TIME WE GOT. GOOD MORNING. I CALLED TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY 
          [Governing Board on March 06, 2026]
          [00:00:10]
AFFAIRS. IT IS 10:05 A.M. ON MARCH 6TH, 2026. 
          BEFORE WE GET GOING, I'D LIKE EVERYONE TO KEEP THIS IN MIND WHEN YOU COME UP TO SPEAK. 
          OUR COURT REPORTER IS GOING TO BE DOING THIS VIA THE THE INTERNET TRANSMISSION THAT WE
HAVE. 
          SO IT'S EXTRA IMPORTANT THAT WHEN YOU COME UP TO SPEAK THAT YOU CLEARLY ENUNCIATE YOUR
NAME AND YOUR ORGANIZATION. 
          AND THEN AS USUAL, SIGN IN. SO IF Y'ALL CAN JUST WORK WITH US ON THAT. 
          LET'S START OUT WITH THE ROLL CALL, MR. MARCHANT. 
          I AM HERE, SIR. EXCELLENT. MISS FARIAS, MR. THOMAS HERE,
MR. HARPER HERE, AND MISS CONROY HERE. EVERYONE'S HERE. 
          SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM AND AS USUAL, WE WILL START OUT THE MEETING WITH THE PLEDGES LED BY
MR. WILKINSON. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. 
          HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE,
TEXAS. 
          ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. 
          THANK YOU. OKAY. MOVING RIGHT ALONG TO THE CONSENT AGENDA,
ARE THERE ANY ITEMS THAT ANYONE WISHES TO REMOVE FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND MOVE TO ACTION? MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OR BOARD MEMBERS. SEEING NONE,
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 REQUESTS. 
          SECOND MOTION MADE BY MISS FARIA, SECONDED BY MR. HARPER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING? NONE. MOTION CARRIES. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT,
MR. WILKINSON. GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS. 
          JUST A FEW ITEMS TODAY. I'LL START THIS MONTH'S REPORT WITH A BRIEF UPDATE FROM OUR 9% TAX
CREDIT PROGRAM. 
          YOU KNOW, FULL APPS WERE DUE MARCH 1ST. APPLICANTS FOR A 2026 AWARD HAD UNTIL THIS PAST
FRIDAY, CLOSE OF BUSINESS TO SUBMIT THEIR FULL APPLICATION. 
          AND NOW THE APPLICATIONS ARE ALL IN. AND JOSH TELLS ME THAT WE RECEIVED 115 APPLICATIONS. 
          THAT'S ABOUT A 20% INCREASE FROM LAST YEAR, BUT IT'S STILL BELOW WHAT WE WERE SEEING A FEW
YEARS AGO. 
          BUT WE'RE NOW ON AN UPWARD TREND, AND THIS IS THE MOST WE'VE RECEIVED SINCE 2022. 
          WE HAD 127 AND 2022 AND 133 IN THE YEAR BEFORE IN 2021. 
          MOVING OVER TO OUR TEXAS HOME BUYER PROGRAM AREA THEY'RE ROLLING OUT AN ADDITIONAL PROGRAM
OFFERING, WHICH WILL ALLOW PERMANENT RATE BUY DOWNS TO BE INCLUDED FOR THE MY CHOICE TEXAS
ASSISTANCE LOANS. 
          THE THE MY CHOICE TEXAS ASSISTANCE LOANS OFFERS DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE AND 30 YEAR LOW
INTEREST MORTGAGE RATES FOR EVERYONE. 
          YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A FIRST TIME HOME BUYER TO QUALIFY. 
          THESE PERMANENT RATE BUY DOWNS HELP BORROWERS WHO HAVE ACCESS TO SELLER PAID CONTRIBUTIONS
TO BE USED TO BUY DOWN OR LOWER THE BORROWER'S INTEREST RATE FROM INCEPTION OF THEIR MORTGAGE LOAN, WHICH LOWERS THE MONTHLY PAYMENT AND ASSISTS IN AFFORDABILITY AND THE
SUCCESS OF THE MORTGAGE RATE. 
          BUY DOWNS WILL BE AVAILABLE TO PARTICIPATING THC LENDERS. 
          ON MONDAY, MARCH 16TH. AS A REMINDER, OUR HOME BUYER PROGRAM WEBSITE FOR THOSE OF YOU OUT
THERE WHO ARE INTERESTED IS WELCOME HOME DOT D A.TEXAS.GOV OR YOU CAN CALL 1-800-792-1119. DO WE HAVE A TUNE THAT WE CAN ATTACH. 
          ONE 800 YEAH, YEAH. ALRIGHT. THAT DOES IT FOR THIS MONTH. 
          AND PREPARED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. 
          SO ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON. ACTUALLY, I DID HAVE A QUESTION ON THE BUY DOWN ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM FOR EVERYONE. 
          IS THERE A UPPER LIMIT ON THE VALUE OF THE HOME THAT'S BEING PURCHASED. 
          OR CAN. YEAH. LISA, COME ON UP. GOOD MORNING. 
          [00:05:08]
LISA JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF HOME OWNERSHIP. THERE IS FOR THE MY CHOICE PROGRAM. 
          THERE'S NOT A PURCHASE PRICE LIMIT. THERE IS FOR MY FIRST,
BUT FOR THE BUY DOWN PROGRAM, THERE'S NOT A PURCHASE PRICE LIMIT. 
          THERE IS AN INCOME LIMIT AND ITS PRACTICALITY. 
          SO THERE IS AN THERE IS AN INCOME LIMIT. CORRECT. 
          AND IT'S BY COUNTY. AND WE HAVE THOSE PUBLISHED ON THE WEBSITE. 
          OKAY. BUT SO IN THEORY THERE IS A LIMIT BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO QUALIFY WITH DEBT TO INCOME
AND ALL THAT. 
          TO, TO QUALIFY FOR THE MORTGAGE. SO YOU CAN BUY $1 MILLION HOUSE,
BUT YOU ONLY CAN FINANCE 200,000 OF IT. 
          SAY, SAY AGAIN. THERE'S NO LIMIT ON THE PRICE OF THE HOUSE. 
          BUT THERE IS GOING TO BE A LIMIT ON WHAT YOU CAN BORROW,
RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY. AND IT'S ALL WE WE FOLLOW AGENCY GUIDELINES WHICH ARE AUTOMATED APPROVALS. 
          AND THERE ARE HUGE AMOUNTS OF ALGORITHMS THAT ARE BUILT IN TO,
TO WHO QUALIFIES INCOME WISE. 
          DEBT TO INCOME IS, IS PART OF THAT. THERE'S,
THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS. 
          GREAT. AGAIN, NOT TO GET TOO FAR INTO THE WEEDS ON THIS,
BUT. 
          SAY GRANDPAPPY DIES AND LEAVES YOU. $2 MILLION THAT YOU CAN THEN USE AS A DOWN PAYMENT ON THAT $2,250,000 HOME. 
          THEY COULD STILL USE OUR PROGRAM BECAUSE EVEN IF THEIR INCOME IS THE BORROWER'S INCOME IS
$80,000 A YEAR OR SOMETHING THAT CAN STILL. 
          I SUPPOSE IN THEORY THAT COULD HAPPEN IN THEORY. 
          I SO THERE'S, THERE'S NO PURCHASE PRICE MAXIMUM,
BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO MEET WHATEVER DEBT. 
          ABSOLUTELY. THEY HAVE TO MEET ALL THE CREDIT QUALIFYING FACTORS THAT IN,
IN PRACTICE, WE DON'T SEE ANYTHING REMOTELY RISKY IN THAT WAY. THERE ARE BUILT IN MECHANISMS FOR THAT NOT TO HAPPEN. 
          AND IN FACT, WHEN WE, WHEN WE PRESENT TO THE BOARD,
WE'LL SHOW YOU SOME MORE STATISTICS ON OUR AVERAGE LOAN AMOUNTS. 
          AND THEY'RE WAY UNDER WHAT OUR LIMITS EVEN WERE POSTED FOR,
FOR INCOME LIMITS AND PURCHASE PRICE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I AGREE, IT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY SITUATION,
BUT HIGHLY UNLIKELY. 
          BUT IN THEORY YOU ARE CORRECT. OF COURSE, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A SHAPE LIKE THIS. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR NO QUESTIONS,
MR. CHAIRMAN? BUT I WOULD SAY I THINK THE RATE BUYDOWN PROGRAM IS AN EXCELLENT ONE. 
          I THINK IT'S ONE THAT WE WILL SEE MORE USE OF,
HOPEFULLY. 
          THANK YOU. JUST IN THE SENSE THAT, YOU KNOW,
AFFORDABILITY IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE NOW. 
          AND YOU'RE SEEING STATE EFFORTS AROUND THE COUNTRY REALLY FOCUS IN ON THE BUY DOWN
PROGRAMS AND TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR BUYERS RIGHT NOW AS THE MARKET IS STARTING TO LOOSEN UP AND YOU'RE HAVING MORE PURCHASES THAT ARE,
THAT ARE BEING MADE. 
          SO COMMEND THE DEPARTMENT ON, ON FOCUSING ON THAT AND ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO,
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PROGRAMS WE OFFER. 
          THANK YOU. AS A, AS A SIDE NOTE, WE DO NOT ALLOW OUR DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE FUNDS TO GO
TOWARD THE DOWN PAYMENT. 
          DOWN TOWARD THE BUY DOWN COST. THOSE FUNDS ARE COMING FROM EITHER THE BUYER THEMSELVES OR
MOST TYPICALLY A BUILDER OR A SELLER CONCESSION. SO OUR FUNDS ARE BEING USED FOR JUST TRADITIONAL DOWN PAYMENT AND CLOSING
COSTS, BUT NOT THE BUY DOWN. SO IT DOESN'T WATER DOWN THAT BENEFIT. 
          EXCELLENT. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. WILKINSON? HEARING NONE,
WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 16. 
          AND REMINDER ALSO FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM,
WE ASK THAT YOU COME UP TO THE FRONT COUPLE ROWS JUST SO WE KNOW. 
          I CAN STOP THINGS AND GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUR INPUT. 
          SO ITEM 16 PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AWARDS TO THE 2026 COMMUNITY
SERVICES BLOCK GRANT DISCRETIONARY FUND FOR REENTRY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. MR. DEYOUNG GOOD MORNING,
CHAIRMAN VAZQUEZ AND BOARD MEMBERS. 
          MICHAEL DEYOUNG, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. 
          ITEM 16 IS SEEKING YOUR APPROVAL OF FOUR AWARDS FOR THE REENTRY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
DIRECTED TOWARDS FORMERLY INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS SEEKING STABLE HOUSING. 
          EACH YEAR IN THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT,
THE STATE RECEIVES A SMALL ABILITY TO DO SOME DISCRETIONARY AWARDS. 
          AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE AWARDS THAT WE'VE DONE FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS. 
          [00:10:02]
THESE ACTIVITIES WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD IN THE CSBG PLAN,
WHICH YOU SAW LAST YEAR. 
          IN THAT PLAN, WE SET ASIDE $400,000 FOR A REENTRY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. 
          AND THAT ALLOWS NONPROFITS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS WITH ESTABLISHED EXPERIENCE
IN SERVING THE REENTRY POPULATION TO ASSIST PREVIOUSLY INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS SO THEY CAN OBTAIN RENTAL HOUSING. STAFF RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD IN NOVEMBER 2025 TO
RELEASE THE NOFA, AND IN RESPONSE TO THAT NOFA, WE RECEIVED 14 APPLICATIONS. 
