[00:00:03]
WE'RE READY TO GO ON. WE'RE GOING TO GO.[Board Meeting on February 9, 2023.]
GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.ON THE MORNING OF FEBRUARY NINE, 2023.
WE WILL START OUT WITH THE ROLL.
IT'S NICE TO SEE A FULL, CROWDED DAIS.
AND AS USUAL, WE WILL START OUT THE MEETING WITH BOBBY, LEADING US WITH THE TWO THE PLEDGES.
TEXAS REACHES THE TEXAS STATE LINE AND INDIVISIBLE.
WHAT YOU COPY? OKAY, MOVING RIGHT ALONG.
WE ARE STARTING WITH THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ANY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OR PUBLIC WISH TO AMEND THE CONSENT AGENDA OR REMOVE AN ITEM FOR ACTION? HEARING NONE. I WILL ENTERTAIN THE MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
MOTION MADE BY MR. FARIAS TO ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA.
SECOND SECONDED BY MR. BACHE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED HEARING? NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
AND THAT LEADS US STRAIGHT INTO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT.
CORRECT? WE DON'T HAVE ANY GREAT RESOLUTIONS OR ANYTHING FOR YOU.
ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, MEMBERS.
FIRST OFF, I'D LIKE TO NOTE SOME WORK DONE BY THE HOUSING RESOURCE CENTER.
THEY DO A LOT OF STUFF FOR US, BUILD A LOT OF THE REPORTS, BOARD, BOOK, ETC..
WE CAN TRACK WHO HAS IT AND THE ITEM, ETC.
AND THIS MONTH IT WAS IT WAS ALL ALL REGISTER FOR FEBRUARY.
WHEN YOU'RE VIEWING OR DOWNLOADING THE BOARD BOOK, THE PUBLIC MAY STILL ACCESS THE BOOK OFF KDKA'S BOARD MEETING PAGE AS ALWAYS, BUT WHEN YOU CLICK ON THE LINK, YOU'LL BE TAKEN TO THE NEW WEB PAGE, WHICH IS TODAY'S PAGE OFF OF LEDGER STAR'S WEBSITE.
I WANT TO THANK HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE FUND CONTINUING TO ROLL ALONG WITHOUT WITHOUT ANY HITCHES OR, YOU KNOW, PROBLEMS. AS OF YESTERDAY, IT IS FUNDED OR HAS APPROVED FUNDING FOR 30,398 HOUSEHOLDS.
IT'S ABOUT $328 MILLION OUT THE DOOR WITH AN ADDITIONAL 1.4 MILLION IN PROGRESS.
[00:05:04]
AND WE STILL HAVE SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION AVAILABLE.OUR AVERAGE ASSISTANCE AMOUNT PER HOUSEHOLD IS NOW UP TO $10,905.
ALSO, OUR TEXAS UTILITY HELP PROGRAM IS STILL ACCEPTING NEW APPLICATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER.
AND FOLKS CAN GO TO TEXAS UTILITY HELP FOR MORE INFORMATION.
FOR RENT RELIEF, WHICH IS STILL STILL A PROGRAM.
JUST SIX DAYS AGO, WE RECEIVED AN ADDITIONAL 41 AND A HALF MILLION IN REALLOCATED ERA, TWO FUNDS THAT WILL BE USED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE THROUGH THE TEXAS RENT RELIEF PROGRAM AND THE HOUSING STABILITY SERVICES PROGRAM AND COVER THE ASSOCIATED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
THE PROGRAM CONTINUES TO PROCESS PREVIOUS SUBMITTED APPLICATIONS WITH THE REMAINING FUNDS.
BUT AT SOME POINT WE MIGHT NOT NEED TO OPEN THE PORTAL AGAIN.
ANOTHER PIECE OF NEWS FOR THE RENT RELIEF PROGRAM.
SPEED CHAIN IS THE IS THE NEW ONE.
IF APPLICANTS HAVE A PENDING APPLICATION, WE ENCOURAGE THEM TO WATCH FOR TEXTS, EMAILS OR PHONE CALLS FROM THE PROGRAM AS TR WILL REACH OUT IF WE NEED MORE INFORMATION TO PROCESS THEIR APPLICATION.
FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, THINGS ARE BEGINNING TO RAMP UP WITH THE 88TH REGULAR SESSION.
WE WILL BE BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE WITH TESTIMONY.
RIGHT NOW, WE'RE TRACKING ABOUT 77 BILLS THAT WOULD DIRECTLY IMPACT DACA IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
THAT IS ALL FROM MY PREPARED REMARKS, BUT WOULDN'T ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS OR.
QUESTIONS FOR MR. WILKINSON. IF NOT.
DID YOU SAY WE RENAMED? WE RENUMBERED THE PROCESSES HERE, AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A LOT MORE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THAN WE REALLY DON'T.
MR. BOSTON. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN VASQUEZ.
BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME IS BROOKE BOSTON.
I'M ONE OF OUR DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS.
AS I SHARED WITH YOU LAST MONTH, THE DEPARTMENT HAS BROUGHT ON MULTIPLE VENDORS ACROSS A VARIETY OF OUR NEW TEMPORARY PANDEMIC PROGRAMS BECAUSE THERE WAS URGENCY IN GETTING THESE PROGRAMS OUT AND AVAILABLE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
THE DEPARTMENT UTILIZED THE GOVERNOR'S COVID DISASTER DECLARATION THAT PROVIDES THAT ANY STATE STATUTE OR ADMINISTRATIVE RULE REGARDING CONTRACTING OR PROCUREMENT THAT WOULD IMPEDE AN AGENCY'S EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO THE DISASTER BE SUSPENDED.
ONE OF THE COMPONENTS OF THOSE PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS THAT'S WAIVED PROVIDES THAT AN AGENCY'S BOARD MUST CONSIDER MATERIAL AMENDMENTS AND SPECIFIES THAT A MATERIAL CHANGE INCLUDES TERM EXTENSIONS OF SIX MONTHS OR MORE AND INCREASES TO THE TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF AT LEAST 10%.
WHILE STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE WAIVER OF STATE STATUTES OR ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CONTINUES TO BE APPLICABLE TO THESE VENDOR AGREEMENTS OUT OF DEFERENCE TO THE SPIRIT OF THE STATUTE, AND BECAUSE THERE IS NOW SUFFICIENT TIME AT THIS PERIOD TO SEEK SUCH APPROVAL WITHOUT NEGATIVELY IMPACTING PROGRAM DELIVERY, STAFF IS SEEKING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT RELATING TO GARNERING BOARD CONSIDERATION OF MATERIAL AMENDMENTS.
LAST MONTH I BROUGHT YOU FOUR CONTRACT AMENDMENTS THAT NEEDED ACTION.
THE AMENDMENT TODAY RELATES TO TWO PROGRAMS THE HOMEOWNER ASSISTANCE FUND HALF AND THE TEXAS UTILITY HELP PROGRAM, WHICH IS FUNDED THROUGH HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, BOTH OUR ALLY HEAP AND OUR ALLY WOP FUNDS.
ON MAY 31ST, 2022, TO PROVIDE MARKETING AND COMMUNICATION SERVICES FOR HALF AND TEXAS UTILITY HELP.
WE ARE SUGGESTING THAT THE CONTRACT BE AMENDED THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST, 2023.
[00:10:02]
HOWEVER, WE WILL NOTE THAT THE CONTRACT HAS LANGUAGE THAT THE CONTRACT WILL TERMINATE ON THE EARLIER OF DECEMBER 31ST, 2023, OR IMMEDIATELY UPON NOTICE FROM TDA. THE HALF FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED AND NO FURTHER MARKETING IS ANTICIPATED.THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WITH HORNE HAS BEEN FULLY EXTENDED OR VERY CLOSE.
THEY HAVE THE FINAL INVOICE IN AND WHICH WAS EXPECTED BY THIS TIME.
THEREFORE, THIS AMENDMENT ADDS BOTH TIME AND FUNDS.
OF THE 2.1 MILLION INCREASE, BUT THE LARGE BULK OF THAT 1.8 MILLION IS BEING COVERED BY HALF FUNDS, AND THEN THE REMAINING FUNDS ARE COVERED EQUALLY BY LIHEAP AND LIVE WAP.
THE CONTRACT WAS CALCULATED BASED.
AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
OKAY, SO THIS IS A NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT.
YEAH. IF WE'D LIKE THEM TO DO ROUGHLY AS MUCH MEDIA AND OUTREACH CONTINUING AS THEY HAVE DONE SO FAR THAN WE DO THINK THAT THEY WOULD SPEND CLOSE TO THAT AMOUNT UNLESS WE RUN OUT OF FUNDS IN THE PROGRAM, CORRECT? CORRECT. SO AND WE HAVEN'T FINALIZED WITH THEM EXACTLY WHAT THIS WILL INCLUDE.
BUT TO DATE, IT HAS INCLUDED ANYTHING FROM PAID MEDIA WOULD BE RADIO, BILLBOARDS, EMAIL, EXCUSE ME, MAILERS BEING SENT DIRECTLY TO YOUR LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE THAT WE KNOW ARE HOMEOWNERS.
OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS..
I'LL ENTERTAIN THE MOTION ON ITEM 13 OF THE AGENDA.
OUR SECOND THANK YOU MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER, SECONDED BY MR. FARIAS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AND THE OPPOSED HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES ITEM 14 ON THE AGENDA PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENTS OUTSIDE OUTSIDE COUNSEL CONTRACT FOR BOND AND SECURITIES DISCLOSURES.
I'M SCOTT FLETCHER, DIRECTOR OF BOND FINANCE WITH TEXAS PUBLIC HOUSING.
FOR SOME THREE ITEMS, THE FIRST ITEM IS OH, SORRY.
THANKS. THE FIRST ITEM IS A PRESENTATION DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT'S OUTSIDE COUNSEL CONTRACT FOR BOND AND SECURITIES DISCLOSURE IN 2021, SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2021, TDA.
THAT CONTRACT IS SET TO EXPIRE ON AUGUST 31ST OF 2023.
BOND COUNSEL DISCLOSURE COUNSEL SORRY IS ENGAGED IN LEGAL SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF OUR BOND DEALS AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SEC RULE 15 C TO 12 IN 2021.
THAT CONTRACT WAS WRITTEN WITH A 200,000.
NOT TO EXCEED AGREEMENT AND DUE TO ADDITIONAL ISSUANCE CHANGES IN INTEREST RATES, WE HAVE ISSUED A LOT MORE BONDS THAN WE HAVE BEEN DOING OUR TBA PROGRAM TO DATE FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS PERIOD WE'VE DONE FIVE TRANSACTIONS. WE ARE SCHEDULED TO DO THREE MORE BEFORE AUGUST OF 23.
WE ARE SEEKING TO INCREASE THE LIMIT ON THAT CONTRACT FROM 200000 TO 440000.
THAT WILL GET US THROUGH THE END OF THIS YEAR.
AND WITH THAT, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND WE CAN KIND OF WALK YOU THROUGH HOW WE GOT HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE VERSUS WHERE WE ARE.
SO MY FIRST QUESTION IS, WHY ARE LAWYERS SO EXPENSIVE? THEY'RE HERE. SO, I MEAN, AND THAT'S ONLY SEMIS SAID IN JEST.
BUT IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN LIMIT HOW MUCH WE'RE SPENDING ON THESE
[00:15:02]
KINDS OF OF MATTERS? I MEAN, IT'S LIKE 50,000 EACH.ISSUANCE FOR THE DISCLOSURE COUNCIL, IT'S 55,000 PER ISSUANCE.
AND AGAIN, WE CAN GIVE I CAN GIVE SOME COLOR.
I THINK BEAU PROBABLY HAS BETTER COLOR.
WHY WE WENT INTO THIS WITH A 200,000 NUMBER.
INSTEAD I THINK WE HAD INCREASED ISSUANCE.
IN TERMS OF THE THE AMOUNT AND, YOU KNOW, THE THE FEES ARE COVERED IN THE COST OF ISSUANCE OF THE DEBT.
SOME OF THE FEES ARE SET ON A PER BOND BASIS.
SOME OF THE FEES ARE A FIXED COST DISCLOSURE.
COUNSEL IS ONE THAT'S A FIXED COST.
WHETHER WE ISSUE 150 MILLION IN BONDS OR IT'S 55,000, WHETHER WE ISSUE $230 MILLION IN BONDS.
SO THIS IS ONE THAT I THINK TO YOUR POINT THAT YOU'D MADE PREVIOUSLY, WHY AREN'T WE ISSUING JUST AS MUCH AS WE CAN IF WE'VE GOT THESE ONE TIME COSTS? WELL, IT'S ALSO ABOUT THE RISK MANAGEMENT OF THE OF THE DEBT ISSUING AND AND INVESTING THE PROCEEDS IN MORTGAGES IN THE SAME MARKET CONDITIONS SO WE CAN PROTECT THE DEPARTMENT FROM A FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE.
IT'S TRUE, BUT WE WOULD HAVE THERE ARE CERTAINLY A LOT OF THE FEES THAT ARE ON A PER BOND BASIS.
SO YOU WOULD PAY MORE FOR THE FOR THE OTHER FOR JUST LARGER DEBT ISSUANCE.
