Sep 04, 2025 Board Meeting

[00:00:01]

EVERYBODY READY? YEAH. SHOULD WE CUDDLE AND SAY GO?

[Board Meeting on September 4, 2025.]

IS 10 A.M. ON SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2025. WE'LL START WITH THE ROLL.

MR. MARTIAN. I'M DOWN HERE. MISS FARIAS HERE.

MR. THOMAS. PRESENT. MR. HARPER HERE. MISS CONROY HERE.

AND MYSELF. WE ARE ALL PRESENT AND ACCOUNTED FOR.

SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. DO WE HAVE FLAGS? OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. YEAH. SO, AS USUAL, WE'LL HAVE MR. WILKINSON LEAD US IN THE PLEDGES. ON THE ALONGSIDE, THE FLAGS ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.

ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE.

TEXAS. ONE STATE, ONE INDIVISIBLE. ALRIGHT. YOU'RE RIGHT.

YEAH. IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE ON THE WRONG SIDE.

YEAH, IT'S. YEAH, IT'S MADE IT. EVERYBODY KIND OF GOT QUIET.

SO YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME. WHEN I LOOK BACK EARLIER.

YEAH, BUT I DIDN'T CATCH THAT. THEY WERE UNDER.

OH. DID THEY? YEAH. WE SHALL HAVE STAFF INFORM THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS THAT FOR THE PROPER PLACEMENT OF THE FLAGS ON STAGE.

THESE ARE BACKWARDS. WE TODAY WE HAVE A RESOLUTION, WHICH I'LL ASK MR. LYTLE TO READ INTO THE RECORD DECLARING OCTOBER COMING UP AS NATIONAL ENERGY AWARENESS MONTH.

MR. LYTLE. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN. I'M NOT SURE.

IS THIS ONE? IT IS. OKAY. WE HAVE A RESOLUTION LISTED DECLARING OCTOBER 2025 AS NATIONAL ENERGY AWARENESS MONTH, WHEREAS THE US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY HAS DESIGNATED OCTOBER 2025 AS NATIONAL ENERGY AWARENESS MONTH.

WHEREAS THE WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, THE NATION'S LARGEST RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM, WAS ESTABLISHED BY DOE IN 1976 TO MAKE HOMES MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT, SAFER, AND HEALTHIER FOR THOSE WITH LOW AND MODERATE INCOMES.

WHEREAS, THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ADMINISTERS A WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FUNDED WITH BOTH DOE FUNDS AND LOW INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FUNDS, WHICH IS OPERATED BY A NETWORK OF PRIVATE NON-PROFITS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES.

WHEREAS, THE TEXAS WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM HAS INTRODUCED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO COMMUNITIES TO IMPROVE THOUSANDS OF HOMES, THEREBY HELPING TEXANS INCLUDING ELDERLY, DISABLED OR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN TO CONSERVE ENERGY AND REDUCE UTILITY COSTS.

WHEREAS THE PROGRAM CONDUCTS COMPUTERIZED ENERGY AUDITS AND USES ADVANCED DIAGNOSTIC TECHNOLOGY, INVESTING IN AN ARRAY OF IMPROVEMENTS THAT INCLUDE WEATHERSTRIPPING OF DOORS AND WINDOWS, PATCHING CRACKS AND HOLES, INSULATING WALLS, FLOORS AND ATTICS, REPLACING DOORS, WINDOWS, REFRIGERATORS AND WATER HEATERS, AND REPAIRING HEATING AND COOLING SYSTEMS. AND WHEREAS THE WEATHERIZATION EFFORTS CONTRIBUTE TO THE STATE'S ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS BY CREATING JOBS, PROMPTING THE PURCHASE OF GOODS AND SERVICES, IMPROVING HOUSING, STABILIZING NEIGHBORHOODS, REDUCING EMISSIONS, AND DECREASING THE RISK OF FIRES.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT THE GOVERNING BOARD DOES HEREBY CELEBRATE NEXT MONTH, OCTOBER 2025, AS ENERGY AWARENESS MONTH IN TEXAS.

THANK YOU. MICHAEL. MOVING RIGHT ALONG TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.

ARE THERE ANY ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WHICH A BOARD MEMBER OR MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO MOVE TO ACTION? HEARING NONE. SEEING NONE. I'LL ENTERTAIN. ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.

OH, DID I JUST WANTED TO ABSTAIN FROM FROM NUMBER FOUR.

BUT I GUESS IT'S EASIER IF I JUST ABSTAIN FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.

YES. OKAY, SO KNOWING THAT MISS CONROY IS GOING TO ABSTAIN FROM THE VOTE FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA, IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA? MR. CHAIRMAN, SINCE ITEM FIVE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA, I MOVE THE BOARD, APPROVE ITEMS ONE THROUGH FOUR AND SIX THROUGH 11, AS DESCRIBED AND PRESENTED IN THE RESPECTIVE BOARD ACTION REQUESTS AND REPORTS.

THANK YOU. MOTION MADE BY MISS ARIAS. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? SECONDED BY MR. HARPER. NOTING THAT MISS CONROY'S ABSTAINING AND ITEM FIVE HAS BEEN REMOVED

[00:05:09]

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

SO, ITEM 12 OF THE AGENDA. MR. WILKINSON AND HIS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

REPORT. GOOD MORNING. CHAIRMAN. BOARD. JUST A FEW SHORT ITEMS TO SHARE WITH YOU.

FIRST, OUR MULTIFAMILY COMPLIANCE AREA JUST WRAPPED UP A VERY SUCCESSFUL LUNCH AND LEARN SUMMER SERIES.

FROM JUNE 11TH THROUGH AUGUST 7TH. THEY HOSTED WEEKLY LUNCH AND LEARN WEBINARS ON VARIOUS TOPICS OF INTEREST FOR OUR MULTIFAMILY PRACTITIONERS.

THE SERIES INCLUDED SESSIONS FROM THE LARGER INCOME DETERMINATION TRAINING, WHICH IS OFFERED SEVERAL TIMES A YEAR IN SMALLER, BITE SIZED CHUNKS. WE HAD AN AVERAGE OF 235 HOUSING PARTNERS JOIN US EACH WEEK.

OUR FIRST SESSION HAD 355 IN ATTENDANCE. THIS WAS A WELL RECEIVED OFFERING, AND THE DIVISION RECEIVED A GREAT DEAL OF POSITIVE FEEDBACK AND PRAISE FOR THE LUNCH AND LEARN SERIES. MULTIFAMILY COMPLIANCE HOPES TO CONTINUE FUTURE SERIES LIKE THIS TO HELP SHARE INFORMATION AND OFFER TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES.

THEIR MONTHLY ONLINE OFFICE HOURS WILL START BACK UP AGAIN ON SEPTEMBER 12TH AFTER SUMMER BREAK, MOVING TO OUR HOME OWNERSHIP PROGRAM AREA. TEXAS HOMEOWNERSHIP WOULD LIKE TO ANNOUNCE THAT WE WILL BE REBRANDING THE TEXAS HOMEOWNERSHIP HOMEBUYER PROGRAM NO LATER THAN NEXT MONTH AS THE HOMEBUYER PROGRAM. IN ADDITION TO THE NEW NAME, WE WILL LAUNCH THE REBRAND WITH A NEW LOGO AS WELL.

THIS IS PART OF AN EXPANDED MARKETING EFFORT, WHICH THE PROGRAM AREA IS UNDERTAKING, ALONG WITH ASSISTANCE FROM MICHAEL IDOLS EXTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION. LISA JOHNSON, OUR HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAM DIRECTOR, WILL HAVE MORE ON THIS NEXT MONTH AT THE BOARD'S SINGLE FAMILY ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE MEETING ON OCTOBER 8TH. AND THAT IS IT FOR MY PREPARED REMARKS, BUT I'M PREPARED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

MAYBE SO. SPECIAL SESSIONS LEFT US UNIMPACTED.

YEAH, THERE WAS REALLY NOTHING ON THE ON THE CALL THAT THAT REALLY AFFECTED US DIRECTLY OR EVEN AS AN AGENCY.

YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THERE'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S HOUSING RELATED, BUT BUT YEAH, I DON'T THINK ANYTHING WILL HAVE TO IMPLEMENT. OKAY.

GREAT. DO ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. WILKINSON? IF NOT, THANK YOU FOR THAT REPORT.

MOVING RIGHT ALONG TO ITEM 13 OF THE AGENDA REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INTERNAL AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE.

IS THIS MR. SCOTT OR MR. THOMAS? OKAY. MR.. THOMAS, PLEASE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE OF TDCA MET THIS MORNING JUST PRIOR TO THIS MEETING AT 9:30 A.M.

IN THAT MEETING, MR. MARK SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL AUDIT, PRESENTED THREE REPORT ITEMS. THE FIRST ITEM WAS THE INTERNAL AUDIT OF THE DAVIS-BACON LABOR STANDARDS ACT.

THE SECOND ITEM WAS THE INTERNAL AUDIT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND PROGRAM HERE AT TDCA.

AND FINALLY, MR. SCOTT PROVIDED A REPORT ON THE STATUS OF INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL AUDIT ACTIVITIES.

THIS REPORT INCLUDED UPDATES ON THE STATUS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2025, INTERNAL AUDIT WORK PLAN, AND ANTICIPATED EXTERNAL AUDIT ACTIVITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026.

THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT OF THIS MORNING'S MEETING OF THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT EXIST.

I ATTENDED THE MEETING AS WELL AS MR. AND MRS. CONROY, SO WE'RE INFORMED AND APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S EFFORTS IN THAT, AND I THINK WE DO HAVE A NEW TEAM MEMBER TO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE OR AUDIT TEAM ON A TEAM.

DO YOU WANT TO WAVE AND SAY HELLO? YES.

OKAY. I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED AN ACTUAL. MOTION TO ACCEPT THAT REPORT.

JUST BECAUSE IT'S AUDIT AND FINANCE IS YOUR PREROGATIVE FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE.

LET'S GET A MOTION. MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE REPORT.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD, THE FULL BOARD, ACCEPT OR MAKE A MOTION THAT THE FULL BOARD ACCEPT MY REPORT OF THIS MORNING'S AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE AT A SECOND, SECONDED BY MISS FARIA.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ITEM 14 ON THE AGENDA PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE APPOINTMENT OF COLONIA RESIDENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MR. LANDRIEU, GOOD MORNING.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN VAZQUEZ AND BOARD MEMBERS. I AM CHAD LANDRY, THE MANAGER OF SINGLE FAMILY PROGRAMS,

[00:10:04]

WE CALL IT CRACK FOR SHORT. THE CRACK IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE OFFICE OF COLONIA INITIATIVES COLONIA SELF-HELP CENTER PROGRAM.

THE CRACK EVALUATES THE NEEDS OF COLONIA RESIDENTS, REVIEWS, PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR OR OPERATED THROUGH THE SELF-HELP CENTERS, AND ADVISES THE DEPARTMENTS GOVERNING BOARD IN ORDER TO FOR THE SELF-HELP CENTER TO BETTER SERVE COLONIA RESIDENTS, THE CRACK IS REQUIRED TO MEET 30 DAYS BEFORE ANY SELF-HELP CENTER CONTRACT IS SCHEDULED TO BE AWARDED OR AMENDED BY THE DEPARTMENTS GOVERNING BOARD, AND MAY MEET AT OTHER TIMES AS NEEDED. THE TERM OF SERVICE IS FOUR YEARS, AND THE TERM LIMIT FOR ALL CURRENT MEMBERS ENDED ON SEPTEMBER 2ND, 2025. WHICH IS WHY I'M BEFORE YOU. THE DEPARTMENTS GOVERNING BOARD IS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 2306 .584 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE TO APPOINT AT LEAST FIVE PERSONS WHO ARE RESIDENTS OF COLONIAS TO SERVE ON THE CRACK.

CURRENT POLICY IS THAT EACH OF THE COUNTIES THAT PARTICIPATE IN THE SELF-HELP CENTER PROGRAM NOW RECOMMEND TWO COLONIA RESIDENTS AS A PRIMARY, AND A BACKUP MEMBER TO SERVE ON THE CRACK. IF APPROVED, THESE MEMBERS WILL HAVE A TERM STARTING TODAY, SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2025 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2029.

EACH PROPOSED CRACK MEMBER HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR PREVIOUS PARTICIPATION AND NO ISSUES WERE IDENTIFIED.

APPROVAL OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT TO CARRY OUT THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF THE COLONIA SELF-HELP CENTER PROGRAM AND THE CRACK.

I DO NEED TO POINT OUT THAT EL PASO COUNTY HAS REQUESTED THAT WE REMOVE ONE OF THEIR MEMBERS, FRANCISCA HERNANDEZ, BECAUSE SHE HAS MOVED OUT OF THE COLONIA.

SOLEDAD JIMENEZ WILL NOW BE THEIR PRIMARY MEMBER.

EL PASO COUNTY WILL SUBMIT A NEW PERSON FOR CONSIDERATION SOON, AND I HOPE TO BRING THIS REPLACEMENT AS A NEW BOARD ITEM AT EITHER THE OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER BOARD MEETING. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

OKAY. THANKS, CHAD. SO THIS REALLY IS A THIS COMMITTEE IS.

A GOOD METHOD FOR THE ACTUAL COLONIA RESIDENTS TO REALLY HAVE A VOICE IN.

EXACTLY. YEAH. AND SPREAD THE WORD TO THEIR OTHER NEIGHBORS AND SUCH.

RIGHT. AND ABOUT OUR OUR AGENCY AS WELL. SO IT'S VERY GOOD.

OKAY, GOOD. AND HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN IN PLACE? SINCE THE PROGRAM BEGAN, WHICH WAS BEFORE MY TIME.

OKAY. IT'S BEEN A WHILE. SHE SAID IN EL PASO.

MRS FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ WITHDREW BECAUSE SHE MOVED OUT.

YEAH, THEY JUST JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY THAT THEY MOVE OUT OF THE COLONIA AND INTO A HOME.

THEY DIDN'T TELL, OKAY, BECAUSE USUALLY THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS. YEAH. COLONIA RESIDENTS.

AND WE WORKED ON THIS FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. HENRY CISNEROS HARD WORK.

MEL MARTINEZ HAD WENT AND VISITED. AND THEY TELL YOU UP FRONT, WE IN THE COLONIAS DO NOT WANT TO GO AND LIVE IN PUBLIC HOUSING.

WE'RE TRYING THE BEST WE CAN TO GET OUT OR BE ABLE TO BUY OUR HOME.

AND A LOT OF THE COLONIALS, YOU WILL FIND A LOT OF FLAGS.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE A LOT OF THEIR CHILDREN ARE IN THE MILITARY, AND THEREFORE THEY CAN HELP MOM OR GRANDMA GET OUT AND BUY THEIR OWN HOME.

SO IT'S A GOOD, VERY GOOD PROGRAM. OH YEAH. IT'S FANTASTIC.

THERE'S ALL SORTS OF NEAT THINGS. OKAY, GREAT.

THERE'S ANOTHER RELATED ITEM COMING UP, BUT SO ON THIS.

DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 14 OF THE AGENDA RELATING TO THE CRACK.

MEMBERS. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE. THE BOARD APPROVED THE APPOINTMENT TO THE COLONIAL RESIDENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

THE 18 TEXAS COLONIAL RESIDENTS AS DESCRIBED AND AUTHORIZED IN THE BOARD ACTION, REQUEST RESOLUTION AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ITEM.

SECOND MOTION MADE BY MR. THOMAS, SECONDED BY MR. HARPER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. MOVING RIGHT ALONG TO ITEM 15 OF THE AGENDA PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A COLONIAL SELF-HELP CENTER PROGRAM AWARD TO CAMERON COUNTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 2306 .582 THROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING. MR. LANDRY, TELL US ABOUT THIS.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN VASQUEZ AND BOARD MEMBERS.

I AM ONCE AGAIN CHAD LANDRY, THE MANAGER OF SINGLE FAMILY PROGRAMS, AND I AM PRESENTING AGENDA ITEM 15 TODAY, WHICH IS A PROPOSED AWARD FOR THE STATE FISCAL YEAR 2025 COLONIA SELF-HELP CENTER PROGRAM.

THE COLONIA SELF-HELP CENTER PROGRAM IS FUNDED THROUGH THE FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, WHICH IS AWARDED TO TD THROUGH AN MOU WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

THIS PROGRAM PROVIDES FUNDS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR COLONIA RESIDENTS IN SELECTED COUNTIES ALONG THE TEXAS MEXICO BORDER.

THE PROPOSED AWARD I BRING TODAY IS FOR CAMERON COUNTY, THE COLONIA SELF-HELP CENTER.

[00:15:03]

AS NOTED IN THE PREVIOUS AGENDA ITEM, THE COLONIA SELF-HELP CENTER PROGRAM IS UNIQUE AMONG PROGRAMS AND THAT THERE IS A COMMITTEE MADE UP OF COLONIAL RESIDENTS THAT REVIEWS AND RECOMMENDS PROPOSALS. THE C MEETING C CONVENED A MEETING ON AUGUST 1ST, WHERE THEY REVIEWED THIS PROPOSAL AND RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD THAT IT AWARD THIS CONTRACT IN FULL. WE PROPOSE TO AWARD $800,000 TO CAMERON COUNTY.

THIS AWARD IS FURTHER DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY, GREAT.

AND THIS IS SPREAD OUT OVER HOW MANY YEAR PERIODS.

IT'S IT'S FOR MULTI. WELL CORRECT. YEAH. THE CONTRACT IS FOR FOUR YEARS AND IT'S THIS AWARD IS SPLIT.

IT'S GOT SOME 2020. WHAT IS IT 2025 AND 2026.

MONEY GOING INTO IT. OKAY. YEAH. JUST IT'S NOT JUST ALL ALL FOR ONE PERIOD RIGHT. OKAY. THIS IS GREAT. DO WE HAVE SEPARATE AWARDS TO OTHER COUNTIES.

YEAH, IT KIND OF CYCLES THROUGH THE YEARS. AND SO THERE'S ABOUT TWO EACH YEAR THAT GETS THAT'LL GET A WE HAVE EIGHT COLONIAS THAT GET THAT WE FUND. AND EVERY TWO YEARS OR EVERY YEAR TO GET AN AWARD.

OKAY. OKAY. GREAT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. LANDRY ON ITEM 15? HEARING NONE. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 15 OF THE AGENDA.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THE BOARD, APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND HIS DESIGNEES TO EFFECTUATE THE CDBG FUNDING UNDER THE COLONIAS SELF HELP PROGRAM TO CAMERON COUNTY.

ALL IS DESCRIBED, CONDITIONED, AND AUTHORIZED IN THE BOARD ACTION REQUEST RESOLUTION AND THE ASSOCIATED EXHIBIT ON THIS ITEM.

MOTION MADE BY MISS FARIAS. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. SECOND BY MISS CONROY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. ITEM 16 PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PROGRAM YEAR 2025.

EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANTS. PROGRAM AWARDS. MISS FALCONE.

IT SHOULD BE ON. YOU SHOULD BE ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING.

CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ROSIE FALCONE, MANAGER OF HOMELESS PROGRAMS. TODAY I'LL BE PRESENTING THE PROGRAM YEAR 2025 AWARD RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANTS PROGRAM, OR ESG. THE ESG PROGRAM IS IS DESIGNED TO ASSIST PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS OR THOSE AT RISK OF HOMELESSNESS TO QUICKLY REGAIN STABILITY AND PERMANENT HOUSING. PROGRAM COMPONENTS INCLUDE STREET OUTREACH, EMERGENCY SHELTER, RAPID REHOUSING, AND HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION.

IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT, SUB RECIPIENTS MAY USE FUNDS RELATED TO THE FOR COSTS RELATED TO THE HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM OR MIS, AND ANY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR ADMINISTERING THIS GRANT.

THE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED AN ALLOCATION OF JUST OVER $10.3 MILLION FROM HUD FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR.

OF THAT AMOUNT, APPROXIMATELY 9.8 MILLION WAS MADE AVAILABLE FOR AWARD THROUGH THE ESG PROGRAM NOFA, WHICH WAS APPROVED FOR RELEASE BY THE BOARD THIS MAY 8TH.

THESE FUNDS WERE DISTRIBUTED GEOGRAPHICALLY ACROSS THE 12 CONTINUUMS OF CARE OR COFFEY REGIONS, AND UNDER THE 2025 APPLICATION CYCLE, THE DEPARTMENT REVIEWED AND EVALUATED 35 ELIGIBLE APPLICATIONS FOR CONTINUING AWARDS.

THESE TOTALED APPROXIMATELY 6.8 MILLION. THESE AWARDS SUPPORT LONG TERM, HIGH PERFORMING SUB RECIPIENTS OF CURRENT DEPARTMENT ESG FUNDING DURING THE REGIONAL COMPETITION, WE RECEIVED 79 APPLICATIONS WITH REQUESTS TOTALING JUST OVER 10.2 MILLION.

THESE APPLICATIONS WERE EVALUATED FOR ELIGIBILITY ASSIGNED, A TIEBREAKER NUMBER SCORED, AND RANKED.

BASED ON THAT PROCESS. WE'RE PRESENTING 26 APPLICANTS FOR RECOMMENDATION OF AN AWARD UNDER THE REGIONAL COMPETITION.

THE RESULTS OF BOTH THE CONTINUING AWARDS AND THE REGIONAL COMPETITION ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR BOARD BOOK AS ATTACHMENTS TO THIS ITEM.

ALL APPLICANTS WERE NOTIFIED OF THEIR FINAL SCORE AND GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL.

THE DEPARTMENT DID RECEIVE APPEALS FROM TWO APPLICANTS IN RESPONSE TO THE TERMINATION OF THEIR APPLICATIONS.

[00:20:03]

NITA BREAKS APPLICATION AS THEIR SUBMISSION WAS INCOMPLETE AND ALSO SUBMITTED AFTER THE POSTED DEADLINE.

THIS APPEAL WAS REVIEWED AND DENIED. NORTEX REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION WAS TERMINATED DUE TO LATE PAPER REPORTING.

AFTER REVIEWING THEIR APPEAL, IT WAS APPROVED AND THE APPLICATION WAS REINSTATED FOR EVALUATION.

ALL APPLICANTS WENT THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT'S PREVIOUS PARTICIPATION REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS, AND THE RESULTS AND THE RESULTS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS FOR THREE APPLICANTS FAMILY GATEWAY, HOUSTON AREA WOMEN'S CENTER, AND PROJECT VIDA.

THIS WAS PENDING TIMELY RESPONSES TO THEIR SINGLE AUDIT MANAGEMENT LETTERS.

SINCE THAT DETERMINATION, BOTH PROJECT VIDA AND FAMILY GATEWAY HAVE NOW MET THEIR CONDITIONS AND ALL OTHER APPLICANTS ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL WITH NO CONDITIONS.

WITH THAT, MY PREPARED REMARKS ARE CONCLUDED AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

SO THE HOUSTON AREA WOMEN'S CENTER IS STILL PENDING THAT AND SAYS WHAT THE YES, I BELIEVE THEY HAVE.

RIGHT. THEY HAVE UNTIL MID SEPTEMBER TO SUBMIT A RESPONSE.

OKAY. SO ARE WE APPROVING? THAT CONDITIONALLY ASSUMING THEY PUT IN THERE.

YES. THAT IS THE REQUEST. RIGHT. OKAY. AND JUST GOING THROUGH SCANNING THE RECIPIENTS, I MEAN THESE THESE ARE REALLY WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD. I MEAN, THEY'RE IT'S GREAT TO SEE THE MONEY'S GOING OUT TO THESE GROUPS.

YES. THIS YEAR WE DID HAVE A LOT OF RESPONSE FOR THESE FUNDS.

AND EVEN IN AREAS THAT TYPICALLY AREN'T OVERSUBSCRIBED OR HIGHLY COMPETITIVE.

THIS YEAR, WE DID HAVE TO WORK RIGHT UP UNTIL THE END FOR BOARD POSTING TO ENSURE THAT EVERYBODY HAD ALL THEIR APPEALS PROCESSES UNDERSTOOD THE PROCESS.

AND WE'RE READY TO REVIEW THE RESULTS OF IT, SINCE THERE ARE SOME LONG STANDING RECIPIENTS THAT WE WON'T BE FUNDING FULLY.

AND THERE'S A GOOD MIX OF NEW RECIPIENTS THIS YEAR.

YEAH, GREAT. DO ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MISS FALCONE? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 16 OF THE AGENDA.

I MOVE THE BOARD, APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND HIS DESIGNEE TO EFFECTUATE THE EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT FUNDING AS DESCRIBED, CONDITIONED, AND AUTHORIZING THE BOARD TO REQUEST RESOLUTION AND AMOUNTS ALLOCATED UNDER THE ESG NOFA AS DETAILED IN THE ATTACHED ASSOCIATED ATTACHMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU. MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? SECONDED BY MISS FARIAS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

THANKS, ROSA. I'M 17 OF THE AGENDA, BY THE WAY.

I'M KIND OF RUSHING THROUGH THIS BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE A LONGER PART OF THIS MEETING LATER ON.

SO YOU'LL SEE. OKAY. I'M 17. I'M 17. REPORT RELATING TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE 2024 NONCOMPETITIVE 4% HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM AND AN UPDATE ON THE 2025 NONCOMPETITIVE 4% HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM. JOHN MR. GALVAN. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS JONATHAN GALVAN.

I'M THE MANAGER OF THE 4% HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM.

LIKE YOU SAID, ITEM 17 IS A REPORT RELATING TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE 2024.

4% TAX CREDIT PROGRAM AND AN UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE 2025 2025 4% TAX CREDIT PROGRAM YEAR.

THE 2024 PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND PROGRAM CEILING AMOUNT WAS 3.8 BILLION, AND AS OF DECEMBER 19TH, 2024, ELIGIBLE REQUESTS TOTALED APPROXIMATELY 8.2 BILLION, WITH MUCH OF THE REQUESTS COMING FROM MULTIFAMILY ISSUERS.

THE 2024 4% TAX CREDIT APPLICATION LOG IS INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT A, AND REFLECTS THOSE APPLICATIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO TDCA BETWEEN DECEMBER 2023 AND DECEMBER 2024, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF BOND RENOVATIONS FROM THE BOND REVIEW BOARD.

THE 2024 APPLICATION LOG REFLECTS 53 APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE CLOSED ON THEIR RESPECTIVE BOND ALLOCATIONS.

THOSE PROJECTS THAT HAVE CLOSED REPRESENT 12,586 UNITS AND OVER $147 MILLION IN 4% HOUSING TAX CREDITS.

ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE FOUR APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND HAVE HAD DETERMINATION NOTICES ISSUED, BUT HAVE YET TO CLOSE ALTOGETHER WHEN CONSIDERING WHAT IS CLOSED AND BEEN APPROVED.

THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS IS 13,631, AND THE TOTAL RECOMMENDED TAX CREDIT AMOUNT IS APPROXIMATELY $158 MILLION.

EXHIBIT A ALSO REFLECTS THE APPLICATIONS THAT WERE RECEIVED BY TDCA DURING THE 2024 PROGRAM YEAR, AS WELL AS THOSE APPLICATIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO TDCA BUT SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN.

THE 2024 PROGRAM YEAR HAS CONCLUDED, AND THE FIGURES REPRESENTED IN EXHIBIT A ARE CONSIDERED FINAL.

[00:25:07]

AGAIN, WITH MUCH OF THESE REQUESTS COMING FROM MULTIFAMILY ISSUERS, THE 2025 APPLICATION LOG IS INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT B AND REFLECTS THOSE APPLICATIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO TJC FROM JANUARY 2025 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2025, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF BOND RESERVATIONS FROM THE BOND REVIEW BOARD.

CURRENTLY, THERE ARE 30 APPLICATIONS UNDER REVIEW.

SEVEN APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BUT HAVE YET TO CLOSE, AND 16 APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE CLOSED ON THEIR RESPECTIVE BOND ALLOCATIONS.

WHEN CONSIDERING WHAT IS CLOSED, BEEN APPROVED AND IS CURRENTLY ACTIVE, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS IS 11,007.

CONSIDERING THE RECENT COLLAPSE OF BOND CAP, STAFF EXPECTS SEVERAL MORE APPLICATIONS TO BE SUBMITTED TO TDCA IN THE COMING MONTHS.

THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY.

THANK YOU. JONATHAN. IS THERE ANY FOR THE 2024 YEAR? WE WERE OVERSUBSCRIBED. APPLICATIONS WERE OVER 2 TO 1 OVER THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS THAT WE HAD.

YEAH. IN 2025, IT ONLY SEEMS TO BE ONE AND A HALF TIMES.

IS THERE ANY. THAT'S TRUE REASON WHY THAT I THINK JUST SORT OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE, YOU KNOW, NATIONAL SPHERE MORE THAN ANYTHING. BUT THE DEMAND IS STILL THERE.

JUST SOME OVERSUBSCRIBED. YEAH, EXACTLY. JUST SOME YEARS ARE A LITTLE MORE OVERSUBSCRIBED THAN OTHERS.

BUT YEAH PRETTY CONSISTENT. OKAY. ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS REPORT, MR. MARSHALL? YEAH. THE QUESTION I HAD I THINK YOU ANSWERED.

SO DO PEOPLE GET TURNED DOWN OR DO THEY JUST HAVE AN APPLICATION THAT'S NOT PREPARED PROPERLY OR SO.

THEY DON'T GET TURNED DOWN OR DECLINED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

WE WORK WITH THEM TO GET THEIR APPLICATIONS TO THE THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHAPE.

IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE 9% PROGRAM. WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE LEEWAY TO GET THEIR APPLICATIONS IN IN ORDER TO TWO TIMES OVERSUBSCRIBED.

THAT MEANS YOU HAD MORE QUALIFIED APPLICATIONS, OR THAT'S JUST MORE APPLICATIONS IN GENERAL.

THEY'RE SUBMITTED TO THE BOND REVIEW BOARD. YEAH.

FOR BOND. THEY'RE NOT DECLINED. I MEAN, UNLESS THEY FAIL TO CHECK ALL THE BOXES, BUT THEY'RE PUT ON A WAIT LIST ESSENTIALLY.

YEAH. AND THEN THEY JUST WORK THEIR WAY DOWN THE LIST AS FAR AS BOND RESERVATIONS, BOND ALLOCATION.

RIGHT, EXACTLY. YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANKS.

IS THERE ANY OTHER. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

SO THIS IS A REPORT DOES NOT REQUIRE A MOTION.

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU JONATHAN. MOVING RIGHT ALONG.

ITEM 18 OF THE AGENDA PRESENTATION DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON APPROVING NEW OUTSIDE COUNSEL CONTRACTS AND DELEGATION OF CONTRACT SIGNATURE AUTHORITY TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MISS MORALES. GOOD MORNING. TERESA MORALES, DIRECTOR OF MULTIFAMILY BONDS.

ITEM 18 IS REQUESTING BOARD APPROVAL OF NEW OUTSIDE COUNSEL, COUNCIL CONTRACTS AND DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

THE DEPARTMENT RELIES ON OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL CONTRACTS THAT COVER SIX LEGAL SERVICES.

THESE INCLUDE BOND COUNSEL FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY PROGRAMS, BOND TAX COUNSEL FOR SINGLE AND MULTIFAMILY PROGRAMS, DISCLOSURE COUNSEL FOR SINGLE AND MULTIFAMILY PROGRAMS. DOCUMENT PREP COUNCIL FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY PROGRAMS AND HOUSING TAX CREDIT COUNCIL.

THESE CONTRACTS ARE MADE EVERY TWO YEARS, WITH THE PREVIOUS CONTRACT EXPIRING ON AUGUST 31ST, 2025. NEW CONTRACTS CAN ONLY BE FORMED WITH THE PERMISSION OF AND THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

THE REQUESTS FOR QUALIFICATIONS OR RFQS WERE PUBLISHED IN JULY.

THEY WERE REVIEWED AND SCORED BY INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN AUGUST.

THE COMMITTEE SELECTED BRACEWELL LLP TO SERVE AS BOND COUNSEL AND BOND TAX COUNSEL FOR BOTH SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY PROGRAMS. BRACEWELL IS THE CURRENT PROVIDER OF THESE SERVICES AND WILL STAY ON IN THAT CAPACITY.

THE COMMITTEE SELECTED MCCALL, PARKHURST AND HORTON LLP TO SERVE AS DISCLOSURE COUNSEL AGAIN FOR BOTH SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY PROGRAMS. THEY ARE THE CURRENT PROVIDER OF THESE SERVICES AND WILL STAY ON IN THAT CAPACITY.

[00:30:03]

NO RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE MULTIFAMILY DOCUMENT PREP COUNCIL OR THE HOUSING TAX CREDIT COUNCIL.

THE CURRENT PROVIDERS FOR THOSE SERVICES, HOWEVER, HAVE AGREED TO STAY ON IN THEIR RESPECTIVE CAPACITIES.

SO THAT WOULD BE BBCC WILL REMAIN AS THE MULTIFAMILY DOCUMENT PREP COUNCIL AND BRACEWELL WILL REMAIN AS THE HOUSING TAX CREDIT COUNCIL.

A REQUEST TO RETAIN HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE TO ISSUE CONTRACTS FOR SIGNATURE WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025. STAFF REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE AWARD OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL CONTRACTS AND DELEGATES TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THE AUTHORITY TO SIGN SUCH CONTRACTS AS APPROVED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

THAT CONCLUDES MY REMARKS. THANKS, TERESA. SO THIS IS USUALLY THE QUESTIONS I SEND TO MR. FLETCHER. DID WE MAINTAIN PRICING OR GET ANY MORE FAVORABLE PRICING ON ANY OF THESE? THE AMOUNT THAT WILL BE REFLECTED AS FAR AS A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT IN THE CONTRACT.

I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO BOND COUNCIL AND PERHAPS TAX COUNSEL.

THAT NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT WILL NOT MATERIALLY BE ANY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'VE BEEN OPERATING UNDER FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS.

SO IT'S STILL IN LINE WITH WHAT THE BOARD HAS HISTORICALLY APPROVED.

HOWEVER, I WILL NOTE THAT IN THEIR RFQ RESPONSE, THEY DID PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT DETAIL AS FAR AS HOW THAT PRICING HAS CONTINUALLY DECREASED WITH THE ACTIVITY, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO THE SINGLE FAMILY PROGRAMS. OKAY. AGAIN, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CONTINUALLY MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE ECONOMICALLY EFFICIENT FOR UNDERSTOOD ACTIVITIES.

BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MISS MORALES ON THIS ITEM.

NOT A QUESTION, BUT A COMMENT, MR. CHAIRMAN. SO I BELIEVE JUST TO CLARIFY, IN TALKING TO MR. FLETCHER AND HE'S NOT HERE TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE NOT TO EXCEED NUMBER AND REASON THE FEE WAS COMPETITIVE WAS I MEAN IT IS A NOT TO EXCEED NUMBER AND THAT REMAINED IN LINE.

BUT THERE ARE EFFICIENCIES IN THE WAY THAT WE'RE DOING THE TRANSACTIONAL WORK.

THAT IS CORRECT. WE SHOULD BENEFIT AS THE AGENCY FROM FROM A LOWER TOTAL FEE EXPENDED BECAUSE OF THE EFFICIENCIES.

IF WE DO MULTIPLE DEALS. CORRECT, CORRECT. YEAH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. YES.

ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, THEN. HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 18 OF THE AGENDA.

I MOVE THE BOARD, APPROVE THE OUTSIDE COUNCIL CONTRACTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE BOARD ACTION REQUESTS A RESOLUTION ON THIS ITEM AND DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY TO THE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO SUCH CONTRACTS WHEN THEY'RE RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SECOND. THANK YOU. MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER, SECONDED BY MISS FARIAS.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. THANKS, TERESA.

I AM 19 OF THE AGENDA PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A MATERIAL AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING TAX CREDIT APPLICATION FOR THE BRYAN MR. BANUELOS. GOOD MORNING. ROSALIO BANUELOS, DIRECTOR OF ASSET MANAGEMENT.

BRYAN WAS APPROVED FOR A 9% HOUSING TAX RATE AWARD IN 2024 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 113 UNITS, ALL OF WHICH ARE DESIGNATED AS LOW INCOME UNITS FOR THE ELDERLY.

POPULATION AND MISSION IN HIDALGO COUNTY. THE APPLICANT HAS NOW REQUESTED APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL AMENDMENT TO THE APPLICATION FOR A REDUCTION TO THE NUMBER OF UNITS, REDUCTIONS TO THE NET RENTABLE AREA AND COMMON AREA, AND OTHER CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN.

IT REQUESTS FOR REALLOCATION OF TAX CREDITS UNDER FORCE MAJEURE WILL ALSO BE PRESENTED SEPARATELY FROM THIS AMENDMENT.

FOR THIS AMENDMENT, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 19.47 REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF UNITS GOING FROM 113 TO 91 UNITS, WHICH WILL DECREASE THE ONE BEDROOM UNITS BY 13 AND ELIMINATE ALL NINE OF THE TWO BEDROOM UNITS, RESULTING IN ALL ONE BEDROOM UNITS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

THIS CHANGE WOULD ALSO RESULT IN A REVISION TO THE RENT AND INCOME RESTRICTIONS FROM 12 UNITS AT 30% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME, 23 UNITS AT 50% AMI AND 78 UNITS AT 60% AMI TO 12 UNITS AT 30%, 19 UNITS AT 50%, AND 62 UNITS AT 60%. REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF UNITS AND A MINOR REDUCTION TO THE UNIT SQUARE FOOTAGES WILL RESULT IN A REDUCTION OF 18,971FT², OR 24.03%, IN NET RENTABLE AREA. GOING FROM 78,962FT² TO 59,991FT².

[00:35:01]

THE CHANGE TO THE ACREAGE AND THE REDUCTION TO THE NUMBER OF UNITS WILL RESULT IN A 10.72 DECREASE TO THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, GOING FROM 28.39 UNITS PER ACRE TO 25.35 UNITS PER ACRE.

ADDITIONALLY, THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IS REDUCED FROM 116 TO 95, AND THE APPLICANT INDICATES THAT THIS CONTINUES TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE CITY OF MISSION. THE APPLICANT INDICATED THAT THIS REQUEST IS A RESULT OF INCREASES IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS, PARTIALLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO UNCERTAINTY CONCERNING TARIFFS ON KEY BUILDING MATERIALS, DECLINING EQUITY PRICING, AND RISING INTEREST RATES, WHICH HAVE CREATED A SUBSTANTIAL BUDGET GAP.

AS A RESULT OF THE CONSTRUCTION COST INCREASES, THE DEVELOPER REQUIRES A LARGER LOAN TO CLOSE THE FUNDING GAP.

HOWEVER, THE INTEREST RATE HAS INCREASED FROM 6.25% AT APPLICATION TO 7.1% DURING CONSTRUCTION AND 6.88% DURING THE PERMANENT PERIOD. THE APPLICANT ALSO INDICATES THAT CREDIT PRICING HAS BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY REDUCTION TO CORPORATE TAX RATES AND THE SATURATION OF ENERGY CREDITS IN THE MARKET. AT THE TIME OF THE AWARD IN 2024, THE SYNDICATION RATE WAS $0.90 PER TAX RATE DOLLAR, WHILE THE HIGHEST OFFER AVAILABLE NOW IS $0.84.

THE APPLICANT STATED THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO REGAIN FEASIBILITY AND MEET UNDERWRITING THRESHOLDS WITHOUT REDUCING THE NUMBER OF UNITS, AND THE REMOVAL OF THE TWO BEDROOM UNITS WAS THE BEST WAY TO REDUCE CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

THE APPLICANT PROVIDED LETTERS FROM THE LENDER AND THE SYNDICATOR, INDICATING THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGES WILL STRENGTHEN THE FEASIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE CITY OF MISSION WAS ALSO PROVIDED. THE APPLICANT POINTED OUT THAT ALTHOUGH THE 19.47% REDUCTION IN LOW INCOME UNITS IS A LARGER REDUCTION THAN THE BOARD HAS APPROVED IN THE PAST, A 100% PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION IS NOT BEING REQUESTED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, AS HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR OTHER DEVELOPMENTS WHICH THE DEPARTMENT HAS APPROVED. SMALLER PERCENTAGES OF LOW INCOME UNIT REDUCTIONS.

IN ADDITION TO THE AMENDMENT TO THE DESIGN, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED APPROVAL TO ADD THE CESAR CHAVEZ FOUNDATION AS A GUARANTOR.

RUFINO CONTRERAS AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORPORATION, WHICH IS THE TEXAS AFFILIATE OF CHAVEZ FOUNDATION, WAS INCLUDED AS GUARANTOR IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.

STAFF REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND SCORING DOCUMENTATION AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT AND CONCLUDED THAT THE REQUESTED CHANGES WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN THE DEVELOPMENT.

NOT LIKELY. HAVING BEEN SELECTED FOR A HOUSING TAX CREDIT AWARD IN THE COMPETITIVE ROUND.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE TO THE ACREAGE AND THE ADDITIONAL GUARANTOR WHICH.

FOR WHICH THE PREVIOUS PARTICIPATION HAS BEEN CLEARED.

IF THE DEVELOPMENT CAN REMAIN FEASIBLE, BUT STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE AMENDMENT FOR THE 19.47 REDUCTION TO THE NUMBER OF LOW INCOME UNITS GOING FROM 113 TO 91 UNITS. IF THE BOARD ELECTS TO APPROVE THE REDUCTION TO THE NUMBER OF UNITS, THE APPROVAL SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO UNDERWRITING BY THE DEPARTMENT TO CONFIRM THAT THE DEVELOPMENT REMAINS FEASIBLE WITH THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS.

IF THE AMENDMENT IS DENIED, THE BOARD MAY ALSO RESCIND THE ALLOCATION OF HOUSING TAX CREDITS AND REALLOCATE THE CREDITS TO OTHER APPLICANTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATUTE AND THE QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN. THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

OKAY. OKAY, SO THEY'RE REQUESTING AN ALMOST 20% REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT THEY HAD PROMISED.

YES, THAT WAS A STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DENY THAT REQUEST AND AGREE TO THE OTHER THE OTHER DENSITY CHANGE, WHATEVER. YEAH. PARKING SPACES. IS THERE A REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT FROM THE DEVELOPER WHO WISHES TO.

EXPLAIN. AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF MR. ECCLES, WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT IN TODAY'S MEETING.

SECOND. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD ALLOW FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM 19 AND ALL SUBSEQUENT AGENDA ITEMS IN THIS MEETING.

SECOND. MOTION MADE BY MR. THOMAS, SECONDED BY MR. HARPER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES PLEASE. OKAY. SO WHERE DO WE HAVE THE SIGN IN SHEET? OKAY, SO EVERYONE CAN COME UP. THERE'S A SIGN IN SHEET OVER HERE.

BE SURE TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND WHO YOU'RE REPRESENTING WITH ORGANIZATION OR ENTITY OR YOURSELVES.

AND FEEL FREE TO ADJUST THE MICROPHONE HEIGHT DEPENDING ON HOW TALL OR SHORT YOU ARE.

[00:40:02]

THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME PRESENT. MY NAME IS ALFREDO, AND I'M THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CESAR CHAVEZ FOUNDATION.

I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE BRYANT, OUR SENIOR PROJECT ADMISSION.

AS THE BOARD IS WELL AWARE THE DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT HAS BEEN VERY CHALLENGING OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS WITH INFLATIONARY PRESSURES ON CONSTRUCTION COSTS, DECLINING EQUITY PRICING, INCREASED INTEREST RATES TARIFFS COMING AND GOING, AND NO ONE'S REALLY SURE OF THE IMPACT OF THOSE YET.

AND BECAUSE OF ALL OF THAT, WE AS A DEVELOPER WHO DOES QUITE A BIT OF DEVELOPMENT THROUGHOUT THE SOUTHWEST UNITED STATES, RECOGNIZED THAT WE HAD AN ISSUE WHEN WE GOT THE AWARD.

WE WERE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE THAT AWARD. BUT WHEN WE STARTED REALLY EVALUATING THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND THE FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT, IT BECAME VERY CLEAR EARLY ON THAT WE HAD A HUGE ISSUE AND THAT WE WERE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE A CHALLENGE WITH FILLING THE GAP THAT WAS BEING CREATED BY THESE FORCES.

