All right.

Welcome to the city council budget and special projects committee meeting.

Uh today is Wednesday, March 25th.

Item number one called to order.

I call this meeting to order.

Item number two ordinance declaring a 365-day moratorium on the acceptance of applications for processing and uh issuance of building permits that would allow construction on or a use of property for data centers uh use low located in the city, it's also provided uh for an exception and an appeal process providing effective and repeal dates.

Can I just jump in with some sure?

Um, you know, after getting, you know, we had a really rich discussion last time.

Um, and so I wanted to kind of offer to like kind of one to maybe two modifications and get your all's feedback on it and hopefully go to a vote tonight since I think this is somewhat time sensitive.

Um we're going to a vote tonight.

But what I wanted to say up front since at the um end of our or in the middle of our last committee meeting uh mentioned about data centers and fear.

To me, this is about being fact-based, not fear-based, and acknowledging that this is an industry that's all around us, it's here anyway.

It's just about updating our zoning code.

Um so what I would propose after you know, listening to a lot of folks' feedback, um, and also seeing that even if I don't quite agree with this approach, I think it's a compromise.

Um, I think I'm gonna be adding in and I have an amended draft to exempt um phase two of Anthem as well, which defining that's a bit tricky because it's not kind of a firm concept, kind of the language I have here is that it shall not apply to an additional data center project, which it then says project anthem phase two located on 300 acres or less if it were appropriately zoned within the property that is subject to of NPD six approved as amended by the council on March 11th, 2026.

I'll make sure you all get, of course, a copy of that.

Um but that is all to say that this way, since that's still in the rezoning process, and I know that that's something Councillor Lake's voice was like, hey, this is still in a process.

I know that some folks, like a lot of that company reached out or sat down with several of us, um, and maybe people are considering you know going and visiting a data center with the generator shut off in Dallas or what have you.

Um, which you know, I don't want to discount doing that.

That's just one company, and I know other ones may be trying to come in, and they all potentially are using different tech or it's shifting.

So I do still think a pause is very important.

I still think that phase two is not necessarily a given just because I know it's in the middle of a zoning process, but I'll respect that there's that civic process carrying out, which is why I put in an exemption for it as well within this.

And then I also had asked Jack to add some updated language.

Um, and I thought this was a good suggestion from um Councillor Bush and uh doing your something that counselor Hall Harper had brought up as an option since you're the moratorium expert around here.

Um, which was right making it kind of an up to going, hey, that's this moratorium up to this many days unless we adjust, you know, we got recommendations and have voted on rezoning prior to that 365 days.

So I will pause there, meaning that those two amendments um, which we absolutely of course open for discussion, um, are one again exempting that phase two as it's going through a rezoning process um and two the up to instead of just saying 365 days, just going, hey, let's allow for time for there to be that thoughtful investigation and study, and if there's a recommendation and um rezone that is forthcoming sooner than that, great, right?

Um yeah, I'll I'll pause there with those two amendments.

Okay.

Um counselor RG?

Just a quick clarification.

Yes, and I appreciate you'll send us the revision.

So you're saying the amended language would be data centers uh 300 acres or less would be allowed to move forward.

It was just one, it's like one other one in addition to what's already happening, and it would be a moratorium on any other ones that come forward.

Anything outside project.

Basically, it's letting Project Anthem do its thing, acknowledging that I you know, it's not it's not my most preferred thing to do, but in acknowledgement of the different perspectives around the table that I know are present that were voiced last time, um, and that it's in the middle of a rezoning process.

I just thought it made sense to let that sit and do its thing.

But the way this is defined, and I'll make sure of course that everyone gets that language in Jack.

Um we can also potentially show some of it on the screen in a minute.

I don't you're getting access to it.

Um, but it really is just making sure that that's carved out and that it's no other ones until we get our zoning code correct.

Okay, so we can't get it up on the screen, but hopefully we can get it in backup before this evening, or we can talk about or bring it back at four o'clock.

Okay, we can put it up, I think.

I don't I don't have it on a way to put it up right in this minute.

Oh, okay, I apologize.

Okay.

Sorry, this was some like things for everyone's patience, but yeah, it is on the plus side, the policy itself is relatively short, and the little amendment is just the language to make sure phase two is clear within it.

So it's nothing very complex to take a look at prior to voting or anything like that.

Okay.

All right.

Uh councillor, are you done?

Yes, Councilor Dr.

I thank you.

So the 365 gives the planning office the time they need, which they may need less.

Right.

Did they indicate what they think their timeline might be?

Um when I first was talking with them, it sounded great new ones.

They've put together they have an internal working group of experts and they're folding in more, and of course, I think you know, they so they want to be able to go through and vet that process.

I think they I think they likely think it could occur faster, of course, and get something to our table and go through that process, but just wanted to allow for additional time in the event more was needed.

Then you know, they they they have this as one of their this is like one of their priorities.

Yeah, okay.

Like we sat down early on.

Yeah, yes, it could.

Okay, yeah.

And if we feel like as a body it's taking too long, we can we could be like, hey, I feel it or do whatever.

But I think it's important.

I mean, one of my frustrations, and I think we've talked about that is just how land is used.

Sometimes we go, who decided that should be there?

But it was more like nobody decided it couldn't be there, and that's what it is, and then we'll learn the hard way.

Right.

And so I appreciate that we have something in the pipeline.

Right now it's in a largely undeveloped part of town.

Obviously, last week we approved a very comprehensive 30-year plan.

Um technology will change 25 times before that comes to pass.

Um, but if we can just use this moment while things are kind of all around us in nearby counties, straddling our county, straddling our city, and if we can just get our zoning code to a place where we feel like is uh balanced, then I think it's wise to give us hopefully less than 365 days, but at least the time that the experts need to inform us.

Because what I wouldn't want to happen is what we have seen and we grapple with now as leaders in our communities is kind of patchwork approach to things that then doesn't really make sense when you zoom out and we're doing all of it.

So I I appreciate the amendments that you're offering.

Um I did have a chance to visit with the Anthem folks.

I don't think I need to go on a field trip.

I do have concerns about um you know the things that we see across the country.

Yeah, these um I have concerns about the rhetoric that the reason people should be looking here to do it is because we have cheap land, cheap water, chief resource.

Like I don't appreciate that approach.

Yeah, it's basically like no, I want us to have higher self-esteem.

Yeah, I want us yeah, well, we value our community and even the open land.

Like I was looking at um over the weekend or over the last couple of days, land legacy had announced like they're in a lawsuit because of some land use encroachment, and I chose to move here and raise a family here, and it just bothers me when kind of the selling point is like cheap land, cheap water, you know, uh low cost of living.

It's not a low cost of living for everyone, and we know that and we see that.

So I want us to be mindful.

Of course, we are business friendly, we want industry here, we want to diversify, we know we need to, but to do it in a smart, balanced way, I think is really pragmatic.

So I I support this amended approach and hope that the planning um office can make it go faster than 365.

Which I think we really can.

And it sounds like they've got a running start already.

I did consider well, and initially I had thought about transparently more of a nine-month time frame, and then after looking more at just out of an abundance of caution in the event we just needed a little more runway.

I felt like that is where it's up to to go a bit higher just in case felt a little bit easier to me than going, you know, too short and then coming up against that, especially if it's a voting timeline for us.

I was trying to factor in summer, summer, yeah, you know, which again I I don't think it actually necessarily takes that one.