          THE 14 APPLICATIONS WERE EVALUATED AND SCORED BY STAFF,
AND THE FOUR HIGHEST SCORING APPLICANTS WERE DETERMINED, AND THEY'RE LISTED IN YOUR BOARD ACTION REQUEST. 
          AS A NOTE, EIGHT OF THESE 14 APPLICATIONS FAILED TO MEET THRESHOLD CRITERIA. 
          HOWEVER, SIX OF THOSE APPEALED TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
GRANTED THEIR APPEAL. 
          SO WE WENT AHEAD AND SCORED THOSE APPLICATIONS AS IF THEY WERE COMPLETE. 
          FROM A THRESHOLD PERSPECTIVE. AND NONE OF THOSE APPEALED THEIR SCORE. 
          SO THOSE 12 THAT WERE SCORED, NONE OF THEM APPEALED THE SCORING PROCESS THAT WE DID. 
          SO THE INTENT OF THIS PROGRAM IS TO PROVIDE THE LANDLORDS AN INCENTIVE TO RENT THEIR UNITS
TO PREVIOUSLY INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME FINDING LANDLORDS WHO WILL EXCUSE ME, WHO WILL LEASE TO THEM, WHICH IS ONE OF THE PRIMARY HURDLES FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO IS REENTERING THE COMMUNITY. 
          THE PROGRAM ASSISTS THE CLIENTS TO OBTAIN STABLE HOUSING BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE WITH THE
HOUSING COSTS SUCH AS LEASE ASSISTANCE, APPLICATION FEES, DEPOSITS AND A LIMITED AMOUNT OF DAMAGE AND VACANCY COVERAGE FOR THE
UNIT. 
          CLIENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE UNIT. 
          AND FROM RENT AND EXPENSES. THE WAY THE PROGRAM WORKS IS THE LANDLORD RECEIVES AN UPFRONT
PAYMENT OF UP TO $1,500 FOR A SIX MONTH LEASE, OR UP TO $2,000 FOR A 12 MONTH LEASE. IF THEY SIGN A 12 MONTH. 
          IF THE INDIVIDUAL WILL SIGN THE THE 12 MONTH OR THE SIX MONTH LEASE,
THE RENT CANNOT EXCEED 120% OF THE AREA'S FAIR MARKET RENT, AND THE UNIT MUST PASS A BASIC INSPECTION. STAFF IS ASKING FOR YOUR APPROVAL TO MAKE THESE
AWARDS IN AN AMOUNT OF $100 EACH TO THE FOUR ENTITIES, AND I'LL NAME THEM IT'S BLANCO RIVER. MICHAEL,
HOW MUCH ARE WE GIVING THEM? 100,000 EACH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. BLANCO RIVER REGIONAL RECOVERY TEAM,
CITY OF LAREDO. 
          HOUSING AUTHORITY. HAVEN FOR HOPE OF BEXAR COUNTY AND WEST CENTRAL TEXAS REGIONAL
FOUNDATION. 
          IF APPROVED, CONTRACTS WILL START ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF MAY AND END NEXT APRIL. 
          HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. 
          OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. MICHAEL. SO WE I'VE STARTED TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE TRACTION AS
FAR AS THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS FOR ENTITIES THAT WITH 14 AT LEAST GIVE IT A SHOT THIS TIME. 
          YEAH. AND IN CONTRAST TO WHEN WE FIRST STARTED OUT THE PROGRAM,
WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE FOUR. 
          RIGHT. IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK WE GOT 4 OR 5 APPLICATIONS AND THEN SEVERAL OF THEM DIDN'T
QUALIFY ANYHOW. 
          SO YEAH, SO THAT'S A GOOD, I THINK A YES, WE'RE GETTING WE'RE GETTING MORE APPLICATIONS
AND WE'RE GETTING BETTER DATA AS WE CHANGE THE PROGRAM, AS WE GET DATA BACK FROM THESE SUB RECIPIENTS,
WE'RE ASKING THEM QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WORKED, WHAT DIDN'T WORK, WHAT CAN WE CHANGE IN THE PROGRAM TO MAKE IT MORE EFFECTIVE? AND SOME OF THAT WAS CONTAINED IN THE NOFA TO MAKE THE
PROGRAM SOMETHING MORE AMENABLE TO ALL THE SITUATIONS THEY'RE ENCOUNTERING WHEN TRYING TO HELP THIS POPULATION. 
          THIS IS NOT AN EASY ENDEAVOR FOR THESE ENTITIES. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT GOES INTO IT, AND WE'RE TRYING TO MATCH THAT WITH,
YOU KNOW, THE DETAILS AND THE APPLICATION ABOUT HOW WE CAN HELP THEM BE EFFECTIVE. 
          SO YEAH. AND YOU MAY NOT KNOW AN ANSWER TO THE I'LL MAKE ONE UP. 
          GO AHEAD. THE, IS THERE ANY PROSPECTS FOR US TO GET MORE FUNDS FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR THIS
PROGRAM IN FUTURE YEARS? LET ME ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION. ARE YOU SAYING WITHIN THE CSG REALM OF GETTING MORE
FUNDING OR OUTSIDE FUNDING NOW THAT YOU BRING IT UP? BOTH. OKAY. WELL, I CAN ANSWER THE CSG FUNDING WE HAVE. 
          WE HAVE ROOM WITHIN THE CSG DISCRETIONARY FUNDS THAT WE COULD INCREASE,
AS IF WE THOUGHT THAT WE COULD, YOU KNOW, GO TO 5 OR 6 APPLICANTS. WE COULD DO THAT OR WE COULD INCREASE THE ACTUAL AWARD
IF WE WANT TO KEEP THE QUALITY OF THE APPLICATIONS AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE, BUT INCREASE EVERYBODY TO 125,000 NEXT YEAR. 
          CERTAINLY THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY WE COULD EXPLORE. 
          CSBG DISCRETIONARY FUNDING. EACH YEAR WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT LEFT OVER,
SO WE HAVE SOME WIGGLE ROOM TO BE ABLE TO MEET THAT, IF THAT'S WHAT YOUR DESIRE IS. IT IS A BIT ZERO SUM. 
          YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO TAKE FROM ANOTHER ANOTHER POT AND HAVE LESS FOR DISASTERS. 
          YOU KNOW, THE, THE, I GUESS THE TWO POINTS I WAS GETTING AT AND I KNOW I'VE SAID THIS
BEFORE, 
          [00:15:04]
MY PRIOR BOARD SERVICE FOR TEXAS WAS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
AND THE REENTRY PROCESS IS JUST SO CRITICAL. IT'S SUCH A CRITICAL PART OF REDUCING RECIDIVISM. 
          I THINK THIS MONEY'S VERY, VERY WELL SPENT. WELL,
I WAS MORE THINKING ABOUT IS ON GETTING LARGER GRANTS IS JUST SO WE CAN SPREAD IT OUT FURTHER AROUND THE STATE. 
          I MEAN, IT'S WE GOT VALLEY AND KIND OF CENTRAL HERE,
BUT WHICH IS GREAT, BUT WE NEED IT ALL EVERYWHERE. SO LET'S JUST LOOK AT THAT IN THE FUTURE. 
          IT'S, IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT A DIRECTIVE, BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT PROGRAM. 
          WE CAN DO THAT. DO ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. DEYOUNG? MICHAEL. ON THAT FRONT, LIKE WHAT DO YOU KNOW OFFHAND? ARE THERE OPPORTUNITIES TO GET OUTSIDE FUNDING TO JUICE UP THIS PROGRAM OR MATCHING FUNDS? I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. WE, I DON'T THINK WE'VE WE'VE NOT BEEN MADE ANY SOURCES
THAT FUND THIS SPECIFIC ACTIVITY. 
          CERTAINLY. WE CAN DO SOME RESEARCH, SEE IF WE CAN FIND ADDITIONAL FUNDS. 
          SO ARNOLD VENTURES OUT IN HOUSTON. I MEAN, THEY HAVE BIG,
HEAVY INTEREST INTEREST IN THIS AREA. 
          EXACTLY. THAT'S THE ONE I WAS THINKING, TOO,
MR. CHAIRMAN. AND MR. WILKINSON'S POINT, I MEAN, WE'D RATHER NOT HAVE TO TAKE FROM ANOTHER PROGRAM IN ORDER TO,
TO, TO DO GOOD HERE. BUT OBVIOUSLY, IF WE'RE MAKING A DIFFERENCE AND WE CAN SEE THAT
POSITIVITY IN THIS PROGRAM, IF WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET SOME OUTSIDE FUNDS OR HAVE A WAY TO,
TO IMPACT MORE STATE WIDE EFFECT TO THIS, THIS WOULD BE THIS WOULD BE ONE THAT WE'D WANT TO,
I THINK, GET BEHIND. 
          OKAY, WE'LL REACH OUT. GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. 
          SO THIS CONCLUDES MR. DEYOUNG'S PRESENTATION. 
          I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 16 OF THE AGENDA. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THE BOARD APPROVE THE PROPOSED AWARDS FOR REENTRY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
ACTIVITIES, ALL AS DESCRIBED, CONDITIONED AND AUTHORIZED IN THE BOARD ACTION REQUEST AND ASSOCIATED
DOCUMENTS ON THIS ITEM. 
          MOTION MADE BY MR. THOMAS, SECONDED BY MR. HARPER. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING? NONE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          ITEM 17, THE REPORT ON THE ISSUANCE OF A RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS 2026,
SERIES A. 
          MR. FLETCHER, WHERE ARE INTEREST RATES GOING? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. GOOD MORNING. SCOTT FLETCHER,
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING FINANCE. 
          ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17TH, THE DEPARTMENT CLOSED ON 250 MILLION RMB SERIES 26. 
          EXCUSE ME, 2026 A NON EMT USING 26,995,000 IN RECYCLED VOLUME CAP. 
          THE TOTAL PROCEEDS EQUAL TO $260,254,100. THE 10,000. 
          I'M SORRY, $10,254,100 OF PREMIUM. WE'LL FUND DOWN PAYMENT AND CLOSING COST ASSISTANCE FOR
LOANS ORIGINATED THROUGH THIS BOND ISSUANCE. 
          AS WELL AS LENDER. A PORTION OF THE LENDER COMPENSATION ISSUER CONTRIBUTION ON THIS DEAL
WAS JUST UNDER $4 MILLION, 3.9 MILLION. AS PER USUAL PROCEEDS WILL BE USED TO FINANCE AND PURCHASE TAX EXEMPT
ELIGIBLE MORTGAGE LOANS, INCLUDING DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE, SECOND, LOANS MADE TO MODERATE LOW TO MODERATE INCOME,
FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS AND VETERANS, AND TO PAY A PORTION OF THE COST OF ISSUANCE. 
          A COUPLE MINOR VARIATIONS IN THE BOND STRUCTURE THIS TIME. 
          AS USUAL, WE DID AROUND 43 MILLION OF PAR SERIAL BONDS 119 MILLION OF PAR TERM BONDS. 
          ON THIS DEAL, WE ADDED 20 MILLION IN PREMIUM LOCKOUT TERM BONDS. 
          AND AND THEN OUR PAC WAS 67.5 MILLION. ONE MINOR VARIATION HERE. 
          ACTUALLY A COUPLE. WE CHANGED SOME OF THE CALL LANGUAGE ON THE PACK AND ALSO CHANGED
WIDENED OUT OUR PACK BANDS 50 TO 700. 