OKAY. HAS ANYONE CHECKED TO SEE BETWEEN THE FIRST BOND ISSUANCE IN THIS CASE AND THEN THE THIRD OR FOURTH BOND ISSUANCE? HOW MANY WORDS CHANGED IN THAT FOURTH ISSUANCE COMPARED TO THE FIRST ISSUANCE? TO BE HONEST ON THIS PARTICULAR ON OUR DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, IT'S KIND OF A CONSTANTLY EVOLVING THING, CERTAINLY AS THINGS CHANGE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT.
WE'VE HAD JUST OVER THE MOST RECENT CALL IT TWO OR THREE YEARS, YOU'VE HAD YOU HAVE COVID RELATED DISCLOSURES, YOU HAVE MODIFIED LOAN RELATED DISCLOSURES, YOU HAVE OTHER DISCLOSURES THAT ARE KIND OF COMING IN.
SO IT'S I YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO DEFEND ATTORNEY'S FEES.
RFA I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION, BUT YEAH, THERE IS IT IS A CONSTANTLY IT IS A CONSTANTLY EVOLVING PROCESS. AND YOU YOU CERTAINLY HAVE IMPORTANT WORK THAT'S DONE NOT ONLY FROM A DOCUMENTS PERSPECTIVE, BUT ALSO PROCESS PERSPECTIVE AND RESOLUTIONS. AND THERE'S A LOT OF A LOT INVOLVED IN BRINGING DEBT TO MARKET.
WE'RE PUTTING THINGS OUT FOR BID.
YOU KNOW, WE LIKE OUR PARTNERS, BUT WE'RE WILLING TO FIND NEW ONES.
AND SO IT'S A CONSTANTLY EVOLVING THING.
AND AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING I'M OPPOSED TO THAT.
AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS FOR FEES FOR FAIR SERVICES.
BUT WHEN WE INCREMENTALLY DO THE BASICALLY THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE'RE GETTING A WHOLE NEW $55,000 WORTH OF SERVICES.
QUESTION NOT JUST PICKING ON THE LAWYERS.
YEAH, ALTHOUGH I LIKE PICKING THEM ALL THE TIME.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S I THINK THEY'RE ALWAYS AN EASY TARGET.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT ALL OF THIS AND AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT ALONE.
WE'RE NOT THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE DOING THIS.
WE GO THROUGH AN RFP PROCESS ON ALL OF THIS ON AS REQUIRED, USUALLY A TWO YEAR.
AND THEN WITH THE OPTION, THE OPTION THREE ARE THREE ONE YEAR OPTIONS.
AND WE ARE ALSO AWARE OF THE BROADER MARKET AND WHAT OTHER WHAT OTHER ISSUERS ARE PAYING.
AND A LOT OF THIS STUFF, CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A WHILE.
AND AS WE CONTINUE TO EVOLVE AND MARKETS CONTINUE TO EVOLVE, EVOLVE WILL CONTINUE TO HOLD OUR OUR PARTNERS ACCOUNTABLE AND BE CONSISTENT WITH MARKET PRICING FOR THE SERVICES THAT THEY RENDER TO US.
[00:20:02]
LET'S AIM AT BEATING THE MARKET.OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? I DO, MR. CHAIRMAN, PLEASE.
MR. FLETCHER. SO THE BACKGROUND.
SO THE PRIOR TWO YEAR CONTRACT, YOU SAID WE HAD THREE TRANSACTIONS.
DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT THE WHAT THE FEES PAID ON THAT CONTRACT WERE ON THE PRIOR THE AGREEMENT? PRIOR TO PRIOR TO THE CURRENT? I DON'T I DON'T HAVE THAT.
MR.. THOMAS. I'M SORRY, BECAUSE IT WAS BEFORE MY TIME AND I HAVEN'T DONE THE LOOK BACK.
SO WHAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT THIS IS SO WE HAVE THE CURRENT CONTRACT WHICH YEAH, WE CONTEMPLATED.
YES, WE CONTEMPLATED THREE TRANSACTIONS.
WE'VE DONE A FIVE TOTAL, SO TWO ADDITIONAL ONES.
AND NOW WE, WE EXPECT WE'RE GOING TO DO THREE MORE.
BUT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CONTRACT BASED ON AN RFP IS ORIGINALLY BID AT 200,000, AND NOW WE'RE MORE THAN DOUBLING THAT CONTRACT FOR THE ADDITIONAL SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTIONS WITHOUT BIDDING IT OUT NECESSARILY.
SO BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN THE CONTRACT, IT WAS WITHIN.
RIGHT. SO AS MY THAT IS A PRETTY STIFF INCREASE TO A CONTRACT THAT WAS RFP OUT AND APPROVED EVEN WITH THE INCREMENTAL ADDITIONAL TRANSACTIONS BEING CONTEMPLATED.
SO WHY SHOULD THIS BOARD MORE THAN DOUBLE THE FEE FOR THIS, GIVEN I THINK THE CHAIRMAN'S ASTUTE REMARKS, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, YES, THERE'S MORE DISCLOSURE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT, AS YOU KNOW.
BUT EACH TRANSACTION, THERE'S NOT THAT MUCH MORE THAT'S NEW ADDED INTO THE DOCUMENT TO JUSTIFY MORE THAN DOUBLE THE CONTRACT. I APPRECIATE THAT.
AND BOW CAN PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL COLOR ON THIS, I'M HOPEFUL THAT THERE WAS A DECISION MADE TO TO JUST DO 200, I THINK WITH THE THOUGHT PROCESS THAT THEY WOULD DO AN ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL AS NEEDED.
I THINK THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PAY A FEE ON ON POTENTIAL ISSUANCE.
THEY WEREN'T GOING TO DO OR POTENTIAL FEES THEY WEREN'T GOING TO TO UTILIZE.
AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M IF THAT'S NOT ACCURATE, I APOLOGIZE.
COUNSEL WHO HANDLED THE RFP LAST WAS JEFF PENDER, AND HE'S RETIRED FROM THE AGENCY.
HOWEVER, I WILL SAY THAT I BELIEVE THAT WE AMENDED THIS THIS CONTRACT, THE SAME BOND DISCLOSURE COUNCIL CONTRACT IN JANUARY LAST YEAR, OR LIKE MOST OF THE WAY THROUGH THE THE DOUBLE CONTRACT, THE DOUBLE YEAR, WE'VE DONE THIS BEFORE.
SO THERE WAS SOME REASON WHY IT WAS HALF NOW AND THEN AMENDED TO GIVE THE SECOND HALF LATER.
THAT SAID, IF WE DON'T LIKE THIS PROCESS AND THE BOARD DOESN'T LIKE IT, THIS COMES UP FOR RFP IN THE SPRING AND WE CAN PUT IT OUT THERE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT AGAIN THIS WAY AND WE'LL SEE WHO COMES IN AND HOW THEY BID.
THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE MY COMMENT.
I MEAN, I THINK RFP IS ARE DESIGNED FOR A REASON.
AND WHEN WE ASK FOR FEES AND RFPS, THAT'S HOW WE EVALUATE IT.
AND I THINK IT I LIKE I'M SOMEONE IS PROBABLY YOU'VE GOTTEN TO APPRECIATE SOMEONE WHO VALUES CONSISTENCY AND I THINK IF WE ASK OUR DEVELOPER PARTNERS AND FOLKS THAT ARE WORKING WITH THE AGENCY TO IN A COMPETITIVE PROCESS TO SORT OF ADHERE TO THAT AND I KNOW WE HAVE DEVIATED SOME ALLOWING FOR LIKE THE INFLATION COSTS AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY IMPACT LAWYERS, RIGHT.
IN WHAT THE SERVICES FEES, CONTRACTS ARE.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, I'M A BIG BELIEVER YOU BID IN A CONTRACT, THEN YOU SHOULD STICK TO THAT BID.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I'LL BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS ACTION.
BUT YOU KNOW, FOR FUTURE REFERENCE, WHEN YOU RFP OUT AND YOU YOU YOU NEED TO PROBABLY DESIGN THE RFP WHERE YOU CONTEMPLATE A NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS AND HAVE A CAP IN THERE AND VENDORS NEED TO ADHERE TO IT.
THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENT AND I AGREE AND I APPRECIATE IT.
AND I THINK TO BE FAIR TO MCCALL, THEY HAVE NOT CHANGED THEIR FEES IN THIS CONTRACT.
IN THIS AGREEMENT. THEY THEY ARE KEEPING THAT 55,000 PER ISSUANCE.
[00:25:07]
THEY WOULD COME WITH AN ADDITIONAL REQUEST FOR FUNDS AT SOME POINT.I DON'T THAT'S NOT HOW I WOULD APPROACH IT ON A GO FORWARD BASIS, CERTAINLY.
AND AS WE RFP THIS PROCESS, AGAIN, WE'LL BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHERE WE ARE IN NUMBER OF IN TERMS OF EXPECTATIONS, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A NOT TO EXCEED CONTRACT. I THINK YOU LOOK AT THE WORST CASE SCENARIO OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE THAT YOU COULD BE BASED ON MARKET CONDITIONS, WHICH CERTAINLY CAN CHANGE OVER A TWO YEAR PERIOD.
AND THEN AND THEN IF YOU HAVE TO COME BACK, THEN IT'S IT'S ON YOU.
RIGHT. SO I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS.
YOU KNOW, I'M NEVER ONE TO SAY THIS PREDATES ME.
I JUST TAKE OWNERSHIP OF WHAT WHERE WE ARE AND WHAT WE'RE DOING.
IN TERMS OF BEING CLEAR ON THE ON THE PRICING AS A TOTAL AND AND LOOKING AT WHAT WE REALLY EXPECT TO DO, NOT A NOT A DOUBLE LET'S KEEP GOING BACK TO THE BOARD THING BECAUSE IT'S IT'S A WASTE OF TIME AND FOR BENEFIT FOR SOME OF THE NEWER MEMBERS ON ON THE BOARD AND FOR THE PUBLIC.
OUR BOND COUNSEL DISCLOSURE COUNCIL RELATIONSHIP ALL IN ONE FIRM WITH MCCALL OR WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT FIRMS AND WE HAVE WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT FIRMS INVOLVED IN OUR BOND COUNSEL IS IS BRACEWELL AND DISCLOSURE COUNSEL IS MCCALL PARKHURST OUT OF DALLAS.
THE GENTLEMAN'S OUT OF DALLAS.
TAX COUNSEL IS ALSO WITH BRACEWELL.
DOES THE JUST THE MONEY COME FROM HAS COME OUT FEES THAT THE DEVELOPERS PAY OR GENERAL.
ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. SO, YOU KNOW, IT ALL COMES OUT OF BOND ISSUANCE, RIGHT? SO YOU'RE ISSUING THE DEBT AND YOU HAVE A COST OF OF ISSUANCE THAT'S IMBEDDED IN THERE.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE PAYING IT, RIGHT? WE GOT TO PAY THOSE BONDS BACK.
IT JUST GETS BURIED IN THE COST OF ISSUANCE.
IT'S ALL IT'S ALL WITHIN THE BOND DEAL.
AND THAT'S PAID BY PROCEEDS FROM THE PROGRAM AND THE ISSUANCE.
SO I JUST ENCOURAGE YOU AND EVERYONE IN THE DEPARTMENT, WE'RE BIG ENOUGH WHERE WE SHOULD BE GETTING SOME ECONOMIES OF SCALE. MAYBE THERE IS A IF WE HAVE A TWO YEAR TERM AND THERE'S A FEE FOR THE FIRST THREE ISSUANCES AND THEN THE NEXT THREE IS A LITTLE LOWER, ETC., WE ALL NEED TO BE LOOKING AT THAT TO, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S THE WAY WE'VE ALWAYS DONE IT.
I JUST I HATE THAT THAT PHRASE.
THAT'S THE WAY WE'VE ALWAYS DONE IT.
LET'S QUESTION WHY ARE WE DOING IT THIS WAY AND SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME SAVINGS IN THERE? WITH THAT I WOULD OR 14 I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 14 OF THE AGENDA.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT'S OUTSIDE BOND AND SECURITIES DISCLOSURE DISCLOSURE COUNCIL CONTRACT AS PRESENTED IN THE BOARD ACTION REQUESTS ON THIS ITEM AND AUTHORIZE ITS EXECUTION BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE.
SECOND MOTION MADE BY MR. BACHE, SECONDED BY MS..
FARIAS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR ANY OPPOSED HEARING? NONE MOTION CARRIES THANKS TO THE NEW SYSTEM THAT OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ADVERTISED IN HIS REMARKS WAS RELIGIOUS.
THERE IS NO ITEM 15 ON THE AGENDA.
IT'S FLIPPED. AND YOU CAN TAKE NO ONE KNOWS WHY.
AND I'M AFRAID I MIGHT HAVE ENTERED IT THAT WAY.
AND THEN WHEN IT CAME, IT AUTOMATICALLY DID IT.
SO WE DO HAVE AN ITEM 15 AND 16.
WE'LL STAY IN ORDER IN THE HISTORIC OR THE THE HISTORIC NUMERICAL ORDER.
OKAY. LET ME READ IT INTO THE RECORD.
SO THOSE LISTENING AT HOME WILL KNOW.
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE AND DELIVERY OF.