They really, from the second this first became a discussion we initiated, right?

That um review and that amendment that they've been working on it.

So I don't I think something could be really be forthcoming much sooner.

I didn't want to not allow for enough runway, especially knowing and so many of you verbalized so many of those different types of experts in industries that would be important to consult and take into consideration.

And so I wanted to ensure that there was opportunity for that to fully happen, especially since the nuance of this is also that again, data centers that are of so many different sizes and scales.

There's some near us right now you would never notice these like much larger ones are kind of a newer um animal relative to this area, but not necessarily the nation, though the speed at which so many of them are coming in is quite dramatic.

Um and I think this will help the state legislative session will be done probably before this is back at our table, so we'll also be able to wrap our arms around um how those changes might impact us as well.

So it allows enough time for that too, which was part of my thinking with allowing a bit more runway as if needed.

I got you.

I don't know if I already raised my hand.

I really couldn't remember.

Raise your hand more than once.

I didn't raise this in.

Do we need to do that?

Do we need a pair of over there?

Yeah.

Plus as far as yeah.

Uh Counselor Dick Dorde, did you get your I do, thank you?

Concerns addressed.

All right.

Uh Counselor Bangle, then Lakin.

And then Duncan.

Beauty before age, obviously.

Obviously.

So thank you.

Obviously, uh this didn't happen in the time span that I wanted it to with um the developer.

I wanted them to do community outreach and engagement long before it happened.

So I want to be very transparent about that.

Um I do share some of the same concerns that everybody does.

We've already uh given them an incentive.

Um, and that you know, there are concerns about the uh cost of residence on the infrastructure to support these.

Um the city over and over and over has had to is very resilient about industry and things of that nature.

This is one of these risks, um measured risks, in my opinion, um, where it's an opportunity for both us and the developer, the developer to disprove um the theories and the things that people see on the internet.

There, I do agree that we don't want to open the floodgates for this type of development large scale across the city because uh water infrastructure loads and uh all those things are a concern.

And so um I'm not an expert on water, I'm not an expert on power consumption use and what that looks like or what those costs are, but I totally agree.

Or we've implemented a incentive, they shouldn't get it a second bite um at the Apple by taxing the citizens for the infrastructure for their development.

So outside of Anthem, I appreciate us working together on this because it it is a challenge because of MPD6.

I've said this a hundred times.

Yeah, if it would have been my dream, we'd be talking about uh uh the two billion dollar vanita dream park that was never gonna come to fruition anyway, but that's not what's the opportunity here.

So uh people would have come to the table with different oppositions, but I'm just saying unluckies.

This is not the most glamorous thing that you would hope for as the initial part of a bigger development, but I know in order to get there to have jobs, to have housing, and to have uh the things of the much larger plan uh creates.

This is the worst part of it, and so I appreciate you guys going along this group path with me.

Uh counselor Lincoln.

It's about time.

Yep.

Um goodness.

Sorry, I know it's a big way, guys.

I know, yeah, we got a long way.

Yeah, um, thank you for for making those changes.

I I would ask I I worry about what we say to businesses that are interested in coming to Tulsa if we say we're we're closed for 365 days, even if it's up to 365 days.

I think a lot of people just see that as a year moratorium regardless of what it really could be.

Right.

Um, the way we've done um provisions in the past is we've it seems like we've started on the nearer side and extended if we needed to in a couple of cases.

So I I wonder if if you would be open or if we collectively would be open.

I know you're the author, so I'm gonna start with you, but um saying a moratorium of 90 days, and then well, sorry, I yeah, well, I mean eighty days or whatever the whatever.

Whatever that whatever the number is that can then be extended.

So just like we did with masks, just like we did with river design overlay, just like we did with other things, it allows us to give people the time to do their work, and if they haven't done the work, then extend it another period of time.

Um even though curfew, I think we we said we are going to definitely come to the table at this time rather than saying we can sunset it early, which I'm buying with sunsetting it early.

We always have that prerogative.

But we are going to come to the table after 90 days or 100 days, 80 days.

I I think even though I I understand those comparisons, I think some of those are very different circumstances.

Like for instance, the reason we've come back to the table for their curfew is we'd enacted a new law enforcement policy that could have had direct impacts on people entering the justice.

This could have a direct impact on our economy.

Isn't there a lot of land by right now?

Those is maps you gave us.

There's a lot of things.

This is a moratorium on these drawing permits.

We're looking I will say no data is in it.

Yeah, no, this is pulled up, but I would say I think it's a bit of a misnomer to say that this it doesn't I understand that there could potentially be a lot of private interest concern about that kind of messaging, but I think that's also incumbent on us as leaders to also be crystal clear.

This is one specific industry that we're not even saying no to, we're going, hey, do you we're still allowing in this a very massive addition of um you know project anthem to go forward?

We're also by the you know I think the planning office is likely to come forward sooner, but I'd rather ensure we're up front, allowing for time.

I don't think there's harm in that.

We're talking about one very specific part of the AI industry, and we're not even saying no to it, we're just saying let us get our zoning house in order.

Um my my concern would just be that you just so much there's so much politicking implicit in some of this and with this industry, um we've seen how heated and really challenging these conversations have been in other communities, and to me, if we're proactively giving ourselves a bit more runway, that may not be necessary.

I think we're preventing having multiple interactions that could become more heated and toxic and less fact-based over time, not by us, but just the whole community.

If we're going, hey, let's come back every X amount of time to review this.

I just want to name we have seen how deeply challenging and negative and heated and inflammatory these conversations have been.

And I am so grateful.

Look at us here right now, that's not how our community is approaching this issue, which is part of why I wanted to proactively discuss this with you all.

But I would be concerned, as we've seen it play out with our neighboring communities and across the country that if we keep inviting this back as a discussion to the table before the whole, you know, our planning office and that working group and everyone's gotten their time to really ensure there's adequate research and we're having to check back in every X amount of time.

I just think it creates space for what could become a much more toxic conversation, to be honest.

That's kind of that was kind of my thinking and approach here.

Yeah, no, I I understand that that those are good points.

Um is there any kind of compromise off the 360 up to 365 days?

Is there uh is there an up to 180 days given that we really do think planning might be done much more quickly than the 365 days that you've put out there?

I mean, you're saying this stuff.

I'm I don't know because I haven't talked to planning, and planning's still not.

Yeah, and I don't I don't know, I'd be curious what other people think as well, just about the time.

Well, I'd be interested.

If that's okay, sorry, I didn't need to open the floor like that, but right.

Um but what about I mean, instead of have adjusting the timeline and the sunset clause?

What about I mean, what about inserting reporting dates with that cover over here?

So that way we get monthly updates from though that that's an actual PR concern of a few COVID.

Oh no, I start no there are two things.

I mean, I mean, yes, there is that element that's going to be reported.

Hey, Tulsa is not doing there's a moratorium for one year.

Period, that's what people are going to hear and read, um, which may or may not be the case depending on what kind of work we do around this table in between now and that 365 day time.

Um it just the past indicates what we could do, which is come to the table and decide to extend rather than saying let's extend as far as we can and then we can sunset early.

Um state level three years were proposed by uh um was it I don't remember how by is it Representative Kendall said Cherries?

Yeah, yeah.

She proposed three years.

To me, this is like trying to do a network.

