[5:15] Good morning. We're going to get started
[5:17] this morning with an invocation led by
[5:20] the Reverend Wendy, pastor at St. Luke's
[5:24] Methodist Church. And that'll be
[5:25] followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led
[5:28] by Brett and Luke Santiago representing
[5:30] Scouting America Troop 226. Please stand
[5:33] as you are able.
[5:38] Let us pray. God of us all, we give you
[5:41] thanks for this beautiful day, a gift
[5:44] created by you, full of opportunities.
[5:48] Help us to make the most of each moment.
[5:51] Give us eyes to see the needs around us
[5:54] and then fill us with your loving
[5:56] kindness and courage so that we can
[5:58] respond in the best manner. Let us
[6:01] embody the values that have made our
[6:03] community so successful. Help us to be
[6:06] innovative in the face of difficulty and
[6:08] respond with empathy and respect. We
[6:11] give you thanks for the Oklahoma City
[6:13] community for all of its diversity and
[6:16] strengths. Give each one of us the
[6:19] resolve to continue to work for its
[6:21] success now and for the future. We give
[6:24] you thanks for Mayor Holt and the
[6:26] Oklahoma City Council leadership. They
[6:28] are committed to a brighter future and
[6:30] we are grateful for their hard work.
[6:33] Please bless them and their families.
[6:35] Ease their worries and meet them at
[6:37] their deepest point of need so that they
[6:39] can have clear focus on the greater good
[6:42] for this community. Fill them with
[6:44] compassion and resolve, tenderness and
[6:47] strength, and an appreciation of the
[6:49] past while they dream of the future. Be
[6:52] with us all and help us to live lives of
[6:55] joy and purpose. Amen.
[7:04] Please stand and join me in the pledge
[7:05] of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to
[7:08] the flag of the United States of America
[7:11] and to the republic for which it stands,
[7:14] one nation under God, indivisible, with
[7:17] liberty and justice for all.
[7:23] » Thank you, Pastor Lambert, and thank
[7:25] you, Brett and Luke.
[7:29] All right, I call this meeting of the
[7:30] city council to order, and I do have uh
[7:34] one presentation to make. and I will
[7:36] make my way to the front for that under
[7:38] office of the mayor.
[7:48] [clears throat] So, if you guys want to
[7:49] go ahead and join me up here at the
[7:52] front, all of you please.
[7:59] All right. Well, June is National Safety
[8:02] Month. And to learn a little bit more
[8:03] about that, I would ask the clerk to
[8:05] read this proclamation.
[8:07] » Whereas the city of Oklahoma City is
[8:09] committed to providing a safe and
[8:11] healthy work environment in all forms
[8:14] for its employees. And whereas the city
[8:17] of Oklahoma City has taken a proactive
[8:19] stance in providing a positive, secure,
[8:22] and healthy workplace through
[8:24] partnerships with organizations like the
[8:26] National Safety Council and observation
[8:29] of National Safety Month. And whereas
[8:32] the city's risk management division has
[8:34] worked to ensure the safety of all city
[8:37] employees by setting standards and
[8:39] delivering training courses designed
[8:42] to enhance employees awareness of risk
[8:45] while continually improving workplace
[8:48] health. And whereas the risk managements
[8:52] the city's riskmanagement division
[8:54] successfully conducted and will continue
[8:56] to conduct a variety of safety related
[9:00] activities for city employees to promote
[9:02] a culture among all employees that
[9:05] allows them to start safe, work safe,
[9:08] and finish safe. Now therefore, I, David
[9:11] Hull, mayor of the city of Oklahoma
[9:13] City, do hereby proclaim the month of
[9:16] June 2026 to be National Safety Month in
[9:19] Oklahoma City.
[9:21] » Now, of course, uh, safety means a lot
[9:23] of things. It's a broad word, but in
[9:24] this context, we're very specifically
[9:26] talking about the safety of our 5,000
[9:29] employees. Um, and nothing captures it
[9:31] better than that phrase, start safe,
[9:33] work safe, and finish safe. We want
[9:35] everybody to go home at night. We are
[9:37] joined here by um most of the risk
[9:40] management division as well as their
[9:43] fearless leader. Although if you're the
[9:45] risk manager maybe there's uh a little
[9:47] fear uh in your job but um we would love
[9:50] to hear a few words from you. So I would
[9:53] hand uh the microphone to Levita Breath.
[9:55] » Thank you.
[9:57] So, um, the city has participated in
[9:59] National June Safety Month for about 10
[10:01] years, and every year, risk management
[10:03] seeks to provide meaningful and relevant
[10:06] training to our employees. This year,
[10:08] through our internal partnerships, we
[10:10] were able to provide training on fire
[10:12] extinguisher training, how to recognize
[10:14] the signs of a stroke. Um, through our
[10:17] external partnerships, we did training
[10:19] on dog bite safety, uh, work zone
[10:22] safety, and trenching and excavation
[10:24] safety. Um, we had 21 working days in
[10:28] the month of June and we were able to
[10:30] train about 411
[10:32] employees. So, we're really proud of the
[10:34] work that we did during the month of
[10:36] June. We also had an opening in our
[10:38] safety team. So, we were reduced in
[10:40] staff, but the rest of risk management
[10:44] jumped in, made swag bags, hundreds of
[10:47] swag bags. They signed for doughnut and
[10:49] coffee deliveries, passed out lunches,
[10:52] introduced speech speakers, and they
[10:54] even moved furniture. So, they did a
[10:57] phenomenal job in making this a seamless
[10:59] and wonderful experience for all city
[11:01] employees. And I wanted to publicly
[11:02] thank them today.
[11:04] » Very good. And we want to publicly thank
[11:06] all of you. So, let's show our
[11:07] appreciation.
[11:11] » Thank you all so much.
[11:31] All right, that concludes Office of the
[11:33] Mayor, which brings us to item four,
[11:34] items from council. And there is a
[11:38] [clears throat] resolution here,
[11:39] resolution 4A, approving travel expenses
[11:42] for council members Stone, Hinkle, and
[11:44] Pennington to attend a technical tour of
[11:46] the Utah Transit Authority in Salt Lake
[11:48] uh later this month. And we do have a
[11:50] resident who has signed up to speak on
[11:52] this item, Tom Elmore.
[12:00] Thanks for the the time here, folks. You
[12:03] may all have a a map of the rail system
[12:07] that was extent surrounding Oklahoma
[12:10] City Union Station in the year 2008.
[12:17] 14 years before that,
[12:19] some of your citizens began battling,
[12:21] teaching, cajoling, begging, pleading
[12:25] for preservation of Oklahoma City Union
[12:27] Station's 12 track wide, 8b block long
[12:30] rail center, which happened to lie at a
[12:32] strategic confluence of an 866 mile
[12:37] stateowned railway network managed by
[12:40] ODOT. But unlike anything else managed
[12:43] by ODOT, it always more than paid for
[12:45] its own maintenance. So the highway boys
[12:48] at ODOT set about to destroy it. In
[12:52] 1989,
[12:54] Union Station, which had been fully
[12:56] restored from dereliction with vagrants
[12:59] building fires on the Terzo floors of
[13:02] the grand waiting rooms, the great
[13:04] Thurman Magby, late lamented Thurman
[13:06] Magby, bought the property, made it the
[13:08] headquarters of his Zenith Electronics
[13:10] distributorship. He would never reveal
[13:13] how many millions of dollars he poured
[13:15] into the meticulous
[13:18] reconstruction
[13:20] and restoration of Union Station. Three
[13:23] rail platforms in the yard serving six
[13:25] tracks with underground passages from
[13:28] the great hall waiting rooms to each of
[13:31] those platforms, including underground
[13:34] passages from the express room where
[13:37] they use tractor trams to bring the
[13:39] revenue sustaining express freight and
[13:43] mail to the trains minute to minute
[13:46] every day. It was all there. It was all
[13:48] there. It was all there and it was given
[13:53] by the Federal Transit Administration to
[13:56] the city of Oklahoma City to be our
[13:58] transit center in 1989.
[14:03] Immediately the Department of
[14:04] Transportation set about to destroy it.
[14:08] I battled ODOT
[14:10] and we told the truth to this body for
[14:13] 15 years. You may know that every time
[14:16] you got by a gallon of motor fuel 2.86
[14:19] 86 cents of the federal fuel tax goes to
[14:21] the federal transit trust fund. It's
[14:24] going to buy transit somewhere.
[14:26] I was asked to sit on the original
[14:28] citizen advisory panel for the maps wind
[14:30] project for a 2.7 mile trolley
[14:33] circulator downtown before the bombing.
[14:35] That's
[14:36] » 30 seconds remaining.
[14:37] » That's that's how far back it was.
[14:39] Unfortunately, our congressman Ernest is
[14:42] had other interests and rather than
[14:43] providing the 80% federal match to the
[14:46] 20% we provided through MAPS one, he
[14:49] gave us some short-lived Cracker Box
[14:52] motor trolleys and took money to build a
[14:56] massive a new light rail line in Salt
[14:59] Lake City, Utah in time for the 2002
[15:01] Winter Olympics. By the way, he now
[15:02] lives there. So, we also battle
[15:05] congressman took all of those years and
[15:07] we [clears throat] tried our best to get
[15:08] the council interested in backing what
[15:09] we were trying to do and recognizing the
[15:12] overwhelming value. Mayor Rocky Anderson
[15:14] of Salt Lake City told we're over time
[15:17] now. Is there statement you want? Okay.
[15:19] Thank you.
[15:20] » All right. Well, item 4A is uh in front
[15:23] of us now and we could take a motion.
[15:31] We have a motion in a second. cast your
[15:34] votes.
[15:38] Passes unanimously and with the
[15:40] necessary six affirmative votes. Item
[15:43] five, city manager reports. Mr. City
[15:45] Manager,
[15:46] » Thank you, mayor. We just have a couple
[15:47] of items on today. [clears throat] The
[15:49] first one is the June sales and use tax.
[15:51] So, it's the final sales and use tax for
[15:53] the year. Um, we did finish, as we had
[15:55] discussed previously, about $5.8 million
[15:58] over target for both. Both sales and use
[16:00] tax finished strong with uh sales tax at
[16:03] about 4% use tax was I think 14% for the
[16:07] month and overall for the year um sales
[16:10] tax ended up at 2.95% growth for the
[16:13] year above what we had targeted. Sales
[16:15] tax I mean a use tax ended up at um 6.52
[16:19] uh% growth and so in both cases they
[16:22] were over target. We finished with 5.8 8
[16:24] million over due to some of our
[16:26] expenditures and other revenues being
[16:28] other revenues being below target, some
[16:30] of our expenditures being overt target.
[16:32] We do right now expect to be just use a
[16:35] little bit of fund balance in this year,
[16:36] but with sales and use tax, we finished
[16:38] really strong.
[16:40] And then we have um the claims and
[16:42] payroll on and that can be found on
[16:43] OKC.gov. That's all that I have.
[16:46] » All right. Thank you. Item six, journal
[16:48] of council proceedings. We have items A
[16:50] and B we could take with one motion.
[16:56] We have a motion and a second. Cast your
[16:58] votes.
[17:01] » I'll vote yes.
[17:08] » Passes unanimously. Uh item seven,
[17:12] request for uncontested continuences.
[17:14] Item 11 C is listed on the agenda to be
[17:17] deferred to September 15th. Is there
[17:19] anything else, Mr. City Manager? Yes, we
[17:21] have several items on today. Um,
[17:23] beginning on page 21, [snorts] item 11B,
[17:27] PUD 21105,
[17:30] and then item and that will be deferred
[17:32] to um August the 4th. Then item 11D is
[17:37] PUD 2124. That will be deferred to
[17:40] August the 4th as well. And then item
[17:43] 11E,
[17:45] PUD 2134 will be deferred to U August
[17:49] the 4th as well.
[17:52] And then continuing on page 23 with
[17:54] [music] dilapidated structures. All the
[17:56] items I list on dilapidated and
[17:58] unsecured, we will strike from the
[17:59] agenda. Beginning with item A,
[18:03] and this is 124 North Allen Street, the
[18:05] owner has removed. And then item B is
[18:08] 6900 London Way along with other
[18:10] addresses. We're reworking that for a
[18:12] new owner. Uh, continuing on page 23 on
[18:16] 1101, unsecured structures. Item A, 124
[18:20] Allen Street, the owner is removed. Item
[18:22] D, 17017,
[18:24] Crest Valley, the owner has secured.
[18:27] Item E, 4812 Dimple Drive, the owner has
[18:30] secured. Item F, 2612 South Harvey
[18:33] Avenue, the owner has secured. Item N,
[18:35] 1416 Southwest 28th Street, the owner
[18:38] has secured. and item R500 Southeast
[18:41] 47th Street the owner has secured on
[18:45] page 24 with abandoned buildings item 11
[18:48] P1
[18:50] item A 6900 London Way with additional
[18:53] addresses reworking for an owner. Um and
[18:56] then if you on page 24 as well item 11T
[19:00] the exe we have an executive session
[19:02] that was on there that we no longer
[19:03] need. We'll bring that back at a later
[19:04] time. So we're going to strike that from
[19:06] the agenda.
[19:10] Okay, thank you. Item eight,
[19:12] [clears throat] a revocable permits and
[19:14] events. There are none today and so
[19:15] we'll recess the council and convene as
[19:18] the Oklahoma City Municipal Facilities
[19:20] Authority. We do have a resident who has
[19:22] signed up to speak. Uh Steve Hunt,
[19:27] Steve Hunt, 6300 Westbrook Drive. Good
[19:29] morning to the uh Oklahoma City
[19:31] Municipal Facilities Authority. Good to
[19:33] see you all today. Um I just going to be
[19:36] brief. Uh item B, amendment five to
[19:39] professional services agreement with the
[19:40] city of Oakland City and Baker Tilly
[19:42] Advisory Group for additional support
[19:44] for annual comprehensive financial
[19:46] report processes. Estimated cost 1.395
[19:50] million. And if you turn to the consent
[19:54] docket, which was originally supposed to
[19:55] be for things like renewing toner uh for
[19:58] the printer, there is a duplicate
[20:01] amendment five to professional service
[20:03] agreement with the Oklahoma City D Baker
[20:05] Tilly. So, it looks like this uh
[20:08] agreement is for $2.8 million with the
[20:12] double dipping in the OCMFA and the
[20:15] consent docket. And I just want to make
[20:17] sure uh I understand what this is for.
[20:20] Um, there's not a lot of information out
[20:22] there, but what I saw is that a few
[20:24] years ago, we signed an agreement with
[20:27] nice guy Larry Ellison's Oracle software
[20:31] to do some work for the city and we were
[20:34] unable to get the uh city employee folks
[20:37] trained properly. So, we uh reached out
[20:41] to Baker Tilly and like, "You guys want
[20:43] $5 million to come do this?" Um, I think
[20:46] that's correct, isn't it, City Manager
[20:49] Freeman? No,
[20:50] » No. What What is it for?
[20:51] » We don't This is not a Q&A, but I'm sure
[20:53] staff can queue out in the lobby
[20:55] afterwards.
[20:56] » Okay. Um, so and I also would like to
[20:58] know why it's there and why it's also in
[21:00] the consent docket. I guess that's
[21:03] » It's a joint contract.
[21:05] » Okay.
[21:05] » So, it's one contract.
[21:06] » Is it two? It's not 2.8. It's okay.
[21:09] » We don't have time for this.
[21:11] » You have your minute and a half. Use it
[21:13] as you wish, but we're not doing Q&A.
[21:14] » I'm not going to waste your time.
[21:18] » All right. That concludes residents
[21:19] who've signed up to speak on MFA. So, we
[21:21] can take items A through G now with one
[21:23] motion.
[21:27] We have a motion and a second. Cast your
[21:29] votes.
[21:31] Passes unanimously. We'll adjourn OCMFA
[21:34] and convene as the Oklahoma City Public
[21:36] Property Authority. Uh we do have a
[21:38] resident who signed up to speak on items
[21:40] I and L. Robin Jones.
[21:55] I am at this place in the agenda because
[21:58] these are PPA funds that are from maps 4
[22:02] for beautifification and we may be
[22:05] applying for that project. And I'm also
[22:08] here representing uh the West 10 and
[22:11] Windsor district as our CDRP contract is
[22:15] uh has started uh for FY26.
[22:19] And just wanted you to know that your
[22:22] funding for that um in both West 10 and
[22:25] Windsor has gone to preserving our
[22:28] history which hardly anyone in the city
[22:30] seems to know about. uh which is the
[22:33] beginning of Oklahoma City and uh we are
[22:36] doing that in the West 10 district. Um
[22:39] there's very limited public green space
[22:42] and no public canvas so to speak. So we
[22:45] are using the traffic boxes and uh
[22:48] telling our story of the history through
[22:51] your funding and uh that has helped
[22:54] create an identity that West 10 to a
[22:57] great degree didn't have prior and we
[23:00] are doing multiple other things and uh
[23:03] in West 10 and then in Windsor district
[23:06] we are continuing to enhance uh the um
[23:10] beautiful streetscapes that we inherited
[23:12] from previous leadership in the W
[23:15] Windsor district, but Windsor and West
[23:17] 10 district has come together and been
[23:19] collectively known as West OKC. And we
[23:23] host community conversations. Several of
[23:25] you have been to these meetings and
[23:28] they're on everything from homelessness
[23:30] to uh civic responsibility to uh the
[23:33] children in the community and they've
[23:36] been very successful. We had some extra
[23:38] funding from the Arnol Family Foundation
[23:41] which was of a great help.
[23:43] [clears throat] And basically this part
[23:45] of town, west, central west Oklahoma
[23:47] City,
[23:48] um has a lot of challenges, but we focus
[23:51] on the bright spots. And our bright
[23:54] spots are very diverse and uh very large
[23:57] number. And just one example is um we
[24:01] recently almost finished, not me
[24:04] personally, but a contractor almost
[24:06] finished a 7.9
[24:08] um building contract um that will house
[24:12] one of our oldest companies in the
[24:15] state. And we discovered that and then
[24:18] the next day I'm walking on my morning
[24:20] walk and four deer run across in front
[24:23] of me. So, so our area is very diverse
[24:27] and has nothing but opportunity even
[24:29] though you have to be kind of creative
[24:31] to
[24:31] » 30 seconds remaining.
[24:33] » I'm done.
[24:33] » Okay.
[24:34] » Before I get hooed away.
[24:38] » Thank you, Robin. All right. So, uh that
[24:41] concludes the residents who've signed
[24:42] her to speak on the PPA docket. We have
[24:43] items A through M we could take with one
[24:46] motion.
[24:55] Have a motion and a second. Cast your
[24:56] votes.
[24:58] Passes unanimously. We'll adjourn OCPA
[25:00] and reconvene as the city council. We're
[25:03] on item nine, the consent docket. Uh we
[25:06] have no scheduled presentations. Is
[25:09] there anything that a council member
[25:10] wishes to pull out for separate comment
[25:13] or separate vote?
[25:14] » Yes, mayor. Could we pull out item A?
[25:17] » Okay. for um you want to make some
[25:20] comments or do you want a separate vote?
[25:21] » Comments.
[25:23] » Um a separate vote.
[25:25] » Okay.
[25:26] » And then mayor, I have a couple of
[25:28] questions on items AL through ALP.
[25:34] » Okay.
[25:37] [clears throat]
[25:38] » Mayor.
[25:39] » Uhhuh.
[25:41] Uh, I would just like to hear a bit of
[25:43] an update on item V is in Victor,
[25:47] please.
[25:51] » Okay.
[25:52] » Thank you.
[25:57] All right. We'll take them in order. Um,
[26:00] Councilman Pennington, we do have a
[26:02] what?
[26:02] » Councilman Styver is going to recuse on
[26:04] item A.
[26:05] » Oh, okay. Very good. Um, Councilman
[26:07] Pennington, we do have uh some residents
[26:09] who signed up to speak on item A. Do you
[26:11] want to start with their comments?
[26:13] » Maybe maybe we should hear from the
[26:14] assistant city manager first, do you
[26:16] think?
[26:16] » Okay, sure.
[26:18] » Jason, you want each you go ahead and
[26:19] give us an overview of this item on this
[26:21] item?
