where the choice neighborhoods development is occurring and and HUD is matching roughly a million dollars to the >> Is this a million? >> So that's a million. >> That's the change that we're making. >> We're asked to make >> to focus on that one. I'm asking to focus on that one project area versus all the other areas the 13 that you were speaking of. >> Is that what we're saying? I think and I was getting ready to ask but only for like a third of the money though, right? >> So there's still >> if there was 3.7 out there, there's only you're only asking for 1.1 of the 3.6 or 7. >> Is that correct? Is that that's a question? >> I think it's this 1 million plus another 500,000 that she has not yet deployed. >> So it's 1.5 million and then HUD will put in 1.1. Do I have that correct? >> I think that's it. And then there is a >> 3.5 of the three >> of the 3.6, >> right? >> Yes. >> But some of it's been designated already for retail revitalization. So we need that million that 500 also committed to this area, >> right? That's already Yeah, that's already part of your contract. Yes. >> But that's still the 1.6 of 3.6. That's not 2.1 of 3.6. You just have to tell us what the total number is. >> It's it's 1.5 of city money and 1.1 of HUD money. >> And without the 1.5 of city money, there is no HUD money. >> Is it a match? >> That's my understanding. >> I think that's goes back to the curiosity. With the HUD money is [snorts] is that's are we still do we know anything about that for future years? Oh that >> Well, it's committed to the Choice Neighborhoods project >> and and I have not heard any concern about that >> from from the team at the housing authority. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we'll see. That can change tonight. >> Changes it with every breath he takes. >> It does. >> So, so let's say there's a song about that. Um, but it's about love, I think. Um [laughter] >> one. So, one 1.5 million bucks. What? >> Everybody. >> So, so it's just going to do it's just going to revolve for this new purpose for how long? >> Yeah, that's what I was going to ask. >> Rose, when the money comes back, it won't be committed to this. If the 1.5 revolves and it comes back in, it's not then restricted to go back into the same area. it could go back into any area within the program. >> So, I I can't speak to the HUD expectation. I I think the program is maybe 10 or 15 years long, but I don't know how they intend to manage the the program income piece. I'm not sure it's real clear because the contract that we've looked at does not speak to, you know, the program income long term. What we would assume is that the money would continue to uh be used for the same purposes. We wouldn't change them >> for the same purpose or the same area. Well, the same area because the HUD money would be restricted to 36th Street North in Poria and and if >> until that program end >> I mean my guess is the housing authority who is using a piece of their >> choice neighborhoods money for to match this would expect it to be available to businesses in that area. And there is a I mean it's it's narrow more narrow than the retail revitalization corridors but it is still a pretty broad area >> and I would say in 20 years you know those funds will still be revolving because there's a lot of development to happen there. So, this is referring to the the Tulsa Housing Authority application that they made with all of the partners, philanthropic corporate whatever to be able to receive that choice grant. >> So, is it time bound? I I thought it was there's however many years, but I thought >> there there is an expectation. There is a performance period. I can't tell you what it is, but there is a period. >> Do you remember, Michelle? >> I think I know what it is, but I'll check. >> It's It's at least 10 years. At least 10. >> And you know, our loans will have amortizations of 7 to 10 years >> before those funds can be redeployed elsewhere. Correct. >> Is that through the loan period? >> Oh, yeah. It takes 8 to 10 years for the loan to be repaid. Is that what you're asking? >> And then you funds at 1.5, right, of city funds can when it comes back can be redeployed. And I think that's kind of speaking to what you were saying, counselor, is what is >> the timeline that these funds are restricted to this specific corridor? Is it just is this one-time HUD funding specifically for this or is this on a recurring basis year-over-year and is there that intent >> to reapply for these year-over-year to restrict that 1.5 along this corridor? >> So, I I cannot quote exactly the performance period for the HUD award. I think it's a minimum of 10 years, but I I'm not sure. you will have to decide if in in 10 years um you know you change the [clears throat] use or location of those funds. But over time as we collect those dollars, the principal and interest payments, we will redeploy. And so we're not holding any of the program income. >> We are relending it. And so ultimately those funds may have a tail of 25 30 years >> potentially. Yeah. >> But that's why I'm asking. So basically you're restricting use of funds for >> a significant period of time >> project it seems. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> At least for 10. I'm sure it's 10 years. >> Not at all. I can >> Did we do anything like similar to this with the the choice grant over across the river? was River. >> I would tell you that River West >> River West. >> So there was no loan fund, but they set aside a million plus dollars for a grocery store that we worked on over there that didn't happen. >> So each program application is different or unique to the area to the needs of the area. >> Yes. >> And so this was one of the things >> I just wanted to say what the restrictions of this funding are going to be. >> Yeah. >> As long as it's initiated in that 10 that 10 year cycle. But then it may take it may go beyond that 10 years to recoup. But then once we get it back then we [cough and clears throat] can put the seeds that we can deploy elsewhere after that. >> So also keep in mind that TBC is deploying the the funds for retail revitalization already, >> right? >> And those are deployed wherever there is an eligible project in an eligible location. And so easily these could morph into that. It's already the RRLF right we call it the pirate loan >> retail revitalization loan fund >> so it has the same intent the same purpose but for the housing authority project there is a specific territory >> for the >> and maybe the clarity needs to come with >> once we meet uh HUD obligations then this is available to all retail corridors right people still exist. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think that that may help me. How do we how do we codify that last thought that you had because I'm I'm very focused in on trying to do all we can to to continue to catalyze everything good that's happening at 36th in Poria. 36 North and Poria. >> Um and so I want to I want to continue that good work. Obviously, we received lots of money from the federal government to make that happen and from local philanthropist and everything else, but I'm still very focused in on too the $3.7 million revolving across [snorts] those 13 districts because we every every voter went out there believing that >> and and I did too um in putting it together believing that it would be used citywide. Um, so how do we how do we hyperfocus in on a a very important intersection and retail and commercial corridor in our community and then pivot back to what it was so that these I I hope these funds are available forever for revitalization. >> Yes. Well, for us it's easy because we have ticklers and we have, you know, calendar reminders and we have a loan management program that allows us to um to set reminders that there are triggers that that happen and that change policy. So, for us, it's no, it's not a problem. Even in 10 years, I hope I'm >> on the golf course, but >> but there will be a trigger for whoever is leading TEDC and whoever is managing lending to know that those funds belong to the greater are available to the greater program >> to those established districts. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, but but if in our action that we take if we can codify it so that that we are clear in the policy and intention. Yes. >> Then that will let those >> fun away from that specific program one time. >> Well, you're you don't want it forever, right? You want that to be retail revitalization money until the end of time. >> Well, I would hope so. I do. >> Well, yeah. Okay. >> That's that's kind of what the voters promised. >> We're deciding where it's going to be deployed at any given time. >> Yeah. And in this one case, we're not really revitalizing. We're we're creating >> well it's revitalizing it's revitaliz >> can it be used for both revitalization community because nothing there is no retail there so that is I will say there is some it's just very small >> so very limited >> so it's not revitalizing businesses it's revitalizing a >> creating a Sarah was about to tell us what we can codify >> economic center sorry Sarah what Are you saying we could codify and how? >> So, you did this one time on uh when the co dollars were coming back in for [clears throat] the fifth floor remodel that those should be back into the same fund and and for that use. Um you could add that type of policy statement into the budget amendment. Um the I do think you putting it in the I mean the contract is is a place to put it in once you've met the HUD obligation like that those funds would need to program income would come back to the city and um but the council doesn't have contracting authority. So where you would put that policy statement would be in a budget amendment. [clears throat] >> Okay. >> To hopefully trigger that in the