[00:30:05]
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2023 A APPROVING THE FORM AND SUBSTANCE OF RELATED DOCUMENTS AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTS NECESSARY OR CONVENIENT TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF THIS RESOLUTION AND CONTAINING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT.
A LAWYER MUST HAVE WRITTEN THAT ONE TO SCOTT.
THAT'S THAT'S NOT PART OF THAT OTHER FEE.
THAT'S NOT THAT'S BOND COUNSEL.
WITH THIS ITEM, STAFF IS REQUESTING FINAL BOARD APPROVAL TO ISSUE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2023 A IN A PAR AMOUNT, NOT TO EXCEED 230 MILLION FOR NEW SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE LOAN ORIGINATION.
R AND B R M R B BONDS ISSUED IN OCTOBER OF 22.
THE PROCEEDS WILL BE USED TO ORIGINATE MORTGAGE LOANS TO LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOMEBUYERS TO PAY ALL OR PORTION OF THE DOWN PAYMENT, CLOSING COSTS AND RELATED EXPENSES, LENDER COMPENSATION SERVICING SECONDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LOANS, AND TO PAY A PORTION OF THE COST OF ISSUANCE.
THE BOND STRUCTURE IS EXPECTED TO BE SERIAL BONDS.
PREMIUM PACK BOND MORTGAGE LOANS WILL BE POOLED INTO MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES GUARANTEED BY GINNIE MAE, AND THOSE MBES WILL BE PROVIDED WILL PROVIDE THE SECURITY FOR THE BONDS.
SECOND LOAN SERVICING FEES AND OR COST OF ISSUANCE.
CAPITALIZED INTEREST WILL BE DRAWN FROM THE INDENTURE AS NEEDED AND WILL NOT EXCEED 7 MILLION.
WE ARE VERY CONSERVATIVE ON THESE MAXIMUMS. THAT DOESN'T SOUND RIGHT AFTER WHAT WE JUST THE CONVERSATION WE JUST HAD AND THE ACTUAL CONTRIBUTION AND CAPITALIZED INTEREST DRAWS ARE NOT EXPECTED TO REACH THESE LEVELS.
BONDS ARE EXPECTED TO BE RATED TRIPLE A BY MOODY'S AND DOUBLE-A PLUS BY S&P AND ARE EXPECTED TO PRICE ON MARCH 1ST AND CLOSE ON MARCH 29. AND WITH THAT, I AM PREPARED FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. FLETCHER? SORRY.
PLEASE. IF THESE BONDS ARE NOT ISSUED, WHAT'S THE TERM OF THEM? ARE THEY SO THE BONDS, THE THE MAX TERM ON THE PACK, THE FINAL MATURITY ON THE PACK IS WOULD BE 2053 OR FOUR, I BELIEVE.
SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT A 30 AND A 30 YEAR BOND ISSUANCE.
BUT THE AVERAGE LIFE OF THAT BOND ISSUE IS ACTUALLY SHORTER.
IN A TIME WHERE HOUSING SHORTAGES ARE NOT BEING MADE.
WE'RE WE'RE ISSUING KIND OF A HISTORICAL NUMBER THAT WE THINK WE MIGHT NEED.
ABSOLUTELY. BUT WE HIT PERIODS WHERE WE DON'T NEED THAT.
WHAT ABSOLUTELY DOES THAT MONEY JUST KEEP CARRYING FORWARD UNTIL IT'S ISSUED? IF WE HAD THAT THAT SITUATION, WE WE WOULD BASICALLY BE CARRYING WE WOULD HAVE NEGATIVE ARBITRAGE, ESSENTIALLY, RIGHT WHERE WE'RE PAYING X PERCENT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE UNDERLYING LOANS AGAINST IT.
AND SO WE'RE EARNING WHATEVER OVERNIGHT RATE IS, WHICH IS CURRENTLY RIGHT AROUND 4%.
SO WE HAVE NEGATIVE ARBITRAGE ON THAT.
THAT WAS 190 MILLION OUT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY INDENTURE.
YEAH. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AND YOU KNOW, MY TAKE ON THIS HAS REALLY BEEN WHEN WE'RE IN A PERIOD OF VOLATILE INTEREST RATES WHERE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE EXPOSED, WHERE WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ISSUE THE DEBT AND AND FUND THE MORTGAGES WITHIN THE SAME MARKET PERIOD, ESSENTIALLY, WE WANT TO BE REALLY CAREFUL WITH THE OVERALL LEVEL OF INTEREST RATES RIGHT NOW.
THE THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF VALUE TO THE BOND FUNDS BECAUSE WE'RE ABOUT 100 BASIS POINTS BELOW WHAT THE TBA RATE WOULD BE, WHICH IS PRETTY MATERIAL WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A HIGHER RATE ENVIRONMENT.
[00:35:07]
YOU KNOW, I THINK THE CONCERN AS WE GO INTO THIS IS WE I DON'T THINK THE OTHER SHOE HAS DROPPED ON HOUSING YET.I THINK WE'RE SEEING IT SLOW DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
BUT WE TOOK ESSENTIALLY WE HAD TO SHUT THE PROGRAM DOWN IN A MONTH AGO, ALMOST RIGHT ON JANUARY 12TH. AND WE'D LIKE TO TRY AND HAVE FUNDS AVAILABLE.
THESE PROGRAMS ARE THE DEMAND IS STILL THERE.
AND AS WE SEE THAT SLOW DOWN, WE'LL MAKE ADJUSTMENTS IN OUR NEXT ISSUANCE AND PLAY IT FROM THERE.
I THINK IT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
SO, YEAH, WE'RE GOING WITH A LARGER ISSUANCE.
IS THERE A WAY I MEAN, IT'S MY FEELING THAT IN TIMES LIKE THIS WHERE PEOPLE ARE STRUGGLING TO GET MORTGAGES BECAUSE OF THE RATE, THAT THIS PROGRAM IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT? ABSOLUTELY. AND IS THERE A WAY FOR US UP FRONT TO APPROVE ON A CONTINGENCY BASIS SEVERAL TRANCHES OF THIS MONEY AS NEEDED? I WOULD LOVE THAT.
THAT WOULD BE THE GREATEST GIFT THAT YOU COULD GIVE THE DEPARTMENT.
AS LONG AS OUR RATINGS DON'T CHANGE, IT WOULD GIVE US THE FLEXIBILITY TO MANAGE THE FLOW SO THAT IF THERE WAS NO DEMAND, YOU JUST DIDN'T EXERCISE YOUR ABILITY, YOUR AUTHORIZATION. THEY WOULD IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE TO DO IT RIGHT IF I WOULD.
BUT YOU DON'T YOU DON'T THINK YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT NOW LEGALLY, WHAT TO TO GET A BLANKET, GET A NEED TO GET A SAY AUTHORIZATION FOR X, BUT BUT BUT NOT BE OBLIGATED TO OFFER IT IN MORE MORE THAN YOU THINK YOU CAN USE IT IN TIME BUT GIVE YOU THE FLEXIBILITY TO OFFER MORE WITHOUT THIS CONSTANT BACK AND FORTH.
AND THAT IS THAT TENDS TO BE AN ISSUE BY ISSUE SITUATION.
BUT YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK IF WE HAD, IF THAT WAS THE DIRECTION THAT THE BOARD WANTED TO GO, I COULD CERTAINLY PUT TOGETHER A CASE STUDY KIND OF SAYING THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD DO, THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE THAT EVERYONE'S COMFORTABLE WITH IT.
BUT THIS IS GOING ANOTHER DIRECTION COMPLETELY, I'M SURE.
THIS AGENCY NEEDS TO BE MORE VITAL IN THESE GAPS WHEN WE GET INTO THE ECONOMY.
IT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT. MARGIN.
AND WE CAN WE CAN REPORT BACK.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. NO, NO, I AGREE WITH MR. MARSON. ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS AND AND MAKE IT WORK WHEN WE'RE ISSUING, WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGES OF THE MARKET LIKE THIS.
WE EXPECT TO BE FULLY OVERSUBSCRIBED, JUST LIKE THE 190 WAS, RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY. AND AS MR. THOMAS CAN ATTEST, RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE'RE SEEING, WE KIND OF WE KIND OF TIMED THE MARKET RIGHT ON THAT LAST ONE.
WE'RE STARTING TO SEE A LITTLE BIT OF INCREASE IN RATES, AND THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
SO YEAH, I THINK THE YOU KNOW, HAVING THAT FLEXIBILITY AND IF WE WERE TO GET CLOSER TO ISSUANCE DATE, WE HAVE SOMETHING CRAZY HAPPEN AND THEN WE CAN SAY, HEY, WE DON'T WE DON'T WE'RE NOT ISSUING THE FULL 230, LET'S RATCHET THIS THING DOWN TO 150 AND WE GO FROM THERE.
SO WE WANT TO BE AS FLEXIBLE AS WE CAN UP UNTIL THE POINT WHERE MORE INFORMATION THAT COMES OVER TIME IS ALWAYS YOU MAKE YOUR DECISIONS BASED ON THE LATEST AND MOST ACCURATE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE.
LOOK, I THINK WE'VE GOT THIS ONE.
UNDERSTOOD. I'LL ENTERTAIN THE MOTION ON ITEM 15 OF THE AGENDA.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THE BOARD.
APPROVE. RESOLUTION NUMBER 23, DASH 019 AS PRESENTED IN THE BOARD ACTION REQUEST ON THIS ITEM.
[00:40:06]
SECOND MOTION MADE BY MR. FARIA. SECONDED BY MR. HARPER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.AYE. ANY OPPOSED HEARING? NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
AND THEN GOING BACK TO ITEM 16.
PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 20 3-017.
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF ONE OR MORE APPLICATIONS FOR RESERVATION WITH THE TEXAS BOND REVIEW BOARD WITH RESPECT TO QUALIFIED MORTGAGE BONDS AUTHORIZING AUTHORIZING STATE DEBT APPLICATION AND CONTAINING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT.
IN 2023, THE STATE OF TEXAS RECEIVED OVER 3.6 BILLION IN VOLUME CAP FOR ALL PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS, OF WHICH 387 MILLION WAS SET ASIDE FOR THE DEPARTMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY ACTIVITY.
THIS IS YOU KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE TRACK VERY CLOSELY AND WE ARE EXPLORING WAYS TO EXPAND OUR REACH ON VOLUME CAP THROUGH VARIOUS PROGRAMS, BUT ESSENTIALLY GOING TO BOND REVIEW BOARD TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE ON THIS 230 MILLION.
ALLOCATING 230 MILLION IN VOLUME CAP FOR THE ISSUANCE THAT THE BOARD JUST APPROVED.
THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM 16? I'M SORRY. IS THIS FUND TYPICALLY USED TO ITS FULLEST.
SO VOLUME WHEN VOLUME CAPS ISSUED, YOU HAVE THREE YEARS TO FULLY UTILIZE THAT VOLUME CAP.
IT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH WE COULD ISSUE MORTGAGES THROUGH THE THROUGH A TVA PROCESS.
AND NOW AS WE'RE SEEING A HIGHER RATE ENVIRONMENT, AS YOU AS YOU INDICATED EARLIER, THE VALUE OF THE BOND BOND LOANS, MORTGAGE LOANS FUNDED BY THE BONDS THAT WE ISSUE ARE MORE VALUABLE THAN EVER AND THE DEMAND IS HIGHER THAN EVER.
SO WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS WE ONLY GET SO MUCH PER YEAR AND WE'VE GOT A FULL FORWARD LOOK ON THAT.
WE'VE WE HAVE ABOUT IT'S JUST OVER A BILLION IN VOLUME CAP THAT'S AVAILABLE.
I ANTICIPATE THAT THAT IN CALENDAR YEAR 23 WILL ISSUE AROUND 750 MILLION.
WE GET ALLOCATIONS FROM LOCALS.
BUT IT'S IT'S WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS FORWARD AND WE'RE FEELING LIKE WE NEED TO START GETTING WITHIN THE WITHIN THE THE LAW AND HOW YOU COULD RECYCLE VOLUME CAP.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT DO SEVERAL YEARS VOLUME CAP RESTRAINED AT SOME POINT SEVERAL YEARS AGO THERE WAS A PROGRAM MANY YEARS AGO WHEN I WAS A MAYOR WHERE WE I THINK THROUGH THE THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT, I THINK WE ISSUED A FIRST TIME HOMEBUYER AND THE INTEREST RATE WAS SUBSIDIZED OR THE INTEREST RATE ON THAT FIRST LIEN MORTGAGE WAS LOWERED.
DOES THAT FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY? AND WHERE WHERE DOES THE WHERE WOULD THE SUBSIDY COST COME FROM WHEN IT COME FROM AN EXTERNAL PROGRAM THAT WE HAD THAT WOULD FUND INTO THAT FUND SO THAT LET'S SAY IT WAS 2% MARKET FOR FIRST TIME HOMEBUYERS AND HAVE A VERY NARROW PROGRAM WHERE YOU COULD TARGET WHERE THE MORTGAGES WERE MADE.
YEAH. SO I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE THE CORE OF THE QUESTION.
WELL, I THINK MAYBE IF I CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT LATER.
EXACTLY. AND NOT TAKE THE BOARD'S TIME OUT.
