already received. Here is another graphic very similar, but this isolates it down to the portion we're talking about today, uh which is uh phase two. We're calling it modified phase two. And this graphic in particular shows the green line uh that is the drainage infrastructure uh that is uh impacted in particular. That line as you can see uh is traveling looks west but it's actually south and then it uh veers off into the tributary to the little river which is just about 700 ft north of Franklin Road there. Um, but all of the 36th Avenue Northwest uh phase 2 runoff uh drains into the tributary of Little River that crosses

right there at that 700 foot mark. Right now, all of that is being handled with open bar ditches and it's still going on that path. As part of our own project, we were of course planning drainage infrastructure that was going to take it along that same path in um to the same channel as uh the east west connector is intercepting a large amount of this storm water drainage because it is passing at Indian Hills. Uh they are going to need to address the same drainage drainage needs, same drainage infrastructure. they have a little bit more updated uh time-wise calculations and so they uh estimated the need for a slightly larger drainage system to be accommodated there. And again, their route would need to be the same. It would go down the same path and and go to the tributary just as the water is going today. And so considering that need and um also how it looks like the storm water drainage we already had in place. The uh discussions uh came down to a matter of what does that look like? working on that drainage infrastructure in a way that's going to um make the situation the best situation to bring here in a contract for you to consider tonight. And so the OTAA um in looking at uh the drainage designs they brought us, it it was clear that their infrastructure was large enough that it was going to need to be fitted under the road in place to fit um in into the area that we already had as rideofway. Otherwise, without using that, they would need to go outside of city-owned ride ofway and potentially have further private acquisitions. Uh, and city staff was obviously very motivated to discuss

options that did not involve private acquisitions um of further right of way. And so the question was then how do we maximize this in terms of our grant funding in a uh a situation that's going to um be palatable in this contract that we're presenting to you today. So the OTAA predictably uh came to the city with a proposal to pay for all of the drainage infrastructure proposed in its project which would uh take care of the needs for the drainage infrastructure we had already planned in our project. So there there would be a cost avoided there. But then they only offered to cover the necessary amounts of road that were impacted by that installation. Well, that really didn't work. Uh there was a lot of disruption involved in that. There could be duplicative work, duplicative schedules. Um inefficiency. Uh so the city came back with a proposal that it stuck to which was uh we are going to need to be given credit for what we've already invested in this project. That is in the exhibit to the contract which you will see um we've already invested acquisition funds and utility relocation funds in an amount of about $2.7 million. That's that 2.7 million figure you're seeing in the exhibit. Um and so we said we're going to need credit for that. And then uh using that we proposed 2.2 million which is a number uh that is going to work for us best going forward and dealing with the funding we have in place um negotiating that um item. And so we asked for 2.2 million but we wanted all of modifi modified phase 2 taken care of. that's going to avoid the inefficiencies and the overlapping issues and concerns that we had there as well as avoid a situation where they would need to go for more private rightway.

Uh and again I I think that was all on the slide. My apologies. Um, at the bottom you can see again we're talking about a positive cost impact to the contract because what would have been a $14.7 million uh construction project is uh uh well, sorry, that's the OTAA share. What would have been an a $9 million estimated project for us is uh 2.2. we have earlier and more efficient construction because uh the east west connector is is already underway and they have an earlier projected time for addressing this particular area than our project would get to and of course it's going to lead to dis less disruption because we're not doing anything twice and it's going to avoid the need for future acquisitions if they are fitting drainage infrastructure into the place we were already planning it. Um so here are the shells. OTAA is going to incorporate our designs. They're going to reconstruct at their share of cost about 14.7 million. They're going to construct the drainage for that drainage area north of Indian Hills and 36th Avenue. Um and then we will provide them our engineering plans because of course we we've had those. We're going to allow them to to come in and construct that. We are going to maintain city roads following construction, which means we're maintaining the same thing we would have maintained anyway. Um, and then our share of the responsibility is that 2.2. Um, and of course it the agreement says we shall acquire right ofway and relocate utilities, but as I've already explained, we've done that and uh we're credited 2.7 million for that already in the agreement. So that is accounted for. Okay. And this is um the last of my slides. It's meant to be a summary. uh these two columns on the right. The left one is to show the monetary cost to the city without this agreement and the

right column shows um the modified cost with this agreement taken into account. And I'm just going to confess some math errors. Mr. Stirs had me fixing numbers and instead I made them worse. Um that 25.35 million second from the bottom, you need to take that down. That's the grand total for the potential cost to the city. 25.35 million without the OTAA agreement. That's what today's dollars estimate these projects cost us. Um the column to the right that that's correct. 3.4 million is uh the amount that we are responsible for under these agreements. And using this agreement, it would be today's dollars. We would pay that and and we would be finished with that. And then of course that asterisk represent the trying to get the most out of arranging our ongoing funding uh so that we are using this to our benefit in our remaining plans for 36th Avenue.

Uh so that sums up the agreements. I'm happy to take any questions on either or both. Are there any questions from council regarding this item? Seeing or on the water on the wells part of it and then the next item has to do with the 36th Avenue agreement. Any questions about the wells item? Council member Bruce about the uh the execution on the replacement of the wells or if that's what what's the thought process on that? who will be the the entity responsible for execution of hey I'm going to replace that one that one and this what I'm going to do with this will and this will

we would have control over that decision. This agreement requires us requires the OTAA to simply hand over that money to us for our use going forward um and as we see fit. Any other questions from council on the water well part? Okay, let's see. I do have a couple questions. Um why would we need to relocate an inactive well?

I I might defer to um Mr. Maidenwald who's here uh to represent the utilities department as far as future projects. I will say this agreement does not require us to relocate it. it's paying us the money so that we can make the decision on how to handle that. Um, but I will defer to Mr. Maiden Malt.

Uh, Nathan Madden, City of Norman Utilities Department. Um, so the abandonment of the well that's required per the agreement for the the project. So even though it's inactive, we would still need to abandon it properly per OW Oklahoma Water Resources Board regulations. Um, in in the negotiations with them, we represented that we had four wells in in the path that would be impacted and they presented an offer and we countered and uh the proposed funding is what they're giving us for that inactive well. And so those inactive ones, there's no plans to reactivate them, I guess. No, those two inactive wells have been inactive for the past 20 years,

but we would potentially uh do two new ones. We're going to take the funding and use it as best for the water fund. Um so we don't know that we're going to actually do two wells to replace that. Um we may use it for other sources. Water utility sources. Exactly. Water utility services. Yes. Okay.

And um not sure if this is for you Nathan, but the impact to the Little River. I assume that through our 36th Avenue project, there had to be some sort of analysis of the Little River and how 36th Avenue would be draining into it. Uh because I'm wondering right now, it's a two-lane country road and it's about to be a four multi-lane urban arterial and then turnpike drainage on top of that. So, what's the impact to the little river right there? So my my perview in in this agreement was looking at what is impacted for water, sewer, trash, and water facilities were impacted. So the agreement we looked at was just focused on where our Norman city water infrastructure is impacted and the agreement pertaining to that.

Okay. Do we have anybody that can talk about the the report? Thank you, Nathan.

Scott Cers, director of public works. As with all of our road projects, we always do drainage analysis and we do look at that. Um, as far as impact, uh, most of our roadway projects, we do not include drainage, uh, detention as a part of those projects. That's just not something that's customarily done. So, as far as that, there's no that that has not been calculated. So, it's not typical with those projects. Uh, and other projects we've worked on uh, to date under the 2012 or the 2019 bond uh, required that or we provide that on those projects. Okay. And that's that's 36th Avenue. And it was mentioned what would happen if we were to if we said no and they build their own drainage. U did they show any kind of map or visuals about what rightway they would be acquiring if they did that on their own.

So that comment came about when I said if we do not if this agreement does not happen, what is the next available option? And I was told at that time the next favorable option would be to obtain additional rideway. Sorry, I got to get through all of the Yeah, they got animations. I was wondering why it wasn't moving. So, I I would just like to point out that when we were looking at this, if you see that area in green there, that is to the northwest corner of Indian Hills and 36, that is the drainage area that we were taking care of with the 36 Avenue project. That water currently does go down the bar ditches just as it was explained and goes to that tributary of the little little river. We were going to accommodate that. And then what happened, the reason that the a lot of questions been asked about why is the box bigger now? The reason the box is bigger is because the OTAA did a more uh current a more modern uh modeling called 2D. And when they did that, it showed that that area in blue is also going this way. So that water is being accounted for. So basically the water was going this way before, the water was going to go this way with 36. The water was going to continue to go this way in the future. If we would have continued with the Indian Hills project, we probably would have made the same realization with the impacts uh that we encountered at that time and looking at that. So, this really is more about taking care of the water that's norm to the right place where it's supposed to go uh throughout that process. So, when we started looking at what we what we thought could be a potential impact, uh we started looking this is the Crystal Lakes edition there on the east side of 36 just across the street from Bob Stoop's house. Um what we have there is you can see that yellow square that yellow uh rectangle that is actually a 50- foot exclusive waterline easement. No one else can actually access that. So that is there and

reserved. So what you see beyond that is then that red line that would be a 25- ft easement into those properties outside of that 50 foot. And then we just kind of laid in where a 12 foot x 6 foot storm sewer could go in the future. To be honest, I don't know that depending on depth, a 25 ft drainage may not be enough for construction and maintenance of that line. We just looked at it with that. Uh with this, you can see it's getting very close to those two homes on the north and the south side of Crystal uh Springs uh Drive there. Uh so it was the one concern that we had. And then I also just wanted to point out this is the preliminary plat for North Norman Village. Uh this is the preliminary plat there at the uh south southwest corner of I35 in Indian Hills. Um so when you look at that, you can see the same thing there in yellow. That is the 50oot exclusive waterline easement outside of Rightway. And you can see the red line uh showing what a 25- ft easement will look like through this property. You can see that it would impact the three uh commercial buildings on the north and it would reduce the size of the lots down through there. Uh possibly requiring them to come back and have to replplat this. That would be their decision on that would work with their their needs on that preliminary plat.

Okay. Thank you very much. Um that is the questions I have right now about the water. Any other questions from council on the waterline part? Council Dixon. Yes, sir. the um roughly $11 million for relocating water lines or lines going from 10 inch to 12 in and 12 to 24. We won't have to pull crews off of what they're currently working on that the OTAA is going to do that work. Like we're not getting reimbursed for it. They're just going to do the work. Is that right?

That's correct. In the agreement, our our total amount is 1.964 million. We'll provide that to them. They'll pay provide the money for the wells and then they design it. They construct it. We have the right to go inspect it. We have the right to review their designs, make sure they're compliant. But yes, it won't impact our capital program. It won't impact our crews. Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. Seeing no further com or questions from council currently. All right. This is an opportunity for members of the public to make comments regarding this item. Uh madame clerk, is anyone signed up to speak? Yes, Mayor Trey Kirby.

Trey Kirby, W 5. I just want to start with how many of y'all have went out to East Ward 5 during the rain along Franklin Road or Indian Hills in between 48th and 72nd. How many times have you drove out there after the rain and the water overtook the fields and the road by, you know, a couple feet? people couldn't even get to Robin Hill School. Now you're talking about widening Indian Hills already and you say that probably wasn't going to be enough and the turnpike caught it. So now you're going to have the widen at Indian Hills and then you're going to have the turnpike additionally on top of it. You're going to flood out Ward 5. And if I heard her correct, this ain't the only one that y'all are going to have to have done. Once y'all do this one, they're going to get a little bit farther east and they're going to have to do it again. So, at the end of the day, I'm hearing Ward 5 is going to get dumped on. A whole lot of water dumped on them. We already struggle keeping that water out of our hay fields and off of our roads, and y'all's going to take the first deal coming to you because it has big shiny numbers. I mean, new and shiny don't mean miny. Uh, y'all represent the people, not the contractors, not the OTAA, not the builders. You represent the people out here that vote for you. And right now, I'm hearing you're going to dump a lot of water over onto us people. Um, did you are y'all doing any environmental studies? Did you get any environmental studies done on this on the impact of it? Or are we just going to take the word of the OTAA that hey, this is going to be great because uh that don't sound fun. And I get it that we're going to save one house if we do this. They don't have to take easement. So it might save one house over there. But when you make that deal, are you selling out 75 houses in Ward 5? Because now we have to negotiate every time. And you're going to say, we don't have to negotiate every time, but yet we don't have to negotiate this time. But since they're offering all this money and all this new shiny stuff and offering to do all these work and offering to do all the contracts, we're like, "Hey, let's jump on board." So, I just want to know, have any of y'all ever went out to Ward 5 after a rain and stood on Franklin Road at 60th with the water flowing past you and onto people's properties before we put this kind of water that this road

is about to dump back out on us. Thank you. I do want to remind everybody this specific item is about the four water wells and water line replacements. The next item will be about 36th Avenue and the drainage that's associated with that. So, if you'll on this item, keep your comments to the water wells replacement and the water line replacement part and then we'll get to the street project next. Um, Dave Moore. No, Dave. Dave, I'm sorry. I didn't see you over there.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. In the 56 years I've lived in this town since 1970, I've never seen the people of Norman unite and come together and come before the city council and say, "Please give us turnpikes. We need more toll roads. Please, we're begging you. And there's a reason for that. And it's because the people of Norman don't want them. Pure and simple. Now, I brought a little show and tell for you. Some of y'all have seen this. Some of you haven't. None of you were on the city council when I was before the city council in 1999 when the city of Norman passed what was called the no build option. Because back then there was an option called no build. And that's what our city council chose. Some of you guys were not on the council in 2022 when the city of Norman passed a resolution that and here it is right there. And it it's requiring something of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority. It's requiring studies. Okay. It's very specific and

agenda item. I assume Mr. Moore, you're getting to the water line. I'm addressing the agenda item just fine. And you're not allowed to direct my comments, Mr. Moore, please.

Okay. Can I finish? This is the official policy of the city of Norman right here. This resolution. So, if you're going to vote in favor of either of the resolutions that are before you tonight, you have to resend this resolution because this is the policy of the city of Norman. Now, oh, we got a nice little timer up here finally. So, who wants the turnpikes? The people in this town and in this room know who wants the turnpikes. It's not the citizens of Norman. It's the bankers and the land speculators and the developers and the contractors. Not all of them, but some of them, that's for sure. That's who wants these things. Not the people of Norman. So, you need to decide who are you going to serve on this council. Are you going to serve the people who will make billions of dollars raping the city of Norman? Or are you going to serve the citizens and the people who live here and work here? Because these resolutions are not to benefit the city of Norman. They are not to benefit the citizens of our town. So that's the decision before you.

Thank you. Rob Norman.

Rob Norman. Ward three. Uh, yes, I get it that this first item, and maybe these should have been flipped. I think we're seeing by the by the uh the tenor of public comment where we would be talking more about general policy matters than wonk. This one's a wonk. I mean, at least the work is wonk. That's that's what it is. It's wonk. It's work that would be done that would need to be done. Some of it sounds like it would need to be done really if we didn't even have any turnpikes. However, uh this is what I'm going to focus on with this and it's going to apply to both things. Exhibit one for me on both of these is this. This is Pikeoff's notice of intent to sue the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and the whole plenary group of federal agencies. 60-day notice that expired yesterday. We have to get a few things put together for due diligence, checking the box since the OTAA and the agencies didn't do what we had asked them to do in the way of environmental studies, in the way of due diligence for crossing the Canadian River with that bridge and moving on down the road with the East West Connector. Now, what both of these contracts do is they undermine the plaintiff's interest in that action. Just like back when we were talking about the resolution, the real reason the OTAA wants these right now, the timing is not an accident. I assume there's no one from the OTAA here as usual, but the real reason they want them when they want them right now is this right here. The construction schedule does not demand that a contract be entered into tonight. But what they can do is they can walk into a courtroom in the balancing of equities in front of a federal district judge and say, "Look

at the city. The city entered into these contracts and the city is really kind of endorsing this and deciding it needs to go forward. And by the way, we have so much done on this project already and we have so much contract work done already, your honor. They shouldn't be entitled to an injunction on this project. And make no mistake that this federal action will be about both declaratory and injunctive relief. It is a stop project lawsuit. Now, a few months ago, in a little condemnation case involving a little substation out in East Norman, y'all gave the land owners in that the benefit of the doubt and let that case shake out before you gave Western Electric the go-ahad from the city perspective to move forward with that substation. In one way, at least on this item, and on the other item, too, and I'll get more into the substance of the next item, we're kind of asking for the same thing. I don't think it's a lot to ask for us to get 60 or 90 days or until that lawsuit shakes out. And y'all can communicate with us. If y'all are communicating with the OTAA, surely you can communicate with your citizens. Surely you can communicate with the organization that has worked so hard to stop these turnpikes and reform the OTAA. The resolution that y'all turned down a year ago, my exhibit A there was don't give them something that they can go wave in front of the legislature and say Norman is in favor of this. Don't give them something tonight that they can go wave in front of the courts and say Norman is in favor of this. Now, a lot of people are going to talk about,

you know, the wonk and other things, but for my purposes, that's what I'm going to leave it at on this first item. Thanks,

Caner. Hi, uh Tanner, uh Ward 6, uh also property owner in W 5. Um I just want to I sent you all a video. I don't know if y'all watched it. Um, but the room here, these are people taking time out of their lives. We have other things to be doing, but we're here because we care about the environment. We care about our city, and we care about our people. And we're here because we want to stop the OTAA, but we need your help. We need y'all to understand that. what Rob said, this is all about getting you to agree to something. It's just money. We were all against it until all of a sudden money got put on there. And the other thing is I lost my train of thought. Um, I just I appreciate y'all if you you taking the time to watch that video and I know y'all put in a lot of work on this and so I just want to say thank you guys for all the work, but also please pay attention. Everybody's here for a reason because we care about this city. Don't dismiss us. Thank you.

Thank you,

Stephen Ellis. Steve Ellis, Ward 4. Um, I was uh not entirely shocked, but a little bit surprised uh that what happened tonight was sort of what I thought was going to happen and I think I communicated to you might happen. uh no one actually calculated the cost comparison with the actual sort of but for condition that we're going to face if we don't sign these contracts. Um, it was very clear from the city staff's presentation on this issue that the cost comparison that they were making if we don't sign the contract is one that would have been what we would have built out with no turnpike. And adding the turnpike changes a lot of stuff. not only about the potential yes votes, you did hear about the contracts, but what you didn't hear about was what's going to have to happen if there's also a turnpike up there. And in particular, um, we're gonna have costs once they go through, but if we're doing things out there anyway, which seems to be the issue with the wells in particular, right, where we've got two that don't work that we're going to have to shut down anyway. We've got one that works, we've got one that's offline, but basically works, if I understand it correctly. um if they have to take those wells, which they will if they want to drive through without some kind of agreement, that's going to cost them some money. We're that's not stuff that

we're going to have to pay for just for by ourselves. And in general, our interest is not really to cooperate with these guys. They can do what they can do. They'll owe us money if they have to take away our property rights in doing that. I think it would actually be really interesting if Norman got itself in an eminent domain case with the OTAA because it could serve as a pattern for the rest of the eminent domain cases that are likely to go forward. But trying to sell this contract as a net advantage over what we would have paid had there been no turnpike doesn't make any sense. You've got to think about what the turnpike is going to have to owe us if we don't sign a contract with them. And I don't think the city staff did that. Uh and it's a real problem. You need apples to apples comparison to make this decision. You can't just pick up the vibe from the staff that it's easier for them. And we shouldn't be concerned about efficiency all that much because that implies a joint project. As Rob Norman noted, that's exactly what they want us to do. We're going to incur real costs from cooperating with the Turnpike. not only we going to sandbag uh Pikeoff's lawsuit, which I think is a huge issue, but it's also a huge issue um to sort of give in on our opposition to the OTAA because they're really here to make a bunch of changes to our town. Changes that most of us are on the record as saying we don't want to happen, right? This is not just what's going to happen with these infrastructure projects. This is what's going to happen when they come before you to reszone a bunch of the stuff along the turnpike to try to make it uh

the Kilpatrick turnpike. And it's better to stop it now than to stop it later. That's your chance as a council that's sitting right now to do something that's good for Norman, for the plans that we have for Norman to become a more walkable, centralized town and leave basically Ward Five to be our rural. Thank you, Cheryl Hoget. If everybody will please hold your applause or for against whatever it may be.

Well, here we are again. And it's the what I'm going to say changes a little bit because I just found out that there's a possibility that the two wells that are completely inactive may not even be replaced at all. They're going to pay us for wells that we may not replace at all. I think that's kind of a big bribe. So, out of the four water wells, the map that I look at showed that two of those water wells don't even fall within the footprint of the interchange. One of them is about it's over a third of the mile from the center of the interchange. And when you look at OTAA's map, it does not fall within the interchange. It's down here. And that's where the yellow line stops. So maybe OD do in there somewhere, but not in OTAAS. So I don't know why they're going to give us uh 2,237,500 for these. Um and then the two that are completely out of order and have been for a long time. and then the one that got hit by a car and is no longer in service. So, of these wells um the contract says that they're that they need to be um relocated to accommodate the construction of the turnpike. I disagree on two of them unless someone can show me that those two wells are in a different place from the map I found. Also in state statute 691707, it gives OTAA the authorization to acquire necessary property by purchase or condemnation,

excuse me, at a price they consider reasonable and that can be agreed upon by the OTAA and the owner. The OTAA is offering to pay the city $8,950,000 for these four wells. Two of them are out of the footprint on the map I found and three of them aren't even working. So I ask you, does this sound reasonable or does this sound like a bribe? I also ask you, is this the definition of reasonable with all this high level of compensation the OTAA uses when they make offers to citizens? citizens for their land, for their homes, for their businesses. Are they offering this kind of money for things that don't even work? Signing these agreements would insinuate a stamp of approval on these turnpipe plans. Instead, it's not opposing like what the resolution set forth in uh 2022. In 2024, the council chose twice to show their loyalty to citizens of Norman and to the resolution that passed in 2022 opposing the turnpikes. Tonight, we are asking you again for that loyalty. Please vote no in this agreement. Please do not sell your loyalty to the highest bidder. Thank you,

Cassie.

