Welcome everyone, welcome everyone.

Um it is April 1st, so anything can happen uh today.

Uh Wednesday at 10 30.

This is the Irvine and Economic Development Committee meeting.

And a hush fell over the room.

All right, thank you all so much.

My name is Anthony Archie.

I'm the Tulsa City Councillor for District 2.

Want to welcome you who are in the room and joining us online.

First order of business is to call this meeting to order.

Second, we are going to welcome Shane Hood to the table for reappointment to the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, aka T M A P C term expires January 18th, 2029.

You attended 61 out of 70 meetings from Council District 5.

What?

That's right.

Uh Shane, will you please I think most of us uh know you and know your work, but will you share a little about yourself, why you want to continue to serve, and um then we'll take some questions.

Sure, no.

Uh my name is Shane Hood.

Um I've lived in Tulsa for 22 years and originally from here, but this is the longest I've ever lived anywhere.

Uh from the School of Architecture and Graphic Design, uh Drew University in Springfield, Missouri.

Uh worked for line design here in town.

Um I've been involved in kind of community uh efforts for uh for almost three decades now, which is ridiculous.

Yeah.

Uh uh was on the Board of the Tulsa Foundation for Architecture for about 18 years, was part of TY Pros and their business development crew, uh leadership crew for uh for a while.

Um I think that uh as with all good people who went to school for architecture that we have the ability to change things for positive um uh in our communities, and I think that one of those things that is uh that's kind of holding us back is our zoning.

I think that I tell people oftentimes at TMAPC we're kind of dealing with zoning issues that we thought were good ideas in the past that maybe are as we reflect on it now are maybe the best uh for our communities, livability, walkability, and things like that.

And so uh being on team APC allows you know to to look at those and kind of in my opinion.

Uh which that's what we're kind of charged with doing is unbiased appearance to you guys on what we think is appropriate, what we all um do as a city.

Um I don't see myself moving, I live here, uh and I want to see Tulsa be the best in version of itself.

And I think that planning zoning and that kind of stuff is the foundation for which that kind of stuff could then build up and happen.

So um, so I'm joining this.

I'm kind of a zoning walk, I guess, uh if those exist.

Uh but um, yeah, but you exist, and so that's yeah, I guess that's the case.

That's right.

Um counselor Gilbert.

Um, yeah, so Mr.

Hood, I'm thank you for what you do for our community, uh, just not the community, uh, especially District Five.

I'm gonna see how many times I can say that.

Um, but especially throughout the city of Tulsa.

I mean, everything that you you're just not focused on on just your job, but you your focus on the community uh shines through the city of Tulsa, especially all the work that you've done uh with the with the bike club um and other organizations that hasn't gone unnoticed, and I appreciate everything that you do, and especially uh for what you do for District 5.

Thank you.

All right.

Anyone else?

Final question.

Um, how many times have you been to Lambert's?

Lambert's in Springfield?

Yes.

So funny enough, uh actually one of the biggest faces painted on the side of Landwirds is uh one of my friends from high school who's worked there since high school.

Okay, yeah, yeah.

Um that's great.

Yeah, we used to go there.

My girlfriend used to live.

Uh that was about halfway between my house and her house, so we would stop at Lamberts everywhere.

That's right.

Yeah.

Well, we will be voting on you.

Um your appointment uh on the 15th.

Sure.

Make sure you get your taxes in.

And uh if you want to speak, of course, you're more than welcome to do that.

Thank you so much for being at the table.

No, thank you very much.

All right.

Thank you again.

Item number three, discussion regarding possible reconsideration of rezoning ordinance master development plan six from ag to the master development plan six for multiple properties bounded by.

Should I read all that?

I can.

I should.

Okay.

I think I think you've read enough.

Okay, this is uh the fair open.

It's easy.

Okay.

Um is it Susan Miller that will present?

So the city the city council office was asked to put this back on for reconsideration.

Um there's some draft language in front of you.

I'm probably not the best person to speak about the draft language.

Um but this was a request re-received.

You voted on the ordinance.

There was potentially a lack of common understanding of what the intended amendment was supposed to be, and so you all will have a discussion about what the intended amendment was supposed to be.

Which amendment are you referring to?

Uh and uh count I think I believe counselor Bellis made an amendment um regarding the zoning time.

It was it had that date.

Okay.

Yeah.

So there had been language in this that was like, hey, this will be subject to zoning as of this date when we approved it, where I think it's set, or initially is it said March 13th, and we're in a flagging where I was like, hey, we're in the midst of figuring out some things that might impact this.

We would we don't want it to be frozen in time if we create more parameters.

Um that been from the lens of the data center concept, but at the same time I was like, well, there might be a lot of other you know other things that become best practice that we wouldn't want to attempt to and so what we ended up putting in as that amendment was just that like what you see there where it says you know, future revisions, um, which obviously things get grandfathered in in time as they go.

Um, and I think what it looks like here is they're proposing that it's only future revisions specific to data centers.

Uh what I will flag to my colleagues though, separately from that is I was reached out to you by someone who lives um in the densest part of like housing on like right on the Wagner County line right there.

Um that's with the existing housing that's nearby and near a um like kind of industrial employment zoned area with this MPD six.

And what was interesting to me, or that was the concern that this person raised was um he was like, you know, whether a data center is there or a factories there or who knows what else.

My concern is that when I looked at Ural Zoning Code, and this was confirmed to me by um Nathan was that the setback was only like 10 feet, and that you know, there could which did make me wonder there could be things going forward that I don't know, shift related to you know, all sorts of standards or things like that, and I wouldn't want to I just have some concerns about this proposed revision since it's like so specific just to data centers, but doesn't leave space for so many other things that could shift.

Like I'm just giving an example of something uh maybe we'll revisit one day about the zoning, regardless.

Councillor Bengle?

And then right, I was gonna yeah, I was gonna and I think with each one of these as part of the MPD, the zoning still has to be defined, and so we would still most likely have to consider each development independently and bank in whatever ODPs are part of that development.

So there so the MPV six, once it's you know, if you reconsider and add this provision or even as it is now, that unless they want to do any amendments will no longer come to you.

It already is a development plan, so you won't have any future passes at it.

Okay.

I will say, you know, the MPD is it has a lot in it, it's pretty comprehensive.

So it does establish some things like setbacks and all of that in the MPD.

So there's a lot of standards that are established in the MPD, but those standards that aren't established that refers back to the zoning code that they're talking about here and the updates to it.

So, you know, for instance, data centers and how it's defined and what those regulations are.

That's you know, that captures that that's not specifically captured in the NPD itself.

What's the function of having this only be whatever is effective as of October 21st, 2020?

So that's the last date that our code was amended.

It's effective of that date, capturing the last set of amendments to it.

So that's the significance of that date.

So for some reason, they wanted to narrow that, you know, subject to future changes just to the data center.

