Norman City Council declares 1000 North Interstate Drive dilapidated, adopts resolution to remove building

The Norman City Council voted 6–1 on June 17 to adopt a resolution declaring the six‑story hotel at 1000 North Interstate Drive dilapidated and harmful to public health and safety and authorizing the city manager to cause its removal if the owner does not complete required work within the resolution’s timetable.

City attorney Anthony Perinton summarized roughly a decade of code enforcement, inspections and missed permits that led staff to ask the council for the extraordinary remedy. “I think we meet all 4 definitions,” Perinton said during his presentation, referring to the city and state standards for dilapidated structures.

Staff told the council the property, which operated as a Holiday Inn until about 2016–17, has shown repeated water intrusion, collapsed ceilings, rusted structural steel, mold, damaged fire‑suppression systems and repeated unlawful entry by trespassers, including minors. The city has issued multiple unsafe‑structure notices, disconnected utilities at times for safety, and paid contractors to board and secure the building when the owner failed to do so.

Perinton and Greg Clark, the city’s building permit manager, documented a long pattern of expired and repeatedly extended renovation permits, material‑mens liens filed against the property (including a Power Lift lien staff said exceeded $200,000), repeated permit submittal delays and a series of missed deadlines offered by the owner. Clark told council staff had tracked roughly 56 code violations since 2017 and said the building had been unsecured enough times and long enough to meet the code’s “unsecured/boarded” criteria.

The staff report and evidence packet shown to council documented several site inspections in which photos and engineer reviews identified corroded beams, facade sections detached and standing water inside the structure. Perinton told council that, because of those hazards, the building posed a special risk for first responders and nearby property owners.

The property is the subject of foreclosure proceedings. Elizabeth George, representing First Bank & Trust during the hearing, said the outstanding principal related solely to the Norman hotel was about $5.5 million as of May 5, 2025; she also explained that the loans and collateral structure among related properties made the financing picture more complex. At the hearing, the owner’s counsel, Sean Reager, said he had received signed financing term sheets and a proposed $15–18 million financing plan and asked the council to delay action so the developer could finalize financing, present contractor bids and post a bond. “Give him one more chance,” Reager told council.

Council members pressed both staff and the applicant’s representatives on specifics: whether asbestos testing had been performed, the size of the property (about 109,000 square feet), the history of liens and past attempts at remediation, and whether the city’s demolition costs could be recovered. Perinton described the resolution’s enforcement mechanism: if the council adopts the resolution, the city would file a notice of dilapidation and lien with the county clerk; if the owner failed to abate the condition within the time specified, the city manager would be authorized to solicit bids and have the city abate the property, recovering costs through the city’s lien co‑equal with ad valorem taxes.

Perinton told council staff recommended the property be declared dilapidated and said staff would set demolition timelines in the resolution. In his summary of the proposed resolution, Perinton said the resolution would order removal “on or before June 18 with completion by 07/31/2025,” and would authorize the city manager to solicit bids and, if necessary, perform demolition and place a lien for recovery of costs.

Council members split on whether to postpone and require additional financial assurances. Multiple members expressed concern that further delays would prolong a public‑safety hazard and that past patterns of missed deadlines and repeated extensions eroded trust; others said the proposed developer’s financing evidence and a surety could justify short additional time. After debate, the council voted to adopt the resolution as submitted; the vote passed 6–1, with Council member Michael Hinkle recorded as voting no.

What’s next: the council’s adoption triggers the formal notice and lien filing by the city clerk. The owner retains statutory appeal rights; staff told council that, under state law, the owner may appeal to district court and that an appeal could create an automatic stay that would affect the city’s ability to perfect or enforce a lien. If the owner does not complete required work within the resolution timetable and the city proceeds with abatement, staff said the city expects demolition and abatement costs to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and would seek to recover those costs through the lien process.

The council’s action closes the public hearing and sets a formal process for the next steps. Staff said they will be available to answer technical follow‑up questions about fire‑safety, permit history and the timeline for any abatement contract solicitations.