Cassie Harshfeld, Ward Five. This is my first time speaking to council under the new mayor. Uh it feels like a friendlier place, so thank you for that. Uh I also want to thank uh the city staff who took some time to meet with some of us to just go over in a little more detail. Uh I felt like it was a productive meeting but I left feeling and those feelings are now reinforced many times over that the costbenefit analysis for this particular for honestly the whole package has not been calculated correctly. Like you have quantified the benefit. We have a million-doll figure money that the city will get for this agreement but there's been no effort to quantify the cost. your the cost has just been done with this magic math of like oh we won't get that million dollars therefore the right decision is the one where the city gets millions of dollars but the actual cost is massive and the potential unforeseen circumstances that could cost the city gazillions more if we are successful in getting this injunction if they have already started and made a mess they will not fix that will be a spite issue for them and that they will sort of say if the city is going to you know if you're going to let this lawsuit go forward very likely they will just make a mess and leave it until the lawsuit's resolved and that could be years. So to say that this is somehow less disruptive to citizens feels a bit disingenuous. The other issue with respect to the cost is and you know it's very good to ask a question about the impact on the little river. The OTAA's responsibility is to do those studies and to give you that information and us that information so that we all have that going into this conversation and our assessment of costs and benefits is balanced by scientific studies on the environmental impact of these projects on our city. They have not done any of that and they promised

that they would way back in 2022. that original resolution was intended to hold their feet to the fire to say it is not okay to skip this step. Uh, and I think what we're all dealing with right now is their lack of due diligence, their lack of cooperation, and they're seeming not to care uh about any of the harm that they might do to our city. So, all of us who live here, we care a whole lot, even if it's just hypothetical harm. I want to see somebody take on that issue and show me how having highways where we have not had highways before is going to impact everybody's drinking water, the endangered species that we have, the lowlands, the flooding issues, the traffic congestion. I honestly think street widening makes traffic worse. I think sidewalk widening is a better choice. Pedestrians, more pedestrians means fewer cars. That's my little soap box on that. Um, but my overall takeaway for you is that there is not enough information to make this decision tonight. And I feel like the best way forward would be to have appoint a citizens oversight committee to work with your city staff and with you. You have a number of very motivated citizens right here, all kinds of different expertise. And there needs to be another voice in the room in these conversations with the OTAA because honestly in all of my now four years of research into their history, they don't keep their promises. They do what they want and they leave cities to clean up the mess that they leave behind. And if you don't have somebody with that level of historical knowledge or depth about their past behavior, there's a very good chance that this costbenefit analysis will be done wrong and the harm to the city will be permanent. So, thank you.

Thank you,

Margaret Larson. Oh, the timer's going. Margaret Larson, w six. So, I have several issues with this. Personally, I am an environmentalist. I am totally concerned about what this water is going to do to our drinking water, to our environment, and to everything else. And after listening to people who live in W five that are already facing drainage issues, they're already facing flooding issues, why are we going to impose more damage to them? You guys have always said no. No means no. and you should say no. Again, your responsibility is to us. It's not to them. And I don't think that there is enough evidence out here to say that this is going to improve anybody's life or any sort of a transportation. So, my advice, my request is a no. Thank you.

Thank you,

Luigi. Hello. So, uh, there was a lot of talking about all the beautiful things that the OTAA is offering us. Uh, last October, not me, but the state of Oklahoma itself, the Oklahoma legislative office for fiscal transparency, uh, said that Oklahoma the OTAA might end up being 10 billions dollars in depth after this because of this. So OTAA's depth is not OTAA's depths. The people in charge of the TA, the governor, anyone, these people are not responsible of their depth. We are those are deps. That's depth of every taxpayer in Oklahoma. This is something burden we'll have to shoulder. And so thinking that the OTAA is giving us all these beautiful things and giving us so much money, it's Um because in the end us as taxpayers we are paying one way or the other

in the end for what? Uh in the end yes. Hey hey hey you haven't censored peacock Mr. Pani and uh council member please. Okay okay okay okay. Uh there is

we'll have to shoulder this depth anyway. This is not a good deal. This is not to save five millions going north south. This is a big gift to developers and we are going to get all their externalities. We as residents, we as taxpayers. We're going to get all the downside of this project. We're going to have worse and less drinking water because someone out of state want to make an extra buck. And please, please, please say no. Oppose this as much as you can and the most you push back the more we might end up getting as concessions. Thank you.

Thank you Gary King. Okay, Maya. Maya Windler.

Hello. Uh, Miami Windler Ward two. So, four water wells, three aren't working, one is still working. What is our water capacity like? I know we have to buy water from Oklahoma City. So, would those water wells be replaced? Uh, if the OTAA wants them, then they should pay for them themselves because I mean, I know eventually we would probably as a city replace them, move them somewhere else, but if they're going to press the issue, if they want it, they should pay for it. That's it. Thanks.

Thank you,

Howard Bear. Good evening, Howard Bear, Ward 4. Go Helen Grant. Um, I'm speaking on behalf of the uh RedArth Group of the Sierra Club, which has over 400 environmentally minded activists scattered through the Norman area. And we would like you to urge you to uh resist this uh concrete monstrosity and environmental nightmare and uh do your job to oppose it as uh previous city councils have. Uh during these times of national uh administration driving the price of gasoline through the roof, uh we should all be concentrating on uh mass transit, perhaps train service from Norman up to Oklahoma City, sustainable uh transportation instead of encouraging more expressways and more car driving.

Mr. Uh, I fully agree with you on that stuff, but could you tailor your comments to the wells issue and the waterline replacement? Oh, yeah. The wells are, it seems, as the other speakers have said that the well agreement is to uh get the city council in collusion with the OTAA. And then, uh, once you're in bed with them, uh, it's not easy to leave. And so uh if you want to resist this thing, you should not uh collude with uh these people in their schemes. Thank you. Thank you,

Robert Post. Okay, Heather Messer, she's in the hall. Hello, Heather Messer, W 5. was gonna ask you to vote no on K2526-139 so I can say it's about the wells, but to get an email from one of the council people already saying he's voting yes before he's heard any of the public comments kind of made me feel like the Supreme Court telling us we were too dumb to know what we were signing when we signed the petition about the tiff. So, I'm just going to ask you tonight if you would postpone the vote instead of voting no since, like I said, some of you have obviously already made up your minds. We have asked you as the people we elected for Norman to not cooperate with OTAA on anything because this project threatens our water supply, displaces citizens unnecessarily, lacks any justification as an essential project and has not met federal and environmental standards. Until these issues are resolved, cooperation with OTAA would be irresponsible and contrary to the interests of our community, the people who vote. So, please, if you won't vote no, at least postpone this and give the lawsuits time to play out. Thank you.

Thank you,

David Hopper. David Hopper, Ward 8. 20 some odd years ago, I sat up there where y'all are sitting. And I must say, I'm hardressed to express my embarrassment at the hysteria displayed by our community of Norman concerning the proposed turnpikes in East Norman. Never. Not in our town. Pike off OTAA. Full disclosure, my home is not in the zone that's going to be built. So, you can take my opinion for what it's worth. But how embarrassing the reaction of a lot of our community. The need is there for more roads around Norman and the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority looking in the long range plan is planning for that future. You surprised us by the quick notice of your plans. How much time would be enough time to give you notice for a 15-year plan? 16 years, 18 years. What is enough time to give the city of Norman notice that they're planning to build a turnpike around us?

OTAA has not caught us off guard. 15 years is plenty of time to make arrangements to accommodate the bypass. I mentioned the need above. If you travel I35 between Norman and Oklahoma City, Mr. Hopper, and I I for 17 years I made that commute. Mr. Mr. Hopper, will you keep it focused to the wells? The wells and the water.

We're going to we're working on it. We you've been asked to vote against this to stop the whole turnpike process. That's been addressed already by Mr. Norman and I'm addressing the whole process. Um if you if you drive if the commerce with Mexico increases by 500% in the next 50 years, and it probably will, I35 will be impassible. We need to take care of this. an imminent domain exists as it has for centuries when the public good over overwhelms the private interests. Lake Thunderbird at some point was somebody's private property and I'm glad we have it. Every mile of I35 was once somebody's private property and I'm glad it's there. We need to be act like adults. The public need for a bypass around Norman and the metropolitan and Oklahoma City area is there. U every acre. We rightly value our private property and our community. But when the time comes that our private interest must be subordinated to the public good. We should be adult enough to understand that concept, work with the turnpike authority for their fair price of our property and step aside for the progress that they are bringing to their long range plan. They're planning for 50 years down the road, not for now. Thank you.

Thank you. I would request please everybody, you may disagree with someone, but if they're being respectful to you while you're speaking, please share the same courtesy for everybody else. Cynthia Rogers.

Cynthia Rogers. Ward 4. Um, I'm gonna talk about the wells. Um, so I think the costbenefit analysis here, so I'm a wonky economist, not so much a environmental engineer, but I do know that if you haven't done the study of the impact of the things you're going to build, then there's no possible way to do a costbenefit analysis. Zero. You can't do it. And so we've seen some numbers about what we'll save in future roads that we plan to build and we'll build them sooner because there's a pot of money being thrown at you. Um but to do the proper cost benefit, we also need to think about well there's going to be more roads sooner. We already have water drainage runoff problems. So this is going to amplify those problems sooner and we haven't studied them. Now connecting this with OTAA who said hey your your box isn't going to be big enough. That's because they are adding more roads that are going to drain in to our project which wasn't going to drain as much water. So there's just no way to do the cost benefit to know the impact on the community until you've studied the impact of adding a lot more roads, our roads, the turnpike roads onto the little river and that drainage area. And until you do that, OTAA was supposed to do that. But until that's done, you really can't do you can't do the numbers. So you should delay until you have that information because it's not just the cost of building the roads. It's also the cost of providing the infrastructure to handle all this extra water that's going to be flowing off

those new roads into an area that doesn't drain very well already. Thank you. Thank you,

Kelly Wilson. Kelly Wilson, Ward Six. I would also like to ask council to postpone the vote on this water wells. Um, they come in here and act like they're giving you something when we know that more than likely there are strings attached. The city won't be able to follow through for one reason or another. And then we're stuck with um trying to force the OTAA to do what they said they were going to do. I'm sure many of you have heard me talk about what happened with Oklahoma County and the fact that they told the county that they were going to buy all this extra rideway and then they would eventually give it to them so that they could build frontage roads and then it took a little citizen um paying attention and bringing it to the county's attention that they hadn't actually followed through on that and the county at that point in time which was almost 10 years later thought that they were supposed to repurchase this rightaway from the OTAA and the OTAA was just happy to let them to continue to believe that and we know that it wasn't true. Um so back to the water wells. Um I don't feel like the turnpike authority will follow through. Um and something that you guys need to think about is it says in here that the wells will have to be plugged by December 31st of 2026. And has anybody asked what happens if we don't meet that deadline? I'm curious what the fine is because the contractor responsible for constructing the bridge over the Canadian River will be fined $10,000 per hour that they go beyond their limit. So, what is that going to look like for the city of Norman? That's something we should definitely be asking. Um, and there is a real chance that these projects will be delayed. Um, one, it looks to me like they have not secured right ofway yet. Um, and that could potentially lead to litigation. Um because I can tell you from talking with

many land owners that the OTAA does not negotiate in good faith and they're moving forward with condemnation and I would not be a bit surprised if the court doesn't issue injunctions or somehow stop that condemnation process uh because the term authority hasn't negotiated in good faith before they file condemnation on some of these land owners. Um so not only that but Rob Norman mentioned um another potential lawsuit that may result in an injunction. So again, I ask you what happens to the city when you can't meet that deadline because they haven't been able to secure the rideway for you. Um, and it seems like there was something else I was going to bring up. Um, the 10,000 per day. Oh, the about the rightway acquisitions. When the city or the state works with a land owner to acquire property, they do more due diligence and um provide the land owners with a better settlement than what the OTAA does. The OTAA just tries to ram it through. And so I would just encourage the city again to do that right away yourself. Make sure that you are protecting your citizens. um because you know if it's in your control then you know that you're offering our citizens um a fair package, a fair price. If you're leaving that up to the OTAA, I can tell you that that does not happen. Um they they want to take control of that aspect of the project because they know that they can ram it through and force it upon the citizens. And I would just encourage you to not let them take control of your citizens any more than you absolutely have to. Um so anyway, that's all I have for now. Thank Thank you,

Chelsea Gravel.

Chelsea Gravel, award 4. Um, speaking on the water, um, sounds like the city's dropped the ball on maintenance on yet another area in our city. It appears that, um, we don't like doing studies and following through with what needs done in Norman. There's a lot of that going around right now. Um, I um would hope that as you're deciding on what to do here that you're remembering that this is a really hard time for a lot of citizens. That there are people who are losing their homes. There are people who are losing um the environment that their home is in because they're going to be so close to the highway. There are very very uh upset citizens. However, that might just be the 7% that you're hearing. you are not going to be hearing from the rest of the citizens. The there's only about 25% on both ends that will come out when they feel very extreme for something like a turnpike, like water, like anything going on with that this. So, I would hope that as you move forward, you're not just taking into consideration the 14% that you see before you, but you're taking into consideration all of us citizens, the ones of us that didn't s sign for the turnpike or didn't aren't interested in fighting you on this topic. Um, you know, I'm I understand that the turnpike conversation has been going on for a really long time. I grew up out by Lake Thunderbird. Um, I understand the water issue out there. I grew up on the other side of Lake Thunderbird. Um, we had talks whenever I grew up out there of the turnpike coming this way and having water issues from having this impervious surface and having to take care of all of that. And while you're making decisions on something as small as this as we move forward, I hope that you'll keep in mind that the rest of us would simply like a seat at the table moving

forward as we're all going to be making decisions. We'd hope that we have access to the turnpike to on-ramps and off-ramps because we know it's going to come in anyway. And we would hope that you work with them representing not your citizens, representing your city because your job is not to do what's best for me and my generation and those of us who are alive now, but your job is to do what's best for those that come after you and for the council that comes after you that will also be going through these talks. Be it about water wells, be it about impervious surface, be it about whatever the turnpike's going to be doing. This isn't going to be a short project. So, I would just hope that you take this offer for the money as a friendly outstretched hand to work with us as well because we've not made it easy on the turnpike because so many of us are frustrated and upset and losing our way of living and this is going to change the future of Norman. And I would hope that while you're moving forward with this, you will take all of that into consideration and don't sacrifice our seat at the table. Thank you.

Thank you, Cherylyn Denzo.

Cherylyn Denzo and I property four and six. Um, I'm going to speak about the water wells, okay? But of course, it involves other things, but I will try and stay focused on the wells, okay? Um, the fact that we've had uh infrastructure not uh up to par um is disconcerting. you know, uh it's very important for this city to have really good infrastructure. And I'm talking infrastructure particularly in the core neighborhoods, okay? Um that that this city is really built on. Um so these these wells that are non-functioning is really bothersome to me. All right. Um, I too had uh lived out east uh east Norman and out by Lake Thunderbird. Um, and and having that um conservation area around where you couldn't build, you know, uh, a massive a bunch of homes around there and preserve our our water, clean water for all of the city. uh was important to me in my little world out there. Now, I I haven't lived out that way in a long time, but I have friends that still live out there. Um uh that being said, I'm very concerned about water in this town in the core areas, uh you know, particularly the the lead pipes in the core neighborhoods. the uh and so to have water wells that are not functioning properly is very very disconcerting. Um, but I also see this as

uh a way for um OTAA to kind of grab us by the shorthairs to put it kindly um and and hold the cold this city to task to well we've already got you a little bit so we got you might as well go through with it. It's a lot of money being thrown at us at the city. Not us, but at the city because it's going to be costly to the citizens irregardless. It's a lot of money being thrown at the city when the city is broke. Okay? We're a bit underwater, folks. Don't let that influence your decision on the livelihood and the way of life and the ability for people to have peace in their households. Okay? If you cannot vote no, if your conscience can't tell you to vote no right now, postpone this darn vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Carinda Gravel. Carenda Gravel, Ward for First Courthouse Council, Mayor. Gosh, this is hard, y'all. This is hard. These are real people, right? Um, yeah, we lived on 156 between Rock Creek and Tecumpsa. Our driveway pulled in off 156. And at that time, we thought the turnpike was going to come through there. And we had dumped every dime we owned into this property and trying to get a tin horn, a 48 inch tin horn, mind you. Now, that's a bar ditch. I didn't know that was called a bar ditch, by the way. That's a ravine out there. We got heavy water going through a 48 inch ravine tinhorn. So I want to talk about barges and I want to talk about those wells, but I also want to thank you for letting citizens be angry, right? And if we want to throw a temper tantrum, by golly, I told my girls, I said, "You can hate it every step of the way, and these are the things you can hit, but you still have to do it. I'm sorry. You can say no while you're washing them dishes, but they got to get washed. So, bar ditches. That's going to be really hard over there, y'all. We're going to have to start thinking about mosquito spray. I have bar ditches in my neighborhood in First Courthouse. Bar ditches. We have concrete lined bar ditches and old silk stalking. We don't have concrete lined bar ditches in First Courthouse. We have mosquitoes that are as big as crane flies. You need to think about those bar ditches. That's going to be a real

problem. We're going to think about spraying mosquito spray out there like we have to do in my neighborhood and in Porter in our downtown Maine. So, we got to think about those barred hedges. That is serious business. Do we want to concrete them? The other thing is the water wells. Can we promise? Can we have a promise as citizens that that money is going to go to four new wells, less money we have to pay from Oklahoma City? Can we have a promise that we get four functioning wells that bring in Normanowned city water? Think about it. Thank you.

Thank you. Jesse Matlock.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Mayor, it's good to see you. Glad you're up there. So, some of you guys were here the last time that me and all my friends in red shirts stood up to say no. And we said no. My name is No, my number is no, my sign is no. Let me say it again. Uh some of but some of you weren't here and so hey I'm Jesse I'm Matlock W five um JW Matlock signed a application for land school land in 1895 and it was signed by President McKinley and I thought that was pretty cool. That's how long we've been here. That's 131 years on record. I am a super citizen. I work here, live here. I want to set up some businesses here. Um, we've been in discussion with this is about Wells, by the way, but some of you need to know who I am and what I'm what I'm doing. Um, we're in discussions about setting up a couple of really big businesses here. Uh, your business team knows all about us. If you want to go talk to them about what we're doing, so we said no. And I that that makes me wonder why your city staff is actually talking to the OTAA. Didn't Didn't we agree that we weren't going to do any of this? Some of you didn't because you weren't here, but some of you did, and you voted unanimously that we weren't going to do that. The reason why I want you to say no to the wells is because it's not about the relocation of the of the wells that apparently aren't working. I don't it doesn't sound like they're working anyway, so I'm not sure that they were going to be relocated anyway. But it's not about that. It's about It's about the OTAA asking for $2 million from the city of council from city of Norman, excuse me, have some kind of agreements and then they turn around and pay you guys back $8 million. Why do you have to pay them two for them to pay you eight that establishes a financial agreement, a

partnership, a deal? It binds the city of Norman to the OTAA legally. And like the lawsuits mentioned, now you're you can't touch it cuz you're you're in bed with them. We have enough money to cover our own waterline relocations. If we're not going to relocate them the wells anyway, if they're defunct, we don't need to take money for them. Okay? So, I just want you guys to ask yourself what what this is really about. And when I read this this contract, I'm like, this doesn't make sense to me. Why is the city going to pay the OTAA 2 million and then they're going to turn right around and pay us I think it said like 8 million 9 million doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't they just pay us 7 million to move the wells? Think about what the OTA is asking you to do and why they're asking you to do it and once again Matt Lock's on record of saying no no to this contract. Thank you. Thank you. I have a mic bulle, but he did not mark what he wanted to speak on. Okay,

that's all I have. Mayor. All right. Is there anyone else from the audience who would like to speak on the water well item who has not spoken?

