[music] [music] [music] [music] Okay. Uh, item number one is called to order two as ordinance amending Tulsa revised ordinances relating to city of Tulsa hotel tax code. We have someone here to talk to us about the hotel tax code today. Item number three, resolution calling for and requesting the election board to conduct a nonpartisan special election on February 10th, 2026. Um, and a whole bunch of other things. Four would amend the sales tax ordinance um 7/10 of a cent. and five resolution calling for and requesting the election board to conduct a nonpartisan special election of 76. They're all related. >> So we just read them all. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I'm just reading clarifying question for the city attorney on number one. >> This establishing an effective date of July 1. So if the voters approve it, that's when the elections would begin. >> Correct. beginning of the calendar quarter. >> Okay. So that last week we talked about whenever it's passed there's like a 60-day ramp up and then it's on the fiscal quarters. >> Hotel tax doesn't have the 60-day notice provision. >> Okay. >> So we discussed it could the draft says July but it could also be April. >> Okay. Okay. But this says July. So Okay. >> All righty. Thank you. Are there any elements of those agenda items that I didn't read or I need to read differently? Okay, >> we're in discussion. >> Cool. Um well, uh it's good to see everybody. It's been seven days since we hung out here. >> Uh [clears throat] so happy to be back. Uh we spent a good part of the last several days um working through some of the questions that um were put in front of us last week and this went in the next decade document. I only bring it up here because I think it was basically core to a lot of the conversation although I know it's not just that. So I'm only using this document. No, I'm trying to >> I'm only using this document to roll through just some of these areas and then there's some things I want to talk about in this packet that that speak to them. So to the uh kind of first bucket there around homelessness, um when I was here last week, um what I think I heard from counselors uh is maybe not a whole lot of information as to, you know, how we would get there and who's clutch and what's the strategy associated with um the work that we're trying to do. And I will just start by drawing attention to [clears throat] not anything in the packet but back to the executive order from I believe March or April that laid out a couple different priorities as related to our homeless strategy. One of those was around uh shelter capacity in the way of low barrier shelter. One of those is around a winter weather shelter. Um the other is around encampment decommissioning and then um mitigation as related to evictions. And so uh as we think about the encampment decommissioning uh that is where you see a lot of uh intensity from the resource that's where that comes from. So the strategy around getting rid of the street homelessness is in your packet both through two presentations that you've seen. I think Emily's brought this down here. Uh I I know you had the clutch polls before, but I think Emily's been down here a few different times. Um, but it lays out the various plans, but the big thing to really draw attention to, I believe anyway, there's there's a lot of things there. So, I wanted to bring the proposal here, is thinking about like what does uh really implementation look like? And it's here in a couple different places, but if you take the last presentation, which is the clutch presentation, go to the last page of it. Um, there's a page look just like this. threeear plan. >> It's second to last. >> Second to the last page. Thank you, counselor. Um, and I just want to draw your attention to this [clears throat] uh three-year plan. As you see, the plan is around eliminating preventing street sleeping. Uh, then it talks about the effect of shelter flow. Again, we're the goal is get to rare brief and non-recurring. And so, this is why it's there. Then the sustainability over time. So those resources that we have budgeted are to give us the resources that are necessary to address this issue of street sleeping, to address issues of encampment, to make sure that we aren't just shifting the problem to a different place. And that was a big core of the clutch proposal, but it's not inconsistent with safe move Tulsa, which is something that we've been talking about for a very, very long time. So you can think about clutch in some ways as a scale up a safe move Tulsa strategy that we all have made the decision to invest in with the opioid and um and uh ARPA dollars. So so you think about this larger investment it is essentially scaling that strategy up. So as you heard from clutch or as you will hear from clutch heard from clutch their strategy is consistent with the things that we've already said that we're invested in. is just doing it at a greater scale so we can get uh so we can get to a place we can very aggressively address the street sleeping aspect of what we we see every day. >> Additionally, as you all are well aware, uh we have a winter weather shelter that will open officially I believe on Monday and stay open through March. Uh so there's some shelter operations funding along with uh eventually uh about 15 months from now if we say on schedule we'll have our little barrier shelter that'll be up as well. And so uh this is not just funding a plan that somebody else brought to us. It's actually funding a strategy that we've all already agreed is a strategy that we would like to pursue. And so I I want to I don't know if that's ever been made clear to to folks, but I did want to make that I did want to make that clear. And we can come back to any of this as we go through, but I want to walk through this. Interrupt me anytime that you want or we can come back to any part of this. The second part of what you all got, again, this would be if if we were to move forward with the 7/10 of a penny and you got a budget proposal on how to spend that for the mayor, this is what it would look like. The second portion of this uh is an investment in public safety. So, the numbers you see there are reflective on the pay side at police and fire with getting um where we are with our numbers today and getting that pay up above Oklahoma City. And then you'll see the performance increases that are also in there. You'll also see an additional $2 million um in that number right under the police number right there right under the 6.75. That $2 million is to begin to phase in our pathway to getting to the authorized uh strength. I know there's some debate at this table as what the authorized strength would be. I think that's fine to have that debate, but that's what that 2 billion is for is for a phased approach because we recognize just because we were ready to have 150 police officers show up next day. So, it's making sure we can phase that in over time. Um there's also some funds in there for downtown safety. We started that this year. It is obviously resource intensive. We think it's really important to make sure it finds a place in the general fund. And then the other area that you see reflected there uh is the $750,000 that will help right now augment the federal grant around the uh Tulsa Community Violence Intervention program and then also so we you know are long-term funded. I think it's going to be really critical that we do have these community based approaches to public safety and that's what that's reflective of so we can come back and we can have a conversation about that question. >> Mhm. >> Uh how much is that grant for how long is it? >> Uh Crystal, how long is what's that grant? >> But how much is it? Two >> little just under $2 million. So I think I think it's about 750,000 years. Is that correct? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So [snorts] it's 750 for three years. Is that >> 750 a year for three years? Is that correct Crystal? >> Are you talking about the 750 that you're proposing? >> No, no. I'm talking about the grant, the federal grant that we currently have. >> It's an intervention. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. You should probably come to the table. Sorry. >> Sorry. I'm trying to write down >> um grant just under two but the the 750 included to support the cure violence model as well as some opportunities for grants for nonprofits doing the work. So creating uh third spaces as well. >> So does the federal grant require that we bring dollars to the table? >> That one did not. Okay. So we have a $2 million federal grant for community violence and intervention. the 750 would be additive to >> it would be and so eventually you know that federal grant's going to go away and about in March I think it was one of the reasons we were behind actually on the implementation of the grant >> is I think it was March or April Crystal can correct me on the date about half the cities lost it just went away for half the cities that had it um as part of the federal grant >> going away thing uh I don't know how I don't know how else to describe it uh it well I don't it disappeared for whatever Um, we were fortunate not to lose ours, but you know, it set us back on implementation. Everybody here knows >> being tentative. We weren't >> we couldn't we couldn't make a commitment to move forward if we're going to lose the money. >> And uh, you know, I would say given some of the challenges that we saw with regards to youth violence this this summer, and I think it's typical for a summer in any city our size. >> I think the way we mitigate that long term is it can't just be a law enforcement thing. We're going to have to we're going to have to you know lean into those strategies and you know the 750 was the way we thought we can ramp up for now and then you know I think it's going to be an area we're probably going to have to work with philanthropy to help you know but but there's an investment that we're making on that long term as well. >> Um on the 2 million federal and you may have said it but when does that end? >> So this is our first year. >> Okay. We got it in late uh 2024. >> Yeah. >> Excuse me. >> Late. >> Late 2024. So we are we >> It was when we received it. Okay. >> So we're in year one about to go into year two. >> Yeah. >> There's three and it's 2 million total or 2 million each. >> 2 million total. 750 total or a year. Sorry. 