I would say to your question that I would hope that we're getting updated every month or every two months or whatever, just around this table in the committee room on what kind of progress we're making and we're providing input into the process too.

Um I hope planning is saying you know either in this room or in another room or whatever what is it that you want to incorporate into this.

I hope we're having conversations with water.

I hope we're having in storm water so that we can understand the full scope and impact of all those things.

But I I'd I'd rather cause us with all of your comments um heavily as heavily weighted as I could in the last four minutes, and I think they're all in play to say, yeah, those are great points, we don't need to revisit this every 90 days, but is there something in between now and 365 days?

180 days or something like that that would cause us to come to this table and actually take not to this table the window stairs and take action that would say, you know what, we're not done.

Or yeah, we are done after this 180 days or something less, and and then we can implement the changes to the planning policy and move on.

365 seems like a lot.

Fair.

But if we add to the ordinance adding the reporting back to us, yeah, we could do that just to which I think we all want to do that kind of work.

So I'm totally amenable to like a hey, let's have I don't know if month part of me almost wants to think maybe every other I'm just thinking about the case that some of that work actually happens in our committee schedules in 60 days.

Yeah, we maybe every 60 days we get a progress update just so we can that's a good as long as we have a chance to input on the front end.

Yes.

I don't want the first report after we do this two months.

We have to we have to hear from planning and we have to be able to say, hey, here's some questions.

Yeah, absolutely.

I agree.

Miss Davis, do you just in addition to whatever frequency you decide at committee um for reporting?

We do have two staff members who are on this staff working group, so we can also ask them to write a little paragraph report or something just on an update on that, like monthly.

Um so you have that, but then you can have the planning at the table whenever you want.

I didn't I wasn't sure if everybody was aware that we had staff members on that working group.

I didn't know that there was a planning.

I think I don't know that we all know the full.

It is on a staff, uh there's a planning office is putting together stakeholders, the experts in this.

I think they are looking at the people who work in our water um area, there's council staff, but they're still collecting those people on a staff level for this.

Okay.

Uh Councillor Bangle, did you have something in the Yeah?

I was just gonna say between the you know conversation between the two of you, your points are valid, and obviously Councillor Lakin's point is valid.

It there feels like a compromise in there that if you put and I'm not advocating one way or the other, so I'm just making a point.

Um I think by putting a 360 five-day on it, it kind of gives it an over an over lengthy runway that might feel like you could just put this off for an entire year.

Which is not what works.

Right.

But that I think by putting a reporting or cutting it in half, and like Councilor Lakin said, we can always come back and extend it further if the if there's still more time needed as part of this working group, but it does set a threshold for expectation that by this certain date we would know one way or the other where we stand out whether we need to continue could extend this another six months or whatever the case may be, because most of the things that I was talking about, like House Bill 2992 that they're working on.

Um I support that.

So by that time, that the legislative process would have already played out on most of this stuff.

I don't know if that three-year moratorium died.

Did that bill die?

It died.

Oh, yeah, it did sign up.

So that's why I'm saying it's a lot.

This at least gives us some insight as to what the requirements are from the state surrounding this, because it's obviously at their level too.

So that's where I was kind of thinking where you know you have legislative session, it'll end by the end of you know, June, May, May.

Sorry, May.

Sorry, I'm always thinking of all the special sessions we always have.

Yeah.

And then it might have we just we love to do that.

Um just take this to December.

So that would be like the nine months, which I'm not unamendable to, and then we could always, if we need to extend with nine, yeah, with these 60-day check in so that we if it looks like it's wrapping up sooner, we can always sunset it earlier.

And then if we need to extend it, we could, which I mean, maybe which again we may not need to.

My thought had been okay, get through the legislative session, let people have time to do all their investigative research.

That's gonna be just around the corner happen faster than we think it will.

Then you do have just calendar the summer is a little bit more.

Yeah, the summer gets tricky, but I yeah, I think it's not even that much.

I think the nine months at least gives us the right kind of like fall runway to get something up to a vote, you know, before then.

So that's not I think out of the question.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Yeah, so um personally I'm completely opposed to the data centers in general, and that if you look at the maps of where they can be located, it's primarily district three and district six, as well as the north side of Tulsa.

I understand the concept and idea that there's more land mass out there, but the economic data with data centers does not support that they are a revenue generator for the city as a whole, and I think that it would benefit Northeast Tulsa if we had shopping corridors kind of like Shields benefits uh the city of Tulsa tax revenues as well as Woodland Hills Mall and their bigger employers, and so I think that with that caveat that uh the idea that they are impactful to economies, I think is a misnomer for sure.

And I think there's also environmental justice um and justice issues we need to talk about, and that um I think these are all areas that we really need further research, and that the counselors that would affect the most would be Councillor Bangle, Counselor Venice Hall Harper, and myself, and I don't know how you would feel if you had a data center in your backyard, or how you would feel if you had a data center in your backyard.

And I think that has to be a consideration that the locations in the various districts are so far removed from where these data centers will be located, and we don't know what the impact is for those local residents in those areas where the data centers are gonna be.

We also are not aware that in two years' time they're going to need all that land mass like they do today, and then what happens to all of the equipment that was used to stand up the data centers.

And I just think that we don't have enough information in regards to environmental injustices, as well as the Cherokee Nation is going to do their own study, which the data at them is going into uh Cherokee Nation District 13, I believe.

And so I think it would be helpful if we were also to include since it's on charity land as well, information that they can provide on impacts uh to the farm land and area around there.

And I I guess I'm challenged by the factors that are not known with data centers and the environmental impact as well as the fact that they're not going to be bringing in tons of jobs and people that are going to be investing like you would in a home development area where people are gonna be buying homes, paying taxes, shopping.

It's a whole different uh revenue uh that is not conducive to tax base.

If it's helpful, I have the planning office's tentative timeline that I just if that's helpful to the conversation for folks.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Oh sorry, but I'm I just I did have a couple more points.

Um that uh I believe 82% of the data centers are absolutely going into uh rural areas where you have disenfranchised communities, and I think that needs to be considered um as well, and it makes me think of the flit water crisis and the fact that they had lead in these communities and their pipes that was known for a long time and it took forever to get that replaced, and that environmental impact is not something that we're even aware of might happen with data centers.

So that's I'm I'm finished.

I'm I'm for the moratorium, the 365.

That's just okay.

Okay, my opinion.

And you want to go ahead and give that.

Yeah, just so folks know.

This is a tentative one.

I know there's you know, a lot of the dates aren't necessarily definite.

Um, but they do have themselves being ready to um put stuff into like TMAPC um around September and work through our body in around October, November is what they're showing.

So that is about that nine-month time frame where they have um they're they're already meeting every other week, um, and then they're starting to convene, you know, the developers and uh etc.

Um, do some kind of um or they have it looks like that they're or they're planning to mid-summer to kind of do a summary report to TMAPC as well.

Like they have like this whole kind of process work on again, just looking at a ten minutes.

Or they did they tell you what the structure or the composition of that working group.

I do not know yet, which I also think is a great opportunity for us as we you know embark on creating the time for this to happen.

Um we can always like my thought would be maybe having them, you know, either send us like what whatever that one pager is about who that is us being able to offer all of our input because I know there's so many different industries or people that would be important stakeholders to have at the table.

Um, and so like I know they've been convening those like internal folks, and I can see that they've started to go, okay.

