Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norman council weighs painting and advertising water tower vs. demolition costs
Summary
Council discussed a vendor-funded painting/advertising proposal that could recover up to $525,000 over 10 years but requires $75,000 up front and about $836,000 in prep work; staff will return with contract language, bids and an NPV comparison before council action.
Council members and city staff debated whether to preserve an aging water tower by contracting with a third-party advertiser or to remove the structure.
A staff presentation outlined a marketing-style agreement in which a vendor would pay the initial repainting and logo costs (staff cited $75,000 up front and nine additional payments totaling $525,000 over 10 years) while the city would cover preparation and lighting costs. "The initial payment for accounting for some of the payment required for the logo would be the $75,000 and then $50,000 in 9 additional payments," staff (Speaker 7) said, describing a 10-year proposal that staff will evaluate with a net-present-value analysis.
Speakers also raised procurement and salvage concerns. A meeting participant who described hauling scrap metal argued that scrap value should be included in bid specifications so contractors do not later claim salvage rights; a staff member warned that when salvage rights are not explicitly included in requests for proposals, bidders may later dispute ownership. "If you don't address it in your RFP ... you could have a future argument associated with, 'you took this valuable product,'" staff (Speaker 5) said, recounting a prior legal dispute from a Hall Park demolition.
Council members pressed for oversight and clarity on contract terms. One council member asked whether the council would see the identity of the vendor before any work begins; staff replied they will bring a contract to council for approval and aimed to have that agreement available by July 14. "We'll bring a contract to you with the 3rd party. ... We hope to have it July 14," staff (Speaker 6) said.
Staff described design choices and longevity trade-offs: vendors told staff that painted tanks generally outlast vinyl wraps, and staff recommended pricing those lifecycle differences into bid options. Staff also noted logistics would likely require a lane closure on Lindsay Street during work and suggested a 60-day window for the vendor to complete painting after authorization.
No formal vote was taken. Staff will solicit bids, include explicit salvage/metal-handling language in procurement documents, return with a proposed contract identifying the third party, and present a net-present-value comparison of painting/advertising versus demolition and removal costs.
The council did not adopt a final direction at the meeting; staff will return with bid numbers and a proposed contract for council review, potentially at the July 14 meeting.