          THE ISSUING TAX EXEMPT, WHICH WE HAVE THE VOLUME CAP TO DO. 
          BETWEEN OUR HFC PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS AND OUR VOLUME CAP RECYCLING HAS ALLOWED US TO ISSUE
100% TAX EXEMPT FOR THE LAST COUPLE ISSUES. 
          AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO ISSUE 100 TAX EXEMPT DEALS FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. 
          NOT HAVING TO LAYER IN A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPENSIVE,
TAXABLE. WE'VE GOT AN ADEQUATE VOLUME CAP TO SUPPORT OUR VOLUME. 
          OUR, OUR NET BORROWING COST ON THIS, THE NET,
THE NIC WAS 488. 
          [00:20:04]
THE TIC WAS 474. THE FUNDS WILL BE USED TO FUND FHA,
VA AND USDA LOANS PULLED INTO GINNIE MAE MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES. WE DID OUR,
OUR STANDARD STRUCTURE OF ON DPA, UN ASSISTED LOANS. 
          WE'RE OFFERING CURRENTLY AT 5.375%. OUR 3% DPA WE'RE OFFERING AT FIVE AND 5/8 AND OUR 4%
DPA WE'RE OFFERING AT FIVE AND THREE QUARTERS. TARGETED AREA LOANS ARE OFFERED AN EIGHTH LOWER ON EACH OF THOSE DPA PROGRAMS
STANDARD FINANCING TEAM. MORGAN STANLEY ACTED AS BOOK RUNNING SENIOR MANAGER. 
          WE ALSO ADDED FIDELITY AND BANK OF AMERICA TOWARD THE UNDERWRITING TEAM ON THIS
TRANSACTION. 
          THEY BOTH BOTH ACTED AS SELLING GROUP MEMBERS. 
          AS OF MARCH 3RD, SIXTH TODAY FUNDS WERE ABOUT 87% RESERVED. 
          WE DID HAVE SOME PIPELINE BUILT GOING INTO THIS DEAL. WE PLAN ON BUILDING PIPELINE GOING
INTO THE NEXT DEAL. AND WE'RE, WE'RE ANTICIPATING BUILDING YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO GET INTO THE NEXT DEAL WITH SOMEWHERE
AROUND A THIRD TO HALF OF THE DEAL WITH PIPELINE JUST IN. IT'S OBVIOUSLY A FUNCTION OF WHAT RATES DO. 
          A FEW REASONS THIS IS A STRONG SALE. WE'RE ABLE TO TIGHTEN THE SHORT END BY ABOUT FIVE
BASIS POINTS. 
          DUE TO VERY STRONG RETAIL ORDERS, WE'RE ABLE TO TIGHTEN THE PAA TERM BONDS TWO AND A HALF
TO FIVE BASIS POINTS. 
          AND WE'RE ABLE TO TIGHTEN THE PACK BY ABOUT THREE BASIS POINTS. ENDED UP AT PLUS 102 ON
THE PACK BONDS AFTER GOING OUT AT PLUS 105 US RESULTS, COMPARED VERY WELL WITH RECENT AND CONCURRENT HFA MR ISSUANCE. 
          A FEW REASONS I THINK THIS SALE WENT WELL. WE LISTENED TO THE MARKET,
WE WIDENED OUR PACK BANDS OUT, WE MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS, ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CALL LANGUAGE. AS I MENTIONED,
WE ALSO LAYERED IN A COUPLE OF PREMIUM LOCKOUT BONDS BASED ON INVESTOR INPUT. 
          THERE WERE SOME ENHANCED COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPARENCY. MORGAN STANLEY CREATED AN
INVESTOR ROADSHOW TO COMMUNICATE THESE STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE LANGUAGE CHANGES, AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COLOR ON OUR HISTORIC PREPAYMENT SPEED PERFORMANCE. 
          AND I WANT TO GIVE SOME SHOUT OUT TO JEFFREY'S AS WELL,
WHO HAD DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH TO HELP US PREPARE FOR THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH INVESTORS. 
          ALSO STRONG RETAIL ORDER PERIOD, AS I MENTIONED REALLY ENABLED US TO TIGHTEN UP THE SHORT
END AND GAVE US MOMENTUM TO ACCELERATE THAT INSTITUTIONAL ORDER PERIOD AND GET THE ENTIRE DEAL DONE IN ONE DAY. THAT CONCLUDES MY PREPARED REMARKS. 
          I'M CERTAINLY HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MIGHT HAVE. MR.. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU. MR. FLETCHER, CAN YOU GIVE THE BOARD A HIGH JUST A HIGH LEVEL
WHAT THOSE PREMIUM LOCKOUT BONDS ARE AND WHY WE DECIDED TO USE THEM THIS TIME? THAT DIFFERED FROM USUALLY OUR DEALS. YEAH. 
          SO BASICALLY FOR THE FOR THE RECORD, I HIGHLIGHTED HERE PREMIUM LOCKOUT BONDS. 
          COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT THOSE ARE? I MEAN,
SO WHEN WE HAVE TERM BONDS TERM BONDS BASICALLY ARE A GROUP, A BUNCH OF MATURITIES INTO A SINGLE MATURITY. 
          WHAT THE WHAT? THAT THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF THAT IS FOR LARGER INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS,
THEY GET ONE MATURITY AND THEN IT KIND OF FADES DOWN, BUT IT KIND OF ACTS LIKE A, A I MEAN, IT'S BASICALLY A SINKING FUND ON THE TERM BOND BY
PUTTING THAT PREMIUM LOCKOUT WE INVESTORS ARE ABLE TO, TO CAPTURE SOME ADDITIONAL YIELD ON THAT AND BE LOCKED OUT AND
HAVE PROTECTION ON THAT WITH THE, WITH THE LOCKOUT ON THE, ON THE ON THE CALL STRUCTURE. 
          SO, SO IN OTHER WORDS, MEMBERS THE, FOR THE AUDIENCE,
THE PREMIUM LOCKOUTS, WHAT IT ALLOWS IT, THE INVESTOR GETS TO KNOW THAT THEIR MONEY IS GOING TO BE INVESTED AT A HIGHER YIELD FOR A
LONGER PERIOD OF TIME AND NOT HAVE THE THREAT OF IT CALLED AWAY FROM THEM ON A PREPAYMENT. 
          SO IT HELPS THEM POSITION. AND I THINK IN THE DEPARTMENT'S CASE,
GIVEN THE MARKET DYNAMICS OF THE TIME WE WENT INTO THE MARKETPLACE THE DEMAND WAS THERE TO HELP DIVERSIFY OUR INVESTORS AND BRING IN MORE BUYERS BY OFFERING A LITTLE. 
          AND ALTHOUGH THE COUNTER TO THAT IS THAT WE DO RESTRICT SOME FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE WE'RE
UNABLE TO CALL THOSE BONDS AS EARLY OR QUICKER THAN WE WOULD LIKE. 
          THE AMOUNT IS GIVEN OUR OVERALL TRANSACTION AND JUST PORTFOLIO. 
          IT'S SUCH A SMALL, SMALL AMOUNT, IT DIDN'T REALLY IMPACT US. 
          AND WE DID BENEFIT PRICING WISE. RIGHT. MR. FLETCHER PRETTY SUBSTANTIALLY 30,
35 BASIS POINTS, I THINK WAS THE DIFFERENCE THAT WE SAVED QUITE A BIT. 
          AND OBVIOUSLY THE INVESTORS ARE GETTING MORE,
MORE COUPON, MORE PREMIUM MORE MORE YIELD. 
          BUT THEY'RE TAKING THAT AT A LOWER OVERALL YIELD,
RIGHT? BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT LOCKOUT. SO SO YEAH, WE WE WERE ABLE TO TIGHTEN THOSE UP A LITTLE
BIT. 
          AND AGAIN, IT WAS BASED ON INVESTOR FEEDBACK DURING THE ROADSHOW. 
          AND SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD THAT AVAILABLE. 
          [00:25:03]
IT WAS KIND OF A LAST MINUTE DECISION. YOU KNOW,
IT WASN'T ENOUGH TO MOVE THE NEEDLE, BUT I THINK THE BIGGER PART OF THAT WAS US SAYING, WE'RE LISTENING TO WHAT THE INVESTOR COMMUNITY WANTS AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR
BONDS ARE ARE ALIGNED WITH WHAT THE INVESTORS ARE LOOKING TO, TO PURCHASE. THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT I'D HAVE,
MR. CHAIRMAN, LOOKING AT THE BOARD BRIEFING MATERIALS IS THAT,
YOU KNOW, WHILE I WHILE I UNDERSTAND, MR. FLETCHER, THAT THE TAKEDOWN THAT WE PAY FOR THE BOND. 
          SO THE COMPENSATION WE'RE PAYING THE UNDERWRITERS TO SELL OUR BONDS TO THESE INVESTORS IS
SOMEWHAT MARKET STANDARD FOR HF A'S. 
          WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS PUSH THE ENVELOPE A LITTLE BIT,
THOUGH, BECAUSE IN LIGHT OF THE OTHER AGENCIES THAT WE HAVE HERE IN THE STATE THAT ARE OF SIMILAR RATING QUALITY, THIS STRUCTURE PARTICULARLY,
WE WE OFFERED SOME CONCESSIONS, I THINK, FROM THE DEPARTMENT IN THAT WE WIDENED OUR PREPAID,
OUR PREPAYMENT SPEED BANDS. 
          RIGHT. WE ALSO DID DO THE LOCKOUT BONDS, LIKE IN SOME OF THOSE,
YOU KNOW, WE OUGHT TO TRY TO GET CLOSER TO THE TAKEDOWNS THAT WE'RE SEEING FROM THE OTHER AGENCIES. OTHERWISE, WE SORT OF LOOK LIKE WE'RE OUTSIDE SORT OF THE NORM WHEN YOU LOOK AT
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OR THE VETERANS LAND BOARD, OR YOU LOOK AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM WHO ARE,
I THINK, FOCUSED ON COMPENSATION, AS WELL AS A MECHANISM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE KEEPING ALL THE DOLLARS WE CAN RIGHT IN THESE IN PREMIUM AND IN THESE TRANSACTIONS. 
          YOU KNOW, I WOULD, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO SORT OF,
YOU KNOW, PUSH AND GET AS AGGRESSIVE AS YOU CAN BECAUSE I THINK OUR BONDS SELL THEMSELVES TO SOME DEGREE IN THE MARKETPLACE. I TOTALLY AGREE. 
          MR. THOMAS AND YOU KNOW, I THINK THE ONE THING THAT I WILL AND YOU'RE VERY AWARE OF THIS,
I'M NOT TELLING YOU ANYTHING THAT YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF. 
          THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOUSING BONDS AND YOU KNOW,
A STOCK BOND OR WHATEVER. 
          SO WE'RE REALLY LOOKING, YOU KNOW, WE CERTAINLY LOOK AT TEXAS AND WE LOOK AT OUR CREDIT
AND WE LOOK AT HOW WE'RE RUNNING OUR PROGRAM, BUT WE ALSO ARE LOOKING AT WHERE OTHER ARE COMING IN AND ISSUING MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS,
WHAT THEIR COMP UPS.COM COMP SCHEDULES LOOK LIKE IN TERMS OF THE TAKEDOWNS, WE HAVE MADE A PUSH. WE'VE WE'VE TIGHTENED THE MANAGEMENT FEE. 
