Three Norman residents have asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court to review a ruling that allowed the City of Norman to finance an $8 million homeless shelter project through a voter-approved bond election, setting up a constitutional dispute that could have implications for municipal financing across Oklahoma.
The appeal, docketed as Case No. SD-124094, challenges an April ruling by Cleveland County District Judge Michael Tupper, who dismissed a lawsuit contesting the legality of the city’s shelter bond election.
At the center of the case is a constitutional question the challengers argue has never been directly decided by the state’s highest court: whether a municipally owned homeless shelter and resource center qualifies as a “public utility” under Article X, Section 27 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
The appellants — Dianna Lynn Hutzel, William Harvey Coker and Teresa Suzanne Borum — contend the project should have been subject to the requirements of Article X, Section 26, which generally requires 60% voter approval for municipal indebtedness. Norman voters approved the bond proposition with 54.25% support, according to court filings.
City officials have maintained the project qualifies under Section 27, which permits certain municipal indebtedness to be approved by a simple majority vote.
In a seven-page order issued April 29, Tupper sided with the city, finding Oklahoma Supreme Court precedent has interpreted the constitutional provision broadly and that a municipally owned facility designed to address homelessness and related public health, safety and welfare concerns can constitute a public use under Section 27.
Tupper granted the city’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice.
In filings submitted to the Supreme Court, the appellants describe the dispute as a constitutional question of first impression with statewide significance. They argue the court’s eventual decision could affect how municipalities across Oklahoma finance future public projects and define the limits of voter-approved indebtedness.
The challengers have also asked the Supreme Court to retain the case, permit full appellate briefing and schedule oral argument.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has not yet indicated when it may consider those requests or take further action in the appeal.
This story is based in part on reporting by the Norman Transcript.