750 a year. >> Okay. >> Oh. So this would replace uh that 750. So right now we would augment the 750 because what essentially if you think about this way right now we're going to as a city fund what once the federal grant leaves we're going to go and try to privately fund. So 750 is not enough to do the work that we do here given the number of youth given the challenge and intensity. So the goal is that we right now will take city resources and you know kind of help augment the federal grant and then when the federal grant runs out we raise private resources that will replace the federal dollar so we can continue to do it at that kind of a scale would be the strategy that we >> so like 1.5 is really the total cost. >> I think 1.5 is fair. I mean, I think that's a good investment, but also think it's a really good opportunity for us to partner with other folks on. I think us having skin in the game at that level is is is important and I think it's going to help us out quite a bit when we do go raise money properly. >> So, this is our skin in the game even before the the [snorts] three-year lapse. >> Correct. [clears throat] >> Correct. This would be all this stuff would be, but this is so let me this would be if if we get it to the ballot, if it passes come July 1, [snorts] this would be what I would send down for us to find in next year's budget. Um, on the 15 U million dollar on use, you there's a document looks like [clears throat] this. It's not it's not very pretty as you go through. It's highlighted in part there. Right there, council. U there were some questions. This is mainly to give a sense and respond to some of the questions that that uh were at the table. All of which were fair. Um the environment like we there was some of these things have been previously funded mainly through er dollars uh co relief related stuff and you kind of see the previous funding up there. What I think I heard last time was questions around um return on investment for some of these things and and this is what this is reflective of. I'm not sure I meant to keep the highlighted version on there. So, [clears throat] this kind of steps sticks out. I think it's just because we we're trying to make note of that. Um but but you can kind of see, you know, whether you're looking at the the child care side of this. Um and we're thinking about, you know, people finding child care costs and the expanded learning uh case in this in this particular deal. Um you know, you see the almost $12 million in childcare related costs. Some of this comes from um young people who I've talked to, asked them, hey, what can we do to improve the city? And they said that we need safe places to go that don't cost a lot of money. uh was what was what I heard from a number of young people. And so some of this is reflective of but also it's reflective of the work that we're trying to do uh to improve outcomes and you know whether it be high impact tutoring um sort of on the younger end or safe places for kids to go on the other end it's really effective on the youth outcome side but also effective in being able to um reduce instances of youth violence. So I think that's really important. The next page behind that, we can look at both these together, but this one is more directly associated with how would you go about spending $15 million, Mr. Mayor, in these two areas. And so, you know, the youth jobs uh work that we would we would want to do that we would want to fund. We think the city um could be a strong leader in doing this would be 7.5 million, serve about 1,200 youth. uh and the youth workforce experience. For me, I think it's great for the young people. We talk about pathways to economic mobility. So, you have that part, but we also have a part with, and I know I'm not the only person that's heard this from businesses. Um we got folks coming out of school that don't have the skills necessary to do the jobs that we have here. Uh and so this is I consider to be a bit of a twofer. Um certainly uh getting young people that work experience and the opportunity to climb the economic ladder a little bit, putting some money in their hands, but also um when we think about workforce preparation for the long haul. Uh and this is sort of reflective of some background there. And then on the bottom end, this does speak to the after school and the summer programming numbers that we've been able to work with the opportunity project on is that a 7.5 million investment and we kind of talked about the return on investment on what that does um would help serve 22,000 children uh and youth in the Tulsa area. Um, I would just note as we think about the data, um, in this community across the state, Oklahoma's 46th in the nation in child wellbeing. We can't do that. We can't do anything about everybody across the state. And this doesn't even do everything for every kid in Tulsa. But I I only lift that up because it does speak to the condition that young people face. And I think it does then make that a city issue. I guess that's why I would lift that lift that number up. Um there's a lot of things that we could do in the space. what we were thinking about what are areas that the city could contribute to um that are highly impactful uh where we could build some partnerships but we could see a direct benefit uh and maybe in some ways that that um also we're not taking up enough not taking up enough space in I might misquote this and I'm going to apologize but in the conversations I've had with Green Country Workforce and Madison Strategies the federal mix of dollars and the private dollars that are out there. Um, somebody can check me on this, but I think the number is less than 300 young people are able to participate in those workforce development type programs because of the availability of resources. Um, I think that speaks to why we have such a challenge on the workforce preparation. I think it also speaks to the challenge that we have [clears throat] overall when we think about the condition of the young people in this community. >> So, what what you're saying there is workforce funding federally, but it's so small only 300 can participate. >> That is that is correct. Um, and I would I will make sure I check that number. I think it's a little less than 300 based on the folks I've talked to. >> When you say young people, what age specifically? >> So, so this is the federal dollars are 16 to 24 I think. Uh, really I think some of the Madison strategies folks. So, outside of Green Country, I think they are 18 to 24. >> Yeah, they're older. So, >> they're 18 to 24. And some of that is just because navigating I think they see it as, you know, a 16-year-old's probably not as ready to go to work and start a career. But it's usually we're talking 16 or 20. >> Mayor, on here it says it's 1,200 youth annually. Um would they be working for the city of Tulsa or >> Not necessarily. So there there's there's a couple different This is one of the things from a programming stand, we probably would have some young people who would take a work experience here. When I ran these types of programs earlier in my career, what we actually did was we used, you know, public resources to do like a wage share with the company. Um, >> so kind of like paid internships that they'll come to the table. >> And what we've also found for this work is [clears throat] that it helps to have um resources there like supportive resation, stuff like that to get kids back and forth to work. And so what I what I what I think is going to be really important is as we go through further develop as we work with our businesses and everybody that we make sure that we think about the supports and what does that wage split look like. >> Okay. So shared And then 1,200 a year. So every year would there be a new cohort of 1,200 or like >> So I don't think that would necessarily be the case. You'd have some crossover, but you'd have some young people [snorts] if we have age boundaries that would age out would be eligible. >> Okay. >> So So that I think you could look at that in some ways like we'd look at um the labor workforce and any other >> Yes. >> What you doing? Mhm. >> What organizations would be facilitating that work from the youth? >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, um Green Country workforce is actually on the children's cabinet. Uh you know, I I think we would probably, you know, work with them, you know, would get some of the best price, which we've done a little bit with them and Madison Strategy and some of the others that just run youth workforce programming. Um and so they're many that have. That's why I'm asking. So, Madison Strategies runs some I know. I knew he's going to do that. And and Green Country workforce actually works runs those as well. >> Yes. >> And they have some they're actually working with juveniles. >> They do. They have so the uh workforce investment dollars trickle down and that's what they use for that 16 to 20 >> workforce investment dollars for that >> from the federal government. Yeah. This >> federal grants. >> Yeah. There's a formula when it comes to >> good. >> Yeah. Well, >> and and that's the unfortunate thing. things that we historically have been able to rely on federal and state because of the way our country is going. A lot of this is going to now fall on us at the local level. >> Yeah, I think we got to be judicious on the things that we choose to chew off as well, right? So, I think we got to think about what are the high impact things. >> So, um >> yeah, so I have a question. Um, we're talking 1,200 uh Tulsa youth annually when we have approximately 60,000. How are these going to how are >> how are they going to be selected? >> Yeah, I'm I'm wondering 1,200 is such a drop in the bucket. >> You know, I I I would agree, but I think here, you know, I think there's two things to think about. one, you start a first year of a program, there's, you know, naturally there's going to be some tough, you know, there's only so much you can do from a capacity standpoint. I think two with that would be true for anything that we that we do. We're limited in the things that that we that we can do. I I also don't think that it closes the door when you build something successful that other people are wanting to come alongside to do. Can we put 60,000 young people through a workforce program? But all of them don't need it. >> I I get that. But I also wonder how these these 1200 are going to be selected. >> Yeah. >> And from what areas are you going to look at NCI data? Are you going to look at >> I think they'll probably be a mix. I mean like I think the Yeah. Yeah. No, I think that's I think it's part I mean obviously the goal and this is the workforce investment dollars in particular. >> Um you also have to income qualify for those uh those dollars, right? And so our goal in the office of children and families is all around economic mobility. And so while we have not and I cannot tell you what that number would be, part of this is you know do you have the resources and then you know starting to build out some of that criteria but a lot of it does exist. And so we have to make a decision on you know is it um are we looking at uh you know the federal poverty rate like those types of things and those would be considerations. I mean the goal is not just to give any kid any work experience. the goal is all around economic mobility and so certainly there'll be some sort of income qualification. >> Now still you're still going to have a greater need than you have resources for. Um but but you know I >> my well he's this is sad but he's >> guess he's only 17 like >> about your son >> I know I know I almost made myself cry. Um like he wouldn't be in one of these programs right? Um it would be young people who you know who are who qualified or income qualified. >> Um so I I don't know if you've if if we're if there if the uh your mayor's office on children youth and health have have looked at other models. >> Um but the model uh specifically in in Omaha, Nebraska, I've talked to you about