[26:22] » Item A, the record contract.
[26:25] » Uh, sure. Good morning, mayor
[26:27] [clears throat] and council. Jason
[26:28] Fairbrush, assistant city manager. Um
[26:30] item A is as you can see is a a contract
[26:33] with Fington Towing for zone 4 record
[26:36] services. Uh this item uh has been to uh
[26:40] council previously. Um just to
[26:44] [clears throat] remind council of the
[26:45] process. We issued an RFP for zone 4. We
[26:49] received uh multiple proposals. Um we
[26:53] had a evaluation uh committee uh
[26:56] consisting of myself, members from the
[26:58] police department, finance department,
[27:01] city clerk's office
[27:03] uh conducted uh site visits um to uh the
[27:08] top uh proposers and um in going through
[27:11] the process,
[27:13] reviewing the proposals, doing the site
[27:16] visits, uh staff is recommending that
[27:19] the contract be awarded to uh Fairing
[27:22] Towing.
[27:23] Um,
[27:25] and so that's what you have before you
[27:27] today. Um,
[27:30] do you like me to uh, city manager,
[27:31] would you like me to elaborate anymore
[27:32] or just hit the
[27:33] » Yeah, I I think that's good. Here, we
[27:35] had we did have an appeal process that
[27:38] was filed on this after it was deferred
[27:39] and we went through the appeals process.
[27:42] It goes through the purchasing agent,
[27:43] through the finance director, and
[27:45] through myself. Those all been now
[27:46] returned and resolved or addressed. Um
[27:49] and uh so we're ready to move forward.
[27:51] Our recommendation still is to move
[27:53] forward with this contract.
[27:57] » Thank you. Let's let's hear from our
[27:58] neighbors.
[27:58] » Okay. So, we have a bunch of people
[28:01] signed up. So, what I'm going to do is
[28:02] first remind everybody to say your name
[28:04] and address when you come to the
[28:05] microphone and that you have three
[28:07] minutes or less to make your comments.
[28:09] At 30 seconds, you will be um warned
[28:12] that you only have 30 seconds left by
[28:14] the city clerk. I'll remind you that uh
[28:16] if if the comments are redundant, I mean
[28:19] you have every right to be redundant,
[28:21] but uh know that there is a point of
[28:23] diminishing returns. If other people
[28:24] have said what you've already said, uh
[28:26] you know, you don't have to use your
[28:28] entire three minutes. And I will
[28:30] announce um each name and then the next
[28:32] name so the next person can maybe move
[28:34] down uh to the first row and be ready to
[28:37] go. All right, we'll start with Randy
[28:39] Serite and that'll be followed by
[28:41] Denovetta Davis.
[28:49] I've got some
[28:58] good morning Randy Cite Fairington
[29:00] towing at 3307 Northeast 10th Street.
[29:04] Some issues have been brought to our
[29:05] attention that I would like to address.
[29:07] The first one is the zoning of our
[29:08] location. We are zoned I2 with two
[29:11] unique puds. Oklahoma City's Development
[29:14] Services sent out a superintendent to
[29:16] confirm our compliance. Our zoning is
[29:18] correct. Like many businesses, we have
[29:21] had some minor code violations that have
[29:23] all been addressed. At the previous city
[29:26] council meeting on May 5th, we
[29:28] discovered that we needed to be a part
[29:29] of the Garden Oaks Neighborhood
[29:31] Association. We found the Northeast
[29:34] Oklahoma City Neighborhood Coalition
[29:36] online, which covers the Garden
[29:38] Neighborhood Community. We filled out
[29:40] the online application and mailed in our
[29:42] check which was cashed June 1st.
[29:45] [clears throat] We had a meeting with
[29:46] Bobby Thomas, the president of the
[29:48] Garden Oaks Neighborhood Association on
[29:51] May 18th at Fington Towing's office.
[29:54] This meeting was an attempt to establish
[29:56] a good working relationship. We informed
[29:59] Bobby that we had already submitted our
[30:01] application with the Northeast Oklahoma
[30:03] City No Neighborhood Coalition to join
[30:06] the Garden Oaks Neighborhood
[30:08] Association. She made no mention of the
[30:10] fact that the Garden Oaks neighborhood
[30:12] had their own association. July 2nd, we
[30:15] discovered that Garden Oaks did have
[30:17] their own association. When I spoke with
[30:19] Bobby Thomas and requested to become a
[30:22] member, she informed me they are not
[30:24] taking new applications. We have made a
[30:26] full faith effort to join. Fington
[30:29] Towing has 18 acres of one of the larger
[30:32] impound yards in the state of Oklahoma.
[30:34] There is one pud approximately 5.7 acres
[30:37] that requires us to be a member of the
[30:39] neighborhood association. We do not use
[30:42] any of this area for storage of
[30:43] impounded vehicles [clears throat] for
[30:45] the city. We have made our best effort
[30:47] to be fully compliant and a good
[30:49] neighbor. Issues have been addressed and
[30:51] it is in the public's best interest to
[30:53] award this contract to Fington Towing to
[30:56] minimize the current wait times for the
[30:57] constituents of this district.
[31:00] There have been some questions regarding
[31:01] two companies at our current location.
[31:04] We did not buy the company for a record
[31:07] service. My wife and I did buy the
[31:09] property at 3307 Northeast 10th. We have
[31:12] three trucks that are branded as for a
[31:14] record service. This is for OP rotation
[31:18] purposes only. Both yards have been
[31:20] inspected and approved by
[31:22] » 30 seconds remaining
[31:23] » By Oklahoma State Trooper Keith Ragland.
[31:26] There are 15 other companies in the
[31:28] state that have the same situation with
[31:29] Department of Public Service. Our
[31:32] operating authority is based off of one
[31:34] DOT number and all of our business is
[31:36] conducted under one EIN number, Fington
[31:39] Towing. We have one business. I would
[31:42] like to add that the uh previous
[31:44] comments to the city council. They had
[31:46] no issues with for a record service at
[31:48] the location for a record service at
[31:51] that point in time did have the uh
[31:53] district record service. So it shouldn't
[31:56] be an increase in traffic at that point
[31:57] in time.
[31:58] » Okay.
[32:00] » Thank you, Mr.
[32:00] » Thank you.
[32:01] » Dennovetta Davis, who will be followed
[32:03] by Bobby Thomas.
[32:05] » Good morning, council. Dennovetta Davis,
[32:07] 721 North Kellum, Oklahoma City. I am
[32:10] here representing the Northeast Oklahoma
[32:12] City Neighborhood Coalition. Uh the
[32:14] garden uh neighborhood council is a
[32:16] member and we are an organization that
[32:19] collaborates with 18 uh neighborhood
[32:22] associations in northeast Oklahoma City.
[32:24] And so Ferington did submit an
[32:27] application as well as Metro Towing to
[32:29] the Northeast Oklahoma City Neighborhood
[32:31] Coalition. Uh we have not it's the
[32:34] approval process and we have not
[32:36] approved either application even though
[32:38] the check might have been cash. It will
[32:40] [snorts] be returned if this is not
[32:41] approved. So we just wanted to make that
[32:43] clear that they did apply. There is an
[32:45] approval process. They have not gone
[32:47] through that approval process. We plan
[32:49] to do that this month and then uh if
[32:51] it's not approved then the checks will
[32:53] be returned. But we are um it's not
[32:56] personal. Um we are just in support of
[33:00] Metro Towing because they are not close
[33:03] to a neighborhood. That is our main
[33:05] reason. We understand that Fington is
[33:08] already in existence. Uh but it will
[33:10] expand.
[33:12] They are right across the street
[33:14] surrounded by neighbors. It will just
[33:16] expand their services. And that's what
[33:18] we're opposed to. We know they're
[33:19] already there. they're already providing
[33:21] record service, but this will greatly uh
[33:24] expand their services and will um
[33:28] greatly affect the neighbors
[33:30] environmentally with the you know 247
[33:33] service with the amount of vehicles in
[33:36] and out. So that's why we're concerned
[33:39] about that for this particular
[33:41] neighborhood and we support them in
[33:43] their opposition to this contract being
[33:45] awarded. Thank you so much.
[33:49] Thank you, Bobby Thomas, who will be
[33:51] followed by Bert Woodring.
[33:56] » Good morning. My name is Bobby Thomas. I
[33:59] live at 1409 North Standish Avenue. I am
[34:02] a resident of Garden Neighborhood
[34:04] Council. We're our interest is right at
[34:07] the interest of Fington's Record
[34:09] Service. They have been there for over a
[34:12] year. They made no effort to join our
[34:14] neighborhood association. They made no
[34:16] effort to fix cut their grass. And when
[34:19] they moved in, we started getting
[34:21] complaints. Since they bought 4A record
[34:23] service, the traffic down there at 10th
[34:25] and Standish has been terrible. When we
[34:28] try to turn into our interest, we run
[34:30] into Fington. They not only impound
[34:33] cars, they tow 18 wheelers. We can see
[34:37] them from the fence that they have now.
[34:42] They tried to remove them, but they were
[34:45] there. We never had a problem with for a
[34:47] record service and the men that used to
[34:49] own for a record service, the
[34:52] [clears throat] cars there were fine.
[34:53] But since Fington has come, we have had
[34:56] heavy, heavy traffic to the interest of
[34:58] our neighborhood. Also, I want to give
[35:00] you an example. Three Saturdays ago,
[35:02] Lost Lake had a
[35:06] entertainment at their Lost Lake. The
[35:09] traffic overflowed into Fington's and I
[35:12] drove down there and I was a man
[35:14] standing out in the street. He directed
[35:16] me into Ferington's. Randy C. Right came
[35:20] out and he told me, "Miss Thomas, if you
[35:23] want to have if the cars are parked in
[35:24] your driveway, I will impound them."
[35:27] Well, why will you impound these cars
[35:29] and you let some traffic come on your
[35:31] property and sit there when it was a
[35:35] traffic jam right there at our
[35:36] neighborhood? And we went down about two
[35:39] Saturdays two weeks ago and we did talk
[35:42] with parents. He has never made an
[35:44] effort until now when he wants to
[35:46] contract with the city for zone 4. Now
[35:49] he wants to be a member of our
[35:50] neighborhood association, but it's not
[35:52] benefiting us. Not one bit. We're on the
[35:55] northeast for northeast Oklahoma City.
[35:58] Why do you want to put that there? You
[36:00] knew when you bought for a record
[36:02] service, you were right near a
[36:03] neighborhood association. So I will say
[36:06] we're not for far fingtons. We will go
[36:09] with metro if necessary. Thank you.
[36:13] Thank you Bert Woodring who will be
[36:15] followed by Isar Alzubi.
[36:25] [clears throat]
[36:25] » Bert Woodring 1400 South Robinson
[36:28] Oklahoma City. I'd like to address the
[36:30] issues on the two puds of this and uh
[36:33] Mr. Cooper mentioned this before, but
[36:36] I'll bring this up to a deal. The 920
[36:38] spud, which was back in 2003, is 140
[36:41] pages. They went through quite a lengthy
[36:44] deal to even get this spud even
[36:46] approved.
[36:47] There were 29 people that protested it.
[36:50] It went to the council without
[36:52] recommendation from this planning
[36:54] commission. They never could even get it
[36:56] approved. Finally, after several delays,
[36:59] the council nearly approved this 5 to
[37:02] four. That was 23 years ago. Everything
[37:06] has changed in the city now. There are
[37:08] several violations that's been happened
[37:10] on this spud. 90 of the spud says the
[37:14] following conditions in section 11
[37:16] through34 shall not be changed or
[37:18] amended in any way without action of the
[37:20] city council after review of the
[37:22] planning commission. Several of those
[37:24] items has been violated and nobody's
[37:28] done anything about it. Now, the 1479
[37:32] spud to the west, I looked at that deal
[37:36] and back in the day when they pulled
[37:38] that in 2013,
[37:41] uh, they got a fence permit. The fence
[37:44] permit was never completed. The
[37:46] landscaping was never completed. They
[37:49] never got a final on it. The gravel was
[37:51] never they said there wasn't enough
[37:53] gravel on the land to start with, but to
[37:56] my knowledge, I never found anything at
[37:58] the city that this was even completed,
[38:00] so they could even move on it and even
[38:02] start working.
[38:05] Um, furthermore,
[38:07] they're talking about there is two
[38:09] record services on that property. 3307
[38:13] Northeast 10th has 4A record service
[38:15] operating out of that location. They
[38:18] also have Fington Record Service
[38:19] operating out of that location. I've
[38:22] checked with the Department of Public
[38:23] Safety. Both licenses are there at that
[38:27] address. They're working out of the same
[38:29] building with separate offices in that
[38:32] building. So, there is two record
[38:34] services. Oh, have double the business
[38:36] there already. And actually, Fington's
[38:38] record service is far much larger than a
[38:43] 4A record service. So, it is definitely
[38:46] an issue there that they have definitely
[38:49] done that. And by giving them a city
[38:50] contract, they're even going to double
[38:52] it even more. I've had a city contract
[38:55] there for 15 years.
[38:56] » 30 seconds remaining.
[38:58] » And they average about 250 more calls a
[39:01] month. So, that's what's fixing to
[39:03] happen over there if they're given this
[39:05] permit or they're given this license.
[39:08] Thank you.
[39:10] » Thank you. Um, Eer Alzubi followed by
[39:14] Joe Cro.
[39:25] » Good morning, city council mayor, city
[39:27] major. My name is Acer. I represent
[39:30] Metro Towing. My address is 13415 North
[39:33] Santa Fe. I I'm here to talk about uh
[39:36] the process that we went through in this
[39:38] project. First, we had a piece of
[39:40] property that was zoned I2, but it was
[39:42] nearby a residential neighborhood. It
[39:44] did not work out. So, we worked hard to
[39:46] find another piece of property where it
[39:48] was zoned I2 and uh everyone was
[39:51] involved in in this process was
[39:53] satisfied with the new site, the the
[39:55] community. So, after we secured the
[39:58] property, we went to the city and talked
[40:00] to them. They say even if you are zoned
[40:02] I2, it does not allow you to open your
[40:05] door and put your sign up. There's a lot
[40:07] of process you got to go through because
[40:08] record service is a conditional use. So
[40:11] we went through the process. We pull a
[40:14] building permit. You know, after you
[40:16] pull a building permit, you got to go
[40:17] through planning and zoning review.
[40:20] After we passed that, we uh there was a
[40:23] lot of requirement from the city to meet
[40:25] the code and we spend the money and we
[40:27] had to pay for all the permit to the
[40:29] city. So we had a lot of visit from the
[40:32] city to make to make sure that we uh in
[40:37] compliance. They gave us the green
[40:39] light. They gave us the occupancy
[40:40] permit. We made sure all the requirement
[40:44] was completed because the RFP it clearly
[40:47] required the property the property to
[40:50] comply with the city code and have all
[40:53] the necessary permit in place in order
[40:55] to qualify for the bid. staff had a
[40:58] meeting about the RFP before the
[41:01] deadline of the bid and they surely say
[41:04] that you have to have all the permit and
[41:07] all the licenses in the place before the
[41:10] deadline of the bid. Everything we had
[41:13] done all the building permit that we had
[41:14] done it was last year and it was
[41:17] submitted last year in June. So the
[41:20] process has been in going for more than
[41:22] a year. It has placed a significant
[41:24] financial hardship in us as well as
[41:27] create a significant stress through the
[41:29] process. It will be a difficult to
[41:31] understand awarding the contract to a
[41:33] company that did not complete those same
[41:36] requirement. Today I respectfully ask
[41:38] that your decision be based in fairness
[41:41] and in in the integrity of the process.
[41:44] We follow every requirement that was
[41:45] asked of us. We invested the time and
[41:48] resources to make sure everything was
[41:51] done correctly before moving forward. If
[41:53] one bidder is required to meet all the
[41:55] RFP requirement 30 seconds then every
[41:58] bidder should be healed to those same
[42:00] standard. I simply ask process to be
[42:02] applied fairly to everyone
[42:04] » And uh I want to say thank you for
[42:07] giving me chance to speak and thank you.
[42:11] Thank you. Joe Croal, followed by uh
[42:15] Bailey McKay.
[42:20] My name is Joe Crodell. I represent
[42:22] Metro Towing and Recovery 100 North
[42:24] Broadway. Um you've heard from some
[42:27] neighbors that near live nearby the
[42:30] Fington and 4A record service lot.
[42:32] You've heard from the owners of Metro
[42:34] Towing and Recovery who was a co- bidder
[42:37] on this uh city contract. Um, back when
[42:42] both of these puds on the lot where 4A
[42:45] and Fington are now, um, when those were
[42:49] getting negotiated with the city, there
[42:50] was significant issues with the
[42:53] neighbors that were had to be addressed.
[42:56] And due to those issues and their very
[42:59] close proximity to residential
[43:01] neighborhoods,
[43:03] the PUDS include some very unusual
[43:06] language and some of that is joining the
[43:08] neighborhood association. Uh 4A back in
[43:12] the day was a member of the neighborhood
[43:14] association. Fington apparently did not
[43:18] know of that requirement until we
[43:19] brought it up. Um, this is designed to
[43:24] keep harmony with this very noxious and
[43:27] disturbing business that happens that is
[43:30] a necessity in every city, but when it's
[43:32] next to a neighborhood, um, proper, you
[43:36] know, balance needs to be struck. And
[43:38] Fington
[43:40] seemingly has did not even know of that
[43:42] requirement. Um, they do not seem
[43:45] interested in um, coexisting with these
[43:48] neighbors. And I think um
[43:52] part of the city's duty is to look at
[43:55] all these factors um and to see that you
[43:59] know these puds that were put in place
[44:01] that were strongly fought for or and
[44:04] against by these residents um are not
[44:08] being adhered to the you know the
[44:10] essence of these puds are not being
[44:12] respected today. Um, I would be happy to
[44:16] answer any questions about these puds if
[44:17] you have uh if you have them. Um, but
[44:21] you know, it's hard to hear from a
[44:25] citizen that has gone through the
[44:27] process and made sure everything was
[44:29] done correctly when he submitted his
[44:31] bid. Um, to then see another company get
[44:36] recommended or their bid get
[44:37] recommended, that's fine. But when you
[44:40] see that they didn't go through those
[44:41] same steps, they didn't spend the money,
[44:43] they didn't spend the time, and then
[44:45] they get coached through the process
[44:47] after the fact after we've brought this
[44:50] issues to uh your attention. It's very
[44:53] frustrating and it um I share my
[44:56] client's frustration and that um we just
[44:59] want what's fair and we um hope that you
[45:03] guys see that there are serious issues
[45:05] with Fington's bid and their property
[45:08] that they're on and that um you consider
[45:11] that when you vote to approve or
[45:14] disapprove and we hope that you vote to
[45:15] disapprove this contract. Thank you.
[45:18] » Thank you. Uh Bailey McKay followed by
[45:21] Rita Freeny.
[45:26] [clears throat]
[45:28] Thank you, Council Bailey McKay. On
[45:30] behalf of Bad Day Towing and Recovery
[45:32] Company, uh 100 North Broadway app, I
[45:36] will not bel
[45:39] this morning. Um, I would just reiterate
[45:41] the objections and the reasons to
[45:43] disapprove this contract that have
[45:46] already been stated today and in our May
[45:48] 6th, 2026 letter filed with this
[45:51] council. Thank you very much.
[45:55] » Thank you. Rita Freeny is our final
[45:57] speaker on this item.
[46:01] » Good morning, council. Want to say thank
[46:03] you for all that you do. My name is Rita
[46:05] McNeel Freeny 1313 Stat Drive and one
[46:10] thing I can say I learned a lot about
[46:12] this whole process. I am a novice about
[46:14] all of this, but I have learned that
[46:18] what is right is is is right. And I am
[46:22] here representing the coalition
[46:25] Carverdale been in the community for
[46:27] over 50 years working in all capacities.
[46:31] And this is something that will affect
[46:33] the neighborhood on a long-term basis.
[46:36] So, we're just appealing. And I know
[46:37] you'll be heard a lot already, but the
[46:39] appeal is just to to do what is fair and
[46:42] right for the community. It's an old
[46:44] community just like ours, Carverdale.
