The City of Tulsa's Urban Development Department served as the lead agency responsible for overseeing the development of the Consolidated Plan. Funded activities were chosen on the basis of public input received at the Needs Assessment Public Hearing, discussion from the Consolidated Plan Work Group and Policy Oversight Committee, and study of existing planning documents with identified needs. Community Development Block Grant, HOME, and Emergency Shelter Grant funds will assist homeownership programs, housing rehabilitation, and social service programs serving victims of domestic violence, youth, children, seniors, and the homeless.
Citizen Participation
Two advisory groups assisted in this effort. A Work Group comprised of local representatives from various planning, housing, social service and economic development organizations, met to compile and review needed data and information. A Policy Oversight Committee representing key policy officials from the public and private sectors provided policy guidance and oversight in the development of the Consolidated Plan.
In addition, many agencies and/or department personnel were consulted for specific population, housing and non-housing needs information. The City's Citizen Participation Plan was revised to include references to the Consolidated Plan's related comment periods and public hearings. The Citizen Participation Plan was presented to the Urban Development Committee of the City Council on March 14, 1995. A "Notice to the Public" advising of the availability of the Citizen Participation Plan for comment was published in the March 18, 1995 Tulsa World and the March 23, 1995 Oklahoma Eagle. In addition, notices, along with a copy of the draft Plan were mailed to service providers, Enterprise Community participants, and all Planning District Chairs and Co-Chairs. A notice and copy of the draft Plan were made available to Tulsa Housing Authority for distribution to their resident communities. Finally, a public hearing was held before the City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting on March 30, 1995 to adopt the Citizen Participation Plan. In addition to other efforts and publications, a Notice to the Public advising of the availability of the draft Consolidated Plan was published on May 19, 1995 in the Tulsa World and on May 25 in the Oklahoma Eagle. The 30 day comment period ran from May 31, 1995 to June 30, 1995. No significant problems were encountered in the process of developing the draft Consolidated Plan.
Tulsa experienced slow growth from 1980 to 1990, with only a 2% increase in total population. Population in 1995 is estimated by Oklahoma Department of Commerce at 380,175. Metropolitan Tulsa Chamber of Commerce estimates a slightly higher figure of 384,838 for 1994. The majority of the population (79.1%), is made up of families. Persons living in non-family households comprised 18.5% (people living alone or with non-relatives); and persons residing in group quarters comprised 2.4% (nursing homes, dormitories, etc.). Map 1 shows points of interest in the area. Tulsa's population, like the rest of the nation, is aging. The median age of the total population in 1980 was 29.9; in 1990 it was 33.1. Similarly, household size continues to shrink. Median family income appears to be increasing -- from $33,068 in 1990 to $37,620 in 1994.
In 1990, 79% of the population was white; 13% was black, 3% was Hispanic; 4% was Native American; and 1% was Asian/Pacific Islander. This represents a slight increase from 1980 for all racial groups except whites, which decreased by 2.6%
Of all households in 1990, 25% were very low-income (0-50% of median family income); 17% were other low-income (51-80% of median family income); 8% were moderate-income (81-95% of median family income); and 50% were above 95% of the median family income. Map 2 outlines the low and moderate income areas in the city.
Minority households are more likely to have very low-incomes than white households. By race, 21 % of white households; 49% of black households; 32% of Hispanic households; 31% of Native American households; and 26% of Asian & Pacific Islander households were very low-income.
Census tracts with twice the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) average are considered to be "concentrations of minorities" for Consolidated Plan purposes. The MSA average percentages for minorities are: Blacks 8.2%; Hispanic 2.1%; Native American 8%; and Asians 0.9%. Census tracts which meet the concentration definition for blacks (greater than 16.42%) may be found primarily in three portions of the city. The largest area is in north Tulsa, and a smaller area is in the southwest portion of the city. Map 3 shows the areas of minority concentration.
Census tracts which meet the concentration definition for Native Americans (greater than 13.60%) may be found in two portions of the city. The first area is located in far northeast Tulsa and the second area is located in the west-central part of the city adjacent to downtown. Census tracts witch meet the concentration definition for Hispanics (greater than 4.1%) are scattered throughout the city. Census tracts which meet the concentration definition for Asians (greater than 1.86%) are scattered throughout the city, with heaviest concentrations in south and east Tulsa.