contract. >> Okay. still >> when are we taking action on this? >> I don't think this one's actually been on first read yet. >> First read. >> I think we've been keeping it off of first read. >> So, we could put the language. So, we can we add it and >> it's on first read. >> We'll just wait to do it during the motion on second. >> Well, we if that's what you'd like us to do, we can put update the backup material and then have it for [clears throat] next week. So, you can see the updated >> backup. Do you all agree? >> Y agree. >> But what does that mean? Is it is first read to tonight or not? >> You could still keep first read because the the subject and the source of funds and all that those are still the same. >> So you could still keep first read tonight. >> Okay, we done on this one. All right. Three, ordinance amending the 26 budget for $900,000 related to redevelopment loan repayments fund and housing small business loan fund. >> You're talking about sales. >> Yes. So listen, we started this in 2022 and it seems like decades have passed, >> but um this was a a request we submitted when the ARPA um request for proposals was uh released. And so there was a letter of intent from TEDC to create a housing loan fund because all of our other loan funds require job creation and housing permanent job creation, payroll job creation. And and so we were in Denver with the chamber when the idea came about that, you know, they were supporting small housing developers and to help us inch down our $13,000 housing demand, housing unit demand number. I thought we should engage small companies to help solve that problem because otherwise the big developers get all of the benefit and they're not necessarily committed not all of them are committed to the communities within which we know there is a big demand for infield housing and for renovations. [clears throat] And so this this was a proposal developed >> to solve that problem and to engage small businesses in a a way that they could be a solution to housing in Tulsa. >> Small developers. >> Small developers. And initially in the letter of intent, we asked for a forgivable loan fund because at the time everyone assumed, I believe that ARPA programs had to sunset by August 31st of 2024, which meant not even program income could be collected after that time. >> And things changed. And by the time we, and Reese, you're here, you may remember some of this. By the time we submitted the proposal, we asked for a revolving loan fund. So, you can't have a revolving loan fund with forgivable loans because it doesn't revolve. And we've been working on a contract that the grants department thinks is fair and and equitable and protects the original intent of the program. And how long you been working on that? >> Well, we submitted we got a notice of award in October of 23. You still have a contract? >> Well, we have a draft of a contract now. We've been Yes. And so we've trained about 80 people who uh have said we want to help Tulsa as small businesses solve the housing crisis >> and we have about eight of them ready for funding. And and so that's >> what why can't it why can't we pull the trigger? What's the hold up? There has to be something that that's taken a year and a half to sign a contract. We went and get it signed. What? There's an issue somewhere. >> There was a decision not to fund this through ARPA and to find other funds. So we Okay. So So we've been focused on spending the ARVA money, but then we we brought a budget amendment. So last time it was here, you guys didn't like the source, which was the retail group of idolization. So we've changed the source. So, the other dollars that we have that came back from loans come from the vision 2025 downtowns uh neighborhoods money and the 2014 sales tax, retail and residential development money. Those are the that's the bucket of money that I would propose to fund this. Could you clarify again the downtown what money? >> Downtown neighborhoods was the name of the program in vision 2025. And what is the what have those dollars been used for until now? >> They were used in the downtown area for Tulsa, the part that came to us across other parts of the vision package for the county. I I can't say what other cities used. >> How much how much of this total are those dollars? After this uh 900,000, we'd have about 8.9 million in in that fund. And then as a clarifier, and would this have them be being used outside of the downtown >> or just to triple >> you're saying there's 8.9 in the >> in that fund >> right now? >> What are they using for? >> Yeah, that's what I'm trying to understand. Like is this just where's this sitting? And how did someone tap into it currently? >> So we have a program that we'll fund through um TEO is doing a loan program DDRF, right? And when they have things that they bring to us, it would get funded. >> Oh, this this is the downtown development redevelopment dollars or just