that before. they uh they have several initiatives in in their empowerment network but they started with youth and in youth job placement. what I'm hearing uh the little bit about you know the structure is very similar to theirs and they actually to your question they actually apply >> they have they they and income and all of those things are are part of that and then um and so yeah there's always some youth that that they go based on the funds that they have many can they actually accommodate and then [clears throat] they're selected you know based on those criteria but to your point there's always going to be a need I would be interested And I'm I'm I'm going call and find out how many their first year >> they started. They're well into it. But working with employers, >> right? >> Again, the same model, but it it's highly successful and it literally turned around uh their crime numbers. >> I mean, they were recognized by the uh White House for the work that they've done in Omaha. Google it if you look it up Omaha's youth employment program. Um and it it impacted so many areas but crime being one of them. But because that's what he did, right? >> He went and asked what what's the problem. He went to you and asked them. They like we don't have anything to do. >> And he changed that around and it impacted graduation numbers, employment. I mean it just >> it's a it's a and I think that was the the intent here is to find strategies that work that cities do. Like there's some things that the schools do we should never do because we don't we don't the expertise capacity. It's not just a resource question. It's a it's a whole bunch of other things. I think this one >> the other pardon the children youth and family bill is not something that uh I wanted to get too caught up in, but I did hear I think when I was here last time um just some questions about the activities of the office today. And so there's a quarterly update that I think hasn't come to you all. I think it's coming later. >> It's a follow from >> it's a followup from the meeting before. So you have it. I'm not going to spend a ton of time as speak directly to what's on the screen, but as you're looking through things that you have, um, this will, I think, come in the way of a council meeting in the future, but you have it as an update of the office for now. That'll be for another meeting at another at another time. >> The last portion of the uh of the document, the next portion is around economic development. I think I'll have it in front of me. And there were some questions and councelor Leon, you asked a little bit about the uh deal closing fund last time and what I was what I did a poor job of explaining is you know when we look on their deal closing fund was specifically mentioned but the intent with the $7.5 million was around business retention expansion. And I think at the time I mentioned the work that um I asked Aaron personally to really work that work up for us which was more of a overall economic development strategy. And so it was focused on the goals of job creation, business retention, small business support, uh residential commercial development. >> What was another document? >> An investment in city assets. Yeah, this is right. This is this is where Yeah, there there's >> there's another member that is in front of you all. That's what I >> She's also right this but she's also right. But I wanted to just refer back to >> So the seven question is this one >> the seven point. So I want you to turn to page four on in that in that. So this what you have in totality is you know an economic development strategy funding strategy that would include this this vision where we're looking for what's that >> page four in what >> in this package. >> Yeah. >> So on page four you see um a couple of bullets but the one that I wanted to draw everybody's attention to for the purpose of this is the business retention funding and revolving loans. Uh so this was a strategy as we were thinking about how do you really support existing businesses particularly as we you know could face some economic headwinds with all the things going on and trying to focus in on the basically the the backbone economy which is the folks who are here and how could we uh address some of the capital needs issues and a revolving loan fund and so this is separate from the deal closing fund but the deal closing a deal closing fund is something I think long-term room as far as economic development strategy is something that I would love for us to think about. >> What is that >> the deal closing fund? >> Yeah. What is it? >> So if you think about like for example if we get uh >> that's not in here. >> It's in that but it's not what I'm talking about in this $7.5 million because there was it was part of a broader uh economic development strategy. >> Okay. >> What we're talking about is business retention support with this thing. Um but I do think because I I just want to be very clear. I do think some sort of a deal closing fund in some way is a really good idea for the city. Now, and the example I would use is, you know, really our only economic development tool that we have for the most part and it would be nice to diversify the mix that we have when we think about incentives to be able to get companies here. And so that's why deal closing fund is is on there um and we kept it on there. But the real intention with the $7 million for this conversation has been all around how do we support existing businesses that are doing business today. And that is referenced more directly in the strategy on page four. Um less about the field fund, more about putting together some revolving loan programs for existing companies. >> When you say support, do you mean helping them expand? >> Could be. It could be helping them expand. It could be, you know, you got a new, say you got a new piece of machinery and you need support training your employees and you want to get access to capital, do that or something like that that you're going to pay back. Like we just have a and we'd have to there be, you know, some engagement on how do we make sure something's effective, easy access to capital, it could be paid back, right? So there's some rules that we'd have to establish, but the intention was around making sure that we had a retention fund. The best thing that we do, I think, for existing businesses right now, [snorts] um, is help connect them to each other and listen to them, be upset about stuff and not necessarily have real ways to help them. The primarily, for the most part, the incentives that we have are all for new companies coming in. We don't have a ton of to make sure people have decent time business. >> So up there, it says 7.5, but on the business retention funding, revolving loan, it says eight. >> Yeah. I mean, so well here. Yeah, for sure. So >> I just want to make sure what we talking >> the seven and a half the seven and a half there. We are talking about the same thing. This is as we put this together and we So you see the date on this this memo was in September 3rd. >> It said September 3rd. It was like hey what what would be our dream scenario if we're putting all these things together that's accurate to what again I would take bring to from a budget submission um this this next year. So if I was taking if if you all sent to a ballot and voters passed 7/10 of a penny, what you would get in my budget proposal back to you is $7.5 million for business retention. And but but this speaks to what that what that would be. The last portion uh on this document, this document up there, you're going to scroll down, Sarah, um is the taking care of what we have. U might be up again. Well, no, it's not. It was above the 7.51. >> Oh, sorry. I I skipped. All right. Yeah, sorry. >> Back to above. No, no, a little bit. >> 10.83. >> All right. There we go. Yeah. Sorry. I I got them out of order unintentionally. One of the priorities we talked about at the retreat um was to take care of what we have. And I know there was a desire this last year in the budget to fund animal [clears throat] services at an appropriate level. So, that is reflective here. Um, we've talked a lot about the cliff that we're on on municipal courts and all those are critical positions and so that 1.6 is also reflected here. The parks and facilities money frankly is not enough for what we need to do to to keep up, but but this is this is what we would send down. And then the employ the employee retention resources with sworn employees backed out of that is what you see uh there at the bottom. [snorts] We weren't able, as we all know, to get that done this budget year. I think it's critical that we that we do. Um I don't see a pathway to do that um in the current with the current budget. We're going to be very flat again this year with the goal to um get rid of that reliance on fund balance. And so, you know, there's not going to be the space to do that um unless we do something dramatically different with the with the budget. Now you can scroll on down to the next deal. >> Can I go back? >> Yep. >> So back to that seven 7.5. Yes, ma'am. >> So this document you focused on that one area, but it's this is not this in its entirety is not Yeah. No, that's a piece of a bigger strategy. So what what what that 7.5 is reflective of is a portion of this economic development strategy that we began to outline earlier this fall. And so that's what I wanted to make sure that when when when we come and talk about that seven and a half and how we want to spend it to support companies, it is referring to that one portion of a broader economic development strategy. It's going to take, >> you know, vision and all the other stuff to actually invest in deal closing fund. Yeah. like that that's not something that you know we even uh desire to do right now because I think it's to me a deal closing fund those kind of things are very much vision type of investments um okay >> those are not necessary >> these other categories would be more so in vision >> or we'll figure out how to resource them in different ways but the 8 mill the 7.5 million which is eight there is what I want us to focus on especially given the instability we see sometime economic making sure we can support local business here this is just I mean something that everybody is seeing I mean, everybody knows where we are from a um a dollars and cent standpoint on the sales tax rate uh and what this funding proposal is. It's, you know, 7/10 of a penny. Uh again, it is it is not uh nothing. I mean, it is real money and I know we talked last time about what does that cost uh a household. Um and so you have a spreadsheet and I'm >> there is I found it. Yeah, it's on the back of the W next decade uh document and that spreadsheet kind of outlines, you know, what what we cost. Now, I will say it's a bit of an overestimation because this estimates that only people in Tulsa pay sales tax in Tulsa. That means that there not one person that lives anywhere else that paid sales taxes, but it's sales tax just generally hard to be able to assess. And so as you can see on that spreadsheet, uh if you look all the way to the the second column from the right, um so the.710 of a penny or the 7/10 of a penny uh per year