And I don't know why, but is it a grandfather clause essentially?

But everything's grandfathered, you know, from the time it gets built, it's just if it meets those existing regulations.

That's what I guess it would be helpful to know from them.

And who's this is the applicant?

Okay, yeah.

But okay.

But the rezoning that we thought was gonna happen didn't happen.

It got moved to today, right?

Well, it did happen.

Second meeting happened, but this is it on the order.

No, not a phase two, like the well that's separate.

But is that informing this?

No, this is totally separate.

Okay.

Yeah, so we we passed we we passed the rezoning that made it through, and then we passed the ordinance last week, and this is just redoing the ordinance element of this.

Oh my god, yeah.

So this is that last piece that to the okay, the zoning.

Yeah.

Well then that makes sense.

They should be bookends and match each other.

Yeah, I think we just made a little when we were trying to amend it, we just made a little, you know how we meant so.

Yeah, it's like uh through that and then cascades to that.

Okay, that makes sense.

Counselor Dutton.

Yeah, so the zoning, if I'm not misunderstanding, the zoning um was a concern to residents because of the applicability of um LUD industrial and data centers, and I think that's where this comes from.

I just don't understand the what they're trying to achieve with this difference.

I get if they're saying we'd only want to have to meet up.

That's not different, we're making it match the amendments we already passed on the front.

No, no, no, no.

No, they're they're saying what we did is on the we had said we made an amendment when we went to vote on it, saying not just that they would be subject to feature revisions of zoning code.

Or they what they had was we would only be subject to things from a certain date, and we made it.

Hey, going forward, just asking you to meet updated standards as you build it as you go, as it makes sense.

So that's what we did broadly, and they're asking to narrow that to only apply to data centers, which is kind of I just don't know what more.

I guess we don't know more of why unless they talk to us about it.

I don't I couldn't, I just can't quite guess, but actually it's on for tonight.

So is Lou coming to talk to us?

Probably is he here?

I don't know what here.

I don't see it.

I'm sure he'll be there tonight.

He's usually there with his own.

Oh, we could really nice to have a lot of people.

Yeah.

Can we see what we already passed to Counselor Lakin's point, the like first wave, the zoning?

That's at the top of this paper.

Well the yellow is what we did.

And the second is what they're asking to change it to, and it's narrowing it, but we just don't know what the why I'd like to know why.

Counselor Counselor Dutton.

They're throwing in the data.

I gotcha.

Yeah, they're saying it's would only be for data centers and not more broadly for other developments, which I just yeah, I don't know.

Go ahead, continue on counselor Dutton.

Yeah, so about the zoning, and I know that the zoning gave a broad category of possible uses for IL, and so I think that that was the concern was there was data centers in that uh long list of possibilities for I.

So I'm thinking am I correct?

And they weren't prohibited, right?

Right.

So I'm thinking that this is part and parcel of that and uh concerns, but but it's with the residents.

Yeah, I just I just don't know.

Uh but that doesn't make sense to me.

I don't know enough to know why narrowing it to those future revisions with the data centers, why that was we don't need to hear from the applicant.

We just have to we could we're just speculating.

Yeah, I think so.

I think we'll well please counselor like do we just want to move on and go to the other agenda items and I can I can call him, I can call Lou and see if he wants to come talk to me.

And especially if it's on for action tonight, yeah, yeah.

Otherwise it's gonna go the 15th.

Okay, yeah, let's just reconsidering, so it has to be procedure-wise, there's potentially two actions on the five o'clock.

The first is do you even want to reconsider it?

Right.

So that's just a yes or a no.

Then the second, if you do decide to reconsider it, then you would decide what was my legislative intent at that time, and or what is my legislative intent tonight.

So if your intent was only to make this apply to data centers, then the proposed probably meets your intent.

If it was not your intent to do that, then that maybe doesn't meet your intent, and that's the discussion you would have at five o'clock.

Who's bringing this back?

The applicant and the council.

The applicant requested it, and then um we told them they needed to ask a counselor to put it back on on the prevailing side.

So the prevailing the prevailing side could have been in any member of you, but in this case, I know counselor leacon.

I think and I think you talked to counselor Bengal about it when they called.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Well we ask if maybe we have more.

Consider to reconsider.

All right, uh going on to item number four.

Uh rezoning application of Z 7849 to IL from I.O.

to CS for property located northern northeast, corner of East Apache and North Columbia requested by RCJ Design.

Property owner Andreas Capital.

TMAPC is in County District 1.

TMAPC voted 10.0 to recommend approval of zone 8.

Is the solution?

He is on his way down.

So whenever he gets here, we can think about it.

Is this the beginning?

Yes.

So this is a very unique long skinny piece of property.

Currently zoned IL.

But if this is a change to CS to permit the development of a detached house.

There was a neighbor.

They can get there through the Board of Adjustment ultimately.

I think you could probably do it on a lot that size.

It's a it's a a lot, it's oddly configured, but it's not very big.

It's only about a third of an acre.

So that's really the gist of this application.

They already have house plans and they're ready to move forward.

They just want to build a single family house.

Any questions?

Councillor Hall Harper.

Yep.

All right, perfect.

All right, thank you.

Uh item number five, rezoning application CO22, a proposed corridor development plan for property located in the south south of the southwest corner of E63rd and South 105th Avenue requested by Josh Atkinson, property owner BA169 properties, Council District 7.

TMAPC voted 10, huh?

Did I say that right?

No, you're right.

I'm just oh it's funny that it's BA properties.

Yeah, and so uh they voted TMA uh TMAPC voted 10 o to recommend um Susan Miller.

Okay, so this is very similar to the corridor development plans to the south, the Jack Wills, and there's a uh East Easton SOD, I think, just to the south.

Um, so very much mirrors that there's a pool company that has started operating that did not.

This is a corridor zoning, so they are required to have a development plan to do anything.

They don't so they started um operating a pool company.

I don't even know how long that's you've probably seen it if you didn't want to see.

Yeah, all the so this really brings all of that into compliance.

The development plan is consistent with the development plans to the south.

Um we didn't hear from anyone.

All good.

Yeah, it just sounds like they're getting into compliance.

Item number six rezoning application mpd eight for RS3 to MPD 8 for multiple properties bounded by uh 22nd uh South South Main Street, West Woodward Boulevard, and Riverside Drive requested by Mark Caprone, Wallace Design, property owner, hard uh hard hard weldon mansion.

Um what is that uh in council district four?

TMAPC voted 100 to recommend approval.

So this is a really interesting one.

Oh yes, yeah, this is go ahead on seven.

Oh, okay, great, and item number seven as well.

You have to read it.

You want to have to read it?

Okay, item number seven, resolution number twenty-nine fifty six ten seventy-nine of the TMAPC pursuant to Title 19 Oklahoma Statute Section 863's amending the Tulsa Comp plan by adopting an amendment CPA 1 uh 27 changing the land use designation from neighborhood to multiple use on approximately uh 3.3 acres bounded by uh 22nd and main street in Woodward and South uh Riverside Drive.

