Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines retroactive $74,000 reimbursement request from Lawton Housing Authority
Summary
After reviewing staff and legal guidance, the council accepted the city's attorney recommendation not to approve retroactive reimbursement to the Lawton Housing Authority for TBRA program expenses; a public commenter provided a timeline of notices-to-proceed dating to 2019, but council voted 8–0 to deny payment and may consider prospective agreements only.
The Lawton City Council voted 8–0 to accept the city attorney's recommendation not to approve a retroactive $74,000 reimbursement requested by the Lawton Housing Authority (LHA) for tenant-based rental assistance administration.
Housing staff introduced the item as previously tabled to seek legal advice and to determine whether any trust indenture applied. The city's legal review found no executed agreement covering January 2022–January 2024 and recommended not to authorize retroactive reimbursement. City staff recommended a prospective agreement for future payments but not retroactive approval.
During public comment, Jervis Jackson (speaker 16) told the council he could provide a timeline showing notices to proceed and communication dating to August 1, 2019, and later notices that he said extended coverage to June 2025; Jackson said internal correspondence and a 2021 $200,000 amendment were involved and contended there was sufficient communication to demonstrate an agreement despite a missing signature on the draft agreement. (Jackson: "This began in August, 08/01/2019. We had an agreement, with a notice to proceed of 08/14/2019... there was subsequently an agreement drafted up that ran from January 2022 to January 2024, but that agreement apparently... never got signed.")
Deputy city counsel and Tim (city legal staff) reviewed documents and advised the council they found no executed agreement for the January 2022–January 2024 period and thus recommended not to retroactively approve payment. Council members asked whether emails or internal communications could create an obligation; counsel answered that council must approve agreements and an unsigned or informal email exchange does not substitute for a council-approved agreement.
Council voted to accept legal advice and not to pay the $74,000 request retroactively (motion carries 8–0). The mayor noted council could still consider a prospective agreement with LHA in a future meeting; staff and council discussed bringing an appropriate prospective agreement back for approval if desired.
Next steps: council accepted legal recommendation; staff may prepare a prospective agreement for future consideration but will not retroactively authorize payment.
