Thanks.

Okay, thanks.

We're live.

Okay, we are live.

Good morning, everyone.

It is the 1030 a.m.

Wednesday, March 11th, Urban and Economic Development Committee meeting.

And I am Councillor Ballis chairing this meeting.

First item on the agenda.

I call this meeting to order.

Second item on the agenda, Renita Bolden, appointment to the HUD Community Development Committee, filling a vacant seat.

Term expires June 30th, 2027 from Council District 6 is Renita.

Oh, great.

You want to come up to the table.

Absolutely.

There you go.

You can take a seat anywhere.

Sorry, there you go.

Yes.

If you wouldn't mind telling us a bit about yourself and why you're interested in survey in this role.

Worked there my entire career.

I worked for Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for 24 years.

And in that capacity, I served several well, I I was appointed on several positions, including supervisors deputy, office manager, administrator.

My most recent experience, I I did work with the community a lot.

Everything from case management to director over a certain certain departments and everything.

I have so much experience.

But I I served from I think senior secretary five to office manager to deputy to office administrator.

And in those positions, I actually worked with the community a lot from hands-on grassroots serving, uh taking complaints, um, liaising with the departments to resolve those complaints, and um more recently as the um I was in charge of operations for Justice Care and Opportunities Department, where um I helped to facilitate community meetings and um set up trying to say that sorry, a little nervous here because I am okay.

Well um we don't bite sure, I'm sure.

I'm just I really want to do this because I feel like I have a lot of experience working with the community.

I've done everything from uh handling budgets, contract management, RFP processes, you know, facilitating, and um I really wanted to talk about the Justice Care and Opportunity Department where Measure J, I'm not sure if you are familiar with that, but they had to take existing funds from uh law enforcement agencies to serve just as impacted individuals and their families, and um especially those that are marginalized and don't really know about the services, and so we did have to facilitate uh numerous uh community meetings to uh receive impact um input from the communities and um to see where those services should be directed and things like that.

So um I had to facilitate or secure or procure um venues, equipment, um, behind the scenes, and also note-taking, um, just like I said, everything that I I like to fill in where the gaps are.

And because we started this from scratch, I did have to do a lot of the um or handle a lot of the assignments until we were at capacity and hired other people, so uh everything from hiring staff to training them and so forth.

So, anyway, uh since I retired, and my and I've been back, I've been to Oklahoma over the past uh my husband and I will be celebrating 40 years this year, married, and he's from Oklahoma, so we've come back to vacation here all the time, and I loved it and everything, and so I still have family here.

Um, and now that we've purchased a home here, uh I'm all over the place.

I I'm not content to sit around just because I'm retired.

I I am involved in the community in my church.

I volunteered over 30 years in the church and everything.

So I just feel like I have a lot to offer and am looking forward to um if appointed, uh, helping our community in whatever way possible.

Counselor D.

I just wanted to say it sounds like you're a super volunteer, and you're probably gonna be like most who retire and do more than before, which would you all just describe the city of Los Angeles seemed like a lot.

So thank you for your willingness to serve.

I'm also a transplant, and I think um it's great to have a variety of perspectives.

Right.

I just did want to ask have you worked specifically with um voucher-based community.

I did not, I just have to say the closest I came to working with housing was to um help with those re-entry services and things like that, where the people who had been incarcerated before our program when we weren't able to divert.

Um, then we uh worked with the providers who provide services or housing and sure things like that.

Uh I think that's gonna, I mean, we're we have the highest rate of incarceration, one of the highest, and it's definitely uh re-entry and housing is an issue in our state and certainly our community, so I think you'll have a valuable lens to bring to that.

And I'm just appreciative of your willingness to say that thank you.

And I I I do have to say, as a deputy to um the county supervisors, some I I was able to connect people who had problems with housing to those departments like uh our housing authority, but not actually working where I facilitated it.

Yeah, so great.

Hello everyone.

Oh my gosh.

Kevin can just make sure we're not publicly.

Um I think I have Council Harper said, Thank you for your loans.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you.

Counselor Ben Cole.

Well, Shalla Bowen sat in this seat previously, so obviously they share a name.

Um that's not coincidence.

Um this seat has been vacant.

I thought for some reason you went through the process, and I I I thought that for some reason, and so I'm glad that you decided to take this on.

Um I'm really grateful because this is a seat that definitely needs to be built.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, Councillor Brother.

Yeah, I just wanted to say uh thank you.

Highly qualified, and I really appreciate that.

And if there's anything you would like from the council, please don't hesitate to reach out to us.

Okay, great, great.

Okay.

So we will be voting on this in our March twenty-fifth five o'clock meeting.

You are welcome to attend that, but you do not have to.

But thank you so much for your time with us today.

We really appreciate it and your willingness to serve, of course.

I I had so much to say, but wait, is there hold on?

Do you have a big thing?

If you have something else that needs to be on the record, you still got a mic.

Oh, only only that, you know, I feel like I'm a quick study.

You know, I I like to learn even now.

And um, I just I need to be busy and productive and everything.

So I feel that whatever position I might be appointed to that I will bring a lot to the table.

I'm not just brag on myself.

I just I just know that I I love to help and I love to work in the community.

I know very solid at it.

Yeah, I just want to say as a senior myself, um, over 65 that I can appreciate the idea after you retire to add purpose right to your life.

Right and being a contributing member in a purposeful way is so meaningful.

Yeah, it's so grateful for grateful.

Thank you so much.

Again, this will be on for the March 25th, five o'clock meeting.

Thank you for your time today.

All right, and we're on agenda item three, Yadaka Starfields reappointment to the Tulsa Arts Commission.

I learned if I see him here.

It's an emergency.

Oh no, so we'll reschedule it.

Okay, we are rescheduling.

All right.

Item four license agreement between the city of Tulsa and Salinas Favana Telephone Company for the property located at 439 Road and 4365 Road, prior Oklahoma to install a four-inch PVC duct and fiber optic line underneath raw water flow lines in Mays County Glamorous work.

Polzak Republic Works.

Um we have large right-away.

City of Tulsa owns property all the way out to the lakes.

Um this has our two uh supply water lines, one of 54, one a 66-inch uh water line.

We do have um we cross several section line roads uh as we go across the counties and across uh as we get to the lakes.

Um but along this road along North 439 uh road, which is a section line road in Mays County.

Uh the Salina Spavanaugh telephone company is wanting to install the fiber optic line, and we have a standard established.

They have to bore outside our property, they have to get six feet below at a minimum to the lines.

And this is all of the backup if you want to look at it.

But basically, we do identify the lines are flow line folks are out there with them during the boring operation, and they clear the bottom of our pipes by six feet, and then they come up out of our right-of-way on adjacent property.

So they've signed, they've agreed we've looked at their plans, and we have no objection to those.

So we would recommend approval uh of this deal and let them make this five rock connection for the folks out in Mays County.

Any follow-up questions?

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right, we are on agenda item five coordinates declaring a 365-day moratorium on the acceptance of applications for processing of and issuance of building permits that would allow construction on or use of property for data center use located in the city of Tulsa, providing for an exception and an appeal process, providing effective in repeal days.

This item has the emergency clause.

Um I put it on the agenda.

Oh, yeah, I have a few things in backup that I'll go through, but we can keep this really discussion-based.

Um, and I'll name up front that this does have an exemption in it for um project anthem, since that's something that's already been thoroughly you know processed through our city hall with contract, like a contract signed in by um the mayor's office in 2024.

Um so what I'm seeking to do here, and then why with this proposed moratorium is allow our planning office time to go through a very thorough research phase that we had already initiated in looking at the zoning.

Um, as mentioned when we initiated that kind of zoning um research, all data centers right now are under industrial light.

Uh, and we know that hyperscale ones have been proven across the country to have off-site impacts, especially related to um noise and vibrations, especially like infrastructure, which you may not always um actually detect or hear yourself, but your body can physiologically acknowledge um the National Institute of Health says that it can cause um significant and office, like in often um kind of both physical and psychological effects on people because it can raise cortisol levels, um, it can lead to cardiovascular issues, etc.

Um, it's there's there's just a lot of consideration to make sure that we have appropriate zoning, appropriate space between these types of hyperscale facilities and private residences or areas where we intend to have more residential um housing, and so just want to ensure we're being really mindful and allowing time to make sure we get that zoning accurate before we're um you know allowing more large-scale data centers to go in.

I just want to ensure that we're being really thoughtful with that.

Um I'll also name that we learned um during our last council meeting.

There's a public comment that, and I looked up on the news that Cherokee Nations initiated a study, which they're planning to, I think have conducted by around June or July or so, and then be able to publicly share it in the fall.

That'll show it related to data center impact.

And so there's just a few things here where I think we have the opportunity to slow down, be proactive.

This is a very fast-moving industry, and I'm not trying to impede you know what I think ultimately going to be you know, a certain amount of economic development related to this, hence the exception for um what Anthem had already submitted for and is in the process of.

Um, but I do want to make sure that we have our zoning in a place where we know that we're being responsible of development, especially as we strive to address our housing needs.

Um so I had would you actually mind uh pulling up the map if we can extend you in my what I did is I have um I took some screenshots that are gonna be passed out, and this is in the backup now.

Um apologies, it's taking a second to get our the RGIS of this pulled together for folks to have now.

Um, and so this would go into the backup until a few hours ago.

Um but there is, and I put a little tiny URL if there if anyone wants to go in and look at it.

Um, what you're looking at is a map of places right now where data centers of size, whatever size and scale can go in by right.

Um, and then the little green things are parks and nature areas.

Um, and then if you go through more um the second page of the document, um that's the by right area, then the second page is sorry, so the first page green dots are what?

Then the second page is sorry, so the first page green dots are what?

Oh, those are parks and nature areas.

I just was curious.

Okay.

So I asked for those to be shown in proximity is and then where they could go is the rate.

So the red is those are all areas where those are zones industrial light, and right now buy right data centers can go in of whatever size and scale.

If you go to the second page, um this is showing where they can go by right for special exemption, and it's adding in CH and CB zoning and whatever we can't think of right now.

So this is showing where they could go through a special exemption process and also go.

C and C H C G and C B.

Thank you.

I was like, I'm missing a seat.

Um, so I just wanted to kind of convey some of this, and then if you go to the next page, what I've done, and I tried to make sure you can see by area, this is where they can go by right, and all of the orange is showing you residential zoning just to convey some of the proximity.

Um I tried to kind of show this for each different for various areas of our city.

I do want to highlight here, for instance, you have a lot of areas, including ones that you don't see a lot of other community structures on, or there's kind of some large land mass around things that we're investing in otherwise, like Crutchfield Heights or you know, up by let's see, or I'm looking over here, neighborhoods that were heavily focused on in the Charles Cage area, for instance, in my district.

Um, if you if you go to the next page, um you can see up here, this is right northeast Tulsa where you have the heaviest like space or presence, and it makes sense over at the airport, but you can also see some of these other areas and corridors that really are um abutting residential area um or areas where you could have residential growth.

You can go to the next page.

Um, you know, you can see again this is northeast of these areas that could end up having a lot of potential residential development where there's a lot of physical space.

Um, you could go to the next one.

Um, and then I had wanted to also highlight, let's see.

Um, this is the yes, still north.

Okay, this is the north east.

If you could go one more, just your yes, yeah, lots of more pieces.

And then this is um my district.

Yes, in district seven, where you can see some pretty potential areas, and if you could do one more.

All right, this is showing some of that opportunity in space on the west side, especially right along the riverfront area.

Um, I think that might be the last page.

Okay.

So, what I wanted to convey to you all through all this, it you know, obviously, land would have to be purchased.

There's a lot of other parts and pieces.

That said, all of the companies that are building data centers right now, they're moving quickly.

This is a fast moving industry, they're in competition with each other, and we are in competition with other countries to rapidly scale up AI infrastructure, and they have massive amounts of money to spend to do this work.

Um, and it's of their interest to build as many as they can as fast as possible, which that's of course the you know, private industry that's incumbent upon them to do as a company, so that makes all the sense in the world.

I just want to make sure that we're putting some of those safeguards in place for community members when it comes to appropriate zoning and land use.

And right now, you can kind of see that with the current zoning situation, there's a lot of space for them to go in a lot of places where with what we know about hyperscale data centers today that we did not know two years ago when we first approved um the TIFF for Project Anthem, we probably wouldn't want these types of industry to go in in those various locations.

Um so I had wanted to share that, and then if you could um if someone could switch back to that article real quick, thank you.

Um the other piece here that I want to highlight is um, and it's been brought to my attention since this first went on an agenda that the company, which I don't know what the actual company is, there's um a contract with Atmos LLC, which is out of Delaware, which right people like to do LLCs out of Delaware because you don't have to put a public filing um with a you know it doesn't require member of manager names, uh there's no state income tax, they don't conduct business if you're not conducting business within Delaware, no sales tax, no tax on intangible assets.

So, you know, um anyway, so this company that is a contract that's been contracted with for Anthem phase one is more recently been making clear that they only want to build in multiples.

