HONORARY. GOOD MORNING. I CALLED TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. 
          [Board Meeting on November 6, 2025.]
          [00:00:08]
IT IS 10:06 A.M. ON NOVEMBER 6TH, 2025. WE WILL START OUT WITH THE ROLL CALL. 
          MR. MARTIAN, COME HERE. MISS FARIAS MAYOR. MR. THOMAS HAS AN EXCUSED ABSENCE TODAY. MR. HARPER HERE,
MISS CONROY HERE. 
          AND MYSELF. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. AS USUAL. NOW EVERYONE IS SEATED AND QUIET. 
          WE WILL STAND UP AND BOBBY WILL LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE. 
          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. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO TEXAS,
ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. 
          WELL, I'M GLAD EVERYONE COULD FIND US IN OUR NEW UPTOWN MEETING SPOT FOR THIS MONTH. 
          OKAY. OKAY. HANG ON A SECOND. OKAY. CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? YES. OKAY. I MEAN, SO THIS IS USUALLY, I HAVE AN ECHO BACK SO I CAN HEAR THEM BEING HEARD. 
          AND WE WILL. DO YOU HAVE A RECOGNITION OF. WE HAVE A SPECIAL A QUICK VISIT FOR OUR NEW
GOVERNOR'S ADVISOR, PATRICK MICHAELS. CAN YOU GIVE US A WAVE BACK THERE? THANK YOU. STANDING BACK UP,
IT'S IT'S QUITE A HIKE FROM THE FROM THE CAPITOL. 
          SO I DIDN'T GET TO INTRODUCE HIM TO YOU ALL BEFORE THE FOR THE MEETING,
BUT HE'LL BE OUR OUR GUY FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. DANNY GOT PROMOTED TO A DEPUTY POLICY DIRECTOR. SO THANKS FOR BEING HERE, PATRICK. GREAT. 
          GOOD TO HAVE YOU ON ABOARD. PATRICK ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE. HAS ANY ISSUES WITH THE
BOARD? GO TO PATRICK. OKAY. AND WE'LL START OUT WITH THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          IS THERE ARE THERE ANY CHANGES OR ITEMS THAT SOMEONE WOULD WANT TO MOVE FROM CONSENT TO
ACTION? IF NOT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS POSTED. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THE BOARD APPROVE ITEMS ONE THROUGH 14 AS DESCRIBED AND PRESENTED IN
THE RESPECTIVE BOARD ACTION, REQUEST AND REPORTS. THANK YOU. MOTION MADE BY MISS FARIAS. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? SECONDED BY MR. HARPER. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. 
          MOTION CARRIES. MR. WILKINSON, PLEASE GIVE US AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. 
          GOOD MORNING. CHAIRMAN. BOARD. I'LL LEAD OFF TODAY WITH NEWS FROM OUR SINGLE FAMILY AND
HOMELESS PROGRAMS DIVISION, WHERE WE HAVE SOME GOOD NEWS. IN AUGUST 2024,
YOU APPROVED OUR PLAN TO WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES TO ESTABLISH OUR FOSTER YOUTH TO INDEPENDENCE VOUCHERS. 
          WE'RE ALLOWED TO REQUEST UP TO 25 VOUCHERS UNDER THE NONCOMPETITIVE NOFA. 
          AS OF TODAY, WE'VE REQUESTED ALL 25. WHILE HUD IS NOT FULLY OPERATIONAL RIGHT NOW DUE TO
THE SHUTDOWN, THEY ARE REVIEWING THESE REQUESTS. EACH REQUEST REPRESENTS AN ELIGIBLE PERSON WHO HAS AGED
OUT OF FOSTER CARE AND HOUSING INSTABILITY, AND WHO WILL BE ISSUED A VOUCHER TO FIND HOUSING IN THEIR COMMUNITY. 
          WE EXPECT THAT WE WILL HAVE A WAITING LIST SOON,
BUT HUD MAY REMOVE THE 25 VOUCHER LIMIT SINCE THIS IS A PRIORITY POPULATION FOR THIS ADMINISTRATION. YOU AUTHORIZED US TO OPERATE ANYWHERE IN TEXAS WHERE ONE OF THESE VOUCHERS
IS NOT AVAILABLE, AND WE DO EXPECT THIS PROGRAM TO GROW AS WE WERE ABLE TO ACCESS MORE VOUCHERS. 
          ANDRE ADAMS OF OUR STAFF HAS WORKED WITH DPS TO SET UP A PORTAL FOR REFERRALS TO MAKE IT
EASIER TO SEND THEM TO US, AND STAFF REPORTS THAT IT'S WORKING VERY WELL. 
          ANDRE SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME COLLABORATING AND THE RESULTS ARE OUTSTANDING SO FAR. 
          THE KUDOS KUDOS TO ABBEY VERSYP, THE DIVISION DIRECTOR,
AND ANDRE AND HIS TEAM FOR THIS GOOD WORK. 
          SPEAKING OF THE SHUTDOWN, I DON'T HAVE ANY CHANGES FROM WHAT I REPORTED TO YOU LAST MONTH
AND THAT WE ARE OKAY IN TERMS OF FUNDING THROUGH THIS MONTH. THUS FAR, WE HAVE PROVIDED FULL FUNDING TO OUR SUB RECIPIENTS OF OUR FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS. SHOULD THE SHUTDOWN STRETCH INTO DECEMBER, THEN WE WILL BE LOOKING AT SOME POTENTIAL
ISSUES THAT WILL DEMAND MORE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. 
          YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN THE NEWS THAT THERE IS SPECULATION THAT A COMPROMISE MAY BE REACHED
THIS WEEK, AND THAT A SUCCESSFUL VOTE TO REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT MAY HAPPEN THIS WEEKEND. 
          WE'LL SEE. ALSO, ANOTHER FEDERAL HOUSING NEWS,
THE CHAIR OF THE HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE AND THE INSURANCE SUBCOMMITTEE, REPRESENTATIVE MIKE FLOOD, HAS FILED A BILL TO REAUTHORIZE AND AMEND THE HOME PROGRAM,
WHICH WILL LIKELY BE NEGOTIATED INTO THE SENATE'S ROADS TO HOUSING ACT ONCE CONGRESS IS WORKING AGAIN. AND WE'RE HEARING THAT SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS OF MAINE IS PUSHING FOR THE
PASSAGE OF THE TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL. 
          THUD. WITH A FEW OTHER APPROPRIATIONS BILLS FOR A FULL YEAR OF FUNDING. 
          [00:05:03]
IF SHE'S SUCCESSFUL, WE WOULD BE ONE STEP CLOSER TO A MORE NORMAL BIPARTISAN
APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS RATHER THAN RELYING ON THE CRS AS WE HAVE FOR A FEW YEARS NOW. 
          ALSO, I MET WITH MY ADVISORY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE FEDERAL HOME
LOAN BANK OF DALLAS YESTERDAY REMOTELY THERE IN ALBUQUERQUE. 
          BUT I HAD THIS MORE IMPORTANT MEETING TO ATTEND. 
          I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ABOUT 50 MILLION FOR AVAILABLE FOR,
FOR GAP FUNDING. 
          AND IT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS,
BUT MOSTLY LIHTC GROWING INTEREST. 
          AND MOSTLY FROM TEXAS IN OUR FIVE STATE AREA. 
          SO IT WAS ABOUT 70 THIS YEAR, SHOULD BE ABOUT 50 NEXT YEAR. 
          AND IF YOU HAVE ISSUES WITH, YOU KNOW, USING THEM AS FUNDING,
I'M NEW TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SO I CAN'T MAKE CHANGES YET. BUT IF YOU'LL, YOU KNOW,
JUST TALK TO ME, LET ME KNOW. I'LL SEE WHAT I CAN DO. VERY GOOD. 
          GOOD. YEAH. THAT'S DONE. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT. 
          SHE KNOWS. GOOD AND GOOD. VERY GOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT REPORT. 
          MOVING ON TO ITEM 16 OF THE AGENDA PRESENTATION,
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2025, RESOLUTION NUMBER 26 006, IN A DETERMINATION NOTICE OF HOUSING TAX CREDITS. 
          MISS MORALES. FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE, YOU LOOK SO TALL. LIKE FEELING SHORT AND YOU'RE, LIKE, LOOMING OVER US. 
          SHE'S STANDING ON HIS TOES. THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT. WE'LL DO IT,
OKAY. 
          NOPE. TIME OUT, TIME OUT. WAIT, WAIT. START OVER. 
          FOR REAL? THEY NEED IT ON THE RECORDING. TERESA MORALES,
DIRECTOR OF MULTIFAMILY BONDS. 
          ITEM 16 INVOLVES THE BOND ISSUANCE FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF 330 UNITS IN SOUTHEAST
DALLAS THAT WILL SERVE THE GENERAL POPULATION. 
          ALL OF THE UNITS WILL BE RESTRICTED AT 60% OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME. 
          THE DALLAS HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION IS SERVING AS THE GENERAL PARTNER ON THIS
TRANSACTION. 
          AS WITH ALL OF OUR BOND ISSUANCES, WE HELD A PUBLIC HEARING AND THERE WAS NO PUBLIC
COMMENT MADE, AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO LETTERS OF SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION RECEIVED. 
          THIS TRANSACTION IS A PRIVATE PLACEMENT, MEANING THE BONDS WILL BE WILL BE UNRATED AND
PLACED WITH R FOR CAPITAL FUNDING, WHO WILL BE SERVING AS BOTH CONSTRUCTION AND PERM LENDER. 
          R4 IS ALSO SERVING AS THE EQUITY INVESTOR. WE HAVE DONE TRANSACTIONS WITH OUR FOUR CAPITAL
BEFORE, WITH THE MOST RECENT ONE APPROVED BY THE BOARD IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR. 
          THE DEPARTMENT WILL ISSUE TAX EXEMPT BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF 50 MILLION STRUCTURED WITH A
16 YEAR TERM OF 40 YEAR AMORTIZATION AND AN INTEREST RATE THAT IS BASED ON THE TEN YEAR TREASURY PLUS 3.4% FOR UNDERWRITING PURPOSES,
WE USED A 6% INTEREST RATE. 
          THERE WILL ALSO BE A TAXABLE PIECE IN THE AMOUNT OF 23,500,000. 
          HOWEVER, THE TAXABLE BONDS ARE NOT BEING ISSUED BY TD AND THE MAJORITY OF THESE FUNDS WILL
BE FOR CONSTRUCTION ONLY, WITH ONLY A SMALL PORTION TO REMAIN OUTSTANDING DURING THE PERM PERIOD WITH THE BOARD'S
APPROVAL TODAY. 
          THE TRANSACTION IS ON TRACK TO CLOSE NEXT MONTH. 
          FOLLOWING THIS APPROVAL, WE'LL TRACK IT THROUGH THE BOARD FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION AS WELL. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF BOND RESOLUTION NUMBER 25006 FOR 50 MILLION,
AND A DETERMINATION NOTICE OF 4% HOUSING TAX CREDITS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,514,087. SINCE THIS IS DALLAS HFC, IS THIS A TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY? YES, IT IS PROPOSED TO BE. 
          OKAY. AND OF COURSE THEY KNOW ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S THEIR OWN LOCAL HFC. 
          THEY DO. OKAY. ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST REMIND ME WHY. WHY THIS COULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE. 
          FAST TRACK. YEAH. THE FAST. THE BEGINNING? NO,
I MEAN, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING. 
          DO WE HEAR ALL 4%? SO 20, 21 WAS THE YEAR THAT WE CHANGED COURSE AND IMPLEMENTED A
STREAMLINED APPROACH TO 4% TRANSACTIONS. THAT ONLY APPLIES TO DEALS THAT HAVE BONDS ISSUED THROUGH THE
LOCAL HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. 
          [00:10:04]
RECOGNIZING THAT THAT'S THE TAX CREDIT PIECE IS THE SMALLER PART OF THE OVERALL CAPITAL
STACK. 
          BUT FOR BOND DEALS, ACTUALLY STREAMLINED TRACK,
WE NEED ADOPTION OF A FORMAL BOND RESOLUTION OR IT HAS TO. OKAY, THANKS. AND WHAT WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE DEALS YOU LOOK AT ARE ONES WE
WOULD LOOK AT. 
          THE MAJORITY OF THE 4% DEALS ARE THOSE THAT ARE GOING THROUGH ISSUERS,
AND THAT IS MERELY A FUNCTION OF THE PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS CEILING PERCENTAGE THAT TO TO LOCALS IT'S JUST MUCH GREATER. 
          SO THERE'S NO DEGREE OF CONTROVERSY IN THIS THING. 
          IT'S JUST THAT THE WAY OUR RULES ARE WRITTEN,
THIS HAS TO BE APPROVED DIRECTLY BY THE BOARD. 
          CORRECT? OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 16 OF THE AGENDA. 
          I MOVE THE BOARD, APPROVE THE RESOLUTION NUMBER 20 6-006,
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS. 
          THE ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION NOTICE FOR A 4% HOUSING TAX CREDIT FOR THE GATEWAY AT
TRINITY FOREST, ALL CONDITIONED AND AUTHORIZING THE BOARD ACTION,
REQUEST RESOLUTION AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON THIS ITEM. 
          SECOND MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER, SECONDED BY MISS FARIAS. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. BEFORE I FORGET,
IF ANYONE WANTS TO SPEAK ON A UPCOMING ITEM ON THE AGENDA WHEN THAT COMES UP, PLEASE COME UP TO THE FRONT COUPLE ROWS OR I GUESS THE FRONT ROW. 
          SO I KNOW THAT YOU'RE YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THE ON THE ISSUE. 
          OKAY. MOVING ON TO ITEM 17 OF THE AGENDA PRESENTATION,
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE NOTES, SERIES 2025, RESOLUTION NUMBER 2607 AND A DETERMINATION NOTICE OF HOUSING TAX
CREDITS. 
          MISS MORALES IS ACTUALLY PULLED, PULLED, PULLED. 
          OKAY, I HAD QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE TOO. DARN IT. 
          OKAY, THANKS. THANKS, THERESA. ITEM 18 PRESENTATION,
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF THE 2026 HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP SINGLE FAMILY PARTNERSHIPS
PROGRAM. 
          SINGLE FAMILY CONTRACT FOR DEED SET ASIDE NOTICE OF FUNDING,
AVAILABILITY AND PUBLICATION OF THE NOFA IN THE TEXAS REGISTER. 
          MR. LANDRY. GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN VASQUEZ AND BOARD MEMBERS. 
          MY NAME IS CHAD LANDRY, AND I'M THE MANAGER OF SINGLE FAMILY PROGRAMS. I'M BEFORE YOU TODAY TO PRESENT ITEM 18, WHICH IS THE 2026 HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS
PROGRAM. 
          SINGLE FAMILY CONTRACT FOR DEEDS. SET ASIDE NOTICE FOR FUNDING AVAILABILITY. 
          FUNDING FOR THIS NOFA IS BASED ON OUR ANNUAL HOME ALLOCATION FROM HUD FOR 2025 OF JUST
OVER $35.5 MILLION. 
          WHILE THESE FUNDS ARE TECHNICALLY 2025, HUD'S IZE OUR NOFA IS DATED 2026 BECAUSE THAT IS
THE STATE FISCAL YEAR THAT WE WILL BE OPERATING IN EACH YEAR. 
          THIS BOARD APPROVES A ONE YEAR ACTION PLAN WHICH DETAILS HOW WE WILL ALLOCATE OUR FUNDS. 
          THE CONTRACT FOR DEED NOFA IS FOR $1 MILLION AND WILL BE USED TO ASSIST HOUSEHOLDS LIVING
WITH A CONTRACT FOR DEED INSTEAD OF A TRADITIONAL MORTGAGE. 
          OUR CONTRACT FOR DEED SET ASIDE IS CREATED THROUGH A RIDER IN OUR APPROPRIATION AUTHORITY. 
          TEXAS LEGISLATOR LEGISLATURE REQUIRES THAT WE ALLOCATE FUNDS TO ASSIST HOUSEHOLDS WHO MAY
BE IN A CONTRACT FOR DEED, ALSO CALLED AN EXECUTORY CONTRACT, FOR THE PURCHASE OF THEIR HOME. 
          TRADITIONALLY, A CONTRACT FOR DEED WAS A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF LAND WHERE THE BUYER
ACQUIRED POSSESSION OF THE LAND IMMEDIATELY AND PAID THE PURCHASE PRICE IN INSTALLMENTS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. BUT THE OWNER BUT THE SELLER RETAINED A LEGAL TITLE UNTIL ALL
PAYMENTS WERE MADE. 
          THE WRITER WAS PUT INTO PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT HOUSEHOLDS HAVE A WAY TO GET OUT OF THESE
SITUATIONS WITHOUT POTENTIALLY LOSING THEIR ENTIRE INVESTMENT, INCLUDING HOMES THEY BUILT ON ONCE VACANT PROPERTIES. 
          WHILE STATUTORY CHANGES CODIFIED IN HOUSE BILL 311 IN THE 2017 LEGISLATIVE SESSION NOW
GIVE THOSE EXECUTORY CONTRACTS AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THEIR HOMES, THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT, INCLUDING THE INTEREST RATES AND LATE PAYMENT
PENALTIES, ARE OFTEN STILL OUT OF LINE WITH WHAT YOU WOULD SEE IN A STANDARD BANK MORTGAGE. 
          OUR CONTRACT FOR DEED PROGRAM BUYS OUT THESE CONTRACTS AND CONVERTS THEM INTO A LOAN. 
          OUR PROGRAM OFFERS 0% DEFERRED FORGIVABLE LOANS TO REFINANCE AND RECONSTRUCT THE HOME. 
          THIS NOFA PRIMARILY FOCUSES ON THE TEXAS-MEXICO BORDER,
WHERE CONTRACT FOR DEEDS ARE MOST COMMONLY USED. 
          AND AS I'VE NOTED TO THE BOARD ON PREVIOUS OCCASIONS,
PROGRAM USE IN RECENT YEARS HAS TRENDED DOWN, WITH THE LAST ACTIVITY UNDER THIS PROGRAM COMPLETED IN 2020. 
          HOWEVER, I AM HAPPY TO REPORT THAT LAST YEAR WE HIRED A TEMPORARY CONTRACT FOR DEED
IMPLEMENTATION MANAGER POSITION TO HELP DRUM UP INTEREST IN THIS PROGRAM. 
          [00:15:06]
HER NAME IS SOFIA CASTRO. SHE'S BEEN WORKING VERY DILIGENTLY AND WE NOW HAVE ONE IN OUR
PIPELINE WITH MORE TO FOLLOW. 
          ANY CONTRACT FOR DEED FUNDS NOT USED OR REPROGRAMED FOR OTHER ACTIVITIES. 
          WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. THANKS,
CHAD. 
          SO DO WE HAVE ANY ESTIMATE OF HOW MANY CONTRACT FOR DEED CONTRACTS ARE STILL EXISTING. 
          WE DON'T BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL. SOME CAN BE SUPER INFORMAL,
LIKE ON A NAPKIN TO THE COLONIALS. 
          LIKE THESE ARE IN EL PASO AND THEY'RE A LITTLE MORE,
YOU KNOW NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          BUT WE WE DON'T REALLY. IF ONLY THERE WERE. WE HAD ONE. 
          WE HAVE ONE. YES. AND WITH MORE. SO WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY FOR SEVERAL YEARS. 
          SO WE WERE ABLE TO GET 100%. I'M SORRY. IT'S REQUIRED BY WRITER AND THE BUDGET. 
          YEAH. YEAH, IT'S SET ASIDE AND IT'S BEEN THERE. 
          IT'S BEEN IT'S BEEN THERE FOR YEARS AND YEARS. REPRESENTATIVE CANALES ACTUALLY PASSED A
LEGISLATION THAT GIVES A CONTRACT FOR DEED, FOLKS MORE I DON'T KNOW, MORTGAGE LIKE PROTECTIONS. 
          SO IT'S LESS IMPORTANT THAN IT USED TO BE. LESS CRITICAL. 
          AND THEY'RE HARD TO FIND. MAYBE THERE'S A DISCUSSION TO BE HAD WITH THE APPROPRIATORS OF
JUST REMOVING THE, YOU KNOW, WRITER. SO WE DON'T TIE UP THIS MONEY THAT COULD GO TO SOMETHING. 
          YOU KNOW, THIS MONEY WILL GET SWEPT INTO THE OTHER PROGRAMS EVENTUALLY DISAGREE. YOU'RE
WORKING ON SOMETHING. I MEAN, RIGHT, THE EFFORT FOR THE THE BANG FOR THE BUCK IS PRETTY LOW RIGHT ABOUT THAT. 
          AND WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE. THAT'S WHY THE EXTRA EFFORT WITH TRYING TO PUT SOME
MORE MANPOWER ON FINDING YOU KNOW, RECIPIENTS INTERESTED IN WE HAVE A COUPLE IN EL PASO. 
          YEAH, WE HAVE QUITE A FEW THAT WE CAN GET GOING. 
          SO AFTER THIS PUSH, YOU KNOW, IF OVER TIME, IF IT DOESN'T LEAD TO ANYTHING,
MAYBE WE'LL TALK TO THE APPROPRIATORS ABOUT REMOVING THE WRITER. 
          YEAH. I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS THIS IS AVAILABLE TO GET OUT OF
THIS CONTRACT FOR DEED AND THEN INTO A TRADITIONAL MORTGAGE STYLE. IF ONLY THERE WERE SOME BANKS IN EL PASO THAT COULD HELP GET THIS TYPE OF
THING. 
          IT GOT OUT OF MORTGAGE LENDING. I'M SORRY. GET SOME FRIENDS. 
          BUT THERE ARE PLENTY OF MORTGAGE COMPANIES THAT CAN REFER THEM. OKAY. 
          DO ANY ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. LANDRY ON THIS ITEM? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 18 OF THE AGENDA. 
          I MOVE THE BOARD APPROVED A 2026 HOME SINGLE FAMILY CONTRACT FOR DEED SET ASIDE NOTICE OF
FUNDING AVAILABILITY TO BE RELEASED INTO THE RESERVATION SYSTEM. 
          AND THE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE TEXAS REGISTER FOR THE DEPARTMENT'S WEBSITE. ALL IS
DESCRIBED AUTHORIZED IN THE BOARD ACTION REQUEST AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON THIS ITEM. 
          I'LL SECOND. MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER, SECONDED BY MISS CONROY. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 19. PRESENTATION,
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF THE 2026 HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM. SINGLE FAMILY PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES SET ASIDE
NOFA AND PUBLICATION OF THAT NOFA IN THE TEXAS REGISTER. MR. LANDRY, TELL US ABOUT THIS. 
          GOOD MORNING. ONCE AGAIN. I'M BEFORE YOU TODAY TO PRESENT ITEM 19,
WHICH IS THE 2026 HOME PROGRAM PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES NOFA. 
          AS I MENTIONED WITH MY CONTRACT FOR DEED PRESENTATION,
FUNDING FOR THIS NOFA IS BASED ON OUR ANNUAL HOME ALLOCATION FROM HUD FOR 2025 OF JUST OVER $35.5 MILLION. AND ONCE AGAIN, EACH YEAR,
THIS BOARD APPROVES A ONE YEAR ACTION PLAN, WHICH DETAILS HOW WE ALLOCATE OUR HOME FUNDS. 
          THIS NOFA PROVIDES FUNDS FOR ACTIVITIES THAT ASSIST PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. 
          OUR GOVERNING STATUTE REQUIRES THAT WE SPEND 5% OF OUR YEARLY ALLOCATION ON PROGRAMS THAT
TARGET PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. 
          THESE PROGRAMS ARE AVAILABLE STATEWIDE, INCLUDING PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS. 
          THIS NOFA IS FOR JUST OVER $2.5 MILLION, AND TWO ACTIVITIES ARE ARE ELIGIBLE TENANT BASED
RENTAL ASSISTANCE, WHICH RECEIVES THE MOST OF IT, WHICH $2,147,000,
AND HOME RECONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE, WHICH GETS $536,000. 
          WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. 
          ANOTHER ANOTHER GOOD PROGRAM, I THINK. PROBABLY MORE USED. 
          OH YEAH, THIS ONE GOES LIKE THAT. SO DO THE INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES THAT HELP PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES. 
          ARE THEY FULLY AWARE OF THIS? YEAH, THIS SOURCE OF FUNDS. 
          THIS IS A VERY POPULAR PROGRAM AND GETS EATEN UP VERY QUICKLY. 
          OKAY. DO ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? SEEMS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 19 OF THE AGENDA. 
          [00:20:02]
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THE BOARD, APPROVE A 2026 HOME SINGLE FAMILY PERSONS WITH DISABILITY, SET ASIDE NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY TO BE RELEASED INTO THE RESERVATION SYSTEM AND
NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE TEXAS REGISTER IN THE DEPARTMENT'S WEBSITE, ALL IS DESCRIBED AND AUTHORIZED IN THE BOARD ACTION,
REQUEST AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON THIS ITEM. 
          SECOND MOTION MADE BY FARIAS, SECONDED BY MR. HARPER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANKS,
CHAD. ITEM 20 OF THE AGENDA PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE APPROVAL FOR PUBLICATION IN THE TEXAS
REGISTER OF THE 2020 6-1 MULTIFAMILY DIRECT LOAN NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY. 
          MR. JONES. GOOD MORNING, CONNOR JONES, MANAGER OF THE MULTIFAMILY DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM. 
          THIS ITEM CONCERNS A NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY FOR FUNDS THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE IN
2026. 
          THIS NOFA INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 16.4 MILLION IN NATIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND THAT WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR MULTIFAMILY RENTAL DEVELOPMENT AT LARGE. 
          THIS NOFA IS GEARED TOWARDS SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECTS AS THE 30% ARMY UNIT REQUIREMENT
THAT COMES WITH TRUST FUND IS A BIT MORE LINEAR OF A FIT FOR THOSE KINDS OF PROJECTS. 
          THESE FUNDS ARE BEING MADE AVAILABLE IN A SERIES OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE PERIODS WITH A
SPECIFIC LIST OF PRIORITIES. THE LOANS WILL BE 2% DEFERRED PAYABLE FOR SUPPORTIVE PROJECTS AND 2% FULLY AMORTIZING FOR ALL OTHERS. THE DEPARTMENT WILL BEGIN TAKING APPLICATIONS
DECEMBER 15TH WITH THE FIRST APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE DATE OF JANUARY 20TH AND CONCLUDE MAY 31ST. SHOULD FUNDS REMAIN? THE SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE DATES ARE A BIT
CLOSER TOGETHER. 
          THIS DOESN'T IMPEDE AN APPLICANT FROM APPLYING,
AS WE EXPECT TO GET MOST APPLICATIONS EARLY IN THE PROCESS ANYHOW. 
          THESE DATES ARE PURELY JUST A MECHANISM TO GROUP APPLICATIONS TOGETHER. 
          APPLICATIONS REQUESTING THE LARGER AMOUNT OF FUNDS WILL RECEIVE PRIORITY. 
          THIS IS TO INCENTIVIZE INCENTIVIZE LARGER AWARDS THAT BETTER FILL FUNDING GAPS AND ARE
EASIER TO CLOSE IF TWO APPLICATIONS REQUESTING THE SAME AMOUNT OF. 
          IF TWO APPLICATIONS REQUEST THE SAME AMOUNT OF FUNDS,
WE WILL LOOK TO THE AMOUNT OF MATCH PROVIDED AS A TIEBREAKER, AND IF A TIE STILL PERSIST, WE'LL DEFAULT TO THE TIE BREAKERS IN THE SHAPE STAFF CONTINUE
TO TARGET LARGE DEALS THAT ARE, I'M SORRY, TARGET DEALS THAT ARE READY TO MOVE FORWARD TOWARDS CLOSING AND IN DOING SO,
HAVE PROHIBITED DEALS WHICH HAVE PURCHASED THEIR DEVELOPMENT SITES PRIOR TO JANUARY 15TH, 2025 FROM APPLYING. THIS IS TO HELP CAST A NET ON DEALS THAT ARE NOT SO OLD THAT THEY'LL
HAVE A HARD TIME HAVING ENOUGH ELIGIBLE COST IN THE PROJECT, BUT ALSO DEALS THAT HAVE STARTED CONSTRUCTION. 
          THIS MATTERS QUITE A BIT FOR NTF. AS FOR THE NATIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND. 
          ANY COST EXPENDED BY THE APPLICANT PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT FOR THOSE FUNDS
IS INELIGIBLE. 
          SO SOMETIMES THERE CAN BE A LITTLE BIT OF A TOUGH WINDOW FOR DEALS TO COME IN IF THEY'VE
ALREADY STARTED. WE'VE HAD THAT HAPPEN IN THE PAST A COUPLE OF TIMES, AND IT'S QUITE DIFFICULT TO GET THE DEAL WRAPPED UP AND CLOSED. 
          IF A PROJECT HAS STARTED CONSTRUCTION UNDER THIS NOFA VERY SPECIFICALLY,
THEY HAVE TO CEASE CONSTRUCTION AND THEY CANNOT START AGAIN UNTIL THAT CONTRACT IS EXECUTED. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE NOFA. 
          I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. OKAY,
SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT USE OF FUNDS. 
          HOWEVER, THERE ALSO APPEARS TO BE A REALLY SHORT WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY AND THEN LOTS OF
HOOPS TO JUMP THROUGH. 
          I MEAN, IS IT ALWAYS BEEN THIS KIND OF. SO THOSE APPLICATION WINDOWS ARE KIND OF SQUEEZED
TOGETHER. 
          LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER, IT'S THEY CAN ONCE THE NOFA IS OPEN IN DECEMBER,
ON DECEMBER 15TH, WE CAN BEGIN ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS. WE GENERALLY GET THE BULK OF THEM IN THE FIRST WEEK
OR TWO. 
          WE VERY RARELY SEE THEM TRICKLE INTO THOSE LATER DATES. 
          SO THOSE SUBSEQUENT DATES THAT ARE AFTER THAT AGAIN ARE PURELY JUST THERE TO KIND OF GIVE
STRUCTURE AND ORDER TO HOW THEY APPLY. 
          EACH APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE DATE HAS SPECIFIC PRIORITIES. 
          SO WE'RE CONTINUING TO PRIORITIZE A LARGE AWARD THAT'S IN FIRST LEAN. 
          THE PROJECT HAS NO OTHER HARD PAY DEBT. AND SO THOSE KINDS OF PROJECTS GET ONE WINDOW. 
          IF THE DEBT FOR THE OR THE NTF REQUEST HAPPENS TO NOT BE IN FIRST LEAN,
THAT GIVES THEM A SECOND. 
          AND WE JUST SQUEEZE THOSE TOGETHER JUST TO PUT A LITTLE BIT OF ORDER IN THE PROCESS,
AND ALSO KIND OF GET TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN PICK THEM UP AND START REVIEWING THEM. 
          IF WE PUSH THOSE APPLICATION WINDOWS OUT PRETTY FAR. 
          THAT MEANS WE HAVE TO WAIT TILL THAT'S IF WE PUSHED IT INTO FEBRUARY OR MARCH,
WE'D HAVE TO WAIT ALL THE WAY TILL THEN TO PICK IT UP AND START REVIEWING. 
          SO WE JUST KIND OF SQUEEZE THOSE WINDOWS AS WE HAVE ON THE LAST HANDFUL OF NOFAS TO GET
THEM ALL CORRALLED AND STARTED. 
          OKAY. BUT IT'S NOT A WHOEVER HITS SEND ON THE EMAIL FIRST GETS. 
          NO. SO IF AN APPLICATION THAT'S TARGETING, LET'S SAY THE THIRD APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE
WINDOW APPLIES. 
          DURING THE FIRST WINDOW WE SEE THAT ON THE APPLICATION. 
          [00:25:01]
AND NO. OH, BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY PUT THE FUNDS AND SOME OF THE OTHER DETAILS IN THE
PROJECT, THEY'RE GOING TO GET THIS DATE AND WE CAN SLOT THEM INTO THAT ACCORDINGLY. IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE PROHIBITED FROM COMING IN. OKAY. 
          AND THEN I GUESS MY LAST QUESTION. COULD YOU REPEAT A LITTLE MORE ABOUT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
AT THE TOP OF THE LIST OR FIRST WINDOW? YES IT IS. AND THEN WE HAVE AN OPEN APPLICATION WINDOW FOR NON SUPPORTIVE PROJECTS. 
          DO YOU KNOW HISTORICALLY WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE APPLICATIONS OR THE FUNDS GO TO SUPPORTIVE
PROJECTS AS OPPOSED TO. 
          WE HAVEN'T DONE SUPPORTIVE ON A NOFA IN A COUPLE OF YEARS. 
          SO I'LL BE CURIOUS TO SEE WHAT COMES IN IN 21 AND 22. 
          WE HAD A COUPLE. SO I'LL BE CURIOUS TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT THE APPETITE MIGHT BE FOR THAT. 
          OKAY, GREAT. ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS,
MR. MARCHANT? CAN YOU JUST REMIND US OR REMIND ME WHERE WHERE DOES THIS MONEY COME FROM? SO THIS IS THE NATIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND, WHICH ON A NATIONAL LEVEL COMES ESSENTIALLY
FROM REPAYMENTS AND REFINANCING ON FANNIE AND FREDDIE PRODUCTS. 
          OKAY, SO IT'S A DIFFERENT POOL THAN THAT HOME BUCKET. 
          SO AND WE CAN'T CARRY IT OVER. WE WE USE IT EVERY YEAR. 
          WE DO. YES. YEAH. AND WHAT WHAT'S WHAT'S THE AMOUNT. 
          FOR THIS NOFA, IT'LL BE 16.4 MILLION THEREABOUTS. 
          AND THAT'S ACTUALLY TWO DIFFERENT GRANT YEARS PUT TOGETHER. THE NTF FUNDS HAVE VERY STRICT
COMMITMENT AND EXPENDITURE DEADLINES THAT ARE REALLY TIGHT. 
          WE'VE HAD A COUPLE BOARD PRESENTATIONS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS ABOUT TRYING TO GET
TOWARDS THOSE. 
          SO WE'VE ACTUALLY PUT TWO YEARS, TWO GRANT YEARS TOGETHER TO TRY TO GET CURRENT AND GET
AHEAD OF THAT. 
          SO WE HAD SOME ALLOCATIONS LAST YEAR THAT WERE IN THE 40 MILLIONS. 
          AND BECAUSE OF THE MARKET RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NOT AS MUCH OF THAT PAYMENT AND REFINANCING
HAPPENING ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL. 
          SO THOSE GRANTS HAVE DIPPED A LITTLE BIT BACK DOWN MORE TOWARDS EIGHT. AND SO AS THE MONEY
AS THE LOANS AMORTIZE, WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO? DOES IT GO BACK INTO THE PROGRAM SO WE CAN COLLECT PROGRAM INCOME
OFF OF THAT OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. OKAY, GREAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT,
I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM. 
          I'M SORRY. DID YOU. PUBLIC COMMENT. PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          OKAY. WOULD ANYONE CARE TO MAKE THEM ON THE BOARD? MAKE A MOTION TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS BOARD MEETING. 
          SO MOVED. MOTION TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT. SECOND. 
          MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER, SECONDED BY MISS FARIAS. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE RULES IN EFFECT,
PLEASE. 
          HELLO. MY NAME IS LAURA MYRICK, AND I AM WITH BEDCO CONSULTING. 
          I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ASK CONNOR, SO I'M JUST GOING TO GO AHEAD AND PUT IT ON THE
RECORD AND ASK. 
          WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE WHERE THIS IS. WHERE WE HAVE 2 TO 4 MILLION AS A REQUEST BECAUSE
THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT NEED THE MONEY. 
          AND SO IF WE COULD SPREAD THAT $16 MILLION OUT MORE,
THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 
          IT'S JUST A REQUEST. I KNOW THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY MAY NOT BE TOO HAPPY ABOUT,
BUT I DID WANT TO PUT THAT REQUEST OUT THERE. 
          ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT I HAVE TO YOU IS ON THE HOME MATCH CONTRIBUTION THAT IS IN THE
NOFA. 
          IT TALKS ABOUT A 7.5 DIRECT LOAN. A 7.5 MATCH REQUIREMENT. 
          AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE EXEMPTION, THE TAX EXEMPTION AS BEING PART OF MATCH. 
          AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE PROPERTY CODE AND WHAT THAT NEEDS,
WHERE THAT HAPPENS. 
          WHAT I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR IS TO CHANGE THE MATCH CONTRIBUTION. 
          AND IT'S BECAUSE 24 CFR PART 93, WHICH IS NATIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND,
WHICH THIS MONEY IS ALL NATIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND DOESN'T HAVE A MATCH REQUIREMENT, BUT IT DOES IMPOSE ONE ON US. 
          OKAY, THAT'S FINE, BUT THERE'S SOME MATCH THAT IS NOT ELIGIBLE UNDER THE NATIONAL HOUSING
TRUST FUND PROGRAM, THE PROPERTY TAX BEING ONE. AND SO IF WE COULD REMOVE THAT AND OR MAYBE JUST PUT HERE THE
THINGS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR NATIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND MATCH. 
          I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US. YOU MEAN THE SPECIFY THE THE MATCH,
THE ELIGIBLE MATCH THAT WE CAN PROVIDE FOR THESE FUNDS? BECAUSE HERE WE HAVE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION. PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION IS NOT ALLOWABLE IF
IT'S NOT A HOME ASSISTED PROJECT. 
          AND SINCE THIS IS NTF, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A HOME ASSISTED PROJECT. 
          OKAY. YEAH I SEE SOME NODS OVER HERE. THIS SEEMS LIKE IT'S SO TO THE FIRST COMMENT I DID
MAYBE GLAZE OVER THAT A LITTLE BIT. THE THE REQUEST AMOUNT IN THIS NOFA IS A MINIMUM OF FOUR
MAXIMUM OF 8.2. 
          WE'VE DONE THAT A LOT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF NOFAS. THE ISSUE THERE BEING WE'RE TRYING TO
INCENTIVIZE REQUESTS THAT ACTUALLY FILL THE GAP WHEN WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN FOUR. 
          WHAT WE'VE NOTICED IS THE APPLICANT WILL COME IN AND REQUEST A 3.2. 
          [00:30:01]
THE 2.8 FOR WHATEVER THEY NEED. WE GET ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH THE PROJECT. 
          THINGS CHANGE AND THEY HAVE TO GO FIND MORE SOFT FUNDS. 
          THAT GIVES US SOME DELAYS. SO WE'VE KEPT THAT 4 MILLION AS A FLOOR,
IF YOU WILL, OVER THE LAST COUPLE NOFAS JUST TO USHER IN DEALS THAT CAN TAKE THAT DEBT AND MOVE FORWARD TO CLOSE. SO THAT'S THE RATIONALE FOR THAT $4 MILLION MINIMUM SHE WAS
SPEAKING TO. 
          SO THE 16 MILLION TOTAL. SO THIS COULD BE FOR FOR DEALS POTENTIALLY. 
          2 TO 4. YEAH. I GUESS I UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE ABOUT SPREADING IT OUT OVER TO MANY SMALL SMALLER DEALS. 
          WE CAN WE CAN DROP THAT DOWN IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE US TO. 
          WE'VE JUST THE FOURS ABOUT WHERE WE'VE SEEN WHERE,
ESPECIALLY WITH NTF, BECAUSE OF THE 30% AMI ON THOSE UNITS. 
          THAT'S WHERE WE'VE SEEN THAT AMOUNT REALLY KIND OF IF YOU GO BELOW THAT,
IT CAN KIND OF START TO CAUSE MORE HEADACHES THAN FILL IN THE GAPS. 
          SO THAT'S WHY WE'VE JUST HAD THAT. IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO GO BELOW FOUR. WE CAN DO THAT IF
WE IF WE DEEM NECESSARY. 
          BUT THAT'S JUST THE FLOOR THAT WE'VE KEPT. LET ME ASK,
MISS MYRICK, WHAT NUMBER DID YOU PROPOSE AS A FLOOR TO THE FOUR? SOUNDS LIKE THREE. WELL, I MEAN, UNLESS THERE'S STAFF HAS A. 
          MORE THAN A JUST A GENERAL CONCERN. BUT IF, I MEAN,
IF THERE IS A GOOD REASON, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, STICK WITH FOUR. BUT IF IT'S STICKING WITH THE FOUR IS A PRETTY ADAMANT IN SUREFIRE WAY TO
KIND OF HELP ENSURE THE HEALTH OF OUR PIPELINE. 