Thank you, mayor, for the opportunity to fail to sign up. I'm Randy Carter. I'm in Ward Five. Uh, I really don't envy any of you all sitting in those seats tonight. That's this is a tough tough issue. And I'm I I don't envy I'm reminded I'm reminded of the old southern politician. Uh, he said uh uh I I I have friends that are in favor of these water wells being moved. I have friends that are in favor of these water wells not being moved. And I want you to know I stand with my friends and you all cannot stand with your friends on this. This is a very divisive issue. This is one of the most divisive issues I've ever seen in the city of Norman. I've lived here since 1970. Um I think the wells and I think the other uh item on the issue that deals with the turnpike authority, I would we call him a straw man. The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority has come to the come to the city of Norman numerous times asking for a resolution. I believe that this that the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority has to have some kind of an agreement with a municipality to continue to proceed. Uh Rob Norman talked about it specifically in the case of a lawsuit uh that if if the city agrees with a resolution, then the court will deem that that Norman is in favor of it. We are not in favor of it. You all voted against it. I think these water wells and I think the other issue with the money that they are trying to present to you all is a bribe. Somebody else said it. Um, ask Oklahoma County. Uh, Kelly mentioned it. Oklahoma County did not get what they were promised. And it was only after it was specifically Kelly that brought it to Oklahoma Countyy's attention. Um, they didn't do what they said they were going to do. They are I've Anyway, the wells should not be a

an issue that makes you decide to cooperate with the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority. They are using this again, they're using it as a bribe, and I think it's a great big mistake to take advantage of this uh offer. Uh it's like they're they're shining a a little shiny uh uh uh fishing lure up here and down here it's going to hook you. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi folks, Shai Fenick War 5. Um I wanted to kind of clarify some of the some of the the rhetoric I'm sort of hearing here again. Um again um regarding the water worlds or any any kind of uh agreements that force us into functional complicity with the OTAA, which is essentially what that is, right? that it's we we see it often in education where someone will come to you with big beautiful Bambi eyes and speak about ch the children the the children right and essentially they're using this as a can opener to force complicity so that they can establish precedent and ensure that they are in bed and they're on record as being in bed with Norman and they can not only use this as a can opener in our own community but they can use our community as a can opener for other communities and they can point to Norman and say Norman failed to resist the OTAA. What chance do you have if Norman fails? And I think that's a lot of what we're seeing, right? Despair is a lie. It always is, right? You don't stop fighting and you haven't lost. Thank you so much for your time and I appreciate the energy and time of all of you and it's going to be a long night. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Um, my name is Tiffany Stevens. Um, I'm W five. And, um, what I want to say, um, first about the wells is that I don't think we would be considering relocating them if the turn bike wasn't going in. So, you know, we've got to think about I I think I agree with what some other people said. We got to think about what what what it is that we're comparing. Every cost I saw up there on the slide was a cost because the turnpike is coming in and what we're going to save because they're going to pay for part of it. Well, if the turnpike doesn't come in the city of Norman, then I feel like a lot of that would be um just there's not a point to it. You know, if we if the turnpike is not coming in, then we don't have to pay for moving things. Um, and what I wanted to point out was that there the the audit in one of the timelines of the audit said that you know in um what was it two a year year and a half ago the city of Norman voted no not to work with them and as a result the OTAA has to move the route out of the city of Norman. That's what the audit states in the timeline. And so I think that's the reason they're wanting us to make an agreement is because they want us to work with them. and they want us to approve this so they can move forward. Now, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that you start building a turnpike that you don't have approval yet to build. And they've done it in the past. They've built portions without permission and then they go and ask the government or whoever it is they were supposed to get a permit from. They ask forgiveness. Well, we've already spent all this money. Can you please just approve it? And they're starting this and they're trying to rush it and start it so they can say, "Oh, it's already started. You guys, it's going through you anyway. Let's go ahead and get an agreement." and and they're really mixing up the logic. If we don't give them approval and they have to move the turnpike out of the city of Norman, we don't have to worry about all of this. And I think, you know, we should have money. I don't

know how much money we have to to relocate wells or anything like that, but if we've got at least one once the second one's repaired, we get two wells that are that are working. If the turnpike doesn't come through and take them, we don't have to move them. So, we don't have to pay pay that expense. And so I just want you to know I really think it's it's really ridiculous that they're starting work on a project that they don't have full and complete approval for. And um the last I checked some of the East West connector was still running through some of the um federal easement land too where it turns up. And I asked them about that at one of their town halls and they said, "Oh, we're not worried about that right now. We're just talking about this other part." So I don't think it's my understanding I don't think that they have every approval for the entire route and I think it's stupid to start a route and build an 8 billion dollar turnpike or whatever it is without having the approval. Um, I also think that we need data and the only study that I have seen is an outdated feasibility traffic study, not an environmental, not a human impact study. And that traffic study, I don't think a single person has reviewed other than somebody in the OTAA or associated with the OTAA. The city of Norman, the council bond oversight didn't I know the council bond oversight didn't review it because they approved it conditionally on it being done. They didn't say on it being done and showing that it's needed. I don't think these turn pikes are needed. And that's the problem I have with it is you we need data. You need to show us recent studies that say this is actually going to relieve traffic and that this is for a public purpose. It's not for a public purpose. And that's why everybody is so upset is because they're having to lose their home and they're and all of our time. I'm missing, you know, my my son's honor choir concert tonight to be here and speak up because so many people, so many of my neighbors are going to be harmed from this and it's not for the public good. And that is why we're so upset. And I I think approving these, you know, this money for these moving of these water wells is also um pointless.

I don't think if we have no turnpike, we don't have to worry about moving our wells. And so that's what I wanted to say on that. Thank you. Hi, I'm Pam from It's very nice to be here. I'm gonna just kind of say what I say from my heart and what I've heard out here. I don't come up here to speak just to be talking. I come up to talk from my heart and what I feel. The first thing is is I've never considered myself a hysterical person. And I don't believe that any of these people out here that have spoken are hysterical either. They have spent the last three to four years researching the OTAA and their policies and their procedures and the way they work. And they have become experts on it. And I agree with the fact that this looks like a bribe. This is money hanging in front of you that says, "Hey, this opens the door for us to come in and say we're working with Norman, that we're are you're good neighbors, and that this money for water wells that we have not spent any money on moving, fixing, or repairing for the last I don't know how many years is our golden ticket, OTAA's golden ticket to take to court and say, "Look, OTAA A look court OTAA and the city of Norman are in agreement with each other. This is the opportunity to postpone this movement, this resolution to allow these knowledgeable people to move forward with the process that they have started that they are working on to protect the city of Norman from outside influencers at this point, namely the OTAA.

Um it's I also am very concerned about the fact that the city staff in some ways have said, "Oh, thank you OTAA. This is money that we can spend on any water project, not just the wells that we obviously aren't using, but any water project to improve the city of Norman. I realize that the city of Norman is facing budget crisis, but just to have a blank check given to them to spend on any water improvements that we're not even talking about at this moment to me is not a sound policy at this time. We need to have a place to put this money if we accept it. And I'm hoping that because there is timeline issues with legalities and where the OTAA is wanting to go and where they're even needing to be at this moment that you all do not vote on this. I like the idea that Dr. Cassie Hersshfeld brought forward about the city of Norman establishing a citizens committee to work with you all about the OTAA. I know many of you have been open to what has been said, that our people are knowledgeable about the OTAA and that you do listen to them. I believe that is a positive movement forward. But right now, I would consider not voting for accepting this contract until other issues are resolved and that a deadline steadfast process and you all knowing where you're going to spend this money is set and done. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you for your time and consideration and thank you staff for the work that you have tried to accomplish by doing this. Y'all have a good evening. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Rick Sunday, Ward Five. And um I I'm not here to complain about things. I I really came up here tonight to be a cheerleader for you guys because uh you're going up against a behemoth, an empire, the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority. They've been around a long time. No one's ever stood up to him. So, I I really want to be your cheerleader and I want you to be brave. I want you to go and do what's right for the citizens who elected you. And I'm getting kind of tired of going to work or to church and people come up going, "Hey, you still fighting the OTAA?" And I go, "Yep." And they go, "Well, they're going to get whatever they want, so you might as well give up." And I look at them, I go, "No, because I'm George Washington." And they go, "What?" I go, "Yeah, I'm John Hancock. I'm Thomas Jefferson. And I think back, these were people in our history who stood up to the most evil empire in the world, the most powerful empire in the world. They didn't have a big army. They didn't have a trained army. They were up against impossible odds, but they were willing to fight and inspire. And that's what I'm asking you to be. Be George Washington. Be John Hancock. Be Benjamin Franklin. Be Thomas Jefferson. I'm giving you permission right now. All of us here, this educated community are giving you permission to stand up to them. So do it. Thank you for letting me talk. And Brandon Srify.

Thank you. Yes, I know this is not an arena issue, so I'm not going to talk about the arena, but um you're all my neighbors and I appreciate every one of you and all of your neighbors out here. Appreciate every one of you. And I would ask you tonight when you're whenever you vote on this thing is to look everybody in the eye and explain your vote whether it's yes, no, or delay. I think everybody here owes an explanation from each and every one of you. We will take the time to listen to you. Now, the elephant in the room is you have an opportunity to actually encourage voter participation on April 7th and that would be by delaying this. I don't think anybody would complain and I think you'd see some grateful voters on April 7th. That's it. Thank you.

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

Hi, Mayor. Hi, city council. Tracy Williamson, ward five. I've lived lived there probably longer than some of you have been alive, but um a lot of good points made tonight. If you truly do listen to the experts on OTAA, there would be no vote tonight because you would know first earmark of a scam is urgency. There is a reason the OTAA needs your signature on some kind of contract. And as Rob Norman pointed out, there are things in the works. They need that now. This there is no reason not to postpone this vote. If you cannot vote no, then postpone the vote to get more information. The OTAA is known for lying. They're known for not following through. But there is a reason somebody keeps working with them and trying to get these deals and getting your signature on a contract, a legal binding agreement. Why are we doing that tonight when we know better? We already have a resolution. Has the OTAA followed followed up? What have they followed up on? What studies? What studies? Tell me because I know of none. But I know they are trying to steamroll through our town. And it seems to me they just keep coming back to get your signature on a legal document. And I think it would just it would serve our council and it would serve our town for you to wait get more information and realize this this is a bribe in the form of look what we can do for you because we don't need them. If we need to get our storm water management taken care of, we have the money for that. We can do that. But they want to do that so they can steamroll through our town and wave that signature. We're in partnership with Norman. No, you're not.

You're not in partnership with the citizenry of Norman at all. What you're in partnership is with staff who seems to just keep wanting to bring the OTAA back to get an agreement that your citizens do not want and see through. And once again, we're asking you to be the David against the Goliath because we know you enter into a partnership with them, you will never get out. And the citizenry knows you'll regret it. So, I'm asking you to stand once again. Postpone the vote. If you cannot vote no, just postpone the vote. Stop the sense of urgency and get more information. Norman's counting on you. So, please be the David against that Goliath. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. All right. Are there any final comments or questions from council? Council member Grant.

Yes. Um I would like to ask Beth Mucka to come up. Um, so I'm just qu have a few questions kind of about the contract. I was reading 45 days after this agreement would be made, they have to pay us for the wells. Um, what would happen if we didn't approve this contract tonight? Would they still have to um if would they eminent domain us and take the wells anyway? Like how does that process work? Um well, you know, this represents the contract way forward, which is similar to what we do in any of our projects. Uh before resorting to eminent domain, but as as been mentioned, imminent domain is the litigation route uh option.

Would we potentially get the same amount less or more through that route? Uh, you know, and speaking of the water wells, I know that staff worked really hard on estimating the cost of redrilling those wells. Uh, so be comparative to the value we would be offered, but it would be commissioners determining that. So, it's really impossible to predict exactly what it would be. So, this would be a guaranteed what our best uh estimates in today's dollars are for relocating those, right? Yes. Right. Those are or maybe not relocating them.

Um are contract dealings uh versus a resolution as was mentioned tonight. We have two other ones outstanding indicate support for the OTAA's turnpipe project. In this agreement, we did not aim to take a position as to their ability to move forward with their project. If their project is unable to move forward and these agreements aren't able to be uh performed, then it's any number of remedies, equitable or otherwise, that we would take to get our money back. Uh we're net 5 million up though, so it would be more than trying to get theirs back probably. That's was my next question because it was like if something happens where the Trump hike is stopped but these contracts be rendered moot.

There are a lot of different mechanisms but yes if they can't perform the project which is obviously a material term uh that's where it would end. And the part where I thought they would get their money back is in 45 days if approved tonight they would be giving us like 8 point something million. Um and then later to find out maybe they can't actually do it. we'd probably have to pay them back. Sounds like

right. All the payments um between the two contracts are within 45 days and and like you said, yes. Uh we are receiving approximately $5 million more and you know to address an earlier comment, we separate out all the separate areas of compensation obviously to document what we're taking, why that's a very important government function. So that's why it's done that way. So, I'm saying we're net 5 million. That's very general. Uh, each separate component is a responsibility. And everything to do with the wells, that's city property. It's nobody else's. I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

Everything to do with the wells and writeways regarding all the betterments, that is city property. It's nobody else's. Uh, so it's not like other properties would be impacted. Uh, right. We own leases on which the wells set, I believe. Um and we're speaking about city rights of way. Um that this agreement does not reach private rights of way and does not address them.

All right. Um and let's see. Uh I guess the next set of questions are for Nathan Maddenald. Thank you. Does um the OTAA have to do any environmental studies to cap these wells and anything else with the betterment? Uh not not that I'm aware of. The the well capping and abandoning will be in accordance with OWB regulations. Um is there a reason we have to pass it tonight? Um

I'm not that I'm aware for the the water agreement. Um could you explain why some of our wells are inactive? Yes. Uh well 17 and 18 they were deactivated when the arsenic rule change in the early 2000s uh their levels because arsenic is a naturally occurring element in the aquafer there just were too high so we couldn't run them and provide safe water meeting um EPA regulations. So, we turned those two off. And then 19 is off because it was struck by a car in July of 2025 and we were working through the the diesel details of the agreement. So, we didn't want to put that building back until we got through this process.

Um, with the arsenic wells, we would never bring them back online. It's very costly for us to do point of use treatment like at the wells themselves in the location where we're doing our Norman groundwater facility is at 4020 East to come road. So that's quite a bit of ways away. So us bringing from them from there all the way over is going to be very costly. And we're not actually doing treatment at this time at that facility. We'll just be doing disinfection.

Okay. And then I was curious about a deadline potentially not met on capping. What is that process? Would be be done by December? Uh yeah, we're we're very confident we'd be able to do that by December because it's just like a bid spec and we would have that bid ready to go, have a contractor on board, run the well as long as we want to and then give them the green light and we would put penalties on their contract if they don't complete it by a certain date. We would make sure that those are estrangent is what we might get from the OTAA.

What is a typical timeline between bidding to all that assuming nothing delays you? Um, bidding is uh bidding is a 30-day process roughly and then we go to council for award that's another 30-day process so it's 60 days but we would be able to do a bidsp spec have that ready to go this summer let that and then have that on board so that way they could do it in that next four months after the the summer peak has passed. All right. Um, oh, and then another reason, um, utilities would be interested in this is, uh, potentially you would use this money to address other issues that we face in our water system.

Correct. All all the dollars that we would get for this, it would just benefit rate payers because those are costs that we wouldn't have to do a rate increase. We'd be able to prolong that. Use these dollars to do capital upgrades to our system, whether it's water supply, water replacements. Yeah, that would sink in line breaks, you know. Exactly. Pop up here and there. Yes. All right. Um, that's it uh for me on that one. And then actually this one is for city manager since we don't have a finance person in the room. Um, is the city broke or are we on track to staying on the block this year?

Uh, you will receive a budget proposal in April that will show uh, revenues in excess of proposed expenditures. And when we talk about being paid 8 million, 8.9 million, 8.6 million, that number versus what we would contribute. One of the reasons those two numbers are different is because they're two different funds. So the water fund is a separate checkbook and we cannot take money out of the water checkbook and go spend it on 36 Northwest road project and vice versa. The road project is bond project grant funded uh in our capital project fund and um that's why we don't we wouldn't anticipate a net check of five million. We would anticipate the the payment to the water fund in the $8 million range and then our participation in that uh larger project coming out of uh bond proceeds and grant proceeds. And then this question is more about the citizens oversight committee that was asked of us and um would we direct staff in a resolution to create that or how might how might we go about that because um I will be forecasting my votes but uh I do want to make sure that there are things we can address in the future. Um, absolutely. We we have um road projects, bridge projects um underway all over Norman. Uh I don't think we've had that kind of participation in the 36th Avenue Northwest widening project. The design work is complete. The rightway is complete. The utility relocation is complete. So, what it'll boil down to is uh staff's uh inspection process to ensure what is

designed is what gets built. Um we're we're about as transparent as any agency in the state of Oklahoma. Happy to have anybody participate. I'm not sure this doesn't really present itself the opportunity to say how should we change the design. This this has been designed uh with those bond proceeds from the 2012 approval. Like the oversight being, you know, construction deadlines are being met, whatever needs to be paid is being paid. Um environmental studies are being done if any are required.

Um something for council to consider consider potentially uh that activity can take place monthly at uh the CPTC committee. uh uh on a Thursday every single month to be able to bring to council and the public. Uh it's on YouTube. It's it's very public. Uh all of those updates, uh comments and concerns, and of course, the meeting is open to the public for the public to come in and participate as well. All right. Well, I'll um yield my time so other people can ask questions. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. No fire.

So, I get it. It's a lot of money. It really is. And I understand why the city staff is jumping at it just with their ability and what they could do with that money, such as keeping water rates low for years and years and doing other infrastructure projects along that same lines. And so would be a sweetheart deal if it was from anyone else. If this was ODOT, it would be on the consent docket. None of us would be here. Plain and simple. But it's not ODOT. It's the OTAA. It's an organization that's notorious for making their own rules and then not even playing by those rules. So, I don't see this as a sweetheart deal personally. I do see it as a bribe. It's blood money to essentially get the city to work with them with the OTAA. And I can't I can only speak for myself, but I don't accept blood money. And I will never betray any of my constituents, not even for 30 pieces of silver. Okay.

All right. I do have a couple questions myself. Um, so Oh, yeah. Well, yeah. Council member Bruce, go ahead, Beth. Refresh my history just a little bit. Um, a few years back, there was a request for a partnership agreement. Is that with the OTAA? OTAA came out and say we'd like to have a partnership agreement with the city. Is that correct?

I'm unaware of a partnership agreement. I might sorry kick that to Mr. Nighton. In the past, the OTAA had asked the city to um city council to approve a resolution um that was supposed to be the beginning of at least them us indicating to them what we wanted in terms of frontage roads, um exits, things along those lines. And if we passed the resolution, they would incorporate that into their design. And that issue came before council twice. The first time the vote was no. The second time I don't believe there was actually a vote. If there was a vote, it was no. But those are resolutions. A resolution is the opinion of that council at that particular point in time. Um it's not necessarily something that's binding on future councils. It's just your opinion. A future council has the ability to change its opinion in whatever way it chooses to. But my recollection with regard to the discussion was staff was directed or it was recommended that instead of doing a resolution that staff present a contract because that would be binding. A resolution really isn't binding on either party whereas a contract would be binding. So what you have before you now is that contract that we talked about however many years ago um when this issue came up before.

I understand u exactly what you're saying. A lot of the environments I was in in the past where we'd have these partnership agreements with these big defense contractors. Sometimes there wouldn't be a partnership agreement, but I'd have a contract. And my my duty was, hey, we need to maximize our ass. Whatever it was, my job was to maximize our ass. So, I I I would believe the the city staff would maximize their ass for the greatest returns of that agreement. Anything less would be not representing the the city or its residents. Now, a partnership agreement can help that flow a little better, but we don't have one of those. We have a contract. We have a in a negotiation, a contract, and the duty is to maximize your ass. That's all I have. So right now is is the east west connector from I44 to I35. Is it under construction right now? Does anybody have that answered? I've driven out there and I have seen construction happening in the river and along Indian Hill Road. So do we have any city Thank you, Mr. Norman. You have any city people that can confirm if OTAA has actually started construction in on that first phase of connecting I44 to I35?

They are currently doing the drilled peers for the bridge of the Canadian River. Okay. And the other phases of it, that's the first phase is I 44 to I35 and this large interchange at I35. Are other phases of the turnpike have they proceeded moving forward with anything or is this the only thing that's actually

So there's a contract that they have executed that is underway right now is there's a large pond basically the area of 48 and Indian hills. Uh they did let the the the contract to fill that pond that is underway. Uh that's been ongoing for a while. Uh they do at every one of their authority meetings they do do a letting schedule and they will be letting future contracts starting in I believe August is the next one that comes up and that's for the 60th uh interchange and then would be the contract that could include uh 36 Avenue would be in September. Okay. And so nothing east of I35 has commenced or is moving ground or doing anything?

No. At this point they no it's north south of course either if you look on their bidding schedule they start showing some stuff east but it is well it's over a year plus away at this point and I'd say that timeline can still slide and it was I don't know if I mention if I missed it but the question about all four of these wells um not being in the interchange or not being impacted by it um can clarify that is the case if it's not in the path of it why we need to

um our understanding is when we looked at the plans with them, the like frontage roads and the modifications for those that the wells would be impacted by that. It might have they might have been able to like sneak by them, but we also don't love having them right next to a high like a high-speed transportation corridor because we've had 19 struck twice now and it's currently out of service. So, it's not good for us to keep them there. And if we can have them behind our chlorination point, if we put in more wells, that is better for our system. Okay. And then it's been a few years since we've drilled new wells. Do we have I mean is this based off of estimates of costs of drilling new wells?