Tulsa ranked number five in the top five most affordable housing markets in the nation according to a survey done by Coldwell Banker on typical corporate transferee homes (4 bedroom/2.5 baths). In its survey of affordable housing markets (3rd quarter, 1994), the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) ranked Tulsa 60th in the nation out of 185 metropolitan areas surveyed. This represents a drop from last year's ranking of 36, possibly because NAHB factored in rates for property taxes and insurance.
The median sale price for homes in Tulsa was $80,000 (the national median price for a new home is $129,000). Approximately 73.5% of the homes sold in Tulsa are within reach of the median income household at prevailing interest rates. This represents a significant drop from last year when approximately 82% of homes sold in Tulsa were within reach of the median household income.
Over-building in the early 1980s provided Tulsa with a surplus of both commercial and residential space. As a result rental rates plummeted and vacancy rates rose, dramatically broadening housing choices for much of Tulsa's population. Housing which had previously been out of reach for many residents became accessible almost overnight primarily in south and east Tulsa. This left housing stock in north, and to a lesser degree, west Tulsa, vacant or under-utilized. Lower interest rates in the early 1990s also contributed to expanded housing options. However, that trend has been steadily reversing itself as the local economy stabilizes and interest rates rise. As can be seen in the nearly 10% drop in homes affordable to those with median family incomes, affordable housing is once again an issue for many citizens.
Tulsa's apartment market is tightening enough to justify new construction, primarily of "luxury units," despite the recent housing market boom and falling occupancy rates in some areas. Tulsa issued permits for 388 multifamily housing units in 1994, a seven year high. Two new complexes, representing 950 units in south Tulsa, are expected to be completed by the end of 1995. M/PF Research Inc. reports that Tulsa has one of the lowest rental rates among 54 cities surveyed-average monthly rent was $382, the only average below $400. Actual rents increased 3.5% in 1994. Occupancy rates decreased by l.5% from last year's 93%. Although expanding, Tulsa's rental market is growing at a slower pace than other regional cities. This is due in part to a lower rate of job creation. However, Tulsa Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce anticipates an influx of new employees, which will create a new demand for housing. Fair market rents for the Tulsa area are as follows: $309 for an efficiency unit; $372 for a one bedroom unit; $485 for a two bedroom unit; $676 for a three bedroom unit- $796 for a four bedroom unit; and $915 for a five bedroom unit.
New construction this past year has focused mainly on upper end, "luxury homes," resulting in fewer moderately-priced starter homes. One reason for this trend is the influx of transferees who need to reinvest earnings from the sale of homes in higher priced markets (e.g. California). Rising interest rates raised the cost of home mortgages (new construction and existing structures). Soaring building costs have also contributed to the shortage. Although 1994 started off well, by the end of the year, housing starts were down almost 10%.
Data taken from the 1990 Census reports a total of 176,232 year-round housing units in Tulsa. Of that amount 88% or 155,470 units are occupied. Homeowners make up 56% of that amount, with renters at 44%. This represents a drop in homeownership from 1980, when homeowners comprised 61% and renters comprised 39% of occupied units.
Of all rental units, 15.9% are substandard, 64.6% of which are suitable for rehabilitation. Of all owner units, 7.9% are substandard, 72.0% of which are suitable for rehabilitation.
The 1990 Census reports a rental vacancy rate of 12.55% and a homeowner vacancy rate of 4.29%. A more recent count comes from the 1994 Postal Vacancy Survey for the Tulsa Delivery Area, and reports a total of 184,418 housing units. Of that amount, 12,458 or 5.2% were vacant.
Reports vary as to the number of jobs added to Tulsa's employment base in 1994. Figures range from 5,000 to 8,500. Regardless, it is a continuation of a trend begun five years ago. A large number of jobs created came from the addition of the Whirlpool plant (1,800), followed by the business processing center at Amoco Corporation (1,000), South West Corporation's reorganization (650) and Bama Pies' addition of 100 jobs.