[46:47] And we've been able to protect our
[46:49] community. So, we want to protect on the
[46:52] long term. There'll be a lot of
[46:53] detrimental to have a company that will
[46:55] come in the neighborhood and have even
[46:57] more uh negativity. So, we're just
[47:00] asking that you make a decision for the
[47:03] right company. And of course I am in
[47:06] favor for Metro and I know I have seen a
[47:09] lot of towing companies but in this
[47:11] process I've been to each of the
[47:14] companies. I've seen what they've done
[47:16] and I have also learned a lot about the
[47:19] integrity of Metro and the staff. So
[47:22] just asking that you make the right
[47:23] decision in this concern. So I am here
[47:26] to appeal and to ask that you do the
[47:31] right thing in this case. Thank you so
[47:33] much for your time.
[47:35] » Thank you. Um, Councilman Paintton, I
[47:38] don't know if you have any other
[47:39] comments or if any other council members
[47:40] do as well on this item and then we'll
[47:42] take a vote on just this item.
[47:44] » Well, I don't if my colleagues have
[47:46] questions, stop me. But just just a few
[47:48] things quickly. Um, one, I [music]
[47:50] we this is a long time coming. Um, as I
[47:53] think we've been dealing with this issue
[47:54] for the last year. Um, and so I'm
[47:57] hopeful that we can get to a resolution,
[47:58] but I'd like for it to be a resolution
[48:00] that um is satisfactory to the neighbors
[48:02] and to our need to make sure we have a a
[48:05] record service that can uh service zone
[48:07] for zone 4. Um, first I want to say um I
[48:12] cannot support uh this application
[48:14] because [clears throat] of some of the
[48:15] reasons that have been stated uh here.
[48:18] But before I get into those reasons, I
[48:20] want to say it's I I have nothing but
[48:22] respect for Mr. see right in his
[48:25] business and their operation. I have no
[48:27] reason to doubt or question his
[48:29] integrity. And so I don't want any of my
[48:31] comments or my vote to signal a lack of
[48:34] confidence in them or their abilities.
[48:36] But I do think that this area is not
[48:39] appropriate for us to um put the uh
[48:42] record service for a very simple reason.
[48:43] And I I think that you all know that
[48:46] I've spent a lot of time on the planning
[48:47] commission um and there is a line in PUD
[48:50] 1479 that was pointed out um that I just
[48:53] think is worth noting. It says that the
[48:56] density andor intensity of the PUD shall
[48:59] not be increased and that was done PUD
[49:02] 1479. That is where this location is. So
[49:05] while the I2 use is allowed, while the
[49:07] record service use is allowed, the
[49:09] intention when this was negotiated was
[49:12] that there not be any increase in the
[49:14] density or intensity of the use. And so
[49:16] to me adding an additional contract is
[49:19] increasing the density and intensity of
[49:20] the use. And so I I understand that um
[49:25] others may have a different
[49:26] interpretation
[49:27] of that because there is an existing
[49:29] record service there. But I think that
[49:31] that is compelling language knowing how
[49:34] difficult it can be to try to square
[49:36] different uses being near a residential
[49:39] um property. So, uh I I'm not putting my
[49:43] thumb on the scales of which record
[49:45] service should be picked, but I do hope
[49:46] that as we consider [music]
[49:48] this contract and others, we'll look at
[49:50] what surrounds these properties because
[49:53] it is disruptive to have um to have a
[49:56] record service with lots of cars coming
[49:58] in and out and how that affects
[49:59] neighbors. Um, this neighborhood has
[50:01] also been challenged because of Lost
[50:03] Lakes and which is an event venue that
[50:05] as you already heard from Miss Thomas
[50:07] has a lot of uh tra brings a lot of
[50:10] traffic to the area. So, because of
[50:12] those reasons and in support of my
[50:13] neighbors, I'm going to oppose this and
[50:16] um I'd ask my colleagues to really take
[50:17] into consideration the concerns of our
[50:19] neighbors.
[50:20] » Councilman, can I ask you a question
[50:21] since you were on the planning
[50:22] commission as well? How do you determine
[50:26] increase so that you can add that line
[50:28] into that putt?
[50:29] » It's it is admittedly subjective and I
[50:32] wasn't on the planning commission when
[50:34] um when this PUD was negotiated. So
[50:36] » This company though bought it from the
[50:38] previous
[50:39] » Wrecking company. So they've been there
[50:41] for a number of years.
[50:44] » I I believe it was stated that that
[50:45] record company had a contract maybe with
[50:48] the state or with the city or something.
[50:50] » The state. I don't know if it was with
[50:51] the city. I'm looking to the city
[50:52] manager.
[50:53] » He had said that he had a contract
[50:54] previously had this contract. Is that
[50:56] correct that they did? They previously
[50:58] had this contract at
[50:59] » Oh, it was the same contract with the
[51:00] city.
[51:02] » So, it won't increase then if it's a
[51:04] continued contract.
[51:05] » It this isn't continuing the existing.
[51:07] They haven't had it for a while,
[51:09] » But they had previous
[51:10] » But they have had it previously. So,
[51:12] it's still going to be within reason on
[51:14] that aspect. How long was 4A a record
[51:17] service in this
[51:19] area by the res?
[51:21] » 23, I think.
[51:22] » So, we're looking at 23 years prior to
[51:24] this. So, the community is well versed
[51:26] in the fact that this is a wreck or
[51:28] service a yard. [clears throat]
[51:29] » And that they they acknowledge that they
[51:31] know that even if
[51:32] » I'm just trying to make sure we line
[51:33] things out and I and I have a clear
[51:35] understanding. Like you said, we've been
[51:36] going through this for a year.
[51:37] » Yeah. We we've had to rebid, we've had
[51:40] to redo, we've gone back and forth with
[51:42] all sorts of different selections and we
[51:44] gave some pretty specific
[51:46] instructions to the the committee
[51:48] whenever we redid this RFP and what we
[51:51] were looking for and what we were doing
[51:52] and they've guaranteed us that each one
[51:54] has been met. So, I'm also a little
[51:56] curious as to what one s uh bid may have
[52:00] done that another bid didn't do and some
[52:02] of the accusations that were put in
[52:03] that. Jason, could you help us with that
[52:05] one? Sure.
[52:11] Um if so the question is I think the
[52:14] question is essentially like how did we
[52:15] get to award Fington perhaps over others
[52:18] or
[52:19] » Well, so Metro just accused Ferington of
[52:21] not doing everything that they had to do
[52:23] in this area. So I'm just curious of
[52:25] what what were those things that one did
[52:27] that another didn't do?
[52:29] » Okay. Well, um, [clears throat]
[52:31] so having having been involved in the
[52:33] process and having some awareness of
[52:37] Metro's journey and Ferington's journey
[52:39] to this point, um, I think the clear
[52:42] difference is that my understanding is
[52:44] Metro Towing essentially found a
[52:47] location and established their business
[52:49] at that location, right? And so there's,
[52:52] as we know, many requirements that go
[52:55] into starting a business at a location.
[52:58] Um so Fington on the other hand uh
[53:03] purchased and existing and I obviously
[53:07] don't want to speak for Fington.
[53:10] However, um uh to me it seems like it
[53:14] would be there would be less situational
[53:17] awareness of all of the intricacies
[53:20] associated with a putt if you buy a
[53:22] property, right? I mean you buy a
[53:23] property is an existing record service.
[53:26] Um, so, um,
[53:32] so I guess where I'm where I'm going
[53:34] with that is [cough and clears throat]
[53:36] I think Metro perceives there be a lot
[53:39] more requirements on them and perhaps so
[53:42] because they're establishing a new
[53:44] business versus Fington purchasing an
[53:46] existing. However, when it comes to the
[53:48] review committee
[53:50] that those weren't considerations,
[53:52] right? Right. I mean whether it's a new
[53:53] business or an existing business, the
[53:55] valuation committee simply evaluated the
[53:57] proposals based on the requirements of
[53:59] the RFP. The requirements are of the RFP
[54:02] spoke specifically to making sure they
[54:04] had the proper zoning. So as the
[54:06] evaluation committee met, we confirmed
[54:08] with planning department and others that
[54:10] they had the proper zoning to operate a
[54:13] record service. And that's different in
[54:17] in my opinion from code violations. some
[54:21] of the some of the objections or um
[54:24] protests had referenced code violations
[54:27] and I think you know with any business
[54:29] in the city there's the potential for
[54:31] code violations that's why we have code
[54:33] inspectors and when we identify
[54:36] businesses that are operating in good
[54:38] faith but yet they have some code
[54:41] violations we give them an opportunity
[54:43] to cure and so that's the way we handled
[54:46] these issues or a few of these issues
[54:48] with Fington when they were brought to
[54:49] our attention as As the owner of Fington
[54:52] mentioned, um we had our code inspectors
[54:56] go to their site as part of the protest
[54:58] process to make sure we did our due
[55:00] diligence.
[55:01] » Okay. So, in regards to the RFP, there
[55:04] is not one company who checked a box
[55:06] that another one didn't. Everybody has
[55:08] met the same expectations that we lined
[55:10] out in that RFP.
[55:13] Well, there were there were a few of the
[55:16] proposers that did not make the basic
[55:19] requirements. Um, I can't remember if it
[55:21] was one or two. It was very few. Uh, the
[55:24] majority of the proposers move moved on
[55:27] in the process to the point where uh
[55:30] they were scored and we did site visits.
[55:33] So, I guess that's maybe important thing
[55:35] for for council to know or to remind you
[55:37] is we went and visited these locations
[55:40] to make sure they met those requirements
[55:43] that were in the RFP. And quite frankly,
[55:46] um you know, the the top scores were
[55:49] very close, but that's why you have a
[55:51] selection committee. Ultimately, the
[55:53] committee comes to a consensus and
[55:55] awards a contract. And it's not to say
[55:59] through the process that only Fington
[56:03] could do it and nobody else could. The
[56:05] process is we identify hopefully
[56:09] multiple proposers that could provide
[56:11] the service and we select the one we
[56:14] think is going to do the best job for
[56:15] the residents in the city. And that's
[56:17] where we ended up with Fington.
[56:18] » And last question, Fington is located in
[56:21] zone 4.
[56:23] » Yes, they are in zone 4.
[56:25] » I know that was a big issue with us last
[56:26] time. So, as long as we got that one
[56:27] answered, too. Thank you. I appreciate
[56:29] it.
[56:29] » Jason, before you sit down, how long
[56:30] does this contract run?
[56:32] » Uh, this contract, uh, Cle might have to
[56:34] help me with that. Is this a Is this two
[56:37] remaining years? Oh, I'm sorry. They're
[56:39] 2020. Yeah, April 2027.
[56:42] » Thank you.
[56:42] » My Thank you.
[56:45] Um again before you sit down would you
[56:47] be able to share or maybe you don't know
[56:49] right off the top of your head but what
[56:51] what was sort of the deciding factor
[56:53] that put Fington scored Fington higher
[56:56] than other proposals?
[56:58] » Uh well you know um again um they met
[57:02] the criteria or of the RFP.
[57:06] Um so once they met the basic criteria
[57:09] then uh part of it came down to the site
[57:12] selection
[57:14] um making sure that they met the
[57:16] requirements of having a [clears throat]
[57:18] secure uh location for
[57:22] uh vehicles that were um towed under the
[57:25] city contract to be secured. Uh part of
[57:27] that was inspecting their paperwork in
[57:30] terms of their operators and their
[57:32] licensing, making sure um you know that
[57:35] was all available. Um and again um it's
[57:38] not that Fington was the only one that
[57:41] complied with that, but at the end of
[57:43] the day um the selection committee felt
[57:45] like Fington was the best equipped
[57:50] um to be able to provide the service.
[57:53] Um, again, not that this was the
[57:55] deciding factor, but um, the lot
[57:59] Fington has is larger than the Metro
[58:02] lot. Uh, Metro was at a brand new
[58:06] location. I'm not saying they're not a
[58:08] proven business or they're not capable
[58:11] of doing the business, but um, at the
[58:13] side inspection, it was very clear that
[58:15] the business was more or less a
[58:20] generally speaking kind of a a startup.
[58:22] We didn't see a lot of vehicles there, a
[58:23] lot of activity. Again, not to say that
[58:26] they not aren't capable of doing it, but
[58:28] we did, I think, the committee have some
[58:30] asurances that Ferington was uh
[58:33] established and had plenty of storage
[58:35] room. There are other factors, but those
[58:37] are a couple that come to mind. I hope
[58:38] that answered your question,
[58:39] Councilwoman.
[58:45] Um,
[58:47] I I mean maybe it's because I watch the
[58:50] Lord of the Rings, the Two Towers, and
[58:52] the Answer in my head where they have a
[58:53] conversation, but I would like to hear
[58:54] from more of the council on this. Like,
[58:58] this is complicated for me because on
[59:00] the one hand, there's neighbors who are,
[59:04] I think, rightly concerned about a
[59:08] business beside them that they do not
[59:10] find compatible. And initially when an
[59:13] earlier business went in there, they
[59:17] helped craft some uh parameters, right,
[59:21] that Fington
[59:23] would not have known because I think I
[59:25] think it was to ACM's earlier point,
[59:27] sometimes you take over something that's
[59:28] already zoned, you don't know the
[59:30] backstory.
[59:31] Um, so I understand the neighbors
[59:34] concerns.
[59:36] Um at the exact same time though there
[59:40] is a process that ACM is describing
[59:45] that seems I don't know there is just a
[59:48] process and I worry about what happened
[59:51] and I actually really mean this equally
[59:53] like I hear the neighbors concerns
[59:56] I am also a very processoriented person
[59:59] a very data driven person and I worry
[1:00:02] what happens if we
[1:00:06] look at this process and go, "Well,
[1:00:08] we're not going to adhere to it." So, I
[1:00:10] worry about the legality of that
[1:00:12] decision. Maybe that's something city
[1:00:13] manager and um Mr. Jordan can speak to.
[1:00:17] But those are those are my concerns. And
[1:00:18] I think the third concern, so of the
[1:00:20] neighborhood, so I hear what councelor
[1:00:22] Pennington is saying. Um the process is
[1:00:26] very uh much on my mind. And the third,
[1:00:31] and I alluded to this maybe last time,
[1:00:34] there is just something that feels
[1:00:37] like I don't know that we're all being
[1:00:38] direct about what we're really wanting
[1:00:40] here. Like some of the people I feel
[1:00:42] like the neighbors are being direct.
[1:00:44] they don't like this business there. But
[1:00:46] I also feel like there's business
[1:00:47] interests here that are happening that
[1:00:51] um
[1:00:52] get
[1:00:54] there's a filter rather than saying you
[1:00:57] know I'm going to make a lot of money
[1:00:59] right if this comes to me there's this
[1:01:02] filter well there was the PUD and then
[1:01:04] there was this and that and that just
[1:01:06] makes it really difficult for me to sus
[1:01:09] out what the right thing to do is here
[1:01:12] and I just want to be that direct and
[1:01:14] blunt about this. I hear what the
[1:01:16] neighbors are saying, but I also feel
[1:01:18] like there are some interests who are
[1:01:19] using the neighbors um because it
[1:01:23] benefits them. I'm sorry. I just have to
[1:01:26] be that direct. That's just where I'm at
[1:01:28] now. That's just where I'm at. I just
[1:01:29] think we have to speak very truthfully
[1:01:31] about things. I hear what the neighbors
[1:01:32] are saying, but I also feel like there
[1:01:34] are people who are using your voice uh
[1:01:36] to get what they want. And so, I need to
[1:01:38] better understand the legalities facing
[1:01:40] us as as a body. I'm inclined to go with
[1:01:43] councelor Pennington here because I hear
[1:01:45] the neighbors concerns, but I just don't
[1:01:47] like when people aren't being direct
[1:01:49] with with me
[1:01:52] » If I can real quickly.
[1:01:55] » Is that okay? I'm not an attorney
[1:01:56] though, so
[1:01:58] » I don't want to uh I think those are
[1:02:01] great points that you brought up.
[1:02:04] If I'm reading this correctly now, the
[1:02:06] contract goes through April of 2027,
[1:02:10] so nine months
[1:02:12] Right.
[1:02:14] And nine months we'll know more.
[1:02:17] Um, but we've been going around with
[1:02:19] this thing for a year. So I personally I
[1:02:23] mean we made some changes to the RFP,
[1:02:27] went back through the process. We've
[1:02:29] done a lot of things there that um I
[1:02:32] thought were going to ensure the
[1:02:35] fairness of the decision that was made.
[1:02:40] So, uh, I mean, now it's a nine-month
[1:02:44] contract, and if it has the impacts, the
[1:02:47] negative impacts that we're hearing
[1:02:49] about, then if we know that in nine
[1:02:52] months, then, hey, we can always, the
[1:02:54] committee can always change things. But
[1:02:58] to fight this for over a year and now
[1:03:00] it's down to a nine-month contract, I
[1:03:02] just go ahead and move for its approval.
[1:03:04] » I'm a weigh in, too. I was on the
[1:03:06] planning commission 7 years prior to
[1:03:08] being on the council. And I remember
[1:03:10] when the Lost Lake, is that what it's
[1:03:12] called? The entertainment. They came to
[1:03:15] the planning commission and wanted to
[1:03:17] expand and the neighborhood came out
[1:03:20] against it. And they're horrible
[1:03:22] neighbors. They I don't know, Weedfest
[1:03:25] or whatever it was they had there. They
[1:03:27] had cars packed all the way back out to
[1:03:29] I35 and music going on late in the
[1:03:31] evening and and that venue wanted to
[1:03:34] expand. And it was a unanimous decision
[1:03:36] to not let that happen because of how
[1:03:38] negatively it impacted the neighborhood.
[1:03:41] And that's what a planning commission is
[1:03:42] supposed to do, right?
[1:03:45] This is a heavily industrial street.
[1:03:47] Right across the street from this is a
[1:03:49] metal recycling place. Three or four
[1:03:52] blocks further to the east is huge oil
[1:03:55] field storage tanks. You have the
[1:03:56] Canadian River that runs through there.
[1:03:59] And the neighborhood's been there
[1:04:01] forever and ever and ever. But if you
[1:04:03] can't put a industrial use in an
[1:04:05] industrial area. Where else do you put
[1:04:07] it? You see what I'm saying? I mean, the
[1:04:10] And I don't I hope I never need a
[1:04:12] wrecker, you know? But if I do,
[1:04:16] I'll call whoever's closest and can come
[1:04:18] get me the fastest, but I realize the
[1:04:20] city can't operate that way. But to
[1:04:24] deny an industrial use in an industrial
[1:04:26] area is is not good planning because
[1:04:30] where else do you put it? You know what
[1:04:32] I mean?
[1:04:33] So that's my two cents.
[1:04:37] » I guess I'll say in conclusion, we've
[1:04:39] had to make difficult decisions on the
[1:04:40] commission and yeah, we were that was a
[1:04:42] diff that was a challenging um case, but
[1:04:45] I think it's important for us to
[1:04:46] remember that sometimes we get it wrong.
[1:04:49] Sometimes we've made decisions and we
[1:04:51] got it wrong and and it's up to future
[1:04:54] uh planning commissions and councils to
[1:04:56] correct sometimes the mistakes that have
[1:04:58] been made in the way that we've made
[1:04:59] zoning decisions. And so I just ask you
[1:05:01] to keep that in mind before we as we get
[1:05:03] to a vote.
[1:05:07] » Anyone else from council want to speak
[1:05:09] before I go?
[1:05:10] » I was going to add something. Oh, did
[1:05:12] someone over there?