RIGHT. AND WE GET 387 MILLION FOR OUR PROGRAM.
A LOT OF THE LOCAL HFA AND LOCAL HOUSING FOLKS GET FUNDS AS WELL, FUNDS THAT THEY CAN'T USE.
THEY'LL TURN BACK AND THEY BECOME AVAILABLE AT THE END OF THE YEAR.
I BELIEVE THE CUTOFF IS THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
YEAH, I'LL EXPLAIN IF YOU DON'T MIND ME TALKING TO YOU LATER.
YEAH. NO, ABSOLUTELY HAPPY TO DO THAT.
I'M NOT SURE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION, BUT I GOT IT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? IF NOT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 16 OF THE AGENDA.
[00:45:06]
MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER.IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? SECONDED BY MR. FARIAS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED HEARING? NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
THANK YOU, MR. FLETCHER. THANK YOU ALL.
AND THANK YOU FOR THE GOOD QUESTIONS.
IT MEANS A LOT TO ME, ACTUALLY.
OKAY. MOVING ON TO ITEM 17 OF THE AGENDA OF PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AWARDS FOR 2023 COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT DISCRETIONARY FUNDS FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT SERVICES TO NATIVE AMERICAN AND MIGRANT SEASONAL FARM WORKER POPULATIONS.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN VASQUEZ.
AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS MICHAEL DEYOUNG.
I'M THE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS DIVISION DIRECTOR.
EACH YEAR SBG DISCRETIONARY FUNDS ARE PROGRAMED FOR VERY SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES WHICH WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD IN OUR CDBG PLAN, AND WE BRING THAT TO YOU IN JULY AND AUGUST. WE TURN IT INTO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
AND THIS YEAR, AS IN PREVIOUS YEARS, 300,000 HAS BEEN PROGRAMED FOR THE NATIVE AMERICAN AND MIGRANT SEASONAL FARM WORKER, EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS. SO EXAMPLES OF THESE EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES ARE OBTAINING WORK SKILLS FOR EMPLOYMENT, RESUME WRITING, INTERVIEWING SKILLS, CAREER COUNSELING.
AND ON THE EDUCATION SIDE, WE DO CREDENTIALING CERTIFICATES OR DEGREES AT A TRADE SCHOOL OR COMMUNITY COLLEGE LITERACY LITERACY CLASSES AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION. AT THE BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 26TH, 2022, A NO.
FOUR FOR THREE AWARDS WAS APPROVED AND RELEASED AND WE RECEIVED FOUR APPLICATIONS.
TWO OF THEM WERE FOR MIGRANT SEASONAL FARM WORKERS, TWO WERE FOR THE NATIVE AMERICAN POTS OF FUNDS.
AND THEN ONE FOR THE NATIVE AMERICAN POPULATION, WHICH IS CALLED TEXAS NATIVE HEALTH.
EACH OF THESE ENTITIES HAS WORKED WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS.
EACH AWARD WOULD BE FOR 100,000.
OF COURSE, IT'S A LEAP YEAR OF 2020 FOR STAFF REQUESTS.
THE BOARD'S APPROVAL TO MAKE THE THREE AWARDS AND ISSUE CONTRACTS WITH NO LEGAL FEES ATTACHED.
SURE. SO WE AWARDED BASED ON THE HIGHEST SCORE APPLICATION SCORES.
YES. WE HAVE A SCORING THAT WE DISTRIBUTE IN THE RFA OR THE NOVA, AND WE SCORE ALL THE APPLICATIONS AND THE THREE HIGHEST THAT WOULD SCORE. SO THEORETICALLY, THREE COULD BE MIGRANT SEASONAL FARM WORKERS OR THREE COULD BE NATIVE AMERICAN.
IN THIS YEAR WE AWARDED THE THREE HIGHEST TO MIGRANT SEASONALS AND ONE I ASSUMED IT WAS TWO DIFFERENT BUCKETS BECAUSE THE FAMILY SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF SAN ANTONIO, WHICH DID RECEIVE AN AWARD, IS 348.
BUT THE ADULT AND YOUTH UNITED DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION IS FOR 12 AND WAS NOT AWARDED.
SO WAS IT WAS IT IN TWO BUCKETS? THERE'S TWO BUCKETS. IT'S A 300,000.
NO, FOR WITH TWO DIFFERENT BUCKETS.
NATIVE AMERICAN AND MIGRANT SEASONAL FARM WORK.
I'M ALWAYS ASKING FOR THIS TO BE IN THE ACTION SIDE OF THE AGENDA RATHER THAN CONSENT, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY GOOD THAT WE'RE WE'RE MAKING SURE THESE FUNDS ARE GETTING OUT THERE, ESPECIALLY IN DEYOUNG, BECAUSE WE LOVE MR. DEYOUNG FOR APPEARING IN PERSON IN FRONT OF THE BOARD.
HE LIKES IT, TOO. HE LOVES IT THIS WAY.
DO WE GET ANY KIND OF STATISTICS ON HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE HELPING AND THINGS LIKE THAT? YEAH, ACTUALLY, YEAH.
THE CDBG COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT IS A VERY DATA DRIVEN PROGRAM.
THEY ALL REPORT TO US MONTHLY.
THOSE SAME DATA STATISTICS ARE REQUIRED BY THIS GRANT AND WE COLLECT THAT DATA.
WE REPORT IT UP TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
WE CERTAINLY COULD GIVE YOU DATA OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS ON THESE PROGRAMS. EACH YEAR THE RECIPIENTS MAY CHANGE, BUT THEY TEND TO DO THE SAME KIND OF ACTIVITIES.
THE ENTITY DOING THE NATIVE AMERICAN IS CALLED TEXAS NATIVE HEALTH.
THEY USED TO BE KNOWN AS DALLAS INTERTRIBAL.
[00:50:01]
THEY'VE WORKED WITH OUR PROGRAMS FOR 12, 13 YEARS.AND THEY THEY WORK WITH A CROSS SECTION OF NATIVE AMERICAN POPULATIONS.
WE HAVE THREE NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES IN TEXAS THAT ARE RECOGNIZED.
THE MIGRANT SEASONAL FARM WORKER POPULATION HAVE OFTENTIMES FOCUSED AROUND THE LUBBOCK AREA, EL PASO, AS WELL AS SOME IN THE VALLEY, AND THOSE TEND TO ROTATE AS THEY SCORE DIFFERENTLY ON THEIR APPLICATIONS.
I MEAN, WE ALREADY COLLECT IT.
WE CAN GET YOU A REPORT ON WHAT THAT DATA IS SHOWING US.
WHEN I WAS RUNNING THE HOUSING AUTHORITY IN CRYSTAL CITY, WE HAD A SPECIAL FARM WORKERS UNIT BECAUSE SO MANY OF THEM WOULD MIGRATE STARTING IN MAY AND WOULD RETURN SOMETIMES IN OCTOBER.
AND THEN DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ALSO GAVE YOUTH WORK GRANTS.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE GOT TO SEE BOTH WHEN I WAS RUNNING IT AND THEN WHEN I WENT BACK TO HOD, IS THAT NOT ALL STUDENTS ARE GOING TO GO TO COLLEGE, BUT WHAT THE PARENTS WOULD TELL THEM WAS MIGRANT WORKING IS VERY HONORABLE JOB.
IT'S HARD WORK AND WORK, BUT WE DON'T WANT YOU TO DO THAT.
AND WHEN THEY WENT THROUGH THIS TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION, WHAT THE PARENTS WERE ASKING THEM WAS GO AND GET CERTIFIED AS AN ELECTRICIAN OR SOMETHING.
THAT'S GOING TO GIVE YOU A GOOD JOB.
THAT'S WHY HART AND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ARE DATA DRIVEN.
THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT ARE WE GETTING FOR OUR MONEY? BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, IS OR THE STUDENTS BEING HELPED.
THEY WANT THEM. IT'S JUST IT WAS HONORABLE.
BUT NOW IF YOU CAN GET CERTIFICATION TO WATCH THIS VERY PROUD.
YEAH. AND BRING IT, ONE OF THE BIG EFFORTS IN THIS IS MAKING SURE THAT THE KIDS ARE CONSISTENTLY IN SCHOOL AND THE PARENTS MAY BE TRAVELING UP TO MICHIGAN TO WORK IN THE FIELDS.
AND THEN ONE PARENT HAS TO COME BACK TO KEEP THE KIDS TO GET THEIR KIDS BACK IN SCHOOL.
ONE PARENTS AWAY, HELPING WITH ALL THOSE LOGISTICAL ISSUES, COORDINATION OF EFFORT.
A LOT OF THE TIME, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS GOING ON TO, THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE WE PROVIDE THE SERVICES, HAVE THE KIDS ENROLLED IN SCHOOL, HAVE THE SERVICES AVAILABLE SO THAT WHEN THEY CAN ACCESS THESE TRAINING PROGRAMS, THAT THEY CAN GET A JOB COMING OUT RIGHT AWAY.
IS THERE A LEGAL DEFINITION OF MIGRANT SEASONAL FARM WORKER? YES. I'M NOT GOING TO PLAY THE PART OF A LAWYER.
YEAH. I MEAN, I KNOW THERE'S A PROGRAM WHERE YOU GET A CERTIFICATE.
YOU ARE ALLOWED TO COME FOR SIX MONTHS AND THE EMPLOYER APPLIES.
AND THEN ARE WE TALKING ABOUT MIGRANT COMING FROM MEXICO OR CANADA? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT. SURE.
SO FOR HHS, THE DEFINITION IS IS LEFT UP TO THE STATES.
I KNOW THAT IN SOME OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS THERE'S A MORE.
THAT'S STATIC DEFINITION, BUT WE HAVE SOME FREEDOM TO DEFINE IT HERE AS WE WISH FOR THIS PROGRAM.
BUT THE REAL DEFINITION WILL BE WHERE WE PUT THE GRANT MONEY AND THEN THAT AGENCY, AS IT INTERPRETS THAT DEFINITION EVERY DAY AS THEY GIVE THE SERVICE.
SURE. THAT'S TYPICALLY WHAT HAS BEEN DONE FOR FOR THESE FOR THESE GRANT FUNDS.
NO, I'M NOT FISHING FOR ANYTHING.
JUST IS THERE A I DON'T SORRY, AND I DIDN'T INTRODUCE MYSELF.
MEGAN SYLVESTER FEDERAL COMPLIANCE CALLED US TO BE IN A POSITION WHERE AN AGENCY ENDS UP BEING IN THE MIDDLE OF A BIG MASS, WHICH THERE ARE A FEW BIG MESSES AROUND THAT THEY COULD GET INTO.
[00:55:03]
MIGRANT SEASONAL FARM WORKER.SURE. AND JUST TO FOLLOW UP, SO SO FOR FOR THIS PROGRAM, THEY'RE ONLY REQUIRED.
THEY'RE ONLY AND MICHAEL CAN MAYBE SUPPLEMENTS A LITTLE BIT.
WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS. RIGHT. SO LIKE THIS ISN'T THIS ISN'T HOUSING SERVICES FOR THESE FUNDS.
YEAH. AND THEY HAVE TO OBEY THAT AT THE WHEN YOU GRANT THE MONEY TO THEM.
CORRECT. THAT'S THAT'S PART OF THE THE NO FUN AND THE CONTRACT.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, COULD YOU IDENTIFY WHO YOU ARE? MEGAN SYLVESTER, FEDERAL COMPLIANCE COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE DEPARTMENT.
AGAIN, I THINK IT'S CLEAR, YOU KNOW, AS THE GOVERNING BOARD, WE ARE VERY POSITIVE ABOUT THIS THIS PROGRAM AND THESE FUNDS IN THE BIG SCHEME OF THINGS WITH WHAT WE DEAL WITH AROUND HERE, IT'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY, BUT LET'S TRY AND MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING FEEDBACK AND INFORMATION THAT I'M SEEING THAT WE'RE GETTING AT LEAST THE MOST OUT OF THIS AS WE CAN.
SO I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON IT.
WE WILL GET YOU SOME DATA ON WHO WE'VE HELPED OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS.
GREAT. GREAT. SO HEARING NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL TAKE A MOTION ON ITEM 17 OF THE AGENDA.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THE BOARD.
MOTION MADE BY MR. FARIA, SECONDED BY MR. HARPER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED HEARING? NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I AM 18 ON THE AGENDA.
PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION.
APPROVING CONTRACT AWARDS TO HOMEOWNER ASSISTANCE FUND SUB RECIPIENTS ACTIVITIES APPROVING SUBMITTAL OF A PLAN AMENDMENT TO TREASURY TO SHIP FUNDS AMONG SUB RECIPIENT FUNDING CATEGORIES AND ROLLING REMAINING FUNDS INTO THE HALF FUNDS AVAILABLE DIRECTLY TO HOUSEHOLDS. GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN VASQUEZ.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MR. WILKINSON. MY NAME IS FELIPE ROMERO.
LYNETTE JOHNDROE, WHO WHO'S HAD AN EMERGENCY THIS MORNING.
GREAT. AND I'M PRESENTING HERE TODAY ITEM 18, REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD AUTHORIZE AWARDS TOTALING 7,272,937 AND TEXAS HALF SUB RECIPIENT FUNDS TO FUND EIGHT ORGANIZATIONS LISTED IN ATTACHMENT A OF THIS BOARD ITEM.