Nationally and locally, the jobless rate fell. February, 1995 unemployment figures for Tulsa County, according to the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, is at a low of 5. 1%, down over 2% from last year's jobless rate. This compares favorably with the nation's unemployment rate of 5.9% and the state's rate of 5.7% for the same period. The Metropolitan Tulsa Chamber of Commerce cites increased labor force productivity, a significant decline in business bankruptcies, and rising business profits as signs of a healthy and improving economy. Other economic analysts from across the state predict a slow but steady growth period for Tulsa in 1995. Map 4 indicates the percentages of unemployment by Census Tract in the area.
The National Planning Association calls for a significant improvement in Tulsa's economy for 1995. It envisions a population increase of 12,640 or 1.7% and the creation of 9,053 jobs or a 2.7% increase. Both estimates are ahead of the state and national curves. Off-setting these positive projections is a disturbing and continuing trend of the replacement of high-paying manufacturing and oil-field jobs with service and retail-oriented jobs.
Current housing needs were determined through review of the City of Tulsa's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 1980 and 1990 Census data, the CHAS Databook, Tulsa Housing Authority records, Oklahoma Department of Commerce projections, Tulsa Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce estimates, and interviews with local program administrators and service providers.
No significant changes in housing need are expected over the next five years for either current residents or those expected to reside. With over 12,458 vacant units reported available for rent or sale in the most recent Postal Vacancy Survey, it is unlikely that housing stock would become an issue. Affordability and safety, however, are two issues addressed in the Five-Year Strategy.
HUD has provided the following definitions for income groups: Extremely low income (those earning 0-30 of the median family income); low income (those earning 31-50 of the median family income); moderate income (those earning 51-80 of the median family income); and middle income (those earning 81-95 of the median family income).
Of 67,023 total renter households in Tulsa, 22,435 extremely low, low, and moderate-income renter households were identified as in need of assistance. Of that amount, elderly comprised 3,686 households, small related families (2-4 members) comprised 8,367 households, large related (5+ members) comprised 1,656 households and all other households comprised 8,726 households.
A total of 2,083 low-income minority renter households were identified in the HAP as in need of assistance. Of that amount, blacks comprised 1,342 households; Native Americans comprised 474 households; Hispanics comprised 206 households, and Asians comprised 61 households.
Of 88,410 owner households in Tulsa, 11,156 extremely low, low, and moderate-income owner households were identified as in need of assistance. Of that amount, elderly comprised 38.5% (4,296 households) and all other owners comprised 61.4% (6,890 households).
When housing costs consume a disproportionate share of total household income, a cost burden is created. A need for housing assistance arises when total housing expenses exceed established norms. This standard is based on the premise that each household is entitled to a range of goods and services, such as food, entertainment, and health care, in addition to standard housing. Thus, if a household expends more than the established norm for housing expenses, other necessities are forfeited, and a cost burden is created. Currently, if a renter household expends up to 30%, or an owner household expends up to 35% of gross income for housing, it is within the norm. If either expends over their respective amounts, it may be said that they are experiencing a cost burden. If either expends over 50% of gross income for housing, they experience a severe cost burden.
Small families in rental housing experience the most cost burden and are the most (63%) likely to experience a severe cost burden. Severe cost burden affects 79% of the small family housholds. The ranking of extremely low income households experiencing severe cost burdens are non-elderly other households, large family households, elderly owner households, and all other owner households.
Among low income households, non-family, non-elderly owner households experience the highest percentage (28%) of sever cost burden. However, large family households experience the highest percentage (81%) of housing problems in general. Elderly, rental households, a total of 1,884, fall into this income category, with the lowest percentage experiencing some type of housing problem at 65%. A total of 1,225 households (or 65%) experience a cost burden and 471 households (or 25%) experience a severe cost burden. Small family, rental households comprise the second largest number of renter households in this income category at 3,591 households, with the second highest percentage of housing problems (77%). A total of 2,657 households (or 74%) experience a cost burden and 790 households (or 22%) experience a severe cost burden.