          WE'VE EVEN EVEN WITH THAT $4 MILLION MINIMUM,
WE HAVE SOME DEALS FROM 2024 THAT ARE STILL STRUGGLING MIGHTILY TO GET THESE THINGS CONTRACTED AND ACROSS THE LINE. SO THE THE LARGER AWARDS GENERALLY HELP US AND THE
DEVELOPER PLUG THAT GAP AND GET THESE THINGS TOWARDS CLOSE. 
          WE'RE STILL SEEING DEALS SIT ON OUR PIPELINE FOR 18 PLUS MONTHS WHICH IS JUST A LITTLE TOO
LONG. 
          SO AND WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE YOU EXPECT TO BE OVERSUBSCRIBED? I WOULD EXPECT TO BE THE THE LAST THREE AND A HALF YEARS,
EVERY SINGLE NOV HAS BEEN OVERSUBSCRIBED. SO I WOULD IMAGINE THIS ONE WOULD BE AS WELL. 
          OKAY. WELL, UNDERSTANDING THE CONCERNED VOICES,
ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER HAVE A FEELING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, OR JUST LEAVE IT AT FOR OR LEAVE IT AT FOR OR. 
          SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE A CONSENSUS TO GO WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION,
BUT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          OKAY. AND THEN THIS IS STILL A PUBLISHED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT,
RIGHT? SO THIS IS NOT THE FINAL? YES. IT'LL GO TO THE REGISTER. 
          AND AS FAR AS THE MATCH SHE WAS SPEAKING TO. THAT'S A PRETTY IN THE WEEDS. 
          DENSE. THIS IS. IS THIS A IS THIS IMPROVING IT TO. 
          OKAY. YEAH. SORRY. OKAY. APPROVAL FOR PUBLICATION. 
          SO OKAY. SO THIS IS THE FINAL. YES. SORRY ABOUT THAT OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. AND AS FAR AS THE THE MATCH THAT WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER,
WE CAN JUST BETTER CLARIFY THAT IN THE NOFA. 
          WE'RE ALREADY WORKING A LITTLE BIT INTERNALLY WITH SOME OF THE ISSUES WE'VE HAD WITH NTF
AND THEIR MATCH THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS AMONGST A COUPLE OF PROJECTS THAT ARE LOOKING TO CLOSE. SO WE'RE REVAMPING A LOT OF OUR TOOLS RIGHT NOW,
AND WE CAN CLARIFY THAT IN THE NOFA. 
          NO PROBLEM. OKAY. BECAUSE IT IS A LITTLE TRICKY,
A LITTLE DENSE. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S THAT CFR IS A LITTLE LONG. 
          SO YEAH. OKAY. GIVEN THAT I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 20 OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOVE. THE BOARD APPROVED A 2020 6-1 MULTIFAMILY DIRECT LOAN NOTICE OF
FUNDING AVAILABILITY, ALL AS DESCRIBED AUTHORIZING THE BOARD ACTION REQUEST AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON THIS
ITEM. 
          SECOND. MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER, SECONDED BY MISS FARIAS. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANKS,
CONNOR. THANKS, LAURA. OKAY. 
          ITEM 21 REPORT ON TDCA PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 2025 AND
A YEAR END SUMMARY. 
          MR. LOVETT. YES. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR VAZQUEZ MEMBERS. 
          MR. WILKINSON, MY NAME IS MATTHEW LOVETT. I AM PLEASED TO SERVE AS A SENIOR LEGISLATIVE
AFFAIRS ADVISOR UNDER MICHAEL LITTLE UNDER THE EXTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION. 
          ZBA. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE THIS MORNING AND TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
OUR AGENCY'S PERFORMANCE IN FISCAL YEAR 25, FIVE. AS HAS BEEN THE CASE WITH MOST FISCAL YEARS,
RECENTLY WE'VE HAD MIXED SUCCESS IN MEETING OUR PERFORMANCE GOALS. 
          SOMETIMES WE EXCEED MIGHTILY, AND SOMETIMES WE WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF WORK TO DO,
AND THERE'S ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT. 
          AND WE CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT THIS MORNING. FOR YOUR INFORMATION,
TODAY I'LL FOCUS ON THE KEY MEASURES THAT WE REPORT ON A QUARTERLY BASIS TO THE STATE, 
          [00:35:05]
AS SHOWN IN THE PERFORMANCE MEASURE VISUALIZATION THAT IS PROVIDED ON PAGE 6619. 
          EXCUSE ME OF YOUR BOARD BOOKS. SECOND TO GET THERE. 
          LOOKS LIKE WE'RE MOVING. OKAY. WE'RE READY MOSTLY. 
          OKAY. COOL. SO FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO KEY MEASURES FIVE AND TEN
CONCERNING ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY HOUSING RESOURCE CENTER IN COLONIAS SELF-HELP CENTERS. 
          WITH RESPECT TO THESE MEASURES, CUMULATIVELY,
WE EXCEEDED OUR TARGET TARGET BY MORE THAN 150%, WHICH SPEAKS TO THE VALUE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE RELATIVELY LOW COST,
HIGH RETURN PROGRAMS. WE WERE LESS SUCCESSFUL WITH OUR CONSTRUCTION OR REHABILITATION OF RESTRICTED UNITS
THROUGH THE MORTGAGE REVENUE, BOND AND TAX CREDIT PROGRAMS, AS SHOWN IN KEY MEASURES THREE AND FOUR. 
          HOWEVER, A LOT OF THIS SHORTFALL CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO ONGOING CHALLENGES DEVELOPERS ARE
EXPERIENCING IN THE FINANCING AND CONSTRUCTION OF MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS. 
          THESE CHALLENGES WERE COMPOUNDED BY DEVELOPER DELAYS IN THE SUBMISSION OF COST
CERTIFICATIONS AFTER PROJECT COMPLETION, PAIRED WITH PERHAPS AN OVERLY OPTIMISTIC ASSESSMENT OF HOW QUICKLY DEVELOPERS WOULD
REBOUND FROM CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PANDEMIC. 
          MOVING ON TO MEASURES WHERE WE EXCEEDED OUR TARGET BY A SIGNIFICANT MARGIN. 
          I'LL DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO KEY MEASURE TWO CONCERNING THE TENANT BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM, WHERE WE OVERPERFORMED BY MORE THAN 200%. OUR OVERPERFORMANCE WITH THE WEATHERIZATION
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, OR WAPP, WAS A LITTLE MORE A LITTLE BIT MORE MODEST AT 161%,
AS SHOWN IN THE VISUALIZATION FOR KEY MEASURE NINE, BUT VERY POSITIVE NONETHELESS. NONETHELESS. EXCUSE ME WITH RESPECT TO TBRA. 
          THE FLEXIBILITY THE AGENCY HAS IN UTILIZING HOME FUNDS,
ALLOWING US TO SHIFT DOLLARS BETWEEN MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY SIDES OF THE HOUSE, ALLOWED US TO PUT RESOURCES INTO INTO A PROGRAM WITH SIGNIFICANT DEMAND,
AS WAS ALREADY DISCUSSED EARLIER THIS MORNING CONCERNING THE WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM. 
          THE AGENCY'S OVER PERFORMANCE CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO CONTINUED RAMPING UP OF SPENDING,
FEDERAL COVID DOLLARS, AND THE SUBSEQUENT RUSH TO SPEND DOLLARS BEFORE THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR. 
          AT THE OTHER END OF THE PERFORMANCE SPECTRUM,
WE WE DID SEE SOME UNDERPERFORMANCE IN MEETING OUR GOALS WITH THE HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAM AND COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM RECEIPT,
AS SHOWN IN KEY MEASURES ONE AND EIGHT, RESPECTIVELY. CONTINUED VOLATILITY IN THE SECONDARY MORTGAGE MARKET CONTRIBUTED TO SEVERE
AFFORDABILITY ISSUES WHICH HAMPERED OUR MORTGAGE LOAN BUSINESS. 
          WITH RESPECT TO ENERGY ASSISTANCE, STAFF INDICATE THAT MULTIPLE SUBRECIPIENTS ALSO OBTAIN
ENERGY ASSISTANCE DOLLARS FROM OTHER FUNDING SOURCES, REDUCING DEMAND FOR THC DOLLARS AND THEREFORE LOWERING OUR OUTPUT. 
          THIS LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE IS MORE OR LESS CONSISTENT WITH FY 20 FOR BOTH GOOD AND LESS
GOOD. 
          TO SUM UP, OUR PERFORMANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 25 DEMONSTRATES BOTH OUR ABILITY TO MEET THE
NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE AND COMMUNITIES OUR PROGRAMS ARE INTENDED TO SERVE. 
          AND THAT WE MAY HAVE ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT IN,
IF NOTHING ELSE. 
          ESTABLISHING MORE PRECISE TARGETS IN AN UNKNOWN AND UNCERTAIN ENVIRONMENT SUCH AS WE'RE
CURRENTLY LIVING IN. 
          TO THE LATTER POINT, FORTUNATELY, TDCA WILL BEGIN THE PROCESS OF REVISING OUR PERFORMANCE
MEASURES FOR 2028, 2029 AND EARLY 2026, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AGENCY'S STRATEGIC PLAN
FOR 2027 THROUGH 2031. 
          THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'M HAPPY TO FIELD ANY QUESTIONS OR AT LEAST TRY TO FIELD
ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM. SO, MATTHEW, HAVE YOU ALL ALSO TAKEN THE NEXT STEP IN THIS AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE ROOT
CAUSES OF WHY WE MISSED CERTAIN ONES SO, SO FAR BY SO GREAT OF NUMBERS. SO TO THE QUESTION,
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE GOTTEN TO THE TO THE HEART OF THESE DIFFICULTIES OR CHALLENGES WE'VE HAD IN ESTABLISHING TARGETS. BUT I'VE WORKED I SPENT A LOT OF TIME
WORKING WITH PROGRAM STAFF AND THEIR. 
          THINKING IS, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THAT JUST SO MUCH UNCERTAINTY IN THE ENVIRONMENT RIGHT
NOW MAKES IT REALLY HARD TO PREDICT WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN WITH SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS. FOR EXAMPLE, I MENTIONED A HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAM EARLIER. THERE'S JUST SO MUCH
UNCERTAINTY AND VOLATILITY IN THE IN THE MORTGAGE MARKET. OBVIOUSLY INCREASING INFLATION SUPPLY IS COMING BACK UP, BUT THERE'S STILL A LOT OF FACTORS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF OUR
CONTROL THAT ARE REALLY HINDERING OUR ABILITY TO HIT SOME OF THE PERFORMANCE METRICS THAT ARE PERFORMANCE TARGETS THAT WE ESTABLISH FOR OURSELVES. 
          AND I DON'T THINK I'M GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF IN SAYING THEY'RE VERY ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT
THE OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH NEW TARGETS FOR 20 2829 COMING IN THE SPRING. WELL, LET'S LOOK,
FOR EXAMPLE, ON MEASURE EIGHT, THE CAP, OKAY. 
          THE 2025 IS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO 2024, CORRECT? YEAH. WE MISSED THE TARGET BY 50%. OR I MEAN JUST,
YOU KNOW, HALF. 
          COULD THAT BE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ADVERTISING THE PROGRAM WELL ENOUGH OR THAT OUR COMMUNITY
SERVICE PARTNERS OR, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE OUT THERE, THOSE AGENCIES AREN'T DOING A GOOD JOB LETTING THEIR
CONSTITUENTS KNOW ABOUT IT. 
          YEAH, I WOULDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE SPEAKING THAT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE PROGRAM. 
          IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE IN THE WEEDS THAN I'M COMFORTABLE TALKING ABOUT,
ONLY BECAUSE I DON'T WORK IN THAT PROGRAM. 
          [00:40:06]
I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THAT PARTICULAR PROGRAM AND THE CHALLENGES THAT
THEY'RE EXPERIENCING. I WOULD WELCOME ANY KIND OF ASSISTANCE IF THERE IS ANYBODY HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT ONE IN PARTICULAR. 
          OKAY. SO I ASSUME THAT'S GOING TO BE THE ANSWER TO MY NEXT QUESTION AS WELL. 
          MR. HARPER, DID YOU LOVE IT? SO DOES EACH DIVISION CREATE THEIR OBJECTIVE OF WHAT THEY'RE
GOING TO GET, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO GET THERE? THEY DO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT FORWARD PERFORMANCE
TARGETS. 
          THAT, OF, OF COURSE, IS THEN REVIEWED BY AGENCY LEADERSHIP. 
          SO BOBBY AND OF COURSE DIVISION DIRECTORS WHO GET A SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE IN TERMS OF WHAT
THE FINAL NUMBER MAY BE. 
          THAT THEN GOES TO LBB AND THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE,
AND THEY HAVE SOME INPUT AS WELL. 
          WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT ACTUALLY BE THE FINAL WORD ON WHAT THE MEASURES ARE,
WHICH ONES ARE KEY AND TARGETS. 
          THEY HAVE TO APPROVE ALL THAT. IF WE WANT TO REMOVE A MEASURE THEY BOTH HAVE TO AGREE. IN
LBB. 
          ALL RIGHT. SO WITH THAT, IF WE MISS IT BY SOME OF THESE,
WE WE BROKE THROUGH 135%, 200%. 
          SO WE'RE CRUSHING IT. ALMOST 50%. SO WE'RE GOING TO. 
          WHY ARE WE MISSING IT? HOW ARE WE GOING TO FIX IT? WHAT'S OUR PLAN FOR 26 AND SEVEN TO BE
BETTER THAN WHAT WE WERE FOR SURE. 
          SO I TO TO YOUR POINT ABOUT HOW CAN WE IMPROVE? I CAN'T NECESSARILY SPEAK TO THE ESTABLISHMENT TARGETS PRIOR TO MY ARRIVAL AT TD. 
          I'VE BEEN WITH THE AGENCY ROUGHLY A YEAR AT THIS POINT IN TIME,
SO I'M NOT PRIVY TO EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED PRIOR TO MY ARRIVAL. BUT I'M NOT. 
          I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT LOOKING BACKWARDS. HOW ARE WE GOING TO MAKE IT BETTER NEXT YEAR?
THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW LOOKING AT ENERGY ASSISTANCE, I'D BE CURIOUS ON DOLLARS HOW DIFFERENT WE ARE. 
          YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE'RE SPENDING MORE DOLLARS PER PERSON. 
          YOU SEE, THE EXPLANATION FOR FOR VARIANCE, THE SUBS HAVE BEEN USING ALTERNATIVE FUNDING
SOURCES THAT HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. 
          YOU KNOW, I STILL THINK WE'RE SPENDING ALL OUR FUNDING. 
          SO MAYBE MAYBE THE TARGET'S WRONG. WE'LL HAVE TO DIG IN,
GIVE YOU A BETTER LOOK NEXT TIME. 
          MAYBE THE METRIC. RIGHT. MR. CHAIRMAN, TWO YEARS AGO,
WHEN THE ENERGY ASSISTANCE WAS DONE, I REMEMBER BEING IN SAN ANTONIO AND ONE OF THE TV STATIONS SAID TEETH SAYS ANNOUNCED
ENERGY ASSISTANCE, AND WITHIN 24 HOURS THEY CLOSE BECAUSE THEY WERE COMPLETELY FULL. 
          SO THAT WAS TWO YEARS AGO. BUT HERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETIMES THERE ARE OTHER
ASSISTANCE FROM OTHER SOURCES, BUT ALSO THE IMPORTANT ONE IS DUE TO A PROGRAM COMPLIANCE CONCERNED. 
          ONE OF THE SUB RECIPIENTS WAS NOT AWARDED. WE HAVE ALSO SEEN THAT BEFORE WHERE SOME PEOPLE
THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE HELPING THE NEEDIEST DO NOT ALWAYS PRODUCE. SO I THINK IT'S A COMPILATION OF WHEN OTHER AGENCIES OR OTHER PROGRAMS GET IN
TROUBLE. 
          THEN THE PEOPLE THAT NEED THE HELP THE MOST DON'T GET IT,
BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT PROMISE THEM TO START IN THE MOON DO NOT DELIVER. 
          ONCE AGAIN, WE SEE THAT PROBLEM. ABSOLUTELY. AND TO THE TO THE QUESTION ABOUT HOW MUCH
WE'RE AWARDING TO EACH PARTICULAR SUB RECIPIENT OR BENEFICIARY, THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM, THERE IS SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION THAT FEEDS INTO THOSE KEY
MEASURE VISUALIZATION THAT I PRESENTED. 
          IF YOU ON PAGE 616 OF YOUR BOARD BOOK, SPECIFICALLY MEASURE 3.2.1. 
          IF ONE TALKS ABOUT THE AVERAGE SUB RECIPIENT COST PER HOUSEHOLD FOR UTILITY ASSISTANCE,
OUR TARGET WAS 700. 
          YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY PROVIDING A LITTLE NORTH OF 1300 PER BENEFICIARY. 
          SO PEOPLE HAVE MAYBE THEIR NEEDS ARE GREATER THAN WE INITIALLY ANTICIPATED. 
          SO WE'RE GIVING MORE MONEY OUT AND SERVING FEWER PEOPLE. 
          SO THE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION THAT'S PROVIDED ON THE BOARD,
BUT ALSO MAY HAVE SOME INSIGHTS THAT ARE IMPORTANT IN YOUR ASSESSMENT OF HOW WELL THE AGENCY IS DOING. OKAY. THIS IS THIS REPORT IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I KNOW THIS IS WHAT I MEAN. 
          MR. HARPER ASKED FOR A YEAR AGO. WE NEED TO TAKE IT. 
          AND I'M NOT PICKING ON YOU PERSONALLY. OKAY? WHOEVER PUT YOU UP HERE AND DIDN'T HAVE YOU,
YOU KNOW, WITH ALL THE INFORMATION YOU NEEDED. SO I'M NOT SHOOTING THE MESSENGER HERE,
BUT WE DEFINITELY NEED TO TAKE THIS WHOLE REPORT. AND I'M TALKING TO EVERYONE. EVERYONE HERE. 
          TAKE THIS ANOTHER STEP FURTHER TO NOT JUST SAY,
WELL, HERE'S WHAT THE NUMBER WAS, BUT WHETHER IT WAS A RELEVANT NUMBER OR NOT, THE TOTAL DOLLARS VERSUS THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS SERVED. 
          I MEAN, MAYBE THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT METRIC. HOW DID WE DO COMPARED TO NOT JUST RAW NUMBERS
LAST YEAR, 
          [00:45:04]
BUT WHAT WAS THE TARGET LAST YEAR? DID WE IMPROVE ON? DID WE MISS IT BY LESS? DID WE BEAT IT BY MORE? AND THEN WHAT ARE THE STEPS THAT WE'RE GOING TO START TAKING I GUESS GOES INTO YOU? I MEAN, JUST IN ADDITION TO HOW ARE WE GOING TO IMPROVE THIS? AND NOW WE GOT THIS INFORMATION. HOW ARE WE USING THE INFORMATION? SURE. AND IN ADDITION TO FLESHING OUT THE EXPLANATION OF VARIANCE A LITTLE BETTER. LIKE A
NEXT STEPS, YOU KNOW, OR LIKE, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO TO MEET THE GOAL? SOMETIMES IT'S JUST MACROECONOMIC, LIKE FEWER PEOPLE ARE BUYING HOUSES. 
          RIGHT. BUT BUT THAT COMES DOWN TO. IF WE MISS THE NUMBER,
WHY DO WE MISS THE NUMBER. 
          RIGHT. AND IF IT'S THE FUNCTION OF THOSE WHAT YOU GOT IN HERE. AND THEN WHAT ARE WE GOING
TO DO TO GET BETTER. AND THEN IS THERE SOMETHING IN HERE THAT WE'RE MEASURING LIKE THIS ISN'T MOVING THE NEEDLE. THIS IS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE,
LISTEN, KNOW, THE WORST THING YOU CAN DO IN LIFE IS MEASURE SOMETHING THAT NOBODY GIVES A FLIP ABOUT, RIGHT? SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE WORST EXPERIENCE. 
          AND THEN WE CAN OFFICIALLY REQUEST TO HAVE IT CHANGED OR OUT OF IT. 
          YEAH. WE'RE NOT LET'S NOT BE FOOLISH HERE. BUT WHAT ARE WE DOING TO MAKE IT BETTER? WHY ARE WE MISSING STUFF? OR IS IT JUST A BAD NUMBER? WHAT'S THE MACRO EFFECT OF THAT? AND WHAT DO WE NOT NEED TO MEASURE AND MEASURE SOMETHING
DIFFERENT? BECAUSE THE WHOLE GOAL IS ARE WE MAKING. 
          ARE WE DOING THE BEST SERVICE WE CAN? ARE WE ARE WE GETTING BETTER AT WHAT WE'RE DOING
EVERY DAY. 
          I WOULD SAY THAT ANALYSTS ARE SOMETIMES RELUCTANT TO GET RID OF SOMETHING BECAUSE THEY
LIKE THE HISTORICAL. 
          AND SO IT'S LIKE, OH, IT CUTS OFF THEIR, YOU KNOW,
THEIR THEIR LINE GRAPH. 
          BUT THERE'S ALWAYS BETTER WAYS TO MEASURE. AND WE SHOULD KEEP PUSHING FOR THAT I AGREE. 
          I'M SURE THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF PROGRAM STAFF THAT ARE SMILING EAR TO EAR AT THE
SUGGESTION THAT WE'RE REDUCING OR ELIMINATING SOME PERFORMANCE MEASURES. 
          THEY'RE ADDING SOME SITTING DOWN HERE WITH IDEAS. 
          I CAN'T SEE THEIR FACES. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR NEW AND IMPROVED TD DOGE GOING FORWARD. WE'LL YEAH, TRY TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE MEASURES GOING INTO NEXT. 
          THE ANSWER SESSION. THE ANSWER IS YES. MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          YES. SEPARATELY, THERE'S A LOT OF DOGE GOING AROUND. 
          THE HOUSE AND SENATE EACH HAVE THEIR OWN COMMITTEES. PLUS THERE'S NOW THE THE TEXAS OFFICE
OF REGULATORY EFFICIENCY WITHIN THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE. 
          THAT'S GOING TO BE REVIEWING OUR RULES, SPECIFICALLY THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE THAT'S THERE
ANGLE. 
          SO, YEAH, THERE'S THERE'S THOSE ALL AROUND. VERY GOOD. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR BOARD MEMBERS FOR MISTER LOVETT? THANK YOU. MATTHEW. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THE REPORT. OKAY. 
          ITEM 22 OF THE AGENDA PRESENTATION DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING ELIGIBILITY
UNDER TEN TAX. 
          SECTION 11.101 B1D RELATED TO INELIGIBILITY OF DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN AREAS OF HIGH CRIME FOR
BERNICIA PLACE. WHERE'S THE CREW? ALL RIGHT, MISS MORALES. 
          MORALES, DIRECTOR OF MULTIFAMILY BONDS. YOU MAY RECALL THAT BERNICIA PLACE WAS PRESENTED
AND DISCUSSED AT THE BOARD MEETING LAST MONTH. 
          THIS IS 120 UNIT NEW CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT IN HOUSTON SERVING THE ELDERLY POPULATION. 
          THERE IS A NEIGHBORHOOD RISK FACTOR ASSOCIATED WITH THE PART ONE VIOLENT CRIME RATE
RELATING TO THE ADJACENT TRACT, WHOSE BOUNDARIES ARE WITHIN 500FT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. 
          THE ADJACENT TRACT HAS A PART ONE VIOLENT CRIME RATE OF 28.37. 
          TO BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE STAFF'S POSITION AND THE DISCUSSION,
THE SHAPE ALLOWS FOR LOCAL POLICE BEAT DATA TO BE PROVIDED TO THE EXTENT IT OFFERS A MORE ACCURATE REFLECTION OF CRIME IN THE AREA. NOT ONLY DID THE LOCAL POLICE BEAT DATA,
NOT PRODUCE A CRIME RATE BELOW THE THRESHOLD OF 18 PER 1000 PERSONS, BUT IT INCREASED FOR EACH OF THE PREVIOUS THREE YEARS,
GOING FROM 30.95 IN 20 22 TO 30 8.1 IN 2024. 
          GIVEN THE LACK OF DOWNWARD TREND AND REASONABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE CRIME RATE WOULD BE
BELOW OR AT OR BELOW 18 AT THE TIME THE DEVELOPMENT PLACES INTO SERVICE, STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT THE SITE BE INELIGIBLE. 
          THE BOARD WAS INTERESTED IN WHETHER A PLAN WAS IN PLACE THAT WOULD SERVE TO MITIGATE THE
CRIME, NOT JUST ON THE PROPERTY, BUT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL. 
          THE INFORMATION FROM LAST MONTH'S MEETING IS INCLUDED IN YOUR MATERIALS,
BUT ALSO INCLUDED IS AN ENHANCED SECURITY AND CRIME PREVENTION PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED SUBSEQUENT TO THE BOARD MEETING. 
          THIS CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE 629 OF YOUR MATERIALS IN THIS DOCUMENT AND REPEATED IN THE
BOARD. 
          WRITE-UP ITSELF ARE THREE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THEY REQUESTED BE INCLUDED IN THE LURA. 
          UPON REVIEW, STAFF MODIFIED THESE ITEMS TO BE REFLECTIVE OF WHAT STAFF CAN MONITOR FOR
LONG TERM. 
          [00:50:07]
THESE INCLUDE THE ADDITION OF A FIFTH PATROL FROM CONSTABLE PRECINCT SEVEN TO FOCUS ON
THIS COMMUNITY AND CENSUS TRACT. 
          YOU MAY RECALL THAT FROM LAST MONTH. WE MENTIONED AN AGREEMENT THAT WAS IN PLACE BETWEEN
HARRIS COUNTY AND THE GREATER SOUTHEAST MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, WHERE THAT AGREEMENT STIPULATED THAT THERE WERE FOUR DEPUTIES THAT WERE BEING PROVIDED WHO
SPEND ABOUT 80% OF THEIR TIME IN THE GREATER SOUTHEAST MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AREA, WHICH IS A MUCH LARGER AREA. 
          SO WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED IS THAT THERE BE A FIFTH PATROL ADDED TO THAT,
THAT IS SPECIFIC TO THIS COMMUNITY AND THIS CENSUS TRACT. 
          THE SECOND ITEM IS PRIVATE ON SITE SECURITY PATROLS ON NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS. 
          AND THE THIRD ARE ON SITE SECURITY MEASURES THAT INCLUDE THOSE AMENITIES THAT ARE LISTED
UNDER THE THIRD BULLET. 
          THAT'S ON PAGE 627 OF YOUR BOARD BOOK. THESE INCLUDE THINGS LIKE FULL PERIMETER FENCING,
VEHICULAR GATES WITH CONTROLLED ACCESS, SECURITY CAMERAS, AND A LIST OF OTHER ITEMS AS IT RELATES TO THOSE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS. 
          THE ADDITIONAL PATROLS INFORMATION ON THE CRIME RATE THAT WAS INITIALLY PROVIDED BY THE
APPLICANT LAST MONTH FOCUSED ON CRIMES WITHIN THE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT D, WHICH WE SAID WAS A MUCH LARGER AREA. 
          THE DATA THAT THEY PROVIDED FOR THAT CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT,
IT REFLECTED A 13% REDUCTION IN CRIME OVER A ONE YEAR PERIOD. 
          THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS REDUCTION CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THOSE DIRECT PATROL
EFFORTS, AND THAT ONCE THESE MORE TARGETED PATROLS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HERE ONCE THOSE ARE,
IN EFFECT, CLOSER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTAINING BERNICIA PLACE THAT THE AREA WOULD SEE SIMILAR
REDUCTIONS IN CRIME. 
          THERE ARE A FEW POINTS OF CLARIFICATION REGARDING THESE THREE ITEMS. ONE IS THAT TO THE EXTENT THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BEAR THE COST,
WE WILL NEED THE APPLICANT TO CONFIRM THAT SUCH COSTS ARE REFLECTED IN THE TAX CREDIT APPLICATION. PART OF OUR UNDERWRITING WILL BE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROPERTY CAN
SUPPORT IT. 
          ANOTHER CLARIFICATION IS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE LURA RUN FOR A 30 YEAR AFFORDABILITY
PERIOD, AND THE MONITORING OF THESE ITEMS WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT. 
          LAST, THE SECURITY AMENITIES TO BE PROVIDED WOULD BE CONSIDERED MANDATORY AND NOT USED IN
MEETING THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD OF POINTS THAT ARE REQUIRED. DESPITE THE SUBMISSION OF THE PLAN,
BECAUSE THE CRIME DATA REMAINS UNCHANGED, STAFF DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE SHAPE TO RECOMMEND ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE SITE BE INELIGIBLE. 
          HOWEVER, SHOULD THE BOARD FIND MERIT IN THE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED AND AS I'VE DISCUSSED, STAFF HAS MODIFIED THE APPLICANTS RECOMMENDATIONS TO WHAT MAY WORK FROM A MONITORING
STANDPOINT, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE THAT I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. 
          GREAT. THANK YOU. TERESA. I THINK WE HAVE SOME SPEAKERS THAT WANT TO LIKE TO CHIME IN AND
ENHANCE WHAT WAS JUST. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN, DID YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FIRST? OKAY,
HANG ON ONE QUESTION, PLEASE. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY KIND OF HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE ON THIS KIND OF SITUATION WHERE WE'VE
DECLARED THEM ELIGIBLE AND OVERRULED, KIND OF OVERRULED THE OUR OUR RULES. 
          AND IT DOES IT USUALLY WORK OUT OR DOES IT USUALLY NOT WORK OUT? EXCELLENT QUESTION. SO THIS WILL PROBABLY BE,
I THINK, THE SIXTH TRANSACTION THAT I PERSONALLY HAVE BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD. WHO'S COUNTING THERE? RIGHT. BUT WHO'S COUNTING? THAT I BROUGHT BEFORE
THE BOARD. 
          THE MAJORITY OF THOSE WERE REHAB DEVELOPMENTS. 
          THERE WAS ONLY ONE PRIOR DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS NEW CONSTRUCTION,
AND AT THE TIME THAT I BROUGHT THE LAST ONE BEFORE THE BOARD, I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE OTHERS. GIVEN THAT IT HAD BEEN A COUPLE YEARS SINCE WE HAD
DONE ANYTHING RELATING TO THOSE PROPERTIES AND THOSE SITES, AND THERE ACTUALLY WAS NOT IMPROVEMENT. 
          THAT IS AS FAR AS THE PART ONE VIOLENT CRIME GOES,
BUT THAT IS REALLY ONLY USING NEIGHBORHOOD SCOUT AS THE MEASURE. 
          SO THAT'S SORT OF THE STANDARD BENCHMARK THAT WE USE. 
          AND WHEN WE'RE GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT, WELL,
DID CRIME IMPROVE? THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE WOULD USE. BUT WHEN I PULLED THOSE NEIGHBORHOOD SCOUT REPORTS FOR
THOSE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION, THERE WASN'T A SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN CRIME. 
          THERE WASN'T. AND DID ALL OF THOSE PROJECTS HAVE SIMILAR STEPPED UP SECURITY,
SIMILAR PLANS THAT THEY HAVE THAT THEY 
          [00:55:09]
PRESENTED TO GET THEIR FUNDING, OR I DON'T RECALL THOSE BEING AS EXTENSIVE AS THESE WITH
DEPUTIES. 
          I THINK THE STANDARD APPROACH HAS BEEN TO PROVIDE ON SITE SECURITY. 
          BUT I'M NOT SURE IF THAT IS REALLY JUST LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY ITSELF AND NOT EXTENDING
OUTWARD TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          YEAH. SO MY FEELING IS THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THIS RULE OR THIS POLICY WAS TO NOT THROW PEOPLE INTO NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE UNSAFE,
PERIOD. 
          AND WE WE ALWAYS GET A LOT OF ASSURANCES AND WE GET ASSURANCES THAT ARE PRETTY MUCH CONTINGENT ON THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT KEEPING ITS WORD FROM A FROM ONE YEAR TO THE OTHER, AND AND ASSUMING THAT THE SAME POLICING BUDGET WILL BE IN PLACE,
THE SAME POLICING POLICY WILL BE IN PLACE, ETC.. AND SO I RELIED MORE ON SECURITY. I WOULD RELY MORE ON PROMISES MADE THAT HAD TO DO
WITH PRIVATE SECURITY AND PRIVATE THAT WERE TOTALLY UNDER CONTROL OF THE PROJECT. 
          WHEREAS I DON'T BELIEVE THE EXTERNAL POLICIES ARE UNDER THEIR CONTROL. 
          I THINK THERE'S GOOD PROMISES MADE, ETC., ETC. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S, AS A BOARD MEMBER, MY CONCERN THAT WE PUT NEW,
NEW TENANTS IN, IN BAD SITUATIONS AND BECAUSE OF THEIR FINANCIAL SITUATION,
BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES, THEY'RE DRAWN INTO A PROJECT THAT INEVITABLY LIKE YOU SAID,
YOU LOOK BACK AND YOU SEE YOU'VE SEEN LITTLE OR NO IMPROVEMENT IN ANY OF THE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR. 
          SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WAS MY QUESTION AND COMMENT. 
          ALTHOUGH, JUST TO CLARIFY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD SCOUT THAT IS NOT SPECIFIC TO
THOSE PREVIOUS 6 OR 5 DEVELOPMENTS, IT'S THE REGION. IT'S THE AREA IN WHICH THEY ARE LOCATED. 
          CORRECT. SO NEIGHBORHOOD SCOUT THE BOUNDARIES THAT THEY USE WHEN THEY ARE DETERMINING
THAT. 
          PART ONE VIOLENT CRIME RATE. IT'S BASED ON THE CENSUS TRACT,
SO IT'S NOT THE AREA CONTAINING ELEMENT. 
          SO AS MR. MARCHANT JUST SAID, IF THE DEVELOPMENT REALLY STEPPED UP,
ITS ON SITE SECURITY AND ACCESS CONTROL GATES AND ALL THAT STUFF, IT COULD BE A HAMLET, A LITTLE POCKET INSIDE A BAD AREA,
BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY REAL WAY TO CHECK IF IT'S SAFE, AND MAYBE WE CAN LOOK UP LEASE CALLS TO THAT ADDRESS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY KIND OF TRIGGER TO MAKE ANY OF THE PREVIOUS APPROVALS SHOW US THAT
IT'S SAFER OR AS SAFE, RIGHT? WE DON'T HAVE ANY POWERS TO DO THAT. SO WE'LL GIVE THOSE POWERS. 
          WE'LL GIVE YOU ALL THOSE POWERS IN HERE WITH THIS PARTICULAR DEAL. 
          RIGHT. SO THE ADDITIONAL PATROLS BOTH ON SITE AND DEPUTY AREA,
WITH THAT BEING ADDED TO THE LURA. 
          WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE REQUESTING WHEN WE GO OUT AND MONITOR IS A COPY OF THAT AGREEMENT
SHOWING THAT THAT IS STILL IN EFFECT. 
          SO YOU YOU WOULD SAY THIS IS AN EXCEPTION TO PREVIOUS ONES. 
          OKAY. IT MIGHT JUST BE THE STANDARD GOING. WE'VE LEARNED OUR LESSON. 
          YEAH, I GOT YOU. OKAY, THANKS. MR. CHAIRMAN,
I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          MY CONCERN IN THIS PROJECT IS WAS LAST MONTH. 
          I HAVEN'T CHANGED MY MIND. IT'S FOR THE ELDERLY. 
          HOW ARE THEY TO PROTECT THEMSELVES? 28.73%. 28.37%. 
          CRIME RATE. NEXT DOOR. NEXT DOOR 120 UNIT FOR ELDERLY. 
          THAT'S. BUT YOU COULD ALSO SAY. ARE YOU MAKING IT SAFER FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY LIVING
IN THAT AREA? ELDERLY THAT ARE ALREADY LIVING IN THAT AREA? WILL THIS DEVELOPMENT MAKE IT SAFER FOR THEM
THAN WHERE THEY'RE CURRENTLY LIVING? ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT MAKES THIS PROPERTY A BIT UNIQUE FROM THE OTHERS THAT WE'VE
SEEN, IS THAT IT IS ON THE SITE OF A TRANSIT STOP. AND SO THERE'S A MAP. 
          I DON'T RECALL THE PAGE NUMBER, BUT IT IDENTIFIES WHERE THE FULL PERIMETER FENCING AND THE
CONTROLLED GATE ACCESS IS BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE PEOPLE DRIVING INTO THIS SITE, PARKING AND THEN TAKING THE TRANSIT,
BUT THERE'S CONTROLLED GATE ACCESS. 
          [01:00:07]
AND SO THERE'S A MAP IN YOUR BOARD BOOK THAT IDENTIFIES WHERE THOSE ARE AS ADDITIONAL
LAYERS OF PROTECTION FOR THE TEAM. 
          BUT PERHAPS I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM SOME APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVES. 
          REMEMBER, STATE YOUR NAME, SIGN IN ON THE SIGN IN SHEET AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE ALL THREE MINUTES. OKAY BEFORE YOU START MY THREE MINUTES,
I DO HAVE A ONE PAGER FOR YOU GUYS. 
          TO SUMMARIZE THE OFFSITE EFFORTS. IS THAT A PART OF THE BOARD BOOK,
OR IS THIS SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT WASN'T SUBMITTED BEFORE? IT'S THE SUMMARY. OKAY, WELL, WE NEED TO AND WE DO HAVE ENOUGH STAFF AFTERWARDS. WELL, BUT WE NEED TO. WHAT? WHAT RELATIONSHIP ARE YOU TO THE PROJECT? LET'S GO AHEAD AND START THE. OKAY. WE'LL DO AN ORAL PRESENTATION AT THIS POINT. 
          PERFECT. SO GOOD MORNING. BOARD. MY NAME IS DOMINIQUE KING. 
          I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE HARRIS COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE
BOARD ACCEPT OUR CRIME PREVENTION AND REDUCTION PLAN FOR BERNICIA PLACE AS MITIGATION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD RISK FACTOR. WHILE THE ADJACENT CENSUS TRACT MAY REFLECT
HIGHER CRIME STATISTICS IN PRIOR YEARS, THE MOST RECENT STATISTICS TELL THE STORY OF FOCUSED IMPROVEMENT AND COLLABORATION. 
          THE HOUSING AUTHORITY, HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE HARRIS COUNTY CONSTABLE'S OFFICE, PRECINCT SEVEN AND THE GREATER SOUTHEAST MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAVE BUILT A STRONG
PARTNERSHIP THAT IS DRIVING MEASURABLE PROGRESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY AND REDUCING CRIME DISTRICT WIDE THROUGH TARGETED VISIBLE POLICING STRATEGIES. 
          COUNCIL DISTRICT D IN THE GREATER SOUTHEAST MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAVE MADE PUBLIC SAFETY A
TOP PRIORITY. 
          IMPLEMENTING A COORDINATED STRATEGY STRATEGY THAT INCLUDES EXPANDED HPD PATROL COVERAGE,
ENHANCED VISIBILITY PATROLS, INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS AND LICENSE PLATE READERS,
TARGETED ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS, AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT INITIATIVES. THESE COMBINED EFFORTS HAVE LED TO REDUCTIONS IN
BOTH VIOLENT AND PROPERTY CRIME OVER THE PAST YEAR WITHIN THE COUNCIL DISTRICT. THERE WAS A 13.1 DECLINE IN VIOLENT CRIME SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE
YEAR, AND A 12.5% DROP IN VIOLENT CRIME OVER THE TRAILING 12 MONTHS. 
          AS PART OF OUR CONTINUED PARTNERSHIP, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAVE
COMMITTED TO MAKING THE ADJACENT CENSUS TRACT A PRIORITY FOR THEIR COLLECTIVE POLICING EFFORTS. FURTHERMORE, ACH PLEDGES TO FUND EXPANDED PATROL COVERAGE IN THE ADJACENT CENSUS
TRACT. 
          THIS PROACTIVE MEASURE WILL EXTEND VISIBLE POLICING,
INCREASE DETERRENCE, INCREASED DETERRENCE, AND ENHANCED SAFETY IN THE CORRIDORS SURROUNDING THE NEW DEVELOPMENT,
BENEFITING BOTH FUTURE AND AND BOTH FUTURE RESIDENTS AND THE BROADER COMMUNITY. THIS IS NOT AN AREA IN DECLINE. THE AREA IS EXPERIENCING A RESURGENCE WHERE
COORDINATED INVESTMENT IN VISIBLE POLICING ARE PRODUCING TANGIBLE CHANGE. 