[1:05:13] » Um, so I think that you made a great
[1:05:15] point, Councilman Stone, in that we're
[1:05:17] at a nine-month contract and there's a
[1:05:19] lot of politics that politics, I don't
[1:05:22] know if that's the right word. a lot of
[1:05:23] um
[1:05:25] a lot of business that's tied up in this
[1:05:27] conversation and being able to
[1:05:30] re-evaluate PUDS if there is um you know
[1:05:33] decisions that are made and we look back
[1:05:35] and say hey how do we do this how do we
[1:05:37] fix it those are those are all great um
[1:05:41] observations that I think are all true
[1:05:46] at the same time what I hear is two
[1:05:49] different things we have a PUD that was
[1:05:51] approved over 20 years ago a business
[1:05:53] operation that's had this contract and
[1:05:56] this approval and this business use for
[1:05:59] over 20 years. And we have a new city
[1:06:02] contract that's worth a whole lot of
[1:06:04] money. And we've had
[1:06:07] protests of every decision that's been
[1:06:09] made over the last 12 months tied to the
[1:06:13] towing contract. So before this protest,
[1:06:16] we had a different protest. And um I
[1:06:20] think at some point we have to trust
[1:06:21] that there has been due diligence that
[1:06:24] there has been um documentation of
[1:06:28] process and we have a window of
[1:06:31] assessment a short window of nine months
[1:06:34] to see what impact would be. Um,
[1:06:38] I actually think that there's something
[1:06:40] that we need to consider in the future
[1:06:41] and I would throw this out there um for
[1:06:44] our city manager council um to consider
[1:06:47] and that is some municipalities are no
[1:06:50] longer using a four quadrant process but
[1:06:52] they actually have a call out and that
[1:06:55] improves speed to the um speed to the
[1:06:58] officer, speed to the um the person that
[1:07:01] needs a road road cleared from a scene
[1:07:04] which is really what we're responsible
[1:07:06] for as a city is speed of clearing
[1:07:08] roadways, safety, security of assets
[1:07:10] that are secured. And if there is a way
[1:07:13] that we can approach that that improves
[1:07:15] competitiveness across our businesses
[1:07:17] consistently throughout the year um and
[1:07:20] is amenable to our process, I think that
[1:07:22] that would be a really wise thing for us
[1:07:25] to consider so that we aren't in a
[1:07:27] situation where we have a protest
[1:07:29] following a protest following a protest
[1:07:32] around one contract for a year or two
[1:07:35] years when it really could be
[1:07:37] distributed work. um because we have
[1:07:39] many many great companies in our area.
[1:07:45] » I thanks for that perspective. I'd love
[1:07:48] for us to explore that and also I hear
[1:07:50] what both counselor Stone and Hinkle
[1:07:52] what you're saying about the nine months
[1:07:54] I think those are really those are fair.
[1:07:58] Uh but I think for that reason
[1:08:02] um in terms of 9 months I'm I'm happy if
[1:08:05] 9 months from now you know if this
[1:08:07] council approves this today and nine
[1:08:10] months from now we find there has not
[1:08:12] been an increase in the traffic
[1:08:13] problems. Um then my mind might change.
[1:08:17] I really actually think both of you have
[1:08:18] made like a pretty reasonable like
[1:08:20] point. Um,
[1:08:23] for now though, it's just going to be
[1:08:24] difficult for me because of what I'm
[1:08:27] hearing from the neighbors. But I want
[1:08:28] to be on record about what I said
[1:08:30] earlier and let this be a note to other
[1:08:32] residents. I do not appreciate when
[1:08:35] people speak and double speak. Like I
[1:08:38] want people to speak directly about
[1:08:41] things like it it really bother and I
[1:08:45] honestly and I know that's happened
[1:08:46] before at this council where people have
[1:08:48] come and they they're you know speaking
[1:08:49] out of one side of their mouth but
[1:08:51] they're actually meaning something else.
[1:08:52] I know it's happen but there's just
[1:08:53] something about this issue that really
[1:08:55] rubs me the wrong way. Like re maybe
[1:08:57] it's the amount of time to your point
[1:08:59] counselor Stone that this is drawn out
[1:09:01] the amount of staff time that this is
[1:09:03] drawn out. uh the way this has muddied
[1:09:06] the process because even if Fington
[1:09:07] doesn't get this what Metro is gonna get
[1:09:09] it suddenly like that's not I that
[1:09:11] doesn't strike me as what's going to
[1:09:12] happen even though it seems like that's
[1:09:14] what some people would hope would
[1:09:16] happen. So I just want to be on record
[1:09:18] that while I'm supporting the neighbors
[1:09:22] in this moment I have a lot of issues
[1:09:24] about the process and some of the other
[1:09:28] um people who were speaking in in
[1:09:30] opposition here and also to the
[1:09:32] neighbors. I do understand some of the
[1:09:35] trepidation around
[1:09:38] Fington joining your group and maybe
[1:09:40] once I vote no maybe they won't want to
[1:09:43] hear me on this but I drove by the the
[1:09:45] business on the way home from my mom's
[1:09:48] out in Midwest City like I like to take
[1:09:50] back roads instead of interstates and I
[1:09:51] took that back road and I think a
[1:09:54] question I would have I still think it
[1:09:56] would be nice for you all to sit down
[1:09:58] and actually have them join your
[1:10:00] neighborhood association. I just do. Uh,
[1:10:03] you know,
[1:10:05] there have been more bitter divides in
[1:10:07] this country where people didn't think
[1:10:10] they could reunite.
[1:10:13] There just have been and we know that.
[1:10:15] So, I would encourage you all to do that
[1:10:17] because I think one thing I would like
[1:10:18] to see from when I drove over there is
[1:10:20] there's some trees, some real tall trees
[1:10:23] that are on one side of the property and
[1:10:25] I wonder if those trees couldn't exist
[1:10:27] within the neighborhood. There's like a
[1:10:29] street that abuts the neighborhood. And
[1:10:31] I wonder what happens if you actually
[1:10:33] put some trees up to do some of the
[1:10:35] blocking. And then I think another thing
[1:10:37] is we're kind of known for murals these
[1:10:39] days. What if you all painted that fence
[1:10:42] and it spoke to the neighborhood
[1:10:44] history? You just heard Robin from
[1:10:46] Winter talk about what they're doing
[1:10:47] with utility boxes.
[1:10:50] So regardless of whether or not you all
[1:10:52] get this contract today or you don't,
[1:10:56] you're still going to be there. And
[1:10:57] this, I think, is an opportunity to
[1:10:59] break some bread, do some public art
[1:11:01] that speaks to your willingness to be
[1:11:03] part of the area. I can't force you as
[1:11:06] the council. We can't force a private
[1:11:07] business to do that. But I think those
[1:11:09] are two things is if you're worried, if
[1:11:11] if the neighbors are worried about
[1:11:12] sight, what they're seeing above the
[1:11:14] fence, then find ways to put some
[1:11:16] barriers up that are aesthetically
[1:11:19] pleasing and provide a service in terms
[1:11:21] of shade. You've already done it on one
[1:11:23] part of the building. And then the art
[1:11:24] like you just heard Robin describe.
[1:11:26] Those are some ideas. I I hope you all
[1:11:28] can do that. It's just for now I can't
[1:11:30] join
[1:11:32] and it has nothing to do with your
[1:11:33] business best I can tell. So it's just I
[1:11:36] have worries based from what I'm hearing
[1:11:37] from the neighbors for now. So I'll see
[1:11:39] you in nine months is where I'm at.
[1:11:43] [snorts]
[1:11:45] » I think Councilman Stone move for
[1:11:46] approval.
[1:11:47] » Okay. All right. Are we ready then?
[1:11:49] We'll take a motion to vote on just item
[1:11:52] 9A.
[1:12:11] There we go. We have a motion and a
[1:12:12] second. Cast your votes.
[1:12:22] passes five to three. All right. Now we
[1:12:26] are back on the remainder of the consent
[1:12:28] docket. Uh the next item up was uh item
[1:12:33] V. Councilman Cooper, you wanted to
[1:12:35] speak to that item.
[1:12:40] » Thank you, Mayor.
[1:12:42] Yes. I just remember this being a pretty
[1:12:44] important item for
[1:12:47] residents across the city. And I just
[1:12:49] wanted to hear uh where we are because
[1:12:52] this is a renewal. Like to kind of uh
[1:12:54] hear a little bit more about what we've
[1:12:56] accomplished,
[1:12:58] where we're heading, and then maybe even
[1:13:00] outside of the update right now, maybe a
[1:13:03] presentation at a future date.
[1:13:06] » Yeah.
[1:13:06] » Regarding what this service is doing and
[1:13:09] um
[1:13:09] » Absolutely. Yeah. I you know, I don't
[1:13:12] have a lot of numbers with me. Um, but
[1:13:14] what I can say is that this is a renewal
[1:13:16] for the contract that we started last
[1:13:17] year uh with Decker to do the home
[1:13:20] sharing to make sure people are getting
[1:13:22] their license and that they're becoming
[1:13:23] legal in the city. Um, I do know that
[1:13:26] code code enforcement has been working
[1:13:28] heavily with them. I have the code
[1:13:29] enforcement superintendent here too. He
[1:13:31] can kind of address those how that
[1:13:32] process works and all of that. But I
[1:13:34] will share a little story that um Decker
[1:13:37] did find a home share on this one
[1:13:40] property in our city and it was through
[1:13:42] Airbnb and we contacted the owner. Uh we
[1:13:45] actually issued a notice a violation and
[1:13:48] the con the owner contacted and said,
[1:13:50] "Hey, I don't have a home share here."
[1:13:53] And what we found out was someone else
[1:13:55] had created a home share uh through
[1:13:57] Airbnb to share their property. And I
[1:14:00] think it was an existing owner of the
[1:14:02] property. they just never took it down
[1:14:04] and so we were able to get that off of
[1:14:06] Airbnb for them. Uh so that was kind of
[1:14:08] a success that Deckard allowed us to be
[1:14:11] a part of. But Chris, if you got do you
[1:14:13] have any information about how many how
[1:14:15] that process works and if you want to
[1:14:17] come up and share.
[1:14:23] » Yes. Good morning. Thank you. Um, we use
[1:14:25] Deckard as a as a frontline tool in our
[1:14:28] toolkit to help us identify properties
[1:14:30] that that no longer have licensing
[1:14:33] um for for proper home share in Oklahoma
[1:14:36] City. Um, basically that process we're
[1:14:39] we're alerted. They're also kind of
[1:14:41] sorry to step back a little bit about
[1:14:43] what Deckard actually provides for the
[1:14:45] city. So they they are our frontline
[1:14:48] responders so to speak. So they take the
[1:14:50] initial calls from the complaining
[1:14:52] parties of the party's too loud or it's
[1:14:57] operating illegally or it's just not
[1:14:59] operating correctly. So they make the
[1:15:02] complaint to Decard. Decard reaches out
[1:15:05] to the property owner that has the
[1:15:07] listing directly and tries to resolve
[1:15:10] that issue um prior to the city getting
[1:15:12] involved. depending on what the issue
[1:15:15] is. Uh we're they they basically enter a
[1:15:18] complaint for code enforcement to
[1:15:20] investigate. We'll go out to the
[1:15:22] property, verify the existence of the
[1:15:24] listing, the rental activity, and then
[1:15:27] we will proceed forward with either a
[1:15:28] notice of violation or a citation for
[1:15:31] operating a home share without a
[1:15:32] license.
[1:15:34] » Yeah. And I think that's good work. A
[1:15:36] followup is my understanding of what the
[1:15:39] technology
[1:15:40] that exists would also be able to do is
[1:15:43] to actually go through and look at
[1:15:46] properties that are presenting
[1:15:48] themselves as this is a home share and
[1:15:51] then kind of vin diagram to see
[1:15:55] who has an actual license to operate as
[1:15:57] one. Is that happening as well?
[1:15:59] » Yeah. Yes. So that's spot on,
[1:16:00] Councilman. So essentially what the
[1:16:02] software does, it's it's proprietary in
[1:16:04] nature, but essentially what it does is
[1:16:06] it does a data scrape of of all listing
[1:16:09] sites. So VBO, Airbnb are the two most
[1:16:12] common, but there's others out there as
[1:16:14] well. So what their software does is it
[1:16:17] goes through and it scrapes through all
[1:16:18] of those listing agencies and it and it
[1:16:21] compares that data to water records and
[1:16:23] and current lensure statuses. And if
[1:16:27] they find an anomaly to where you you
[1:16:30] let's just for an example, you are
[1:16:32] operating an Airbnb and you've listed
[1:16:35] the property on Airbnb and that data
[1:16:38] software finds that you are not licensed
[1:16:40] with the city. It will create a case for
[1:16:43] us to go out and and provide you the
[1:16:45] opportunity to come before the board of
[1:16:47] adjustment and receive your proper
[1:16:49] license for that for that activity.
[1:16:52] So, what I would request is just I mean
[1:16:55] I like this is I'm not trying to pull
[1:16:56] this out for a separate vote or anything
[1:16:58] like that. I think it's great. What I
[1:17:00] think my request is I'd like to know a
[1:17:03] how frequently is the latter happen
[1:17:05] happening uh because that was the
[1:17:08] complaint I hear, you know, from Bell
[1:17:10] Ale to you name the Wu neighborhood is
[1:17:14] uh operating as a home share without a
[1:17:17] license, right? Um so I'd like to better
[1:17:19] understand what those numbers are.
[1:17:22] Um B,
[1:17:25] and maybe this has already happened, but
[1:17:26] I'd like to know what kind of
[1:17:28] educational outreach is happening to
[1:17:30] neighborhood associations or just
[1:17:33] residents generally whenever uh they
[1:17:38] have the suspicion that an entity might
[1:17:40] be operating in such a way,
[1:17:42] » Right? Is it maybe that's already
[1:17:44] happening? Um but I'm wondering about
[1:17:47] water bills. I'm wondering about uh in
[1:17:50] terms of, you know, putting a note in
[1:17:52] there. Um I'm wondering about outreach
[1:17:55] to the neighborhood alliance so that
[1:17:56] they could communicate to neighborhood
[1:17:58] associations, but this was just a I hate
[1:18:02] to sound dramatic, but for a lot of
[1:18:05] neighborhoods, they felt like this was
[1:18:06] an existential threat, the home share to
[1:18:10] their neighborhoods, the the the
[1:18:12] community itself, right? So, I I really
[1:18:15] would like to have not just a
[1:18:17] behind-the-scenes briefing. I think that
[1:18:19] the public would uh benefit from um
[1:18:24] knowing what work we're doing, what
[1:18:26] we've discovered. And again, that
[1:18:30] outreach to the resident singularly, but
[1:18:32] then to the neighborhood associations as
[1:18:34] entities. I'm seeing
[1:18:36] » I'll I'll second that request. And
[1:18:39] specifically I just sort of you know
[1:18:41] maybe I sort of got a little over my
[1:18:43] skis with sharing about this when maybe
[1:18:45] the city wasn't ready to sort of take it
[1:18:47] public but in you know a monthly update
[1:18:49] from the city manager you know saw that
[1:18:51] oh they're up and operate you know
[1:18:53] decards operating and so I shared that
[1:18:55] in my monthly newsletter and very
[1:18:58] quickly got a handful of responses of
[1:18:59] like what should you know like I
[1:19:01] submitted all these things I'm not
[1:19:03] seeing any action you know in a few
[1:19:04] weeks later and come to find out kind of
[1:19:07] like [clears throat] you know that we
[1:19:08] kind probably need a plan of like how
[1:19:11] we're communicating about what the
[1:19:13] expectation should be of, you know, it's
[1:19:15] not that we can immediately go and like,
[1:19:18] you know, board up the house or
[1:19:20] something, right? Like, you know, that's
[1:19:22] a little um extreme of, you know, an
[1:19:24] example, but like, you know, just
[1:19:26] helping people understand what the
[1:19:28] process is, what their expectation
[1:19:30] should be based on different types of
[1:19:31] complaints. if it is like loud party
[1:19:33] versus I think this is operating as a
[1:19:37] you know short-term rental without a
[1:19:38] license. um and kind of what that
[1:19:40] process is because I and I had a long
[1:19:42] conversation with Kelly Williams where
[1:19:44] she sort of walked me through that you
[1:19:46] know some of it some of the like delay
[1:19:48] that people were experiencing in that
[1:19:50] initial you know a few months ago maybe
[1:19:52] it was the end of last year was you know
[1:19:54] that there was a flood of request you
[1:19:57] know submissions and it was like whoa
[1:19:59] we've got to process three 400
[1:20:02] submissions in you know um and so that
[1:20:04] that there was that but then also I
[1:20:06] think there was sort of a a disconnect
[1:20:08] and sort of the expectations of what the
[1:20:10] software should do and how quickly
[1:20:12] people should be able to get see a
[1:20:14] response. And so I think it'd be helpful
[1:20:15] to have that presentation during council
[1:20:18] so that it can be public. And you know,
[1:20:21] one of the folks that has been in
[1:20:24] contact with me about this does operate
[1:20:26] short-term rentals and is I think trying
[1:20:28] to do it, you know, as compliant with
[1:20:31] the city as possible. And so, you know,
[1:20:33] I also worry about some of those folks
[1:20:35] that are trying to do it the quote
[1:20:36] unquote right way, the way that we would
[1:20:38] like them to do and be in compliance and
[1:20:41] that it feels sort of like, you know,
[1:20:43] other people are getting away with stuff
[1:20:44] when we are supposed we're paying a lot
[1:20:46] of money for the software. And so, I
[1:20:48] think it I I would just sort of uplift
[1:20:50] that request um given that there's been
[1:20:53] just a lot of confusion, I think. And
[1:20:55] again, I take take my part of that of
[1:20:58] whoops, maybe I I shared a little too
[1:21:00] quickly when when maybe we weren't ready
[1:21:01] to kind of publicly roll it out to to
[1:21:04] not to avoid, you know, 400 whatever
[1:21:06] requests in a matter of days. Um, but I
[1:21:10] think that does demonstrate that there
[1:21:11] is a lot of pentup energy um and
[1:21:14] frustration around this issue and um and
[1:21:16] the better we can be like proactive and
[1:21:18] and really clear about what people
[1:21:20] should expect would be really helpful.
[1:21:23] » Absolutely. We we would be more than
[1:21:24] happy to do that. I'll work with Kelly
[1:21:26] in office of innovation and we'll get
[1:21:29] something together and we'll bring it to
[1:21:30] council.
[1:21:31] » Yeah, I think we'll try to start with a
[1:21:32] briefing to the council. You know, get
[1:21:33] the information together, start with a
[1:21:35] briefing of the council and then discuss
[1:21:36] some options of how we can best
[1:21:38] communicate this out to reach the most
[1:21:39] people.
[1:21:40] » Can we add to that list? I think it's
[1:21:42] also time for us to look at the board of
[1:21:44] adjustments um decision-m with regard to
[1:21:47] non-compliant properties. So, how are
[1:21:51] are they authorized to take any punitive
[1:21:53] actions against non-compliant
[1:21:55] properties? Can people correct it? What
[1:21:57] does that process look like? Because I
[1:21:59] think they're pretty inundated with
[1:22:01] cases right now of people who are not
[1:22:04] performing the way they should be. And
[1:22:06] so, I think it's an opportunity for the
[1:22:08] planning department perhaps to make some
[1:22:09] additional recommendations. Last year,
[1:22:11] we we made some changes to short-term
[1:22:12] rental that I think were improvements.
[1:22:14] Maybe it's time to re-evaluate um those
[1:22:16] changes to make sure they're aligned
[1:22:18] with our current goals. So, it's a big
[1:22:21] list of short-term rental stuff. City
[1:22:23] manager,
[1:22:23] » We'll add plenty at that as well.
[1:22:25] » If you have nothing else to do on a
[1:22:26] Thursday afternoon, watch a board of
[1:22:28] adjustments meeting. There's like 30
[1:22:30] cases per meeting on people trying to
[1:22:32] get right with the Airbnb permitting
[1:22:34] issues. and they do a good job of of
[1:22:38] penalizing them is not the right word,
[1:22:41] but if they're blatantly
[1:22:43] ignoring the rules, then they are paying
[1:22:45] a a time penalty. They don't get their
[1:22:48] license for six more months or or or so.
[1:22:52] The board of adjustments is inundated
[1:22:54] with people trying to get right with
[1:22:56] this new ordinance.
[1:23:00] » Thank you. Appreciate it.
[1:23:05] Okay, next up in the batting order was
[1:23:10] Councilman Stone. You wanted to inquire
[1:23:13] about items AL through AP.
[1:23:17] Thank you, Mayor. Uh, you know, I just I
[1:23:20] saw this come up and I really had some
[1:23:23] questions. I want to start off by saying
[1:23:25] first off, I appreciate what these
[1:23:27] groups do. I think they do great work.