WE WORKED WITH THE CITY OF MISSION COUNTY. HILDALGO REACHED OUT TO SEVERAL OTHER CONTRACTORS, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE A CONTRACTOR, TO VERIFY IF WE WERE OFF ON OUR NUMBERS AND EVERYONE WAS BASICALLY SAYING, YEAH, YOU'RE PRETTY ACCURATE ON WHERE YOUR ESTIMATES ARE COMING IN AT. SO AT THAT POINT, WE HAD TO MAKE SOME REALLY CRITICAL CHOICES.

AND WE LOOKED AT SHOULD WE ASK FOR FULL TAX EXEMPTION, SHOULD WE REDUCE THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT? WHAT IS THE BEST PATH FORWARD TO PRESENT SOMETHING THAT COULD WORK.

AND AFTER ALL NUMEROUS DISCUSSIONS, WE THOUGHT THE BEST THING TO DO WAS TO REDUCE THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT.

WE STILL HAVE A GAP EVEN WITH THIS REDUCTION, BUT MY BOARD HAS AGREED TO FUND THAT GAP TO ALLOW US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH NO DEVELOPER FEE. BUILD THE UNITS THAT ARE MUCH NEEDED IN THIS COMMUNITY AND CONTINUE THE WORK THAT WE DO.

WE ALREADY HAVE A PRESENCE IN THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY. THIS WOULD BE OUR FOURTH DEVELOPMENT THERE. WE STRONGLY BELIEVE THESE UNITS WILL BE A GREAT ASSET TO THAT COMMUNITY.

WE HAVE BEEN WORKING THROUGH VARIOUS MEANS TO TO MAKE THIS PROJECT VIABLE, AND WE BELIEVE THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST WAY FORWARD.

AS I STATED, WE EVALUATED MULTIPLE AVENUES. AND UNFORTUNATELY, GIVEN THE STATE OF HOW THINGS ARE WE THINK THIS WOULD ALLOW US TO PROCEED, ALLOW US TO CREATE 91, YOU KNOW, HIGH QUALITY, DEEPLY AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT WOULD BENEFIT THIS COMMUNITY AND WE BELIEVE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. AND SO I'M HOPEFUL THAT THE BOARD WILL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN LOOKING AT THIS AMENDMENT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO THE CESAR CHAVEZ FOUNDATION, PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.

YES, WE'RE THE DEVELOPER. YES. THAT'S CORRECT.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? WELL, YOU'RE SOMEWHAT FIGHTING GHOSTS OF APPLICATIONS PAST FROM OTHERS.

YEAH, NO, I UNDERSTAND. A 20% ROUND IT TO 20% REDUCTION, 19.47 OR WHATEVER.

THAT DOUBLES THE UNWRITTEN KIND OF MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE REDUCTION THAT I THINK THE BOARD HAS ENTERTAINED.

RIGHT. AND WE FIND THAT VERY DIFFICULT. I MEAN, RIGHT NOW I KNOWING THAT THERE'S SO MANY OTHER PEOPLE HERE IN THIS ROOM AND THROUGHOUT THE STATE THAT HAVE WERE AWARDED IN 2020 FOR SAME, SAME AS YOU.

ALL RIGHT. AND THEY'RE FINDING WAYS TO TO MAKE IT WORK.

BRING IN EXTRA CAPITAL FROM FROM SOMEWHERE. AND WE'RE DOING THE SAME IN TERMS OF BRINGING EXTRA CAPITAL.

WE'RE WE'RE NOT REDUCING 20%. RIGHT. AND THAT'S AND IT'S NOT JUST OVERALL, I MEAN, IT'S AFFORDABLE.

20% OF THE AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO US FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

AND I THINK MR. RONALDO SAID THAT IF Y'ALL WEREN'T DIDN'T HAVE THOSE EXTRA 20% OF THE UNITS, YOU PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN THE RECEIVE THE AWARD IN THE FIRST PLACE AND WOULD HAVE GONE TO A MORE VIABLE, A VIABLE PROJECT. SO, I MEAN, I JUST I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HERE, BUT JUST. YEAH, THERE'S $0.84. IS THAT WHAT YOU ALL WERE SAYING? THAT YOU'RE YOU'RE GETTING ON THE TAX CREDITS? I GUESS I WOULD OFFER THIS ALTERNATIVE IN TERMS OF HOW YOU LOOK AT IT.

YOU'RE GIVEN A RANGE OF CHOICES AND THINGS TO DO.

WE LOOKED AT ALL OF THEM AND INCLUDING THE FULL TAX EXEMPTION.

BUT WE RECOGNIZE IN THIS AREA IN THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY, THAT'S VERY, VERY DIFFICULT FOR THESE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO HANDLE.

RATHER THAN DO THAT, WE THOUGHT IT MADE MORE SENSE TO REDUCE THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT, REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE LAND AND THE LAND.

[00:45:05]

FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THAT WAS THE BEST, LEAST IMPACTFUL IN A NEGATIVE WAY TO THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AND STILL ALLOW US TO CREATE HIGH QUALITY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THIS SITE, RECOGNIZING THAT WE ARE ASKING A LOT.

BUT AGAIN, YOU KNOW, MY BOARD HAS STEPPED UP AND SAID, WE WANT THIS.

WE SUPPORT THIS, AND WE'RE WILLING TO FUND THIS AND MOVE IT FORWARD VERSUS HAVING IT JUST DIE.

AND THEN OBVIOUSLY NOT GETTING THE UNITS. SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE THINKING IS THE BEST WAY FORWARD.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE REQUESTING THIS AMENDMENT. AND AGAIN THANK YOU FOR THAT CONSIDERATION.

OKAY. LET ME ALLOW VICE CHAIRMAN PLEASE. HOW MANY TAX CREDITS ARE INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT? I'M SORRY. HOW MANY? I GUESS A DOLLAR AMOUNT OR HOW MANY TAX CREDITS ARE BEING AWARDED THIS CONTRACT IN THIS? I BELIEVE IT'S THE STANDARD. THE 2 MILLION PER YEAR.

MILLION FOR 90? YEAH. THE TEN YEAR. THE 20 MILLION.

OKAY. HOW MANY AT MARKET UNITS WILL BE LEFT IN THIS PROJECT? ZERO ZERO. IT'S ALL AFFORDABLE. IT'S ALL AFFORDABLE.

YEAH. AND I GUESS I CAN ASK THIS OF CODY. ARE THERE OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE WOULD BE ABLE TO STEP INTO THE STEPS OF THIS PROJECT AND WERE NOT APPROVED? ARE THERE BACKUPS? IS THERE A BACKUP? THANK YOU.

CODY CAMPBELL DIRECTOR OF MULTIFAMILY PROGRAMS. SO ONCE WE GET TO THE END OF THE CALENDAR YEAR, ALL OF THAT YEAR'S APPLICATIONS EXPIRE.

SO WE WOULDN'T GO BACK TO 2024 TO FIND THE NEW APPLICATION.

WHAT WE WOULD DO IS IF WE GOT THESE CREDITS BACK, WE WOULD FIRST ATTEMPT TO RETURN THEM TO THAT SUBREGION THIS YEAR.

SO WE WOULD LOOK TO SEE IF WE HAVE ANY APPLICATIONS THAT ARE WAITING, AND IF NOT, THEY WOULD GO TO WHAT'S CALLED THE STATEWIDE COLLAPSE, WHICH IS WHERE THEY GO TO ANOTHER UNDERSERVED AREA OF THE STATE.

SO YES, THERE IS A PROJECT IN LINE THAT WILL TAKE THIS, THIS MONEY.

I JUST CAN'T TELL YOU OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHERE IT WOULD BE. BUT THERE IS A THERE IS A PROJECT. YES, YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEP. IS THE LAND ACQUIRED? NO, WE ARE STILL. WE EXTENDED THE ESCROW AND.

AND THE SELLER HAS BEEN COOPERATIVE. SO WE BASICALLY, IF WE ALLOWED SOMEBODY ELSE TO STEP IN AND TAKE THIS POSITION, WE WOULD WE WOULD GET COMPLIANCE. WE'D GET UNITS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR? I'M SORRY. I JUST NOTE THIS IS RELATED. WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT OUR INCENTIVE FOR QUANTITATIVE UNITS.

THEY ELECTED, YOU KNOW, FOR THE BUMP TO GET THE SCORING, AND NOW THEY'RE IN TROUBLE.

WE HAVEN'T SEEN OTHER ASKS FOR 2024 REDUCTIONS THIS SIZE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF A LITTLE WAVE OR A ONE OFF, JUST, YOU KNOW, FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

BUT YEAH, WE'LL USE THE TAX CREDITS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

OKAY. AND THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR ROSARIO OR MAYBE MEGAN.

SO IF WE IF THE BOARD WENT WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND AGAIN, THE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SIZE AND GUARANTOR, I MEAN, THE LOT SIZE, THE LAND SIZE AND GUARANTOR, THAT'S FINE.

THAT'S NOT NOT TOO IT'S NOT A PROBLEM, BUT THE REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF UNITS.

STAFF, I GUESS, IS RECOMMENDING NOT TO ACCEPT THAT.

AND I KNOW I'M PERSONALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT IF WE GO WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, EXCEPT THE OTHER MATERIAL CHANGES, BUT DENY THE REDUCTION OF 20%, THEY STILL HAVE THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR TO FIGURE OUT THE SOLUTION. THE END OF THIS OF 2025, IS THAT CORRECT? CODY OR ROSALIA OR ANY? I BELIEVE THIS PROJECT IS ALSO REQUESTING A REALLOCATION UNDER FORCE MAJEURE.

SO THEY ARE ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL TIME AS WELL.

BUT IF STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED, THEN IT WOULD BE BACK TO THE DEVELOPER TO TRY TO MAKE THE PROJECT WORK.

AND IT WOULD BE UP TO THEM TO DECIDE IF THEY RETURN THE CREDITS OR GO BACK AND RESTRUCTURE THE DEVELOPMENT TO COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT MAYBE THE BOARD COULD APPROVE.

[00:50:02]

IT IS LATER IN THE SAME AGENDA. OKAY, SO I GUESS TO THE DEVELOPER, IF YOU DON'T GET THE REDUCTION IN UNITS, WOULD YOU STILL ASK FOR THE FORCE MAJEURE OR WOULD THE DEAL BE DEAD? WOULD I WOULD BELIEVE THE DEAL WOULD BE DEAD.

OKAY. ALTHOUGH TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

WHETHER IF WE GO WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF UNITS, IT'S NOT DEAD TODAY. YOU STILL HAVE, THEY STILL HAVE TIME TO FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.

I MEAN, I GUESS I'M ASKING STAFF JUST IS THAT LEGALLY, TECHNICALLY THE WE HAVEN'T KILLED IT BY CURRENT PLACEMENT SERVICE DEADLINE BEFORE THE FIRST MEASURE WOULD BE DECEMBER 2026. RIGHT? CORRECT.

YEAH. OKAY, THEN. YEAH, WELL, IT WON'T BE ABLE TO GET IT DONE IN TIME, RIGHT? TECHNICALLY, YOU COULD ALSO JUST YANK THE CREDITS RIGHT NOW. MR. CHAIRMAN, COULD I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? YES, PLEASE. PLEASE. I WHAT IS THE OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE OF THIS PROJECT? WELL, WE'RE A NONPROFIT AND TRADITIONAL LP STRUCTURE.

WE HAVE AN INVESTOR. WE'RE PURCHASING THE CREDITS AND WILL BE THE GP.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN OUTSIDE INVESTOR. YES. AND THEY'RE HERE NOW.

I MEAN, WE AGAIN, WE'VE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY WITH THEM AND OUR LENDER AND EVERYBODY'S READY TO GO IF WE GET THIS APPROVED.

BUT WE'RE DEFINING THE INVESTOR AS THE INVESTOR IN THE TAX CREDITS.

CORRECT. OKAY. SO IT'S NOT LIKE JUST ADDITIONAL CASH.

NO NO NO. WE'RE WE'RE THE ONES AS A DEVELOPER PROVIDING THE CASH IN THE GAP.

OKAY. YES, YES. WELL I MEAN, IS THIS A COMMUNITY BASED DEVELOPMENT? WELL, THE CESAR CHAVEZ FOUNDATION IS A REGIONAL NONPROFIT THAT WE DEVELOP IN FIVE STATES.

PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH OUR FOUNDER, CESAR CHAVEZ, AND WHAT HE STOOD FOR.

WHAT PEOPLE DON'T KNOW IS THAT HE ALSO CREATED A NONPROFIT BACK IN THE 60S THAT WAS THERE TO HELP WITH ALL THE OTHER PROBLEMS IN THE COMMUNITY.

YOU ARE THE DEVELOPER, CORRECT? CORRECT. THAT'S RIGHT.

WHO ARE THE COMMUNITY PEOPLE INVOLVED IN IT? WE ARE BASED.

WE HAVE, LIKE I SAID, DEVELOPMENTS IN RIO GRANDE VALLEY.

WE HAVE A HISTORY THERE. YES, BUT WE ARE A NONPROFIT.

NO LOCAL GOVERNMENT? NO, NONE OF THAT. WE DO NOT HAVE A GOVERNMENT PARTNER ON THIS PROJECT.

NO. OKAY. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT? WELL, I HAVE WE HAVE OUR, LIKE I SAID, OUR FINANCIAL PARTNER.

AND WE ALSO HAVE THE CITY OF MISSION HAS SENT A REPRESENTATIVE AS WELL.

OKAY. AND BY THE WAY, I FORGOT TO. OH, NO. YOU CAN GO AHEAD.

THANKS. WE DO HAVE WE DO HAVE A LITTLE TIMER SOMEPLACE, RIGHT? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO WE. OKAY. JUST YOU OLD.

YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE ALL THREE MINUTES AND THERE WILL BE A LITTLE BUZZER IF IT COMES UP.

SO INTRODUCE YOURSELF. GOOD MORNING, AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.

I AM HERE FROM BOSTON FINANCIAL. MY NAME IS DAVON LEWIS.

WE'RE ONE OF THE LARGEST OWNERS OF AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES AND HAVE PARTNERED WITH CESAR CHAVEZ FOUNDATION ON PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENTS. AND SO I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT, REQUEST FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

AND WE ARE ON BOARD AND READY TO PROCEED TO EXPEDITE A CLOSING BY THE END OF THE YEAR IF THIS AMENDMENT IS GRANTED.

OKAY. SO YOU ALL ARE THE ONES WHO ARE WILLING TO BUY IT.

THE CREDITS AT $0.84. THAT'S RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT.

WHY NOT 90? AND IT STARTED AT 90. HOWEVER I PERSONALLY HAVE NOT WORKED DIRECTLY ON THIS DEAL, BUT SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU SPECIFICS SPECIFICS AS TO WHY IT DROPPED.

BUT IT'S YOU KNOW, PART OF THE ENVIRONMENT. THE THE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL HAS INCREASED SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HAS ALSO REDUCED RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDITS, WHICH IS AN ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL OUTLET AND A COMPETING CREDIT TO THE TAX CREDIT INDUSTRY.

SO THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, PRICING WENT DOWN. BUT IF YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION, I CAN GET WITH THE BOSTON FINANCIAL TEAM.

AND SO THE REASON YOU YOU'RE GIVING LESS MONEY IS BECAUSE OF THE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL.

NO, THE REDUCTION IN PRICING FROM $0.90 TO $0.84 YOU'RE GIVING.

SO THE PROJECT IF YOU GAVE THE TRADITIONAL AMOUNT FOR THIS FUNDS, WOULD THE PROJECT STILL BE VIABLE?

[00:55:04]

I'M SORRY. IF YOU'RE SPEAKING. WE NEED TO HAVE ON THE MICROPHONE BECAUSE I'LL WITHDRAW.

I'LL WITHDRAW THE QUESTION. OKAY. OKAY. FOR THE SAKE OF TIME.

OKAY. I'M HERE TO SAY WE'RE WE'RE IN SUPPORT OF IT, AND WE CAN, ON OUR END, DO WHAT IT TAKES TO GET THIS DEVELOPMENT BUILT. OTHER THAN INCREASING THE AMOUNT YOU PAY FOR TAX RATES.

YES, SIR. OKAY. I DON'T THINK SHE COULD MAKE THAT DECISION UNILATERALLY.

TO BE FAIR TO HER. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ONE FIRM OR PROJECT, AND IT'S NOT EVEN ABOUT TEXAS.

IT'S IT'S A NATIONAL ISSUE. IT'S PROBABLY SOME MORE ISSUES THAN JUST THE INCREASED SUPPLY IN TEXAS.

THERE'S OTHER TAX CREDITS AND ECONOMIC ISSUES, WHATEVER.

SO IT'S IT'S HARD TO SAY. BUT YEAH, LOWER CREDIT PRICING HAS BEEN A PROBLEM FOR A LOT OF THESE FOLKS.

YEAH. AND WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE THE BIG BILL HAS BEEN ABLE TO ISSUE MORE TYPES OF TAX CREDITS FOR INVESTMENT.

SO THE SUPPLY HAS INCREASED. THAT'S IN SOME CASES LOWERING PRICES.

YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU, MISS LEWIS. IS THERE ANY OTHER.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN VAZQUEZ AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO SPEAK BEFORE YOU THIS MORNING.

I AM THE VICE CHAIR OF THE CITY OF MISSION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, AND I JUST WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS THAT THERE IS.

CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? JOE VARGAS I'M SORRY, JOE VARGAS.

YES. JUST LIKE TO EXPRESS THAT THERE IS A GREAT NEED FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN OUR CITY OF MISSION.

WHEN THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE FROM THE DEVELOPER MET WITH THE CITY ABOUT THIS PROJECT, WE WERE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THEIR PROJECT FOR OUR CITY.

WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT THE BRYANT PROJECT, HAVING RECEIVED THE AWARD FOR HOUSING TAX CREDITS BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A NEW CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT, ADDING NEW AFFORDABLE UNITS TO THE CITY. SINCE OUR CITY HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY AFFORDABLE CREDIT UNITS SINCE 2017.

SO WE'VE HAD SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER.

SINCE THE AWARD AND UNDERSTAND THE FINANCIAL CHALLENGES CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT, GIVEN THE CURRENT ECONOMY, THEY HAVE COME UP TO US WITH A PROPOSAL TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNITS, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PRESERVING THE TAX REVENUE FOR THE CITY OF MISSION.

I UNDERSTAND THAT MANY DEVELOPERS HAVE ASKED CITIES TO BECOME PART OWNERS OF THEIR PROPERTIES IN ORDER TO RECEIVE 100% TAX EXEMPTION.

WITH THIS AMENDMENT, WHICH IS BEFORE YOU, THE CITY OF MISSION DOES NOT NEED TO DO THAT.

THEREFORE, THEY US THE CITY WILL STILL RECEIVE THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE.

IF CONSTRUCTED, THE BRINE PROJECT WILL STAND AS A PROMINENT LOCATION IN THE CITY OF MISSION.

FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS THAT I HAVE HAD THE PLEASURE OF SEEING WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVIDED.

WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT IT IS STILL VERY ATTRACTIVE TO OUR REGION.

VERY MUCH NEEDED FOR OUR CITY AND PROVIDING MUCH NEEDED AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SERVICES FOR OUR SENIORS OF OUR COMMUNITY.

OUR CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR AND PLANNING AND ZONING DID MEET ON FEBRUARY THE 12TH OF 2020 FOR RESOLUTION 1889, WAS ADOPTED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY OUR BOARD, ALLOWING FOR THE REDUCTION TO TAKE PLACE.

AND STILL THE RENDERING WAS VERY MUCH ACCEPTED AND APPROVED BY OUR COUNCIL AND OUR MAYOR.

WE ARE BEFORE YOU ASKING THAT THIS AMENDMENT REQUEST 24168 FOR THE BRYAN BE APPROVED.

AS AGAIN THIS IS A VERY MUCH NEEDED HOUSING FOR OUR SENIOR CITIZENS OF OUR REGION AND THE CITY OF MISSION.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. VARGAS. AND I APOLOGIZE IF THIS SOUNDS HARSH.

YES. IT'S NOT MEANT AGAINST YOU PERSONALLY, BUT WHAT I JUST HEARD YOU SAY IS THAT THE CITY OF MISSION, AND I GUESS, BY EXTENSION, THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IS SAYING, RAH RAH, THIS SOUNDS GREAT, BUT NO ONE'S PUTTING SKIN IN THE GAME TO HELP ACTUALLY FUND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS.

IS THAT CORRECT? I MEAN, I DIDN'T HEAR ANY. WE REALLY WANT THIS.

[01:00:02]

AND CHAIRMAN JUST JUST SO THAT I TO ANSWER THAT TRUTHFULLY THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT APPROACHED US FOR ANY INCENTIVE, NOR HAVE THEY EVER INDICATED ASKING FOR ANYTHING.

IF THEY DID, DO YOU THINK, I MEAN, WHAT COULD THE CITY OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CHIP IN? THERE COULD BE A POSSIBILITY, I CANNOT ASK. I CANNOT SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL OF WHAT THEY WOULD DECIDE UPON THAT ITEM BEING BROUGHT BEFORE THEM.

HISTORICALLY, OTHER DEVELOPMENTS HAVE HAVE RECEIVED HELP.

SO I CAN'T SAY THAT HISTORICALLY WE HAVE NOT WE HAVE BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT THEY HAVE NOT REQUESTED SUCH, INCENTIVES. SO DOES IT SEEM PLAUSIBLE THAT IF THE FOUNDATION REDOUBLED ITS FUNDRAISING EFFORTS TO SAY, HELP SAVE THIS PROJECT AND THE CITY CHIPPED IN SOME OR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WE COULD SAVE TEN, 15 UNITS AND JUST YOU'RE NOT COMMITTING TO ANYTHING.

BUT DOESN'T THAT SEEM LIKE A REASONABLE THOUGHT? SEEMS VERY REASONABLE. AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE CHAIRMAN'S COMMENT.

AND AGAIN, HYPOTHETICALLY, I CAN'T RESPOND TO THAT AS, AS A HYPOTHETICAL, BUT IN, IN, IN BEING ON THIS BOARD MYSELF AND BEING THE VICE CHAIR, I CAN TELL YOU THAT WHEN OTHER PROJECTS SIMILAR TO THIS HAVE COME BEFORE US AGAIN, NONE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PARTICULAR BOARD. IT COULD BE OTHER TYPE OF PROGRAMS THAT WOULD IMPACT THE HOUSING ECONOMY OR THE THE HOUSING INDUSTRY. WE HAVE BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THEM IN THE PAST AS WELL, BOTH FROM THE EDC SIDE AND ALSO FROM THE CITY.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. VARGAS. YES, SIR. OKAY. GO.

GO AHEAD. I THINK WE HAVE ONE. I WANT TO TRY TO WRAP THIS UP AND GET TO A MOTION HERE.

SURE. GO AHEAD. CATHERINE SA WITH THE BROWNSTONE GROUP OUT OF HOUSTON, I JUST WANT TO CORRECT ONE THING THAT WAS JUST SAID.

THERE IS A DEAL IN MISSION THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION THAT WE'RE WORKING ON.

SO THEIR MISSION HAS RECEIVED AN ALLOCATION OF CREDITS.

THE CITY OF MISSION 2024 ROUND OR. THAT'S CORRECT.

HOW MANY UNITS? 100. OKAY. IT WAS IN THE AT RISK POOL, SO WE WEREN'T SUBJECTED TO THE QUANTITY OF LOW INCOME UNIT SCORING ITEM. GOTCHA. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. MARSHALL, ALONG THE, SUBJECT MATTER WE WERE TALKING ABOUT YESTERDAY. IF WE APPROVE THESE UNITS.

IF YOU TAKE THE TAX CREDIT OF 2 MILLION IN, IT ENDS UP BEING, AFTER TEN YEARS, $212,000 OF TAX CREDITS USED FOR NINE PER UNIT FOR 94 UNITS, WHICH IS EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH COMPARED TO THE OTHER PROJECTS WE LOOK AT. AND WE TALKED ABOUT USING THAT METRIC YESTERDAY AND.

YES, I CAN SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING, BUT I THINK IT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE THAN WHAT WAS PRESENTED AND PROMISED VERSUS GOTCHA.

AGAIN, IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A BAIT AND SWITCH INTENTIONALLY, BUT EFFECTIVELY IT TURNS OUT THAT.

ONE MORE COMMENT. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF. ELLEN MASKALYK GARLIC WITH THE CESAR CHAVEZ FOUNDATION.

I JUST WANT TO PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATIONS. THE PROJECT THAT MASSAR REFERENCED WAS FOR THE HOUSING AUTHORITY.

SO OURS AS A SEPARATE NONPROFIT IS IS THE FIRST PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN THAT HAS HAPPENED IN MISSION SINCE 2017. OKAY. I THINK THE POINT WAS THAT THERE IS SOME CONSTRUCTION GOING ON, AND THERE ARE NEW UNITS COMING INTO THE CITY, REGARDLESS OF WHO'S BUILDING. SURE, SURE. PROJECT WOULD BE WHAT, ZERO PROPERTY TAXES AND YOURS IS HALF OR YOU WOULD BE 50%? YES. OKAY. BUT WE MADE THE CONSCIOUS DECISION TO NOT REQUEST THE FULL TAX EXEMPTION, BECAUSE WE DO WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS, AND WE REALIZE WE'RE MAKING A HUGE ASK AND REPLACE FOR THAT.

BUT JUST HOPING YOU'LL HAVE MERCY IN CONSIDERING THE FACT.

CONSIDER THE FACT THAT WE ARE VERY FAR ALONG ALREADY.

WE HAVE PUT $1 MILLION INTO PRE-DEVELOPMENT, MENT, AND WE ARE COMMITTED TO CLOSING IN DECEMBER AND STARTING CONSTRUCTION THEN.

WHEREAS IF THE TAX CREDITS GO BACK TO WHATEVER POOL, THAT'S GOING TO TAKE MORE AND MORE TIME TO ACTUALLY GET AFFORDABLE UNITS ON THE GROUND

[01:05:03]

BUT THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. UNLESS ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE COMMENTS OR WANT QUESTIONS FROM STAFF, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IN THE AS PRESENTED IN THE BOARD BOOK.

I MOVE THE BOARD, DENY THE REQUESTED MATERIAL AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING CREDIT APPLICATION FOR THE BRIAN AS A REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS, AND GRANT THE AMENDMENT TO THE REDUCTION OF ACREAGE AND THE ADDITIONAL AND THE ADDITION OF AN ADDITIONAL GUARANTOR, ALL AS DESCRIBED CONDITION AUTHORIZING THE BOARD ACTION REQUEST RESOLUTION ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS THIS ORDER. SECOND.

MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER, SECONDED BY MISS FARIAS.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES AS PRESENTED AGAIN.

Y'ALL STILL HAVE TIME TO TRY TO FIGURE THIS OUT WITH ALL THESE DIFFERENT AREAS.

SO IT'S NOT DEAD YET, BUT YOU'RE STANDING THERE ON THE EDGE, SO WE WISH YOU LUCK.

WE HOPE YOU PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER. RECOGNIZING YOU ALL HAVE OBVIOUSLY PUT SOME WORK INTO THIS AND EFFORT, BUT WE'RE MOVING ON ITEM 20, RIGHT 20 OF THE AGENDA PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A WAIVER OF TEN TAX. SECTION 11.101 B4D FOR GRANADA APARTMENTS.

MR. BUNUEL'S GRANADA APARTMENTS RECEIVED A 4% HOUSING TAX CREDIT AWARD IN 2021 FOR THE REHABILITATION OF 265 LOW INCOME UNITS FOR THE ELDERLY IN SAN ANTONIO, BEXAR COUNTY. ALL UNITS IN THE DEVELOPMENT ARE LOCATED IN A SINGLE 14 STORY BUILDING THAT IS LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.

REHABILITATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND THE COST CERTIFICATION DOCUMENTATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE OWNER HAS REQUESTED A WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR SCREENS ON OPERABLE WINDOWS, WHICH IS A MANDATORY AMENITY FOR REHABILITATION DEVELOPMENT.

THE OWNER INDICATED THAT IN TOTAL, 725 WINDOWS ARE AFFECTED.

THE QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN STATES THAT THE BOARD MAY WAIVE ONE OR MORE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT INCLUDE HISTORIC TAX CREDITS, WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE AMENITY HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION OR THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, AS APPLICABLE. A LETTER DATED JUNE 8TH, 2023, FROM THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION WAS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE WAIVER REQUEST.

THIS LETTER IS IN THE BOARD PACKET FOR THIS ITEM, AND STATES THAT THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1926, AND IS LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE TO THE SAN ANTONIO RIVERWALK HISTORIC DISTRICT.

IT WAS NOTED THAT THE EXISTING WINDOWS THROUGHOUT THE UPPER FLOORS OF THE BUILDING ARE MODERN ALUMINUM WINDOWS, AS THE ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOWS WERE REMOVED AND REPLACED AT SOME POINT IN THE LATE 20TH CENTURY.

THIS CHANGE ALREADY REPRESENTS A LOSS OF HISTORIC CHARACTER.

THE LETTER FROM THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION STATES THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT REPLACE THESE ALUMINUM WINDOWS AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, NOR WERE THEY REQUIRED TO.

HOWEVER, STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION DO NOT PERMIT THE OWNER TO FURTHER DAMAGE THE CHARACTER OF WINDOWS BEYOND THE WORK THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY DONE.

SUCH WORK WOULD THREATEN THE PROJECT'S COMPLIANCE WITH HISTORIC TAX RATE PROGRAMS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE WAIVER REQUEST AND UNABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

MR.. IT'S JUST SCREENS. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SHADE COVERINGS OR CURTAINS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

IT'S JUST IT'S JUST IT IS JUST A SCREEN. INSECT SCREENS.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. SO WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE SOME SORT OF LIGHT CONTROL.

YES. THAT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE. EACH TENANT COULD HAVE WINDOW BLINDS OR CURTAINS.

SO SO THIS IS. THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION TRYING TO GET THE DEVELOPER TO HAVE KNOW THAT OR IS THIS US AFTER OUR RULES SAY WE HAVE TO HAVE SCREENS AND FOR OPENING WINDOWS.

AND THE HISTORIC COMMISSION SAYS IF YOU MODIFY THE WINDOWS AND YOU TAKE THEM BACK TO THE ORIGINAL, PROBABLY I'VE DONE QUITE A BIT OF HISTORICAL WORK AND THEY LIKE THEIR WINDOWS A LOT. AND THEN AGAIN, WE'RE GOING THROUGH COSTS AND IT'S DONE.

IT'S DONE. RIGHT. YES. AND THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE WAIVER.

THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT THE WAIVER? DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I MOVE THE BOARD, APPROVE THE WAIVER OF TEN TECH SECTION 11.10 1B4 OF THE 2025 SHAPE RELATING TO THE

[01:10:06]

ALL IS AUTHORIZED AND DESCRIBED IN THE BOARD ACTION REQUEST RESOLUTION AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON THIS ITEM.

I SECOND THE MOTION MADE BY MISS PADILLA, SECONDED BY MISS CONROY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ITEM 21 PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PREVIOUSLY TABLED RECOMMENDATION TO DEBAR RISE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, RIVERSIDE LLC, MELISSA FISHER SONOMA HOUSING ADVISORS LLC, AND JAMES FISHER RELATING TO RIVERSIDE HEIGHTS SENIOR LIVING, AKA LEGACY RIVERSIDE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY. MISS STREMLER, IS THERE ANY UPDATES TO THIS FROM THE PRIOR MEETINGS? GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN VASQUEZ. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. SASHA STREMLER HERE TODAY IN MY CAPACITY AS ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL TO PRESENT ITEM NUMBER 21 CONCERNING THE TABLED PROPOSED AMENDMENT AT THE JULY 10TH, 2025 BOARD MEETING, WE PRESENTED A RECOMMENDATION TO DEBAR RISE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, RIVERSIDE, LLC. MELISSA FISHER, SONOMA HOUSING ADVISORS, LLC.

AND JAMES OUR BILL FISHER, RELATING TO THE SUBMISSION OF AN ALTERED QUARTERLY CONSTRUCTION STATUS REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT.

WE WERE ALL HERE FOR THAT. I DON'T WANT TO GO BACK INTO THE SPECIFICS.

I WILL NOTE THAT THE BAR FROM THE JULY 10TH BOARD MEETING IS ATTACHED IN YOUR MATERIALS.

AND DETAILS THE SPECIFICS REGARDING THAT SUBMISSION OF THE ALTERED REPORT.

OUR RULES STATE THAT THE DEPARTMENT MAY DEBAR A RESPONSIBLE PARTY CONSULTANT AND OR VENDOR FOR PROVIDING FRAUDULENT INFORMATION, KNOWINGLY FALSIFIED DOCUMENTATION, OR OTHER INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION OR OMISSION WITH REGARD TO ANY DOCUMENTATION, CERTIFICATION, OR OTHER REPRESENTATION MADE TO THE DEPARTMENT.

I ALSO JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT THE STANDARD FOR NEGLIGENCE UNDER TEXAS LAW IS, IS THE FAILURE TO DO THAT WHICH A PERSON OF ORDINARY PRUDENCE WOULD HAVE DONE UNDER THE SAME OR SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES? THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES APPEALED THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD AND MADE LENGTHY ARGUMENTS TO THE BOARD CONCERNING THEIR APPEALS AT THE JULY 10TH BOARD MEETING.

AS PART OF THEIR PRESENTATIONS TO THE BOARD, MELISSA FISHER REQUESTED AN ALTERNATIVE TO DEBARMENT AND OFFERED TO VOLUNTARILY ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT NOT TO PARTICIPATE WITH THE DEPARTMENT FOR A SET PERIOD OF TIME.

THE BOARD TABLED THIS ITEM UNTIL SEPTEMBER, WITH INSTRUCTION TO STAFF TO EXPLORE THE DEPARTMENT'S ABILITY TO ENTER INTO AN ALTERNATIVE VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT WITH THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES AND TO PRESENT THE THE RESULTS AT THE SEPTEMBER BOARD MEETING.

IN ADDITION, AS PART OF THE MOTION TO TABLE, THE BOARD REQUESTED THAT THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES GIVE A PRESENTATION AT THIS MEETING ON THEIR PROCESSES FOR QUALITY CONTROL AND HOW THEY WILL BUILD BETTER TRUST WITH THE DEPARTMENT.

FOLLOWING DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD, STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT PURSUANT TO OUR CURRENT RULES UNDER TIN TAC 2.401 I'VE FIVE FOR NONMANDATORY DEBARMENT REFERRALS, THE DEPARTMENT IS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH RESPONSIBLE PARTIES IN WHICH THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES AGREE TO NOT PARTICIPATE IN NEW DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS OR FUNDING IN ANY CAPACITY FOR A SET PERIOD OF TIME, WHICH THE STAFF IS NOW DUBBED THE VOLUNTARY NON PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT, OR VNA. THERE WILL BE FORTHCOMING RULEMAKING IN OCTOBER TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE RULE AND THIS OPTION, WHICH WILL ONLY BE AVAILABLE FOR DISCRETIONARY DEPARTMENT REFERRALS.

NOT MANDATORY, NOT MANDATORY DEBARMENT AND WILL BE ONE OF THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE IN ITS REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY DEPARTMENT REFERRALS AT THE JULY 10TH BOARD MEETING, THE BOARD TABLED THE DEBARMENT APPEALS AFTER PLEAS FROM THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES FOR AN ALTERNATIVE TO DEBARMENT. STAFF'S INITIAL OFFER OF THE VNA WAS FOR A TWO YEAR TERM, BASED ON TESTIMONY FROM MELISSA FISHER AT THE JULY 10TH BOARD MEETING, WHO STATED, AND I QUOTE, BUT IF STAFF AND THE BOARD FEELS MORE COMFORTABLE WITH ME STEPPING BACK AND HAVING NO NEW AWARDS, NO NEW APPLICATIONS, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE, I'M COMPLETELY OPEN TO ANY KIND OF AGREEMENT NOT TO PARTICIPATE FOR ONE YEAR, TWO YEARS, WHATEVER YOU ALL THINK IS REASONABLE.

BUT PLEASE DON'T LABEL ME WITH THE DEPARTMENT AT THE JULY 10TH BOARD MEETING, BILL FISCHER DID NOT STATE ON THE RECORD WHAT TERM OF A VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT HE WOULD AGREE TO, BUT HE DID NOT OBJECT TO THE BOARD'S TABLING OF THE DEPARTMENT.

APPEALS TO EXPLORE THE OPTION OF A VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT.

IN RESPONSE TO THE INITIAL OFFER OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DEPARTMENT, RISE RESIDENTIAL AND MELISSA FISCHER COUNTERED WITH SIX MONTHS AND SONOMA HOUSING AND BILL FISCHER ALSO COUNTERED WITH SIX MONTHS. THE DEPARTMENT THEN COUNTERED WITH AN OFFER OF ONE YEAR.

NEITHER MELISSA FISCHER AND RISE RESIDENTIAL NOR BILL FISCHER AND SONOMA HOUSING ACCEPTED THE ONE YEAR OFFER,

[01:15:02]

DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE APPEALS PERIODS HAVE ONLY LASTED THIS LONG, AT THEIR REQUEST, THE DEPARTMENT WAS PREPARED TO BRING THESE DEPARTMENTS ORIGINALLY IN MAY OF 2025 AND THE PROFFERED BANANAS. THE DEPARTMENT HAS GIVEN MISS FISHER AND RISE RESIDENTIAL WHAT THEY REQUESTED ON RECORD, BUT THEY WILL STILL NOT AGREE. ASIDE FROM A FEW QUESTIONS REGARDING TERMINOLOGY IN THE VNA, WHICH LEGAL STAFF AND COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES CAN ADDRESS SEPARATELY, THE ONLY ACTUAL ISSUE THAT THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES HAD WITH THE VNA WAS THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DEPARTMENT AND THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES ARE HAVING DIFFERING OPINIONS OF WHAT THE BOARD'S EXPECTATIONS WERE CONCERNING THE VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS AND THE TERMS OF SAID VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS.

SO, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE BOARD CAN OFFER TODAY ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ON WHAT MEMBERS ARE HOPING TO SEE, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL MOVING FORWARD. A COPY OF THE VNA WITH THE ONE YEAR TERM OFFERED IS INCLUDED IN YOUR MATERIALS AND ATTACHMENTS THREE AND FOUR.

ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED PLANS FOR MELISSA FISHER AND RISE RESIDENTIAL IS FOUND IN ATTACHMENT FIVE, AND THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR BILL FISHER AND SONOMA HOUSING IS FOUND AT ATTACHMENT SIX.

AS NO VNA OR OTHER ALTERNATIVE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND ANY OF THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES.

THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ORDER OF DEBARMENT OF RISE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, RIVERSIDE, LLC. MELISSA FISHER, SONOMA HOUSING ADVISORS, AND BILL FISHER THROUGH MARCH 4TH, 2026.

I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD SUMMARY.

THANK YOU. SASHA. WOULD REPRESENTATIVES OF THE.

TEAMS, MR. SHACKLEFORD? GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MR. WILKINSON AND MISS SYLVESTER.

I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT MR. MILLER SAID.

JOHN SHACKLEFORD, ON BEHALF OF MELISSA FISHER AND AND RISE.

SO TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT AND GIVE YOU A LITTLE CONTEXT, WE ARE THIS CLOSE TO HAVING AN AGREEMENT.

AND AS SHE DESCRIBED, YES, THE INITIAL OFFER WAS FOR A TWO YEAR TERM.

THERE WERE SOME OTHER TERMS. WE TWEAKED. THE DEPARTMENT WAS VERY ACCOMMODATING.

WE WORKED WELL TOGETHER. IT HASN'T BEEN DIFFICULT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

AND AND IT'S GONE VERY WELL. WHAT WE THOUGHT IS AND WE AND THEY AGREED TO A ONE YEAR TERM AND WE WENT BACK AND SAID, YOU KNOW, LET'S PUT THIS IN CONTEXT AND WE UNDERSTAND. MELISSA FISHER AT THE JULY 10TH BOARD MEETING DID SAY 2 OR 3 YEARS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, STANDING UP HERE, SOME PEOPLE GET NERVOUS.

AND SHE DIDN'T HAVE THE PRESENCE OF MIND TO POINT OUT AT THAT TIME OR THINK THROUGH. SHE HASN'T BEEN GIVEN AN AWARD BY THIS BOARD ON EITHER A 9% OR 4% DEAL SINCE JULY OF 22, SO SHE HASN'T RECEIVED A NEW AWARD IN THREE YEARS ALREADY.

SO SHE WASN'T THINKING ABOUT THAT WHEN SHE OFFERED THAT.

AND WHEN BOBBY MR. WILKINSON MADE HIS DETERMINATION ON APRIL 11TH OF THIS YEAR THAT THIS NEEDED TO THIS ACTION NEEDED TO BE PURSUED TO THE BOARD. UNDER UL'S RULES, SHE WAS PROHIBITED AT THAT TIME FROM BEING ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY PROGRAMS OR BE GIVEN AN AWARD.

SO SHE'S ALREADY BEEN UNDER THAT. THAT PROHIBITION SINCE APRIL 11TH.

SO WHAT WE ASKED FOR IS. AND ON THE ONE YEAR WE COULD LIVE WITH A YEAR.

BUT THE DEPARTMENT SAID, WELL, WE WANT IT TO BE FROM TODAY'S DATE WHEN THE BOARD TAKES ACTION.

SO. RUN FROM SEPTEMBER 4TH OF THIS YEAR TO SEPTEMBER 4TH OF NEXT YEAR.

WE WENT BACK AND SAID, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD LIKE AUGUST 1ST TO BE THE START DATE, THE COMMENCEMENT DATE OF THE ONE YEAR TERM AND RUN TO AUGUST 1ST OF NEXT YEAR. AND I KNOW THAT MAY NOT SEEM MUCH IN OUR MINDS.

IT'S 34 DAYS, 33 DAYS, WHATEVER, 34 DAYS. BUT THE REASON FOR THAT IS, AT LEAST IF SHE WANTS TO TRY TO PUT IN A BOND APP FOR NEXT YEAR, SHE'S NOT PROHIBITED FROM DOING THAT, AND SHE COULD PARTICIPATE AND POSSIBLY GET AN AWARD, BECAUSE TO GO THIS LONG WITHOUT NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, SHE'S GOT TWO PROJECTS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

JUNCTION. THOSE WILL FINISH UP EITHER LATER THIS YEAR OR INTO NEXT YEAR.

SHE HAS A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. IT COULD IMPACT PEOPLE BEING LAID OFF.

SO THAT'S ALL WE WERE ASKING, IS ALL THE OTHER TERMS ARE AGREED TO.

MELISSA'S ALREADY SIGNED THE AGREEMENT. ALL WE'RE ASKING IS AN ACCOMMODATION A LITTLE BIT MORE.

IN LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL FACTS BRINGING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT SHE HASN'T BEEN IN THE GAME FOR THREE YEARS ALREADY ON ANY NEW AWARDS.

AND I DO RECALL, I THINK MR. HARPER MAY HAVE BEEN YOU THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, OR SOMEBODY SAID THAT JULY 10TH BOARD MEETING, WE THINK YOU NEED TO SORT OF GET YOUR HOUSE IN ORDER AND FOCUS ON WRAPPING UP WHAT YOU GOT YOUR NOW IN HOUSE BEFORE YOU GET INVOLVED

[01:20:05]

AND SO ALL WE'RE ASKING IS SHE'S GOING TO BE OUT OF THE GAME FOR FOUR YEARS FROM THE 9% DEAL 22 THROUGH 26.

SO SHE'LL BE SHUT OUT FOR FOUR YEARS THERE. AND EVEN ON BOND DEALS, SHE'LL BE HAVE BEEN SHUT OUT FOR A NUMBER OF FOR THREE YEARS PLUS.

SO THAT'S MY REQUEST. AND IT'S JUST SOLELY ASKING ON YOUR MERCY AND ACCOMMODATION AND GRACE.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS, MR. SHACKLEFORD.

I'M NOT SURE I APPRECIATE THE LOGIC THAT YOU'RE PRESENTING ON THIS.