          BY EXPANDING THE ONGOING EFFORTS BY THE GREATER SOUTHEAST MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S
ENHANCEMENT ENHANCED SAFETY PLAN, STRATEGIC POLICING EFFORTS BY METRO PD, HPD,
AND THE CONSTABLE'S OFFICE. 
          THE MOST RECENT DATA SHOWS THAT WE CAN MAKE A CHANGE FOR AN AREA THAT HAS BEEN
HISTORICALLY DISINVESTED. 
          THIS IS NOT AN AREA BEING OVERLOOKED. IT'S AN AREA BEING STRATEGICALLY INVESTED IN. 
          WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THE BOARD, RECOGNIZE THE RECENT PROGRESS IN OUR ABILITY TO USE
RESOURCES AND PARTNERSHIPS TO CONTINUE THE POSITIVE TREND AND APPROVE OUR REQUEST TO ALLOW THE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD RISK FACTOR SO THAT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVESTMENT CAN CONTINUE TO REINFORCE AND SUSTAIN THE POSITIVE MOMENTUM ALREADY UNDERWAY. MY COLLEAGUE JAIVON HARRIS WILL SPEAK ON THE SPECIFICS OF THE
PLAN. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS KING. 
          JAIVON HARRIS, SUPER URBAN REALTY. I'M A DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT TO THE TO THE HOUSING
AUTHORITY. 
          I THINK I'LL JUST KIND OF BRIEFLY HIGHLIGHT KIND OF WHERE WE STARTED AND,
AND, AND WHERE WE ARE. 
          AND WHAT I HOPE TO MAYBE DO IS ADDRESS SOME OF THE COMMENTS AND THE CONCERNS THAT WERE
MENTIONED AS THE INITIAL PART OF THE PART OF THE INITIAL DISCUSSION. 
          [01:05:10]
SO WHEN WE CAME TO YOU BEFORE, WE DID FOCUS A LOT ON THE ON SITE SECURITY. 
          I THINK WE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR THE BOARD'S COMMENTS,
THE INPUT FROM BO AND TERESA AFTERWARDS THAT THE PLAN NEEDED TO INCLUDE MORE THAN JUST SECURING AND FORTIFYING THE SITE. THE PLAN, AS IT'S PRESENTED TO YOU ADDRESSES THAT THIS PLAN TAKES ADVANTAGE OF MEASURES THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE THAT ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED
BY MULTIPLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND APPLIES IT TO THE AREA OF OF CONCERN. 
          I THINK WHAT WE WANT TO HIGHLIGHT IS THAT ALTHOUGH THE HISTORIC DATA SHOWED HIGH CRIME
LEVELS, THE HISTORIC DATA DOES NOT TAKE INTO A TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THOSE POLICING EFFORTS THAT HAVE
HAPPENED OVER THE LAST YEAR AND OVER THE LAST YEAR. 
          THERE'S BEEN A SIGNIFICANT DECLINE, WHICH WE THINK YOU CAN ATTRIBUTE TO THESE INCREASED
POLICING POLICING EFFORTS. 
          SO JUST WITHIN 2025, SINCE JANUARY, THERE'S BEEN A 13.1% REDUCTION IN THIS COUNCIL DISTRICT. AND YEAR OVER YEAR THERE'S BEEN A 12.5% REDUCTION. 
          DUCTION. WE BELIEVE WITH THE FOCUS THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS THE COLLABORATIONS AND
PARTNERSHIPS AND JUST AS IMPORTANTLY, FUNDING THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT THOSE EFFORTS ARE,
ARE SUSTAINABLE AND THAT THOSE EFFORTS CAN BE APPLIED TO THE AREA OF CONCERN. THE FUNDING IS IN PLACE. THE COLLABORATIONS AND THE PARTNERSHIPS ARE IN PLACE,
AND THE TRACK RECORD IS THERE TO, TO, TO TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. REGARDING THE QUESTION IN COMPARISON TO OTHER
DEVELOPMENTS, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY I TRACK THIS CLOSELY, BUT ONE THE SHAPE HAS HAS EVOLVED,
HAS EVOLVED IN THE STANDARD FOR CREATING MITIGATION PLANS, HAS HAS DEFINITELY EVOLVED. I DON'T THINK COMPARING THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEING
SPONSORED BY AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN BE COMPARED TO A REHAB DEVELOPMENT THAT MAY HAVE
BEEN DONE BY BY BY A PRIVATE DEVELOPER. 
          I THINK THIS IS A DIFFERENT I THINK THIS IS A DIFFERENT SITUATION,
A DIFFERENT ANIMAL. 
          THE LEVEL OF INTENT AND REAL COLLABORATION CANNOT BE HAD BY A PRIVATE DEVELOPER,
AND THE FUNDING AND THE RESOURCES THAT THE HOUSING AUTHORITY CAN BRING TO THIS CANNOT BE HAD BY, BY BY A PRIVATE DEVELOPER. 
          I THINK THE ONLY PRECEDENT HERE THAT I'M AWARE OF IS WHEN TRINITY EAST AND THE HOUSTON
HOUSING AUTHORITY CAME BEFORE YOU. 
          MAYBE A COUPLE OF MONTHS BEFORE, AND PROPOSED SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR. 
          TO WHAT? TO WHAT? TO WHAT WE PROPOSED. AND I THINK THE THE KEY DISTINCTION,
AGAIN, IS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE AN INSTRUMENTALITY THAT'S SPONSORING IT. 
          AND THEY HAVE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES AND FUNDING BOTH WITHIN THE DEAL ITSELF AND OUTSIDE OF
THE AND OUTSIDE OF THE AND OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND I GUESS I'D OPEN IT UP TO ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. LET'S GET SPEAKERS UP AND THEN WE CAN OR WHOEVER ELSE WANTS TO GO. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS. 
          GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. I JUST WANTED TO. 
          I'M SORRY. MY NAME IS TONY JACKSON WITH THE BANK'S LAW FIRM,
AND I REPRESENT THE HOUSING AUTHORITY. 
          I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WERE RAISED. 
          BUT ALSO TAKE THIS BACK A LITTLE FURTHER IN TERMS OF THE HISTORIC PIECE HERE. 
          THIS DEVELOPMENT CAME ABOUT BECAUSE THE ELDERLY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WHO ARE SINGLE FAMILY
HOMEOWNERS, WANTED TO REMAIN IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY WANTED A PLACE WHERE THEY COULD ESSENTIALLY
AGE IN PLACE, AND THAT BEING IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD LED BY EFFORTS OF A WOMAN NAMED DOCTOR TEDDY MCDAVID
IN THE HOUSTON AREA AND GOING TO METRO. METRO CAME TO THE HARRIS COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY WITH THE DONATION OF THIS LAND. 
          [01:10:03]
SO METRO IS VERY VESTED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. WE'VE ALSO BROUGHT TO YOU THAT HPD AND THE
HARRIS COUNTY PRECINCT SEVEN. 
          THEY'RE VERY VESTED BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE COMPARISONS,
WE DON'T BELIEVE IT'S AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON BECAUSE OF THE ENTITIES. 
          AS MR. HARRIS ALREADY MENTIONED, THAT WE ARE PARTNERING WITH,
WE HAVE INCREDIBLY ROBUST PARTNERSHIPS WITH METRO POLICE, METRO ITSELF, SELF, HPD AND HARRIS COUNTY CONSTABLE PRECINCT SEVEN. 
          ALSO, OUR OFFER TO INCLUDE THIS LANGUAGE INTO THE LAW. 
          AGAIN, WE ARE WE'RE PUTTING OURSELVES TO THE STANDARD OF MAKING CERTAIN THAT WE STAY WITH
WHAT WE HAVE SAID WE'RE GOING TO DO. 
          BUT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT WE ARE COMPLIANT WITH THAT AND MONITORING
THAT. 
          SO THESE, YOU KNOW, OUR PARTNERSHIPS ARE DIFFERENT. 
          OUR OUR ENHANCED COMPLIANCE THROUGH THE LAW IS DIFFERENT. 
          AND THE ELDERLY THEMSELVES HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE PLANNING OF THIS,
AND THEY ARE VESTED IN THIS. 
          AND SO WITH ALL OF THOSE THINGS, WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS NOT AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON
IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE PAST DEVELOPMENTS. 
          AND WE DO BELIEVE THAT WE ARE ABLE TO SUSTAIN AND EXCEED WHAT WE ARE INDICATING IN TERMS
OF OUR SECURITY PLAN. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. JACKSON. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. DO BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT TEAM OR MISS MORALES? I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO SAY. OKAY. I MEAN, I SCAN THROUGH YOUR LONG AND DETAILED PROPOSAL
ON MITIGATION AND PROTECTION AND EVERYTHING. THAT'S. THAT'S GREAT. 
          I THINK WE HAVE YOU ON WRITTEN RECORD. THE ISSUE ON WHETHER HOW THAT CAN GET DOCUMENTED IN LAURA'S AND EVERYTHING. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S FOR ATTORNEYS AND STAFF AND EVERYONE TO PAPER UP. 
          IT'S INTERESTING, IN CONTRAST TO WHAT MR. MARCHANT SAID ABOUT THE. 
          HEALTHY. FEELING GOOD ABOUT YOUR HAVING ON SITE,
YOU KNOW, PROTECTION THERE. 
          I MEAN, IT'S THAT'S ALL WELL AND GOOD AND IMPORTANT TO HAVE,
BUT TO ME, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE KIND OF BUILDING A MOAT AND HIGH WALLS INSIDE A REALLY DANGEROUS SURROUNDING. AND MY CONCERN IS THAT IT MAY BE SAFE INSIDE THOSE
WALLS, BUT OUTSIDE THERE'S STILL I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BEING MITIGATED ENOUGH TO THE CRIME LEVELS. 
          HOWEVER, THE FIRST TWO SPEAKERS, THIS THE FIRST THINGS YOU ALL TALKED ABOUT WERE THE
SURROUNDING AREA. 
          NOT NECESSARILY JUST, YOU KNOW, THE INTERIOR INSIDE THE WALLS IS A GIVEN INSIDE THE FENCE, BUT IT'S THE AREA AROUND I'M EVEN MORE CONCERNED ABOUT. 
          AND IT SOUNDS LIKE HPD AND THE CONSTABLES ARE ALL ALL ON BOARD. 
          METRO PD TO FOCUS ON THAT. SO I'M A LITTLE BIT MORE. 
          WILLING TO TAKE A CHANCE. I RECOGNIZE THE IT'S A PUBLIC QUASI PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY
THAT IS ON BOARD. 
          AND IT'S NOT JUST A PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPER THAT WE'RE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO RELY ON HERE. 
          YEAH, THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS, AS ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE. 
          OTHER THOUGHTS YOU WANT TO ADD OR QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO ASK? I, I THINK THE PROTECTIONS THAT, THAT OUR STAFF HAS TRIED TO PUT IN THIS PROJECT WILL GAIN
MY SUPPORT. I WOULD URGE OUR STAFF TO LOOK AT ANY FUTURE PROJECTS THAT PUT US IN THIS KIND OF
SITUATION TO LOOK AT MORE INNOVATIVE WAYS TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR TO SIX, EIGHT YEARS DOWN THE ROAD SO THAT WE CAN GET
SOME KIND OF SOME KIND OF SYSTEM TO MONITOR. PROMISES MADE AND PROMISES KEPT. AGREED. 
          I WILL NOT GIVE MY SUPPORT, NOT FORESEE THIS PLAN AS AS DEFINITE ACTION VERB COORDINATED
WITH ALL KEY STAKEHOLDERS IN PLACE WITH HOW YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE BATTLE SPACE AWAY FROM CRIME. 
          I SEE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF STATEMENTS OF WE WILL COORDINATE,
WE WILL DO THIS, WE WILL DO THAT. 
          [01:15:07]
I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THIS HAS A PLAN THAT WILL TAKE THE SURROUNDING AREA AND ACTIVELY
DRIVE DOWN CRIME TO SECURE THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA. 
          ANYONE ELSE OR MR. CONROY? I I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS PLAN. 
          I THINK IF THE ELDERLY WANT TO AGE IN PLACE AND YOU KEPT THEM INSIDE ALL THE TIME,
THEY WOULD BE SAFE. 
          BUT I THINK ONCE IT'S OUTSIDE, IT'S NOT SAFE. 
          AND I, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS. I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE FINALLY GETTING. 
          THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THAT WE SEND PEOPLE BACK SO THEY CAN ACTUALLY COME BACK WITH A
WRITTEN RECORD OF WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO, AND NOT JUST PROMISES. BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S STILL GOING TO WORK. 
          YOU ALL KNOW MY EXPERIENCE. I GREW UP IN ONE OF THE HOUSING PROJECTS AND I RENT ONE,
AND I LIVED IN IT. 
          SO I DO UNDERSTAND. I DO UNDERSTAND THE DANGERS,
BUT I HAD TO ESCAPE A FEW BULLETS AND ARROWS IN THE SEVEN YEARS THAT I WAS DOING IT. SO I, YOU KNOW, AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO KEEP THE ELDERLY INSIDE
THEM OUT. 
          YOU'RE NOT. SO I FOR ONE I HAVEN'T CHANGED MY MIND FROM THE LAST TIME,
SO. 
          SO, MISS CONROY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I WILL MAKE A MOTION, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION FIRST. 
          WHAT IS YOUR WAIT LIST FOR THIS? FOR THIS HOUSING PROJECT YOU GOT COMING TO. 
          WE NEED TO HEAR IT. WE NORMALLY DO NOT START WAITLIST UNTIL WE COMMENCE PRE-LEASING. 
          HOWEVER, I CAN SAY THAT ON EVERY ONE OF OUR PROJECTS WHERE THERE ARE 3,050% UNITS OR ANY
TYPE OF PBV VOUCHER, WE DO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT WAIT AT THOSE PROPERTIES. 
          AND IN THAT CENSUS TRACT, WHAT'S YOUR PERCENTAGE OF ELDERLY LOOKING FOR FOR HOUSING OR
NEEDING HOUSING? I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION DIRECTLY, BUT WE DO COORDINATE WITH THE OLD SPANISH TRAIL
COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP. 
          AND THEY DO PROVIDE US ACCESS TO INFORMATION REGARDING THE ELDERLY. 
          AND SO I CAN HAVE THAT TO YOU. I'M SUPPORT. I'M GOING TO BE SUPPORTIVE WITH EVERYTHING
THAT TERESA'S PROPOSING TO BE PUT IN THE LURA. BECAUSE I DO SEE THAT THERE'S A NEED. 
          I DO SEE THAT THIS IS A A HOUSING AUTHORITY,
NOT A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT SAYING, HEY, WHAT A GREAT IDEA. 
          LET'S PUT IT HERE. SO, YEAH, I JUST HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. 
          HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU EXPECT TO IMPORT INTO THIS AREA VERSUS PEOPLE FROM THE AREA
ENTERING THIS FACILITY? I DO BELIEVE IN THAT. THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION AND THAT'S SOMETHING I DO
WANT TO EXPRESS. 
          I DO BELIEVE THAT ABSORPTION FOR THIS PROPERTY WILL COME FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF. 
          THIS IS THE REASON THAT THEY REQUESTED THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE IS SO THAT THE
RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN AGE IN PLACE, AND THEY CAN REMAIN IN THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY ARE COMFORTABLE IN AND THAT THEY'VE LIVED
MOST OF THEIR LIVES IN AFFORDABLY. 
          SO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY LIVING UNDER THESE THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES? YES, SIR. AND THEY'RE JUST GOING TO MOVE FROM ONE LOCATION INSIDE THIS REGION WITH
ENHANCED SUPPORTIVE SERVICES TO THE SENIORS FROM THE HOUSING. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER FINAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? MISS CONROY, WOULD YOU CARE TO MAKE A MOTION ON ITEM 22 OF THE AGENDA? YES, BECAUSE MR. DOESN'T HAVE HIS PAPERWORK. I MOVE THE BOARD,
FIND BERNICIA, PLACE ELIGIBLE UNDER TEN TAX SECTION 11.101. SECTION B1B REGARDING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN AREAS OF HIGH
CRIME ON THE BASIS OF THE BOARD ACTION REQUEST RESOLUTION AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON THIS TERM. 
          ELIGIBLE ON CONDITIONAL ON THIS ITEM. CONDITIONAL ON INCLUDING THE APPLICATION. 
          THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE ON THE BOARD ON THIS ITEM MADE TO THE BOARD ON THIS ITEM. 
          AND I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION MADE BY MISS CONROY,
SECONDED BY MR. 
          [01:20:04]
MARCHANT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED. 
          NAY, NAY. OKAY. LET THE RECORD SHOW THE VOTE PASSES 3 TO 2 IN FAVOR WITH MR. HARPER AND MISS FARIAS VOTING AGAINST. NO MOTION CARRIES. 
          GET THOSE. GET THE. GET THOSE POLICE FORCE OUT THERE. 
          PLEASE COME BACK TO US WITH AN UPDATE. EVEN IF I'M NOT HERE,
SEND ME ONE. 
          AND HPD IS ABOUT TO EXPAND WHEN WE RECRUIT ALL THOSE NYPD OFFICERS TO COME DOWN NOW
BECAUSE THEY'RE LOVED IN HOUSTON. 
          OKAY, MOVING RIGHT ALONG. ITEM 23 OF THE AGENDA PRESENTATION,
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A WAIVER OF TEN TAX. 
          SECTION 11.101 B1A7 OF THE SHAPE RELATING TO THE PERCENTAGE OF EFFICIENCY AND OR ONE
BEDROOM UNITS FOR BRIDGE AT SAINT JOHN MR. OR MR. GALVAN. 
          OKAY. GOOD MORNING. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. JONATHAN GALVAN,
4% TAX CREDIT PROGRAM MANAGER. 
          ITEM 23 INVOLVES A WAIVER RELATING TO BRIDGE AT SAINT JOHN,
A PROPOSED 4% TAX CREDIT APPLICATION TO BE LOCATED IN AUSTIN THAT INVOLVES THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF 201 TAX CREDIT UNITS THAT WILL SERVE THE GENERAL POPULATION. 
          SPECIFICALLY, THE UNIT MIX FOR BRIDGE AT SAINT JOHN INCLUDES MORE THAN 35% EFFICIENCY AND
OR ONE BEDROOM UNITS, WHICH EXCEEDS THE THRESHOLD ALLOWED UNDER THE 2025 SHAPE. 
          NO. THE UNIT MIX FOR BRIDGE AT SAINT JOHN CONSISTS OF 36 EFFICIENCY UNITS,
107 ONE BEDROOM UNITS, 43 TWO BEDROOM UNITS, AND 15 THREE BEDROOM UNITS. 
          THE NUMBER OF EFFICIENCY AND ONE BEDROOM UNITS COMPRISES 71% OF THE TOTAL UNIT COUNT. 
          THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A WAIVER SO THAT THE DEVELOPMENT MAY BE ELIGIBLE WITHOUT
NECESSITATING A CHANGE TO THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED UNIT MIX. 
          THE DEVELOPMENT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED BY AN ENTITY UNRELATED TO THE APPLICANT,
INTENDED TO INCLUDE 526 TOTAL UNITS OF WORKFORCE HOUSING, AND UTILIZE A FINANCING STRUCTURE THAT DID NOT INCLUDE 4% TAX CREDITS BECAUSE TAX CREDITS
WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED FINANCING STRUCTURE. 
          THE DEVELOPMENT WAS NOT DESIGNED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AIP IN MIND,
DUE TO FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS AND INCREASED CONSTRUCTION COSTS. 
          THE CONFIGURATION AND FINANCING STRUCTURE ARE BEING ADJUSTED TO HELP WITH FINANCIAL
FEASIBILITY. 
          THE NUMBER OF WORKFORCE UNITS IS BEING REDUCED TO 325,
AND A SEPARATE PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT WILL UTILIZE THE 4% TAX CREDIT PROGRAM TO CONSTRUCT 201 TAX CREDIT UNITS OF THE 526 TOTAL UNITS PROPOSED UNDER THE ORIGINAL
STRUCTURE. 
          A TOTAL OF 263 WOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDABLE, SERVING HOUSEHOLDS AT A COMBINATION OF 50,
60 AND 70% AMI LEVELS, WHILE THE REMAINING 263 UNITS WOULD HAVE BEEN AT MARKET RATE. 
          UNDER THE NEW CONFIGURATION, THERE WILL BE A TOTAL OF 295 AFFORDABLE UNITS BETWEEN THE TAX
CREDIT AND WORKFORCE PORTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT. 
          HOWEVER, ONLY THE TAX CREDIT PORTION WILL BE COVERED BY THE PROSPECTIVE LURA AND RESTRICT
AFFORDABILITY FOR A MINIMUM OF 30 YEARS. 
          THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT REDESIGNING THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AT THIS POINT TO INCLUDE A
UNIT MIX THAT ADHERES TO THE SHAPE, WOULD GREATLY IMPACT THE EXPECTED TIMELINE FOR PROJECT COMPLETION,
BECAUSE THE DESIGN PLANS THAT INCLUDE THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED UNIT MIX HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN. THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT THE NEED FOR A WAIVER WAS NOT
WITHIN THEIR CONTROL BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT WAS ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED AND DESIGNED WITHOUT THE INTENT TO UTILIZE HOUSING TAX CREDITS,
AND THE APPLICANT WAS NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL DESIGN PROCESS. 
          FURTHERMORE, THE UNIT MIX WAS SUPPORTED BY A MARKET STUDY THAT IDENTIFIED THE NEEDS OF THE
SUBMARKET AND WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          THE APPLICANT FURTHER CONTENDS THAT GRANTING THE WAIVER BETTER SERVES THE PURPOSES
ARTICULATED IN TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 2306 BY PROVIDING QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES,
AND BY CONTRIBUTING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES. 
          STAFF IS NEUTRAL IN ITS RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD REGARDING WHETHER THE WAIVER SHOULD BE
GRANTED AND COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS. 
          JUST TO SUMMARIZE, I THINK, DO WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE? OKAY. WELL, JUST BUT JUST TO SUMMARIZE THIS DEVELOPMENT,
THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT WHEN IT FIRST STARTED HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 
          [01:25:02]
TDCA OR TAX CREDIT PROPERTIES, TAX CREDIT FINANCING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          EXACTLY. NO, IT DID NOT. IT DIDN'T WORK OR COULDN'T BE FINANCED OR STRUCTURED WHERE UNDER
THE PREVIOUS PLAN THEY TRIED TO BREAK IT UP, DOWNSIZE IT, AND COME TO US WITH A SQUARE PEG THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO FIT INTO OUR
WELL-ESTABLISHED CIRCLE, THAT WE'VE HAD RULES THAT WE'VE DEVELOPED OVER MANY YEARS. 
          REASONS BEHIND THOSE? YES. AND NOW IT'S BEING BROUGHT TO US TO FORGET ABOUT ALL THOSE
BECAUSE MORE OR LESS THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S, THAT'S THE WAY I READ IT OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. LET'S, LET'S, LET'S WHO'S THE PROPOSED ISSUER OF THE BONDS. 
          EXCUSE ME. PROPOSED ISSUER OF THE BONDS. AUSTIN. 
          AFFORDABLE. OKAY. HFC. YEAH. SO IT'S NOT OUR SET ASIDE. 
          NO NO, NO, IT'S A LOCAL ISSUER OKAY. OKAY. SO IT'S JUST TAX CREDIT. 
          YEAH, EXACTLY. WELL, LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT OR DEVELOPER AGAIN. 
          STATE YOUR NAME AND JAKE BROWN, YOU GUYS HEAR ME? OKAY. JAKE BROWN LRDG DEVELOPMENT. SO IT'S ON ITS FACE. 
          YOU'RE NOT WRONG. I MEAN, IT'S A SQUARE PEG,
ROUND HOLE SITUATION. 
          I DO THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE NUANCED OR MAYBE A LOT BIT MORE NUANCED THAN THAT. 
          I THINK NAMELY, THE FIRST THING I WOULD POINT OUT IS IT'S A LONG HISTORY WITH THIS
PROJECT. 
          SO WE'VE JUST KIND OF LOOSELY GOT INVOLVED PROBABLY WITHIN THE LAST 9 TO 10 MONTHS. 
          SO THERE WAS A PREVIOUS DEVELOPER, THIS IS CITY OF AUSTIN OWNED PROPERTY,
PREVIOUS DEVELOPER THAT HAD APPLIED AND GOTTEN SITE CONTROL AND MOVED FORWARD WITH A PLAN, AS JOHN OUTLINED, TO DEVELOP 526 PFC UNITS. THAT PROCESS STARTED AT THE END OF 2021,
BEGINNING OF 2022. OBVIOUSLY TOTALLY DIFFERENT ECONOMIC CLIMATE AT THAT POINT. 
          AND THEN I THINK AS THINGS KIND OF PROGRESSED FROM THERE. 
          YOU KNOW, OVER THE COURSE OF PROBABLY THE NEXT 12 TO 18 MONTHS,
THEY REALIZED THAT THOSE 526 UNITS NOT ONLY PROBABLY WERE NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE, BUT I THINK PROBABLY WOULD WAGER TO GUESS THAT THEIR INVESTOR BASE SAID,
HEY, THAT'S A LOT OF LEASE UP RISK FOR US TO TAKE ON 500. 
          NEVERTHELESS IN THAT PROCESS WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN,
THEY HAD EXECUTED THIS DEVELOPER, HAD EXECUTED A MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. 
          AND IT AGREED AND COMMITTED TO DEVELOP THOSE 526 UNITS WITH THE UNIT MIX THAT'S OUTLINED
IN THE WAIVER REQUEST AND PRESUMABLY THE BOARD PACKET. 
          THE COLLECTIVE TOTAL OF 526 UNITS. SO, FOR BETTER OR WORSE,
THEY'RE COMMITTED TO DEVELOPING THOSE 506 UNITS. 
          WHO ARE THEY? THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPER, GREYSTAR. 
          AND SO BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR, I THINK REALLY KIND OF STARTED TO DAWN ON HIM THAT THIS WAS
JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE FOR HIM TO DO. 
          WE WERE LDG OUR GROUP WAS APPROACHED BY COMING IN AND DEVELOPING A PORTION OF THE
DEVELOPMENT 201 UNITS, TO BE EXACT, AS A 4% TAX. THE TRADE OFF BEING OBVIOUSLY THE CITY OF AUSTIN GETS DEEPER
AFFORDABILITY THE INCOME RESTRICTIONS, THE RENTAL RATES, EVERYTHING THAT COMES WITH THAT WHILE KEEPING THE UNIT MIX THAT GREYSTAR
HAD PREVIOUSLY COMMITTED TO AS A WHOLE INTACT AND NOT FLYING IN THE FACE OF THE MDA, THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. 
          SO YOU KNOW, I RECOGNIZE THIS IS UNIQUE IN A SENSE. 
          I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT TO I DON'T WE'RE DOING THIS AS A KIND OF TAKING THE POSITION OF
ASKING FOR PERMISSION AS OPPOSED TO FORGIVENESS. 
          I THINK THERE WAS SOME FOLKS THAT YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT OF A PUSH OF JUST,
HEY, LET'S DO THIS. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, WE'LL JUST COME BACK AND ASK TO STAY LATER. 
          WE CAN'T DO THAT. LIKE, THIS IS IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE RULES,
LIKE WE NEED TO ASK FOR PERMISSION TO DO THIS. 
          AND SO WE'RE BEFORE YOU OR I'M BEFORE YOU TODAY TO ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THIS REQUEST? FRANKLY, BEFORE WE GET MUCH FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD,
I THINK THE ONLY THING I WOULD OUTLINE THAT JOHN TOUCHED ON IS, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE DURATION OF THIS PROJECT AND HOW LONG IT'S BEEN AROUND,
THE PLANS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DESIGNED. 
          THEY'VE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN. YOU KNOW,
AT THIS POINT, I WOULD SAY THEY'RE PROBABLY SOMEWHERE IN THE 80 TO 90% COMPLETE RANGE, MEANING THEY'RE ON THE DOORSTEP OF GETTING PERMITTED. SO TO KIND OF UNWIND THAT AND
REDESIGN AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY SEEK COUNCIL APPROVAL TO AMEND THE UNIT MIX WOULD BE TIME CONSUMING, TO SAY THE LEAST. THAT'S MY SPIEL. 
          I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY. 
          MR. MERCHANT, SO YOUR OPTION IF YOU DON'T GET APPROVAL FOR THIS IS TO GO BACK INTO
TRADITIONAL FINANCING. SO MY OPTION IF WE DON'T GET APPROVAL IS TO WALK AWAY FROM THE DEAL,
WHICH I DON'T WANT TO DO. 
          I MEAN, GREYSTAR, THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPER, THE ONE THAT PUT THIS PLAN TOGETHER ORIGINALLY
HAS INVITED US TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT, DOING A 4% TAX CREDIT DEAL IF THE WAIVER IS NOT APPROVED. 
          [01:30:03]
I MEAN, WE JUST WE WON'T MOVE FORWARD AS PART OF THE DEAL. 
          WELL, DOES THE DEAL MOVE FORWARD? THAT'S NOT A QUESTION I CAN ANSWER. 
          I MEAN, I THINK THAT THEY WOULD PROBABLY SEEK TO FIGURE OUT SOME SORT OF ALTERNATIVE
FINANCING METHOD OR SOME SORT OF ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURE, BUT I MEAN, IF IT'S NOT, IF IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN PURSUE AS LDG CAN PURSUE AS A
4% TAX CREDIT DEAL, THEN IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'LL STAY INVOLVED OR ATTEMPT TO STAY. SO YOU'RE JUST
REPRESENTING THE 201 UNITS? THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. BUT OF COURSE, YOU KNOW,
THEY'RE ALL ATTACHED AT THE HIP SO. 
          RIGHT. BUT JUST FOR THE 201 UNITS. YES, MA'AM. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'M REPRESENTING. AND WE'VE DONE A LOT OF DEALS WITH LDG THERE. 
          OKAY. YEAH. AND FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE. 
          WE'VE EVER ASKED FOR A WAIVER. DON'T KNOW IF THAT MATTERS TO THE BOARD,
BUT IT'S WORTH POINTING OUT. 
          SO I WOULDN'T BE HERE ASKING IF IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS IMPORTANT. 
          IT'S IMPORTANT TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN OR IT'S IMPORTANT TO YOU OR WHO'S IMPORTANT TO YOU. 
          AGAIN, IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME. IT'S REAL IMPORTANT TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          I WOULD SAY THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER IN PARTICULAR,
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO HIM. 
          I MEAN, LIKE I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING OF MY DISSERTATION,
I MEAN, THIS HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE 2021, AND THEY'VE JUST BEEN SCRATCHING AND CLAWING AND TRYING TO GET IT OVER THE FINISH LINE.
IT'S A GREAT STARS CREDIT. 
          AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S, FOR THAT MATTER. I THINK THEY HAD A REALLY GOOD PLAN IN PLACE TO
EXECUTE THIS DEAL 3 OR 4 YEARS AGO. 
          IT'S JUST THE TIMING OF IT, LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE,
JUST DIDN'T ALLOW IT TO COME TO FRUITION AS THEY ORIGINALLY PROPOSED. FOR REASONS PROBABLY BEYOND THEIR CONTROL. SO SO ARE ALL THE PRINCIPLES THAT ARE LISTED DIFFERENT NOW,
OR ARE THEY THE SAME PRINCIPLES ON THE LDG SIDE? ON THE PRINCIPLE SIDE? WELL, THE I MEAN, THERE'S DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES IN THE SENSE THAT
THERE'S GOING TO BE TWO SEPARATE DEVELOPMENTS. 
          SO GREYSTAR WILL HAVE THEIR SET OF PRINCIPLES THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE GREYSTAR SIDE FOR
THE PFC DEAL. 
          AND THEN IF APPROVED, LDG, I MEAN, OUR OUR PRINCIPLE GROUP,
CHRIS AND MARK LECHNER THAT COLLECTIVELY THE L AND THE D OF LDG WOULD BE THE PRINCIPALS FOR LDG. SO I GUESS THE SHORT ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS YES,
IT WOULD CHANGE IF LDG IS INVOLVED AS GREYSTAR BUILT THEIR INITIAL PART. 
          NO, SIR. HAVE THEY STARTED? NO. BROKEN GROUND? NO. NO, SIR. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE UNIT MIX IS IN THERE? IT'S 325 UNITS. I MEAN, HOW MANY ARE. ARE THEY? MOSTLY ONE BEDROOM. AND IT'S PREDOMINANTLY ONES AND TWO BEDROOMS WITH SOME THREES. 
          I MEAN, BECAUSE THAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT YOU'RE FACING WITH US,
IS THAT THE UNIT MIX IS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR DOUBLE WHAT OUR MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LEVEL IS. RIGHT. AND I THINK AND THIS IS PROBABLY NOT LOST ON YOU OR THE REST OF
THE BOARD MEMBERS, BUT I MEAN, WITH THE INTENT OF IT BEING DESIGNED AS A PFC DEAL ORIGINALLY FOR THE
COLLECTIVE WHOLE OBVIOUSLY PFC WORKFORCE, MARKET RATE, THAT COLLECTIVE LOT. IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT APPROACH ON THAT SIDE. 
          I MEAN, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE DEALS ARE NOT NECESSARILY FOCUSED ON SERVING FAMILIES
WITH LARGER UNIT SIZES, WHICH IS THE REASON FOR THE THE MIX OF THE SMALLER BEDROOMS,
THE PREDOMINANTLY SMALLER BEDROOMS. SO WE'RE JUST KIND OF STEPPING INTO THE SHOES OF SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY DESIGNED FOR
US. 
          FRANKLY, NOT MY PREFERENCE. YOU KNOW, LDG, I MEAN,
EVERYTHING THAT WE DO, EVEN OUTSIDE OF THE WORK THAT WE DO IN THE TAX CREDIT SPACE 99% OF THE TIME IS GEARED TOWARDS FAMILIES. HOWEVER,
I DO THINK THIS IS AN EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY FOR NOT ONLY LDG AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN, GREYSTAR AND THE DEPARTMENT TO ADD ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS THAT,
QUITE FRANKLY, MAY NOT OTHERWISE BE ATTAINABLE ON SITE. I'M KIND OF HAVING WELL,
ALL RIGHT, I'M TRYING TO THINK THROUGH, HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY GET THERE? YOUR STAND ALONE 200 UNITS. 
          I DON'T SEE ANY WAY YOU'RE GOING TO CONVINCE ME THAT YOU KNOW THAT IT FITS INTO OUR MODEL. 
          YEAH. AND WITH YOUR EXPERIENCE IN TAX CREDIT PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENTS,
YOU KNOW IT DOESN'T FIT INTO THE. 
          AS FAR AS THE RULES GO, NO, I WOULDN'T DISAGREE WITH THAT. 
          IT'S NOT LIKE CLOSE. IT'S NOT LIKE NO IT'S 35% OR SOMETHING. 
          NO IT'S NOT. AND AND I'M NOT HERE TO ARGUE THAT IT'S CLOSE. 
          QUITE FRANKLY, I'M JUST. BUT WHY ISN'T IT. WHY IS IT STILL BEING BROKEN UP INTO TWO
DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS, THE GREYSTAR AND THE LDG. WHY IS IT WHY ISN'T IT ONE BIG ONE? AND WE HAVE A BIG LAURA ON EVERYTHING AND. WELL,
I THINK NAMELY THE FIRST ONE IS THAT THEY'RE NOT CONTEMPLATING ANYTHING. 
          FINANCE WITH THE LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM,
4%, 9% OR OTHERWISE. 
          AND THEY'RE DOING TOTALLY SEPARATE FINANCING MECHANISM. 
          NOR DO THEY HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE DEVELOPING THE TAX CREDIT SPACE. SO,
I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE BIGGEST ONE RIGHT THERE. 
          SO THEY'RE SAYING WE HAVE THESE OTHER 200 UNITS APPROVED OR PERMITTED,
KIND OF DESIGNED AND APPROVED ON THE DOORSTEP OF APPROVAL, IF YOU WILL. SO HEY, RUN WITH IT IF YOU CAN. IF NOT WE'LL WE'LL JUST DO OUR OWN. 
          [01:35:04]
WELL I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S RUN WITH IT IF YOU CAN. 
          I MEAN, THEY WANT US TO RUN WITH IT AND WE WANT TO RUN WITH IT IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN WANTS
US TO RUN WITH IT. 
          BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S UP TO THE BOARD WHETHER OR NOT IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY
WANT TO PERMIT. 
          I MEAN, I'M I'M HERE AND READY TO RUN. I MEAN,
WE JUST, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T I DON'T WANT TO SUBMIT, YOU KNOW, A BURB APPLICATION AND YOU KNOW, GET GOING DOWN THAT ROAD OR SUBMIT A TAX CREDIT
APPLICATION AND SELFISHLY DON'T WANT TO SPEND ALL THE MONEY TO PURSUE IT IF IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD WANTS TO SEE. AND BUT,
I MEAN, WE'RE HERE AND READY TO ROCK AND ROLL TODAY. 
          I MEAN, WE CAN AS SOON AS OR HOPEFULLY IF THIS IS APPROVED,
WE'LL CRANK IT UP AND TURN IT LOOSE IMMEDIATELY. 
          BUT WE JUST WANT TO BE COGNIZANT OF OF THE OF THE RULES. 
          NO, IT WOULD BE TERRIBLE TO DO ALL THAT. AND THEN WE SAID,
WELL, ONE COULD ARGUE IT WOULD PROBABLY BE FOOLISH. 
          SO DO ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR JAKE? JONATHAN, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD IS THAT OVERALL, THE NET, THE NEW CONFIGURATION RESULTS IN A NET LOSS OF 32 MARKET
RATE UNITS. 
          AND THOSE ARE GOING TO BE REPLACED. REPLACED I SAY WITH 3,280% AMI UNITS. 
          BUT ASIDE FROM THAT I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE. 
          AND THE 80 AND IN MOST OF THOSE ARE EFFICIENCY IN ONE BEDROOM. 
          70%. THOSE WOULD BE MOSTLY ONE BEDROOM. YEAH, THOSE. MORE THAN LIKELY NOT FAMILIES. 
          MORE THAN LIKELY NOT. NO. THANK YOU. OKAY. WOULD ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A BOARD MEMBER CARE TO MAKE A MOTION ON ITEM 23 OF THE AGENDA? I MOVE THE BOARD, DENY THE REQUEST WAIVER OF PENTAX SECTION 11.1 01B REGARDING THE
PERCENTAGE OF EFFICIENCY OR ONE ROOM, ONE BEDROOM UNITS FOR BRIDGE AT. SAINT JOHN ALSO DESCRIBED THE BOARD ACTION REQUEST
RESOLUTION ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ITEM. 
          SECOND. MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER, SECONDED BY MISS FARIAS TO DENY THE REQUEST. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OPPOSED. SO YOU'RE YOU'RE FOR THE MOTION. IT'S. 
          YEAH. I'M. IT'S UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIES. I HOPE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS SOME OTHER WAY
THOUGH, BECAUSE I MEAN, IT'S. OKAY. 24 TIMES. 
          FIVE. THREE. THREE MINUTES. WE'RE GOING TO GIVE A MINUTE AND A HALF TO MR.. 
          OKAY. SO IT'S 1144. LET'S RECESS. I'M GOING TO STAY TILL 1155. 
          I KNOW YOU GUYS AREN'T GOING TO GET BACK HERE UNTIL NOON,
SO. IT IS 1156 AND WE ARE BACK IN OPEN SESSION AFTER A BRIEF RECESS. THANK YOU. 
          WE'RE ON ITEM 24 OF THE AGENDA PRESENTATION,
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A MATERIAL AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING TAX CREDIT APPLICATION AND A RETURN FOR AN A REQUEST FOR RETURN AND REALLOCATION OF TAX CREDITS UNDER
TEN TECH SECTION 11.65 RELATED TO RETURNS RESULTING FROM FORCE MAJEURE EVENTS FOR AUTUMN PARK. 
          MR. BANUELOS, MORNING. ROSALIA BANUELOS, DIRECTOR OF ASSET MANAGEMENT,
IS. 
          THIS IS MCALLEN. YOU'RE VERY QUIET. THIS JUST GOT TO BE A LITTLE CLOSER. 
          YEAH. YOU'RE ON, YOU'RE ON, YOU'RE ON. OKAY,
BRING IT IN. 
          TAKE IT UP IN YOUR HAND. GIVE US. JUST GIVE US. 
          AND YOU CAN WALK AROUND TOO. SURE. I COULD INTERACT WITH THE AUDIENCE. 