THE ITEM ALSO AUTHORIZES STAFF TO SUBMIT A PLAN AMENDMENT TO TREASURY SHIFTING FUNDS AMONG SUB RECIPIENT FUNDING CATEGORIES AND ROLLING REMAINING FUNDS INTO THE HALF FUNDS AVAILABLE DIRECTLY TO HOUSEHOLDS.
SO SOMETHING TO NOTE WHEN THE ORGANIZATION'S UPWARD AND ONWARD HAS REMOVED THEIR REQUESTS TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES AND THEREFORE THEIR AMOUNT REMAINING UNDER LEGAL SERVICES HAS BEEN UPDATED TO 3,788,845, WHICH THE TOTAL REQUESTED FOR FOR CONTRACTS IS 7,272,937, LEAVING 3,000,940 904,000 AVAILABLE TO BE ROLLED INTO THE HALF FUNDS AVAILABLE AVAILABILITY DIRECTLY TO ASSIST TEXAS HOMEOWNERS.
SO FOLLOW UPS AND BACKGROUND HERE.
IN OCTOBER OF 2021, THE BOARD AUTHORIZED STAFF TO TO RELEASE A NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY, WHICH MADE 12,007,247 AVAILABLE TO TEXAS, HAVE SOME RECIPIENTS TO PROVIDE ONE OR MORE OF THE ELIGIBLE SERVICES, WHICH WILL BE INTAKE, HOUSING OR LEGAL SERVICES AND SPECIFIED AMOUNTS FOR SERVICE TYPE CONSISTENT WITH THE AMOUNTS REMAINING IN OUR HALF PLAN.
THE KNOW FOR WAS RELEASED IN OCTOBER OF 2022 AND 17 APPLICATIONS WERE RECEIVED WITHIN THE DEADLINE, WHICH WAS ON DECEMBER 15, 2022, WITH A TOTAL REQUEST OF FUNDS FOR 12,375,000 908.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS PROGRAM NOTE SPECIFICALLY STRIVES TO LIMIT HOW MANY SUB RECIPIENTS ARE PROVIDING SERVICES IN EACH COUNTRY IN EACH COUNTY, SO EXCEPT IN LARGE METRO AREAS.
SO WE DON'T DUPLICATE THE AMOUNT OF SERVICES.
[01:00:05]
BIGGER AMOUNT OF ELIGIBLE POPULATION.THE TEXAS HALF TEAM REVIEW THE APPLICATIONS ON THE PROPOSED PLAN, ON THE ABILITY TO SERVE THESE TARGET POPULATIONS, THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING AND NEEDS OF THE PROGRAM, AT LEAST AT THIS TIME.
THE TEXAS HALF TEAM CONFIRMED THESE ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH THE PPR PROCESS ARE THAT THEY ARE IN GOOD STANDING WITH THE COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS, AND TWO OF THESE APPLICATIONS ARE CURRENT SUB RECIPIENTS WHO ARE PERFORMING WELL ON THEIR CURRENT CONTRACTS AND ARE EXTENDING THEIR REACH INTO OTHER COUNTIES OR INTO OTHER SERVICE AREAS. THE APPLICANT APPLICANTS RECOMMENDED INCLUDE FIVE THAT OFFER BOTH INTAKE AND HOUSING COUNSELING TO OFFERING HOUSING COUNSELING ONLY, AND ONE WHO WILL PROVIDE ALL THREE SERVICES TO PROVIDE THE APPROPRIATE COVERAGE NEEDED WITH THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED.
EXCESS FUNDS REMAINED ON THE LEGAL COUNSELING LINE THAT ARE BEING SHIFTED TO THE ACCOUNT FOR THIS OVERAGE FOR THIS OVERAGE BECAUSE THESE SERVICE CATEGORY AMOUNTS ARE REFLECTED IN OUR APPROVED HALF PLAN WITH TREASURY.
THIS SHIFT REQUIRED REQUIRES US TO SUBMIT A PLAN AMENDMENT TO TREASURY.
TODAY'S BOARD ACTION RECOMMENDS AWARDS FROM THE SECOND NOVA TO FILL COVERAGE GAPS IN HIGH AND THE HIGHLY POPULATED COUNTIES, AND A PLAN AMENDMENT TO TREASURY TO SHIFT FUNDS FROM LEGAL SERVICES TO HOUSING COUNSELING SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF 818,007 49.
AND WE DO RECOMMEND THAT THAT MONEY GO INTO THE BIGGER POT TO HELP.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? LOOK, I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT WE'RE MAKING TRY TO MAXIMIZE THE USE OF THE FUNDS AVAILABLE.
AND AND THE MORE WE GET OUT OR GET THE WORD OUT, MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO APPLY.
THIS CAN HELP US GET THOSE FUNDS DISPERSED EVEN FASTER.
ABSOLUTELY. SO HERE ARE NO QUESTIONS.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 18 OF THE AGENDA.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THE BOARD, APPROVE AND GRANT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND HIS DESIGNEES THE AUTHORITY TO CONTRACT WITH THE SUB RECIPIENTS RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD TO MOVE FUNDS BETWEEN LEGAL SERVICES AND HOUSING COUNSELING AS NEEDED, AND SHIFT THE REMAINING FUNDS INTO THE HOMEOWNER ASSISTANT FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR DIRECT ASSISTANCE TO HOUSEHOLDS.
ALL IS DESCRIBED IN CONDITIONED IN THE BOARD ACTION, REQUEST AND RESOLUTIONS ON THIS ITEM.
MOTION MADE BY MR. THOMAS, SECONDED BY MS..
FARIAS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OPPOSED HEAR NONE MOTION CARRIES.
THANK YOU FOR FILLING IN, MR. ROMERO. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
MOVING RIGHT ALONG, ITEM 19 ON THE AGENDA.
PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN ORDER ADOPTING THE REPEAL AND PROPOSED NEW SECTIONS TO TEN TECH SECTIONS 7.87.257.347.367.39 AND 7.40.
AND AN ORDER DIRECTING THEIR PUBLICATION IN THE TEXAS REGISTER SUBVERSIVE.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
I'M ABIGAIL WORSHIP AND I'M THE DIRECTOR OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY AND HOMELESS PROGRAMS AT HCA.
THE CHANGES RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION WERE TAKEN TO THE BOARD AT THE NOVEMBER MEETING AND PRIMARILY IMPACT THE AWARD PROCESS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR OUR EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANTS PROGRAM, OR ESG AND THE HOMELESS HOUSING AND SERVICES PROGRAM, HHC.
WHILE THE RULE IS BEING BROUGHT TO YOU WITHOUT CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED TO THE PROPOSED RULE, I'M GOING TO BRIEFLY GO OVER THE ITEMS FOR WHICH COMMENT WAS RECEIVED.
CHANGES TO SUBCHAPTER C ARE THE ONLY ONES WITH SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC COMMENT.
THEY'RE SPECIFIC TO THE ESG AWARD AWARDING PROCESS, AND THE MAIN CHANGE THAT WE RECEIVE COMMENT ON WAS THE CHANGE TO REMOVE A REQUIREMENT THAT ALL APPLICANTS FOR ESG FUNDS SUBMIT A DOCUMENT WITH THEIR APPLICATION THAT IS COMPLETED BY
[01:05:01]
THE CFC OR THE CONTINUUM OF CARE LEAD AGENCY THAT RECOMMENDS THE AWARD.THEY'RE CONCERNED THAT TDA WOULDN'T BE MEETING OUR FEDERAL REQUIREMENT TO CONSULT WITH COX.
SO WE DIDN'T MAKE CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO THAT COMMENT.
WE RECEIVED AN ADDITIONAL SET OF COMMENTS ALL FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
THEY RECOMMENDED SEVERAL CHANGES RELATED TO MULTIPLE SCROLLING CRITERIA.
WE DO APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK, BUT WE DON'T THINK AT THIS TIME IT WOULD BE FAIR TO ACCEPT THOSE COMMENTS WITHOUT TAKING THOSE OUT FOR MORE PUBLIC DISCUSSION, INCLUDING ROUNDTABLES WITH THE ENTITIES THAT ARE ACTUALLY APPLYING FOR AND UTILIZING OUR FUNDS.
SO WHILE WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING ANY COMMENTS OR ANY CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO THOSE COMMENTS, WE'RE GOING TO RETAIN THAT LETTER AND AND BRING THOSE IDEAS FORTH TO OUR STAKEHOLDERS THE NEXT TIME WE REVIEW OUR SCORING CRITERIA OVERALL.
WITH THAT, I WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS.
OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. VERSUS UP ON THIS ITEM? ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? C NONE. I'LL ENTERTAIN THE MOTION ON ITEM 19 OF THE AGENDA.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THE BOARD, ADOPT THE REPEAL AND PROPOSE NEW SECTIONS OF TEN TAX.
SECTION 7.87.257.347.367.39 AND 7.40 FOR PUBLICATION IN THE TEXAS REGISTER, ALL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN THE BOARD ACTION REQUEST ON THIS ITEM. SECOND, THANK YOU.
MOTION MADE BY MR. FARIA, SECONDED BY MR. HARPER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED HEARING? NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
THANK YOU. ITEM 20 OF THE AGENDA.
WITH THIS NUMBERING SYSTEM, IT SEEMS LIKE THE MEETING IS MUCH LONGER WITH THE DOING TOO MANY THINGS, PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A WAIVER OF TEN TECH SECTION 11.1 01B1A7 OF THE QUALIFY THAT ALLOCATION PLAN RELATING TO THE PERCENTAGE OF EFFICIENCY AND OR ONE BEDROOM UNITS FOR CO LABOR APARTMENTS.
GOOD MORNING. TERESA MORALES, DIRECTOR OF MULTIFAMILY BONDS.
THIS ITEM AND THE FIVE THAT FOLLOW ARE ALL SIMILAR IN THEIR REQUESTS AND FOR A WAIVER BE GRANTED OF 11.1 AND 1B1A MINUTE SEVEN OF THE 2023 SHAPE.
THE FACT PATTERN FOR EACH ARE SIMILAR AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE WAIVERS BE GRANTED.
HOWEVER, FOR CLARITY OF RECORD, WE ARE TAKING THESE ONE BY ONE NEW FOR 2023 WAS AN ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE NO MORE THAN 30% EFFICIENCY AND OR ONE BEDROOM UNITS IN GENERAL POPULATION DEVELOPMENTS WITH THE INTENT OF HAVING LARGER UNITS SERVING LARGER FAMILIES.
AS EARLY AS DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR, WE STARTED HEARING FROM SOME 4% APPLICANTS.
THAT MEETING THIS REQUIREMENT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC GIVEN THE LENGTH OF TIME CERTAIN PROJECTS HAD BEEN IN THE PLANNING STAGES THAT PREDATE WHEN THIS REQUIREMENT CAME ONTO THE HORIZON IN OUR RULEMAKING PROCESS.
Q LABOR ROAD APARTMENTS PROPOSES 199 UNITS AND HAS A UNIT MIX THAT INCLUDES 45% ONE BEDROOM UNITS.
THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT DESIGN PLANNING FOR THIS PROJECT BEGAN IN 2021 WITH AN APPLICATION TO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO FOR REZONING, WHICH INCLUDED THE PROPOSED UNIT MIX AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED BY OCTOBER OF 2022.
THIS APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE 2023 BOND LOTTERY, WHICH REQUIRED APPLICATIONS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOND REVIEW BOARD IN OCTOBER OF 2022. THE RESULTS OF THE LOTTERY IN NOVEMBER IDENTIFIED.
GIVEN THE TIMELINE ASSOCIATED WITH THE DESIGN PHASE AND EVERYTHING THAT WAS PUT INTO MOTION WHILE WAITING ON BOND VOLUME CAP TO BECOME AVAILABLE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE WAIVER BE GRANTED AND THE APPLICATION BE ELIGIBLE WITH THE UNIT MIX AS PROPOSED.
[01:10:09]
THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANY MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? YEAH. WE'RE GOING TO, I GUESS FOR CLARITY, SAID WE'RE GOING TO DO EACH ONE, EACH ONE SEPARATE.SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN ROLL EVERYTHING.
SURE. I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT.
RIGHT. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, NO, I MEAN, YEAH, THERE ARE INDIVIDUAL.
SO ON ITEM 20 OF THE AGENDA, WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I MOVE THE BOARD TO GRANT THE REQUEST WAIVER FOR TEN.
SECOND, THANK YOU. MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER, SECONDED BY MR. MARCHANT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL RIGHT. ANY OPPOSED HEARING? NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
I AM 21 THE SAME AS THE LAST ONE, BUT FOR PROJECT 2323 600.
TO RESTART THE DESIGN PHASE WOULD DELAY THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND JEOPARDIZE THE PROJECT'S ABILITY TO CLOSE UNDER THE STATUTORY 180 DAY DEADLINE, WHICH EXPIRES IN JULY OF 2023.
THANK YOU AGAIN. ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? HEARING NONE. ENTERTAIN THE MOTION ON ITEM 21 OF THE AGENDA.
