Heat. Heat. Hey, I'm I'm going to Heat. Heat. Here we go. >> [music] >> No. >> Are we live? >> Looks like it. >> We're live. Thanks. >> Okay. Welcome to the 1:00 starting at 1:45. Thanks for everybody's patience. Um I call this meeting to order. The first item is ordinance amending the fiscal year 26 budget to make supplemental appropriations of a little bit over $1 million related to retail revitalization. And you want me to read number three, too. Correct. >> I think one at a time on these, Mike. >> Let's go one at a time. >> Okay. Um, Miss Washington. So, this is coming back to you guys. The first is the retail. >> I should say Miss Washington. >> Sorry. >> Sit right by me. >> Just make sure you don't sit in the chair that >> Vanessa got I've already >> out the window. [laughter] >> Yeah, >> we need to check the video surveillance to see what happened in that chair. So, this is the one that relates to the uh HUD application that was completed and we will put in uh money into a revitalization fund and then HUD was going to put in a million dollars as well and um Rose is here to answer questions. Uh, one thing that has been, you know, one additional piece of that is, um, we've changed the funding source on this, but uh, there's there's $69,000 on this budget amendment for the franchise program that she will also do. That's the portion of the whole pro of that funding for that. So, Rose is here to answer any questions. >> Does Michelle need to regarding >> if they have questions about the application process? Okay. Anything else on this item? >> There any questions for Rose? So, last time you all had programmatic questions um for Rose on on this item >> because there was a an issue or question of duplication, right? >> Well, some some people had questions about whether another source of fund could be considered our match. And so that's what um Christie has. You'll see this on the red line on the source of funds. >> Um on this one, there was also um a question as to whether how the projects would be selected. >> Um and so my understanding is once the funds are appropriated, [clears throat] then they would go through that project selection process. >> Is that correct? >> Through your economic incentive policy. the same as the other retail rev revitalization loan. >> Yeah. So, typically um when we are focused on a place-based development, uh we engage community. In this case, the housing authority is a partner, partner Tulsa is a partner, the community, uh the Phoenix District in general is a partner. And what we would do is uh recruit people from the community who are interested in launching a business uh that meets the expectations of community and from that we we help them build a business plan. In this case we're looking at franchising. So we would match them up with a franchise that aligns with their business plan and then we would fund them. Uh but it is a very robust process and if you need a great example of the success of this you can look at the shops of Peoria uh because we created forward for that purpose which is franchising opportunities reinforced with assistance rewards development. >> I actually went through that program. >> Yes. >> So this a is this a grant or a loan? >> It's a loan. >> Okay. >> It would be a part of a revolving loan fund. So we call principal and interest interest payments program income. That program income comes back and it revolves um forever and and grows hopefully so we can fund more and more businesses. >> Okay. What is >> this document? Go ahead. >> Um what is so source for additional funding is the citywide and route 66 beautifification and reinvestment program. How how explain that part. So the money that she did actually for the COVID loans has came back and so then we're re putting it back into a loan program and the and the forward program. So that's that's it's it was envisioned it was loaned out and it came back and now it's going going to be loaned back out. So is but is it staying >> but the citywide beautifification and reinvestment [clears throat] program was focused in on >> revitalizing existing businesses and obviously beautifification of various areas within our city especially the IDL entry and exit points. So are we repurposing that money? >> It is going to this program. I mean so it it is not exactly the same. Why wouldn't we use it for what we told voters that it was going to be used for? >> The first use, it was used as as within the program. >> Once it comes back, it's it's unrestricted and you can decide how to spend it. If you don't want to spend it on this, we can look again for different options of funding, but I don't think that we would have anything that would exactly match what is happening here in that same specific area. So those beautifification dollars, >> those were loans. I thought those were grants. >> The beautifification dollars should that's that's what I'm asking the question. The the the ones that relate to revitalization of existing businesses. Those should have been loans >> to where we're just helping them do new awnings or revitalize the facade or whatever. >> I thought that would be perpetual. >> Yeah. Me. Me too. That's why I'm bringing this. >> I'm trying to understand why that wouldn't have went back into that. >> And I'm curious how HUD factors in like are those dollars that have to happen ongoing for this to >> is that a different >> Right. That's a different to do with the HUD application. The HUD application was for the Tulsa Housing Authorities project 36 for >> that was specific to that site. rent. >> Okay. Sarah's going to center us here for a second. >> So, in the 2017 tax, there was 11 millionish dollars >> in economic development. That's the big bucket. That name on there is the big bucket name. And so then there are three small buckets, not in the language of the ordinance, but that has been developed based on policy and based on voter intention. Um, that you've done that. They each have about $3.6 to$3.7 million in each one of those buckets. So the beautifification money is still going towards the entry exit signs. >> Those big Route 66 art deco themed. >> The Route 66 money is still the Route 66 money. >> Okay. >> This is a is the 3.6 3.7 a portion of that. Um that was for the business retail revitalization that has a policy around it. The economic incentive policy. It has geographic uh areas that they target. Those same geographic areas you went out and talked to um voters about 10 years ago maybe now. >> Yeah. >> Um and so one of those was the 36th Street North area which is I think where this program would be funded. So this is um it I think it does meet the location requirements of the economic incentive policy. And so what they've what what finance has brought back to you today is originally um this program when it was proposed a couple weeks ago was going to be funded by a different funding source. Your other budget item that you have on your agenda for that housing um program that Rose will talk to you about in a second that was being funded through the commercial revitalization fund. So you didn't feel like that matched. So by switching >> the funding sources, it better aligns to the voter intention of this funding source. And I believe this one you said it was a loan, a revolving loans loan. >> So you did the COVID loans um to help on those. It was the business resilience and recovery loans. They've come back >> and then this program too is a revolving program as well. So these two can come back into that. Does that help at all? >> Oh. Oh, yeah. >> Evolving, we can change the use every time >> the f So, legally the first time it goes out, it needs to align with the um with the ordinance and and what you said when it come So, because you can put those things out as grants or as loans, you know, this is your your language and your ordinance. It's really broad. So, um, then when it comes back, it's a policy decision on whether you want it to return to those loans or not. So, that's that's the policy decision you're making. >> Well, it it goes beyond that, though. The the loan element is one. It seems like we're we're also deciding whether or not we want to revitalize existing businesses or create new businesses, >> right? So, a a change there. Mhm. >> The the loan element stays consistent. Yeah. >> Which I like. >> Yeah. >> A lot. >> I just don't I personally don't know if we're done revitalizing existing businesses yet. I think we have a long way to go. >> Um but I'm I'm not necessarily opposed to >> but doing one iteration. >> Where have they been located? >> Were they was there there was a boundary, right? There was an initial um effort on the BRT although I don't know that any deployed there. Um >> well and then there was the recovery >> Poria. Yeah. >> You know up and down Poria and then to [snorts] >> well then it expanded to destination districts and so it has changed I think one last time and so it it is there's a wider >> align with the retail market strategy locations. >> Yep. Memorial say that what those are better. But >> well, I think that was something different. 71st of Memorial. This was just >> like 6 p.m. I thought it expanded. It it change the boundaries changed a