Um, when you look at what we had approved in 2024, it said for one data center, um, and we had asked some questions at that time, and you know, at this table about impacts noise, water, but if you had Googled data center at that time in 2024, not a ton of articles about data centers, not a lot of knowledge, you know, a lot more have gone in over time.

We know so much more today than we did then, and I do think that due to our genuine interest as a community in economic development and opportunity that we got taken advantage of with the deal that happened, and now they're saying that they wanted to put in or they only build in sets of two or more with the master plan development that we have on our five o'clock agenda today that has space for further data centers.

Maybe we're looking at four or six.

I have no idea.

I know that sounds sensationalist, but we are creating that space, which there is a question of capacity.

Um, again, I think you know, we've already, as a community, made commitments to um Project Anthem phase one, and I'm not trying to discount that, but I did want to highlight this article, um, which is in the back of for everyone, in which they did some analysis in Georgia that shows one, most of the data centers that they provided incentives to to come in would have gone in anyway, and that the public cost of doing that is hold on, let me find there's a data point.

They have there's like some layers of research.

Um let's see for every dollar that they incentivized, it's costing taxpayers like a certain amount of money back.

I'll go find that stat in a minute.

Um, this is all just like we offered a tax incentive for something that these are some of the richest companies in the world, and I think you know, we did it.

We're I I question some of the return on investment we're getting, but I'm going to try to have faith in the analysis that we've done, but I just want to make sure, given how fast this industry is going, that moving forward, we are being as proactive and thoughtful as possible, and I think this pause can be very conducive to that.

There was a bill put forward this session by Senator Um Kendall.

Let me know if I say this wrong, such Gary, who's um a conservative legislator out of Blanchard, Oklahoma, um, where she was proposing a three-year moratorium on data centers for the whole state.

I'm I'm not coming to say anything like that here.

Um, and given the time it's taken from when we initiated on the TIFF for anthem's um, I guess initial phase now to today, you know, they haven't, you know, hit the ground running building something.

So to me, a 365-day moratorium that gives us the time to get our zoning ducks in a row, hypothetically given the pace that they've been moving, shouldn't actually necessarily impede featured development or projects within a sensible um you know location zoning wise.

Um, I'll I'll stop monologuing for now.

I just kind of wanted to lay out some of the case for why I'm proposing this pause so that we can be proactive and mindful.

Counselor Dr.

Eight.

Thank you.

Thanks for bringing this to us.

I know a lot of constituents have been reaching out on all sides of this.

I'll use my projected voice.

Um the map is helpful.

I just want to make sure I know what I'm looking at.

So by right now, these are zoned where folks could come in.

Yes, small, medium, large, any size, because we have no clarification.

The project we're talking that you're talking about out east is on ag land that has to go through rezoning.

So there's already, I think where the TIFF is for the first phase, it's already zoned appropriately when you look at the contract, it shows that if it's a TID.

Oh, TID, I'm I apologize.

Where the TID is um for the first phase, and this is in the contract too, that's already zoned appropriately.

They are now asking for a second phase that does have to go through a rezone.

That's in front of the planning commission next week.

Okay.

Like that's AG.

I don't we don't know.

That's AG, that's it's AG.

They're proposing IL.

Um, which IL is what we're also saying may not be appropriate zoning.

We haven't had the time to finish vetting that.

And that's the question I have here.

These are IL or C H or both.

Um, the first page is all IL.

The second page, if you flip to the back of that page, shows the IL CH or both.

I have some little labels at the top, but um, yeah.

IL the second page shows IL plus the added on areas that would have exemptions.

You can go to this um ARC GIS map and toggle between things and add the layers and remove the layers.

So I guess I'm trying to figure out, and I appreciate that you went all around the city, and yes, you know, I have that industrial triangle that right now has a lot of growth operations that get to go in by right, which then are creating nuisances for other existing businesses, and somehow we haven't figured out how to get on that six-week cycle of when odor is escaping buildings, and but it has caused some of the businesses in that corridor that were there for a very long time to have to leave just on odor nuisances, not noise or anything else.

Um how do we know on this which ones are IL and which ones are by exemption?

Um we need to look on the live.

So those ones are all, I think just the what you have screenshots of are just IL by right on those ones.

Okay.

No, the yellow is residential.

What you're seeing in red on those screenshots are just the IA files.

It does not have the other overlay.

I got you.

Yes.

So these are by all the by rights because they're IL right now.

Yes.

And then, of course, those of us with undeveloped ages open for redevelopment discussions, pending approval in front of the planning commission commission.

So I do think that we need to, there's enough precedent in other communities.

I think we need to learn from that they're ahead of us on this, and they're now trying to reverse engineer some of the unintended consequences that have come with these decisions.

Obviously, we have this commitment, and you said there's a carve out.

Yeah, I think it is prudent to because of how fast it's going to look at best practices and look at it from a land use.

And also resource.

I believe the um stuff going on at the state is really around water and electricity.

And other states are looking at like, yes, you can do your business here, but you can't pass those costs on to residential customers through these.

And I haven't done a deep dive the way some of you all have, but it seems to me that some of that discussion is going on right now.

That right now PSO, I think, and maybe some others are asking for the cost to be spread across all customers, not the ones that are driving the high usage.

And so I think we need to see how the session goes while we also look in our own backyard about unintended consequences or creating overlays.

I don't think the answer is no, but it might be like it only makes sense to do it maybe in places that aren't densely residential or that don't already have other industries.

I'm just gonna go back to cannabis.

We're requiring certain features in the I'm gonna go back to cannabis.

This corridor right here, specifically on this page in my district, used to be highly highly oil and gas manufacturing and things.

So those buildings have been there 30, 40, 50 years.

As at uh cannabis industry came on, a lot of this building space was then converted to grow facilities or processing facilities.

Totally legal, totally industry came in.

The existing businesses that are there now are being impacted by the new businesses because of a nuisance odor.

And we have repeatedly talked at this table, right?

How you even enforce something like that.

I've recently learned because sometimes it's stronger.

I don't know for those of you that drive the interchange.

Sometimes it's so strong that I'm explaining to my kids what that is.

That happens to me by Hollywood.

Yeah, and I think they're like on a six-week or eight-week grow and harvest cycle, and so then that's mass like production time.

And when I live near Gilroy, California, we would smell garlic in the same way, like downwind, but when it's cannabis, it is disruptive.

And so we know with um data centers just nationally, there's a lot of complaints about sound, vibration, those kinds of things.

Um, we had, you know, in my district, that long-term nuisance case on a nightclub that was vibrating people's homes.

Yeah, and that was just the business in an existing neighborhood on this map right here.

So, you know, one nightclub was tormenting this block of residential, and it took us probably 10 years to finally get that taken care of.

It looks like a data center could go right where that nightclub was eventually and cause maybe some of the same issues.

So I do think we should be thoughtful about land use and maybe look at the comprehensive plan and look at those areas where we could potentially designate.

And the other final thing I want to say is Councillor Lakin and I did the town hall in October at Hardesty with Public Works, and there was a question about data centers and water, and I think Eric Lee had said in that meeting we have capacity to take on to for the whole city, water capacity.

Like he had stated that he felt that remember the number.

I think it was to, and I think he was saying like we have capacity to take on to and not have it impact residential or others now.

Or they add two revenue as well.

Right.

Because we can also sell our water to use closest.

Yeah, yes, and they were up and they were talking about there's new technology where maybe they recycle that water for cooling, but they're not totally there.

Yes.

But I remember that coming up as a point of questions from the public, and that Eric had mentioned, you know, beyond two, probably didn't look like a thing that we as a community could take on.

So with the current technology.

Right.

Yep.

And capacity.

Yeah, you council if you were still.

Yeah, Nancy Moran was there too and asked.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah, and I think you I think actually, Councilor Dun was there too, and you had a follow-up to that same question to Eric.

So I think we were the three counselors that were in that meeting.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um, Councillor Dunn.

Yeah, so the looking at this map is really um showing that district three would be the predominant um receiver of these data assemblies.

Yes, possibly.

And I have received a lot of um emails from constituents voicing concerns about that.

Um very close to parks, very close to ag uh farming type land.

Um there's also the quarry that's in our district, and it makes a lot of noise.

I get complaints about that all of the time, and the fact that on this project anthem fact sheet, we don't see anywhere that includes cost to taxpayers on here and uh incentives.

I would like to break down of what the incentives are and the projected uh just a moment, yeah, what the present uh projected incentives are, and if they also have data centers elsewhere, and what that looks like in those states that the data centers are placed.

Um also um there is no indication as to what it's actually gonna cost taxpayers in the form of PSO billing and possibly utility, city utility costs.

So I I'm in agreement of a moratorium just until we can have all of the information necessary.

Well, and there are some projections of the um well that article tells me no, but I just need actual contract for the city, which I know Councillor Bengal's really expert on, so I'll let him talk in one second.

I do just want to add in as one quick note with the PSO cost of projections of potential state and federal laws about requiring them to really do you know, put in pay cover their own and put in their own like source of power, one potential interesting kind of which would be good that would help offset cost to customers, so we're still seeing dramatic increases that absolutely parallel the rise of uh this industry and technology, um potential offset of that though, and this has come up recently.

I think it's at the maybe it's the groc site in Tennessee, where um they put in some really massive power generation on site because it you know, from the point of we're gonna generate our own and be responsible for that, but they're incredibly loud turbines that can you know the it sounds like an airplane taking off for all the nearby residents.

That's been pretty reportedly fairly reported on recently.

Oh, yeah, please.

So I guess in council.

Also, yeah, because of we also have the National Guard in the district, they send off five uh jets at a time, uh fighter jets at a time throughout the day.

So there's a lot of noise factors that we're dealing with in the district.

Um also projections don't mean actual cost and profits, right?

And so even though we might have projected costs and profits, we still don't know.

And we saw that I know this is a different issue, but we saw that with Canoe when they came into the state, and uh there were all these projections on profits, and then they went under, and we put all of this money into them and just to have taxpayers lose investment funds.

I'm just saying I think Councillor Bengal heard the point about the generation.

I think that's his one.

Yeah, so obviously I handed out this fact to you.

Um obviously through that L Dart process, you cede the taxing entities that would benefit from that development.

It is a TID, not a TIF.

So uh this actually is the difference.

How you have to obviously we're a baiting their advocum at 85% for 25 years.

I would remind folks this isn't Tulsa County, this is Wagner County.

So the commissioner James Hanning, who said on that on that LDARC, um you had Tulsa or Tulsa Tech, I think is part was part of that.

I can't remember who the uh entire body was, but everybody at the table uh had an input on whether this was a good deal or not.

Now because it was a TID versus a TIFF, they're not getting any rebate on taxes, so they still have to pay their sales tax and everything associated with that, and that includes also the um the franchise uh tax and things of that nature and their usage.

The thing for me specifically, right?

Um, because we've already leveraged an incentive because I'm in my view, incentives should only be used once, right?

Because that's the intent of incentive, is you leverage it to create development in an area where it doesn't wouldn't naturally occur.

So we've already leveraged the TIFF.

This the expansion in and of itself is outside of that TID.

So what I would, and I've been very vocal about this with uh Aaron, I've been vocal with this on with Tao, that I would naturally be opposed to any additional incentives.

Now, because this was in Wagner County versus Tulsa County, right?

It's not affecting our county or us as a city at all because it is a deferment of Advilar.

I totally agree with you a hundred percent about the potential of putting a data center next to large subdivision.

I totally it's just nonsense to be doing something to this scale, right?

So we're talking about a 340-acre development versus something on a much smaller scale.

I did say at the beginning when we went through this process that I felt like because this was an animal of its own, that we should create a zoning code specifically designated so that we could craft that zoning designation around that specific type of development, whether it was one of a that large a scale versus ones that already pre-exist that most people don't even know.

These small ones you wouldn't, yeah, they're downtown, you wouldn't be able to do that.

Right, they're downtown, and most people don't know they're here.

So I feel like we still need to go down that path and create that.

This why I was oppositional about sponsoring language regarding the noise ordinance.

Um I use a cautious approach on this entire thing because I know what they do, and I know they don't manufacture anything or anything tangible that we can put our hands on.

So I do know what they do, but I do know they're high revenue generators, and that's why I said because of the loads that they do put on our infrastructures, I totally agree 100% that they should pay those costs.

I will also tell you that Project Anthem, as we discussed last week, there's 75 million dollars of infrastructure from the state, and 50 million dollars of ARPA funding, and then 25 million dollars of Project Anthem is stuck in the ground on on their own as part of their agreement.

This is 75 million dollars.

I don't have to bond to the citizens for infrastructure.

We now have development ready property for that entire area.

Now I understand there are some concerns about ecological concerns.

I totally grasp those 100%.

But as I stated, I'm not an expert on frequency, propagation, and attenuation.

I don't know what those look like.

So those are the questions that do need to be answered, right, as far as noise.

How we use the water, how the water is used, how it's returned, those are legitimate questions that should be answered.

What I don't want to do, uh, because this is a huge economic impact to our uh community in our city.

This isn't next to a pre-existing subdivision, right?

This is out out on uh privately owned land that the owner has designated specifically for this as part of a much larger development.