TMAPC voted 10.0 to adopt the multiple use uh designation and recommended uh city council to approve the resolution.

Okay, um so this is Harweldon, and this is a pretty interesting project.

There's two pieces there's the rezoning to an MPD and then the comp plan amendment.

Um so you know Harweldon is a historic structure, it was built in 23, it hasn't been uh used as a residence for about 50 years.

So it has been used very actively over the years as not a residence, but so the request is for uh to make it um more of more lodging, and so I get to that part.

So of course this is her welding.

I think most of you are familiar with that.

Backs up to Riverside.

Um this is a conceptual plan that the MPD really supports and kind of sets up for.

Um there's a total, well, there's an expansion, a restaurant expansion.

There's also six um residential buildings or lodging buildings, I forgot what they call it on here.

But um, so that's the intent.

The details of those inside.

Um, they're really thinking if an like if an artist comes into town, I think they mentioned Paul McCartney or someone comes into town and they have their party and they need to find somewhere to stay.

Maybe they could have an entire building for their, you know, for their party, their whatever you call it.

Um so that's really the intent.

So that's kind of it.

There's a lot the development plan, the MPV really limits it to pretty much that.

It doesn't really go past that, so that that was good.

That was helpful for the residents.

We here we heard people both for and against, but I will say really the vast majority were in support of it, and they really thought it would be you know, a good use of our welding.

Our welding itself won't change.

Um there's some height limitations on the other buildings just to make sure that they're consistent or not inconsistent with the uh heights adjacent.

For instance, the south is the you know the residential tower, so those are allowed to be a little higher, and the north are a little lower.

Um that's about it.

They also there was a little bit of talk about parking, and if you can see like Caddy Corner, oh so tiny, but anyway, on the caddy corner, they actually own some of that parking that fronts on 21st Street on the east side of it, so it's the southeast corner go up, otherwise.

Um that they own that as well, so that can be used as some of their parking to to help accommodate that.

If you just want some quick um the property owners met that she's done a good job, like meeting with she said she's met with about 500 people, and she's done a ton of outreach in that area.

Um the two different concerns that I had heard had to do with parking.

Granted, even with these cottages, you know, you're not talking about mass quantities of people really is pretty small.

Yeah, that example that could get given was that when Paul McCartney has stayed there, he couldn't have his whole crew stay with him and they had to stay in a different hotel.

That's true.

Which is true.

So Visit Tolson has a lot of the VIPs there.

We tried to put we had an international star come last year.

We tried to put her there, but there wasn't enough room for her crew.

And the overflow option nearby wasn't at the level that they all wanted to have.

So yep, it's a niche.

It is, and for events, celebrations, those kinds of things.

And then one other person was just, you know, kind of had some historical concerns, or just like it was like you know, remembered, I think, like sledding on the hill there and things like that.

So this would definitely be a change, but broadly though, I haven't heard I think after she had done some more engagement.

I haven't heard those concerns come up again in the past few weeks.

Counselor Bush.

Can you go back to the rendering, please?

So my question is more about the I for the idea.

Don't get me wrong.

That's a substantial hill.

You got a building right in the middle of now that's not the hill.

Yeah, okay.

You see the lawn and all.

Yeah, you see that guest room building.

That's like at the slope of the hills.

So what are they going to be building up the land?

What are you doing on the end of the structure on that?

I just to figure out that happens all the time.

Uh people don't have a design for that and do that.

So I don't know the details of the construction method, but that I'm not sure on the I mean, once you are you talking about on the south side there, the big one?

Is that stuff?

Sloped down a little.

Yeah, like it's a big flat.

Yes, yeah.

You're right, it is very well.

I was just curious how to use some other pretty robust kind of content of it.

It seems like she's figured it out.

And it looks like she's going to try to save all the trees.

I mean, there's yes, I did ask about that.

She's okay.

Yes.

She actually said the trees were part of why this was kind of successful plan or model because it helps with the privacy concept for people who would like privacy to be able to be able to walk around during their stay, I guess.

I don't know, it's something like somewhere that I wouldn't be affording to stay in time soon.

So the rooms are beautiful, and then they tell you what the price is like never be there.

Yeah.

Stay there.

I want to mention something else.

So one thing that was talked about, someone had a concern about and wasn't putting it put in the development plan up.

Um is the uh prohibition on digital display signs.

So right now you can't do digital display around um every edge except Riverside because of the proximity to residential.

Um this is as Counselor Lincoln will remember this isn't this is in the general vicinity of the river design overlay.

The historic kind of structures were not included in the design overlay.

Design overlay on along the river prohibits digital display.

I think that was that was a thing.

I think the applicant agreed to it, so that might be something that you get reached out to about to make an amendment when it goes.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Oh did you raise your hand?

No, my question was.

Sounds like we might need a tour when it's done.

Sure, there we go.

There we go.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much, Susan.

Okay, item number eight ordinance amending the fiscal year 2526 budget to make supplemental appropriations of 2.5 million recognized from unappropriate fund ballots within the sales tax redevelopment loan repayments fund.

We're talking about IKEA.

Um Aaron or Jared.

Jared is well, I'm here to talk about it.

Reread what you've already read, but Mr.

Persley is here if you have specific questions.

But this is appropriating uh 2.5 million from the uh redevelopment loan repayment fund, and it is going towards uh the terms of that agreement with uh direct retail purpose for the uh incentive project.

I can't uh counselor or what's the term?

I guess term limit what's the list agreement?

How are you?

I'm good, how are you?

We covered the agreement.

So isn't this doesn't it have like 20 years?

20.

I mean, don't they have to oh I'm sorry for the rejuvenate as well for right?

So this was a oh my gosh, you're catching me while car.

I think it's a 15-year um 15 year mic.

I do not know, but I think it's it's 15 year, and we're looking open to pay it off within eight years based on the numbers they have.

But this is this is not a loan, right?

No, it's an incentive, right?

Right, and so but we use this to incentivize others to come.

Right.

So that's why I was wondering what was the what's the term limit what's I hate to use term limit, but what is the charter point?

What is the term on it so that it can be used for other businesses?

Oh, I know, but to bring other businesses to Tulsa.

Don't we use this to incentivize?

Tell me again why we're doing this for IKEA.

Okay, let's start there.

Yeah, your question's confusing.

Okay, so yes, confusing when you put the word loan in here.

Yeah, it's from the loan fund, though.

That's what I'm saying.

Right, so that's a confusion.

This this is not a loan, this is a 2.5 million dollar grant to IKEA, not to be paid, repaid back.

But it says here on the agenda loan repayments fund.

Well, the funds originally.

That's why it's missed.

It can't have the loan repayments fund.

So imagine that we had loans that went out.

Those loans were repaid, that money came back into the system.