I MOVE THE BOARD, GRANT THE REQUEST WAIVER FOR TEN TO SECTION 11.1 01B OF THE QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN RELATING TO PERCENTAGE EFFICIENCY AND OR ONE BEDROOM UNITS FOR THE RESERVES. SECOND, THANK YOU.
MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER, SECONDED BY MR. FARIAS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ALL RIGHT. ANY OPPOSED HEARING? NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
SAME BACKGROUND, BUT FOR PROJECT 23 605 THE RET.
THE RET PROPOSES 215 UNITS AND HAS A UNIT MIX THAT INCLUDES 31% ONE BEDROOM UNITS.
THE RET WAS SUBMITTED IN DECEMBER OF 2021.
THE APPLICATION WAS ADDED TO THE DEPARTMENT'S WAITING LIST, BUT AGAIN, DUE TO THE OVERSUBSCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM, THE DEVELOPMENT WAS NOT ABLE TO SECURE A BOND RESERVATION AT ALL IN 2022.
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE DESIGN WAS IN PROCESS AS EARLY AS MARCH OF 2021 AND AN APPLICATION FOR THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN WAS SUBMITTED IN JULY OF 2021 AND APPROVED IN NOVEMBER OF 2022.
THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED UNDER THE DEPARTMENT'S SET ASIDE FOR THE 2023 BOND LOTTERY AND WAS CONSIDERED COMPETITIVE, RECEIVED A BOND RESERVATION IN JANUARY TO RESTART THE DESIGN PHASE.
AND AGAIN, WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT BEING IN AUSTIN, IT WOULD DELAY THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND JEOPARDIZE THE PROJECT'S ABILITY TO CLOSE UNDER THE STATUTORY 180 DAY DEADLINE. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE WAIVER BE GRANTED AND THE APPLICATION BE CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE WITH THE UNIT MIX AS PROPOSED.
THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? IF NOT ON ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 22 OF THE AGENDA.
I MOVE THE BOARD, GRANT THE REQUEST WAIVER OF TAC TEN SECTION 11.101.
THE QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN RELATING TO PERCENTAGE OF EFFICIENCY OF ONE BEDROOM UNITS FOR THE READ THANK YOU MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER. SECOND SECONDED BY US.
ALL RIGHT. ANY OPPOSED HEARING? NONE. MOTION CARRIES ITEM 23 OF THE AGENDA.
OKAY. EXCEPT THIS IS FOR A SANTIAGO ESTATES.
[01:15:04]
THE DEVELOPMENT WENT THROUGH SEVERAL REVIEWS WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND THE LENDER REFLECTING THE CURRENT UNIT MIX.THE APPLICANT FURTHER NOTED THAT THERE IS A MINIMUM 12 MONTH APPROVAL PROCESS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S PERMIT PROCESS, AND CHANGING THE PLANS AT THIS POINT WOULD JEOPARDIZE THE ABILITY TO OBTAIN PERMITS BEFORE THE FINANCING COMMITMENTS EXPIRE AND CLOSING WITHIN THE 180 DAY STATUTORY TIME FRAME.
THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM, IF NOT ON THE MOTION? MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THE BOARD GRANT THE REQUESTED WAIVER OF TEN TAX SECTION 11.1 01B OF A QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN RELATING TO THE PERCENTAGES OF EFFICIENCY AND OR ONE BEDROOM UNITS FOR SANTIAGO ESTATES.
MOTION MADE BY MR. FARIAS, SECONDED BY MR. HARPER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED HEARING? NONE. MOTION CARRIES ITEM 24 OF THE AGENDA.
SAME BACKGROUND TO SON FOR PROJECT 23 601 PALLADIUM.
TDK IS THE BOND ISSUER AND THE PRE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2022.
IT WAS THE HIGHEST SCORING PRE APPLICATION UNDER THE DEPARTMENT SET ASIDE FOR THE 2023 LOTTERY AND THE FIRST IN THE PROGRAM TO RECEIVE A BOND RESERVATION AT THE START OF THE YEAR. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS HAVE BEEN IN PROGRESS AND THEY HAVE HAD SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN IN ORDER TO AMEND THE CURRENT ZONING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ONE BEDROOM UNITS WOULD IMPACT PARKING AS THE SITE IS CONSTRAINED WITH A NUMBER OF SPACES AVAILABLE FOR TWO AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE WAIVER BE GRANTED AND THE APPLICATION BE CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE WITH THE UNIT MIX AS PROPOSED.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? HEARING NONE. I'LL ENTERTAIN THE MOTION ON ITEM 24 OF THE AGENDA.
I MOVE THE BOARD, GRANT THE REQUEST WAIVER OF TEN TAX SECTION ONE 11.101 OF THE QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN RELATING TO PERCENTAGE OF EFFICIENCIES AND OR ONE BEDROOM UNITS FOR THE PALLADIUM. AND. SECOND SECONDED BY MR. THOMAS. MR.. MADE BY MS..
MR. HARPER, SECONDED BY MR. THOMAS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED HEARING? NONE. MOTION CARRIES ITEM 25 OF THE AGENDA.
THIS ONE'S DIFFERENT. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A WAIVER OF TEN TEC.
SECTION 11.1 01B1A7 OF THE SHAPE RELATING TO THE PERCENTAGE OF EFFICIENCY.
AM I READING THE SAME ONE? NO RULE RELATING TO THE PERCENTAGE OF EFFICIENCY AND OR ONE BEDROOM UNITS AND A WAIVER OF TEN TEC 11 101 A3B3 OF THE SHAPE REGARDING NEIGHBORHOOD RISK FACTORS RELATING TO SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FOR CATTLEMEN SQUARE LOFTS PROJECT 23 FOR THREE CATTLEMEN SQUARE LOFTS INVOLVES TWO REQUESTED WAIVERS.
ONE RELATES TO THE 30% EFFICIENCY IN ONE BEDROOM UNIT SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS.
THE OTHER WAIVER RELATES TO A NEIGHBORHOOD RISK FACTOR ASSOCIATED WITH A POOR PERFORMING SCHOOL.
THERE ARE 36 EFFICIENCIES AND 79 ONE BEDROOM UNITS.
BUT DUE TO RISING CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND INTEREST RATES AT THE TIME, THERE WAS A CONCERN OVER THE PROJECT'S ABILITY TO MEET THE 50% TEST THE RESERVATION AND CORRESPONDING 4% APPLICATION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN.
THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THE PROJECT HAS FINALIZED PLANS AND DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS.
GIVEN THE APPROVALS THAT HAVE BEEN OBTAINED, IT IS CLEAR THAT THESE WERE ALL IN PROCESS FOR A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME THAT PREDATES THE INCLUSION OF THE INELIGIBLE UNIT MIX IN THE SHAPE STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS WAIVER BE GRANTED AND THE APPLICATION BE CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE WITH THE UNIT MIX AS PROPOSED.
THE SECOND WAIVER RELATES TO 11.1 01A3B3 OF THE SHAPE THAT HAS TO DO WITH SCHOOL PERFORMANCE UNDER NEIGHBORHOOD RISK FACTORS. EVERY YEAR IN AUGUST, TR RELEASES RATINGS FOR THE SCHOOL YEAR, AND AS A RESULT OF THE EFFECT THAT THE PANDEMIC HAD ON LEARNING,
[01:20:01]
TR ANNOUNCED THAT FOR 2020 AND 2021, THEY WERE PAUSING THOSE RATINGS SUCH THAT THE SCHOOLS WOULD NOT BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED ON THE RATING THAT THEY RECEIVED.IN RESPONSE AND FOLLOWING TIA'S LEAD, THE DEPARTMENT SUSPENDED THE NEIGHBORHOOD RISK FACTOR RELATING TO SCHOOL PERFORMANCE IN THE 2021 AND 2022 QIP.
IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR, TR ANNOUNCED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE REINSTATING THOSE RATINGS, BUT THERE WOULD BE A NEW RATING CATEGORY SCHOOLS THAT ARE NOT RATED DUE TO SENATE BILL 1365.
THE MIDDLE SCHOOL FOR CATTLEMAN SQUARE LOFTS THAT WOULD SERVE THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS TO FOAL A MIDDLE SCHOOL, AND IT RECEIVED THE NOT RATED DUE TO SENATE BILL 1365 RATING.
WHERE THIS PARTICULAR RATING APPLIES, THE SHAPE FOR 2023 REQUIRES AN APPLICANT TO SUBMIT A LETTER FROM SOMEONE AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WITH OVERSIGHT OF THE SCHOOL IN QUESTION THAT INDICATES THE SPECIFIC PLANS AND CURRENT PROGRESS TOWARDS MEETING THE GOALS AND PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES THAT WOULD LEND ITSELF TO RESTORING THE SCHOOL TO AN ACCEPTABLE RATING STATUS.
MOREOVER, THE SHAPE ALSO REQUIRES AS A FORM OF MITIGATION A COMMITMENT BY THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 15 HOURS WEEKLY OF ON SITE TUTORING THROUGHOUT THE AFFORDABILITY PERIOD.
THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT THIS NEWLY REQUIRED MITIGATION OF WEEKLY ONSITE TUTORING WOULD IMPOSE AN ONGOING OPERATIONAL EXPENSE ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS NOT BEEN CONTEMPLATED. WHILE IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT COULD NOT CLOSE DURING THE TIME FRAME IN WHICH THE NEIGHBORHOOD RISK FACTORS RELATING TO SCHOOLS WAS SUSPENDED, STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THAT A WAIVER OF THIS ELIGIBILITY ITEM BE GRANTED BASED ON THE REASONS PROVIDED.
WORTH NOTING IS THAT THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED DID INCLUDE THE REQUIRED DISCLOSURE RELATING TO THE SCHOOL RATING ALONG WITH THE REQUIRED LETTER FROM THE APPLICABLE SCHOOL OFFICIAL.
THERE WAS ALSO A STATEMENT FROM THE APPLICANT INDICATING THAT THEY WILL PROVIDE THE REQUIRED AFTER SCHOOL SERVICES, LEADING STAFF TO BELIEVE THAT THIS MITIGATION IS POSSIBLE AND WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE.
CAT AND THEREFORE RECOMMENDS THAT THIS WAIVER BE DENIED.
OKAY, LET'S BREAK THIS UP, THIS DISCUSSION UP INTO TWO PARTS.
FIRST, JUST THE UNIT MIX THAT WAS JUST THE SAME AS ALL THE OTHERS WE JUST APPROVED.
SO AS LONG AS EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS, THAT IS A SIMILAR QUESTION.
AND I THINK THAT IT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE CONSISTENT.
THAT PART WE SHOULD BE APPROVING.
THE SECOND PART, WHICH I THINK, OKAY, WELL, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT ASPECT FIRST? AND JUST, YOU KNOW, IS THAT I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
EXCUSE ME. IS IT TYPICAL TO HAVE 83% SINGLE EFFICIENCY UNITS IN A PROJECT THAT SEEMS PRETTY HIGH? THE LOCATION OF THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS DOWNTOWN SAN ANTONIO, KIND OF URBAN.
THANK YOU. THE ONLY OTHER PLACE WE USUALLY SEE IT IS A SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
BUT ACTUALLY THAT'S A GREAT SEGWAY QUESTION INTO THE NEXT DISCUSSION HERE.
SO THE PROBLEM THAT THE STAFF SEES IS THAT ACCORDING TO OUR RULES, WE NEED TO THERE'S CERTAIN MITIGATION FOR NEIGHBORHOOD RISK FACTORS PERTAINING TO SCHOOLS THAT DON'T PASS OR DON'T HAVE A PASSING GRADE.
CORRECT. AND THIS LAST YEAR, WE STARTED USING THE.
THE SCORING THE RATING SYSTEMS ARE LIVE AGAIN FROM CORRECT FOR THE LANGUAGE HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN THE SHAPE THROUGHOUT THE SUSPENSION.
SO IN 2021 AND IN 2022 WE RETAINED ALL OF THE LANGUAGE BUT JUST ADDED A SENTENCE THAT BECAUSE TR PAUSED THEIR RATINGS THAT WERE SUSPENDING THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD RISK FACTOR.
AND THEN IN JULY OR AUGUST OF LAST YEAR, WHEN WE RELEASED THE PRELIMINARY 2023 DRAFT SHAPE, RECOGNIZING THAT IN AUGUST IS WHEN TR ANNOUNCED WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE DO WITH RATINGS, THEN THAT'S WHEN WE FOLLOWED SUIT AND INCLUDED THE PROVISION THAT'S IN THERE NOW, WHICH IS IN ORDER TO BE MITIGATED, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE THIS LETTER FROM SOMEONE WHO'S AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE OF THAT SCHOOL AND THEN ALSO AGREE TO DO 15 HOURS OF WEEKLY AFTER SCHOOL TUTORING. SO AGAIN, WE NEED A LETTER FROM THE SCHOOL CONFIRMING THEY ARE WORKING DILIGENTLY TO IMPROVE THEIR THEIR RATING.
[01:25:04]
AND IT'S A MINIMUM OF 15 HOURS A WEEK.SO IN REVIEWING THE APPLICATION, THAT DOCUMENTATION WAS INCLUDED.
AND IT WAS THEIR DESIRE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH REQUESTING A WAIVER.