cost, family of four, $128. Um median household income cost $134 breaks out to as you can see the $10 a month on one end, the 1123 on the other. put slightly differently. A $10 purchase is going to cost uh a little less than a penny more. A $100 purchase is going to cost people.7 cents more. And $1,000 purchase is going to cost folks $7 more. Just to put it in context on the individual type of uh spend. Again, that is those are true. Um, but the the 128, the 134, the the average cost of folks to to the individual again is an overestimation assuming that only people in the city of Tulsa pay sales taxes in the city of Tulsa. So, those numbers will be low. Um, but it's it's it's really difficult to gauge. So, you kind of get a feel of of what we're talking about to the best extent um that we that we were able to do that. Um, yes, ma'am. So, small businesses don't pay sales taxes on what they resell, but they do pay sales sales taxes on what they purchase unless they're nonprofits, which in the state only has a very limited definition of what nonprofit or sales tax exempt. So, >> yeah. I mean, that is that is uh >> goods and services, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's that's blank. It's hard to get an estimate on that. Okay. Um there's certainly a cost to to really anybody that buys something essentially. What we wanted to do is get as much information as we could about the cost to the individual or family. Uh some of like I said sales like some of it is really really hard to to assess out. But I mean, one way to kind of think through that to an individual business, and that's the reason why we kind of broke out the $10,000 deal because you could extrapolate that out on a $10,000 purchase if you wanted to, for example, or, you know, $500,000 purchase, >> but just to give a sense because we know this is not everything like what it what this looks like as you think about jump. Um, so with all of that, um, I'm happy to take, uh, any questions, uh, might have. I think I want to just kind of reinforce a couple points and and I know I've talked to a couple counselors about this, um, about timing, um, you know, and I think there's been a lot of conversation about why now, why we why don't we have more time? And I think all those things are are reasonable questions. The biggest driver of it has been we have a state election now uh which took what was going to be a December 3rd timeline. I think if I'm not mistaken and made it a November 19th timeline um we did not necessarily account for that. The other reason, but the reason why February 10th is important uh from a policy perspective is because it ensures well a I mean should voters approve it, it ensures that the resources would come to us next budget year. So as we go through the budget process, we can go into it, we'll know by February 11th, uh if we're going to be able to appropriate additional dollars so we can not necessarily make a decision about additional money in a vacuum. I think the best way to get the greatest impact u from all the resources city has to solve problems is to do it all the next uh budget cycle I think that's really really important. I would also note that things like safe move for example um was paid for out of ARPA and opioid dollars. So that means that there's not general fund money currently um that we have uh to to resource that. I mean, you know, we can make some decisions about that, but it certainly doesn't mean that you're going to have to find somewhere else. But I think as we look at the numbers that we got from experts and stuff like that, we don't have the resources currently to do the things that we need to do. And I do feel like we're at a space where citizens understand that. I think they have a much broader understanding than we probably give them credit for about the position the city's in right now. And so I continue to push. Although I know it's quick and I'm not doing it to, you know, make people feel uncomfortable. I'm doing it because I think it is the very best policy direction for the city. Um, and I, you know, I said before, like I I don't I don't take any pleasure in being like, hey, you know what we need to do? You know, I I was just just celebrated my first uh year since I've been elected. I did not expect to be here saying, you know, we need to raise revenue to do these things, but but we're in that place. I know everybody is aware of the budget and balance we have, the reliance on fund balance. Um, you know, we we obviously have to take care of that, but we have a big city to take care of. Went back and looked the Oklahoma City sales tax rate where it is. Um, I just went back the last seven years and said, you know, if we were equal to Oklahoma City, even, we would have invested an additional $420 million in ourselves since 2018, as an example. Um, and I don't think Oklahoma City's gotten smaller. I don't think that people have been trying to move out of there. Oklahoma City has gotten it's grown. It's it's fine. It's vibrant. Uh, I think that we've said over and over again, and it's true, that, you know, Tulsa's the most generous city And I don't I think that folks understand there we go. But I also don't think that that is limited to, you know, folks who are wealthy. I think a lot of folks recognize the challenges that the city faces and they want to see us do something about them. And I I want us to give them that opportunity. >> Yeah. I have a few questions that I've gotten from constituents over the past week. Um actually I guess even like over the I think I got tagged in something before I came in here and I was like, "Okay, that was a good question." Um why for your point related to like the amount and um like you know Oklahoma City, why go above Oklahoma City and our neighbors? And I this ties in with the a following question of did the $80 million amount get determined first and then backended into it should increase to this amount or was it let's increase it this amount and that'll give us 80 mill you know like which what came. So, so you know, we thought about this initially on a um I think I think the the initiative was conversation around 510 if I'm not mistaken. And then what we got was um for 510, you know, we would be in the $50ish million range. And then, you know, then we're looking at, okay, what are the what are the glaring needs that we have as a community? And if we were to take the resources around homelessness and public safety alone, um that is every last penny of that money just about. Uh that doesn't get us on the employee retention side, doesn't disound miss reports or animal services, whatever. So really backed into it based on what we knew were needs from last budget year, every year needs from last budget year, the emerging challenges that we have and the desire uh to really jump ahead so we can get ourselves on a better pathway when it comes to the law enforcement being able to recruit. So this is not just about giving people raises. This is a strategy to for recruitment. And I think we have all heard uh number of times you know we say well we don't have enough for this that the other. I think the other part and it's 100% true is this is my view. Uh I do think that a marker of how a community is doing overall is how it invests in young people and and I think that's critical. And so it was less about um we just came up with a number and 80 million was the number. It was more about hey let's take a look at it's been 45 years since we did this before when it was raised by an entire penny. Um, this is about really the next 25 years. Not about a bad budget year or anything like that, but about the city making a decision that I think, you know, was probably going to be at least 25, maybe 45 years before the city does it again. So, like knowing that homelessness is a challenge today. Our goal is that it won't be a challenge for the f for future generations, but there will be new challenges and the city's going to have to be in a position to meet those challenges without having to have a you know a sales tax increase conversation every 5 years to to meet those needs. >> Um and then thank you. That's I think that's helpful context. And then as another um question that I've gotten from a number of constituents like right we all know that we don't have a lot of different options when it comes to taxable like you know taxable resources right we don't property tax isn't something the city collects um and so I've had uh folks you know I think especially in light of what's been happening with SNAP and things like that concerned about how this is regressive and I know that's been of course a conversation topic before was there ever has there been an eye or consideration on um doing an increase that would exempt food or hygiene products like this is something just like if we're doing a this a regressive approach because I will also name that right we know that it's regressive these kinds of things hurt people who are the poorest the most and then that's where you want to show that ROI on hey how's it going to get back into those like most vulnerable people's pockets or like cause like the least amount of harm to them economically and it's kind of a like Keynesian economic approach to be like hey this is definitely going to benefit you so I was trying to think of like harm reduction ways to mitigate that. So did get curious if there was any eye or lens on yeah like exempting certain basic need items. >> Yeah, that's not something that that I have had a conversation about and I'll tell you kind of my thinking around that is because we are so limited in what we can do. Further limiting yourself actually then puts you in a kind of back in the same spot in a lot of ways. And I what I don't want us to lo not that I'm saying that we are but I think the thing to remember is that there's also a high degree of accountability with this stuff. So we're saying hey you're investing and we're delivering on something because it is mitigating some of the challenges around homelessness. Uh it's mitigating the public safety issues. It's making sure that we're putting um some some money into these programs that help these young people in the economic mobility. It actually is investing in small businesses. So, so there's part of this where like there's a there's a costbenefit deal even to the taxpayer I think has to be that that they that they ultimately have to make a decision about. Um but you know as we start to carve out things there's an impact that and I think the other thing that is true and because I don't I totally get where people are coming from uh on that is that as I think about income taxes that we all pay some of that money right now that we all pay in is you know in Alabama or South Carolina. Uh some of the income taxes and state sales taxes that we pay some of that money is in Burns Flat and some of that money is in you know Paul's Valley. um the sales tax revenue that people pay in is staying right here to solve problems that we have right here because we have zero control over the money that's going to DC or the money that's going to Oklahoma City. And because we have zero control, um we don't have the ability to make decisions at this table and in this building about how we're going to meet