BEING THAT WE THE BOARD WAS LEANING TOWARDS TWO YEARS DEBARMENT WITHIN THE ACCOMMODATION OF A 18 MONTH DNA STARTING NOW, I ASSUME THAT GIVEN WHAT YOU'VE STATED, THAT YOUR CLIENT WOULDN'T BE. WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT.

AN 18 MONTH TERM ON A VNA? NOT. NOT. DEBARMENT.

CORRECT. CORRECT. YEAH. I MEAN, THE DEPARTMENT HAS OFFERED US ONE YEAR AND YOU ALL TURNED IT DOWN, SO IT'S STILL AN OPEN IT'S AN OPEN CASE. AND NOW THE.

MR. CHAIRMAN, WE HAVE AS A BOARD SOME DISCRETION ON.

YOU DO HAVE DISCRETION. TOTAL DISCRETION. BUT IF THE ALTERNATIVE IS DEBARMENT, MISS FISHER IS PREPARED TO GO WITH THE ONE YEAR STARTING TODAY. I MEAN, THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT IMPORTANT.

SO I MEAN, IF THAT'S IF THAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE ONE YEAR WE'RE SAYING TWO, LET'S SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE AND MAKE IT 18 MONTHS.

I'D HAVE TO ASK MISS FISHER. MR. CHAIRMAN. MR..

MR. MARSHALL, PLEASE. WHAT'S THE EFFECT OF 18 MONTHS? DOES IT? WELL, IF I CAN MAKE A COMMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALL OF THE PROJECTS FINISHED AND AND ACCEPTED BY THE AGENCY. COMPLETED FIRST AND THEN WHATEVER.

PENALTY. IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO CALL IT WHATEVER PENALTY.

THAT, IN MY OPINION, NEEDS TO EXTEND FROM THAT THOSE DATE, WHATEVER THAT DATE IS.

GET THESE PROJECTS FINISHED, CLEANED UP, GET EVERYTHING TOGETHER, GET THEM ACCEPTED.

AND THEN THE PENALTY PERIOD STARTS FROM THAT DAY FORWARD.

THAT THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT WE WERE WORKING TOWARDS.

IF I MISUNDERSTOOD IT I APOLOGIZE, BUT, I MEAN, ONE OF THE WHOLE ISSUES HERE IS NOT FINISHING PROJECTS IN IN MY OPINION, IT NEEDS TO BE SOME DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLETION.

I THINK THAT'S SORT OF SECONDARY, NOT FINISHING.

I THINK YOU ALL ARE FINISHING THE PROJECTS THAT YOU'RE THAT THEY'RE DOING.

WELL, I THINK THE THE ISSUE AT HAND HERE WAS THE SUBMISSION TO THIS DEPARTMENT OF EDITED DOCUMENTS, WHICH WERE EDITED DOCUMENTS TO. MAKE THE LENDER AND THIS DEPARTMENT LOOK LIKE THE PROJECT WAS FURTHER ALONG THAN IT REALLY WAS.

AND THE PROJECT IS OVER BILLED AND YOU AUDIT AND THE CHANGES WERE IN THOSE BILLINGS AND CHANGES TO THAT THAT CAA DOCUMENT, CAA PARTNERS DOCUMENT. SO I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S THE REAL CRUX OF THIS IS THAT IN THE CHANGES YOU HAVE SOME SMALL ONES, BUT THE REAL ONES ARE MRS FISHER IS TRYING TO CHANGE THE DOCUMENT, WHICH IS ON HER BILLING, TO SHOW THAT SHE'S MORE COMPLETE THAN SHE REALLY IS, AND SHE WAS OVERBILLED ON THE PROJECT AND THE AND THE DOCUMENTS INSIDE THAT SAY, I'M OVERBILLED, AND I'M WORRIED THAT THIS PROJECT IS NOT GOING TO GET FINISHED ON TIME WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CHANGE IN THE REST.

AND. ON A YOU KNOW, IT'S A TRUST FACTOR. AND YOU SIGN THAT DOCUMENT WITH A NOTARY ON THAT FROM YOUR STAFF ON WHAT YOU HAVE AND THE REST OF IT. MR. SPEAKER. YES. MELISSA FISHER, RISE RESIDENTIAL.

THANKS FOR HAVING US TODAY. I APPRECIATE IT. I WANT TO CORRECT THAT BECAUSE THAT'S ON THE RECORD AND THAT'S INACCURATE.

AND I KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN TWO MONTHS, BUT SEVERAL THINGS WERE INACCURATE.

I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING. I DIDN'T SIGN OR NOTARIZE THE CONSTRUCTION STATUS REPORT.

I SIGNED AND NOTARIZED AG7 HUNDRED TWO, WHICH IS OUR PAY APP, WHICH WAS COMPLETELY ACCURATE AND WAS CORRECT.

THERE WAS NO EDITING OR FALSIFICATION OF OUR G 702.

SO I JUST WANT TO CORRECT THAT BEFORE WE MOVE ON.

AND BUT INCORRECT IN THAT IN THAT THE CA REPORT SAID THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE ASTERISKED, WHICH ARE OVERBILLED INSIDE THE SYSTEM AND THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN

[01:25:10]

AM I INCORRECT ON THAT? NO. THAT PACKET WAS NOT SUBMITTED TO ANYONE, BUT.

AND I DIDN'T I MEAN, I DIDN'T I DIDN'T EDIT ANYTHING.

I THINK WE MADE THAT CLEAR. I HAVE A REAL PROBLEM.

YOU HAVE YET TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY, AND THAT IS WHAT BOTHERS ME.

OKAY. YOU'RE AT THE TOP. AND WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE DOES, IT FALLS BACK ON YOU AND YOU REFUSE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY.

AND THEN YOU COME IN HERE AND YOU SAY, YOU KNOW, GIVE ME A YEAR AND LET'S DATE IT BACK.

I, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME EMPATHIZING WITH YOU.

I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I HEAR YOU AND I, I DID FEEL LIKE TWO MONTHS AGO AT THE BOARD MEETING.

I DID ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY AT THE COMPANY LEVEL.

I DIDN'T MAKE THOSE EDITS. AND THAT'S. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

I'M NOT I'M NOT SAYING THAT I AM NOT AT FAULT.

I AM AT FAULT BECAUSE I AM THE HEAD OF THE ORGANIZATION.

ABSOLUTELY. AND YOU ALL ASKED ME TO GO BACK AND OVER THE LAST TWO MONTHS, CREATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU BELIEVED THAT THIS COULD NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. AND THAT IS WHAT I DID. AND I'M HERE TODAY TO TELL YOU ABOUT WHAT WE'VE DONE.

AND IT'S IN YOUR BOARD BOOK, AND I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THAT.

BUT IF THERE ARE ANY I MEAN, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GET INTO THAT, BUT I HEAR YOU AND I'M SO SORRY THAT THAT'S HOW YOU FEEL.

WELL, I'M JUST BECAUSE YOU CONSISTENTLY SAY I DIDN'T DO IT.

AND I CONSISTENTLY SAY TO YOU THAT EVERYBODY HERE IN THIS ROOM HAS A RESPONSIBILITY.

ABSOLUTELY. AND IF YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT REPORT TO YOU AND THEY MESS UP, IT'S STILL YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

AND LEADERSHIP IS ACCEPTING THAT, AND I DO. I ACCEPT THAT, BUT I DID NOT MAKE THE EDITS.

AND AND I STAND BY THAT. SO I, I'M NOT SAYING ON YOUR BEHALF AND BASICALLY TO YOUR BENEFIT, NOT TO MY BENEFIT NOT BEEN DISCOVERED, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TO YOUR BENEFIT.

IT WOULDN'T BECAUSE THOSE REPORTS WENT TO YOU ALL.

UNFORTUNATELY, THEY DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE ELSE. AND THE PERSON WHO ALLEGEDLY MADE THEM, THEY DIDN'T THINK IT WAS GOING ANYWHERE OTHER THAN TO ME AND, AND THEIR BOSS, THE THE PROJECT MANAGER. AND I DO FEEL LIKE WE MADE THAT CLEAR AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING THAT THEY AT THAT LEVEL, THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE THOSE THINGS ARE GOING ASIDE FROM US. THEY THOUGHT THE BUCK STOPPED THERE. THEY HAD NO IDEA IT WOULD GO ON TO IT.

DIDN'T GO TO ANYONE ELSE. NO LENDERS, NO INVESTORS.

BUT I ABSOLUTELY HEAR YOUR CONCERN, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHAT IS THE QUESTION BEFORE US? WHETHER TO THE STAFF OR WELL, THE DEPARTMENT ARE APPEALING THEIR DEBARMENT THAT IS CURRENTLY IN PLACE FOR ALL ALL THE PARTIES.

WE HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD FROM MR. FISHER. SO THEY'RE APPEALING TO SAY ESSENTIALLY, PLEASE WAIVE THAT.

DON'T DON'T DEBAR US. DON'T PUT THAT SCARLET LETTER ON OUR RECORD.

AND THE ALTERNATIVE WE HAD DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING WAS ENTERING INTO SOME SORT OF INTERIM SANCTION SHORT OF DEBARMENT, BECAUSE WE DO RECOGNIZE THE IMPLICATIONS OF OF THAT AND MANY OTHER OTHERS.

SO WHAT WILL GOVERN OUR ACTION? THE MOTION ITSELF, THE WORDING OF THE MOTION ITSELF? YES. YOU CAN GRANT APPEAL FROM DEBARMENT OR DENY APPEAL.

YEAH, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE IF I VOTE YES OR I VOTE NO, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? I'M NOT VOTING FOR THE DEBARMENT. I'M VOTING FOR THE DEBARMENT.

OR AM I VOTING FOR THE MOTION MADE BEFORE? WELL, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT MOTION WE ULTIMATELY GET TO HERE.

WE'RE NOT THERE. WE'RE NOT. I DON'T THINK WE'RE THERE YET, BUT. BUT CURRENTLY, THE IN SIMPLISTIC TERMS, WITHOUT ALL THIS TALKING, HOW MANY, 18 MONTHS OR SIX MONTHS OR TIME SERVED OR, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE FIRST QUESTION IS GOING TO BE, DO WE ACCEPT THEIR WAIVER, THEIR REQUEST OR THEIR APPEAL TO ON THE DEBARMENT? THAT'S AT THIS POINT, THE QUESTION ON THE TABLE.

SO IF A MOTION IS MADE TO DENY THE APPEAL, THEY WILL HAVE A I GUESS OFFICIALLY RIGHT NOW IT'S ONLY A SIX MONTH DEBARMENT.

CORRECT. BUT YOU CAN CHANGE THE TERMS, BUT WE CAN CHANGE IT TO TWO YEARS OR WHATEVER.

FIVE YEARS IN THAT MOTION IS WHERE I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, WILL THERE HAVE TO BE A SUBSEQUENT MOTION? NO, I MEAN, NOT UNLESS WE BACK DOWN TO OFFER THAT INTERIM

[01:30:04]

THE VNA IS NOT ON THE TABLE AT THAT TIME. THEY COULD GO BACK, THEY COULD DIRECT STAFF, AND THEY AGREED TO TABLE.

THEN YOU COULD GIVE US MORE TIME TO ENTER INTO VNA, AND WE COULD HAVE SOME KIND OF ORAL GUIDANCE ON TERM.

YEAH. OKAY. SO THAT WOULD JUST BE I WOULD LIKE FOR THIS TO BE OVER TODAY.

MR.. THOMAS. SASHA, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE. WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM DEBARMENT TERM WE CAN ENTER INTO? I MEAN, IS IT LIFE? IS IT? IT HAS TO HAVE A SET END DATE.

WE CAN'T. WAS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE MAXIMUM DEBARMENT BEFORE THE VNA? THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS WHEN IT CAME FROM THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE WAS SIX MONTHS.

THAT WAS BEFORE WE, YOU KNOW, DISCOVERED THE Q1, Q2 ALTERATIONS.

AND SO THEN THE PROPOSAL FROM STAFF ON THE VNA WAS TWO YEARS.

YEAH. BASED ON BASED ON THE TESTIMONY AT THE BOARD MEETING.

YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY. MELISSA, I THINK WE UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, AND LET'S GIVE OTHERS A CHANCE TO ALSO TALK.

I ALSO WANTED TO NOTE MR. FISHER HAS ASKED THAT THERE THE TWO DEPARTMENT, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT APPEALS PENDING.

SO FOR THEM TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE BOARD WANTS TO TAKE ACTION ON MISS FISHER'S NOW AND THEN CHAIR'S PREFERENCE.

BUT THEY DO WANT TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. WE SHOULD. IN THE SPIRIT OF TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CONSISTENT, LET'S LET'S HEAR FROM MR. FISHER, AND WE CAN TREAT THEM AS SEPARATE WHEN WE GET TO THE VOTES.

I'M HAPPY TO BIFURCATE THEM. AND, MR. CHAIRMAN, ONE MOMENT.

OKAY. OKAY, BILL, HANG ON ONE MORE SECOND. THIS IS REAL QUICK.

YOU HAD ASKED ABOUT THE 18 MONTH. IF WE WORKED OUT THAT DEAL FOR THE VOLUNTARY NON PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT.

MISS FISHER WOULD AGREE TO THAT IF THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD WOULD DO.

ARE YOU STILL GOING TO TIME SERVED AND ALL THAT, OR ARE WE GOING TO START TODAY'S DATE? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YES. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

THANK YOU, MR. FISHER. BILL FISHER, SONOMA HOUSING.

I AM ONLY SPEAKING ON RELATIONSHIP TO HER APPEAL AND THE DISCUSSION SPECIFICALLY.

MR. HARPER, THE INVESTOR, WAS HERE AT THE PRIOR BOARD MEETING AND WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THEY DID NOT RELY UPON, NOR DID THE BANK RELY UPON ANYTHING RELATED TO THE CA PARTNERS.

AND IBC BANK IS THE INTERIM LENDER AND THEY HAVE A CONSTRUCTION RISK MANAGER ON THE PROPERTY TWO TIMES A MONTH, AND THEY REVIEW AND APPROVE EVERY DRAWER AND EVERY CHECK.

SO THERE'S NOTHING IN THE 702 OR WHATEVER THAT WAS RELATED TO GETTING THE LENDER OR INVESTOR TO FUND MONEY UNDER SOME TYPE OF MISREPRESENTATION.

WE JUST THAT HAS TO BE CLARIFIED ON THE RECORD.

THEY DON'T RELY ON THE CA PARTNERS REPORT. I ALSO WOULD IF YOU GET INTO THE WEEDS ON THE REPORT, PART OF THE OVERBILLING IS THEY DON'T WANT TO RECOGNIZE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN PURCHASED AND ARE STORED OFF SITE.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS DURING THE COVID PERIOD MOST PEOPLE DID TO PROTECT FROM COST INCREASES OR REGARDLESS OF COST, HAVING ACCESS TO THE MATERIALS TO FINISH CONSTRUCTION, THEY PURCHASED THEM AND STORED THEM IN A WAREHOUSE WITH THE APPROVAL OF THEIR LENDER AND INVESTOR. AND THAT'S THE ONLY CLARIFICATION THAT WAS ON MELISSA'S BEHALF. SO.

OKAY. OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO ON YOUR YOUR POINT TO DO RISE FOR DUE PROCESS.

ALL WE'RE GOING TO DO RISE FIRST AND THEN SONOMA WOULD BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.

WE HAVE AN EMAIL FROM FROM LEGAL SAYING THAT THAT THAT WAS THE AGREEMENT THAT WE'LL DEFINITELY I'LL MAKE THE MOTIONS SEPARATE.

WE HAVE THE ISSUE IS WE HAVE TWO COMPLETELY SEPARATE COMPLIANCE TRACK RECORDS.

AND MY ONLY INVOLVEMENT WAS THE FIRST EMAIL THAT STARTS IN YOUR BOOK AT PAGE 236.

THIS COMPLETELY REDLINED AND COULD NEVER BE CONSIDERED TO BE INTENTIONAL OR MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION.

I PULLED THE WRONG REPORT FROM A FILE WITH A SIMILAR NAME THAT HAD BEEN COMMENTED ON IN RED HIGHLIGHTS, AND TO TRY AND MEET WITH STAFF WANTED GET THEM EMAILED BEFORE THE END OF THE DAY.

BECAUSE MELISSA WAS HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN DOWN HERE AT THE BOARD MEETING.

SO REALLY OUR FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND COMPLIANCE HISTORY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, BUT IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO PROCEED, I WOULD CERTAINLY DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU ASK. I'D PREFER THAT YOU PROCEED ON IF FOLKS KNEW SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE'VE ALREADY HAD IN THE RECORD.

WELL THAT'S FINE. WELL, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THANK YOU, BOARD MEMBERS, FOR GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO OR AT LEAST FOR ME,

[01:35:06]

SO I DO APPRECIATE THAT. I DO WANT TO REITERATE WHAT STAFF TOLD YOU.

THIS IS A DISCRETIONARY DEPARTMENT. THERE'S NOTHING MANDATORY ABOUT IT.

AND I THINK, AS WE POINTED OUT PREVIOUSLY, THERE HAVE BEEN MANY PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAM THAT HAVE COMMITTED OFFENSES THAT ARE MANDATORY.

AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE BOARD OR STAFF DID NOT CHOOSE TO ACT ON THAT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I DID EXACTLY WHAT I BELIEVE THE BOARD TOLD US TO DO.

MISS FERRIS WAS VERY CLEAR. AND MISS CONROY IS VERY CLEAR.

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN, WHICH IS REALLY HOW YOU ADDRESS COMPLIANCE ISSUES.

RIGHT. SO I PREPARED A CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN, AND I REACHED OUT TO STAFF TO ENGAGE THEM IN A DIALOG TO REVIEW THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN, GET ANY COMMENTS OR BUY IN SO THAT WE COULD GET TO A CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN THAT AT LEAST THEY COULD SAY, I'VE REVIEWED IT AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE OKAY WITH THESE STEPS.

THEY DECLINED TO DO THAT. I ASKED THEN TO BE REFERRED BACK TO THE INFORMAL ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE.

RIGHT. THERE'S THIS INFORMAL, INFORMAL COMMITTEE THAT THEN LEADS TO RECOMMENDATION TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ASKED TO GO BACK FOR THE SAME PURPOSE.

RIGHT. LET'S LOOK AT THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN.

LET'S GET ANY COMMENTS OR BUY IN SO THAT WE'RE RESPONSIVE TO THE BOARD, WHAT THE BOARD WANTED.

AND THE STAFF COULD SAY, YES, WE SEE A CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN, ETC.

IT ALSO ALLOWED US TO ENGAGE IN ANY DISCUSSION RELATED TO THE NON PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT.

THAT THEY DECLINED TO DO THAT AS WELL. SO I GUESS THREE BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE THE DEADLINE I GOT A NON PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT DRAFT OR FROM LEGAL. I RESPONDED YOU KNOW ON MONDAY OR TUESDAY THE FOLLOWING WEEK PRIOR TO THE DEADLINE THAT I WAS GIVEN, I REDLINED IT. MY RED LINES ARE SIMPLY FACTUAL CORRECTIONS IN MY VIEW.

I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF ONE THAT'S PRETTY SIMPLE. NOT A CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANT.

YOU KNOW, THEY INSIST ON PUTTING A CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANT.

I HAVE A BBA IN FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING, AND I'VE NEVER DONE ANYTHING BUT, YOU KNOW, FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING.

SO I HAVE LITTLE OR NO CONSTRUCTION EXPERTISE OTHER THAN PERHAPS HANDLING DRAWS OR OTHER THINGS ASSOCIATED WITH WITH CONSTRUCTION RELATED TO THE FINANCE SIDE. MY ONLY MATERIAL CHANGE TO WHAT THEY PROPOSE, WHICH IS TWO YEARS FROM NOW, YOU KNOW.

HOW ABOUT MAYBE I GOT NINE YEARS LEFT IN THE PROGRAM? THAT WOULD MAKE ME 80. THAT IS BASICALLY AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF WHATEVER REMAINING TIME I HAVE TO OPERATE MY BUSINESS.

SO I RESPONDED WITH WHAT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION WAS, WHICH WAS SIX MONTHS.

SO IF IF THE STAFF'S I DON'T BELIEVE THE STAFF COUNT, I DON'T THINK WE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE STAFF ABOUT A SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME.

BUT IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, A YEAR FROM NOW, WHICH IS WHAT THEY WERE SUGGESTING, THEN I WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THAT.

BUT I DON'T BELIEVE WE GOT THE OPTION. I BELIEVE THERE WAS A BRIEF DISCUSSION WITH MY LAWYER AND LEGAL YESTERDAY, WHICH WAS PRETTY MUCH IT'S TWO YEARS OR WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT.

SO I DON'T I'M CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. IF DID I HAVE THE OPTION TO AGREE TO ONE YEAR AS WAS PROPOSED TO RISE.

IF I DID, I WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED IT. BUT I CAN'T DO TWO YEARS.

SO IT'S JUST 18 MONTHS. NO, SIR, I CAN'T DO THAT.

IF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION WAS SIX MONTHS, WE'VE ALREADY SAT OUT THE WHOLE YEAR.

I WOULD PARTICIPATED IN OTHERS APPLICATIONS, AND THEY KINDLY AGREED TO GIVE THOSE UP BECAUSE WE FELT THAT THAT WAS THE BOARD'S WISHES.

SO, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, ONE YEAR, REALLY YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I DIDN'T PARTICIPATE THIS YEAR FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES, A YEAR FROM NOW REALLY COVERS ALL OF 2026 AND TAKES ME INTO 2027.

SO I'M, I'M ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE MISTAKEN ATTACHMENT TO MY EMAIL SUBMISSION.

IT CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CONSTRUED AS THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION.

AND I ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THE BOARD BOOK STARTING ON PAGE 236, IF THERE'S ANY DOUBT.

OUT. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHATEVER THEIR INTERNAL TEAM DID TO CHANGE REPORTS AND NOT HAVE THAT BE OBVIOUS.

NOT THE ORIGINAL WORK PRODUCT. SO THAT'S, I THINK, WHAT MAKES ME DIFFERENT FROM THAT STANDPOINT.

I DON'T HAVE A YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE STATUTE IN YOUR RULE IS ABOUT REPEAT OFFENDERS, MATERIAL ITEMS THAT THE

[01:40:03]

BUT THE BOARD IS UPSET AND I AM TRYING TO BE ACCOUNTABLE AND DO SOME PENANCE.

BUT TWO YEARS IN MY CIRCUMSTANCE, GIVEN MY INVOLVEMENT, IT'S SOMETHING I CAN'T VOLUNTARILY AGREE TO.

AND I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER MY PROPOSAL FOR SIX MONTHS.

IF NOT, I'M TELLING YOU, IF THE STAFF OFFERED ME THE ONE YEAR I'VE, I WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED IT.

I'M ACCEPTING IT TODAY, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU CONSIDERING, YOU KNOW, LET'S BE HONEST, FOLKS, THE DEBARMENT DESTROYS OUR BUSINESS. THIS IS A TEXAS BUSINESS.

MANY OF YOU ARE NEW. WE'VE DONE THIS FOR MORE THAN 25 YEARS.

YOU'VE DEBARRED SOMEBODY FOR THREE YEARS WHO BLEW OUT SIX PROPERTIES THAT LOST THEIR LEURA.

YOU HAD, OF COURSE, OUT OF STATE. OKAY. YOU HAD AN OUT OF STATE.

NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND. THIS IS DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOW.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M HEARING THIS CORRECTLY.

SINCE THE A ONE YEAR DEAL WASN'T WORKED OUT BEFORE THIS.

BEFORE THIS MEETING. SASHA. SASHA. SASHA, DO YOU WANT TO CLARIFY AND I'LL WRAP UP.

OKAY. SO WE INITIALLY SENT OUT THE THE TWO YEAR VNA.

WE RECEIVED EDITS BACK FROM MR. FISHER, ARE REDUCING THAT TO SIX MONTHS WITH SOME OTHER EDITS.

WE THEN REVIEWED THOSE EDITS AND SENT A NEW BLACK LINE, WHICH INCORPORATED MOST OF HIS EDITS, INCLUDING THE THE CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANT THING.

THERE WERE A FEW THINGS THAT WE DIDN'T AGREE WITH IN TERMS OF THE TERMINOLOGY REGARDING WHAT COULD BE REFERRED FOR ENFORCEMENT.

AND WE DID IN THAT DRAFT, CHANGE IT TO ONE YEAR THAT WE SENT BACK.

SO THE VERSION TWO THAT WENT BACK TO HIM WAS A COUNTER WITH ONE YEAR.

MAYBE HE I IT'S POSSIBLE HE MISSED THAT. BUT THEN THE, THE SUBSEQUENT EMAIL WE GOT FROM HIM STILL REFERRED TO A SIX MONTH TERM.

SO WE CONSIDERED THAT TO BE A REJECTION OF THE ONE YEAR.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND MAYBE MR. FISHER MISSED IT.

WHATEVER. BUT RIGHT NOW, BEFORE THIS MEETING.

NO ONE AGREED TO THE ONE YEAR. WHICH BRINGS US NOW TO.

SINCE THERE'S NO REAL DEAL THAT WAS ACCEPTED ON THE TABLE, THE BOARD HAS DISCRETION ON WHICH WAY TO GO.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THERE'S NO AGREEMENT THAT'S BINDING TO ANYONE UNTIL YOU ALL APPROVED IT OR TOOK.

I MEAN, I THINK THEY EXPLAINED TO YOU WHAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE. SO EVEN IF WE ALL SIGNED IT, THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE AN AGREEMENT UNTIL THE BOARD APPROVES IT.

SO YOU ALWAYS THE BOARD IS NOT GOING TO APPROVE THE VNA, BUT STAFF RECOMMENDATION WOULD THEN BE TO GRANT THEIR APPEAL AND GET RID OF THE, YOU KNOW, PROVISIONAL DEBARMENT. WELL, THE AGREEMENT ACTUALLY SAYS WE'LL BE NEUTRAL.

AGAIN, WE'RE JUST I'M JUST TRYING TO BE FACTUAL. OKAY. THERE IS NO AGREEMENT RIGHT NOW.

AND I AGREE WITH MR. MARCHANT. WE NEED TO GET THIS, MR. CHAIRMAN, OR WOULD YOU ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO TABLE THE THE REQUEST? FOR THE WAIVER OR FOR THE FOR THE THE APPEAL TABLE.

THAT TO ME. I'M VOTING ON THE APPEAL ON WHETHER WE DENY IT OR GRANT IT.

MY GUESS WOULD WE WOULD TABLE THE TWO ISSUES AND THEN PUT THE PENALTY THAT WE DIRECT THE STAFF, THE 18 MONTHS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

OKAY. RIGHT NOW AGAIN, THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE, SEPARATE ISSUES.

SO MR. SHACKELFORD. THEY'VE ALREADY INDICATED THEY'RE RATHER THAN US VOTING ON THE DEPARTMENT, THEY'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH STAFF TO. HAVE THAT DNA 18 MONTHS STARTING NOW.

OKAY, SO IF IF MR.. MR.. FISHER ACCEPTS THAT SIMILAR COMMITMENT TO WORK WITH STAFF FOR AN 18 MONTH DNA. YES, I'M WILLING TO.

AND I THINK THE TECHNICALITY THAT'S BEEN EXPLAINED.

EACH OF YOU IN YOUR SEPARATE, SEPARATE CASES WOULD ACTUALLY REQUEST US TO TABLE THE DEBARMENT APPEAL FOR NOW WHILE YOU WORK WITH STAFF TO FINALIZE THE VNA AND WHATEVER LANGUAGE, TECHNICALITIES AND EVERYTHING YOU ALL WANT TO DO. BUT I'D BE WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT IF, WITH THAT COMMITMENT FROM EACH OF YOU SEPARATELY,

[01:45:09]

STARTING, STARTING NOW. STARTING. AND I THINK LEGALLY, I MEAN, THAT'S THE PROPER WAY WE'RE ALLOWED TO TO DO THAT.

MAYOR. MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK PROBABLY WE'D ALL LIKE TO GET THIS BEHIND US AND OVER AND DONE WITH.

I'VE GOT A SIGNED AGREEMENT WITH THE THE ONE YEAR DATE AS WELL FROM MISS FISHER.

I'M FINE IF WE JUST CHANGE THE DATE TO THE 18 MONTHS THAT THE BOARD IS SO WILLING TO GO WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION AND CHANGE THE DATE FROM SEPTEMBER 4TH OF 2726 TO BE THE END DATE TO WHATEVER THAT 18 MONTH DATE WOULD BE.

HAVE EVERYBODY INITIAL IT, AND WE'RE DONE AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED.

WE PROBABLY WOULD WANT TO TAKE A RECESS TO DO THAT IF WE DO THAT AND GET THAT DONE.

CAN I JUST SAY, YEAH, OKAY. I GUESS THAT THIS MAY BE AN ISSUE.

SO I DID BRING TWO VERSIONS OF THE VMAS WITH BLANKS FOR THE TERMS AND THE EFFECTIVE DATES SO WE COULD RECESS, DISCUSS. IF WE CAN REACH AN AGREEMENT, THEN WE CAN BRING THEM BACK UP AND THE BOARD CAN VOTE ON THE ON THE APPEALS IF THEY ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT AND IF AND IF WE CAN'T REACH AN AGREEMENT. I KNOW MR.. MR. FISHER HAD A FEW MORE EDITS.

THEY WANTED TO MAYBE POTENTIALLY TABLE MR.. FISHER'S AND BRING THAT BACK.

IF IF WE CAN'T REACH AN AGREEMENT ABOUT THE LANGUAGE DURING THIS QUESTION ABOUT RELATED PARTIES.

HOW FAR REACHING IS THIS AGREEMENT IS ARE THE OR DOES THIS PROHIBIT JUST THESE NAMED ARE THE OFFICERS OF THESE RELATED PARTIES OR WHO DOES THIS BIND. SO IT BINDS.

SO FOR FOR THE THE VNA FOR MELISSA FISHER AND THEN IT'S RISE RESIDENTIAL RIVER CONSTRUCTION.

RIVERSIDE. RIVERSIDE OKAY. SO IT WOULD BE THE RISE RESIDENTIAL RIVERSIDE AND MELISSA FISHER.

SO ANY ANY COMPANY ANY BUSINESS. YEAH THAT SHE IS PART OF SHE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.

SO IT GOES BACK TO THE THAT'S WHY YOU PUT THE INDIVIDUAL ON IT. ON IT, BECAUSE THEN ANY ENTITY THAT THEY ARE ASSOCIATED WITH WOULD WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ENTER INTO ANY KIND OF NEW PROGRAMS OR FINANCING WITH THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE TERM.

WHAT IF THEY. OKAY. SO ANY OFFICER I'M TRYING TO.

ANY OFFICER OF THESE IT WOULD BE IT WOULD BE IT WOULD BE FOR THE ENTITY.

IT WOULD BE RISE RESIDENTIAL. RIVERSIDE. THAT AND SHE IS THE IN CONTROL OF RISE RESIDENTIAL.

SO SHE IS THE PERSON THE PARTY IN CONTROL OF RISE RESIDENTIAL SO RISE RESIDENTIAL RIVERSIDE COULD NOT PARTICIPATE.

I BELIEVE THOSE ENTITIES ARE SPECIFIC TO THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO I DON'T FORESEE THAT THAT THEY WOULD BE ENTERING.

BUT IT REALLY COMES BACK TO MISS FISHER WOULD NOT KNOW ENTITY THAT SHE IS A PART OF WOULD BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY NEW PROGRAMS IN ANY MANNER DURING THE TERM OF THE OF THE V&A DOESN'T EXTEND TO ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH RISE.

YEAH. CORRECT. I MEAN RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S OTHER LIMITED PARTNERS OR.

BUT IT DOESN'T I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT THE ONLY THE ONLY PEOPLE ELIGIBLE FOR DEBARMENT UNDER THE RULES OR THE PARTIES IN CONTROL.

AND SO SHE IS THE PARTY IN CONTROL OF RISE RESIDENTIAL RIVERSIDE, WHICH IS WHY SHE IS THE INDIVIDUAL NAME.

WE'VE HAD OTHER DEPARTMENTS WHERE WE'VE HAD NAMED OFFICERS OF OF AN ENTITY IF THEY ALL HAD CONTROL AUTHORITY, BUT IN THIS CASE, SHE'S SHE'S THE PARTY IN CONTROL.

MR. CHAIRMAN. YES, I WANT TO QUICK ACTION. I KNOW THAT IN THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS, I AND OTHER BOARD MEMBERS TALKED ABOUT CORRECTIVE ACTION. BECAUSE IF YOU CAN CORRECT SOMETHING, WE WANT HOMES TO BE BUILT.

BUT I ALSO WANT NOT JUST YOU, BUT THE REST OF PRACTITIONERS TO UNDERSTAND.

AND IS THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CORRECTIVE ACTION, YOU NEEDED TO LISTEN TO TWO OF MY COLLEAGUES THAT KEPT TALKING ABOUT TRUST.

AND IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE TRUST, YOU MUST ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY.

I WAS IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR 25 YEARS, AND I KNOW I MAKE MISTAKES, AND EVERY TIME I DID, I WOULD JUST CLOSE MY EYES AND SAID, WHAT DID MY GRANDMOTHER TEACH ME? AND SHE SAID, CLOSE YOUR EYES, TAKE A DEEP BREATH, AND ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY.

AND PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE WE ARE HUMAN BEINGS.

AND WHAT I USED TO TELL MY STAFF WAS, TRY YOUR BEST, AND IF YOU FAIL, I'LL ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY.

[01:50:02]

BUT I HOPE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND MY COLLEAGUE'S FRUSTRATION WHEN YOU KEEP SAYING.

BUT IT WASN'T MY FAULT. IT DOESN'T MATTER. YOU'RE THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE.

AND THE SOONER YOU ACCEPT IT. AND I KNOW, SIR, YOU SAID IN OTHER TIMES THE BOARD HASN'T SEEN.

WELL, I THINK JUST TODAY ALONE YOU SAY HOW THIS BOARD DENIED OTHER PEOPLE THAT WANTED US TO DO SOMETHING.

AND THIS IS A TOUGH BOARD AND WE ARE EXPERTS AT WHAT WE DO.

AND WE DO TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY THAT WHEN YOU SAY, I'M GOING TO DO SOMETHING, PLEASE GET IT DONE.

SO WE'RE NOT THE BOARD OF THE PAST FIVE, TEN YEARS.

WE ARE A TOUGH BOARD. SO WITH THAT, SIR. CORRECTIVE ACTION MEANS MY COLLEAGUES WANT TO ACCEPT THAT THERE'S TRUST.

AND WE WANT TO BELIEVE IN WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC DOES NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THEY DON'T NEED THIS KIND OF ARGUMENTS BACK AND FORTH, OR WHY WE CAN'T HAVE WE PROMISED 90 HOMES AND NOW WE CAN ONLY DO 20.

I MEAN, WE'RE TIRED OF LISTENING TO THAT. SO YES, I SAID CORRECTIVE ACTION, BUT THAT MEANS YOU NEED TO BUILD TRUST AND AGREEING TO SOME OF THESE TERMS THAT THE CHAIRMAN AND OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WANT.

IT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE GOING TO GET IT DONE. OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. PERALES. HERE'S A SUGGESTION ON HOW WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

RIGHT. RIGHT. NOW, AT THIS POINT, MISS STREMLER ACTUALLY HAS THE NEXT TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA AS WELL.

LET'S FOR NOW, TABLE THIS. AND AFTER SASHA GETS DONE WITH THESE NEXT TWO, WHICH SHOULDN'T BE NEARLY AS LONG AS THIS Y'ALL CAN GO BACK TO ANOTHER ROOM.

AND IF SHE'S GOT THESE BLANKS AND Y'ALL, IT SOUNDS LIKE MELISSA'S AND SHACKLEFORD ALREADY WERE COMFORTABLE. OTHER THAN THE DATES, IF THEY CAN AGREE TO THAT, THEN WE CAN COME BACK AND VOTE ON THE MOTION TO GRANT OR DENY THE APPEAL. IF THAT SIGN, I'M EXPECTING THAT WE WILL GRANT THE APPEAL AND NOT DEBAR.

AND THEN ALSO FROM MR. FISHER'S SIDE, Y'ALL CAN HAVE THAT SAME DISCUSSION SEPARATELY AND COME BACK TO US HERE AT THE END OF THE MEETING, LETTING US KNOW IF YOU WERE ABLE TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON THE THE EDITS AND WHAT KIND OF CONSULTANT YOU ARE AND ALL THAT STUFF.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT, IF YOU ALL CAN DO THAT, WE CAN HAVE THAT SAME SEPARATE VOTE FOR YOU ON WHETHER WE.

GRANT OR DENY THE APPEAL. BOBBY IS GOING TO NEED TO SIGN IT THOUGH.

YEAH, I CAN JUST GIVE ME ONE OF THESE. WE CAN.

YEAH, WE CAN, WE CAN. YEAH. SO JUST PROCEDURALLY THAT LOGISTICS BEFORE WE TAKE THE MOTION UP AGAIN.

OKAY. YEAH. YEAH. IF THERE IS AN AGREEMENT. YEAH.

AND AGAIN, IF YOU CAN'T ARRIVE AT AN AGREEMENT, WE CAN LOOK AT THE WE'LL VOTE ON THE MOTION ON THE ON THE DEPARTMENT. RECOGNIZING THAT THE BOARD HAS THE DISCRETION TO ACCEPT THE SIX MONTH DEPARTMENT OR INCREASE IT TO TWO YEARS OR 18 MONTHS OR WHAT HAVE YOU, BUT IT'S UP TO YOU IF YOU WANT TO HAVE THAT THAT VOTE TAKEN. WE'LL DO AS YOU ASK. SO WE'LL TABLE THIS, GIVING EVERYONE A CHANCE TO GET THROUGH THOSE DOCUMENTS. OKAY. SHE'S GOT ANOTHER FIVE, TEN MINUTES HERE THAT SHE NEEDS TO NEEDS TO PRESENT.

AND THEN YOU ALL CAN. THERE'S SOME OTHER BACK ROOMS OVER THERE. MOTION.

SO MOTION. MOTION TO THE END OF THE MEETING? YES.

SO THAT SOUND LIKE A PLAN? YES, SIR. OKAY, SO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE ITEM 21 TILL THE TILL THE END OF THE MEETING.

TILL THE LAST SECOND. OKAY. MOTION MADE TO TABLE BY MR. HARPER. I'M SORRY, MR. MARCHANT. SECONDED BY MR. HARPER. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES.

AGAIN, GIVE SASHA A LITTLE TIME TO MAKE THESE NEXT, NEXT.

SHORTER PRESENTATIONS. THANK. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

OKAY. 22. RIGHT. NEXT. YES. 22. YES. GOOD PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT. AGREED. FINAL ORDERS ASSESSING AN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY RELATING TO DIA DE REPOSO SAN LUIS IN ASHERTON, TEXAS AND VIA DEL REPOSO, ENCINO, TEXAS.

[01:55:02]

WE AND IT IS THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF BOTH DEVELOPMENTS.

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DAVID OJEDA JR, HAS THE CONTROL AUTHORITY AND THE DEVELOPMENTS ARE SELF-MANAGED.

VIA DEL REPOSO SAN LUIS ASHERTON, WHICH I WILL JUST CALL ASHERTON, IS A DEVELOPMENT COMPOSED OF 16 UNITS IN EIGHT BUILDINGS IN ASHERTON, WHICH IS IN DIMMIT COUNTY THE OCCUPANCY IS LIMITED TO SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSEHOLDS OUT OF BELOW 50% AMI.

THE PROPERTY RECEIVED HOME FUNDS FROM THE DEPARTMENT TO BUILD AND OPERATE THE DEVELOPMENT.

THE LURA WAS EFFECTIVE IN 2000. THE FEDERAL AFFORDABILITY PERIOD HAS ENDED AND THE STATE AFFORDABILITY PERIOD ENDS IN 2030.

VIA DEL REPOSO ENCINAL, WHICH I REFER TO AS ENCINAL, IS A DEVELOPMENT COMPOSED ALSO OF 16 UNITS IN EIGHT BUILDINGS LOCATED IN ENCINAL, WHICH IS IN LASALLE COUNTY. OCCUPANCY IS LIMITED TO ELDERLY HOUSEHOLDS AT OR BELOW 50% OF AMI.

THE PROPERTY RECEIVED HOME FUNDS TO BUILD AND OPERATE THE DEVELOPMENT.

THE LAW WAS EFFECTIVE IN 2003. THE FEDERAL AFFORDABILITY PERIOD ENDS IN OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR, AND THE STATE AFFORDABILITY PERIOD ENDS IN 2033.

I WILL NOTE THAT WHEN THE OWNER ORIGINALLY APPLIED WITH THE DEPARTMENT FOR HOME FUNDS FOR THESE DEVELOPMENTS, THE DEPARTMENT DENIED THE APPLICATIONS DUE TO CONCERNS REGARDING THE MARKET STUDY.

THE OWNER APPEALED THOSE DENIALS TO HUD AND HUD.

OVERRULED THE DENIAL. AND SO THE DEPARTMENT THEN AWARDED THE FUNDS BASED ON A HUD RULING.

SO JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THESE HOME FUNDS.

THE OWNER HAS A HISTORY OF NONCOMPLIANCE FOR BOTH OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS AND PREVIOUSLY SIGNED A AGREED FINAL ORDERS IN 2016, 2019 AND 2023. THE DEPARTMENT PERFORMS FILE MONITORING REVIEWS TO ENSURE THE UNITS ARE RENTED TO LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AND THE PROGRAM IS OPERATING IN A COMPLIANT MANNER.

THE DEPARTMENT ALSO PERFORMS INSPIRED INSPIRE PHYSICAL INSPECTIONS.

BOTH REVIEW TYPES REQUIRE OWNERS TO SUBMIT CORRECTIVE DOCUMENTATION WITHIN 90 DAYS FOR ASHERTON.

ON MARCH 4TH, 2025, THE DEPARTMENT CONDUCTED AN INSPECTION AND IDENTIFIED FINDINGS OF NONCOMPLIANCE.

THE OWNER FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE NON NONCOMPLIANCE, BUT SINCE REFERRAL TO ENFORCEMENT, THE INSPIRE NONCOMPLIANCE HAS BEEN FULLY RESOLVED.

ON NOVEMBER 20TH, 2024, THE DEPARTMENT CONDUCTED A FILE MONITORING REVIEWS AT BOTH ASHERTON AND ENCINAL AND IDENTIFIED FINES AND FINDINGS OF NONCOMPLIANCE.

AT THE TIME, OWNERS SUBMITTED INCORRECT CORRECTIVE DOCUMENTS, INCOMPLETE SORRY CORRECTIVE DOCUMENTATION FOR BOTH DEVELOPMENTS FOR BOTH ASHERTON AND ENCINAL. THE FILE MONITORING NONCOMPLIANCE WAS FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE TENANT INCOME CERTIFICATION DOCUMENTATION AT AT RECERTIFICATION AND AN ENCINAL.

THEY ALSO HAD NONCOMPLIANCE FOR FAILING TO CERTIFY HOUSEHOLD INCOMES AT INITIAL OCCUPANCY, AND ALL OF THIS NONCOMPLIANCE REMAINS UNRESOLVED.

THESE DEVELOPMENTS ARE VERY RURAL. THEY HAVE A HARD TIME LEASING UNITS AS THEY ARE RESTRICTED TO ELDERLY FOR ENCINAL AND DISABLED FOR ASHERTON.

THE ONLY WAY FOR THE OWNER TO RESOLVE THE NONCOMPLIANCE IS TO HAVE NEW TENANTS MOVE INTO THE UNIT.

BUT ENCINAL IN PARTICULAR HAS A PERSISTENT VACANCY ISSUE.

THEY ARE CURRENTLY AT 81% VACANCY. I THINK THEY ONLY HAVE THREE OF THE 16 UNITS OCCUPIED.

SO THE NONCOMPLIANCE REMAINS. THE OWNER ALSO PREFERS TO HAVE ALL TENANTS GET VOUCHERS THROUGH THE COTULLA HOUSING AUTHORITY.

BUT IT TAKES SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE THE VOUCHERS ARE APPROVED.