We're now using that money for different purposes and something like it's come back to the city.

And so it's not a loan going back out, this is a grant fund going up to no term on that.

Loan because grant fund went out of IKEA.

But let's say, I mean, now we're you.

I mean, if this is approved, we use it for IKEA.

How long do we have to wait before we can use it again to or do we use a grant?

Okay, okay.

All right, it's gone.

So it's just I mean when you have the public reading these agendas and it's the way that it's written, uh tax redevelopment loan repayments fund is kind of it's confusing.

So that's why I was asking for the the definition and changed it.

Right.

And and let's have I want Councillor Hall Harper to ask her question, and perhaps you can maybe answer both of them.

And then we'll I'll call Councillor Lincoln.

So Sarah and Jack were finding us the one who first initiated this.

It was a loan program, but it but that was for a certain amount of time.

That time changed, and then we were now reusing it for other it could be a loan, it could be a grant.

Yeah, but you didn't know what happened in that.

Yeah, the funds the funds come from several different funds over many different tax packages, and then they when they return back in, they're used different ways.

So we use different ways.

For example, DDRF when it came back in, then it's used for some housing projects.

Um you have commercial funds that come back in.

So all the different incentive deals are structured different ways, and so this one is structured in that the these funds will not return to the city.

Other deals are structured that those funds will return to the city.

Councilor Lakin, did you I have I brought you down?

Did you have something and then Counselor Blood remind me what we did five months ago or six months ago where we also use these revolving loan funds, but we we decided to do something other than there was a complex non-complex budget amendment um where you had some it was through the commercial revitalization funds where you committed those to a specific geographic area um in North Tulsa, and then you those flow back in, and then you asked that those flow those funds be used for the designated funds, but that was a those were loans.

Okay, but yeah, it was still once we we cycled through the loan repayment, and now it's just a a pot of money, just exactly what council harper said.

Um we have been asked to do certain geographical kinds of things that'll flow back in, so there really are discretion in this case.

The $2.5 million would be used for the building itself repurpose the building, right?

So to change the building from the the former belts, belts configuration to the new IKEA, yeah.

Is it 64,000 square feet or 34,000 square feet, or what is that?

It's 50,000 plus square feet of store council.

And do we actually how how does the money where's the money actually go?

Do we just write a jug to IKEA?

Do we write a junk to we have an economic development agreement with the retail strategies people who actually are the ones doing the actual stuff for Tulsa Hills, and so our agreements with them to build out the building for IKEA, but it structures in what those funds are used for within an economic development agreement, so it says it's used for fixtures and for these those types of things for the structure.

Councilor was that all counselor Lakeman.

Yeah, I was just trying to think of other instances where we may have used city monies to I get it, but it's just the way that the item is is um is worded if we can come up with a new name for it or whatever.

So the the wording is based on the budget fund that it's in.

So if we change the wording, we actually maybe wouldn't accurately post what fund this was coming.

Well, as long as we have this piece of but yeah, this educational piece uh following it, then the word grant somehow would have made it into the language here.

That probably would have been a good idea.

I think I think maybe on these economic incentive deals.

Um maybe we can when the budget amendment comes through, because you've already approved the resolution that approved the economic incentive deal.

You did that a couple weeks ago.

Maybe they could attach that as backup to the back of the budget amendment because that does describe the structure of the deal.

It's just you already approved that in a separate action.

This is moving the funds after your approval of that.

Sarah Counselor Bush and then Councillor Dutton.

So what's the fund balance after we take 2.5 million out?

What's left?

I think there's about this one's either 4.5 left or six left in this one.

Smaller smaller 4.5?

Yeah, 4.5.

I couldn't remember if I was counting a project or not.

Um I would not I would not say that there's I know there are pending projects on that four million.

I would not be hopeful that there is four million non-pending projects.

I did see that glimmer from down here.

Uh counselor doesn't you guys are in need of the counselor dungeon over in West Tulsa.

They have nothing.

So um that's the whole state.

The incentive, the economic incentive.

Are there caveats?

I'm just thinking of Macy's currently closing and the fact that they are going to be held up for property taxes since they did not have complete their caveat of being there for so long.

Um and is the incentive package also are there caveats for employment in regards to the money going out?

Yeah, Macy's was is the distribution center with Oh, is that the one in the loss though?

It's on Wall Street.

Yeah, I think I'm just referencing an incentive that they didn't deliver on.

Right.

So to answer your question, there are not caveats on the amount of time that they stay within their building or their or their place.

Employments and I I guess what what is the compensation that the city of Tulsa is gonna get in lieu of this amount of money.

Okay.

So perfect.

So what this is really about is the sales tax generated from the IKEA store.

And so when you think about the bell because that was in that uh location before, that's about three million in sales tax generated each year.

The IKEA is between 30 and 40 million in sales tax generated each year.

And so the driver for us doing this deal was to gain that increase in the sales tax for the city.

And as you said, you know, even our return center program for this uh this project, we paid off we believe ahead of time because they have so much robust sales at that store.

And then don't forget IQ is a regional draw.

And so the indirect becoming impact from this has been studied is about 100 to 112 million, 120 million dollars.

And so that's why we did the incentive because the impact it has on not just Nike itself, but other stores within that area.

I think it's important for citizens to have councillor.

Councilor Gilbert.

Uh I'm done.

Never mind.

All right.

Anyone else on IKEA?

All right, so um attorney Reynolds has come into the building.

And so if we can, Sarah, can we go back to item number three?

Again, item number three.

We've got one more budget amendment.

And then uh then Jerry could be finished.

You're welcome.

All right, let's go on uh since let's make Jared's table and go to number nine.

Ordinance amending the fiscal year 2856 to make supplemental appropriations of 967,713 dollars recognized from unappropriated fund balance within the general fund concerning the jail overflow.

Sir, this is uh appropriating the 967,000 uh within the general fund to the police department.

Um essentially expenses have increased in what the city pays in uh overflow expenses to uh the TS um to the county, and this will cover that gap.

We normally budget around 100,000 for a year, spend 10 to 12,000 a month, and we're averaging in the range of like 70 to 80,000 for like the past six months.

So this is gonna get what's already been paid uh covered because they've been spending that out of other funds within their budget, and then also set them up to be able to uh pay the remainder of the year.

Uh counselor Gilbert.

Uh so maybe Commissioner Roberts can help me with this one.

Uh so this is going to pay for the David El Moss overflow.

So currently the municipal lockup has a capacity of 77.

Over the last year, that number has been trending upwards based on several different things come influencing that, but the average overflow, so the number over 77 held on municipal charges has been um anywhere between 30 and 40 on average on a daily basis, and we're charged currently at 63 dollars a day by the county for reimbursement for housing those individuals.

Okay.

At David L.

Moss, not at our correct facility.

Okay, I just want that clarification in Canada.