the needs that our citizens are facing. We got to hope somebody else is going to make that decision. And so I would just say like I think there's also a part of it where the return on investment although regressive and no doubt and I think it's crazy that the state of Oklahoma limits cities the way it does. Um although regressive every piece of that resource comes right back here to make this city better. And so like again I I've not had a conversation about that. I don't know how it would impact things on the projections, but I think it would impact in a way that it would sorely hamper our ability to address the needs that we have identified. >> Yeah. And then I do just want to clarify, this is just like a kind of to the public, right? We're discussing all of what could be done and you know, we just went through in depth what could be done with increased revenue, but what we're talking about putting up for a vote isn't allocating those dollars right now. Like I just want to make sure like, right, we're kind of going, hey, with these dollars, we could do this and invest in the community in this way. um with a lot of like things that are I think really good like you know goals and what we're actually talking about still is just broad money which I'll stop now. just wanted to make sure like I think I've gotten a lot of different like people you know I've gotten emails where someone's like you need to let us vote for this so that we can start investing in kids and I'm like that could lead to that happening or all of us um lo what if what if every single counselor here doesn't get elected next cycle and you have a whole bunch of people who either you know if like you know I would like pour it all only into police which some people would be like I don't know about that or pull it all into the economic pet project. I want to be I want to be really careful. I want to be really careful that no but I'm just naming that like if there are different folks at this table or yeah some people might have their certain you know each needs or things like that or lack a lot of the context that we all have. I'm I'm just naming that you know I know we can all definitely you know commit to clear goals together. We have budget retreat. There's all these processes, but what we're actually voting on is creating like just that bucket of dollars to have more things happen, which could be different things. I just I want to be really transparent with the public because I have people who like I feel very valued with reaching out really excited about the opportunity to fund some really specific things that they really care about or it's a field they work in or they're in a nonprofit and they're, you know, really invested in this happening. And I just want to be really clear with people that that doesn't guarantee that that's what comes to fruition with these dollars. Like I just I want to be really transparent with people about that. It could be what some of us hope happens with them, but it's not guaranteed. >> Yeah. I I and I I think that is um that is factually accurate. I believe I would also say every last one of those things are impossible without doing it. I'll also say that if if we get this done, like I'm going to send that down. So I mean I think I think you're right. Yeah, that we were intending to deal with this. >> Yeah. No, you're you're you're 100% correct. I just I just also want to say with that I mean like I think this is a this is a tough deal and that like I I feel like the city at least citizens right now um trust local government more than they trust any other level of government. It's a testament I think to uh the folks around the table. So I mean I I want to name that and I think we do have a responsibility to invest these things not because because of this deal but because we told people these are things we care about and so I think there's a a level of you know us making the decision uh here >> um to to do that. So, like you're you're you're absolutely right and I do think we'd be smart. I've had this conversation with councelor Gilbert and I think I'll go and say this on the record because I've told you that I would that when it comes to portions of this that we might want to go back and protect for the long haul. Uh I think you know I'd be very supportive of doing that. Part of this conversation started as many people remember with me wanting to protect the children's money for example. I know there's [snorts] also a desire to um increase a portion of the public safety tax so that that always sticks there. And so I am very supportive of that. I also want to make sure from a policy perspective um although we could have some really terrible people who get elected one day that we also make sure >> I hope [laughter] my goodness >> just when I thought this meeting was doing better than the last one [laughter] >> um you know I will I will say I think putting [snorts] uh future leaders in a position to solve problems of the day is going to be really really important. So like I you know I think again I think that voters are smart. There's $419 million that we appropriated last year and not all that was protected for very specific purposes. There's a responsibility of being an elected official. Um, and I think, you know, I feel like at least my small sample size of time here, I think we've proven um that that we're a responsible bunch of people. >> Archie, Dr. Wright. >> Oh, yes. Thank you. Um, thank you for the presentation. I um will agree with Councelor Bellis. Um, regressive taxes. I heard it said cut into the fat of the rich and into the bones of the poor. Um, and so I think if we're um going to um have a regressive tax, we either just need I think exemptions might be a um an idea or just the ability to communicate to our residents uh to some of the um our poorest residents, these are how these investments are going to disproportionately benefit you or you know um that's that's a thought that I have there. And then also maybe following up on the conversation you and councelor Gilbert were having just about maybe the public safety tax. I see homelessness, public safety, youth and families, uh animal shelter, um and then you know business retention. A lot of the feedback that I've been getting from residents isn't necessarily that we don't need these investments, but can you create buckets where the money is just is sort of uh just allocated toward I know that this bucket will be the, you know, homelessness bucket. I I think if we can demonstrate that Safe Move Tulsa is very effective, I don't think people would be against funding it, but it feels to and I don't play basketball. I like to watch basketball, but I feel like um some folks are thinking of, you know, in the beginning of a basketball game, you take um you have the jump ball and if you would just write $80 million on the jump ball and it's like every year you just throw it up and then we're we're going to compete over those those dollars. if we could give a little bit more assurance that these are sort of the buckets that our priorities I don't I don't know what sort of mechanism that I you know would would happen but >> can you clarify that >> that's that's a sort of concern that I think um people are less you know >> yeah I I I think I hear you and you know I I look down at Sarah I look down at Jack um I don't think there's anything as appropriate that would stop you all from doing that. Um I don't think it has to happen prior to um voters making a decision about or you all making decisions into the ballot. Uh I think we could that could we come back and do that. I I think that's the question. Could you create protected buckets for a certain amount of time or >> you think you would clarify the mechanism to you counselor the two like the two ways or I think what I'm hearing and let me know if I'm wrong about what like the mayor's saying I because I think one of the proposals is that we could either like put this up to a vote and simultaneously work on or even after if it passes work on an ordinance saying this is how we're planning to gen do with this revenue. Granted we know that you can change and edit ordinances. the other options when you look at something like the public safety tax where when it got put up to the actual vote you have the bucket. So those are like the two which that's a lot >> and you could have other buckets. >> Yeah, you could you could have other buckets which could be more broader, more narrow potentially >> specific ballot items. >> Yeah. I feel like maybe people would feel more comfortable voting yes for it if when they looked at it they said this is what I'm voting for. >> Yeah. I I I don't I don't disagree with that. I think I think we're in a space where people feel very comfortable voting. uh now and the reason and so I say this not to say that's not important. So because I want to go back to like the trade-off because I think this is where I'm coming from saying like yes you were 100% right. I think that would >> that would make people feel maybe even better about it. I think I think public opinion is people feel really good about it right now but the the trade-off for me is I think the best possible opportunity that we would have to do this if we don't do it in February is next November. year from now >> and you know differences of you know how we might feel about waiting that long to make investments into homelessness, make investments into public safety, make investments into young people is probably maybe more of a conversation. So I think you're right. had me. I think like for me the the um the intensity in which we have to communicate to the public around trust that we're going to do what we said we're going to do which you know we'll turn around budget process really quickly. I think trading that just because of the the policy and business reason why it's important I think for us to assure that we do these things long term is the offset for me. So, I'm not saying like I think the the um um the spirit in which you're talking I do agree with I think the business policy reason why wise I think about us making next year's budget, us here trying to make sure that we put those dollars to work, us making sure we're accountable to that things are getting better. Um saying that we know we have all these problems, but we're going to wait a year to do some of them. I think that is an even that's a tougher thing. and just saying is the seat I I sit in trying to um trying to make these things work. That makes it really really tough on policy and business. >> No, I I think I recognize the tension of you're driving down the car, there's only so much gas, which is funding. We don't want to run out of gas before, you know, which if we don't have the funding next year, maybe we start running on fumes. I would um I don't know if I I don't want to say I disagree with you, but the feedback that I'm receiving is either neutral, I need more questions, or I'm I am maybe not as excited about it. I I think because of the education piece, I'm not getting a ton of folks like heck yeah, I really want to. And so and so it's the so I re there's a tension that we're that we're experiencing. And so that's what I'm just trying to work through. >> Yeah. And I and