SO BASICALLY, THOSE TENANTS WOULD HAVE TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE RENT FOR SEVERAL MONTHS WHILE THEIR VOUCHER WAS APPROVED.

SO IT'S KIND OF A NOT A REALISTIC SCENARIO. ENCINAL HAS A NEGATIVE CASH FLOW DUE TO THE VACANCIES.

THE DEPARTMENT WILL BE BIFURCATING THE WHEN THE FEDERAL AFFORDABILITY PERIOD ENDS NEXT MONTH.

THE OWNER HAS REQUESTED TO REMOVE THE ELDERLY RESTRICTION ON ENCINAL, AND THE AGREED FINAL ORDER INCLUDES ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OWNER TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT LURE AMENDMENT. THE OWNER HAS REPRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT THAT THEY BELIEVE THEY COULD INCREASE OCCUPANCY IF THEY NO LONGER HAVE THE ELDERLY RESTRICTION AND ARE AGREED. FINAL ORDER LAYS OUT SPECIFIC STEPS THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW IN ORDER FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO ALLOW THEM TO TO REQUEST THIS KIND OF AMENDMENT TO THEIR LURA.

AND SO NOW ALSO HAS A PENDING LOAN MODIFICATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT.

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES ARE AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE AT TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 2,306.041.

THE PROCESS IS DEFINED BY RULE AT TEN, CHAPTER TWO, SUBCHAPTER C, TO ASSESS A PENALTY, MUST FIRST OFFER AN INFORMAL CONFERENCE.

ASHERTON AND ENCINAL WERE REPORTED ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY, AND THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE HELD AN INFORMAL CONFERENCE ON JUNE 17TH, 2025 ANALYZING THE STATUTORY FACTORS AT 2306 .0. 42B FOR DETERMINING AN APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY.

THE FACTORS ARE DISCUSSED IN YOUR BAR MATERIALS.

THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED AN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY OF $250 FOR ASHERTON AND $2,250 FOR ENCINAL.

AND THESE ARE THE MAXIMUM ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES FOR BOTH DEVELOPMENTS.

[02:00:04]

BY OCTOBER 15TH, THE OWNER HAS TO SUBMIT TRAFFIC REPORTS REGARDING WHY TENANTS ARE NOT MOVING INTO THE PROPERTY BY NOVEMBER.

THE OWNER HAS TO IMPLEMENT MARKET CAMPAIGNS AND RENT REDUCTIONS TO ATTRACT NEW HOUSEHOLDS.

THE OWNER MUST SUBMIT QUARTERLY VACANCY REPORTS THROUGH APRIL OF 2026.

THE OWNER MUST SUBMIT QUARTERLY TRAFFIC REPORTS AND MARKETING SUMMARIES THROUGH APRIL OF 2026.

AND THEN IF OCCUPANCY DOES NOT IMPROVE TO 90% BY APRIL 2026, THE OWNER CAN REQUEST A LURE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE ELDERLY RESTRICTION.

IF THE OWNER COMPLIES WITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE ORDER.

THE VERY LAST PART AGAIN, AS LONG AS THEY ARE, AS LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH ALL THESE REQUIREMENTS IN THE ORDER, WE WILL ALLOW THEM TO REQUEST A LAW AMENDMENT FOR TO REMOVE THE ELDERLY RESTRICTION.

TELL US AGAIN, THE OWNER OF THIS OF THESE TWO PROPERTIES IS A SMALL NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION.

CORRECT. IT IS COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY OF SOUTH TEXAS.

DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA HOW LARGE THEY ARE? I MEAN, WHAT RESOURCES THEY HAVE.

I'M NOT SURE IF ANYBODY IS HERE FROM. MAYBE NOT.

IS ANYONE HERE REPRESENTING THE. OKAY. THEY ARE VERY SMALL.

THESE ARE THEY THEY HAD THEY HAVE HAD ONE OTHER DEVELOPMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT THAT EXPIRED IN 2018.

MY CONCERN IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO FIND THIS SMALL ENTITY, WHAT, HUNDRED DOLLARS. 35. BUT. THEY DON'T HAVE THE CASH FLOW IN THE BEGINNING.

AND. I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THIS IS GOING TO GET ANY BETTER.

I HAVE ZERO EXPECTATION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO FULFILL THOSE QUARTERLY CHECKLIST THINGS THAT YOU'VE JUST LAID OUT THERE.

I MEAN, IS THERE IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN FIND A NEW OWNER FOR THIS, YOU KNOW, OPERATOR FOR FOR THIS, WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE DOING THAT HAS THE RESOURCES AND STRUCTURE AND EVERYTHING TO DO THAT.

SO I WILL SAY FOR ATHERTON, THEY HAVE BETTER OCCUPANCY.

SO WE'RE NOT I DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAVE A NEGATIVE CASH FLOW.

SO I THINK THEY WILL BE ABLE TO PAY THAT FINE.

REGARDING ENCINAL. WE ALSO, YOU KNOW, WE ARE CONCERNED BUT OUR THE GOAL IS TO REALLY INCENTIVIZE THEM.

THEY REQUESTED THIS MATERIAL AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE ELDERLY RESTRICTION. SO WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO PUT THE ONUS ON THEM TO SHOW US THAT THEY CANNOT ACTUALLY RENT TO THE ELDERLY POPULATION IN THE AREA AND FOLLOW WHAT WE'VE REQUIRED, AND THEN WE WILL ALLOW THEM TO REMOVE THE RESTRICTION.

ASSUMING AND WE'VE ALSO WOULD, WOULD POTENTIALLY WAIVE THE $2,500 AMENDMENT FEE IF THEY DO MEET ALL THESE QUALIFICATIONS.

SO WE'RE KIND OF WE'RE KIND OF STUCK BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE ON THESE.

ALSO, WE ARE THE FIRST LIEN LENDER, BUT FORECLOSURE IS OBVIOUSLY NOT REALLY SOMETHING THAT'S LIKE A WE DON'T REALLY WANT TO EXPLORE AT THIS POINT.

THESE PROPERTIES WOULD PROBABLY NOT SELL AT A FORECLOSURE SALE. WE STUCK WITH THEM. ARE THERE PEOPLE IN DANGER ARE THERE THAT ARE OCCUPYING THIS? ARE THEY IN DANGER THAT THEY'LL HAVE THEIR LIGHTS TURNED OFF OR OR RUBBISH WON'T? I MEAN, ARE PEOPLE OF THEIR DAILY LIVES AFFECTED BY THE ACTIONS THAT WE'RE DOING HERE? IT DOESN'T APPEAR SO. THE THEY THEY SCORED. LET ME SEE WHAT THIS THE CONDITIONS ARE GOOD.

THE INSPIRE VIOLATIONS WERE CORRECT CORRECTED.

ASHERTON HAD AN 85.8 INSPIRE SCORE. I DON'T KNOW, I THINK THE I THINK IT WAS OH NO INSTALL DID NOT HAVE AN INSPIRE INSPECTION SO I'M NOT SURE. BUT WE HAVEN'T REPORTED THAT. I DO KNOW THAT THE THAT THE OWNER DOES WORK WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES TO KIND OF SUPPORT IT SOMEHOW.

AND SO THERE AREN'T ANY CONCERNS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED ABOUT FROM TENANTS AT THE, AT THE IT'S MOSTLY JUST REGARDING THE VACANCIES REALLY WHAT'S CAUSING THE BIG THE BIG ISSUE. BUT OUR PROBLEM IS I'M SORRY. OUR PROBLEM IS THE PAPERWORK.

THEY'RE NOT RIGHT. WELL, SO THE PAPERWORK BACKUP FOR WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING.

SO THE PROBLEM IS WHEN THE VIOLATION IS FOR FAILURE TO HAVE THE DOCUMENTATION AT INITIAL OCCUPANCY, THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN FIX THAT IS TO HAVE A NEW TENANT MOVE IN THAT PROVIDES THE DOCUMENTATION AND THEN THAT GOES AWAY.

BUT OBVIOUSLY IF THEY CAN'T GET ANYBODY TO MOVE IN, THEY CAN'T FIX THE.

IT'S IT'S KIND OF A VICIOUS CYCLE. QUICK QUESTION.

HOW DID THIS TO AWARDS GET AWARDED? FROM OUR UNDERSTANDING, IT WAS THEY APPLIED FOR HOME FUNDS THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT.

[02:05:07]

THEY APPEALED THOSE DENIALS TO HUD AT THE TIME.

AND THEN HUD CAME BACK TO THE DEPARTMENT AND SAID, YOU NEED TO AWARD THESE.

OKAY. SO SO THE SECOND ONE IS AS FAR AS THE PAPERWORK.

DO YOU KNOW IF THIS ENTITY, COMMUNITY SERVICE AGENCY OF SOUTH TEXAS, WHOEVER, IF THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A FULL TIME EMPLOYEE THAT DOES PAPERWORK? I, I AM NOT SURE. THEY HAVE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, I DON'T KNOW.

I'M UNSURE OF THE SIZE OF THEIR STAFF, BUT I IMAGINE IT'S PROBABLY VERY SMALL.

LET ME AGAIN. YOU KNOW, I'M IN FAVOR OF ASSESSING FINES TO GET PEOPLE'S ATTENTION, JUST AS I READ THROUGH THIS ONE.

IN THIS CASE, IT JUST. IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT'S GOING TO BE THE CURE FOR THIS ENTITY WHO JUST HAS EVIDENCE THAT THEY CAN'T HANDLE IT. I MEAN, THEY JUST.

SO I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT ALTERNATIVES WE HAVE TO.

TO GET THE PAPERWORK DONE PROPERLY. WELL, I MEAN, WE'RE HOPING THAT IF THEY DO FOLLOW THE WE'VE ASKED THEM TO LOWER THEIR RENTS BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN CHARGING THE MAXIMUM RENTS AND WE'VE TOLD THEM MULTIPLE TIMES THEY DON'T NEED TO CHARGE THE MAXIMUM RENTS. I THINK THAT ALSO KIND OF COINCIDES WITH THE REQUEST TO GET VOUCHERS THROUGH THE CITY SO THAT THEY CAN GET, YOU KNOW, THE MOST, THE MOST MONEY COLLECTED.

SO THAT IS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS IS TO HAVE THEM LOWER THE RENTS.

SEE IF THEY CAN GET THE UNITS OCCUPIED. BECAUSE WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO FIX IS VACANCY PROBLEM.

IF THEY FIX THE VACANCY PROBLEM, THEN THEY FIX THEIR VIOLATIONS.

AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE THEM A PLAN TO FOLLOW TO, TO DO THAT.

HOPEFULLY IT WORKS OUT. THEY ALSO MENTIONED SELLING POTENTIALLY SELLING THE PROPERTIES, BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE LURES ON THEM.

AND WE TOLD THEM THAT'S NOT AN OPTION. SO. AND THEY'VE AGREED TO THIS.

YES. WELL I MEAN IF THEY AGREE AGAIN I'M JUST DON'T THINK THAT THE SPINE, THESE SPINES ARE GOING TO FIX THE PROBLEM. BUT IF THEY'VE AGREED TO IT.

I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULDN'T APPROVE THEM. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS.

ONE MORE QUESTION. ASHTON IS ONE OF THE POOREST COUNTIES IN TEXAS.

SO FOR THEM TO CHARGE THE MAXIMUM RENT OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

NC NOW, IF IT'S IN LASALLE, IS THAT THE ONE CLOSE TO COTULLA? I BELIEVE SO. WELL, COTULLA WENT. I GREW UP IN CRYSTAL CITY, TEXAS, WHICH IS 20 MILES FROM ASHTON, SO I KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT AREA. COTULLA, CRYSTAL CITY, TEXAS WAS THE THIRD POOREST COUNTY IN THE COUNTRY, AND NOTHING SEEMS TO HELP. AND THEY'RE STILL POOR.

COTULLA WAS ALSO ONE OF THE POOREST COUNTIES IN THE COUNTRY.

AND THEN WHEN THE OIL BOOM HIT, IT BECAME ONE OF THE RICHEST COUNTIES IN THE COUNTRY.

THEY BUILT NEW SCHOOLS, NEW COMMUNITY CENTERS.

EVERYTHING WAS BRAND NEW. SO THAT'S WHY THIS ONE.

DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE 16 VACANCIES.

WELL, IT'S BECAUSE THE ONE IN SNELL IS ONLY FOR ELDERLY, THE ELDERLY RESTRICTION.

SO THAT'S PART OF THE ARGUMENT THEY'VE MADE TO US IS IF IT WAS NO LONGER ELDERLY, THEY COULD THEY COULD LEASE.

THEY DID. YEAH. RESTRICTION LIKE LIKE ME. NOW THIS IS MY CYNICAL WAY OF THINKING.

I'M SORRY IF WE CAN'T DO AWAY WITH THE ELDERLY RESTRICTIONS AND WE HAVE ALL THE GAS PEOPLE, BOY, WE CAN CHARGE TOP RENT, WHICH IS WHAT THEY WERE DOING IN SOME AREAS, BECAUSE NOW ALL THESE PEOPLE CAN MAKE A LOT OF MONEY.

YEAH, AS LONG AS THEY QUALIFY. YEAH. SO THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE ALL RIGHT.

BUT IF YOU WENT WITH ELDERLY, I KNOW THAT WE NEED TO GET CLOSER, BUT I'M STILL OKAY.

SO THAT WAS THE ONE THAT SAID YEAH, YEAH, GIVE IT TO THEM.

GIVE THEM TO THEM. I'M SURE IT WAS UNDER A DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATION.

GIVE IT TO THEM. DID THEY COUNT THE ELDERLY? I MEAN, WHEN YOU SAY WE WANT TO HAVE THE 16 OR 21 UNITS FOR ELDERLY I TICKETS, SOMEBODY WENT THERE AND COUNTED. THIS IS HOW MANY ELDERLY WE HAVE.

AND NOW THEY'RE SAYING, WELL, THERE ARE ONLY THREE THAT WE CAN HAVE AND NOW WE WANT 16 WAIVERS.

I MEAN, YEAH, I MEAN, THAT'S CYNICAL THINKING.

THAT'S WHY THAT'S WHY THE DEPARTMENT DENIED THE APPLICATION WAS BASED ON THE MARKET STUDY THAT DIDN'T SHOW THERE WAS A MARKET FOR IT.

SO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I MOVE THE BOARD, APPROVE THE AGREED FINAL ORDER. SETTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY FOR THE NONCOMPLIANCE RELATING TO VILLA DE. SAN LUIS.

[02:10:01]

ALL AS PRESCRIBED, AUTHORIZED AND CONDITION. THE BOARD ACTION, REQUEST RESOLUTION AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS AND ORDERS ON THIS ITEM WITH THIS ONE AD AT THE DISCRETION OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. IF HE WANTS TO FORGIVE THE FINES ON THAT, IT IS HIS DISCRETION.

SECOND. MOTION MADE BY. BY MR. HARPER.

AND I SWEAR TO GOD, I WAS THINKING YOU KNOW, EXACT SAME THOUGHTS.

SO I MEAN, IF THEY PERFORM, YOU CAN PLAY CAESAR.

YOU COULD. SURE. WELL, LET ME JUST FORGIVE THE.

I MEAN, IT'S OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER. SECOND AND SECONDED BY MISS DIAZ TO ASSESS.

AGREED. DO THE AGREED FINAL ORDERS, HOWEVER, ALLOWING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

DO YOU DO YOU WANT TO PUT A TIME LIKE DO YOU WANT TO, LIKE, SUSPEND IT, SUSPEND THE FINE UNTIL THE APRIL DATE, WHICH IS THE END OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PERIOD, AND THEN AND THEN THE PD HAS THE THAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY DO THE FINES ARE SUSPENDED FOR SIX MONTHS WITH GOOD BEHAVIOR. WITH GOOD PERFORMANCE.

OKAY. SO IT WOULD BE THROUGH THE APRIL 2026. THAT'S WHEN THE YEAH, THE DEADLINE IS I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT WENT.

YEAH. EIGHT MONTHS. OKAY. SO YOU ALL HAVE THAT ON THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT THAT MOTION? YES. MOTION MADE. SECONDED. AMENDED. CLARIFIED.

CLARIFIED. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. LET'S SEE HOW WE CAN HELP GET THESE PEOPLE TO FIND SOMEONE.

CALL THE CESAR CHAVEZ GUYS. THEY CAN RUN. OKAY.

ITEM 23 OF THE AGENDA PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT AN AGREED FINAL ORDER ASSESSING AN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY RELATING TO ACCESSIBLE HOUSING. AUSTIN AND AT BRIARCLIFF.

MISS STREMLER. TELL US HOW THE. ENTITY THAT HAS ACCESSIBILITY IN THEIR NAME DOESN'T KNOW THE ACCESSIBLE RULES. SASHA STREMLER HERE FOR ITEM 23.

THE REFERRED PROPERTIES ARE OWNED BY ACCESSIBLE HOUSING AUSTIN, WHICH IS A NONPROFIT CORPORATION.

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TREY NICHOLS, HAS CONTROL AUTHORITY, AND THE DEVELOPMENTS ARE SELF-MANAGED, ACCESSIBLE HOUSING AUSTIN CONSISTS OF THREE SCATTERED SITES, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND TWO SCATTERED SITE DUPLEXES LOCATED IN AUSTIN.

THE PRIOR OWNER TO THESE DEVELOPMENTS RECEIVED 2008 NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM FUNDS TO ACQUIRE AND OPERATE THE PROPERTIES.

THE CURRENT OWNER, ACCESSIBLE HOUSING AUSTIN, PURCHASED THE PROPERTIES IN 2016.

THE PROPERTIES REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE 2016 NSP, WHICH THE AFFORDABILITY PERIOD ENDS IN 2031, AND EACH UNIT IS RESTRICTED AT 80% OF AMI. AT BRIARCLIFF, WHICH I WILL JUST CALL BRIARCLIFF, IS A DEVELOPMENT COMPOSED OF 27 UNITS, WITH NINE UNITS RESTRICTED AT 30% AMI LOCATED IN AUSTIN.

THE OWNER RECEIVED NTF FUNDS IN T CAP REPAYMENT FUNDS IN 2016 AND 2018, RESPECTIVELY, TO BUILD AND OPERATE THE DEVELOPMENT.

BRIARCLIFF IS PART OF THE SECTION 811 PROGRAM, WHICH PROVIDES PROJECT BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE FOR EXTREMELY LOW INCOME PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES LINKED WITH LONG TERM SERVICES, INCLUDING PEOPLE WITH SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS AND YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES EXITING FOSTER CARE. THE DEPARTMENT PERFORMS FILE MONITORING INSPECTIONS TO ENSURE THE UNITS ARE RENTED TO LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AND THAT THE PROGRAM IS OPERATING IN A COMPLIANT MANNER.

THE DEPARTMENT ALSO PERFORMS INSPIRED PHYSICAL INSPECTIONS.

BOTH TYPES OF REVIEWS REQUIRE OWNERS TO SUBMIT CORRECTIVE DOCUMENTATION WITHIN 90 DAYS FOR ACCESSIBLE HOUSING.

AUSTIN ON FEBRUARY 4TH, 2025. THE DEPARTMENT CONDUCTED INSPIRE INSPECTION AND FOUND IDENTIFIED FINDINGS OF NONCOMPLIANCE.

IT SCORED AN 80.78. THE OWNER FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE NONCOMPLIANCE AND WAS REFERRED TO THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE.

PARTIAL CORRECTIVE DOCUMENTATION WAS SUBMITTED AFTER INTERVENTION BY THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE AND ALL REMAINING INSPIRED NONCOMPLIANCE HAS BEEN FULLY RESOLVED.

FOR BRIARCLIFFE, THE DEPARTMENT CONDUCTED A SECTION 811 FILE MONITORING REVIEW ON JUNE 22ND, 2020 FOR THE OWNER SUBMITTED PARTIAL CORRECTIVE DOCUMENTATION AFTER RECEIVING AN EXTENSION FROM COMPLIANCE, BUT FAILED TO SUBMIT ANNUAL INCOME RECERTIFICATIONS FOR TWO UNITS AND FAILED TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE OF PROPERLY CALCULATED RESIDENTIAL RESIDENT RENTAL PORTIONS FOR THESE TWO UNITS.

THE NONCOMPLIANCE WAS REFERRED TO THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE AND REMAINS UNRESOLVED, BUT THE OWNER INDICATES THAT THEY ARE NEARLY READY TO SUBMIT CORRECTIONS.

[02:15:02]

AUSTIN PARTIAL CORRECTIVE DOCUMENTATION WAS SUBMITTED AFTER INTERVENTION BY THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE AND ALL REMAINING INSPIRED NONCOMPLIANCE HAS BEEN FULLY RESOLVED.

RESTRUCTURED IN 2024 AND NEW EMPLOYEES. A LACK OF TRAINING AND POOR DEADLINE TRACKING ARE THE PRIMARY PROBLEMS CAUSING THE REFERRALS.

THE OWNER HAS IMPLEMENTED NEW TRACKING SYSTEM FOR INSPIRE VIOLATIONS, AND THE DEPARTMENT IS HOPEFUL THAT THIS SYSTEM WILL PREVENT PREVENT FUTURE INSPIRE COMPLIANCE ISSUES. THE SECTION 811 PROGRAM IS VERY COMPLEX.

IT USES. IT USES A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TRACKING SYSTEM THAN THE OTHER MULTIFAMILY PROGRAMS, WHICH HAS ALSO LED TO CONFUSION. THIS IS A SELF-MANAGED PROPERTY THAT IS SMALL, A SMALLER GROUP AND THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO USE A PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY.

AND SO LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, THEY ACCIDENTALLY SUBMITTED THE CORRECTIVE ACTION TO CMTS INSTEAD OF SERV-U, WHICH IS THE DATA WHAT'S USED FOR SECTION 811.

IT'S EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT. SO I THINK THERE'S JUST SOME GENERAL CONFUSION ON THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PROGRAMS. ADDITIONALLY, THERE WAS A MOLD REMEDIATION PROBLEM WHICH REQUIRED A LAWSUIT BETWEEN AND ITS HVAC CONTRACTOR TO RESOLVE, WHICH CREATED A CASH FLOW PROBLEM. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE BACKGROUND ON THAT.

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES ARE AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE. THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 2,306.041.

THE PROCESS IS DEFINED BY RULE TEN, CHAPTER TWO, SUBCHAPTER TWO.

TO ASSESS THE PENALTY, TEETH MUST FIRST OFFER AN INFORMAL CONFERENCE.

ACCESSIBLE HOUSING. AUSTIN AND BRIARCLIFF WERE REFERRED TO THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY. THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE HELD AN INFORMAL CONFERENCE ON JUNE 17TH, 2025 AND ANALYZED THE REQUIRED STATUTORY FACTORS AT 2,306.0 42B FOR DETERMINING AN APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY.

THE FACTORS ARE DISCUSSED IN YOUR BAR MATERIALS. THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE INITIALLY RECOMMENDED AN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY OF $1,000 FOR ACCESSIBLE HOUSING AUSTIN TO BE FORGIVEN IF THE NONCOMPLIANCE WAS CORRECTED. BECAUSE THE NONCOMPLIANCE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN CORRECTED, THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE NOW ONLY RECOMMENDS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY OF $2,000 FOR BRIARCLIFF.

THAT IS ALSO FULLY FORGIVABLE IF ALL NONCOMPLIANCE IS RESOLVED AS SPECIFIED IN THE ORDER BY OCTOBER 4TH, 2025. I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY.

DO YOU THINK THEY'RE GOING TO THIS SMALL NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET THEIR ACT TOGETHER? I HOPE SO. WE HAVE THEY HAVE SAID COMMITTED TO ATTENDING SOME MORE SECTION 811 TRAININGS.

IT SEEMS LIKE THEIR, THEIR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THERE WERE SOME HEALTH ISSUES AND I THINK THAT'S BEEN KIND OF RESOLVED.

SO WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT THEY WILL ATTEND MORE TRAININGS.

WE PROVIDED THEM WITH RESOURCES. AND HOPEFULLY THEY CAN FIX THAT.

MOVING FORWARD WITH THE SECTION 811 NONCOMPLIANCE, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY IS HERE FROM.

WE CAN BRING THE MICROPHONE UP IF YOU WANT. CAN YOU BRING THE WHOLE THING? DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE OR. WELL. OH. JUST LET US KNOW YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, MY NAME IS STEPHANIE THOMAS.

I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF. BELIEVE ME, YOU'VE GOT MY ATTENTION.

WE KNEW THERE WERE PROBLEMS, BUT OUR WE WERE TOLD THAT THEY WERE.

OR AT LEAST I WAS TOLD THAT THEY WERE MINIMAL AND THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE FORGIVEN.

AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU POSTPONE THIS FOR A MONTH SO THAT WE HAVE A CHANCE TO GET ON SITUATION A LITTLE BIT BETTER, AND I, I JUST THAT'S REALLY, I MEAN, I, I'M, I'M HORRIFIED AND DISGUSTED, AND I ONLY FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS BY COMING TO THIS BOARD MEETING.

SO I AM A LITTLE BIT OUT OF THIS LOOP OF INFORMATION, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I PLAN TO BE CORRECTING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. AND I JUST ASK FOR A LITTLE MORE TIME.

HOWEVER, I THINK YOUR STAFF HAS BEEN QUITE GOOD ABOUT WORKING WITH OUR PEOPLE, AND I.

I DO WANT TO THANK THEM FOR THAT. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, MISS THOMAS.

I BELIEVE SASHA CONFIRMED THIS, BUT THE WAY THIS IS, THE ORDER IS STRUCTURED RIGHT NOW.

OR THE BOARD ACTION REQUEST, WE ENTER INTO THE THE AGREED FINAL ORDER, BUT IT IS

[02:20:03]

SO THAT'S A MONTH. THEN THE THE REMAINING $2,000 ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY WOULD BE FORGIVEN.

SO IS IT FOR AT LEAST FOR THE ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE CORRECTED, RIGHT? IS THAT DOABLE? I MEAN, IS IT I PAPERWORK OR DO THEY HAVE TO? WHAT WE WERE TOLD LAST I THINK BEFORE BOARD BOOK POSTING IS THEY WERE VERY CLOSE TO HAVING THE NONCOMPLIANCE CORRECTED.

IT WAS THE SECTION 811. I THINK BRITISH CERTIFICATION DOCUMENT.

SO WE'VE GIVEN THEM AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS TO GET THAT, THAT FIXED.

I GUESS IF THE BOARD WANTS TO EXTEND THAT, TO GIVE THEM ADDITIONAL TIME, 60, 90 DAYS TO DO THAT, WE CAN ALSO CHANGE THE ORDER TO GIVE THEM MORE TIME BEFORE THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING YOU.

IS THIS A JUST A QUICK. OH, YEAH. OKAY. NOW WE FILL OUT THE I, I BELIEVE SO BUT IF IF THEY'RE REQUESTING ADDITIONAL TIME, I, I DON'T THINK I'M, WE'RE GENERALLY OPPOSED TO THAT, BUT WE WERE TOLD IT WAS ALMOST DONE.

SO 60 DAYS INSTEAD OF 30 DAYS. YEAH. YEAH. AND THEN IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE THE ORGANIZATION'S ATTENTION, WHICH IS GREAT. AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S A NOBLE CAUSE.

I MEAN, WE'RE TRYING TO HELP, ESPECIALLY ON EIGHT, 11 TYPES OF PROPERTIES.

SO. I'M HERE. I HAVE MORE REASONABLE CONFIDENCE THAT PAPERWORK WILL BE DONE RIGHT AND THINGS GOING FORWARD.

SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF WE WANT TO ADD 30 MORE DAYS JUST IN CASE.

IS THAT DIFFICULT TO JUST JUST MODIFY IT IN THE MOTION JUST SO INSTEAD OF OCTOBER MAYBE NOVEMBER FOR THE END OF OCTOBER, RIGHT? I MEAN, YEAH, WHATEVER. DOES ANYONE CARE TO MAKE THAT MOTION? ONE BIT OF DISCUSSION HERE. OKAY. MISS THOMAS, HOW CLOSE ARE YOU TO FINISHING YOUR LIST HERE? BECAUSE YOU HAVE SOME ITEMS ON HERE THAT ARE SMOKE DETECTORS FOR LIFE SAFETY ISSUES.

YOU HAVE SHOWERS THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE. DO YOU HAVE THERE'S MISSING SINKS.

THERE'S MISSING TOILETS. THERE'S SOME THINGS ON THIS LIST.

ARE Y'ALL CLOSE TO GETTING THIS FINISHED? MY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HAS TOLD US THAT WE ARE CLOSE.

AND SOME OF THOSE UNITS, I BELIEVE, ARE UNOCCUPIED SO THAT WE WOULDN'T.

WE. I DON'T WANT ANYONE GOING IN THERE WITHOUT THAT STUFF FIXED.

MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU'RE OKAY, I'D RATHER LEAVE THIS AT 30 DAYS AND YOU HAVE LIFE SAFETY ISSUES. YOU'VE GOT LACKING TOILETS. THE REST. AND IF WE NEED SOME MORE TIME, WE'LL PUT SOME DISCRETION TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. BUT IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE FINISHED, I BELIEVE.

LET ME DOUBLE CHECK MY NOTES. I THINK ALL THE INSPIRE VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN CORRECTED. IT'S JUST. IT'S JUST THE FILE, THE SECTION 811 FILE MONITORING THAT HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTED.

SO ALL OF THOSE THINGS AND THE THING WITH THE SMOKE DETECTOR, I BELIEVE, I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEONE FROM COMPLIANCE HERE, BUT I THINK THE STANDARD CHANGE FROM INSPIRE ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE OF THE SMOKE DETECTORS, WHICH HAS CAUSED AN ISSUE FOR SOME PEOPLE, BUT I ALL THE INSPIRE VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN CORRECTED.

SO IT'S JUST THE FILE MONITORING. DEVICES SHOULD BE FINE.

I MOVE THE BOARD, APPROVE THE AGREED FINAL ORDER ASSESSING ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY FOR THE NONCOMPLIANCE RELATED TO THE ACCESSIBILITY HOUSING.

AUSTIN AND AT BRIARCLIFF DESCRIBED AUTHORIZED THE CONDITION.

THE BOARD ACTION. REQUEST RESOLUTION, ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS AND ORDER ON THIS ITEM.

OKAY, SO WE'LL LEAVE IT AS IS. SECOND MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER, SECONDED BY MISS ARIAS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

SO MISS STREMLER CAN NOW GO AND TAKE CARE OF YOUR OTHER.

OTHER ONE. SASHA, WOULD YOU LIKE BRASILIA TO GO WITH YOU? YEAH, IF THAT'S OKAY. ROSALIA. OKAY.

THAT WAS 23, RIGHT? YES. DOES ANYONE NEED TO TAKE A BREAK? YEAH, WE NEED A BREAK. OKAY. WE'RE IN. IT'S 1225.

WE ARE IN RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES, SO LET'S TRY TO BE BACK HERE STARTING AT 1235.

IT IS 1239. STILL ON THE AFTERNOON OF SEPTEMBER 4TH, THE MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS IS NOW BACK IN SESSION.

[02:25:02]

MR. DEYOUNG. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS MICHAEL DEYOUNG, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.

ITEM 24 IS GOING TO BE THE QUICKEST ITEM ON THE AGENDA TODAY.

WE REQUEST THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD TO RELEASE A NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY FOR THE 2026 COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT.

TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE CONTEXT. EACH YEAR, TEXAS RECEIVES CDBG FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF ABOUT $3,737 MILLION, 90% OF WHICH MUST GO TO ELIGIBLE ENTITIES, WHICH ARE THE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES THAT WE FUND.

FOR THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT, WE GET 5% FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES AT TDCA THAT'S MONITORING, TRAINING AND PLANNING FOR THE GRANT. AND THEN 5% OF THE FUNDS ARE DISCRETIONARY, MOST OF WHICH GO FOR DISASTER RELIEF.

BUT WE DO HAVE SOME BUCKETS OF MONEY THAT GO FOR THESE TYPES OF PROGRAMS. EACH YEAR, THE DISCRETIONARY FUNDS ARE PROGRAMED FOR SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES WHICH WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD IN THE BIENNIAL CSBG PLAN.

YOU SAW THAT BACK IN JUNE. AND THIS YEAR WE'VE PROGRAMED $300,000 FOR NATIVE AMERICAN AND MIGRANT SEASONAL FARM WORKER POPULATIONS.

THE ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATIONS THAT WOULD RECEIVE THESE AWARDS WOULD BE PROVIDING EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE FOR THEIR CLIENTS, INCLUDING ASSISTING PERSONS TO OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT, OBTAIN WORK SKILLS OR EXPERIENCE.

THEY HELP THEM WITH JOB SEARCHES, JOB REFERRALS, JOB COACHING, RESUME WRITING, INTERVIEW SKILLS.

WE EVEN DO ASSISTANCE WITH TOOLS AND UNIFORMS IF THEY'RE GOING INTO A NURSING SCHOOL OR THINGS LIKE THAT.

EDUCATION ASSISTANCE INCLUDES ASSISTING PERSONS TO ENROLL IN A TRADE SCHOOL OR COLLEGE.

FINANCIAL LITERACY PROGRAMS. HELPING THEM OBTAIN A GED, LITERACY CLASSES FOR ENGLISH, FINANCIAL COUNSELING, TUITION ASSISTANCE, AND ANY BOOKS AND SUPPLIES THAT THEY MIGHT NEED IN ORDER TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL SKILLS.

THESE FUNDS ARE COMPETITIVE. THEY WOULD. THEY REQUIRE A NOFA TO BE RELEASED.

AND WE WILL. WE HAVE A SCORING MECHANISM IN YOUR BOARD BOOK THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT TO DETERMINE THE BEST QUALIFIED APPLICANTS.

BOTH OF THOSE ARE ATTACHED TO THIS BAR. THERE WILL BE THREE AWARDS MADE FOR THIS NOFA.

EACH ONE WOULD BE $100,000. TWO OF THEM WOULD BE FOR MIGRANT SEASONAL FARMWORKER POPULATION ORGANIZATIONS AND ONE FOR THE NATIVE AMERICAN POPULATION.

CONTRACTS FOR THE AWARDEES ARE EXPECTED TO BEGIN FEBRUARY 1ST, 2026 AND END AROUND JANUARY 31ST OF 2027.

OF COURSE, THAT IS ALL PENDING A BUDGET APPROVAL FROM CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT.

WITH YOUR APPROVAL, STAFF WILL RELEASE THE NOFA, COLLECT AND SCORE THE APPLICATIONS AND RETURN TO THE BOARD IN DECEMBER TO PRESENT AWARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO YOU ALL. STAFF REQUESTS BOARD APPROVAL TO BEGIN THAT PROCESS AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

GREAT. THANK YOU MICHAEL. SO HOW DO WE ADVERTISE THE NOFA? I MEAN, IT'S WELL, IT GOES OUT AND IT WILL GO OUT IN THE TEXAS REGISTER.

WE THIS BOTH OF THESE, THE MIGRANT SEASONAL FARMER AND NATIVE AMERICAN APPLICATIONS HAVE HISTORICALLY COME FROM 3 OR 4 ENTITIES ALL ALONG. IN TEXAS, WE HAVE THREE RECOGNIZED NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES.

THEY THERE IS AN ORGANIZATION UP IN DALLAS WHICH I WOULD CALL IT A PAN ORGANIZATION THAT TRIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES AND COORDINATE SERVICES FOR EACH OF THE TRIBES AND INCLUDE SOME OF THE TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA, EVEN THEY'RE THE ONES WHO HISTORICALLY HAVE APPLIED FOR IT.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE HAD ANY OTHER ACTUAL INDIVIDUAL TRIBES APPLY FOR THIS.

THEY ARE ELIGIBLE, BUT THEY HAVE NOT. WE'VE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE CONTACTED THEM TO MAKE THEM AWARE OF IT.

ON THE MIGRANT SEASONAL FARM WORKER APPLICATIONS.

AGAIN, IT GOES OUT THROUGH PUBLIC CHANNELS AND WE HAVE HAD THREE ORGANIZATIONS OVER ABOUT THE LAST SIX YEARS WHO HAVE APPLIED.

TWO OF THEM USUALLY GET IT. SO. OKAY. GREAT. MAYBE LYDALL AND MALONEY CAN HELP SPREAD THE WORD ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND SUCH.

SO USE THOSE RESOURCES. THAT'S THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU.

ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 24 OF THE AGENDA.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THE BOARD, APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE STAFF AS DESIGNATED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO RELEASE A NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY FOR 2026 ESG SVG D FUNDS ALL AS DESCRIBED, CONDITIONED AND AUTHORIZED IN THE BOARD ACTION, REQUEST RESOLUTIONS AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON THIS ITEM.

SECOND MOTION MADE BY MR. THOMAS, SECONDED BY MISS CONROY.

[02:30:04]

MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. 25 HAS BEEN PULLED FROM THE AGENDA TODAY, RIGHT? YES. YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SO MOVING RIGHT ALONG TO.

26. GOD BLESS YOU.

OKAY. 26. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION UNDER THE SECTION EIGHT HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM. MISS. HI. YES I'LL BE SPEAKING A LITTLE LOUDER MAYBE, THAN I WOULD, BUT IT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE AN ATTENDEE HERE THROUGH A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT SHE CAN HEAR ME.

I'M NOT TRYING TO SHOUT. GOOD AFTERNOON. EVERYONE SHOULD SPEAK UP.

THAT'S GOOD. GOOD AFTERNOON. BE CAREFUL. GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD MEMBERS.

I'M ABIGAIL VERSYP, DIRECTOR OF SINGLE FAMILY AND HOMELESS PROGRAMS. AS STATED IN THE AGENDA ITEM, I'M HERE TO PRESENT AN APPEAL FOR A DENIAL OF A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR A SECTION EIGHT HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PARTICIPANT. THE SECTION EIGHT PROGRAM PROVIDES MONTHLY RENTAL SUBSIDY TO A LANDLORD ON BEHALF OF LOW INCOME TENANTS.

THIS HUD FUNDED PROGRAM IS SUBJECT TO THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504 OF THE 1973 REHABILITATION ACT AND THE FAIR HOUSING ACT. EMBEDDED WITHIN THESE REGULATIONS IS THE PRINCIPLE OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY THAT IS PARTICIPATING IN THE PROGRAM AND HAS CODIFIED OUR PROCEDURES FOR REVIEWING THESE REQUESTS IN TEN TAC 1.1 FOR SECTION EIGHT, A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST MADE TO US IS A VARIANCE FROM EXISTING POLICY OR PROCEDURES IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE A DISABILITY, THE TENANT IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN GRANTED A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION AND HAS SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION CURRENTLY GRANTED.

THE TENANT IS A RESIDENT OF GALVESTON COUNTY AND IS A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY.

OUR POLICY STATES THAT SINGLE MEMBER HOUSEHOLDS WILL BE GIVEN A ONE BEDROOM VOUCHER, AS THIS IS SUITABLE FOR THE FAMILY SIZE WITHOUT OVER SUBSIDIZING.

THIS MEANS THAT WHILE THE TENANT CAN SELECT ANY SIZE UNIT TO RENT, THE DEPARTMENT WILL ONLY PAY BASED ON WHAT THE ONE BEDROOM PAYMENT STANDARD IS.

THE FUNDS WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM THE TENANT IF THEY SELECT A LARGER UNIT.

SO IF THEY SELECT A LARGER UNIT THEN THEIR VOUCHER ALLOWS FOR, THEY'LL PAY MORE OUT OF POCKET.

ALTHOUGH THIS TENANT IS A SINGLE MEMBER HOUSEHOLD AND LIVES ALONE, THEY REQUESTED AN ACCOMMODATION FOR A LARGER VOUCHER SIZE BECAUSE THEIR DISABILITY REQUIRES ADDITIONAL SPACE. THE ACCOMMODATION WAS CONSIDERED IN 2021, AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL SPACE WAS REASONABLE AND THE TENANT WAS GRANTED A TWO BEDROOM VOUCHER INSTEAD OF A ONE BEDROOM VOUCHER.

ULTIMATELY, THIS TENANT DECIDED TO RENT A FOUR BEDROOM SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON HIGH ISLAND, WHICH IS ON THE BORDER OF THE TDCA AND CITY OF GALVESTON. SECTION EIGHT HCV SERVICE AREA. SINCE THE TENANT HAD A TWO BEDROOM VOUCHER FOR THEIR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION, THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN CALCULATING THE SUBSIDY USING THE TWO BEDROOM RENT STANDARD.

AT THIS TIME, TDCA IS USING THE CITY OF GALVESTON'S PAYMENT STANDARD OF $1,681 FOR THIS UNIT, BECAUSE THE SMALL AREA FAIR MARKET RENT REGULAR PAYMENT STANDARD IS $1,000 AND THE TENANT IS HELD HARMLESS FOR REDUCED PAYMENT STANDARDS FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME. IN APRIL 2025, THE TENANT AMENDED THEIR ACCOMMODATION REQUEST TO RECEIVE A FOUR BEDROOM VOUCHER INSTEAD OF A TWO BEDROOM VOUCHER, WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE PAYMENT STANDARD USED TO CALCULATE THIS RENT THIS YEAR TO $2,824 PER MONTH, AN INCREASE OF $1,143 MONTHLY.

THE LETTER THEY SUBMITTED IS INCLUDED IN THE ATTACHMENT TO THIS ITEM.

THE TENANT STATES THAT THE CURRENT FOUR BEDROOM PROPERTY THEY OCCUPY MEETS THEIR NEEDS FOR DISABILITY.

THE REQUEST GOES ON TO STATE THAT ACCESSIBLE UNITS ARE LIMITED IN THEIR AREA, AND THAT THE LANDLORD WAS REQUESTING AN INCREASE IN CONTRACT RENT, PROMPTING THE SUBMISSION OF THIS AMENDED REQUEST.

THE REQUEST WAS REVIEWED BY STAFF, AND WHILE STAFF AGREES THAT THE NEED FOR A TWO BEDROOM UNIT TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR DISABILITY IS REASONABLE AND SHOULD REMAIN IN PLACE,

[02:35:06]

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS MUST BE MADE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, AND THE FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION MUST INCLUDE WHETHER THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PERSON'S DISABILITY AND THE ACCOMMODATION REQUESTED.

THIS IS USUALLY PROVIDED IN THE FORM OF A LETTER FROM A KNOWLEDGEABLE THIRD PARTY THAT STATES WHAT ACCOMMODATIONS THE PERSON WOULD NEED BASED ON THEIR DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT PLAN. IN THIS CASE, THE TENANT DID PROVIDE A LETTER FROM THEIR TREATING PHYSICIAN.

A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST MAY BE DENIED IF THERE IS NO DISABILITY RELATED NEED FOR THE ACCOMMODATION, OR THE ACCOMMODATION IS NOT REASONABLE. STAFF DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST FOR A FOUR BEDROOM VOUCHER SIZE COULD NOT BE GRANTED, BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE DISABILITY RELATED NEED FOR THE ACCOMMODATION.

THE ONLY SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE IN THE REQUEST FROM THE INITIAL ACCOMMODATION IS THAT THE LANDLORD WAS GOING TO INCREASE THE RENT.

THE NEEDS EXPRESSED BY THE KNOWLEDGEABLE THIRD PARTY IN 2025 ARE NEAR IDENTICAL TO THE NEEDS EXPRESSED PREVIOUSLY, AND ARE NOT SPECIFIC TO THE NEED FOR FOUR BEDROOMS. STAFF REQUESTED CLARIFICATION FROM THE TENANT PRIOR TO MAKING THIS DECISION.

AS SHOWN IN THE ATTACHMENT TO THE BOARD ITEM, STAFF ASKED FOR VERIFICATION THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE REQUEST AND ESTABLISH THE DISABILITY RELATED NEED. THE TENANT PROVIDED A STATEMENT SAYING THAT THEY NEEDED ONE BEDROOM, OF COURSE, FOR THEMSELVES, ONE BEDROOM FOR STORAGE OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AND MEDICALLY NECESSARY RELATED SUPPLIES SUPPLIES.