          AUTUMN PARK RECEIVED A 9% HOUSING TAX RATE AWARD IN 2023,
AND A FORCE MAJEURE REALLOCATION OF TAX CREDITS IN 2024 TO CONSTRUCT 57 UNITS, OF WHICH 45 ARE DESIGNATED AS LOW INCOME UNITS FOR THE GENERAL POPULATION. 
          ARLINGTON TARRANT COUNTY THE APPLICANT HAS NOT REQUESTED APPROVAL FOR CHANGES TO THE SITE
PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, AND FOR A RETURN AND REALLOCATION OF TAX CREDITS UNDER FORCE MAJEURE. 
          UNDER THE FORCE MAJEURE PROVISION OF THE QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN,
THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE DESIGN OF THE DEVELOPMENT WILL RESULT IN A DECREASE TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS FROM 57 TO 51, BY DECREASING THE NUMBER OF MARKET RATE UNITS BY SIX. 
          THE APPLICANT EXPLAINED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED TO HAVE A DETENTION
AREA AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE DEVELOPMENT SITE. HOWEVER, DURING THE SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS, THE CITY OF ARLINGTON REQUIRED A COMPREHENSIVE
DRAINAGE STUDY AND THEN REQUIRED A DETENTION SYSTEM TO MITIGATE BOTH THE DEVELOPMENT'S 
          [01:40:09]
DRAINAGE AS WELL AS THE DRAINAGE FOR THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. 
          DUE TO LIMITED SPACE ON THE DEVELOPMENT SITE,
IT WAS DETERMINED THAT AN UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM WOULD BE REQUIRED. 
          THE DEVELOPER MADE FIVE FULL DRAINAGE PLANS OF METALS AND WORKED THROUGH THE COMMENTS WITH
THE CITY OF ARLINGTON FROM 2024 THROUGH JULY 2025. 
          HOWEVER, THE CITY CONTINUED TO EXPRESS CONCERNS ABOUT THE UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM,
CITING LIMITED EXPERIENCE WITH THE PROPOSED DESIGN AND MATERIALS DURING PREPARATION OF THE SIX SUBMITTAL, ALTERNATIVES TO AN UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM WERE DISCUSSED,
AND THE CITY INDICATED THAT THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED WITH THIS AMENDMENT REQUEST, WHICH INCLUDES DETENTION AND A WIDE DRAINAGE CHANNEL ALONG THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE
DEVELOPMENT SITE, WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE AND ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR THE UNDERGROUND DETENTION IN ORDER TO
ACCOMMODATE THE WIDE DRAINAGE CHANNEL. 
          THE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED WITH 57 TOTAL UNITS IN TWO BUILDINGS,
IS NOW PROPOSED TO HAVE 51 UNITS IN ONE BUILDING. 
          AT APPLICATION, 12 OF THE 57 UNITS WERE MARKET RATE,
AND WITH THIS AMENDMENT, THE NUMBER OF MARKET RATE UNITS WILL DECREASE BY SIX. 
          THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES NO CHANGE TO THE NUMBER OF LOW INCOME UNITS FROM APPLICATION. 
          AS A RESULT OF THIS AMENDMENT, THE REVISED UNIT MIX WILL CONSIST OF 15 ONE BEDROOM UNITS,
26 TWO BEDROOM UNITS, AND TEN THREE BEDROOM UNITS INSTEAD OF THE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED 15 ONE BEDROOM,
24 TWO BEDROOM AND 18 THREE BEDROOM UNITS. 
          THIS CHANGE IN THE NUMBER OF UNITS WILL ALSO RESULT IN A DECREASE IN NET RENTABLE AREA
FROM 55,110FT² TO 47,716FT², WHICH IS A DECREASE OF 13.42%, OR 7394FT². COMMON AREA WILL DECREASE FROM 12,736FT² TO 10,769FT², WHICH IS A DECREASE OF 15.44%,
OR 1967FT². 
          ADDITIONALLY, THE AREA OF THE DEVELOPMENT SITE HAS DECREASED SLIGHTLY FROM 2.57 ACRES TO
2.521 ACRES BECAUSE THE SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO THE STREET WAS INCLUDED BY APPLICATION. THE CHANGE IN ACREAGE AND DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF
UNITS RESULTS IN AN 8.79% DECREASE IN THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, GOING FROM 22.179 UNITS PER ACRE TO 20.23 UNITS PER ACRE. 
          PARKING WILL ALSO BE REDUCED FROM 119 SPACES TO 102 SPACES,
AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED WITH THE AMENDMENT, 100 SPACES ARE REQUIRED. THE DEVELOPMENT WAS UNDERWRITTEN WITH PROPOSED AMENDMENT
INFORMATION, AND THE ANALYSIS REFLECTS NO CHANGE TO THE TAX CREDIT ALLOCATION AND DEMONSTRATES THAT THE
DEVELOPMENT REMAINS FEASIBLE. 
          ADDITIONALLY, STAFF CONCLUDED THAT NONE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN
SELECTION OR THRESHOLD CRITERIA THAT WOULD HAVE AFFECTED THE SELECTION OF THE APPLICATION IN THE COMPETITIVE ROUND. DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED FOR TREATMENT
UNDER FORCE MAJEURE IN 2024, THE CURRENT DEADLINE TO PLACE IN SERVICE IS DECEMBER 31ST,
2026. 
          THE DELAYS IN GETTING THE SITE PLAN APPROVED BY THE CITY DISRUPTED THE PROJECT'S
PERMITTING, DESIGN AND HUD FINANCING TIMELINES, MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET THE CURRENT 10% TEST DEADLINE AND THE PLACEMENT SERVICE
DEADLINE. 
          THE APPLICANT EXPLAINED THAT THIS REDESIGN, RESPONDING TO THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS,
REQUIRES A FULL RESUBMISSION OF THE SITE PLAN AND A NEW APPROVAL PROCESS, WHICH IS ESTIMATED TO TAKE APPROXIMATELY 180 DAYS. 
          THIS WILL PUSH CLOSING ON THE FINANCING TO JULY 2026. 
          AS A RESULT, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION THROUGH A RETURN AND
REALLOCATION OF TAX CREDITS UNDER THE FORCE MAJEURE PROVISION OF THE SHAPE, STAFF DETERMINED THAT DELAYS RELATED TO THE PERMITTING PROCESS CONSTITUTE A FORCE MAJEURE
EVENT UNDER THE RULES, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT REQUEST AND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST TO
RETURN. 
          REALLOCATE TAX CREDITS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE FORCE MAJEURE PROVISION OF THE SHAPE. 
          THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. 
          SO WE'VE PREVIOUSLY GIVEN THIS DEVELOPMENT A FORCE MAJEURE IN 2024. 
          YES. WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR THAT? JUST THE PERMITTING. 
          THE PERMITTING WAS INITIALLY CITED AT THAT TIME. 
          OKAY. SO THE PERMITS STILL NEED TO BE APPROVED. 
          WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT THE CITY HAS INDICATED THAT THE SITE PLAN THAT IS BEING PROPOSED
WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE, BUT IT STILL HAS TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND FINAL APPROVAL. 
          SO WE'RE STILL WAITING. I GUESS THERE'S QUESTIONS IF WE HAVE THE APPLICANT
REPRESENTATIVES, I COULD PROBABLY ASK THEM BETTER. SO COME UP AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND SIGN IN,
PLEASE. 
          I'M DEEPAK TZOULAKI WITH OME HOUSING REPRESENTING 80 HOUSING. 
          OKAY. I'M. SO WHAT'S THE SITUATION? WHAT'S THE STATUS NOW? SO WHEN WE ASKED FOR THE FIRST FORCE MEASURE,
WE HAD THIS SITUATION WITH THE DRAINAGE STUDY. 
          [01:45:05]
SO THE DRAINAGE STUDY WAS NOT A REQUIREMENT. AND IT CAME ABOUT DURING THE CIVIL
ENGINEERING PROCESS. 
          AND ONCE WE HAD TO DO THAT, WE HAD TO DO A LOT OF OTHER CHANGES AND COME OUT WITH THIS
UNDERGROUND WATER DETENTION SYSTEM. 
          AND THIS WAS UNPRECEDENTED BY THE CITY. THEY HAD NEVER DONE IT,
BUT THEY ACCEPTED IT. 
          AND AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE GOT THE SITE PLAN,
WHEN WE GOT THE ZONING APPROVED, YOU KNOW. 
          THEY HAD APPROVED THE SITE PLAN. AND AFTER WE WENT THROUGH THE CIVIL. 
          THEY DETERMINED THAT WE NEEDED TO GET THIS DETENTION ISSUE CLEARED UP. 
          SO WE. WE WORKED ON THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, WE GOT LATE CREDITS YOU KNOW,
IN 2023. 
          WE DIDN'T GET IT EARLY. WE GOT LATE CREDITS,
SO WE WERE ALREADY DELAYED. 
          AND THEN IN 2024, WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS AND WE COULDN'T GET THE PERMITS DONE. 
          WE ASKED FOR. ASKED FOR A FORCE MAJEURE. AND IN 2025,
THE SAME PERMITTING CONTINUED ALL THE WAY UNTIL JULY. 
          YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ALL THE DATES. WE HAVE NEARLY TWO PAGES OF DATES,
YOU KNOW, AS PART OF THE SUBMISSION. SO COME JULY, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS THE FIFTH TIME THAT THEY SUBMITTED,
AND THE CITY STILL WASN'T ABLE TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER AND AN APPROVAL. 
          AND AT THAT POINT, YOU KNOW, THE CIVIL ENGINEER BASICALLY CAME OUT AND SAID,
LOOK, THIS IS SEEMS LIKE WE ARE GETTING INTO AN IMPASSE AND CAME OUT WITH AN ALTERNATE SOLUTION TO ELIMINATE THE UNDERGROUND WATER DETENTION ALTOGETHER. 
          AND YOU KNOW, THE WITH, WITH THESE MULTIPLE SUBMISSIONS,
YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT MAYBE IF WE MOVE, MOVE THE BUILDINGS, YOU KNOW, IN A CERTAIN WAY THAT WE WILL COMPLETELY AVOID THIS
UNDERGROUND WATER DETENTION SYSTEM, WHICH IS WHAT WAS CAUSING THE IMPASSE WITH THE CITY. 
          SO IN JULY OF THIS YEAR, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE FIFTH,
FIFTH SUBMISSION. 
          HE CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION, AND IT TOOK ABOUT A COUPLE OF MONTHS FOR US TO DETERMINE AND
GET THE SITE PLAN, YOU KNOW, TAKEN CARE OF. AND WE IMMEDIATELY WE HAVE A WE HAVE ALONG WITH THIS,
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SUBMITTED THE AMENDMENT FOR THE SITE PLAN REQUEST AS WELL. 
          SO WE GOT THAT DONE. AND NOW WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF YOU KNOW,
DO THE PERMITTING THERE. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, THEY THE DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY HAS BASICALLY THEY HAVE INFORMED US THAT
IF YOU DO THIS AND ELIMINATE THE WATER RETENTION, THEN THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH WITH THE APPROVALS,
WHICH IS WHAT WAS CAUSING THE PROBLEM AND THE DELAYS. 
          BUT IT HASN'T OFFICIALLY BEEN REVIEWED AND OFFICIALLY APPROVED IT. 
          THE THE PRE-DEVELOPMENT PROCESS HAS BEEN DONE. 
          SO WE HAVE SUBMITTED ALREADY AND WE ARE EXPECTING COMMENTS FROM THE CITY NEXT WEEK
SOMETIME. 
          SO THEY HAVE A TEN DAY PROCESS OR TEN BUSINESS DAY PROCESS. 
          AND WE GOT EVERYTHING DONE AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY. 
          AND SO WHEN DOES THIS 180 DAY PROCESS CLOCK THAT'S STARTED KNOW THAT STARTED ABOUT A ABOUT
A MONTH AGO. 
          SO THAT'S LIKE WE SAID, WE CAME UP TO THE JULY JULY PROCESS WITH THE 180 DAYS. 
          SO IT ALREADY STARTED ABOUT A MONTH AGO. IS THERE ANY CHANCE THAT THE CITY OF ARLINGTON
JUST SIMPLY DOESN'T WANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUILT IN THERE. 
          I THINK THIS IS I MEAN, THE CITY IS BASICALLY ONE BIG PARKING LOT AND ROADS FULL OF
STADIUMS, AND THEY DON'T WANT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GIVING YOU A HARD TIME ABOUT DRAINAGE FOR AN
APARTMENT COMPLEX, FOR AN AFFORDABLE APARTMENT COMPLEX TO ITS BECAUSE IT'S IT'S UNPRECEDENTED. 
          THEY HADN'T DONE THIS BEFORE. AND SO THEY ARE YOU KNOW,
WHILE THEY INITIALLY THOUGHT THEY COULD COME UP WITH THE DESIGN AND MATERIALS, YOU KNOW, THEY CONTINUE TO HAVE PROBLEMS. AND I THINK AS WE MENTIONED,
THEY ALSO HAD SOME CHANGES WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS. 
          YOU KNOW, THEY HAD SOME TURNOVER AND OTHER THINGS. 
          AND SO THEY RESET THE CLOCK BACK A COUPLE OF TIMES AND,
AND ALL THAT. 
          BUT END OF THE DAY, THIS IS A VERY GOOD SITE. 
          IT'S GOING TO PROVIDE REAL GOOD QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IT'S NEXT TO A ANCHORED
GROCERY STORE. 
          IT'S A KROGER, YOU KNOW, CENTER THAT IT'S NEXT TO. 
          SO IT'S IT'S A IT'S A REALLY GOOD SITE. AND WE'RE JUST GOING THROUGH SOME PROBLEMS. AND WE BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE DETERMINED A PATH TO OVERCOME THAT AND GET THAT
DONE. 
          THE DEMAND WE HAVE ANOTHER PROJECT IN ARLINGTON. 
          IT'S AT 95%, YOU KNOW, SO THE DEMAND IS PRETTY HIGH. 
          IT'S A IT'S AGAIN, IT'S IT'S A GREAT LOCATION. 
          AND WE BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL BE A, YOU KNOW,
SATISFY THE NEED OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THAT AREA. 
          I HAVE NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. YOU HAVE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. 
          I JUST DON'T BELIEVE I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THE CITY OF ARLINGTON,
THE CITY, YOU KNOW, THEY HAD THE SUPPORT. 
          I MEAN, WE HAVE THE SUPPORT FOR THE THING. SO WE HAVE THE SUPPORT FROM THE CITY. 
          AND PLUS WE ALREADY PROVIDED ALL THE SUPPORT FROM LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS AS WELL,
WHO HAVE ALL SUPPORTED THE. 
          DO YOU OWN THE PROPERTY? DO YOU OWN THE PROPERTY? I DON'T OWN THE PROPERTY, BUT I'VE SPENT ENOUGH MONEY WHERE I FEEL I HAVE. 
          I DEFINITELY OWN THE PROPERTY. BUT YOU DON'T OWN THE PROPERTY. 
          [01:50:02]
I DON'T, IT'S UNDER CONTRACT. BUT LIKE I SAID,
I THINK YOU'VE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY, AN EXTREMELY HIGH AMOUNT OF MONEY. 
          SO IT'S UNDER CONTRACT AND, YOU KNOW, SO ESTIMATE THE AMOUNT OF DOLLARS YOU'VE YOU'VE PUT
IN THIS PROJECT. 
          I THINK IT'S ABOUT 1.5 MILLION. PRETTY HIGH AMOUNT. 
          SO AS I SAID, YOU KNOW, WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON DIFFERENT VARIOUS,
YOU KNOW, STUDIES AND OTHER THINGS THAT WE. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN, DO YOU MIND IF I. PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          GO AHEAD. I'M BEGINNING TO WONDER IF THE IF THE DATE THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO MOVE IT TO
IS A REALISTIC DATE, JUST TO GET IT THROUGH THE CITY APPROVED AND BUILT. 
          YES. IT'S IT'S NO, WE ARE SAYING WE ARE STARTING IN JULY. 
          THAT'S THE DATE WE ARE PROPOSING. IS THIS. I UNDERSTAND,
BUT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD SEVERAL THINGS SEVERAL TIMES. 
          I KNOW IT'S BUT I LIKE I SAID, YOU KNOW, NOW WE'VE COME TO A,
A PATH WHERE WE BELIEVE THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE, THE ITEM OF IMPASSE, YOU KNOW, IS THIS SENIOR HOUSING. 
          NO IT'S NOT, IT'S IT'S AFFORDABLE. SO, OKAY,
IT'S A REGULAR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          AND THIS IS ITS AND ITS MUCH NEEDED BY THE CITY. 
          THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. YOU KNOW, THEY THEY REALLY WANT IT. IT'S JUST THAT THE PUBLIC
WORKS HAS CAUSED SOME ISSUES AND WE ARE TRYING TO OVERCOME THAT AND GET THAT GOING. SO. WE DO HAVE ALL THE SUPPORT. YOU KNOW,
LIKE I SAID, IT'S A TECHNICAL PROBLEM THAT WAS BEING UNABLE TO OVERCOME BY. WELL I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU DID NOT CUT THE
LOW INCOME TAX HOUSING CREDIT UNITS. YES. WHEN YOU DID THE RECONFIGURATION. 
          I WOULDN'T HAVE COME THIS PATH AT ALL IF THAT WAS NOT THE CASE. 
          SO WE KNEW THAT WE WERE. WE RARELY SEE THAT. SO WE WERE NOT TAKING THAT OUT. 
          AND SO WE WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THIS WITHOUT TAKING THE THE TAX CREDIT,
YOU KNOW, THE SET ASIDE UNITS OUT. 
          AND WE WERE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THIS WITHOUT DOING THAT. 
          AND HENCE HENCE WHY WE FELT, YOU KNOW, ABLE TO COME HERE AND GET THIS DONE. 
          AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S PAST UNDERWRITING, IT'S PAST,
YOU KNOW, STAFF HAS REVIEWED EVERYTHING AND WE'VE GONE THROUGH UNDERWRITING, ANSWERED ALL THE QUESTIONS AND SEEM TO HAVE THEIR APPROVAL. 
          SO WHAT HAPPENS IN TEN DAYS OR WITHIN TEN DAYS. 
          THEY'RE GOING TO GET THEY'RE GOING TO GET STUFF. 
          STAFF COMMENTS BASICALLY ON THE REVISED PLAN,
ON THE REVISED PLANS. 
          BUT THEN WE STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH. WE STILL HAVE TO GO. 
          SO THEY WILL SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS. SO WE STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SYSTEM AND GET
IT DONE. 
          BUT LIKE I SAID IT THEN NOW IT ELIMINATES THE MOST IMPORTANT. 
          I MEAN, THE THE MOST PROBLEMATIC PART, WHICH IS THE UNDERGROUND WATER DETENTION SYSTEM. 
          OKAY. AND BEAR WITH ME AS I WALK THROUGH THIS. 
          SO RIGHT NOW THE. COMPLETION DATE IS DECEMBER 26TH. 
          CORRECT. WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS? FORCE MAJEURE EXTENSION TODAY. AND WE WAIT TO SEE IF THESE PERMITS EVER GET APPROVED. 
          THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION. WELL, OKAY, I GUESS. YEAH. DO YOU HAVE ANY DEADLINES THAT
SOMETHING HAPPENS IF WE DON'T APPROVE IT NOW? BECAUSE THERE'S NO. YOU'RE NOT GIVING US ANY DATE. 
          CERTAIN? OH, NO. WE'VE GIVEN YOU THE DATES. THAT'S. 
          YOU GAVE IT TO US LAST YEAR AND THE YEAR BEFORE THAT. BUT THIS IS THE. 
          THIS IS THE TIME FRAME THAT, YOU KNOW, WE THAT'S THE SCHEDULE THAT WE ARE ON. 
          SO WE APPRECIATE THAT. I BELIEVE YOU PROBABLY SAID THAT WHEN WE GAVE YOU THE LAST FORCE
MAJEURE. 
          I UNDERSTAND. IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU PROMISING LAST TIME VERSUS,
YOU KNOW, BASED. 
          BASED ON WHAT WE GAVE YOU? WE WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE APPROVALS ON THE DRAINAGE STUDY AND ON
THE YOU KNOW, THE CIVIL ENGINEERING DETENTION POND. IF WE WAIT TO TAKE ACTION UNTIL JANUARY OR FEBRUARY, AFTER YOU'VE GOTTEN THESE APPROVALS FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS AND EVERYTHING OR WHATEVER THEY
ARE. 
          DOES THAT MAKE ANY REAL DIFFERENCE TO THIS PROCESS? WE HAVE A 10% TEST. YOU KNOW, WE'VE ASKED FOR AN EXTENSION UNTIL DECEMBER. 
          SO ONCE THE 10% DUE DECEMBER 15TH THAT THIS MONTH. 
          THIS YEAR. YEAH, THIS WE APPROVED AN EXTENSION UNTIL DECEMBER 19TH OF 2025. 
          AND THAT'S THE MOST OF AN EXTENSION THAT WE CAN PROVIDE FEDERALLY. 
          OKAY. SO THAT'S THE DATE THAT WE HAVE CONCERN. 
          CORRECT. IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS NOW OR NEXT MONTH,
THEN THE DEVELOPMENT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MEET THE 10% TEST BY THEN. 
          YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GETTING AT. WE'RE TRYING TO FIND. SO I AGAIN WANT TO REEMPHASIZE
THAT YES, WE HAVE ASKED AND WE HAD ASKED FOR A IT'S A PRETTY COMPLICATED DESIGN THAT WE HAD
PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED. 
          [01:55:05]
NOW WE'VE SIMPLIFIED IT. IT'S LIKE NOW IT'S LIKE ANY OTHER MULTIFAMILY,
YOU KNOW, SO THERE'S NO UNDERGROUND WATER DETENTION SYSTEM OR ANYTHING. 
          IT'S A VERY SIMPLE DESIGN, LIKE ANY OTHER DESIGN THAT,
YOU KNOW. 
          AND LIKE THE OTHER DESIGN WE GOT APPROVED ON,
ON A PREVIOUS DEAL OF OURS. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, WE JUST SO YOU KNOW ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO,
MY COMPANY WON THE BEST BUSINESS OF THE YEAR IN ARLINGTON. 
          SO IT'S NOT LIKE THEY DON'T WANT US. THEY REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYTHING WE'RE DOING. 
          AND YOU KNOW, SO THEY THEY ARE. IT'S JUST THAT,
LIKE I SAID, YOU KNOW, IT'S ON A TECHNICAL GLITCH THAT THEY COULDN'T OVERCOME THAT. 
          AND YOU KNOW, HAD TO BASICALLY. YEAH. SO AND WE'VE THOUGHT OF A WAY TO OVERCOME IT AND
THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S THE WHOLE THING IS, YOU KNOW,
WE'VE FOUND OUT A PATH GOING FORWARD AND WE'LL BECAUSE OF THE FLOODPLAIN. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANY FEMA MAP AMENDMENTS? WE ARE NOT IN FLOODPLAIN. 
          THAT'S THE PROBLEM. WE ARE NOT IN A FLOODPLAIN AT ALL. 
          AND IT'S A. SO LET ME EXPLAIN. IT'S IT'S A VERY UNUSUAL SITUATION WHERE WE ARE NOT IN A
FLOODPLAIN. 
          BUT WHEN WE DID THE DRAINAGE STUDY, WE FOUND OUT THAT WE ARE IN WE ARE IN A WE ARE IN A
WHOLE OF 50,000 50,000YD³ OF, YOU KNOW WATER DETENTION AREA. NONE OF IT IS QUALIFIED AS A FLOODPLAIN. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT REALLY CAUSED THE ISSUE. SO WHEN WE DID THE FEASIBILITY STUDY DURING THE
APPLICATION, NONE OF THIS CAME UP. THE FEASIBILITY STUDY THE CIVIL HAS LIKE,
YOU KNOW, BAFFLED WHEN WHEN WE DID THE DRAINAGE STUDY AND ALL THESE THINGS CAME UP BECAUSE THE CITY THEMSELVES HADN'T, YOU KNOW, IDENTIFIED THIS AREA AS A,
AS A PROBLEM, YOU KNOW, AS A, AS A, AS AN AREA WHICH, WHICH HAS THE DRAINAGE ISSUE. 
          THEY DIDN'T THEY HADN'T IDENTIFIED IT. AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT CAUSED THIS,
I GUESS, MR. CHAIRMAN, MY QUESTION IS IF WE REALLOCATE THESE CREDITS. 
          HOW QUICKLY CAN THE REALLOCATED PARTY BRING UNITS TO THE MARKET AS OPPOSED TO HERE? THAT SEEMS TO BE THE DECISION IN MY MIND THAT WE MAKE. 
          IS THIS GOING TO DELAY UNITS BEING BROUGHT TO MARKET AS OPPOSED TO NOT GRANTING THIS,
REALLOCATING THE CREDITS, HAVING SOMEBODY START ALL OVER AGAIN? WHAT WOULD THEIR NEW WHAT WOULD THEIR NEW DEADLINE
BE TO PUT THE UNITS IN USE THAT YEAH I UNDERSTAND. 
          SO WHO ON STAFF CAN SAY WHAT HAPPENS. I WAS EXPECTING IT'S GOING TO BE CODY. 
          OKAY. MR. CAMPBELL. I MEAN, JUST SO I MEAN, SO YEAH,
THIS THIS. 
          IF WE TOOK BACK THE CREDITS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T MEET THEIR DECEMBER 19TH DEADLINE. 
          THANK YOU. CODY. CODY CAMPBELL, DIRECTOR OF MULTIFAMILY PROGRAMS FOR THE DEPARTMENT. 
          SO WHAT WE WOULD DO IN THAT CASE IS WE WOULD LOOK TO THE NEXT APPLICATION ON THE WAITING
LIST IN THIS REGION. 
          WE WOULD GIVE THEM A CALL. WE WOULD LET THEM KNOW THAT CREDITS ARE PROBABLY COMING BACK.
AT THAT POINT, THEY HAVE TO KIND OF SCRAMBLE TO GET THEIR SITE CONTROL TOGETHER AND GET ALL THEIR
DOCUMENTATION PUT TOGETHER TO SUBMIT TO US TO EVIDENCE THAT THEY CAN STILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT PROJECT, WITH THEM GETTING NOTIFIED THIS LATE IN THE YEAR. 
          THE CHANCES OF THAT APPLICANT ALSO HAVING TO REQUEST A FORCE MAJEURE IS PRETTY CLOSE TO
100. 
          SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY'VE LOST, YOU KNOW, 4 OR 5 MONTHS ALREADY IN THEIR LATER OR EARLIER
THAN THIS DEAL. 
          YEAH. WELL, THEY WOULD BE STARTING WITH THE SAME PLACE AND SERVICE DEADLINE SINCE THEY
WOULD BOTH BE GETTING THEIR AWARDS THIS YEAR. 
          IT IS. THEY'D HAVE TO GET A FORCE MAJEURE FOR SURE. 
          OH, IT'S ALMOST CERTAIN THAT THEY HAVE TO THIS LATER DATE. 
          IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME, ALTHOUGH I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT WHOEVER ON THE WAITING LIST WE
WOULD BE PULLING FROM, BECAUSE THEY WOULD THEMSELVES HAVE TO LATER REQUEST A FORCE MAJEURE THAT THOSE UNITS WOULD
BE COMING BECOMING ONLINE LATER UNITS. 
          THAT'S THE ANSWER. OKAY, GREAT. IS THERE? THIS IS,
I GUESS, A QUESTION. THE STAFF OR COUNCIL. IS THERE ANY. 
          CONDITIONAL. FORCE MAJEURE THAT WE COULD DO TO SAY THAT,
YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN DO THE FORCE MAJEURE AND IF THEY DON'T HAVE THEIR APPROVALS BY MARCH 31ST, WE TAKE THEM BACK. 
          SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE
INVESTMENT THAT'S BEEN MADE. 
          SURE. SO WHEN WE ISSUE AN ALLOCATION OF CREDITS,
WE ISSUE A DOCUMENT THAT'S CALLED A CARRYOVER ALLOCATION AGREEMENT, WHICH IS A LOT OF WORDS THAT JUST MEAN THIS IS YOUR YOUR ASSURANCE THAT YOU'RE GETTING
THESE CREDITS. 
          AND IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR US TO HAVE CONDITIONS IN THOSE DOCUMENTS. 
          ARGUMENTS, AND I DON'T SEE ANY REASON THIS ONE WOULD BE KIND OF BESPOKE,
BUT I DON'T SEE ANY REASON THAT WE COULDN'T CONDITION THAT CARRYOVER ON CERTAIN THINGS 
          [02:00:01]
BEING IN PLACE BY A CERTAIN DATE. I MEAN, I'LL JUST SAY THAT BECAUSE THERE IS NO CERTAINTY
OF DATES AT THIS POINT THAT ARE BEING PRESENTED TO US. 
          SO I JUST HATE TO AGAIN HAVE ANOTHER ONGOING INDEFINITE,
OH, WE HOPE IF EVERYTHING COMES TOGETHER, WE'LL STILL HAPPEN. AND MAYBE THAT'S A SOLUTION THAT. 
          THERE ARE CERTAIN FORCE MEASURES WHERE, YOU KNOW,
OKAY, THEY'RE GOING TO START BREAKING GROUND NEXT WEEK OR CLOSING. 
          IS THIS DATE CORRECT? CAN'T HAVE ANY OF THAT. 
          I MEAN, IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT. I MEAN, BUT MR. ZULAWSKI, WHEN DO YOU THINK YOU'LL HAVE BUILDING PERMITS? AM I SAYING THAT CORRECTLY? I HOPE I DON'T BUTCHER. YES,
YOU DID, YOU DID. ACTUALLY YOU DID. SO WE'VE SAID JULY 15TH, BY MID-JULY, YOU'LL BE COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION. 
          WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU'LL HAVE? BUILDING PERMIT. BUILDING PERMIT? WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU'LL BUILD YOUR LIFE? JULY. SOMETIME IN JULY. 
          CHAIRMAN, I THINK I HAVE A SOLUTION, BUT. OR DO YOU? I DON'T KNOW IF MISS BASS WANTS TO CHIME IN ON SOMETHING HERE. 
          LET'S LET ONE MORE COMMENT HERE. SURE. GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON, CYNTHIA BASS OF BAKER HOSTETLER,
REPRESENTING THE DEVELOPER HERE. 
          JUST HAD A LITTLE SIDEBAR WITH OUR LENDER MR. DIX FROM PNC, WHO'S HERE AND HELPING US WITH THE HUD FINANCING,
WITH OUR CLIENT AND WITH CODY AND ROSALIO. 
          HERE'S A PROPOSAL THAT I THINK WOULD GET TO THE CONCERNS THAT YOU'RE EXPRESSING. 
          ALLOW A FORCE MAJEURE TODAY. AND THAT GIVES AN EXTENSION OF THE 10% TEST. 
          SET THE 10% TEST AT JULY 15TH, WHICH, IF YOU LOOK AT OUR REQUEST,
THAT'S WHEN WE HAVE INDICATED THAT WE SHOULD BE CLOSING AND COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION. 
          THAT'S A HARD DATE. NO EXTENSIONS ON THAT 10% TEST,
EVEN THOUGH FEDERAL LAW WOULD ALLOW FOR THEM. 
          THAT WAY, IF WE'RE NOT CLOSED CREDITS AND 10% TEST ISN'T MET,
CREDITS COME BACK GO INTO THE 2026 ROUND. 
          YOU HAVE MORE CREDITS TO ALLOCATE THAN. AND THAT WOULD BE ONE POSSIBLE WAY. 
          I THINK THERE MAY BE OTHER CREATIVE IDEAS, BUT THAT'S POSSIBLE 1 OR 2 MONTHS AT THAT
POINT. 
          WELL, BUT YOU WILL. YOU WOULD HAVE ANYWAY. EFFECTIVELY WE CAN STILL USE THOSE RETURN
CREDITS IN THIS NEXT ROUND. 
          YEAH. YOU CAN USE THEM. YEAH. YEAH. SO I MEAN IT WOULD BE A TIMELY. 
          COUNCIL WITH THAT TYPE OF THING WORK. DOES THAT MEET THAT MEETS ESSENTIALLY WHAT MY,
MY CONCERN WAS THAT. 
          MR. HARPER HAVE ANY OF IT RIGHT. LOVE IT. ALREADY SPOKEN. 
          OH. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DOES STAFF HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT? KIND OF. FINANCING WILL STAY IN PLACE. 
          OKAY. ALL RIGHT. NO. ONE MORE. JUST ONE QUICK COMMENT. 
          TAYLOR THOMAS WITH PALLADIUM. WE ACTUALLY ARE THE NEXT DEAL IN LINE IN THIS REGION. 
          AND I JUST WANTED TO LET THE BOARD KNOW THAT WE DO STILL HAVE THE SITE UNDER CONTRACT. 
          WE ALREADY HAVE ZONING. AND WE ARE WE'VE BEEN READY TO GO. 
          THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY MOVEMENT ON THIS LOG. SO JUST FOR THE RECORD,
JUST WANTED TO LET YOU ALL KNOW IT'S IN THE REGION, NOT NECESSARILY IN ARLINGTON. IT'S IN THE REGION NOW. IT'S IT'S IN THE CITY OF DENTON. 
          SO THANK YOU. MR. MORRISON, THAT NEW PIECE OF INFORMATION. IT'S JUST IT'S, YOU KNOW,
WE GET PUT IN THIS POSITION ALMOST EVERY MEETING WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GET UNITS TO THE GROUND THE QUICKEST. IF WE DELAY IT TO THE 15TH,
WHICH I'M NOT OPPOSED TO, THAT PUTS US IN. HE DECIDES NOT TO CLOSE. THEN IT'S NINE MONTHS PLUS WHATEVER,
WHICH WILL PUT US INTO PROBABLY DECEMBER 31ST, 28TH, 28. AND I DON'T REALLY SEE. THE REAL ISSUE IS,
AS THE DEVELOPERS OBSERVE THE PLACE THEY PLACE US IN, THE MORE THE MORE THE MORE THEY'LL SEE THAT WE GET PUT
IN THIS PLACE AND WE HAVE FEW OR NO OPTIONS. BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THIS PROJECT. 
          I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT GENERALLY SPEAKING. THEY ALL HAVE CALENDARS. 
          THEY ALL KNOW THE SPOT WE'RE IN. THEY ALL KNOW WHAT OUR OBJECTIVES ARE. 
          I DON'T IT'S A GORDIAN KNOT TO ME. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE GET OUT OF IT. 
          [02:05:03]
ANYONE ELSE? WELL, I'M TEMPTED TO SWITCH TO THE PALLADIUM HORSE. I MEAN, IF THE JULY 15TH HARD DEADLINE FOR THE 10% TEST IS PUT IN PLACE, I'M WILLING TO TAKE THE CHANCE OF STAYING WITH US. 
          RIGHT. YEP. MR. HARPER, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? I MOVE THE BOARD, APPROVE THE REQUEST OF MATERIAL AMENDMENT TO THE AUTUMN PARK,
AND APPROVE THE REQUESTED TREATMENT UNDER THE APPLICATION OF FORCE MAJEURE RULE. WITH A NEW PLACE AND SERVICE DEADLINE OF DECEMBER 31ST,
2027 AND A 10% SERVICE DATE OF JULY 15TH, 2026. ALL IS DESCRIBED, CONDITIONED AND AUTHORIZED IN THE BOARD REQUEST RESOLUTION AND
AUTHORIZED DOCUMENTS ON THIS ITEM. 
          SECOND. EXCELLENT MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER,
SECONDED BY MISS FARIAS. 
          IS THAT GOOD? WHAT HE SAID WAS THE MOTION JULY ON THE 10% TEST. 
          JULY 15TH, 2026. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. IT HAS. 
          AND BEHIND THE 2027. I'LL SECOND. I'LL SECOND IT. 
          OKAY. SO MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER WITH THE CAVEAT. 
          SECONDED BY MISS FARIAS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. 
          MR.. GOOD LUCK. AND MISS MRS BEST. I WANT YOU TO KNOW. 
          THANK YOU FOR WRITING DOWN YOUR TIMELINES WITH ALL THE DETAILS AND FOR THOSE ON THE BOARD, IF YOU HAVE NEVER DONE AN UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM. 
          IT WILL. IT IS A GIANT PAIN IN THE TAIL. ELIMINATES THIS SITE? NO, NOT AT THIS POINT. YEAH. OKAY. ITEMS. THANK YOU. 
          ROSALIO. ITEMS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS ITEMS 25,
26, AND 27 HAVE BEEN PULLED FROM THE AGENDA. 
          CORRECT. OKAY. GO WITH THAT. SO WE'RE GOING NEXT TO ITEM 28 PRESENTATION,
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE A NOFA FOR 2026 REENTRY ACTIVITIES FUNDED WITH COMMUNITY SERVICES
BLOCK GRANT DISCRETIONARY FUNDS. 
          GAVIN. GAVIN. STANDING IN ON GAVIN. STANDING IN FOR MICHAEL. 
          OKAY. MR. CHAIRMAN, BOARD MEMBERS. GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          GAVIN REID, PLANNING MANAGER IN THE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS DIVISION. 
          EACH YEAR, CSBG DISCRETIONARY FUNDS ARE PROGRAMED FOR SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD. 
          IN THE CSBG STATE PLAN FOR 2026, 400,000 WAS APPROVED FOR A REENTRY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM,
ALLOWING NONPROFIT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS TO ASSIST PREVIOUSLY INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS OBTAIN RENTAL HOUSING THROUGH
LANDLORD INCENTIVES, SECURITY, DEPOSIT PAYMENTS, AND OTHER REENTRY ACTIVITIES RELATED TO HOUSING,
WHICH WOULD ASSIST THEM IN CLEARING ONE OF THE PRIMARY HURDLES FOR REENTERING THE COMMUNITY. THAT IS, TO OBTAIN RENTAL HOUSING,
CLIENTS WILL HAVE TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE RENT AND EXPENSES OF A RENTAL UNIT, AND THIS PROGRAM WOULD HELP THEM WITH THE LEASE,
APPLICATION FEES, DEPOSITS, AND EVEN SOME DAMAGE COVERAGE IF NECESSARY. 
          THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE LANDLORDS AN INCENTIVE TO RENT THEIR UNITS TO PREVIOUSLY
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME FINDING UNITS TO RENT. 
          THE LANDLORD WOULD RECEIVE AN UPFRONT PAYMENT OF UP TO $1,500 FOR A SIX MONTH LEASE,
OR $2,000 IF THEY SIGN A 12 MONTH LEASE. 
          THE RENT CANNOT EXCEED 120% OF FAIR MARKET RENT,
AND THE UNIT MUST PASS A BASIC INSPECTION. 
          FURTHER REQUIREMENTS AND DETAILS ARE IN THE NOFA. 
          THIS PROGRAM IS NOW ENTERING ITS THIRD YEAR. STAFF AND SUBRECIPIENTS ARE ALWAYS LOOKING TO
IMPROVE IMPROVE UPON. 
          THE PROGRAM MET BEFORE THE DRAFTING OF THIS NOFA AND MADE A FEW ADJUSTMENTS TO FURTHER
INCENTIVIZE LANDLORDS TO RENT. 
          THE PREVIOUSLY INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS. THOSE ADJUSTMENTS ARE EXTENDING THE TIME FRAME
FOR WHICH INDIVIDUALS ARE ELIGIBLE AFTER EXITING PRISON FROM 24 MONTHS TO 36 MONTHS. INCREASING THE NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE MONTHS FOR RENTAL
ASSISTANCE FROM THREE MONTHS TO FOUR MONTHS. 
          ALLOWING IN AND ALLOWING SUBRECIPIENTS TO PAY UP TO FOUR MONTHS IN RENTAL ARREARS
ASSISTANCE TO PREVENT POTENTIAL FORMAL EVICTION FOR APPLICABLE CLIENTS. WITH THAT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM AND IS SEEKING
YOUR APPROVAL TO RELEASE THIS NOFA FOR 2026 CSBG DISCRETIONARY FUNDS FOR REENTRY ACTIVITIES. 
          AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER THEM. 
          [02:10:01]
THANK YOU, MR. REED. THIS AREA IS NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART WITH THE PRIOR BOARD THAT I
SERVED ON FOR 12 YEARS. 
          AND THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT SERVICE. I MEAN,
THE REENTRY JUST MAKES A HUGE, HUGE DIFFERENCE FOR. 