[1:23:30] I'm not questioning that at all.
[1:23:33] What I noticed is there's like out of
[1:23:36] all these lists of different
[1:23:38] organizations that we're providing money
[1:23:40] to to help with their district, uh there
[1:23:43] wasn't anything southside. So, I was
[1:23:44] hoping someone could explain to us which
[1:23:47] Southside districts and are are they
[1:23:50] given considerable amounts?
[1:23:53] Donna, Donna is with our planning
[1:23:55] department to manage is it as many of
[1:23:57] her other duties helps to manage the
[1:23:59] community development revitalization
[1:24:00] program and I'll let her give us an
[1:24:02] update.
[1:24:02] » Thank you, Donna Cervantes. It's
[1:24:04] commercial district revitalization
[1:24:06] program in the planning department and
[1:24:08] thank you for the opportunity. This is
[1:24:10] um there's a new process this year,
[1:24:12] you'll be happy to know. And um as you
[1:24:15] know, we have 10 districts that are
[1:24:18] receiving uh general funds through our
[1:24:21] CDRP program. and there's an annual
[1:24:23] renewal. So, we've ended FY26. They will
[1:24:27] be coming in um kind of a rolling basis
[1:24:30] as they prepare all their documentation.
[1:24:33] Um today you have five of our CDRP
[1:24:37] contracts up for renewal. Um this year
[1:24:41] we've been um blessed with
[1:24:45] beautifification funds through MAPS 4.
[1:24:47] Um this is the new beautifification
[1:24:50] funding. Uh Route 66 is a named uh kind
[1:24:55] of program that will is able to receive
[1:24:59] the beautifification funds and several
[1:25:01] of our districts were also named as
[1:25:04] recipients as well. So to help manage
[1:25:08] the funds through that beautifification
[1:25:11] program,
[1:25:13] um we we found u an area to focus on
[1:25:16] through Route 66. This being the
[1:25:19] centennial, the Route 66 Centennial
[1:25:22] Commission has gifted many locations
[1:25:26] across the state and Oklahoma City is
[1:25:29] receiving four large monument signs that
[1:25:32] are in the shape of the Route 66 emblem
[1:25:36] and they are customized to represent the
[1:25:39] districts that will be receiving them
[1:25:41] and that was done with district input.
[1:25:45] Um the signs are quite large. are
[1:25:47] basically 6x6 and they sit on a large
[1:25:50] concrete base. So while the signs were
[1:25:52] gifted,
[1:25:54] the installation fees were not. So
[1:25:56] there's installation and permitting and
[1:25:59] all that would go into that. Um so uh
[1:26:02] our recommendation is to use the maps
[1:26:06] for funding which has is now under your
[1:26:10] OCPA
[1:26:13] to include in the district contracts so
[1:26:17] that they can pay to install these
[1:26:20] signs.
[1:26:22] Um the four districts that are receiving
[1:26:24] the signs are 39th Street, Asian
[1:26:28] District, Britain District, and Western
[1:26:31] Avenue Association.
[1:26:33] Western Avenue Association
[1:26:35] um is under is is a business improvement
[1:26:39] district. So they do not receive the
[1:26:41] same CDRP contract, but they are managed
[1:26:44] in our department and they will be
[1:26:47] receiving a sign as well.
[1:26:49] Um, we've allocated $15,000
[1:26:52] per sign for this installation. So,
[1:26:56] that's a known
[1:26:59] project that needed funding.
[1:27:01] For those that we knew were ready to
[1:27:04] receive the funds, it's been added into
[1:27:06] their FY27 contract
[1:27:10] so this can proceed. We're trying to get
[1:27:11] this done within the Centennial as soon
[1:27:13] as possible. Um
[1:27:17] what we've included in the other
[1:27:19] district contracts is kind of a
[1:27:23] placeholder additional PPA funds if you
[1:27:26] will so that PPA becomes party to their
[1:27:29] annual contract and at such time as the
[1:27:32] district will come in with a proposal
[1:27:34] for another beautifification effort
[1:27:38] perhaps it's some installation art
[1:27:42] improvements perhaps it's maintenance
[1:27:44] that been deferred that needs to be
[1:27:46] managed. These kind these funds can be
[1:27:50] approved through um a staff process and
[1:27:53] we would come back with an amendment to
[1:27:55] their CDRP contract
[1:27:58] at that time to approve the project. So,
[1:28:02] in order to create that placeholder, all
[1:28:04] of your CDIP contracts this year you'll
[1:28:07] see have PPA as a party and it's either
[1:28:11] the placeholder of $100 knowing that
[1:28:13] they'll come back for more at such time
[1:28:16] as they might have a project
[1:28:20] or the four districts, actually three
[1:28:23] CDRP that have a known project right
[1:28:25] now. they need their 15,000 for that
[1:28:29] um sign installation. So,
[1:28:34] I hope that's helps. These are the 10
[1:28:36] districts that have been in the program
[1:28:38] for a number of years. Um
[1:28:42] as uh Councilman Stone well knows, um
[1:28:45] our southside districts are Capitol
[1:28:47] Hill, but they're a bid. Um Stockyard
[1:28:51] City again is a bid. So you won't see
[1:28:54] Southwest 29th is um also our southside
[1:28:58] district and they too will be receiving
[1:29:01] the um opportunity to apply for the
[1:29:04] additional beautifification funds. So
[1:29:06] » Good.
[1:29:07] » I hope that helps explain it.
[1:29:08] » It does. Thank you very much. I
[1:29:10] appreciate it.
[1:29:11] » Thank you.
[1:29:12] » Thank you.
[1:29:18] » Okay.
[1:29:19] I think now all we have remaining are
[1:29:21] citizens who signed up to speak on
[1:29:23] different items on the consent docket.
[1:29:25] Um we have three who signed up on item
[1:29:28] BX
[1:29:30] and we'll start with Steve Hunt
[1:29:43] 6300 West Drive. Thanks again for the
[1:29:45] opportunity to uh speak. This particular
[1:29:48] item is something that I hope we can
[1:29:50] have quite a bit of discussion on. Um,
[1:29:52] in 2009, I came up here to speak on some
[1:29:56] log rolling issues regarding maps 3 and
[1:29:58] then started getting into the
[1:30:01] unaccountable private uh Oklahoma City
[1:30:03] Chamber of Commerce. And here's what
[1:30:05] transpired.
[1:30:05] » Chamber of Commerce who gets $5 million
[1:30:07] from Oklahoma City citizens. And I
[1:30:08] thought maybe
[1:30:09] » Chamber of Commerce doesn't get $5
[1:30:10] million from Oklahoma City.
[1:30:11] » That's Jim Couch saying it's not true.
[1:30:13] » Yes, they do. No, they don't.
[1:30:14] » I've got the documents to prove it. It
[1:30:16] comes from the hotel tax. From the hotel
[1:30:18] tax for the CVV.
[1:30:20] » Yeah,
[1:30:22] » There's a pause and then I
[1:30:23] » There's contract with the CV.
[1:30:26] » So, this was 2009 and it was an
[1:30:28] embarrassment to the horseshoe that we
[1:30:31] were giving $5 million to the completely
[1:30:34] unaccountable chamber of commerce. Um,
[1:30:36] and today they're asking for that number
[1:30:39] to be quadrupled. Uh they're asking for
[1:30:42] $19 million from Oklahoma City taxpayers
[1:30:44] via the hotel motel tax which they ran
[1:30:46] the campaign for the election which was
[1:30:49] held outside of primary season. I don't
[1:30:53] think that was very smart but um the
[1:30:55] breakdown of their contract is
[1:30:57] interesting because uh $3.751
[1:31:02] million of this contract goes to
[1:31:04] executive salaries. I think you all know
[1:31:06] that Christy Gillanwater makes $620,000
[1:31:09] a year. All the while, we have a temp
[1:31:12] agency bringing in day laborers to work
[1:31:14] in wastewater because I guess we don't
[1:31:16] want to hire full-time folks to do that
[1:31:18] and it's not wastewater whatever. It's
[1:31:20] not cool and vibrant. But also, um, on
[1:31:23] top of the 3.7 million that we're asked
[1:31:25] to give them for executive salaries of
[1:31:27] this, there's a this is crazy. this
[1:31:30] there's a $390,000
[1:31:33] administration fee direct to the Chamber
[1:31:35] of Commerce for the trouble of receiving
[1:31:38] this money. I mean, how the hell does
[1:31:40] 3.75 million in salaries not cover
[1:31:44] administrating that money? Um, I have a
[1:31:47] lot of concerns about it. Um, chamber
[1:31:49] obviously very unaccountable. I went in
[1:31:51] there yesterday to ask if they could
[1:31:52] clarify and they called security and
[1:31:53] then they called the cops. I reached out
[1:31:55] to one of my officer friends and they
[1:31:56] just laughed about it. Um, so they came
[1:31:59] and and I'll I'll put a video up on it
[1:32:01] for the people out there in channel 20
[1:32:02] land watching on YouTube that want to
[1:32:04] see it. But one of the big concerns I
[1:32:07] have
[1:32:09] uh is the uh
[1:32:14] the quality of work that they produce.
[1:32:16] If you go to visit OKC and go to search
[1:32:20] » 30 seconds remaining
[1:32:21] » Type in the word vibrant you will come
[1:32:22] up with 375
[1:32:25] results. Elevate your event with the
[1:32:28] vibrant energy of Oklahoma City Thunder
[1:32:29] Britain District. Elevate your uh
[1:32:31] neighborhood with vibrant murals,
[1:32:33] LGBTQowned businesses. Support OKC's
[1:32:36] LGBTQ owned businesses and welcoming
[1:32:38] vibrant bars. I my gay friends would
[1:32:41] never want to be called vibrant. They're
[1:32:42] much more fabulous than that. Um and it
[1:32:44] goes on and on and on and it just shows
[1:32:47] that they're just dialing it in and not
[1:32:48] even trying and taking $19 million.
[1:32:52] I mean, we gave 80 million to the Omni
[1:32:55] and taxes that come from that go to
[1:32:57] these guys.
[1:32:58] » Thank you.
[1:32:59] » We can't do this. Uh I would prefer
[1:33:00] flight agency get this. They would do it
[1:33:02] for half and they wouldn't take an admin
[1:33:04] fee.
[1:33:05] » All right. Mari Williams.
[1:33:19] » Good morning. My name is Mari Williams.
[1:33:22] I've lived in the OKC Metro for my
[1:33:23] entire life and I currently reside in
[1:33:25] Ward 5. $19 million is a lot of money.
[1:33:29] On the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of
[1:33:31] Commerce website under their what we do
[1:33:32] page, they state the education and
[1:33:35] workforce development team promotes
[1:33:36] higher education and a highquality
[1:33:38] workforce and OKC through a variety of
[1:33:40] programs. They list key legislative
[1:33:42] issues they work on such as fundamental
[1:33:44] education reform and increased
[1:33:45] curriculum standards and graduation
[1:33:47] requirements, but with no elaboration.
[1:33:49] Of course, Oklahoma needs education
[1:33:51] reform. We all know this. But how would
[1:33:53] increasing graduation requirements and
[1:33:55] overpacking curriculums help our
[1:33:57] students with the current resources that
[1:33:58] our schools have? Some of our middle and
[1:34:01] elementary school children in our city
[1:34:03] are testing as low as 10 and 12
[1:34:05] proficiency in med in math and reading.
[1:34:08] Why are we not funding these schools
[1:34:10] directly more so that we're not cramming
[1:34:12] 45 kids into classrooms where our
[1:34:13] overworked and underpaid teachers don't
[1:34:15] have the physical resources or time to
[1:34:17] help all of their students understand
[1:34:19] the curriculum? The chamber also of
[1:34:21] course puts a huge emphasis on
[1:34:22] attracting new businesses to our city
[1:34:24] and tourism. But I'd like to ask why is
[1:34:27] making our city a better place for the
[1:34:29] people that live here not a bigger
[1:34:31] priority? I personally have been doing
[1:34:33] outreach with unhoused people in OKC for
[1:34:35] almost almost every week for a year now.
[1:34:38] And I've met so many incredible people
[1:34:39] who would love to be an accepted member
[1:34:41] of this community again. People who have
[1:34:43] had awful life experiences that led them
[1:34:45] to where they are. And people who have
[1:34:46] been set up with nothing from the
[1:34:48] beginning. I know a man named David who
[1:34:50] has been homeless since he was 16 six
[1:34:52] years old. He's in his 50s now. Another
[1:34:55] man whose wife passed suddenly when he
[1:34:57] wasn't able to quickly recover from the
[1:34:58] grief. He lost his job. then the house
[1:35:01] they shared, then their dog, then his
[1:35:03] vehicle. A young woman let go during
[1:35:05] COVID who subsequently lost her
[1:35:07] apartment and has been on the streets
[1:35:08] ever since. I also know a couple named
[1:35:10] April and Shane who have been trying to
[1:35:12] get housing and employment while
[1:35:14] sleeping in a tent. But this past Friday
[1:35:16] night, something terrible happened to
[1:35:17] them. In the middle of the night, two
[1:35:19] cars were driving past the medium where
[1:35:21] their tent was, where they were
[1:35:22] sleeping. A car collided into a truck
[1:35:24] which jumped over a median and ran over
[1:35:26] their tent, crushing April and Shane. I
[1:35:29] spoke to their neighbor who described
[1:35:30] April's screams while under the truck as
[1:35:32] gut-wrenching. I have photos of the skid
[1:35:35] marks on the curb and the spot where
[1:35:36] their tent and all they owned used to
[1:35:38] be. Now April is in a wheelchair from
[1:35:40] her injuries. So I would like to ask the
[1:35:42] council, would it not be of economic
[1:35:45] interest to actually help people like
[1:35:46] this get back on their feet and have the
[1:35:48] opportunity to reintegrate into our city
[1:35:50] and be off of the streets? Would it not
[1:35:53] be a bit benefit tourism if our most
[1:35:55] vulnerable people had helped and weren't
[1:35:57] left to do what they had to do to
[1:35:58] survive? Would it not be in the city's
[1:36:00] best interest to start getting unhoused
[1:36:02] people into housing programs now before
[1:36:04] we have the Olympics being hosted on our
[1:36:05] river right next to downtown and running
[1:36:07] through South OKC? I'll end by saying
[1:36:09] that I know that our city having a
[1:36:11] chamber of commerce is absolutely
[1:36:13] necessary, but an almost 400% budget
[1:36:16] increase from 2009 when the majority of
[1:36:18] our hardworking people are living
[1:36:19] paycheck paycheck to paycheck is
[1:36:21] deplorable. Thank you for your time.
[1:36:27] » Thank you. Uh, Jessica Scott,
[1:36:36] » 317, Delmare Rodell City. I'm here to
[1:36:40] ask why $19 million giveaway is on the
[1:36:43] consent docket. $19 million of taxpayer
[1:36:48] money is just thrown in the consent
[1:36:50] docket like some small insignificant
[1:36:52] afterthought.
[1:36:54] Is it because we wanted to hide this
[1:36:56] exchange of money in to the Chamber of
[1:36:59] Commerce, or is it because $19 million
[1:37:02] of taxpayer money is unimportant to the
[1:37:05] council? I don't come here often, but I
[1:37:08] see these giveaways to the Chamber of
[1:37:10] Commerce pretty frequently. Executive
[1:37:13] bonuses, fees to process bonuses, or
[1:37:16] whatever charge people come up with for
[1:37:18] the month. And time and time again, it
[1:37:21] just seems to get passed without pause
[1:37:24] for concern, without any push back or
[1:37:26] questioning of the countless absurd and
[1:37:30] unnecessary charges. The people of this
[1:37:33] city, who are working two jobs to make
[1:37:35] ends meet, would like to know how giving
[1:37:38] the Chamber of Commerce $19 million more
[1:37:40] dollars of their tax money will help
[1:37:44] improve their lives, or will it not? Is
[1:37:48] that why it's in the consent docket? So,
[1:37:51] I'm asking you to vote no on this,
[1:37:54] asking you to stop hiding these in the
[1:37:56] consent docket and informing you that
[1:37:59] Oklahoma City residents are becoming
[1:38:01] aware of this. And also, you know, just
[1:38:05] to add on to what Steve was saying
[1:38:07] earlier, um you know, as Oklahoma City
[1:38:10] Council, it's your job to
[1:38:13] uh be careful with the taxpayer money um
[1:38:17] that you're in charge of. And allowing
[1:38:21] allowing charges to process a bonus is
[1:38:25] insane.
[1:38:27] It's just like it's not fiscally
[1:38:29] responsible. it's not
[1:38:32] being careful with taxpayer money um to
[1:38:35] not only give them these huge amounts of
[1:38:38] money, but then they charge
[1:38:42] they charge this city to take the money
[1:38:45] and I've never seen anything like that
[1:38:47] before and so um I hope that you would
[1:38:50] consider take into consideration these
[1:38:52] things before doing this. Thank you.
[1:38:57] » Thank you. And the final uh item that a
[1:39:00] resident has signed up to speak
[1:39:01] regarding is item DN and Steve Hunt.
[1:39:13] This is just a quick statement on this
[1:39:16] item in this uh contract renewal to ADG
[1:39:19] BLAT. First, I'd like to say I'm
[1:39:21] grateful that we're using a local firm
[1:39:24] uh for administration uh of maps 4. I
[1:39:28] spoke recently about the administration
[1:39:31] of the arena uh contract being a CIA
[1:39:36] icon which has an office in Colorado,
[1:39:39] but their ownership is in France. uh
[1:39:42] Artemis. Uh
[1:39:44] I mentioned that the the guy that owns
[1:39:46] it's married to Selma Mahayek, which is
[1:39:48] he's living pretty good and we're
[1:39:50] helping. Um so I I noticed that this is
[1:39:53] the seventh uh iteration. Um the
[1:39:57] original contact was contract was 1.475.
[1:40:01] The second was 1.199.
[1:40:04] The third was 2.463 million. The third
[1:40:08] uh the next one was 1.562 million. The
[1:40:10] next was 2.6 784 million. The next was
[1:40:12] 2.193 million. And then the next one was
[1:40:16] 2.924
[1:40:18] million for a total of 14,61,761.98.
[1:40:26] So just kind of wanted to get that out
[1:40:28] there. Um people are wondering where
[1:40:31] what's up with these contracts.
[1:40:33] um you know the 390,000 on the uh
[1:40:37] Chamber of Capitalism's contract is
[1:40:39] actually 2% of the total and I had
[1:40:42] mentioned that the French private equity
[1:40:43] firm was charging 2% of the total arena
[1:40:47] costs and you know the uh the dude with
[1:40:50] the long hair came up and talked about
[1:40:53] how it was for additional things and I
[1:40:55] said it was for keeping up with the 2%
[1:40:57] charge of the overall arena and it turns
[1:41:00] out after study both are group. So, put
[1:41:03] those extra things in and then charged
[1:41:05] an extra 2%. So, I just want to get that
[1:41:07] out there that we're paying this. Again,
[1:41:08] thanks for giving it to a local firm. I
[1:41:11] don't know if 14 million is is a lot of
[1:41:12] money if we need to be more efficient,
[1:41:15] but yeah, thanks and great discussion so
[1:41:17] far. It's been a good day.
[1:41:20] » That concludes um everything we've uh
[1:41:23] got in front of us for the consent
[1:41:25] docket and now we could take up all of
[1:41:26] the remaining items except for item A,
[1:41:28] which was previously approved.
[1:41:34] We have a motion and a second. Cast your
[1:41:36] votes.
[1:41:48] Passes unanimously. Uh, next up is item
[1:41:51] 10, the concurrence docket. And we can
[1:41:54] take items A through double A with one
[1:41:57] motion.
[1:42:04] Have a motion and a second. Cast your
[1:42:05] votes.
[1:42:12] Passes unanimously.
[1:42:14] Uh item 11 A is well item 11 are items
[1:42:18] for individual consideration. And item
[1:42:20] 11 A is an ordinance on final hearing.