So when we did the the well program in 2015, we did that as part of that rate initiative. Uh we drilled nine wells for about 9.3 million. Um so we looked at that, but then we also looked at current costs that we're seeing from other contractors, other bids that people have done and we we estimated the value and we we were conservative. you feel and there was the question of um so the two wells that are inactive if OTAA is putting their interchange over them they can't just build over them they have to be remediated they have to be we we have to cap them in accordance with OW regulations yes

and and did I understand it correctly they have to be plugged by the end of 2026 that's correct okay And that's in this agreement or that is in this agreement. Yes. We are requiring that that would have to be done if they move forward with this project. That is that is in the agreement. Yes. So okay. And and clarify too. So maybe a question legally and maybe for you too, but I mean what if we say no that we're not going to do this? Um, does that stop OTAA from building this interchange on top of them?

So, Rick would probably have to answer more of that, but there was a question asked about the condemnation. Um, our concern from a utility side is we have two wells that are that are 70 years old. If somebody did a true valuation on that and it's would require treatment on it, would we get that same new well value? We don't think that we would. So, we're looking for our rateayers and saying what's the best for the rateayers. Um, so that would that would be our concern with if we said no to it. And then I guess Rick as to you what their avenues are. Yeah. I think the answer to your question is

you say no. Does the possibility exist that the OTAA could initiate a condemnation action against the city to take those four wells? The answer is the condemnation power for the OTAA and the statute appear to be broad enough for that. Um in a condemnation action, what happens is the action is initiated. Um the parties will pick three commissioners to go out and do a valuation. And the valuation is a present- day valuation as it exists. It's not relocation cost. It's not to go out and drill a new well. It's how much is that well worth today. The likelihood that commissioners are going to award you 8 point whatever million dollars for one active well and four inactive wells is probably pretty low. Um we've talked through that. I mean usually when you do a condemnation action you're talking about a resident residential structures, commercial structures, there are people that buy and sell those pretty regularly so they're not that hard to value. I think you would have a difficulty finding for commissioners that were wellversed with regard to valuing water wells, but that's what you would be looking for. They would go out, review those wells, make a determination with regard to their value. Um, you can always reserve that issue for a jury trial. Um, however, if if you after a jury trial, if you're able if the jury awards more 10% more than the commissioner's award in your case, you get your attorney's fees. if they don't, you know. So, it really would come down to an issue of a condemnation action and how much are those wells worth as they sit today? Mr. Mayor, in in that time table, um that conversation about this project as it impacts Norman's water infrastructure and 36 Northwest.

um the schedule working backwards. Um is time adequate to exercise imminent domain if necessary and be able to receive um the right to build even if the price has yet not been settled by the courts. But that's why this conversation started as early as it did. They will have um time and they they it's it's it's built into their timetable that if council does not proceed, their construction date doesn't slide, they would commence the imminent domain process and they've left enough time on the calendar to complete that process prior to uh awarding their construction contracts in September. And the resolution is if the OTAA does their project and impacts city-owned infrastructure, they have to compensate the city for it. Is that what

Yes. resolution is stating is if this happens, they have to account for and um make the city complete for whatever they damage of our property. Yeah, correct. Um and not a resolution though, a contract, right? I wrote resolution there. Okay. Thank you. I think that's the questions I have. Were there any further comments uh from council council member Grant?

Yes. Um this one's for Beth. Just last one to that point on contracts versus resolutions. Um would us accepting these contracts force us to change our resolutions or are they invalidated in any way? Right. No. As Mr. Mr. Nighton said uh that resolution is a statement by that particular council at that point in time. These contractual mechanisms would not be impacted by a previous resolution.

Okay. Well, I said I would forecast my vote and I intend to vote yes on this item. Um that's it. Okay. Any other comments, questions from council on this one? Um, I did just have one that slipped my mind just now. Okay, Council Member Gans.

Okay, sorry. I was going to wait and do it on the last one just out of respect for everybody's opinion and everything, but I also don't want people to be angrier than they already are based on what I'm going to have to vote tonight. I'm a person that takes a lot of things very, very serious. Very serious person. And I don't put a decision lightly to anything that I do in my life. I look at the repercussions of everything. And my wife never texts me anything like inspirational or like a quote or anything like that ever. And today she text me one that really resonated with me today. And thus like Paul asked I'm going to give my why. And she text me with she goes in history honey. She goes people are usually remembered for the values and honesty that they maintained while chaos surrounded them. just maintain and be true to yourself and it will be okay. And with that being said, I want to make sure that I resonate over here. You know, I did hear you talk about the PTSD the other day and how everybody in this room's felt that PTSD because it's their house in the line of fire, you know, and you've been having to live with that every day of worrying and changing and all this stuff like that. I get that 100%. Okay? But I promised myself when I took this position, I would always leave with my dignity and my honor and everything like that also. So I believe and what I ran on was that I would always be a voice of the people as a whole. And sadly, the one thing I haven't heard a lot about tonight was that this was a 2012 bond issue that a lot of people did vote on in this town and maybe some people in this room even voted for it or not and stuff like that. you know,

this this goes into why I'm voting the way I am, though. Okay. So, with that being said, you know, there's been a lot of things that's taken place on the well issue and other things that I'll mention, I guess, later to finally be able to say why I'm voting the way I am. Thank you. Okay. What else? Okay.

Well, um, as many of you have commented on and council members have commented on, um, this entire ordeal has been extremely stressful on our entire community for four years now. And uh just when you think we might be turning a corner, it's another thing. Um the difficult that I difficulty that I find that I think all of my colleagues are dealing with here is we know how the people of Norman feel about the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and many of us feel the same way about them. We are faced with a situation where some say that they've started construction, but they've done it illegally and they might be stopped maybe. What we're looking at is that a section of this turnpike has started construction right now and is moving head on right towards a project that we have and wells. But I do agree with the criticism of um you know what is this what are they offering us and why are they willing to give us so much um for um the value of these wells. We do have a duty to look out for the infrastructure and the assets of the city of Norman and making sure that anything that impacts them has to be accounted for and that the city is compensated for them. I think there's valid arguments. What you're saying is that that compensation seems a a lot more than is what the value would be. And what does that mean um in regard to OTAA and their history um of not really being above board? Um I've been weighing this decision for weeks. um thinking about how do I look out for the best interests of our infrastructure

but also weighing my personal feelings about the turnpike and having sat through this and experienced it for four years and it has been really difficult um because I've been steadfast against it and I still am I feel like looking out for our in infrastructure is the best thing is the right thing to do um I don't know it's the best decision for every member of this council And I don't know that everybody in this audience will understand or agree with or support um the decisions that some of us may make up here, but I do appreciate all of you for being here and dedicating your time constantly and continually to fighting this issue. This first phase may have started construction and maybe it will be stopped in its tracks, but the rest of it is not a done deal. And I agree when people say that are you still against it? you might as well just get out of the way because they can't be stopped. I don't agree with that. I don't and I don't think that the eastern part of this or the north south section are a done deal at all. Um so that's been the really challenging part of this and the two faceted approach to it on this well issue. Um, again, a contract that makes sure that if they are impacted that they have to be accounted for and we have to be compensated for it, I think is reasonable. So, with that, I do plan to vote in favor of this item tonight and I look forward to the discussion on the next item that we have ahead of us. And with that,

the motion on the floor is to approve contract K-2526-139. Council members, you may cast your votes. All votes have been cast and the motion to approve contract K2526-139 passes by a vote of 7-2 voting against council member Blahett and council member no fire.

Okay. Item 32, consideration of approval, rejection, amendment, and or postponement of contract K-2526-156 by and between the city and the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority for the construction of 36th Avenue Northwest, phase 2 project from 700 ft North Franklin Road to Indian Hill Road and relating to the East West Connector and associated maintenance and access agreements. I'll entertain a motion to approve, reject, or amend or postpone the contract. Motion to approve. Second.

I would like to recognize Assistant City Attorney Beth Muckla who already made a presentation on this, but um it will be available if there are any questions from council on the 36th Avenue project. Okay. Okay, question I have about this project is, do we have any other voterapproved projects currently that interact with any other proposed sections of the OTAA plan? I don't believe so, but I'll wait for Mr. Stz for confirmation. We do not. So

well the only other one would be 36 northwest phase three which is part of the overall 36 project going all the way from to 34th street and more which is accounted for in that overall project and the grant funds uh for the state safe streets for all but no other roadways that are in or near the the turnpike route routes are bond projects. There are no 36th Avenue Northwest is the only current voter approved or even project that we have going on that interacts with this proposed route. That is accurate. We don't have any future projects that are

there's nothing that we have planned on the books that would that would intersect the the routes. And so this would to me be a pretty unique situation where they're proposed, this phase one section that they're doing crosses over our street, 36th Avenue, and they have this drainage thing that they're asking to do. And this isn't a situation anywhere else in the city where we would be saying, well, we have this voter approved obligation to get a project done and we're weighing these. This is a unique situation in that regard. I would agree with that statement. Yes, sir.

Okay. And okay, that's a question about that one. The um so when 36th Avenue was approved in 2012, the um notion then was getting an 80% roughly 80% matching funds from the federal government 8020. And at that time, fed the federal government, from my recollection, favored widening projects like that on the edges of the city, or at least they scored high and could get federal funding. Um, but as we've talked about, uh, before that project was able to get underway, formulas changed for how funding was allocated and projects like that started not scoring high at all. And if I recall, for nine consecutive years, it was rejected. did eight or nine years it was rejected after staff applied for funding.

I I think that so the first year that we that we got we in 2016 we actually got it on three-year program which made it a 2019 project. Unfortunately that was not a locked year at the time. It was kind of just so we would get notice to start doing the environmental studies that we have to do to accept federal funds, the NEPA studies. So we started that process and then between those time frames they changed the scoring rubric and because of that this project no longer scored high enough to get uh the the Federal Highway Administration funding through the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments. So yes, we got it in and every year since then we have applied and we have been rejected. We've also applied for other federal grant programs. We applied for build grants. We've applied for uh there was another before it was built it had a different name but we've applied for three or four different federal programs before we got the safe streets for all uh this year.

Okay. And um we were planning to go forward and do this project on our own somehow if we I know staff's been working on really creative ways to try to phase it to try to do maybe the first mile section and all sorts of different ways to try to get this done. Um, and then we got the notice of this federal funding, the 25 million and with our bond funds and the federal funds, would that allow us do the project?

So, when we looked at those numbers and we, trust me, I've spent hours pouring over these numbers and trying to figure out exactly where they're at, questioning staff, having them rerun the numbers and double check them. What we've come up with is right now, so that project is about $40 million. There's about $1.7 million are being contributed by the city of Moore for their section for their 20% match as they would have paid normally. Uh we do think that including the city of Moore is part of the reason that this was that this uh grant was uh acceptable. We also think the hard work that many of you council members have done lobbying for this on the the DC flyin along with uh the letters of support that we got from many partners on this also helped with that. But that number was about 40 million. So the the amount that we got in the SS4A grant is 25 million and that is the max grant. Uh I also want to point out that out of all of them across the USA, there were only two that that got the full amount, us and Oklahoma City. Uh none of the others only other only one other was even above 23 million if I remember right. So we did really well. We got very competitive. So that left us about $15 million short. When we put together all the accumulated funds we have from the bond programs and the city of Moore, we're still about $9 million short on making the project complete. We have been trying to find ways to make that complete. Uh looking at other programs because there are funds we can take from other places to try to piece that together. Uh there's a calculated risk when we went for the for the program. um this now with the way this is working out now will pretty much fill that gap and the money that we have available and these programs will pay for the remainder of the project.

Okay. And all right questions I had for right now on that. Thank you Scott. Any other council questions? Council Grant if everybody's thing isn't working. Yeah. Like I asked about the previous item. Is there a you know we've postponed a couple times now. Uh is there a reason we have to pass this one tonight?

So the and in fact I've got to say OT act OTAA has actually requested a postpone of this before we even brought it to council on an agenda item because they wanted more time to work on it. They've also moved the bid date. So as Darl was saying earlier, what we're doing now is working backwards from a bid date. We have to have plans complete and ready to go 90 days prior to that bid to be approved by the they actually have to go through a full approval process. I think it goes through the Oklahoma Department of Transportation. When we back that up, the issue is we need time because we haven't turned our our consultants fully loose yet, even though we've got them under contract until we have a council decision to complete. We're making a few minor tweaks uh to some of the and for example we're taking off the on street bicycle lanes which is something our bicycle advisory committee has recommended and we're going with the 10-ft multimotal trail that needs to be incorporated into the plans and we also need to incorporate the correct size of box based upon that additional drainage area that was identified in the studies that were completed by the turnpike. So because of that that's what puts us to this date. If we go very much further at all, we probably won't have time to complete plans and make the the bid times.

Okay. And then I noticed in contract provision 9, and this might be for Beth, I don't know, but it says, "No changes, revisions, or amendments to this agreement or alterations in the manner, scope, or type of work contemplated herein shall be effective unless reduced to writing and executed by the parties with the same formalities as observed in the execution of this agreement. So if they come back through with some changes, does that mean we go through this process again to amend the contract for them to request an amendment to this agreement? It would require our agreement again as well. Yes. And if we wanted amendment, same thing. Same thing. Okay. That's a very standard provision in our agreements. All right. Thank you.

Any other questions from council about this one? Okay, see none. All right. This is an opportunity for members of the public to make comments regarding this item. Madam clerk, is anyone signed up to speak?

Yes, Mayor. Uh, Trey Kirby, Trey Kirby, Ward Five. I want to thank to that voted yes or voted no uh and listened to the residents over the OTAA. Once again, I don't know why we're making a deal. I don't know why we keep ending up here. This, like y'all said, may or may not happen. Uh but at the end of the day, most people ran on the fact that they weren't going to negotiate with the OTAA. And here we are, everybody negotiating with the OTAA except for a couple of them. And that's kind of sad because it's taken years to get the citizens of Ward 5 and uh the community of Norman to vote to support the council like on the road over there to get the money to expand it like you're wanting to do before you're allowing the OTAA to come in. Uh when people voted on that, they voted for Norman to do it. It had if y'all would have said the OTAA is going to come in and they're going to make a deal, everybody would have voted no. And now I look, you have five things coming up on a bond issue here in April of one of which is the roads. And now you want us to vote yes for y'all to come through and repair all these roads. But how do I know if I vote yes for you to repair these roads, it ain't going to be six months from now y'all selling out to the OTAA for us and you know moving the money somewhere else. U it affects our water and it affects our life. And then I hear up stand up here and I hear a person say, "Well, we need to move this well because it's been hit by a car four times or how many other times and we don't want it this close to the road." Well, how many of us do you think want to live that close to the road with our house? How many of you do you think want to worry about a car coming through our window where our kids are sleeping? If we don't want a water well next to the highway, then why do you think we would want our houses next to this

highway? So I'm just trying to figure out when you say I will not negotiate in my mind that means I will not ne negotiate under no terms under no amount of money. So uh I just want to know is this the last time or is this the first time that we're going to start these negotiations because most everybody up there ran that we would not negotiate and then I just watched a lot of people negotiate that promised they wouldn't it. Have a good day. Thank you Richard Sundak. Dave Moore.

Yeah. A friend came up to me after my previous comments and asked me if I was feeling all right. And I just kind of said, "Hell no, I'm not feeling all right. I'm nervous as hell standing up here talking to you guys. 36th Avenue Northwest. There, I said it. Now that we've learned that our council is willing to make a deal with the devil, you need to be reminded of who you're making deals with. Just a few weeks ago, the executive director of the Association of Oklahoma General Contractors held a press conference in conjunction with an OTAA meeting where he called me and all of these other good people out here domestic terrorists. That's what he called us. Made the headlines, made the evening news. Domestic terrorists. I'd rather be called hysterical. But domestic terrorists with the approval of the OTAA, these are the guys you're dealing with. These are not good people. What they're trying to do to the city of Norman just stinks of evil all day long. And you guys need to take that into account. Back in the 90s when the city turned down the first attempts at a toll road through the city limits, I was shocked to learn, just like most other people were shocked to learn, and they're still shocked to learn today that there are corrupt politicians and government agencies who will actually lie to you. they will look you square in the face

and lie to you. And that's what the go the OTAA excels in. So you guys need to keep that in mind when you just think you're just cutting deals to make Norman's infrastructure better. It goes way deeper than that. So thanks for letting me talk. Hope you lose use a little more common sense. Thank you, Rob Norman.

Rob Norman, ward four. I I think my job here is to find some way to maybe parse out a difference here and and I think I can do that. Uh yes, as on the last item, the interest we have is in not undermining our action against the OTAA. Uh here I can parse out some differences between the last contract and this contract. I read some things from council members and I read some things from from staff that cast this first contract as a wonk kind of thing. As a we got to do the wonk thing. We got to maximize value for the city. We've got to maybe do something to set in stone what we'd get instead of an imminent domain contract. This contract has some very different things. I also noticed that uh uh councelor Muckla talked about the last contract the city having control over the inspection process. It's a little different here. First thing we have in this contract is a deceptive and misleading statement. Whereas the East West Connector project will receive all required federal and state permits including but not limited to the Federal Highway Administration, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, and US Army Corps of Engineers. The core of this lawsuit against in this federal action is that the OTAA is trying to do this without getting a section 404 permit to build the bridge over the Canadian River. Ordinarily, the ordinary presumption would be they are required to do that. Uh Mr. Sturz was correct that they are starting on the peers. They have this theory that they can construct it in a way that doesn't require them to get a 404 permit. We viferously disagree. The feds are just kind of sitting back kind of like we've seen with some AI data centers and letting the center be built and then we find out a permit was needed and then we can't unbuild the center.

Well, we can't unbuild the bridge once it's built. And the OTAA has done that before with the creek turnpike in the Arkansas River. when the feds tried to stop them, when they went all the way up to the Arkansas River with the pavement and then it turned out the feds tried to say, "Wait, you got to get permits. You got to get permits." The OTAA did a deal. Uh invoked some deals with some federal politicians and the bridge was built without any permits. Now, uh that doesn't need to be in the contract. Also, you don't have control over this process with the OTAA. This is you wanting to have them construct part of this project. A high-speed highway project contractor building a moderate speed with stop lightss road which I agree it needs to be done. This contract says you get to attend the inspection. What I would say we're setting up here is a central library type situation where you get to attend the inspection and if the OTAA goes, "Thank you for your attendance. Now we're done. It's time for you to leave." Do we really want to set ourselves up in a situation where your folks who are the ones used to building roads like this are going to delegate this job to someone who builds high-speed highways? And we can document some problems they've had with that. and this is not in their wheelhouse. Now you're saying, "Okay, you guys get to do this and we get to attend the inspection." It's right in the contract. You you don't get it's it's it's a different contract than the last one. So So that's what you have is you have a lot of virtue signaling on their part here that you didn't have in the last one. you have poorer rights to inspect and approve the work even though it's probably more important here

that you do it. And also, as I showed in my public comments, you don't need this money. Tanner Ner not here. Steven Ellis, he's gone. Ben Plamer,

Cheryl Hogget,

Cassie, I'll be brief. This is the wrong time to be having this conversation. Uh, as Mr. Norman pointed out, there are serious problems with this contract. In a more rational process, there would have been community engagement from credentialed experts earlier on to identify and flag and fix and modify those things before this meeting in the vote. Again, this to me reflects the OTAA's tendency to always put the cart before the horse. Uh they plow ahead. They don't care about the harm that they do and they leave communities to pick up the mess that they make. So again, uh I am very sorry that you voted the way that you did on the previous issue. I think that you will come to regret it as many communities uh I'm sorry that you weren't able to learn the lesson that so many other communities have gone through. Um and the other thing that uh I I will just mention briefly again uh I was going through some old newspapers from the very early days in 2022 and there was this beautiful headline from the city council at that time. It said we will alapone you. had said, "We will, you know, catch you on whatever technicality we can to make this project stop." And I miss that city council. I miss that spirit. That was a city council that supported me, that understood what I was going through, that understood what the community was feeling. And this just kind of uh chipping away at your resolve and making you think that compromise is really the best option. I don't think anybody uh in this room feels that way and I don't think anybody in the city feels that way and I feel like that we are taking a wrong turn. So thank you.

Thank you Margarite Larson.

Margaret Larson. W six. Um I'm not real happy to be honest with you. I'm not real happy with the vote for the last one. So, I have a real problem with this one because my my feeling is that once you get in bed with them, you're in bed with them and that you're not always looking to see what is the best interest of the constituents. I'm not really sure that this is the best thing. Again, I am going to go back to the water problem. My concern is that when you start building all these things, all that water is going to run off. It's going to run off into something. It's going to run off into people's yards. it's going to run off into our watershed, especially if you're going to start moving all these water wells. So, as an environmentalist, I am asking you to say no. Thank you.