Elderly, rental households, a total of 1,412, fall into this income category (48%) experience some type of housing problem. A total of 664 households (or 47%) experience a cost burden and 169 households (or 12%) experience a severe cost burden. Elderly, owner households, a total of 4,770, fall into this income category with 13% experiencing some type of housing problem. A total of 572 households (or 12%) experience a cost burden and 143 households (or 3%) experience a severe cost burden. All other non-family, non-elderly owner households, a total of 6,952 households, in this income category with 48% experiencing some type of housing problem. A total of 3,059 households (or 44%) experience a cost burden and 626 households (or 9%) experience a severe cost burden.
In 1980, a total of 3,708 or 2.5% of all households were overcrowded (I. 0 1 - 1. 5 persons per room). Of that amount, 899 were severely overcrowded (had more than 1.5 persons per room). Proportionately, renter-occupied households had more overcrowding - 3.5% of all renter-occupied households, versus 1.6 % of all owner occupied households. Further, of the 3,708 total overcrowded households, 1,889 were minorities (1,433 experienced mild overcrowding and 456 experienced severe overcrowding).
In 1990, a total of 4,353 or 2.8% of all households were overcrowded. Of that amount, 1,378 were severely overcrowded. Again, renter-occupied households experienced more overcrowding (4.5%) than owner-occupied households (1.4%). Overcrowded conditions have continued to decline in owner-occupied units but have increased somewhat in renter-occupied households.
Of 176,232 housing units identified in the 1990 Census, 1,057 lacked complete kitchen facilities, 586 lacked complete plumbing facilities, 494 were not on public water, and 5,641 were not on public sewer.
Generally, minority households appear likelier to occupy housing which is deficient in some manner than the rest of the population. The proportion of minority-occupied units lacking complete plumbing is over 1.5 times that of such units in the general population (1.34% versus 0.82%).
The City operates the majority of its homeless programs through the Emergency Shelter Grant Program. Some Community Development Block Grant funds have assisted in the past with such items as rehabilitation of the Day Center for Homeless and operational funds for 12 and 12 Treatment Center. Following is an excerpt from the City's Interim Continuum of Care Plan. This Plan addresses the nature and extent of homelessness and enumerates the need for facilities and services for homeless individuals and families. Recent efforts by INCOG staff to count the homeless in the Tulsa Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) revealed that other communities in the MSA are served by facilities in the City of Tulsa. For example, Tulsa Metropolitan Ministry and the Tulsa County Shelter serve a population outside of Tulsa city limits proper. Consequently, it is more accurate to say that 16,169 persons in the Tulsa MSA are at risk of being homeless in the City of Tulsa.
While wide-spread emergency assistance from private social service agencies is more readily available to families with children, few such services are available to unrelated individuals. Similarly, few government sponsored assistance programs beyond food stamps are available to unrelated individuals. Yet, such assistance is critical to homeless prevention; 57% of the homeless in 1990 reported that they became homeless because they could not afford rent. Emergency assistance - such as rent, mortgage, utilities, food, and clothing -- is essential to prevent homelessness. In the face of its relative absence, emergency assistance for unrelated adults should be a high priority.
Several supportive housing facilities exist for this population. The existing facilities include: Twelve and Twelve; where there are 90 bed spaces for men and 46 beds for women; The Haven with 6 bed spaces; The H.O.W. Foundation with 91 total bed spaces; the Salvation Army Adult Rehabilitation Center which has a total of 74 bed spaces; Metropolitan Tulsa Substance Abuse Services with 24 bed spaces; and Freedom House that has 41 bed spaces.
Currently, Catholic Charities provides room and board through the St. Joseph House, which consists of 18 beds in a group setting, and seven single-family homes for families in which one or more members are experiencing AIDS symptoms. In order to be assisted through this organization, one must be experiencing AIDS symptoms and homeless.
St. Joseph officials state that current capacity is adequate and support services and programs are outstanding. The State Department of Human Services, the Visiting Nurses Association, Shanti (a support group), Regional AIDS Interfaith Network (RAIN) teams, the Oklahoma University clinic, and volunteer doctors all contribute to the support network. Rainbow Village, a non-profit organization, currently provides transitional living to two persons at a single family residence. Administrators hope to develop additional units as funds become available. A need exists for this type of "gap housing" until clients can be served through Tulsa Housing Authority's Section 8 rental assistance program.