[1:42:21] It was recommended for approval
[1:42:23] reszoning 4912 North Bartell Road from
[1:42:26] double A to RA A2. Councilman
[1:42:30] Pennington, no one has signed up to
[1:42:31] speak. Thank you, mayor. This is just a
[1:42:33] um simple application to add some more
[1:42:36] residential um housing on Barto Road,
[1:42:38] and I happily move approval.
[1:42:45] All
[1:42:49] right, we have a motion and a second.
[1:42:50] Cast your votes.
[1:42:56] Passes unanimously. Okay. Items B, C, D,
[1:42:59] and E were all previously deferred,
[1:43:01] which brings us to item F. Uh, an
[1:43:03] ordinance on final hearing that was
[1:43:05] recommended for approval reszoning 2331
[1:43:07] Northwest 18th from R2 to SPD 1798.
[1:43:11] Councilwoman Hammond, no one is sent to
[1:43:13] speak.
[1:43:14] » Thank you. Yes, this is an application.
[1:43:16] Originally, I believe it was for a
[1:43:18] little bit higher density, but after
[1:43:19] some meetings with the neighborhood, um
[1:43:21] the applicant has amended it to be just
[1:43:24] two single family residences, um and I
[1:43:26] think they were able to come to a happy
[1:43:29] um compromise. So, I will move for
[1:43:31] approval.
[1:43:41] Have a motion, a second. Cast your
[1:43:43] votes.
[1:43:46] passes unanimously.
[1:43:48] Item 11 G is an ordinance on final
[1:43:51] hearing that was recommended for
[1:43:52] approval reszoning 501 Northwest 30th
[1:43:54] from R2 to SPD1823.
[1:43:58] Councilman Cooper has stepped out. We'll
[1:44:02] come back. Um,
[1:44:04] item H is an ordinance on final hearing
[1:44:06] recommended for approval resoning 14301
[1:44:09] South Rockwell from DA to SPD 1824. Uh,
[1:44:14] Councilwoman Avers is no one to speak.
[1:44:22] » Okay,
[1:44:29] we have a motion and a second. cast your
[1:44:33] votes.
[1:44:36] Passes unanimously. Item I is an
[1:44:39] ordinance on final hearing recommended
[1:44:40] for approval resounding 111 Northwest 14
[1:44:43] from C4 NHL to SPD1828
[1:44:47] NHL. Councilwoman Hammond, no assigned
[1:44:49] to speak.
[1:44:50] » Yes. Can the applicant please um just
[1:44:53] come give us a little bit of a overview
[1:44:55] of this project and um kind of the I
[1:44:59] know it's been [clears throat] through a
[1:45:00] lot of process with various commissions.
[1:45:02] So just like a little description.
[1:45:04] » Absolutely. Jessica Boy with Johnson and
[1:45:05] Associates representing the applicant.
[1:45:07] The application before you today is for
[1:45:09] a multif family development. Uh so this
[1:45:12] block is very interesting. There are no
[1:45:14] residential homes on this block. Um so
[1:45:17] what we are looking to do is to
[1:45:19] redevelop it, redevelop it, add this
[1:45:21] building. Um, architecturally it will be
[1:45:23] in line with the uh surrounding
[1:45:25] structures and we are uh currently it is
[1:45:30] most of it's vacant and a lot of this is
[1:45:32] zoned C4 which is very interesting.
[1:45:34] That's a very high that's our highest
[1:45:36] density commercial use in Oklahoma City
[1:45:38] and it's also a zoning district that has
[1:45:41] not been is not approved um today at
[1:45:44] all. So what we are looking to do is to
[1:45:47] redevelop the site. Um, we have a day
[1:45:49] spa immediately adjacent to us and uh
[1:45:52] the HP and planning commission both
[1:45:55] recommended approval.
[1:45:57] » Thank you. Um, yes, I'm happy to move
[1:46:00] for approval.
[1:46:08] » All right, we have a motion in a second.
[1:46:09] Cast your votes.
[1:46:13] » Thank you.
[1:46:14] » Passes unanimously. Now we'll go back to
[1:46:15] item G. Councilman Cooper, this was uh
[1:46:19] reszoning 501 Northwest 30th from R2 to
[1:46:23] SPD1823.
[1:46:25] No one has signed up to speak.
[1:46:26] » Thank you, Mayor. Um, would the
[1:46:28] applicant mind
[1:46:32] visiting with us and describing this
[1:46:34] project and then I'm going to have a
[1:46:36] couple questions and comments.
[1:46:39] » Sure. David Box, 525 Northwest 11th
[1:46:42] Street here on behalf of the applicant.
[1:46:44] Um this is a small multif family project
[1:46:47] at 30th and Walker. Uh it's a
[1:46:51] three-story. We limited the uses of
[1:46:53] planning commission as well as the the
[1:46:54] total number of dwelling units. Uh there
[1:46:57] was discussion about uh the seventh
[1:46:59] dwelling unit and so that seventh
[1:47:01] dwelling unit is limited to uh a certain
[1:47:04] use unit and that being ground floor. So
[1:47:07] uh we believe it to be compatible with
[1:47:08] the area. It is the same developer that
[1:47:11] is developing the apartments at the what
[1:47:13] would be the southwest corner of 30th
[1:47:16] and Hudson. Um it's in an area obviously
[1:47:19] with the PO and the commercial exists to
[1:47:21] the east and to the southeast uh that we
[1:47:24] believe density to be appropriate not
[1:47:25] just because of what the area represents
[1:47:27] but also it is fully in line with the
[1:47:29] comprehensive plan.
[1:47:33] » Thank you. Would you mind uh going back
[1:47:36] to Yes. this image right here. Um
[1:47:41] and this there are going to be a series
[1:47:43] of questions. This might be a good time
[1:47:45] for public works director uh Miller to
[1:47:48] join us because I council, you might
[1:47:50] recall there's a streetscape that's
[1:47:52] under construction in this area. And uh
[1:47:55] I'd like to hear a little bit first
[1:47:57] about that streetscape and then I'd like
[1:47:59] to hear about
[1:48:01] where should council approve this item
[1:48:04] today. What is its next step? Where
[1:48:06] would it go from there?
[1:48:09] » At Debbie Miller, public works director.
[1:48:11] Um the Walker Streetscape is under
[1:48:13] construction. It goes from Northwest
[1:48:15] 23rd up to 32nd. Um we're putting in
[1:48:18] sidewalks and lighting on both sides and
[1:48:20] a couple of rain gardens um as a trial.
[1:48:23] So that is under construction and this
[1:48:26] is within the area that we are doing the
[1:48:29] streetscape. So what we would do is we
[1:48:32] would just resurface up to where their
[1:48:34] parking starts. I mean there are some
[1:48:37] questions that we'll need to work out
[1:48:39] with them or some issues with the
[1:48:40] parking on how many spaces and the angle
[1:48:43] and the distance out. And then also
[1:48:45] there may be an issue with the sidewalk.
[1:48:47] We may need an easement for that to be a
[1:48:50] public access sidewalk.
[1:48:52] And then is it is my understanding
[1:48:54] correct that
[1:48:56] should council approve this proposal,
[1:49:00] the next step would be a visit for the
[1:49:03] applicant to our city's traffic
[1:49:06] commission.
[1:49:07] » Yes, they would have to take it to
[1:49:08] traffic commission for angle parking and
[1:49:11] for the ADA space.
[1:49:14] » Okay. Thank you. So,
[1:49:17] let me preface
[1:49:20] my uh remarks by saying that um density,
[1:49:25] especially gentle density, is something
[1:49:27] that I uh advocate. I'm excited uh when
[1:49:31] I see it. I think this location makes a
[1:49:34] lot of sense for it. Uh my concern
[1:49:39] are about three-fold. One is process.
[1:49:43] It's confusing to me.
[1:49:46] This item would appear
[1:49:48] at planning, then city council, then
[1:49:52] traffic commission. In my mind,
[1:49:56] because this proposal is putting forth,
[1:49:59] here's where parking is going to go. Um,
[1:50:02] I really feel like that should have been
[1:50:03] worked out at the planning commission
[1:50:05] maybe level or after planning go to
[1:50:09] traffic commission before it comes to
[1:50:12] city council. And so I'm just very
[1:50:14] confused why that is the process would
[1:50:17] be my first question.
[1:50:18] » I can answer that.
[1:50:19] » Go ahead. We can't get approval for
[1:50:21] parking as part of the project without
[1:50:24] entitlements to go build the project
[1:50:26] because if we don't get approved to
[1:50:27] build the project to city council
[1:50:29] through an ordinance on a zoning case,
[1:50:31] we don't want to independently build
[1:50:32] parking for nothing along Walker.
[1:50:36] This is the the way the process works
[1:50:38] every single time. What you see in this
[1:50:40] image is simply we're we're forecasting
[1:50:43] what we'd like to see on Walker. The
[1:50:45] bold black line is the outline of the
[1:50:48] property. The legal description is just
[1:50:50] that. Nothing about the approval here
[1:50:52] does anything as it relates to the
[1:50:54] parking along Walker. That will be a
[1:50:57] wholly separate discussion at the
[1:50:58] traffic commission. But in terms of
[1:51:00] process, you would never go forward and
[1:51:02] get parking approved for a project that
[1:51:05] isn't a real project because it's not
[1:51:07] approved to the city council.
[1:51:12] » I hear what you're saying. I don't know
[1:51:14] if city manager would like to speak to
[1:51:16] that as well.
[1:51:16] » Well, I I would agree. I think I think
[1:51:18] the issue would be if the project isn't
[1:51:19] here that I mean, you could go to the
[1:51:22] planning commission to get parking, but
[1:51:23] there wouldn't be a purpose for it at
[1:51:24] that time. And so, I think I think it's
[1:51:26] just it's the order that I understand it
[1:51:28] creates a confusion here of like what
[1:51:30] happens if you don't get this parking,
[1:51:32] right? Do you approve this first and
[1:51:34] then that parking doesn't happen? Do
[1:51:35] they have sufficient parking to meet the
[1:51:37] requirements?
[1:51:38] » Right. And here are my concerns about
[1:51:40] and again I think Matthew is doing
[1:51:43] really smart work in terms of infill and
[1:51:47] uh increasing the density where it's
[1:51:50] appropriate. I think this area is an
[1:51:52] appropriate area for that entity. I
[1:51:54] think my concerns and it I do hear what
[1:51:57] both of you are saying about the process
[1:51:58] but now here at the council level I have
[1:52:01] to decide whether or not to approve this
[1:52:06] uh when there are a couple factors. So,
[1:52:09] one, um,
[1:52:12] the streetscape, right, is trying to
[1:52:15] make this street safer for pedestrians,
[1:52:19] vehicles, and people riding a bike,
[1:52:22] right? And so, I'm worried that this
[1:52:26] sort of parking, this angled parking
[1:52:28] across from where you have the parking
[1:52:30] on the east side of the street,
[1:52:32] I'm worried about the safety for someone
[1:52:35] on a bicycle.
[1:52:37] And I know this council has had some
[1:52:40] discussions, we'll call them, about
[1:52:42] bicycles and where they are appropriate
[1:52:45] on which streets, but if they're not
[1:52:47] appropriate on Walker between
[1:52:48] neighborhoods and I don't even know what
[1:52:50] we're doing anymore. [laughter]
[1:52:52] Um, this is my neighborhood. I bike here
[1:52:54] all the time. All the time. Um, so it's
[1:52:59] just kind of difficult to um, you know,
[1:53:03] just sign off on this project right now
[1:53:06] when in my mind there should have been a
[1:53:08] conversation prior to this council about
[1:53:12] where parking should go here,
[1:53:15] particularly as it relates again to
[1:53:16] someone on a bike
[1:53:19] who's not just doing this for
[1:53:20] recreation. Like I live in this area. I
[1:53:23] biked here today. I live in this area
[1:53:25] because of the bike biking possibilities
[1:53:29] to get to work or to school, right? It's
[1:53:32] not just, you know, a recreation thing.
[1:53:35] Secondly, you know, on the right night
[1:53:37] of the week, parking in this area, if
[1:53:40] you have a bunch of cars that are parked
[1:53:42] at that intersection on the east side or
[1:53:45] the west side, I worry about congestion.
[1:53:48] I'm just saying that there are some
[1:53:50] concerns here. The additional thing I
[1:53:52] would say and bike safety, car safety,
[1:53:55] uh or rather people in cars more
[1:53:57] concerned about their safety than the
[1:53:58] car itself. Uh the other thing that I'm
[1:54:01] you know concerned with is with the
[1:54:03] streetscape. The whole purpose of this
[1:54:04] streetscape is to make this area uh more
[1:54:08] pedestrian friendly. If I'm
[1:54:10] understanding this right,
[1:54:13] to accomplish what you all are wanting
[1:54:15] to do with the 60deree angled parking,
[1:54:18] we would have to reduce the sidewalk
[1:54:20] from what is to be 6 ft to 5T. And it,
[1:54:24] you know, I when possible, I'd like to
[1:54:26] see the wider possibility, especially on
[1:54:30] a street called Walker, [laughter]
[1:54:33] right? If if there was ever going to be
[1:54:35] a street where pedestrian and walking
[1:54:36] are important. Um, so again, I think I
[1:54:41] think Matthew's doing great work. I just
[1:54:44] and I would have preferred there had
[1:54:48] been some way for this to um have been
[1:54:52] worked out before it got to this body.
[1:54:55] » Um, because it all ultimately matters.
[1:54:58] The the literal uh proposal that
[1:55:00] Councilwoman Hammond just had in front
[1:55:02] of her, you all saw. My preference would
[1:55:04] be no parking on the street. Let me just
[1:55:06] say that. maximalist. Like that is my
[1:55:08] position here. There should be no
[1:55:09] parking on the street. And I keep
[1:55:10] hearing people say uh we can't do away
[1:55:15] with parking in these sorts of places.
[1:55:17] Maybe the day will come where people
[1:55:19] won't drive a car, but that day is not
[1:55:22] today. Well, not with that attitude,
[1:55:25] right? Like we have to start building
[1:55:27] for the city that we want. And we are
[1:55:29] sending council members from this body
[1:55:31] to Salt Lake City to go research their
[1:55:34] transit system so that we can have a
[1:55:36] better connected system by public
[1:55:38] transit, whatever your options are,
[1:55:41] bike, car,
[1:55:44] etc. Um, and so, you know, adding
[1:55:46] parking here on the street just sort of
[1:55:50] worries me where in the previous
[1:55:51] proposal you saw that the parking was
[1:55:53] behind the building. And so I don't
[1:55:55] understand why that's not happening
[1:55:57] here. Uh maybe my only option is to
[1:56:00] voice all of this so that when it goes
[1:56:02] to the traffic commission, my
[1:56:04] commissioner and that body are aware of
[1:56:06] these concerns, but you know, I've
[1:56:08] already spoken to him and one of his
[1:56:10] concerns is the order of the process
[1:56:12] here and that this is not the first time
[1:56:14] that something like this has happened.
[1:56:15] So this is not just my concern.
[1:56:17] » So we do have parking on site. We're
[1:56:21] we're getting hung up on the parking
[1:56:23] that is nothing about the vote today
[1:56:26] touches in any sort of way the parking
[1:56:29] on Walker. It is outside of the legal
[1:56:32] description. It is not part of the SPUD.
[1:56:35] It's simply showing that, you know, if
[1:56:38] we're going to have retail that is
[1:56:39] successful, we think some element of
[1:56:43] parking in a manner that's safe with
[1:56:45] pedestrian, safe with bicycles, safe
[1:56:47] with vehicular would be appropriate.
[1:56:50] similar to what is existing to the east
[1:56:52] of us and to the southeast of us. All of
[1:56:54] those commercial businesses have
[1:56:55] parking. But whatever it looks like
[1:56:57] through your public works director,
[1:56:59] through your traffic and transportation
[1:57:00] commission, whatever they say the rules
[1:57:02] are is what we'll have to follow. But
[1:57:04] absolutely nothing about this touches or
[1:57:07] dictates the parking if it were to occur
[1:57:11] along Walker. The question before you
[1:57:13] is, is a multif family development that
[1:57:16] is consistent with the comprehensive
[1:57:18] plan appropriate on this site?
[1:57:21] » I hear that and you and I talked about
[1:57:23] that yesterday. My
[1:57:26] my note of caution here is that this
[1:57:31] rendering puts forth a parking plan. But
[1:57:35] I hear what you're saying, David, but it
[1:57:37] puts forth a parking plan. It says this
[1:57:40] is how we will meet the demand of the
[1:57:42] residents who not just shop here but
[1:57:45] live here, right? You have four on-site
[1:57:48] parking like on your private property
[1:57:50] and then you have these on the street.
[1:57:52] So clearly this proposal is relying on
[1:57:56] the on street parking to help meet the
[1:57:59] needs of the people who live there.
[1:58:01] » We think it would make it a successful
[1:58:04] um at least the retail component of it.
[1:58:06] So this is spud number 1,823.
[1:58:10] The reason that there's a conceptual
[1:58:11] site plan is because the ordinance
[1:58:13] requires it. If you looked at all 1,822
[1:58:17] SPUDs, my guess is almost all of them
[1:58:20] have site plans that once fully
[1:58:22] developed weren't perfectly consistent
[1:58:24] with the site plan that was approved as
[1:58:26] part of it. The ordinance specifically
[1:58:28] calls it a conceptual site plan. So yes,
[1:58:31] this is what we'd like to do, but of
[1:58:32] course it's subject to perhaps your
[1:58:34] public works and perhaps perhaps the
[1:58:36] traffic commission say no, we don't like
[1:58:37] it. Here's what the rules need to be and
[1:58:39] we'll work within the confines of that.
[1:58:42] » And the only thing I would add too,
[1:58:43] Councilman, is once we go to traffic
[1:58:46] commission, that item will come to the
[1:58:48] council and the council also has the
[1:58:49] authority to make a decision that's
[1:58:52] contrary to the planning comm I mean the
[1:58:54] traffic commission. if the traffic
[1:58:56] commission approved it in a way that the
[1:58:58] council didn't agree, you know, the
[1:59:00] whole council didn't agree with.
[1:59:04] » See, I didn't even that that step like
[1:59:06] so that's another step. So, I didn't
[1:59:08] even know that that was, you know, part
[1:59:10] of it. I just there's Okay, that's fine.
[1:59:13] uh fine enough. But I would encourage uh
[1:59:17] the city manager's office to if if again
[1:59:21] if it's not just my concern, if my
[1:59:23] traffic commissioner is having this
[1:59:24] concern, if my planning commissioner is
[1:59:25] having this concern, and both of them
[1:59:27] are, then I just think that that's worth
[1:59:29] rethinking
[1:59:30] the process, like I don't like having to
[1:59:34] negotiate parking up here for a zoning
[1:59:37] case. Um and I would challenge any
[1:59:40] developer going forward applicant and I
[1:59:42] hear what you're saying David like when
[1:59:44] we are doing infill missing middle
[1:59:47] housing in the urban core in W 2. It is
[1:59:50] really worth our time to rethink
[1:59:54] the parking location. I biked here this
[1:59:56] morning from just a couple blocks away
[1:59:58] from this proposal to the BRT on 31st in
[2:00:02] class and it took me 4 minutes to do
[2:00:04] that. It was no time at all. hopped on
[2:00:06] the BRT, got to city hall. They were
[2:00:09] even making fun of me because I got here
[2:00:11] before the council meeting started that
[2:00:13] way. It was better than me driving. So,
[2:00:16] I'm just saying like it's we've got to
[2:00:18] rethink
[2:00:20] how we are positioning parking and the
[2:00:22] applicant in W 6 just did. So, that's
[2:00:25] just a challenge that I would put forth
[2:00:27] to anyone watching thinking about infill
[2:00:29] and missing middle development. And then
[2:00:31] Craig, city manager, to your point about
[2:00:33] this coming back to council, part of my
[2:00:35] concern is if the traffic commission
[2:00:38] comes back and they're like, "Well, this
[2:00:39] is fine." And then this council's like,
[2:00:41] "Well, the traffic commission said this
[2:00:42] is fine." But
[2:00:45] I live in this neighborhood and I was
[2:00:47] literally just looking at notes from the
[2:00:50] losing campaign and my two winning
[2:00:52] campaigns. And I am telling you, Walker,
[2:00:55] when I knock doors, the concern is about
[2:00:58] pedestrian safety. people with
[2:01:01] strollers. And I don't know, this is no
[2:01:03] shade to the rest of the council
[2:01:04] members, but I know this area. I know it
[2:01:08] like my DNA. And I worry that people
[2:01:11] might go, "Well, the traffic commission
[2:01:13] and Rob's my commissioners already
[2:01:15] thinking the way I am." But maybe the
[2:01:17] other commissioners don't because they
[2:01:18] don't live in and represent some of the
[2:01:20] most densely populated parts of town.
