Council debates using $1.06 million from commercial revitalization fund for housing‑small business loan program; holds item for more detail
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Councillors asked for more details on a proposed $1.06 million appropriation from a Vision 2017 commercial revitalization fund to create a housing‑small business loan program managed by TEDC. Council held the item for further information about eligibility, revolving vs. forgivable loans, and impact on retail revitalization allocations.
Councilors debated whether to use funds from a 2017 voter‑approved ‘vision’ package for a proposed housing‑small business loan program, and they postponed final action pending more detail on program design and funding sources.
Kristy Maxwell of budget staff described the history: the 2017 vision package created three small buckets of funds (Route 66/retail, citywide beautification, and commercial revitalization). During the pandemic, a portion of commercial revitalization funds was used as a revolving small‑business loan program; those repaid funds are now available for new programs. TEDC (Tulsa Economic Development Corporation) submitted a proposal for a housing‑small business loan fund that scored well in ARPA nonprofit rounds but required a different funding source because of federal ARPA rules.
A proposed budget action would appropriate $1,060,000 from commercial revitalization loan‑repayment funds to support the TEDC program, a line item connected in staff materials to the Path to Home strategy. Councilors asked multiple technical and policy questions, including how “small business” would be defined, whether loans would be forgivable or revolving, target uses (retail vs. housing), and whether these funds duplicate a $75 million housing pool approved earlier this year.
Several councilors said the commercial revitalization fund was intended to attract retailers and redevelopment along identified corridors and cautioned that diverting a third of the available commercial bucket could reduce incentives for retail deals. Others said the housing‑business program aligned with Path to Home goals and might be a productive use of recycled loan dollars.
Staff and TEDC representatives were not fully available to answer every technical question at the meeting. Council members asked TEDC to present program criteria, loan terms, definitions of eligible applicants, and whether the program would be revolving or forgivable before the council moved forward. The council temporarily withheld first‑reading approval and asked for the item to return with the additional details and with TEDC representatives present.