Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Funding IOT3 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City reports 55 responses to housing RFI and outlines RFP goals for administering IOT3 funds
Summary
City staff briefed council on results from a spring request for information for the Improve Our Tulsa (IOT3) housing funds: 55 respondents proposed 37 housing projects totaling 9,342 units; staff estimated a $575 million funding gap and about $1 billion in secured/expected financing. Staff proposed an RFP to select a third‑party administrator and
City staff reported results of a spring Request for Information (RFI) for the Improve Our Tulsa (IOT3) housing funds and discussed plans for a Request for Proposals (RFP) to find a third‑party administrator for an approximately $75 million program. Staff said the RFI returned 55 responses that described 37 distinct housing projects totaling 9,342 units and that many respondents had already assembled substantial outside financing.
Staff said the respondents estimated a combined project funding gap of about $575 million and nearly $1 billion in secured or expected financing across the projects. Of the 9,342 units identified, staff said roughly 62% (about 5,761 units) could be completed by 2028, indicating that a portion of proposals are near‑term developments.
When asked where city funds would be most useful, respondents most frequently cited grants and loans (the investment program) and infrastructure assistance; staff said applicants could indicate multiple funding needs. Staff reported that about 16% of respondents signaled rehabilitation assistance would be helpful; staff also noted about 20% of projects said they would require rezoning, while the remainder did not.
The presentation framed next steps: staff proposed issuing an RFP to select a partner to administer the funds, prioritizing urgency and capacity to stand up operations quickly; demonstrated experience navigating public‑private‑philanthropic partnerships; ability to coordinate with other public programs and funds; equity and project‑selection criteria; and local knowledge or relationships. Council members discussed whether to favor Tulsa‑based vendors or require recent Tulsa experience, and staff said the RFP can ask proposers to describe local experience and relationships.
Council members asked follow‑up questions including: a) whether proposed projects identified specific parcels or general areas (some did, but not all); b) the dollar share that would likely fall to infrastructure (staff said they have that detail and will provide it); c) how many projects would need rezoning (staff said about 20% reported they would); and d) whether respondents were vetted for developer track records and property maintenance (staff said project selection and incentive policy will include diligence questions and that the RFP should ask proposers about their due‑diligence processes).
Staff said the RFP timeline would likely follow standard procurement timelines (roughly 30 days for responses and 90–120 days for selection) and noted that any decision on bonding forward IOT3 dollars must be coordinated with bond counsel and the ARPA/Grants office. Staff recommended returning to council with a draft RFP that incorporates the council’s priorities and with more detailed infrastructure cost breakdowns and rezoning counts.
No final procurement decision or bonding authorization was recorded in the meeting transcript; staff asked council for direction on priorities to include in the RFP.