a part of them. >> I mean, that's where that program is being funded from as well. >> So, this is taking dollars out of that pot for downtown and putting them into across the city. >> District three, >> I mean, you know, which I appreciate, but they're designated to downtown for a reason too. >> So, I think we go back to when >> especially with converting stuff into housing. Yeah. Um once funds have been loaned out, they meet the purpose and they're technically un unrestricted and it is a policy decision whether to put it back into that same area or somewhere else. >> So the original use has been met. >> Yes. >> And now we have >> 8.9 of monies that have come back. >> I'm confused. >> We're still but we're still dissolved the fund >> but we're still doing DDRs >> here. >> We're still doing DDRs. We're still that is an ongoing program because there are plenty of buildings to so the downtown development redevelopment fund is what's helping make sure that we're able to convert all these buildings into housing since offices aren't such a big >> but all of it wasn't there there's there's several programs that's sitting in that pot. >> Is that what I heard you say? >> There's a couple different of >> funding that went into the pot. 1996 money as well I believe is going into it. So there's it's not okay. >> It's not for but dedicated for that. >> Right. >> Right. What has been dedicated so far to DDRF has been through council budget actions. >> Okay. >> And >> and do you hear what is still ongoing? Do we know what the budget need for that is in the upcoming because I'm just trying to make sure that's definitely still something that's happening. So, I'm trying to make sure I'm saying this to my colleagues as well that we still have we need to continue doing that work because that is a lot of housing and housing density that's happening in our downtown. >> So, I'm aware of one new loan that is coming forward and we should have that budget amendment to you guys in the next few weeks. It'll need to come at the same time as the resolution for um economic development support. Um and that one >> the whole loan because 2.1 has already been because it was dedicated for it was committed for another loan that has fallen through. This one I believe is 2.8 or 2.9. So the difference is coming along with some admin fees that need to be paid for associated with those loans that teao gets on the DDRF loans. >> Okay. >> So there's like about I can't remember if it's like eight or 900,000 that needs to come. So after this budget amendment and after that budget amendment, there would be about $8 million in that fund. Okay. >> That would be there to deploy at whatever point in time. >> Okay. >> Something goes through the economic um incentive policy >> because I think we usually get like three or four applications a year and award one or two for DDRF in the past however long. >> So I'm making that up. My >> So the monies that's was set for what are you calling it? DD >> DDRF. I just remember cuz there's a video game DDR. [laughter] Never mind. It doesn't work. >> So that so whatever funds that that sounds like supposed to go towards that program, we're saying that in this pot there are other funds that does not >> like negative >> connect or just you know set aside from other things. >> Yeah. That eat into their monies. I mean, >> correct >> there there isn't a set to my knowledge, there's not a set amount that is going to go to DDRF like there's I there's only been what has gone through council action for approval for specific budget amendments. >> When we created that, there was not a set amount that was to be dedicated to that program to that effort did. Now, it mentions that there will be certain monies coming back from these other loan programs, but I don't think it means that every dollar is going back. >> We started we started with an amount. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's the original >> and I think it's been loaned out and it's come back and now through policy we can >> we can change well we can modify or or send funds somewhere else. >> Yeah, you can choose to met the initial need. >> Yeah. If you don't want to spend it on housing but people it won't be spent on that. >> Okay. But I don't I will say that I don't know that I have other dollars to fund this program. >> Right. Right. >> That would match that would align with what I get that I just wanted to make sure we didn't supplant >> something that was already that we guaranteed to the voters at that time. >> Yeah, that makes sense. Like if it was designated right? >> Yeah. I I mean I guess when you take a program out 1996 or 2000 you are meeting the needs of the community that day and then 25 years later or 30 years later they might be different and so it might have been we need to focus on this one area that's what we want to do but later it might be housing or it might be 36 north and poria it's different >> okay >> I mean to me as long >> No I'm good too as long as there's still dollars for the DDRF program because that is still active. >> But yeah, >> I I would just suggest that whoever is using that fund >> talk to us next week just to verify that future [clears throat] uses and sources >> future sources meet the potential uses. >> Yeah. >> Whoever it is, they're going to be like, "Yeah, we want that money." I'm like, "Oh, we don't need it." There is just a rotation. >> Rose has already said she's willing to tap the whole thing. No, she said 900,000. [laughter] >> No, no, I asked for more. But >> she did. >> I get it. [laughter] >> But it was under our This is I mean the need hasn't changed. The need has increased right? >> Yeah. >> I would want it all too. >> Is the economy weird right now or something? >> But that's the decision we got to make. But 8.6 what she's what's on the table right now is less than a million dollar. >> Yes, it's $900,000. >> Okay. >> And you are saying I'm good. This this is for residential. It's just outside of it's very similar to what we just talked about. >> The place is just different. >> Okay. Well, but it doesn't have to be used for residential, >> right? >> What we're doing is residential, but >> affordable. >> So, the residential is residential in either place. >> Residential in inside the city limits of Tulsa. And the deal is that wherever the home is, the tenant has to meet certain income eligibility requirements. >> Tell you what it's going to be. [snorts] >> I mean, we're ass city. >> Everybody know that. >> So, so I think the outcome is the same for this one. Maybe not necessarily language on this one saying that this is going to go back to downtown after the original after the initial loan is made, but um for more discussion just on sources and uses. >> Who who would you like to come discuss? Okay, that's what I was >> Can we bump the amount to THE ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR my pain and suffering over the last three years? >> Do what? She wants pain and suffering fees. [laughter] >> Yeah, right. >> [clears throat] >> It's >> only a million dollars >> for the trauma you would like to pay, >> right? >> Okay. >> Okay. Anything else on this topic? >> I mean, I will say that I've talked to Aaron just a little bit about this and you know, the main things he wants this money to revolve, >> right? >> So, not used for like some completely other purpose that wouldn't revolve, but he's he's aware of this. >> Okay. >> And you have said that this is >> a revolving fund. This isn't one of those It's revolving grants. >> It has some some great features that could benefit the fund if we find developers who aren't in it for the intended purpose to serve the community. >> Um, we don't have to worry about that. >> There will be some benefit to the fund. >> Okay. Okay. All right. Only made you I don't know uh 35 minutes late for whatever you had >> before. Sorry. Are are you on four as well? Are you anything else? Any other items here for you? I'll take your four. Yeah, you're not >> I'll take that two and a half million. [laughter] >> Gosh, Rose. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Four, ordinance amending the 26 budget for two and a half million bucks for completion of the conversion to LED lighting on the highways. >> Sneak in between. >> Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon, Jared. Budget. It's my goal to get y'all out of here by 2:30. That's big of you. Are >> those all yours? >> Are the rest yours? >> No, I'm just a bull. >> Read them like an auctioneer. >> Yeah, right. >> Okay. What? Okay. This is the previous slide. >> Yeah. >> Forward. Say that. >> Next slide. Yo yo. Next one. >> One more. >> Hands over here. One more, sir. >> One more. >> Thank you, ma'am. This is the public ways uh utility fund. Um we're appropriating 2.5 million in fund balance back to the public works department as part of the FY25 budget. What was adopted? Uh we put 5 million in for uh LED light conversion on highways. Um they were unable to spend all of it during the course of the year. Um they had a situation where there was a callback project on US 169. So their conversion got delayed a little bit and then also they have to maintain a considerable stockpile while they're doing this. So they have to kind of balance not having too much, not having too little that ran a foul of our purchasing deadline. So uh we worked with them to what they need to supplement this year's anticipated work and so we're taking that 2.5 out of the cash balance and appropriating it back for them. Is PSO the the PSO franchise the source of this? How much did we have originally allocated to LED lighting >> conversion out of the total 78 million or whatever? >> Anyone Jack 7 million? >> I can pull it up in just uh >> what is it? >> 20 seconds. >> Yeah. >> And can that be used for another source? Just kidding. >> Can we use retail