This is when we need to start engaging these developers or this or that, but I think it's you know, up front we can make sure that we're sending them those experts.

Um, and also I think this does allow for um you know, while we're having those public discussions optimally, the project anthem people maybe they do decide to do some public town halls outside of you know that are also helping educate the public as well.

Um they seemed in my conversation with them moderately amenable to doing that.

Yeah, Ms.

Davis.

So just the scope of this working group is regarding the land use, and so while data centers have a lot of stakeholders and they may reach out and talk to them, their working group's gonna be really confined to people who deal with land use.

And so I just wanted to make sure that was you know clear there is why you may not see different representatives on it's a very staff kind of technical working group on that.

So this is a centric to data centers as a whole.

Well, the moratorium is just on is on land use and and a recommendation on zoning code.

That was my understanding, yeah, yeah.

This would be a lot of fully encompassed under um kind of moratorium that allowed time for us to understand that as a whole.

I think for us at this point.

Yeah as being its own zoning code which I think right um outside of any other pre-existing zoning, this was something that because it was a new type of development, it was going to require us to constantly and potentially come back for amendment.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I think for your point, I think I'm kind of viewing this as a yes and where as Sarah just mentioned, what's happening internally for planning, and this is their piece of it, and part of why the pause and you know what we're trying to build up to is just from the land use perspective, what is the appropriate place for our code, it having some of its own definition, you know, for what you've described its own definitions that are needed, especially for different size and scale.

And I think simultaneously, as we try to understand, because I know when we voted this table and we're voting on zoning issues, we're taking into account all those public health and welfare pieces.

I do think it creates that opportunity for us to go, let's make sure we're simultaneously well, they're looking at land use and of course reporting and sharing information with us that we can simultaneously I'm happy to help you know ensure that there's like you know, steady information coming to us, which could happen in a few different formats, um, which I can work through with Sarah because I'm guessing she's um but I'm just thinking about structurally, make sure that we're getting brighter point getting some more of that broader information that we'll be considering because I know it's incumbent on us to think about community, both the economic factor, community health and welfare, and so much else.

So I think to me, I see these things happening in tandem, but since the core of like why the moratoriums around that zoning piece, and that is just updated as a zoning code.

I know that's what they'll be deep diving on per Pizarro's point, but I do think at this table in some fashion we can make sure that we're also getting more robustly educated um by all of those different types of experts across the spectrum of that industry.

Okay.

Uh counselor uh Dr.

Wright, did you have something else or did you say earlier?

Maybe halfway between six months and twelve months is nine months.

Yep.

Okay, which happens to be December 31st, 2025.

Uh counselor Archie.

So um part of that part of my original question was answered about actually figuring out what how much time the planning office needs.

And you so you're saying the end of the year would be.

Yep, so that's literally um, we're just gonna do this like it's a pregnancy just gestate this for a little while.

But the other I guess the other question I have to world for whomever, whoever can answer.

Uh maybe this is Sarah.

At the end of six months or nine months for 365 days, what exactly is planning office going to uh uh put put on the table.

I feel like maybe so we'll get something on the table before that time, just to be clear, the like nine to twelve months or whatever concept is that that's the point by we'd actually have voted on a new zoning code.

The expectation is they'll bring forward a recommendation for a new zoning uh categor category for we'll have to see how they or no change or no change.

Yeah, they're gonna they're gonna study it.

Yeah, so they they would we don't recommend as the appropriate land use based on their study period.

Well that's yeah because that's what I was hoping to do.

What I am thinking is at the end of the nine months.

Um we have a brand new data.

Just kidding.

Through through I'm just I'm just trying to figure out through zoning through um planning process, how much are we actually gonna learn about data centers versus the land use?

Well that's why I was just verbalizing that we can make sure that happens.

So the moratorium, the moratorium owned data centers, planning office is not working specifically on data centers.

We are gonna be working well.

They're working on land their their lens and their job is is it what's appropriate land use for data centers.

Okay.

So and they will consider it now.

Yeah, and I might think about it be I am um yeah, it's this we have another item on, so I want to and I want to control this as much as possible.

Start controlling it.

Well, I mean, um so is it something that yes, it has to do with zoning and land use and the fact that a lot of this rural area where these data centers are wanting to go are actually not in the bigger uh plans for the area when they're zoned residential or they're zoned uh for other purposes that aren't industrial heavy.

So I think that's the focus is that we want to maintain the integrity of what the zoning is and still allow for shopping corridors that might actually be uh or office light, you know, um that would be helpful.

Economic.

Yeah, and that would also respect the land use in general for zoning.

But yeah, I think just to reiterate though, it's that two fold where the zoning office has their specific lens that does consider an array of factors that we all definitely want to know and consider here.

However, for instance, some of those economic pieces that I know are top of mind for so many of us, though I think industry-wise, it's just another city that you know we deserve the best.

Let's have some self-esteem about who we're who are chasing.

Um we could be picky.

But anyway, um, but I was gonna say like some of those other factors are not necessarily within their purview, nor would they consider in land use, and that's where we're gonna have to make sure that those things that are outside of their more immediate sphere of interest control, um, etc.

We're making sure we're also educating ourselves on at the table.

Which I think there's absolutely those experts locally and nationally that we can draw to do that as just being intentional to me, it's more about time management more than anything else.

But we could absolutely make that happen within I think a nine-month time frame for sure.

Again, not sooner.

You done?

Okay, counselor Lakin?

Yeah, um, I I do think that we've we've said this.

I just want to emphasize one thing.

You you said something related just to the economic benefits and and maybe they're absent.

Um I do want to incorporate that element into the the planning and the research that we do over the next nine months because there is the franchise fee increase that we will receive just through the transmission of power through those lines, and I understand it could be one to one and a half million bucks per distribution center.

So that's a that's a real that's a material number.

Um but I want to I want to verify that that number is accurate because I don't know how much power is going through the line uh today versus ten years from now.

Uh same thing, just as we're analyzing that what increases do we have on the property taxes.

So if we put a 400 million dollar building on a piece of property that's you know valued at let's say zero right now, do we really get to assess property taxes on that 400 million, some of which come to the city, a lot of which go to the county, and a lot of which go to the TTC TCC or the public school system?

But I think those are all integral to us understanding what the what the balance is because there are those offsets of which you've already pointed out.

There's the noise issues, there could be the environmental issues, then there's the economic issues, and how do those all play together as we fully understand that so to the extent that we can not just look at the planning but look at it.

Okay.

To that point, I would just um I would just also want to know what the incentive package initially looks like as opposed to those things that you're talking about.

We can see the one that already exists as well.

Oh yeah, yeah, I know that's uh that's uh the comparison.

You got a meta would be good for the public.

But you gave this right.

You were doing do you still have that sheet that I gave out last week?

Oh yeah, I remember he had in the backup from last week.

That laid out some of those numbers.

I yeah, it's a probably do.

Okay.

Yeah.

We got that's true.

There are some of those numbers, but for your point, I hear you about like that trade-off of hey, we offer this what we're getting does.

And I know a big part of it's also the infrastructure.

Um I appreciate that.

Yeah, yeah.

Which I think on the plus side, it seems like it's you know, that's that's for sure coming.

I know not because of this, but just because of the zoning process separately, phase two is a bit in the balance regardless, but I'm under the understanding that we still have at least these initial benefits of the infrastructure, et cetera, from phase one coming in from all of the number already.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

So we would so we'll just have whatever we've discussed circulated to us so that we know what we're voting on before we get down.