And this fact sheet shows you how much project anthem has stuck into this much larger development to create housing, to create green space, to create a huge park, to create a town center.

They put a lot of investment in it.

So even though they've done that, right, they have gotten an incentive, right?

And that's why I'm not overly excited about going back and re-leveraging an incentive.

But I do feel like this is something that we can leverage when we're talking about finding money for infrastructure or finding things for public money for public safety.

There are these are different revenue sources that we at this table have been talking about collectively.

How do we fund things?

And this is how you do it.

Well, that's why I've exempted what we've approved already for Project Anthem in this.

Like I'm not trying, you know, right?

I'm not trying to undermine something we've tried to make a commitment to, and I'm not even through this mechanism trying in the long term to impede anything.

I'm just making sure we get our you know, kind of zoning code ducks that are over this percure point.

We don't, it's just you know, not quite codified, right?

So what are um so my friendly, my friendly recommendation in this is instead of doing a moratorium that we put together or would that we create a working group to work with planning um TAO and the developer to see what how to create a zoning code specifically surrounding data centers.

We could do that.

I think that's kind of what I'm trying to do.

We already have the planning office.

But what I don't want to do is stall a development that's in progress.

Why would this I've exempted Project Anthem?

Why would that stall this?

Well, because there's an expansion.

So, yeah, just to surface to everyone, Project Anthem, whoever that is, um, Atmos, LLC, whatever kind of.

I don't even know who it is.

No, but the news always says meta, but I I don't know.

They have said that they now no longer want to just build one thing, that they only build in multiples, they want at least two to four, and that if they here's here's my two or three things here.

One, um, so now they're trying to move forward with more.

That's in front of the planning commission next week.

That may not be approved.

We don't know at which point or you know, so we we do have it, and I want to name this is on this week.

Next week we don't have a council meeting.

That will be in front of the planning commission.

I don't know what the planning office is going to recommend.

We don't know what's going to what's going to happen there.

Um, and then we have we'll be back looking, we can put this back on, of course, committee the following week before you know in the case.

So this might be a moot point.

It could be moot, but I do want to name, I do kind of I I think they've done a bit of a beta and switch here where we put we put forward good faith things.

When I look at what we actually did, it said for a TID for what came through this table in 2024 said for a data center.

Um granted, when you look at the contract at the mayor's office.

I don't think that was the intent or okay it wasn't a bait and switch.

So the expansion only happened, or the expansion request only happened because a property owner to the west sold their property.

But now they're is that not correct?

But now they're saying they only okay.

That that's helpful.

Yeah, this wasn't an this was not okay that where they go, well, we only do this in pairs.

Well, I mean, now they are saying that.

Well, if Anthem is meta.

No, no, no.

They I've been told by um our economic development officer, Aaron person.

Yeah, if you don't mind.

I'm gonna say three things, and Aaron's probably never gonna talk to me on the phone again when I say this.

One, he let me know that um you know that they have made clear that they would prefer to do two to four in our cities, being like, we're gonna stop you at two.

However, with you know, if they bought up land or property on the race, they could they could do more.

I don't really know what it looks like for us to codify that otherwise, but I do think it's worth having the space to give pause.

He also let me know, like, Aaron, that it was like that, you know, when you can actually see in our contracts, it goes one contract related to this in 2024 is signed by um I think then deputy mayor Kashakar and other folks, and then Aaron Persley came in the next week and got to sign the next one.

So he came in when a week after we made this commitment, and just been clear with me that like um where he was coming from in Kentucky, they actually had a policy to not provide incentives to data centers that predates like the current era or that being on the table.

Like it's not necessarily maybe a best economic practice, but here we are.

That's why I was like, well, let's exempt this to honor our commitments.

Um but I think I think what we can now know in retrospect, despite all of our best intentions, is you know, compared to what we see some of these companies put in for other communities or offer other communities.

I feel that they took advantage of us, and now they're saying we want to do this other phase, and I really value what um Councillor Bengal saying, like, hey, we're not I don't want to put forward more incentives.

Aaron mentioned to me maybe they should be small ones.

But if this is I would yeah, I just want to reiterate.

Yeah, when you say take advantage of us, it's not us, it's Wagner County.

Well, it's our unity.

Right, I get that.

I get that.

But this proposal has nothing to do with one entity, right?

No.

This is about I'm just naming let's can I feel like we need a refocus, that's fair.

Since I was mentioning them all in a choices I was mentioned, of course.

Clarify some things, yeah.

Appreciate that.

Please do.

So, yes.

The current move for the Anthem project is to have two phases in there project.

So, yes, they're one and two are tied.

So if we don't have Anthem Two, Anthem one may not go through.

My opinion is that we if we're going to support Anthem one, you have to do two because it makes sense to carve out something for one and not do two because the project dies either way if you don't do two.

Why?

They're connecting us.

The way their model works is that they need the one and two uh facilities together.

And if we don't have two cells together, then one doesn't work.

I don't know the background of how that works.

That's not my you know area of expertise, but I've been confirmed to me that one and two operate together because of changes that were made after we had the first agreement.

I too initially thought it was a bait and switch project.

I've come to see that it was not.

It's just this is the way the business going right now.

The model has changed and how they do data centers for this particular company.

So having said that, as the economic development director officer.

What's important to me is that once we develop, we develop smartly and develop well, right?

And not make quick and rash decisions.

I think what you're doing is good.

Let's look at how it works.

But I would like for us to take a step back, maybe table this, bring in experts around the table, have a full-on conversation before we make any decisions moving forward on a moratorium or not.

And maybe we still get to that level of that decision.

But I would really like to take the time for us to all have discussion with everyone around the table, PSO, other people to say, okay, this is what data center really is.

Here are the real impacts of a data center and talk those things through and have you ask those professionals questions directly to get the right answers and not to make decisions based on kind of what we think about.

The moratorium is to have time to actually do that before something else happens.

Right, but as you said, we have the zoning commission meeting on the next week, yeah.

Next week, so why not just wait to see where we are after next week and then move forward?

Well, right, that's why we're not voting on this tonight.

So it's okay to go to a second reading.

Right.

So that's kind of timed.

Yeah, we have I time frame.

Sorry, council.

No, I was just saying that.

Oh, you would question?

No, go ahead.

Oh, okay.

I'm just getting on the line.

Um that phase two doesn't happen in phase one.

You don't know the understanding the ramification of how that actually works.

So my question is, how do we know what they're saying is accurate?

So you're saying that the second building will not function unless it's connected to the first building?

No, for their model.

What do you mean their model?

So they have to do things.

It's not that it's not that one doesn't work without the other.

It's that the way they're doing them across the country, they're doing the larger data centers.

The first one that was we approved does not meet that new model that they have.

So it's not that it won't function without the other, it's that it doesn't make business sense for them to do a smaller one without doing the two of them together.

So their business model you say model, it changed, yeah.

Well done.

So in 2024, when it was negotiated, that was the model, and since then they've upgraded how they do this.

They change, right?

Because once again, this is an industry that changes very quickly.

In fact, even the use of water priority and power is changing as we speak, right?

So there are new systems of how to use water in data centers, for new power models out there as well, where they use less power.

These things are going to change over time.

It's a new dynamic industry.

And at this point, you're in or you're out.

And as you mentioned, we know from Eric Lee, we can only do about two data centers in Tulsa, and then we're kind of at all.

Is it the super big one or is it the two?

It's the two.

So we talked we've not talked about this.

So it's two separate ones or phase one, phase two of this one.

We can we can support phase one and phase two.

And after phase one and phase two in Tulsa, according to Eric Lee, I think we are tapped out.

That's new information.

And so that's so what I'm saying is what you just said that I didn't understand that these are two that sit next door to it as one.

So it happened as one.

Okay.

No, no, this is this are the two.

Because there was another, I think there was another conversation about Northwest Tulsa.

And also, we act like we don't have other opportunities to stop this if something happens.

Like we have these maps that have all these red lines on people data center here, here, here, here, and there.

Yeah, that's true.

But at this table, we have the power, and you have the power and position to say, no, it doesn't go there.

And we'll have the water capacity anyway, so we can attract them anyway.

So we'll see how we I think we're we're we're attacking a problem that may not even exist.

Well, and but that's why that's why I'm proposing a strategic pause.

This industry is moving very rapidly.

I think we already missed the boats on like the boat on like the top end like tech part of the industry, and we're getting like data centers are kind of like the scraps of like it has to happen, and they're gonna be building rapidly.

They're all competing against each other.

There are lots of different companies pursuing doing these.

There's not going to be a pause point.

I think any level of government, if anyone's waiting for this industry to like kind of reach some type of stasis for us to know a certain amount, that'll make it easier, or we're gonna suddenly know more collectively, that'll we'll be like, oh, now it makes sense, we know exactly what policies we need.

I do not think that's real realistic.

We've always seen regulation lag industries like this, and that's that's normal.

That's happened with the rise of print culture, that's happened with the rise of the internet.

It's happening now with AI, but it is so much faster that we're not gonna have a magical moment later where we have to select to go, hey, we need to take a beat, let's do that today to get our ducks in our own.

I'm not proposing an excessive one either.

It's just right now when you look at what's there by zoning, and I'm not exactly sure what the mechanism is.

If right now they could go in by right wherever there's industrial light.

That's my question.

How does that work?

We can say no.

There's nothing.

They don't have to resonate by they just buy the land and go.

That's what we have to get permits and everything, but we didn't they'd also have to have the water, the permission, there's the zoning, all those things that go along with this.

We're saying the zoning right here the same stuff.

So they gotta have the other stuff.

Right.

Right.

So there's a lot of things.

I mean, right here in my district, there is water, there is infrastructure because there's cannabis grows right now.

So as that industry starts to recede or get regulated and people dip out.

I don't know how much acreage they need to.

I mean, yours, this anthem needs a lot of acreage, but as we've also discussed, even right downtown right now, there's data centers.

So there's smaller footprints.

Right.

And that's fine.

Um, but I don't I'm just raising a question around your statement that we would have some sort of say here.

We do not in where it's already zoned IL, I don't think that we do.

How would we?

Yeah, I mean, it's already development services.

Right, but as long as they tick their boxes and get inspected.

Yeah, so I mean, edges of town is something different.

In town is something different.

And that's why I said maybe it does.

This is why I proposed what I proposed initially is I think it needs to be its own zoning code.

Right, and that's what we're pursuing here, but getting time for that to happen.

I do have two questions.

Yes, Council Dr.

A, then I've done it.

So we're talking about V Wagner ad velorum.

So our deputy mayor signed a deal.

How does Wagner get in that deal just because of where it's located?

And how are we negotiating ad Balorum versus sales tax?

I'm just trying to so I wasn't part of that negotiation.

This is and I want to be very clear.

Okay, uh about my involvement.

So I've only met what Anthem maybe five times.

Um the NDA that I signed is only that I don't speak for them.

Because I know people talk about NDAs and stuff about how maybe I'm signing an NDA that something fishy's going on.

I don't even have an email address or a phone number for any of these folks, and Aaron and Renita can both attest to that.

I don't have personal contact.

So the only time I've ever sat in meeting uh is virtually and in person, and when we talk about this, it's about their process and what they're working on.

The TID was something that was structured and that was sat in front of the taxing entities.

I thought it was a little high, and we talked about that.

I thought it was a little bit high at 85%.

And that's why, in my view, because the initial phase was at that level, it seemed a bit predatory to me.

Um, but I'm no expert.

And so I said if when the expansion came along, I said, well, I wouldn't support an incentive because we have a responsibility to our neighbors to the east in Wagner County.

So what that looks like, how that's structured and how those deals are set up has nothing to do with me.

So that's what Renita and her team would do.

The other question I have is I can't remember who said it now.

Maybe you, Aaron, or maybe you, Chris, Counselor Binkel.

They're high revenue generators.

They are what kind of revenue.

So they would pay uh you know, just like the fact sheet says here, they would have to pay the costs.

They're actually having to uh the 25 million dollars of infrastructure that they were required to put in, they put in money towards the um much larger development.

So for what is it for the first five years or putting in five million dollars a year towards the Ferox development?

Uh and then right here, so capital and yeah, they're putting, yeah, and that's the smaller scale because actually that isn't have to retool every three to four years.

Right.

So all that equipment that's in there right now, eighty million dollars of equipment comes back out, it's rebought and put back in that system over three every three to four years.

And are they buying it locally or are they buying it wherever they want and bringing it in?

I'm just trying to understand uh the benefit to I don't understand the the the revenue benefit to the city of Tolsta right now.

Well that's his job in the franchise for the case.

Yeah, and it doesn't matter.

It doesn't have to be told to us today, but I think if we're trying to make decisions about how we engage with this industry, that would be helpful.

I will know.

I mean, we don't need to know today.

But yeah, so just um no, I have okay, we'll do Renita, and then I have um Dadd and Archie, and I'll just name real quick.

I know we're not gonna figure this out all right now in this moment.

Hence though, also the need for the pause, but yes, and honestly, thank you so much for doing this because I know that you're looking out for all of us here.

Um I'll just say on that.

So if we look at the industry, um, number one, when everything was signed, we weren't using AI like we are now.