THEY NEEDED, ANOTHER BEDROOM FOR STORAGE AND UTILIZATION OF MEDICAL RECORDS, AND THE FOURTH BEDROOM TO PERFORM THERAPEUTIC PROCEDURES THAT REQUIRE OPEN SPACE AND PRIVACY. THAT WOULD ALSO ALLOW AN OVERNIGHT HELPER AS NEEDED FROM TIME TO TIME.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS TENANT DOES NOT REQUIRE A LIVE IN AIDE, SO AN ADDITIONAL BEDROOM FOR A LIVING AIDE IS A STANDARD ACCOMMODATION, BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE FOR THIS PARTICULAR TENANT'S NEEDS.

A TENANT ALSO STATED IN THE TENANT ALSO STATED THAT THEY IF THAT IF THEY COULD NOT OBTAIN THE FOUR BEDROOM VOUCHER THAT THEY WANTED AN EXCEPTION PAYMENT STANDARD PROCESS THAT WOULD EXCEED 120% OF THE FAIR MARKET RENT BRAND, AS THIS REQUEST IS ALSO INTENDED TO INCREASE THE PAYMENT STANDARD. IT WAS ALSO EVALUATED AND DETERMINED TO NOT BE REASONABLE, AS THERE IS NOT A NEXUS BETWEEN THE DISABILITY AND THE INCREASED PAYMENT STANDARD.

THE TENANT STATEMENT THAT THERE ARE VERY LIMITED OPTIONS FOR UNITS THAT MEET THE NEEDS EXPRESSED BY THE KNOWLEDGEABLE THIRD PARTY WERE ALSO REVIEWED.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT TD HAS EIGHT MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES IN THE REGULAR TD SERVICE AREA OF GALVESTON COUNTY, WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE MOST RECENT UNIT VACANCY REPORT, SHOWED 64 AVAILABLE ASSESSABLE TWO BEDROOM UNITS.

TD MAY ALSO EXPAND OUR SERVICE AREA FOR THIS TENANT TO INCLUDE ALL OF GALVESTON COUNTY, WHICH OPENS UP AN ADDITIONAL EIGHT TD PROPERTIES WITH AN ADDITIONAL 100 AVAILABLE, ACCESSIBLE TWO BEDROOM UNITS.

THE TENANT WAS OFFICIALLY NOTIFIED OF THE DENIAL AND APPEALED THE DENIAL TO THE BOARD.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD MAKE THIS FINAL DETERMINATION, AND FURTHER RECOMMENDS THAT THE DENIAL, ON THE BASIS THAT THE REQUEST IS NOT REASONABLE AND THAT THE TENANT'S EXISTING ACCOMMODATION ALLOWS FOR THE ADDITIONAL NEEDED SPACE.

TENANT IS HERE TO SPEAK TODAY. AND I'LL LEAVE THE MATTER OF WHETHER THEY CHOOSE TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES BY PROVIDING COMMENT TO THE BOARD AT THEIR DISCRETION.

THE TENANT IS APPEARING REMOTELY, AS YOU CAN SEE, AS THEY HAVE REQUESTED A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION BECAUSE TRAVELING IS DIFFICULT DUE TO THEIR DISABILITY. SO I HAVE THEM HERE ON TEAMS AND I'LL UNMUTE THEM WHEN IT'S TIME.

I KNOW THIS WAS A LONG PRESENTATION. I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS YOU HAVE ABOUT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY, JUST TO CLARIFY, SO IS THE TENANT CURRENTLY IN A FOUR BEDROOM UNIT? YES. THE TENANT CURRENTLY LIVES IN A FOUR BEDROOM UNIT.

OKAY. DO ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MISS VERSYP? YEAH. WHEN THE TENANT WENT FROM A ONE TO A TWO BEDROOM THEY THEY GOT PERMISSION TO DO THAT, RIGHT? YES. THEY REQUESTED AN ACCOMMODATION. I UNDERSTAND.

AND THAT UNDER REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS, IT IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR THEM TO HAVE TWO BEDROOMS. THAT IS CORRECT. WHEN THEY MOVED FROM THE TWO BEDROOM TO FOUR BEDROOM, DID THEY NOTIFY?

[02:40:04]

THEY'RE ALLOWED TO RENT WHATEVER THE RIGHT, BUT THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO GET HELP FOR A TWO BEDROOM, NOT A FOUR BEDROOM. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. MY EXPERIENCE WORKING ALL THOSE YEARS AT HARD, INCLUDING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF FAIR HOUSING, IS REASONABLE. ACCOMMODATION IS JUST THAT. WHAT IS REASONABLE? AND IF YOU ALLOW SOMEBODY TO GO FROM A ONE BEDROOM, AND THEY GOT THE EXCEPTION TO A TWO BEDROOM, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN A FOUR BEDROOM. YOU'RE OPENING THE FLOODGATES FOR EVERYBODY TO WANT A FOUR BEDROOM APARTMENT AND GETTING COUNTLESS, COUNTLESS APPEALS. SO THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS. IT'S JUST REASONABLE.

WHAT IS REASONABLE? TWO BEDROOMS IS REASONABLE, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF YOU SAYING IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A LIVE IN HELP.

SO THAT'S MY $0.02 WORTH OF THAT, SIR. ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MISS VERSYP BEFORE WE OFFER THE TENANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK? MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD JUST ASK ABOUT PROCEDURE.

IS THIS APPEAL? CAN ONLY BE GRANTED OR DENIED BY THE THE BOARD IN A PUBLIC MEETING THAT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR RULES. THAT'S CORRECT.

SO THE TENANT HAS THE APPEAL HAS ALREADY REACHED THE BOARD.

THIS IS THE FIRST ONE THAT I'M AWARE OF. OKAY.

OKAY, SO THIS IS A LITTLE JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE SECTION EIGHT PROGRAM IS IS RATHER UNIQUE OR DISTINCT.

I SHOULD SAY NOT UNIQUE BUT DISTINCT AT AND THAT WE'RE PROVIDING THE, THE THE VOUCHER DIRECTLY TO A HOUSEHOLD.

SO MOST OF THE TIMES WHEN, WHEN THERE ARE APPEALS, THEY GO TO THE SUBRECIPIENT OR THE OWNER NOT DIRECTLY TO TDA, WHICH IS WHY IF STAFF HAS DENIED THEN THEN UNDER OUR RULES, IT GOES TO THE BOARD BECAUSE THE PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY RULES SO THAT THE THE BOARD HAS TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY. AND WE ARE A BOARD FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PROGRAM.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. HOW SINCE WE'VE NEVER DONE THIS OTHER THAN DURING COVID, I GUESS. BUT I MEAN, WHAT? SO HOW WE THE TENANT AND I DID SOME TEST CALLS, AND WE SETTLED ON.

I HAVE HER ON HER CELL PHONE, BUT ON TEAMS, SO THAT HOPEFULLY YOU'LL BE ABLE TO HEAR HER THROUGH MY COMPUTER SPEAKERS AND SHE'LL BE ABLE TO HEAR YOU IF IT IS OKAY WITH YOU.

I WOULD LIKE TO BRING MY COMPUTER CLOSER TO THE TO THE DAIS.

WE CAN PUT THE MICROPHONE ON THE COMPUTER. DOES THIS MICROPHONE DO ANYTHING? IS MY QUESTION. IT'S IT WAS DIFFICULT TO AND I ASSUME DUE TO HIPAA LAWS AND STUFF, WE ARE NOT GOING TO IDENTIFY THE NAME OF THE TENANT, OR I BELIEVE THAT THE TENANT WOULD STILL HAVE TO IDENTIFY HERSELF. BUT THAT'S, THAT IS THAT IS THAT IS A GOOD LEGAL QUESTION.

IS THE TENANT REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES OR CAN THEY REQUEST AN ACCOMMODATION? WELL, I MEAN, PUBLICLY, OBVIOUSLY THEY NEED TO IDENTIFY HER FOR WHAT YOU ALL HAVE IN THE RECORDS, BUT REQUIRE HER TO BROADCAST HER NAME ON THIS.

I'M NOT I WOULDN'T FORCE SHE'S NOT REQUIRED TO DO THAT.

ARE WE ALLOWED TO ASK WILL SHE DESCRIBE HER DISABILITY, OR ARE WE ALLOWED TO ASK THAT WE SHOULD NOT INQUIRE AS TO THE NATURE OF HER DISABILITY? WE CAN INQUIRE AS TO WHAT SHE NEEDS BASED ON HER DISABILITY.

OKAY, SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO UNMUTE HER AND MAKE SURE SHE HEARD AND UNDERSTANDS THAT SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO IDENTIFY HERSELF BY NAME. OKAY. OKAY.

HELLO. YOU ARE UNMUTED. I THINK. HANG ON JUST ONE MOMENT.

FOR YOUR SPEAKERS ON. I BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE MUTED YOURSELF.

CAN YOU UNMUTE YOURSELF? ABIGAIL, ARE YOUR SPEAKERS ON ON THE COMPUTER? MY SPEAKERS ARE ON. I SEE MY VOICE GOING UP AND DOWN.

NO, THAT'S YOUR MICROPHONE. OH YEAH. MY SPEAKERS ON.

[02:45:03]

SO YOU'RE CURRENTLY PROVIDING A VOUCHER FOR TWO BEDROOM.

SHE IS PAYING THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT. OKAY. YES.

SHE WOULD HAVE TO MOVE. SHE'S NOT REQUIRED TO MOVE, BUT.

BUT IN REALITY, SHE DOESN'T WANT TO ABSORB THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT.

AND HER LANDLORD DOESN'T WANT TO FOREGO THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT.

CORRECT. SHE WOULD HAVE TO MOVE INTO THESE ADDITIONAL UNITS THAT YOU'VE IDENTIFIED ARE AVAILABLE.

SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO MOVE INTO ONE OF THESE UNITS.

NO, I UNDERSTAND. BUT I JUST WANTED THE BOARD TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME UNITS AVAILABLE.

OKAY, I'M GOING TO REMOVE HER FROM THE FROM AND CALL HER RIGHT BACK, BECAUSE I THINK THERE MAY BE AN ISSUE.

I'M GOING TO CALL YOU RIGHT BACK. OKAY.

USE THE TECHNOLOGY. JUST DO.

NOT WANT TO. KNOW? WELL, SOMEBODY SAID THAT HE COULD. HELLO? HI. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS ABBY.

I HOPE YOU WERE ABLE TO HEAR. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. PERFECT. OKAY, THE BOARD'S READY.

OKAY. I'LL JUST MAKE MY STATEMENT HERE, AND THEN I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO YOU.

YES. PUT THE PUT THE MICROPHONE BY THE SPEAKER.

RIGHT THERE. JUST SO YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T NEED TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF BY NAME UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO.

OKAY. OKAY. WELL, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, BUT MY NAME IS DEANNA JENKINS. I AM LOW INCOME, ELDERLY AND DISABLED.

EIGHT YEARS OF DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER CANNOT BE CONVEYED IN THE THREE MINUTES ALLOWED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT I'M HAPPY TO DO MY BEST TO EXPLAIN MYSELF IN AS GREAT DETAIL AS I'M ABLE TO TO CLEAR UP THE MISUNDERSTANDING ON THIS SITUATION.

FIRST OF ALL, GRANTING A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION TO A DISABLED PERSON TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO RENT A HUD.

CDBG PROGRAM UNIT HOME THAT IS FULLY HANDICAPPED COMPLIANT SEEMS REASONABLE WITHOUT MUCH FURTHER AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

HOWEVER, BOTH MYSELF AND MY LANDLORD AND MY DOCTOR HAVE PROVIDED STATEMENTS OF MY NEED FOR HANDICAPPED COMPLIANT HOUSING AND I HAVE PROVIDED THE STAFF WITH MANY REASONS ABOUT WHY I NEED IT. SINCE 2016, WHEN I WAS FIRST GRANTED ENTRY INTO THE HCV PROGRAM.

I HAVE ALSO SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVES OVER THE YEARS SINCE THEN, BUT FOR SOME REASON THAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND MY REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST FOR WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO ALLOW ME TO RENT OR BUY A HOME THAT MEETS MY DISABILITY NEEDS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY ACCOMMODATIONS THAT REQUIRE BEDROOMS EXCEPT IN PAYMENT STANDARD OR HOMEOWNERSHIP OPTIONS HAVE GONE UNACKNOWLEDGED AND UNPROCESSED BY STAFF, WHICH TRANSLATES TO BASICALLY TDCJ A HAS IGNORED ME.

SO MOST RECENTLY, THE FIELD OFFICE OF PMS CHIQUITA ROSS GRACIOUSLY PROVIDED FOR STAFF WITH COUNSEL ABOUT HOW THEIR ACTIONS HAVE BEEN IN ERROR ALL THESE YEARS AND HOW TO CORRECT THEIR ERROR, AND PROVIDED A WRITTEN STATEMENT SUPPORTING MY REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST.

I HAVE MADE A DILIGENT SEARCH STARTING IN 2016 FOR ALTERNATIVE HOUSING, BUT NONE IS AVAILABLE TO ME THAT MEETS MY COMPLEX MEDICAL NEEDS OR MY DOCTOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS, EXCEPT FOR THE HOUSING UNIT I CURRENTLY RESIDE IN.

REGARDING THE BACKGROUND SUMMARY PROVIDED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THERE ARE QUITE A FEW FACTUAL ERRORS IN IT.

FOR EXAMPLE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE STATEMENT THAT I WAS GRANTED A TWO BEDROOM VOUCHER IN 2021.

THAT'S NOT CORRECT. MY REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR WHATEVER WAS NECESSARY WAS MADE IN 2016, BEFORE I EVEN BEGAN TO SEARCH FOR A UNIT. BUT THE DELAY IN PROCESSING AND RESPONDING TO MY REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST HAS BEEN FROM 2016 UNTIL NOW. I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE TWO BEDROOM VOUCHER, BUT IT NEVER DID.

[02:50:04]

A FOUR BEDROOM VOUCHER CHAIR PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN 2016 UPON MY INITIAL RFTA FOR THE HANDICAPPED COMPLIANT UNIT I CURRENTLY RESIDE IN, BUT IT WASN'T, AND NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN FOR WHY IT WASN'T, NOR WAS ANY EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR WHY I WAS NOT PROCESSED FOR A EXCEPTION PAYMENT STANDARD. IN ADDITION, THE NEXT IS PRESENTED DOES NOT CONTAIN REFERENCE TO THE MANY EMAILS AND CONVERSATIONS OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS THAT I HAVE TAKEN PLACE BETWEEN MYSELF AND THE STAFF REGARDING MY NEED FOR THIS REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION.

THOSE CONVERSATIONS ILLUSTRATE MY NEEDS QUITE CLEARLY.

IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED COMPLETE AND ACCURATE INFORMATION ON THIS MATTER.

HUD PAGE TWO 1318 PROVIDES WITH DIRECTIVES AND INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION.

REQUEST HOTLINE MATERIALS PROVIDE GUIDANCE AS WELL.

THE 20 2434 STATES THAT IT IS REQUIRED THAT GRANT REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR DISABLED PERSONS AND GIVES ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PROCESS SUCH REQUESTS. FEDERAL STATUTES CFR 24, SUBTITLE A, PART B, SUBPART C, PARAGRAPH 833, STATES THAT A DENIAL OF A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST IS ONLY JUSTIFIED IF AN UNDUE ADMINISTRATIVE OR FINANCIAL BURDEN EXISTS FOR THE.

FOR THIS BURDEN DOES NOT EXIST FOR CDCA DUE TO VARIOUS WAIVERS, IN SHORT, FOR REIMBURSEMENT OPTIONS AVAILABLE IF NEEDED.

I HAVE BROUGHT ALL OF THESE THINGS TO THE ATTENTION OF FAS STAFF OVER THESE MANY EIGHT YEARS THAT I HAVE BEEN MAKING THIS REQUEST, BUT THOSE THOSE THINGS HAVE BEEN IGNORED AS WELL.

THEREFORE, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST MY REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION BE GRANTED AND PROMPTLY PROCESSED ACCORDING TO HUD GUIDANCE, RETROACTIVE TO 2016 WHEN I FIRST MADE MY REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

GREAT. THANK YOU, MISS JENKINS, FOR PARTICIPATING HERE.

AND WE DID HEAR I THINK WE ALL HEARD. HEARD CLEARLY.

I DO ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS? FOR MISS JENKINS OR MISS VERSYP? IF IF I MAY MISS THE TENANT DID BRING UP OUR PORTFOLIO MANAGER AT HUD WHO HAD BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH HER AND TALKING TO HER ABOUT REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE PORTFOLIO MANAGER WAS CORRECTED BY THE PROGRAM DIRECTOR AND THE HUD FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR AND TOLD TO REFRAIN FROM ISSUING ANY MORE GUIDANCE AND THAT IN THEIR OBSERVATION, THEY HAD NOT MADE AN ERROR THAT THAT WAS A RULE OF REGULATION OR VIOLATION.

SO THAT'S FROM HUD. THAT IS FROM HUD. OKAY. JUST A QUICK QUESTION.

THIS IS A QUESTION FOR OTHER REFERENCES FROM OTHER HUD EXECUTIVES ON THIS MATTER.

THAT WAS MY ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION. IF YOU NEED THOSE THINGS, THEY'RE MOSTLY EMAIL, AND I CAN PROVIDE THEM AT ANY TIME.

BUT I ALREADY PROVIDED THEM TO TO TALK TO EVERYBODY AT THE OFFICE.

NOT VISIBLE. MS. THIS CONVERSATION HAS BEEN GOING ON FROM.

HUD, THE FIELD OFFICES, THE HOUSTON FIELD OFFICE THE OTHER THINK I COULD TAKE HER AND ALL OF THEM SAY, OH YEAH, THAT SOUNDS RIGHT. MY QUESTION IS FOR ABIGAIL ABOUT THAT, ABOUT THAT SHOWING THEM WHERE MULTIPLE PEOPLE WITHIN THE HUD ORGANIZATION HAVE SAID, YEAH, THAT SOUNDS PERFECTLY REASONABLE TO ME.

WHY DON'T YOU, YOU KNOW, GET WITH YOUR FOR ABOUT THAT.

I'VE BEEN GETTING THE RUNAROUND ON THIS. THE PASS THE BUCK ALL THAT JAZZ FOR.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS JENKINS. I THINK WE WE HAVE THE BOARD BOOK, AND WE HAVE THE INFORMATION PRETTY EXTENSIVELY DOCUMENTED HERE IN THE IN THE MATERIALS. AND TRULY, WE CAN'T WE CAN'T, CANNOT ACTUALLY ADD ANY NEW ITEMS AT THIS AT THIS TIME. AND AGAIN, I'LL GIVE MR. MARSHALL, DO YOU WANT TO ASK MISS A QUESTION, OR ARE YOU.

[02:55:02]

YES, SIR. YES, SIR. SINCE THE EXTEMPORANEOUS TESTIMONY WAS READ, DO WE HAVE THE THAT IN THE RECORD? WHAT WAS READ? THE TESTIMONY, I MEAN.

OH, THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE TENANT? YES. THIS IS IN THE RECORD.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. AGAIN. DO ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS? THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO NOT GRANT THE REQUESTS FOR OR THE APPEAL FOR A44 BEDROOM VOUCHER, BUT IT STILL MAINTAINS THE TWO BEDROOM VOUCHER.

THAT. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. OKAY.

I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THE BOARD. I'M SORRY. WE'RE WE'RE KIND OF BEYOND.

WE'RE AT THE MOTION STAGE AT THIS POINT. OKAY.

MISS? YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE. THE BOARD DENIED THE REQUESTED ACCOMMODATION OF INCREASING THE HOUSING VOUCHER FROM A TWO BEDROOM UNIT TO A FOUR BEDROOM UNIT VOUCHER, ALL AS DESCRIBED AND AUTHORIZING THE BOARD ACTION, REQUEST RESOLUTIONS AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU. MOTION MADE BY MISS FARIAS. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? SECONDED BY MR. MARCHANT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MISS. AND THAT ACTUALLY THE TECHNOLOGY THING WORKED OUT PRETTY REASONABLY.

OKAY. ITEM 27. CAN WE JUST SKIP THIS ONE? OKAY.

ITEM 27. EVERYONE WAKE UP. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED REPEAL OF TEN TAC.

CHAPTER 11 CONCERNING THE HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN.

PROPOSED NEW TAC CHAPTER 11 CONCERNING THE SAME AND DIRECTING THEIR PUBLICATION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE TEXAS REGISTER. MR. CAMPBELL WILL LEAD THE DISCUSSION.

WE FOR EVERYONE. JUST TO NOTE THE RECORD, WE DID HAVE A RULES COMMITTEE MEETING YESTERDAY AFTERNOON DISCUSSING ASPECTS OF THE SHAPE.

SO THERE ARE SEVERAL ITEMS I THINK WE RESOLVED.

YES, AND EDITED FOR CONSIDERATION. WE WILL BASICALLY PICK UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS. I THINK I WAS TOLD THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO PUT A DISCUSSION IN FRONT, BUT I THINK THE PERSON I THINK I SAW HER LEAVE.

SO. SO YOU CAN DO IT WHATEVER ORDER YOU WANT.

OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. MR. AND AND EVERYONE. OKAY.

I KNOW THIS GOES WITHOUT SAYING, BUT I'M GOING TO SAY IT. IF YOU ARE COMING TO SPEAK ON THE SAME ISSUE, PROVIDING THE SAME INFORMATION AS ANOTHER SPEAKER BEFORE YOU, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP AND SAY, YOU KNOW, I SUPPORT WHAT ABIGAIL JUST SAID, AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S WITHOUT HAVING TO REPEAT ALL OF THAT AGAIN.

YOU KNOW, THIS CAN BE A TEDIOUS PROCESS. AND IF WE ALL WORK TOGETHER TO, YOU KNOW, BRING UP NEW IDEAS AND NEW ISSUES OR JUST QUICKLY, BRIEFLY CONFIRM, YES, I BACKED THIS THIS PRIOR STATEMENT THAT WILL HELP MOVE THESE THINGS THIS ALONG MUCH, MUCH BETTER. WITH THAT, MR. CAMPBELL. FANTASTIC.

THANK YOU, MR. VASQUEZ. CODY CAMPBELL, DIRECTOR OF MULTIFAMILY PROGRAMS FOR THE DEPARTMENT.

AS MR. VASQUEZ JUST NOTED, WE HAD A FANTASTIC MEETING OF THE RULES COMMITTEE YESTERDAY WHERE SOME DECISIONS WERE MADE AND SOME DIRECTION WAS GIVEN TO STAFF.

I DO HAVE A LIST OF THAT DIRECTION THAT I WILL READ TO THE BOARD PRIOR TO A FINAL MOTION BEING MADE, SO THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT WHAT UPDATES ARE BEING MADE TO THE AP. I AM VERY HAPPY TO SAY THAT WE ARE NEAR THE END OF THE LIST OF AT LEAST WHAT I HAD PLANNED ON SPEAKING ABOUT. WHEN WE ADJOURNED YESTERDAY, WE WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF DISCUSSING THE NEWLY ADDED PROHIBITION ON CASH OUT REFINANCES FOR INDICATED TAX CREDIT DEALS. JUST AS A BRIEF REFRESHER REFRESHER, THIS PROHIBITS ANY RELATED PARTY TRANSACTION, A TAX CREDIT DEVELOPER FROM TAKING THEIR EQUITY OUT AS CASH AT THE TIME OF CLOSING.

THE BOARD HEARD, I BELIEVE, TWO COMMENTS ON THIS PRIOR TO US ADJOURNING YESTERDAY, BUT WE DIDN'T GET TO A POINT WHERE STAFF HAD DIRECTION ON HOW THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO GO.

[03:00:02]

AGAIN, I HAVE OVER THE YEARS WHEN WE'VE SEEN THESE TYPES OF CASH OUTS.

USING 9% TAX CREDITS, WHICH ARE A LIMITED RESOURCE AND ARE DESIGNED, THE INTENT IS TO CREATE NEW HOUSING, NEW UNITS. IT IT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE THAT THE INTENT OF THE PROGRAM IS REFINANCING AND TAKING YOUR CASH OUT.

SURE. AND YES, THERE'S ARGUMENTS. OH, WE'RE GOING TO REINVEST IT.

YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT ALSO REINVEST IT IN YOUR YACHT.

I MEAN, IT'S THERE'S NO CONTROL THAT WE HAVE OF IT.

ON AID FROM THE DEPARTMENT. 4% TAX CREDITS AND REFINANCING AND TAKING THAT CASH OUT STILL ISN'T REALLY THE INTENT, BUT IT'S NOT A LIMITED RESOURCE FOR THAT.

THE DEPARTMENT HAS. SURE. SO I WOULD PROPOSE WE STRUCTURE THE CASH OUT TO HAVE YOUR PROPOSED LANGUAGE, BUT ONLY APPLY TO 9% TAX CREDIT.

REFINANCINGS. SEE HOW THAT GOES FOR THE YEAR OR TWO.

AND THEN WE CAN FIGURE OUT IF WE NEED TO MODIFY IT FROM THERE.

SURE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS THINK, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO HEAR SOME COMMENTS ON THAT.

I AGREE WITH THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE 9%? YES, SIR. IS THERE ANY KIND OF THE STIPULATIONS? GO FOR 30 YEARS, RIGHT? FEDERALLY, THEY GO FOR A MINIMUM OF 30 YEARS WITH THE 9% PROGRAM, BECAUSE EVERYONE WANTS TO SCORE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS. PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, THEY DO GO LONGER THAN 30 YEARS BECAUSE PEOPLE VOLUNTARILY GO LONGER FOR POINTS.

THE ACTUAL REALIZATION OF THE TAX CREDITS COMES WITHIN THE FIRST TEN YEARS, CORRECT? YEAH, OCCASIONALLY THEY CARRY INTO THE 11TH. BUT FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CONVERSATION.

SURE. YEAH. IS THERE A REASONABLE TIME THAT WE COULD PUT ON THERE 15 YEARS, 20 THAT IF IT'S DONE WITHIN THAT PERIOD OF TIME THAT THESE RULES KICK IN, IF IT'S DONE AFTER 20 YEARS OR AND I'M LOOKING AT THE POSSIBILITY OF THE NEED TO SPEND EXTENSIVE MONEY TO REMODEL, TO REMODEL, REFURBISH.

AND THE PURPOSE OF IT WOULD BE IF THEY COULD DO THAT UNDER THIS, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVE UP THE NUMBERS, RIGHT? THEY WOULD. SO THE AS WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, THERE IS A PROHIBITION GOING INTO THE SHAPE, ASSUMING THAT IT PASSES AS WRITTEN, THAT PROHIBITS A 9% DEAL THAT INITIALLY GOT CREDITS FEWER THAN 20 YEARS AGO FOR COMING BACK IN TO RE SYNDICATE.

SO THAT WOULD COVER THE 20 YEAR THING FOR EXISTING 9% DEALS.

WHAT WOULDN'T BE COVERED IS IF THERE WAS A RELATED PARTY TRANSACTION WITH A NON TAX CREDIT DEAL THAT'S BEING BROUGHT INTO THE PROGRAM, SO THAT THE RULE THAT I JUST DISCUSSED WOULD NOT COVER THAT SCENARIO.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF THOSE WE SEE. I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY RARE SETUP FOR A DEAL.

BUT IT IS. I DON'T. I DON'T WANT TO PRACTICALLY TIE THE HANDS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE GENUINELY TRYING TO REFURBISH AND IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME.

SO IF SOMEBODY GETS FIVE YEARS IN AND THEY'RE TRYING TO FLIP THE DEAL AND SELL IT, THEY EITHER SELL IT OR THEY CAN SELL IT, RIGHT? AND WE HAVE NO I MEAN, IT ALL CARRIES OVER TO THE NEW OWNER.

ALL THE RESTRICTIONS. YES. THE THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU GET OUT OF THE RESTRICTIONS IS EITHER THROUGH FORECLOSURE OR GOING THROUGH A PROCESS CALLED QUALIFIED CONTRACT, WHICH IS PRETTY RARE, OR THEM JUST NATURALLY EXPIRING.

OKAY. THAT'S MY GREAT. THANK YOU. DOES ANY WOULD YOU BE AMENABLE TO THE TEN YEAR PERIOD? THE COMPLIANCE PERIOD. FOR FOURS AND TENS.

BUT THEN IN YEAR 11 THEY CAN USE TAX CREDITS TO REFI.

NO, I DON'T MEAN THEY JUST THEY CAN USE 9% TAX CREDITS TO REPAY.

SO AS IT'S WRITTEN NOW, WE'RE NOT LETTING PEOPLE APPLY FOR 9% CREDITS TO SYNDICATE UNTIL YOU'RE 20.

[03:05:06]

SURE. YEAH. AND THEN FOR FOURS, I MEAN, THEY WOULDN'T BE ELIGIBLE TILL YEAR 15 ANYWAY, RIGHT? YEAH. SO THAT KIND OF TIMING IS ALREADY. YEAH.

IN THERE. AND WE HAVE MINIMUMS PER DOOR. RIGHT.

FOR REHAB THAT WE, THAT WE'RE UPPING CORRECT.

PRETTY SUBSTANTIALLY, BUT PROBABLY JUST IN LINE WITH CPI OR ANYTHING.

RIGHT. YEAH. SO BUT YEAH, ISSUE FOR US IS CASH OUTS.

ARE THEY PROHIBITED? RIGHT. THERE'S A LOT OF TESTIMONY YESTERDAY ABOUT.

WELL, WE SHOULD ALLOW A REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN. THEY SAID, WHY DON'T WE ALLOW IT FOR FOURS? BUT NOT NINES. NINES. A LOT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION ANYWAY, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, WE COULD GET MORE DETAILED NEXT YEAR.

YEAH. NOT THAT I'M TRYING TO KICK THE CAN. RIGHT.

OKAY. DO WE HEAR ANY VEHEMENT OBJECTION FROM THE IDEA FROM ALL Y'ALL? MAYBE THIS IS A COMPROMISE, THAT INTERIM STEP, AND THEN SEE HOW WE ADJUST IT.

SO, CODY, WHAT'S THE NEXT TOPIC? THE NEXT TOPIC CONCERNS GENERAL CONTRACTOR FEES.

SO WE HAVE ADDED LANGUAGE TO THE SHAPE. THIS IS ON PAGE 174.

AND DO YOU REMEMBER THAT'S THE PAGE NUMBER AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SHAPE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.

WE HAVE ADDED LANGUAGE THAT SAYS ANY FEES PAID TO AN ORGANIZATION TO ACHIEVE A SALES TAX EXEMPTION WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR FEE.

SO AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, THERE IS A LIMIT ON HOW MUCH A GENERAL CONTRACTOR CAN BE.

IT IS 14%. WE HAVE ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE A NONPROFIT STEP IN AS SORT OF A SHELL GENERAL CONTRACTOR.

THE REASON THAT THEY DO THAT IS BECAUSE BY HAVING THAT NONPROFIT IN PLACE AS THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, THEY ACHIEVE A SALES TAX EXEMPTION FOR THEIR SUPPLIES.

AND CURRENTLY, THE FEES THAT ARE PAID TO THAT NONPROFIT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THAT 14%.

WE ARE PROPOSING THAT THEY SHOULD BE, AS THAT ENTITY IS ACTING AS THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IN THE DEAL.

SO IF IT'S $10 MILLION WORTH OF MATERIALS. SURE.

YOU'RE GETTING A 60 $80,000 $80,000 AT 8%. YES, SIR.

CORRECT. FOR THE MATERIAL. RIGHT. BECAUSE THEY'RE OPERATING AS A NONPROFIT.

CORRECT. AND IT'S NEVER REALIZED. IT'S JUST LOST THE THE SAVINGS, REDUCE THE DEVELOPMENT COST.

BUT THEY ARE PAYING ORGANIZATIONS, PRESUMABLY SOME PERCENT OF, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY THE 80,000, IN YOUR EXAMPLE, THEY'RE PAYING THAT ORGANIZATION TO STEP IN AND ACT AS THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR.

THAT'S CORRECT. SO WE SAY 10 MILLION IN MATERIALS.

YEAH. TEN WOULDN'T IT BE 825,000? OH THAT'S CORRECT.

YEAH. THAT'S A LOT MORE. YEAH. RIGHT. YEAH. IT'S A BIG.

SO THAT'S LOST FOREVER, RIGHT. WHO WHO ENDS UP BEING THE BENEFICIARY OF THAT? THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF HAS THAT LOWER CONSTRUCTION COST, WHICH GIVES THEM MORE MONEY TO SERVICE DEBT AND HANDLE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY NEED TO DO. BUT IT JUST COMES OFF THE COST OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO THE CITIES, THE TRANSIT SYSTEMS, ALL THE ENTITIES THAT WOULD HAVE RECEIVED THAT MONEY LOSE IT.

THE SALES TAX. YES, SIR. YEAH, 6% THE STATE. RIGHT.

SO YES, 6% STATE SALARY IS PRETTY IMPORTANT, RIGHT? SO HOW MANY HOW MANY DEALS DOES THIS BECOME A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR IN? I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO LOOK AT JENA TO SEE IF SHE KNOWS OFF THE TOP OF HER HEAD PERCENTAGE.

I KNOW IT'S NOT 100% OF THEM. I FEEL LIKE BARRY MANILOW RIGHT NOW.

WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE DEALS ARE BRINGING IN A NONPROFIT GC TO GET THE SALES TAX EXEMPTION? SOME. NONE. MOST.

GINA ADAMS, DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE ANALYSIS. I CAN'T TELL YOU AN EXACT NUMBER, BUT IT'S QUITE A IT'S QUITE A FEW.

I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD SAY 50%, BUT PROBABLY, PROBABLY QUITE A FEW.

OKAY. SORRY, I DON'T KNOW OKAY. THAT'S FINE. THAT'S FINE.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING THE LEGISLATURE MR. WHO BENEFITS? THE DEAL GETS STRONGER. MAYBE IT WOULDN'T PENCIL OUT OTHERWISE.

ALSO, THE ENTITY, YOU KNOW, THE HFC OR WHATEVER THAT'S HELPING THEM, NOT JUST WITH THE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION,

[03:10:01]

YEAH. GOTCHA. OKAY. THANKS. ALL RIGHT.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE COMMENTS ON THIS THIS CHANGE? THIS WAS A POPULAR ONE, RIGHT? YEAH. CARSON. SORRY.

GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN, BOARD STAFF CARSTEN LOWE WITH JPI AND CHAIR OF THE TAPP SHAPE COMMITTEE.

I THINK THE CRUX OF OUR CONCERN WITH THIS LANGUAGE IS CURRENTLY THAT IT IS BEING SUBTRACTED OUT OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR FEE.

SO I THINK THE FEAR THERE IS TYPICALLY YOU HAVE THIS ENTITY, THIS NONPROFIT ENTITY THAT IS FUNCTIONALLY A SHELL CORPORATION THAT'S LENDING ITS NAME FOR THIS BENEFIT. AND THAT BENEFIT IS WHAT HELPS MAKE THESE PROJECTS FEASIBLE.

WE'VE SEEN RISING COSTS AND THE CHALLENGES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AT LARGE.

AND SO BY REALIZING THIS BENEFIT, IT IS MORE AKIN TO A CREDIT ENHANCER AND HELPING THE PROJECT BE FINANCIALLY VIABLE.

I THINK WHERE THE CHALLENGE STARTS TO COME IN IS WHEN YOU EVALUATE THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY TAKING THAT OUT OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S FEE ITSELF.

THAT'S THE GROUP THAT'S BOOTS ON THE GROUND, THAT'S BUILDING THESE DEALS IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO WHEN WE SEE THAT THERE ARE GENERAL CONTRACTORS, WHETHER IT'S RELATED OR THIRD PARTY, THE GENERAL CONDITIONS ARE GETTING EXORBITANTLY HIGH.

THE FEE, DEPENDING ON HOW THAT MATH SHAKES OUT THE SHAPE BREAKS IT OUT INTO 6.62 FOR THE TOTAL 14%.

BUT WHAT THAT'S DOING IS YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING SOME OF THE FEE FOR THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR THAT'S DOING THE WORK, THAT'S ACTUALLY BUILDING THIS, THAT'S TAKING THE BRUNT OF THE LIABILITY, CAN NO LONGER GET A PORTION OF THEIR FEE BECAUSE THAT'S NOW HAVING TO BE PAID TO A GROUP.

AND SO I THINK THAT'S OUR BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT THAT IS MORE OF A DETRIMENT TO THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR THAT'S ACTUALLY BUILDING THIS.

OKAY. THANKS, CARSON. NEXT TOPIC.

I LET IT RIDE. OKAY. CONTINUE. VERY GOOD. THIS IS THE LAST THING I HAVE ON MY LIST.

AND THIS IS ON PAGE 120 IN YOUR SHAPE. AND THIS CONCERNS ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS.

YOU WILL NOTICE THAT A LOT OF LANGUAGE HERE HAS BEEN DELETED, STARTING WITH SUBPARAGRAPH B, WHICH IS ABOUT A QUARTER OF THE WAY DOWN THE PAGE.

SO AS IT STANDS CURRENTLY, THERE ARE FEDERAL ACCESSIBILITY LAWS.

THERE ARE STATE ACCESSIBILITY LAWS, WHICH ARE LESS RESTRICTIVE AND MORE SPECIFIC TO THINGS THAT AREN'T COVERED BY FEDERAL ACCESSIBILITY LAWS.

AND THEN THE SHAPE ALSO INCLUDES AN ADDITIONAL ACCESSIBILITY STANDARD CALLED THE VISITABILITY RULE.

THE VISITABILITY RULE APPLIES ESSENTIALLY TO ALL DEVELOPMENTS, BUT THE PURPOSE OF THE VISITABILITY RULE IS TO COVER TYPES OF UNITS THAT ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE FAIR HOUSING ACT.

THE BEST EXAMPLE OF THIS ARE MULTI-STORY TOWNHOUSE UNITS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT COVERED BY THE FAIR HOUSING ACT.

YOU ARE ALLOWED FEDERALLY TO BUILD THOSE TYPES OF UNITS WITHOUT FOLLOWING THOSE, ALL OF THE FEDERAL ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES.

AND SO YEARS AGO, HCA INSERTED INTO THE SHAPE A VISITABILITY STANDARD THAT GOES BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED FEDERALLY TO COVER ALL UNITS, INCLUDING UNITS THAT ARE NOT COVERED BY THE FAIR HOUSING ACT.

STAFF IS PROPOSING THAT WE REPEAL THE VISITABILITY RULE AND APPLY ONLY THE ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTE TO ALIGN THE SHAPE WITH EXISTING LAWS WITHOUT GOING FURTHER THAN WHAT THOSE LAWS REQUIRE.

SO THE LANGUAGE IN HERE WE'RE CITING 2306 .514.

YES, SIR. IS THAT STANDARD CODIFIED THEIR. MORE STRICT THAN FEDERAL OR IS IT MORE LENIENT THAN FEDERAL? IS IT THE EXACT SAME.

SO, SO THAT LAW, THAT RULE SPECIFICALLY OR THAT STATUTE, I SHOULD SAY.

23 06.5 14 APPLIES SPECIFICALLY TO SINGLE FAMILY RENTAL HOUSING.

AND SO IF YOU WERE BUILDING A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS WITH THESE FUNDS, YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS OUTLINED IN 23 06.5 14, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF STORIES.

CORRECT. IT'S JUST SINGLE FAMILY RENTAL HOUSING.

YEAH. SO FOR THE APPLIES TO ALL, DO WE REALLY NEED TO SAY OF ONE OR MORE STORIES.

JUST SURE CLARIFICATION PURPOSES. WE WOULD WE WOULD WANT TO SAY THAT BECAUSE THE THE STANDARD ITSELF REFERENCES

[03:15:07]

SO YEAH, I DON'T SEE THERE'S ANY. IS THERE A MASSIVE RISK FOR TAKING OUT THE SUPPLEMENTAL REQUIREMENTS? RISK? NO, BECAUSE WE WOULD STILL BE COMPLYING WITH FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTE.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO INTENTION DOESN'T APPLY TO MULTIFAMILY AT ALL. 23 06.5 14 APPLIES TO SINGLE FAMILY RENTAL, BUT ALL OF THE OTHER FEDERAL STANDARDS DO APPLY TO MULTIFAMILY.

SO THERE IS STILL SO IT'S IT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO RENTAL.

IT ACTUALLY APPLIES TO HOMEOWNERSHIP AS WELL.

OH INTERESTING. IT'S THAT PART OF THE STATUTE THAT APPLIES TO ALL PROGRAMS BUT NOT MULTIFAMILY.

NOT NOT MULTIFAMILY. IT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED IN THE PAST TO APPLY TO ANYTHING THAT ISN'T COVERED BY THE FAIR HOUSING ACT.

I THINK YOU CAN READ IT TO COVER JUST THIS. OKAY.

BUT MULTIFAMILY HAS ALL KINDS OF OTHER ACCESSIBILITY AND VISIBILITY VISITABILITY RULES COVERED MULTIFAMILY UNITS DO, WHICH WOULD EXCLUDE, FOR EXAMPLE, TOWNHOUSES.

YEP. BUT TOWNHOUSES SINGLE FAMILY. WE IN DRAFTING THIS HAVE INTERPRETED THAT STANDALONE TOWNHOUSES ARE SINGLE FAMILY AND WOULD BE COVERED BY 2300 6.5 14.

BUT A MULTIFAMILY ATTACHED TOWNHOUSE WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY 2306 514 WOULD BE COVERED BY MULTIFAMILY.

NO RULES. NO, IT WOULD NOT. THE FAIR HOUSING ACT SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS TOWNHOMES FROM THE ACT'S COVERAGE.

SO EVEN MULTIFAMILY. FAMILY. SO MULTI UNIT TOWNHOME A MULTI UNIT TOWNHOME IS IS EXEMPT FROM THE FAIR HOUSING ACT COVERAGE.

THE TRIGGERS FOR RESIDENCES. WELL IT'S THE SINGLE RESIDENCE WOULD BE FINE.

BUT IF YOU HAD AN APARTMENT FOR YOU PROBABLY KNOW THAT.

OKAY SO SO WHAT'S NOT COVERED BY THE FAIR HOUSING ACT ARE THREE UNITS OR LESS.

SO SINGLE FAMILY BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED BEFORE MARCH 13TH, 1991 FOR FIRST USE AND TOWNHOMES. THEY'RE JUST THEY'RE JUST NOT COVERED BY THE THREE UNITS OR LESS.

NO. BECAUSE IF THEY'RE BUILDING, IF THEY'RE IF THEY'RE CONNECTED MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS, THEY ARE.

BUT THEY'RE THEY ARE ON TWO FLOORS. IT'S NOT A COVERED BUILDING.

THEY ARE COVERED. TOWNHOMES ARE COVERED BY 504.

SO THE 5% AND THE 2% THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE RULES.

IF YOU HAD A TOTAL TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT JUST OF MULTI-STORY TOWNHOMES, RIGHT? THAT WOULD BE COVERED. THE OTHER THE OTHER THING THAT'S NOT COVERED UNDER THE FAIR HOUSING ACT IS UNITS THAT ARE NOT ON THE GROUND FLOOR.

SO OR AN ELEVATOR SHAFT BUILDING. SO YOUR YOUR 88 UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ONLY THE FOUR UNITS ON THE GROUND FLOOR COVERED UNITS ON THE ON THE UPPER FLOOR OR NOT. BUT THESE ARE FEDERAL STANDARDS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

SO THAT'S AND YOU SEE WHY WE'RE TRYING TO SIMPLIFY THIS IN ANY WAY THAT WE CAN.

OKAY. SO IN THIS YOU'VE GONE TO THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 2306 514.

IS THAT EQUIVALENT TO THE FAIR HOUSING STANDARDS? IS THAT OR IS THAT SOMETHING DIFFERENT? IT IS A DIFFERENT STANDARD THAT APPLIES TO SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING.

AND I COULD PULL UP MEGAN, DO YOU KNOW OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD THE STANDARDS THAT ARE INCLUDED? I KNOW IT TALKS ABOUT DOOR WIDTHS AND SOME THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO IT HAS TO BE THERE'S A RAMP. THERE ARE CERTAIN WIDTHS TO THE, THE, THE KITCHEN AND THE BATHROOM, BUT IT IS NOT THE SAME STANDARD AS THE FAIR HOUSING.