          AGREED. REDUCING RE-OFFENDING. AND LET'S MAKE SURE WE ADVERTISE THIS AS GET THE WORD OUT
AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE ON IT. 
          DWAINE, BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THIS ITEM OF THE AGENDA. 
          IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 28. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THE BOARD, APPROVE THE RELEASE OF A NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY FOR
2026 REENTRY ACTIVITIES. 
          ALL IS DESCRIBED, CONDITION AND AUTHORIZED IN THE BOARD ACTION REQUEST RESOLUTIONS AND
ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON THIS ITEM. 
          MOTION MADE BY MISS ARIAS. IS THERE A SECOND SECOND BY MR. MARCHANT? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. THANKS, KEVIN. THANK YOU. 
          ITEM 29 PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE 2026 TO 2027 ENDING HOMELESS
FUND BIENNIAL PLAN. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. OH. COME ON. GO AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR, BOARD MEMBERS AND MANAGER OF HOMELESS PROGRAMS. I'LL BE PRESENTING TODAY, THE 2627 ENDING HOMELESSNESS FUND BI ANNUAL PLAN,
OR EA PLAN FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL. 
          THIS PLAN OUTLINES HOW WE INTEND TO USE VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS COLLECTED FROM TEXANS
THROUGH VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS, TO SUPPORT LOCAL EFFORTS TO COMBAT HOMELESSNESS ACROSS THE STATE. 
          THE EA FUND, OR ENDING HOMELESSNESS FUND, WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE 85TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE IN
2017 THROUGH HOUSE BILL 4102, ALLOWING TEXANS TO VOLUNTARILY CONTRIBUTE VOLUNTARILY CONTRIBUTE WHEN REGISTERING THEIR
VEHICLES. 
          THESE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE COLLECTED BY COUNTIES SENT TO THE CONTROLLER AND ADMINISTERED BY
THE DEPARTMENT AS ITS TRUSTEE. 
          BY RULE, THE DEPARTMENT IS REQUIRED TO PUBLISH A BIENNIAL PLAN DESCRIBING HOW THE FUNDS
WILL BE USED. 
          THE 2627 EA PLAN IS OUR FIRST BIANNUAL PLAN UNDER THIS PROGRAM. 
          IT PROVIDES A CLEAR FRAMEWORK FOR PROGRAM DESIGN,
FUNDING PRIORITIES, AND THE PROCESS FOR DISTRIBUTING FUNDS TO ELIGIBLE ENTITIES. 
          AS OF AUGUST 31ST, THE DEPARTMENT HOLDS ROUGHLY $310,000 IN FUND BALANCES,
WITH ROUGHLY 218,000 EXPECTED OVER THE NEXT YEAR IN THE BIENNIUM. BECAUSE THIS FUND IS SUPPORTED ENTIRELY BY
VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS, THIS BALANCE WILL GROW GRADUALLY OVER TIME. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ALL OF THESE
FUNDS WILL BE USED FOR PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION. 
          THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT RETAINING ANY FUNDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE THIS BIENNIUM. 
          THE PLAN PRIORITIZES PRIORITIZES FUNDING APPLICATIONS THAT PLAN TO USE THE FUNDS FOR THE
OPERATING COSTS OF HOME ARP FUNDED NON-CONGREGATE SHELTERS. THESE SHELTERS WILL BE BUILT USING A ONE TIME FEDERAL DOLLARS BUT
LACK DEDICATED OPERATIONAL FUNDING SO THE FUND'S RESOURCES WILL HELP COVER STAFFING,
UTILITIES AND MAINTENANCE, ENSURING THAT THESE FACILITIES REMAIN OPEN AND SERVING TEXANS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS. THIS TARGETED USE MAXIMIZES THE IMPACT OF LIMITED FUNDS AND
PRESERVES CRITICAL SHELTER CAPACITY ACROSS THE STATE. 
          IF ANY FUNDS REMAIN AFTER THE PRIORITY PROJECTS ARE FUNDED,
STAFF IS PROPOSING TO POTENTIALLY PROVIDE THESE FUNDS TO CURRENT ESG OR HHS SUBRECIPIENTS. THEY WOULD, HOWEVER, HAVE TO BE COUNTIES OR MUNICIPALITIES THAT ARE
CURRENTLY PROVIDING ESG OR HHS FUNDS. UPON BOARD APPROVAL, STAFF WILL PUBLISH THE PLAN AND ISSUE A NOTICE OF FUNDING
AVAILABILITY TO BEGIN AWARDING THESE FUNDS. 
          THIS PLAN'S WE BELIEVE INSURANCE TRANSPARENT STRATEGIC USE OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS,
LEVERAGES FEDERAL INVESTMENTS AND SUPPORTS LOCAL PARTNERS IN MAINTAINING CRITICAL SHELTER CAPACITY FOR TEXANS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS. 
          STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE BOARD APPROVE THE 2627 E.H. 
          FUND BIENNIAL PLAN, AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO IMPLEMENT IT. 
          THIS CONCLUDES MY PREPARED REMARKS, BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. 
          GREAT. THANK YOU. MISS FALCON. SO THIS FUND BUILDS UP WHEN PEOPLE REREGISTER THEIR
VEHICLES. 
          CORRECT. AND JUST CHECK THAT LITTLE BOX SAYING DONATE A DOLLAR TO THE HOMELESS EFFORTS. 
          YES. THAT IS WHERE WE GET THIS FUNDING. SO EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM CAN EASILY CONTRIBUTE. 
          CHECK THAT LITTLE BOX AND HELP BUILD THIS. YES. 
          [02:15:02]
YES. SO TYPICALLY IF WE GO FROM INCEPTION, WE ESTIMATED ABOUT $18,000 A MONTH IS WHAT THE
CONTRIBUTION IS. 
          BUT IF WE FOCUS IT ON MAYBE LIKE THE LAST 4 OR 5 YEARS,
IT'S ABOUT 20, 20 SOME THOUSAND DOLLARS. 
          SO WE FOR THE 218 WE USE THE MORE CONSERVATIVE OPTION JUST BECAUSE IT IS VOLUNTARILY
CONTRIBUTIONS. 
          AND SO THAT FLUCTUATES. BUT YES, WHEN YOU FILL OUT YOUR REGISTRATION,
ALL THE LITTLE BOXES THAT THEY ASK YOU, ONE OF THOSE, THAT'S WHERE THIS MONEY COMES FROM. 
          GREAT. ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MISS FALCONE? SO EVERYONE HERE CHECK THE BOX. IS THERE A MOTION ON ITEM 29 OF THE AGENDA? SORRY. ALL RIGHT. CHAIRMAN. OKAY. OKAY. MR.. MISS? YES. I MOVE THE BOARD, APPROVE THE PROPOSED 2026 2027 ENDING HOMELESSNESS FUND BIENNIAL
PLAN. 
          ALL IS DESCRIBED CONDITION AND AUTHORIZING THE BOARD REQUEST RESOLUTIONS AND ASSOCIATED
DOCUMENTS ON THIS ITEM. 
          SECOND. THANK YOU. MOTION MADE BY MISS FARIA,
SECONDED BY MR. HARPER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. THANKS, ROSIE. OKAY. 
          ITEM 30. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN APPEAL FROM THE CITY OF SLATON
RELATING RELATED TO A DENIAL OF DRAW, REQUEST, SUBMISSION AND OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR HOME HOMEOWNER RECONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE
ACTIVITY. 
          MISS. VERSYP. GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. 
          TODAY I'M PRESENTING AN APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF SLATON RELATED TO HOME HOMEOWNER
RECONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE ACTIVITY NUMBER 53727. 
          THE APPEAL CONCERNS THE CITY'S REQUEST TO BE ALLOWED TO SUBMIT A REIMBURSEMENT DRAW AFTER
THE EXPIRATION OF ITS HOUSEHOLD COMMITMENT CONTRACT. 
          THE CITY OF SLATON ENTERED INTO A COMMITMENT CONTRACT FOR HOME. 
          HRA WITH TDCA BECAME EFFECTIVE JULY 8TH, 2024,
AND HAS A ONE YEAR TERM WHICH EXPIRED ON JULY 7TH, SEVEN, 2025. THE HCC WAS EXECUTED UNDER THEIR RSP AGREEMENT AND THAT OUTLINES THE
ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR HOME ACTIVITIES UNDER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT. 
          COST FOR THE PROJECT COULD ONLY BE INCURRED DURING THAT ONE YEAR TERM. 
          IN ADDITION, THERE'S A 60 DAY GRACE PERIOD AFTER THE CONTRACT EXPIRES,
DURING WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY SUBMIT REQUESTS FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR THIS ACTIVITY. THAT 60 DAY PERIOD ENDED ON SEPTEMBER 5TH,
2025. 
          ON JUNE 9TH, 2025, ABOUT A MONTH BEFORE THE END OF THEIR CONTRACT,
OUR STAFF SENT A REMINDER TO THE CITY AND TO THEIR CONTRACTED GRANT ADMINISTRATOR, SOUTH PLAINS ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT,
OR SPAG. 
          THE NOTIFICATION OUTLINED A COUPLE OF DATES. FIRST,
THE EXPIRATION OF THE HCC. 
          SECOND, THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT THE REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST. 
          WEST. IT ALSO STATED THAT ANY COSTS INCURRED AFTER JULY 7TH WOULDN'T BE ELIGIBLE FOR
REIMBURSEMENT. 
          THE REMINDER DID NOT RESULT IN A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION. 
          AND THE 60 DAY GRACE PERIOD ELAPSED. SO ON SEPTEMBER 8TH,
AFTER BOTH THE CONTRACT AND THE GRACE PERIOD EXPIRED, WE SENT A FOLLOW UP NOTICE REQUESTING SUBMISSION OF A PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT. 
          WHEN THEY LATER WHEN SPAG, THE CONSULTANT, LATER ATTEMPTED TO SUBMIT A REIMBURSEMENT
REQUEST IN THE HOUSING CONTRACT SYSTEM OR HKS, THE SYSTEM AUTOMATICALLY PREVENTED THAT SUBMISSION BECAUSE IT'S PROGRAMED TO BLOCK ANY
DRAW REQUESTS SUBMITTED MORE THAN 60 DAYS AFTER THE EXPIRATION DATE FOLLOWING THE SYSTEM LOCKOUT. SPAG STAFF CONTACTED TDA TO ASK WHY THE DRAW COULDN'T BE SUBMITTED. 
          WE REVIEWED THE FILE AND CONFIRMED THAT BOTH THE BOTH HCC AND THE GRACE PERIOD HAD
EXPIRED. 
          WE DID NOT FIND ANY RECORD OF COMMUNICATION OR REQUEST FOR EXTENSION FROM EITHER THE CITY
OR SPAG RECEIVED PRIOR TO THAT DATE. 
          BECAUSE OF THIS, WE DID HAVE TO ADVISE THEM THAT THE ONLY WAY TO SEEK FURTHER
CONSIDERATION FOR REIMBURSEMENT WOULD BE THROUGH A FORMAL APPEAL. 
          THE CITY, THROUGH SPAG, SUBMITTED A FORMAL APPEAL OF STAFF'S DECISION TO THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR ON OCTOBER 15TH. 
          THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED TIMELY AND IT WAS REVIEWED AFTER REVIEW OF THE APPEAL. 
          EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HAD TO ISSUE A DENIAL ON OCTOBER 20TH,
2025. 
          THE DENIAL WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACT HAD EXPIRED UNDER ITS OWN TERMS,
AND THAT TDCA DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT EXTENSIONS OR ACCEPT REIMBURSEMENT 
          [02:20:02]
REQUESTS AFTER A CONTRACT IS EXPIRED, UNLESS THERE IS AN ESTABLISHED MEETING OF THE MINDS
PRIOR TO EXPIRATION, WHICH ESSENTIALLY MEANS THAT BOTH PARTIES WERE WE'RE OPERATING UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING
THAT THE CONTRACT WOULD CONTINUE, BUT THE FORMAL PROCESS TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT DID NOT OCCUR ON TIME. 
          FOLLOWING THIS DENIAL, THE CITY OF SLAYTON SUBMITTED THEIR BOARD APPEAL ON OCTOBER 24TH,
WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE HEARING TODAY. 
          THE APPEAL SUBMITTED RAISED SEVERAL POINTS, AND I'LL SUMMARIZE THOSE QUICKLY FOR YOU. 
          FIRST, SPAC CITED THE CITY CITED ISSUES OF COMMUNICATION AND UNDERSTANDING. 
          SPAC NOTED THAT THC STAFF HAD ADVISED THEM THAT THEY COULD SUBMIT A SINGLE DRAW FOR ALL
COSTS, INCLUDING RETAINAGE, ONCE THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETE,
RATHER THAN SUBMITTING PROGRESS DRAWS. 
          THEY REFERENCED THIS EMAIL COMMUNICATION FROM SEPTEMBER 18TH AS EVIDENCE OF THIS GUIDANCE. 
          HOWEVER, THOSE EMAILS ACTUALLY RELATED TO TWO DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES UNDER THE SAME
RESERVATION AGREEMENT, WHICH HAD NOT YET EXPIRED. FOR THOSE ACTIVITIES,
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS WERE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED TIMELY. 
          THIS WAS NOT THE CASE FOR ACTIVITY 53727. SECOND,
THEY NOTED THAT WHEN THEY REACHED OUT IN OCTOBER TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE DRAW SUBMISSION, TDCA STAFF INFORMED THEM THAT AN APPEAL WOULD BE NECESSARY. 
          THAT STATEMENT IS ACCURATE. STAFF CONFIRMED THAT AN APPEAL WAS THE ONLY REMAINING OPTION,
BUT THIS OCCURRED ABOUT A MONTH AFTER THE 60 DAY DEADLINE HAD ALREADY PASSED. 
          THIRD, SPAG SPAG ACKNOWLEDGED THAT STAFF TURNOVER WITHIN THEIR ORGANIZATION MAY HAVE
IMPACTED THEIR PERFORMANCE. 
          THEY EXPLAINED THAT THE SPAG STAFF MEMBER INITIALLY ASSIGNED TO THE PROJECT LEFT
EMPLOYMENT, AND THAT A REPLACEMENT WAS HIRED IN MAY 2025. 
          TDCA PROVIDED TRAINING TO THAT NEW STAFF MEMBER ON APRIL 24TH,
2025, SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING DRAW REQUESTS AND HOME ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS. FOURTH, THE APPEAL CITED EXTERNAL DELAYS,
INCLUDING VANDALISM AT THE SITE. 
          PEST INFESTATION A SERIES OF SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS THAT POSTPONED CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION
UNTIL MID-SEPTEMBER. 
          HOWEVER, NO AMENDMENT REQUEST TO EXTEND THE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DEADLINE WAS SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE, AND THE APPEAL DOESN'T STATE THAT A CONTRACT EXTENSION WAS REQUESTED. 
          FINALLY, THE CITY STATED THAT SPAG HAD ALREADY UPLOADED REIMBURSEMENT DOCUMENTATION INTO
THE SYSTEM AND BELIEVED THAT THE FUNDS WERE NOT AT RISK. 
          SYSTEM TIMESTAMPS SHOW THAT THOSE UPLOADS OCCURRED ON OCTOBER 7TH,
2025, MORE THAN A MONTH AFTER THE SEPTEMBER 15TH DEADLINE. 
          STAFF HAS GONE AHEAD PRIOR TO THIS MEETING AND REVIEWED THE ATTACHMENTS,
AND WE FIND THAT THEY ARE INCOMPLETE, BUT UNDER A NORMAL DRAW, CIRCUMSTANCE COULD BE CORRECTED AS WE REQUEST. 
          WE DID CONDUCT A FULL REVIEW OF THE RECORD. THIS IS EXTREMELY SERIOUS. 
          WE LOOKED AT ALL CORRESPONDENCE SYSTEM LOGS AND THE APPEAL DOCUMENTATION. 
          WE FOUND THAT AGAIN, NO DRAW, REQUEST OR EXTENSION WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GRACE PERIOD
EXPIRED. 
          NO COMMUNICATION COULD BE WAS WAS RECEIVED IN WRITING OR RECORDED FROM A MEETING THAT WE
COULD INTERPRET AS A REQUEST TO MODIFY OR EXTEND THE EXISTING CONTRACT. AND ALL PARTIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TIMELY NOTICE OF
BOTH THE EXPIRATION AND THE REIMBURSEMENT SUBMISSION DEADLINES. 
          WE LOOKED AT THE HOME RULES. WE LOOKED AT THE CONTRACTUAL TERMS CAN'T REOPEN OR EXTEND A
CONTRACT AFTER IT'S EXPIRED. 
          WE HAVE THESE RULES IN PLACE SO THAT WE CAN QUICKLY REALLOCATE FUNDS IN ORDER TO MEET
FEDERAL COMMITMENT AND EXPENDITURE DEADLINES. 
          AND IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE TEXAS GRANT MANAGEMENT STANDARDS REQUIRE THESE TERMS TO BE
INCLUDED IN A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH A LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY. 
          FOR THESE REASONS, STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE APPEAL TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND
THAT DECISION WAS UPHELD. 
          THAT SAID, SHOULD THE BOARD WISH TO CONSIDER A LIMITED EXCEPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
TEXAS GRANT MANAGEMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THIS CONTRACT, IT COULD DO SO ONLY IF DOCUMENTATION CAN VERIFY THAT THE ACTIVITY WAS COMPLETED
BY OCTOBER 5TH, 2025, AND ONLY FOR COSTS THAT WERE INCURRED PRIOR TO JULY 7TH,
2025, AND THAT ARE DETERMINED TO BE HOME ELIGIBLE EXPENSES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION,
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. 
          OKAY, SO THAT LAST LITTLE PART THAT YOU ADDED ON THOSE TWO DATES ARE THERE. 
          DOES IT QUALIFY. DOES THERE ANY PART QUALIFY UNDER THAT? 
          [02:25:03]
WE WE'RE NOT CERTAIN BECAUSE THE DOCUMENTATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED DOESN'T SHOW US A
COMPLETED PROJECT. 
          AND WE DO HAVE AFFIRMATION IN THE APPEAL THAT THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED IN MID SEPTEMBER
PRIOR TO THAT OCTOBER 5TH DEADLINE. 
          BUT THE DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED DOESN'T DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE AT THIS
TIME, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO VERIFY AN ELIGIBLE PROJECT RIGHT NOW. 
          NOT SAYING THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST, BUT WE JUST DON'T HAVE IT. 
          AND IF THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED IN MID SEPTEMBER,
IF COSTS WERE INCURRED, WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN AFTER JULY 7TH, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PAY FOR THOSE COSTS. BUT WE IF IT WAS COMPLETED IN MID SEPTEMBER,
WE COULD HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY OR OPTION TO PAY FOR EXPENSES INCURRED BEFORE JULY 7TH SEVENTH. 
          YES. OKAY. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, MY UNDERSTANDING OF READING THE MATERIALS WE ARE
STATUTORILY, I MEAN, THE RULES THAT WE'RE OPERATING UNDER,
THE CONTRACTS AND RULES THAT WE'RE OPERATING UNDER, WE DON'T HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO, TO GRANT A TOTAL. 
          BUT WE HAVE FLEXIBILITY, POSSIBLY TO DO THIS KIND OF PARTIAL WAIVER. 
          IS THAT RIGHT? WITH A BUNCH OF CAVEATS. WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN FRONT OF US
RIGHT NOW TO SAY THAT WE COULD PAY ANYTHING UNDER THIS CONTRACT. THAT IS CORRECT. 
          OKAY. BUT IF NEXT MEETING, THEY GIVE US THIS EXACT DOCUMENTED DETAIL HOW MANY DOLLARS IT
WAS DONE. 
          YEAH. 150,200 AND 250 K OKAY. SO YEAH, WE ALSO HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH OF THAT WOULD HAVE
BEEN EXPENDED BY JULY. RIGHT NOW HERE TODAY WE DON'T. BUT YEAH,
I ASSUME BY NEXT MONTH WE COULD HAVE THAT IN. 
          BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY THEY DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. 
          I'M JUST I MEAN, IT WASN'T ASKED FOR OR WASN'T SUBMITTED. 
          WELL, I WONDER WHY IT WASN'T SUBMITTED. IF IT WAS,
WE DO HAVE THE THE MAYOR SHAW IS HERE TODAY AS WELL AS TWO EMPLOYEES OF STAFF. SO OKAY, WELL, I GUESS LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPELLANT. SURE. OKAY. DO YOU NEED A MOTION? NO. NOT YET. LET'S SEE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF SLAYTON. 
          OKAY, SO. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN. BOARD MEMBERS, I APPRECIATE YOU LETTING ME SPEAK TODAY. MY NAME IS CLIFTON SHAW. 
          I'M THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SLAYTON, A TOWN OF 6000. 
          WE HAVE USED THIS PROGRAM IN THE PAST. IT WAS WITH DIFFERENT PEOPLE. 
          IT HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS BENEFIT TO THE CITY OF SLAYTON. 
          WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO CLEAN UP SOME AREAS IN TOWN GET PEOPLE HOUSING THAT BASICALLY WERE
LIVING IN UNINHABITABLE CONDITIONS. IT'S IT'S THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROGRAM ARE PRETTY SEVERE. 
          AND, AND THE PEOPLE THAT QUALIFY ARE, ARE REALLY NOT LIVING VERY WELL. 
          IT'S ALLOWED US TO CLEAN UP AREAS WITHIN THE TOWN. 
          WE HAVE WORKED REAL HARD IN STRAIGHTENING OUT THE CITY'S FINANCIAL ISSUES,
WE THREE YEARS AGO, WE'RE HAVING A HARD TIME MAKING PAYROLL TODAY. 
          WE'RE ACCORDING TO THE AUDITORS. WE'RE ON THE RIGHT PATH AND DOING REAL WELL. 
          WE HOPE TO CONTINUE THE RELATIONSHIP WITH AGAIN,
LIKE I SAID, IT'S BEEN A BENEFICIAL PROGRAM TO US. THIS PARTICULAR TIME, WE HAD SOME SERIOUS ISSUES WITH THE COMPANY THAT WAS DOING OUR
OUR WORK FOR US, DECIDED THEY WERE NO LONGER INTERESTED IN DOING THE WORK AT ALL AND TOTALLY
DROPPED OUT OF THE PROGRAM. 
          IT LEFT US SCRAMBLING TO FIND SOMEBODY, WHICH SPAG AGREED TO PICK UP FOR US. 
          THEY HADN'T DONE THE PROGRAM IN A FEW YEARS,
SO IT WAS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE FOR THEM ALSO. 
          BUT THE OTHER ISSUE WAS THAT WHEN MR. WILSON,
CITY MANAGER WILSON, WAS GETTING THE THE PORTAL SET UP FOR HIM TO GET INTO THE SYSTEM FOR SOME REASON OR ANOTHER. 
          THG. HAD DECIDED TO MAKE A DIFFERENT PORTAL THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT OR HAD ANY ACCESS
TO. 
          [02:30:04]
SO ALL THE EMAILS HE WAS GETTING WAS GOING TO THIS OTHER PORTAL THAT WE KNEW NOTHING
ABOUT. 
          SO THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS THROUGH NO FAULT OF OUR OWN,
MOSTLY WE FEEL LIKE WE DESERVE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR REIMBURSEMENT ON THIS ONE PROJECT. 
          MR. GONZALEZ DOES HAVE HER HOUSE. I MIGHT NOT HAVE CHOSEN HER PAINT COLOR,
BUT IT IS A NICE HOUSE, AND SHE'S IN GOOD SHAPE, SO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 
          MAYOR. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M CHELSEA BALDIVIA WITH THE SOUTH PLAINS ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS. 
          I AM THE DIRECTOR OF REGIONAL SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. 
          I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT SPAG HAS HAD A LONG AND SUCCESSFUL HISTORY OF WORKING WITH TEETH. 
          HOWEVER, OUR LAST PROJECT WAS OVER TEN YEARS AGO. 
          SO THIS WAS A NEW EXPERIENCE FOR ME AS WELL. WHILE THIS IS NOT A PROGRAM WE'VE HANDLED
RECENTLY, WE CHOSE TO TAKE ON THE CITY OF SLAYTON'S PROJECT BECAUSE WE BELIEVE DEEPLY IN THE
PROGRAM'S VALUE, ESPECIALLY FOR OUR SMALL AND RURAL COMMUNITIES WE REPRESENT ACROSS THE 15 COUNTY REGION. 
          SO WE'RE A COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS FOR OUR REGION. 
          OUR ROLE EXTENDS BEYOND CONSULTING FOR GRANT PROJECTS. 
          HOWEVER, WE SEE PROGRAMS LIKE THE HRA AS OPPORTUNITIES TO BUILD REGIONAL RESILIENCE SERVE
OUR MEMBER CITIES AND IMPROVE LIVES OF CITIZENS. 
          SINCE BEGINNING WORK ON THIS PROJECT, SEVERAL OTHER COMMUNITIES IN OUR REGION HAVE
ACTUALLY EXPRESSED INTEREST IN THE PROGRAM. SO DESPITE THIS, THIS ROUGH EXPERIENCE, THERE ARE SOME POSITIVE OUTCOMES. THEY'VE SEEN HOW IMPACTFUL IT CAN BE FOR BOTH RESIDENTS AND
THE COMMUNITY. 
          REDEVELOPMENT AS CITIES. WHEN SPAIN INHERITED THE PROJECT,
IT HAD ALREADY BEEN UNDERWAY FOR SOME TIME UNDER A PREVIOUS CONSULTANT. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, THE FILES WE RECEIVED WERE OUTDATED AND NON-COMPLIANT. 
          SOME HOMEOWNERS HAD EVEN PASSED AWAY, OTHERS HAD WITHDRAWN. 
          MOST DOCUMENTATION NEEDED EXTENSIVE UPDATES TO MEET STANDARDS,
SO WE SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME WORKING THROUGH THAT WITH EACH HOMEOWNER. 
          THAT WAS STILL ALIVE AND INTERESTED IN THE PROGRAM. 
          WE DID ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO REBUILD QUITE A BIT OF THE DOCUMENTATION AND TRY TO ENSURE THAT
EACH FILE MET COMPLIANCE AND THAT EVERY STEP ALIGNED WITH REQUIREMENTS. 
          IT WAS A LENGTHY, DETAILED PROCESS. IT WAS COMPLICATED BY STAFFING CHANGES WITHIN SPAG
MULTIPLE TIMES. 
          BUT ALSO WE DID HAVE A STAFF CHANGE WITH PROGRAM SPECIALISTS AT TDCA AS WELL,
SO THAT I THINK, ADDED FUEL TO THE FIRE. I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT HISTORY AND KEEP EVERYBODY IN THE LOOP. 
          THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, WE DID WORK CLOSELY WITH TDCA. 
          WE PARTICIPATED IN MULTIPLE TRAININGS. THAT IS TRUE BOTH IN PERSON AND ONLINE. 
          WE HELD REGULAR CALLS AND TEAMS MEETINGS TO CLARIFY COMPLIANCE EXPECTATIONS AND CONFIRM
NEXT STEPS. 
          OUR INTENT WAS ALWAYS TO ENSURE ACCURACY AND TRANSPARENCY AND PARTNERSHIP THROUGHOUT EVERY
STAGE. 
          AGAIN, THIS IS REALLY BENEFICIAL FOR OUR ENTIRE REGION. 
          THE MISSED DEADLINE WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT,
BUT IT WAS NOT DUE TO NEGLIGENCE OR LACK OF COMMUNICATION. 
          WE DID HAVE ONGOING CALLS. IT OCCURRED AMID THESE ONGOING TRANSITIONS,
NOT TO MENTION DELAYS IN CONSTRUCTION DUE TO SEVERE WEATHER CONDITIONS, VANDALISM ISSUES WITH OUR CONTRACTOR. AND SO WHILE THE TEAM'S FOCUS REMAINED ON CORRECTING
PRIOR DEFICIENCIES, MAINTAINING COMPLIANCE THROUGHOUT ALL OF THIS THE DENIAL CREATES CHALLENGES NOT JUST FOR
THE CITY OF SLATON'S BUDGET, BUT ALSO FOR THE CONFIDENCE OF SMALL COMMUNITIES WHO HAVE LOOKED INTO PARTICIPATING IN THE
PROGRAM. 
          THEY PROGRAM. THEY HEAR ABOUT THIS AND IT IT MAKES THEM A LITTLE NERVOUS TO PARTICIPATE. 
          WE TOOK ON THIS EFFORT BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IN THE MISSION OF THE PROGRAM AND THE GOOD IT
BRINGS TO CITIZENS AND NEIGHBORS ALIKE. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THE FULL CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT. WHEN WE DID RECEIVE IT AND THE WORK WE DID PUT IN. 
          I PROMISE YOU, WE'VE ALL LOST SLEEP OVER THIS. 
          WE WE CARE ABOUT MISS GONZALEZ AND HER FAMILY AND THE CITY OF SLAYTON. 
          OUR COMMITMENT HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO SERVE WITH INTEGRITY,
DILIGENCE AND REGIONAL PRIDE AND TO ENSURE THIS PROGRAM BEGINS TO BRING LASTING BENEFITS TO COMMUNITIES LIKE SLAYTON. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          THANK YOU, MR. ECCLES. IF I COULD JUST ASK A QUESTION WITH NO DISRESPECT,
AND ESPECIALLY NOT TO SPAG OR THE CITY OF OF CLAYTON SLAYTON. I'M SORRY. 
          HELP! HELP ME OUT AND HELP THE BOARD OUT. YOU'VE SUBMITTED AND THUS HAVE READ THE
HOUSEHOLD COMMITMENT CONTRACT AND THE HOME ADMINISTRATOR AGREEMENT AND KNOW ABOUT THE TERMINATION DATE OR THE END DATE OF THE CONTRACT JULY 7TH,
2025 AND THE GRACE PERIOD TO SUBMIT OF SEPTEMBER 5TH, 2025. HOW CAN WE PAY YOU USING HOME FUNDS FOR 
          [02:35:04]
UNDER AN EXPIRED CONTRACT? AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MEETING OF THE MINDS,
WHAT DOCUMENT, WHAT WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS CAN WE POINT TO WHEN WE'RE AUDITED AND SAID THEY SAY,
WHY DID YOU PAY EXPENSES THAT WERE NOT UNDER A CONTRACT OR WERE UNDER AN EXPIRED CONTRACT? WHAT CAN WE DO? TELL ME HOW THIS BOARD CAN GIVE YOU WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR. 
          DESPITE THE PLAIN WORDING OF THE CONTRACT AND THE FACT THAT THIS IS AN EXPIRED CONTRACT. 
          I WAS NOT A PART OF THE DIRECT CONVERSATION. IT WAS NOT WRITTEN. 
          HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE. CONVERSATION WITH THE STAFF MEMBER. 
          I CAN GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND. WE HAVE A CONCURRENT PROJECT WITH ANOTHER CITY IN OUR
REGION, AND SO EACH TIME WE DISCUSS THAT CONTRACT, WE DISCUSSED BOTH IN THOSE TIMELINES. 
          SO THERE WAS A CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS TIMELINE REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST THAT OCCURRED. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. DOMENICA PRINCE, SOUTH PLAINS ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS. 
          I DEFINITELY WANT TO ADDRESS YOUR YOUR QUESTION,
BUT IF I MAY PRESENT FIRST, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SLAYTON. AGAIN, MY NAME IS DOMENICA PRINCE,
AND I AM THE PROGRAMS PROGRAM SPECIALIST WITH SPAG THAT SERVED AS THE PRIMARY ADMINISTRATIVE CONSULTANT FOR THE CITY OF SLAYTON. 
          I WAS THE STAFF THAT TRANSITIONED FINALLY INTO THE ROLE ABOUT LATE TO MID TO LATE APRIL
WHEN I BEGAN WORKING ON THIS PROGRAM AND CONCURRENT PROGRAMS. THAT WE WERE ADMINISTERING THE CHALLENGES THAT WERE PRESENT DUE TO THE STAFF
TURNOVER AND WERE THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THE STAFF TURNOVER WERE CUMBERSOME. THERE WERE MULTIPLE DEFICIENCIES THAT NEEDED TO BE CURED. 
          AND HONESTLY, THE FOCUS WAS ON THAT TO ENSURE THAT WE REMAIN COMPLIANT AND TO ENSURE THAT
THOSE DEFICIENCIES WERE CURED. 
          SPECIFICALLY, THE CONVERSATION THAT WAS HAD WAS DISCUSSING THE FACT THAT WE DID NOT WANT
TO GET PULLED INTO THIS VORTEX OF RECEIVING A DEFICIENCY AND SENDING IT BACK THE 14 DAY WAIT PERIOD,
THEN SENDING IT BACK. 
          AND THAT CONTINUED TO HAPPEN MULTIPLE TIMES. SO THE CONVERSATION SPECIFICALLY WAS LET US
CURE THIS. 
          SEE THE APPROPRIATE WAY AND THE PROPER WAY TO SUBMIT THESE DRAWS. 
          AND THEN WE WILL COMPLETE SLAYTON WITHIN THE ONE DRAW,
MINUS THE FINAL RETAINAGE DRAW. 
          AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT WAS NOT DOCUMENTED IN WRITTEN COMMUNICATION,
BUT I THINK THAT IT CAN DEFINITELY BE INFERRED BY THE DOCUMENTATION THAT WE GAVE STATING THAT THE INITIAL CONVERSATION WAS LATE JUNE REGARDING THE DRAWS. 
          AND THEN THERE WAS NO SUBMISSION UNTIL OCTOBER. 
          I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT POINT THAT BECAUSE WE OPERATED AND I OPERATED UNDER THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS OVERSIGHT ABOUT THIS OVERSIGHT, THIS WAS NOT DUE TO NEGLIGENCE OR DISREGARD IN ANY WAY AS MUCH AS IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT THAT
WE WERE NOT AWARE THAT WE HAD MISSED THE DEADLINE. 
          THE INITIAL EMAIL COMMUNICATION WAS SENT. I HAVE SEEN THAT DOCUMENTATION,
BUT WE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS AFTER THAT NOTICE AND EVEN AN AMENDMENT REQUESTED, AS CDCA STAFF STATED,
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES OR AT ANY TIME WAS IT MENTIONED. 
          HEY, BY THE WAY, YOU ALL ARE ALSO PAST THE DUE DATE ON THIS ACTIVITY. 
          BECAUSE WE SPECIFICALLY INQUIRED WHAT THE STATUS WAS AND WHERE WE WERE ON EACH ACTIVITY
THAT WAS PRESENTED. 
          WHILE YES, CONSTRUCTION WAS DELAYED, I WANTED TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO THE CAUSE OF THE
DELAY TO SHOW THAT THERE WERE JUSTIFIABLE AND UNAVOIDABLE CAUSES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION NOT BEING COMPLETED BY JULY. THE ATTACHMENTS PROVIDED SHOW IN DETAIL THE 13 MAJOR WEATHER
EVENTS THAT OCCURRED FROM JANUARY UNTIL JUNE OF THE SAME YEAR, FROM FLOODING TO LITERAL MULTIPLE TORNADO TOUCHDOWNS,
WINTER STORMS AND THESE EVENTS WERE THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THE DELAY. 
          IN ADDITION TO THESE DELAYS, THE PROPERTIES EXPERIENCED VANDALISM AT THE AT THIS
RESIDENCE, SPECIFICALLY RESULTING IN REPAIR AND ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO ENSURE SAFETY. 
          I THINK THAT WITH ALL OF THAT BEING SAID, THE HOMES ARE BEAUTIFULLY CONSTRUCTED. 
          THIS WAS DEFINITELY NOT DONE. I THINK THAT THE STAFF CAN ATTEST TO THEY HAVE BEEN IN
CONSTANT COMMUNICATION WITH US. 
          AND SO WHILE THERE IS NO WRITTEN RECORD, I THINK THAT IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT WE WERE
DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE. 
          WE'RE NOT AN OUTSIDE ADVERTISING OR CONSULTING FIRM THAT'S LOOKING FOR PROFIT. 
          [02:40:04]
WE'RE COG. OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE MAYOR MYSELF. 
          WE HAD AN INTIMATE CEREMONY GIVING THE KEYS TO THIS RESIDENT. 
          NOT FOR PUBLICITY, BUT BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IN REGIONAL RESILIENCE AIDING THE COMMUNITIES. 
          AND OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE. 
          KELLY CRISWELL. SHE IS AT A FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK MEETING. 
          OTHERWISE, SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT. IT'S NEAR AND DEAR TO OUR HEARTS. WE WE LOVE THIS
PROGRAM, AND I SPENT COUNTLESS NIGHTS ATTEMPTING TO CURE THIS. 
          OKAY, SO WHEN WAS IT FINISHED? IT WAS FINISHED. 
          THE CONSTRUCTION ITSELF WAS FINISHED AUGUST THE 15TH. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE CANNOT OFFICIALLY DECLARE THAT UNTIL THE CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLETION IS FINISHED BY THE CITY, WHICH WAS NOT DONE UNTIL, I BELIEVE, SEPTEMBER,
MID SEPTEMBER. 
          AND THAT WAS DUE TO SCHEDULING THE MAYOR, THE CITY MANAGER. 
          KELLY. ALL THIS HAPPENED BEFORE OCTOBER 5TH. CORRECT? OKAY. AND YOU'LL HAVE LOTS OF EXPERIENCES BEFORE JULY 7TH THAT COULD BE PAID. 
          THE VAST MAJORITY OF EXPENSES ARE BEFORE JULY 7TH. 
          MAYBE JUST NOT THE PAINT. AND THEN GO AHEAD. MR. MARTIN, IN ANSWER TO OUR COUNCIL'S QUESTION,
WHICH IS THE QUESTION, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT FOR A LONG TIME. 
          BUT WITH WHAT IS WITHIN OUR POWER TO DO. PERIOD. 
          BECAUSE I'M READY TO DO IT. I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE THE BOARD FINDING THAT THERE WAS AT
LEAST A MEETING OF THE MINDS BETWEEN PD AND SPAG TO INCREASE THE TIME OF THE REIMBURSEMENT PERIOD, WHICH MEANS THAT EXPENSES THAT ARE SUBMITTED NOW FOR THOSE PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE CONTRACT ON JULY THE 7TH COULD BE REIMBURSED. 
          THAT WOULD BE DEFENSIBLE IN AN AUDIT. YES. BASED ON THIS FINDING. 
          OKAY. OKAY. AND I'M. ASKING I'M ON BOARD WITH THAT. 
          THE AFTER MISS VERSUS THAT SAID HAVE YET AGAIN FUNDAMENTALLY, I FEEL FOR ALL OF Y'ALL'S ISSUES AND CHANGES AND TURNOVERS AND EVERYTHING,
BUT FRANKLY, THAT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM. 
          IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. I CAN ALSO UNDERSTAND HOW A $150,000 HIT ON THE CITY OF SLAYTON'S
BUDGET IS PROBABLY PAINFUL. VERY PAINFUL. BUT IF WE HAVE A SORT OF MIDDLE GROUND JUST BEING REASONABLE THAT THE INTENT, WE UNDERSTAND THE INTENT WAS THERE. 
          I FEEL THE INTENT WAS THERE TO DO IT RIGHT. AND YOU DID COMPLETE THE PROJECT. 
          I'D BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION WHERE? WE ACCEPT. 
          EXTENSION OF PAYMENT FOR OR COSTS DOCUMENTED INCURRED BEFORE THE END OF THE CONTRACT. 
          AND IF THERE'S ANY DIFFERENCE IN THEIR MR. MAYOR,
I'D NEGOTIATE WITH SPAGS SAYING YOU GUYS SAID YOU KNEW WHAT YOU WERE DOING ON THIS. 
          REIMBURSE US FOR THE DIFFERENCE. OKAY. GIVE US CREDIT ON OUR BILL FOR THE DIFFERENCE. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S NOT LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CHAIRMAN. THAT'S NOT LEGAL. THAT'S
THAT'S PRIVATE SECTOR BUSINESS CONSULTANT ADVICE. 
          YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO WITH MY CLIENT. MY CLIENTS. 
          DOES ANYONE HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THAT? I HAVE. OKAY. 
          MR.. MR.. HARPER? YEP. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THIS BAG. 
          WE'RE WE'RE HERE TO PROVIDE SOME MERCY FOR YOU. 
          THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS. NOT. YOU DIDN'T FOLLOW THE CONTRACT,
SO THEREFORE THERE'S LIABILITY. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TIMES SAYING THERE WASN'T LIABILITY,
BUT THERE IS LIABILITY. 
