City staff outlines options to administer Improve Our Tulsa housing funds; council to consider RFP and bonding

City housing staff briefed the City Council and committee chairs on April 16 on administration options for the city’s Improve Our Tulsa (IOT) housing funds, recommending the city consider issuing a competitive request for proposals (RFP) to select a third‑party fund administrator while retaining certain programs in city departments.

Travis Hulse, the city’s housing director, told council members the city had received about 60 responses to an earlier request for information (RFI), indicating substantial developer interest and a pipeline of potential projects that could use IOT dollars. Staff identified major program streams under consideration — grant/investment funds, an acquisition/preservation fund, infrastructure funding, and preservation/rehabilitation — and said other cities use a mix of in‑house administration and third‑party managers (community development finance institutions, local housing trusts or nonprofit intermediaries).

Staff highlighted four peer cities (Charlotte, Greenville SC, Columbus OH, and Omaha NE) and described their models: some cities administer programs internally (often for infrastructure or city‑owned rehab programs), while many successful loan/grant funds are managed by third‑party intermediaries that also help with fundraising and underwriting. Greenville was cited for its contracting agreement that includes city officials on the administrator’s board combined with contractual performance obligations, a structure staff called a useful model for accountability.

Council members pressed staff about timing and urgency. Hulse described a possible RFP timeline of roughly 120 days from drafting to contract signature but noted many elements (funding policy, program priorities and bonding decisions) could move in parallel. Staff reported the RFI responses indicate more near‑term demand than staff initially expected and said that if the council wished to accelerate spending, the city could consider bonding forward a portion of the $75 million approved by voters; a November resolution had contemplated up to $35 million in bond proceeds as an advance. Several councilors requested staff return with a summary of the RFI responses — project counts, estimated unit production and estimated dollar asks — to inform any bonding or RFP decisions.

On administration, staff recommended: (1) keep infrastructure and some residential rehabilitation programs in city departments because they rely on public‑works, water/sewer and building code processes; (2) consider a third‑party fund manager for developer‑facing loan/grant and acquisition programs to accelerate deployment and fundraising; and (3) structure RFPs so vendors demonstrate fundraising capacity, underwriting experience and alignment with the city’s housing strategy. Staff said the next steps include a detailed RFP objectives discussion, further review of RFI responses and a May discussion on bonding options and program prioritization.

The briefing signaled a preference for a mixed approach — city management of public‑works‑dependent programs and competitive selection of an external manager for market‑facing capital — with council approval required for any bonding or program allocations.