Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Councilors Debate Redirecting Commercial‑revitalization Funds to Small Business/Housing Loan Program
Summary
Councilors probed a proposal to use repaid commercial‑loan funds from a 2017 “vision” package to capitalize a TEDC‑managed small business/housing loan program and discussed a separate HUD match request for the 36 North area; staff said funds originated from earlier revolving loan activity and that additional review and TEDC follow‑up were needed.
Councilors discussed two related funding requests that would reallocate portions of a commercial‑revitalization pot established in a 2017 ballot package.
Staff said roughly $1.06 million in repaid funds from a prior small‑business recovery loan program are proposed to be appropriated to support a Tulsa Economic Development Corporation (TEDC)‑run small business/housing loan fund intended to spur redevelopment. Staff said the repaid funds were originally part of an $11 million vision package that had been earmarked among three buckets — Route 66/branding, citywide beautification, and commercial revitalization — and that policy decisions are required before redirecting them.
Council discussion focused on whether the commercial‑revitalization pot should be used for the TEDC proposal or reserved for retail/retention work tied to Retail Strategies (a contracted third party), grocery‑store recruitment and corridor redevelopment. Councilors asked for program rules — for example, definitions of “small developer,” loan terms, and whether loans would be forgivable or revolving — and requested TEDC return with a full program description. Staff recommended separating the legal movement of funds from programmatic approvals and suggested TEDC provide project‑level applications and qualification criteria.
Councilors also reviewed a separate request (item 14) seeking to add roughly $1.05 million to a sales‑tax‑backed retail revitalization loan fund as a local match for a HUD application in the 36 North/Comanche neighborhood. Staff said HUD asked for an extra local match and that projects in that neighborhood would still need to go through the retail revitalization policy and application process.
Councilors asked staff to bring TEDC and other program managers back for a detailed briefing on eligibility criteria, loan structure, anticipated leverage and alternatives (including using other bond or grant sources). Several councilors expressed concern about diverting a one‑third share of the originally earmarked commercial revitalization funds without fuller debate and detail.