          WHERE YOU HEAR US GIVE MERCY ALL THE TIME TO CONSULTANTS. 
          GIVE MERCY BECAUSE WE WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING. 
          WHAT KIND OF SCREWED UP TO CLEAN SOME OF THIS UP? NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. GO DO GOOD WORK. YOU KNOW,
MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN I FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE COMPROMISING. 
          I DO COME FROM A SMALL TOWN, POPULATION 9000,
CRYSTAL CITY, TEXAS. 
          AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I ALWAYS ARGUED WAS SMALL,
RURAL COMMUNITIES DO NOT HAVE THE ADVANTAGES THAT THE BIG CITIES HAVE WITH THE CONSULTANTS 
          [02:45:07]
AND THE TECHNOLOGY, BUT IT'S AND THERE'S ALWAYS A TURNOVER. 
          BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WHENEVER YOU DEAL WITH FEDERAL MONIES,
YOU JUST HAVE TO REALLY READ EVERYTHING. 
          AND ALL RIGHT, SO I HATE COMPUTERS, AND MAYBE I WOULD HAVE BEEN TERRIBLE IN YOUR LITTLE
CITY NOT READING WHAT THE WHAT THE NEW INSTRUCTIONS SENT. BUT FROM NOW ON, JUST READ EVERYTHING. 
          AND WHEN IN DOUBT, HALTED THE HCA. YES, MA'AM. 
          AND AND OF COURSE I WOULD MAYOR. AND WE HAD A DIFFERENT ORGANIZATION DOING OUR,
OUR PROCESSING THE DOCUMENTS AND STUFF FOR US AT THE TIME. 
          THIS HAS BEEN A LEARNING EXPERIENCE. MOST DEFINITELY. 
          THE BUREAUCRACY AND THE RED TAPE THAT THAT YOU GO THROUGH JUST TO GET A PORTAL TOGETHER
TO, TO TO GET ON THE PROGRAM IS SOMETHING TO BEHOLD. 
          BUT WE DO APPRECIATE ANYTHING YOU CAN DO FOR US. 
          READY? MR. HARPER, I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE THE BOARD,
APPROVE THE APPEAL BY THE CITY OF SLAYTON AS DESCRIBED IN THE BOARD. 
          ACTION, REQUEST AND RESOLUTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DOCUMENTS ITEM FOR THE STAFF TO WORK
OUT THE DETAILS IN THEIR EXECUTION. 
          SECOND, IS THAT SUFFICIENT JUST TO BE TO SEE IF THIS IS MEETING WHAT YOUR MOTION IS,
THAT IT'S PARTIALLY GRANTING THE APPEAL OF SLAYTON? AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CITY CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROJECT THAT'S AT ISSUE WAS COMPLETED DURING THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER
OF 2025, AND CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE WERE EXPENSES THAT WERE INCURRED ON THIS PROJECT PRIOR TO OR ON JULY THE 7TH,
2025 THAT THEY MAY BE REIMBURSED. 
          THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I. THAT'S WHAT I FELT YOU WERE SAYING. THAT'S THE MOTION I HEARD
APPROVED THE APPEAL BY THE CITY OF SLAYTON WITH COST TO JULY 17TH, 2007, SEVENTH SEVENTH OF 2025. WITH HAVING THE BASED ON COMPLETED PROJECT BY. BEFORE OCTOBER 5TH OCTOBER 5TH. SO HELP ME GOD. 
          AMEN. OKAY. MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER, STILL SECONDED BY MISS FARIAS. 
          YES. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO ASK STAFF A QUESTION. 
          I MEAN, DO YOU FEEL LIKE THERE'S ANY WAY THAT YOU CAN HANDLE. 
          I MEAN, DO YOU FEEL LIKE THIS BROUGHT UP SOME SHORT,
SOME DEFICIENCIES OR SHORTFALLS IN THE SYSTEM, AND IS THERE A WAY FOR OUR PART OF IT TO SCREAM BLOODY MURDER? YOU'RE CLOSE TO YOUR DEADLINES. PLEASE DON'T MISS YOUR DEADLINES. 
          JUST. I'M NOT. I'M NOT CASTING DOUBT ON HOW YOU HANDLED IT. 
          IT'S IT'S WE WE ALL WALK THIS FINE LINE OF WE NEED TO SEND ENOUGH EMAIL,
BUT NOT TOO MUCH EMAIL. 
          BECAUSE IF YOU HEAR FROM US EVERY DAY, YEAH,
YOU'RE GOING TO START DELETING. 
          BUT I DO THINK WE CAN DEFINITELY START, YOU KNOW,
A 90 DAY REMINDER, A 60 DAY REMINDER, AND THEN OUR 30 DAY REMINDER NOTICE I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD HAVE MADE ANY DIFFERENCE,
BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD HAVE EITHER. BUT YOU NEVER KNOW. THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE ONE. YEAH, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT AN EXTRA BURDEN ON YOU OR IT'S WE WE WE WE CAN WE
HAVE A FAIRLY GOOD. 
          OUR PROGRAM MANAGER IS ABLE TO AUTOMATE EMAIL COMING FROM A STAFF MEMBER TO THE LISTED
PERSONS ON OUR CONTRACT, BUT THAT'S ALSO ON EACH ACTIVITY, RIGHT? THAT'S ON EACH ACTIVITY. 
          THAT'S WHY IF THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES,
YOU'RE GETTING A ZILLION EMAILS. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. IF A CITY HAS TEN ACTIVITIES SET UP,
THEY'RE GOING TO GET, YOU KNOW, JUST A CONSTANT BARRAGE, JUST A COMMENT. NOT NOT A NOT A YEAH. 
          NOT TO COMPEL YOU TO DO ANYTHING. THIS IS SIRI. 
          ANYTIME SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENS WE KNOW THE IMPACT ON A SMALL COMMUNITY. 
          I'M FROM A TINY TOWN. I'M FROM STANFORD, TEXAS. 
          YOU KNOW, THEY CAN'T AFFORD $150,000. SO WE WILL WORK ON THAT AS A GOAL. 
          OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO ITEM 31 OF THE AGENDA PRESENTATION,
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE ADOPTION OF THE REPEAL OF TEN TAC CHAPTER 11 CONCERNING THE HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM,
QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN, 
          [02:50:04]
ADOPTION OF NEW TAC, CHAPTER 11 CONCERNING THE SAME AND DIRECTING THE PUBLICATION FOR
ADOPTION IN THE TEXAS REGISTER. 
          FOLLOWING THE STATUTORY OPPORTUNITY FOR GUBERNATORIAL ACCEPTANCE,
REVISION OR REJECTION. 
          MR. CAMPBELL. THANK YOU, MR. VASQUEZ. THIS THING. 
          YES, AGAIN, CODY CAMPBELL, DIRECTOR OF MULTIFAMILY PROGRAMS FOR THE DIVISION. 
          THIS IS THE APPROVAL OF THE QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN. 
          WE LAST DISCUSSED THIS AT THE SEPTEMBER BOARD MEETING. 
          WE PUT THE SHAPE OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. WE RECEIVED THAT COMMENT. 
          WE HAVE MADE REVISIONS. AND TODAY YOU ARE APPROVING THAT SHAPE TO BE SENT TO THE GOVERNOR, WHO MAY THEN APPROVE, REJECT OR MODIFY IT. AND ALL TOLD,
I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A PRETTY, PRETTY CONCISE PRESENTATION BECAUSE WE DIDN'T MAKE TOO MANY CHANGES FROM WHAT YOU SAW IN
SEPTEMBER. 
          TRACY JUST CAME UP HERE IN THE FRONT, LIKE THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE LINING UP BEHIND YOU. 
          I'M SORRY I SAID THE PRESENTATION WOULD BE SHORT,
NOT THE DISCUSSION. 
          SO AS REFLECTED IN YOUR BOARD BOOK. WE GOT 41 COMMENTS,
WHICH IS ACTUALLY UNFORTUNATELY NOT ACCURATE. 
          WE GOT 43. TWO OF THOSE WERE CAUGHT IN THE SPAM FILTER AND DID NOT MAKE IT TO YOUR INBOX. 
          SO I WOULD LIKE TO PUBLICLY APOLOGIZE TO JUSTIN MEYER AND PATRICIA MURPHY,
WHOSE COMMENTS DIDN'T MAKE IT INTO THE BOARD BOOK. 
          I'VE BEEN VERY PROUD DURING MY TENURE IN THIS POSITION THAT THESE KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
MISTAKES HAVE NOT HAPPENED. AND SO I'D LIKE TO REASSURE THE BOARD THAT THIS IS NOT THE START OF A TREND THAT YOU NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT. WE ARE WORKING WITH OUR IS DIVISION
TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. BUT WE ARE TAKING THIS VERY SERIOUSLY. WHILE I WOULD NOT TRY TO MINIMIZE THAT, THE SMALL UPSIDE THERE IS THAT THEIR COMMENTS WERE
MIRRORED SUBSTANTIALLY IN OTHER COMMENTS. 
          SO IT'S NOT AS THOUGH THE ARGUMENTS THAT THEY WERE PRESENTING WERE NOT PROVIDED TO IN THE
BOARD BOOK. 
          THEY'RE JUST THEY'RE INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS DIDN'T MAKE IT IN,
UNFORTUNATELY. 
          ONCE YOU APPROVE THIS TODAY, LIKE I SAID, WE WILL SEND IT TO THE GOVERNOR WHO WILL
HOPEFULLY APPROVE IT, BUT MAY ALSO DENY IT, AND WE'LL FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO IF THAT EVER HAPPENS. 
          AND JUST BRIEFLY TO GO OVER THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE THEN. 
          AND THEN ONE RECOMMENDED CHANGE THAT WE HAVE FROM A CONVERSATION THAT I HAD WITH JOSH
RECENTLY, AND I'VE ONLY GOT LOOKS LIKE 4 OR 5 THINGS. LAST WEEK,
THE COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS IN TEXAS ISSUED A NOTICE THAT THEY WERE NO LONGER GOING TO BE ISSUING, AT LEAST FOR THE TIME BEING,
NEW CERTIFICATES FOR HISTORICALLY UNDERUTILIZED BUSINESSES OR HUBS. 
          JUST AS A QUICK REMINDER, THOSE ARE BUSINESSES THAT ARE OWNED BY MEMBERS OF CERTAIN
MINORITY GROUPS. 
          HISTORICALLY, THE SHAPE HAS PROVIDED UNDER THE SPONSOR CHARACTERISTICS SCORING ITEM TWO
POINTS TO DEVELOPMENTS THAT INCLUDE A HUB AS PART OF THE OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE. 
          BECAUSE THE CONTROLLER IS NO LONGER ISSUING HUB CERTIFICATES. 
          STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED STRIKING THAT SCORING ITEM FROM THE SHAPE. 
          WE CAN REVISIT THIS IF THEY EVER START REISSUING HUB CERTIFICATES,
BUT AS IT STANDS, I DON'T SEE ANY PRACTICAL WAY FOR US TO ADMINISTER THE SCORING ITEM. 
          IF WE LEAVE IT IN, WHAT WILL WHAT WE WILL IN EFFECT HAVE IS A CLOSED ENVIRONMENT WHERE A
LIMITED NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO MANAGE TO GET ON THE LAST HELICOPTER OUT OF SAIGON ARE ABLE TO GET THESE POINTS, AND EVERYONE ELSE IS EXCLUDED. 
          WE FIND THAT TO BE AN UNDESIRABLE OUTCOME, AND SO WE RECOMMEND STRIKING THE SCORING ITEM. 
          ALSO UNDER SPONSOR CHARACTERISTICS. WE'VE DISCUSSED MUCH OVER THIS SHAPE DEVELOPMENT
CYCLE, INCENTIVIZING ENTITIES THAT PAY FULL PROPERTY TAXES. 
          TO BALANCE THAT OUT, WE HAD ADDED AN OPTION FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT INCLUDE A PUBLIC HOUSING
AUTHORITY BECAUSE THEY HAVE A TAX EXEMPTION. 
          WE ARE RECOMMENDING ADDING TO THAT EXCEPTION HOUSING FACILITY CORPORATIONS. 
          WE GOT A SORRY HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATIONS. WE GOT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF COMMENTS
REQUESTING THAT WE DO THAT. 
          WE DON'T REALLY SEE MUCH DOWNSIDE TO THAT. SO WE RECOMMENDED THAT CHANGE IN THIS DRAFT. 
          UNDER THE TIEBREAKER SECTION, WE PREVIOUSLY HAD A SENTENCE THAT SAID THAT A SINGLE
LOCATION WITH MULTIPLE AMENITIES ON IT COULDN'T BE USED FOR MORE THAN ONE AMENITY. 
          SO JUST AS A QUICK REMINDER TIEBREAKER DISCUSSING BOARDS PRIORITY BASED ON THE PROXIMITY
OF THE DEVELOPMENT SITE TO CERTAIN COMMUNITY AMENITIES SUCH AS A PARK OR A LIBRARY. 
          WE STILL HAVE THE PROHIBITION IN HERE THAT YOU CANNOT USE A SCHOOLS,
A SCHOOL, CAMPUSES, FACILITIES AS A PLAYGROUND. 
          BUT WE DID REMOVE THE PROHIBITION ON USING ONE SITE WITH MULTIPLE FEATURES,
BECAUSE SEVERAL PEOPLE SUBMITTED GOOD EXAMPLES OF A SINGLE SITE THAT HAD, FOR EXAMPLE, A LIBRARY AND A PARK ON IT. WE FELT THAT THAT WAS COMPELLING. 
          STRIKE THAT SENTENCE WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE USED IN TIEBREAKER. 
          MOVING FORWARD, WE AT THE LAST MEETING DISCUSSED ADDING A MINIMUM SCORE TO THE SHAPE. 
          WE HAD STARTED AT 150. THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE GOT REQUESTED 120
AS THE MINIMUM SCORE. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED IS THE CHANGE. 
          [02:55:03]
AND THEN AN INTERESTING CONCEPT THAT WE DISCUSSED AND ADDED TO THE SHAPE THAT THERE IS NOW
A PROHIBITION ON A DEVELOPER THAT HAS A SINGLE DEVELOPMENT, MULTIPLE FORCE MAJEURES BACK IN DEVELOPMENT PLACES IN SERVICE. 
          AT THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION, WE ADDED A CAP. 
          I THINK PEOPLE HAVE A HARD TIME HEARING YOU. WERE YOU ON? I'M SORRY. 
          OKAY. YEAH. SPEAK UP. OKAY. GET DOWN IN THERE. 
          ALRIGHTY. AND SO THAT PROHIBITION WAS ADDED TO THE SHAPE AT THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION,
WE ADDED A CAVEAT THAT IF THE DEVELOPMENT PLACES IN SERVICE BY THE TIME AWARDS ARE MADE, THEN NO HARM, NO FOUL,
YOU ARE ABLE TO GET YOUR AWARD. 
          WHAT WE WROTE INTO THE SHAPE IS THAT THE CUTOFF FOR THAT WOULD BE THE JULY MEETING AT
WHICH AWARDS ARE MADE. 
          JOSH TALKED TO ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT, AND WE PROBABLY WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE BUMP
THAT UP TO MAYBE THE MAY BOARD MEETING RATHER THAN THE LATE JULY BOARD MEETING. 
          THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT IF SOMEBODY ENDS UP BEING INELIGIBLE AND THEY WISH TO APPEAL
THAT DETERMINATION OF AN OF INELIGIBILITY, THAT WOULD GIVE US TIME TO HEAR THAT OUT BEFORE THE FINAL JULY BOARD MEETING. 
          IT WOULD ALSO PREVENT SITUATIONS WHERE WE'RE SCRAMBLING MID-JULY TO DETERMINE IF SOMEBODY
IS GOING TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR NOT. 
          SO JUST TO GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE ASSURANCE,
WE WOULD RECOMMEND MOVING THAT TO THE MAY BOARD MEETING. 
          THAT IS NOT WRITTEN INTO THE SHAPE. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ADDED AFTER THIS. 
          BUT ASIDE FROM THAT, WE RECOMMEND THE SHAPE AS PRESENTED,
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. 
          I HAVE QUESTIONS. LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS. 
          I HAVE JUST ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE HUBS. CERTAINLY. 
          SO BECAUSE KELLY MADE THE PROCLAMATION, HE WAS NO LONGER ISSUING THE CERTIFICATES. 
          THAT IN ITSELF DOES NOT CHANGE THE MULTITUDE OF STATUTES IN PLACE THAT CALL FOR HUB
CONSIDERATION. 
          SO THERE ARE NO STATUTES THAT REQUIRE HUB CONSIDERATION IN THE SHAPE IN IN YOUR SHAPE. 
          SO WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS TO CONSIDER. NONPROFITS BUT NOT HUBS AND NONPROFITS HAVE BEEN LEFT
UNTOUCHED. 
          JUST ASKING THE QUESTION OF THE BOARD, DO WE WANT TO PUT SOME KIND OF CONTINGENT LANGUAGE
IN THERE IN CASE? SO WE'RE JUST SAYING THIS SHAPE, WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING HUBS,
PERIOD. 
          THAT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. IF THAT GETS OVER,
IF IF THE NEXT CONTROLLER OR HE HAS A DIFFERENT THOUGHT PROCESS OR A COURT TELLS HIM YOU GOT TO START DOING IT AGAIN, SURE. THEN WE'RE JUST SITTING OUT ONE YEAR. 
          YES, SIR. YES, THAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT. 
          WHO WANTS TO COMMENT OR WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FIRST. 
          ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. I'M AUDREY MARTIN WITH PURPLE MARTIN REAL ESTATE. 
          AND IN HERE. FIRST I WANTED TO JUST THANK YOU ALL FOR ALL THE CONSIDERATION AND THE TIME
AND THE EFFORT THAT'S GONE INTO THIS YEAR'S SHAPE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. I KNOW IT'S A LOT. 
          YOU GUYS RECEIVE A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENT, AND JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW YOU'RE. 
          THAT'S ALL REALLY APPRECIATED. I HAVE ONE COMMENT TO MAKE TODAY. 
          I AM MAKING THIS COMMENT ON MY BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY AND
FORT WORTH HOUSING SOLUTIONS, WHICH IS FORT WORTH HOUSING AUTHORITY. I'D LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION TO MAKE
ONE REVISION TO THE SHAPE BEFORE IT'S FINALIZED. 
          THIS IS RELATED TO THE NEW LANGUAGE AGE, PROHIBITING CASH OUTS ON IDENTITY OF INTEREST
TRANSACTIONS, WHICH NOW IS PROPOSED TO APPLY ONLY TO 9% COMPETITIVE HOUSING TAX CREDIT DEVELOPMENTS. 
          THE REQUEST IS TO ADD AN EXEMPTION FROM THIS REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE
SPONSORED BY HOUSING AUTHORITIES OR THEIR AFFILIATES. 
          AND THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT HOUSING AUTHORITIES REINVEST THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALES,
PROCEEDS OR TRANSFER PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THEIR REAL ESTATE INTO OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES. AND SO AN EXAMPLE OF WHEN THIS MAY COME UP IS IN A HUD
CHOICE NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSACTION, WHICH YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN SOME OF IN RECENT YEARS. 
          SO THOSE ARE ALL WAYS, MULTI-PHASE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE COMPLETED BY THE
HOUSING AUTHORITY. 
          AND IN ALL CASES, THEY INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN A GIVEN LOCATION. 
          AFFORDABLE UNITS IN A GIVEN LOCATION. SO THE EXEMPTION IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE,
YOU KNOW, GAP FINANCING IS LIMITED REALLY IN GENERAL. 
          AND SO WHEN A HOUSING AUTHORITY IS ABLE TO GENERATE SOME FUNDS BASED ON THE APPRECIATION
OF AN ASSET THAT'S ALREADY IN ITS PORTFOLIO, 
          [03:00:05]
THAT CAN BE A VALUABLE SOURCE OF FUNDS THAT CAN BE USED FOR FUTURE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT OR ACTIVITIES, RATHER. SO WE JUST WANTED TO SEE IF THE BOARD MIGHT CONSIDER ADDING AN EXEMPTION. 
          AND YOU HAVE RECEIVED WRITTEN COMMENT TO THIS. 
          TO THIS EFFECT, THE WRITTEN COMMENT SUGGESTED THAT THE WAY THE LANGUAGE COULD BE
IMPLEMENTED IS THAT THE EXCEPTION BE APPLIED TO APPLICATIONS IN WHICH A HOUSING AUTHORITY OR ITS AFFILIATE IS IN THE OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE
AND APPLICATIONS THAT ARE ENTITLED TO AN ALLOCATION BECAUSE THEY ARE USING HUD CHOICE NEIGHBORHOOD FUNDS,
WHICH AGAIN ARE FUNDS USED BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR THEIR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. 
          SO THAT'S THE COMMENT TODAY. THANK YOU ALL AGAIN FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          THANK YOU. AUDREY. AT THE SAME TIME, OKAY. IT'S THE SAME TOPIC. 
          YEAH. PLEASE. AND THEN DIFFERENT TWIST ON IT,
DIFFERENT TWIST. 
          AND I THINK YOU'RE ABOUT TO TAKE US DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE OF CONCERN THAT I THINK THAT HER
THAT AUDREY'S COMMENTS. 
          OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M TRACY FANG WITH NATIONAL CHURCH RESIDENCES AND I HAVE SIMILAR
COMMENTS ON ON THE CASH OUT. 
          BUT FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. AND I AM A I AM YOUR NUMBER ONE PROPONENT PROPONENT OF
NO CASH OUT. 
          BUT FOR US, WE'RE NOT SEEKING CASH OUT. WE'RE SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT OF FUNDS THAT WE HAVE
HAD TO PUT INTO OUR DEVELOPMENTS AND NOTES AND CASH ADVANCES SIMILAR TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITIES. 
          WHEN WE ACQUIRE A PROPERTY, WE ACQUIRE IT WITH A PIECE OF DEBT OR A MORTGAGE,
BUT THAT MORTGAGE ALMOST NEVER COVERS THE ENTIRETY OF THAT ACQUISITION. 
          SO WE ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE A NOTE THAT WE ADD TO ACQUIRE THIS PROPERTY,
PUT IT IN OUR PIPELINE, AND THAT IS MY PIPELINE THAT I'M GOING TO WORK ON IN ORDER TO GET TAX CREDITS. 
          WHEN I CLOSE ON MY TAX CREDITS, I'M ABLE TO GET REIMBURSED FOR ALL THAT. 
          FOR THAT NOTE THAT WE PUT IN, WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF PUTTING IT IN EITHER A SETTLEMENT
STATEMENT OR OUR AUDIT OR WHATEVER. 
          IT IS EVIDENCE OF THIS NOTE. AND AT THE CLOSING,
WE PULL THAT NOTE BACK OUT AND THEN WE RECYCLE IT INTO THE NEXT TRANSACTION. 
          I HAVE DONE THIS NOW WITH SEVEN AWARDS IN 9% HERE IN TEXAS,
COVERING ALMOST PRESERVING ALMOST 500 UNITS. 
          SO I DID PROVIDE SOME LANGUAGE IN MY COMMENTS TO ALLOW RELATED PARTY NOTES OR ADVANCES
THAT ARE EVIDENCE TO BE REPAID, AND THAT IS A REIMBURSEMENT AND NOT A CASH OUT. 
          THE OTHER INCIDENTS THAT WE WILL DO A CASH ADVANCE OR A NOTE IS IN THE EVENT WE HAVE AN
AGING PROPERTY AND THERE IS A REALLY BIG CRITICAL REPAIR AND THE RESERVES CAN'T COVER THAT CRITICAL REPAIR. SO WE ARE A GOOD OWNER AND DEVELOPER AND
MANAGER. 
          WE WILL FRONT THAT MONEY. WE WILL PAY FOR THAT CAPITAL REPAIR,
BUT WE ALSO ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL GET REIMBURSED FOR IT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. 
          I MY FEAR IS WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE VERY RESPONSIBLE MANAGER,
BUT AN OWNER, BUT OTHER DEVELOPERS THAT HAVE NO ABILITY TO GET REPAID FOR THAT ADVANCE. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COVER THAT REPAIR. 
          SO AUDREY ASKED FOR SOME EXEMPTIONS TO THIS LANGUAGE. 
          AND ANOTHER EXEMPTION THAT WOULD GET US THERE IS TO EXEMPT NONPROFIT GENERAL PARTNERS FROM
BEING ABLE, FROM BEING ABLE TO BE REPAID FROM RELATED PARTY DEBT. 
          WE ARE A NONPROFIT. WE'RE NOT POCKETING THE MONEY. 
          IT'S NOT GETTING DISTRIBUTED TO OUR PRINCIPALS. 
          IT IS LITERALLY GOING INTO THE NEXT PROJECT. I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU LISTENING TO ME
TODAY. 
          THANK YOU. TRACY, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AT THE 15 YEAR MARK WHEN IT'S BEING NO REFINANCED? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE INITIAL CLOSING? SO WHAT WE AT THE INITIAL CLOSING. 
          SO WHAT WE'LL TYPICALLY DO IS WE'LL FIND AN OWNER THAT HAS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROPERTY, AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE SKILL SET TO TAKE IT THROUGH A RENOVATION AND THE TAX CREDIT
PROCESS, OR IT'S NO LONGER THEIR MISSION, YOU KNOW, LIKE WE'LL FIND PEOPLE THAT STARTED WITH
SENIORS AND NOW THEY WANT TO FOCUS ON CHILDREN. 
          AND ACTUALLY, ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WHY I CAN'T COVER THE ENTIRE ACQUISITION WITH DEBT
IS BECAUSE WHEN I CLOSE INTO MY TAX CREDIT PROJECT AFTER AN AWARD, I ASSUME THE DEBT THAT I ACQUIRED THAT PROPERTY WITH. 
          AND I DIDN'T HAVE A BIG PIECE OF DEBT BECAUSE ON ALL MY HUD PROPERTIES,
THESE ARE ALL HUD PROPERTIES. 
          THEY'RE TAX EXEMPT WHEN I INITIALLY ACQUIRED THEM,
AND I'M JUST HOLDING THEM. 
          BUT WHEN I ACQUIRED THEM TO THE TAX CREDIT ENTITY,
THEY BECOME FOR PROFIT. 
          AND THEY ARE THEREFORE REAL ESTATE HAVE A REAL ESTATE TAX LIABILITY. 
          [03:05:01]
AND IF I OVER LEVERAGED MY DEBT MY FINANCING DOESN'T WORK. 
          SO I HAVE TO LIKE, MAKE MY DEBT SMALL ENOUGH TO ASSUME THAT I'M GOING TO PAY REAL ESTATE
TAXES IN THE FUTURE WITH A TAX CREDIT AWARD. 
          OTHERWISE, I'D TAKE A BIGGER PIECE OF DEBT AND I WOULDN'T HAVE TO PUT MY MILLION DOLLAR
PARENT NOTE TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY. 
          OKAY, MOST PEOPLE CALL THAT EQUITY. NO, I MEAN,
IT'S DONE WITH A NOTE. 
          I MEAN, SOME OF SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES, YOU KNOW,
WE'VE HAD FOR 20 YEARS OR, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THEM ARE JUST A FEW YEARS, BUT WE'RE UNLIKE PRIOR COMMENTS WHERE THEY'VE HELD THESE ASSETS FOR A REALLY LONG TIME AND
THEY'VE BUILT ALL THIS EQUITY INTO THEM. 
          WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR THAT EQUITY TO BE TAKEN OUT BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A CASH OUT. 
          WE ARE LITERALLY SHOWING WE PUT IN $1 MILLION OR WHATEVER THE AMOUNT IS,
AND TOOK A NOTE AND WE TOOK A NOTE INSTEAD OF CALLING EQUITY. 
          THERE IS ONE DIFFERENCE THAT WE THERE ARE SOME PROPERTIES THAT ARE CALLED PRAX,
AND IT'S A SPECIFIC TYPE OF HUD PROPERTY, AND THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE NOTES ON THEM UNTIL YOU GO THROUGH THIS REALLY
COMPLICATED PROCESS. 
          AND THEN YOU CAN TAKE A NOTE. SO ON THOSE SOMETIMES THEY'RE LABELED DIFFERENTLY TO GET
AROUND THE HEAD RULES, BUT THEY ARE ALL TECHNICALLY NOTES. AND WE HAVE EVIDENCE,
WHETHER IT'S AN AUDIT, WHETHER IT'S A SETTLEMENT STATEMENT OF THESE ADVANCES, AND WE ARE TRYING TO GET REIMBURSED SO WE CAN TEE IT UP FOR THE NEXT,
YOU KNOW, PORTFOLIO THAT WE WANT TO RENOVATE AND PRESERVE, BECAUSE I THINK THE INTENT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. 
          IS THAT CASH OUT USING TAX CREDITS AT 15 YEAR REFINANCING. 
          AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S AIMED AT YOU PUT IN SOME MONEY UP FRONT TO GET THE DEAL TO THE FINISH LINE. START LINE. YEAH. I MEAN,
WHETHER IT'S A NOTE OR A SECOND OR SOME KIND OF SOME KIND OF OBLIGATION THE PROPERTY OWNER OWES TO SOMEBODY WHEN YOU COME TO A CLOSING,
CAN'T YOU, IN THAT INITIAL CLOSING, ARE YOU TAKING A NOTE AT THE CLOSING TABLE? IT'S ALMOST LIKE TAKING OUT. SO WHEN WE, WHEN WE ACQUIRE A PROPERTY THAT WE DON'T OWN,
AND THIS IS NOT THROUGH A TAX CREDIT CLOSING, IT'S JUST LIKE THIS IS A PROPERTY. AND I WANT TO YOU KNOW,
I KIND OF WAIT TO THE SHAPE HITS THAT PROPERTY. 
          I'M LIKE THIS ONE I'M GOING TO GO FOR THIS YEAR. NOW THIS THIS ONE FINALLY IS GOING TO
SCORE. 
          SO INITIALLY WHEN I ACQUIRE IT FROM A SELLER AND I HOLD IT,
THAT IS WHEN I'M PUTTING IN MY MILLION DOLLARS OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, AND THEN WHEN I GET MY TAX CREDIT AWARD AND I CLOSE IT INTO MY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
AGREEMENT, IT BECOMES A FOR PROFIT ENTITY. AT THAT TIME I PAY BACK MYSELF THE NOTE THAT I MET THE
MEZZANINE FINANCING FOR SOFT COSTS. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOFT COST THOUGH,
BECAUSE LIKE, I REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF MORTGAGE I TOOK BECAUSE I KNEW I WAS GOING TO PAY REAL ESTATE TAXES AND I'M ASSUMING MY DEBT. AND SO I COULDN'T HAVE MY DEBT PAYMENT TO BE
TOO HIGH WHEN I HAD MY REAL ESTATE TAXES, BECAUSE THEN I WOULDN'T HAVE A FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE TRANSACTION. 
          WHAT PERCENTAGE OF PROJECTS WOULD WE EVER SEE THAT THAT WOULD BE THE CASE? I AM LOOKING AT THREE APPLICATIONS THIS YEAR AND ALL THREE HAVE THEM. 
          LAST YEAR I GOT THREE AWARDS AND TWO OF THEM. 
          FOUR OF THEM HAVE NO. SO IT WAS THREE AWARDS OVER FOUR PROPERTIES AND 2 OR 3 OF MY
PROPERTIES HAVE THEM. 
          IT IS VERY COMMON. GOING BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS. 
          I THINK WE'VE OUR GOAL IS TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM TAKING MASSIVE EQUITY. 
          I'M TRYING TO AFTER A 15 YEAR, I'M TRYING TO DIFFERENTIATE LIKE A REIMBURSEMENT VERSUS A
CASH OUT OR EQUITY. 
          AND SO I'M CLEARLY ABLE TO SHOW THAT WE PUT THIS MONEY IN AND ARE ASKING TO BE REIMBURSED. 
          I MEAN, IN YOUR CASE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING IN A MILLION AND JUST TAKING BACK THAT
MILLION. 
          YEAH. I MEAN, WE WOULD PREFER WE DO ADD IT. YOU KNOW,
IN MY COMMENTS I ASKED FOR A MARKET RATE, INTEREST RATE TYPICALLY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE IT AT,
YOU KNOW, AFTER 5 OR 6% OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BECAUSE WE COULD TAKE THOSE FUNDS AND WE COULD INVEST IT SOMEWHERE ELSE AND WE COULD GET A
RETURN. 
          SO OUR NOTES DO HAVE INTEREST RATES. AND MY PUBLIC COMMENT,
IT WOULD BE GREAT TO BE ABLE TO PAY OURSELVES BACK, YOU KNOW, FOUR YEARS OF INTEREST, BUT NO. SORRY. 
          TIM SMITH, OAK DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GIVE MAYBE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. 
          IT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING REIMBURSED FOR CAPITAL YOU PUT IN VERSUS CASHING OUT ON
APPRECIATION OF THE PROPERTY. 
          [03:10:01]
LIKE, YOU KNOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN THE MARKET VALUE HAS GONE UP AND NOW YOU'RE CASHING OUT ON
THAT. 
          THAT'S KIND OF THE WAY WE INTERPRETED THE BOARD WAS WANTING TO STOP. 
          BUT THE WAY IT'S WORDED, SOMETIMES PEOPLE CAN INTERPRET IT WELL. 
          YOU CAN'T GET PAID BACK. AND THAT'S WHAT, YOU KNOW,
FOR MONEY YOU PUT IN OR PURSUIT COSTS, ACQUISITION COSTS. WE JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. THAT'S I MEAN,
TO ME THAT WAS NEVER THE INTENT TO PROHIBIT WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT. I THINK OF THIS AGAIN, I THINK A GOOD ANALOGY. 
          OR IS THE A CONSTRUCTION LOAN THAT GETS TAKEN OUT BY A PERMANENT LOAN? WE'RE NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T PAY OFF THE CONSTRUCTION LOAN. LET'S JUST. 
          DO YOU FEEL LIKE WHAT KIND OF LANGUAGE WOULD YOU PUT IN THERE TO CLARIFY THAT? WELL, OR IS THERE ANOTHER IS THIS A COMMENT ON THE ON THE SAME SUBJECT? EXACT SAME THING A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE? OKAY. LET'S HEAR ALL THE TWISTS ON IT
HERE TOO. 
          MY NAME IS BRAD MCMURRAY. I'M WITH PROSPERA. WE'RE A NONPROFIT HOUSING PROVIDER. 
          I DITTO TO WHAT TRACY WAS SAYING. WE'RE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. 
          BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDER SHOULD BE
EXEMPTED FROM THIS, YOU KNOW, SOME MORE LIKE THE PRAC AND ALL THESE OTHER ACRONYMS. OPRAH IS A PROGRAM THAT WAS BASICALLY CREATED BECAUSE BACK IN THE DAY,
THE PROJECT BASED SECTION EIGHT, NOBODY WANTED TO DEAL WITH IT. YOU COULDN'T TAKE MONEY OUT OF IT IF YOU WERE A FOR PROFIT
DEVELOPER. 
          AND SO THEY WERE JUST GIVEN THE KEYS BACK. SO HUD SAID,
HEY, WE'LL LET NON-PROFITS TAKE OVER. 
          AND OH, BY THE WAY, THESE LIENS THAT ARE OWED TO HUD,
IF YOU WILL COMMIT TO 50 YEARS OF AFFORDABILITY, WE'LL TURN THAT LOAN OVER TO YOU. SO WHEN WE COME IN TO REDEVELOP OUR EXISTING PORTFOLIO
THAT PROVIDES 30 BASICALLY RENT BASED ON YOUR INCOME. 
          SO NOT JUST AFFORDABLE RENT, BUT RENT BASED ON WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD TO PAY. 
          AND THEY'RE FALLING APART. AND WE GO THROUGH THE AT RISK PROGRAM. 
          WE GET PAID BACK THAT MONEY. IT'S NOT A BIG EQUITY THING. 
          IT'S NOT A BIG WINDFALL FOR US. WE PUT EVERYTHING BACK INTO OUR PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          THERE'S NO BONUS TO ME WORKING FOR THEM OR TO OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS. 
          AND SO IT'S VERY CLEAR TO ME THAT WITH WHAT YOUR INTENT THAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING,
THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO DO WHAT'S BEEN SUGGESTED FOR HOUSING AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS FOR NON-PROFITS, BY SAYING WHEN YOU HAVE A AND YOU COULD QUALIFY BASED ON AN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING NONPROFIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDER, NOT JUST A NONPROFIT THAT'S A 500 1C3, BUT IN THEIR EXEMPTION STATUS THAT THEY ACTUALLY DO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          THAT WAY, YOU'RE NOT TAKING OUT THE SOURCE OF INCOME THAT ACTUALLY ALLOWS US TO DO WHAT
WE'RE DOING. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. CAMPBELL, YOU HAVE SO IN RESPONSE TO ALL THE COMMENTS THAT
YOU'VE JUST HEARD, I THINK THAT THEY'RE VERY REASONABLE. WE DRAFTED LANGUAGE IN ADVANCE,
ANTICIPATING THOSE COMMENTS AND ANTICIPATING THAT THE BOARD MIGHT BE SYMPATHETIC TO THEM. 
          YEAH. YOU GOTTA SPEAK UP. YEAH. OKAY. ALRIGHTY. 
          SO AGAIN, WE HAD ANTICIPATED THAT THESE COMMENTS MIGHT COME. 
          AND SO WE'VE DRAFTED LANGUAGE THAT WOULD BE RESPONSIVE TO THEM BOTH TO EXEMPT HOUSING
AUTHORITIES FROM THIS CASH OUT LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO THE WAY THAT USDA FINANCE DEALS ALREADY ARE. AND THEN IN RESPONSE TO MISS FINE'S COMMENTS AND THE SUBSEQUENT COMMENTS,
WHAT WE WOULD ADD INTO THE DEFINITION OF OR WHERE WE EXPLAIN WHAT A CASH OUT IS, IS JUST LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THAT RELATED RELATED PARTY PRE-DEVELOPMENT NOTES COULD ALSO BE
REPAID AT CLOSING, WHICH I BELIEVE. ISN'T IT? WELL, IT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE THE NONPROFIT EXEMPTION. THAT IS CORRECT. BUT IT DOES NECESSARILY PRE-DEVELOPMENT. 
          SURE, SURE, SURE. COULD BE ACQUISITION COSTS. 
          THAT'S TRUE. SO WE COULD CHANGE THAT TO RELATED PARTY NOTES. 
          AND IT SOUNDS LIKE BRAD MIGHT HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. 
          AND I'LL LET I'LL LET HIM EXPLAIN TO US THE PROBLEM THERE. 
          BUT WE COULD VERY EASILY ADD THE RELATED PARTY NOTES BEING PAID AT THE CLOSING TABLE VERY
EASILY. 
          AND THE NOTES SHOULD I MEAN, YOU DON'T WANT TO CREATE AN ARTIFICIAL NOTE. 
          NOTES HAVE TO BE SUBSTANTIATED BY SOME SOME EXPENSE. 
          SURE. CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OR ACQUISITION. I'M JUST SAYING TO YOU,
IF THEY JUST SAY, WRITE A NOTE AND MANAGER'S FEE AND STUFF LIKE THAT,
THAT'S A GOOD POINT. 
          YEAH, BUT THAT DOESN'T ADDRESS THIS OTHER ISSUE. 
          SO THAT ADDRESSES HER ISSUE. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE BRAD'S MR. MCMURRAY'S PREFERRED SOLUTION HERE WOULD BE AN EXEMPTION FOR NONPROFIT HOUSING PROVIDERS
RATHER THAN PECKING OUT RELATED PARTY NOTES. AND THE CONSEQUENCE OF DOING IT THAT WAY. 
          I MEAN, I GUESS WE COULD DO BOTH, BUT THE CONSEQUENCE OF DOING IT THAT WAY WOULD BE THAT
IF A FOR PROFIT DEVELOPER HAD PUT IN SOME KIND OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE NOTE 
          [03:15:05]
OR SOME KIND OF NOTE TO TO COVER CAPITAL EXPENDITURES PRIOR TO INDICATING THE TAX CREDITS, THEY WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO BE REPAID. BRAD,
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT? CODY, I APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR CONSIDERATION. I GUESS I'M LOOKING AT THE BIG PICTURE HERE
BECAUSE, AGAIN, I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO GO GET A BIG INFLATED APPRAISAL AND THEN JUST GET A BIG
WINDFALL. 
          BUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THIS LANGUAGE TALKS ABOUT NOT AT YEAR 15,
BUT IN THE COMPETITIVE ROUND, WHICH IS GOING TO BE WHEN WE OWN A PROPERTY OR ANOTHER NONPROFIT OWNS THE PROPERTY AND
WE'RE SELLING IT INTO THE PARTNERSHIP. 