NO. AND AND IT DOESN'T COVER COMMON AREAS. NOW ON A, ON A ON A DEVELOPMENT THAT HAD LET'S SAY LET'S SAY IT HAD A, A FOUR STORY TOWER AND THEN IT HAD SINGLE FAMILY UNITS AROUND IT.

THE COMMON AREAS WOULD BE COVERED BECAUSE THEY'RE COVERED BY THE BUILDING THAT IS COVERED UNDER THE FAIR HOUSING ACT.

EXCELLENT. OKAY. BY THE WAY, IS SOMEONE PLAYING SOMETHING ON A SPEAKER? NOT. NOT ON EARPHONES OR SOMETHING. I MEAN, I CAN BARELY HEAR IT, BUT JUST ENOUGH TO ANNOY ME.

[03:20:08]

LEAVE THE ROOM. OKAY. SO, CODY, WHAT'S NEXT OR.

THAT'S MY WHOLE LIST. SO. YEAH. YEAH, I WAS GOING TO SAY.

NOW, LET'S HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE TOPIC WE'VE ALREADY COVERED OR A NEW AREA, SO PLEASE COME ON UP. REMEMBER, IDENTIFY YOURSELF.

YOU STILL GOT THE SIGN IN SHEET OVER HERE.

HI. GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME IS TANYA LAVELLE.

I'M WITH DISABILITY RIGHTS TEXAS. I'M GOING TO COMMENT ON THE ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, BUT I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO COME UP, AND WE HAVE OTHER THINGS TO SAY ABOUT THAT. SO I'LL START OFF BY SAYING THAT THIS IS COMPLICATED.

DO I THINK THIS IS THE COMPLICATED THING WE SHOULD TAKE OUT OF THE SHIP? I WOULD SAY NO. THIS RULE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED FOR DECADES, AND I WILL.

STEPHANIE GAVE ME PERMISSION TO MENTION THIS ON HER BEHALF.

YOU KNOW, SHE SAW THAT SHE WAS RELEGATED UP TO THE TOP OF THE ROOM. SHE COULDN'T EVEN GET DOWN HERE TO USE THE MICROPHONE, AND SHE NEEDED TO AND SHE SAID THAT THEY'D BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR DECADES, AND THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE DONE WITH IT, BECAUSE THIS CAME INTO STATUTE IN TEXAS AND NOT STATUTE IN THE SHAPE IN 2018 AFTER A LONG DISCUSSION. AND THAT WAS NOT EVEN THE BEGINNING OF THE RULE. THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS IS THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO MAKE IT SO THAT EVERYONE CAN GET INTO EVERYONE'S APARTMENT, LIKE, THAT'S THAT'S THE DEAL IT APPLIES TO. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO MANY PEOPLE.

IT DOES NOT APPLY TO MANY UNITS, BUT IT IS CRITICAL FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES LIVING IN THOSE TYPES OF ARCHITECTURE.

AND WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW THE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON TO PROMOTE DENSITY, TO REWARD DENSITY. SO WE'RE BUILDING UP. WE'RE NOT BUILDING OUT ANYMORE. TOWNHOMES ARE GOING TO BE MORE COMMON. THEY'RE GOING TO BE MORE DESIRABLE, WHICH IS GREAT BECAUSE IT IS A GREAT WAY TO PUT UNITS ON THE GROUND. HOWEVER, SAYING THAT STICKING THE, YOU KNOW, THE SINGLE MOBILITY ACCESSIBLE YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE IN SOME OF THESE LARGER COMPLEXES, WITHOUT THESE VISITABILITY STANDARDS, THERE IS A VERY HIGH CHANCE THAT WHOEVER IS LIVING IN THAT UNIT CANNOT GET TO THEIR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. THEY CAN'T GET INTO THE DOORS.

AND LIKE YOU KNOW, MEGAN WAS SPECIFYING THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM ACCESSIBILITY.

ACCESSIBILITY IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT. THESE STANDARDS, THESE VISITABILITY STANDARDS ARE LITERALLY JUST MAKING IT SO SOMEONE IN A WHEELCHAIR CAN GET THROUGH THE DOOR. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MASSIVE TURN RADIUSES IN BATHROOMS. YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T NEED RETROFITTED PIPES OR ANYTHING.

IT IS BARE MINIMUM STUFF TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES CAN ACTUALLY ENJOY TOWNHOMES, JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE PEOPLE LIVING THERE, WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT.

AND IT IS CURRENTLY BEYOND WHAT FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTE REQUIRE.

AND THAT WAS ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT TEXAS HUNG ITS HEAD ON.

THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WE ALWAYS SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DOING MORE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. LOOK AT THIS VISITABILITY STANDARD THAT WAS DISCUSSED FOREVER. AND I WAS ACTUALLY LOOKING BACK, I WAS IN SOME OF THESE MEETINGS. BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS FUNNY SEEING WHAT FORMER EDITOR TIM IRVINE WAS SAYING ABOUT IT AND SOME OF THESE MEETINGS I WILL QUOTE HIM.

HE SAID THE REAL SIMPLE VERSION IS WE'RE PAYING FOR IT.

SO WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO MAKE YOUR UNITS VISITABLE.

AND HE ALSO SAID, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, EVERYONE NEEDS A VISITABLE UNIT. YOU NEVER KNOW WHO'S GOING TO COME AND SEE YOU. SO I FEEL LIKE THOSE TWO THINGS ARE A PRETTY PLAIN WAY OF STATING WHAT VISITABILITY IS AND WHY IT'S IMPORTANT NOW, WHY IT HAS BEEN IMPORTANT IN THE PAST, AND WHY NOW IS REALLY NOT THE TIME BASED ON THE WAY THAT ARCHITECTURE IS GOING TO START GOING UP IN TEXAS TO CLAW BACK THAT SMALL, YOU KNOW, LITTLE ACCESSIBILITY EXTRA THAT WE GIVE TO PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES LIVING IN LATEX.

YOU'RE WELCOME. GOOD JOB. OKAY, SO WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT 514, RIGHT? NO. OKAY, SO THIS WHOLE LANGUAGE IS BEING DELETED.

SO IF THESE ARE NOT THE SAME STANDARDS THAT ARE UNDER 514 OKAY.

SO 514 IS MORE INCLUSIVE. IT'S IT'S MORE INCLUSIVE THAN WHAT WE HAVE.

I MEAN IT'S IT'S IT'S NARROWER THAN WHAT WE HAD.

WHAT WE HAD WAS INCLUSIVE OF THE 514 STANDARDS, BUT IT COVERED MORE.

EXCEPT FOR THE VISIBILITY VISIBILITY PORTIONS.

NO, IT COVERED MORE TYPES OF UNITS. IT COVERED DUPLEXES, IT COVERED ADAPTIVE REUSE.

IT COVERED. SO THERE'S SOME TYPES OF BUILDINGS THAT DON'T HAVE TO BE VISIBLE.

THEY ALL HAVE TO BE ACCESSIBLE TO WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, AGREEMENT. EXCEPT IF WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER. THE ONES ARE NOT COVERED, LIKE MEGAN WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN EARLIER, THE ONE BEDROOM, TWO BEDROOM, THREE BEDROOM DUPLEXES, THE VERY, YOU KNOW, SMALL CHUNK OF WHAT WE CALL, YOU KNOW, MORE SINGLE FAMILY TYPES. THEY'RE HELD TO DIFFERENT STANDARDS, AND THE VISITABILITY STANDARD IS BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED IN STATE AND

[03:25:09]

YEAH, YEAH. NOT AN ATTORNEY. YEAH, JUST JUST AN ADVOCATE.

OKAY, SO YOU'RE SAYING PLEASE DON'T TAKE OUT THIS.

DON'T TAKE IT OUT. WE ALSO DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT. THIS WASN'T PART OF THE FIRST STAFF DRAFT.

NO ONE EVER ASKED US, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS KIND OF INTERESTING BECAUSE WE ARE THE DISABILITY AGENCY.

AND BASED ON THE FACT THAT WHEN THIS RULE CAME INTO STATUTE OR I KEEP SAYING STATUTE CAME INTO THE QIP, THIS WAS DISCUSSED FOR MONTHS WITH THE DEVELOPER WITH A DISABILITY ADVOCATES.

THERE WERE MONTHLY ROUND TABLES WE WOULD BRING IN DIFFERENT GROUPS. THE DISABILITY ADVISORY WORK GROUP WAS ACTIVE THEN, AND THEY WERE CONSISTENTLY ASKED ABOUT KIND OF WHAT THEY THOUGHT ABOUT ANY OF THIS.

WE YOU KNOW, I KNOW IT'S TOUGH WORK TO DO THIS.

AND STAFF IS UNDER, YOU KNOW, TIGHT GUIDELINES.

BUT WE LITERALLY DIDN'T SEE THIS. WE ME UNTIL MONDAY.

OKAY. LET'S GET A LITTLE BIT MORE INPUT. CATHERINE, DO YOU WANT TO TALK ON THE SAME TOPIC? SURE. CATHERINE SA SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF TAP.

LIKE TANYA, WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THIS CHANGE WAS COMING.

I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHY THE CHANGE IS HAPPENING OR EXACTLY HOW IT APPLIES.

SO, I MEAN, WE WE'VE HAD THIS RULE IN PLACE FOR A LONG TIME, AND WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT AS IT EXISTS.

DID THE NEW ONE WITH THE 2306? WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT THIS SECTION THAT I'VE NEVER HEARD OF BEFORE.

IS IT IS THAT INTENDED BECAUSE I KEEP HEARING THAT IT'S SINGLE FAMILY.

SO IS THAT INTENDED TO ALSO APPLY TO MULTIFAMILY? NO. SINGLE FAMILY. THE TAX RATE. SURE. BUT SO THE THE VISITABILITY STUFF THAT WE'VE HAD TO DO FOR MULTIFAMILY IS STILL IN PLACE OR IS NOT. OKAY.

I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR A LONG TIME, AND IF YOU PUT IT BACK IN, IT'S A BIG DEAL TO US.

SO THIS IS A STAFF GENERATED CHANGE. IT WASN'T DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT WAS REQUESTED BY INDUSTRY.

THERE IS AN INTENTION OF FROM STAFF TO ALIGN OUR SHAPE WITH WHAT IS REQUIRED FEDERALLY AND BY STATE STATUTE.

SO MR., HAS IT BEEN A PROBLEM? DO YOU HAVE AN INSTANCE WHERE THIS HAS BECOME A REAL PROBLEM WITH THE AGENCY, AND YOU'VE HAD TO NAVIGATE AND SPEND HOURS AND HOURS OF TIME SURE.

WORKING AROUND THIS, OR IS IT JUST A AN ALIGNMENT? RIGHT THERE. THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO WORK OUT.

IT DOES CAUSE HEADACHES PERIODICALLY THOUGH. YEAH.

AND THE VISIBLE VISIBILITY CORRECT IS THE CORRECT PROBLEM.

SO CAN WE REFERENCE 514 AND KEEP SOME SORT OF VISIBILITY LANGUAGE.

CERTAINLY. YEAH. WE COULD RESTORE THIS LANGUAGE CONFLICT.

I MEAN, THERE'S NO CONFLICT. NO. I MEAN, IF YOU DON'T MAKE THE CHANGE, THESE THINGS JUST LEAVE IT LIKE IT WAS.

YEAH. YEAH. WELL, IS THERE SOMETHING IN 2306, 514 THAT IS USEFUL IF YOU'VE IF, IF YOU'VE I BELIEVE I, I WISH MIKE WERE HERE. HE'S THE STANDARDS EXPERT.

BUT I BELIEVE THAT IF YOU COMPLY WITH HOW THE RULE WAS, YOU ARE COMPLYING WITH 2306 BECAUSE THIS IS BROADER THAN, WHAT, 2306 514 SETS. OKAY. AND.

SO OUR LANGUAGE ALREADY INCLUDES 2306 514. AND WE HAVE THIS EXTRA LANGUAGE ON VISITED CORRECT. AND WE APPLY IT TO MORE DEVELOPMENTS THAN WHAT 514 SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES.

OKAY. SO 514 IS A MINIMUM STANDARD. IT'S NOT A LIMITING CORRECT APPLICATION.

[03:30:04]

WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT THAT'S A BASELINE. AND WE'RE DOING THESE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

THAT IS CORRECT. YES. BYE BYE. WE TDCA. SO WE'RE SAYING THIS IS THE 514 REQUIREMENT.

AND FOR VISITABILITY IT ALSO APPLIES TO ALL THESE OTHER TYPES OF UNITS.

AND WE'VE ADDED A FEW ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THE INDUSTRY, THE DEVELOPERS ARE FINE WITH THE WAY WE'VE HAD IT.

MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I SUGGEST THAT WE LEAVE IT IN THERE LIKE IT IS AND NEXT YEAR IN SHAPE? YOU BRING THIS AS A SPECIFIC STANDALONE, HAVING CONSULTED WITH THE SURE THE ADVOCATES.

AND IF YOU CAN KIND OF TELL US WHY IT'S SUCH A PROBLEM AND DECIDE SOME SPECIFIC INCIDENTS AND REVISIT IT.

SURE. OKAY, SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE THE EDIT ON PAGE 118 EIGHT B WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT AS AS IT WAS CORRECT AS IT IS. QUESTION I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR ON ONE THING.

IF YOU PUT THIS BACK. I JUST WANT TO KNOW THIS.

YOU ARE GOING BEYOND WHAT THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS ARE.

YES, MA'AM. OKAY. AND THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN DOING THIS IN THE PAST.

CORRECT? AND YOU'RE SAYING THIS REALLY HAS NOT CREATED ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS OR BARRIERS.

NOT THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO WORK OUT WHEN THEY HAVE POPPED UP.

CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT FOR A SECOND? SURE. SOMEBODY TURNS IN AN APPLICATION FOR TOWNHOMES.

THEY DON'T INCLUDE LIFTS AS REQUIRED TO GET TO THE SECOND FLOOR.

WE WORK WITH THEM TO GET THE LIFTS INSTALLED.

WE'VE HAD PEOPLE HAVE TO MOVE CLOSETS BEFORE WE HAVE GONE OUT TO DO THE FINAL CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND FOUND ISSUES THAT HAD TO BE ADDRESSED.

SO AGAIN, IT'S NOTHING THAT HASN'T BEEN CORRECTABLE, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN ISSUES THAT WE'VE HAD TO WORK THROUGH.

THE LAST THING IS THE 504 THING, NOT THIS THING.

OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. LET'S NOT MAKE THE CHANGE. OKAY.

ARE YOU GOOD, TANYA? THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE HAVE A TOPIC THAT WE DIDN'T ADDRESS FULLY? HI TIM WALCOTT, OPPORTUNITY HOME SAN ANTONIO WROTE MY NAME DOWN ALREADY.

I MISSED THE MEETING YESTERDAY, AND I HEARD IT WAS REALLY WELL.

WENT REALLY WELL, BUT I HAD A CONFLICT SO I COULDN'T ATTEND, SO I WANTED TO AT LEAST BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT MY COMMENT.

AND I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE BOARD FOR THE SERVICE. YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY HARD TO PUT AFFORDABLE UNITS ON THE GROUND RIGHT NOW WITH CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND INTEREST RATES. AND SO IT'S A BIG CHALLENGE, AND WE'RE TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO NOT PUT UP ANY BARRIERS TO BUILDING MORE UNITS. AND THERE'S A PROPOSED RULE CHANGE THAT PUTS TWO POINTS.

TWO MORE POINTS IF THERE IS IF YOU'RE PAYING TAXES.

AND THAT'S A BIG CHALLENGE FOR US. WE ALREADY HAVE BIG HOUSING GAPS.

THERE'S A LOT OF DEVELOPERS THAT COME TO US AS PARTNERSHIPS, SO WE SEE THE PRO FORMAS AND THERE'S GAPS, AND PAYING TAXES IS JUST GOING TO MAKE IT WORSE.

AND SO I WANT THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THAT IF YOU GET MORE POINTS BY PAYING TAXES, THAT'S JUST ANOTHER BARRIER TO BE ABLE TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

YOU KNOW BOBBY WILKINSON CAME DOWN TO SAN ANTONIO RECENTLY ABOUT A MONTH AGO TO ONE OF OUR GROUNDBREAKINGS.

IT'S CALLED SNOWDEN APARTMENTS. AND THAT ONE IS A GREAT APARTMENT BECAUSE IT WAS A 9% TAX CREDIT.

IT'S 135 UNITS, AND WE PUT 40% OF THE UNITS SERVING PEOPLE, 0 TO 15%.

AMI AND THAT'S A CHALLENGE BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THE TDCA DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, SET ASIDE UNITS FOR THAT LOW INCOME.

AND YOU KNOW, WE HAVE 60,000 PEOPLE JUST IN SAN ANTONIO ON THE WAIT LIST THAT ARE MAKING AROUND $12,000 A YEAR, AND THAT'S 0 TO 15%. AMI AND SO WHAT WE DO IS AS A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY IS A HOUSING AUTHORITY, IS THAT WE MADE THE DECISIONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO SUPPLEMENT THESE UNITS. IF WE HAD TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES ON THIS, IT'S LESS FAMILIES THAT WE COULD SERVE. AND SO AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, WAYS TO MAKE THIS PROGRAM BETTER, I JUST WANT TO PENALIZE HOUSING AUTHORITIES. YOU KNOW, WE'RE NON-PROFITS, WE'RE GOOD ACTORS.

[03:35:05]

BUT I WOULD JUST ASK YOU, AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT WAYS TO YOU KNOW, BETTER THE SHAPE THAT YOU DON'T REQUIRE US, YOU KNOW, TO PAY TAXES. YOU KNOW, JUST IN OUR PUBLIC HOUSING, WE LOSE $1 MILLION A MONTH.

AND THE REASON IS THEIR INCOMES ARE SO LOW, IT DOESN'T PAY DEBT SERVICE ON BUILDINGS.

AND SO WE'RE DOING ALL WE CAN TO SERVE THE POOREST OF THE POOR AND THE LOWEST INCOME.

PAYING TAXES IS NOT GOING TO HELP OUR SITUATION.

SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A RULE LIKE THIS, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT YOU WOULD PLEASE CONSIDER US AND EXEMPT HOUSING AUTHORITIES FROM THAT REQUIREMENT. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANKS, TIM.

AND JUST I GUESS A QUESTION TO STAFF. ISN'T THERE SOME OTHER KIND OF OFFSETTING POINTS THAT WE HAVE FOR HOUSING AUTHORITIES AND. SURE. SO DON'T THEY HAVE SOMETHING OTHER THAT THEY GET ANYWAY? SO THE TAXPAYING ENTITY SCORING OPTION IS UNDER THE SPONSOR CHARACTERISTICS SCORING ITEM, AND THE SAME TWO OPTIONS THAT HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN THERE, WHICH IS TO PARTNER WITH A NONPROFIT OR A HUB ARE STILL THERE.

SO ANY WAY THAT YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SCORE THOSE POINTS PREVIOUSLY IS STILL AVAILABLE TO YOU.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS NOW THERE IS A NEW OPTION, WHICH IS THAT IF YOU AGREE TO PAY TAXES DURING THE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE PERIOD, YOU WOULD ALSO GET THOSE POINTS. I RESPONDED, YEAH.

THERE'S NO ADVANTAGE TO US TO PARTNERING WITH A NONPROFIT HUB.

THEY'RE GOING TO WANT A FEE. AGAIN, THAT DOESN'T BENEFIT US.

WE'RE ALREADY A GLOBAL ENTITY, BUT WE ARE A NONPROFIT.

I DON'T THINK WE FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY, BUT BUT FOR US JUST TO PARTNER AND TO PAY THE MONEY, YOU KNOW, TO BUILD LESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOESN'T MAKE SENSE EITHER.

WE DON'T GET WE DON'T GET THAT BENEFIT. THERE'S NO REASON FOR ME TO PARTNER LIKE SNOWDEN IS.

BOBBY WAS THERE. WE BUILT IT OURSELVES. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PARTNERS. THERE WAS NO FOR PROFIT PARTNERS. WE BUILT IT.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE I THINK IT'S 54 UNITS PEOPLE, 0 TO 15% OF MINE.

THAT'S A POPULATION THAT IS NOT REALLY SERVED BY THE TDCA BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AT 30% AMI, WHICH IS WHAT THE RENTS ARE, THEY CAN'T AFFORD THOSE UNITS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, PAYING TAXES IS JUST GOING TO HURT US.

THANK YOU. OKAY. THANKS, TIM. I, I HEAR THE DILEMMA.

THE PROBLEM. CODY OR. WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO EXEMPT HOUSING AUTHORITIES? SO WHEN WE PUT OUT THE INITIAL STAFF DRAFT OF THE SHAPE, WE INCLUDED ANOTHER OPTION UNDER SPONSOR CHARACTERISTICS, WHICH WOULD AWARD THOSE POINTS TO DEVELOPMENTS DONE BY EXCUSE ME, HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATIONS.

AND WE GOT A DECENT NUMBER OF PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT REQUESTED THAT.

WE ALSO INCLUDE HOUSING AUTHORITIES AND PUBLIC FINANCE CORP OR PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATIONS.

STAFF'S CONCERN WITH THAT WAS THAT WE WERE WIDENING THE NET TOO MUCH, WHICH YOU CAST TOO WIDE OF A NET IN THE SCORING CATEGORY BECOMES MOOT.

IF WE WANTED TO ADD BACK IN HOUSING, FINANCE, CORPORATIONS AND HOUSING AUTHORITIES, I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE A LOT OF SENSE.

I HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATIONS.

OF COURSE WE COULD ALSO ADD THOSE AS WELL. BUT COULD YOU, DID YOU ACCOMPLISH? COULD YOU PUT IN THERE HIS CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THEY DIDN'T HAVE OUTSIDE FOR PROFIT PARTNERS? DID THEY? THEY WERE THE DEVELOPER. THEY WERE THE OWNER.

JUST THAT NARROW GROUP BACK IN THERE THAT THAT WOULD.

THERE ARE I MEAN, HE HAS A UNIQUE SITUATION. CORRECT? RIGHT. THERE'S NO OUTSIDE DEVELOPER. THERE'S NO OUTSIDE, AND HE DOESN'T WANT TO PAY.

I'M SHOCKED THAT YOU HAVE TO PAY THESE NON THESE NON-PROFITS A FEE.

YES. YOU'RE NOT DOING IT FOR THE THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY? SURE. I'VE HEARD IT DESCRIBED AS A POUND OF FLESH BEFORE.

YEAH, BUT CAN YOU DRAW IT THAT NARROWLY? AND DOES THAT.

THAT DIDN'T WIDEN HIS WIDE DOES IT. IT DEFINITELY WOULD NOT.

SO WE WOULD WRITE THAT AS A HOUSING AUTHORITY OR HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, WHICH IS, I THINK, MAYBE JUST HOUSING AUTHORITY. JUST HOUSING AUTHORITY.

YEAH. IT'S SELF DEVELOPING. YEAH. FINANCE CORPORATION ISN'T SURE REALLY A I MEAN THEY'RE JUST SORT OF A FINANCIAL CONDUIT RIGHT. THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOUSING AUTHORITIES OR DOING THE VOUCHERS AND BUILDING.

AND SO IF WE SET A DEVELOPMENT WHERE THE HOUSING AUTHORITY IS 100% OF THE GENERAL PARTNER DOES THAT.

[03:40:01]

YEAH. SO THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL SO THAT THERE'S NO DOUBT I WILL SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A WAIT LIST OF, AS I MENTIONED, 60,000 PEOPLE. WE DO HAVE PARTNERSHIPS, YOU KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, WOULD STILL BE IMPACTED.

AND I HATE TO LOSE THOSE. WHAT YOU'RE OFFERING IS WE CERTAINLY WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.

THERE'S TIMES WHERE WE PUT UP ALL THE FINANCIAL GUARANTEES, AND I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW THIS WORKS OUT WHERE WE PAY.

I CALL HIM MERCHANT DEVELOPERS, BUT THEY COME IN.

THEY JUST BUILD IT. THEY MANAGE THE THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEERING.

AND WE PAID THEM A FEE. BUT I GUESS WE WOULD STILL BE OKAY THERE.

SO I'D HAVE TO REALLY REFLECT ON THIS TO MAKE SURE ALL MY DIFFERENT SCENARIOS DIFFERENT TYPES OF TRANSACTIONS.

BUT I DO APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE OFFERING HERE.

SO THANK YOU. I THINK WHAT YOU'RE MAKING THESE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE ON YOUR CHOICES.

I THINK IF WE ALLOW HOUSING AUTHORITIES. TO HAVE THE POINTS, IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE THEM FROM ALSO GETTING THE POINTS BY TEAMING. YOU KNOW, IF THEY GET A NONPROFIT IN THERE.

YEAH, THEY STILL GET THE POINTS THAT WAY AS WELL, JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE.

RIGHT. I MEAN AM I MISSING SOMETHING. WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO SAY EXACTLY.

ONLY IF YOU DO IT 100% YOURSELF. RIGHT. IT'S ALSO IF YOU DO IT 100% YOURSELF, YOU HELP EVERYONE.

FOLLOW ME. OKAY. I SEE CATHERINE'S WANTING TO ITCHING TO COME UP AGAIN.

AS ALWAYS, WRITE CATHERINE SA REPRESENTING TAP.

SO I THINK WHEN WE INITIALLY PROPOSED THIS OR WHEN STAFF INITIALLY PROPOSED THIS, THEY OFFERED US FINANCE, HOUSING, FINANCE AND NON-PROFITS OR. I'M SORRY HOUSING AUTHORITIES.

NO, IT WAS IT JUST SAID OKAY. SO THE WAY A LOT OF THE TRANSACTIONS THAT I WORK ON THAT INVOLVE A HOUSING AUTHORITY, THE HOUSING AUTHORITY PROPER IS NOT IN THE DEAL.

THEY USE ONE OF THEIR INSTRUMENTALITIES. SO THAT WAS THE INITIAL COMMENT WAS, YOU KNOW, AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY.

THAT THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION HERE. AND, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO SAY A DIRTY WORD BECAUSE THAT COULD INCLUDE A PFC.

IT WOULD HAVE TO INCLUDE A PFC. IT COULDN'T. OR HFC.

HFCS AREN'T INSTRUMENTALITIES OF. THAT'S RIGHT.

IT WOULD BE A PFC. RIGHT. THEY MIGHT CALL IT SOMETHING DIFFERENT, BUT LEGALLY.

SURE. YES. YEAH. SO. AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT A POPULAR WORD THESE DAYS, BUT THAT IT'S DOMESTIC.

I MEAN, IN YOUR OWN JURISDICTION. YES. AND AND AGAIN, I REPRESENT A LOT OF HOUSING AUTHORITIES, AND THEY ALL HAVE THESE PFC THAT ARE USED FOR PURPOSES OF THE DEAL.

THEY DON'T PUT THE HOUSING AUTHORITY PROPER INTO A TAX CREDIT DEAL.

SO HOUSING AUTHORITY OR ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES.

THAT'S THAT'S THE INTENT OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S WHY I NEEDED TO REFLECT. OKAY. YEAH.

THANK YOU. THIS IS TIM. TIM SMITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

JUST AGREEING WITH WHAT KATHERINE SAID. I'VE WORKED ON SEVERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY TRANSACTIONS.

THEY DON'T COME IN PROPER. THEY FORM THEIR OWN 500 1C3 NON-PROFITS OR PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION TO HOLD THEIR INTEREST FOR LIABILITY PURPOSES.

ALSO, I WOULD JUST CAUTION ABOUT THAT'S HOW IT'S WORKED FOR THE PAST, YOU KNOW, DECADE PLUS IS THE NONPROFIT USES THAT.

BUT MOST NON-PROFITS ALSO MOST HOUSING AUTHORITIES, THEY'RE NOT LOOKING TO PARTNER WITH A NONPROFIT.

THEY'RE USING THEIR OWN NONPROFIT SHELL ENTITY TO HOLD THEIR POSITION, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE TO RF MOST OF THEM RFP WITH OTHER DEVELOPERS, JUST FOR THE EXPERTISE AND THE EXPERIENCE TO TAKE ON THE RISK.

SAN ANTONIO MAY NOT DO THAT, BUT A LOT OF OTHER HOUSING AUTHORITIES DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DEVELOP ON THEIR OWN, BUT THEY HAVE THE STOCK AND THEY PARTICIPATE. SO IF YOU LIMIT IT TO NOT PARTNERING WITH A FOR PROFIT DEVELOPER, THAT WOULD HURT A LOT OF OTHER HOUSING AUTHORITIES AS WELL.

OKAY. THANKS. OKAY. SO TIM YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY.

IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I'LL JUST ASSIGN IT AFTER I'M DONE. BUT I'M JAKE MOONEY. JAKE ADVENTURES, A DEVELOPER. SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, I CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND YOU KNOW, JUST WANTED TO SAY MY APPRECIATION FOR THE PRIVATE PARTNER, PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP THAT THAT THIS IS FOR THE TAX CREDIT PROGRAM.

I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF TIMES WHERE WHEN PEOPLE ARE PUTTING TOGETHER APPLICATIONS, THE FIRST PRIORITY IS GETTING AWARDED.

THE SECOND PRIORITY IS FEASIBILITY. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

I'VE DONE ALL OF MY 23 DEALS, ARE CLOSED AND LEASED, ALL MY 24 DEALS ARE CLOSED, ALL PLACED IN SERVICE.

ONE OF THOSE AT THE END OF THIS YEAR. SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT FROM THE 24 AWARDS, THERE'S ACTUALLY ONLY 11 DEALS THAT HAVE SUBMITTED

[03:45:10]

SO HOW READY TO PROCEED ARE YOU IF WE'RE ALREADY INTO THE NEXT CYCLE OF AWARDS AND WE'RE NOT CLOSED WITH THE PREVIOUS DEALS? AT THAT PREVIOUS BOARD MEETING I MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME KIND OF MECHANISM THAT ALLOWS DEVELOPERS THAT ARE GETTING AWARDS AND GETTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE GROUND. SOME TYPE OF POINTS THAT THEY CAN CLIP ON TO THE NEXT, YOU KNOW, GOLD STAR TO PUT ON THE NEXT APPLICATION.

I DON'T KNOW OR AT LEAST SOME TYPE OF A A RANKING OR PRIORITY SYSTEM FOR PEOPLE THAT CHECK READINESS TO PROCEED AND ARE TRULY READY TO PROCEED TO PUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE GROUND IN TEXAS.

SO YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.

THAT'S, YOU KNOW, STAFF'S DECISION. BUT THESE THINGS COME DOWN TO SOMETIMES FEET AND WHO WINS AND WHO LOSES.

AND A POINT, YOU KNOW, IS A DIFFERENCE. THERE'S DEALS THAT IN 11 YOU THAT I WOULD HAVE SUBMITTED IF I THOUGHT THEY WERE FEASIBLE, THAT I COULD HAVE GOTTEN AWARDED, BUT THEN I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLOSE. RIGHT? I THINK THAT THE BOARD AGREES WITH YOUR SENTIMENT, AND I BELIEVE THAT EVEN EARLIER TODAY, WE ABSOLUTELY, YOU KNOW, STARTED SHOWING THAT EXAMPLE.

COMPLETELY AGREE. AND I WAS GLAD THAT THAT WENT THE WAY IT DID.

SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY I'M APPRECIATIVE OF EVERYTHING THAT, YOU KNOW, HAS DONE FOR MY TEAM AND COMPANY AND FAMILY.

WANT TO CONTINUE PARTNERING AND JUST WOULD LIKE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET THESE AWARDS IN THE GROUND.

YEAH. NO, WE WE AGREE. I'M HESITANT TO TRY TO PUT SOMETHING INTO THE SHAPE AT THIS POINT, BUT I THINK WE'LL ALL WORK TOGETHER TO UNDERSTAND.

I JUST I JUST WANT TO SAY IT AGAIN. SO THANK YOU.

WHEN THEY CHECK, THEY MAKE AN APPLICATION, THEN THEY CHECK.

READY? WHAT? READY TO GO. WHAT'S THE READINESS TO PROCEED IS READY TO PROCEED.

BUT THEY. BUT READINESS TO PROCEED DOES NOT INCLUDE FEASIBILITY.

FEASIBILITY IS THE NUMBER ONE. I THINK STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT.

SO IF THEY CHECK READY TO PROCEED AND IT'S NOT A FEASIBLE PROJECT HAVE THEY HAVE THEY COMMITTED SOME KIND OF WHAT DO WE DO IS IF THEY DON'T MEET, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT TRUE WHEN THEY SAID THEY WERE READY TO PROCEED.

BECAUSE TRUE AT A TIME. BUT YEAH, IF THEY DON'T MEET THEIR READINESS TO PROCEED, THE BOARD CAN PENALIZE THEM 1 OR 2 POINTS IN THE NEXT ROUND.

OKAY. AND THAT'S, THAT'S THAT'S BEEN Y'ALL'S TOOL.

ALL THIS STUFF HAS BEEN PUNISHMENT BASED, NOT REWARDING. BUT I GOT YOU, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT MIGHT BE A WAY WE WANT TO GO IN THE FUTURE WHERE SOMEONE'S, LIKE, ALWAYS ON TIME. THEY GET A POINT. WE WOULDN'T WANT TOO MUCH OF THAT TO MAKE IT A CLOSED LOOP SYSTEM.

BUT, YOU KNOW THAT'S AN OPTION, SEEMS. AND I CERTAINLY RECOGNIZE THAT THINGS COME UP AND THERE'S UNFORESEEN ISSUES.

BUT IF YOU'RE JUST DOING APPLICATIONS AND SAYING, I'M GOING TO GET $0.90 WHEN THE MARKET WAS NEVER AT $0.90.

IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE IT WORKS, IT'S A DIFFERENT STORY.

SO MAYBE, MAYBE IF THEY SAY THEY'RE FEASIBLE AND THEY KNOW THEY'RE NOT, WE JUST REFER THEM TO THE AG.

WELL, I MEAN, WE HEARD A LOT OF TESTIMONY YESTERDAY.

I THOUGHT IT WAS PARTICULAR ISSUE. AND THERE WAS A VERY SPECIFIC LADY THAT TESTIFIED THAT REALLY ALL SHE WAS TRYING TO DO IS GET THE APP. THE APP AND THE AWARD, AND THEN SHE'D FIGURE IT OUT LATER.

I THINK SHE USED THE TERM ROLL THE DICE, BUT IT KIND OF PERSONIFIED THE POINT YOU'RE MAKING.

OKAY. MR. MARSHALL, ONE OF THOSE PROBLEMS IS A LOT OF THESE DEVELOPERS REALLY DO GET SOME PRETTY BIG CHUNKS OF SOFT MONEY OR HAVE IN YEARS PAST FROM ENTITIES OTHER THAN US, BUT THEY CAN'T ALL GET IT EVERY TIME. AND SO DO THEY BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO LIE DETECTOR TESTS YET.

WE'RE I'M GONNA FIGURE IT OUT. WELL, I WOULD URGE US IN NEXT YEAR'S SHAPE TO HONE IN ON THIS ISSUE AND GIVE IT.

YEAH I AGREE. PLEASE. NEXT. MY NAME IS ERIN HAHN.

I'M WITH TEXAS HOUSERS, AND WE FIRST JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR FULL POINTS FOR TAX EXEMPT DEALS.

THAT AGREED TO PROVIDE TENANT PROTECTIONS AND AFFORDABILITY TRANSPARENCY.

BUT WE ALSO WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR SOME ADDITIONS NOT MENTIONED BY CODY.

THE ADDITIONS TO COLEMAN AMENITIES THAT CAME DIRECTLY FROM TENANT FEEDBACK DURING THE VIRTUAL SHAPE ROUNDTABLE SPECIFICALLY THE ADDITION OF INCENTIVES FOR AN AREA, A COVERED AREA WITH SEATING FOR TENANTS, WAITING FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT, AND CLARIFYING THAT SWIMMING POOLS MUST BE AVAILABLE AFTER HOURS.

WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE STAFF ENGAGED DIRECTLY WITH TENANTS THIS YEAR AND INCLUDED THEIR INPUT IN THE DRAFT.

THIS IS A NEW AND IMPORTANT STEP BECAUSE TENANTS ARE NOT USUALLY PART OF THESE CONVERSATIONS.

[03:50:05]

THANK YOU. GREAT. THANKS, ERIN. TANYA LAVELLE, DISABILITY RIGHTS.

TEXAS. I KNOW WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO REPEAT, BUT I THINK THIS IS WORTH REPEATING.

THANK YOU FOR THE VIRTUAL ROUNDTABLE. INCLUDING TENANTS IN THAT WAY THIS YEAR WAS HUGELY HELPFUL.

I KNOW THAT, LIKE ERIN SAID, SOME CHANGES WERE MADE BASED ON THAT CONVERSATION.

ENGAGING TENANTS IN THAT WAY AND THE MOST MEANINGFUL WAY WE HAVE IN A WHILE.

HUGE DIFFERENCE. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU STAFF.

WE'RE WE'RE ETERNALLY GRATEFUL FOR THAT CHANGE THIS YEAR AND HOPE TO CONTINUE IT MOVING FORWARD REAL QUICK.

SO I WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT A CHANGE THAT WAS MADE TO THE CERTIFICATION REQUIRED DOCUMENT SECTION.

I TOOK OUT THE ACTUAL CITATION. BUT I, YOU KNOW, I'M HAPPY TO GET TO I'M SURE CODY CAN PROBABLY FIGURE IT OUT.

THIS IS NOT NEW. YOU'VE HEARD FROM ME FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUE OF OLDER LATEX COMING OFFLINE WITH MASSIVE ACCESSIBILITY ABILITY DEFICIENCIES.

I FOUND THE FIRST ONE IN APRIL OF 24. SINCE THEN, MY TEAM AND I, WE'VE BEEN LOOKING INTO IT, SEEING IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS HAPPENING COMMONLY.

EVERY TIME A OR AN A TECH PROPERTY TRANSITIONING OUT OF ITS USEFUL PERIOD AFTER THE 30 YEARS GOES UP ONLINE FOR A ROOFER, IF THERE'S A REPORT DONE THAT IS ACTUALLY GOOD ENOUGH TO LOOK INTO THE UNITS, THEY ARE INACCESSIBLE.

WITHOUT THE REPORT. SOME PEOPLE ARE FINDING ACCESSIBILITY PROBLEMS JUST REFERRING TO THE ADA VERSUS ADA AND FHA.

THIS IS AN ISSUE. AND WE DECIDED TO LOOK AND SEE, YOU KNOW, IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY IMPACTING DEVELOPMENTS.

NOW, AS IN WE ARE GIVING WE'RE CONTINUE TO GIVE AWARDS TO FOLKS WHO HAVE THESE OLDER DEVELOPMENTS THAT COULD BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE.

NOW WE LOOKED IT UP. WE COMPARED IN 1999 THROUGH 2008, 99 WAS THE EARLIEST WE COULD GET TO DIGITALLY CROSS-REFERENCED ALL OF THE AWARDS FROM THOSE, WHAT, NINE YEARS TO THE LAST 2425 CYCLE? THERE WERE 140 DEVELOPMENTS AWARDED IN THE PAST TWO YEARS TO DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE BUILDINGS ONLINE THAT COULD BE OLD ENOUGH TO NOT MEET THE ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE BEEN FINDING WHEN PROPERTIES ARE GOING ONLINE FOR SALE.

YOU KNOW, I HAVE RECEIPTS. WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT MAKING IT UP.

THIS IS A PROBLEM. I'VE MENTIONED IT A BUNCH OF TIMES.

AND I'M VERY GRATEFUL TO STAFF. THIS YEAR WE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS, AND THEY DID PUT A I THINK IT WAS IN IT WAS A REQUIRED, MAYBE CERTIFICATION THAT SAYS THAT CURRENT AWARDEES UNDERSTAND THAT THE AGENCY WOULD COME IN AND DO ACCESSIBILITY CHECKS FOR THAT PROPERTY, THOUGH, LIKE THAT. THAT DOESN'T REALLY DO ANYTHING.

THAT'S PART OF THE STANDARD ACCESSIBILITY CHECK FOR ANY AWARD, ANY DEVELOPMENT GOING ON ONLINE.

SO IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE PROBLEM WE WERE TRYING TO GET TO, WHICH IS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK BACK AND MAKE SURE THAT DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ONLINE ARE ACCESSIBLE, ESPECIALLY IF PEOPLE ARE GETTING NEW AWARDS.

NEW AWARDS. OKAY, SO THE CONCERN IS REGARDING EXISTING.

DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE. YEAH. AND I GUESS EXISTING.

NO, NO. WELL I GUESS IN THE FACT THAT WE ARE ALLOWING NEW CONSTRUCTION TO BE MADE FROM PEOPLE WHO COULD POTENTIALLY BE IN VIOLATION OF THE LATECH PROGRAM.

WELL, YEAH. OKAY. AND I THINK I MENTIONED THIS DURING COMPLIANCE.

WE TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO FIND SOLUTIONS AND LOOKING THEM UP. AND I'M HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT. BUT SINCE THIS HAS TO DO DIRECTLY WITH THE LATECH PROGRAM, THERE IS A ROLE, WE BELIEVE, TO TRY AND MAKE SOME CHANGES TO THE SHAPE TO ENSURE THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING PROPERLY.

I HEAR YOU, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET IMPLEMENTED AT THIS STAGE IN THIS.

WE CAN COME BACK AGAIN NEXT YEAR. BUT AND ALSO, DO YOU WORK WITH TDLR ON THIS? I MEAN, ALL THE ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS ACT. NO, I MEAN THEY HAVE A BUNCH OF THESE ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS ARE REQUIRED AS WELL.

WELL, SURE. BUT I GUESS AS A AND THE ONE MONITORING DOING THE LOGITECH, Y'ALL ARE THE ONES THAT WORK WITH HOUSING A WHOLE BUNCH MORE ENFORCEMENT.

WELL SURE. AND WE CAN GET INTO THAT IF YOU'D LIKE, BUT THIS IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE NEED TO CONSIDER.

I MEAN, YEAH, I MEAN, IT'S NOT THE FIRST YEAR I BROUGHT THIS. IT WON'T BE THE LAST ONE.

I'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH YOU GUYS. I WANT TO BUT THIS IS A PROBLEM I NEED EVERYONE TO KNOW ABOUT.

AND I'M SURE STAFF IS AWARE AS WELL. YEP. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. ROBBIE MEYER. I'M REPRESENTING RURAL

[03:55:06]

THOUGHT ABOUT THAT OVERNIGHT. SINCE WE DO HAVE SUPPOSED STATEWIDE COX I'D LIKE TO HAVE THEM HAVE A STATE.

SO WHERE AREAS NOT COVERED BY ONE OF THE REGIONAL.

WHAT NOW? IT'S A BALANCE OF STATE. SO AN AREA THAT DIDN'T HAVE ITS OWN REGIONAL COC WASN'T COVERED BY THAT TEXAS HOMELESS NETWORK WOULD WOULD BE. WELL, JUST THEY THEY MADE A COMMENT.

THEY THEY GOT THE RULE PUT BACK IN ON WHEN IT WAS TAKEN OUT FOR THE STAFF DRAFT.

SO NOW IT'S BACK. RURAL AREAS NOW COUNT IN THAT HOMELESS 2%.

SO I TOOK YOUR COMMENTS TO HEART YESTERDAY THAT THEY THEY DO SERVICE THE AREAS THAT THAT WE'RE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH.

SO MY REQUEST IS HAVE THEM HAVE SOME SKIN IN THE GAME.

AND SO HAVE THEIR THEIR ORGANIZATIONS LISTED IN THE SHAPE SO THAT IT'S EASY FOR RURAL TEXAS TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THEM. AND HAVE THEM LET'S SEE IF THEY ACTUALLY RESPOND, BECAUSE MY GROUP HAS TRIED TO, TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THEM AND ASK AND HELP AND THEY DON'T.

SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE THEM HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME.

AND ACTUALLY AND I ALSO REQUEST THAT WE KEEP THE STAFF DRAFT.

I MEAN, THE DRAFT THAT YOU HAVE AT THE SIX MONTHS FOR URBAN AND THE THREE MONTHS FOR RURAL AND SEE HOW IT WORKS OUT, AT LEAST FOR A YEAR. BECAUSE WHEN THEY SEND US THINGS, IF WE EVEN GET ANYTHING, IT'S FROM A LIST THAT WAS A WAITING LIST THAT 2 OR 3 MONTHS OLD, I MEAN THREE, 2 OR 3 YEARS OLD.