I'll say the nine.

Yes, I think it's what you handed me at the beginning of the meeting.

Well, that's my magic.

So in addition to exempting project in phase two within MPD six, and providing for the potential to end early if uh review is wrapped up early.

Up to 270 days, so December 31st, 2026, and then 60 day reports from the planning office.

Or can we just say up to or until December 31st rather than 270 days?

Sure.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah, that's that's December 31st.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That's better.

Right, because that's a year's time after time here.

We don't know.

No, that's more clear.

Okay, so yeah.

I think we're going to just give ourselves to the end of the year.

Yeah.

But it's like what I'm saying.

I agree.

Yeah, I agree to I agree with that the December 31st.

Yeah.

That's pretty clear.

That all sounded good.

I will not give me the email that to everyone, send it to Lori and Sarah.

Thank you.

Okay.

We are voted, yeah.

Well that you make the motion.

Yeah.

Maybe.

But no, thank you.

Thank you all so much for everyone's good faith engagement around this and just being, you know, I appreciate all of us being really intentional and thoughtful and as proactive as we can with this policy, because I know this is like a heated policy environment topic.

And I'm I just want to say actually, I think, and I'm hopeful for tonight that like I think we're setting a model as a city about how to proactively and very in a balanced way approach this compared to again some of the things that we've seen literally.

So goodness powered away.

Yeah.

Well, as I said earlier in the last meeting, uh, it takes teamwork.

So good job.

Yeah, thank you.

I mean, work.

We have five minutes to discuss five charter amendments.

All right.

We have 35 minutes.

Five minutes per charter.

Yeah.

Okay.

I may any other discussion on item two.

Everyone got out what they wanted.

Okay.

Item number three, uh, city council discussion regarding uh possible selection of charter amendments.

So counselors in front of you, um, these are the five charter amendments that um four of which were discussed last time that we've been asked to put on the agenda.

They're in um just in the order received, I believe.

But you were welcome to discuss them and in whatever order you would like to discuss them.

And so the first one on there is longevity paid if you want to start there, but you don't have to start there.

But we can start with longevity.

Yeah.

So um we uh myself uh counselor decorite and counselor Bush met with police and fire again earlier this week to discuss this, because the last time we talked about it, we talked about a possible floor.

Um, and uh whether or not we needed to include that.

Um so there's been discussion about keeping the floor, taking the floor out, um, and then also discussion about uh when this actually takes when it starts, uh but right now with the longevity, it's uh it's for um existing um officers up to 20 years.

Once they hit that 20 years, they don't get uh steps after that or longevity pay.

So um we're uh wanting to as a recruiting tool, this is brought up in our retreat before uh to keep officers longer, so whether we keep it as moving it up to 25 or uh 30 years.

So um last time we met, there was general consensus to take it to 30, so we just need to confirm that, and then we did ask Jack to give us provide some language so maybe to soften the fiscal impact to do like uh you know 20, 25, then 30, so we're not absorbing all of that in the first year that it triggers.

Um there is obviously fiscal impact, but in our discussion as a working group, part of why you do this is to retain so you don't have that cost of replacement or cost of over like the the amount of overtime that we're doing right now because we're not necessarily uh recruiting and retaining at the pace that we should be, and we're hoping that as well this and the SVI uh proposal will help balance that out.

It also helps us budget more consistently if we you know it's all subject to negotiation, but we can plan knowing that it's in the charter that the citizens approved it.

We can in our budget plan for it, knowing that the negotiations will either solidify it or be something different.

Um we did get explained to us, so if you'll remember the language right now says seven dollars and fifty cents.

We talked about why that is not relevant to today's negotiations.

Counselor Bush and I were kind of raising the thought that if we redline that, we have to be able to tell the constituency why we're taking that out, right?

So as long as we have good language for stating that it doesn't mean that we're taking it away, it just means it's totally irrelevant because it was set in 1968.

I think we feel better after talking with leadership this week that if we redline that that out, we have a way to talk about it.

I think they said it right now it's at 450 dollars for every year.

So I think Counselor Lake and you had made the point, like they're always gonna start the negotiation where they are and move forward.

Yeah, so well that that's my I mean just based upon how I negotiate.

Yeah, yeah.

Like that benchmark, that benchmark is the starting place.

Right.

So the seven seven dollars and fifty cents is totally irrelevant.

It's outdated, and we do kind of go around the bend of like doing a percentage, but that's very complicated.

So subject to negotiation is the language, right?

Yeah, yeah.

So I think we just need to know from you all our is our a general consensus on the 30, and then for on board what um what do you call that staggered triggers or whatever to have that language where it's like in year one it would be to 25 and year two or if we did want to do that?

An absorption.

I think it's I think right now it would be like a million dollars out the door, and then closer to like 350 every year after that.

So how many years are you suggesting though?

I think over three stages.

It's three.

What you'd like to do.

It's hard to do four, and it's two.

I don't know.

I don't know what it is.

There were several options that Jack sent over from fiscal year blank through fiscal year blank, the longevity pay allowance shall not be increased after 20 years of service from and then from fiscal year blank to fiscal year blank, the longevity pay allowance close shall not be increased after 25 years of service, and then uh the next one uh shall not be increased after 30 years of service.

So it'd be a three-year fiscal weeks.

It can be however you'd like to stress that I think I don't know if everyone got the chart.

Three or five.

Did you get did you see the chart the the dollar amount chart that was circulated?

If we do nothing and just go to 30, I think it's about just under a million bucks.

Yeah.

So this would kind of case us a little bit SPI.

Oh, that's a different I think it was sent by email by Sarah.

Yeah, oh, yeah.

That says PI.

Oh, that's more than I the one they sent us was an Excel spreadsheet with three tabs.

Um this thing.

But that's SBI.

But you only have one of the tabs, I think.

Uh yeah.

I see what you're saying.

I think Sarah sent it maybe yesterday or the day before.

Last night.

Last night?

Yes.

Okay.

Anyway, maybe maybe we can get a so in the body of the email from Commissioner Roberts.

Um the spreadsheet was SBI in the body of the email.

Yeah, this is the longevity.

In the body of the email from um Commissioner Roberts.

So it's 1.254 is the estimated uh total fiscal impact of the third year on year one about 900,000 for uh police and about 350 for fire.

So if we scale it, but the other thing is there's more people at 20 to 25 years than there are from 25 to 30.

Right, because there's that natural kind of attrition.

That's why we're thinking of the stair step.

Yeah.

Stephen.

Oh, yeah, no, it's still just a big impact.

It is, but if you can I'd yeah, but if you compare that number to the over time pay, it's a lot less.

Yeah.

Right.

Comparatively.

Which is what we're trying to mitigate.

Plus returnover and the turnover at the told us if we retain to seven years, then they're pretty much gonna stay in for the most part, which kind of ties to the SBI conversation because the SBI really factors in year one to ten like military planning.

Yeah, it's kind of like the military pay structure.

Because that's kind of how that's kind of the thought process on the recruiting is a certain point.

You're in usually committed to that as a career.

Yeah.

So what do you need from us on these?

Well, so I I heard strike the floor, subject to negotiation, and the cap phased over X fiscal years.

Do we want to do three fiscal?

Three.

Okay.

Three fiscal.

That gives Jack something to put in the draft.