Okay, so it's not that they're it's not that the 63 dollars went up, it's just people that were taking to that jail has gone up.

It has trickled upward, um, and it's going to almost double for next year.

So we've made that that's a next year's budget.

Um but it's the rates, not the inmates.

Sounds like the inmate.

The cost rate, not the inmate rate.

Okay.

So it's gonna go we're thinking of dollars like we're gonna.

Okay.

So you think it might go from 63 to maybe over a hundred?

Okay.

We've been notified, yes, but that's next year's budget.

Talking about this year's budget and this budget amendment is solely because the number of people that have been held in custody has increased.

Council Bellis?

Out of curiosity, since it's you know since you're making an adjusted relative to that overflow, and you mentioned there's several different factors.

Would you be interested in listing some of those?

Or I'm curious also if those are short-term factors, that this is a one-time issue, or yeah, absolutely relative to of the scale.

Jack is here also to kind of comment on some of the prosecutorial policy.

So I will stipulate that this money is housed in the police department budget.

However, the police department has very little control over the use, maybe is I'm struggling for the word, but the use of this this money as it's the influence they have is the arrest that they make going in.

Um and then it is the prosecutorial policy as well as judge sentencing.

Um that's kind of been the combination of really the the increase.

We also know that Tulsa County went to a new auditing system or a new record keeping system, um, and we saw a jump.

So I'm not sure whether they were incorrectly um auditing or record keeping for us, or there truly was just a jump in numbers.

We have been um very diligent about double checking their numbers, and we have found mistakes every month, and we are sending back those and not paying.

So there was some discussion that maybe we don't pay for prisoners that are inmates that have um municipal and state charges.

David El Moss is responsible for anybody that's in on state custody, and so there's some duplicity sometimes, and we've been very diligent about checking those to make sure we're not paying those individuals that have both municipal and state.

Um so I I can turn it over to Jack to talk a little bit about the prosecutorial piece through the the uh verdict rendering and how that's kind of played apart.

Oh, sure.

And we had a discussion in the small uh budget committee meeting on this, and we've met kind of preliminarily with Sarah, and you may know we've just appointed a new chief prosecutor in the municipal court, you know, in our office, and so we're taking it kind of as an opportunity to kind of do a full evaluation of of policies that of course we're one element.

I mean, there's there's law enforcement, there's public defense, there's um the judges, but we're an important element, and so uh we're taking this opportunity to kind of evaluate our policies both pretrial and and um through trial uh in municipal court on these uh misdemeanors that are resulting in uh stays that lead to um overflow into David Elmoss.

Um I don't it's probably not posted to go too far in depth into you know specific policies, but we'd be glad to follow up.

Um but we have taken the opportunity.

Sarah's pulled a lot of data from the court, and we've started analyzing that and looking at kind of specific cases and examples and trying to evaluate trends.

I mean, there hasn't been a dramatic change in policy that's led to this, it's just been kind of an accretion over time.

Right.

Um but we are taking the opportunity to to evaluate all of that.

Okay, so you're saying there might be because I know so upstream of prosecu you know prosecutorial decisions or the policy, so maybe they'll end up being something for us to visit that.

Possibly, we are looking specifically at some that have changed recently like trespass and other things.

Right.

Okay, thanks.

That's helpful.

Wonderful counselor Gilbert.

So um with budget coming down to us here in in a couple weeks, and we just had uh the chief here last week, last week telling us that his budget wasn't going to be affected with implementing this downtown division, but should we be looking for an increase in the police department budget if this is the rates for I mean, how can we if the rate for David El Moss is going up?

Um, so that means that their budget is going to increase.

So there is right now proactively a placeholder for an increase in David El Moss um overflow in the in the budget for the police department.

There we are also exploring some very quick turnaround options to expand bed space at our municipal lockup so that we're not having to pay that.

Okay, okay.

I'm just to keep it an eye on that item.

So all right, thank you.

Counselor Dutton.

So I'm curious with the number of people are increasing, correct?

And yet we just heard from uh Chief Larson not that long ago that crime is down.

What is the uptick in the increase in people and why?

So I think one that you're been able to at least somewhat attribute this to is that um cases were not being closed, so folks are being released, they were recidivizing, they were uh Jack alluded to trespassing.

There were folks that were coming in with 10, 12, 15 trespassing cases that had all been stacked and nothing they had just kept getting passed and not closed, and so now there's finally a um enough is enough, and they're getting sentenced to terms to send those out.

And so 30 days in jail, the lockup can house them for 10 days, and then they're then they have to be moved out, because that's the standard for that facility.

Um and so um there is just an increase in population based on the number of folks who are having their cases resolved.

So the trespassing would that be like the until that community I know they get a lot of trespassing settings.

I don't have the facts or data behind that information.

We made amendments probably right before you were elected um to sidewalk obstruction, right-a-way obstruction, and then a companion to that was um that I sponsored actually was um for repeat offenders on trespassing because it was just like a revolving door.

So I think we're seeing the results of that.

Yes.

Um okay.

That's interesting.

If that's a bell curve though, like if it increases and then drops off, right?

Well, the other thing is right, we have um therapeutic court, so there should be some diversion to the extent that it can be, but it was very intentional that you have to have carrots and you have to have a stick.

And so that was part of the comprehensive approach that the three H task course put together on the policy side.

So that's all on the um website where we kind of went through all that, but Counselor Lakin and I were the folks that repeatedly workshop that with our um frontline providers, kind of did a you know if this and that logic model.

I think one of the things I didn't necessarily um factor in was we talked a lot about diversion through the courts with this prosecute prosecutorial like discretion piece.

But it sounds like with a new prosecutor coming in, there's a new understanding.

I do have concerns because one of the capital improvements um funding hunt we're on is like what to do with municipal court in jail, and do we need to scale up to 140 beds as has been told to us, and you know what's driving that.

So I think we really do need to look at the data because I also I'm challenged by the notion that somehow today schools are more criminal than they were you know five years ago when the data doesn't support that, but then we do have this where do they go question.

Um so I think we need to look at it holistically and not just um you know, if you're just looking at one element, it's easy to just be like, there's the problem, here's the right.

No, I agree, and I appreciate the explanation.

Um I'm concerned that I I understand that once they have all of these citations and the words go out and whatnot, that it is costing Tulsa citizens.

Well they're stacking penalties, yeah.

But I mean it's so you know if they're gonna be sitting it out, that's where the cost is incurred.

So they're taking so we're not really gaining money back into the system so much as we are paying for the stacking.

Yes, but we were also paying to send officers out on repeat offenders that they had no I get that and they would just come back the next day.

I get that, and as you know, as a business operator, often the burdens on the businesses or the neighborhood.

I get it.

Sarah and also let me just also flag because I know we really did focus in on our own children population, but this also is a tool for domestic violence intervention that did not exist before, and as we talked previously last time, right?