Now it's everywhere.

So I think it's yeah, it's clearly not a bait and switch.

The industry has grown over this period of time.

Our use of AI has all of us individually are now using it.

And I that's where this new multi-region, they call it a multi-region approach for the companies where it's not just about one anymore, they like to have multiple to operate their system.

So it's in, you know, it's nearby, but it's called a multi-region or multi-colony approach to data centers within the same company.

Um, if we look at the data centers that were built in like Northwest Louisiana and Virginia, huge projects, same thing, capital infrastructure, really, really amazing to areas that didn't have it previously, and that's what I see our role is, right?

Economic development is about incentivizing projects that wouldn't have happened without it.

And so that's what happened in Virginia and Northwest Louisiana.

And we call this a catalytic project because it's the downstream effects of having it there.

So it of course there's capital investment and you know, all the good things.

But what ends up happening is that the security services, the neighboring ecosystem businesses that go to support that start to come in because it's there, and we have evidence of that in again, Virginia.

Um actually, Virginia has one of the highest numbers of data centers.

Yeah, and then um Northwest Louisiana.

So it's a bet we're all taking that those things are gonna come.

And that means more jobs, more tax revenue, building, all more infrastructure in an area that didn't have it.

Um and I can I sorry, I didn't bring my data with me, but I can send that to you about what those what that looks like and how that's been happening.

Well, that's why I do want to reiterate, and then I have a quick little list.

I know for time reasons we're gonna have to move on.

What I do want to reiterate is this isn't actually one carved out project anthem.

I think the matter at hand is they're saying, hey, we're only gonna do X if this other piece happens, which not even us right now knows if that's going to be viable with zoning, and that's on for planning commission next week.

So we'll see what happens there.

But in the long run, though, you could hear all the reason for this pause.

There's a lot to investigate here.

That said, when people are looking for more information or more data, it's moving very quickly and evolving so fast.

It's not like there's these like whole comprehensive this is exactly what's going on, even if we knew something today that could be different so rapidly, which I think is why it's important for us to have that pause moment.

There is because we initiated that um you know zoning amendment kind of review when it comes to data centers of a certain size.

There is a staff working group that's been put together.

We're not trying to do this in the absence of experts.

I'm trying to make sure that we just have a solid chunk of time to genuinely pursue that.

I'll add to you to the sorry, I have a cue bag, I'm sorry.

Okay, I have um Counselor Directory, did you have more of a counselor Duddon?

Okay, so um having worked in the computer industry since 1979.

I watched how transition uh happened and how quickly it happened, and going from big mainframes to tiny little computer centers and whatnot, and eventually the chips that we have on our phones.

That said, we still don't know what the future holds for these data centers.

This might be great for the next four years, but we don't know what it looks like afterwards, and so I think the pause is necessary to get all the information and data we need, and according to statistics that by 2028, um data centers will be using up to 12% of the energy usage in the United States.

That's a lot, and that's just a proximity, and that I mean that's just a uh a determination that we are really sure is going to happen.

It could be far greater.

So I have great concerns for my constituents and um great concerns for the district as a whole, being that the east side and predominantly my district will be home eventually to some of these data centers.

It is concerning to my constituents.

Okay, I have Councillor Archie.

Okay, I'll be very quick.

Um I agree with a lot of what's been said.

Uh yes, no incentives, no further incentives.

Um we don't know everything that we need to know.

Um it seems like what you're suggesting is we because it's so evolving, we may never fully know.

No, uh which uh but I I mean just um just plain sense.

I agree they're not putting data centers in neighborhoods for our health there.

There is likely some negative uh uh nuisance uh so it's like just balancing what you know what we're willing to accept what versus not um this we are exempting anthem.

There is a vote next week, or what's the week after?

Is that right?

For the planning commission next week for case too.

Which I'm not confident of, but we'll see what they say.

That's the one o'clock.

Right.

Um just to that point.

It really didn't matter because we decided that it's on the record.

It's still gonna be a good idea.

Yes, just recommendation.

But I I think the rec I think the I think the recommendation will be split.

Well, you have the experts, and you know, you want to definitely take serious what they're what they're saying.

But with all that uh with it being exempt, how many data centers are in the pipeline proposed?

So I will say right now, partner Telsa is not actively pursuing any other data centers or any other projects, and that's the policy we are.

But that's just but that doesn't preclude other ones happening, or we have all the regional ones that are tapping our water, right?

There's yeah, regional statewide, yeah, statewide, but I will say for the city.

Do you have more counselor RG?

Um, I think I'm it might be good though to get a report because you're one counselor, you're on the edge of several counties, you're on the edge of several counties.

You are definitely on the it's it's not gonna necessarily happen in the city center until it micro you know becomes microscopic.

Yeah.

Um so it would be good to know because Wagner County is not miles and miles away from Tulsa County, right?

And so when we talk about impact impacts, I heard what you said about you know, it brings all the wrap around to a new industry, but what I'm not hearing is what happens to the residences that already exist and the businesses that already exist.

And what we see across communities across the country is pretty concerning for that.

Hence just be mindful.

So this is yeah, and that's not, but I'm talking about precedent for these other things.

I think what I'm hearing though is like this is happening.

Yeah, not trying to say it's and it sounds like there's a carve out for this project that's already happening.

So it's a yes and as far as I'm gonna do that.

I would like to see a carve out for one and two.

It is, I will just name the procedurally since two is still going through a public process.

Yeah, we can't we can't prematurely exempt something before it's actually gone through the public process underlines that so that's where it's really sticky to me.

Sorry, Councilor RTO to follow up on the case.

So I'm not waiting.

One of the yes, so that's next week.

Yeah, it's out.

But it's not really next week.

Week after just Counselor Hall Harper said it comes to us.

Yeah, but it will know next week, even if the zoning commission is bringing it.

But we won't know what action we've taken until correctly actually take it out.

And that could be weeks not after we've approved MTPD six and someone else could come in during our time.

Counselor Right.

Let's speak to this uh speak to this directly, Aaron.

Some folks have said maybe data centers they you know have negative impacts, maybe it's mixed impacts, but a moratorium for an entire year sends a broader signal that perhaps we're not as friendly to industry or business as we should be.

Um do you think that that's a legitimate critique?

Well, if you don't mind, we're gonna argue both sides of that, okay, and that statement.

I appreciate that.

So yes, there will be a thought from some people that that means that we are not open up for business.

As if not developer, that's only part of my calculation, right?

It's doing what's best for the city and the area as well.

So I have to balance those two things.

And so if it means we have to take a pause to make sure it's right for the city and for the area, I'm 100% behind that.

My big concern right now is that in the pipeline, I have a deal.

Right.

That I have some kind of commitment to, and what the broader impact for me is that if I stop that deal, then that goes out as you're not open for business.

You made some commitments that you didn't back up.

And that's what concerns me as professional.

And so that's where my hesitation comes in.

However, what Council Bells is trying to do, I support 100%.

Let's take a look, make sure we have the right zoning, that we're doing it the right way, but let but I just want to do it in the way that's kind of balanced and cautious of the business that we have in the pipeline.

I'd be I'd be curious what the Cherokee Nation that I mean, all the research is coming to the table.

Because they're doing that report.

Right, exactly, right.

And that's why I'm so I'm saying I would love to do that.

I would love to have a session where we bring professionals from both sides of the argument together to hear the full picture, and then make decisions based on once you've had the full picture, what we think is what you guys think is best for the city and moving forward.

I just don't want to move quickly, I want to move smallly and cautiously.

Um right, hence a moratorium helps us I'm just maybe um hold on.

I have Lincoln.

I have um well, and I'll just surface part of me here is saying, you know, I just think sometimes our city has low self-esteem about business.

I just am like, you know, maybe I watched too much Love's Blind lately.

There's lots of top standards, you know, boundaries and okay.

Um counselor Bush, Paul Harper, and Lincoln.

Which I would I will, I know we have another presentation.

I'm flagging for time.

A one o'clock meeting.

And a one o'clock meeting, I'm putting that out there.

Look at there.

Okay, mine is more of a statement, not open for debate or whatever.

Yesterday, those of us that were at the one voice at the Capitol, we saw a presentation on what was happening with data centers going forward.

There was data presented.

Yes, they started out big pieces of land, but they're pulling the utilities, the infrastructure in, yeah, and paying for that.

Right.

As the data centers get to hear, for those of us that are older, I mean, this used to be the size of this room.

Cobalt, key punch.

I was trained to use a computer and now it's this.

No idea.

Data centers by the second are going from this to this to this to this.

What's happening is when they leave that footprint, it is opening up for advanced manufacturing because the infrastructure has already been played in.

So as you were talking as economic developers, what others in other states have done is said, yeah, we're gonna do this, we're gonna play with you a little bit, mindful of resources.

But what's happened is as they abandon that space, others have been able to occupy it.

It's cheaper for them to come in.

Yeah, the structure is already pulled.

100% so I just want to throw that out and other industries are advanced manufacturing, which there is a huge thing.

The state of Oklahoma is looking at at a statewide level, advancing incentives and different opportunities to go after not only aerospace and all the little minute things that might need that property, plus other manufacturing type things.

We've lost out on several things over the decades because we're not prepared.

And I agree.

Yeah, we've got to be mindful of our water resources because the other debate going on at the Capitol right now is water.

There's a lot of water bills out there for a lot of different things.

Um one of the comments that was made, I'm just gonna say a lot of this the um tools or the a lot of the things that go into data centers are being done without water.

The advanced technology, I can tell you it's developing.

AI's got it.

We're doing it.

So as that continues to develop, and I'm telling you, it's like this.

It's there, so I don't want us to miss opportunities.

I agree.

But I agree.

So my question, the only thing up for debate.

Yeah, I just wanted you to know the conversation at the state level is moving ten times faster than we are.

Of course, and that's why I'm like, can we do a six?

What about a six-month?

Why a year?

This was a good one.

I would be maybe my initial proposal.

I'd kind of looked at nine months, just to five to you all part of how I got to the year was what allowed for the time for that thorough, you know, for the staff to really pull together research and information, and then um also like knowing once we learned that there was that check nature part of what allows for that time.

Though I I initially had looked at nine months, which I don't think would need to be off the table as far as like I, you know, I'm not sitting here going, I insistently think it has to look exactly like this.

I just really want us to be able to mindfully do the right thing.

Can you information on who presented that data?

Um there was a company.

No, one did company.

No, it was just statements from the workforce or the economic development team.

It's a family ground.

No, that are state state officials.

Okay.

I um okay, I had Counselor Hull Harper, Lincoln, and oh yeah, no, you represent that exactly correctly.

Okay, that was I think that's good information.

Counselor Harper.

Um following up on what Counselor Bush was saying you the language could be a year or less.

Yeah, it could be like from the time there's the inmendation consumer.

If we get the questions answered that we have, and the experts at the table that we want to see a year from then it could be less.

Yes.

So just throwing it out there.

Also, uh I heard uh an incentive about bringing jobs.

My understanding uh what upgrade is that these data centers don't bring a lot of jobs.

That the data, the centers, the computers, whatever, they function on their own.

So it's the other thing.

It's the investment, yeah.

What's the other the capital investment, the equipment investment, it's like specifically saying you're saying the one-time.

You're talking about building it?

Yes, we'll build it.

And re equipping it every three or four years.

But it's also jobs, not every day, is what I'm saying.

Subsect on this.

So when you're talking about it's going to bring in, you know, we're talking about restaurants and different things around a development like that.

Well, I mean, they're not going to be able to do that.

On the day to day, my understanding is there's it's not going to be a lot of people when you're building it, yes.

But every three years about it, they're right.

With the Anthem project, we're talking about the fact that that infrastructure from the Anthem 102 projects puts an infrastructure that builds out the community across the street.

So but for the infrastructure they're putting in right now, this development that's going to be retail, housing, those things don't happen without the city putting it.

So not jobs in the data centers, jobs that directly.

Yeah, okay.

Within whatever approximately downstream development, right?

Palatable or those that are supporting that.

Let's take A on since you brought it up, right?

We provide cool air or clean air solutions for data centers, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals.

We're in five states.

You all mentioned Tennessee.

We have the jobs that we have had to hire and the expansion, our footprint to support this industry has been a major economic impact in all the communities where we are, including Tulsa with the extra jobs.

I mean, it's got you.

Another quick example, Crusoe, who recruited here last May, they make the racks that go into data centers.

They have quadrupled in size in a year, have moved from their 80,000 square foot facility to a 4,000 square foot facility because the growth they've had here in Tulsa.

So are there other companies around that do benefit from the work that happens at those data?

Yes.

So just to for time purposes and several other things to put a slate pin it, um what I'm hearing.

One, we'll see what happened.

We don't have council next week.

Obviously, gonna put this back on committee the following week, but that'll be the planning commission in between.

I am definitely like that, like looking at either that 12 months, like once we get a report and we update our zoning, we could always move faster.

So I think that's a really good friendly amendment that kind of meets kind of what I was hearing from Counselor Bush.

So I'll work on mocking that up to bring back to you all.