I think I would what I'm say because I think I think you're I I I would u I I I believe that to be true. And I guess where I land on this is um because I think I don't know if we all I think we mostly agree that something has to be done. Um I think where I've been at and where our team has been at is like figure out the feasibility of getting something done. And then me as as mayor being willing to stick my neck out there to try to go make sure we go get it accomplished by February the 10th. I mean, we have 75 days if we pass it to go run a campaign to get it done. And that's going to have to be a place we, you know, answer some of those questions and make sure people feel comfortable. And then we, the 10 of us here, are going to have to deliver come next budget cycle. then we the 10 of us are going to have to figure out um even if it's already passed if we believe which I think many of us do that some of the money needs to be protected for the long haul in certain buckets I think we should do that not just because it makes people want to vote for it but because it's the best thing politically I think one of the challenges that we can run into and I don't think this is this is a case of it is that oftent times when we're trying to put together things go to voters is we're making a lot of political decisions about what should go where and who needs this and wherever and it waters down the impact. I don't think this is happening here. All I'm saying is is that I think it does make the politics a little bit harder. I think ultimately it makes the policy a lot better because now we're making really really good policy decisions and not trying to just jump through the part. I think the reality is people are >> supportive of the areas. I think people may be hesitant to believe that we can actually deliver on and that's what we have to do improve. >> Okay. And then last thing and then I I'll be quiet. I think there's also a sentiment we use fund balance every year which a lot of folks view as the emergency fund. So we're it's like a even though it's not right that structurally there's a there's an issue and people are saying uh we need to just manage our finances better. is would you agree with the statement we cannot cut our way to um to um prosperity? >> Yes, we should make some cuts, but we just need more revenue to make to make it work to where long-term we're not dipping in the fund balance. Is there a way do you see a city where we can not do these these investments and cut our way into not dipping into fund balance? Uh, look, we could we in theory we could, you know, we could we could cut the budget $10 million. I mean, it would impact >> core services. We could we could certainly do that. >> I don't think it would be smart to do. I don't think we should do that. Um, but we but we could. Um, I think the the the reliance on fund balance to me is more of a, you know, decision on how you're going to run your fiscal policy. I don't think it's great to do that because if you do run into a dip here and there, you want to be able to weather those without without any interruption. And so, like, I don't and it's a practice for a long time. It's not a bad practice necessar. It's not a horrible practice. I just it's just not as as mayor, as >> uh chief executive of the city, it's not something that I want to continue. But I don't think it would be smart to try to cut your way there. >> We would be an outlier in cities our size who made that decision instead of I mean as we if we were to scroll up a little bit Sarah if you don't mind. Um well it just No. Oh, scroll down. Actually, I meant so the other part goes up right here. Um, you know, a lot of other cities have made the decision that, you know, what's an appropriate sales tax rate is, you know, important to consider. And I think that's the conversation that we're having right now. I mean, you know, even [snorts] with the 710 of a penny, um, you know, we are lower in Sky for example, Midwest City, Collinsville, Limpool, we got a lot to catch up to. So, so I think, you know, I think voters understand understand that. I don't think cutting your way there is is the best way to do it. And I think having an honest conversation about the needs of the city, which is, you know, what we want to go and have with voters is the best way to do it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes sir. >> Director, >> thank you. Thanks for your questions, Councelor Argie. You're one of our newer folks to the city and um I think you're reflecting your community's questions and concerns. I um am going to do the same. So, I just want to push back a little bit. Mayor, I'm sure you're surprised. Um, it's either February or November. We have options in in April and in August. >> So, can I just explain the April deal just the sensitivity there? Um, as a community partner, >> there was a real tension on other things that other entities are going to go to the ballot in April. So I think it's really important for I like if I want to explain like for me I'm not February is only important because it helps us on the business side right so like you know it would be but we have made a commitment for other community partners who have important things they're concerned about that April wouldn't be um us being a great partner. Okay, thank you for clarifying. >> Um, and you know, just in my experience, given um, some of the other issues that are out there, I don't think the August ballot or June ballot are great options for it. I do think November is the would be the next best available option. >> So, August is municipal ballot. I've repeatedly said I think that's good timing. So, I'd be curious to know how we um, discuss August or November. I understand, you know, November's a statewide election. There'll certainly be people turning now. Um I'm not hearing consensus from you all that we're even all in agreement that if we were to increase sales tax that we'd want to go to a point 7. Um I will just say I've not received any feedback from my community that they want to do any of it. They have a lot more questions like councelor um Archie had surfaced. Uh, some have asked that because the state cut 4.5 on groceries, did we just kind of run the clock down and now we're jumping in because that window just closed. And so I've been trying to explain that to them. I appreciate the questions about maybe exemptions. Um, those are good questions. I don't even know if we are permitted to do something like that by law to kind of carve out um on like basic um purchases. I would say the average citizen, no matter what income level you're at, you're making grocery purchases on a monthly, maybe even weekly uh basis. And so that's probably the the most often they're feeling that sales tax. And I remember when the state was advocating to cut the grocery tax, how much we had talked at these tables about, you know, making sure that our constituents understood they're still going to see a sales tax at the checkout. And that's the citizen engagement piece. Um, I think we should continue to discuss how we're using fund balances. Um, I'm certainly open to understanding a different way. I guess one of my questions would be like if we're not appropriating at the end of the year, um, where does it go? Does it just go into the rainy day fund or the emergency operations fund, which we have been very diligent about creating and funding, but like where would those funds go? Um, and then just thinking more on this is a once in a generation ask. I think I agree with you. I don't think every five or 10 years we should be going out and saying let's adjust unless there was some really compelling reason to do it andor if the state would adjust our revenue uh [laughter] diversification, we might have a different conversation. But um I understand the needs right before us since the last time we did this. All of us were children are not born yet. It seems to me like there's you know the long-term thing and so things like carveouts like councelor Bell has brought out or just helping people understand the difference between a five and a seven which um there are people who don't think that we should go higher than our neighbors for a bunch of reasons. Um, I also understand that our neighbors don't have the same challenges that we have to solve and some of them are contributing to our challenges by not having the services in the nearby communities. So, that's all something we need to talk to people about. I think um the other thing that's come up and I don't know that it's come up this um term yet, but there's had been a lot of conversation around citizen participatory budgeting as a concept and a way to engage the public because it is a mystery to them so often. And so, I didn't know if this um new major monies would come along with some sort of plan like that. We're talking about buckets and we're talking about one way of doing it which is you know running a charter amendment where there's a lock box and we've done that before. The citizen participatory budgeting also has some um caveats around it that other communities engage in and I know some of us at the table have looked at that over the years. So, those are kind of when we're talking about policies um things that have come up for me personally. And then really from constituents, it's um we're all doing more with less and they don't understand why we can't do what we need to do without coming back to them. Um and maybe we just need to make, you know, the case of how much all of this is going to cost. I think the $30 million um to end street sleeping is stunning to a lot of our constituents in a way. We've not talked about it in that way before. So, it is a reality that it takes an investment. >> People are concerned if we build it, they will come. And so, we're the most generous city in America and we have so much support. The narrative, and I I'm not saying it's true, but the narrative out there with some people is because we offer all these services, just more people are coming. And so, I know that's not true. I've done the PIT count. We looked at the data. Um, the majority of people that are experiencing these challenges are from our communities for a variety of reasons. But um that is a big concern right now when we're when I'm talking to people on fixed incomes or um [snorts] you know stretching the dollar further. They're like I have to scramble to put food on my table and do all these things and you know now I'm supposed to like also fund people who are experiencing homelessness. There's some people that feel that's necessary. I think there's a lot of people that don't understand why it's $30 million and you know I think it [clears throat] just the the clutch presentation was stunning I think to a lot of people. Um and I I've tried to point people at Houston made like a hundred million dollar investment. We got to functional zero on um veteran homelessness which we are very close if not there already here in Tulsa. I think a lot of people don't know that. um and they're a bigger community than we are. But I think those are the big questions. I did have something um about the 15 million on the mayor's office of children, family, and youth. I see you kind of like did havsies. Where's