Yeah.

Because the next time we meet, we're voting on this, right?

On the 15th.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any other discussions on longevity?

So three year phase, 30-year cap.

No, yes.

Is that right?

Yes.

Okay.

And take out the 750.

Yeah.

The base.

The base, yeah.

That's $7.50.

As they said, if they're if they collectively bargain below that for they got bigger issues.

Right.

Yeah.

Right.

Yeah.

We do.

Yeah.

Okay.

Next one is uh satisfactory performance increase SPIs for public safety officers.

Anyone want to talk about that one?

Does anyone have questions about it?

I mean, we presented it last time.

It's basically the bookend to the longevity pay in terms of recruitment retention efforts.

There was a one-page brief provided to you to kind of show that from a fiscal responsibility standpoint, making the investment on those steps should retain those people past that fall-off point of like three to five years.

And then we got conf confirmation, I think, in the meeting that we had this week that the seven-year mark is that retention sweet spot.

Um and if you think about the age that our young people are coming in, that first three to five years is when they're you know trying to start a family and do all those things.

So obviously subject to negotiation, the revenues have to be there, the negotiation determines the steps, but letting the voters confirm that yes, we want this car codified in our charter, kind of takes what has happened over the last 20 years, I would say, where SBI has been heavily negotiated to the point where there's been many many times where they don't get it at all, and that is very difficult on the younger um public safety officers.

And that has been an ongoing barrier.

Um counselor Lake and sorry, I wasn't I was looking down waiting, not looking up.

So this one I just from uh this the standpoint of just trying to be fiscally responsible.

Um we've seen the numbers of this costing six to six point seven million dollars extra a year.

I don't know how sustainable that is um given that it's it's going to be something that's absolute, and I know there are some limitations on it being absolute, but um it is saying that if you look historically that you're you're almost guaranteed a four percent raise every single year when our budget's been growing about two percent or a little bit less than two percent.

So we get into a situation, at least based upon the modeling that finance did where um right now we're using according to their data about the the police and fire salaries use um eighty-ish percent of all of the sales and use taxes in 13 years, their budget if we implemented this would be 100% of the sales and use taxes, so it does have a very material effect.

How much of the unexpended unappropriate fund balances are they using?

I don't know.

I mean, we can no, we've been talking about overtime for the last eight years.

Yeah, but this isn't gonna solve overtime, it will help.

We still it's gonna add six million dollars to our budget, plus we're going to still have those overtime elements.

It's and this cost over time if we can retain and recruit people.

I have to have that I I haven't had that proven, and this is this is one of those things that never comes back.

This is uh you're almost guaranteed a four percent raise every year, which I would for any of my employees, and if I did it for any employees, I would do it for all employees.

Here we're just focusing in on sworn.

Well, the moms weren't good SBI too.

I mean, we can add correct, but we could add that element.

But I would never I would never in my life say that everybody in this building is guaranteed a four percent raise just from uh a prudent standpoint.

We have to where is this language saying that?

What but this language is saying when the revenues are there, subject to negotiations on the contracts.

But what they do right now is they're there's been many many years where there's not an SBI, and so it's really hurting that zero to ten year public safety officer.

It affects their back end on their retirement too, right?

Oh so those first ten years, I mean, if we're gonna do longevity and keep people in there's they're staying past 20, they're just not getting the the boost.

This is saying we recognize you're staying past 20, we don't think it's fair that you're not getting the boost, we'll take it to 30.

On the front end, right?

I get the longevity.

Correct.

I'm not sure.

And longevity does kick in on year three.

Um but the steps have just been subject to negotiation in a way that no other city in this state has been doing.

Yeah, but but step steps are typically or historically 4%.

That's just what the historical information says.

By negotiation, right?

Uh yeah, that's how it's right.

Um, so if if that is codified, if they just automatic 4% raises.

It doesn't say automatically 4%.

What is it?

It's subject to negotiation.

Then why are we changing anything?

How are we changing anything if it's subject to negotiation?

So you were saying if if it can't be 4%, it could be 2%.

It means that we're going to be able to do that.

No, 2%.

No, 2% is the is our economic growth.

So every year we're leaving, we're we're missing so then the negotiators won't negotiate for they'll negotiate too, but there will be a step.

Right now they're just saying no steps for many years on end, or sometimes steps at the top that don't make it to the because the budget can't support that and the non-sworn and the other things that we have beyond personnel.

So you have to you have to, I know you know this, you have to throw everything into the into the budget.

If this thing is codified, if it's a must must be.

This is this is the charter.

You must do these step increases, the SPI increases.

Then everything else is shall more limited the same thing.

It should it does not say must, and it says receive one step.

If it says shall it says must.

With yes, but subject to negotiation is still in there.

And it this is not the charter language.

Yeah, I don't I don't see it.

Um it's in what we provided last time.

What are we doing?

Everything already is subject to negotiation.

Same thing with longevity pay.

No, this seems increasing the the cap from 20 to 30.

But longevity pay is also subject to negotiation and the revenues.

Well, yeah, but not beyond the 20.

It doesn't really matter what you negotiate.

So we're up to 20 still, even right now.

Right.

This gives me great pause because of a we're we're we're not able to budget the way we could and should, and we're also taking maybe some opportunities away from the mayor's office during their negotiations that are are causing them to do X for the sworn employees where we may not be able to do X for the sworn employees, taking some of our some of those resources potentially away probably away from the non-sworn.

And they're according to the predic projections going to use more of the sales and use taxes up to 100% in 13 years, and it's still the the raw data that was circulated, six million dollars worth of additional monies that have to be found in the next year for this.

I don't know where that six million dollars is.

Factoring in that less outlay, if you're retaining and recruiting more people and holding on to them and not losing them to other career paths or nearby municipalities, so we're recruiting and training them, and then they dip out where they can get growth in their salaries.

This is what's happening right now.

So I mean, we talk about recruitment and retention, but if we're not gonna invest in how to recruit and retain, I don't know.

Or is that on six or i strength?

No, six point one on current six point six or six point seven on authorized strength.

Yeah, so what would that look like if we actually did get the authorized staffing levels?

Yeah, it's about six hundred thousand dollars more.

That's what I'm saying.

I don't think we'll ever get to authorized levels if we can't tell people coming in that you're gonna progress in your career and earn more today than you did when you came in.

At least on the least.

I just don't know.

I I don't know of other institutions where you where they say that hey, look, every year you're gonna get a four percent raise.

And I know there are some subject to elements to this, but but there aren't very many, and we're leaving an entire group of people out of this.

And I mean, if you want to argue to put the non-sworn into a union that gets to negotiate and solidify contracts, I think you would see a lot of support from the council, certain parts of the council on that.

I mean, I agree that they should be able to negotiate as well.

I don't I don't appreciate that every time we have a budget.

I'm not saying this to you directly, but when we have a budget negotiation, it turns it into sworn versus non-sworn.

It puts us in a terrible position.

I think this adds more emphasis to the fact that there are two different groups of people, though.

If we're just saying four four percent roughly, or SPI increases for one group, and and we didn't do anything for the other group at all.

And well, that's not what I'm trying to imply.

I mean, I oh I I'm I'm trying to do a book and to the longevity.

I would love to make sure that our non-sworn get their steps too.

I think it you know, subject to availability of resources.

We set the priorities.

I say it every budget year, we have the dollars, we have to decide how we want to spend them.