Um and we can you know talk about you know talk more, and we'll have that planning commission piece in the interim of that.

Um just quickly checking if anyone else had anything else to put up.

Yes, Councillor Lincoln.

Yeah, um I I would say personally, I'm I'm better off making decisions when I hear from more people before making that decision.

So we really haven't heard from any experts other than these two.

Um PSO coming to the table, water coming to the table, and we heard a lot about planning related items today, but planning's not even in the room that I can see with but that that would help me before moving forward, and then I would I would caution us in taking action that could affect the outcome of an entity that's now going through a public process.

It just feels like um we should let that process take place and let it finish before we take action that could prohibit that thing from going forward through another action.

So if that's already in place where you know something's going to happen next week, where do you know it's going to end up on our plate at some point?

We could take action after that's resolved and finished, but inserting ourselves into it now.

Well, and that's what I when I brought this forward, I didn't know they were going to be pursuing that to be just to be clear.

Well, just to use it.

I know, but but now we know.

I mean, we've discussed it around this table.

So there is a public process moving forward with that'll take that other which from planning commission to make it all the way through council usually takes how many days?

I don't know.

It's a couple of four or six weeks, depending on agenda time.

Okay.

It's a couple months, and it depends on notices that we need to send.

Yeah, that can be quite a stretch of time, which I'm just naming as part of counteractive to doing a pause.

We've we've been told we don't have anything else coming through their pipeline.

Right through their pipeline.

I know I know.

But um this just came onto the table, so that's been on the table.

So we should take a little bit more time with this in my opinion.

That's fair than just running this through.

Yeah.

So and I and I would benefit a lot from the other people and perspectives and getting more traction on this information.

No, that makes sense.

I think it'll be good to have our water and then PSO risk respected on being a private company.

I just have one more thing.

You brought up the night rodeo and that whole process.

So as we're looking at this, you know, especially as it relates to noise, right?

Specific, because I yeah, infrared.

If I remember correctly, code enforcement can measure noise level or the decimal meter.

We don't, we don't do it that way.

Well, whatever.

However, they made the determination.

Those event centers should have that same look.

In my opinion, are they zone correctly?

Because they are noise here in our work, which we're going to do.

For like baseline and vibration.

So literally vibrating.

Yeah, it's like it's I've learned all about infrasound recently.

So if we're looking at zoning, that's what we're we need to take a broad approach on the specific developments, especially as they are neighboring subdivisions.

I just want to point out real quick, and then we can move on.

The irony of us trying to be like, we need more of a pause so that we can take a pause.

Like I think that's like I'll be I'll be sleeping like on that for like I don't know, not sleeping for weeks, just contemplating how we're like, hold on, let's all slow down here, really take a pause before we take a pause.

If then we take a pause at all.

Anyway, I I'll just I think that's funny, but in like a sad way, probably.

Um okay.

Thank you all so much for your time and thoughtful deliberation.

What you have to acknowledge it's deeply ironic in like a really tragic way for communities I think no one can say that like you know, these are it's the disclaimer before the disclaimer.

Yeah, it's like hold on, let's just be really slow while we slow down.

Okay, so um thank you all so much for everyone's good faith conversations.

I know we don't always agree, but I know we're being thoughtful.

Um so I really value that.

All right, we are moving on.

Don't worry, she had a heads up.

This would happen to her.

Um we are moving on to item six.

Discussion is I just want to point out so item seven has four sub-items in it.

So we're facing yeah, if we could keep this maybe for like 20 or 30, so we have already yes, we will we will be speedy.

Um we are on agenda item six, discussion and presentation with representatives from Tulsa Women's Commission regarding an understanding of the systemic barriers facing women in Tulsa and to identify opportunities for policy alignment, cross-sector collaboration, and targeted action.

We're just gonna switch to a different Bora show.

So we have Dr.

Laura Lotta with us chair of the women's commission.

Um she has about a 10-minute presentation.

We have time for questions.

She knew we would be coming off of this discussion and said she was cool at that.

Yeah.

Is this the best place for me to sit or should I adjust?

You're fine.

Okay.

I wasn't really.

Are you comfortable?

Um, I don't have a confidence monitor here that you'll be able to see our presentation on as well.

Okay.

Um, well, good morning.

It's so good to be here with you.

Uh I am Laura Latta.

I'm the executive director.

Uh, my day job is I'm the executive director of the Tulsa Higher Education Consortium.

But even more important than that, I'm a lifelong Oklahoman, lifelong Tulson.

I've lived in um the Hope Valley area of town for my entire life.

And um I am the chair of the Tulsa Women's Commission.

I'm also a mom, a former teacher.

Um, and have um taught in elementary school at the college level, so education is really really important to me.

And I'm excited to share with you about the work of the Tulsa Women's Commission as it impacts um all of the women in our city.

So I want to um name first that I'm representing 15 other incredible women and recognize them here on this slide so that you can see who else has been a critical part of this conversation.

Um, over the last few years, we have participated in three different initiatives, um, starting with the mayor's pay equity pledge.

In 2026, uh women make 76 cents for every dollar earned by men.

So there is a pay equity gap.

Um, we generated a pay equity pledge that over 52 businesses have signed since its inception, um, indicating that they will evaluate their compensation practices, identify the any gender wage gaps that um exist among their employees, and eliminate those gaps.

So we're very proud of that work, and that work continues to go on beyond just that 2021.

Each time we meet, we celebrate those companies that have signed that pay equity pledge.

Um we in 2023, or well, let me skip ahead.

Um, in 2023, 2024, our next issue was child care access.

Um, as we know that women are disproportionately impacted by lack of child care access.

And um, if there is a caregiver, it is often women that are a caregiver in the home, it's often women who have to leave the workforce in order to take care of um caregiving duties.

Child care is expensive.

Um, I am currently feeling that burden very heavily uh as child care is more than my mortgage.

I am currently feeling that burden very heavily as child care is more than my mortgage.

Lack of child care contributes to workforce shortages, so it's an economic development issue.

It's not just a women's issue, it's a family issue.

Oklahoma lost 1.2 billion dollars, 1.2 billion dollars in productivity due to child care barriers.

And as of last year, 34 of Oklahoma's 77 counties are considered child care deserts, resulting in two-year wait lists for infants.

So this exactly.

So the women's commission researched and developed resources to support families searching for child care.

We developed the 2024 report and a website that featured resources, including a child care access navigator, parent experiences, to elevate the voices of parents that either had to leave the workforce or were having to navigate child care, like finding child care, paying for child care, and then maintaining employment.

And then also advocacy for employers to partner with their employees to support them, and then partner with child care providers.

We generated a few recommendations, and this was a leveled approach after we looked at many communities across the nation.

We also took a page out of the playbook of Oklahoma City who did a lot of work in this area, their chamber, focused very heavily on child care access.

But our leveled approach was really recommendations for employer partners to at level one just get started by offering flexible scheduling and remote work options for caregivers, and then scaling up to a more comprehensive integration, like this is oh, you know, a little more, but having on-site or near-site child care facilities, and then scaling up even more to possibly a tri-share model where there is shared provision of funding that that's shared by three entities the parent, the government, the the state, and then the employer to the child care provider, which might cut some of the costs and make child care more affordable and accessible to families.

That was our focus for 2024-2025 and continues.

So all of these are ongoing.

We aren't stopping just because we're kind of shifting our perspective, but I wanted you to bring you up to speed on where we are.

We're continuing to share these resources.

We're continuing to advocate.

Recently, there was a $50 million cut in the child care industry.

We are the commission is really interested in advocating against cuts to the child care industry when it is something that is so critically needed for our workforce and for our citizenry, and then also keeping an eye on bills that support child care.

Now we're in the most recent initiative, which has been when we all sat at the table, we said what should we focus on next?

We have a lot of really incredible talented people from a variety of different disciplines from law to business to education, and realized that we actually, in keeping with the theme today, needed some time to identify what were some of the the biggest issues and barriers facing women.

So we invited speakers over the course of 12 months to speak on, and these are experts, economic security, housing stability, mental health, trauma recovery, human trafficking, safety, health, and empowerment.

And we conducted a qualitative research study where we culled all of that information and all of that data and identified a through line of what are the issues most impacting women across these areas.

And ultimately, we learned that safety was an intersecting thread that wove through all of these, specifically as it relates to housing stability, mental health, economic opportunity, and health care access.

So you can see our framework that we've developed collectively.

This is actually our committee structure, so the columns represent sort of the committee focus areas.

And then the bottom we found originally that was also a column, but we identified that systems rights and interinstitutional safety thread through each of those four areas.

So our focus now, it's well-timed because the city of Tulsa was also brought into the Carter Center's cohort for inform women cohort.

So our focus now, um, it's well timed because the city of Tulsa was also brought into the Carter Center's um cohort for inform women um uh cohort, and um we're gonna be focusing on safety collectively and how we can share information about resources related to safety, um specifically partnering with the the key partners listed on the screen here.

Um many of them are part of the city organizations also like Family Safety Center, Housing Solutions, Tulsa, the Mental Health Association, um, and the and uh planning and neighborhoods.

Uh this will be our focus uh coming uh forward in the new year, and really our call to action is one just at minimum in in to read the reports.

We've spent a lot of time interviewing and curating information about um safety as it relates to women, child care, pay equity.

Please uh read those and help us share the information.

Help us think about the best ways that we can get the empowering information into the hands of women, um, and then advocating for solutions that are creative, like the try-share model, um, and uh and and get us connected with those that may help the cause.

So that's my my presentation.

I'd love to answer any questions if there are if there are any.

I have counselor Bush.

Not a question, but hi Laura.

Hi!

I know your mom.

Yeah, we grew up together.

Uh so a long time ago.

Oh, are you?

That's really that it's just small town.

Um that tri-self share model is representative Suzanne Schreiber has a bill up right now.

And it's getting through the system.

And um, yeah, I AON is if this goes through, it's gonna be one of the pilots to do that.

Wonderful.

She's identified um two other um organizations kind of statewide, but in the Tulsa area.

Webcoat.

I think is it is that what it was?

Was that who it was?

I know, I don't remember.

I think we're right there.

I know they talked about it yesterday at the Capitol.

So it's a conversation, so that's great.

Fantastic.

I mean, obviously, it probably came from some of the work you all did.

So I just wanted you to know that is making it through the state process.

Thank you so much.

We're we're there are two bills we're keeping an eye on House Bill 4199 and House Bill 4201 that have to do with Tri-Share, which is 4199 and 4201, which is Oklahoma Child Care Facilities Licensing.

Yeah, that's another yeah.

Yeah, I know.

Thank you so much.

That's exciting.

Yes.

All right, I'm Councillor Archie.

Yes.

Um, and also I looked it up.

AI has signed the pledge.

That's the equity pledge.

That's right.

Um it's like we're advertising, sorry.

Go ahead.

No, I don't.

Yes, I guess you have.

That's the software standing pledge.

Okay, anyway.

Um and I need to read the report.

Um, but what I'm just gonna sort of put it out there, and maybe someone around the table can give me a resource, of course.

Some approach by a lot of developers they want to develop in my district.

I'm curious about well, if you want to develop, you want to create green space or a mural.

Can you also include space for a child care facility, some small child care facility?

How how can we take this child care need and build it into infrastructure development, sort of making that a more a natural process uh or a conversation that is a little bit more robust in our in our planning and zoning conversations?

I can actually I did a fellowship on that actually a bit with the Hunt Institute where there's opportunities, you know, that's part of why we did so that building code reform slash fire suppression topic.

But the other piece here is when we're doing housing things, we can incentivize going, hey, if you're gonna build a multifamily unit, can you carve out one or two of those units to be home child care operators?

So there are kind of those opportunities going, hey, if you're gonna add in a space, you could either incentivize or find other ways to encourage and go if you're gonna do this.

Could this be a use that we ensure there's physical space for as part of that development?

For sure.

If you want to you gonna say something as well, or no, that's exactly spot on, and then also we've got a lot of great community advocates, Cap and Educare and their leadership are the absolute top experts and many child care providers in the area.

I would say having conversations with them as well.

So thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

And then I had a question related to since I'm so glad you have that safety theme because I know so many women myself included, bro.

I'm like, I wish I felt like I could safely walk around my neighborhood, you know, whatever hour of the day, or all of those other things or be able to walk in and out of downtown or what have you.

Um I was kind of curious, knowing that one big element, of course, with safety has to do with domestic violence rates.

We have high and rising ones.

Do you all have interactions with I know there's a commission or task force that's doing that simultaneously?

Do you all work with them or have or do they report at all T E Wall, or is there any interaction there with that group that's meeting?

I think there's been an inter introduction, but okay.

That sounds like a really good next step to to be more connected.

Yeah, I wonder because I'd wonder what they're I don't know what they're kind of generating next step-wise, or with kind of the maybe the public safety commissioner.

I was just kind of curious what that might look like.

Counselor Dunna.

Yeah, no, I appreciate that aspect as well because I know um on Admiral and 11th Street, there's still the prostitution issues and walking as a single person on either one of those uh areas um east of Yale.

Um the danger is real.