          SO THAT'S WHEN THE PRICE IS GOING TO BE ESTABLISHED. 
          THIS IS NOT LIKE A 4% WHERE YOU CAN JUST MAKE IT AS BIG AS YOU WANT TO. 
          YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO GET 2 MILLION IN CREDITS. 
          SO THERE'S NO WAY TO ARTIFICIALLY INFLATE IT AND USE UP CREDITS. 
          BUT WHAT THIS BY EXEMPTING THE NONPROFITS, ONE OF THE WAYS I DON'T THINK WE'RE EVER GOING
TO BE ABLE TO TO CREATE MORE, YOU KNOW, ABILITY TO PAY UNITS, LIKE WITH THE PROJECT BASED SECTION EIGHT OR WITH THE
PUBLIC HOUSING. 
          AND WE CAN'T MAKE IT ANY CHEAPER. IT'S VERY,
VERY DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP. 
          SO WE WANT TO PRESERVE WHAT WE HAVE. AND WE ALSO HAVE ANOTHER WAY TO PROVIDE MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH IS TO RECYCLE PEOPLE THROUGH SO THEY DON'T STAY THERE FOREVER. 
          THAT'S WHAT NONPROFITS DO FOR PROFITS. DO AN AMAZING JOB TO PROVIDE AN AFFORDABLE PLACE TO
LIVE, WHICH IS KEY. THAT'S THE BIG DIFFERENCE. BUT WE ACTUALLY GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. 
          SO WHAT'S WRONG WITH WITH HELPING THE NONPROFITS DO THIS? BY LAW, WE CAN'T JUST PUT MONEY IN OUR POCKETS. 
          WE CAN'T PAY OURSELVES A BUNCH OF EXTRA STUFF. 
          WE'RE COMPETING WITH THE FOR PROFITS THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO DONATE TO CAMPAIGNS AND
LOBBY. 
          WE CAN'T DO THAT. SO WE'RE ALL ABOUT THE SAME MISSION. 
          AND I THINK BY JUST EXCLUDING US VERY IN GENERAL,
BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT A GREAT STAFF AND THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO FOLLOW THE INTENT OF THE SHAPE, AND THEY ARE GOING TO SAY, WELL, OUR HANDS ARE TIED BECAUSE IT DOESN'T ESPECIALLY
EXCLUDE THAT TYPE OF LIEN. 
          BUT IF YOU EXCLUDE ALL NONPROFIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDERS FROM THIS,
JUST LIKE YOU DID USA, US, WHATEVER DA AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING FOR THE HOUSING AUTHORITIES. 
          WE'RE ALL IN THE SAME BOAT. I THINK WE ALL AGREE THE INTENT. 
          SURE, IS JUST TO NOT HAVE DEVELOPERS USE TAX CREDITS TO PAY FOR THEIR CASH OUT PROFIT. THE WHAT TRACY AND AUDREY AND BRAD ARE TALKING ABOUT. 
          I THINK THE OUR INTENT IS TO ALLOW THAT SORT OF. 
          REPAYMENT OF THEIR UPFRONT COSTS. CAN WE IS IT'S A BIT DIFFICULT TO WRITE THAT. I MEAN IT'S A BIT DIFFICULT TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW. 
          DO YOU WANT TO JUST STRIKE THE CASH OUT THING AND TRY AGAIN EARLY NEXT ROUND? I WANT TO I KNOW IT'S IT'S I SEE THAT TOO OFTEN. 
          SO AGAIN, YOU'RE ANY MORE ON YOUR PROPOSED LANGUAGE TWEET. 
          THAT'S NOT TOO FAR FROM THE ORIGINAL. SURE. POSTED. 
          SO WE'VE GOT THREE CONCEPTS FLOATING AROUND RIGHT NOW,
AND TWO OF THEM ARE VERY EASY. 
          AND ONE IS WE CAN GET THERE, BUT IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLEX. 
          COMPLEX. SO INCLUDING A AN EXEMPTION FOR HOUSING AUTHORITIES AND THEIR AFFILIATES. 
          SUPER EASY. INCLUDING A AN EXEMPTION FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AS BRAD IS ASKING FOR. 
          ALSO VERY EASY. THE REPAYMENT OF RELATED PARTY NOTES. 
          IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT DIALING DOWN TO CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND ACQUISITIONS WOULD BE
THE BEST WAY TO PREVENT THE CONCERN THAT MR. MARCHANT HAS SUBSTANTIATED WOULD BE SUBSTANTIATED. 
          SURE. AND I THINK THAT IF WE ADD THOSE THINGS HERE THAT ADDRESSES EVERYBODY'S CONCERNS AND
GIVES US LANGUAGE THAT WE CAN WORK WITH. 
          I'M GOOD WITH THAT. ARE YOU GUYS COUNCILWOMAN? YEAH. I MEAN, IF IT NEEDS TO BE NARROWED DOWN NEXT YEAR. 
          I MEAN, IF IT DOESN'T, IF THIS LEAVES IT TOO WIDE OPEN STILL,
THEN WE CAN NARROW IT DOWN MORE NEXT YEAR. 
          I'M COMFORTABLE WITH IT, MR. CHAIRMAN. ANY OBJECTIONS? OKAY, LET'S. FANTASTIC GO WITH THAT. WHERE'S ANOTHER SET OF COMMENTS OR NEW COMMENTS? OVER. OVER HERE. SHE STOOD UP FIRST. YEAH. SHE'S. 
          BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE. GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD MEMBERS. 
          MY NAME IS ABBY TATCO, AND I'M PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM FOR OSTA INDUSTRIES. 
          WE'RE A 9% DEVELOPER IN THE AUSTIN AND DFW REGIONS. 
          [03:20:04]
I'M SPEAKING TODAY IN REGARDS TO THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE STAFF SHIP DRAFT TO SECTION
11.302 E6. 
          THAT WOULD INCLUDE FEES PAID TO AN ORGANIZATION TO ACHIEVE A SALES TAX EXEMPTION IN THE
GENERAL CONTRACTOR FEES. 
          WE STRONGLY, WE FEEL STRONGLY THAT THE BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER STRIKING THIS LANGUAGE,
BECAUSE THE NONPROFIT FEE HAS SERVED AN INVALUABLE ROLE IN OUR ABILITY TO BOTH OPERATE AND BRING NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO FRUITION, AND ONE THAT LIES WHOLLY OUTSIDE OF FEES PAID TO
OUR CONSTRUCTION TEAM. 
          ON THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE, THE SALES TAX SAVINGS REALIZED BY A NONPROFIT GC CAN BE
SUBSTANTIAL, AND IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE WE ARE TURNING OVER EVERY ROCK TO IDENTIFY GAP FINANCING
SOURCES. 
          THIS IS ONE OF THE CREATIVE SOLUTIONS WE'VE IDENTIFIED. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, IN OUR 2024 DEALS, CONSTRUCTION COSTS WITHOUT THE NONPROFIT GC WOULD HAVE
INCREASED BY 250,400 AND $340,000, RESPECTIVELY. THIS COST SAVINGS IS SUBSTANTIAL AND ON PAR WITH MANY OF THE GAP
FINANCING SOURCES THAT WERE ALREADY EXPLORING. 
          THE GREATER ARGUMENT FOR KEEPING THESE FEES SEPARATE IS LIKELY ON THE OPERATIONAL SIDE
WITH OUR EVICTION PREVENTION PARTNER, HOMELESS HOUSING SUPPORT SERVICES ALLIANCE, WHO ALSO SERVES AS OUR NONPROFIT GC. 
          USTA HAS PARTNERED WITH HRSA TO PROVIDE PERSON CENTERED EVICTION PREVENTION PROGRAMING
THAT HAS RESULTED IN OVER $100,000 OF RENTAL ASSISTANCE BEING PROVIDED TO OUR RESIDENTS TO KEEP THEM HOUSED WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES DRYING UP,
THE NONPROFIT GC PROVIDES EVICTION PREVENTION PROGRAMING FUNDING TO THOSE WHO NEED IT MOST. WHEN I FIRST LEARNED ABOUT THE NONPROFIT GC CONCEPT,
I REMEMBER THINKING, OH, HERE'S ANOTHER WAY THAT DEVELOPERS HAVE IDENTIFIED TO GIVE AN ALREADY COMPLICATED PROCESS EVEN MORE LAYERS OF COMPLICATION. 
          BUT I SEE HOW IMPACTFUL THAT PROCESS IS ON BRINGING DOWN OUR OVERALL CONSTRUCTION BUDGET
AND REINVESTING IN OUR RESIDENTS. 
          AND I ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THAT BY STRIKING THIS SHAPE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THIS
MEANINGFUL TOOL. 
          THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS PATRICIA MURPHY. 
          I'M THE FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING SUPPORT SERVICES ALLIANCE. 
          AND ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WAS LOST IN THE SPAM FILTER. 
          AND I'M HERE TO ECHO ABBY'S REQUEST THAT YOU NOT INCLUDE THE NONPROFIT GENERAL CONTRACTOR
FEE IN THE DEFINITION OF GENERAL CONTRACTOR FEE. 
          AS ABBY SAID, HRSA HAS RECEIVED $131,000 IN GENERAL CONTRACTOR FEE,
AND THAT HAS GONE DIRECTLY. 100% OF THAT MONEY HAS GONE DIRECTLY TO PREVENTING THE EVICTION OF 69 HOUSEHOLDS
THAT ARE LIVING IN EXISTING TAX CREDIT PROPERTIES. 
          SO I DO APPLY FOR GRANTS AND I HAVE FUNDRAISERS,
BUT THIS IS THE MAIN SOURCE OF FUNDS THAT I HAVE TO RUN THIS VERY EFFECTIVE EVICTION PREVENTION PROGRAM. 
          AND I ASK THAT YOU STRIKE THAT LANGUAGE, WHICH PUTS THIS SOURCE OF FINANCING FOR US IN
JEOPARDY. 
          IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT. SO THIS MONEY IS MONEY THE STATE IS NOT GETTING AND THE CITY
IS NOT GETTING. 
          IT'S TRANSIT SYSTEMS ARE NOT GETTING. IT IS A STATE SALES TAX THAT GOES FOR A VERY
CHARITABLE PURPOSE. 
          AND IT'S COMPLETELY BLESSED BY THE COMPTROLLER AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
AS THIS IS 100% ALLOWED AND THERE IS NO STATE OR FEDERAL LAW THAT WOULD REQUIRE TDR TO INCLUDE THESE FEES IN THE DEFINITION OF
GENERAL CONTRACTOR FEE. 
          YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. AND IT'S COMPLETELY AN APPROVED WAY FOR NONPROFITS TO GET
ACCESS TO MONEY TO DO OUR MISSION WORK. 
          DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? DID I ANSWER THAT?
OKAY. 
          SO DOES THIS APPLY TO ONLY NONPROFITS OR TO ANY ORGANIZATION? NONPROFIT? YEAH. SO THE WAY THAT IT WORKS IN PRACTICE AND Y'ALL MAY ALREADY BE FAMILIAR
WITH THIS, BUT ESSENTIALLY WE'RE ABLE TO SLOT THE NONPROFIT IN AS THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR ON OUR
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ON THOSE CONTRACTS, WHICH THEN ALLOWS US AND ANY, YOU KNOW, SALES TAX THAT WE THAT OUR CONTRACTOR WOULD PAY ON
THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TO BE WAIVED. 
          AND SO THAT'S A AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, A VERY SUBSTANTIVE,
SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF AMOUNT OF SAVINGS THAT WE RECEIVE. 
          AND SO IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT, THE NONPROFIT GENERAL CONTRACTOR FEE IS WHAT WE COMPENSATE
THE NONPROFIT FOR AS, AS PART OF THAT SAVINGS. SO PART OF IT GOES TO BRING DOWN OUR CONSTRUCTION COSTS. 
          AND THEN THE OTHER PART GOES AS A FEE TO THE NONPROFIT. 
          [03:25:03]
DID YOU MEAN DO THEY ALWAYS USE A NONPROFIT? SOMETIMES THEY MIGHT USE LIKE AN HFC IN THAT
SAME GENERAL CONTRACTOR SPOT. 
          RIGHT. SO NOT NOT YOU, NOT YOU PARTICULARLY,
BUT. 
          WELL, AND SO IN IN SCENARIOS WHERE WE HAVE PARTNERED WITH AN HFC,
TYPICALLY THEY ARE GOING TO WANT THAT OPPORTUNITY TO GET THAT FEE. 
          BUT OUR PREFERENCE IS TO WORK WITH A NONPROFIT. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE ON OUR RECENT JOBS. BUT THE WAY WE'VE HAVE IT WRITTEN,
IT WOULD AFFECT PUBLIC OR NON-PROFITS THE SAME WAY, RIGHT? OH, YOU THAT FOR SURE, BECAUSE I'VE GOT THIS KIND OF AREA AND SHE'S LET'S SEE,
ANY FEES PAID TO AN ORGANIZATION TO ACHIEVE A SALES TAX EXEMPTION WILL BE INCLUDED. SO IT DOESN'T THEY'RE PARTICULARLY ASKING ABOUT NONPROFIT,
RIGHT. 
          YEAH. I WANT TO MAKE COMMENT BUT I THINK SO. OH ALREADY SIGNED IN. 
          HELLO. LAURA MYRICK CONSULTING. SO WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THIS,
IT SEEMS THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO CATCH IT ON THE COST SIDE. THEY'RE TRYING TO TO SEE WHAT IS ACTUAL
CONTRACTOR FEE. 
          AND WHEN I'M LOOKING AT A COST CERT. AND I THINK WHEN I'VE TALKED TO CPAS,
WHEN WE'RE DOING A CONCERT, THAT FEE THAT GOES TO THE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION IS CONSIDERED CONTRACTOR FEE. 
          AND THAT'S WHERE THAT'S THE BUCKET THAT THEY PUT IT IN. 
          AND I BELIEVE THAT IT'S BEEN HAPPENING MORE AND MORE IN THE LAST CONCERTS THAT I HAVE DONE
WITH TDA. 
          THEY HAVE REALLY DRILLED DOWN AND ASKED ME ABOUT THAT FEE. 
          WHERE IS THAT FEE COMING FROM? WHERE IS IT GOING? AND THE CPA IS ALWAYS PUTTING IT IN THAT CONTRACTOR PROFIT BUCKET,
BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT THAT'S WHERE IT NEEDS TO GO. AND I'M SURE EVERYBODY'S LIKE GOING TO THROW STUFF AT ME HERE PRETTY SOON. 
          BUT IT IT BUT IT IS A CONTRACTOR FEE. AND WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT A CONCERT YOU CAN'T
GENERATE CREDITS OFF OF THAT. 
          AND SO THE HAIRCUT'S GOING TO COME TO THE DEVELOPER. 
          BUT I THINK, I THINK I WOULD WANT CONFIRMATION THAT FOR SOME GENERAL CONTRACTORS WHO HAVE
ALSO CALLED ME, WE'RE NOT ASKING GENERAL CONTRACTORS TO LOWER THEIR CONTRACTING FEE TO THE AMOUNT THAT IS
BEING PAID TO THE NONPROFIT. 
          THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING. IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS BEING ADJUSTED ON THE UNDERWRITING
SIDE ONCE THE CONCERTS ARE IN, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT. THAT'S WHAT I'VE EXPERIENCED WITH THAT. 
          THAT IS WHERE THEY'RE PUTTING IT. THE CPAS ARE PUTTING IT IN THE CONTRACTOR FEE BUCKET,
AND I THINK THC IS WANTING TO SEE THAT MORE TRANSPARENTLY. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. 
          I COULD BE WRONG, BUT AND I'M SURE PEOPLE ARE NOT HAPPY WITH MY COMMENTS,
BUT I THINK THIS IS AT CONCERT AND IT'S ADJUSTMENTS THAT UNDERWRITING WILL ALSO MAKE BELOW THE LINE ON UNDERWRITING REPORTS. SO IF I'M WRONG ABOUT THAT,
GREAT. 
          I'LL SAY, OKAY, SORRY, I'LL GO BACK AND LOOK AT THIS AGAIN. 
          BUT I THINK IT IS ON THE BACK END ON A CONCERT. 
          AND I GUESS IT IS TO THE TO THE DEVELOPER, IT'S GOING TO BE THE HIT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T
GENERATE CREDITS OFF OF THIS CONTRACTOR FEE. 
          I GUESS IF I COULD GET THAT CONFIRMATION THAT THAT'S WHAT I'M THAT'S HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO
WORK, THEN I THINK THAT WOULD HELP ME. THANKS, LAURA. 
          JODY WATLEY. SURE. SO, GENERAL CONTRACTOR FEES ARE LIMITED BY THE SHAPE. 
          IT'S 14%, AND SO ANY AMOUNT THAT IS PAID TO A NONPROFIT TO ACHIEVE A SALES TAX EXEMPTION
BY HAVING THEM AS THE GC ON PAPER WOULD NECESSARILY COUNT AGAINST THAT 14%. WHEN WE WERE DOING THE UPFRONT,
IT WOULD NOT WOULD COUNT AGAINST THE 14% WITH THE LANGUAGE AS WRITTEN. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHY I'M HAVING SO MUCH TROUBLE WITH THIS MICROPHONE WHERE WE'RE ALMOST
INTIMATE AT THIS POINT. 
          SO. SO THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE SHAPE. THAT WAS THE INTENT. 
          CORRECT. AND THEY WANTED A PLACE ANYBODY WANTS TO CHANGE. 
          MYRA OR LAURA UNDERSTANDS THIS A LOT BETTER THAN I DO. 
          BUT JUST ONE THING I WANTED TO CLARIFY IS THAT THOUGH IT IS LABELED AS A FEE ESSENTIALLY,
AND AGAIN, PROBABLY UNDERSTAND THIS, BUT IF ESSENTIALLY IF WE DON'T HAVE THE NONPROFIT INVOLVED,
OUR INVOLVED. 
          OUR CONSTRUCTION COSTS ARE GOING UP. SO THIS IS NOT AN ADDED COST. 
          IT'S ESSENTIALLY REDUCING THE CONSTRUCTION BUDGET. 
          [03:30:02]
SO WHAT CAN WE DO TO ADDRESS. SURE. OR DO WE NEED TO DO. 
          I MEAN I EVEN RECOGNIZING THE CONCERN DO WE DO WE NEED TO. 
          THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY EASY ISSUE. TO GO ANY DIRECTION ON WHICH I KNOW IS NOT HELPFUL IN
YOUR DECISION MAKING. 
          AS A COMPROMISE, IF THE BOARD WAS LOOKING FOR THAT,
WHAT WE COULD DO IS REQUIRE THAT THESE FEES BE REPRESENTED IN SOFT COSTS ON THE APPLICATION, WHICH WOULD GIVE US A YEAR TO COLLECT INFORMATION AND PRESENT SOME NUMBERS TO
THE BOARD ABOUT HOW MUCH THESE FEES ACTUALLY ARE. 
          WE COULD LEAVE IT AS IT IS. I THINK, YOU KNOW,
IT'S PRETTY EASY TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT A FEE THAT YOU'RE PAYING TO SOMEBODY WHO IS ACTING AS THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR ON THE APPLICATION SHOULD COUNT TOWARDS THE GENERAL
CONTRACTOR FEE UNDERSTANDING, OF COURSE, THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN ARRANGEMENT THAT IS FINANCIALLY BENEFICIAL TO THE
DEVELOPMENTS, ALTHOUGH TO MR. MARCHANT'S POINT, IT DOES, YOU KNOW, REDUCE TAXES PAID IN THE CONSTRUCTION. 
          SO THAT IS KIND OF THE THE OTHER THING TO CONSIDER. 
          LET'S AREN'T THEY CREATING ANOTHER LEVEL OF IN THE ORGANIZATION SPECIFICALLY JUST TO AVOID
THIS TAX? THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. IT'S JUST A THIS IS A BIG PAPER SHUFFLE AND IT'S JUST TO ADJUST THE NUMBERS. SO IF WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT FINE. 
          BUT I THINK THE INTENT WAS TO ELIMINATE THAT. 
          BUT I'LL GO. SO THE DEVELOPERS ALREADY GETTING A BENEFIT BY GETTING LOWER. 
          NO TAXES ON THE WELL THEY'RE NOT PAYING TAXES. 
          SO THEY'RE GETTING THAT BENEFIT. AND THIS REQUEST IS TO HAVE US EFFECTIVELY HAVE A. 
          THE CONTRACTOR FEE OF 14% PLUS WHAT WE PAY THE NONPROFIT CORRECT WOULD BE INCLUDED INSIDE
THAT 14. WELL, I'M I THINK I'M HEARING IT SAY IT'S OVER AND ABOVE THE 14. 
          THEY'RE EXTRAPOLATING. AM I HEARING THAT WRONG? SO 2026 DRAFT RIGHT WOULD HAVE IT INCLUDED IN THE 14. 
          AND IT'S CORRECT. 2025 IT'S NOT INCLUDED. THEY'RE ASKING FOR IT NOT TO BE INCLUDED. 
          SO I THINK WE LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS. RECOGNIZING YOU'RE ALREADY GETTING THE BENEFIT OF
THE TAX EXEMPTION. PATRICIA MURPHY AGAIN. SO, YOU KNOW,
AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR BOARD BOOK WHERE YOU HAVE THE PROGRAMMATIC IMPACT. 
          THINK OF IT THIS WAY, AN IMPACT OF THIS STRUCTURE IN HOUSING TAX CREDIT DEAL WITHIN THE
LAST YEAR HAS INCREASED THE EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE BY $131,000 AND 69 HOUSEHOLDS. 
          THIS IS A SECONDARY IMPACT FROM THE HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN
JEOPARDY. 
          NOW, THESE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT FUNDS FOR US NONPROFITS,
AND IT'S COMPLETELY ALLOWABLE BY THE COMPTROLLER AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. 
          AND I ASK YOU NOT TO PUT THIS SOURCE OF FUNDING IN RISK. 
          THANK YOU. GET A LAWYER HERE. MICHELLE SNOWDEN WITH SHACKLEFORD. 
          I WAS NOT PLANNING ON SPEAKING, BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY ONE THING THAT JUST CAME UP
WHEN THE SALES TAX EXEMPTION IS BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF WITH A NONPROFIT, THAT THE OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE DOES NOT HAVE TO CHANGE. 
          SOMETIMES A NONPROFIT MIGHT BE IN THE OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE,
AND THEN THEY'RE USED AS THE GC, SEE, BUT A LOT OF THE TIME, A NONPROFIT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OWNERSHIP,
BUT ITS SOLE MISSION IS TO BUILD AND CONSTRUCT AND DEVELOP AFFORDABLE HOUSING WILL BE USED JUST AS THE GC IN THE DEAL. AND THEN A LOT OF THE TIMES THAT FEE,
WHICH IS USUALLY 20 OR 25% OF THE SAVINGS, THEY LITERALLY PUT STRAIGHT BACK INTO THAT PROJECT IN SERVICES. 
          SO IT DOESN'T ALWAYS THE THE GC NONPROFIT IS NOT ALWAYS IN THE OWNERSHIP OWNERSHIP
STRUCTURE. 
          I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. IN FACT, THAT'S WHAT THE POINT I WAS MAKING THAT THEY'RE
NOT IN THE OWNERSHIP, THEY'RE SIMPLY INSERTED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS SALES TAX EXEMPTION. 
          THAT'S CORRECT, BECAUSE IT DOES BENEFIT THE PROJECT. BUT IT ALSO IT'S ALSO THEIR MISSION
TO PUT MONEY BACK INTO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT'S DOING. IT'S NOT THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY A NONPROFIT. 
          LIKE WE HAVE DEALS WHERE IT GOES STRAIGHT BACK INTO THAT PROJECT FOR THE TENANTS. 
          NOT TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE, BUT THAT'S AN EXTRAPOLATION OF OF THE OF WHAT Y'ALL ARE BRINGING
UP THE THE BENEFIT OF THAT EXTRAPOLATION. THE ORIGINAL SHAPE WAS JUST TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE DEVELOPER. 
          OKAY, SO I'M HEARING THE BOARD. LEANING TOWARDS LEAVING IT AS AS IS AS 
          [03:35:04]
PROPOSED. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO LEAVING IT FROM A BOARD MEMBER? AND I GUESS THAT'S CONROY OR. IF YOU HAVE NO OPINION,
THAT'S FINE. 
          I'M. I'M READY TO VOTE. THERE'S NO VOTE. YEAH. 
          THAT'S NOT READY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANOTHER TOPIC ON THE SHAPE THAT SOMEONE WANTS
TO TALK ABOUT? I ALMOST HESITATE TO COME FORWARD AND. 
          BUT GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ANNE LORD. I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INCLUSIVE
COMMUNITIES PROJECT IN DALLAS, TEXAS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO SECTION 11.97 OF THE SHAPE
THAT WOULD MAKE OPPORTUNITY ZONES A NEW SCORING ITEM. THE INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES PROJECT SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT'S EFFORTS TO STIMULATE
ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE MOST DISTRESSED COMMUNITIES IN TEXAS. AND HOUSING IS CERTAINLY AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT THAT
ATTRACTS THIS KIND OF ECONOMIC INVESTMENT. 
          HOWEVER, WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT ECONOMIC ANY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT APPROACH THAT LEADS WITH
LIHTC HOUSING. 
          IF THE LOCATION IS IN AN EXTREMELY IMPOVERISHED COMMUNITIES. 
          AND WE'RE CONCERNED BECAUSE HISTORY HAS SHOWN US THAT IMPOVERISHED AREAS WITH LARGE
CONCENTRATIONS OF LOW INCOME FAMILIES DO NOT ATTRACT THE KIND OF INVESTMENT THAT YOU'RE ENVISIONING. 
          THERE'S THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT IN THE SHAPE THAT THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS BE IN A CONCERTED REVITALIZATION PLAN. 
          AND EVEN THE IRS RECOGNIZES THAT WHEN YOU PUT A LETECH UNIT IN A HIGHER POVERTY AREA,
IT NEEDS TO BE A CONCERTED PLAN THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT AND ENSURE SOME LEVEL OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. 
          I THINK WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT OPPORTUNITY ZONES WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY ATTRACT
OPPORTUNITY FUNDS. 
          THE FLOW OF INVESTMENT INTO THESE OPPORTUNITY ZONES IS SOLELY DEPENDENT ON THE INVESTORS
WILLINGNESS TO COMMIT THE FUNDS. AND HERETOFORE, WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS THAT INVESTORS INTERESTED IN OPPORTUNITY ZONES
DON'T INVEST IN HIGH POVERTY AREAS. 
          THEY INVEST IN AREAS THAT ARE EXPERIENCING GENTRIFICATION. 
          SO WE ARE REALLY CONCERNED THAT HISTORY MAY REPEAT ITSELF,
BECAUSE YOU MAY END UP WITH HIGH TECH HOUSING THAT IS SITUATED IN THE MOST IMPOVERISHED AREAS, AND THERE WILL BE NO INVESTMENT THAT FOLLOWS THIS HOUSING. 
          AND SO WE JUST WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD WOULD JUST STRIKE THIS PROVISION OF
THE SHAPE, BECAUSE OVER 50% OF THE OPPORTUNITY ZONES IN TEXAS ARE LOCATED IN AREAS WITH VERY LOW
AMIS. 
          NOW, I KNOW AS SOON AS I SAY THIS, THERE'S GOING TO BE A WHOLE LINE OF DEVELOPERS BEHIND
ME TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU THAT THIS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA AT THIS POINT IN THE GAME, AND I MAY NOT GET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH YOU. 
          BUT THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT. AND SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS TYPE OF PLAN
AND STRATEGY, I WOULD URGE YOU TO MONITOR THE SOCIAL IMPACT THAT THE LATEX APPROVED AND OPPORTUNITY
ZONES WILL BRING. 
          MONITOR THE NUMBER OF JOBS THAT ARE ACTUALLY CREATED,
NOT THE NUMBER OF JOBS PROMISED, BUT THE NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED. 
          MONITOR WHAT OTHER INVESTMENTS FOLLOW IN THIS COMMUNITY AND IF IT DOESN'T,
YIELD THE RESULTS THAT YOU ANTICIPATE. 
          MODIFY THE RULE BEFORE YOUR WELL-INTENTIONED PLAN JUST CREATES MORE SEGREGATED COMMUNITIES
IN THE MOST VULNERABLE AREAS IN TEXAS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LISTENING TO ME. 
          THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ERIN HAHN WITH TEXAS HOUSERS. 
          AND I AM HERE TO FOLLOW UP LIP ON ANN'S COMMENTS AND SIMILARLY EXPRESS OUR CONCERN AND
OPPOSITION TO THE OPPORTUNITY ZONE CHANGE. 
          IN ADDITION TO THE SHAPE INSERTING OPPORTUNITY ZONES AS A FULL ALTERNATIVE TO THE
CONCERTED REVITALIZATION PLAN OPTION UPENDS THE BALANCE BETWEEN OR THAT HAS EXISTED BETWEEN THE OPPORTUNITY INDEX AND THE REVITALIZATION PLAN
PATHWAYS. 
          IT CREATES A NEW LOWEST BARRIER ROUTE TO EARN THE FULL SEVEN POINTS ONE THAT LACKS,
LIKE ANN HAS SAID, THE GUARDRAILS THAT WERE BUILT INTO THE SHAPE OVER THE PAST TWO DECADES TO PREVENT
CONCENTRATING DEVELOPMENTS IN HIGH POVERTY AREAS. 
          [03:40:04]
HERE'S WHAT THIS CHANGE WILL MEAN IN PRACTICE. 
          MORE TAX CREDIT PROPERTIES WILL BE LOCATED IN CENSUS TRACTS IN THE LOWEST QUARTILE BY
INCOME. 
          ABOUT HALF OF ALL OPPORTUNITY ZONES IN TEXAS FALL INTO THAT QUARTILE. 
          SECOND, BECAUSE IT'S EASIER TO FIND A PROPERTY IN AN OPPORTUNITY ZONE THAN IN A LOW INCOME
TRACT WITH A REVITALIZATION PLAN. 
          THIS CHANGE REMOVES INCENTIVES FOR FOR DEVELOPERS TO MAKE SURE PROJECTS IN LOW INCOME
AREAS ARE PART OF THAT LARGER REVITALIZATION EFFORTS. 
          HOUSING TAX CREDIT DEVELOPMENTS IN HIGH POVERTY AREAS SHOULDN'T RECEIVE FULL POINTS
WITHOUT THAT PLAN IN PLACE THAT OUTLINES REAL, MEANINGFUL REVITALIZATION. IF THE HIGH TECH DEVELOPMENT IS THE ONLY INVESTMENT THAT'S
HAPPENING, WE RETURN TO THIS OLD PATTERN OF CONCENTRATING DEVELOPMENTS IN DISTRESSED NEIGHBORHOODS
WITH NO PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENT. 
          AND LASTLY, ESPECIALLY IN SOME RURAL AREAS, OPPORTUNITY ZONES SOME OPPORTUNITY ZONES WERE
DESIGNATED TO ATTRACT BROADER ECONOMIC INVESTMENT, BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS HOUSING NEEDS. 
          SO HOUSING TAX CREDIT DEVELOPMENTS WON'T BE APPROPRIATE IN EVERY OPPORTUNITY ZONE BY
INCENTIVIZING DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY ZONES WITHOUT REQUIRING THAT REVITALIZATION PLAN ASPECT. WE RISK DEVELOPMENTS IN ISOLATED AREAS,
PROJECTS WITHOUT COMPLEMENTARY INVESTMENT OR INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          SO IN SOME CASES, THIS COULD MEAN BIOTECH DEVELOPMENTS NEAR AI DATA CENTERS,
FAR FROM JOBS, SERVICES, AMENITIES. WE BELIEVE THIS IS A STEP BACKWARD FROM THE PROGRESS THE AGENCY HAS
MADE SINCE ICP VERSUS TDCA, AND ALSO WASN'T A CHANGE THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN ROUNDTABLES OR CONSIDERED IN PRELIMINARY
DISCUSSIONS. 
          BUT ADDED WITH NO WRITTEN PROPOSAL FOR STAKEHOLDERS TO REVIEW OR COMMENT ON UNTIL THAT
FEEDBACK WAS TOO LATE. 
          WE BELIEVE THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE THAT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED WITH STAKEHOLDERS FROM
ALL ANGLES. 
          AND SO WE WOULD ALSO URGE THE BOARD TO REMOVE THE OPPORTUNITY ZONES FROM THE SHAPE UNTIL
THIS ISSUE CAN BE FULLY EXPLORED AND VETTED. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. OKAY. THANK YOU MISS. 
          OKAY. CAN I ASK THE LAST LADY THAT SPOKE? YES. 
          WHERE WHERE DOES THAT INFORMATION COMING FROM? WRONG. I MEAN, I'VE NEVER HEARD THAT THEORY BEFORE AT ALL. 
          OPPORTUNITY ZONES WERE JUST A ADDITION TO THE SCORING. 
          I MEAN, IT WAS NOT. OPPORTUNITY ZONES, SIMILAR TO QUALIFIED CENSUS TRACTS ARE AREAS THAT
HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED AS OPPORTUNITY ZONES. 
          I MEAN, BUT I'VE NEVER INTERPRETED OPPORTUNITY ZONES TO BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN PLUS
ADDITIONS, ETC.. WELL, WHOEVER WROTE THAT THAT YOU JUST READ OBVIOUSLY HAS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
VIEW OF OPPORTUNITY ZONES. WELL, THEY'RE LOW INCOME,
HIGH POVERTY AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN EARMARKED BY THE GOVERNOR FOR NEEDING INVESTMENT, BUT THERE'S NO PLAN THAT GUARANTEES THAT INVESTMENT WILL WILL COME. 
          SO WE SHOULD ABANDON THOSE AREAS ALTOGETHER. NO,
NO. 
          OUR SUGGESTION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO LANGUAGE WAS TO AWARD THE SEVEN POINTS. 
          IF THERE IN AN OPPORTUNITY ZONE WITH A REVITALIZATION PLAN. 
          YEAH. WE DON'T THINK WE SHOULD CRP PERIOD. I MEAN,
DON'T IF THERE HAPPENS TO BE AN OVERLAPPING OPPORTUNITY ZONE. 
          YEAH. THIS CHANGE WOULD CREATE A THIRD LOWER BARRIER AVENUE FROM GOING THE OPPORTUNITY
INDEX ROUTE OR THE CONVERTED REVITALIZATION PLAN ROUTE WITH A LOWER BARRIER TO ENTRY. IT'S GOING TO BE EASIER TO FIND A DEVELOPMENT AND OPPORTUNITY ZONE THAN
A DEVELOPMENT IN A LOW INCOME TRACT WITH A REVITALIZATION PLAN. 
          AND SO WE'RE GOING TO BE GIVING AWAY THE SEVEN POINTS TO. 
          BUT THAT IS A THEORY, RIGHT, THAT SOMEBODY COME UP WITH OR IS THAT PROVEN? THAT'S JUST A YOU'RE JUST THAT'S YOUR THEORY,
RIGHT? THAT THAT'S BASED ON THE DEFINITIONS OF, OF OPPORTUNITY ZONES. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE BELIEVE WILL HAPPEN IF WE OPEN UP AN AVENUE FOR GIVING AWAY THESE POINTS. 
          THAT'S THAT'S. NEVER HEARD IT. IN FACT, I DON'T IT'S NOT A THEORY. 
          IT'S NOT A THEORY. IT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY. 
          BALTIMORE, FOR INSTANCE, YOU HAVE THE MOST IMPOVERISHED COMMUNITIES WHERE YOU HAVE
NON-PROFITS THAT HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THE GROUND FOR MANY, MANY YEARS DESIGNATED AN OPPORTUNITY ZONE, BUT THEY ARE NOT GETTING ANY OF THE FUNDS FOR
THEIR AREA BECAUSE THEIR AREA IS JUST TOO POOR. 
          WHERE THE FUNDS ARE GOING IS TO THOSE CENSUS TRACTS THAT MAYBE HOVER AT 20%,
BUT NOT CENSUS TRACTS THAT ARE HOVERING AT 40%. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING. DON'T ABANDON THE AREA. 
          BUT CAN YOU ENSURE THAT THERE IS A PLAN IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE
INVESTMENT THAT FOLLOWS THE PRETTY HOUSES THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT ON THE GROUND? 
          [03:45:06]
THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING. OTHERWISE, YOU'RE JUST CONCENTRATING POVERTY AGAIN AND
EXACERBATING THE PROBLEM. 
          BOBBY MEYER. I'M WITH ARTS CONSULTING. AS MOST OF Y'ALL KNOW,
I HAVE MY FOOT IN MANY THINGS. 
          I AM A MEMBER AND PRESIDENT OF RURAL RENTAL HOUSING. 
          I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF TAP, AND I'M A SPONSOR AND SUPPORTER OF TORFA. 
          I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT TOPICS TODAY. 
          AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF ARCS, BUT I'M ALSO SPEAKING ON TOPICS THAT WILL AFFECT MANY
OF THE MEMBERS OF THE AFFILIATIONS THAT I HAVE. 
          I'D LIKE TO FIRST BRING UP THE TOPIC THAT WE JUST ENDED ON THE OPPORTUNITY ZONES. 
          AND I'M NOT GOING TO TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH MISS LOTTE. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT DOWN WITH THEM AND LOOK AT EXACTLY WHAT
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          AND THE OPPORTUNITY ZONES AS A WHOLE, JUST AS THE AUSTIN AREA. 
          AND I'LL JUST GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. JUST IN THE IMMEDIATE AUSTIN AREA,
THERE ARE 30 TRACKS CENSUS TRACKS THAT ARE IN OPPORTUNITY ZONES, ONLY 20% OF THOSE. AND IT'S THERE'S 36 OF THOSE TRACKS ARE ABOVE THE 20% POVERTY RATE. 
          ALL OF THE OTHER ONES ARE BELOW 20% POVERTY. AND SEVERAL OF THOSE ARE IN FIRST AND SECOND
QUARTILE INCOMES. 
          SO I DON'T DISAGREE TOTALLY. BUT I ALSO DON'T AGREE. 
          AND TO SAY YOU CAN ONLY DO OPPORTUNITY ZONES IN OVERLAPPING CRP'S IS KIND OF NEGATING THE
WHOLE CRP ISSUE. 
          SO I'D LIKE TO LEAVE IT IN FOR 2026 AND LET'S DISCUSS IT. 
          AND I'LL BE GLAD TO SIT DOWN WITH ALL OF THE ADVOCATES. 
          MY MAIN ISSUE TODAY IS TO TALK ABOUT THE STRIKING OF SPONSOR CHARACTERISTICS AND OF THE
HUB PARTICIPATION. 
          I UNDERSTAND THE DEPARTMENT'S DECISION OF OF STRIKING THAT AND I GET THAT BUT IN ALL
FAIRNESS TO THE WHOLE POINT CHARACTERISTICS SPONSOR CHARACTERISTICS,
IF YOU'RE GOING TO STRIKE ONE PORTION OF IT AT THIS POINT IN THE GAME WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON SPONSOR CHARACTERISTICS THIS YEAR IN THE HUB SECTION EXPANDING THE
NONPROFIT PORTION TO ADD HOUSING AUTHORITIES AND HFCS. 
          AND THEN WE ALSO ADDED THE TAX EXEMPTION PIECE. 
          SO TO ONLY STRIKE ONE LITTLE PIECE OF IT SEEMS UNFAIR TO EVERYTHING ELSE. 
          SO MY SUGGESTION IS TO STRIKE THE WHOLE, WELL,
NOT STRIKE IT, BUT PAUSE THE WHOLE POINT ITEM SO THAT IN FAIRNESS TO ALL OF THEM HUBS AS WELL AS NONPROFITS, AND AS WELL AS ANYBODY THAT WAS GOING TO SIGN THEIR LIFE AWAY
ON. 
          I'M NOT GOING TO EXIT A REQUEST, A TAX EXEMPTION. 
          EVERYTHING PAUSES FOR 2026. LET'S LET THE DUST SETTLE. 
          AND AND GET EVERYTHING TOGETHER BEFORE WE JUST STRIKE A SECTION THAT HAS SPENT A LOT OF
TIME THIS YEAR TO DO THAT. 
          AND THAT'S THE BIGGEST PART. ONE ONE LAST LITTLE THING ON THE PREVIOUS THING WHERE YOU
WERE TALKING ABOUT THE COSTS FOR CONTRACTOR FEES AND ON SOFT COSTS. I AGREE WITH ABBY. 