In addition, a need exists for disabled-accessible units. Presently, it costs approximately $3,000 per unit to retrofit units with hand rails, wider doorways, etc. Federal funds for this activity are not abundant. As such, Tulsa Housing Authority recommends programs developed, funded and implemented locally. Tulsa Housing Authority is in compliance with Section 504 requirements.
Technical assistance will be provided as requested and to the extent possible to non-profit sponsors of supportive housing applications.
Existing housing prices and low interest rates provide an attractive climate for home purchases. Public assistance will be provided with HOME funds for the home buyer program through the City's two Community Housing Development Organizations.
The City of Tulsa will encourage the use of tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds (through Tulsa County Home Finance Authority or Oklahoma Housing Finance Agency) to finance home purchases for first-time lower-income home buyers. With pre- and post-purchase counseling, down payment and closing cost assistance, a strong lease purchase program would be a feasible means of providing home ownership opportunities to a large segment of low-income renters who currently make rental payments which are equal to or less than a mortgage payment.
Service providers in Tulsa continue to meet the many needs of homeless persons through a wide spectrum of programs. All shelter providers report an increase in demand for services. While shelter space is currently adequate, the need for employment training and placement, physical and mental health care and transitional housing outdistance current levels of assistance offered. Tulsa Housing Authority works with local mental health and homeless providers to devise a fast track system to house clients in immediate need of permanent housing.
The Tulsa Housing Authority (the local public housing authority) currently administers 2,647 units of public housing in 13 complexes and 174 scattered site houses. Ten public housing complexes and the scattered site houses are designed for family occupancy- three public housing complexes are designed for elderly and/or disabled occupancy. As of July, 1995, there were 515 vacant units. Twenty-nine units of family public housing inventory will be demolished at Comanche Park and 100 units at Osage Hills. Tulsa Housing Authority recently applied for Public Housing Development funds from HOME for replacement housing.
Tulsa Housing Authority currently administers 3,238 Section 8 Certificates, 928 Section 8 Vouchers, 808 units of Moderate Rehabilitation, 82 HOME Program coupons, 535 units of Contract Administration/Section 8 New Construction, and 321 units of Section 8 Loan Management Set-aside, allowing greater freedom of choice for residents.
Currently, there are approximately 1,400 Certificates available; efforts to utilize the Certificates and fully lease the program are ongoing. At present there are no available Vouchers and there are 45 vacant Moderate Rehabilitation units. No losses of affordable rental housing are anticipated as a result of prepayment or voluntary termination of a Federally-assisted mortgage.
Tulsa Housing Authority is negotiating with the Resolution Trust Corporation for the donation of 350 units at Village Square Apartments. All of these units are scheduled for demolition.
The overall condition of public housing units appears to be good. Each unit is inspected at least annually under HUD's Housing Quality Standards. However, in many cases original design deficiencies did not consider long term maintenance as well as other issues that affect long term viability. Therefore, modernization is needed in order to correct deficiencies and to address such issues as security and life safety.
Tulsa Housing Authority performed a Section 504 Needs Assessment concerning the accessibility of housing to the disabled. In the case of single family homes (174 units) community space is not accessible. Improvements needed will include new ramps and parking designation, interior handicap signage, lever hardware on public doors and conversion of community toilets to comply with Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS). In Seminole Hills (150 units) community space is not accessible. Leaming Center at 1845 N. Troost accessible, but other units are not.
After a thorough examination of local and State public policies, including zoning codes, subdivision regulations, building codes, code enforcement policies, fees and charges, it was determined that none adversely affect efforts to develop, maintain or improve affordable and supportive housing. The City Council is currently reviewing the feasibility of an "appearance ordinance" which would work in conjunction with code enforcement efforts and have the effect of cleaning up neighborhoods, thereby stabilizing areas and contributing to property values.
The City of Tulsa operates under a Fair Housing Ordinance that follows federal guidelines and includes protection for the disabled and familial status. The City's Department of Human Rights received a total of 19 filed housing discrimination complaints in Fiscal Year 1994. Dyann Mason, Director, may be reached at (918) 596-7818 should the reader have questions or need additional information. The address is 707 S. Houston, Suite 303, Tulsa, OK 74103.