revitalization? >> The pirate fund >> only if we're on an arterial That's 11 street maybe. >> Yeah, we'll just do it there. >> Really? >> Yes. >> Yeah, we've >> Oh, no. It's a quorum and we get to sign this right now. Go on. >> I thought maybe we're waiting on >> We are. >> Yeah, this is just a pause. >> You might go on. >> Circle back to this. >> Okay. Uh, number five, another budget amendment of about a million bucks for Health and Human Service substance. >> If I can make a guess on the last one, I think there wasn't anything specifically stated about LED conversion. I think it fell under the like $30 million bucket of arterial, [laughter] >> everything I got in my pockets. >> So, nothing. Well, it fell under a coin and if you win, you have to give it back. But if if I win, >> whatever. >> He knows where he's going. >> Really raising the stakes here. >> Oh, Jack has an answer. >> I got to go back to talk about >> 22% 16.5 million of the projected revenue at the time was projected for improved street lighting, including converting the entire highway lighting system to more reliable and efficient technology. So 22% of 16 and a half. >> No, 20 16 and a half is 22%. >> Okay. So I was low on the number, but it was a dedicated number. He owes me the don't >> I [laughter] think I was more wrong than that. >> Yeah, it was better. I I like how you >> Yeah, whatever. It's free. >> Like I never even had it. >> Well, yeah. I got >> Appreciate it. >> Are you going around me, Mom? You're doing the mom and dad thing. I see. >> Okay. I already read the next one. We go to the next one. >> This is AMSA. Um, if they're hard questions, I have Reese behind me, but this is essentially a year three award of the four-year program. So, we're appropriating those funds into place for the >> children's uh mental health uh project. >> This is the one that's integrated with TPS, >> I believe. So, >> is it's also public schools integration, right? Oh okay. >> Family, children's and council. >> Oh. Oh, okay. >> Something services. >> Council recovery services. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. >> Anyone? >> Nope. Move on. >> Bush is ready to go. >> Do it. >> Same budget ordinance for the same year. 2 and a half million bucks for chemical tank replacement. This one is a project came in over so we are moving money between projects. The uh AMR project is very well funded and um not going to be able to spend that two and a half this year anyways. So we're going to move that into this uh Mohawk treatment plant project and restore that funding to AMR in the coming year. And it it will not delay work any more than was already anticipated. >> Anyone? Okay. Go ahead. >> Yeah. So, does that mean that neighborhoods that were allocated for the meter replacements will have to wait a little bit? >> Not because of this. >> Oh, [laughter] I was just checking. >> Okay. Seven. Ordinance amending the budget for about 20,000 bucks for homeless prevention funds transfer. This is following the uh resolution for ESG HUD funds. Uh just rolling them into the future year or the current year now and uh they'll be used for center for housing solutions for homelessness prevention activities. Number eight, budget amendment for about 300,000 bucks for arterial rehab at about 11th uh 21st Sheridan and Memorial. >> We did include a map on the next slide. It's very tiny, but uh the project a maintenance zone 5025 is complete. The '08 geo bond program is very old at this point, but uh there is still inflationary cost that we're still trying to make up for across many of the citywide arterial uh streets rehab projects. So, we are taking that amount that was left over, putting it into citywide arterial to be used for other ongoing projects. >> Anyone That's how we are in D5. We save money. >> Okay. >> D5. >> Thank you. >> I guess you're not here for the next one. [laughter] >> Nine and 10 both have to do with revising health regulations, codes, license fees, all related to food trucks and mobile vendors. >> Your favorite. >> Yep. >> Here we go. It's the first show. >> Hello, counselors. >> Huh? >> No, it has nothing to do with >> I know I'm joking. You know exactly my issue is [laughter] >> because he doesn't want me to get the tamale from his trunk again. >> Sorry Caroline are >> since we last spoke um I made a we made a couple of changes the drafts one and per the request of the group added we didn't see there was any legal issue with adding that permit fire decal requirement on the front end of getting your food permit. Um, so I added that and then I had to fix a mistake on the other one because there was still one reference to the license that we're having to get rid of. So that was kind of a small fix. Um, but I'm happy to in general if we talk about anything. Um there's a lot going on with both and you know I think at the end of the day we tried to do our best to just get into compliance with the food truck