          I'D RATHER JUST STRIKE THAT AND HAVE A MORE ROBUST CONVERSATION ABOUT BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS. JUST WITH THE CONVERSATION THAT WAS HERE TODAY,
THOSE THINGS WEREN'T BROUGHT UP IN OTHER CONVERSATION. 
          I'D RATHER JUST HAVE MORE CONVERSATION. AND LET'S GET TO WHERE WE CAN MEET THE
DEPARTMENT'S GOAL FOR THAT FOR BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS. THANKS, ROBBIE. BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO OTHER TOPICS. 
          SO. OPPORTUNITY ZONES, UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON OPPORTUNITY ZONES ALSO. 
          OKAY. HERE TO CONSENSUS RECOGNIZING THE CONCERN,
BUT LEAVING IT AS. 
          AS PRESENTED RIGHT NOW. I THINK IT'S A COMPLETE MISINTERPRETATION,
BUT OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. SO. YES. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. SARAH ANDERSON AS ANDERSON CONSULTING. 
          I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY ZONE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN
BROUGHT UP. 
          I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE ALREADY GUARDRAILS IN PLACE TO PROTECT. 
          [03:50:03]
IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GOING TO HIGH, THE FEAR OF US GOING TO HIGH POVERTY AREAS,
WE ALREADY HAVE A REQUIREMENT. 
          IF YOU'RE OVER A CERTAIN POVERTY, THAT YOU HAVE TO GET A LOCAL RESOLUTION TO ALLOW US TO
GO THERE. 
          I WOULD ALSO SAY IN REALITY, WE'VE ALREADY SCORED MAYBE 100 SITES THIS YEAR. 
          VERY FEW OF THEM ARE MAKING ITS WAY DOWN TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY ZONE. 
          AND OF THOSE, VERY FEW ARE ACTUALLY OF INTEREST BECAUSE EVERYTHING'S BEING DRIVEN BY THE
TIEBREAKER. 
          AND THE TIEBREAKER IS PREDICATED ON YOUR DISTANCE TO SCHOOLS,
LIBRARIES AND OTHER AMENITIES THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. 
          THESE OPPORTUNITY ZONES ARE JUST NOT COMPETITIVE IF THEY DON'T HAVE THOSE THINGS IN PLACE
ALREADY. 
          SO THE FEAR OF US GOING TO SOME PLACE WHERE NOTHING'S BEEN BUILT AND THERE'S HIGH POVERTY, JUST I DON'T SEE BEING BORNE OUT BY THE REALITIES OF THE OTHER PARTS OF THE SHAPE. 
          NOW, I WOULD AGREE THAT IF THERE'S A CONCERN,
THEN LET'S WATCH IT. 
          LET'S DO A REPORT NEXT YEAR. LET'S TAKE A LOOK. 
          LET'S LOOK AT THE LIST WHEN WE'RE GETTING READY TO AWARD AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING. BUT
RIGHT NOW I DON'T SEE ANY ANY PROBLEM. 
          I WOULD ALSO SAY WE'RE SORT OF EXCITED AT THE CONCEPT OF THE OPPORTUNITY ZONE,
JUST BECAUSE OF THE ADDITIONAL CAPITAL THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO BRING IN, OR INVESTMENTS OR BANKS BEING INTERESTED IN THOSE AREAS THAT WE JUST HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IN THE PAST. 
          SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING. AND WE SHOULD BE LET'S LEAVE IT IN,
TEST IT, SEE HOW IT WORKS OUT. 
          BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM FOR WHAT WE'VE SEEN,
SO. 
          OKAY. THANKS. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, JONATHAN CAMPBELL WITH LCG DEVELOPMENT. AND I'M HERE TO TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF LEAVING OPPORTUNITIES. 
          CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME? I'M PROBABLY SUFFERING FROM ALSO JUST I THINK WE'VE ALREADY
DETERMINED WE'RE LEAVING THE LANGUAGE AS PROPOSED IN FOR OPPORTUNITIES. AND I WOULD PUT SOMETHING ELSE I WOULD I WOULD
PUT FORWARD AN IDEA TO STUDY THIS CONCEPT OVER TIME. I HAVE A STRONG SUSPICION THAT PROJECTS THAT ARE DELIVERED IN OPPORTUNITY ZONES ARE
GOING TO BE LARGER IN TERMS OF UNIT COUNT, AND I SUSPECT THAT LAND PRICES AND OPPORTUNITY ZONES ARE GOING TO BE LESS EXPENSIVE,
AND THAT SAVINGS IS GOING TO GO INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET PROJECTS WITH MORE UNITS AND MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE. 
          THAT'S JUST MY IDEA TO STUDY THAT OVER TIME. OKAY. 
          THANKS, JONATHAN. AND I THINK WE SHOULD ASSURE EVERYONE WE AGREE WE'RE GOING TO MONITOR
AND SEE HOW THIS RESULT GOES. AND REMEMBER, THE WHOLE REASON FOR OPPORTUNITY ZONE OR DESIGNATING THEM IS TO
TRY TO ATTRACT MORE, GIVE INCENTIVE TO ATTRACT MORE INVESTMENT. IT'S PERMANENT NOW,
RIGHT? I THINK SO. 
          ALL THOSE PEOPLE IN THERE? YEAH. SO LET'S KEEP A CLOSE EYE ON IT. 
          BUT. DOES MR. ARRIAGA HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY? WHO DO YOU REPRESENT? OKAY. MR. CHAIRMAN, BOARD MEMBERS. MR. WILKINSON,
I'M ROGER ARRIAGA, WITH THE TEXAS AFFILIATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDERS. 
          I HAVE A COUPLE OF BRIEF COMMENTS, AND THIS IS RELATING TO THE HUB ITEM. 
          WE'RE NOT NOT THE OPPORTUNITY ZONE ITEM. FIRST TAP DOES SUPPORT THE PERSPECTIVE OF OUR
COLLEAGUES LIKE ROBBIE, JUST REPRESENTED WITH RURAL RENTAL AND SEVERAL OF THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT WE BOTH
PARTICIPATE IN, PARTICULARLY WHERE THE HUB PARTICIPATION COMES INTO PLAY WHILE RESPONSIBLE FOR CERTIFYING
HUBS. 
          THE ACTION BY THE CONTROLLER KIND OF PRESUMES LEGISLATION BECAUSE IT IS IN STATE LAW THAT
THEY OPERATE THIS PROGRAM. 
          SO IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S PRESUMING WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. 
          LIKE, WE FULLY THINK IT'S LIKELY GOING TO HAPPEN. 
          IT'LL BE ALL PUT THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. 
          BUT THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IS LONG AND ARDUOUS,
AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S ULTIMATELY GOING TO HAPPEN. 
          AND AS MR. MARCHAND SAID EARLIER, THERE'S OTHER KIND OF VARIABLES IN THE MIX. 
          AND SO, AS ROBBIE HAD STATED, WE ARE SUPPORTING THE CONCEPT OF A PAUSE OF THE SPONSOR
CHARACTERISTICS SECTION RATHER THAN A REMOVAL OF ONE PIECE OF IT. 
          MOSTLY FOR FAIRNESS, BUT ALSO BECAUSE OF THE REAL TIME IMPACTS. 
          FURTHER, A PAUSE OF THE ENTIRE ITEM WOULD PRESERVE THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE AND ALLOW MORE
TIME FOR THE FOR CLARIFICATION, WHICH ALLOWS US, AS AN INDUSTRY, A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO DIGEST THE IMPACTS OF THE
ACTION AND HOW WE MIGHT MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS INTO THE FUTURE. 
          NOW, IN IN ADDITION TO THAT, I JUST GOT OFF OF A PHONE CALL BECAUSE MY COMPLIANCE
COMMITTEE THAT WORKS ON EVERYTHING ON THE POST SIDE OF THINGS IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, NOT KNOWING ANYTHING MORE THAN THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE
COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE. 
          [03:55:04]
WE HAVE CONCERNS THAT IT IS AS MUCH ABOUT COMPLIANCE AS THE SHAPE,
AND MOSTLY BECAUSE EXISTING OWNERS WILL HAVE COMPLIANCE ISSUES WHERE HUBS AND LURES ARE CONCERNED. SO EVEN THOUGH WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE SHAPE IS NOT THE SAME AS
COMPLIANCE, WE HOPE THAT THE AGENCY WILL CERTAINLY CONSIDER SOME ACTION OR SOME CLARIFICATION ABOUT
HOW COMPLIANCE WILL BE DEALT WITH ON EXISTING DEALS THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLAY, NOT NOT THE PROSPECTIVE ONES MOVING FORWARD. SO THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF MY COMMENT. 
          BUT I DO WANT TO TAKE JUST A MINUTE TO THANK STAFF. 
          WE KNOW YOU PUT YEOMAN'S WORK INTO THIS. YOU TAKE ALL THE TIME TO TAKE ALL THESE COMMENTS, AND WE DO APPRECIATE THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF OUR COMMENTS THROUGHOUT THIS
ENTIRE PROCESS. 
          THANK YOU. THAT IS MY COMMENT. THANKS. THANKS,
ROGER. 
          AND I THINK I CAN SPEAK FOR THE DEPARTMENT IN THAT. 
          IF RULES AND REGULATIONS CHANGE TO WHERE THERE ARE NO HUBS OR THERE'S NO CERTIFICATION,
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO AMEND OUR OUR RULES OR TO REFLECT THAT REALITY. 
          ABSOLUTELY. THE CASE WE DO RECOGNIZE EXISTING DEALS HAVE CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS THAT
EXPIRE, WHICH IF THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO GET. EXACTLY, WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT
ABSOLUTELY. 
          IS THE CONTROLLER THE ONLY AUTHORITY THAT CAN ISSUE A HUB DESIGNATION? DON'T THE COGS DO THAT? DON'T COGS ALL DO THAT? ISN'T THAT ONE OF THE BIG AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED,
I THINK CITIES MIGHT HAVE THEIR OWN PROCESS. 
          THERE ARE SOME LOCAL CERTIFICATIONS. YOU KNOW,
CITY OF HOUSTON, YOU CAN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS OR TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS ISSUES THEM. SO I MEAN, MY FEAR IS THAT IT'S A STATE DESIGNATION. 
          GOTCHA. THAT WE REFER TO OKAY. THANK YOU. YEP. 
          MCMURRAY. HELLO. BRAD MCMURRAY WITH PROSPERA. 
          WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO ROGER AND TO THE TEXAS AFFILIATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDER, OF WHICH I'M A BOARD MEMBER. I HAVE TO I HAVE TO DISAGREE. 
          AND THE REASON IS I'LL BE VERY TRANSPARENT. IT'S ABOUT,
AGAIN, THE SAME STORY OF OF NON-PROFITS. 
          NOW, I'M CERTAINLY OPEN TO THE IDEA THAT YOU DON'T STRIKE THE LANGUAGE FOR THE HUBS,
IF THAT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT DEAL, BUT I DON'T SEE A SOLUTION AS PUTTING A PAUSE ON THE ENTIRE SCORING ITEM. 
          AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE NON-PROFITS WERE GIVEN THOSE THOSE POINTS BEFORE HUBS. 
          HUBS WERE AFTER WERE ADDED AFTERWARDS. YOU'VE ADDED TWO MORE CATEGORIES THIS YEAR. 
          SO IT'S A IT'S A CHANGING THING OVER TIME. IT'S BEEN IN PLACE FOR A LONG TIME. 
          BUT SELFISHLY WE HAVE ARE WORKING WITH FOR PROFIT DEVELOPERS AND THE ONLY REASON THEY'RE
WILLING TO WORK WITH US AND NOT PAY US A FEE, BUT TO SHARE IN THE DEVELOPER FEE TO ADVANCE OUR EFFORTS,
WHICH AGAIN, I THINK WE'RE ALIGNED ON THOSE IS BECAUSE OF THOSE TWO POINTS. 
          IF YOU PUT A PAUSE ON THAT WHOLE CATEGORY, THERE'S NO REASON TO WORK WITH US. 
          I DON'T THINK YOU MEAN US BEING A NONPROFIT. CORRECT. 
          OKAY. I DON'T THINK WE'VE. WELL, WELL, I'M JUST REBUTTING THE IDEA THAT YOU PUT A PAUSE ON
THE WHOLE SCORING CRITERIA. 
          I THINK THE HUB IS SPECIFICALLY TOWARDS HUBS THAT THAT I MISUNDERSTOOD. 
          SO IT DIDN'T CARRY AS MUCH WEIGHT AS I THOUGHT IT WOULD. SO I APPRECIATE IT. OKAY. 
          HURRY, HURRY. JUST. THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          THIS IS ABOUT TO BE THE EASIEST LIST OF CHANGES I THINK I'VE DONE SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE. 
          AND TALK FASTER. OKAY. AND SPEAK UP, SPEAK UP,
SPEAK UP. 
          SO THE THE PRIOR TO PUBLISHING THE THE CHANGES THAT STAFF AS WE UNDERSTAND WILL NEED TO
MAKE ARE FOR THE CASH OUT SPECIFICALLY WE WILL EXEMPT NONPROFITS, WE WILL EXEMPT HOUSING AUTHORITIES AND THEIR AFFILIATES,
AND WE WILL ALLOW FOR THE REPAYMENT OF RELATED PARTY NOTES FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND ACQUISITION COSTS. AND THEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE VERY BEGINNING,
UNDER THE INELIGIBILITY FOR A SINGLE DEVELOPER HAVING ONE DEVELOPMENT WITH MULTIPLE FORCE MAJEURES, WE WILL MOVE BACK THAT REQUALIFICATION DATE FROM THE JULY BOARD MEETING TO THE
MAY BOARD MEETING TO ALLOW FOR ANY APPEALS TO BE HEARD. 
          THAT'S IT. CHAIRMAN, ARE YOU READY FOR A MOTION? YES, I AM, MR. MARCHANT. WOULD YOU CARE TO BOARD APPROVED THE REPEAL OF TEN TAC CHAPTER 11
AND APPROVE THE ADOPTION OF THE NEW TEN TAC CHAPTER 11 AS PRESENTED AT THIS MEETING, INCLUDING THE CHANGES NOTED DURING THE PRESENTATION
SPECIFICALLY REFERENCE ANY CHANGES MADE TO LANGUAGE THAT DIFFERS FROM. DIFFERS FROM POSTED VERSIONS OF THE RULE. 
          THESE BOTH HAVE ASTERISKS BY THEM. THAT MEANS WHATEVER HE JUST SAID TO BE DELIVERED TO THE
GOVERNOR NO LATER THAN NOVEMBER 15TH, 
          [04:00:06]
2025 FOR HIS REVIEW, REVISION AND APPROVAL, AND THEREAFTER BE PUBLISHED IN THE TEXAS
REGISTER FOR ADOPTION, ALL AS AUTHORIZED, EXPRESSED, AND SUBJECTED,
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS BOARD ACTION REQUEST. 
          ON THIS ITEM I. SECOND MOTION. I'LL GIVE THE MOTION TO MISS CONROY. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. LET'S GET THIS TO THE GOVERNOR. 
          GREAT SHOW. OH, YOU'RE STILL HERE? YES. ALL RIGHT,
MOVING ON TO ITEM 32 OF THE AGENDA. 
          THE REST OF THIS SHOULD GO FASTER, RIGHT? PRESENTATION,
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR RETURN AND REALLOCATION OF TAX CREDITS UNDER TEN TAX. SECTION 11.65 RELATED RELATED TO CREDIT RETURNS RESULTING FROM FORCE
MAJEURE EVENTS FOR FREEDOM'S PATH AT KERRVILLE. 
          THANK YOU, MR. VAZQUEZ. AND TO SAVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF READING HERE IN JUST A MINUTE. 
          ITEM 34. SO NOT THIS ONE, BUT THE ITEM TWO ITEMS FROM NOW HAS BEEN PULLED AND WILL BE
COMING BACK TO A LATER MEETING. 
          SO THAT'S 34 FOR SHERRY POINT, BUT ON 30 SALON. 
          TWO. CORRECT. 30. I'M SORRY. 32 3234 IS PULLED. 
          YES. THAT SHOULD BE THE ONE FOR SHERRY POINT. 
          AND WE ARE ON 32, WHICH IS ABOUT FREEDOM'S PATH AT KERRVILLE. 
          THESE NEXT COUPLE SHOULD BE VERY QUICK. THIS IS A 2024 9% HOUSING TAX CREDIT AWARD THAT
PROPOSES THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF 52 UNITS IN KERRVILLE. THIS SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT IS SUPPORTIVE HOUSING THAT IS TARGETED FOR
VETERANS AT RISK OF HOMELESSNESS. 
          IT IS TO BE LOCATED ON LAND OWNED BY THE VA. THIS IS BEING DEVELOPED BY AN ORGANIZATION
CALLED SOLUTIONS FOR VETERANS. 
          I RECENTLY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO A RIBBON CUTTING FOR ONE OF THEIR PROPERTIES IN
WACO. 
          THAT IS JUST INCREDIBLE. THEY REALLY DO BUILD THESE THINGS,
AND THEY ARE AS GREAT AS YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT THEY COULD BE. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS A LOT OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN GETTING A PROJECT LIKE THIS DONE,
AND THIS HAPPENS TO INCLUDE THE VA RIGHT NOW. 
          THEY ARE WAITING ON THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE LEASE FROM THE VA,
WITHOUT WHICH THEY CANNOT CLOSE AND WHICH HAS BEEN DELAYED SEVERAL TIMES THIS YEAR AND IS NOT BEING AIDED BY THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN. 
          THE DEVELOPER HAS REQUESTED THIS FORCE MAJEURE TO ALLOW THEM TO EXTEND THEIR 10% TEST SO
THAT THEY DON'T LOSE THEIR CREDITS HERE IN ABOUT A MONTH. 
          STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL ON THIS. THE DEVELOPER,
MR. CRAIG TAYLOR, HAS SENT US COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE VA,
SO I KNOW THAT HE'S WORKING ON THIS DILIGENTLY. 
          IT'S JUST ON PAUSE FOR NOW. WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL. 
          I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. SO I MEAN,
THIS IS, LIKE I SAID, WORKING THROUGH THE VA SYSTEM. 
          AND IT'S EXACTLY CORRECT. ALL KINDS OF EXTRA COMPLICATIONS. 
          SO. THIS I UNDERSTAND IT'S OUTSIDE OF THEIR CONTROL. 
          DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM FOR MR. CAMPBELL? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 32. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THE BOARD, APPROVE THE REQUESTED TREATMENT UNDER AN APPLICATION OF
THE FORCE MAJEURE RULE TO FREEDOM'S PATH AT KERRVILLE. 
          WITH A NEW PLACED IN SERVICE DEADLINE OF DECEMBER 31ST,
2027. 
          ALL IS DESCRIBED CONDITION AND AUTHORIZING THE BOARD ACTION,
REQUEST RESOLUTION AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON THE SITE. 
          MOTION MADE BY MISS FARIAS FOR A SECOND. SECOND. 
          SECONDED BY MR. HARPER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. 
          ITEM 33. 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 FOR MULTIPLE
HOUSING TAX CREDIT AWARDEES FROM THE USDA SET ASIDE. THANK YOU, MR. VASQUEZ. SO THIS ITEM REPRESENTS 13 DEVELOPMENTS IN TOTAL,
11 OF WHICH WERE AWARDED IN 2024, TWO OF WHICH WERE AWARDED IN 2023, AND THAT REQUESTED FORCE MAJEURE IN 2024 FOR A SIMILAR
REASON. 
          SO CURRENTLY THEY'RE ALL ON THE SAME TIMELINE. 
          THESE ARE ALL DEALS THAT WERE FUNDED OUT OF OUR USDA SET ASIDE. 
          SO EACH YEAR, 5% OF OUR 9% HOUSING TAX CREDITS MUST GO TO DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE FUNDED
WITH USDA FUNDING. 
          BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO CLOSE WITH USDA,
AND THIS HAS THROWN THEIR DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE OFF. 
          THEY HAVE REQUESTED FORCE MAJEURE TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THAT TIME. 
          ALMOST ALL OF THEM REQUESTED 12 MONTHS OF ADDITIONAL TIME. 
          A COUPLE REQUESTED SIX MONTHS. BUT REALISTICALLY,
I JUST DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING. 
          ONCE USDA REOPENS, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS BACKLOG PLUS EVERYTHING ELSE THAT THEY DO
THAT'S NOT FUNDED WITH TAX CREDITS TO GET TO. 
          [04:05:03]
SO I JUST DON'T SEE SIX MONTHS BEING REALISTIC. 
          STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL ON THIS ONE. AGAIN,
AS A RESULT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. SO USDA TO BEGIN WITH AND THEN THE
SCHUMER SHUTDOWN TAGGED ON TOP OF THAT. 
          YES, SIR. CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE BEHIND. ANY QUESTIONS? ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION? MOVE THE BOARD. 
          APPROVE THE REQUESTED TREATMENTS ON THE APPLICATION OF FORCE MAJEURE. ALL THE 13
DEVELOPMENTS LISTED IN THIS ITEM WITH THE NEW. 
          WITH THE NEW PLACE AND SERVICE DEADLINE OF DECEMBER 31ST,
2027. 
          FOR EACH ALL IS DESCRIBED. SPECIFICALLY CONDITIONED AND AUTHORIZED THE BOARD ACTION,
REQUEST AND RESOLUTION ON ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ITEM. 
          SECOND MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER, SECONDED BY MISS FARIAS. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 34 OF THE AGENDA. 
          PRESENTATION. DISCUSSION. OH 34 IS PULLED. EXCELLENT. 
          WE'RE MAKING GREAT PROGRESS. 35 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 FOR PEBBLE HILLS. 
          THANK YOU, MR. VAZQUEZ. AND JOSH IS PRESENTING THE NEXT ITEM. 
          I'LL SAVE HIM A LITTLE BIT OF SPEAKING. THIS ITEM AND THE NEXT ONE ARE FUNCTIONALLY
IDENTICAL. 
          THIS IS A 2024 DEAL THAT PROPOSES 60 UNITS IN EL PASO. 
          IN THE TABLE THAT I PUT TOGETHER FOR YOU AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS ITEM,
IT IDENTIFIES THIS DEAL. 
          AS A GENERAL DEAL, IT IS ACTUALLY A SENIOR DEAL. 
          I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT ERROR. FOR THIS DEAL, THEY'VE ALREADY CLOSED ON THEIR LAND AND
SUBMITTED FOR PERMITS, BUT THEY LOST THEIR INVESTOR EARLIER THIS YEAR. 
          THEY HAVE SINCE IDENTIFIED A NEW INVESTOR. THEIR FINANCING IS IN PLACE. 
          THEY ARE READY TO CLOSE. CLOSING IS SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER. 
          THIS ONE DOES HAVE A PRETTY TIGHT CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE. IT'S A 24 MONTH CONSTRUCTION
TIMELINE. SO EVEN WITH THIS EXTENSION, THEY'RE STILL RIGHT UP AGAINST IT. BUT THIS IS AN EXPERIENCED DEVELOPER,
AND STAFF HAS HAS CONFIDENCE IN THEIR ABILITY TO GET IT DONE. 
          THEY HAVE REQUESTED THE FORCE MAJEURE EXTENSION DUE TO THE LOSS OF THEIR INVESTOR EARLIER
THIS YEAR. 
          STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
SO YOU'RE PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT THEIR THEIR SCHEDULED CLOSING IN DECEMBER AS ALL THE PIECES READY TO READY TO GO. THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE REPRESENTED TO US. 
          AND I DON'T THINK THAT THEY WOULD HAVE WAITED THIS LONG IF THEY WEREN'T COMING TO US WITH
SOMETHING. 
          PRETTY SURE. OKAY, SO WE HAVE SOME CERTAINTY,
SOME CONFIDENCE IN THEIR TIME FRAME. 
          YES, SIR. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS ON ITEM? I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN. OH, OKAY. I'M MAKING SURE. 
          I'M NOT SURE IF WE FINANCE THEM OR NOT. SO I'M JUST GOING TO ABSTAIN. 
          NO WORRIES. NOPE. NOPE. NO WORRIES. OKAY. WOULD ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION ON OR DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR A MOTION? MOTION. 
          MR. I MOVE THE BOARD, APPROVE THE REQUESTED TREATMENT UNDER AN APPLICATION OF THE FORCE
MAJEURE RULE TO PEBBLES HILLS. 
          WITH A NEW PLACE IN SERVICE DEADLINE OF DECEMBER 31ST,
2027. 
          ALL IS DESCRIBED, CONDITIONED AND AUTHORIZED IN THE BOARD ACTION,
REQUEST RESOLUTION AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON THIS ITEM. 
          SECOND MOTION MADE BY MISS FARIAS, SECONDED BY MR. HARPER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT MISS CONROY ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. 
          THANKS, CODY. 36 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 OR MEADOW
VIEW. 
          MR.. GOLDBERGER. AFTERNOON. JOSH. GOLDBERGER. 
          9% PROGRAM MANAGER. CODY MENTIONED EARLIER THAT THIS IS A FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL REQUEST,
SO I'M GOING TO KEEP IT VERY BRIEF. 
          THIS WAS PROPOSED BY THE SAME APPLICANT AS ITEM. 
          IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE LOCATED IN HOMESTEAD MEADOWS SOUTH WHICH IS A PLACE IN EL PASO
COUNTY. 
          SAME SITUATION. OTHERWISE LOST THEIR INVESTOR EQUITY PLACEMENT,
GOT DELAYED, BUT IS NOW ALMOST IN PLACE. 
          WITH THAT 24 MONTH CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE, THEY'RE GOING TO MISS THE CURRENT DEADLINE. 
          QUITE A BIT. SO THE REQUEST IS THE SAME. RECOMMENDS. 
          OKAY. SO THEY THIS DEVELOPMENT ALSO HAS A CONFIDENCE IN THE DATE THAT THEY'RE CLOSING. 
          YES. THEY PROVIDE THE SAME DATE AS OTHER PROJECTS OKAY. 
          SO EITHER EVERYTHING IS GOING TO GO REALLY WELL OR THESE GUYS ARE BOTH GOING TO BLOW UP
TOGETHER. 
          RIGHT? OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS I WILL ABSTAIN OKAY. 
          NOTED. MOTION ON ITEM 36 I MOVE THE BOARD APPROVED THE REQUESTED TREATMENT UNDER AN
APPLICATION OF THE FORCE 
          [04:10:03]
MAJEURE RULE TO PEBBLE HILLS WITH A NEW PLACE IN SERVICE. 
          I MEAN, I'M I'M DOWN AT MEADOWVIEW NOW. I SAME WORDS BEFORE MEADOWVIEW WITH A NEW PLACE
AND SERVICE DEADLINE OF DECEMBER 31ST, 2027. ALL IS DESCRIBED. CONDITION AUTHORIZED. 
          THE BOARD ACTION REQUEST RESOLUTION AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON THIS ITEM. 
          SECOND. MOTION MADE BY MR. MARCHANT, SECONDED BY MISS FARIAS. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM O AND NOTING THAT MISS CONROY ABSTAINED ON THAT LAST
VOTE. 
          ITEM 37 PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON REQUEST FOR RETURN AND
REALLOCATION OF TAX CREDITS UNDER TEN TAX. 
          SECTION 11.65 RELATED TO CREDIT RETURNS RESULTING FROM FORCE MAJEURE EVENTS FOR PINEHURST
VILLAS. 
          VILLAS. ITEM 37 CONCERNS PINEHURST VILLAS, A 60 UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE COMPLETED IN
PINEHURST, WHICH IS IN ORANGE COUNTY. THE PROJECT WAS AWARDED HOUSING TAX CREDITS IN 2022,
AND WAS APPROVED FOR FORCE MAJEURE TREATMENT IN 23, MAKING THE CURRENT PLACEMENT SERVICE DEADLINE DECEMBER 31ST,
2025. 
          THE DEVELOPMENT BEGAN CONSTRUCTION IN EARLY 24,
WITH SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION ORIGINALLY PLANNED FOR JULY OF THIS YEAR. 
          SINCE CONSTRUCTION STARTED, THERE HAVE BEEN A TOTAL OF 139 WEATHER DELAYS,
WHICH HAVE CAUSED THE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE TO BE EXTENDED TO DECEMBER 3RD. 
          SHORTLY BEFORE THE DEADLINE, THE DEVELOPMENT IS NOW NEARING THE POINT WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE
ELECTRIFIED. 
          HOWEVER, THE OWNER HAS INCURRED SUBSTANTIAL DELAYS WITH THE ENERGY PROVIDER ENTERGY DELAYS
SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH THAT THE OWNER FILED A GRIEVANCE WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS. THE PROCESS IS NOW MOVING FORWARD, BUT THEY ARE STILL UNABLE TO FULLY ESTIMATE
ENTERGY'S TIMELINE. 
          TO ACCOUNT FOR THESE DELAYS, THE OWNER REQUESTED A SEVEN MONTH EXTENSION,
ESTABLISHING A NEW PLACE AND SERVICE DEADLINE OF JULY 31ST, 2026. WHILE STAFF DOES NOT DISPUTE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE DELAYS,
WE COULD NOT RECOMMEND THAT PROPOSED DATE. 
          THIS IS BECAUSE THE OWNER HAS A NATIONAL TRUST HOUSING TRUST FUND LOAN FROM THE
DEPARTMENT. 
          THESE FUNDS HAVE A EXPENDITURE DEADLINE OF JULY 30TH THAT WE NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR,
TO ENSURE EVERYTHING IS BUTTONED UP AND FINALIZED TO MEET THAT DEADLINE. 
          THIS PROJECT WILL REALLY NEED TO PLACE IN SERVICE BY MAY 30TH. 
          WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE APPLICANT. THEY ARE COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT
DATE. IT'LL BE A LITTLE TIGHT, BUT EVERYONE INVOLVED IS CONFIDENT THAT WE CAN MAKE IT WORK. SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION TO MAY 30TH,
2026, ROUGHLY FIVE MONTHS. 
          REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEVELOPMENT ARE PRESENT SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. AND
I AM ALSO AVAILABLE. SO I'LL JUST ASK HIM. 
          SO THE ELECTRIC THE ELECTRIC ELECTRICITY PROGRAMS OR PROBLEMS ARE ALREADY RESOLVED THAT
WELL OKAY. 
          GO AHEAD. INTRODUCE YOURSELVES. YEAH. JEFF BECKLER REPRESENTING PINEHURST VILLAGE L.P.. 
          YES. WE SUSPECT POWER BY THANKSGIVING. AND ONE OF THE BIG HANG UPS WAS THE ELEVATOR,
BECAUSE THIS IS A 55 AND UP. 
          WE'VE SINCE PURCHASED THAT ELEVATOR. THERE WAS A LONG LEAD TIME FOR THAT ELEVATOR.
APPROXIMATELY SIX WEEKS. 
          WE CURRENTLY HAVE IT PAYING TO STORE IT EVERY DAY. 
          WE SUSPECT POWER BY THANKSGIVING, SO WE ARE READY TO ROCK AND ROLL. 
          WE'RE 70% COMPLETE. WE HAVE NO ISSUES WITH THE MAY 30TH DEADLINE. 
          OKAY. YEAH. GREAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR FOR JOSH OR JEFF? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 37. MOVE. 
          THE BOARD APPROVED THE REQUESTED TREATMENT OF THE APPLICATION OF FORCE MAJEURE ROAD FOR
PINEHURST VILLAS. WITH A NEW PLACE IN SERVICE DEADLINE OF MAY 30TH, 2026. ALL DESCRIBED, CONDITIONED AND AUTHORIZED THE BOARD ACTION REQUEST RESOLUTION. 
          ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ITEM. SECOND. MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER, SECONDED BY MISS FARIAS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          I VOTING SHE'S SHE'S NOT PAYING ATTENTION. ALRIGHT. 
          38. I KNEW I COULD DO THIS. 38. 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 FOR OAKS. ITEM 38 CONCERNS RED OAKS,
A 70 UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE COMPLETED IN AUSTIN. 
          THE PROJECT WAS AWARDED HOUSING TAX CREDITS IN 2022,
AND WAS APPROVED FOR FORCE MAJEURE TREATMENT IN 2023, MAKING THE CURRENT DEADLINE TO PLACED IN SERVICE DECEMBER 31ST OF 25. 
          PROJECT BEGAN CONSTRUCTION IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR WITH A 15 MONTH SCHEDULE. 
          THE OWNER ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION BY EARLY NOVEMBER,
ABOUT TWO MONTHS IN ADVANCE OF THE DEADLINE. 
          WHILE THE DEVELOPMENT IS ABOUT 73% COMPLETE,
IT EXPERIENCED SEVERAL DELAYS DURING CONSTRUCTION THAT HAVE ADDED ABOUT A MONTH TO THIS SCHEDULE AND PUTS THE DEAL IN JEOPARDY OF MISSING THIS DEADLINE. 
          [04:15:03]
THE REQUEST CITES A RANGE OF ISSUES, INCLUDING NEW FEDERAL HVAC REGULATIONS UNDER THE
EPA'S AM ACT, WHICH REQUIRE DESIGN CHANGES, SOME UNEXPECTED CITY OF AUSTIN INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING
DELAYS, A FEW WEATHER RELATED DELAYS AND ELECTRIC UTILITY SCHEDULING BACKLOGS WITH PEDERNALES
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE. 
          WHILE NONE OF THESE ISSUES INDIVIDUALLY CREATED A SIGNIFICANT DELAY,
COLLECTIVELY THEY HAVE MOVED THE TARGET DATE FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION BY 33 DAYS TO DECEMBER 9TH, 2025. ONLY A FEW WEEKS BEFORE THE DEADLINE,
THE APPLICANT REMAINS OPTIMISTIC THAT THEY WILL HIT THIS DATE AND COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION TIMELY, BUT THEY HAVE LITTLE ROOM FOR ERROR. AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION. 
          THEY HAVE REQUESTED A SIX MONTH EXTENSION. 30TH. 
          26. I WILL NOTE THAT THE OWNER IS ALSO IN THE PROCESS OF FINALIZING A MATERIAL AMENDMENT
TO ACCOUNT FOR SOME DESIGN CHANGES. 
          WE DO NOT HAVE ALL THE ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTATION YET,
AND IT'S UNLIKELY WE'LL BE ABLE TO PRESENT THAT TO THE BOARD BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR. 
          SINCE THE FORCE MAJEURE REQUEST CAN'T WAIT UNTIL 2026,
WE ARE TAKING IT NOW INSTEAD OF WAITING UNTIL BOTH ITEMS ARE READY. 
          BUT I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT CONTEXT SINCE YOU'LL BE SEEING THIS DEVELOPMENT AGAIN ON
THE AGENDA LATER. 
          BUT THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY. WE'RE JUST DISCUSSING HOW MATERIAL WILL BE THAT
AMENDMENT. 
          I'VE ONLY TAKEN A CURSORY LOOK AT IT, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE MOSTLY TO CHANGE THE BEDROOM,
MIX A LITTLE BIT, ADD A FEW MORE TWO BEDROOMS AND THREE AND THEN SEEMS TO BE SOME DESIGN CHANGES TO THE
BUILDING THAT RESULTED IN THE COMMON AREA UP WHICH CAUSED MATERIAL. BUT AGAIN, WE HAVEN'T REVIEWED IT THOROUGHLY AND DON'T HAVE A STAFF
RECOMMENDATION. BUT THIS RIGHT HERE, I MEAN, THEY MAY FINISH IN TIME, BUT THIS WILL JUST GIVE THEM. 
          THAT IS CORRECT. THIS IS A PRECAUTIONARY ONE. OKAY. GREAT. 
          ANY QUESTIONS. ANY MOTIONS ON ITEM. I MOVE THE BOARD,
APPROVE THE REQUESTED TREATMENT UNDER AN APPLICATION OF THE FORCE MAJEURE RULE TO RED OAKS WITH A NEW PLACEMENT SERVICE DEADLINE OF JUNE 30TH TO 2026. 
          ALL IS DESCRIBED CONDITION AND AUTHORIZING THE BOARD ACTION,
REQUEST RESOLUTION AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON THIS ITEM. 
          SECOND MOTION MADE BY SECONDED BY MR. HARPER. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING? NONE. MOTION CARRIES. AND THE FINAL NUMBERED COMMENT. 
          ITEM 39. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEADLINE TO PLACE AND SERVICE FOR 3606 COCKRELL HILL. ITEM 39 CONCERNS 3606 COCKRELL ROAD. 
          LIVING A 120 UNIT MIXED INCOME DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED IN DALLAS. 
          THE DEVELOPMENT RECEIVED AN AWARD OF 9% CREDITS IN 2024,
AND WAS APPROVED FOR FORCE MAJEURE TREATMENT IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR, BUT WITH AN EARLIER DEADLINE TO PLACE IN SERVICE THAN IS FEDERALLY ALLOWABLE. 
          AS A RESULT, THE CURRENT DEADLINE IS JUNE 30TH OF 2027. 
          THE REQUEST STATES THAT ALL PARTIES WERE ON TRACK TO CLOSE IN OCTOBER,
BUT THE FEDERAL SHUTDOWN BEGINNING ON OCTOBER 1ST, 2025 HAS DELAYED CLOSING DUE TO THE FHA FINANCING IN THE DEAL. 
          HUD HAD PREVIOUSLY ADVISED THE OWNER THAT A FIRM COMMITMENT WAS IMMINENT,
BUT SINCE IT WAS NOT ISSUED BEFORE THE SHUTDOWN, THE APPLICANT IS DELAYED INDEFINITELY UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT OPENS. 
          THE OWNER STATES THAT ALL PARTIES CONTINUE TO WORK DILIGENTLY AND WATCH OPERATIONS RESUME. 
          THE FIRM COMMITMENT IS EXPECTED WITHIN A WEEK. 
          GREAT LOCK AND CLOSING ARE EXPECTED TO FOLLOW WITHIN 30 DAYS. 
          ORIGINALLY, THIS PROJECT WAS ON SCHEDULE TO MEET THE JUNE 30TH DEADLINE WITH ABOUT A 90
DAY CUSHION. 
          BUT BECAUSE THAT REOPENING TIMELINE IS UNCERTAIN,
THE ABILITY TO MEET THAT DEADLINE KIND OF IN JEOPARDY. 
          THE OWNER HAS REQUESTED AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS TO ACCOMMODATE THE DELAY,
EXTENDING THE PLACE AND SERVICE DEADLINE TO DECEMBER 31ST. 
          SO AGAIN, THIS IS STILL WITHIN THE FEDERALLY ALLOWABLE DEADLINE FOR THE NEW CARRYOVER. 
          SO THIS ITEM ISN'T A FORCE MAJEURE RECYCLING OF CREDITS. 
          THAT'S WHY THE NAME WAS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. IT JUST REPRESENTS A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE SIX
MONTH EXTENSION ALREADY APPROVED BY THE BOARD EARLIER TO. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND THE DEVELOPER IS PRESENT,
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY. OKAY. 
          THIS IS CLEARLY A SCHUMER SHUTDOWN, RIGHT? OKAY. 
          OKAY. YOU ALL AGREE THAT'S HOW WE SHOULD CHARACTERIZE IT OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT OKAY. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS ITEM? I MOVE THE BOARD MOTION. BOARD. THE BOARD APPROVED THE REQUESTED FURTHER EXTENSION WITHIN
THE FEDERALLY ALLOWABLE PERIOD OF THE PLACE AND SERVICE DEADLINE TO 3606 COCKRELL HILL, WITH A NEW PLACE IN SERVICE DEADLINE OF DECEMBER 31ST,
2027. 
          ALL IS DESCRIBED. CONDITION AUTHORIZED. THE BOARD ACTION REQUEST RESOLUTION. ASSOCIATED
DOCUMENTS ITEM. SECOND. 
          MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER, SECONDED BY MISS FARIAS. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. AND 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, 
          [04:20:01]
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? SEEING NONE, THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE TDCA IS AT 10 A.M. 
          ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10TH 12TH, 2025, AND WE WILL BE BACK AT THE GREER STATE HIGHWAY
BUILDING, TEXAS BUILDING AT 125 EAST 11TH STREET. DECEMBER. 
          NO, IT SAYS DECEMBER 12TH. OH. WHO PROVIDED ME THIS INCORRECT INFORMATION,
BO? I FIXED IT DECEMBER 11TH. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11TH. 
          AND AT THE REAR BUILDING. TEXTILE. OKAY WITH THAT. 
          THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. IT IS 238 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. 
          THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.