There's also that repeat offender who keeps showing up on the property, and so this also allows them to have a way that we appreciated for Sarah, please.

Oh, I just wanted to clarify and caution on I wouldn't jump to a specific charge at this time because this is still in the raw data evaluation.

And so um I don't I don't think there's enough information on the data we've pulled yet, and that it's been evaluated enough yet to kind of assign this to a specific charge.

Okay, I appreciate all of this.

Anything else, Commissioner Roberts?

Any other questions?

All right, thank you, Jared.

All right, now it's time to double back to item number three.

Lou Reynolds was with us.

Let's talk about the reconsideration of rezoning ordinance MPD six from AG to MPD six from multiple properties.

Um is Lou with us?

He's right here.

All right.

Will you join us at the table, sir?

Thank you.

Um I think my understanding, I don't want to speak for everyone, but um is it your client uh uh desired for these changes to happen.

Can you just explain why?

Yes, the uh in in the C PD6 is a it's its own zoning district.

Right, and and we've set out uh list of uses that we think apply.

And then we've agreed to a bunch of development standards that we we've agreed to do things a certain way, and that that are over and above how they're typically done here.

And and so what we want to know is that the particular uses we've agreed to don't change, and and and and so we we've not how they're defined and things like that.

We want to know that that's the use that we've agreed to today, and we've agreed today to do it this way.

And so the use is grandfathered and the use today is the use.

That's correct.

Which changes and and so and then with the idea, and then we agreed to the exception for data centers.

We understand there's that might change just right here in the near future.

So we're willing to say we'll stick with the use all the other uses like they are today.

You can change data centers, that's fine.

That's in flux.

These others aren't in flux, and and we've designed very specifically and agreed to do special things for all that.

So we're just trying to jump in.

Um, this is like maybe almost like a legal semantics question.

Because I'm curious with the um original language, I'm just trying to kind of try to understand what it does or doesn't do for your point.

Because I get that, but you're like, hey, we've made a whole robust plan.

This is obviously a massive effort, and I don't think anyone here like wants to mess with like you know, a lot of like hard work that's happened over time with it.

Where this talks about, and maybe we'll just pull all the different layers at the table.

I will stop hitting you with my hand.

Sorry, it's the new Jersey in me.

All right.

Um where this says because it says I didn't I gotta be more careful, I know.

Um talks about use categories and definitions, subject to future revision to those use categories, because we're not I'm trying to understand legally though, because it's not saying that we would change what use categories are laid out in the MPD six, it's just if within like it's almost like within the definitions of this category.

I'm just trying to understand what would actually change or not, because we would nothing about what the different uses the word use I feel like is throwing me off for what it means legally because we're not changing any categories that you all have requested, but it's just that the definitions of those changed, is that the well, yes, and in the sense you could change the use categories by changing the definition.

If if you were to say a single family residential home now requires four bedrooms, you've a change you've changed our use, and and by changing the definitions or the these use categories, or we'd say you take away the use category and say we eliminate this use category in the zoning code, it's eliminated here, and and that's what we're trying to avoid.

And and again, so uh that that's just the the circumstances of it.

So and this makes it clear that we have those use categories as defined today, but if you change the anything related to data centers, that's fine with us, because that's in the state of flux.

Yeah, which yeah, what I'm just trying to do.

I just that makes sense.

Just as a clarifying follow-up question, this is right.

This is it's just funny because I've like trying to fully legally understand.

Apologies for my confusion.

I I'm trying to figure out so right now, say, for example, one of the areas is residential or pre-reparate, like residential single family.

Yes.

I'm just trying to think if we did have some better future, whatever standard, well, you guys would probably do it anyway.

I don't know, I'm just trying to imagine what would actually change.

I don't know, what would actually change or we're we're just trying to to say we're happy with the way things read today, and and we've gone over and above, and and and and and we're willing to do that, but we just don't want the goal of it to change.

But what in if someone to respect well, but hold on the question for my colleagues philosophically here.

If someone owns something today that's an empty residential single family zone lot in a neighborhood or wherever, and they in 10 or 15 years from now built a house there, but only wanted to follow the residential zoning standards from the day they bought it, not whatever the standards are in 10 or 15 years, like would we do that?

Well, that's that's kind of what I'm trying to understand.

That's that's a little bit of a kind of an apple orange comparison in a sense.

Yeah, thank you for explaining it to me.

These are my earnest things.

Again, so we're we're we're our own zoning district, so you could call us IL, you know, IL point one, and so anything within the zoning district, this is this is how you do it.

And uh, and so that that's what drives a big part of this is that everywhere else they don't have all these conditions and and things we've agreed on.

Because if we did something in here and those use definitions changed, that person would be grandfathered and legal, but if something happened to the property, they'd have to go to the board of adjustment and get a special exception to get approved to keep doing it or to make a change.

We're trying to eliminate those vagaries in this is you look at this set of rules, and this is what you're controlled by.

Okay.

I don't know.

Sorry, I'm still having trouble escaping the I can still see the puzzle book and I I just I think because I I understand for your point that the NPD6 itself is its own zoning district, but in part though it's composed of lots of interlocking different zoning areas that we have definitions for that when just like just the example I gave.

If you in 20 years went to do something on something that's zoned a specific way, you would kind of be keeping up with the times even if parts of those descriptions had changed.

That's what I'm struggling with.

But I have zoning where you have multi-family that's being built that was zoned in 1970.

Right.

Now, but and they have to follow today's standards when they build it.

I think uh an extension of a pre-existing subdivision versus that multifamily.

So that's a challenge.

Right.

So by grandfathering this master plan, right?

All the other elements other than the ones that are challenging to the community as a whole on hyperscale data centers.

That's what they're really trying to show flexibility in in this plan.

Yeah, is that as we change, that's the intended issue in the uh troublesome part of this that everybody has today, they're willing to flex as as we change the case.

But this is saying, no, but that but this is saying for all the other things, though, it'll be everything's nothing's been built yet, but that everything's permanently grandfathered in.

That's why I made the example about the zoning for that multifamily that existed since 1970.

So those folks were able to develop that by right.

Right, but they had to meet today's multifamily standards.

So I'm just trying to right.

So I'm just saying though.

Can I interject real quick real quick just to see if this is anywhere close to being in line with what you're asking?

Yeah, we do optional development plans all the time, which sets in stone what that development is going to look like from that time forward, unless they come and get an amendment.

This is not due to similar areas.

Yes, sir.

That's a that's a simple way to do the analogy for them.

Yeah, so we're just doing it in a bigger, broader way.

We're on an ODP, you're saying this RS3 is RS3, but it has to look like this.

It has to have this many homes, it has to be limited in these other ways.

It's a PUD kind of.

And that's what this is and ODPs.

Right.

We have locked in.

This is just locking in.

And again, we've but those only lock in certain criteria.

We we've said a bunch of additional standards that the city doesn't have to apply to us.

Which is great.