My housemate was actually followed the other day into uh where her storage unit is by a man, and this is the second time it's happened, and he approached her.

And so safety concerns are huge uh walking in areas that are predominantly um areas for uh I think you're touching on the trafficking issue too.

Yeah, do you all have your had OCAT come to the Oklahoma Coalition Against Trafficking interact with you all?

We did not, but um we had a few organizations, but that may be a really great resource that we should consider.

So there's public safety, like put the like TPD representatives at the table too.

I think that could be really interesting as you're trying to kind of robustly wrap your arms around some of those safety issues.

There was no crime, and that he just stopped and asked her if she needed ride.

That's usually how it starts.

And so that's a safety issue.

Yeah, for sure for women.

Something that was new to me from that I learned from our inquiry was the concept of poly victimization and like multiple layers of trauma that women experience from domestic violence, um emotional abuse, things like that, and the very high, shockingly high um rate of suicidal ideation or self-harm.

So that's certain certainly something that we are paying close attention to.

Counselor Dr.

Wright.

Thank you.

First of all, I just want to say thank you for holding space for a lot of these heavy topics, and your whole team, all of those volunteers are doing great things out in the world and then are coming to the city and offering this.

The amount of research that you are presenting and the reports are so helpful to us.

I think I just do want to amplify it.

It's not helpful if we don't read them.

Yeah, and I will say when your child care report came out, I think it was right as the administration was changing, new council, and I even missed it, and I was like, That's why I was like, let's put this.

Yeah, so I appreciate that we're doing that, especially as some of us are really digging in to our child care desert.

I mean, it's horrible that it's across the state.

It is a family issue, it's also a workforce issue, and I think we really need to amplify that aspect of it.

Women are contributors in the workforce despite us making less than our male counterparts.

Um as we talk about bringing new industry and scaling and growing business here, if we don't have women who can be in the workforce, that's gonna be a challenge because women are also the most educated workforce right now statistically speaking, especially black women, and so when we look at these statistics and how it all layers in, who we're leaving out impacts us all from the family issue on obviously talking about you know, start of life zero to three, all of those things.

Um, I also did want to connect a dot.

So when we're talking about these impacts, if you'll remember last week when we had um Emily at our table, 50% of people experiencing homelessness in Tulsa are escaping domestic violence.

So when we talk about how we're solving problems in our city, yeah, these things are intermeshed, not being able to work, earn a witch living wage, financial abuse that's keeping you stuck at home, whatever the issues are.

So as we're talking about problem solving, I think it's important to take these reports and layer them in at our table from a policy perspective and a budgetary prioritization, whether it's our dollars or bringing in private dollars, state dollars, federal.

Um otherwise, we're just kind of I'll use your phrase admire a problem.

So I do appreciate you taking your time, especially after that last discussion.

You know, it's it's not easy just to kind of like now let's refocus on this, but it's so important.

All three of these reports, the other things that you all have been doing, and um I would be curious maybe we wait until Representative Schreiber gets through session just to like come back around and just the thing specifically.

Yes, let's see what happens and see what we can as we talk about being business friendly, right?

And workforce development, how do we engage the regional chamber and others to have these conversations?

Because if we're going to move to try share, then maybe we should be incentivizing businesses that will come in and have is the city gonna be the model for that, right?

Yeah, there is a sorry, no, yeah, there is a um fiscal impact to her pilot program, which makes me nervous for that.

Which makes everybody nervous because yeah, it's a little bit of a but it has such an argument.

I know so, but it's a minimal amount, so we'll see what happens.

But when we talk about the trust share, that would be even if we did it something at the local level for there would be a budgetary impact to do that of some sort.

And maybe we could get grant funds to try a pilot.

But as we're saying, yeah, as we're leveraging partner tools, those relationships, parents relationships out trying to bring in business for scale-up business that's here.

Sure.

How do we say, hey, would you partner?

You're gonna have 2500 employees, clearly there's gonna be families.

Will you partner with us on the Nick?

I know we need to want but there is another element of that.

I don't know what that other bill is.

I haven't so many bills, but the liability issue, some of the daycares have gone out because of the insurance required to hold.

Yeah, so and as DHS has cut their funding, they're going to more of the private pay, but they got it passed on those costs, just like any business that's got the use of tax liabilities, insurance liabilities, they pass it on.

So yesterday at the Capitol, there were some folks there with the child care that were talking about.

We need to there's more than just the DHS incentives that are cut of federally and at the state level, the liability, the cost of doing business that hasn't been experienced in the past.

So I appreciate I think when Schreiber is successful, they come back and celebrate, but let's build on the rest of the problem and circle back and forth.

Yeah, absolutely.

Council angle.

Yeah, I would say a hundred times over.

We're at least making progress as a society on this issue of child care.

I can tell I can you were talking about how your child care is more than your mortgage.

We had that same struggle in the 90s of when you have three kids and they all have to be in daycare, and you're like, oh my god, what's the balance here?

Am I making enough to pay to make it make sense?

Both of us are working and it just barely met the threshold.

And so it's great that you know companies are now recognizing that it's important.

Um, and that you know, having to be away from home or you know, be a care provider when you don't have that option of working from home or whatever.

I think it's great that they're doing that.

I do want to ask a question about the 15 to 17 percent of Tulsa police officers.

Um is there how many women would you say in your study of all this?

How many women are actually applying for the academy?

Do you know?

We had Commissioner Laurel Roberts present, and there's a pretty extensive section in the report.

Um, I don't have the the raw data on how many, but I know that the representation percentage-wise was relatively low.

Okay, so the applications submitted by women were relatively so.

Does that kind of match?

Is that comparative to matching what the number that are applying?

Does that seem like a fair statement?

Uh if you want to do that.

So would you say the number of applications matches what the staffing that's an excellent question?

Let me and I think this is a follow-up to confirm or all the indicators hearings when we present data that it's not necessarily presented as a negative.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

That when you're talking about empowering women, are they actually applying?

Right.

Yeah, because if we don't, it's our own fault.

Right.

No, I'm kidding.

So I would that's what he was saying, and I'd actually disagree with that sentiment because it's also like what kind of environment or culture are you inviting.

Yes, I agree.

Another another thing is women or telling women that this is open to them, right?

Yeah, I think one um interesting thing I hadn't thought about was um especially because I was a nursing mother for uh a year with both of my kids.

And it you have to carve out time to do that and have space and thinking about that for seven hours a day minimum, a lot of time and thinking about that like that having like creating space and time and an opportunity to do that in um a law enforcement job is really important, but not something that's commonly thought of, even down to um the uh with uniforms and the the fit of uniforms and bulletproofs.

I've heard that from officers before are tailored to um men, not women's bodies, which was not also something that I knew either before the units of inquiry.

So it's really interesting thinking about the logistics in the day in and day out of um the uh the the job and and how we can make it more conducive and supportive for a stronger women representation in that that workforce.

So I appreciate that so much.

Thank you.

Yeah, this is please don't hesitate to send us recommendations at any point.

You all are doing so much critical research.

Yeah.

Um and I know there's the whole provision of all the title five commissions presenting kind of to the council, and that tends to happen at a five o'clock, but I oh we I I think it's important for us to actually have that kind of discussion space here.

So please let us know as you guys release more data and information, it's really sure helpful, and we want to make sure we're doing real substantive policy change per the work you all do.

Thank you so much for so much.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right, we are on agenda item seven.

Don't worry, there's lunch somewhere in this building.

I know someone was stressed.

There is food.

If you want to go pull a me and go get it and bring it to the table.

All right, we are on agenda item seven, city council discussion regarding possible selection of charter amendments.

I don't understand committee meetings and then we're I know then we stopped.

But there's not experienced it until this year.

Oh my gosh.

I know it's a weird we've had a weird cadence.

That last one's like today.

Yeah, that's linked key.

This is go.

I'm tired on our behalf.

Oh, yeah.

All right.

All right, we have I think wasn't we're looking at are we we have four different charter amendment proposals we're looking at today?

Yes.

All right.

Who's so the first one is Jack revisiting the longevity pay?

Is that correct, Sarah?

Yep, great.

Yeah, so um last week's discussion focused on floor replacing the seven dollars and fifty cents.

So all I've done in this version is just carve out a space for that to be determined.

Um can discuss the formula for developing that.

And on the second page, I included the current longevity provisions from both collective bargaining agreements, so just so you can see how those are currently structured as a clinical reference.

And this needs to be decided by April 1st or April 15th.

Thank you.

Conceptually by the first, finally, I think, following that.

So not in its final form necessarily.

Okay.

So I don't know that there needs to be much discussion on this today.

We can redesign.

Okay.

I appreciate that.

I know Councillor Bush and I were a little insistent, but it helps to have the information.

It does.

I think it would be important to talk to the entities that'll be most impacted by the decision.

Okay.

So we will commit to doing that.

Bringing them to the table.

No, just probably offline and come back and report out.

I just mentioned Councillor Bush and I have been working on this with Counselor Gilbert.

Um, obviously, and Jack and Sarah and the administration.

So if it would be helpful to just kind of go have a conversation and come back with a final consensus.

Unless anyone sitting here is like, absolutely not, just take it off.

No, whoever's most proximal, just let you see what they're doing.

I appreciate that.

Um that's helpful.

Yeah.

So that ties into the next presentation that Counselor Bush and I have, which is relative to the same um section of the charter, uh, which is the miscellaneous Article 12.

Um, if you'll look at what you just received from Jack, it's 12.1, 12.2, 12.3.

What Counselor Bush and I are bringing to you today is a consideration to add a 12.4.

Um satisfactory performance increase, otherwise known as SPI.

You may have also heard it referenced as steps.

Um, I think it was called steps, and then they at some point changed it to satisfactory performance increase.

It basically all means the same thing.

Um the language right here is as drafted by uh our city attorney on the back of the page.

Uh we put together a um kind of just uh one page brief um based on the conversation.

It's on the back of it.

Oh they didn't come on the it should be in that folder.

Oh, yeah.

I was waiting for the pass out papers.

Oh, sorry.

I thought it already taken what are you talking about?

I'm so sorry, I gave it to Beth, and I was like, when we get on it, I didn't realize she can't just win her nose.

Sorry.

Yeah, sorry, I'm going fast that we can go back just to the charter language then.

Can we could we scroll up one?

Here we go.

I've already got so this um item 12.4A through F does not exist in the charter right now, but if it were approved by us to go to the voters, it would basically follow the longevity section.

So it's just a follow-on.

Longevity, as we know, um starts after year three, currently goes to year 20.

We're proposing to take it to 30.

That is to reward people who stay in um service.

And as we know, these jobs are not things that you can just get out of college or get out of high school, go to the academy, train, and you're in for three to five years, and then you go somewhere else, and we bring someone else in, right?

These are career paths that we're asking people to stick to 5, 10, 15, 20, maybe 30 or 40 years.

And so um obviously they have very strong collective bargaining uh units, they have a lot of protections at the state and local level for how those work, and none of this would usurp any of that.

Adding SPI in now, if you'll look at the second page of this one page pretty we're really approaching this from uh an annual fiscal impact and um a retention approach.

Um you should have received two documents.

This other one is a study that we did last year for budgeting.

No, not yeah, if you could scroll.

I can't sorry, I can't see the documents that you're holding up.

So you should have received one.

No, I mean you say this one, I can't tell what you're okay.

The second page, okay.

And Counselor Bush, I just went on anyone.

Um and the the chart you received was in our budget 2025.

Um was a report out on, you know, we've talked a lot about overtime for police and fire and containing costs and how we're budgeting and is it appropriate to use unexpended unappropriate year and fund balances to pay for overtime, all of those discussions.

So this chart is something that you should have received before, but I'm just adding it to give context to this.

Right now we spend millions and millions of dollars on overtime, we are not at authorized strength.

You can see we're down 130 positions in police from authorized strength, 12 from fire, and that it takes a good year to recruit and get people into the field, then it comes at a cost.

If um steps are not always offered, you can see at the three to five year mark of a new officer why they might jump out.

And I really do want to put to context Generation X and baby boomers and the greatest generation knew how to sign up for a job that was going to be a 10, 15, 20 year commitment.

Millennials, and at this point, millennials are too old to even come in unless they're doing a transfer, I would say, right?

We're talking about Gen Z and Gen Alpha.

Gen Alpha are kids who are in high school right now.

So we're talking about this next generation of recruits.

If we don't have a salary increase in those first three to five years because it's negotiated away, I think we see attrition, or they're going to nearby um municipalities where they can get them.

So SPI has been negotiated in a way as I understand it, and and certainly do your own research, but as I understand it in a way that other municipalities in the state are not doing for our swarm personnel.

It doesn't mean if this were approved, it's an automatic increase.

It would be subject obviously to revenues and budget.

But I think by codifying it in the charter, it also says this is a priority, and we're not going to say there's monies, but there's all these other priors we're trying to do, right?

Um and it really comes from a stabilization of budget planning, but also personnel retention, and that's a statement at the bottom.

The recommended action would be to put this to a vote of the people.

Um I did crunch some numbers based on what we know.

It would actually be a cost savings if we were fully staffed and not realizing all the overtime.