          AND, AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS. 
          I'M ALWAYS HAPPY TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR UNDERWRITING TEAM MORE HAPPY THAN
THEY ARE, BUT APPRECIATE THAT INPUT AND COLOR. 
          THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MR. CHAIRMAN. IT'S A GOOD TRANSACTION. THANKS. MR. MERCHANT, I GUESS THIS THIS QUESTION MAY BE TOO SIMPLE MINDED. 
          NOT SIMPLE, BUT ARE WE DO WE HAVE ENOUGH MONEY WHEN APPLICANTS COME IN TO TAKE A LOAN OUT
ON OUR PROGRAM THAT WE CAN FUND? ARE WE RUNNING OUT OF FUNDS? ARE WE RUNNING BEHIND THE DEMAND? SO THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION AND NEEDS TO BE BROKEN DOWN
IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS. 
          RIGHT. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE BOND PROGRAM FIRST,
WHICH IS OUR, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE ISSUE DEBT. 
          WE STRUCTURE THOSE DEALS IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE THAT WE PROVIDE IS
FUNDED IN THE PREMIUM, THAT PREMIUM OF THAT DEAL AND IT'S WRITTEN INTO THE CASH FLOW STRUCTURE SO THAT AS THOSE
MORTGAGES PAY DOWN AND PAY BACK WE'RE PAYING OFF THAT DEBT, RIGHT? AND WE HAVE THE WE'RE CAPPED BY FEDERAL LAW. 
          WE CAN ONLY MAKE 1.125% ON OUR DEALS AND MOST OF OUR DEALS FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS,
WE'VE BEEN PRETTY MUCH NEAR FULL SPREAD. 
          AND THIS ONE, WE'RE PROBABLY WHERE OUR CURRENT RATES ARE SLIGHTLY BELOW FULL SPREAD,
BUT WE HAVE SOME ZEROS SO WE CAN BUY DOWN. 
          THAT'S GETTING INTO A LOT OF COMPLEXITIES, BUT THE SHORT ANSWER ON THE BOND PROGRAM WE
HAVE AUTHORITY THROUGH THE VOLUME CAP THAT WE HAVE THAT WE, WE'RE ASSIGNED BY THE STATE AND THAT WE'VE HAD ASSIGNED TO US FROM THE HIF,
THE LOCAL HFCS ACROSS THE STATE. 
          AND WITH THE RECYCLING THAT WE'VE DONE, WE HAVE MORE VOLUME CAP THAN WE'VE HAD SINCE I'VE
BEEN IN THIS IN THIS SEAT SINCE I STARTED. IS IT MATCHING DEMAND? AND YEAH,
I THINK WE'RE AHEAD OF DEMAND. 
          I'M ACTUALLY I'M REALLY TRYING TO BE AGGRESSIVE WITH RATES TO KEEP OUR DEMAND HIGH. 
          SO WE'RE SERVING, SERVING MISSION. IN, IN A SHORTER WAY TO SAY THAT IS I'M TAKING LESS
SPREAD TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE ON RATES TO HELP MORE PEOPLE THAN THAN I NORMALLY WOULD OR I HAVE EXTRA CAPACITY. 
          AND SO THE SHORT ANSWER TO THE QUESTION NEVER GET A SHORT ANSWER FROM ME,
BUT THE SHORT ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS THAT FROM THE BOND PROGRAM, WE'RE IN GREAT SHAPE. WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF VOLUME CAP ON THE TBA PROGRAM. 
          WE ARE BUYING AND SELLING THOSE DEALS IN THE SAME MARKET,
RIGHT? 
          [00:30:03]
SO WE WILL WE'LL SET A RATE. AND AS SOON AS SOMEBODY MAKES THAT MORTGAGE LOAN AND SAYS,
YES, I WANT TO, I WANT THIS LOAN, WE'RE BASICALLY SELLING THAT FORWARD IN THE MARKET. 
          THE PREMIUM THAT WE GET IS SET IN OUR RATE THAT PAYS FOR A LARGE PORTION OF THAT DOWN
PAYMENT ASSISTANCE. 
          SO EVERY TIME WE'RE DOING THAT, THAT IS A CASH POSITIVE TRADE TO T-H-E-A. 
          SO WE HAVE UNLIMITED CAPACITY AS LONG AS THERE'S MARKET DEMAND FOR OUR FOR OUR. 
          BUT IF WE TRY TO GOOSE APPLICATIONS, WE WOULD LOWER THE RATE. 
          I MEAN, THE BROKER COMMUNITY WATCHES THAT VERY CLOSELY. 
          AND THEY'LL THEY'LL SHIFT VERY QUICKLY TO A LOWER PRODUCT IF THEY CAN GET THERE. 
          OH, THEIR CUSTOMER QUALIFIED. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IF I RAISE THE RATES. 
          NO. IF YOU WERE TO LOWER THE RATES, I MEAN, WHAT WHAT MAKES THE THE DEMAND GROW AND HOW
WOULD THEY COME TO OUR PROGRAM IF WE CAME OUT AND SAID, COME TO TEXAS. 
          WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU FIVE AND A QUARTER RATE. 
          WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE TO LOCK THE DOORS, WOULDN'T WE? YEAH. I MEAN, WE'RE WE'RE RESTRICTED BY MARKET DYNAMICS,
RIGHT? WE KNOW WE KNOW WHERE WE CAN, WE KNOW WE'D HAVE TO BUY THAT THAT RATE DOWN. 
          WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE USING CAPITAL TO BUY TO,
TO PROVIDE A LOWER RATE THAN THE MARKET IS ACTUALLY GIVING US. 
          AND THAT WOULD BE A DECISION WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE. 
          AND WE DON'T OFTEN DO THAT, RIGHT? WE DON'T WE'RE NOT TRYING. 
          I GUESS IF WE GOT SO CASH HEAVY THAT WE WANTED TO REALLY MAKE A PUSH AND SUBSIDIZE MORE
THAN WE COULD DO THAT. 
          BUT, BUT WHEN I DO A TBA MARKET TRADE, IT MAY BE CASH NEGATIVE DAY ONE,
BUT THE PRESENT VALUE OF THAT TRADE IS POSITIVE. 
          AND SO I HAVE CASH GOING OUT THE DOOR KNOWING THAT I'M GOING TO GET MONEY BACK ON THAT
SECOND LIEN THAT'S GOING TO COVER THAT AND ACTUALLY BE PROFITABLE. 
          AND HOW COMPETITIVE ARE WE IN HOLLAND? YOU MAY HAVE COVERED ALL THIS IN YOUR COMMITTEE. 
          HOW COMPETITIVE ARE WE WITH RURAL? THE RURAL PLAN. 
          FEDERAL PLAN FOR RURAL FINANCING FOR HOMES? OR ARE WE RIGHT IN THERE WITH THEM? OR ARE WE BEATING THEM OR HOW ARE WE DOING? SO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT JUST. 
          WELL, I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE PERSONALLY FOR THERE TO BE A GREATER EMPHASIS ON RURAL HOUSING. 
          AND THE FEDS HAVE A RURAL PROGRAM JUST JUST FOR I GUESS IT'S TOWNS UNDER 30,000 OR
SOMETHING. 
          AND THEY HAVE, THEY'VE GOT VERY GOOD STANDARD RATES,
BUT THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME RATE AS FHA, THEIR MARKET RATES. YEAH. I THINK THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT YOU'RE NOT THOSE PROGRAMS DON'T
HAVE DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHERE WE MOVE THE NEEDLE A LITTLE BIT. 
          I THINK THE OTHER PART OF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE REALLY BEEN TALKING ABOUT WITH,
WITH LISA AND HER TEAM IS, IS WE'VE ALWAYS KIND OF, WE'VE NOT BEEN AS AGGRESSIVE AS WE COULD BE WITH MARKETING OUR
PROGRAMS. AND I'M TALKING IN IN THE URBAN AREAS AND THE RURAL AREAS. 
          SO WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT OUR NOT ONLY MARKETING EFFORTS,
THE BROADER INITIATIVES THAT LISA AND HER TEAM ARE UNDERTAKING. 
          AND WE'VE MADE A COMMITMENT TO THAT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS TO INCREASE THAT
MARKETING EFFORT. 
          BUT WE'RE ALSO NOW KIND OF TAKING A LOOK AND SAYING,
HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE ATTRACT A LARGER LENDER NETWORK, RIGHT? SO MAKING SURE THAT WE DO HAVE THE STATE COVERED,
MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE DOING, WE HAVE THE DATA AND WE'RE, WE'RE ANALYZING WHAT'S GETTING DONE WHERE AND WHAT WE HAVE AND
WHAT WE DON'T. 
          SO WE ARE, WE ARE DEFINITELY LOOKING AT ALL OF THAT. 
          AND I THINK IT'S A DATA DRIVEN. IT'S A DATA DRIVEN QUESTION. 
          IF THEY WANT, IF THEY CAN'T GET ANYWHERE ELSE. 
          ABSOLUTELY. AND I, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE HAVE THE UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE WE DO HAVE AN
IN-STATE COMPETITOR WHO DOES A VERY GOOD JOB OF MARKETING. 
          BUT THERE'S NOTHING, THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO THAT THEY CAN'T DO JUST BASED ON OUR
BOND, OUR BOND PROGRAM, THE VOLUME CAP THAT WE HAVE,
WE HAVE A CAPITAL MARKETS DRIVEN PROGRAM. 
          BUT THAT DOESN'T THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CAN'T HAVE A MARKET DRIVEN PROGRAM AS WELL. 
          THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT TESSA RUNS IS IT'S TBA THEY'RE THEY'RE BUYING AND SELLING IN THE
SAME MARKET. 
          WE HAVE A SIMILAR PROGRAM, BUT THEY'VE REALLY MARKETED THEIR PROGRAM VERY AGGRESSIVELY.
MR. FLETCHER, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WE ARE OUT IN THE MARKET TRYING TO GROW THIS AND SEND IT TO
NEW MARKETS, WHICH WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN WORKING FOR THE LAST MONTH ON THAT,
SPECIFICALLY WITH INDEPENDENT BANKERS FROM TEXAS. 
          OUR GOAL WITH THIS BOARD MEMBERS IS TO WE'RE DOING 1 BILLION TO 1,000,000,001. 
          OUR, OUR, SOME OF OUR COMPETITORS IN THE UNITED STATES ARE DOING 3 BILLION. WE'RE GOING TO
START GROWING THIS BECAUSE THIS IS THE FOCUS OF BRINGING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND WEALTH TO HUMAN BEINGS 100%. AND I WILL SHARE ONE THING RELATED TO THAT,
MR. HARPER. LOOKING AT OUR 2026 FISCAL YEAR 2026 OUR VOLUMES ARE UP PRETTY DRAMATICALLY ON BOTH PROGRAMS. THE WE ARE AT ABOUT 70% OF WHERE WE WERE LAST YEAR ON OUR TBA 
          [00:35:09]
PROGRAM. AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE WHAT FIVE MONTHS IN THAT'S AS OF JANUARY. 
          YEAH, IT'S JANUARY, SO FOUR MONTHS IN. EXCEPT FOR AND OUR TBA OR OUR,
OUR BOND LOAN VOLUME IS VERY STRONG AS WELL. 