The Department conducts weekly audits of the newspaper whereby staff reviewed ads for rental and sales in housing to ensure that the ads do not discourage rental and sales based on race, sex, disability, familial status, etc. Letters are sent to each of the advertisers notifying them of Fair Housing Laws and actions to be taken which would correct the possibility of discrimination. To further address this issue, a training has been scheduled with Tulsa World's advertising department to instruct them as to whether or not an ad is discriminatory so that they can advise the customer. The Department developed a model housing discrimination court case. The Department contacted Tulsa University's graduating law students to act as attorneys and for an instructor to act as judge. This model housing case was presented for real estate agents in their continuing education program.
In an effort to further Fair Housing practices, the City of Tulsa is actively involved in the Metropolitan Community Housing Resources Board program. This group works to educate the general public, and real estate and development communities on Fair Housing laws. The City also serves as a distribution point for information on the Oklahoma Residential and Non-Residential Landlord-Tenant Act.
Although no incidences of lead-based paint poisoning have been reported by the Tulsa City-County Health Department in many years, the City of Tulsa, through its Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs requires a Notice to Homeowners regarding lead-based paint hazards. In addition, houses are tested for the presence of lead-based paint. Any such hazard identified becomes part of abatement procedures.
Tulsa Housing Authority has tested all public housing family communities for the presence of lead-based paint. None of the complexes have been found to contain hazardous lead-based paint levels. The Tulsa Housing Authority is also establishing policies and procedures associated with reporting of lead-based paint activities and steps to be taken in the event any hazardous levels are found.
Dr. Marvin Cooke, Program Planner, Urban Development Department asserts in his working paper entitled "Changes in the Labor Market: The Roots of Poverty." that the loss of labor and craft jobs combined with the rise in service and retail sales occupations, has been one of the largest contributing factors to poverty in Tulsa (as well as nation-wide). Higher education is necessary to compete for better jobs, but does not necessarily ensure employment. Unlike times past, there are now more persons with degrees than positions requiring degrees. One of the effects of these changes in the labor market has been a decrease in employed males and an increase in the number of single female head of households.
A summary of Tulsa's anti-poverty strategy consists of actions that will be implemented through programs operated by local non-profit organizations in conjunction with City resources. These goals involve creating jobs with adequate pay, ensuring that job creation benefits targeted populations, developing strategies to link people with jobs, pooling resources in two income earner households, developing support systems for job training, placement, and child care, enhancing health care systems, sharing community resources, and enhancing community resources for life skills related to job training and parenting.
The institutional structure in the City of Tulsa consists of the City's Urban Development Department (which consists of five departments: Community Services, Planning and Economic Development, Aging, Code Enforcement, Job Training and Development Services); Tulsa Housing Authority; Tulsa Area United Way/Community Service Council and their related organizations (private, nonprofit social service and housing-related agencies); Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services; Department of Human Services; Oklahoma Housing Finance Agency; Community Action Agencies; numerous non-profit agencies; lending institutions; and INCOG, a regional planning agency.
Many networks and forums exist in which providers can meet to apprise one another of relevant developments and discuss issues which affect the entire community. For instance, the Homeless Services Network is a Community Service Council-established committee which meets monthly to discuss issues and concerns related to the problem of homelessness. Information is exchanged regarding surplus property and provisions, new services offered, seminars/conferences related to the homeless, etc. This has proved to be a valuable forum for service providers in the community.
The Metropolitan Human Services Commission (MHSC) is comprised of the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, the public school system, United Way, Department of Human Services, and other community representatives. MHSC is responsible for the development and overall coordination of planning/assessment functions of human services.
Tulsa benefits from a strong and cohesive coalition of local government officials, service providers, lenders and volunteers. These various groups coordinate effectively to avoid duplication of services. As such, they are able to effect a delivery system which meets the needs of Tulsa's many populations.