And those those additional standards, and and so we're saying we need to know if we're gonna be spending this kind of money, this kind of infrastructure development, that we can do it like this.

And we're willing, we're willing to say we'll do this in a nicer, better way in a more urbanistic way, kind of like city plannings asked us to do.

But we need to know this will stay this way while we get it developed.

But that but the ODP survives, yeah, it's long, long term.

Right, but but what I'm saying is what if in 10 or 15 years it has to do with I don't know, drainage or who knows.

I'm just gonna I'm making something up here.

But that's not zoning.

Okay, oh, you're right.

But but maybe it was like, but because of something we knew for that, you needed to only build out to whatever part of lot lines.

I'm just giving an example of like maybe there's some standard that the ODP would define that in what we in what we're currently doing and what we do not every two months with an ODP.

It it it lays out the absolute structure that you must have for that particular development.

And so that's how this is codified right now.

Absolutely.

And we've done that, we've given great specifics.

Okay.

So even if there were let's say in 10 or 15 years, better whatever standards for some zoning type within this, they no matter what revert to the ones from today.

Well, I don't know.

That's just that's like a big opening weird.

So the whole trade-off we've said we've you know, that part of the trade-off, we said we'll do this in this way, we were gonna build buildings with apartments above them and this much grass and build them to the street and have trees and things, and and and that's acceptable to us.

And and we're willing to commit to that, but we don't want to commit to that.

If they change and say no, you can't put that building next to the street, you've got to put it 15 feet away from the street, or it can only be four stories high, not five stories high, or or or you know that that's the kind of thing.

Okay, we we think that the analogy of that zoning of that apartment complex.

I guess we'll just leave the apartment company.

Well, you let us know it.

I guess it's for the 19th century.

Okay, I'll leave it.

I know we need to move on.

I just think I philosophically, I don't know.

It just no, I get I get what you're doing.

It's just a little there's something strange to me.

And this is helping how this has been described.

I think I'm so scared if I put my hand towards the next of this way again, she's never gonna sit next to me.

Um, I I think to me, it just what I'm hearing is just like it just read to me.

It kind of sounds like it's like at this point, MPD6 is its own city kind of within our city, which I kind of how it's been described, and I get that.

There's an intentional whatever.

But it sounds like going forward forever, those rules.

Yeah, those eight-lane bullets.

Yeah, it just it sounds like it's a large land mass that will have its own forever rules.

That said, they still have to go through planning, through some tax and inspections and things.

And if we want to change something, we have to come back to you.

Yes, you know, if it's minor, it goes to the planning commission.

If it's major, it'll come to the planning commission aid you.

I go I always go both ways on ODP related stuff because there is that permanency element, but I I like knowing what's going to go in there whenever I say yes versus I don't know, hypothesizing on what it could be.

So there are there's pros and cons.

Is there an example in our city of where something like this is already and not to the extent of like some people said you know with it?

Yeah, that's a great question.

Master plan communities.

If you went back and studied the old PUDs, they they are all approved with a time for and and because they were their own unique zoning district.

Well, and that's a good example.

So we overhauled into corridor zoning East 71st Street because of this very thing.

So it's not like it and that was 30 year, you know, kind of process.

Right.

But then we took this big action recently to burden the land use for for new development.

So I see what you're saying.

Yeah, it's like the idea today, but it's not helpful though, having a lot of things.

Yeah, thank you.

That's really hard.

Anyone else?

Any other questions?

Thank you, Lou.

Thank you very much.

Counselor Bangle and Councillor Light.

One more question of legal.

So the way that this goes down is that a motion has to be made to reconsider, and then it gets back onto the table for reconsideration, and then we take up this item, correct?

And that version is in back then, so you can just refer to that if that's what you want to do.

Okay.

Counselor Callis.

I'm I'm just curious, Jack, from your legal perspective with the wording that was originally there, which I understand.

Like this is really crisp and clear about what it's focused on.

But with your under with I just was curious, do you use based on what Lou described?

I trust you, and also you know, just looking with city legal as well.

Was what he described like that concern matches kind of the issue of this language, or like I'm just kind of checking with your understanding of just the word use categories, it's just you know, I think it was described correctly.

And it is maybe just a matter of respect to um, I mean, you could think of those use definitions that you thought about from a policy perspective over the last several years, things like um family residential child care homes or a small box discount stores, or where the the use definitions may have evolved.

So this approach they they will evolve for the rest of the city, but for them to change MD, we will have to come back probably for uh zoning amendment.

It's kind of the trade-off as you were discussing.

Okay, okay, thanks.

That's that's helpful.

All right.

Thank you all.

Okay, we're going along to item number 10.

Yes, ordinance amending the TRO title six, Finance Department chapter six revenue collection to include the new section 607 cash transaction round and about the pennies.

Uh allowing for the rounding uh to the nearest five cent in cash transactions in light of the recent retirement of the penny by the federal government outlining exceptions to the rounding rules.

It scares the emergency clause.

All right.

Um Chad Becker is with us.

Legal.

And we've already got some folks in the queue.

Please come in at Chad Becker with uh finance here to discuss this uh ordinance to address the um the retirement of the penny is as many of you or all of you know the uh US Treasury and our government uh retired the mentee of the penny at the end of last year.

And um in internal discussions, it became apparent that due to the fact that we accept cash and have many lines of business that accept cash uh that involve coin and that we needed to take proactive stance on this and start looking at how we were gonna address the issue.

Um fortunately um we are not in a in a penny crisis at this point in time.

Our depository bank, which is Bank of Oklahoma, uh still able to supply us with pennies, so um, and we'll continue to do so until they're not able to, but we realize that's there's a there's a there's a finite window with that.

So um we reached out to legal and have been working with Caroline Um watching what's happening both the federal and state level.

Um it appears that Caroline can correct me if I'm wrong, but the state is kind of moving in a much quicker pace than uh the federal government.

Um there is a state law, state buildings have been circulating and looks to be in a position to go in effect this summer.

And so the ordinance that's been brought before you aligns with that state law from a rounding standpoint.

Um and the rounding approach that uh is presented in this ordinance and that's also in alignment with the state law is um what's sort of symmetrical rounding, which uh at the very highest simplest level rounds a transaction to the nearest five cents up or down.

Um we've been working with our uh enterprise financial system as well to address this issue.

There are some fixes that they are going to be releasing um in this calendar year to um assist us with this rounding um and we have some workarounds in place currently.

Should we run into a situation where we cannot um uh offer exact change or or handle um exact cash transactions?

Uh we would be able to support this metrical rounding right now.

We just need an ordinance in place that aligns with the state law to be able to do that.

So um, you know, again, we're in a good position right now.

Um I mean if if the bank cut us off, we could probably go another four months or so with the penny supply that we have now.

Um but uh we just want to be in a position to be able to react to uh mandates coming down from the above and codify it at the city level.