          SO I'M ANTICIPATING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE MUCH CLOSER TO ONE FIVE,
ONE SIX THIS YEAR PRETTY IN 26, IN 26, FISCAL YEAR 26. SO I THINK THE, THE, THE BROADER STORY HERE IS WE'VE MADE THE
CHANGES TO HAVE THE BEST AVAILABLE RATES IN OUR BOND PROGRAM. 
          WE'RE PUTTING THE INVESTMENT IN IN TERMS OF MARKETING,
BETTER MARKETING OUR PROGRAMS AND ALL OF THAT GROWTH. 
          I THINK AS LONG AS WE HAVE RATES, KIND OF MORTGAGE RATES WHERE THEY ARE KIND OF STEADY
RIGHT AROUND SIX. 
          WE'LL, IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY STRONG YEAR FOR THE HFA. 
          THE HFA IS IN TEXAS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SCOTT. 
          JUST SO ONE LAST SUMMARY OR RE SUMMARIZING THE ASPECT OF THE RECYCLED BOND CAP. 
          WE IT WAS ALMOST 26 MILLION OR 27 MILLION THAT WE USED IN THIS. 
          SO EVEN IF IT'S AT $250 MILLION CORRECT ISSUANCE,
IT'S REALLY 223 MILLION OF NEW BOND CAP. CORRECT. SO THAT WAS A GREAT PLUS. 
          I LOVE THAT RECYCLING PROGRAM. YEAH. AND IN ADDITION,
WE GOT ANOTHER 10 MILLION PLUS OF ACTUAL THE 250 MILLION WAS REALLY WE GOT 260 MILLION OUT OF IT. 
          SO. CORRECT. NOW, WHEN YOU HAVE THAT PREMIUM THAT TAKES VOLUME CAP AS WELL. 
          SO WE ARE WE USING THAT 27 WE ACTUALLY ON A,
ON THIS DEAL, WE HAD 260. 
          SO JUST CALL IT 230. WE USED 230 MILLION IN VOLUME CAP TO,
TO ISSUE 260 MILLION TO MAKE AND MAKE $260 MILLION WORTH OF LOANS. 
          THE NEXT DEAL, WE'VE HAD SOME STRONGER PREPAYS. 
          WE'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT THAT NEXT DEAL BEING AROUND 40 TO 50 MILLION IN RECYCLED VOLUME
CAP. 
          SO IF WE THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS DOES FOR US, WE GET 400 MILLION A YEAR,
GIVE OR TAKE FROM THE STATE. 
          WE'RE GOING TO ADD ABOUT 25% ADDITIONAL CAPACITY DUE TO THAT RECYCLING VOLUME CAP
RECYCLING PROGRAM. 
          YEAH. EXCELLENT. OKAY, GREAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. FLETCHER? IF NOT, OH, THIS WAS A REPORT. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT REPORT. APPRECIATE IT. GOOD JOB. MOVING ON TO ITEM 18 OF THE AGENDA. 
          REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INTERNAL AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE. 
          MR. THOMAS, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE WILL PROVIDE THE REPORT. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. COLLEAGUES, MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE. 
          THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MET THIS MORNING AT 9:30 A.M.. 
          IN THAT MEETING, MR. MARK SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL AUDIT OF TDCA,
PRESENTED TWO REPORT ITEMS TO US THE INTERNAL AUDIT OF THE 10% TEST FUNCTION AT ASSET, THE ASSET MANAGEMENT DIVISION, AND A REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE INTERNAL AND
EXTERNAL AUDIT ACTIVITIES. 
          WE ALSO HEARD FROM MR. ALEXANDER SUMNERS AND MR. AMADOU GAID, WITH THE STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE,
WHO PRESENTED THE SAOS AUDIT OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025, I BELIEVE IS WHAT IT WAS. AS. AS THE ACTION ITEM. 
          THE COMMITTEE VOTED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CEO'S REPORT TO THE FULL BOARD. 
          MR. SUMNERS AND MR. GARRETT ARE HERE TO PRESENT THAT REPORT TO US,
WHICH IS THE NEXT ACTION ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA. 
          I BELIEVE YOU'LL BE PLEASED WITH THEIR REPORT. 
          THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE,
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THERE MIGHT BE. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN, SOUNDS LIKE NO QUESTIONS. I'LL TURN IT BACK TO YOU. GREAT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT REPORT. MR. THOMAS, MOVING ON TO ITEM 19 OF THE AGENDA REVIEW,
REVIEW AND POSSIBLE ACCEPTANCE OF THE STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE AUDIT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2025 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 
          AND WE HAVE GUESTS FROM THE STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE. 
          ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS. 
          MY NAME IS ALEXANDER SUMNERS, AND I'M A PROJECT MANAGER WITH THE STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE. 
          ALSO WITH ME IS AMADOU, WHO IS AN AUDIT MANAGER WITH OUR OFFICE. 
          THIS MORNING WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THE RESULTS OF THE MOST RECENT FINANCIAL AUDITS AT THE
DEPARTMENT. 
          WE ISSUED TWO UNMODIFIED OPINIONS AS PART OF THE AUDIT,
ONE FOR THE DEPARTMENT'S BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025 AND ONE FOR THE DEPARTMENT'S REVENUE BOND PROGRAM, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025. 
          [00:40:05]
WE DETERMINED THAT THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WERE MATERIALLY CORRECT AND REPORTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, WE DETERMINED THAT THE STATEMENTS AS ISSUED WERE NOT MISLEADING TO THE
READER OF THOSE STATEMENTS. 
          ADDITIONALLY, WE ALSO CONCLUDED THAT THE DEPARTMENT'S HOUSING FINANCE DIVISION'S
COMPUTATION OF UNENCUMBERED FUND BALANCES COMPLIES WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 23 06.204 AND 23 06.205. WE ALSO ISSUED A REPORT ON THE DEPARTMENT'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE
PUBLIC FUNDS INVESTMENT ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED AUGUST 31ST, 2025. THE RESULTS OF THAT WORK DISCLOSED NO ISSUES OF NONCOMPLIANCE OR
OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED UNDER GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS. 
          LASTLY, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENTS AND
MR. SCOTT, AN INTERNAL AUDIT FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION THROUGHOUT THE AUDIT. 
          AND THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY
HAVE. 
          GREAT. THANK YOU. ALEX. DO ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS? MR.. MR.. NO QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN. BUT I DO HAVE A COMMENT. 
          I THINK MEMBERS OF THE THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE THIS MORNING HEARD THE SAME REPORT. 
          WE'RE VERY PLEASED WITH ITS FINDINGS. AND REMEMBER,
MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE, MISS FRIAS AND OUR COLLEAGUE HERE ON THE BOARD MADE MADE A COMMENT STATING, YOU KNOW, HOW IMPRESSED SHE WAS THAT THE FACT THAT THE AUDIT CAME OUT,
YOU KNOW, AS CLEAN AS IT DID AND WITH NO, NO APPARENT ISSUES,
IT'S A TESTAMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT. 
          I WANT TO COMMEND THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION STAFF AND THE ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT LED BY
MR. SCOTT. AND PARTICULARLY, WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME HEAPING PRAISE ON MR. WILKINSON'S EFFORT LEADING THE AGENCY. AND I THINK WE SHOULD WE SHOULD DO THE SAME HERE IN
THE OPEN MEETING. 
          IT'S BEEN A GREAT JOB BY THE AGENCY TO GET TO THIS RESULT. 
          AND AND WE WERE WE WERE VERY PLEASED TO RECEIVE IT AND DID STRESS THAT,
YOU KNOW, SHOULD WE SHOULD WE HAVE ANY ISSUES EMERGE? WE, WE AS BOARD MEMBERS CERTAINLY WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT AND KNOW ABOUT IT IN ADVANCE. 
          AND SO WE WERE VERY PLEASED WITH THE OUTCOME. 
          SO I JUST WANT TO COMMEND THAT, COMMEND STAFF AND THANK MR. WILKINSON FOR HIS LEADERSHIP OF THE AGENCY. I'M AFRAID I CAN'T TAKE ALL THE CREDIT. 
          WE HAVE A STRONG FINANCE TEAM LIKE YOU, LIKE YOU MENTIONED. SO UNDER DAVID'S LEADERSHIP. 
          SO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE? IF NOT, THANK YOU FOR THE REPORT. WE APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN HELPING US. 
          OKAY. THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU. THIS IS A. WE DO NEED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE REPORT,
SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 19 OF THE AGENDA. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THE BOARD, ACCEPT THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL AUDIT AUDIT OF THE HOUSING
TRUST FUND AND THE AUDIT OF THE HOUSING FINANCE DIVISION AND SUPPLEMENTAL BOND SCHEDULES, ALL AS DESCRIBED IN THE BOARD ACTION, REQUEST AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON THIS ITEM. 
          SECOND MOTION MADE BY MR. THOMAS, SECONDED BY MISS FARIAS. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 20 PRESENTATION,
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A WAIVER OF TEN TECH. 
          SECTION 11.101 B8E OF THE QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN RELATING TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF
ACCESSIBLE UNITS FOR THE. FOR PARK AT FORT BEND. YES, MR. GALVAN? YES, SIR. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. JONATHAN GALVAN, MANAGER OF THE 4% HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM. 
          THE PARK AT FORT BEND IS AN EXISTING TAX CREDIT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF STAFFORD,
FORT BEND COUNTY. 
          THE DEVELOPMENT ORIGINALLY RECEIVED AN AWARD OF 4% TAX CREDITS IN 1999,
AND A 2026 TAX CREDIT APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED ON JANUARY 23RD, 2026. THE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF 251, TWO AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS. 
          ALL EXISTING TWO AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS ARE TWO STORY TOWNHOME STYLE UNITS. 
          AS A RESULT, THERE ARE NO ACCESSIBLE TWO AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS CURRENTLY PRESENT WITHIN
THE DEVELOPMENT. 
          IN AN EFFORT TO REMEDY THIS ISSUE AND AS PART OF THE PROSPECTIVE REHABILITATION OF THE
PROPERTY, THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED TO RECONFIGURE A NUMBER OF EXISTING NON ACCESSIBLE TWO BEDROOM
TOWNHOME UNITS TO CREATE FULLY ACCESSIBLE TWO AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS. HOWEVER, THIS RECONFIGURATION RESULTS IN THE NEW,
ACCESSIBLE TWO AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS HAVING SMALLER SQUARE FOOTAGES THAN THE NON-ACCESSIBLE TWO AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE 2026 SHAPE. 
          THE QIP REQUIRES THAT ACCESSIBLE UNITS MUST HAVE AN EQUAL OR GREATER SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN
THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OFFERED IN THE SMALLEST NON ACCESSIBLE UNIT WITH THE SAME NUMBER OF BEDROOMS AND FULL BATHROOMS. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT,
THERE ARE TWO FACTORS AFFECTING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROPOSED NON-ACCESSIBLE UNITS. 
          FIRST, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE ENTRY AREA AND STAIRS IS BEING ADDED INTO THE TOTAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SECOND STORY NON-ACCESSIBLE UNIT 
          [00:45:10]
AND WILL IN TURN BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE GROUND FLOOR ACCESSIBLE UNIT. 
          THE SECOND FACTOR IS THAT ALL THE TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE UNITS HAVE A LARGER FOOTPRINT DUE TO
OVERHANGS THAT ARE PRESENT ON THE SECOND FLOOR. 
          THEREFORE, BECAUSE THE PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE UNITS ARE KEEPING THE EXISTING FIRST FLOOR
FOOTPRINT. 