AND WE'RE TRYING TO TRACK SOMEBODY DOWN AND IT DOESN'T WORK.

SO THAT WE THEY'VE GOT TO GIVE US SOMEBODY THAT ACTUALLY IS A LEGITIMATE REFERRAL.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE HAD PROBLEMS WITH. IF WE GET A REFERRAL FROM ANYBODY.

SO I ASK THAT THEY HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME WITH US, IF THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO, TO GO BY.

SO THAT'S MY COMMENT. OKAY. THANKS, ROBBIE.

THERE WE GO. HELLO. EXCUSE ME. HELLO? DONNA RICKENBACKER.

HOPEFULLY MY COMMENTS WILL BE VERY SHORT. MY FIRST ONE HAS TO DO WITH THE DEFINITION.

WE ARE STILL DEBATING HOW TO DEFINE A PARK FOR TIEBREAKER PURPOSES.

THE PARK OR PARCEL OF LAND DEDICATED FOR PUBLIC USE.

THIS THIS SHAPE LOOKS LIKE STAFF HAS STRUCK A PARCEL OF LAND THAT IS OWNED BY A SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY QUALIFY SO LONG AS IT MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS. THEY STRUCK THAT.

I'M NOT SURE WHY. IT WAS IN THE 24 SHAPE, AND OBVIOUSLY IT WAS IN THE 25 SHAPE.

I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT INCORPORATED BACK INTO THE DEFINITION OF A PARK.

JUST BECAUSE THE ISD OWNS THE PIECE OF LAND DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT BEING UTILIZED AS A PUBLIC PARK.

I UNDERSTAND EARLY ON, PEOPLE WERE DOING SOME CRAZY THINGS AND UTILIZING OR CLAIMING THAT A PARK WAS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ACTUAL SCHOOL.

AND I SEE THIS ALL OVER, INCLUDING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

YOU DO HAVE LAND THAT IS OWNED BY THE ISD, THAT THEY HAVE AGREEMENTS WITH THE MUNICIPALITY THAT OWN IT AND OPERATE IT, AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY A PUBLIC PARK WITH ITS OWN ENTRANCES, EXITS, ITS ONLY PLAYGROUND AREA, OR WHATEVER IS IN THEIR SIGHT. I ASK THAT THAT BE PUT BACK INTO THE SHAPE.

HUBS, I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO DETAIL. I KNOW ON THE SPONSOR CHARACTERISTICS, THERE'S ALREADY BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON IT.

THERE'S ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION AND TO STAFF THAT HOPEFULLY WE CAN INCORPORATE INTO THE SHAPE, AND THAT IS WHEN DEVELOPER OWNERS REALLY DO HAVE A THIRD PARTY HUB THAT IS PARTICIPATING, AND THEY GOT THAT ASSOCIATED POINTS.

AND OBVIOUSLY THE AWARD THERE NEEDS TO BE THESE HUBS DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND ALL THE RULES THAT COMPLY.

BUT IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT THAT HUB IS NOT BEING IS NOT MATERIALLY PARTICIPATING AND THAT HUB IS NOT BEING PAID ANY PORTION OF THE DEVELOPER FEE OR CASH FLOW. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME PENALTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT OWNER DEVELOPER THAT IS TREATING THE HUB IN THAT MANNER, AND I HOPE WE CAN INCORPORATE SOME PENALTY PROVISIONS.

THE PROBLEM IS, BY THE TIME THESE HUBS FIGURE IT OUT AND SUE THEY'RE UTILIZING ATTORNEY'S FEES THAT ADD UP TO MORE THAN WHAT THEY MAY BE

[04:00:04]

I MEAN, WE'VE TALKED AD NAUSEAM ABOUT READINESS.

AND, YOU KNOW, CHAIRMAN VAZQUEZ, YOU KNOW, I GOT DINGED ON READINESS TO PROCEED THIS LAST TIME.

I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CLARITY IN THAT PROVISION, BECAUSE MY I WAS PENALIZED ON A 24 TRANSACTION.

AND THAT POINT REDUCTION THAT I WAS PENALIZED FOR APPLIES TO THE 26 ROUND.

THE RULES SPECIFICALLY SHOW THAT THE PENALTY IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ROUND IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE CURRENT ROUND.

SO, YOU KNOW, IF IF WE'RE GOING TO APPLY IT THE WAY IT WAS APPLIED TO ME, THEN I THINK WE NEED TO BE MAKING SOME REAL, CLEAR, SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN THE READINESS TO PROCEED PROVISION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ZACH, I JUST HAVE ONE COMMENT THAT I DIDN'T MAKE YESTERDAY.

REGARDING SCR REPORTS. I WOULD JUST ASK THAT THOSE REPORTS BE DUE AT THE SAME TIME AS THE MARKET STUDY REPORT.

THE SCR REPORTS ARE THE SCOPE AND COST REVIEW FOR ADAPTIVE REUSE OR REHABILITATION.

AND ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE DOING ADAPTIVE REUSE, THEY REALLY NEED THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS TO REALLY DO A LEGITIMATE SCOPE AND COST REVIEW FOR A VERY EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. AND IT SEEMS LIKE ALL OF THE REPORTS AND ALL OF THE INFORMATION PILE UP WITHIN A TWO WEEK PERIOD, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE SCOPE AND COST REVIEWS ARE NEARLY AS COMPREHENSIVE OR AS ACCURATE AND USABLE AS THEY COULD BE IF WE GAVE THEM THAT SAME MONTH AFTER THE APPLICATION DEADLINE THAT THE MARKET STUDIES GET.

AND I JUST THINK THAT WE COULD GET A LOT BETTER WORK PRODUCT THAT COULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE USABLE.

NOT ONLY ARE THEY LOOKING FOR THOSE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, THEY'RE ALSO LOOKING FOR OUR ENGINEERS, FEASIBILITY REPORTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND THOSE GENERALLY AREN'T AVAILABLE UNTIL VERY CLOSE TO THE DEADLINE EITHER.

SO IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT I THINK WOULD MAKE SENSE TO MAKE THOSE REPORTS A LITTLE BIT BETTER, JUST MORE TIME. I MEAN, THE MATCH UP TIME FRAMES WHEN THEY'RE DUE.

WELL, SO I MEAN, UNDERWRITING IS USING THOSE SCOPE AND COST REVIEWS AND THE MARKET STUDIES TO UNDERWRITE, BUT THEY'RE NOT UNDERWRITING BETWEEN MARCH 1ST AND APRIL 1ST.

SO ALL THOSE OTHER REPORTS ARE DUE MARCH 1ST EXCEPT FOR THE MARKET STUDY.

SO RIGHT NOW WHEN I WANT TO DO A SCOPE AND COST REVIEW, THE SCOPE AND COST REVIEWER SAYS, WHERE'S YOUR ARCHITECTURE AND WHERE'S YOUR ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY? AND WHEN I SEND THAT TO HIM ON FEBRUARY 17TH AND SAY, I NEED THIS BACK IN, YOU KNOW, EIGHT DAYS, IT'S NOT A GREAT WORK PRODUCT WE'RE GETTING OUT OF THEM.

I THINK THAT RIGHT NOW, THE SCOPE AND COST REVIEWS ARE MUCH MORE COMPREHENSIVE ABOUT TAKING PICTURES.

I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT HAS A LOT OF ENERGY OR THOUGHT INTO IT, BECAUSE OF JUST THE WAY THOSE TIMINGS WORK.

OKAY, JUST GOTTA LOOK AT UNDERWRITING, YOU KNOW, STAFF OR YOU KNOW.

GOOD AFTERNOON, JEAN ADAMS, DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE ANALYSIS.

SO YOUR SDR IS SUPPOSED TO BE USED, WHICH YOU DEVELOP TO BACK UP YOUR DEVELOPMENT COST SCHEDULE, WHICH IS PART OF YOUR APPLICATION. SO I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND HOW YOU WOULD TURN THAT IN A MONTH AFTER YOU TURN IN YOUR WHOLE APPLICATION, WHICH HAS YOUR DEVELOPMENT COST, WHICH HAS TO BALANCE YOUR SOURCES AND USES, DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

SO I UNDERSTAND FUNDAMENTALLY IT TAKES A LONG TIME.

CAN YOU START SOONER, LIKE WITH YOUR APPRAISAL AND EVERYTHING? IT SEEMS LIKE I GET YOU COME UP SHORT ON YOUR ADAPTIVE REUSE STUFF AND YOU KIND OF HAVE PROBLEMS GETTING YOUR THIRD PARTY REPORTS TOGETHER, BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. YOU CAN'T PUT AN APPLICATION TOGETHER WITHOUT COST.

YOU CAN'T BACK UP. WELL, I CAN I CAN AGREE WITH MY SCOPE AND COST REVIEWER ON A DEVELOPMENT COST SCHEDULE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT A LOT OF THE THE BACKUP OR THE THOUGHT THAT'S GOING INTO THAT IS DOCUMENTED VERY WELL BECAUSE OF THAT.

AND I DON'T DISAGREE. I'M JUST SAYING FUNDAMENTALLY, WHEN 9% APPLICATIONS ARE DUE ON A SINGLE DAY.

YOUR COST CAN'T CHANGE YOUR SOURCES AND USES CAN'T CHANGE.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU HAVE A SCOPE AND COST REVIEW DUE A MONTH LATER, BECAUSE IN YOUR WHOLE APPLICATION WOULD BE.

BUT WHAT ABOUT IF YOU HAVE MARKET RATE UNITS AND YOU HAVE A MARKET STUDY DUE A MONTH LATER AND THEY SAY YOUR MARKET UNITS ARE.

THEY CAN USUALLY GET YOU THAT MARKET. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GUYS DO THAT PART. I MEAN, I ASSUME THAT THEY COME UP WITH THE MARKET. THAT'S A LOT EASIER TO DETERMINE THAN LIKE

[04:05:02]

THANK YOU. IF THERE'S A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK. BUT I DON'T GET IT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ZAK. MR. CAMPBELL, DO YOU WANT TO WRAP THIS UP? SURE THING. SO JUST REAL QUICK, I WILL GO OVER THE LIST OF CHANGES TO THE DRAFT OF THE AP IN FRONT OF YOU.

THAT SHOULD BE MADE. AS BEST AS I UNDERSTAND THEM.

THERE ARE. ARE TWO EDITS THAT WE'LL BE MAKING TO THE TIEBREAKER SECTION ONE TO ADDRESS ANY ANNOUNCED CLOSURES OF PROPOSED AMENITIES THAT ARE IN PLACE AS OF THE FULL APPLICATION DELIVERY DATE, AND TO DISQUALIFY THOSE FEATURES, ONE WHICH IS TO ADD A TIEBREAKER AFTER THE AMENITY TIEBREAKER THAT AWARDS PRIORITY BASED ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS PER TAX CREDIT REQUESTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS THIRD. SO THERE'S THE AMENITY AND THEN THERE'S THE TAX CREDITS PER UNIT AND THEN THERE'S DISTANCE AFTER THAT IS HOW I UNDERSTOOD IT.

DID SOMEONE UNDERSTAND THAT DIFFERENTLY? HOW MANY DO WE HAVE NOW? I UNDERSTOOD IT YESTERDAY THAT IT WAS JUST NUMBER OF TAX CREDIT UNITS.

NOT PER CREDIT TAX CREDITS PER. THAT WAS THE ADJUSTMENT.

I THOUGHT IT THOSE TAX CREDITS PER UNIT. THE MOST EFFICIENT USE OF TAX CREDITS PER UNIT.

OKAY. I MEAN, IT'S SIX AND ONE HALF DOZEN IN THE OTHER.

YEAH, BUT I THINK THERE ARE SOME ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS I THOUGHT THERE WAS PUSHBACK SAYING THE BIGGER, YOU KNOW, NUMBER OF UNITS ALWAYS WILL ALWAYS WIN.

SO IF IT'S CREDITS PER UNIT THAT'S A YEAH I MEAN EVENS IT OUT A LITTLE BIT.

THAT'S FINE. OKAY. BUT THAT THAT WOULD GO IMMEDIATELY BEHIND THE AMENITY TIEBREAKER AND IN FRONT OF THE DISTANCE TIEBREAKER.

YES. OKAY. SO WE'RE INSERTING A NEW NUMBER THREE.

SURE. YEAH OKAY. THE ADDITION OF HUBS BEING ABLE TO SERVE AS THE SPECIAL LIMITED PARTNER IN THE DEAL, THE ADDITION OF OPPORTUNITY ZONES TO THE CONCERTED REVITALIZATION PLAN SCORING ITEM.

THE ADDITION OF A MINIMUM SCORE. AND I APOLOGIZE.

I SHOULD HAVE DISCUSSED THIS WITH YOU EARLIER. I SPOKE WITH JOSH ABOUT WHERE WE MIGHT WANT TO SET THAT LEVEL.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CHANGE AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT, SO IT'S NOT AS HIGH STAKES TO GET THE NUMBER EXACTLY WHERE WE WANT IT TO BE.

TODAY, WE ARE PROPOSING 150 AS A STARTING POINT.

I SUSPECT THE 50150150. I SUSPECT THAT THE INDUSTRY WILL TRY TO TALK US DOWN ON THAT QUITE A BIT.

SO IF YOU WANT TO GO IN LOWER THAN THAT, WE CERTAINLY CAN.

173 IS UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE SCORE AVERAGE SCORE IS TYPICALLY IN THE ONE 60S, I BELIEVE THE LOWEST THAT WE SAW THIS YEAR, JOSH CORRECT ME, WAS AN 89, 83.

IT WAS THE LOWEST AWARD THIS YEAR. IT WAS THAT IT WAS IN BIG SPRING AND IT WAS THAT 83 OR THE 89.

SO WE SET THE BAR HIGHER THAN 89. SURE. WE COULD GO IN AT 120.

AGAIN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAN EASILY BE CHANGED AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT.

ARE YOU SETTING ONE MINIMUM SCORE FOR ALL REGIONS AND URBAN AND RURAL? SO IT TURNS OUT THAT THERE'S CLOSER SCORING PARITY BETWEEN URBAN AND RURAL THAN I THOUGHT.

THE ONLY TIME THAT WE SEE THOSE REALLY LOW SCORES ARE IN NONCOMPETITIVE RURAL REGIONS.

I GUESS THERE'S OCCASIONALLY A NONCOMPETITIVE URBAN, BUT GENERALLY IF A RURAL REGION IS COMPETITIVE, WE GET PRETTY HIGH SCORES OUT OF IT. OKAY. YEAH.

WELL, AGAIN, I JUST I'M TRYING TO THINK BACK WHEN I LOOK AT ALL THE SCORING, I GUESS I USUALLY SEE 160 TO 170.

SO. MOST OF THE TIME 150 OR BELOW OR BELOW 150 IS GOING TO BE OUT OF THE OUT OF THE RUNNING ANYWAY IN COMPETITIVE REGIONS. YES, SIR. YEP.

LOOK, WE CAN GO WITH THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MIGHT BE A TAD BIT HIGH.

START FROM A GOOD POSITION AND LET HIM TALK YOU DOWN. RIGHT. YEAH.

YEAH, SURE. SO WE'LL GO IN WITH THAT. WE WILL BE ELIMINATING THE PROHIBITION ON AUTOMATIC PRE-K AWARDS IN FOURTH QUARTILE CENSUS TRACTS BY INCOME FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE INELIGIBLE DUE TO HAVING REQUESTED EXCESSIVE NUMBERS OF FORCE MEASURES.

[04:10:04]

SO THAT WILL COUNT AS ONE OF THE TWO FORCE MAJEURE, OR ONE OF THE TWO EXTENSIONS THAT WOULD RENDER YOU INELIGIBLE.

WE WILL ALSO BE ADDING LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THAT AN APPLICANT CAN BECOME ELIGIBLE AFTER APPLICATION SUBMISSION, BUT PRIOR TO AWARD. I DID GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH OTHER PEOPLE INTERNALLY ABOUT THIS.

THIS I THINK WE CAN MAKE WORK FOR THE 9% PROGRAM.

FOR THE OTHER PROGRAMS THAT WE ADMINISTER, THOUGH THIS IS IT WOULD BE A REAL ADMINISTRATIVE BARRIER THERE.

WE HAVE BOND DEVELOPMENTS THAT NEED TO CLOSE VERY QUICKLY.

WHEN SOMEBODY APPLIES FOR DIRECT LOANS, THEY ARE RESERVING THAT MONEY. IT'S A REALLY BIG RISK FOR US TO RESERVE THAT MONEY AND NOT HAVE ANOTHER APPLICANT IN LINE, WITHOUT KNOWING THAT THEY'LL ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO SIGN THE CONTRACT FOR IT.

SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT THAT THAT THE ABILITY TO BECOME ELIGIBLE AFTER YOU SUBMIT THE APPLICATION, IF THE DISQUALIFYING DEVELOPMENT PLACES IN SERVICE THAT THAT WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THE 9% PROGRAM.

OKAY, GREAT. FOR CASH OUTS, THE PROHIBITION WOULD ONLY APPLY TO 9% APPLICATIONS.

WE WOULD RESTORE THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE AS IT RELATES TO VISITABILITY AND OTHER SPONSOR CHARACTERISTICS.

WE WOULD MAKE TWO POINTS AVAILABLE TO APPLICATIONS THAT ARE SUBMITTED BY A HOUSING AUTHORITY OR AN INSTRUMENTALITY THEREOF.

THOSE ARE ALL THE CHANGES I'VE GOT. I'M ALMOST READY TO APPLAUD.

OKAY. THAT'S. YEAH. THAT SOUNDS THAT SOUNDS GOOD.

GREAT. SO GIVEN THAT STATEMENT THAT MR. CAMPBELL JUST LAID OUT, CAN WE MAKE A MOTION? IS THAT THAT TAKING THAT, IS THAT SUITABLE FOR THE MOTION ON ITEM 27? AS AS AS STATED, AS STATED AND AS SHALL BE DOCUMENTED? OKAY. WOULD ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION ON ITEM 27 OF THE AGENDA? I MOVE THE BOARD APPROVED THE PROPOSED REPEAL OF TEN TAC CHAPTER 11 AND THE PROPOSED NEW TEN TAC CHAPTER 11 CONCERNING THE HOUSING TAX CREDIT QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN FOR PUBLICATION IN THE TEXAS REGISTER FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

ALL IS DESCRIBED AUTHORIZING CONDITION IN THE BOARD ACTION REQUEST RESOLUTIONS AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON THIS ITEM, INCLUDING SUCH MODIFICATIONS AS DESCRIBED DURING THIS MEETING.

SECOND. MOTION MADE BY MISS CONROY, SECONDED BY MR. HARPER. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. LOOK FORWARD TO PUBLISHED.

AND WE STILL. YOU CAN STILL MAKE COMMENTS. RIGHT.

SURE, SURE. SO IT ACTUALLY JUST BECAME REAL NOW.

SO YEAH, IT'S THE FORMAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

SO. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. LET'S LET'S CONTINUE ON WITH THE AGENDA.

AND ITEM 28 PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AN APPEAL OF THE TERMINATION OF LOAN APPLICATION FOR BRANIFF LOFTS. MR. CAMPBELL, YOU'RE STILL UP. THANK YOU.

SO BRANIFF LOFTS IS AN ADAPTIVE REUSE DEVELOPMENT IN DALLAS THAT PROPOSES THE REHABILITATION OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE INTO A SUPPORTIVE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.

IT STARTED ITS LIFE IN THE 2024 9% APPLICATION ROUND.

IT REQUESTED $2 MILLION IN CREDITS. IT DID HAVE A COMPETITIVE SCORE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT WAS TERMINATED IN UNDERWRITING DUE TO ISSUES WITH ITS APPRAISAL.

THE APPLICANT APPEALED THAT TERMINATION AND THE BOARD UPHELD IT.

LATER THAT SAME YEAR, THE APPLICANT GOT A RESERVATION OF BONDS TO CONTINUE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT, AND WITH THAT BONDS, THEY WOULD ALSO BE APPLYING FOR 4% HOUSING TAX CREDITS TO HELP FILL THE FINANCING STACK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

THE BOARD IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR APPROVED STAFF TO ISSUE AN INVITATION TO APPLY, WHICH IS VERY SIMILAR TO A NOFA.

IT'S JUST TARGETED AT A MORE RESTRICTED GROUP OF APPLICANTS.

THE BOARD APPROVED THE ISSUANCE OF AN INVITATION TO APPLY FOR $10 MILLION IN DIRECT LOAN FUNDS.

THESE PARTICULAR FUNDS WERE SOURCED FROM THE TAX CREDIT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM REPAYMENT FUND FUNDING SOURCE.

WE ISSUED THAT INVITATION TO APPLY, AND IT INCLUDED SPECIFIC LOAN TERMS THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO MEET.

AND THESE INCLUDED THAT THE LOAN WOULD NEED TO BE FULLY AMORTIZING, MEANING THEY HAVE REGULAR LOAN PAYMENTS AND THAT IT WOULD CARRY A 2% INTEREST RATE.

THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR THAT $10 MILLION UNDER THE UNDER THE INVITATION TO AGAIN FILL OUT THAT FINANCING STACK, BUT THE APPLICATION NECESSITATES THAT THE DEBT NOT CARRY ANY ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE IN ORDER TO BE FEASIBLE WHEN ADJUSTING THE APPLICATION TO CARRY THE ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE INVITATION TO APPLY, IT IS FACIALLY INFEASIBLE BY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A YEAR.

[04:15:04]

BECAUSE OF THAT, STAFF TERMINATED THE APPLICATION AND THE APPLICANT APPEALED.

AND IN THEIR APPEAL, THEY THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS THAT CROTCH TANGLE, IS ESSENTIALLY ASKING THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE LOAN TERMS THAT WOULD MAKE THE DEVELOPMENT WORK, WHICH WOULD BE SOME KIND OF CASH FLOW CONTINGENT LOAN AT A LOWER INTEREST RATE.

AND SO THERE'S THERE'S KIND OF TWO QUESTIONS IN FRONT OF THE BOARD TODAY.

THE FIRST CONCERNS THE ACTUAL APPEAL THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU.

AND FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, I TRUTHFULLY DON'T SEE ANY WAY FOR THE TO GET TO A YES ON THAT.

AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE WE RELEASED THAT INVITATION TO APPLY.

IT HAD SPECIFIC LOAN TERMS. THE APPLICATION DOESN'T WORK UNDER THOSE LOAN TERMS, AND THE NATURE OF THE APPEAL IS REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD DETERMINE THAT THE APPLICATION WORK UNDER THE TERMS OF THE NOFA THAT WAS RELEASED, AND IT JUST FLATLY DOESN'T.

AND SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD DENY THE APPEAL.

I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT WILL ALSO BE REQUESTING A NEW NOFA BE RELEASED.

THAT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DISCUSS WITH YOU IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE INTERESTED IN DOING. IF NOT THE ONLY REMAINING OPTION THAT I SEE, AT LEAST FOR DEPARTMENT FUNDING FOR THE APPLICANT, WOULD BE TO COME BACK IN NEXT YEAR AS A 9% APPLICATION AND TRY THAT AGAIN.

DOING SO WOULD REQUIRE PRESUMING THAT THE SHAPE GETS ADOPTED AS AS WAS JUST APPROVED, IT WOULD REQUIRE A WAIVER FROM THE BOARD, BECAUSE THE APPLICATION DOES VIOLATE THE $500,000 PER DOOR LIMIT.

BY QUITE A BIT. IT'S AT ABOUT $785,000 PER DOOR, SO THERE WOULD NEED TO BE A WAIVER IN ORDER FOR IT TO COME BACK IN AS A 9% APPLICATION.

AGAIN, THOSE ARE THE TWO OPTIONS AS I SEE THEM.

THAT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHETHER THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD IS INTERESTED IN DOING OR NOT, BUT IN TERMS OF THE APPEAL ITSELF, TRUTHFULLY, I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN GET TO A YES ON THAT.

SO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. BUT. IT SEEMS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, MR. STENGEL. DO YOU WANT TO. PLEAD YOUR CASE. SO ZACHARY, THE APPLICANT.

THIS IS A REALLY UNIQUE DEAL. IT'S IN ONE OF THE BEST PARTS OF TOWN IN DALLAS.

IT'S ON THE TOLLWAY. SOME OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE LAND IN DALLAS.

IT HAS A 1968 HISTORIC BUILDING. IT'S THE BRANIFF STEWARDESSES COLLEGE, WHERE THEY TRAINED STEWARDESSES.

FOR DECADES IT HAS BEEN VACANT AND IN DISREPAIR, BUT IT IS A NATIONAL LANDMARK.

THAT IS WHY THE COST IS VERY HIGH. THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS ALREADY COMMITTED $7 MILLION OF SOFT MONEY AS WELL.

WE OWN THE PROPERTY. WE HAVE PERMITS TO DEVELOP IT.

WE'RE READY TO START BUILDING. WE'RE PARTNERED WITH A NONPROFIT ASD, THAT HAS BEEN OPERATING IN THE CITY OF DALLAS FOR 40 YEARS, DOING PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND ONLY PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING. THE CITY OF DALLAS AND DALLAS COUNTY AS A WHOLE JUST DOESN'T HAVE SUPPORTIVE HOUSING THAT'S BACKED BY LIE TEK. IT'S PRETTY SHOCKING. SO IN AUSTIN, THERE ARE 15 PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING DEALS FUNDED BY LIE TEK WITH 1400 UNITS IN HOUSTON. THERE ARE TEN PROJECTS WITH 1300 UNITS.

AND IN DALLAS, THE ENTIRETY OF DALLAS COUNTY, THERE IS ONE PROJECT FROM 2014 WITH 45 UNITS.

SO DALLAS DESPERATELY NEEDS PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.

THE CITY IS ON BOARD WITH FUNDING THIS PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.

WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR NO DEBT PAYMENT. WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR THE DEBT PAYMENT TO BE MOVED BELOW THE LINE AND TO BE FUNDED FROM CASH FLOW.

SO WE'RE NOT ASKING TO HAVE JUST A GRANT AND NEVER REPAYABLE.

WE'RE ASKING FOR BELOW THE LINE CASH FLOW AND REPAYABLE AT EITHER END OF AFFORDABILITY, REFINANCING OR SALE.

SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR A GRANT.

WE'RE ASKING FOR THE TERMS OF THE LOAN TO JUST BE ALTERED SO THAT IT'S LIMITED BY 50% CASH FLOW, AND IT WOULD STILL BE REPAYABLE AT THE END OF THE TERM OR AT THE END OF ONE OF THOSE EVENTS.

THE INTEREST RATE, WE'D PREFER IT AT ZERO, SO THE LOAN DOESN'T KEEP GROWING EVERY YEAR.

IF THE CASH FLOW ISN'T COVERING THE FULL INTEREST, BUT IF 2% IS SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD FEELS IS NECESSARY, THEN SO BE IT. SO EFFECTIVELY, PLEASE GIVE US $10 MILLION MORE FOR THIS END. AT THE END, WE'LL PAY YOU BACK WHEN WE SELL.

CORRECT. BUT ALSO PAY DURING DEBT EVERY YEAR WILL PAY A DEBT PAYMENT AS WELL.

IF IF THERE'S CASH FLOW. IF THERE'S SUFFICIENT CASH FLOW.

I MEAN, SO IT WOULD BE A PERCENTAGE OF CASH FLOW EQUITY PARTNERS WITH NO EQUITY.

[04:20:04]

WELL. SO, I MEAN, THIS ISN'T UNPRECEDENTED. BUT AGAIN, I MEAN, YEAH, BUT WE'VE I MEAN, EVEN THE BOARD'S BEEN DISCUSSING THAT EVEN GOING DOWN TO 2%. I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT MOVING IT UP.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND AND I THINK THE DEALS WE'VE BEEN DOING, THE DIRECT LOAN DEALS ARE BEEN FULLY AMORTIZING, PAYING AS YOU GO. I MEAN, IT'S RIGHT. AND SINCE THAT'S CHANGED, IT'S NEVER IT HASN'T FUNDED ANY MORE SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.

THE FINAL PORTION OF ASPECT OF YOUR PARTICULAR DEAL.

AND I LOVE THE CONCEPT OF, YOU KNOW, I MEAN TAKING THAT BRAND BUILDING.

BUT THE OPTICS OF US PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT ALMOST $800,000 A DOOR. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT PRINTED UP IN THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS.

SO, I MEAN, THERE'S A REASON FOR HISTORIC TAX CREDITS.

IT'S BECAUSE THE THE COSTS REALLY ARE THAT MUCH HIGHER.

IF YOU TOOK THE HISTORIC TAX CREDITS OFF OF THIS PROJECT, IT WOULD ALIGN WITH THE COSTS OF NORMAL PROJECTS.

IT'S THERE ARE TONS OF DIFFERENT VARIABLES HERE THAT ARE CAUSED BY NPS TO APPLY FOR THOSE TAX CREDITS.

BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, MEPRDL HAS BEEN USED FOR PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING MANY TIMES, AND THERE'S ONLY ONE APPLICATION EVER.

AND I'VE LOOKED AT EVERY MEPRDL SUPPORTIVE HOUSING APPLICATION THAT'S EVER HAD A HARD DEBT PAYMENT.

THERE'S ONLY ONE IN THE ENTIRETY OF MEPRDL THAT'S SUPPORTED PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT IT'S A REALLY GREAT PROJECT FOR DALLAS, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT DALLAS HAS PUT THEIR MONEY BEHIND AS WELL.

AND JUST UNFORTUNATELY, DALLAS DOES NOT HAVE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING DEVELOPERS LIKE AUSTIN AND HOUSTON DO.

AND I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, A DISSERVICE TO THE DALLAS COMMUNITY TO NOT HAVE THOSE AND TO ALSO HAVE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IN A VERY HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREA, AN AREA THAT'S ACTUALLY WALKABLE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS IS SOMETHING THAT'S ALSO PRETTY TRANSFORMATIVE FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE.

WHY CAN'T DALLAS GIVE A $10 MILLION LOAN THAT'S REPAYABLE AFTER WHEN YOU SELL? I MEAN, AS OPPOSED TO AS OPPOSED TO IF THEY'RE ALREADY IN IT.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT'S I MEAN, WE WE HAVE TRIED TO ASK THEM TO INCREASE THEIR CONTRIBUTION AND IT JUST HASN'T HAPPENED.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT PEOPLE THAT ARE FAMILIAR WITH DALLAS, THAT ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS BUILDING, I THINK THAT IT IS ALSO JUST COMMENDABLE TO TRY AND SAVE THIS BUILDING AS WELL, BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY, WHERE IT IS, THE BUILDING IS IT'S GONE THROUGH MANY DIFFERENT ATTEMPTS AT USAGE AND HAS NOT FAILED, HAS NOT SUCCEEDED. AND I THINK THAT IT'S ONE OF THE MOST ENDANGERED HISTORIC BUILDINGS IN DALLAS AS WELL.

MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? YES, PLEASE.

WHERE DOES THIS LOAN FUND MONEY COME FROM? CODY? SO IN 2008 ISH, THERE WAS A PROGRAM CALLED THE TAX CREDIT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD TO ASSIST TAX CREDIT DEVELOPMENTS DURING THE GREAT RECESSION.

AS THOSE LOANS GET PAID BACK, WE ARE ABLE TO REUSE THOSE FUNDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES.

AND SO KIND OF A REVOLVING FUND. CORRECT. CORRECT.

SO WHAT HE'S ASKING FOR IS BASICALLY AN ACCRUAL OF THE INTEREST.

NO. NO PRINCIPAL PAYMENT AND ACCRUAL OF THE INTEREST.

OR DOES IT CALL FOR A FULL AMORTIZATION. SO WHAT THE INVITATION TO APPLY THAT WE PUT OUT.

SO THE LOAN TERMS THAT THE APPLICATION WAS REQUIRED TO MEET REQUIRED A FULL AMORTIZATION.

SO JUST, YOU KNOW, LIKE 2% AT 2%. THAT IS CORRECT.

THERE ARE APPARENTLY OTHER TERM LOAN TERMS THAT WOULD MAKE THE DEVELOPMENT WORK.

ZACH WOULD CERTAINLY BE THE EXPERT ON THOSE. I JUST KNOW THAT WHAT WE PUT OUT IS WE DO THIS, THEN WE'RE MAKING IT A DECISION TO GO FORWARD WITH A PROJECT THAT WE'RE THEN GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE A WAIVER TO LATER.

SO NO. SO THERE'S AND I APOLOGIZE THAT THIS ITEM IS IS KIND OF CONFUSING.

SO THE THE ITEM THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY IS AN APPEAL OF THE TERMINATION OF THE APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED UNDER THE NOFA THAT HAD THE LOAN TERMS AS FULLY AMORTIZING AT 2%. SO THE VOTE THAT YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO TAKE TODAY IS WHETHER YOU GRANT THAT APPEAL OR NOT.

GIVEN THAT THE APPLICATION JUST FLATLY DOESN'T WORK AT THOSE LOAN TERMS, I REALLY DON'T SEE HOW WE COULD GET TO A YES ON THAT.

[04:25:04]

THAT THAT TAKES US TO WHAT? SO SEPARATELY, THE APPLICANT IS ASKING.

ZACH IS ASKING FOR. I'M SORRY TO TALK ABOUT YOU LIKE YOU'RE NOT HERE TODAY.

SO ZACH IS ASKING THE BOARD TO COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF NOFA THAT WOULD HAVE LOAN TERMS THAT MAKE THE PROJECT WORK.

IF THE BOARD DIRECTS STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WE WOULD CRAFT A NOFA AND WE WOULD BRING IT BACK TO YOU AT THE OCTOBER MEETING TO VOTE ON FOR APPROVAL. THEN WE WOULD RELEASE THAT.

ZACH WOULD APPLY UNDER THAT NOFA, AND IT WOULD HAVE THE LOAN TERMS THAT HE'S ASKING FOR.

BUT THAT WOULD BE A DIRECTION GIVEN TO STAFF TODAY, NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU WERE VOTING ON TODAY. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULDN'T VOTE ON UNTIL OCTOBER. AND THEN THE PROJECT WOULD NEED A WAIVER.

IT WOULD BE COMING IN PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE NEW SHAPE.

SO IT WOULD NOT IF THE NEW SHAPE WAS IN PLACE BY THE TIME THAT NOFA WAS RELEASED, OR IF IT CAME IN AS A 9% APPLICANT IN THE 2026 ROUND, THEN YES, IT WOULD NEED A WAIVER, BECAUSE PRESUMING THAT THAT $500,000 LIMIT STAYS IN PLACE, BUT HE'LL HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO AWAY BECAUSE HE'S GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.

RIGHT. HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO A WAIVER BECAUSE HE WOULD BE APPLYING PRIOR TO THE NEW SHAPE BEING IN EFFECT.

YEAH, BUT IT WOULD STILL BE A $785,000 A DOOR RIGHT? PROJECT. RIGHT. PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. OUR 4% TAX CREDIT APPLICATION IS STILL ACTIVE. THIS IS JUST THE LOAN APPLICATION THAT'S BEING TERMINATED, SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO APPLY FOR A WAIVER. WE HAVE A CARRY FORWARD ALLOCATION THAT THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE GAVE US.

SO WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY THREE YEARS TO UTILIZE THE 4% TAX CREDITS THAT WE'VE APPLIED FOR.

SO IT'S JUST TERMINATING THE APPLICATION. YEAH, YEAH.

YOU STILL HAVE TIME. THE DEAL CAN STILL BE ALIVE IF YOU CAN FIGURE OUT.

I MEAN, WE OWN IT, WE OWN IT. WE HAVE PERMITS, SO WE DON'T HAVE MUCH ELSE TO DO WITH IT.

OKAY. ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DENY THE APPEAL.

THAT IS CORRECT. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THE BOARD, DENY THE APPEAL OF THE TERMINATION OF THE LOAN APPLICATION FOR BRANIFF LOFTS.

ALL AS DESCRIBED IN THE BOARD. ACTION REQUEST RESOLUTION AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON THIS ITEM.

SECOND MOTION MADE BY MR. THOMAS, SECONDED BY MR. MARCHANT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. KEEP AT IT, ZACK.

AND THEN COME REDEVELOP THE ASTRODOME INTO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

WE NEED THAT. OKAY. 29 ON THE AGENDA. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR RETURN AND REALLOCATION OF TAX CREDITS UNDER TEN TAX.

SECTION 11.65 RELATED TO CREDIT RETURNS RESULTING FROM FORCE MAJEURE EVENTS AT WESTWOOD APARTMENTS.

MR. GOLDBERGER. GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

JOSH GOLDBERGER, 9% PROGRAM MANAGER. ITEM 29 CONCERNS WESTWOOD APARTMENTS, A 102 UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE COMPLETED IN KILLEEN.

THE PROJECT WAS AWARDED HOUSING TAX CREDITS IN 2024 AND MUST PLACE INTO SERVICE BY DECEMBER OF 2026.

SINCE THE INITIAL AWARD OF HOUSING TAX CREDITS, THE PROJECT HAS EXPERIENCED DELAYS DUE TO DISRUPTIONS IN THE TAX CREDIT EQUITY MARKET.

THE REQUEST INCLUDES SOME ACTUAL NUMBERS HERE, WHICH I THINK ARE ILLUMINATING.

THE PROJECT WAS ORIGINALLY UNDERWRITTEN WITH A CREDIT PRICING OF AROUND $0.86, BUT BY THE END OF 2024, THAT PRICING HAD DROPPED TO ROUGHLY 70 TO $0.78.

THAT BIG OF A DECREASE SIMPLY MAKES THE PROJECT INFEASIBLE IN THIS ENVIRONMENT.

BEYOND THAT DROP IN PRICING, THE REQUEST ALSO STATES THAT IN EARLY 2025, EQUITY AVAILABILITY TIGHTENED AS SEVERAL MAJOR INVESTORS PAUSED PARTICIPATION AMIDST UNCERTAINTY OVER POTENTIAL TAX LAW CHANGES. ALTOGETHER, REDUCED INVESTOR DEMAND FOR TECH CREDITS AND DEPRESSED PRICING FORCE THE APPLICANT INTO PROLONGED NEGOTIATIONS. FEASIBLE FINAL EQUITY TERMS WERE NOT REACHED UNTIL JULY 2025, ABOUT A YEAR AFTER THE INITIAL AWARD. DESPITE THESE DELAYS, THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM HAS MAINTAINED PROGRESS BY ADVANCING,

[04:30:02]

CLOSING ON THIS DEAL IS ACTUALLY SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW, SEPTEMBER 5TH.

THE PROJECT CURRENTLY ANTICIPATES COMPLETION BY LATE 2026.

ONLY SHORTLY BEFORE THE CURRENT DEADLINE, HOWEVER, BOTH THE LENDER AND EQUITY PARTNERS HAVE INDICATED THAT UNFORESEEN ISSUES DURING CONSTRUCTION COULD PUSH FINAL DELIVERY BEYOND THE PLACE AND SERVICE DATE TO ALLOW FOR ANY SUCH UNFORESEEN DELAYS.

THE DEVELOPER HAS REQUESTED AN EXTENSION OF SIX MONTHS.

ESTABLISHING A NEW PLACED IN SERVICE DEADLINE OF JUNE 30TH, 2027.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEVELOPMENT ARE PRESENT SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. OKAY, SO THIS ONE'S LITERALLY READY TO CLOSE TOMORROW.

THAT IS WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS APPLICANTS RELAYED. YES. AND THEY HAVE ZONING AND PLANNING, AND EVERYTHING'S ALREADY APPROVED. I MEAN, THIS ISN'T JUST STARTING SOMEDAY OUT IN THE FUTURE.

IT'S. WE'RE READY TO START ACTUAL. PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION.

YES, SIR. THAT IS WHAT THE REQUEST RELATES. HE'S GOT.

HIS INVESTOR IS CLOSING TOMORROW. WE CAN HAVE THEM VERIFY THAT FOR US, BUT THAT'S BEEN IN THE INDICATION.

AND THEN THE OTHER PART, THIS WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF THE ALLOWANCE FOR SIX MONTHS.

IF IT'S A SIX MONTH, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO APPROVE THIS IN THE FUTURE.

YES. OR DENY IT. OKAY. IF YOU COULD, REPRESENTATIVE SAY YOU'RE AGAINST.

SAY YOUR NAME AND. SORRY. I'M GOING TO SLEEP OVER HERE.

WELL. GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIRMAN. BOARD MEMBERS.

MR. WILKINSON, APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY. FROM A TRYING TO KEEP EVERYTHING REALLY BRIEF.

I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. WE ARE SCHEDULED TO CLOSE TOMORROW.

WHAT'S YOUR NAME? MICHAEL THOMAS WITH. WITH MADHOUSE DEVELOPMENT.

WE ARE SCHEDULED TO CLOSE TOMORROW. HOWEVER, FUNDING HAS BEEN.

OR WE'RE WORKING ON GETTING FUNDING OVER TO ESCROW AND TITLE.

I COULD SEE IT SLIPPING TO MONDAY FOR SOME SIGNATURE PAGES.

THE PMP BOND. WE WENT AHEAD AND ACTUALLY SIGNED THE CONTRACT WITH THE CONTRACT, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO GO AHEAD AND START THE BUYOUT PROCESS SO WE CAN HOLD PRICING AND CONTINUE TO KIND OF KEEP THE PROCESS ROLLING. BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, THEY NEED A PHYSICAL BOND TO RECORD.

AND SO THAT LIKELY WILL MAKE ITS WAY OVER TO THE TITLE COMPANY TOMORROW.

BUT IT CAN TAKE A DAY TO RECORD THOSE THINGS.

SO MONDAY WOULD BE HOPEFULLY THE LAST DAY. OKAY.

CLOSING IMMINENT. YES, SIR. YEAH. YEAH. BECAUSE WE'VE ADOPTED THE SHAPE ALREADY AND NOW WE'VE WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY ADOPTED.

IT. WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY IT'S NOT ADOPTED YET.

IT'S PUBLISHED. OH, YEAH. WE GOT ALL KINDS OF.

THAT'S WHY WE HAD TO DO IT TODAY, BECAUSE THERE'S ALL THESE EXTRAS. BUT YES, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE THAT IF WHEN THE SHAPE IS ADOPTED, IT COULD GO BE APPROVED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH US.

GOTCHA. THAT'S GOOD. AND I DO HAVE MY INVESTOR HERE WITH RBC CAPITAL.

YOU'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM. WELL, I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S NECESSARY.

NO. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. FLEW DOWN FROM CHICAGO, RIGHT? YOU CAME FROM CHICAGO? YEAH. CLEVELAND. CLEVELAND.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I WAS GOING TO SAY CHICAGO. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO WITH CLEVELAND.

OKAY. OKAY. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE YOUR.

SATISFIED? THEY'RE READY TO GO. IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYONE'S READY TO GO.

ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION? MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THE BOARD, APPROVE THE REQUESTED TREATMENT UNDER AN APPLICATION OF THE FORCE MAJEURE RULE TO WESTWOOD APARTMENTS.

WITH A NEW PLACED IN SERVICE DEADLINE OF JUNE 30TH, 2027.

ALL IS DESCRIBED, CONDITION AND AUTHORIZED IN THE BOARD ACTION, REQUEST RESOLUTION AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON THIS ITEM.

MOTION MADE BY MISS FARIAS. IS THERE A SECOND SECOND SECONDED BY MR. MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. IT'S 30. STILL ON THE AGENDA.

THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED WE PULL IT FROM THE AGENDA.

I'M SORRY THAT THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT WE PULL THE ITEM.

ITEM 30 IS PULLED. ITEM 31, BEFORE WE GO BACK TO THE EARLIER ITEM.

PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR RETURN AND REALLOCATION OF TAX CREDITS UNDER TEN TAX.

SECTION 11.65 RELATED TO CREDIT RETURNS RESULTING FROM THE FORCE MAJEURE EVENTS FOR WEST END LOFTS.

ITEM 31 CONCERNS WEST END LOFTS 154 UNIT MIXED INCOME DEVELOPMENT IN DALLAS.