freedom act the best we could and it it does tie our hands in in quite a few ways. Um but happy to talk happy to answer questions about why this was deleted or why this wasn't and >> we talked about it [clears throat] 45 minutes last time so then we can't even change really. >> Did you? I missed that. >> Uh watch. >> Oh you should watch cuz we were making jokes. It was great. >> Oh yeah, you weren't here, >> but we talked about you a lot. >> Well, that's great. [snorts and laughter] >> So, in that language, Caroline, is is there the language about displaying or uh all required licenses? >> So, let me look back at I think we didn't because a lot of it was taken care of elsewhere. The fire decal per the state fire marshall has to be displayed and um the state food establishment under state law my understanding is it has to be displayed. the only one >> just the fire or all >> I think the the the um health department one does per state. Um the only one that would have been additional is municipal and we're thinking that um that may have that may be in conflict with this about health and safety or that it's not closely tied to public safety because they could have different ones for every city they go into. Um but I mean ultimately that's up [cough] to you all. If you'd like me to add that in, I'm I'm happy to. I think the question for me specifically is is obviously the public health and safety one, the fire inspection and then of course the remission of sales tax to the city. >> So that's problematic. So when we're talking about leakage of revenues that we're making sure those folks are compliant with submitting their sales tax to the city as they're required to. >> And then of course >> obviously in future discussion is I think we process the health department's applications for um for those permits if I remember correctly and it's at like $5. So um I'm glad you brought that up. That was most of the discussion last time. Um I don't think in talking to BNU that they'd had a chance of of kind of recalculating how much that would be. So it may be that we come back and address it. Um, from the legal standpoint, the main thing is that under the Food Truck Freedom Act, that amount has to reflect only the administrative cost of issuing the license, >> which means we could increase do a cost recovery. Exactly. Okay. And increase that from the $5. >> Yeah. >> But does that if if we have our fire marshals go out and inspect >> on behalf of the state because we only have one dedicated, if I remember correctly, there's 12 across the state. There's one dedicated to the city or in the city of Tulsa. So, do we do with if our I I was since I wasn't here, I'm probably asking duplicative duplicative questions. I'm sorry. So, when we are are are fire marshall going out and doing these inspections on behalf of the state to issue those? >> Not right now. and and that is more of that other bill um that see that that seems to put all the jurisdiction at the state fire marshall. So unless that changes, >> they're not. >> Okay. So this we're not done. I can promise you that cuz this is >> stealing from municipalities and it's just not good legislation in my opinion. This is the state sticking their hands in our pocket. So >> I am not done with my state representative on this. >> Okay. So anyway, I think we should adopt the language >> this is his >> that Caroline has proposed >> in the interim until we can get the rest of this cleaned up. >> I agree that >> we have to align Yeah. line with the state law then we can >> and we'll keep our keep our ear to the ground on if things change at least next session we'll >> any local regulation. >> Do they what? >> They don't want any local regulation. >> This is freedom from local regulation. But to me, if you're going to impose that you're now the the jurisdiction to issue license, then you should also fund the uh enforcement, right? Um that doesn't exempt us from enforcing code. But the problem is is that these two are kind of attached to one another. Um, and so when I took uh uh the city administrator, our chief economic development officer, and someone from Visit Tulsa to do a tour of East Tulsa, I showed them the problem as it exists and why it's problematic and why we as a city failed to grasp and regulate a problem that we've allowed to face. Now we're trying to figure out after the state has kind of taken our legs out from under us how we're a little bit challenged and now reeling some of that back in. And so my understanding is is there's potential for an amendment to this food truck freedom act. I don't know whether that's true or not, but supposedly I'm going to have a conversation on December 8th about it. So >> who ran the bill? >> Cool. >> Bill got this on the one voice agenda. >> Well, It is >> the food truck out. >> Yep. >> Until they're not again. >> Okay. Anybody else? >> Yep. Thank you. >> All right. Last item. We're adjourned. Uh let's