          THEY ARE SMALLER THAN THE SECOND FLOOR NON-ACCESSIBLE UNITS. 
          THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WAIVER SO THAT THE DEVELOPMENT CAN BE CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE,
DESPITE THE ACCESSIBLE TWO AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS HAVING SMALLER SQUARE FOOTAGES THAN THEIR NON ACCESSIBLE COUNTERPARTS. APPLICANT NOTES THAT THE PROPOSED REHABILITATION AND
RECONFIGURATION OF THE PARK AT FORT BEND CREATES FULLY ACCESSIBLE TWO AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS, WHERE THERE WERE NONE BEFORE. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE WAIVER BE GRANTED BASED ON THE
AFOREMENTIONED FACTORS, AND I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY,
GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. SO AGAIN, THIS IS A IT'S A PREEXISTING. 
          IT IS. YEAH. DEVELOPMENT. I MEAN, THE THE PROJECT IS ALREADY OUT THERE. 
          IT'S BEEN THERE FOR YEARS, YEARS AND 27 YEARS OR 26,
25. 
          AND NOW WE ARE STILL ADDING ACCESSIBLE UNITS. 
          YES. BUT JUST DUE TO THE CONSTRAINTS OF IT, AGAIN,
NOT STARTING FROM SCRATCH. 
          THEY CAN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENT. OF THIS MATCHING THE SMALLEST NON-ACCESSIBLE UNIT. 
          EXACTLY. SO I MEAN, THIS IS JUST A PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION PREEXISTING CONSTRUCTION ISSUE. 
          EXACTLY. OKAY. DO ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS? OKAY. IN THAT CASE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION,
MR. MARCHANT. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THE I'M ON THE WRONG ONE. 
          I MOVE THE BOARD, APPROVE THE REQUESTED WAIVER BY THE PARK AT FORT BEND OF TEN TECH,
SECTION 11.101 B8E RELATED TO THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSIBLE UNITS. 
          ALL IS DESCRIBED, CONDITIONED AND AUTHORIZED IN THE BOARD. 
          REQUEST ACTION, REQUEST RESOLUTION AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON THIS ITEM. 
          MOTION MADE BY MR. MARCHANT, SECONDED BY MISS CONROY. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. GREAT. THANKS. I THINK THAT ONE,
I THINK WAS A EXERCISE IN COMMON SENSE, SO. OKAY. YEAH, JUST IN CASE. ITEM 21 OF THE AGENDA PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE APPROVAL OF THE 2026 STATE OF
TEXAS LOW INCOME HOUSING PLAN AND ANNUAL REPORTS. 
          MR.. YES. GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN, BOARD MEMBERS. 
          MY NAME IS JEREMY STREMLER. I'M THE DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSING RESOURCE CENTER. AND AS THE
CHAIRMAN STATED, I'M HERE TO PRESENT ITEM 21, WHICH RELATES TO THE APPROVAL OF THE 2026 STATE OF TEXAS LOW INCOME HOUSING PLAN AND ANNUAL REPORT. 
          THE DOCUMENT CONSISTS OF EIGHT CHAPTERS OR SECTIONS AN INTRODUCTION,
HOUSING ANALYSIS, ANNUAL REPORT. 
          ACTION PLAN. PANDEMIC RESPONSE AND OTHER INITIATIVES. 
          PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. COLONIAL ACTION PLAN. ANNUAL ACTION PLAN. 
          AND THEN SIX ADDITIONAL APPENDICES. I WANT TO TOUCH ON THREE OF THE SECTIONS,
WHICH ARE THE MOST DATA AND INFORMATION HEAVY SECTIONS. 
          FIRST IS THE HOUSING ANALYSIS SECTION, WHICH CONTAINS AN OVERVIEW OF THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING NEEDS IN THE STATE AND AN ESTIMATE AND ANALYSIS OF THE HOUSING NEED IN EACH OF THE STATE'S 13 T-H-E-A SERVICE REGIONS, AND THEN ADDITIONAL TABLES FOR EACH REGION. 
          AND THE DATA THAT GOES INTO THOSE ANALYZES CAN BE FOUND IN APPENDIX B. 
          THE ANNUAL HOUSING REPORT SECTION HIGHLIGHTS DCA'S ACTIVITIES AND ACHIEVEMENTS DURING THE
PRECEDING FISCAL YEAR. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE FISCAL YEAR 2025. AND PROVIDES A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF FUNDING HOUSEHOLDS
AND INDIVIDUALS SERVED BY THC PROGRAMS. THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN SECTION IS LOOKING FORWARD TO THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR,
WHICH DOES HAPPEN TO BE THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR. 
          WE'RE IN FISCAL YEAR 2026 AND HOW THE DEPARTMENT INTENDS TO USE THE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO
OPERATE OUR PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS THE UNDERSERVED, UNDERSERVED NEEDS NOTED IN THE HOUSING ANALYSIS SECTION OF THE DOCUMENT. 
          NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL CHANGED IN CONTENT FROM THIS. 
          FROM THIS YEAR'S SLIP FROM LAST YEAR'S. STILL OFFERS A COMPREHENSIVE REFERENCE ON
STATEWIDE HOUSING NEEDS, HOUSING RESOURCES, AND STRATEGIES FOR FUNDING ALLOCATIONS. 
          THE DRAFT VERSION WAS BROUGHT BEFORE YOU IN JANUARY,
AND BY LEGISLATION, THIS FINAL VERSION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNOR, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE AND LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEMBERS NO LATER THAN
30 DAYS AFTER THE BOARD RECEIVES AND APPROVES THE FINAL DOCUMENT. 
          SO 30 DAYS FROM TODAY. SINCE JANUARY, THE DOCUMENT WENT OUT FOR A 30 DAY PUBLIC COMMENT
PROCESS. 
          HELD A PUBLIC HEARING AND RECEIVED A NUMBER OF COMMENTS. ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO,
THERE WERE NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES FROM THE VERSION VERSION YOU SAW BACK IN JANUARY. 
          [00:50:07]
SOME DATA WAS UPDATED. WE DO USE A LOT OF DATA THAT'S CREATED BY HUD,
AND THAT DATA WAS FINALLY RELEASED IN LATE DECEMBER, EARLY JANUARY. BUT TOO LATE FOR US TO INCORPORATE IT INTO THE DRAFT VERSION. 
          INITIALLY THOSE COMMENTS AND REASONED RESPONSES ARE BOTH PRINTED IN YOUR BOARD PACKET AND
WILL BECOME PART OF THE SLIP DOCUMENT ITSELF IN THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CHAPTER. 
          I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO TAKE A MINUTE TO RECOGNIZE KEVIN REARDON,
THE HR PLANNER WHO COMPILES THIS DOCUMENT ALONG WITH PERFORMING THE DATA ANALYSIS AND COMPILATION YOU FIND THROUGHOUT, IS A TIME INTENSIVE AND TECHNICAL TASK IN WHICH HE
EXPERTLY ACCOMPLISHES. 
          WITH THAT, WE RECOMMEND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE 2026 STATE OF TEXAS LOW INCOME
HOUSING PLAN ANNUAL REPORT, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. DO BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THIS OR ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? SEEING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 21 OF THE AGENDA. 
          I MOVE THE BOARD APPROVE THE 2026 STATE OF TEXAS LOW INCOME HOUSING PLAN AND ANNUAL
REPORT. 
          ALL IS DESCRIBED. CONDITION AUTHORIZING THE BOARD REQUEST RESOLUTION AND ASSOCIATED
DOCUMENTS IN THE ITEM. 
          I'LL. SECOND. MOTION MADE BY MR. THOMAS. MR. HARPER,
SECONDED BY MISS. 
          CONROY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING? NONE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. OH,
PLEASE. 
          YES. IT SEEMS LIKE WHEN I READ THIS AND THEN I READ THE COMMENTS. 
          IT SEEMS THAT YOU HAVE A VERY GOOD RELATIONSHIP,
I GUESS, WITH PEOPLE THAT ARE REVIEWING THIS AND GIVING YOU COMMENTS. 
          I MEAN, IT SEEMS IT DOESN'T SEEM ADVERSARIAL OR AND I WANTED TO SAY THAT,
THAT TO ME SAYS THAT IT MEANS THAT THIS AGENCY IS OPEN TO COMMENT AND THAT PEOPLE FEEL CONFIDENT AND COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO COME TO YOU AND,
AND FEEL LIKE THEY CAN BE HEARD. 
          THANK YOU. SO YES. GREAT. THANK YOU. WE DID VOTE. 
          OKAY. MOTION CARRIED. OKAY. LET'S SEE IF YOU CAN MAKE THAT SAME COMMENT AFTER THIS NEXT
ITEM ON THE AGENDA. 
          ITEM 22 PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN ORDER ADOPTING NEW TEN TECH. 
          CHAPTER TEN UNIFORM MULTIFAMILY RULES SUBCHAPTER J HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION COMPLIANCE
MONITORING AND DIRECTING ITS PUBLICATION IN THE TEXAS REGISTER. MISS QUACKENBUSH. 
          GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN. BOARD MEMBERS, MR. WILKINSON,
WENDY QUACKENBUSH, DIRECTOR OF MULTIFAMILY COMPLIANCE. 
          THE NEXT ITEM ON YOUR AGENDA IS THE POSSIBLE ACTION ON ADOPTING THE NEW RULE. 
          CHAPTER TEN SUBCHAPTER J HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION COMPLIANCE MONITORING RULE,
WHICH I WILL REFER TO AS THE HFC RULE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS ITEM. THE HFC RULE WAS PUBLISHED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE TEXAS REGISTER FROM DECEMBER
26TH, 2025 THROUGH JANUARY 26TH, 2026. DURING THIS TIME,
THE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM TEN ENTITIES. 
          THE COMMENT RECEIVED WAS VERY THOUGHTFUL AND ON THE HFC RULE AND HELP GUIDE US IN UPDATING
AND FINE TUNING THE RULE TO ENSURE IT ALIGNS WITH THE PURPOSE AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF HOUSE BILL 21. 
          BY THE WAY, OF THE BACKGROUND HOUSING, FINANCE CORPORATIONS,
OR HFCS ARE NONPROFIT ENTITIES FORMED BY CITIES, COUNTIES, MUNICIPALITIES UNDER CHAPTER 394 OF THE TEXAS TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. 
          THESE ENTITIES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR 100% PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS WHEN WORKING IN CONJUNCTION
WITH LOCAL SPONSORS. 
          HOUSE BILL 21 TASKED THE DEPARTMENT WITH PROVIDING COMPLIANCE,
MONITORING OVERSIGHT OF ALL HFC MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. 
          ALL HFC MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, EXCEPT THOSE THAT HAVE LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX
CREDITS, MUST SUBMIT AN AUDIT REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT BY JUNE 1ST,
2026 AND ANNUALLY AFTER. 
          THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE RULE INCLUDE SEVERAL UPDATES TO THE DEFINITION SECTION
TO BETTER CLARIFY THE TERMS AUDITOR AND RENT. 
          EXTRANEOUS LANGUAGE WAS REMOVED FROM THESE TERMS TO BETTER ALIGN WITH THE RULE WITH
STATUTORY DEFINITIONS. 
          ADDITIONAL UPDATES INCLUDE SHORTENING THE TIME PERIOD FOR REQUESTING AN EXTENSION FROM 120
DAYS TO 60 DAYS. 