the one with the >> It was between after school and workforce shift. >> So kind of like um school age versus young adults. >> Yeah. I mean that's that's one way to think about it. >> Okay. And then um what other communities of similar size to ours has like a $15 million investment like this ongoing? Do you know? >> So there's a couple. Um >> are there any in Oklahoma? >> Uh I don't know what Oklahoma City does. There's really only one comp we have in the state. So I'm not exactly sure what Oklahoma City does in that realm. >> I mean if you So I mean I'm looking at Orlando here, Oakland. We heard Omaha, Nebraska, uh New Orleans, um Baltimore. So, they all have these dedicated children funds. >> Uh, let's see. Uh, Oakland has a 3% set aside if I'm not mistaken. Uh, some of them come from things like marijuana resources. So, some cities, I mean, the thing to remember is we are far more restricted than a lot of cities are. So, >> um, this is the mechanism that we have and I understand people being very frustrated about. I wish I could change it. Um, tried for eight years for the record. um didn't quite get there. Um and I think there's a conversation to be had there. I think the and I think this is goes with the honest conversation bill and I think this is true and this is the reason why like a tax increase is not something that you know I want to do. Um I think it's necessary. I don't want to do it is because there are a zillion reasons to be against increasing taxes. There there's nothing but reasons to be against it. Um, and I think there are reasons to be for investing in things and it's just there's that's the mechanism to do it. And I I do remember I do recall that at least I think I was told and I don't remember exactly who told me that I don't think this is unique to Tulsa, but like at one point I did have counselors before I got elected tell me that for a long time the city did not necessarily think homelessness as an example was something for the city to do. >> And and I think we Lori, Dr. Right. >> We [laughter] we uh we are evolving on that and it's not because, you know, you know, we want to make sure we're a magnet for it. It's because it is a true and real impact to businesses, to neighborhoods, to schools, um you know, the the cuts that we've seen in mental health and everything else. I mean, it's there. And the reality is 3,100 people fall into it every year. I saw an article in the Tulsa World today that said philanthropy is paying 42% of the tab on it. Um this is a public policy challenge as is in my opinion the children in the use of as is all the other things. I mean we should not be surprised that certain things happen in our community if we're not investing to make sure they don't. And it's not a criticism. It's just like we just know more about how all these things feed into each other. I think is is probably a better a better way to put it. And so everybody's constituents that are saying we're very concerned about this um they should be concerned about it and everything else. I mean, I think they also share concerns and and again, I just all the data that I've seen, people are also concerned about the issues that this aims to begin to mitigate very aggressively. And I think, you know, we should lean into that. And so, I I think you asked a question about the um the different dates in the 0.5 versus the 7. I don't know if that was a a question that u you wanted me to to respond to or not. >> That's fine. I mean, I just think some of us around the table have said maybe not 7, maybe more of a point 4.5. >> Yeah. I mean, I think I think in that case again, I mean, I feel like um based on everything that I've seen and you know, Facebook posting maybe a few messages, which I know the the ch the concerns are much broader than that for the record. Um, people in this community by and large understand that we need to do something dramatically different. I think giving them an opportunity to vote is meet them where they are. I think us being accountable to how we spend money should they improve it is going to be really critically important. Um I don't I don't necessarily and again I think this is I'm the only person who airs on this side I think um right now airing on the side of what allows us to have the best chance of addressing these issues in the most aggressive way that we can plan for right now is where I'm airing on. Uh, and it's in large part because, you know, I feel as mayor a tremendous amount of pressure, which is a good thing, to get things done. And I think people across the community recognize that, too. And I want them to have the opportunity to to make a decision on it. And I will say this, I mean, I don't know if there's additional questions. I I want I want to reiterate I've heard from folks um after Jackie >> she has questions I have questions and we got to really wrap up. All right, let's go. So I'll start in >> go ahead. We can go over >> um >> I appreciate everything that my colleagues have asked and the uh explanation. Mayor, I just am going to make mine short. I'm glad that you clarified that the there are other opportunities for the elections coming up and I really wanted to kind of clear this narrative that's being spread through social media and whatnot that we aren't as a council letting citizens vote and um I don't think anybody here on the council is opposed to bringing issues to the voters. I think I can speak for myself that um I think we need to educate the voters more deeply and clearly and be more concise and offer them a time frame that's going to be a lot more practical uh than 75 days out and the fact that we have holidays coming up, we have tax season coming up and there's just a lot of uh extenduating circumstances I that are going to make uh a vote to the people in February as something that we have to really consider. [snorts] So >> that's all I have to say. >> I hear you. And you know, my my desire made it pretty clear. Um, and I think it's just having the responsibility of actually, you know, trying to pull these things together in a way it's going to where I can go tell citizens we're getting these things done. My desire still remains and I and I I'm comfortable knowing there's not a lot of people around this table who support it. Um, my desire is that the council takes a vote on November 19th on February. And I think if there's after that you guys don't support it [clears throat] and you want to get together and put together a council process that makes that that gets you all to a more comfortable place. I think that's, you know, that's I still I don't have to be convinced of it. Um, I can tell you like for me and I and and again like I I don't like the short time window um you know because I I I want everybody to feel comfortable but this I think citizens understand it um enough in a way that we could go out and communicate with them uh get them to a comfortable place by the time we get to February. Um, I think these are all areas that folks are not like this is not us taking some diversion from what we've talked about to do some random stuff. [snorts] This is a straight straight line. Um, and I think, you know, the things that we as an administration have set out to do and how we've implemented, we haven't done everything right, but I'm very proud of how we how we've done it. And I want us to continue to have the continuity as we move forward. And and a lot of people may say, Mr. Mayor, you're wrong. Like council thinks you got to screw up all the time. Um but but I I believe it to be critical um that February is a is a day and I I want everybody to try to get comfortable with it. And if not, I understand it. But uh I think I I I hope you all take a vote on the strength of the fact that I feel like I've been pretty upfront, very honest about things. >> I appreciate that. I just that narrative though that you just said that we don't all support it and I'm not trying to start. >> No, no, I meant the February 10th date. >> Yeah, that's that's what I'm saying. >> And I want the constituents and the people that are listening that we haven't made a decision >> Sure. >> of this and that we haven't been presented enough uh information to go within this 75day span to convince people. So, that's that's all I'm saying is that it would be helpful to let people know that we're all working this together and that it's not a cons. It's not a council versus mayor's staff issue. This is something that we're all working on together for the better of the public. And so I just want that narrative out there that, you know, we're not we're not trying to >> should be to be clear. I don't think anybody has a problem with the staff. I think maybe >> I'm just that, you know, I I just want a clear narrative, but um that they have time as well as, you know, being citizens to be able to decide. And so, you know, I don't think that saying that we here at the table are not for it. is not accurate. >> Yeah, I unless anybody else has any questions on [cough] >> then I'll wrap up. >> Okay. So, and I appreciate you answering all these questions just a baseline just so I can think about moving forward. This is plan A. What is plan B? >> Uh this is for me plan A, B, C, and D through Z. I think if if my alphabet plan, lack of better term, uh doesn't work out, I mean, I look forward to uh how the council would would want to proceed. Um I I think for me, my alphabet plan in this case, also brings us back into the budget process still has us plenty of time to make decisions about how we might protect certain pots of pots of money. Um, but you know, I don't think that we'd be having a revenue raising conversation had I had [cough] we not brought it up as an administration. And I think it's critically important for me in that throughine and how we've been working uh to take that to voters. Now, I think that might be different like, you know, as far as this very direct conversation, I think it's fine. But, you know, for for me, I think February because it allows us to continue to have some, you know, assurance on how we're going to invest, we at least, you know, and we'll know one way or the other. >> Mhm. >> Um, as somebody, you know, leading this organization in in that way, it is critically important. So, this is for me. Now, there might be a plan B that the council initiates and works through. I think that's great. I mean, I think it's we basically switch places in that um and in in roles as it relates to, you know, what the future could look like. Um but for me, it's it's very much focused and it's because I'm more driven by the challenges out in front of us. Councelor Bingle mentioned last time uh that uh kind of [snorts] maybe a I don't know if you were trying to say it was a positive or negative personality trait of mine. Uh don't answer that question actually. >> Ask ask person. >> Yeah. But you know my deal is a focus on being able to address the issues and you know if you know you all as a legislative body you're like hey pump the brakes on it. That's that's that's your decision and I and I understand and I respect that. >> Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> Um last comments for me, they'll be a little bit repetitive. Um you said I don't have to be convinced by it. Um >> I