Oftentimes they're going to things that and that's where are not the priority for everyone.

And that's what I'm getting with all of this.

We we take some of that latitude away.

If we're already saying, okay, we must do this because it's a charter provision, then we don't have the ability to do what we have to do now, which is appropriate those balances across various elements because it will be codified that we have to give X to this particular uh SPI increase for sworn only employees.

So do you want to open it to non-sworn or you just don't want to do it at all?

And we just recruit people, tell them that you may get performance increase if and when we prioritize.

We can go forward with charter amendments whenever we want to.

We don't have to do it just this summer when we're when we're slated to do it.

I think this particular one needs a lot more time to study impacts just so that I could get comfortable with it before we say to the voters, hey, if you do once it's done, it's done on on this.

It's that's there's no coming back, and it really do think that it takes.

No, there are some that are back out there.

Yeah, of course.

Very, very complicated to bring back.

And uh the implications of this one just based upon the numbers that I've seen from finance, where we go to using so much of this all of the sales and use taxes in such a short amount of time, and have to find a way to um cut six million dollars worth of expenses.

I know where those cuts are coming.

I mean, it's either coming from non sworn or from capital and other things.

Well, I would just encourage the rest of you to look at the brief that I provided last week.

It's unfortunate we're just going off of you know a little summary here to argue policy position, but I'll remind you that the cost of one police officer is about 150,000 to recruit and train firefighters a little bit more at 175.

Then you factor in the overtime, which has been a huge conversation on both police and fire.

I know for fire we were really digging in there, but for both police and fire, it's also you know yes, our biggest investment every year, whether it's on unexpended appropriate uh unappropriate fund balance is to take care of overtime or on the front end as we're budgeting is for public safety.

That's what we do.

So from a fiscal conservant conservancy standpoint, retaining recruiting and retrain and retaining the people you have is always going to be more fiscally responsible than this churn and overtime.

So right now, overtime's like 10 million bucks.

Six million is less than 10 million in my mind.

And you're retaining your officers and hopefully.

You're not gonna make overtime go to zero, though.

That's assuming that overtime is.

Even if you don't, I still think we would come in if we had more officers on.

But but 4% compounds upon 4%, just like it does to the positive if we're saving money in a savings account.

This is going to cost more money because 4% of 4% is more than 4% the next year.

But straight time is the next year.

Yeah, if we could erase overtime, then it may make sense for a period of time, but after a while, the the six million is going to turn into 12 million and it's gonna turn into 25 million.

And that's what you have to project out.

That's how compound.

Well, if we're gonna project that out, we should project into the retention and cost savings for people on the arguing with that.

Not paying them time and a half at such a high rate that we've got to do.

No, you have to that's why I'm saying that it it just seems like we need more time with this before we rush out and do it.

I'd you know, from the comments that I've said previously that I'm very much in favor of taking care of police, fire, first responders, those people who take care of us, but I also want to do it in the context of not jeopardizing the non-sworn employees, not jeopardizing the other uses of money that we have in City Hall.

I would also just push back, it's not a guaranteed four percent.

I mean, it's negotiated, it could be two percent, it could be one percent.

It's subject to budget availability, as it would be for our non-sworn and any new divisions or departments we're creating, whether it's sworn or non-sworn.

I mean, those are always the factors that we have to put in.

I mean, I would I would just encourage you all to look at the materials that were distributed.

It's a little hard to have this conversation with just like a little summary statement here.

And I don't know if you're not gonna be a full run.

We loaded up.

No, I know.

I I mean for people that are not sure about what we're doing.

So we we're in line anyway in this discussion next week, too, right?

Or so um next week on the first yeah, you can put it back over first.

Okay.

I think this one needs more discussion.

So maybe bring it back.

So are there any things you need from us to bring it back next week or no?

I just think well, I would just ask, do your homework and investigate whether investing and retention in this way and asking the voters to you know basically compel us to prioritize these things.

I mean the voters could vote no, and then we don't codify it at all.

Is there any way that maybe finance can do a report for us on overtime from the past like an if this then that?

I think it really I haven't from the past probably five years.

Yeah.

But there needs to be like an if we were retaining people, yeah.

Past the seven-year mark or five year mark or whatever it is where we're losing them.

Because there's a cost of replacement, there's a c cost of recruitment, there's a cost of overtime.

And we just heard from uh deputy chief Wolmerhauser that their overtime is done or caused from higher backs.

So uh what we can do to uh eliminate or at least lower yeah, I think when you have special banks or disasters, you're gonna have overtime, but yeah, we have to always budget for it.

But I think now we've been paying for the last several years due to low stock because astronomical.

Yeah.

No, I've enjoyed the dialogue, but I think that it would be I mean it would help some of us uh see the uh the the impact of the budget the last at least it lasts five five years, five years.

I can't even talk um of overtime just uh with sworn employees.

I don't know how we would do that with non-swarm.

I only have it for fire, yeah.

Yeah, uh, because they negotiate and it's not subject to negotiation language.

Overtime is overtime.

It just depends on what this would do with overtime.

It's gonna cost more in the overtime that is used because you are paying at a higher rate.

It's time and a half overtime.

Right.

So if we're paying 4% on top.

Yeah.

Right.

That'd be interesting if we knew that breakdown and we could figure out.

It's a hard model.

It's not I know.

It's not easy.

You got a lot, a lot of assumptions in a spreadsheet.

Yeah, yeah.

All right, moving on to the next item because we just have uh a few more minutes.

Council uh confirmation of department and division heads.

Anyone want to talk about that one?

One point to make as I was looking closer at this.

It occurred to me that um the fire department is actually outside the civil service system.

So if you want this to include fire chief, which I assume you do there's one other provision of the charter that we would have to quantify as well, it's just adding that confirmation to the provision uh provided for the appointment of the fire chief.

Like by name, role we have to do.

By title.

Title Okay.

Why are they outside?

Because it's like a different they have their own system that's outside civil service.

That's uh that was part of the charter when it was developed in 1989.

That's just helpful.

Okay.

That's the only position that's outside of the civil service.

Should we just try to fix that rather than accommodate it?

Or it's a whole article of of the charter.

That would be a big add.

We could just add it.

Okay.

A few words in that provision.

I just hope it doesn't confuse citizens, right?

Because then it looks like you're just calling out one particular position.

What other positions are we still?

I mean, right now it's the personnel director and the city attorney that are specifically named.

At least the personal director is the HR director.

Those are both civil service, so they're within that in the current language.

But those two titles are currently named specifically, or it says civil service.

There's title 10 for Oracle 10, which is civil service and then buyers in a different way.

Article 11.

Yeah.

Okay.

So can you draft that for the next go round?

Okay.

Any concern concerns, debate over that one.

Not from us.

Not from us.

Okay.

Maybe from elsewhere.

Um I just enjoyed that discussion that you guys were having over the SPIs.

I didn't have one small small question, just so I understand procedurally kind of and I think we talked about this a little bit last time.

So someone goes through a hiring process or they're like, you know, an internal application process, and then if they once they're selected as a final candidate, then it comes up to us to have committee discussion.

I'm just trying to make sure I understand the cadence and that we like we would have a discussion on committee and then we would vote at a five.

Is that basically we usually do it at a four o'clock?

Okay, I was just trying to understand.

I haven't been through one of those before.

The only there's only one there's only one precedent.

