[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6668010,"mediaKeyId","2247155-fc6477d7301c2bb5cf2b93e0e61f0f2a","parentId",2247155,"title","Tulsa committee approves CDBG/HOME/ESG/HOPWA funding recommendations, sets contingency preference for rental assistance","audioSeconds",2239,"startMs",533000,"endMs",2772000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2247155-fc6477d7301c2bb5cf2b93e0e61f0f2a&start=533&end=2772","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2247155-fc6477d7301c2bb5cf2b93e0e61f0f2a/thumbnail_533000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6668010/Tulsa/Tulsa-County/Oklahoma/Tulsa-committee-approves-CDBGHOMEESGHOPWA-funding-recommendations-sets-contingency-preference-for-rental-assistance","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6668010-f22ae79b480d6c32f4f46b996bdf5910/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159513&Signature=CRFCS9-X-uWcYJWLzzfWxGoGl6h14AjzFatJVYS5WPS3dkf96~Ojtp1UmERm3ZokxzYsihNqlsLNOg14Ni1nwBeDdESXoH9nslHucKvz-YpwGzv0wo4AZXT-Dkg-XnHo43Vm5dHGqGPvn9gw0RT5XcHcC6poC5cv49LS9RfKJ8m2rmdeUwQKOs1mSGF2cKXitMm4lm25AzXcQpnxtTR949lHQ8bodsdZ78V2GjdthAQYDYtj7-1c3dNgfVAqrxEVQV2jmXmrwMGKwNo1k7hEP7bQkfXHL8VUC3jm6BgOHsX~FvmhNfzogxQrNjr1tjvfbHKSIXTmnUPVmH2MbLof0g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Tulsa","date","2025-02-06T16:00:00Z","article","The City of Tulsa Housing and Urban Development Community Development Committee approved final funding recommendations and contingency plans for federal programs including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) and HOPWA.

The committee approved the staff-recommended scenario that uses a sliding allocation model (referred to in discussion as “scenario 4”), which raises the local minimum grant award to $25,000 for organizations scoring above 20 on the rubric and allocates $500,000 for CDBG public-service projects. Ryan Lynch made the motion to approve the recommendations and Daniel Jeffries seconded; the committee voted unanimously in favor. Chair Scott Esbjornson announced the vote and opened the meeting to a public hearing following the approval.

Committee members and staff reiterated that the recommended package reflects both the rubric scores and limited available funding. Grants administration staff said they set aside roughly $500,000 for public service (under the 15 percent cap for that category) and noted HOPWA administration will remain at about 3 percent (about $20,000). The staff memo presented contingencies that would be implemented if HUD allocations change, including reducing administration to statutory caps, funding CHDO set‑asides at required levels, and proportionally adjusting remaining HOME/ESG programs.

Members debated which housing program to cut first if allocations fall. Grants administration staff recommended using cuts to rental assistance programs before reducing down‑payment assistance because of historical absorption and administrative complexity. After discussion, the committee endorsed that contingency preference: if funding is reduced, reductions would come from the tenant‑based rental assistance (TBRA) line before the down‑payment assistance line.

The committee also discussed a separate request to redirect funds to exterior renovations at the Bradstone apartment complex. Staff warned shifting money from one recommended project would create gaps in other higher‑scored projects; committee members did not pursue the reallocation. Members noted that shifting roughly $160,000 from the TBRA recommendation would leave that program with a significantly smaller award and might undermine its capacity.

The committee heard brief presentations from several applicant organizations as part of the funding discussion (Operation Aware, Tulsa United Way/2-1-1, Youth at Heart, Housing Solutions). After questions and discussion the committee moved the recommendations forward to public hearing and formal vote by the full council process.