I do have to be convinced by it. Um and that's what I've been trying to to get my head around. You and I have talked many many times about various elements of this, not all elements of it. Um today we are given 31 pages to to look through um and so some of those documents we've seen not all those documents for sure um and try to listen and work through this all now in a 7day period. That's all we have left between now and the the 19th. So I am trying to wrap my head around what you're trying to do. I know you have goals out there. I think I've supported you and every single one of the goals you brought down here, whether it be the budget or other elements. You put children, youth, and families on our retreat agenda um at the very end. And you know, we've we've been able to put hundreds of thousands and 200s of thousands of dollars into that program um that still haven't all been used yet because the fiscal year isn't done and we still have a lot of work to do and a lot to learn. But it's it's hard for me to say, "Okay, I can vote for this next week." Um, to give $15 million potentially to this program without fully even knowing where those dollars are going to go. We we talked about it for five minutes or so. But I don't know if really we're going to receive revenue and then distribute that to nonprofit organizations or how exactly that will be used across the city. I think it's still I I think we're we're building it as it goes rather than knowing definitively before it goes where those dollars are going to be spent. And that's just how I'm wired. It's the It's the same way with Clutch. You know, I've talked to Clutch for 30 minutes. Well, we all talk to Clutch for 30 minutes collectively. And I know Shane has arranged for some counselors to talk to Clutch on Friday. I'm going to be out of town, so I can't participate in that. But still, that's five days before we're being asked to vote on this. So, I I would like to build this together. I I I don't want you to say, "Hey, um if you don't like my plan, then you can come up with your plan and then maybe I'll I'll get on board with that plan." And I would really try to find a united way to move forward on this together so that we can really do a lot of what if whatifalysis and um go line by line through a process and say you know what at the end of the day we we think we may need 53 uh percent as a as an increase in revenues to take care of homelessness, public safety, and a few of those other items. uh because because we we can't get our heads around spending so much in these other categories. But at least we would have done it together in public around this table and then given it to the public for them to um learn about and then provide feedback on and then let us move forward with their feedback incorporated into our ultimate plan. We've done it four [snorts] times. It's been very successful. I I know you have [clears throat] mandates. I know you have goals and I want to support you in those goals, but I can I I cannot support this process. I can't process all the information that's just really been dropped on this table publicly for the first time and and get myself to a yes in a very short amount of time on it. It's not just an $80 million project. It's a it's billions of dollar project because it's a it's a permanent undedicated tax. >> Yeah. I mean, it will eventually reach a billion dollars. after a very very long time. So yes, I mean I think be careful saying like it's but I get where you're coming from. I would also say like I mean I did come into this conversation I think voters in or this community is in a spot where they would be surprised to know that elected officials haven't spent more time like thinking about approach to ending street homelessness. I think I came into this thinking that there was more that had been thought about. And so like I I I think the and and I'm not saying it's true, but it's like it kind of shocks me and say, "Well, we haven't talked to Clutch." It's like, but we know the issue and we know it it's it's it's going to be expensive. And I and I I so I think that there's a lot of things that we do know and I do appreciate that. So I I don't say it because I believe that's true. I know it's not true. Like you guys have had three task force. I looked at the other deals the things the other day. Um everything from the pre-approved plans to the outreach stuff and everything. It's very consistent. And so like while Clutch hasn't been the person that you've talked to, I think my point is these are all the conversations that we have had and I think maybe in some ways we've made about one entity. And so I I would actually say counselor that you and all the counselors around have had these conversations and you've been very thoughtful about these conversations for a very very long time. But what I what I'm concerned about, and [snorts] I will take this as a criticism on me, is that I've done a really poor job drawing the connection between every conversation that you all have had and what this is. Because while it's true the clutch plan is something like the clutch in of itself, what is not true is that you have not you all have already been leaders in doing this stuff already. >> It's not just discussions. We've gotten a lot of work done at this. >> No, this is that's actually my point. Yeah, that's my point. My point is is that it sound it sounded like a dig at first. It was not a dig. It was like >> just turn off that. >> They would be Yeah. No, easy. I was people would be surprised to think that I guess I should say and they would be wrong because I've seen the so the I can't remember offhand completely but from the 3 task force I saw low barrier shelter. I saw outreach workers. I saw pre-approved plan. I saw encampment decommissioning. I saw those things. That is what's in that document for from clutch. The only thing that's new is to do it at scale is going to be $30 million. And this is an organization that does the things that this city has said for a long time we needed to do, I guess, is the point. >> Can we get the back end of like the methodology behind the numbers? Because per your point, I'm sure it lines up with a lot of that. I mean, that's that's just another thing that would be helpful. >> Yeah. My my point is No, that's fair. I mean, I think my I guess my point of that is is that it's not inconsistent with all the things that have been talked about here for a very very long time. U the fact that me as mayor have done a poor job of communicating that to you as a counselor is a failure on my part. Um, but if you had five days with Clutch, everything that they would be talking about are things that you would say, "Oh, yeah, we've been talking about that for a very very long time, >> right?" Uh, and so that and that that's that's kind of that's that was my overarching point. Not mean to make everybody upset, but this is >> No. And I would I would broaden it really >> I broaden it even more to children, youth, and families. We haven't we really we really have been lost around this table with some of the >> conversations that we've had. We haven't received a lot of answers to some questions that we've put out there. And then >> so >> and then we get confused by some of the information that's that's out and and you don't have to respond everything. Well, I do think I do think it's important because like I I think what the team has desired to do >> when you all when there's been questions about the Office of Children and Families, I think the information you've gotten back has been very process heavy because trying to show like, hey, we talked about participatory budgeting as an example. It's kind of the same kind of thing as you're arriving to decisions on the things that you might do. Um, which is not doesn't speak to well, if you had $5 to spend what you what would you spend them all? we just now have that conversation around well workforce and out of school time would be those two areas right and so I think what you've gotten from the office is like hey counselors we want you to see that we're being really thoughtful about how we're coming up with these with these ideas um but they certainly informed what's what's on the piece of paper so but I but I hear what you're saying yeah and then then the last piece just has to do with the order of things um if if we vote to put this on the ballot Then we'll be doing voter education, telling the voters, hey, here's what we came up with on your behalf, rather than going out and saying, hey, what can we put in the the project or let let us tell you about these opportunities that are included in this tax packages, get your feedback, and then incorporate it into the tax package. >> So, I'm just not a not a good voter I'm not a big voter education fan where we or we put things on them. I'm I'm more incorporating their opinions into it and then obviously you have to educate them about the fact that yeah, we're going to have a vote on X date. >> Yeah. >> But if you're if you're trying to convince them after we as a body have already passed it, >> I I think you're kind of dead in the water. >> Well, I mean I I think that I think at least on the dead in the water part on voters, I don't think that's true. I think voters from a consistency standpoint understand these issues are critically important. This is different than saying we're going to build something or we're going to do that and do we support this individual capital project, right? Like I think this is a very different conversation. It is a conversation around investing in these areas to address these problems to get to functional zero homelessness to put kids on the pathway economic mobility to uh increase uh our public safety numbers and and such increase public safety across this community. So like it's not it's not the typical package that I think it's been done over and over again here. Um this is a this is significantly different and I think that the priorities mayor council retreat the priorities reflected here are where voters are frankly um and that's been validated in every piece of data that I have seen and so I don't think that we are far ahead of voters I think on [snorts] balance um I think voters understand the predicament that the city is in and I think voters want to be a part of that conversation which which is why I have my push. But I will also say everything you said >> very reasonable and so I understand that and I understand where you're at and I understand where a number of counselors are and I still um am going to push and hope that we can get to a vote on November 19th because I just again I I go back on the [cough] I am very concerned about us having big gaps and being able to deliver things and starting things and [snorts] stopping things. I think that's a even greater frustration people. Um, we'll educate voters. >> Just quick math. 13 years to get to a billion bucks. That's how long I've been on the council. So, it goes by really fast. >> You You still look as good as the first [laughter] show. >> His hair color hasn't changed at all. >> No, no, it really has. Okay. Anything else? Anyone else? Thank you very much for your time on this today. Uh, whatever item it is, we are adjourned. >> Thank you. Be back.