It would also have impacts like repetitive use, injury reduction, and just mental health burnout, and all those other uh things that we don't necessarily measure the same way, but we will always have overtime because we will always have disasters and things that cause pressure on this system, but right now, if we don't reverse trajectory, especially on the TPD staffing, um, we're gonna be in a worse place, not a better, and it's more expensive and costly across the gamut, not just dollars and cents out of taxpayers' pockets, but to our mental health of our workers to their physical health, to um the things that we're asking them to do.

So that's uh as we were talking about longevity, how we got into this conversation.

I don't know, counselor Bish, if you wanted to add to it, but I know you've been really focused in on these uh retention and um recruitment.

Yeah, I mean, this has been a question for years, even back when I was at the crime commission is when we laid off all the officers and fire department and all that, so it's an ongoing issue.

Um, I and um I appreciate the partnership with um counselor Director Wright on this.

One of the things that has come to the forefront is, and I know we don't like to hold uh future budgetary things incumbent, but the you know making it subject to budgetary and appropriations.

I know again going back to the state, you know, we have carve belts and the eight-year plan for transportation, it's a car belt.

There's carve out for education, there's car belts.

Have we ever, and because I'm new, have we ever considered a car belt like take that what if statement out, and what does that look like?

And is that something we can do?

I mean, I I don't know, that's like a legal discussion.

Yeah, I just think on this charter.

I just think every year that we're not in a cut budget, just basically holds our feet to the fire and said then says for the charter.

Yeah, the citizens voted, they want this.

We we our biggest investment is public safety, yes, and they want us to invest in public safety.

Should the dollars be there.

Yeah, as you know, we sometimes go, oh, revenues are exceeding our expenses, or we have enough fund balance to try these new things and scale up new offices and add new employees and new programming.

Some of us agree or disagree on you know how far away from our core functions, those things can be in any area, but we know that public safety is a core function.

Yes, probably that people expect us to deliver.

That they expect us to deliver on.

And if we continue to do what we've always done, which is negotiate these steps first, sometimes in instead of last uh resort, I don't see these recruitment numbers turning around.

And the other thing I just want to layer in, and maybe someone else can speak to it.

There's a big class of people that are about to retire because of the changes at the state level.

I don't know if that's 28 or 29 or if it's asynchronous between the two departments, but we will be seeing some big turnover coming that's gonna make these numbers bigger, not smaller.

You say departments, are you talking about police and fire?

Yeah, yes, because of the pension.

But I don't know if that's 2028 for both, or I think one's 28 and one's 29.

Do we have 27?

Oh, great.

As a curiosity to the fiscal impact, which you know, I think it is one of those things where we know when we invest, especially in retention, it's cost saving ultimately.

Do we know?

Like I always have a number in my head for like it's for my nonprofit where I'm like, hey, turnover costs us this much annually when it takes it to like when we have to go recruit and bring someone else, and there's like lost.

Yeah, if you'll look at the green, if you'll scroll down, Sarah, on the right-hand column, there's a little like pale green.

Yes, okay, call out.

Yep.

And even if we just uh reduce attrition by 10 to 15 officers per year, we could avoid replacement costs.

And then we're spending an incredible amount of money on overtime, and I'm not saying all overtime would go away, but it would certainly go a long way.

Because you also if you get more people in the pipeline, right?

The overtime can be spread across people earning entry level wages versus the top earners, depending on the assignment.

So this is for your consideration today.

We won't uh answer all the questions, but because we've kind of come into that window of like it's time to put all the things into consideration on the table.

We wanted to make sure you saw this.

Um, obviously, it would be two separate questions.

If we approve it for the voters, the voters will have a longevity question, an SBI question, but they would go into the same card that goes to the next thing that counselor Bush and I have been working on.

We've been busy.

We like this wonky stuff.

Um do you have that handout?

Sarah just have to find which one of these is.

Yeah, Sarah has a handout.

I'll just start talking as they kind of bring us into it.

This is not the first time it's come to our table.

It um for those of you who have gone through charter uh discussions, whether as an advocate or a counselor, it is a proposal to add counselor confirmation of department and division heads.

Um you'll see it on the screen.

And I think there's a handout coming around.

Yes, I'm sorry, I have so many papers.

I remember the last time that this was on the table.

This came up before, just to uh review right now.

There is a precedent for it because we have confirmation authority of the city auditor.

Um, I'm sorry, we have confirmation of the city attorney and the personnel director, which right now is our HR director.

They're enumerated personnel directors, the enumeration, the charter.

We also appoint the municipal judges.

Um it's not that the council's never had some sort of authority.

This would be an expansion of that authority to uh department and division heads.

If you look on um this the second page, you'll see the proposed language, and you'll also see an organizational chart mock up that staff put together for illustration purposes to just understand the difference between a division head and a department head.

Those things have changed, yes, with administrations, and so we thought it was important to include both because depending on how we re-org, it could be you know, a division head in one administration becomes a department head in the next administration or vice versa.

It really is just confirming um by a majority of council, uh, these very forward-facing often um big department budget folks.

Uh and it really what it is, it's not to consolidate power for counselors, it's to give voice to the public to also have a say.

Um, you know, I like it.

So this was and I will back up.

It was to your point, wasn't giving us more power or authority, but working more in conjunction.

We the people elect us to be their voice.

So when people start saying, Well, we don't have a say, this gives us the opportunity to have that say.

And you'll see you you'll see other legislative and executive branches that have this kind of confirm and consent approach.

It's not radical, it's just not something that we've had to this level.

But I think it I see what you're saying from the perspective of like these are the people who are receiving ultimately the services that these departments are providing, right?

So I think that's makes sense as an extra layer.

I'm curious, just kind of procedurally.

Um so if someone's internal and pursuing a promotion that would make them the head of a department, then like this would be a final step of a process.

Is that maybe that's a question for I was just trying to think through, so it's kind of like their interview process becomes like they still have to be qualified by the director, right?

Right?

The internal applicant.

If they're civil service, yeah.

Okay, so that's if they're civil service, they would go through those kinds of whether external or internally they're applying, they're going through those steps, and then this would be the last thing that happens.

The mayor would make the appointment.

Okay.

The designation if they were civil service, they would be certified.

The mayor would make the appointment, then it would come to the council for confirmation vote.

Okay.

And then balances.

And then if there's and then if there's a um like any type of reorg, we have to vote on that anyway.

We'd have to vote on the re-org, but is that but that then might be.

I'm just trying to so if there's a reorg and it shifts people or departments or whatever it is, if there's a new department or what have you, we would both be voting on that re-org side of things, and then also those appointments separately.

I'm just making sure I'm just thinking through the procedure there.

So separate provisions.

Yeah, right.

Um creation or abolition of uh divisions.

That's a different section of the charter.

Um so if someone has moved into appointed or designated as a division head, that would be subject to confirmation.

Departments can be shifted and and the personnel may not change, so you wouldn't necessarily approve a new department head unless there were unless there was one.

Okay, yeah.

But you can think back over the last eight, ten years where that's come up.

Yeah, and I will say, as a counselor who's been here that long, and counselor Hall Harper, I wish Counselor Lincoln is here because I'm sure he's heard too.

Um, we do get those calls.

Yes, um, and people have strong opinions about it, and our answer is like, well, you'll have to we have no say.

The only thing we have a say on is you can be organized.

So it has come up, like I said, this came up some time ago.

I didn't get past the council at the time.

It's always a good idea to look back and say, is it still relevant?

I think counselor Bush and I thought it was because of the level that our constituents are involved in local like what we're doing.

Yeah, they're paying attention in a way, and I think part of that is right, everything's live stream, it's in their pocket, they can dial it up in a way that maybe before if you didn't have cable TV right and home at noon to watch it, you didn't know.

Well, and I think we all know from this being smallsa, you know, when you're in the grocery store, everyone knows who everybody else is.

These are familiar faces.

Yeah, okay.

That's right.

Okay, I was curious.

So that's that one again.

This this today is like this is for you to chew on.

I will also say the staff helped with some research of other cities who've done this.

And if you think about it at the state level, the Senate has to approve things that the governor does.

So it's not and I think at the federal level.

We've seen them also cede appointing things over time to the governor as well.

Sure.

And that's gone swimmingly.

Yeah, I know.

But this is harder if checks and balances.

If we approve it to go on a ballot.

Yeah, if we approve it to go on a ballot, then the citizens get to decide in August.

So the um those are the two that Councillor Bush and I worked on.

And because I'm a nerdy walk on this charter, Counselor Hall Harper and I have um brought to you again.

Uh continuing public thank you.

Well, between us and lunch.

I know.

And again, this is not for a big debate or whatever today.

It's just to reintroduce the concept.

Um it's already been reintroduced by constituents who have organized to come and speak to us repeatedly, so it should not be a surprise.

And if it is, I guess you aren't listening.

So from in front of you, you should have three documents.

The first one with this dark title, independent review and oversight of public safety, the actual charter language.

What is if you remember we had a similar proposal a couple years ago?

This is similar but different, and we're about to talk about why, and then you'll have a bigger paper that looks like this.

It's just kind of an infographic of the first item.

So independent review and oversight's been an ongoing topic, not only in our community, but across the country.

Um, in our community specifically, the former mayor Bynum brought forward an ordinance proposal in 2019 that Councillor Lakin, myself, Councillor Hull Herbert, and then Councillor McKee had worked to draft.

It went through a process that started with seeding a budget item in a budget retreat and then ordinance discussions.

Ultimately, there was not enough consensus of that council to move it forward, so Mayor Biden pulled it back.

Then we went through 2020, and you'll remember all the things about 2020 if you haven't blocked them out of your mind.

And so the conversation continued.

At that time, Councilor Hall Harper brought forward a charter amendment proposal, in large part because of the community saying if you're not going to do an ordinance and the mayor's not going to do an executive order, then the charter is the next place to look.

Um we know that charter amendments can come from this body or citizens can organize a petition initiative.

So I just for those of you who are newer to this, right?

There can be an executive order, an ordinance, charter amendment, and this is one pathway.

Um the charter amendment before you right now is about all of public safety, and it really changes the conversation based on I think feedback that we've received as counselors, right?

How many times have we had somebody before us saying a code of enforcement official did a thing?

Or an animal control officer did a thing, or um, we know we've seen lawsuits that the fire department has had to settle because of gender bias or other things.

So I really um for me is a conversation around public safety is our greatest investment, and it's the greatest um, it's in our oath to protect the health safety and welfare of citizens.

Um, and so it makes sense that we look at all of it and provide a review and oversight entity where these citizens can go to where it's not gate cut by an elected official, right?

Because not everyone voted for me.

So there could be somebody in my community that's not going to approach me because of who I am, but they would have this place neutral place to go.

So it's really about that.

Um, we have a public safety commissioner by a plaintiff right now.

That's not a civil service position, but right now we as a city are saying that commissioners over police, fire, including dispatch, um, animal control, and the municipal court.

I think we've argued that code enforcement is also public safety, right?

And so that's gonna be in here.

Um, emergency management, just anything that keeps our city safer would go into this.

Yeah, that would go into this review and oversight.

And obviously, if it's a charter amendment, we have to make it as evergreen as possible.

So getting into like what it's called today, you know, at least to call it working in neighborhoods, it's ultimately code enforcement.

So um it would umish a director of a department and a civilian oversight board.

Um, the charter would outline how those entities are put into place.

Um anything that involves uh obviously Dadley force and custody does, which we just had unfortunately a report today drop in the frontier about our municipal lockup.

So I'm sure you'll be hearing about that if you haven't already.

Um any incident where someone dies during a public safety operation, and um complaints involving public safety employees and situations where a public safety employee has been investigated for a felony or violent offense, whether duty related or not.

And when we say public safety employee, we're talking about like what I just said, code enforcement, municipal court, prosecutors, all those things that have come up over the years where I'll just say as a city counselor, if somebody approaches me because they felt like a code enforcement official was heavy-handed.

The only recourse I have is to kind of pass it along and hope something comes of it.

But I have a very hard time even going back to that constituent and letting them know what has come of that situation.

This would mitigate all of that.

And um, I think every month we get reports from a sales tax overview committee because sales tax capital is something that should be monitored closely.

They meet monthly, they have subcommittees, they give us monthly reports, they publish monthly reports on the website, and we don't have anything close to that as it relates to this.

So it's not um it's something that we already do, we just haven't done it in this way.

I will turn it over to Councillor Hall Harper, but I just wanted to kind of give you this um high level fast track because I know some of you have not been as involved in this or maybe have been involved when it was different iteration.

So I wanted to kind of emphasize what it is and what it isn't, and this one-page graphic also just kind of highlights that.

Um so there's no disciplinary powers, there would be uh Tulsa residents on the civilian oversight board that would be um working with the director.

They're um putting it in the charter means it's not subject to an administration or the comings and goings of the political um side of it, it would just let the citizens decide.

Do they value this?

We've had I think more people come speak to us in the public realm on this issue than probably anything else I can think of.

And I've been here eight years.

So and the final thing I'll say the settlements that we've all had to vote on recently show the financial risk to the city if things go unchecked.