THE PROJECT PROPOSES THE ADAPTIVE REUSE OF A HISTORIC DOWNTOWN BUILDING, AS WELL AS AN ADJACENT NEW CONSTRUCTION COMPONENT.

[04:35:06]

THE PROJECT IS CURRENTLY ADVANCING, BUT HAS EXPERIENCED DELAYS DUE TO DIFFICULTIES IN OBTAINING REQUIRED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT FROM THE LOCAL UTILITY AND IN SCHEDULING TIMELY INSTALLATION AND ELECTRIFICATION. SPECIFICALLY, THE DEVELOPER IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN TRANSFORMERS AND A NEW VAULT FROM ENCORE DUE TO THE DEVELOPMENT'S LOCATION IN THE DALLAS CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.

THE EARLIEST THE EQUIPMENT CAN BE INSTALLED AND ELECTRIFIED IS FEBRUARY OF 2027.

THE PROJECT WILL NEED AN ADDITIONAL 4 TO 6 MONTHS OF WORK ONCE IT IS ELECTRIFIED, WHICH PLACES CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION AS LATE AS AUGUST OF 2027.

THE REQUEST STATES THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT PERMITTED TO USE AN ALTERNATIVE MEANS TO PROCURE THE TRANSFORMERS, NOR CAN THEY UNDERTAKE THE WORK THEMSELVES. IN ADDITION TO THE EQUIPMENT ISSUES, THE OTHER IMPEDIMENT DISCUSSED IN THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT DELAYS AT THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE REGARDING THEIR APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC TAX CREDITS.

DELAYED FEEDBACK HAS ADVERSELY IMPACTED TIMELINES FOR THE DESIGN AND OTHER SUBMITTALS.

DESPITE THESE DELAYS, THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM CONTINUES TO MOVE THE PROJECT FORWARD AND IS SECURED. FINANCING COMMITMENTS THROUGH HUNT CAPITAL PARTNERS AND BANK OZK, WHICH ARE SERVING AS THE TAX CREDIT INVESTOR AND CONSTRUCTION LENDER. THE APPLICANT HAS ACQUIRED THE DEVELOPMENT SITE AND HAVE PLANS SUBMITTED FOR PERMITS THAT SHOULD BE ISSUED IN THE NEXT 30 DAYS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A FULL YEAR EXTENSION OF THE PLACEMENT SERVICE DEADLINE TO DECEMBER 31ST, 2027. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEVELOPMENT ARE PRESENT SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

OKAY, SO THIS IS REALLY IT'S ALL ON THE ENCORE LEAD TIME.

THAT APPEARS TO BE SO. YES. THERE'S NO WAY AROUND IT.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST. DO ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE CLARIFICATIONS THAT THEY WANT TO ASK? ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT THIS IS BECOMING A COMMON PROBLEM IN DEVELOPMENTS TO OBTAIN TRANSFORMERS, ETC., AND IT'S DELAYING PROJECTS ALL OVER TEXAS.

BUT IT'S LEGIT. ALTHOUGH INFORMATION THAT I'VE JUST GOTTEN IN GENERAL, THAT THE TRANSFORMER PROBLEMS ARE NOW EASED OUT.

THERE'S NOT AS MUCH DELAY. THERE IS. THEY ARE EASY.

THIS ENCORE GROUP SOUNDS KIND OF EXTREME IN WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

MAYBE THEY'RE MANAGING EXPECTATIONS, RIGHT? SAYING ENCORE SAYS THEY'LL TAKE THIS LONG AND THEN THEY WILL BEAT IT BY HALF.

GOOD. I'M READY. OKAY. I'LL ENTERTAIN THEM. WELL, OKAY.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE THE BOARD, APPROVE THE REQUEST OF TREATMENT UNDER THE APPLICATION OF FORCE MAJEURE RULE FOR THE WEST END LOFTS.

WITH THE NEW PLACEMENT SERVICE DEADLINE OF DECEMBER 31ST, 2027 AS DESCRIBED.

CONDITION. AUTHORIZE THE BOARD ACTION. REQUEST RESOLUTION. ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS THIS ITEM.

SECOND. MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER, SECONDED BY MR. FARIAS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. WE ARE GOING BACK TO.

TO SOMEONE. REMEMBER WHAT THE 21 WAS IT? 21? YES.

IT'S 21. 21. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. WE ARE REVISITING ITEM 21, WHICH WAS TABLED EARLIER TO THE END OF THE MEETING, WHICH IS NOW.

AND. CAN WE GET AN UPDATE? SURE.

OKAY I HAVE THIS IS FOR ITEM 21 ON THE AGENDA.

SASHA STREMLER MRS GENERAL COUNSEL. I HAVE IN MY HAND HERE A SIGNED V&A FOR MELISSA FISHER 18 MONTH TERM SIGNED BY MELISSA FISHER ON BEHALF OF RISE RESIDENTIAL, RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION LLC AND HERSELF INDIVIDUALLY AND OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. WILKINSON. SO IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER THAT APPEAL FIRST, I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD.

JUST TO CLARIFY, WE HAVE THIS AGREEMENT. SO, SO SO YOU CAN EITHER CHOOSE TO GRANT THE APPEAL OR DENY THE APPEAL.

AND I RECOMMEND NOW THAT IT'S EXECUTED THAT YOU GRANT THE APPEAL.

[04:40:01]

NO IT'S 18. IT'S 18 RIGHT. YEAH. IT'S GOING TO END MARCH 4TH 2027.

THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE'RE TAKING MISS FISHER AND RISE.

YES. THIS MOTION ONLY FOR RISE AND MISS FISHER.

CORRECT. OKAY. AND NOW THE REVISED BOARD ACTION REQUEST IS DUE.

OH, THERE IS NO I MEAN, WE'RE IT'S IN PLACE WITH THAT KNOWLEDGE WE CAN VOTE ON.

THAT FIRST ONE GRANTING THE APPEAL. YEAH. AND THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF IS TO GRANT THE APPEAL.

SO THAT REMOVES REMOVES THE. DEBARMENT. SCARLET.

DEBARMENT. OKAY. OKAY. WOULD ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT? MISS FARIAS, I MOVE THE BOARD. GRANT THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT.

DETERMINATION IS TO RISE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION.

RIVERSIDE LLC AND MELISSA FISHER. OKAY. MOTION MADE BY MISS FARIAS.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? SECONDED BY MR. THOMAS.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.

MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING. OKAY.

SO GO TO 21 B, RIGHT. OKAY. SO AS TO, TO BILL FISHER AND SONOMA HOUSING THEY COULD NOT AGREE TO AN 18 MONTH TERM. AND SO WE DO NOT HAVE A VNA SIGNED BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

AND SO THE DEPARTMENT APPEAL IS UP FOR CONSIDERATION.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO HEAR IT. OKAY, SO THAT LEAVES LEAVES ON THE TABLE.

THE ORIGINAL BOARD ACTION REQUEST RECOMMENDING DEBARMENT AT SIX MONTHS.

CORRECT. AND THE BOARD HAS THE OPTION FLEXIBILITY TO CHANGE THE TERM.

CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE PUT FORTH A DEBARMENT AT TWO YEARS, 24 MONTHS.

WITH ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS CARE TO MAKE COMMENTS ON THIS? WELL, WITH THE THE PERSON WITH THE PARTY LIKE TO RECONSIDER. HIS POSITION THAT HE TOOK WITH THIS.

YEAH. THANK YOU, MR. MERCHANT. THANK YOU, BOARD MEMBERS, BILL FISHER.

SO I THINK A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I NEED TO ASK TO BE PUT ON THE RECORD.

I WOULD LIKE STAFF TO COME UP AND PUT ON THE RECORD WHAT MY EXISTING COMPLIANCE RECORD IS.

BECAUSE I THINK THAT I'VE MENTIONED IT, AND I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT STAFF IS AGREEABLE WITH WHAT I'VE SAID IN WRITING SEVERAL TIMES, WHICH IS I'VE BEEN IN THIS PROGRAM FOR A LONG TIME, AND I DON'T HAVE ANY COMPLIANCE HISTORY.

AND I BELIEVE YOUR RULES IN THE STATUTE REALLY ARE FOCUSED ON PEOPLE THAT DO REPEAT OFFENSES, ETC. I ALSO AM MADE A MISTAKE AND I TOOK RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT AT THE MOMENT ROSALIO CALLED ME.

THE YOUR RULE IS INTENTIONAL AND NEGLIGENT. SO THIS BOARD ALREADY RULED IN JANUARY OF 2025 ON 17 APPLICANTS WHO SUBMITTED THE WRONG REPORT.

FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN ADVANTAGE IN A TAX CREDIT ROUND, YOU MADE THE DETERMINATION, WHICH I'M CERTAINLY FINE WITH, THAT. THAT WAS NOT AN EGREGIOUS PROBLEM. AND THEY WERE ALLOWED TO PUT THE CORRECT REPORT IN WITHOUT ANY PENALTY.

SO I'D CERTAINLY LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE KIND OF WORKED OFF OF THAT.

THE RECENT DEBARMENT THAT YOU HAVE UNDERTAKEN HAVE INVOLVED AUTOMATIC DEBACLE ISSUES.

RIGHT? LIFE SAFETY ISSUES ON PROPERTIES THAT, AFTER GETTING REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES TO REPAIR THEM, DIDN'T GET DONE. THAT DEPARTMENT WAS FOR TWO YEARS WITH AN OPTION TO COME BACK AT THE END OF ONE.

THERE WAS THE GROUP THAT DID HAS HAD FORECLOSED OUT SIX YEARS.

AGAIN, I'VE BEEN IN THIS PROGRAM FOR 30 YEARS. NEVER EVEN HAD GOTTEN CLOSE TO ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

BUT IN YOUR DECISION WAS FOR A THREE YEAR DEBARMENT.

BUT THIS ISSUE OF WHO'S THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY? THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NONPROFIT SAID, I DIDN'T KNOW, I DIDN'T KNOW, AND I DIDN'T KNOW.

BUT UNDER THE RULES, HE HAD TO KNOW, BECAUSE IN THE LURA, THE NONPROFIT HAS TO BE THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY, HAS TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. SO THAT'S THE CONTEXT IN WHICH I'M DEALING WITH.

[04:45:02]

I MEAN, I'VE GOT TO DEFEND MY REPUTATION. I THINK TRACK RECORD.

THIS IS NOT A BUSINESS OF A PERSONALITY. IT'S NOT THE BUSINESS OF WHO YOU LIKE.

IT'S REALLY A BUSINESS ABOUT PERFORMANCE. AND MY PERFORMANCE TRACK RECORD IS IMPECCABLE IN THIS INDUSTRY.

I'VE BEEN IN 75 OR 80 TRANSACTIONS, MORE THAN $1 BILLION.

LITERALLY HAD THE SAME INVESTORS FOR MOST OF THAT PERIOD OF TIME THAT I'VE WORKED WITH.

SO. SO THE ISSUE FOR ME IS THE THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER IS THERE WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION OR WE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN HERE.

WE, YOU KNOW, THEY MADE A PROPOSAL FOR TWO YEARS.

WE RESPONDED THERE WAS A CALL YESTERDAY, AND I'D LIKE STAFF TO ADDRESS THAT TOO.

WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS AT THIS POINT? WE PROPOSE SIX.

YOU ALL HAVE PROPOSED SOMETHING ELSE. YOU KNOW, IS THERE ANY MIDDLE GROUND? AND WE WERE TOLD ON THE CALL IT'S TWO YEARS OR NOTHING.

OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE AGREED TO THE ONE YEAR THAT THEY'RE SAYING WAS, YOU KNOW, WAS SOMEWHERE PROPOSED IN BETWEEN.

SO WHAT I WOULD ASK THE BOARD TO DO IS TO AGREE TO THE ONE YEAR THAT WE WOULD HAVE SIGNED PREVIOUSLY.

IF NOT, I DIDN'T COMMIT A DISHONORABLE OFFENSE.

I DON'T I HAVE A TRACK RECORD UNDER YOUR RULES.

ALL WE CAN DO IS FOLLOW YOUR RULES. I'M ASKING YOU TO FOLLOW YOUR RULES.

AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU SQUARE A TWO YEAR DEBARMENT RECOMMENDATION WITH SUBMITTING A MISTAKEN REPORT THAT COULD NEVER, COULD NEVER, EVER BE REPRESENTED AS BEING DONE AS SOME MISREPRESENTATION.

IT'S REPLETE WITH RED LINES AND DIFFERENT FONTS, ETC.

A GLANCE. EVEN THE STAFF, WHEN THEY FIRST CALLED ME SAID, HEY, IS ANYTHING? ARE THEY ALL THESE RED LINES? I MEAN, THESE ORIGINAL WORK PRODUCT? WELL, OF COURSE NOT. AND I TOLD THEM IMMEDIATELY THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE. AND WE DO MAKE MISTAKES AND I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT.

I'VE ENTERED INTO A CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN, AND I HAVE OFFERED TO TAKE A PENALTY AS A RESULT OF THAT.

BUT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, I'VE GOT TO DEAL WITH THE REALITY OF HOW MUCH MORE TIME I HAVE IN THIS PROGRAM.

AND I DO REFLECT ON THE WONDERFUL WORK THAT I'VE DONE IN THIS STATE FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.

AND I WOULD ASK YOU ALL TO RECONSIDER ACCEPTING THE ONE YEAR THAT I GUESS WE WOULD HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO YESTERDAY WITHOUT A MISUNDERSTANDING. AND WITH THAT, I'LL LET MY ATTORNEY MAKE ANY OTHER COMMENTS.

BUT THE QUESTION I ASKED WAS, DO YOU PREFER A TWO YEAR DEBARMENT OVER THE SAME AGREEMENT THAT WAS OFFERED TO THE OTHER PARTY? I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR YOU, CONGRESSMAN. YOU WERE MY CONGRESSMAN IN DALLAS FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.

MANY PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THAT YOU ARE A PIONEER.

YOU YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN IN A STATE IN AN AREA THAT ONLY, YOU KNOW ELECTED DEMOCRAT.

SO I HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR YOU. BUT YOU WERE ON THE ETHICS COMMITTEE, AND THEY TRUMPED UP SOME NONSENSE WHEN YOU WERE GOING TO RUN AGAIN TO GET YOU OUT AND GET BETH VAN DUYNE IN. SO THINGS HAPPEN FOR OTHER REASONS.

I THINK AT THIS POINT. BUT THE ANSWER IS I DON'T WANT TO BE DEBARRED.

I ASK YOU THE QUESTION. I'D LIKE AN ANSWER. YOU'D PREFER A TWO YEAR DEBARMENT TO THE TO AN 18 MONTH INTERNAL AGREEMENT? IT'S NOT A PREFERENCE. NEITHER IS A PREFERENCE, MR. MARCHAND. I HAVE RECOURSE FOR DEBARMENT FOR BEING DEBARRED BY THE BOARD UNDER A STATUTE AND A RULE THAT I DIDN'T VIOLATE.

I DON'T WANT TO DO IT. I I'D ASK YOU ALL TO RECONSIDER.

I'D LIKE TO PUT THIS TO BED. WE'RE JUST GOING TO BURN MORE RESOURCES ON IT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. I DON'T WANT TO BE DEBARRED.

I'M TRYING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. I CAN'T I CAN'T DO THE 18 MONTHS BECAUSE I'VE ALREADY SAT OUT A YEAR AND WE HAVE A BUSINESS TO RUN AND WE HAVE EMPLOYEES AND I CAN'T KEEP THEM. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE A BUSINESS.

I KNOW MANY OF YOU ARE SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSMEN, MR. HARPER, MR. VASQUEZ, MR. JOHNSON, YOU ALL HAVE WONDERFUL BUSINESS EXPERIENCE.

SO YOU UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT ON A BUSINESS THAT CAN'T DO BUSINESS IN THEIR PRIMARY AREA.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK OUR COUNCIL A QUESTION, PLEASE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. IN THIS PRESENTATION, THERE'S THERE IMPLIED THREATS OF LITIGATION.

CORRECT. AND HOW SHOULD THE BOARD RESPOND TO THAT? CERTAINLY. I MEAN, HE HAS RECOURSE, JUST LIKE WE ALL THAT ARE CITIZENS.

WELL, HE HAS RECORDED. YEAH. SO, I MEAN, I THINK I THINK THAT'S, IT'S IT'S UP TO YOU THAT THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE, HOWEVER, IS, IS JUST THE DEBARMENT. SO EITHER WE, WE MOVE TO GRANT THE APPEAL OR WE MOVE TO DENY THE APPEAL.

I'M GOING TO REFRAIN FROM ASKING ANY MORE QUESTIONS.

[04:50:03]

GOOD AFTERNOON. BILL WAS CORRECT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

ROBERT WOOD I REPRESENT SONOMA HOUSING AND BILL FISHER.

OKAY. BILL WAS CORRECT. UNLESS SOMEBODY COMES UP AND TELLS YOU, HERE'S ALL THE THINGS THAT HE'S DONE BEFORE, OR AT LEAST ONE THING HE'S DONE BEFORE. YOUR STATUTE DOESN'T PERMIT A DEBARMENT PERIOD.

HE WAS WILLING TO TAKE SOME TIME OFF VOLUNTARILY TO NOT HAVE THIS GO ON ANY FURTHER. THAT'S NOT A THREAT.

IT JUST IS. AND WHAT HE TOLD YOU IS HE'S GOING TO BE 71 YEARS OLD IN FEBRUARY, AND HE CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT HE'LL EVEN BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THIS BUSINESS FOR A FEW MORE YEARS.

ONCE HE GETS EITHER PAST YOUR TWO YEAR RECOMMENDATION OR PAST YOUR 18 MONTH RECOMMENDATION.

BUT THE FACT IS, AND I'M NOT HERE RIGHT NOW, BUT I'M SORRY YOU MOVED UP.

I THINK SHE CAN VERIFY THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY OTHER VIOLATIONS, BECAUSE WE'VE NEVER RECEIVED ANY NOTICE OF ANY OTHER VIOLATIONS WITH ANY OF THE COMPANIES HE'S WORKED AT BEFORE. THIS BOARD HAS MADE NUMEROUS DECISIONS, AS HE TALKED ABOUT NOT TO DEBAR CERTAIN PEOPLE. AND THIS BOARD, THIS STRONG BOARD.

LET 17 PEOPLE GO AFTER THEY FILED A REPORT THEY KNEW WAS IN ERROR.

THEY KNEW WAS LATE. THAT WAS PAST THE DEADLINE FOR THE PRE-APPLICATION.

IT HAD NEW INFORMATION FROM THE JOBS REPORTS WHICH HELPED THEIR ELIGIBILITY.

WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THAT WAS A BAD DECISION.

WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT IF YOU MADE THAT DECISION ON THIS BOARD IN JANUARY, HOW DO YOU DEFEND MAKING THE DECISION YOU ARE PROPOSING TODAY WITH SOMEBODY WHO'S NEVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG ON THIS WITH THIS AGENCY, SOMEBODY WHO'S PUT OVER 10,000 UNITS IN PLACE WITH HUMAN BEINGS LIVING IN THEM RIGHT NOW IN THIS STATE. MOST OF THOSE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN NOMINATED.

MANY HAVE WON AWARDS. SO HE MISSED. HE PICKED THE WRONG REPORT, SIMILAR NAME, DIFFERENT NUMBER. AND THE REPORT THAT YOU CAN SEE IN YOUR BOOK WOULD HAVE GIVEN NOBODY ANY INDICATION IT WAS THE RIGHT ONE.

UNLIKE THE 17 PEOPLE WHO TRIED TO GET PAST THE DEADLINE BY IMPROVING THEIR POSITION, HE DIDN'T DO THAT.

ALSO, THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, SUCH AS BRIAN AND CHERYL PATASHNIK I BROUGHT UP LAST TIME.

THEY'RE BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING RIGHT NOW IN NEVADA BECAUSE THIS BOARD, NOT THIS PARTICULAR BOARD, BUT THIS BOARD PREVIOUSLY CHOSE NOT TO DO ANYTHING WITH THEM.

THEY PLED GUILTY AND SERVED TIME. MR. BOB SHERMAN PLED GUILTY EARLIER THIS YEAR IN DALLAS, TEXAS, TO A FELONY, WHEREAS HIS DISBARMENT PROCEEDING RURAL HAMILTON WAS INDICTED AND CONVICTED ON FELONY CHARGES.

NOBODY TRIED TO BAR HIM. DUE PROCESS REQUIRES YOU TO DO THE SAME THING TO EVERYBODY AND TREAT THEM EQUALLY.

THOSE ARE ALL FAR WORSE THAN ANYTHING MY FORMER BIG BROTHER AND MY FRATERNITY EVER DID.

I'VE KNOWN HIM FOR ALMOST 45 YEARS NOW. HE'S HAD NO VIOLATIONS WITH YOUR ORGANIZATION.

SO FIRST QUESTION IS, DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT HE'S DONE ANYTHING PRIOR? BECAUSE FILING ONE REPORT BY MISTAKE, WHICH CLEARLY COULD NOT HAVE LED ANYBODY ASTRAY, IS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR WHAT YOU'VE IGNORED IN THE PAST FOR OTHERS. I'M ASKING FOR EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ENTITLED TO.

SO HE'S STILL WILLING TO OFFER THE ONE YEAR IF YOU NEED A POUND OF FLESH UNDER AN AGREEMENT, OR WE CAN DO IT THE OTHER WAY. BUT HE'S NOT JUST GOING TO SIT BACK AND QUIT FOR 18 MONTHS PLUS A YEAR ALREADY, OR TWO YEARS PLUS A YEAR ALREADY. IT'S NOT FAIR.

IT'S NOT RIGHT. IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING WITHIN THE LAST 7 TO 10 MONTHS,

[04:55:04]

I'M ASKING YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING, AND WE'LL TAKE EITHER WAY.

EITHER YOU GO AHEAD AND ACCEPT THE ONE YEAR DEAL THAT HE WAS OFFERED.

AND I WAS ON THAT PHONE CALL YESTERDAY AND I ASKED, I SAID, WELL, CAN I GO BACK AND TALK TO BILL ABOUT THE ONE YEAR? BECAUSE I DON'T THINK HE UNDERSTANDS THAT. AND THE ANSWER WAS NO.

BY MR. ECHOLS, IT'S TWO YEARS. IT'LL BE UP TO THE BOARD.

THAT'S NOT THE TYPE OF TREATMENT. SOMEBODY WHO'S GIVEN $1 BILLION WORTH OF INVESTMENTS IN OUR STATE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE POOR PEOPLE IN OUR STATE, DESERVES. IT'S WRONG, IT'S UNFAIR, AND IT'S AGAINST YOUR OWN STATUTE.

THANK YOU, MR. WOOD. OKAY. DO ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS OR WOULD SOME.

CAN I JUST RESPOND TO A FEW THINGS? I'M SORRY TO BRING MY PHONE UP HERE, BUT I JUST WANT TO LOOK I LOOK BACK IN MY EMAIL BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN REPRESENTATIONS THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE THAT WE HAD COUNTERED WITH A ONE YEAR OFFER.

I HAVE AN EMAIL TO HIM DATED AUGUST 27TH THAT SAYS MR. FISHER, RESPONSIVE EDITS ARE ATTACHED. WE ARE.

I'M SORRY, I DON'T. OKAY. AT THIS POINT, TO ME, NONE OF THAT IS RELEVANT.

OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. I MEAN, AND WE HAVE ALREADY JUST NOW OFFERED A.

AN ALTERNATIVE THAT HAS BEEN DENIED, YOU KNOW, DECLINED.

SO THAT BRINGS US BACK TO. ADDRESSING THE VOTE.

THE MOTION AT HAND. ALTHOUGH I DON'T THINK WE'VE ACTUALLY MADE THE MOTION YET.

NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. GIVEN ALL THAT WE'VE HEARD.

WOULD ANYONE HERE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION ON REGARDING MR. FISHER AND THE COMPANY? SONOMA. SONOMA. SONOMA HOUSING ADVISORS.

WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO DO A ONE YEAR DEAL WITH THIS? I'M JUST THIS BOARD.

ARE YOU WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO DO A ONE YEAR DEAL ON THE DEBARMENT, ON THE ON THE DNA, ON THE DNA? I THINK THAT IT NEEDS TO BE TO ME. WE'VE ALREADY COME DOWN FROM TWO YEARS DNA TO 18 MONTHS.

I MEAN, THAT'S. THAT'S SPLITTING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM SAYING, WELL, I'M WILLING TO DO ONE YEAR.

I REALLY WANT TWO YEARS. WHETHER IT'S DNA OR DEBARMENT.

SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE. MAKE IT 18 MONTHS. DNA.

THEY'VE SAID NO. CAN I ASK JUST HOW DID WE GO FROM SIX MONTHS TO TWO YEARS? AND THEN FROM A RECOMMENDATION OF 18 MONTHS TO A YEAR? THAT'S NOT DEBARMENT. THAT'S A VOLUNTARY NONPARTICIPATION NUMBER.

SO WAS THE ORIGINAL MOTION SIX MONTHS DEBARMENT THE ORIGINAL PRESENTATION? THAT WAS AGAIN EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS. ON YOUR ORIGINAL.

FINDINGS AND WORKING WITH THEM? I MEAN, IT'S THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS SIX MONTHS THAT WAS MADE TO THE BOARD, BUT THE BOARD DOES HAVE THE DISCRETION TO INCREASE OR DECREASE THAT UNDER THE RULES RECOMMENDATION BEFORE US TO APPEAL TO SIX MONTHS.

CORRECT. YEAH. I'M RIGHT NOW THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF.

WELL OR WHAT WAS ABSENT THE VRNA IN THE RECESS STAFF RECOMMENDATION REMAINS TO DENY THE APPEAL OF THE DEBARMENT. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, STAFF OR MR. WILKINSON IS ALREADY IMPLEMENTED DEBARMENT FOR SIX MONTHS.

THEY ARE APPEALING THAT IF THEY IF THEY REMOVED THE APPEAL, IF THEY IF WE WITHDREW THE APPEAL, WOULD IT BE A SIX MONTH DEBARMENT OF WHICH HE DOESN'T WANT IT ON HIS RECORD? OKAY. THAT'S THE WHOLE THING. YEAH, ACTUALLY, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A GOOD POINT.

THEY WITHDREW THE APPEAL, IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE THE EXISTING SIX MONTH.

HOW MUCH OF THAT HAS ALREADY RUN? NO, NO. NOTHING'S WRONG.

OKAY. IF THE IF WHAT I'M HEARING IS IF I WITHDRAW MY APPEAL, WE WOULD HAVE A SIX MONTH DEBARMENT.

[05:00:05]

I THINK THAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM. NO, I WAS I JUST IF THAT'S AN OPTION, I WANTED TO BE RESPONSIVE AT ALL AND THEIR STAFF.

SO THE BOARD WOULD STILL HAVE TO APPROVE THE DEBARMENT ORDER.

PARDON. SO THAT SO WHEN DEPARTMENTS HAPPEN, EVEN IF THEY'RE LIKE AN AGREED UPON TERM, THE THE BOARD APPROVES THE ORDER OF DEBARMENT BY DENYING THE APPEAL, BY DENYING IN SETTING THE FINAL ORDER OF DEBARMENT FROM FOR SIX MONTHS FROM TODAY.

BUT DO WE HAVE THE OPTION OF CHANGING THE THE TERM? YES. OKAY. IS IT AN OPTION FOR HIM TO. WELL IT DOESN'T.

EVEN IF HE WITHDRAWS THE APPEAL, HE IS DEBARRED.

WELL, BUT WE THEN HAVE TO APPROVE THAT DEBARMENT AT THE BOARD, AND WE HAVE THE OPTION OF CHANGING THE TERMS. WE WOULD MAKE A CONDITIONAL OFFER THAT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE WILLING TO DO, WE WOULD GO ALONG WITH THAT.

BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IS STEP OFF A PLANK AND GO INTO THE GRAND CANYON FOR TWO YEARS, 18 MONTHS, OR ANYTHING ELSE. BUT WE'RE WILLING TO TAKE WHAT HE'S RECOMMENDING IF THAT SUITS THE BOARD.

I'M NOT RECOMMENDING. I'M JUST TRYING TO RECAP, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

MR. MARSHALL, BACK TO WHAT THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION FROM HER WAS TO THE BOARD.

AND THEN THAT WAS THE APPEAL THAT WE WERE GOING TO DENY.

I MEAN, RECOMMENDATION WAS TO DENY THAT APPEAL.

RIGHT. WHICH WOULD DE FACTO THEN REVERT BACK TO THE SIX MONTH.

YES, UNLESS YOU CHANGE THE TERM. UNLESS WE STILL HAVE THE.

UNLESS WE CHANGE THE. YEAH. AND IT WAS STATED REALLY CLEARLY UNDER THE MONTH AGO.

WE CAN'T HAVE A DEPARTMENT ON OUR RECORD. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST THAT WAS THAT WAS THE BIG DEAL.

THAT'S WHY WE STARTED COMING UP WITH ALTERNATIVES.

NOW YOU'RE SAYING, OH, I'M FINE WITH THE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE THIS IS WHERE I REALLY TRIED HARD TO SEPARATE.

WE WERE ALL LINKED TOGETHER. EVERYTHING WAS BEING DONE TOGETHER.

SO MELISSA IS A CPA AND OPERATES A BUSINESS AND EMPLOYS A LOT OF PEOPLE.

SHE'S DONE A LOT OF GOOD WORK AND SHE CANNOT GET DEBARRED.

SHE'S 40 YEARS OLD, A MOTHER OF THREE. SHE'S BUILT THIS BUSINESS AND SHE CANNOT GET DEBARRED.

SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. ONCE WE'VE SEPARATED THE ISSUES OUT, IT'S DIFFERENT.

AND I HAD ASKED FOR THAT PREVIOUSLY. AND I'M NOT PUTTING WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH.

YOU ASKED QUESTIONS THAT I WOULD HAVE ASKED, BUT I'M REALLY NOT IN A POSITION TO DO THAT.

OUR STAFF. WHAT THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS THE ORIGINAL? CORRECT. BUT WE COULD CHANGE. CHAIRMAN. THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS A SIX MONTH DEBARMENT UNDER THE RULES.

SO GENERALLY WE ISSUE THE WHEN THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ISSUES HIS DEBARMENT TERMINATION, THE PARTIES HAVE SEVEN DAYS TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL.

IF THEY DON'T APPEAL, WE STILL HAVE TO PRESENT THE DEBARMENT TO THE BOARD TO SIGN THE ORDER GRANTING THE DEBARMENT.

AND SO, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY FILED AN APPEAL, WE WOULD STILL BE HERE FOR YOU TO TO RULE ON, ON THE DEBARMENT. SO IN THIS CASE, BEFORE YOU, WE HAVE A SIX MONTH DEBARMENT RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS APPEALED BY MR. FISHER AND SONOMA HOUSING. AND SO BEFORE YOU, YOU HAVE AND YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EITHER GRANT THE APPEAL OR DENY THE APPEAL, WHICH WOULD BE THE SIX MONTH DEBARMENT. OR YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT UNDER THE RULES TO CHANGE THE TERM OF THE DEBARMENT.

I THINK YOU HAVE PROPOSED AN ALTERNATIVE TO THAT OF 18 MONTHS ADMINISTRATIVELY.

RIGHT. WE HAD WE HAD PROPOSED THIS ALTERNATE AGREEMENT.

WE INITIALLY OFFERED TWO YEARS. THEY CAME BACK WITH SIX MONTHS.

WE COUNTERED WITH ONE. THEY TOLD US THEY COULDN'T DO ONE.

I DO HAVE THE EMAILS THAT SAY THAT. AND SO THERE WAS NO THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT.

THEY CAME BACK WITH SAID THEY COULDN'T DO ONE YEAR.

STILL WANTED THE SIX MONTHS. AND THAT'S WHERE WE WERE WHEN WE ARRIVED AT THE BOARD MEETING TODAY. AND THAT WAS US TRYING TO FIND THE INTERIM STEP WHERE IT'S NOT DEBARMENT, IT'S BUT YOUR TIME OUT. YOUR VOLUNTARY TIME OUT.

I MEAN, MR. MERCHANT, YOU UNDERSTAND THEIR OPTIONS OR WHERE TO? YES, I DO UNDERSTAND THEM. AND IF I UNDERSTOOD WHAT HE JUST SAID, AND HIS ATTORNEYS HAVE SAID IS THEY'D RATHER HAVE A SIX MONTH DEBARMENT THAN AN 18 MONTH AGREEMENT. YES, IF THAT RESOLVES THE ISSUE.

I'VE DONE BUSINESS WITH THIS AGENCY. I UNDERSTAND.

I'M JUST TRYING TO FRAME THE ISSUE. DO ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WISH TO CHIME

[05:05:06]

THAT WAS DECLINED. SO. I'M GOING TO STICK WITH MY, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, MY TWO YEAR RECOMMENDATION, BUT I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO YOU.

AN ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTION, BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO BE GENEROUS.

I WOULD GO I WOULD MOVE IN AND TRY TO PERSUADE THE BOARD THAT WE SHOULD ACCEPT STAFF'S ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY HAD PROPOSED FOR THE VNA FOR A ONE YEAR TERM. AND IF THAT'S AGREEABLE TO MR. FISHER, I WOULD BE WILLING TO GET BEHIND THAT.

YES. OKAY, SO PROCEDURALLY, IF WE DID THAT, YOU WOULD NEED TO TABLE THIS MOTION AND WE WOULD ASSIGN LIKE WE DID JUST SO WE CAN PUT THIS ISSUE TO REST. ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT MR. FISHER HAS DONE A LOT OF WORK IN THE STATE AND AND AND THEN WORK WITH THE AGENCY AND MOVE ON DOWN THE ROAD WITH A ONE YEAR TERM. ON. THE BOARD HASN'T. YEAH.

THE BOARD HASN'T DONE ANYTHING I CAN BE I CAN BE SHOT DOWN HERE.

I WAS GOING TO SAY MR. WOOD JUST ARGUED. WELL, YOU KNOW, LET'S HAVE EQUAL TREATMENT. AND IF WE'RE DOING EQUAL TREATMENT TO SOMEONE ELSE WHO WE'VE SEEN. WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR A BASICALLY EXACTLY THE SAME TRANSGRESSION.

YEAH, THAT'S NOT FAIR TO MELISSA. MR. FISHER SHOULD ALSO GET THE 18 MONTHS.

AND BASED ON MR. WOOD'S ARGUMENT THAT WE SHOULD BE EQUAL IN OUR TREATMENT.

YEAH. I DO THINK THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACT PATTERN AS I READ THEM AND UNDERSTAND THEM ARE DIFFERENT IN THIS CASE, BETWEEN THE TWO ISSUES AND HOW THEY WERE EVEN PRESENTED HERE TODAY.

AFTER THE JULY BOARD MEETING AND WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS.

BUT AGAIN, I WILL I'LL DO WHAT MY FELLOW COLLEAGUES WANT TO DO.

BUT I THINK IN THE INTEREST OF MOVING FORWARD AND TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE SORT OF A MIDDLE GROUND, I WOULD OFFER THE COMPROMISE OF THE ONE YEAR, AS I THINK, FAIR, THAT SENDS A MESSAGE THAT WE DON'T LIKE IT, BUT ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE I WOULD ARGUE, GO BACK TO THE DOCUMENT IN 236 OR PAGE 236 OR WHATEVER IT WAS, COULD IT, COULD IT HAVE BEEN A BAD MISTAKE AND PUT IT IN? SURE. YOU HAVE TO. MAYBE SOME MEMBERS HAVE TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF DISBELIEF ON THAT.

BUT SURE, IT COULD COULD HAVE HAPPENED. GIVEN THE WORK HE'S DONE.

HE'S HAD NO RECORD. IF STAFF CAN VERIFY HE'S HAD NO FORM NO PREVIOUS YES.

I DON'T BELIEVE SASHA. I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE DONE A PREVIOUS PARTICIPATION.

AND EVEN IF WE FOLLOWED OUR PREVIOUS PARTICIPATION RULE, IT.

TYPICALLY THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS, BUT TYPICALLY WOULD ONLY GO BACK THREE YEARS IF YOU WANTED STAFF TO DO SOMETHING OVER WHAT HE REPRESENTED.

WHAT I CAN SAY IS HE HAS NEVER BEEN REFERRED TO THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE.

PRIOR TO THIS, IT'S NOT BEEN REFERRED TO ANY ENFORCEMENT ACTION.

NORMALLY FOR ENFORCEMENT, IT WOULD BE SOME KIND OF CONDITION OF A PROPERTY.

IT WOULD BE JUST THE GP DEVELOPER THAT WOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, NOT NECESSARILY A CONSULTANT ON THE DEAL ANYWAY.

RIGHT. I THINK THE COMPROMISE. MY ORIGINAL VNA, NOT AS THE ALTERNATIVE TO A DEBARMENT WAS TWO YEARS.

STAFF TALKED WITH THEM ABOUT ONE YEAR, I'M SAYING AND NOW THEY'RE SAYING AGREE TO ONE YEAR.

I THINK THE COMPROMISE IS SPLIT. THE DIFFERENCE 18 MONTHS ON THE DNA.

I'M STILL WILLING TO TO DO THAT IN LIEU OF THE TWO YEAR DEBARMENT.

KELLY, WOULD YOU MAKE A MOTION? YEAH, I'LL. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION, I MOVE, I MOVE THE BOARD.

DENY THE APPEAL OF THE DEBARMENT DETERMINATION.

IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT I WOULD WANT TO SAY. DENY THE APPEAL.

SO IF IF YOU'RE IN A NO NO, IF YOU WANT THEM TO ENTER INTO THE TABLE, THEN YOU HAVE TO.

[05:10:05]

ALLOW IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S ALREADY BEEN SIGNED.

I MOVE I MOVE THAT THE BOARD TABLE AGENDA ITEM 21 BE AS AS I THINK WE'RE CALLING IT.

TO GIVE. IN. LET'S SAY I MOVE THE BOARD TABLE AGENDA ITEM 21 AS IT RELATES TO SONOMA HOUSING ADVISORS, LLC AND JAMES BILL FISHER. TO ALLOW STAFF TO GO BACK AND NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO A VNA AGREEMENT FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR FROM THAT WOULD THAT WOULD END SEPTEMBER 4TH 20, 2026.

SECOND. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I AM GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS MOTION, BUT. SO A MOTION MADE BY MR. THOMAS, SECONDED BY MISS ARIAS, TO TEMPORARILY TABLE AND GIVE STAFF.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO AGREE TO THE TABLE. ARE YOU ASSUMING THAT'S NEGOTIATIONS? YEAH. WELL, SO ONCE THE ITEM IS PUBLISHED, THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO.

THEY'VE AGREED. YEAH. THEY'VE AGREED. OKAY, GREAT.

OKAY. SO AGAIN MOTION TO TEMPORARILY TABLE GIVE TIME TO ENTER INTO A 12 MONTH.

THE THE NAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION SAY AYE.

AYE. NAY, NAY. OH, HEY. ALL RIGHT. SO MOTION DOESN'T PASS.

THREE. THREE. THREE. FIVE. SO WOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE TO MAKE A SEPARATE MOTION? AM I ALLOWED TO MAKE A MOTION? IS THERE A IS IT APPROPRIATE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE SO THAT WE CAN THEN COME BACK? I MEAN, IT'S MY IMPRESSION WE NEED TO TABLE THIS APPEAL OR DENY THE APPEAL AND THEN COME BACK WITH AN ALTERNATIVE. IF IF YOU DENY THE APPEAL, THEN WITHOUT ANY OTHER INSTRUCTION, THEN THE SIX MONTHS WOULD ALSO APPROVE THE SIX MONTHS. SO I'M GOING TO MAKE THE WAY THE WAY THAT IT IS THAT IS WRITTEN.

OKAY. THAT WOULD BE APPROVING THE SIX MONTH. YOU WOULD HAVE TO YOUR MOTION WOULD HAVE TO SAY WHAT THE ALTERNATIVE TERM WOULD BE.

AND MY MY REASONING BEHIND IT, IN MY OPINION, AS A BOARD MEMBER, A SIX MONTH DEBARMENT IS A HARSH, MORE HARSH AND PROBABLY GRAMMATICALLY NOT SAYING THIS RIGHT.

MY ENGLISH, MY SENIOR ENGLISH TEACHER WAS MORE HARSH THAN AN 18 MONTH AGREEMENT.

AND THAT'S THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS A SIX MONTH DEBARMENT.

SO THAT IS A DISCUSSION, NOT A MOTION. THAT'S UP TO THEM TO DECIDE.

I MEAN, YEAH, I WOULD AGREE. IT SOUNDS LIKE A DEBARMENT IS ON THE RECORD THAT WAY.

SO I'M GOING TO VENTURE OUT AND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO, NOT THAT WE DENY THE APPEAL.

WHICH IN EFFECT, WITHOUT ANY OTHER STATEMENT OF ADJUSTING THE TERM, WOULD HAVE THE SIX MONTHS FROM TODAY AND TOMORROW. OKAY. SO BUT AFTER THAT, THE BOARD CAN COME BACK AND MAKE AN ALTERNATIVE? NO, NO, YOU'D HAVE TO MAKE THAT IN THAT MOTION THEN.

OKAY, THEN IF THE BOARD DOES NOT THINK THAT IS A REASONABLE RECOMMENDATION AND IT'LL DIE FROM LACK OF A SECOND.

WELL, I HAVEN'T ASKED FOR A SECOND YET. YOU YOU DIDN'T FINISH YOUR YOU DIDN'T FINISH YOUR YOUR MOTION.

I MEAN, WAS THAT THE ENTIRE MOTION OR YOU MOTION FOR MORE? I MY MOTION WAS TO DENY THE APPEAL, THEN LEAVE THE TERM OF DEBARMENT AT SIX MONTHS.

THAT WOULD BE THE THAT WOULD BE THE RESULT OF IT.

SECOND. OKAY, SO A MOTION MADE BY MR. MARCHANT TO DENY THE APPEAL OF DEPARTMENT OF THE DEBARMENT LEAVING THE TERM AT SIX MONTHS DEBARMENT

[05:15:08]

OKAY, FINAL DISCUSSION. I STILL THINK THAT THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE LONGER, SO I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT.

AGAINST THE MOTION, ALTHOUGH YOU'RE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. OKAY.

SO SO USUALLY BACK OUT OF THE ROOM. MOTION MADE BY MR..

MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL. LEAVING PERIOD. LEAVING IT AS THE SIX MONTHS. AND SECONDED BY MR. HARPER.

CORRECT. CORRECT. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY ANY NOTES? AM I THE ONLY NOTE? NO, I'M A SECOND. NO. OKAY. HOWEVER, THAT MOTION PASSES 4 TO 2 TO DENY THE APPEAL.

THE SIX MONTH THE GARMENT IS NOW ENTERED.

THANK YOU. OUT OF CURIOSITY. SO AFTER SOMEONE HAS COMPLETED THEIR DEPARTMENT TERM, IS THERE ANY OTHER REPERCUSSIONS TO THEM ON FUTURE APPLICATIONS? YEAH. THE IT WILL BE PART OF THEIR PARTICIPATION.

PARTICIPATION RECORD FOR THE THREE YEAR PERIOD.

THERE THERE COULD BE CASES WHERE IT BE LONGER THAN THREE YEARS, BUT GENERALLY A THREE YEAR PERIOD. IT'S IT'S A REPORTABLE ITEM, BUT THAT'S NOT A ELIMINATION. NO IT IS NOT. OKAY. OKAY. 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 MAKE 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? SO. THAT'S ALL BEEN SAID. JUST NOT EVERYONE SAID.

OKAY. SEEING NONE. THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BOARD IS 10 A.M.

ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9TH AT THE BARBARA JORDAN STATE OFFICE BUILDING AT 1601 CONGRESS AVENUE, ROOM 2.034. SO PAY ATTENTION TO THE LOCATION.

IT'S A FANCY NEW BUILDING. FANCY NEW BUILDING. IS IT A NEW BUILDING? OKAY, I WAS WONDERING WHERE IT WAS. OKAY, SO 10 A.M.

THURSDAY, THE BARBARA JORDAN STATE OFFICE BUILDING. IT SEEMS THAT THE SEEING THAT WE'VE COMPLETED THE BUSINESS OF THE BOARD IS 333.

WE ARE ADJOURNED. OKAY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.