[2:01:23] And they might think, "Yeah, well, when
[2:01:24] I go someplace, I drive." And I'm just
[2:01:28] that's my worry is that there are just
[2:01:30] limits on what I can do in terms of
[2:01:32] representation of this part of town when
[2:01:35] people are asking me to count I think of
[2:01:38] Councilwoman Avers I would never I'm not
[2:01:41] again I'm not for like street widenings
[2:01:44] that's not something I love but that is
[2:01:45] something her residents say that they
[2:01:47] want out there. You see what I mean? And
[2:01:50] so that's something she hears and that
[2:01:51] is something that a majority on this
[2:01:53] council also has a lot of their uh words
[2:01:55] that think about street widenings. But a
[2:01:58] majority on this council don't think
[2:02:00] about because it's not their parts of
[2:02:02] town narrowing roads, the necessity of
[2:02:04] sidewalks, the necessity of parking
[2:02:06] that's behind buildings and putting the
[2:02:08] sidewalk and the building right up
[2:02:10] against each other the way grandpa and
[2:02:12] grandma did during the main street days
[2:02:14] a 100 years ago. So, that's my concern
[2:02:16] is that this is going to just come right
[2:02:17] back and then we won't have like I'm
[2:02:20] just going to be outvoted if I if the
[2:02:21] traffic commission
[2:02:24] I'm sorry I'm just taking time on this
[2:02:25] because this is something I hear from my
[2:02:26] residents. So,
[2:02:27] » But but I think I think the same issue
[2:02:29] is true right now that if you had
[2:02:31] concerns with this you would have you
[2:02:33] know we'd have to the rest of the
[2:02:34] council would have to vote with you on
[2:02:36] this like if you didn't want to move
[2:02:37] forward with this because of parking
[2:02:38] concerns the same issue would be there
[2:02:41] when you come forward if there's a
[2:02:42] parking item. We don't typically have a
[2:02:44] lot of debate on the parking items, but
[2:02:46] we just haven't had an issue like this
[2:02:48] that was sensitive that was raised with
[2:02:49] the council and brought to their
[2:02:50] attention. So, I think in fairness,
[2:02:53] you're right. You it has to be the whole
[2:02:54] council and there's nothing in our
[2:02:55] process would ever change that it's not
[2:02:57] going to be these bodies approving it.
[2:02:59] But, I do think it's like sharing what
[2:03:01] the concerns on and why why the concerns
[2:03:02] are there um and trusting the judgment
[2:03:06] uh of the body. Well, hopefully, and I
[2:03:08] appreciate the way you're saying that,
[2:03:09] hopefully, council, the way I'm
[2:03:11] articulating this by noting what I hear
[2:03:14] are your concerns within your words
[2:03:16] about the necessity for widening roads
[2:03:18] that I would never in a million years
[2:03:19] use funding to do. But because you all
[2:03:21] hear that, I end up going along with it.
[2:03:23] And I am imploring this council to hear
[2:03:26] me when I tell you that the residents in
[2:03:29] Central Park, Jefferson Park, PO,
[2:03:33] um, Edgemeir, they tell me that Walker
[2:03:35] needs to be safer for pedestrians and
[2:03:38] having an intersection here where you
[2:03:40] have all of these cars just park park
[2:03:43] and then people biking north and south
[2:03:44] here while meanwhile the city is
[2:03:47] investing millions of dollars in the
[2:03:49] streetscape. I go to weekly update
[2:03:52] meetings about this streetscape and we
[2:03:53] are doing such important work over here
[2:03:56] and I just want to make sure again I
[2:03:57] it's important for Matthew to know I
[2:03:59] support this project. I just want it to
[2:04:02] be done as responsibly as possible. So
[2:04:06] » We hear you
[2:04:07] » Councilman. I would wonder if they if
[2:04:10] maybe the applicant could provide some
[2:04:12] conceptual renderings and maybe consider
[2:04:14] parallel parking along that space cuz
[2:04:17] I'm not one to like let's take out
[2:04:19] landscaping, but it does seem like if
[2:04:21] you if you did alter the landscaping
[2:04:24] that there'd be a little extra room and
[2:04:25] you could probably fit some parallel
[2:04:27] parking there. So, I just wonder if
[2:04:28] that's an option to explore.
[2:04:30] » I I think there's
[2:04:31] » Recognize you might not be able to make
[2:04:32] pro promises right now.
[2:04:34] » All options are on the table. I mean,
[2:04:35] we'll have to go through civil engineers
[2:04:36] to draw it out and all that, but again,
[2:04:38] this is just kind of shown as
[2:04:39] conceptual. When we get to that phase of
[2:04:42] it, we'll we will work with traffic
[2:04:43] staff, traffic commission, and whatever
[2:04:45] is deemed to be the the safest and best
[2:04:48] that that's what we'll move forward
[2:04:50] with. I think councilwoman puts forth a
[2:04:52] good idea and then I would just
[2:04:53] encourage you and the applicant to
[2:04:55] revisit this rendering to rethink
[2:05:00] where parking could go in a way that
[2:05:02] fits with a street that is getting a
[2:05:05] streetscape that is prioritizing
[2:05:08] walkability, bikeability, and the safety
[2:05:11] of vehicles. Um,
[2:05:13] » What I am convinced of is it'll be much
[2:05:14] better done than the uh developer to the
[2:05:16] east with no landscaping and
[2:05:18] » Oh, hey, trust me. I have my critiques.
[2:05:21] They're they're quite there, but that
[2:05:23] would be my encouragement. Um, and keep
[2:05:25] me involved as appropriate.
[2:05:27] » We got
[2:05:28] » What is there now? Just a curb.
[2:05:30] » What's that?
[2:05:31] » What is there now? Just a curb.
[2:05:33] » Yes, sir.
[2:05:35] » Okay. Well, thank you for hearing that,
[2:05:36] David. Thank you, city manager. Thank
[2:05:38] you, council, for hearing that as well.
[2:05:40] So with those noted concerns, I would
[2:05:43] move for approval.
[2:05:54] » All right, we have a motion and a
[2:05:55] second. This is item G. Cast your votes.
[2:06:05] » Thank you.
[2:06:06] » Passes unanimous. Now we're back in
[2:06:08] order on item J.
[2:06:10] » That was for
[2:06:17] » Um this is a ordinance on final hearing
[2:06:19] that was recommended for approval
[2:06:20] resoning 5235 North Lincoln from O2 UD
[2:06:25] and HNO to SPD1 1829 UD and HNO.
[2:06:29] Councilman Pennington knowing his sign
[2:06:31] to speak.
[2:06:31] » Thank you, Mayor. um excited to bring
[2:06:33] this new um uh medical manufacturing
[2:06:37] facility right here on Lincoln in W 7
[2:06:39] and I move approval.
[2:06:48] We have a motion and a second. Cast your
[2:06:50] votes.
[2:06:53] Passes unanimously.
[2:06:56] Item K is an ordinance on finally
[2:06:58] hearing that was recommended for
[2:06:59] approval reszoning 225 North Indiana
[2:07:01] from R2 and I2 to SPD 1833. Councilwoman
[2:07:06] Hammond no one decided to speak.
[2:07:07] » Yes, this is um some infill development.
[2:07:10] Yeah, I'll have second Indiana and I am
[2:07:13] happy to move for approval.
[2:07:22] We have a motion and a second. cast your
[2:07:24] votes.
[2:07:29] Passes unanimously. Item L is an
[2:07:31] ordinance on final hearing recommended
[2:07:33] for approval that uh reszones 1107
[2:07:36] Northwest 42nd Street from C4 to SPD
[2:07:40] 1836. Councilman Cooper, no one is
[2:07:42] signed to speak.
[2:07:45] » Is the applicant's representative or
[2:07:47] applicant here?
[2:07:51] » Okay. Well, this was uh recommended for
[2:07:54] approval, so I will go along with that.
[2:08:06] Have the motion in a second. Cast your
[2:08:07] votes.
[2:08:12] Passes unanimously.
[2:08:14] Item M is an ordinance on final hearing.
[2:08:16] It was recommended for approval closing
[2:08:18] a single bypass portion of North Bartell
[2:08:20] Road uh near Northeast 50th. Councilman
[2:08:24] Pennington know.
[2:08:26] » Thank you, Mayor. Um this is I think an
[2:08:29] improvement to this intersection and I
[2:08:30] move approval.
[2:08:41] We have a motion and a second. Cast your
[2:08:44] votes.
[2:08:46] passes unanimously.
[2:08:48] Okay. 11 in1 is the public hearing
[2:08:50] regarding the dilapidated structures
[2:08:51] here listed except for those previously
[2:08:53] struck. Amy, has anyone signed up to
[2:08:56] speak?
[2:08:56] » No, they haven't.
[2:08:57] » We have not. So, we'll advance to the
[2:08:58] resolution founded in two declaring that
[2:09:00] the structures are dilapidated.
[2:09:08] We have a motion and a second. Cast your
[2:09:10] votes.
[2:09:14] passes unanimously. Item 1101 is a
[2:09:17] public hearing regarding unsecured
[2:09:18] structures here listed except for those
[2:09:19] previously struck. Amy, has anyone
[2:09:21] signed up to speak?
[2:09:21] » No, they haven't.
[2:09:22] » So, we'll advance to the resolution then
[2:09:24] found at O2 declaring structures are
[2:09:26] unsecured.
[2:09:32] We have a motion and a second. Cast your
[2:09:35] votes.
[2:09:42] passes unanimously. 11 P1 is the public
[2:09:45] hearing regarding the abandoned building
[2:09:47] here listed. One of them was previously
[2:09:49] struck. Uh Amy, has anyone signed to
[2:09:51] speak under this public hearing?
[2:09:52] » No, they have not.
[2:09:53] » They have not. So advance to the
[2:09:54] resolution declared that the building is
[2:09:55] abandoned.
[2:10:05] Have a motion and a second. Cast your
[2:10:07] votes.
[2:10:13] passes unanimously.
[2:10:15] All right. Item uh Q1 is an extension of
[2:10:17] our collective bargaining agreement with
[2:10:19] the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 123.
[2:10:22] Uh executive session is not requested by
[2:10:25] staff.
[2:10:31] [snorts]
[2:10:33] We have a motion and a second. Cast your
[2:10:35] votes.
[2:10:37] » [clears throat]
[2:10:41] » Passes 5 to one. Uh item R1 is a
[2:10:46] resolution authorizing the firm Pierce
[2:10:48] Couch Hendrickson Basinger and Green to
[2:10:50] represent municipal employee Chance
[2:10:52] Alexander in the case of Ewa Yode versus
[2:10:55] City of OKC. Executive session is not
[2:10:57] requested.
[2:11:03] We have a motion and a second. Cast your
[2:11:05] votes.
[2:11:09] passes 5 to one. Uh, now we have item S.
[2:11:13] This is an executive session to discuss
[2:11:15] collective bargaining negotiations for
[2:11:17] fiscal year 2627 with the FOP, IIAF, and
[2:11:21] ASME. Um, we'll just take a vote to go
[2:11:24] into executive session, but we'll handle
[2:11:25] that at the end of our other business.
[2:11:28] So, for now, the vote.
[2:11:32] We have a motion and a second. Cast your
[2:11:34] votes.
[2:11:38] passes unanimously.
[2:11:40] Uh, item T was previously struck, which
[2:11:43] brings us to item U, claims recommended
[2:11:45] for denial. Executive session is not
[2:11:48] requested. We could take the claims uh,
[2:11:50] as a group.
[2:11:54] We have a motion and a second.
[2:11:58] Cast your votes.
[2:12:02] Passes unanimously.
[2:12:04] All right. Item 12 are comments from
[2:12:06] council. Word two.
[2:12:09] » Thank you, mayor, and congratulations on
[2:12:12] your I Well, oh no, you did drama when
[2:12:15] you were in high school, I believe,
[2:12:17] somewhere in there, but u I'm understand
[2:12:19] Lyric Theater had you [laughter]
[2:12:23] » Recently walked to the boards again.
[2:12:25] Yes. Thank you.
[2:12:26] » So, thanks for paving the way because I
[2:12:27] got to join uh former state senator Kay
[2:12:31] Floyd
[2:12:32] » A couple days later. Um, I was not a
[2:12:35] theater kid. It was film. Um, so I got
[2:12:38] to uh join that uh have that experience
[2:12:41] with her. And her experience I learned.
[2:12:43] So we did a Q&A. I'm guessing you all
[2:12:45] did prior.
[2:12:46] » And during the Q&A I learned that state
[2:12:49] senator Floyd working with a Republican
[2:12:52] colleague in the legislature. They were
[2:12:54] able to designate Oklahoma's lyric
[2:12:56] theater as the official theater of the
[2:12:58] state of Oklahoma. And so that was that
[2:13:00] was some cool history that I did not
[2:13:02] know.
[2:13:03] Uh, so and Judge Me as Judge Will. I had
[2:13:07] never seen Annie, so that was my first I
[2:13:10] know I knew the Jay-Z song and that was
[2:13:13] about as far as it went. Um, but I just
[2:13:15] want to thank Lyric for that experience
[2:13:17] and for inviting uh so many elected
[2:13:19] officials uh to join them for that. Um,
[2:13:23] I also wanted to say thanks to Crown
[2:13:26] Heights, Douglas, oh, sorry, Crown
[2:13:28] Heights and Edgeir Heights for inviting,
[2:13:32] uh, some electeds to their Fourth of
[2:13:34] July parade. Uh, that Saturday morning,
[2:13:38] uh, I got to sit in as a judge, which
[2:13:40] I've done every year since I've taken
[2:13:42] office. Um, [clears throat]
[2:13:45] and then also to uh Edgemeir uh because
[2:13:49] uh right afterwards they had a
[2:13:50] neighborhood barbecue and it was just
[2:13:52] really nice to get to hang out with uh
[2:13:55] those two uh neighborhoods. And uh
[2:13:58] that's all I have for you.
[2:13:59] » All right, board three.
[2:14:03] » I'll just give a quick shout out. um
[2:14:05] Robin Jones here representing the West
[2:14:07] 10 district earlier today and I just
[2:14:08] want to give kudos to that district and
[2:14:11] the investment that our community's made
[2:14:13] in beautifification and improving areas
[2:14:15] and I really appreciate the leadership
[2:14:16] that she and her sister have made in in
[2:14:18] the West 10 district and the whole
[2:14:20] board. Um but she did make an illusion
[2:14:22] to a history series that they've been
[2:14:24] hosting at Castle Falls and they're
[2:14:26] typically running around a hundred
[2:14:28] people per event and uh just some great
[2:14:30] cool Oklahoma history of Oklahoma City
[2:14:32] and its infancy. So I would encourage
[2:14:34] you if you're a history buff or
[2:14:36] interested in that to check out Castle
[2:14:38] Falls in the West 10 district work
[2:14:40] there.
[2:14:42] » Thank you. Work for [clears throat]
[2:14:44] Thank you, mayor. Thank you for calling
[2:14:46] her out because I was as she was
[2:14:48] speaking u I was very appreciative of
[2:14:50] that and I had some questions but it had
[2:14:53] nothing to do with what she was doing.
[2:14:54] So I just wanted to apply that. And then
[2:14:57] u Councilman Cooper evidently you didn't
[2:15:00] see me lyric Theater. No,
[2:15:04] » You did it, too.
[2:15:05] » Yeah, it was like 50 years ago.
[2:15:06] » Okay. [laughter]
[2:15:08] » You might have missed it, but you know,
[2:15:10] congratulations, mayor. That was very
[2:15:12] awesome. So, thank you.
[2:15:14] » Whoa, whoa, whoa. But you were in a show
[2:15:16] 50 years ago.
[2:15:17] » What?
[2:15:17] » Oh, yeah. I I worked at Lyric Theater,
[2:15:20] Oklahoma Theater Center, Jewel Box, all
[2:15:23] of those. It was fantastic. Really fun.
[2:15:26] » All right. Well, we'll have to explore
[2:15:27] that.
[2:15:30] » I don't think we had videos back then.
[2:15:32] That's probably a super eight or
[2:15:33] something.
[2:15:35] » Uh, word five.
[2:15:36] » He was the third mushroom from the lift.
[2:15:42] » That is that it for word five. Word six.
[2:15:44] » That's it for word five. Um, I'd just
[2:15:46] like to thank the housing authority, um,
[2:15:49] their staff, Lilyfield, um, family
[2:15:51] services. Uh, I think it was last
[2:15:53] Monday. I had the pleasure attending um
[2:15:57] their sort of celebration for their
[2:15:59] early action project through the choice
[2:16:01] um neighborhoods initiative. Um for
[2:16:04] those not familiar and maybe a refresher
[2:16:06] if you are familiar the choice
[2:16:08] neighborhoods is a housing and urban
[2:16:10] development program that um the housing
[2:16:12] authority has applied to for Will Rogers
[2:16:15] courts. I [music] believe we're still
[2:16:16] waiting on a response about how that
[2:16:19] grant is going, but um we did get a
[2:16:21] planning grant through them and over the
[2:16:23] last few years they have been working um
[2:16:26] with a consultant and some local um
[2:16:29] putting together a lot of local partners
[2:16:30] who were also present um last Monday.
[2:16:33] And one of the components of the
[2:16:35] planning grant is an early action event
[2:16:37] to um invest in the the the area um to
[2:16:43] to do something that shows that um that
[2:16:47] action can happen um based on what
[2:16:49] they've heard from residents and and
[2:16:51] neighborhood um groups. Um specifically
[2:16:54] they they've uh wanted to sort of
[2:16:56] improve the this parking lot area at
[2:16:59] South Rotary Park where a lot of folks
[2:17:01] tend to do like burnouts. um it wasn't
[2:17:04] really like well maintained or kept up,
[2:17:06] you know, just sort of the regular
[2:17:08] mowing that happens um through the parks
[2:17:11] department. But now it has some art,
[2:17:14] some color, um a new sort of median
[2:17:16] space that can be um a gathering space
[2:17:18] as well as um sort of a deterrent to
[2:17:22] that kind of um doing those donuts um
[2:17:24] activity. Um as well as some space for
[2:17:27] like food trucks um different partner,
[2:17:30] you know, Goodwill's um mobile van was
[2:17:32] there parked in that space. I know the
[2:17:35] um city county health department's food
[2:17:37] truck van um uh pantry van goes around
[2:17:40] and and that's a one of their sites. So
[2:17:42] now they'll have like a really nice um
[2:17:44] queuing area and space that um works a
[2:17:47] lot better for that that sort of
[2:17:48] activity. Um and it was just a really
[2:17:51] lovely event. Lots of folks out and
[2:17:53] about. Um it was very hot, so I was
[2:17:55] amazed that they had the turnout they
[2:17:56] did. Um but it was really nice to see
[2:17:58] that space activated as well as um get
[2:18:00] to tour Lilyfield's new community center
[2:18:03] that's just across the street. Um which
[2:18:05] is also a um a part of that early action
[2:18:08] project. And um we're crossing our
[2:18:10] fingers that we we get the the grant,
[2:18:12] but um really just appreci appreciative
[2:18:15] of um the implementation grant, I should
[2:18:17] say, but really appreciative of the
[2:18:18] housing authority um and all those
[2:18:20] partners that are really coming together
[2:18:22] to support the neighbors there, find
[2:18:25] those, you know, ways to support folks
[2:18:27] um getting into different types of
[2:18:28] employment, supportive services like
[2:18:31] through family supports and um all the
[2:18:33] the youth programming that Lilyfield has
[2:18:35] is really exciting for the area. So just
[2:18:37] want to prov uh yeah share those
[2:18:40] appreciation and um if you go look at
[2:18:43] the housing authorities I social media
[2:18:45] you should see some pictures from the
[2:18:46] event. It was a really really great
[2:18:47] time.