Thank you. Trey Bates, mayor, council. U in the summer of 2012, I was involved with a group of people that tried to um educate the the electorate on a bond package. bond package that actually called for a increase in taxes, which is a hard lift. You know, it's one thing when you're just renewing gosh, when you're just renewing a package, it's another thing when you're asking people to dole out more money. And the approach uh again was uh well thought through. There was a project that was put uh forth for each ward in the city. Each and every ward had a project and it was on the heels of the 2005 bond package that had nine projects. uh the marquee project in that one was uh the uh railroad overpass at Robinson Street. So we' had success in doing what the voters asked to do and making a significant positive change in the community. Um all eight of those packages u were again listed for each ward. The biggest the biggest package of that was the Lindsay Street um or I'm sorry. Yeah, Lindsay Street uh widening and uh the the flood control issues. But the second biggest project was $5.4 million that the voters authorized to spend to widen 36th Street, the second biggest package. And that project all the projects in that package were to have been completed within six years. and the final package, the 36th Street one was supposed to be finished by the

end of 2018. That vote passed by 5,764 residents. And on the heels of that, we've been as as a city successful in passing successive bond packages, street maintenance packages. 7,537 people voted in favor of that in 2016. And in 2019, 9,041 residents voted in favor of a bond package that included, I believe, the two-waying of Grey Street. So, significant positive improvements have been um made because we've we've been able to get the the trust of our citizens to do what it is that they we said we would do with the money that they gave us to do it. And in fact, in two weeks, we're about to ask again for more money to do bond to do road work packages. So today, um, we're looking at another at another opportunity to finally do what we said we were going to do with the package that's now 15, 16 years ago that was promised to the voters. And years, for years, I've been asking, you know, when is 36th Street going to get built? And I got the same story that Scott just gave that you know the ch the rules have changed and we just can't find the money. So all of a sudden not all of a sudden but through this process we now have the the money the funds to do what it is that we said we were going to do for the voters. So I would just like to ask that you think about the fact that we're taking a $2.2 million just $2.2 $2 million of money that's already been authorized and leveraging that seven times to a $15 million project that delivers on exactly what it is. We told the the uh voters that we were going to do, widen 36 street and put um uh control lighting

controls, basically stop lights at the intersections. I think it's important that we support that we do what we say we're going to do when the voters ask and that we follow through with um um good financial management when those opportunities uh come up. So please I would ask that you uh unanimously support getting 36 street widened. Thank you.

Hello. feels like we're having the convers the same conversation over and over again. Um, we keep talking about, okay, yes, no, maybe. The only answer is no. We don't want you here. This is not good for Norman. Talking about this what we just took. It's um goldenplated poison pill that puts in a legal sort of the facto legal agreement and it's it's puts us in a bad position for the future more than appeal is like suppository. But hey uh we all know that the solution to more to the traffic is not more road. Yes, we need better infrastructure. Yes, we need to maintain what we have. But more roads, more lanes are not never the solution. We've all see um super highways 10 plus lane with bumperto-bumper traffic. What are we going to do? Build another lane so we have 11 lanes of bumper to bumper traffic. That's not the way to go. um we already have enough infrastructure to maintain and we should not get into it and yes someone were lives in a surreal world fantasy world where uh commerce to Mexico is going to up 500% while the reality is that the commerce has already gone down because as a country we're terrible uh business partners and unreliable ones. So if we look at the metrics, if you look at the reality in which gas is going up, car usage is going down, we don't need more road, we don't need more lanes, maintenance. Yes. Widening. Uh thank you.

Thank you,

Gary King. Gary King. Okay. May. Hello. Again, Windler. Word two. So again, if they want this, they should be paying for it. I don't think Norman should be putting forth any money for this. Um, why would we? Was this the first negotiation? Was this the first attempt at negotiation? Um, okay. So, 36th Street, if that was supposed to be done in 2018, what's going on? Why did we, you know, do another uh road bond package when that one wasn't complete? Um, what incentive do we Norman have to vote for the new bond package, the new road package? I don't think we do. I think, you know, if the 36th Street is like eight years overdue, why should Norman trust the council to do what they say they're going to do?

That's all. Thanks. Thank you, Howard Bear. No. Howard,

Robert Post. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Bob Post. Um, I'm a retired Norman police officer, 35 years. I was a traffic accident specialist. I've investigated over 250 colli uh fatal collisions in our city. Uh I also worked real closely with the public works department, the city traffic engineer to improve our city streets for safety. Uh I attended a city council study session uh in October where council member Peacock asked a very good question of Mr. Sturs um it was regarding frontage roads and other costs to the city of Norman. Mr. starts responded by saying, "And certainly a lot of that is going to depend upon what our traffic flows show because we are excuse me, we're not going to put in any traffic signals or stop controls unless it is warranted and those warrants are under the manual and uniform traffic control devices as the engineers well know." So that's how we make those determination determinations at a later time. So what is the O OTAA traffic plan for 36th Avenue West and Indian Hills Road? Has anybody seen the traffic plan? I haven't and I haven't seen it in the agenda. Um will it have no traffic control? I doubt that.

Uh will it have two-way stop? will have a four-way stop. Uh will it have a traffic signal design? If so, will the traffic signals be coordinated so they work together and improve the flow of traffic through our city? The anticipated growth, the answer to that is well, we don't know. As far as I know, we don't know. The anticipated growth that developers are anticipating at a later time means the city of Norman will have to come up with funding involving traffic upgrades for the frontage roads. How many millions of dollars will that take? We don't know at this time. And why aren't these signalizations and modern traffic improvements put in the plans so you all can see those plans or know that they're not going to begin there and you're going to have to come up with funding later on. The OTAA is on a fishing expedition with these contracts. They've used several forms of bait to lure the city into making agreements and contracts. Please don't take the bait, especially on this one. No matter how enticing it may be seem seem uh if you choose to enter into these agreements, what's going to happen tomorrow? Tomorrow's headlines could read, "The city of Norman has agreed to work with the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and supports the Access Oklahoma plan. Contrary to what thousands of people have protested for against the OTAA, there are other problems in this agreement.

Uh, one of which was On page two, it lists the construction access points. Two of the points mentioned, Chalkar Road and Peebly Road are not even in the city limits of Nor. I don't understand. I got a contract. Thank you, Mr. Post. The time has run out. Okay. Thank you,

thank you, Heather Messer.

Heather Messer, Ward Five. I was tempted to leave and disgust like I think most of the other people have. I'm asking you again to vote no on K2526-156. Boulder, Colorado, Madison, Wisconsin, Charlottesville, Virginia, Eugene, Oregon, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. What do we have in common? We're college towns. were close to the same size, but those towns all fought the highways coming through their towns or the turnpikes or whatever it was that they wanted to put in, assuming their council probably stood behind them, but they fought it and most of those projects got cancelled. I don't know if you've ever been to Happy Valley Penn State. You talk about remote, they don't allow the turnpikes in there, they don't allow the main highways. It's it Norman does not need to be any different. I voted based on people saying they were going to not go with OTAA. They were not going to approve the TIFF. And God, boy, was I wrong. I guess y'all are just a lot smarter than me because you going to go with your opinions of what you need to do instead of what the people voted for and what we asked you to do. I've only been back in Norman for three years. This is one of the most disappointing nights that I've experienced here. Um, and it's very frustrating to hear you say that it comes from the heart, that you still believe that this isn't the right thing, and yet you voted yes. You voted to go with OTAA, and that is not what you guys campaigned on. So, um, I will telegraph my vote. I will be voting no on every bond issue that you put up. Not only will I vote no, but I

will be campaigning against these bond issues. That's how you'll listen to the citizens. Thank you, Greg Fitter.

Feels good to stand up.

Thank you all. My name is Greg Fitter, Norman Ward 5. The proposed contract in item 32 includes the language of previous attempts to get the city of Norman to agree to partner with the OTAA for constructing the new alignment turnpikes through the city. Why would this particular contract need all the whereazes that provide the OTAA a partnership with Norman which essentially provides a green light for OTAA to construct the entirety of the East West connector from multiple sources derived from open record requests. It appears that the city and confirmed I believe that Norman has plans designed to 90% and that all the rideway has been acquired and all the utilities have been relocated for both phase one and phase two of the 2012 bond project. This proposed contract concerns phase two. Why is there a cost to the city of more than $2 million shown in table A for rightway and re utility relocations for phase two? Why are East West Connector project 28303A costs shown in table A of this contract? How do those costs interface with the city of Norman? The dollar values in table A are hard numbers. Who picks up the tab when the project goes over budget? In table A of the proposed contract, the city of Norman's share of construction cost is shown to be $2,200,000. As I understand from reading the staff report discussion pertaining to funding, the city of Norman plans to transfer $2

million from a voter improved 2019 bond project that was to expedite construction of an ODOT project at Indian Hills Road and I35. It transfer that to OTAA which has taken over that interchange project. The OTAA interchange has 100% OTAA state auditor verified blank check funding. Then after the transfer, OTAA will turn around and credit the city of Norman $2 million toward Norman's participation on the 36th Avenue phase 2 project. That funding maneuver appears as if the city of Norman is running money through an outside entity, the OTAA, in order to effectively spend voter approved 2019 bond project money on a voter approved 2012 bond project. OTAA is the unrivaled master of funding schemes. As a longtime taxpaying resident of Norman, I take exception to this type of maneuvering of my tax dollars. Some may call it creative, I call it deceptive. I want to emphasize that the resolution that Norman City Council passed in 2022, I believe remains in effect. I believe it remains in effect until another council takes it out of effect. The resolution is the official expression of a firm decision by the Norman City Council in 2022 and I believe it still should be

honored. I respectfully urge each of you to vote for rejection of this contract. Thank you. Thank you. Cynthia Rogers.

Cynthia Rogers. Still Ward four. So um the 2012 bond package and I think this is systematic problem of all the things we put before voters. The Norman forward package with stuff with no budget or budgets with no funding. But the 2012 bond package, I was a little alarmed to say we promised people we were going to build all these things in that budget. No, what what we did was we promised we were going to tax and spend that much money and we hoped we would get all these projects. In fact, if you look at the the packet which the little booklet which I'm looking at now, um do the bond project budgets include costs for inflation? Yes, city staff engineers have carefully estimated the costs of each project based upon the best available information and a contingency has been included in each cost estimate to address inflation, design issues, and other unforeseen project costs. We did not promise people that all the projects would fit in the budget. What we promised people was we were going to tax them for the amount of this bond, which I don't know what it was, but $48 million. And there were some guesstimates of project costs. So when I hear, but we promise people that, it's not really how a bond works. Now, the booklets make it seem like a promise, which I suggest we shouldn't do that anymore. We should be a little more forthright when we're putting packages in front of people. Um, so the Northwest project, yes, it was included as the last item of the eight projects in the 212 bond issue

that the budget wasn't there had a lot to do with unforeseen circumstances, right? The change in federal matching and it did talk about federal matching here. But maybe we should stop, you know, overselling our promises when we're putting votes before people so they won't say, "Hey, what about my senior center? Hey, what about my Norman forward stuff? Hey, what about that Canadian River?" So, this I think um if we're doing it because of what happened to that bond packet package, I don't I don't think I think it was an oversold promise. not that you anybody on this council made. Um and as we said, oh that resolution was from other people. This bond issue was from other another council too. Um so my mom used to say or other people would say, you know, if you lie with dogs, you get fleas. And I think having contracts that say we're working with you, you're going to get fleas because we know OTAA is not good on their word. You're going to have to sue them if you think they're going to fulfill their contract. For that reason, I think you should vote no. Thank you.

Thank you, Kelly Wilson.

Kelly Wilson, ward six. Um, we've talked a little bit about the history of the 36th Avenue widening project and it was a bond package passed by the voters. Um, the voters didn't approve of the turnpike authority being part of this picture. Um, and and also if you go back to how this project started, it got off to a good start. The city staff the were doing everything they were supposed to be doing. they were following the NEPA process which ensures that the environment is being protected and that um the citizens are part of the conversation and that is something we are missing in the situation we're looking at right now um and if you if you think about everything the turnpike authority touches that besides the fact that all these people are losing their homes and that the people left next to it are going to have all this damage to their property potential flooding issues cars running into their house, whatever. Um, and environmental issues um, with our water and all of those things. The other thing that it always pops up is the lack of public involvement. We've been left out of the equation every step of the way with the turnpike authority. And that hasn't been the case with the city running this project up to date. Um, the public has been involved. um they got to vote on it first of all and I actually watched on YouTube just a little while ago that the city did a great presentation to the public saying this is what we've done so far. This was back in 2020 by the way. Um this is what we've done so far. Do you guys have any questions? This is how we plan to move forward. And the public had an opportunity to say okay this is what you guys are doing. This is what we think we should do differently. And then the conversation after the turnpike authority announced Access Oklahoma has completely stopped. The turnpike authority doesn't allow the public to have any input in their projects. And

now the city is following suit with that too. And that's really really hard for me to swallow. Um because that is our local government is where we have the most power. That's where we should have the most voice because everything that the city of Norman does directly impacts the people that live here. And that's why we need you guys to stand with us and make sure that our voices are continuing to be heard. And ever since the turnpike authority came in and announced access Oklahoma, the city has basically turned a blind eye to it and said, "Oh, we're going to work with the OTAA now. We're going to try to figure out what we can get from them." And I'm here to tell you, there's no puppy in that van. They're trying to lure you with some sweet little puppy. Don't get in there. They don't have good intentions for us. And the fact that they do not allow you guys the opportunity to talk with us, to be part of that process, to be part of that conversation, it should be troublesome. Um, you know, why does it have to always be that it shows up on an agenda on a Friday afternoon and then we have Saturday and Sunday to get together and try to vet the project or vet what staff has said. That gives nobody any time. Then we come to you on Tuesday night in full force with all this red out here saying, "Stop. Whoa, pump the brakes. We haven't had a chance to look at this information." And if the city was running this project instead of the OTAA, that wouldn't be the case. we would have already been involved in the project. We would have already had an opportunity to see what was going on and staff could have already answered our questions and but that's not happening anymore. So, I would just encourage you guys to pump the brakes on this and say, "Look, there's no urgency here. We're going to make sure that before we make any more agreements with the OTAA, we are going to bring the public back into this project. We're going to ask them what they want. We're going to ask the voters, do you want us to move forward with the turnpike authority because we

didn't vote for that. So anyway, thank you so much. Thank you, Chelsea Gravel.

Thank you, council. Chelsea Gravel, Ward 4. Um, yeah, thank you for the opportunity to come before you tonight and to speak on this and and to listen and to be heard. And regardless of how you're going to vote, you've been spending time in your chambers. You've had packets and packets on this that are huge that are hundreds of pages long, like Harry Potter type of book series that you are reading on this. And even if what you are hearing from us tonight is simply a formality because you've had all of your questions answered, you've thought about everything that has been emailed to you. I can't even imagine what your emails look like right now based on what I'm reading on Reddit and Facebook and all the behind the scenes arguing that I just see. I can't even imagine what your guys's side looks like. And as you're making decisions and you're hearing everything, I understand that, you know, the planning department does a lot of stuff for you guys and you guys have your attorney team and and everybody in our city like what was mentioned earlier by Mr. No fire or council member Noire about what an amazing city we have. How all of our city works together tirelessly to make the best decisions for our community and your job as council is to represent the community of Norman. not the people, but like the land and what's best for Norman and make sure that we can move forward as a community and that we have grocery stores and gas stations and all those little things that we need, including highways that take us up to the city, including really great roads, including projects like the 36th Avenue project that we passed years back and that now is going to cost us I don't know how much more. I uh I have a background from a construction company, from roofing, from electrical, from sales. I have a teaching

background. I I have done a lot of different things out of curiosity and boredom. And this project's going to cost a whole lot more now than it did five years ago. And it's going to cost double that in five years. And you just keep raising the money. So by the time it's come to you guys, hopefully you have all your questions answered. Hopefully, you have no more questions. I'm not a part of the planning process, but if I were and if I were the person on the sales team or the production team for this, um hopefully I would have brought you everything you need to know up until now, we've been doing this for forever. Hopefully, moving forward at the end of this after you've heard from everybody else, you have no more questions. But if you do, make sure you get answers for those questions. Make sure this is your time. I know that this isn't our time to stop this process, that fighting this isn't from you guys. that you guys could say no, but you'd have to have reason to say no. You'd have to say that this is going to take us into a legal downfall or that there are implications that are going to actually come across for you guys in your personal lives that you could personally be sued. And voting no might not get you personally sued, but voting yes won't get you personally sued because you've asked all your questions. And instead of dragging our feet on yet another project like we have on so many countless other ones that we've paid an arm and a leg extra for because of construction costs. We should probably try to move forward as quickly as possible. Construction costs continue to go up and we need a good Norman. Please, even if we're out of money. Thank you.

Thank you,

Cherylyn Denzo. Sheran Denzo I have property awards four and six and um I'm of the opposite mind set okay than the previous speaker um I think it's a responsibility for uh council to be our first line at defense and support the citizenry in Norman not necessarily look at um uh what what can we get out of this kind of attitude. Um the 36th Street uh project should have been done a long time ago. I have to agree with that. You know, there's lots of projects in Norman where we were promised things and the promises were not fulfilled. And it's really disconcerting to realize that 50 years on certain things are not fulfilled. Um, so it's it's kind of sad that you find yourselves in this situation because you people shouldn't even be sitting in this situation having to deal with this particular 36th Street project. If a bond issue was was voted on and passed, it should have been taken care of a long time ago. Ask yourselves why it wasn't. Why did the previous council councils not get the job done? So, it's your job to get certain jobs done. However, it's also your job to investigate what the hell happened.

This is a time for reckoning in Norman. This is a time for you to look at the previous councils, at the previous projects, at the previous contracts before you make mistakes going forward. Figure out what went wrong before, who voted what, when, where, how, and why, and where the funds went that was already allocated way back when. Thank you. Thank you, Carinda Gravel.

I'm sorry.

Carinda Gravel, Ward 4, Council, Mayor, First Courthouse. Well, I'm going to follow both of those ladies and say I agree with everything both of them said and I think this is a time to learn. This is a time. This is the first time we've been here. We haven't been here before. Right now, we have been We need to talk about 36th Street because this is a this is a repetition. I have been studying the past. Okay. This is repetitive. This is repetitive. We continue to drive ourselves in a black hole because we approve projects. We don't complete them. we don't complete them for years and years and years. By then, the amount of money that was approved, there's no way that money is going to cover that, your grocery bill won't be the same either. So, we have a problem that we're discovering. Do we have any more wells that we need to deal with? We need to find out. We just now discovered we have a well issue with some wells that aren't work being used, and we need water. We need water. We have a water issue. So, we're at a point, sounds like we're moving forward with the turnpike. And now you need to get us everything you can if that's what your plan is. If your plan is to vote or you have to vote or your hands are tied or whatever the case is, we need this. We need whatever we can get from this. And I would beg of you. I understand people are angry and upset and by golly, I'd be one of them if it was me. Don't you kid yourself? I would be down here every day. But this is where we are now. We've been

made an offer for the for the 36th Street project. We couldn't afford to do it anyway, apparently. Wow, that was a long time ago. Porter Quarter happened, too. You go back and look at that. The money's gone. We didn't get to finish the whole project. We needed a bridge because us walkers can't get across Porter. In the Porter Quarter study, there was 18,000 cars on Porter. Massive study. We've got a lot of cars that go through there and we can't cross. You need to think about that. You need to think about all the projects you have on your plate right now. this pattern of you guys spending massive money for new projects while the rest of us suffer because these old projects aren't getting done and then they never get done because there's no money by the time it rolls around or it's not finished. Please, please, please, please, please be the council member you were elected to be. Take the opportunity to use the brain that you have. Learn from this experience. take everything you can under your belt and think about the entire city of Norman and all the citizens. We need you now more than ever. Thank you,

Jesse Matlock.

Good evening once again, council and mayor. Um,

wow. I heard some things up here that I was really quite surprised to hear. Uh, because I I kind of for one thought it was actually the job of the mayor, who's not the mayor, and the city council over there to um to represent the people they were elected by. But what I'm hearing is that some of you are trying to make your own decisions and actually go against what we are saying. And I heard someone say someone bringing up the 14%. I brought my 14% and it's like 30 40 50 people. They brought their 14% and it's like two or three. So just judging from the number of people that are for this versus the number of people that are against this, it sounds like the citizens are saying we don't want this and because you are elected, you are responsible to represent me. And I'm saying no. And they're saying no. And they're saying no. And we got a couple people over here. They're like, "Oh, yeah. Let's do it." I just want to remind you that's your job. Number two. Number two, let the OTAA build whatever road they want. That's their business. Let Norman build whatever road we want. That's our business. We do not need a privately funded, bondf funded organization coming in and co-mingling our tax and our bond money that was set aside for another project. They want us, according to this report and in this contract, they want the city of Norman to pay them $2 million within 45 days of the execution of this contract. And then it says that within 45 days execution got that they're going to pay us some odd millions of dollar that why is the money changing hands. Why do they need money from us? Our tax money our bond money and according to this report the bond money that they want isn't even in the bond project that it needs to be in.

They want $2 million from the Indian Hills Exchange Fund which was originally started by ODOT. That's what the bond was for. Since then, the OTAA has taken over that interchange project. It is no longer federally funded. It is privately funded by 11 billion dollar of private bond money.

Why do they need $2 million from us? I'm saying listen to your citizens. Get your own opinion out of it. If you see that more of your citizens are voting saying away, go go with your citizens. Second of all, why does OT want to buy us a road? That's called a bribe. I told you before, I'm telling you right now, that's called a bribe. I'm done. Thank you. Thank you.