          THE ANNUAL ANNUAL SERVICE FEE TO THE DEPARTMENT IS CAPPED AT $35 PER RESTRICTED UNIT
APPLIED TO THE SAMPLE SIZE OF UNITS, BUT NOT LESS THAN $500 PER DEVELOPMENT. IN ADDITION,
NEW LANGUAGE WAS ADDED TO CLARIFY WHEN A HOUSEHOLD'S INCOME OR RENT DESIGNATIONS 
          [00:55:02]
INCREASE, THE HOUSEHOLD'S RENT MAY MAY BE INCREASED ACCORDINGLY ACCORDINGLY TO THE NEW
DESIGNATION. 
          BEFORE YOU OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          LASTLY, WE HAVE SOME UPDATES TO THE RULE THAT I'D LIKE TO READ ON RECORD. 
          THE DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL THAT TWO AREAS ARE
INCONSISTENT WITH HOUSE BILL 21. 
          THE FIRST SECTION IS 10.12031 BIG D THREE LITTLE EYES. 
          THE DEPARTMENT IS STRIKING THIS LANGUAGE AND ADDING THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE FOR A
DEVELOPMENT ACQUIRED PRIOR TO MAY 28TH, 2025, NO LATER THAN JUNE 1ST, 2026. THAT WOULD BE THE NEW LANGUAGE INSERTED,
AND THAT IS REFERRING TO WHEN THE FIRST AUDIT REPORT IS DUE. 
          THE SECOND AREA THAT WE'D LIKE TO READ FOR RECORD IS 10.12043 CAPITAL L, LITTLE I, LITTLE C AND THAT WERE STRIKING THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH OF LITTLE C. 
          AND I'M HAPPY TO READ THAT. WHAT WE'RE STRIKING,
IF YOU NEED ME TO. 
          LET'S GO. I IMAGINE COMMENTS WILL ALSO ADDRESS THIS. 
          SO I KNOW THAT THERE'S OTHER OTHER PEOPLE THAT WANT TO MAKE COMMENT,
BUT STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THESE CHANGES. 
          OKAY. MR. WILKINS, ANYTHING AT THIS POINT? OKAY. 
          LET'S ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE ECCLES RULE TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS MEETING. 
          SO MOVED. SECOND. MOTION MADE BY MR. MARCHANT,
SECONDED BY MISS FER.DIAZ. 
          ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? WE'RE GOING TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT,
MR. ARRIAGA. DO YOU WANT TO GO FIRST? THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. BOARD MEMBERS, MR. WILKINSON. I'M ROGER ARRIAGA,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE TEXAS AFFILIATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDERS. 
          AND LET ME GO AHEAD AND SIGN IN WHILE I'M HERE. 
          TAP HAS SOME SPECIFIC POINTS TO MAKE REGARDING THE FINAL HFC RULE. 
          BUT BEFORE WE HAVE A COUPLE OF FOLLOW UP SPEAKERS FROM ME PRESENT THE SPECIFIC CONCERNS I
WANT TO PROVIDE THE BOARD WITH JUST A BRIEF SUMMARY OF HOW OUR INDUSTRY WIDE COMMENT WAS DEVELOPED. WE THINK THIS IS PERTINENT. 
          THE RULE WAS FIRST APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL AS DESCRIBED TO THE TEXAS REGISTER IN OCTOBER AT
THE OCTOBER BOARD MEETING, WITH PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD EXPECTED TO END IN LATE NOVEMBER THE 24TH. 
          AT THAT SAME TIME, TAP ACTUALLY FORMED A TAX EXEMPTION RULES SUBCOMMITTEE. 
          UNDER OUR COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE, OUR SUBCOMMITTEE WAS TASKED WITH DIGESTING THE PROPOSED
RULE AND DEVELOPING OUR EVENTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          THE CHAIR OF THAT SUBCOMMITTEE IS TAP BOARD MEMBER STEPHANIE MALKIN,
WHO IS HERE TODAY. 
          OUR SUBCOMMITTEE COLLABORATED WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENTS ASSOCIATION AND TEXAS,
THE TEXAS CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT OFFICIALS. 
          EACH OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS COLLABORATED WITH US AND JOINTLY SIGNED ALONG WITH TAP. 
          THE PUBLIC COMMENT LETTER SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION. 
          SO THE SPEAKERS WHO FOLLOW ME REPRESENT THE RESPECTIVE MEMBERSHIPS OF TAP,
TAA AND TEXAS NARO. 
          OUR SUBCOMMITTEE DID MEET WEEKLY AND DISCUSSED ALL ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE,
BUT THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS THAT WE NEEDED CLARIFICATION TO AND NEEDED ANSWERS. 
          SO TO DEVELOP A BETTER UNDERSTANDING, WE ORGANIZED A HYBRID IN-PERSON VIRTUAL ROUNDTABLE
WITH DEPARTMENT STAFF THAT WAS HELD ON NOVEMBER 14TH OF 25. 
          AT THAT VERY WELL ATTENDED ROUNDTABLE, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE RULES SUBMITTED TO THE
TEXAS REGISTER WAS NOT THE SAME PROPOSED RULE THAT THIS BOARD HAD ACTUALLY APPROVED AT THE OCTOBER BOARD MEETING. THIS RESULTED IN THE RULE MAKING PROCESS BEING RE-INITIATED AND
THEREBY DELAYED FOR FINAL ADOPTION UNTIL TODAY AT THE DECEMBER BOARD MEETING, THE DEPARTMENT STAFF REPROPOSED THE RULE AND RE-INITIATED THE NEW COMMENT PERIOD THAT
CONCLUDED ON JANUARY 26TH. 
          THE COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY OUR SUBCOMMITTEE WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBERSHIPS OF TAP. 
          LIKE I MENTIONED, THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT ASSOCIATION,
TEXAS NRO. 
          WE DO WANT TO EXPRESS OUR APPRECIATION TO THE DEPARTMENT ON THE REASONABLENESS WHERE
CHANGES WERE MADE IN RESPONSE TO OUR COMBINED COMMENT. 
          THE SPEAKERS WHO FOLLOW ME WILL NOT BE DISCUSSING OUR SUBMITTED COMMENT. 
          THE PURPOSE OF OUR PRESENCE TODAY IS REALLY TO DISCUSS SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT CHANGES
MADE TO THE PROPOSED RULE, IN RESPONSE TO OTHER COMMENTERS, TO EFFICIENTLY ORGANIZE OUR COMMENT AND TO ENSURE
ADHERENCE TO THE THREE MINUTE RULE. 
          WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF SPEAKERS, DARREN SMITH,
WHO SITS ON THAT SUBCOMMITTEE, AND STEPHANIE NOTKIN, WHO IS THE CHAIR OF THAT SUBCOMMITTEE, WILL BE THE SECOND SPEAKER AGAIN. 
          WE DO WANT TO EXPRESS OUR GRATITUDE TO THE DEPARTMENT STAFF FOR THEIR CONTINUED AND
COLLABORATIVE SPIRIT. 
          I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A LONG ROAD FOR US, AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT WE ARE ALL READY TO
MOVE FORWARD ON THIS. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. RIGHT INSIDE YOUR THREE MINUTES. 
          [01:00:04]
IT'S GOOD YOU'VE DONE THIS BEFORE. DONE. THAT'S GOOD. 
          CHAIRMAN VAZQUEZ, BOARD MR. WILKERSON. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF TAP. 
          AS ROGER SAID MY CONCERN IS WITH. AND WHO ARE YOU? FOR THE RECORD, I'M SORRY, DARREN SMITH WITH THE TAP SUBCOMMITTEE. 
          MY CONCERN IS WITH 10.12031 CAPITAL B THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT AN ANNUAL COMPLIANCE AUDIT IS
JUNE 1ST. 
          THIS IS A PARAGRAPH PROVIDED THE DEPARTMENT WITH FLEXIBILITY,
FLEXIBILITY, AND CONSIDERING EXTENSIONS TO THAT DEADLINE AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 3949027G. THE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A COMMENT THAT 120 DAY EXTENSION TO THE JUNE 1ST
DEADLINE PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT, AND THE DRAFT RULE WAS EXCESSIVE AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE NEED FOR TIMELY
COMPLIANCE MONITORING, AND RECOMMENDED THAT THE TIME LIMIT BE LIMITED TO 60 DAYS. 
          NO FURTHER CONTEXT WAS PROVIDED AS TO WHY THE COMMENTER THOUGHT 120 DAY EXTENSION IS
EXCESSIVE, AND HOW THAT LENGTH OF TIME IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE NEED FOR THE TIMELY COMPLIANCE
MONITORING. 
          WE DISAGREE WITH THE COMMENTER. SECTION 3.7394. 
          9027G STATES THE DEPARTMENT MAY EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING ANY AUDIT REQUIRED
UNDER THIS ACTION FOR GOOD CAUSE, SHOWN AS DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THAT'S STRAIGHT FROM THE STATUTE. 
          THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN ASKED, HAS BEEN TASKED WITH THESE PROVISIONS OF OVERSIGHT AND
ADMINISTRATION OF HB 21. 
          THE PLAIN LANGUAGE IN THE STATUTE CLEARLY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE DISCRETION OF THE
EXTENSION IS EXCLUSIVE TO THE PURVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT, MEANING, GIVEN THE BREADTH OF THE DEPARTMENT'S EXPERIENCE AND OVERSIGHT AND MONITORING OF
THEIR CURRENT PORTFOLIO, THEY'RE IN THE BEST POSITION TO DETERMINE WHAT IS OR WHAT IS NOT EXCESSIVE FOR THE PURPOSE
OF TIMELY COMPLIANCE MONITORING. 
          AS SUCH, THE MOST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE DISCRETION IN DETERMINING THE
APPROPRIATE LENGTH FOR THE EXTENSION IS SOLELY WITH THE DEPARTMENT. 
          YELLOW. SO HB 21 INTRODUCED A FRAMEWORK THAT RECOGNIZED THAT THE THESE IDEAS INVOLVE
COMPLEX DOCUMENTATION, THIRD PARTY COORDINATION, RECONCILIATION PROCESS THAT ARE NOT IN CONTROL OF THE HFC USER
AND AUDITOR. 
          SINCE THE COMMENT APPEARS TO BE FOCUSED ON THE NUMBER OF DAYS AVAILABLE FOR THE EXTENSION
AS OPPOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT'S DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATENESS BASED ON GOOD CAUSE AND REQUEST, WE PROPOSED THAT THE NUMBER OF DAYS BE STRICKEN FROM THE PARAGRAPH TO
READ IN BE KHALED.A REPORT EXTENSIONS REQUESTS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE HFC@TEXAS.GOV NO LATER THAN MAY 1ST. 
          FOR EACH REPORTING YEAR, THE REQUEST FOR THE EXTENSION MUST INCLUDE THE EXPLANATION AND
THE REASON. 
          FOR THE REQUESTED EXTENSION DATE WITHIN SEVEN DAYS. 
          WITHIN SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS OF RECEIVING THE REQUEST,
THE DEPARTMENT WILL RESPOND TO THE REQUEST AND ISSUE A DETERMINATION OF APPROVAL OR DENIAL FOR AN EXTENSION. SO WE JUST WANT TO GET BACK TO THE STATUTE AND REALLY WANT TO THANK THE
STAFF. 
          SO I KNOW I'M OVER THREE MINUTES, BUT I REALLY WANT TO THANK THE STAFF AND WHAT THEY'VE
DONE. AND YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S BEEN A TOUGH THING FOR THEM TO DO. BUT THEY'VE DONE AN AWESOME JOB. 