There's only been one recent one.

Yeah.

Um is he in the room with us now?

He's in the room with us now.

Uh okay, sorry.

But yeah, the mayor, the mayor, so there's a certification process that's one through HR.

And then for a department head, likely it's the mayor's process, which can vary on what they use to get to their final candidate, and then they send their final candidate to the council.

We did handle it at a four o'clock um there was executive session, and then we voted after executive session.

That's helpful with the exposure session piece.

Okay, that's I was just trying to see what the public tasting element of that was.

Okay, thank you.

That's helpful.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

Questions, concerns?

Okay, moving on.

Public safety review and oversight.

We presented on this last week, so the only I would say the only major significant change from past years discussions is that it includes public safety as a as it relates to just bond this.

So public safety meeting.

Um fire too.

Fire, um rescue service, services, hazardous materials, dispatch, emergency.

Yes.

Yeah.

Um and I'm gonna bring this up because the article came out in the Tulsa world a little early.

Um but um I have been working with um with with Jack and with Commissioner Roberts on putting together a citizen uh led safety commission uh led by the city of Tulsa, and um it's still in the works.

Hope to get a draft uh to everybody within the next hopefully week.

I know that we're meeting later this week.

So we'll I mean it's just to go along with with that, but it would be instead of having one person, it would be uh uh citizens having discussions about police, fire, and nine one one and making adding more transparency to those departments.

So are you offering that as a substitute to this charter amendment?

Um it could be as a compliment we'll just see how the discussion goes with the with the oversight and see how we end up with the uh draft with the citizen.

I would just assert for the and I don't I don't have all the details on yours, but advising is very different than independent oversight.

So again, if you'll look at the materials that were presented, there's very specific ways that it's crafted.

We would not be the first city to do it, and certainly not even the first city in Oklahoma at this point.

I think when the conversation started with then Mayor Bynum, we would have been the first city um in the state to do it, but it's happening across the nation.

Um the citizen advisory or the civilian advisory board as proposed in the charter would be a very specific way, not on like how we do sales tax oversight committee um appointments with representation from districts, confirmation, um a very formalized process and procedure, and then of course the um director would be an independent entity not reporting um or not appointed in the same way that we have a commissioner right now, so uh it could be complimentary to the commissioner, as you know.

This uh commissioner position as it exists today is not in the civil service.

Um the director of review and oversight would be so um there's lots of information in the paperwork that we distributed two weeks ago.

If you need more information about how Sand Springs and Oklahoma City are doing it, it's on their city websites, how they do it.

Um and then there's national best practices, and Councillor Hall Harper has been studying this for more than 10 years, so if you need a resource, I'm sure she can put you in touch with one that can really explain uh the impacts.

Um is there a fiscal impact of this one?

So in other words, a cost associated oh absolutely.

Yeah, that we know what that would be to implement this.

I think it's something that can be potentially done somewhat in phases, but no, we don't.

That's something we would have to work out in the budgeting.

We I mean you're setting up an office staff support.

It's obviously a budget dependent on I understand, but we on all the others we're looking at costs.

And we proposed it in 2019.

We front loaded uh 500,000.

So it has been it has been budgeted for in the past.

Yeah, I didn't know.

We just didn't we had approaches by ordinance, and I think I had said that before to Council RG.

You can establish, I mean the mayor tomorrow can do an executive action and establish an office like this structure.

It could be established by ordinance, it could be established by charter, it could be established by a petition initiative into the charter.

So there's different pathways to do it.

But when we first visited this concept in January of 2019, it was our budget retreat, and then Mayor Bynum asked for a budget appropriation to go into the budget first, as we worked on like an ordinance policy to establish.

Got it.

Yep, curious.

Yeah, we've we've been going around this since a lot of ways to get to 2019.

But again, putting it out to the voters is just another way that it lives beyond any elected officials and codifies it for you know longer.

Yeah, I was just asking since we have something has to be considered.

I think I think the the cost of uh implementing the program uh is is minuscule compared to what it would bring in uh trust and accountability.

Well, and we don't need to revisit all the settlements that we've we've meant.

Well which it wouldn't eliminate all of that, but it would go a long way, I think, to helping mitigate some of the the big big violation lawsuits that we've had to unfortunately make big decisions about, and that we've heard dozens and dozens of speakers come before us.

And I don't think that's over with to speak about not just this year, I mean ongoing.

Oh, and what you're saying, how would your review board be established?

Would it have to be a charter amendment or ordinance or a ordinance?

Okay, so it would be an ordinance, something which is different than the charter amendment.

Yeah, okay it would be an ordinance.

So yeah, a charter.

What we're deciding on April 15th, counselor, is one on this list.

We as a body, a majority of us want to send to officially be finalized and then get on the ballot for then the voters to approve.

So even if we approve it for the ballot, they the voters have to approve it.

And then the governor has to sign it.

So it's a it's a much longer process.

So when we when we revisited when we visited oversight by our ordinance before, it got very politicized very fast and undermined kind of the intent and uh what would ultimately have been accomplished.

So all right, the next one is council salary.

I'm mentioned this uh brought this up to Jack uh a little while ago, but the recommendation is just to change from CPI to AMI.

Other than that, nothing would change.

So what would be the is there an idea of how much that would have roughly the same.

Can we go to the AMI of um the city of Tulsa?

Because right now it's currently uh with CPI base.

Well, it's not a no, it's it's a number, it's a set number times CPI increases.

So that 32,000 buys the same amount of goods and services every year from the year itself.

Right, right, right.

Supposedly.

Supposedly AMI is a totally different number.

Yeah, it is the same.

It's a living wage AMI, yeah.

It's a living wage index.

Yeah, it's the medium income point.

And I thought this one had something to do with inflation in the consumer vice index, yeah.

Past year discussions when we talked about it two years ago.

The discussion I would call it it was more based on inflation and and cost of goods or something.

And I just think AMI is more appropriate and certainly uh more people understand.

What's it based on changes in the CPM funds?

Um we use this as yeah, if you look at the language at this point, it has to do with like the legit amount of increase.

It might be helpful, Mr.

Charter amendment language.

Instead of just a previous two years ago, right?

So you set so you've always had a just a base salary in there.

What you did two years ago was had um increases received been received since the last time this was increased, it would have been based on CPI about 32,000.

Two years ago there was a discussion of what should that base be?

Should it be that 32,000 based on CPI or should it be AMI, which about at that time was about 54 ish thousand.

I don't know what it is right now.

And so it was determined just that you put forward that 32 with CPI increases.

The other idea that was put on the table a couple years ago was started that 54 with potential CPI increases.

So those were the those were the two ideas talked about two years ago.

Okay.

So counselor to clarify your proposal is to set it at AMI and as AM changes over time, so we can't decide.

Okay.

Whatever AMI goes up or down.

Yeah, up or down.

Okay.

Any questions, concerns on that one?

Is the idea to have a because I know CPI is like a nationally set number of the idea is to have it be more like local, like a hyper locally relevant number.

Is that the okay?

I just wanted to check because I was and I just kind of wanted to verbalize that to us too, that that's that key difference is how locally like specific and potentially relevant it is to what a living wages of the cities, so I could I can see why that's good.

Yeah, for the CPI was for like national based thing that could be felt differently across the country.

Okay.

All right.

Then item number four we're adjourned.

Yeah, five minutes come back for the two third.