U mayor, I don't have anybody else signed up, but uh Council Member Grant does have a question. Come on up. Uh, Steve Ellis W4. Thanks for letting me get this opportunity. Uh, my daughter had had a seizure down at the law school and so I had to rush out, but she is doing okay now and with her fiance. So, I got invited to leave and come back and I feel okay about that. Um, all right. Um, I want to start with just a reminder that, um, you can reconsider to the previous question if anything that you've heard on this particular item 32 you find persuasive about the the argument about not cooperating with the OTAA. And, uh, I want to pile on on that argument. Uh, it's item 32, I think, where it became completely clear that the staff really didn't do their due diligence on getting the right comparison case here. Uh, the calculations and the discussion of those calculations were actually really kind of amazing to me. Um, I I suggest that you go back and rewatch that part of the presentation because the idea that we're going to need to do more because we don't work handinhand with the OTAA didn't make any sense there, right? Um, so in terms of what the staff apparently did is they were trying to compare what our previous uh plans were, which had to

do with uh, you know, not having a turnpike up there at all and the cost that we were going to get if we cost share with the turnpike. But what no one ever priced out was how this was likely to happen if we don't cooperate with them. And uh you know there's if if both sets of of uh institutions are generating storm water up there, there's no need for a bigger storm water plan under either of those conditions. So the true comparison doesn't isn't talking about adding storm water. The true comparison is trying to figure out what the cost would be if they're going to go first. We can let them use our easement. you know, we can give them an easement to build their stuff under our road. And even if they only build it big enough for their stuff, it's going to be cheaper for us to build our marginal cost right back into it. Now, the engineers are quaking at this point because they're like, "Oh, Christ, just do it when you're under, you know, the city. Why would we do it so in such an inefficient way?" But the idea there is really that uh we we're not looking for efficiencies with OTAA. We're trying to push them off because we don't want what they're offering. And if you had priced out what would happen if they we let them build their thing first and then we just do the margin to it. It's it's not clear at all that we're ending up any cheaper. I think that's also true on the previous issue. Um and we should be willing to pay a little bit extra to push OTA OTAA away. uh they intend to change Norman's entire future in a very negative way by turning you know Norman into the Kilpatrick turnpike which screws up our development plans. Pretty much everyone on council now has signed

on to something like the strong town's vision and this absolutely screws it up. It makes it a ton harder to do. cooperating with OTAA at all means it's going to be easier for them. It undermines the lawsuit from Pike off and it also makes us more susceptible especially with future councils to make deals with them which will bust up our current consensus on strong towns kinds of issues. It's a terrible. Is there anyone else that would like to speak who has not spoken on this item?

Stevens Ward Five. Um, I just wanted to kind of start out. I mean, I know you guys are probably tired of being here and I we're tired of having to take off and and come here, but we're we're doing this again and nothing has changed. what has changed since the last time we stood up and said, "No, we're not working with them." We asked them to do simple environmental studies. We said, "We want you to do your studies. Prove to us that this turnpike is needed. Prove tell us how it's going to affect the environment. Tell us how it's going to affect people and then we'll we'll get together and we'll figure out the the least destructive path if it is in fact needed." And they haven't done anything. They haven't done anything we've asked them to do. And all of a sudden, we're changing our minds. And I feel like the only reason is is because of the money and and I and I really hope that it's not that way. I know you guys are taking this seriously and you've spent a lot of time on it and so I really appreciate that. But from my view there's nothing different other than the money. Um also my three sorry just I got to get my things. Um I also wanted to mention what happens if the OTAA doesn't pay you. I think a lot of times we think oh it's in a contract. So, we have it in black and white in a contract, but the problem is if they breach the contract, what do you have to do then? Then you got to take them to court and then you've got to hope you've got to pay for that and spend all the time doing that. And then also, I mean, I'm not even sure how that, you know, works out. Um, and it's it's I think Oklahoma I mean, county never saw their money. So, like I just you've got to be really careful. I don't the the audit came out and said that there are hardly any guard rails on the OTAA and I feel like that gives them the freedom to do whatever they want including you know what they've been doing in the past which is not holding up their end of the deal and lying. Um I think there's also we need to consider the damage to the roads as they build these turnpikes. I know um Oklahoma County had a lot of damage to their roads that they ended up having to pay for and I haven't heard

any discussion on that. Um, I really hope um that you um that you don't act out of fear like you're afraid that if we don't take this money now that we're going to miss out on it. And I I don't think that's the right rationale for for for doing these deals or or doing these contracts. Um, I think the OTAA needs to do what we asked them to do, the studies, and then come together, not in an urgent manner, and discuss this and not try to push everything through quickly so that they can um claim, oh, we've already started, we've already got this done. The other thing I wanted to mention was um I didn't quite understand the math that you that they presented because what I thought we had was a $25 million federal grant and then $12 million from a bond. And if I add that up, right, I think I'm getting $37 million. And if we have if the cost is 40, then we're only short three. We're not short nine. And then the other thing I was going to say is I'm pretty sure I thought it was 36 million that the OTAA claimed was going to be for the widening of 36 street. So if it is in fact only 36 million, then we have enough to cover it and we do not need the OTAA. And that's what I would wish you guys would do. I I if if you guys are for widening 36 because the voters voted on it, I think that's great. But we don't have to do this deal with the OTAA in order to widen 36th Street. I think we take the federal grant money that we have and we take the bond money that we have and we make it go as far as we can with this 36 street widening and um and and and if and if we do this deal, I don't know what happens to the federal money. Do we have to give it back? I I don't know. I haven't heard any discussion about that. Um what happens to the bond money? Do we have to give that back? Like if we do this deal. So I really would like to just keep the the money that we have, put it towards widening 36th Street and say no to this contract. and I and I really appreciate all of your your time and your effort and you're staying up late listening to us. Um it's a very important topic to all of us and it's it's taken a lot of a lot of time and effort. So I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry, we have a crossroads problem here. Hi, my name is Pam Post and I'm from Ward Five. Um earlier I commented and complimented the city staff on the due diligence they have done for you all. But I do have some issues with what they have not done for you about this contract. This contract says whereas the East West Connector project will receive all required federal state permits including but not limited to the Federal Highway Administration, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and US Army Corps of Engineers. OTAA has let it be known that they are not required to do that because they don't receive federal money. So that is a problem in this contract that I have right now that your city staff has left in here as form for this contract. The second part I have concerns about this contract. It says, "Whereas the city recognizes construction of access points along the east west corridor to include 60th Avenue Northwest, 36th Avenue Northwest, I35, which are all east of the interstate, which is where 36th Avenue is going in. But now we start talking about access points at 12th Avenue Northwest Broadway, State Highway 77 Highway, 12th Avenue Northeast, 37th, 36th Avenue Northeast, South Extension Turnpike, which acknowledges that they're going to build the South Extension Turnpike. You all have acknowledged and accept in this contract that the South Extension Turnpike is going to be built because you're agreeing that there's going to be an access point there. According to this contract, excuse me, city manager, I am talking and you are being rude. They also say 120th Avenue Northeast Chopall Road and 156th Avenue Northeast South Peely Road, which both of those intersections are not even in the city

limits of Norman. Why are you accepting a contract acknowledging two interchanges that are not even in your city limits? The third one is whereas the city recognizes the construction of one-way service roads along the east west contract from 72nd Avenue Northwest to 48th Avenue Northway East which are to be maintained by Cleveland County as will be set forth in a separate agreement between the authority and Cleveland County. Why are you all accepting a contract without seeing what that contract says? Where is that agreement with the Cleveland County and OTAA? You all are agreeing to something that you don't even know what said. And last, the venue for any action, and this is an implication of this contract, is any the venue for any action brought for the enforcement of this agreement shall be in the district court of Oklahoma County. We're in Cleveland County. This is where the construction is being taken place. This is where you as a city are located is in Cleveland County. But OTAA wants you to agree that if you're going to sue them, it will be in Oklahoma County. Is that for the benefit of your citizens? I don't think so. Your citizens have said no to this. Continue to say no. This is the contract that opens the door, the can opener that allows OTAA to build what they want through the city of Norman how they want to close that door. look at this contract and ask your city staff to go back in and rework it and rewrite it to the benefit of the city and their citizens of which I am one of. And all these people out here in the red shirts are one of. Thank you very much. I appreciate your conversation.

Y'all have a nice evening. Sorry, I had a nap today, so I'm still awake. Um, you know, there's a funny expression that that comes up often when we talk about this. It's called bringing Norman forward. And I would really like to know as a reference to this to this item is what bringing Norman forward means to each one of you as it relates to this project. because I don't think I have much consensus on that. Especially I've seen I've heard the mayor say this bringing Norman forward. What does that mean to the mayor? What does that mean to council? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eight. I'd like to hear that and I'd like to hear it in relation to this project. And I do appreciate you all. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else like to speak on this item that has not spoken? I would like to remind you to please say your name and board number into I absolutely will. I know you will, but I'm just making sure. I'm still Tracy Williamson and I still live in Ward Five. Thank you, Tracy.

Um, so something that has changed the second time I'm up here is respect. And I see my city council very differently. the second time around since I feel like you sold out. I feel like you betrayed the people. I feel like your price was a abandoned well and $2 million. And um you've let the vampire in because you see the vampires can't come in unless you ask them in if you've watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer. But I sincerely hope there's no buy into this like we have to front some money and then expect the OTAA to reimburse us because I don't think you realized what a deal with the devil you have made. And to be honest, I question why I'm up here talking because I feel like the council has the I feel like the people have lost their representation from the council save two people who stood up for us. And I cannot tell you the disappointment. I cannot tell you. I think you underestimate the city of Norman and how this is going to resonate. And as far as the bond issues, I too, let me broadcast my vote. I'm going to vote no on every one of them now because you're not listening to us. We're we're not paytoplay. We're here. We're here to save our town. Our town is under attack from an abuse of power and from developers who are doing this for economic development. And we all know it. We all all of us, every one of us know it. And you you could have postponed the vote. What would they do? Scramble around and come back with another offer. I mean, are you kidding? This is what they needed. They needed for you to open

the door and let them in. And you've also undermined undermined months of work to fight this corrupt out of control agency. And now when I thought I the town of Norman I thought had the the best city council. I cannot tell you how many times I have bragged they stood with us. They stood against the OTAA. They listened to the people and did what was right. But I guess you know even our council had a price. And I I don't think you realize what you've done. I really I think you are very naive to enter into this to work with OTAA in any manner. It's a it's a mistake and Norman's the one who's going to pay for it and um that's about it. I see you all differently and I'm I'm going to fight these bond issues and I think you underestimate I think you've had two people who want the OTAA here. One of them's worried about access roads. Oh, believe me, OTAA is going to build all the access roads you need to this toll road to nowhere that connects with one of their other monsters. And our whole town is literally under attack. And you guys sold us out. I actually quite incredulous. But I just want to thank the two council members that stood with us and stood with integrity and did the right thing. And I'm so disappointed in the rest of you. I can't I can't ex except you know there's one person who seems to be working colluding with the OTAA and apparently he has your ear and that's unfortunate. That's all I have to say tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak on this item that has not spoken yet? Okay. Council member Grant has the question. Okay. Final comments, questions from council. Council member Grant.

Yes. Uh, can Scott come up here? Okay. I heard someone ask about street maintenance bonds and they suggested that we would be able to move around money. Um the I forget which proposition number it is, but for our street maintenance bonds, everything that is listed with that bond package, that's what's getting done. You can't switch projects around, can you?

In that in that package, in the ordinance language, we actually do list by year every program and every roadway that will be touched by that program in that year. So that's really locked in. Um over the 20 years we've been doing it, we have successfully completed every project that was on that list. And in most years, uh we've been able to add additional projects at the end, uh to get more work done and actually do more work for our street maintenance. And none of these straight street maintenance bonds intersect with the east west connector.

No, that's uh that that is correct. They do not uh intersect. Um the closest Franklin Road was picked because it's in bad shape. It's a mile south of the turnpike, but it was chosen totally independent of turnpike route or anything else. Um, with the street maintenance bonds versus a transportation bond, are there other examples of transportation bond money being moved around to complete projects?

U, we've done that quite frequently. of in fact in the 2012 bond we took some of the bond savings on other projects and moved them to help complete uh Alama Street which also did not get uh we're not getting federal funding for. So we accumulated those savings that we had in other projects to go towards that project but that takes council action. We can't move money uh in a bond program from one project to another without coming to council and requesting it. If we were going to add a project or ask to do more work, we'd have to come to you and request that. or the same thing if we were going to not do something we have to come to you and request that. So any change from the bond language is really a council decision that we have to we we can't make those decisions as staff.

And then um somebody brought up frontage roads and that was a resolution from a year or so ago. Uh and my understanding is this is quite different than what was being proposed then in the sense that the OTAA would build all of this new infrastructure and then we would have to maintain it. Um, in this particular scenario, they would just be building storm water that isn't inefficient and runs under our stuff and uh they're still responsible for their part uh and maintenance and then we're just responsible for our city infrastructure. Correct.

Well, because it's going to be a joint system and because we would be doing inspection during the construction, we would take over the maintenance of that because it's one joint box. I don't really know how you'd split up that box for maintenance. Um, what would they be maintaining uh, if anything on the 36 project? That would it's totally then it would be our rightway. We would take over because they're building it to our specifications and to our plans. Uh, by our inspections and our final acceptance, we'd come back to council and be accepted like any other uh, project that we do. That leads to my next question. Uh, what are the remedies for substandard work? Um, and is there a time frame that it has to be handled?

So, that really varies depending on what it is. Uh, for example, on Grey Street, they put down some asphalt that didn't quite meet compaction requirements. They had to remove it and replace it. Uh, they did it fairly quickly. Basically, have to know by the project. So, it depends on what it is that's failing or what doesn't meet our standard. Uh, if it's a compaction problem, they go back in and recompact if it's soils. Uh, so there's just a lot of different ways that that could be handled depending on what the problem is that we find. If it was a problem with the traffic signal, then they have to repair it before we would take the maintenance over of that project. Uh, typically at the end of a project, there's a giant walkthrough by all the parties. Everybody walks through together. They write down all the problems, creates a final punch list, and the project isn't completed. And typically the they will not get their final payment. the contractor won't get final payment until all punch items are completed and the project is accepted.

Um, another question that came up was if the project goes over budget, who's paying for those costs? Uh, I may turn to the attorneys on this. The way I read it, we're putting in $2.2 million. Okay. Um, and then if we didn't do this and they took that extra land, is that where the extra costs for us come in with the inefficiencies that are created?

No, it's literally the fact that they're completing this project and it's coming out of our scope of work. So, basically what's happening there is it's a $40 million project. I'm I'm going to use rough numbers instead of going down to the dollars and cents because it's easier for me um to to speak about rather than going down that detailed. But basically, it's a $40 million project. What we're looking at right now is it's going to take about $15 million out of the total project cost. It's going to reduce it down about a $25 million project. And we already have had preliminary conversations with the Federal Highway Administration with the the the gentleman who'll be helping us write our agreement. Uh we've already started the discussion of how would this work. they assure us it can be done. Uh we just have to make sure that we document it all correctly and show that it's all going to be completed. Um I know there was also some discussion that we had 12 million in bond funds. Um on the 2012 uh project for 36 the local match total was $5,500 approximately and then on the 2019 it was only $2,500 and that includes design right away and utility relocation. So then you got the 20% match. What we have remaining in those two projects this point is a little over $4 million. Uh because of issues that we had with uh rightaway purchase and also uh on 36 on phase one and two, we had to relocate Western farmers. Uh we thought they were in rightway. They had some polls out and they had their own easement which means we had to pay them and that was over half a million dollars additional but we didn't expect. So that's kind of where the numbers come from. And so when we do our math and we go through the whole project, when we take the money we have, if we look at the whole project as a whole, it's $40 million. We take out we have about $6 million that we could put towards this project, including the Moors, $1.7 million, we come up that we're about 9 million short on making the project at this time that we would have to find in capital funds or in other projects. And then with them doing this, because of

that reduction in cost, it brings us down to where really we're really close to the project being completely paid for with the f with the funds that are available today in the projects with Moore's match. Okay. And then uh has the city conducted NEPA studies in this area?

So we are currently under a NEPA study right now for the entirety of the 36th Avenue Northwest project from Tecumpsa all the way to 34th uh and more. uh because we're accepting federal funds, we're required to do that. Uh we had already done a previous study uh for phase one and two and that was back when we had those funds promised or the funds that we were going to be allocated for 19 that we didn't get. So that showed that came back with a finding of no significant impact which means no further actions necessary. We are basically at the point that we're ready to go do the public meeting. Uh public meeting is required as part of a newer process. So there will be more another public meeting on 36th Avenue Northwest. Um, so at that point because we didn't have the funding, we stopped because ODOT said they wouldn't complete the approval of the NEPA study. So we've done one study and we're doing another one now.

Okay. And as you said, there will be time for public input on there will be a public there will be a public meeting that will be announced and we'll have to have it at a public place nearby and and make it easily accessible to those residents in the area. And then um maybe you can answer this part and then Beth may take up the next part. But uh why does the contract outline other projects or maybe Beth can do it? I think that's some of the you talk about where it's talking about the the it's because that's the definition of the east west connector that we're using in the contract,

right? there are paragraphs that are defining certain terms that are used throughout in order to ensure continuity of our understanding. Okay. And then my next question was um why Oklahoma County for any u court cases we might be in. Uh that's in both agreements. That's in their standard language. Uh part of what we did was find this agreement as it's been presented to and addressed by other towns. And so because it's Oklahoma County, because they're located in Oklahoma County and a state entity, that was not something we requested to change. Is there any benefit to being in Cleveland County?

Well, outside of it being, you know, a courthouse down the road, no, I mean, the law would be the same that we're talking about in especially in a contract dispute. Okay.

Well, and let me add one thing to that. I've litigated cases in Wuoka. I've liticated cases in Purcell. We've had judges from Medil. We've had judges from Ardmore. So, where your courthouse is located doesn't necessarily mean you're going to get a judge from that courthouse. There have been a number of instances where our judges have decided that an issue that they had they've decided to recuse. So, the entire of our judicial contingent will recuse. And when that happens, we may have to go someplace else. So, just because you have a specific jurisdiction outlined in your contract doesn't necessarily mean you're going to get a a judge from that jurisdiction. We've had to litigate cases like I said before across the state because our judges have decided that they didn't want to consider those issues.

Okay, good to know. Um, and then coming back to the remedies I had asked uh our public works director about um when we were putting this together, did we look at other communities and uh learn from their contract language? The the ones that could be found um were reviewed uh to ensure consistency essentially and treatment of terms. We want to make sure that we're noticing uh what's different or what's changed and if if there is anything addressing that to make sure that it's uh works for us.

Okay. Um that's all my questions for right now.

Thank you, Council Member Gansbury. I went ahead just so I be clear on my reasoning on stuff like that. Also is I looked up my flyer I used for when I ran for election and it said protect residents from turnpike. When this was presented to me, it showed that if we didn't do anything that there is possibility of imminent domain occurring on a major property and maybe even a house down the road from there. Do we want the turnpike to be able to do a lawsuit to get eminent domain started here and then find out what it takes to do it elsewhere or do we want to stop imminent domain period because we don't like the turnpike and so that went into my reasoning and the fact that it was voters over there. I went and talked to the school over there in that area and everything. They've been looking forward to this. They need a widening for their school and their traffic and everything. several different residents that live in that area. It's also a main corridor for a lot of our MSTA personnel that run up and down that road also and everything to be able to get a little bit more widen and thus the reason why I need to vote the way I do.

Thank you, Council Member Dixon.

Uh thank you. just say representing W 8 um for the past almost two years, this has been the absolute number one um item on I've heard about this from more people more often than any other issue. Um get 36 widen, get 36 widened, we don't care. Get it widened. Get it widened. Um there were several of us that were in Washington DC last year. We were um talking to our federal delegation trying to get money to make this happen. Um this has been going on for a very very very long time. Um when I ran two years ago, this was one of the things I said that I was going to work on to get done was finish the 2012 bond issue and get 36th Street widened. Um quite a few people clowned me like, "Oh, you can't do that. not going to happen. Um, we're getting close. Um, we're probably I don't know 30 minutes away from voting on this. Um, so like that's who I represent are the residents in W 8 who have been clamoring for me to do something to get this done. It was interesting to me to to hear a lot of people on both of these items um that that are fine with, you know, Westsiders having their property taken. Look at the yellow line on the on the slide that's been up forever. That's going through people's property. Like I don't understand why we're we can take some people's property that that's what's been advocated for tonight. Um just not others. these two things. Voting yes on these two things stops the OTAA from taking some residence in W three in W 8's land.

I another thing I don't know about anyone else but when I voted no on the resolution um year and a half ago whenever it was because you all said that would stop the OTAA. I voted no along with eight other people. They're building the turnpike. They're putting pilings in the river right now. So, we did what you ask us to do. And the OTAA is coming through. Like, I don't You can be mad at us, but the state legislature is where they get their authority. That's where they get their power. It's not the city of Norman. It's the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, not the Norman Turnpike Authority. I don't I understand you guys are mad at us because you have to be mad at somebody and no one from your state delegation's here tonight to to to support you, but it's not us. We're not building this turnpike. They do not need our permission. They haven't asked for it. They don't need it. They have it the the state. That's where they get their power. And I keep hearing about, well, if you guys do this, like we've got a we've got a lawsuit. It's It's coming up. It's coming up. We've got one coming up. We've been threatened on another project by the same attorney. Like, it's just always coming. We're going to We might. When I read the book, The Boy Who Cried Wolf, I read it as a cautionary tell. Someone else read that as a like an instruction manual, and it's just silliness. So, I'll be voting yes on this and happy to do so.