As discussed in the Housing Market Analysis, several trends are affecting affordable housing in Tulsa. The 1990 Census reported 176,232 units of year-round housing. Of that amount 88.2% were occupied. This represents a vacancy rate of 11.8%. The most recent Postal Vacancy Survey conducted for the Tulsa Metropolitan Area reported 184,418 total housing units, which includes single family detached and attached as well as multifamily and mobile homes. A total of 10,910 units were vacant representing a new vacancy rate of 5.9%. Comparative data by tenure was not available for this study (i.e., 1990 vs. 1995 renter and owner vacancy rates). As of August 1, 1995, a total of 590 households on the Section 8 waiting list met Federal preference standards. This group is comprised of persons living in substandard housing, those paying more than 50% of their income for rent, those about to be displaced and those who are homeless, all of whom are in critical need of assisted housing. A total of 1,940 households on the Section 8 waiting list did not meet Federal preference standards.
Need: A total of 19,470 non-elderly renter households did not pay more than 30% of their adjusted gross income for housing expenses. As such, it would seem that this group of renters would benefit from a home buyer assistance program. By household type, a total of 8,233 small family; 1,590 large family; and 9,647 other renter households fall into this category.
Strategy: The City's two Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOS) will provide approximately 90 home buyers assistance with HOME set aside moneys allocated by HUD through downpayment assistance or acquisition/rehabilitation activities. Habitat for Humanity will spend approximately $350,000 providing a total of 10 houses to qualifying families. All 10 homes will be new construction.
Need: As stated previously, a total of 3,686 elderly renter households were identified as in need of assistance. The Tulsa Area Agency on Aging reports a total of 4,861 households with incomes below $ 10,000 with health related limitations. As such, a need exists to assist this population of renters with assisted housing.
Strategy: The City will fund a non-profit entity with HOME funds to construct 60 units of congregate housing for the elderly.
Social Services, Extremely Low, Low, and Moderate Income Households
Need: A total of 25,883 households pay more than 30% of their adjusted gross income on housing. Local service providers report increases ranging from 10-25% in both consumer demand for programs and activities and total clients served. As such, a need for supportive facilities and services exists. Local service providers have identified an ongoing need for supportive service components (job training and placement, treatment programs, etc.). All possible funding sources will be pursued. The public service programs eligible under CDBG and recommended for funding are essential services for low income senior citizens, families and youth. These projects have been identified as high priorities in the Overview of Human Services Needs document prepared by the Metropolitan Human Services Commission.
Strategy: The City of Tulsa's Urban Development Department will assist approximately 12-15,000 low-income households through a variety of CDBG-funded social service programs over the next fiscal year. Federal Emergency Management Agency funds will assist an undetermined number of low-income households with shelter and utility expenses. Funds will be distributed through the Tulsa Area United Way Agency, and allocated to non-profit social service agencies participating in the Emergency Food and Shelter Program.
Need: As established in the Tulsa Development Authority Sector Plans, District Plans (neighborhood components of the Comprehensive Plan) and the Capital Improvement Plan, a need exists for a wide range of physical improvements including acquisition, demolition, clearance of blighted properties tree removal, and infrastructure improvements to neighborhoods (new or additional sidewalks). These activities, while diverse from one another, enhance neighborhood viability and safety.
Strategy: Funding to Tulsa Development Authority will provide for the acquisition, demolition and clearance of approximately 69 properties through the Section 108 Loan Guaranty process. Once cleared, the land will be developed for commercial and retail use. Tulsa Development Authority will administer a voluntary demolition program which will acquire, demolish and clear approximately 10 blighted properties.
Funding to four neighborhoods located in low to moderate income Census tracts will provide new sidewalks.
Funding for park improvements at Johnson Park will provide much needed recreational activities to residents in the 61st and S. Peoria neighborhood, contributing to a healthier living environment for area children.
Economic Development, Extremely Low, Low and Moderate Income
Need: A need exists for a program to assist businesses with the creation or retention of jobs for low and moderate income persons.
Strategy: Funding to three programs will assist with small business loans, promote opportunities for entrepreneurship initiatives, business expansion and technical assistance.
