Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owasso staff proposes film-permit ordinance with application and road-closure fees; council seeks working permit before vote
Summary
Staff proposed a film-permit ordinance and fees — $100 general application, $250 late application, and $250 per day per location for road closures — to streamline coordination; legal staff warned the city cannot deny permits based on content due to First Amendment concerns and several councilors asked to review the working permit before placing the ordinance for a Dec. 17 vote.
City staff presented draft ordinance language and a proposed fee schedule to establish a film-permit process for productions that wish to use city property, facilities or close streets.
Shelley Wingard, a city staffer, outlined the draft fees: a $100 general application fee, a $250 fee for submissions fewer than four days in advance, and a $250 bridal/road‑closure fee assessed per day and per location. Wingard said the permit “will streamline communications between filmmakers and the city, ensuring efficient coordination and safety for all parties involved,” and that detailed information in the permit would let staff determine if additional city services (police, fire, pyrotechnics) or a separate agreement were required.
Councilors asked several practical questions: whether the $250 road‑closure fee applies per street (staff: yes, per street/location), whether the general application fee is per day (staff: no — it’s a flat application fee), and whether individual property owners can decline filming on their private property (staff: yes — private agreements are negotiated between property owners and filmmakers). Legal staff cautioned that denying permits on the basis of a film’s content “becomes a First Amendment issue,” and that safety or public‑safety concerns would be the proper ground for rejection.
Wingard said the permit form itself is an internal, working document that can be revised by the city manager under the ordinance; the ordinance would grant authority to require a permitting process and establish fees, while the permit details are managed administratively. She asked to place the ordinance on the Dec. 17 council agenda for a vote; one councilor objected and several asked to see the working permit before that meeting.
No council vote occurred. Staff indicated the item would be brought back for council consideration; councilors requested access to the working permit document and further technical review before a final vote.