Council member Grant. Council member, any other counselors that haven't council member Grant or or nobody else? Nothing else. Council member Bl.

Um yes. Hello. Um I just uh I feel like um I can't leave here tonight without bringing this up. Um I I voted no and I'm going to vote no again. Um but I just want to bring up that some of you have said, and trust me, I get it. I understand. I really do. I understand um how upset you are, but I have to bring up the fact that um you're you're saying that you're going to rally against our bonds that are coming up. Um that breaks my heart because uh one of them is very important to me. Um it's it's very important to me that we get this homeless shelter because they also need people to advocate for them. And so, um, so that's, um, that's just kind of what I want to say. I mean, just please really think about at least that one before you start saying you're going to rally against, um, the bonds because, uh, that one's a pretty big deal. And we have the land. And I mean, it's just pretty much just like a done deal as long as this passes. So, please just really think about that one. And, uh, that's all I had to say.

Thank you. Anyone else? Council Grant.

Yes. Um, once again, I will be voting yes on this. I'm looking at the potential for other land to be taken. Um, the Norman North Village that's already platted, approved. Um, when we talk about limiting sprawl, I don't know why I would vote to take these potential new homes um when somebody else will just try and put them somewhere else. Uh maybe in places we don't want. I feel that uh I can't speak for the mayor, but I lead oversight committee and I'm happy to continue to discuss as these projects come through uh what is happening with them and get updates and to make sure everybody knows when the NEPA study public comment will be open to to talk about this. But um yeah, for the efficiency of the storm water system and not taking extra land, I will be voting yes.

Thank you. Anyone else on council would like to any questions or comments about this? Okay, I do have a couple. took a lot of notes while everybody was speaking and several of them were answered so I won't have to go over them again. But um did I miss that part about attending an inspection? Someone mentioned attending it that we just get to attend but we don't have any say. Can you maybe elaborate on that?

That's going to be very typical. It's kind of what the same I mean ODOT really when they do our uh Federal Highway Administration funded projects they have the inspection rights but we're on site they allow us on site we're there but we don't have the right to dictate to the contractor. So this would be very similar to that. That's what uh has been discussed and that's what we're expecting will be the the issue here. And that's on you said that applies to ODOT project. Yes, sir. And anytime that we accept federal funding for projects that for road projects, that means ODOT gets to administer them. Is that right? Yes.

The there was mention about the 2012 bond projects. There were eight and all of them have been completed a long time ago except for 36th Avenue. All of them were completed when they were promised except for 36th Avenue and have been done for multiple years now. So much that voters approved another bond in 2019 because partly we had made such progress on the 2012 bond if I recall.

They may have been a year or two late because we did have to split a couple of the projects because they changed the federal match. They they lowered it and we had some projects that we split into two. uh 24th East. We split it. Instead of one two-mile project, it was two onem projects and we did that. We had to extend them. We had to get funding in two years. So, it kind of caused the funding to stretch a little bit, but we were pretty close. And mayor, I would like to take this opportunity. Um I did fail to mention that in the 2019 bond, Indian Hills from 36 to from the interstate really uh all the way over to 48th is in that bond package. Obviously now those projects will not be completed because they will be completed as part of the the the turnpike but I failed to mention that earlier when you had asked about other projects

and the okay and all the right there. So with that one, that was a question too, was the 2019 bond included funding, local funding to try to entice ODOT to make improvements to the Indian Hill and I35 interchange and bridge um to try to get them to advance a project to get that done. And this is several years before we knew about the turnpike. Correct.

And voters did approve that. And now that that funding that was approved to do that to as a token to get ODOT to act faster, um what happens to that funds and the funds from the that would have been for the Indian Hill Road widening project? We just don't issue those bonds.

Well, there's there's multiple options there. Number one, some of the projects, as we've seen, uh huge inflationary costs. Some of those funds will probably be used up to make the difference on other projects. So, we'll probably use quite a bit of those funds doing that. And if at the end there was funds left, that could go back to early payment of bonds or you could council could assign it to another project and another project with those funds. So, those are the options that would be available. And we do have the voter approved funds from 2012. We have funding that voters approved to contribute to this project.

That's correct. We've just had to expend more of it than we initially expected based upon the cost of of utility relocations and rideway and design. Actually, design has been higher too. Okay. And then just because it was also mentioned the street maintenance bond, all projects that voters approved in 20 2005, have they been completed? Yes, sir. Have all the projects from 2011 been completed? Yes, sir. 2016, have all the projects been completed? Yes, sir. And then the last time, 2021, when voters approved the renewal of the street maintenance bond, have all the projects been completed yet? No, there are some that are still under uh under contract construction right now, but they'll all be completed before the end of the fiscal year.

So, the first four years of the five-year program have been entirely completed, and we are now in the last year of the five-year voter approved program and have completed every single project that we promised voters that we would complete since 2005. Yes, sir. Okay. traffic signals as part of this project. There will be question of one of our retired police officers about Franklin about Indian Hill and the interchange and how that all functions.

So the original project uh for was supposed to go north of Indian Hills basically to marketplace and with that there was going to be signalized intersections at Franklin and Indian Hills. Of course, the one in Indian Hills is now no longer in the project that will be in the construction that is a part of the OTAA construction only, but they are going to put in signals at both of the on well basically at the frontage roads on both sides uh to control the traffic through there. Um that hasn't been decided yet. Basically, what will happen is it'll probably become the responsibility of the county. The county doesn't really do traffic signals. uh we would be happy to take over the maintenance on those uh if they're constructed to our standards so that we can have them to where we can coordinate them with our system so that we can make sure the traffic flow in and out of Norman is the best it can be

as it stands OD or OTAA they would be paying to put in signal network correct the counties who asked for the frontage roads correct at Indian Hills. Yes.

And you mentioned the cost of right away for phase two of 36. Um and then the interchange and and then you talked there was a question about so voters approve a bond the city and maybe a criticism or you know of the city advertised that certain projects would be done in the 2012 bond and 36th Avenue was I know included in a mailer that went to out to Norman residents and specified each project including 36th Avenue. And so maybe a legal question, but there is is there a legal expectation that or a legal requirement that what we sent out and told voters we were going to do, we do have to do it.

This this project is actually listed in the uh in the ordinance language. So by ordinance, we're required to complete it. Rick, you can correct me if I'm wrong.

I think what you're referring to is a general rule for the statute% The issue we have do is comes down to for some reason the funding that you have is sufficient to complete all the projects you have on the list. talked about the issue earlier in there is alterative location. The question was stat of And let's see answered. What if we what if we removed the mention of the rest of the because I actually sent something to council no fire this weekend about removing sections of this that mention any other parts of the turnpike proposal. um that eliminating any mention of north south, any mention of anything east of I35. Basically,

those are where clauses clauses are not enforceable. They're not in part, they're not a part of the operational part of the contract. They're just background information. So, if you remove the whereas clauses, it doesn't really have a legal effect because they're not enforceable anyway.

Okay, that's something to think about. Um part about OKC that was done. Okay. And the interchanges. All right. Thank you, Scott. So on this one, so this item has been postponed twice in the last two weeks. Two weeks ago and then again last week. Um, it's been quite a while since a legal decision was made regarding the turnpike proposal in Norman. We've heard about potential litigation that is out there, but I so far I've seen nothing that has been filed against OTAA. Um, I'm not sure what the timeline is or what the deadline or if there's not one. Um, but I we have heard that just haven't seen anything yet. And I'm wondering how long we heard 60 days or 90 days, but it's we're almost four months into this year so far since the first of the year started. Um I'm just wondering what is it that is taking so long to do it? And why is the council being asked to do it, do something or stop something when there's a legal process that is apparently taking place, but it's not moving for some reason. the last two weeks seemed like there would be enough time to ask questions of council members to get questions answered that have been brought up tonight is what I think in two weeks we've started getting updates in CPTC every month community planning and transportation committee every month on OTAA and what they're doing and are they moving forward are they not what are they asking ing us and they are telling us in some of those meetings they told us staff told us OTAA is planning to

impact our infrastructure. They are also going to impact 36th Avenue and now they've got this drainage problem or this issue and they're either going to put it under our street that we're already going to be constructing or they will take additional right of way to construct their own drainage thing. I continue to oppose the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and I really do not appreciate the Oklahoma Developers Council and I forget that man's name and the representatives OTAA calling our residents domestic terrorists for simply advocating strongly and emotionally for what they believe in and trying to protect their property and their interests. That is not domestic terrorism to me. That is standing up for what you believe in and your community. And I would encourage you all to tune in to the community planning and transportation committee live streamed on YouTube and you can attend in person if you want to stay up to date on anything transportation wise that's going on in the city of Norman. any existing city projects that are going on and any updates that that come forward about what OTAA is doing currently. I have taken multiple votes over the last several years opposing the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority. Multiple. And this is a situation that, as we've talked about, is unique. It does not exist in another part of the city. There are no other voterapproved projects that interact with the turnpike. There are no projects in the street maintenance bond program on April 7th that interact with

the turnpike at all with the route. You can double check, fact me if you want, fact check me on it if you want. None of the projects interact with the OTAA. This is a unique situation that we're having to deal with where yes, voters approved a project and that project is getting wide. That project is going to happen at some point and it's a project that I don't personally really want to see happen. I don't think that we should continue widening every street in Norman to four and five lanes and having high speeds and collisions and things like that. The most the most dangerous intersections in Norman are the ones that are the widest that are signalized. Those are where the most people get hit and injured and killed in crashes every year. So yeah, if I could go back to 2012 is before I was on council, but I would advocate that maybe widening 36th Avenue to four lanes, five lanes was not the best idea. But that is what was approved then. And we do have an obligation in my view that we have to do it. And so I get fully where all of you stand on this. And I get that you were all disappointed with all of us for our decision tonight, but I will tell you just like Council Blahett mentioned that voting no on April 7th is your prerogative. If that's what you feel is the right thing to do, then do it. But you're not punishing us. You're punishing everybody in this entire city, including the 55 people that are sleeping in that shelter right now. So, you want to punish us, then hold us accountable at the ballot. And that has happened so many times in Norman. We've all seen it. But I would encourage you to think about that who you're hurting by doing that. It's not us individually. It's everybody. And so, I would just encourage you all to think about that

and what happens going forward. I do not plan to um I don't know of any other action where this is going to be a situation again with 36th Avenue and the way it is. And I'm going to continue to oppose any further action on things that have not began construction that are uncertain and are not a done deal yet. And so that's my piece on it. I again appreciate you all being here and I would encourage you to stay involved in this because it is not done. It's going to continue being an issue in Norman for years. And so with that, we will go ahead and

I'm just fixing this for you. Okay. Sorry. The motion on the floor is to approve contract K-2526156. Council members, you may cast your votes. All votes have been cast and the motion to approve contract K2526-156 passes by a vote of 7 to2 voting against council member Blahett and council member Noire.

Right. Miscellaneous comments. This is an opportunity for citizens to address city council. Due to open meeting act regulations, council is not able to participate in discussion during miscellaneous comments. Remarks should be directed to the council as a whole and limited to four minutes or less. All get my We got to look sign up sheet. We have a sign up sheet first. Yeah. So, go ahead and have a seat. Thank you. But if you didn't sign up, I will give you an opportunity.

We'll get back to you. Okay. Trey Kirby.

Julie Sundag. Okay. Richard Sundag. Okay. Rob Norman.

I'm not going to pass. Rob Norman, ward three. Uh, now I I want you guys to notice something that went maybe a little under the radar screen. Maybe a few of you picked up on it. Were three of the commenters tonight. uh Paul Araroli, Rick Sontag, Bam Post. What other position do they occupy in engagement of the city? Give you just a second, waste a little of my time and then I'll answer. They were proponents of the referendum petition. Some people like to call Pike off OTAA a little insulting word. It's not. It's a word about bravery and a word about fighting off people. Pike offa is also known as Oklahomaans for responsible transportation. Uh the organization that helped organize and pushes the referendum petition and still will push to the end of its day the right of the people to vote on the arena tiff project is known as Oklahomaans for responsible economic development. That is not an accident. And I hope all of you who have been through the election cycle have picked up on that. That none of that is an accident. Uh you guys give us much better chances to come up here and talk to you. And I agree with the mayor. We have much better chances to talk to you than we we do in many cities. But still, the only place where it's really a fair fight is elections. uh it it will keep making it a fair fight in elections and seeking to hold council members accountable. Now, what I'll say is I can very much discern the difference between someone who takes a vote here, someone who takes a vote there, and being able to say, "Okay, let's not that let that interfere with a vote on another street bond or another

homeless shelter." I can certainly put that aside. What I would say is let's not let the fact that people are hurting and that past councils quite frankly and past staffs, none of whom are here, put y'all in a position where the people were unnecessarily pitted against each other when they shouldn't have been. Remember the majority that holds here? very very very precariously and a majority that will be coming along a little less precariously. I think some progress. Don't don't think because a lawsuit hasn't been filed that that means there's inaction. Hopefully you guys got that and discussed that earlier tonight. that what has been going on both on arenas and turnpikes is all moving toward a direction toward a result. And it is quite better for our elected representatives to help us and not just cheer us on and not make us take all the risk and not make us take all the burden. Part of the reason you were elected was to help us out and not just cheer us on and not just say you've got us our back. Have our back when you have the opportunity. There are many, many, many opportunities in the future for collaboration, working together, and achieving to the same goal that the majority of you, I'm convinced, want, and that the majority of the people of Norman want on both the arena and the tiff project. And that all boils down to who's at the top of the org chart. It's on your city website. It ain't you. It

ain't me. It ain't staff. It is the people of Norman. You sit below them and staff sits below you. Don't

Tanner mayor. Okay. Steven Ellis. Steve Ellis Ward 4. Um, it's been a very frustrating evening for me in many, many ways. Uh, but I'll try to focus on some stuff that happened at this council meeting, then airing my other grievances. Um, but I do have three complaints basically. First of all, I'm suffering from some secondhand embarrassment with the council's differential treatment of speakers on the first OTAA issue before I left. Um, don't cooperate with OTAA is germanine on an item where a particular cop cooperation is being proposed. That was on the wells. um turnpikes are awesome is not particularly germanine to that view because it doesn't tell you why this particular part of the issue was so important. And yet when people were getting shouted down for not having connection to wells the very few people who showed up to speak in favor of the turnpike were not shouted down for talking about wells. So I think we need to be consistent. Second issue. Um, this is kind of a variation on what Rob was saying, but I guess it's grouchier. Um, I wish I could say that elections had consequences, but frankly, I'm not seeing it yet, or at least I'm not seeing it in a birectional kind of way. So far, it looks like getting on the council, you get awarded a pair of developer friendly glasses with which to read the materials. I think the OTAA issue tonight are

evidence of that. The council's decision to hide behind executive sessions when it comes to the arenitative issue is spookily familiar to some bad behavior in the past. Um the fact that council is even considering this no hope for return sales tax rebate for the Sooner Mall is really good evidence because that doesn't make any damn sense. Um, there are people who are trying to change Norman into a strong town. One where developers pay their own way. One where we take into account the long-term costs and benefits of our plans. And we're starting to get disappointed. To be honest, the city of Norman has a very short-sighted view of what's going on. We keep making the same mistakes and using the same rationalizations answering arguments that were basically unmade and failing to address issues that were actually raised whoever is on the dis and that's actually wearing a little bit thin. I hope we realize that uh you know there people get elected for reasons and when they don't come through they don't get reelected. So then the third point is actually a minor point. I wasn't going to raise it but I am in a bad mood. So, let's do it. Um, we need to quit telling voters that the street maintenance bonds are renewals that will not raise property taxes but will maintain them at current levels. That's both false and misleading. In issuing bonds, we're borrowing an amount of money. The market when we sell the bonds is going to determine the rate at which we borrow, which in turn is going to set the bond coupon payments. the tax rates will be determined then uh to guarantee that we cover those payments whatever the tax rate happens to be that meets that issue and they're going to be determined by things like property tax values that aren't even completely settled right now. They

depend upon the larger issues in the economy. And I know that the city staff tries their darnest to estimate everything. So Norman's contribution to your property tax bill doesn't vary too much. But look at the evidence. It does. In 22 we were paying 7 mill 7.7 mills on the thinking fund. The next year we were at 12.53. We're at 10 something now. You cannot guarantee that people's tax Ben Plamer, Cheryl Hoget, Cassie, quick comments and thoughts. Uh, I appreciate that you continue to maintain a public posture against the turnpikes. I think that does give us all a little bit of uh a little bit more confidence going forward. I think we would it would all feel much better if some of that language could be put into these official documents to the extent for instance the city still I would like to say ferociously unanimously opposes the construction of the east west connector and the south extension turnpike that these resolutions are being done essentially under duress for a project the city still does not approve or consent to. Um, so again, I think that would go a long way in terms of restoring some trust uh with those of us who are feeling a little disappointed tonight. Um, and it also, I think, would more accurately reflect the position of the city. Uh, at least I hope uh would reflect the position of the city. Uh, anyway, it's late and I am tired, so that's all I'm going to say. Thanks.

Thank you,

Margaret Larson. Okay, I know you guys had rough night. We have too. Nobody here is real happy. But my concern, I have several of them. My number one concern is what took place this evening. I am very, very, very concerned it's going to have a negative impact on the shelter vote. And I don't know if you all actually took that into consideration when you made your decision because you could have tabled it. You could have postponed it until after after the shelter vote. So I am very very concerned about that. I am also concerned that the council is basically held as a fiduciary for the constituents which is us. And I sometimes feel like the council has given up too much power to the city staff and the city manager and that maybe you should take some of that power back. Thank you.

Thank you, Luigi. Mr. Priestly,

Gary King, Maya. Uh, hello again, Miami Windler. Uh, word two. I'm tired. Um, you know, my plan coming to city council meetings is I come to the city council meeting and then I go over to one of our local breweries and have a beer. Um, that isn't happening tonight. So, that sucks. Um, I am also disappointed with the votes. Um, I get it. It's a lot of money, but Is that really in the city's best interests? I don't know. We will find out. Um I do think it will, you know, affect the the election for all of our the bonds and everything. Um how's the tiff going? Stay tuned to next Tuesday.

Yeah. So, yeah, that's another thing uh that we should be concerned about. Um yeah, then there is the whole Sooner mall thing. Um, yeah, I'm on the EDAB committee and I feel sometimes like I'm not getting all the information that I really need for these things. Um, so again like who is running the show? I know uh our government is a what the the weak mayor or something whatever versus a strong mayor uh organization. And yeah, I just wonder if that is the best thing. Can we change that in our charter? Can we switch it and say, you know, to flip it over? Just wondering. And that's it. I'm tired.

Thank you,

Robert Post, William Sims, David Hopper, Cynthia Rogers, Cynthia Rogers, still word four. Thank you guys. Been a long night. I know it was a difficult night. Um, you know, as a professor, I'm always optimistic that if we could just be just learn more about the issues and talk to more people, maybe reach out to um some experts, we could do a better job of being a smart city. Um, I'm usually pretty cynical, but I'm going to be optimistic. So, on that note, let's talk TIFF. Um, I think one of the things that hasn't gotten a lot of attention about the TIFF, so I'll do my best to educate people about it. There's three parties to that contract. The city, NIFA, um, the county that created a trust, and the third party is U Foundation. Those are the three parties that signed um the TIFF agreement. And all the money that would be collected as um the area grows goes to one of those parties only one the county trust. U foundation is not getting any funds at all. So when we think about possible litigation and oh what happens if um you would vote to repeal so we could get

this to a public vote. Just consider that the only entity that has any connection to actual dollars is the county. So, I ask you this, and I want you to really think about this. Do you think the county commissioners are going to sue its own residents and plop a big property tax bill on us? Just imagine what that would be. So, I find that implausible, but I think it's good to think about how the money flows. Um, also thinking about the local development act which clearly says you can repeal a tiff under certain conditions those don't apply. Also think about another fun fact in the contract. I the more I read it the more I learn. And there was a fun fact. If the city breaches the contract, do you know that either the county trust or U foundation could nullify the agreement? So they don't have to sue you. They could just say, "Okay, we're done." Um, so I think it's really good to look at the details in the contract such that it is wouldn't be the contract I wrote, but there are some protections in there and some interesting sorts of um hypotheticals we could think about. And also, have we talked to the county? Have they said that, you know, Rod Cleveland, has he said, "We're going to sue you if you if you decide to to uh break this contract to to um repeal." Have we have they written a demand letter? Has anybody reached out to them? I think that's important things to know. Instead of speculating that the county is going to sue its own residents and jack up our property tax bill, maybe we

should know if that's really a plausible sort of situation. I find that not very plausible to think that that would happen. Okay, I'm going to leave you my last 25 seconds. Good evening. Thank you, Kelly Wilson.