I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT'S GRANTING THE BEDROOM MIX AND THEN DENYING THE SCHOOL'S.
SO ALL OF THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL ON ONE AND DENYING THE OTHER.
THAT'S GOOD INFORMATION, TOO, TO HEAR THE.
I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE OUR SHAPE COMMITTEE TO THINK ABOUT ARE THERE OTHER MITIGATING FACTORS OR WAYS TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM BESIDES ADDING THIS TUTORING? IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE? THAT'S ONE PART WE COULD JUST NOT BUILD IN AREAS THAT HAVE DRIVE SCHOOLS, WHICH IS SOMETHING WE'VE DONE.
THAT'S ANOTHER. BUT THEN THERE'D BE A LOT OF PLACES WERE IN YEARS AND YEARS PRIOR, SO BEFORE COVID AND IN THE 2020 SHAPE SCHOOLS THAT HAD THIS PARTICULAR RATING, EITHER A D OR AN F, IT WAS REALLY A TWO YEAR LOOKBACK.
THE SHAPE REQUIRED AN OPTIONS FOR MITIGATION FROM WHICH THEY COULD SELECT, AND ONE OF THEM WAS YOU PROVIDE A LETTER FROM AN AUTHORIZED SCHOOL OFFICIAL, YOU AGREE TO DO A PRE K PROGRAM AND HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH A HEAD START PROVIDER ON SITE.
OR YOU CAN AGREE TO THESE 15 HOURS OF AFTER SCHOOL CARE OR AFTER SCHOOL TUTORING.
THE MAJORITY OF APPLICANTS CHOSE TO GO THE LETTER ROUTE.
BUT WHEN WE WERE REINSTATING THIS FOR 2023, IT SEEMED THAT THE LOOK BACK THEN WAS SEVERAL YEARS OLD TO LOOK AT WHATEVER THEIR RATING WAS FOR 2019.
AND SO THAT WAS WHEN YOU'RE COMPARING THE NOT RATED, WHICH WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE A D OR AN F RATING AND YOU'RE COMPARING THAT TO PRE COVID RATINGS. AND SO WE THOUGHT THAT IT WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF WHERE WE'RE PLACING THESE DEVELOPMENTS WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE 2023 SHAPE TO HELP FACILITATE GETTING THOSE SCHOOLS BACK ON TRACK AND TO OFFER TUTORING TO STUDENTS.
SO THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY THE TWO OPTIONS.
BUT THE BOARD DESIRES WE CAN CONSIDER DIFFERENT FOR 2024.
AND THEN THE SECOND PART THAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST WE LOOK AT SOMEHOW IS GETTING BACK TO MR. HARPER'S QUESTION ABOUT THE UNIT MIX HERE.
IT'S ALMOST THE VAST MAJORITY IS EFFICIENCY IN ONE BEDROOM DOESN'T LEND ITSELF TO A LOT OF MIDDLE SCHOOL KIDS AT THAT DEVELOPMENT, IN WHICH CASE THE SCHOOL.
BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS THE RULES RIGHT NOW.
AND THE APPLICANT DID PUT IN A LETTER NOT ONLY THE SCHOOL LETTER, BUT AGREEING TO AGREE TO THE 15, 15 HOURS.
SO THIS ALL KIND OF MOOT DISCUSSION FOR THIS ONE.
BUT I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT BETTER WAYS OF ADDRESSING SOME OF THESE WITHOUT.
BEYOND THE EXCEPTION OF SENIOR HOUSES.
MA'AM, ARE THERE ANY SUCCESS STORIES WHERE THE DEVELOPER IS ACTUALLY IMPROVING? IS IT WORKING AT ALL FOR THESE 15 HOURS OR SOME SORT OF HEAD START PROGRAM? IS THAT MAKING ANY PROGRESS? WE HAVEN'T SEEN THIS YET.
IN ORDER TO ANSWER THAT, I WILL SAY, THOUGH, THAT AS PART OF THE RESIDENT SERVICES THAT WE HAVE, WE WE PROVIDE A MENU OPTION AND DEVELOPERS CAN PICK AND CHOOSE FROM THERE WHICH ONES THEY'RE GOING TO PROVIDE.
ONE OF THOSE IS TO PROVIDE 12 HOURS OF WEEKLY AFTER SCHOOL TUTORING.
SO WE COULD CERTAINLY LOOK TO SEE WHICH PROPERTIES ARE DOING THAT AND WHAT THEIR SUCCESS.
[01:30:04]
SO I DEFINITELY LIKE A FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES PROPERTY IN AUSTIN AND SELL THEIR EDUCATIONAL THING.IT'S SUPPORTIVE HOUSING SO THERE'S MORE GOING ON THAN JUST FOR 15 HOURS.
BUT I'M TALKING TO THE TEACHERS.
I WAS LIKE, DO GRADES IMPROVED? YES. EXCELLENT.
SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 25 OF THE AGENDA.
I MOVE THE BOARD, GRANT THE REQUEST WAIVER OF TEN TAX.
SECTION 11.1 AND ONE OF THE QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN RELATING TO PERCENTAGE OF EFFICIENCY AND OR ONE BEDROOM UNITS, BUT DENY THE REQUEST OF THE WAIVER OF THE TEN TAX SECTION 11.1 01A OF THE SHAPE REGARDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD RISK FACTORS FOR THE CATTLEMAN SQUARE LOSS.
SECOND THANK YOU MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER, SECONDED BY MS..
FARIAS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL RIGHT. AND HE OPPOSED HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES.
NOW WE'RE STILL UP RIGHT ON 26.
PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTIFAMILY NOTE SERIES 2020 BE FOR GRANADA TERRACE APARTMENTS RESOLUTION NUMBER 23, DASH ONE EIGHT.
I DIDN'T WANT YOU THINKING THAT CODY WAS THE ONLY ONE WITH PROBLEMS. THIS ITEM RELATES TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE MATURITY DATE ASSOCIATED WITH THE MULTIFAMILY NOTE FOR GRANADA TERRACE APARTMENTS.
THE DEPARTMENT ISSUED BONDS FOR GRANADA TERRACE IN 2020 AND THEY WERE ISSUED IN TWO SERIES A 2020 A.
THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PERMANENT FINANCING AND 2020 B, WHICH WAS INTENDED TO BE CONSTRUCTION ONLY THE SERIES 2020 B MULTIFAMILY NOTE WAS SCHEDULED TO MATURE ON JANUARY ONE, 2023.
HOWEVER, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SUBMITTED A REVISED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE THAT PUSHED OUT THE COMPLETION OF THE LAST RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TO THE END OF JANUARY OF 2023. AS OF TODAY, ALL OF THE REHAB WORK TO THE 16 RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS HAS BEEN COMPLETED.
THE CONVERSION DATE WAS PLANNED FOR OCTOBER OF 2021.
AN EXTENSION OF THIS DATE WAS CONTEMPLATED AT THE TIME OF CLOSING AND DOCUMENTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITIBANK AS THE LENDER AND THE BORROWER.
THE BORROWER MET THE REQUIREMENTS TO EXTEND TO THAT FIRST OUTSIDE CONVERSION DATE.
APPROVAL BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS.
HOWEVER, IN ORDER FOR THE BORROWER TO EXERCISE ITS OPTION TO THAT SECOND DATE OF APRIL OF 2023, DEPARTMENT APPROVAL IS REQUIRED SINCE IT WOULD EXTEND BEYOND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MATURITY DATE.
WHILE IT IS BELIEVED THAT AN EXTENSION TO APRIL ONE, 2023 WILL ALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION, IT IS A TIGHT TIMELINE TO REACH THE REQUIRED STABILIZATION BENCHMARKS IN ORDER TO CONVERT TO THE PERMANENT FINANCING AND PAY OFF THE 2020 B BONDS.
THE BORROWER AND THE LENDER ARE REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION OF THE MATURITY DATE TO A DATE NOT LATER THAN DECEMBER 31ST OF 2023, IN ORDER TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME TO MEET THOSE CONVERSION BENCHMARKS IN THE EVENT THAT IT IS NEEDED.
SUBSEQUENT EXTENSIONS BEYOND APRIL ONE OF 2023 WILL REQUIRE APPROVAL BY CITIBANK AND WILL ONLY BE GRANTED IN THREE MONTH INCREMENTS, THE FORM OF WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE EXHIBITS TO THIS RESOLUTION THAT'S INCLUDED IN THIS ITEM.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 23-018 THAT EXTENDS THE MATURITY DATE FOR THE SERIES 2020 B MULTIFAMILY NOTE TO A DATE NOT LATER THAN DECEMBER 31ST OF 2023.
IS THERE A REPRESENTATIVE, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?
[01:35:02]
IS THERE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEVELOPER HERE TODAY? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.AND WE WANT TO STAND UP HERE AND SO I CAN ASK YOU THESE QUESTIONS INSTEAD OF ASKING THERESA.
SO BOTTOM LINE, IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS, THE DEAL BLOWS UP.
THEY'RE IN DEFAULT AND IT'S ALL OVER AND THINGS FINANCING CRUMBLES.
IF WE DO NOT APPROVE IT, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY TECHNICALLY THAT THEY WOULD BE IN DEFAULT.
I THINK THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND.
WITH THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST, THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT HARMED IN GRANTING IT.
THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR MORE FUNDS AND THE PROJECT IS STILL GOING TO BE DELIVERED AS PROMISED.
WITH RESPECT TO THE NUMBER OF UNITS AND THE REHAB THAT THEY HAD PLANNED.
I THINK THAT ULTIMATELY IT WOULD BE UP TO THE LENDER WHETHER OR NOT TO CALL THOSE 2020 BONDS DUE AND PAYABLE AS A CONDUIT ISSUE OR ON OUR MULTIFAMILY BOND TRANSACTIONS.
GETTING IN THE MIDDLE OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE TYPICALLY DO.
MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST A QUICK QUESTION FOR CLARITY, TERESA.
SO BY EXTENDING THE MATURITY DATE, YOU'RE SAYING THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT PICKING UP ANY ADDITIONAL INTEREST COSTS ON THE PARTICULAR NOTE OR WHATNOT? RIGHT. VERY GOOD.
BUT WE'RE GETTING PAID INTEREST.
INTEREST TO STILL BE PAID ON THE 2020 B NOTES.
YES. AND THIS IS ALMOST DONE NOW, ALBEIT WAY AFTER THE ORIGINAL TARGET DATE. CORRECT.
I MEAN, KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS WAS A DEAL THAT CLOSED IN OCTOBER OF 2020, GOT UNDERWAY.
BUT AGAIN, THEY WERE STILL ON TRACK TO MEET THE JANUARY ONE, 2023 DATE.
SO THAT IS WHAT IS ALSO BAKED INTO THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I AM GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.
BUT BEFORE THAT, I DO WANT TO GO ON RECORD STATING THAT WE WANTED I WANTED AS A VOTING MEMBER TO TALK TO SOMEONE REPRESENTING THIS ENTITY AND AS EMERGENCY AS IT IS.
SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION, SIR, BUT I DO WANT TO GO ON RECORD.
THEY NEED TO SHOW A LITTLE BIT MORE RESPECT.
IS THIS A DEVELOPER WE DEAL WITH OFTEN? DEFINE OFTEN.
WE'VE DONE WE HAVE DONE PROJECTS WITH THIS DEVELOPER BEFORE.
WELL, HAVE THEY BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN THE PAST? YES. SO IS THIS AN ANOMALY IN THEIR PROGRAM? I TRULY BELIEVE THAT IT'S AN ANOMALY.
SO. JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN. SO IF SO, CITIGROUP HAS THE OPTION TO REVIEW OR RENEW THIS OR EXTEND IT EVERY THREE MONTHS.
RIGHT. WE'RE APPROVING IT AS A BOARD TO COVER IT UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR, TILL DECEMBER 31.
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE EVENT DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IF CITIGROUP SIX MONTHS FROM NOW, THIS IS STILL AN ISSUE? THEY'RE TRYING TO GET IT WORKED OUT, BUT THEY CITIGROUP DECIDES, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO EXTEND IT.
IS THERE A SUBSTITUTE LENDER THAT COMES IN OR IS THAT WHAT'S CONTEMPLATED IN THAT SITUATION OR IT HAS NOT BEEN CONTEMPLATED THAT THERE BE A SUBSTITUTE LENDER? CITIBANK IS THE HOLDER OF THESE BONDS FOR THIS DEAL.
I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE REMEDIES WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION FINANCING AGREEMENT AS TO HOW THEY MOVE FORWARD, WHETHER THAT INVOLVES REMOVING THIS PARTICULAR OWNER AND REPLACING THEM WITH SOMEONE ELSE.
IT WOULD JUST BE UP TO WHATEVER REMEDIES THERE ARE.
AND IF THAT SITUATION DID OCCUR, THEN AT THAT POINT IT WOULD TRIGGER A REQUIREMENT TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD TO TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE RESOLUTION WOULD BE OR WITH EACH. YES.
AND WITH EACH EXTENSION THAT CITIBANK PROVIDES, WE ALSO HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.
[01:40:03]
SO WE WOULD BE AWARE THAT WE'RE THE PROBLEM.THANK YOU. WELL, PLEASE CONVEY TO THE DEVELOPER THAT THIS REALLY IRRITATED THE BOARD.