Funding to augment an Economic Development Initiative Grant in the form of a Section 108 loan guarantee will provide for the acquisition, demolition and clearance of land at the northeast corner of Pine Street and Peoria Avenue. For additional information on this CDBG-funded activity, the Section 108 Loan Guarantee application is available for public review at the Urban Development offices, 110 S. Hartford, Suite 200, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74120. Citizens may also wish to call (918) 596-2600 and speak with Fred Emmer, project coordinator about this proposed activity.
Toward the above noted goals, the following priority needs have been established for housing and non-housing activities. Generally, a need was given a higher priority if resources were likely to be made available in the fiscal year for which it was established. Needs documented by Census data and existing plans and policies were also given a higher priority. Finally, priority was given to extremely low income renter households, low and moderate income owner occupied households and moderate income homebuyer households as it was felt that these groups had the greatest needs relative to the activity or were likeliest to succeed in maintaining an activity (i.e., home maintenance or homebuying capacity). Geographically, activities, other than homebuyer assistance funded with HOME dollars, which are located or proposed to be located in the Neighborhood Reinvestment Area (see map, which follows) were given a priority.
ONE YEAR ACTION PLAN
PRIORITY ACTIVITIES
The City Council determined final funding decisions for Requests for Proposals from citizens and interested parties for eligible activities under the Community Development Block Grant and HOME programs at the August 10, 1995 City Council meeting. Map 5 indicates where some formula program funded projects are located. A summary list follows with project summary sheets.
These activities will be carried out through an extensive network of service providers, nonprofit organizations, lending institutions, Tulsa Housing Authority, the City of Tulsa, and where appropriate, various departments with the State of Oklahoma. Recognizing reductions in federal funding and the need for "partnering" to implement most programs, the City will coordinate closely with all parties involved.
FINAL FISCAL YEAR 1995 CDBG PROJECT AMOUNTS NAME OF PROJECTS FY 95 FUNDING PROGRAM CDBG Funds Reprogrammed Tulsa Senior Nutrition Program $ 110,000 Housing Information & Counseling Project 45,000 Asian American Social Service 50,000 Morton Transportation Service 100,000 Reaching Hands, Inc. 100,000 Medical Program for "At Risk" Infants & Children 40,000 Youth Volunteer Corp of Tulsa 10,000 Child Abuse Prevention 50,000 Earned Income Tax Credit & Public Assistance Outreach 50,000 Chemical Dependency Treatment Transportation 15,000 Homeless Outreach Treatment Program 22,000 Male-Rap Project 20,000 Court Advocacy for Victims of Domestic Violence 28,000 Choices Program 35,990 Family Planning Outreach Project 48,000 South Peoria Neighborhood House Program 40,000 North YWCA Teen Project 21,000 Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program 675,000 Tulsa Economic Development Corporation (TEDC) 425,000 SEEDS Program 100,000 Greenwood Business Resource Center 75,000 Emergency Repair Grant Program 439,365 Tulsa Home Improvement Loan Program 215,835 Neighborhood Housing/Energy Conservation 40,000 Tree Trimming Program 15,000 TDA Voluntary Demolition Program 30,000 Vocational Workshop 41,097 Johnson Park Improvements 56,000 Neighbors Along the Line 100,000 Acquisition 581,471 375,898 Relocation 266,555 Clearance 184,177 West-O-Main/Owen Park Improvement 100,000 Cherokee Village/Springdale Neighborhood Improvement 135,000 Village Square Demolition 350,000 TOTAL PROJECTS COST 4,990,388 General Oversight 834,612 TOTAL COST $ 5,233,267 591,733 FINAL FISCAL YEAR 1995 HOME PROJECT AMOUNTS NAME OF PROJECTS HOME Funding Local Match 1. Tulsa Home Improvement Loan Program 834,000 2. Vintage Housing 650,000 394,187 3. Housing Department (PGT) 185,500 75,000 4. Project S.U.C.C.E.S.S. (NHS) 185,500 75,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,855,000 $ 544,187
MAP 1 depicts points of interest in the jurisdiction.
MAP 2 depicts points of interest and low-moderate income areas.
MAP 3 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, and minority concentration levels.
MAP 4 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, and unemployment levels.
MAP 5 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded projects.