Kelly Wilson, Ward Six. I'd like to start with clarifying what a notice of intent is. Notice of intent to sue means just that. There's a 60-day notice that if you don't come to us and tell us how you're going to remedy these things within that 60 days, then sometime after that 60 days, a lawsuit could be filed. There is no maximum date on it. It doesn't mean that it can't be filed three years from now. It just means that it can't be filed within the 60 days. the 60 days was up yesterday, so I wouldn't be looking for that anytime before yesterday. Um, number two, uh, so the 36th Avenue, uh, amend or uh, agreement that we just voted on was based upon saving the property of one land owner potentially. And I would just like to know, did anybody contact that landowner and ask them what their thoughts were on the project? I mean, because some people don't want to be left next to it. Okay. Some people might want to be bought out. Did anybody think to ask this land owner, "Would you rather be bought out? Did we potentially screw them over because they were hoping they would get bought out and now that's not going to happen because we saved them?" Um, number two, or actually this I guess would be number three, is I see all of these potential homes that we also saved. And I just want to say that I really really hope that this sets a precedent that in the future when they come back and say we want to do multimmoal paths or we want um a bike lane or we want man-made wetlands that you guys take this just as seriously and vote to maintain the homes and the property that exist and vote no to those additional betterments or whatever we want to call them. Because if we're going to vote to save these homes that don't even exist

yet and one potential home that we didn't even ask the land owner how they felt about the project, then I hope that you will stand with us and turn down future stuff if it saves even one house because the precedent has now been set. And what else was I going to say? I don't know. I'm tired. My brain is fried and I'm sure yours is too. I really really hope that moving forward you guys include the citizens in these conversations more than it has been in the past because again like that landowner why were they not contacted? That's the least you guys could have done. And if this was, you know, anytime we're we're um changing the character of our land use and transportation plan, we officially notify land owners within a certain radius and they have an opportunity to officially protest and to be part of the conversation. And yet here comes the turnpike changing the character of our entire city and no one is officially notified to be part of the conversation. And just because the law doesn't say that you guys have to notify land owners doesn't mean that you can't. And so I would just challenge this council to go above and beyond. Just because you don't have to do something doesn't mean that you can't do it. And hold up the turnpike authority to that too. Put that kind of stuff in those agreements. Why don't our agreement say from now on we want you guys to engage our public. We want you to include our citizens in part of these plans. Why don't you include that in there? Why is it always about the OTAA? Why is it always, okay, we're going to give you upfront $2 million for this project and then we hope that at some point you come through on your end of the bargain? Well, what happens if they don't? What's in it for

us? And also, last but not least, is it any coincidence that the 36th Avenue project is the only one in that bond Chelsea Gravel. Thank you, Charles Gravel. Word for um it appears that I've come off as somebody who supports this uh turnpike. I would like it be known that I don't necessarily support the turnpike, though I am looking forward to using it to drive up to the city. But I don't want to take people's homes, but I also am a firm believer that you don't fight the turnpike and win. But I mean, thank you for being on our side and fighting for us to get the best of whatever comes out of it. I appreciate that. Um, this evening, I wanted to come and speak with you about the encampment that's being allowed behind food and shelter. We have portaotties out there right now. We have I don't know if there's sharps containers. There's over 30 tents out there. Um I've seen with my own eyes uh the officers out there speaking with people, keeping it cleaned up, maintaining some sort of order out there. There's also three tents um closer to Maine and Reed on the other side of food and shelter. the there was a tent there that had um dressers and chests and cabinets and you know like bedside tables and uh Cleveland County Sheriff came in and took all of that down because you can't have a a an object there that is unmovable. Um, we have people complaining. I believe it's at Eupfalla and um the next street up from Reed uh that it smells smells like human waste. It it

reeks and I can only assume that this is going on from Bishop Creek where we all know is our water source. It leads straight to Thunderbird water. I am an avid drinker of our water. I drink from my refrigerator every day on whatever filters on the fridge. I drink straight from our water. I don't have the smelly water that W five has and I have smelt whatever is going on over there. I don't know the lake turns. I can tell you when that happens. I'm really concerned because of what's going on in other states where they're finding like Rhode Island just found astronomical amounts of cocaine in the water. What am I drinking? Can we put it on a a some sort of list for that to be tested? I'm concerned what's going on in my water when we have a feces issue down in that area that's ground penetrating. Now, what I want to address next that I'm done with that is I'm also not protesting against the encampment. I know shocker me. I'm not against us helping people. I'm against us taking away like Susan Sanders rights. We have a boarded up house right there on uh Carter right across from Francis Kate. This is not a good look for Norman. Norman is not the city of boarded up buildings and graffiti which thankfully that house on Gray and just right there by Porter, they've covered up the graffiti that was on it. They're helping to maintain us to have a beautiful downtown. We've had issues in the past with graffiti. My my thoughts are for Porter. Please take a look if you have a moment at the Porter corridor plan. We were supposed to get a bridge. We didn't get a bridge. We were supposed to get a roundabout. We couldn't because there was stuff under the ground. That project cost our city in total $5 million. It was supposed to cost

$100,000. It cost $2.8 8 million funded in a federal grant and 2.3 million funded by Norman transportation bond. We our projects are not being completed to the full extent from the beginning even though they're being completed fully. They are not matching the initial idea by about a fifth and they're about five times more. Please take a look at that. Thank you. Thank you

Cherylyn Denzo. Shirley and Denzo and I'm properties in four and six. Um, I know you all are tired and you're probably tired of seeing my face up here. Um, but I just wanted to uh say that uh I'm a bit disappointed in the way things went um with the votes this evening. Um, mostly because I really kind of expected you to support the citizenry better. Um, and I can just implore you to try and do a better job uh on uh going forward. Um, this town is, like I said before, full of really smart people uh who know how to do research, who figure things out. And um um there are lots of different ways. There there was a book that I I shared with my grandchildren when they were very very little. Um it was a children's book, but there literally are five different ways that a person can lie. And one of the ways people lie is by lies by omission. And there's a lot of stuff that gets omitted from the conversations we have with city staff and council. And so I would implore you to really watch how you omit things in your conversations with the citizenry. Thank you.

Thank you, Carlinda.

Carlinda Gravel, Ward 4, First Courthouse. Um, I want to talk about two things. Um, I want to talk closer to home in regards to my neighbors directly nearby me. And I want to talk about the roundabout that we're putting in at Acres and James Garner. Also, I noticed there was a new street sign on Jones right there at the corner of Maine that renames Jones Abner Norman. There's a new street sign right there. Abner initial lemon right under the name Jones going the same direction as Jones. Yeah. Okay. So that roundabout um I'm worried about that roundabout. I know we've got to do something about that intersection at James Garner. You know what we're talking about with the motorcycle just had the massive plow through. Um but it's real bad. It's it's deadly. literally. So, what I would ask you is that you get someone involved in this that knows how to evaluate what we're doing because we've got some real people's lives at stake here. There have been lots of really near misses at that roundabout and um I just want to make sure we're making a wise decision and not creating a bigger death trap as we continue down making changes that might need to be different. Right. So the second thing I want to talk about is um my neighborhood. So you know where I live. I'm directly across from Longfellow Ballfield. I'm to the west of that and right there in my little pocket block, there's only three of us that face Longfellow and we were built in

1925, 1930, and 1941. I'm 1941. So, I've been enjoying my lovely cast iron sewer pipe this weekend. And I've done some awful dirty things that a girl shouldn't have to do. But in an effort to have to do those things, if I have to do the massive thing, it's going to cost $10,000. 10 to $20,000 for them to come dig out my backyard and take out that cast iron sewer line. Whoa. It's bad. It's real bad. It's worse for my neighbor. They're the original owners. 1930. Carolyn, the little girl that grew up there, she just passed last year, the year before. And um the family still loves that house. They'll never let it go. They're the original family. They have Orangeberg. Do you know what that is? That's like rolled up tar paper. Worse than that, for some reason when the house was built, they shared the sewer line with the house built in 1925. They're not even connected to the main. We got problems. We need help. This is the lowest income neighborhood. Talk about affordable housing, that's us. You want to keep us? We are the lowest income neighborhood. The lowest of the lowest. We have an 80year-old woman. you guys received an email from me as well as the mayor. Um we have our oldest neighbor in her 80s and um this is our seniors that need to live here. They can't lose their homes and they're having to replace their sewer and we need to figure out how we're going to do that. Thank you.

Thank you,

Jesse Matlock. Good evening, council. Jesse Matlock, Ward 5. Man, it's been a long evening. It has definitely been a long evening. So, I just want to thank you for, you know, meeting us where we're at. We're out here doing our civic duty and just just like you guys are, too. Uh, it's not always easy. I know it's hard. I know as humans, we got sometimes we got decisions to make and they're not always easy to make. I appreciate the support that that that we got because like I said earlier, I I really believe that you guys are supposed to represent what we say. It's my opinion that I I saw you guys listen to your city staff and see what they have to say and specifically when you said and when you said that you oppose the turnpike, but then you go ahead and make this decision and you no, I'm justifying it. Yeah. No, you're lying to me. You don't you're not against the turnpike. If you really were against a turnpike, you would have voted no. This this is like a situation. Let's say I had a I had an enemy, but my si and I said, "My sister, now don't go don't go don't go playing with that guy. He's my enemy." And she said, "Well, I'm going on a date with him cuz he bought me ice cream so I could care less that you don't want me to talk to him cuz he's your enemy." That's just what happened. They bought you a road and you cave to him. Liars. Now, some people Yeah, I have a vote. I can only vote for one ward member, but I I have friends and they like what I say and maybe they'll believe what I say and then they can vote for the rest of you guys. The bond stuff, I'm going to just pick the best choice I have to make on the bonds. I'm not going to take a personal grievance against my council to vote against a bond. I'll consider the bond for what it is. But remember when I was saying that like I'm an entrepreneur, the Malocks have been here

since 1895. Well, Turnpike is going to take my home and now I have a choice to make. Do I want to take this enterprise that I want to build? Go talk to your business team, Deacon Tech. We're making graphine. You've already agreed to help us out a lot. We've agreed to like put put some products in in like your city vehicles and you were going to give us some tax breaks and stuff, but man, if the OTAA comes and kicks me off of Matlock Corner and then I have a city council that lies to my face and does not listen to the citizenry, we have like three or four people standing like saying, "Hey, yeah, let's do this this stuff with OTAA." But the rest of these fine folks, they all said no. So if I have a city council that is not going to listen to me as a citizen of the people that I voted for, I'm going to take my enterprise somewhere else and Madlocks won't be in Norman anymore. That's the real cost that you guys are are doing right now. It's not the vote, it's not the bonds, it's not the road money, it's not the wells. We all have the tax money to afford to to do those things. And we trust that you guys are going to pay our taxes. And the road still ain't built. And now you're gonna take some bribe money from the OTAA, but my power is is my dollars in the future. I got my I got my vote now, but I got my dollars in the future. And you're making it really hard for me to want to stick here since I'm going to get forced out. That That's the real That's That's what we're really talking about here. Thank you for letting me share. I appreciate you taking this whole evening to listen to everybody and I know it's been hard for everyone. So, hope you get a good night's rest. We'll see you next time.

Thank you. That's all I have pre-signed up. Anyone else from the audience that has not spoken?

Hi, Tiffany Stevens. W five. And sorry, I did sign up two weeks ago. I didn't know I had to do it again. That's why I'm not on the list, I guess. But, um, I'm just going to make it real quick. I um I got sent to me something that was posted on social media and it's from somebody that's associated with the city of Norman and I'm going to read it to you and then I'm going to just kind of do give you my response so that you know you know I guess my view from it. So and this is only like the second half but it says watch the number of people who show up on Tuesday and advocate for the city not getting reimbured for the OTAA taking our property. Also watch for those who advocate for the OTAA to take Norman residenc's property. Watch for those who advocate for the city council to completely ignore and dismiss a city-wide election we had in 2012. They are going to ask us to throw out the will of the people. They will be wearing red shirts. And I I I I take offense to this because it's it's not what we're advocating for. Um I think that if the OTAA is going to take our property, we should be reimbursed for it. But doing it through a contract versus doing it through a mid domain, we're still supposed to get reimbured for it. So I I feel like that's not even a fair comment. Um when it says watch for the OT for those that advocate for the OTAA to take Norman Residenc's property, as Kelly mentioned earlier, I only saw one house on here. And in my opinion, if you agree and work with the OTAA, that kind of says you're agreeing to all the other 75 plus whatever it is homes and properties being taken. And you know, so to me, it's like I don't want you to I don't want this one person's property to be taken unless they want it to be taken, but I also don't want the rest of them to be taken. And so by working with the OTAA, I feel like you're kind of approving the other 75 homes to be taken. I mean, I know that's not how you guys are seeing it, but I'm just want to give you my view that I definitely don't want other people's property to be taken, but the rest of these properties don't have homes on them yet. Um, and so

I feel like the home should homes should take precedence over that. And also, I just kind of a side comment, the OTAA has told me that they don't want to they can't widen I35 because it would take too many businesses. They'd have to move businesses. And I find that also offensive because to me it'd be much better to move a business than it would be to move somebody's home. Um even though maybe to them it's more expensive. I don't know. Um and then it says um Oh, dang it. I lost my thing. One sec. It says um watch for those who advocate for the city council to completely ignore and dismiss the citywide election we had in 2012 and to throw out the will of the people. Well, I I don't necessarily am for or against the whiting of 36th Street, but if you're for it, I think that there are other ways to do it rather than the OTAA. So, I am not asking you to ignore and dismiss the citywide election in 2012 at all. And um personally, I think the majority of the will of the people here are not for these contracts. I don't think they're well worded. I think OTAA had the had most of the writing of them and we didn't really get to do our say or put in our share of the things and then they tried to rush it and I think that there's a better way to do things and I'm glad that you guys are considering um having um a citizen council with you and I appreciate your time. Thank you so much. Oh, and if I'm not here next week, I do think that the people should have a vote on the tiff arena and I signed that petition and I knew what I was signing. So, I also find that offensive that the judge said we didn't know what we were signing. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to speak that is not spoken. Ben Plumber, Ward 4. I want to talk about the proposed tax abatement for the mall. Um, you don't save them all by just throwing money at the problem. You save them all by putting foot traffic in the building. You put foot traffic in the building by constructing a hotel or apartments directly attached to the main concourse. And you do that because you have no guarantee somebody's going to walk across the parking lot and go to the mall. It it actually needs to be directly attached to it. Um, I'm sort of concerned that the city staff came to you with this proposal and didn't have like uh didn't simultaneously propose some sort of housing or hotel attachment to it because any kind of hotel would automatically increase revenue in the long term by providing that um the tax from the hotel because you know you have the guest tax. Um, basically my concern is that there should be some sort of graduated system of payments or you should work it out in advance where it says, you know, if you if you complete this phase of the construction, then we give you six months of tax abatement. If you complete that phase of the construction, we give you a year of tax abatement, you know, and so on and so on. You don't just hand them this tax abatement. You should have a series of conditions and then when those milestones are reached, then they get the money. And I guess that's what I really want to say. And also just there

has to be some sort of hotel or some sort of housing attached to this because merely giving them money without increasing foot traffic is not going to work. Thank you, Mr. Priestley. Just introduce yourself if you will. Four minutes for three. Well, uh, I I've I've actually I I didn't give y'all a a suit letter or anything, but I I don't threaten to do things. Would you introduce yourself? Oh, John Priestley. I'm not even sure what district I'm in now. It's the same area as Reed Avenue. I can verify he is a normal

uh I did file something against the uh the Department of Treasury. Um it has to do with a case that Judge Virgin has. Um, I I'm looking at it and it's the IRS says that well, my dad sold off $800,000 worth of stock uh after he was dead. So, well, Judge Virgin's fine with that. Uh, Judge Virgin uh campaigned as a Democrat, which is against the Oklahoma Constitution. That is completely illegal. Case law says that a judge his usefulness once he shows partisanship his usefulness on the bench is over. So he has not had a single day of being a competent legal judge and I I there will be some some things I have to show you but it seems like the this is what this is what uh PTSD causes. This is my pleadings. And I I was able to mention Jeannie Schneider in there and the judge recognized it, but they seem to be gaslighting me, too. I mean, I got my address right there. But for some reason, all these pleadings got sent to sent to a different place. So, I'm I'm uh I'm being gaslight lit by the the federal court now. And uh now that I've found where see they actually filed this thing with a case from years ago, but it was actually anyway I I think a federal judge has actually actually connected a dot and the the DOT or the DOJ, excuse me. The DOJ says, "Well, that's uh the the public is who got made

off." It was enough people saying, "Hey, we're going to the FBI about this." And the FBI uses the phrase connect the dots, but people can't connect the dots here. Norman is a well, the the the original attorney after I got him disqualified, he did this. Oh, they'll never find anybody to represent him and he and he had this nervous breakdown in front of Judge Virgin. And then uh I guess money he stole from the trust, he got it snipped off and now he's living over at the homeless shelter. He's a woman now. And I I hope that doesn't happen to anybody, but I I need some help from the police to solve some crimes. And it starts with bank fraud. And if we could go to Chase Bank, the records that Judge Virgin as a you un I like to say useless, but they say his usefulness is at an end. So, I like useless. Uh, I need some bank records that he ordered, but he's not going to cite anybody with contempt. He's not going to subpoena them. He's not going to do anything for prosay litigant. So, I I think there's going to be a surprise. Uh, and and you guys are in control of the police. You can tell them what to do. You can tell what not to do, but the blue-haired lady that put a threat note on my pizza needs to be in jail for what she did because it involves over a half a million dollars. Okay, that's four minutes or Oh, there's even a timer.

Thank you. I appreciate everybody for keeping this long. I never

Thank you. I'm going to save the best for last. Paul Aruroli, I remember this time. W three. You know, obviously I'm here to talk about the arena. And you know, the arena has always been a bad deal for our community. Um but now with the county commissioners RFP, it makes it an insanely bad deal for Norman. You know, we'll have an arena paid with tax dollars. will have it overseen by a county trust that will potentially be built by Flintco, you know, the people who built the library, and it'll be managed by a third party who will be paid whether the arena is successful or not. Now, so what is the university's role? They're the ghost owners of the univers of this arena. Let me say that again. They are the ghost owners at our expense. U will gets will pay an undisclosed annual rent but has no ownership has no financial obligations and has no other legal obligations to the venue success but they will get the following. U has the right to approve the venue personnel and staffing. U gets two complimentary suites, food and beverages provided at venue cost. U gets all the revenue from merchandise sales. Uh U games and other U events. U has scheduling priorities on 50 dates per season, not including postseason practices or rehearsals. I'm not sure what I'm not sure about the rehearsals part of that, but U has the right to practice at the venue at no cost to OU.

O U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U OU can enter a ticketing arrangement with any choice of vendors and keep all revenue. U has branding rights throughout the venue. U has the right to participate in operational planning and review and approval of venue material contracts. U gets all ticketing revenues. U gets all gift all capital gifts. U gets all annual per seat contributions. And by the way, we're talking about 1,600 plus seats. U gets a share of annual license uh annual sweet licensing fees. U gets sweet uh seat licensing fees for the loge when I don't know what that is. I never been to a loge, but club seating and all premium seating. OU gets all annual per seat contrib contributions. OU gets has approval of naming rights. U gets a share of the revenue on naming rights. OE gets a share of all advertising and sponsorship revenue. U gets a share of the pouring rights. U gets to decide who is the poor. Actually OU gets the right of first re refusal on pouring rights. U gets gets revenue from fixed and regional uh and digital displays. U has exclusive rights to all game day sponsorship revenue. U gets a share of all food, beverages, and parking revenue from all U events. And OU has exclusive use of the team's store which can o operate at any time. Now, I don't know, but add all that up and it sure makes for difficult for this venue to make any money. Now, I would look at this and this was a this is an abbreviated version and it's at it's part of the RFP. You guys can

look at it. That's if you didn't have a good reason to help reverse this ordinance, this should add to it. And by the way, I am voting for the shelter. I put out I put out a nice video. And by the way, the city I do want to mention one thing really quick.

Do you guys Okay, Council Member Gansbury, please.

I know we've been here for a while, but I think sitting through this when others had chances to leave and do whatever else they're doing, at least have a right to be able to say something. and everything hopefully cuz I don't like people challenge my integrity at all or asking about my integrity. So I like to read off what I did promise the people in Ward one that voted for me to be able to help it and assist him. First day on there was vote of the people on the arena tiff. I hope that some actions that happened last week and continue to happen tonight prove and show that that is still the reason that I go on here. solutions, not rhetoric for homeless. I would hope that my actions and what I do show my care for the homeless in our community. Expand access to mental health, protect residents from turnpike. I didn't say I was going to protect a hundred. I didn't say I was going to protect one. Protect residents. And to me, it doesn't matter who you are. If you're that resident, I said I would protect you and everything. So, like I said once again, I feel like we did that. And also last and not least was was represent W one, not special interest. And anybody in W one knows how much I come by and talk to him and see him and thank him and the businesses know the coalition that we're trying to start over there and everything else also. So,

anything else from anybody else? Okay. Only thing I want to mention is that one of our police officers was involved in a crash this evening at Lindsay and Classen and um looks like I mean injured but looks like at least right now stable and doing okay. So I just want to mention that officer Tushman I think that's how you pronounce his name. So uh Tushman is the last name. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And

we'll have some uh city police department and city will post any updates when we have them about the condition of the officer and if anybody else was involved. So, okay, with that then this meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.