Votes and formal actions taken during the meeting included approval of the meeting minutes from Feb. 6, 2025, and the unanimous recommendation to approve the program funding and contingency packages for CDBG, HOME, ESG and HOPWA as described above. The committee then opened the floor for public comment.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Tulsa - HUD Community Development Committee - Feb 06, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The City of Tulsa Housing and Urban Development Community Development Committee recommended a final package of CDBG, HOME, ESG and HOPWA funding and unanimously approved staff’s scenario that raises the local minimum grant and prioritizes public-service awards.","taxTitle","Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma","taxId",2682,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6668005,"Committee raises capacity, compliance questions about Tulsa Immigrant Community Development Corporation CDBG application",292,563000,855000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2247155-fc6477d7301c2bb5cf2b93e0e61f0f2a&start=563&end=855","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2247155-fc6477d7301c2bb5cf2b93e0e61f0f2a/thumbnail_563000.jpg","/articles/6668005/Tulsa/Tulsa-County/Oklahoma/Committee-raises-capacity-compliance-questions-about-Tulsa-Immigrant-Community-Development-Corporation-CDBG-application","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6668005-eccb1d8cbf9cc1dc678003ae101f32cf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159513&Signature=iaczGYU4MG4cicDSZO-EXS6KAocnNKbgWMx7ZasAlP3qCs5ovENr4sSIpxO~bE5TUL1H1obd3c2TzfIMfdjDymC81QTbgWXq0uo5RU7RZsScr9aEEc-Iz15COZTvFPFoujBmqNbOkYbbRFNQJlelSShtJWD89smlUPEj3CF9063EvL5-8dDcPG~w7D3TvfPixHPNUtbdv1qoytBaliEgrGH8SbQQailELYtliljeqsyL3YUR45uLHLUXNVY2CUQAAXAl7rdpLnmtok7WGhnuzivwuUDupMKI9zpdFwEhfX~OfBfUE~zcn2PTOs84WSjrIhd-WKOBY4p7QZgLBJpqsA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee members and grants administration staff pressed Tulsa Immigrant Community Development Corporation (TICDC) representatives about organizational capacity and eligibility after TICDC applied for CDBG funding to support home‑repair work.

Grants administration staff (Rhys Williams) told the committee “there are... no requirements in the CDBG program to check immigration status,” and that HUD CPD programs were not subject to the federal provision discussed by some members. Williams also outlined operational concerns: TICDC is not a 501(c)(3) and the application indicated two staff members; therefore any subrecipient agreement would need to be executed with Tulsa Community Foundation (TCF) as fiscal sponsor. Grants administration staff said federal CDBG‑funded housing repair programs require trained inspectors (including lead‑based paint requirements), environmental tier reviews, income verification intake, open bidding for contractors, and financial and invoice oversight.

Louisa Croag, identifying herself as the executive director of the applicant organization, said the application was submitted when an interim director was on loan from the George Kaiser Family Foundation (GKFF). Croag told the committee TICDC currently has two employees but is “in the process of posting a position for, a program coordinator that would manage this program,” and that GKFF provided matching funds of about $55,000 to support program staffing and associated costs. Croag said TCF provides extensive back‑office support and experience with federal fund administration.

Committee members asked whether the program would serve people who are undocumented. Croag said her understanding after discussion with GKFF was that the organization planned to include verification steps and “we would probably just go ahead and assume that that might change at some point and so would, include that verification in our process.” A member seeking clarity asked for confirmation that the committee’s funds would be used for people in the country legally; Croag repeatedly said the organization intended to include verification for this project and that other non‑CDBG funds might be used for persons who do not meet those criteria.

Grants administration staff reiterated that jurisdictions can require verification in subrecipient agreements even where CDBG does not mandate it. Staff also noted intake work (income verification) and environmental clearances are time‑ and staff‑intensive and cautioned about awarding federal funds to organizations lacking demonstrated capacity to manage contracting, bidding and lead‑hazard compliance.

Committee members said the clarifications were helpful and left the item in the packet for consideration alongside other funding recommendations; staff said they would follow up with contract and capacity clarifications should the committee move to fund the program.","Grants administration told the committee the immigrant‑serving applicant would need a fiscal sponsor, must meet federal inspection and environmental review requirements, and that the city’s CDBG rules do not require checking immigration status. The applicant said it will hire staff and has private matching funds.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Tulsa committee approves CDBG/HOME/ESG/HOPWA funding recommendations, sets contingency preference for rental assistance

Committee raises capacity, compliance questions about Tulsa Immigrant Community Development Corporation CDBG application