[2:18:50] » Thank you 7.
[2:18:52] » Thank you mayor. Just just want to say
[2:18:53] quickly addressing some of the comments
[2:18:54] that were made to this council earlier
[2:18:56] today regarding um the hotel motel tax
[2:18:59] and the convention and center uh
[2:19:01] visitors bureau.
[2:19:03] I'm not going to address whether or not
[2:19:04] the chamber is the appropriate person to
[2:19:07] administer um our convention and visitor
[2:19:10] services. Seems appropriate to me
[2:19:12] personally, but I think it's up to
[2:19:14] debate if you agree with that or not.
[2:19:16] What I do want to address is the
[2:19:18] comments from one of our residents that
[2:19:19] is concerned that our spending is not
[2:19:22] towards other per spending on the this
[2:19:24] hotel motel tax is not towards other
[2:19:27] social services that both me and the
[2:19:29] speaker think are great expenses for
[2:19:32] this city. We are expending the funds
[2:19:34] that the voters said we have to spend it
[2:19:37] this way. That's why. So I just want to
[2:19:40] be clear. I I appreciate that there are
[2:19:41] a lot of people who are hurting in our
[2:19:43] city. I also appreciate that our city
[2:19:45] does a lot of work to try to make it
[2:19:47] better and improve it. And that's why
[2:19:48] we're here. That's why all of us serve.
[2:19:50] And so in some of these more um in these
[2:19:53] challenging times, I think it's
[2:19:54] important for us to remember what
[2:19:56] commitments we've actually made. The
[2:19:57] voters told us to do this, so that's why
[2:19:59] we're doing it. Again, um I know that
[2:20:02] there are other priorities that are
[2:20:03] important, and I think we're trying to
[2:20:04] work towards how we address those social
[2:20:06] concerns, too. So, just worth noting.
[2:20:09] » Okay. Thank you. That concludes uh
[2:20:11] comments from council. forward. Item 13,
[2:20:13] citizens to be heard. And I'd remind
[2:20:16] everybody to uh state your name and
[2:20:18] address, keep your remarks to 3 minutes
[2:20:19] or less, and you'll be warned when you
[2:20:21] have 30 seconds left. First up is Steve
[2:20:23] Hunt.
[2:20:27] Steve Hunt, 6300 West Drive. Uh first of
[2:20:31] all, I want to say Mayor Hold, it's an
[2:20:32] honor for you staying for citizen
[2:20:33] presentations today. You don't normally
[2:20:35] do that, and it's great to see you. Um I
[2:20:37] want to thank you all for bringing up
[2:20:38] Decard. Uh I didn't see that on the
[2:20:40] agenda. I've been noticing a lot of SAS
[2:20:44] uh meddling lately with uh specifically
[2:20:47] Granicus that owns Prime Gov. Uh they
[2:20:50] are now owned by a private equity firm.
[2:20:51] The initial contract with the city was
[2:20:54] 50,000. It is now 300,000.
[2:20:57] And also um consent docket. I I was
[2:21:00] looking at the municipal charter to see
[2:21:03] what was allowed to be put in the
[2:21:05] consent docket. And basically the way it
[2:21:07] works is you can do whatever you want
[2:21:08] because the mayor dictates how it works.
[2:21:11] Um, and I noticed that Munichode is now
[2:21:14] also owned by private equity. So, this
[2:21:16] $75,000 to Decard is going to probably
[2:21:19] be 150, 200, 300 in in the future. So, I
[2:21:22] thank you all for for mentioning that.
[2:21:25] Um, awesome. I'm still at three minutes.
[2:21:28] Uh,
[2:21:30] okay. Um, yeah. And what I wanted to to
[2:21:34] talk about uh regarding the um the
[2:21:38] chamber contract is that yes, it was
[2:21:41] voted on by the people, but the the
[2:21:43] campaign was run by the chamber and it
[2:21:45] was held during a time of year that was
[2:21:48] outside of primary season. They always
[2:21:50] have special elections when they don't
[2:21:52] want the masses to come out and vote so
[2:21:54] they can specifically target their
[2:21:55] people. I thought it was funny that the
[2:21:57] uh Oklahoma had an article about me and
[2:21:59] Matthew Polaris uh saying that and and
[2:22:03] it was Dave's friend Pat McFaren. It was
[2:22:06] not verified or denied by uh the
[2:22:09] Oklahoma reporter, but it was Pat
[2:22:11] McFaren said Steve Hunt cost the
[2:22:14] taxpayers $350,000
[2:22:16] by forcing a unnecessary election. And I
[2:22:19] was like, what the hell?
[2:22:22] you all had a a special election for the
[2:22:25] hotel tax, for the fix the jail
[2:22:26] campaign, for the arena. That's over a
[2:22:29] million dollars, but I'm the one that
[2:22:30] gets mentioned in the Oklahoma and it's
[2:22:32] like, oh my god, what the what planet is
[2:22:35] this? Um, [clears throat]
[2:22:38] lastly, uh, uh, I'll I'll try not to
[2:22:42] mess with the time there. Um, last
[2:22:45] thing, my main concern is that this
[2:22:48] brings about an enormous inefficiency
[2:22:51] when the chamber dictates who gets what
[2:22:54] contracts and and the greatest example
[2:22:56] is the Thunder TV and radio. I spoke
[2:22:59] about uh Main Street uh sports, which
[2:23:02] was the revived corpse of Diamond Sports
[2:23:05] is now insolvent. They no longer exist.
[2:23:08] They thought they were going to be able
[2:23:09] to sell to a a a UK Saudi group, but it
[2:23:12] was such a piece of crap that it's
[2:23:15] dissolved. Now, Cumulus, who does the
[2:23:17] Thunder Radio, is handed over to their
[2:23:20] creditors. I spoke with people in the
[2:23:21] FCC. They're not going to renew the
[2:23:24] licensing uh for the creditors until
[2:23:27] after Thunder starts. So, again, we need
[2:23:30] to think about giving the Thunder rights
[2:23:32] to Perry Broadcasting or another local
[2:23:35] group. I know that you all don't dictate
[2:23:36] that, but you do influence it. I could
[2:23:39] go on forever, but thanks so much for
[2:23:40] the time.
[2:23:40] » Thank you. Uh, Mari Williams.
[2:23:53] » Good morning again. My name is Murray
[2:23:55] Williams. I've lived in the OKC metro
[2:23:57] for my entire life. I currently reside
[2:23:58] in Ward 5.
[2:24:00] I'm here to ask the council to please
[2:24:02] not renew the Flock contract at your
[2:24:04] next meeting. At the meeting on June
[2:24:06] 16th, I detailed multiple instances in
[2:24:08] which Flock and its AI made mistakes
[2:24:10] that traumatized innocent people and
[2:24:12] cost cities money for lawsuit
[2:24:13] settlements. There have also been
[2:24:15] several cases where law enforcement has
[2:24:18] used it to stalk romantic partners. The
[2:24:20] company claims they perform 20 billion
[2:24:22] scams of vehicles every month. All of
[2:24:25] these files are held in a database for
[2:24:27] at least 30 days. But it just does not
[2:24:30] just detect license plate. It detects
[2:24:32] people 30 days of your life at every
[2:24:35] intersection, every errand. Every
[2:24:37] predictable pattern is stored,
[2:24:39] searchable, and charitable globally. No
[2:24:41] warrant, no probable cause, no knock at
[2:24:43] your door. You're not a suspect. You're
[2:24:46] just driving and going about your normal
[2:24:47] day. But Flock doesn't care. It takes
[2:24:49] pictures anyway. It records you. It
[2:24:52] tracks your movements because it can.
[2:24:54] because someone sold the majority of
[2:24:55] this council three years ago on the
[2:24:57] illusion of safety. It's government
[2:25:00] overreach to have this private company
[2:25:01] holding all of this warrantless data
[2:25:03] with full access given to police and
[2:25:05] certain federal agencies across 49
[2:25:07] states and other countries.
[2:25:10] Over 40 municipalities have canceled or
[2:25:13] paused their contracts with Flock since
[2:25:14] early 2025. This system gives the
[2:25:17] illusion of safety, but it's also used
[2:25:19] to stalk ex-wives, harass protesters
[2:25:21] exercising their First Amendment rights
[2:25:23] and target certain religious communities
[2:25:25] with discriminatory discriminatory
[2:25:27] searches. Either these cameras are
[2:25:30] undermining the freedom that they claim
[2:25:31] to defend or they were never about
[2:25:33] safety in the first place. They were
[2:25:35] really about control and turning every
[2:25:36] public road into a data corral where
[2:25:38] your movements belong to belong to
[2:25:41] whoever logs in first and can access
[2:25:43] them.
[2:25:45] Our innocent people are being actively
[2:25:47] logged, branded, and filed. Please vote
[2:25:50] to not renew the flock contract at this
[2:25:52] next upcoming meeting. Thank you for
[2:25:53] your time.
[2:25:56] Thank you. Um, Lance Gil,
[2:26:05] uh, Ibraham Moralsa,
[2:26:11] Brady, Herrell,
[2:26:27] Hello. Uh my name is Brady Herrell. I
[2:26:29] live at 424 Colberg Drive. Uh and I'm
[2:26:33] also here to talk about um uh flock
[2:26:35] cameras. Um ALPR or automated license
[2:26:40] plate reader surveillance technology
[2:26:42] such as uh those paid for by taxpayers
[2:26:45] in Oklahoma City by Flock. uh taking
[2:26:48] photos, videos, and capturing audio from
[2:26:50] microphones attached to these
[2:26:52] polemounted cameras have proven a tool
[2:26:55] of potential extensive abuse,
[2:26:59] not just from city uh from cities uh
[2:27:02] local officials uh who Oklahomaans uh
[2:27:05] could expect to monitor. Um, Oklahoma
[2:27:09] City has seen a dramatic increase in law
[2:27:12] enforcement activity, particularly in
[2:27:14] collaboration with federal agents such
[2:27:16] as ICE. Uh, I'm confident the city
[2:27:19] council knows that ICE agents have
[2:27:23] repeatedly performed numerous arrests in
[2:27:26] Oklahoma City, uh, reaching 10 to 15
[2:27:28] arrests a day multiple times. Um June
[2:27:33] 27th, Oklahoma City saw a reported 30
[2:27:36] ICE arrests, which was also uh reported
[2:27:39] to be the first wave of an escalation
[2:27:41] going into this month, July. Uh these
[2:27:45] are uh people with no criminal records
[2:27:50] except uh for crimes such as seeking
[2:27:52] asylum. Um they are unconstitutionally
[2:27:56] ripped away from families and lives that
[2:27:59] uh often support the rest of us here in
[2:28:01] the community and uh then sent over uh
[2:28:05] to crowded detention centers for months
[2:28:08] where they are um in very confusing
[2:28:12] situations, forced to work or uh and uh
[2:28:17] provided little opportunity to afford
[2:28:19] calls to their families and lawyers. Uh,
[2:28:23] flot cameras, particularly the more
[2:28:25] advanced Condor camera with AI
[2:28:27] controlled pan, tilt, zoom functions,
[2:28:30] have been used to log behavior and
[2:28:33] movement data of persons beyond the
[2:28:36] vehicle they drive.
[2:28:39] These cameras will follow a human
[2:28:41] presence whenever detected. That means
[2:28:43] tracking personal movement, people on
[2:28:46] the streets, audio of anyone and
[2:28:48] everyone who has traveled around the
[2:28:50] technology. Every physically, everyone
[2:28:54] physically in Oklahoma City is
[2:28:56] experiencing an increased surveillance.
[2:28:58] » 30 seconds remaining
[2:28:59] » That is putting our neighbors in harm's
[2:29:01] way and tracking data from immigrants to
[2:29:04] citizens, uh, drivers and the unhoused.
[2:29:06] We are all being monitored uh, rather
[2:29:09] unnecessarily. Our neighbors are being
[2:29:12] taken away and be uh just for being
[2:29:14] driven to work or getting groceries. All
[2:29:16] flack cameras and ALPRs should be
[2:29:18] removed from Oklahoma City streets and
[2:29:21] buildings. The flock cameras contract
[2:29:23] should not be renewed. I encourage the
[2:29:25] city council to respect the privacy of
[2:29:27] our neighbors in Oklahoma City. Don't
[2:29:30] renew the flock contract with uh the
[2:29:32] city. Do not allow this increased
[2:29:34] surveillance of Oklahoma's people. Uh
[2:29:37] please uh please take down every camera.
[2:29:39] Uh, thank you for your time.
[2:29:41] » Thank you, Jessica Scott.
[2:29:52] » Jessica Scott, 3017 Delmare, Del City,
[2:29:56] and I'm here to also talk about flock
[2:29:58] and ask you to not renew any contracts
[2:30:01] next month. This is a bipartisan issue.
[2:30:05] Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats,
[2:30:09] independents
[2:30:10] do not want um the government sur
[2:30:14] surveillance uh tracking every movement
[2:30:17] they make and the bumper stickers on
[2:30:19] their car. I have not really seen
[2:30:22] anybody, let alone a big crowd of people
[2:30:25] that are advocating to be surveiled. Um,
[2:30:29] and also I just want to note that this
[2:30:31] doesn't even just affect Oklahoma City
[2:30:34] residents. Um, I mean those of us who
[2:30:37] live right out of city limits pretty
[2:30:40] much have to go through Oklahoma City
[2:30:42] all the time. And so it's affecting
[2:30:47] a lot of people in the state. Um, right
[2:30:50] now we're in the early stages of AI and
[2:30:52] have no idea how it will affect us.
[2:30:55] There's almost no regulations or
[2:30:57] protections against AI as it begins
[2:31:00] taking over almost every aspect of our
[2:31:02] life. Flock the newer flock cameras use
[2:31:06] AI. What protections does the city have
[2:31:09] in place for that? Oklahoma City PD
[2:31:12] seems to have zero protections for that.
[2:31:16] No use policies, almost zero oversight.
[2:31:20] It's not only reckless to renew these
[2:31:22] contracts
[2:31:24] um with the AI and everything that we
[2:31:28] have going on, but it is extremely
[2:31:30] unpopular. I'm sure you've seen around
[2:31:33] the country um you know, residents
[2:31:36] retaliating when city council goes
[2:31:38] against them to vote for data centers. I
[2:31:42] view this very much the same way
[2:31:46] um with how unpopular it is. And also
[2:31:50] the crazy thing is if if you are to use
[2:31:53] your power to go against the people to
[2:31:56] do this um you'd be giving your power
[2:31:59] away because it's my understanding that
[2:32:01] Flock can change their capabilities and
[2:32:04] add new features without your approval,
[2:32:07] without the city council's approval. So,
[2:32:10] you wouldn't be able to guarantee
[2:32:12] um that you're able to keep that in
[2:32:14] check if they can just go around you to
[2:32:17] rewrite those contracts
[2:32:19] and these issues, especially in the
[2:32:23] current political climate.
[2:32:25] » Um, and like I said with AI, should be
[2:32:28] more than enough to vote no on this at
[2:32:30] the next meeting. But if you still
[2:32:33] choose to, I hope that you really take
[2:32:37] time to ensure that there is going to be
[2:32:41] oversight and policies put in place
[2:32:44] because as of right now, there's seems
[2:32:48] to be almost no oversight or uh
[2:32:52] protections for the residents of the
[2:32:53] city. Thank you.
[2:32:55] » Thank you, Kristen Schubel.
[2:33:08] Hello, I'm Christian Schubel. I live in
[2:33:10] W 2. Uh, I wanted to show you guys this.
[2:33:15] You might recognize it.
[2:33:19] This is Flock's logo. Uh, I work in
[2:33:24] marketing, so maybe that's why I'm This
[2:33:27] catches my attention. What I find
[2:33:29] fascinating about this is if you didn't
[2:33:31] know any better, you would think this
[2:33:33] was Kashi or Patagonia or some all
[2:33:37] natural brand good for the whole family,
[2:33:40] but it's actually a surveillance
[2:33:42] cameras, soon drones, and that tells me
[2:33:46] a lot about how they want to be
[2:33:48] perceived, and it makes me very
[2:33:50] suspicious of them alongside all the
[2:33:52] actions they've taken in recent years.
[2:33:55] Um, a lot of people have made really
[2:33:56] good points, so I don't want to belabor
[2:33:58] those too much. Um, I did want to jump
[2:34:01] to I was recently reading a speech from
[2:34:05] 2006. I fell down a wormhole in the
[2:34:08] internet by Senator Widen. Uh, he was
[2:34:11] talking about the careful balancing act
[2:34:13] of protecting civil liberties while
[2:34:14] fighting terrorism.
[2:34:16] Uh he was explaining how there were
[2:34:18] certain just in case mechanisms built in
[2:34:20] to make sure we were checking back and
[2:34:22] making sure we were safely approaching
[2:34:25] this this uh tightroppe walk of checking
[2:34:29] against civil liberties and fighting
[2:34:30] terrorism. Uh he said if civil liberties
[2:34:34] are not prominent in our thinking and
[2:34:36] our governing our efforts could result
[2:34:38] in the demise of the uniquely American
[2:34:40] freedoms we seek to hope and maintain.
[2:34:44] Now, our new surveillance technologies
[2:34:46] aren't reserved terrorists. They're just
[2:34:47] normal, mundane, day-to-day tools used
[2:34:50] against American citizens without nearly
[2:34:53] enough respect for the liberties at
[2:34:54] risk, in my opinion. And uh like the
[2:34:58] woman who spoke just before me said,
[2:35:00] it's just getting started. This is just
[2:35:02] the beginning. There's a lot more coming
[2:35:04] down the pipeline.
[2:35:06] uh as someone who grew up feeling very
[2:35:08] optimistic about digital technologies
[2:35:11] uh seeing it as seeing the internet as a
[2:35:13] place where you can meet people from all
[2:35:15] over the world learn all kinds of things
[2:35:18] I feel like it's becoming completely
[2:35:20] corrupted and purchased by people who
[2:35:24] don't have people's best interest at
[2:35:26] heart I do think the council here is is
[2:35:29] different
[2:35:31] um I think I'll just summarize by saying
[2:35:35] I really think we should consider
[2:35:37] modifying or cancelling our tract with
[2:35:39] flock. Um, I also want to make a note
[2:35:42] about state question 832.
[2:35:43] » 30 seconds remaining.
[2:35:45] » I'm going to read this real fast. Um, I
[2:35:47] wanted to catch up with some of the
[2:35:48] criticisms of why people didn't vote for
[2:35:50] this because I am a supporter. One of
[2:35:52] the criticisms was that it's connected
[2:35:54] to the National Consumer Price Index.
[2:35:57] Um, that made me wonder, well, what if
[2:35:59] we had a local uh CPI, one for Oklahoma
[2:36:02] City, uh, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, and
[2:36:05] Milwaukee, who have less residents than
[2:36:07] we do, all have their own CPI. If that
[2:36:10] is one of the things that's preventing
[2:36:12] us from coming up with a minimum wage
[2:36:15] that
[2:36:17] uh that is actually
[2:36:20] won't cause stagnation among our
[2:36:23] essential workers. Sorry, I've got so
[2:36:25] much little time. I'm just trying to
[2:36:27] rush it all in there at once. Um, I want
[2:36:29] to say why I supported this. 33% of
[2:36:32] Oklahomaans make less than $15 an hour.
[2:36:34] They include caregivers, bus drivers,
[2:36:36] janitors, retail workers, receptionists.
[2:36:38] All these people deserve the dignity of
[2:36:40] an independent family life where they
[2:36:42] don't need to constantly worry about one
[2:36:43] surprise upending all their hard work.
[2:36:45] I've been there and I don't wish it upon
[2:36:48] anyone who's still stuck there. I I
[2:36:50] really hope we revisit this question
[2:36:51] locally. Thank you. All
[2:36:52] » Right. Thank you. That concludes
[2:36:54] citizens to be heard. We will now go to
[2:36:55] the executive session we previously
[2:36:57] approved and then we will return. Thank
[3:03:08] We have concluded our executive session
[3:03:10] and returned for item 14 adjournment.
[3:03:12] And we are adjourned.