DULY NOTED. BUT WITH THAT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ITEM 26 OF THE AGENDA.
THANK YOU. MOTION MADE BY MS..
FARIAS. SECONDED BY MR. HARPER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL RIGHT. ANY OPPOSED HEARING? NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL HOUSING TAX CREDIT REQUESTS FOR THE 2023 COMPETITIVE HOUSING TAX CREDIT APPLICATION ROUND. MR. NICHOLS. ALL RIGHT.
AS LEO MENTIONED, THE NEXT ITEM ON YOUR AGENDA IS ITEM 27 AND THE PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL HOUSING TAX CREDIT REQUESTS FOR THE 2023 COMPETITIVE HOUSING TAX CREDIT CYCLE.
THIS ITEM INCLUDES 64 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AWARD FOR A TOTAL OF $11,049,349 IN SUPPLEMENTAL CREDITS.
INCLUDED IN YOUR BOARD BOOK AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THIS ITEM IS A REPORT SUMMARIZING THESE REQUESTS.
THE 2023 SHAPE ALLOWS APPLICANTS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY AWARDED AN ALLOCATION OF HOUSING TAX CREDITS IN 2021 TO REQUEST SUPPLEMENTAL CREDITS AMOUNTING TO UP TO 15% OF THE ORIGINAL AWARD AMOUNT.
IN 2022, THE DEPARTMENT APPROVED 36 SUPPLEMENTAL CREDIT REQUESTS, WHICH WERE EACH UNDERWRITTEN BY THE DEPARTMENT'S REAL ESTATE ANALYSIS STAFF TO DETERMINE A FINAL REQUEST AMOUNT INSTEAD.
UNDER THE PROCESS OUTLINED IN A 2023 SHAPE, THE DEPARTMENT WOULD ACCEPT THE FINAL FUNDING AMOUNT INCLUDED IN THE REQUEST AND IF NECESSARY, REDUCE THAT REQUEST THROUGH THE COST CERTIFICATION PROCESS.
HOWEVER, DUE TO FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS, THE APPLICATIONS THAT ALSO HAD REQUESTS FOR MULTIFAMILY DIRECT LOAN FUNDING FROM THE DEPARTMENT AS OF JANUARY SIX WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO THOSE UNDERWRITING REQUIREMENTS AND PROCESSES.
SHIFTING THE ANALYZES OF OR ANALYZES OF COST INCREASES TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SUPPLEMENTAL CREDIT REQUESTS FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS TO THE ENDS WOULD SAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF STAFF, TIME AND RESOURCES.
AND PRESENTING THIS ITEM TO YOU TODAY RATHER THAN AT THE MARCH BOARD MEETING AS PRESCRIBED BY THE PROGRAM CALENDAR, IS ALSO IN THE INTEREST OF SAVING STAFF TIME AND RESOURCES. ADDITIONALLY, THIS APPROACH WOULD ALSO ALLOW STAFF TO RELY ON ACTUAL COSTS BASED ON EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT RATHER THAN PRO FORMA PROJECTIONS WHEN ANALYZING THESE REQUESTS.
TO RETURN THOSE EXCESS TAX CREDITS PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF IRS FORM 86 NINE.
IF THOSE EXCESS CREDITS ARE NOT TIMELY RETURNED, A PENALTY FEE EQUAL TO THE ONE YEAR CREDIT AMOUNT OF THE LOST CREDITS WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE PAID BY THE DEVELOPMENT OWNER PURSUANT TO TEN TECH.
AS WITH MOST HOUSING TAX CREDIT DEALS, THE APPLICATION THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO SELL ITS ALLOCATION OF CREDITS TO AN EQUITY INVESTOR IN ORDER TO GENERATE THAT EQUITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. AND THERE IS A STRONG INCENTIVE FOR THE EQUITY INVESTORS IN THESE CASES TO NOT PURCHASE ANY CREDITS THAT ARE AT RISK OF BEING CLAWED BACK BY THE DEPARTMENT.
AND LASTLY, TEN TAC 11.1 THOUSAND EIGHT EXPLICITLY STATES THAT REQUESTS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL CREDITS CANNOT BE USED TO INCREASE THE DEVELOPER FEE OR REDUCE THE DEFERRED DEVELOPER FEE PROPOSED IN THEIR ORIGINAL 2021 APPLICATIONS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THESE REQUESTS, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANKS, COLLIN. SO TO CLARIFY, THE THIS IS THE LAST WE ARE GOING TO HEAR FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS.
[01:45:04]
SO STAFF HAS CERTAINLY NOT FELT THE SAME PRESSURE THAT WE HAVE THE LAST TWO CYCLES WITH RESPECT TO SUPPLEMENTAL CREDITS.WE GET A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM OUR INDUSTRY.
STAKEHOLDERS AND MARKETS APPEAR TO BE STABILIZING.
THIS IS IT. THERE'S NO NO MORE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL CREDITS.
INDEED, THE SCP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS WILL START IN A FEW MONTHS.
SO YOU'RE NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT FUTURE ROUNDS, YOU JUST MEAN EVEN NOW.
YEAH. THIS ROUND. THIS IS THE LAST YOU SHOULD HEAR ABOUT SOME CREDITS.
SURE. YES. BUT NOW AND FOREVER MORE.
ALL RIGHT. WAS IT EVERY 21 9% AWARD THAT CAME IN CLOSE TO IT? IT WASN'T EVERY SINGLE ONE, BUT IT WAS OVER 40.
SO A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT DIDN'T COME IN FOR.
LOOKING AT THE TABLE, NOT EVERYONE TOOK THE WHOLE 15%.
MOST DID, BUT THERE'S A FEW LIKE 8%.
AND EVEN THEN, LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S SUBJECT TO FINAL COST CERTIFICATION.
THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. AND THE COST CERTIFICATION PROCESS, GOING BACK TO THE PRESENTATION, THE BENEFIT OF THAT IS WE ACTUALLY GET TO EVALUATE THE COST THEY SUBMIT WITH EVIDENCE TO THE DEPARTMENT INSTEAD OF RELYING ON PROJECTIONS SO WE CAN SEE WHAT THEY ACTUALLY PAID AND WHAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY SUBSTANTIATE.
JUST A TWIST THAT JUST KIND OF DAWNED ON ME HERE.
SO IF THEY REQUESTED 15 AND THEY ONLY GET EIGHT.
IS THERE A PENALTY, 30 OR IS IT 16? EIGHT OR 16.
WELL, IF THEY REQUESTED 15 AND WE VOTED RIGHT NOW THAT APPROVED THE 15, BUT IN COST CERTIFICATION, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY ONLY QUALIFY FOR 8% MORE OF SUPPLEMENTAL CREDITS.
WITH THAT 2 TO 1 PENALTY, ARE THEY GETTING PENALIZED ON THE WHOLE 15 THAT WE'RE APPROVING RIGHT NOW? I THINK THE PENALTY WOULD COME BEFORE CERTIFICATION.
SO IT WOULD BE BASED ON THE REQUESTED AMOUNT.
THANKS, BOBBY. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. NICHOLS ON THIS ITEM? YOU DON'T HAVE ANY GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS QUESTIONS FOR ME.
NO. IN THAT CASE, FOR THE LAST TIME EVER, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 27 OF THE AGENDA REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL HOUSING TAX CREDIT REQUESTS.
ALL IS DESCRIBED IN CONDITION IN THE BOARD ACTION REQUEST AND RESOLUTIONS ON THIS ITEM.
THANK YOU. MOTION MADE BY MR. THOMAS. SECONDED BY MR. BACHE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED HEARING? NONE. MOTION CARRIES ONE LAST TIME.
IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ITEM 28 HAS BEEN PULLED? YES, SIR. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S PULLED FROM THE AGENDA.
FOR TO RIDGE IN THE RIDGE AND LIVINGSTON.
MR. VASQUEZ. MY NAME IS CODY CAMPBELL.
I AM THE DIRECTOR OF MULTIFAMILY PROGRAMS FOR TDA, AND IT'S GOOD TO SEE EVERYBODY.
I'M HAPPY TO SAY THAT I'VE GOT A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD ONE TODAY.
THIS ITEM CONCERNS A RECOMMENDED HOME AWARD FOR A LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $2.4 MILLION FOR THE RIDGE, A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN LIVINGSTON, WHICH APPLIED UNDER THE GENERAL SET ASIDE OF THE 2020 2-1 NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY, THE RIDGE RECEIVED AN AWARD OF 753,000 IN COMPETITIVE HOUSING TAX CREDITS DURING THE 2022 ROUND.
THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSES THE REHABILITATION OF 50 UNITS THAT WILL SERVE A GENERAL POPULATION UNIT SIZES WILL INCLUDE ONE AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS WITH RENT AND INCOME LEVELS FROM 30% TO 60% OF THE AREA.
MEDIAN INCOME OUT OF THE TOTAL 50 UNITS 28 WILL BE HOME UNITS RESTRICTED TO EITHER 30% OR 50% AREA MEDIAN INCOME AND NOTABLY TEN OF THE UNITS ARE RESTRICTED TO THE 30% LIMIT, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY WILL BE DEEPLY AFFORDABLE FOR EXTREMELY LOW INCOME FAMILIES.
[01:50:06]
THE TO QUALIFY FOR ONE OF THESE UNITS, THE ANNUAL INCOME OF THAT HOUSEHOLD WOULD HAVE TO BE UNDER ABOUT 20,000 FOR ONE PERSON.IT WOULD HAVE TO BE UNDER ABOUT 14,000.
THE RENT LEVEL FOR THESE UNITS FOR A TWO BEDROOM IS GOING TO BE ABOUT $450.
AND FOR ONE BEDROOM WOULD BE ABOUT $380, WHICH I HAVE TO IMAGINE IF YOU ARE A PERSON LIVING ON SOCIAL SECURITY OR IF YOU'RE A SINGLE PARENT IN LIVINGSTON, THAT HAVING THAT KIND OF RENT AVAILABLE TO YOU WOULD PROBABLY BE A PRETTY LIFE CHANGING THING.
AND ON TOP OF THAT, THE UNITS WILL HAVE A 30 YEAR AFFORDABILITY PERIOD.
SO WE'RE GETTING DECADES OF AFFORDABILITY OUT OF THIS MONEY.
THE $2.4 MILLION LOAN IS FULLY REPAYABLE AT HALF A PERCENT INTEREST.
SO WE'RE BEATING THE MARKET BY A LITTLE BIT WITH ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE OF ABOUT 66,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS AWARD, AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
THANK YOU. SO DID I HEAR YOU SAY THIS IS ACTUALLY A REPAYABLE LOAN WITH A LITTLE BIT OF INTEREST AND INTEREST? YES, SIR. I DIDN'T KNOW WE DO THAT HERE.
I THOUGHT WE'D JUST GIVE AWAY.
AND THAT IS THE ONLY THING THAT'S AVAILABLE IN OUR CURRENT NOVA FOR OUR HOUSING TRUST FUND.
JUST UNRELATED, DO WE KNOW HOW MUCH MORE WE HAVE AVAILABLE IN THIS NOVA POT? SO THE CURRENT NOVA THAT'S OUT RIGHT NOW HAS ABOUT 43 MILLION AVAILABLE IN HOUSING TRUST FUND DUE TO THE FINANCING GAPS THAT A LOT OF OUR PREVIOUS AWARDS HAVE SEEN.
WE WE'RE SEEING BIG REQUESTS FOR MONEY.
WHAT'S AVAILABLE UNDER THAT NOVA IS FULLY REPAYABLE LOANS WITH A 2% INTEREST RATE.
BUT THERE'S ABOUT 43 MILLION AVAILABLE IN HOUSING TRUST FUNDS.
AND WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER NOVA THAT COMES OUT AGAIN LATER THIS YEAR.
SO LOTS OF MONEY COMING OUT OF THE MULTIFAMILY DIVISION.
GREAT. DO ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? SEE NONE.
I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 29 OF THE AGENDA.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE MULTIFAMILY DIRECT LOAN FROM THE 2020 2-1 OFFER TO THE RIDGE IN LIVINGSTON AS DESCRIBED IN CONDITION IN THE BOARD ACTION REQUESTED INSIDE THEM.
SECOND MOTION MADE BY MR. BACHE, SECONDED BY MR. FARIAS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL RIGHT. AND HE OPPOSED HEARING NONE.
THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.
SO THE BOARD HAS ADDRESSED THE POSTED AGENDA ITEMS. NOW IS THE TIME OF THE MEETING WHEN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN RAISE ISSUES WITH THE BOARD ON MATTERS OF RELEVANCE TO THE DEPARTMENT'S BUSINESS OR REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD PLACE SPECIFIC ITEMS ON FUTURE AGENDAS FOR CONSIDERATION.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? SEE NONE.
IT WILL BE HERE IN THE SAME SAME ROOM.
LIKELY TO START AT 10:00, BUT WATCH FOR POSTINGS.
NOTE THAT THE MARCH MEETING WILL BE PRECEDED BY AN AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING.
PROBABLY HALF AN HOUR BEFORE THAT THAT TIME.
SO WATCH THE AGENDA POSTING FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.
WOW. GOOD.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.