Um, and so having a third-party uh entity of citizens doing that work, and one of the big nuances besides just broadening it to all concepts of public safety um departments and employees is that the council and the auditor are included in this language now in a way that wasn't before because I do think the auditor needs to look at things, and I do think we need to look at things.

And right now, we ask the question what policies have changed, and oftentimes we don't have an answer or what training has changed.

Um, and so I just think it shines light on all aspects and all 11 elected officials of the city of Tulsa to account for making sure that when things don't go the way they should, we actually look at it and we actually make changes so that we're not just continuing 10, 20, 30 years down the line using tax dollars like this.

Counselor Halhart, no.

You pretty much hit it all, but uh I just want to highlight a couple of things.

But uh I do think it's very important uh as we talk about long-term accountability, uh transparency, and again, as you just mentioned, the fiscal stewardship that's necessary.

Um we're in my mind, we're going to say, okay, we need to make sure that we are taking care of our public safety officers financially, and rightly so pay-wise, but to me, this is a natural connection with it because that that's the questions I'm gonna get.

Why should we make continue to do this, right?

Longevity and and and satisfactory when we don't feel like we have accurate oversight and input and and to know that things are being addressed.

Again, we've just paid out more uh in the last four months and lawsuits than than we have, and certainly in my 10 years uh of being on on this uh council, and so I think again it is a natural connection.

I think it's logical, I think it makes sense.

I think one justifies the other.

And I and I do um uh I'm very much in support of it, not just being one department, but rather public safety as a whole.

We've talked about that consistently on several levels, but public safety it's about you know if we wanting people to come, wanting people to stay in the city.

Public safety is key to that.

And so um, I would add just that that public trust is is important in placing independent uh oversight in the charter demonstrates a commitment to transparency, that transparency and their trust and accountability.

And so there's a lot of information there.

Certainly uh won't welcome any questions or or additions, discussions.

But we wanted to put it out there.

Um and I think this is a way to get us to where we need to be on both sides of taking care of all of our public safety.

Um I've shared at this table before.

Uh I teach at TCC, and I'm teaching the juniors, seniors, but also the 18, 19, 20, 21 year old generation.

Uh and I and I asked the question, I think it's chapter 10.

Every time who in here is interested in public service working for our local, whether it's city, county, state, whatever.

Um, and it's just not a lot of response.

There's there's very little interest.

So we think we're having problems now about building academies and and keeping our city staffed.

It's going to get worse.

And I think this is something because I've I've because they all they know what I do, so they're like, I don't want to say I'm like, no, this isn't you're not getting rated for.

All right, just be honest.

Why?

And so some of them will say the money.

I'll say, okay, well, how much would you want to make?

Right?

And then they all go sound like, well, that's that's about what they make.

And I was like, oh, okay, so what's the reason now?

And oftentimes it boils down to just a lack of respect for the professions.

And trust.

And trust and trustworthiness.

There are saying I wouldn't want to be a part or a member of that profession because of what I see.

The final thing I'll add as we've been on this journey, at least since 2018, 2019.

I know certain parts of the community have been talking about a lot longer and demanding it a lot longer.

Um, Oklahoma City and Sand Springs have a similar structure.

So it's not like Tulsa would be leading the way in our state.

Um, but I would say we should lead the way in our community in our umsa as we talk about economic development, growth, and all of those things, people want to feel safe.

We just heard that.

And this is part of it too, is that trust and accountability.

If you haven't already, I would recommend you look at the trust and accountability report that the council provided.

There was also a data collection report, and then of course the fines and fees is what we've heard about the most because that's what's received the most funding.

But um, they're on the council website, and if you don't know how to get them, I'm sure your aide could um point you out where to go.

But we that was the number one recommendation was independent oversight and uh civilian, you know, as uh committee as part of that because right just hiring one office of professionals doesn't bring that full trust and accountability piece from the public, and that's ultimately what we're doing is trying to say we're stewarding your dollars, we things happen.

We're not saying it won't, but we should be able to say when things happen.

This is we confirm it was all investigated internally properly.

If it was out of policy, these are the policy recommendations.

If it was in policy, but it's not aligned to best practices, these are the changes.

And right now, there's not really a um formalized structure for how that happens as it pertains to all of this.

You know, I've talked a lot about dispatch.

We still have data requests that we have not received, and we're going on several several months now.

Several months.

You were pregnant when you made the request.

Yeah, I have um yeah.

Okay, yeah, I have a little line going.

I'll just type.

Can we get Oklahoma City and Sand Springs, see what they did, how they didn't know.

We did as it was sand springs before Oklahoma City is a 2024, but we can bring that send that to us.

I'd like to just see what they've done.

I do want to talk on that what you voiced happening with your students at TCC.

I saw with my students at Hale, which is like 10 years ago, that's how I first got involved, even in city government at all, is from being like, how do we help build trust when the kids really, you know, wouldn't even approach when they had authentic safety issues.

I mean, I did want to flag this is something that I was so helpful that um he sat down with me about a few weeks ago as there was an incident on the South Side Downtown, the video of it went viral.

I had people ask some really serious questions.

They had real concerns about protocol, concerns about racism, um, and TPD spent time sitting down with me to go over the footage and show how everything had really played out and what was done to code, which is a lot of the time what has happened, and they were able to dispel that with me, so I could go back to my constituents and share that.

And I think to me, what I'm hearing is this just helps across all public safety entities formalize that process so that that's more of like the norm because then I got to go, hey, I sat down for two hours and looked at all of this with TPD, and you know, they did this stuff by you know by the book, and I understand why this could have come across this way, it was a tough situation, but I'm glad they sat down with me.

I'd want other people to get to have that as a formalized experience to maintain that trust that you're talking about.

All right, I have them from administration to administration, yep, from council to counsel, yeah.

But it'll be here forever.

Yeah, but it's it's gonna well and also for your point if someone doesn't necessarily trust me as their city counselor, I want there to be something else that they can trust because we have we all have everyone.

Trust us.

Are you best friends with all your constituents?

Yeah, everyone.

I mean, I we aren't we all um I have um Archie, Dutton, and Bengal.

But we can sure no apps, thank you.

Um we can bring this back again.

I think we have to get to an April 15th moment, so they'll we can put this back on.

Okay, well, then I'll be very quick.

I I agree training and transparency is critical, and something has to be done, um, whether it is this or something else, uh, because I get the calls as well.

I'm very concerned about the settlements.

Uh there are probably more to come.

Um so section four, it talks about who runs the office.

Um I'm gonna tie in what's written here with the last uh proposed amendment.

So it says the director is appointed by the mayor, so it's the department director from the mayor from a short list of candidates, vetted by a six-member uh screening committee that includes you know a number of people, which is also in the charter language, so you want to dig into it, right?

That part, so let's say that this passes and then your previous that person would have to come and be confirmed by okay, okay.

I'm just trying to blur it all together.

Absolutely.

Okay.

All right.

Okay, and then I have Dudden and Benkel.

So I know in 2017 we had the um equality indicators uh that is what prompted all of this to come forward.

Um I've been keeping track of that, but also the fact that this is for public safety, police officers who are also public citizens, and so I think this is all encompassing in what uh counselor Hall Harper said, and the fact that this would empower the public and our constituents to actually be a part of a creative and collaborative effort to be able to produce something that is going to be beneficial to the city as a whole.

So I'm really excited to read this has gone through.

Um that we're gonna bring it back to discussion.

Right, right.

Well, I mean, you know, I mean, to the point of constituents, 45.5,000 people that we represent are not always going to share our view, but this gives them the opportunity outside of us to have yes, outside of our purview to come in and be involved and actually have a voice and be you know empowered by that.

So I think that's imperative, independent.

All right, I'm I have the chair now.

Uh counselor Bangle, yes.

Yeah, so on your comparative or um your graphic here about the uh settlements um wouldn't you shift your 2020s to the 1990s since those cases revolved around that specific era?

No, so just thank you for that question.

So I want to be careful about how we represent the numbers.

So I'm representing the numbers when we had to authorize the dollars that then taxpayers are paying out of their pocket.

What would that but comparatively, what would that have looked like in the 1990s if we had settled those cases versus I know that's what I'm saying?

So I'm doing a deeper dive on sinking fund that we could bring your report on.

I think we're going back to 2000 25 years, 26 years.

Because as you know, some of these settlements are paid out over time.

Right.

Um we get sinking fund reports, but I don't think we've done this comprehensive look.

The other thing I want to be very careful about when we talk about settlements, there's kind of this attitude that it's a one-off and it's unfortunate, but we've got to take care of it and move on.

When you see the cumulative impact, the other thing is, right?

It's like, well, it just comes out of Advilarum.

What we've done right now, 145 dollars per property.

We don't have enough dollars.

So I want us to be very careful, kind of when we're like our hands are tied, we have to do the right thing, we went through the process that there's no lasting impact.

And there's all manner of sinking fund settlements.

Uh, you know, whether it's workers' comp or whatever, but when it comes to to these things related to um this this one has you know the big ones that we've done that also sets a precedent for future.

Um, but you know, when the fire department had their lawsuit for half a million dollars, like these are things that if we don't see changes that we're just gonna say we're we'll just pay out when people can bring it through to a lawsuit.

I just don't think that's the way we should be stewarding taxpayer dollars.

Do we also have a comparative outside of public safety, like for tort claims?

We could do we have a comparison.

So we have all this paid over the same period outside of public safety, because I think it's fair when we make comparisons, right?

We're talking about stewardship of tax dollars where I'm sure Jack could send you the sinking fund reports.

I'm kind of curious about the computer.

I will say for you better delve into them because it's not clear.

Yeah, for our research.

That's what I'm saying.

So outside of public safety, what other oh, I mean, there's all you know car accidents, and that's what I'm saying.

Yeah, waterline breaks that damage people's property, all that kind of stuff.

But for our purposes on the sinking fund analysis that uh we're looking at it is related to um those 1983 cases, yeah, which are the federal court.

So we should have that report soon, and we will be bringing back and policies employing change over time.

I think you know, today or previously in the 90s, early 2000s.

You had in the police cars, you had a uh a recorder in the back seat and a camera in the front.

As soon as they hit that um siren lights and siren button uh switch on their siren, it would trigger the uh camera, right?

Those were crappy to be fair.

Um now we have body camps.

The other day I just do want to say when policing has changed.

It has, and when Arctic went in, there was town halls, or there was a talk about transparency and accountability.

I don't see that happening yet, and that's why we'll bring back that report because we did an analysis of dozen plus cities, the ones that have real-time information centers have some level of review and oversight.

We're like one of the only ones that doesn't, and so I just think as we are asking citizens to trust us with surveillance that we have to have this other piece of it.

Most of the time, it's gonna be like Counselor Bellis said.

I thought I saw something that wasn't right, I'm coming to you to learn about it.

We go through it and they walk through and explain, nope, that's how it goes, or that's how it is, or you know, we even hear about well, they came on my property.

You know, code enforcement's like, well, they have jurisdiction to do that.

You know, sometimes it's an educative process, but it would exist outside of just the one off, so who approaches us.

Um, and it would put us in a position to not be so reactive to when it's a lawsuit, right?

We could get upstream of these things.

So we'll we can talk about it again.

We can have a dedicated discussion on public works or UED.

I'm sure they'll be hearing from the community your community members and other stakeholders, and so we just wanted to get these on the table, the two that Councilor Bush and I brought, and then this one, because now we have unless we have three, yeah, right, but four total, unless there's something else in the works that I don't know about, but four charter amendment proposals and one wild card, not one.

Well, I didn't know if any of you all are working on something that but I think the window for kind of putting it on the table is closing.

Yeah, four serious ones, one silly one, yes.

So okay.

I'm kidding.

Thank you to Jack and to Sarah staff for their help too.

Is there anything else on this one?

Okay, we're on hey, if we had a 230, we could have spread some of this out, please.

We don't have a 230.

I'm happy to talk to you all about schedules.

That was not possible today.

I understand okay.

We're on just checking.

It's okay.

Hey, you know, we put everything into one day because a lot of us have other jobs and it costs us this sometimes.

Yeah, just because we don't have a 230.

So Sarah Well, we gotta have we have a one o'clock and it's o'clock and it's a pleasure table.

I'm gonna actually just go police table or to talk about it all fly because we have a number of eight people are welcome to continue this meeting till three o'clock.

You do have the legal ability.

We couldn't do that.

I wouldn't want to wonder that we have a one o'clock and it's what o'clock now.

Is this a burning?

I'll talk to Fair about it.

Okay, all right.

Real quick agenda item eight travel authorization for council rules in order of business for counselor Hall Harper to travel to Washington DC for the chamber one voice Washington DC fly-in for three thousand four hundred dollars.

This is for registration hotel and per diem.

The only question I had is last week when we talked about it.

Did we have three or four already?

Yeah, we'll also do it.

No, counselor Paul Harper is going.

I think if counselor Bush is going, it's not going through the city process for quorum.

And so um just two counselors.

Okay.

So we still have quorum.

All right.

Oh, good point.

Okay.

Anything else on this one?

All right, we are adjourned.

It's very bright, but it's key.