Caroline, did you have something to contribute as well?

Yeah, I'll just add that it this is also the approach we're expecting on the federal level.

Um we don't know for sure, but uh one of the bills path or excuse me, introduced in Congress takes the same approach.

In fact, I kind of followed almost line word for word, mirror trying to mirror that.

So we're hoping that we'll just be aligned all the way up, and we also added some language right at the front, unless otherwise provided by state or federal law to give us some room if for some reason at the state or federal level uh it goes a different direction.

But this is I in my research, this is the approach, it seems to be the best practice.

I mean, Canada did it, you know.

I think in Europe, so when other countries have um have retired their one cent, this seems to be the best way as opposed to always rounding up or always rounding down.

Councillor Bush, Gilbert, and Bellis.

Yeah, you were answering my question because things are moving so fast at the state level.

I didn't so I'd like that you have that provision in because that would go, I think that our emergency would go into place July 1.

That's correct.

It was initially November and it's been bumped back.

Back to July 1.

Right.

So if at the 11th hour, which often happens at the state, they amend it.

I wanted to make sure we were flexible enough to adapt as well.

Hopefully they well, not this issue, but you never know.

And I've been in contact, close contact with um counsel from OML, and I think they've helped push this through.

So I'm I I think I'd get contacted if something was going sideways and we'll we'll react.

Right.

Well, you've got the provision in the ordinance, that's also if things change.

Thank you, Councillor.

Counselor Gilbert.

Yeah, just for public knowledge, what is the um the the prime number for rounding up and rounding down?

Is it just four or five?

What to mean is that going to be included in the ordinance?

So it is it is addressed in the ordinance.

So if uh if a transaction were to end in one or two cents or two or three one one or two cents would round down, two or three cents would round up to the nearest five center, and then the same for six and seven down eight and nine support.

Okay.

Um and also are we hanging on to our pennies because they might be worth something uh a few years.

So I'm just only the copper ones.

Sorry.

That joke.

Some municipalities.

Surrounding this municipalities have actually asked for people to bring their pennies to city now.

We're not we're fortunate that so you do want people to bring their pennies here.

Is that what you're saying?

So we're gonna take the bank.

I think that's okay.

Take them to your bank and get them replenished so that uh we can continue to get the old pays.

So good.

Uh counselor fellas.

I'm sorry, uh counselor Gilbert.

Anything else?

No.

Councillor Fellas.

I was just curious about because I know it's just a you know, there's a few factors that you make a transition like this, and I wasn't sure, including on even just like data entry, whatever end of things or like fields.

Is there any I'm just thinking about fiscal impact?

I mean, I know it's something that we have to do, um, keeping up with the times, but I just wasn't sure both from the actual rounding itself what that looks like financially, but also if there's any kind of data system entry or whatever that might have to change.

I was just curious about that.

I know that's also just people time to make that switch as well.

So um conceptually when we look at at our city's cash business and then drill it down to uh the largest lines of business, uh say municipal court, for example.

Doesn't deal in in any kind of coin or change at all.

It's this is really on the gonna be most significant on the utility billing side and permitting.

Um and then when you drill down to cash customers through there, you're taking it down to a smaller subset.

And that's what we've been working with um our enterprise financial system developers on is a means to to handle the rounding and transactional level uh and then um perform those functions of counting on the back end, so it's it's really it's not a it's not a material burden on the uh making change side and things of that nature, and really with the symmetrical rounding and taking it to uh the nearest five cents near it than rather to the nearest um whole amount and what we'll see is uh probably a wash.

Okay for makes the property.

Yeah, for going up and down, yeah.

That makes sense.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Anyone else?

Uh thank you, uh Chad for uh taking us through.

All right, very good.

Let us continue to uh item number 11 joint resolution of the city of Tulsa.

I mean, I'm sorry, joint resolution of the city council of the city of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and the Board of Community Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, Oklahoma, authorizing the sale and conveyance of sergeant real property located at 1520 North Hartford, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma by the City County Library Commission of Tulsa is Sarah here to say this is not one that I could jump in on.

Jack, are you going to speak on this?

Come on, I can I think look it up.

Let us look up who's on the RFA, and then you can go maybe go to item 12 while we do that.

All right.

So while that is being done, let's go to uh item 12 and then maybe we circle back to ordinance amending the TRO Title 35 Infrastructure Development Chapter 2 infrastructure development permits, section 2020.

Contracts bonds and insurance subscriptions, B3B, contractor's annual construction contract bonds and insurance to eliminate the requirement of a waiver of subrogation endorsement of an owner's protected liability policy to clarify the requirement of written notice of cancellation for non-payment of premium.

Surely Sarah, are you speaking on this one?

No, this is also not the these two items are not sponsored out of the council.

Um and they're neither one are ones that I've worked on with the administration.

So how do they go on these things?

That means the administration says it can put them on the these came through the mayor's agenda, so usually a department representative would need to come talk on these items.

Okay.

Well, is anyone gonna talk on it?

Maybe not.

So did you guys look up item number eleven?

It's actually the county is selling, and so we just are the comp the companion side to that sale.

So state statute, yeah.

The library commission is its own entity under state law.

Um but state statute does require that um it authorizes the commission to sell real property in its name, but um only after authorization by resolution of both the city council and the uh court of county commissioners.

Right.

um so did you guys look up item number 11 it's actually the county is selling and so we just are the comp the companion side to that sale so state statute yeah the library commission is its own entity under state law um but state statute does require that um it authorizes the commission to sell real property in its name but um only after authorization by resolution of both the city council and the uh court of county commissioners right so the county already did their piece now it's in our court so this is the the sale of um an old library facility that and the new ones being built on um so anyway this is uh surplusing and selling the the old library facility uh uh councillor gilbert so if this is a resolution between city and county who gets the um the funding from the cell the library commission would okay yeah they're their own authority right right here but I just wanted to just has to be a product yeah yeah so if you look in the backup you have commissioner dockerly on theirs no I just I I mean again it's public education so that people know that we're not getting the we're not getting the the surplus from the sale right for that just wanting to know let people know where though those dollars go not to us and not to the county that was good question yeah so the county did their resolution in February and now it looks like this was brought to us by um asset management right yeah I've met so the message both departments 11 and 12 I would either recommend you you have questions and if you do you put it on a committee on the 15th um or if you don't you don't have to put it on a committee we might as well just put them on the committee yeah because we're voting on the 15th if we could just third up it seems like it's SOP to me but maybe there's more to it that would be helpful we do okay um the let's let's put it on again see if we can get somebody to come through and would that be um Mr.

Hogan I've messaged I just people that should be here yeah he's one of that requested all right um well looks like that's all folks thank you for being here and um we'll do the same thing with 12 I think I think so yeah we'll just move those to the 15 well item number 13 we are adjourned what about move forward on the first reading for today for item 12 we can add all that all right thank you everyone uh we are there