          SO DARREN. SO JUST. SO YOU IN YOUR REMARKS, YOU SAY IT'S BASICALLY UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE OF THE STAFF OF THE DEPARTMENT. 
          IT'S IN THE STATUTE. YOU SEE HARM IN US JUST PUTTING SOME PARAMETERS ON IT TO HEAR 60
DAYS. 
          THAT'S. AND THEN WE STILL HAVE DISCRETION AFTER THAT. 
          IF THERE'S STILL SOME VALID CONTINUING CIRCUMSTANCE,
I THINK DISCRETION, AS YOU JUST SAID TO STEPHANIE'S GOING TO ADDRESS A LITTLE BIT OF THAT. 
          BUT BUT BUT I THINK, OKAY, WELL, OKAY, YOU CAN START COMING UP,
BUT I'M JUST JUST SAYING I DON'T SEE HOW PUTTING A DATE IN THEIR. 
          ARMS YOU ALL THE INDUSTRY OR LIMITS. AND WE'RE NOT LIMITING OURSELVES BY ANY MEANS. 
          JUST KIND OF SETTING HERE SOME PARAMETERS. LET'S WORK WITH THAT. 
          AND SO I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. I DON'T THINK UNLESS. 
          DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. SMITH BEFORE WE HEAR MISS NATKIN? I CAN RESPOND TO THAT SPECIFIC ONE, IF THAT'S HELPFUL. 
          AND LET'S GO AHEAD AND WE WON'T START YOUR CLOCK IN ANSWER TO THIS,
BUT STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN. 
          STEPHANIE. I'M THE CHAIR OF THE TAX EXEMPT RULEMAKING SUBCOMMITTEE WITH TAP. 
          AND NO, I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM PUTTING PARAMETERS INTO IT. 
          [01:05:03]
I THINK THE CONCERN IS THE MANNER IN WHICH THE RULE CURRENTLY READS WOULD LIMIT IT TO 60
DAYS. 
          AND SO IT WOULDN'T GIVE THE DEPARTMENT THE DISCRETION. 
          SO IF WE COULD PERHAPS PUT SOMETHING IN THE RULE THAT THE INITIAL REQUEST WAS 60 DAYS AND
COULD BE EXTENDED BASED ON THE DEPARTMENT'S DISCRETION, THAT I THINK WORKS OKAY. WE APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S COMMENT ON THAT. 
          NOW YOU CAN SIGN IN AND START YOUR YOUR. 
          ALL RIGHT. WELL, GOOD MORNING AGAIN, STEPHANIE NORKIN. 
          I AM THE CHAIR OF THE TAX EXEMPT SUBCOMMITTEE WITH RULE MAKING SUBCOMMITTEE WITH TAP. 
          I'M ALSO THE CO-CHAIR OF THE COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE AND A BOARD MEMBER OF,
OF TAP. 
          AND MY CAPACITY TODAY, I'M HERE TO KIND OF JUST SPEAK ON ONE SPECIFIC CHANGE THAT WAS MADE
IN RESPONSE TO OTHER COMMENT AND MEMBER CONROY, I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE FELT VERY COMFORTABLE COLLABORATING WITH WITH THE
DEPARTMENT. 
          SO TO YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENT TO THE OTHER SPEAKER,
I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE DID FEEL HEARD, AND WE DID FEEL LIKE WE COULD GO TO THE DEPARTMENT AND EXPRESS OUR CONCERNS. 
          AND SO TO THAT, I WANT TO PERSONALLY THANK THE DEPARTMENT AND THE STAFF FOR THAT
COLLABORATIVE SPIRIT. 
          THERE IS A THERE WAS A CHANGE THAT WAS MADE WITH HB 21 REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF RENT
AND WHAT IS CONSIDERED RENT. 
          AND IN THAT DEFINITION, IT INTRODUCED THE IDEA THAT RENT INCLUDED BOTH WHAT THE TENANT
PAID AND ACTUAL THEIR LEASE LEASE CHARGE OF RENT, BUT ALSO ANY KIND OF REOCCURRING FEES. AND THAT COULD BE UTILITIES THAT COULD BE PEST
CONTROL, THAT COULD BE A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS. IT HAD A SPECIFIC CARVE OUT FOR FEES THAT WERE
OPTIONAL, SO IF THEY HAD A CHOICE TO OPT OUT OF IT, IT WOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED A RENT. 
          SO LIKE IF THERE'S A STORAGE ROOM THAT THEY WANTED TO RENT THAT WAS OPTIONAL,
THAT WOULDN'T BE INCLUDED. 
          WHEN THIS DEFINITION WAS INTRODUCED, OBVIOUSLY WE HAD A WHOLE BUNCH OF HFC DEALS ALREADY
ON THE GROUND THAT WERE UNDERWRITTEN BASED ON THEIR CURRENT STRUCTURE OF, OF HOW THEY WERE CHARGING, WHICH INCLUDED FEES. 
          IT IS A COMMON PRACTICE IN THESE PROPERTIES TO CHARGE FEES LIKE TRASH,
WATER, SEWER YOU KNOW, CABLE INTERNET, MOST OF WHICH ARE DISCOUNTED RATE TO THE TENANT AND THEY WOULD OTHERWISE
BE CHARGING. 
          AND SO WHEN THIS RULE WAS, WHEN STATUTE WAS ENACTED,
THE INDUSTRY HAD A CONCERN ABOUT SPECIFICALLY WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? WE'RE CURRENTLY OPERATING IN ONE SPACE. HOW DO WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THESE FEES ARE THAT WE
SHOULD BE CONSIDERING IN RENT? AND SO THROUGH THE RULEMAKING PROCESS, THE DEPARTMENT WAS CONSULTED AND THERE WAS AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FEES WERE REALLY ABOUT THOSE FEES THAT WERE UNIQUE TO THE COMMUNITY. SO SAID DIFFERENTLY, I HAVE TO PAY ELECTRICITY WHEREVER I GO. 
          SO THAT'S NOT UNIQUE TO THE COMMUNITY. BUT PERHAPS A FEE TO USE THE POOL WOULD BE UNIQUE
TO THAT COMMUNITY, AND THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE IN RENT. 
          AND THE PROPOSED RULE DID HAVE A CARVE OUT FOR THESE TYPES OF COMMON FEES,
LIKE RELATED TO UTILITIES. 
          AND SO, AND THAT WAS DEFINITELY A RESPONSE TO OUR COMMA AND OTHER FOLKS COMMENTS DURING
THE INITIAL RULE MAKING PROCESS. 
          SO WE DO APPRECIATE THAT THE PROPOSED RULE WAS REFLECTIVE OF KIND OF WHAT THE COMMON
PRACTICE IS IN THE INDUSTRY THROUGH THE THIS RULE, THE FINAL RULE HAS BEEN CHANGED IN RESPONSE TO A COMMENTER TO STRIKE OUT ALL OF THAT,
WHICH MEANS THAT ANY FEE CHARGE TO A TENANT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN RENT. 
          AND WHILE WE UNDERSTAND THE CONSTRUCT OF THE STATUTE,
HERE'S WHERE THE PROBLEM ARISES. 
          THESE DEALS HAVE RENT LIMITS, WHICH MEANS THAT THE RENT THAT'S BEING CHARGED CURRENTLY
BASED ON GUIDANCE FROM THE DEPARTMENT AS THE PROPOSED RULE WAS HAPPENING, WILL NOT BE RESTRICTED. AND SO FOR REPORTING YEAR 2025,
WE'LL BE DEALING WITH HFC PROPERTIES THAT OPERATED IN GOOD FAITH BASED ON WHAT WAS HAPPENING DURING THIS RULE MAKING PROCESS THAT WILL HAVE LIKE A LOT OF FINDINGS OF
NONCOMPLIANCE RELATED TO THEIR RENT NOT BEING RESTRICTED. 
          IT ALSO HAS A SUBSEQUENT IMPACT ON THE ANNUAL SAVINGS CALCULATIONS WITH WHICH WE'RE
CONCERNED. 
          SO OUR ASK WOULD BE THAT WE EITHER SAY THAT THIS DEFINITION IS APPLICABLE FOR HFC DEALS IN
PLACE AFTER A STATUTE WAS ENACTED, WHICH IS WHEN THE DEFINITION WAS FIRST INTRODUCED. 
          AND THAT'S, THAT'S OUR PRIMARY ASK. AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK I'D LIKE TO SEE. 
          AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT ALTERNATIVES IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. 
          SO WITH THAT, I'LL, I WENT OVER MY THREE MINUTES. 
          SO SORRY. DON'T BE MAD. SO YOU WANT IT YOU'RE OKAY WITH IT BEING APPLIED TO. 
          DEVELOPMENTS AFTER THE LAW WAS RIGHT, BECAUSE THOSE DEVELOPMENTS WERE ENTERED INTO
UNDERWRITTEN BASED ON THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT STATUTORY DEFINITION WAS. 
          SO WE'RE TOTALLY OKAY WITH THAT. SO IT'S NOT THOSE RULES PER SE,
THAT THOSE DEFINITIONS THAT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PER SE. IT'S JUST THE APPLICABILITY. NO. GRANDFATHER. 
          [01:10:02]
YEAH. THE APPLICABILITY OF IT AND THE WAY THAT THE DEFINITIONS ARE STRUCTURED,
THEY ARE IN ONE SINGULAR PLACE AND WOULD APPLY TO ALL DEALS REGARDLESS OF KIND OF WHEN THEY WERE ENTERED INTO. 
          AND SO THE CLARITY, I THINK, NEEDS TO BE ADDED IF WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED WITH THE LITERAL
DEFINITION OF STATUTE WITHOUT ANY FURTHER CONTEXT. 
          SO JUST TAKING THIS ONE STEP FURTHER, THE FACT THAT. 
          EXCLUSIVE OF THIS PARTICULAR RULE, THE FACT THAT THIS IS HB 21 IS APPLICABLE TO ALL
HOUSING FINANCE FINANCED. ISN'T THE ISN'T THE ISSUE? I MEAN,
YOU'RE YOU ALL ARE BEGRUDGINGLY ACCEPTING THAT, RIGHT? EXACTLY. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. WE UNDERSTAND. 
          YES. BUT THIS ONE, THIS LITTLE THIS SPECIFIC,
SPECIFIC ASPECT. 
          Y'ALL AREN'T. WANTING TO. YES. YEAH. AND YOU KNOW,
FOR US, IT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE THE OTHER PART, THE HB 21 INTRODUCED WAS DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF THE RENT LIMITATIONS. 
          AND SO WHICH WEREN'T THE SAME PRE HB 21. SO IT MAKES SENSE THAT WE WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT
DEFINITION OF WHAT RENT IS TO COMPARE TO THAT DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF WHAT RENT LIMITS ARE. AND SO WE JUST FEEL LIKE IT'S VERY STATUTORILY FOCUSED IN THAT RESPECT AND
WOULD LIKE JUST TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT SUPER CLEAR. 
          OKAY. MR. WILKINSON. SO WE WOULD HAVE TWO DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS FOR THE PRE ENACTMENT AND
POST ENACTMENT. 
          YEAH. IT EITHER TWO DEFINITIONS OR THAT THIS DEFINITION EXPLICITLY SAYS WITHIN THE
LANGUAGE OF THE DEFINITION THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, FOR FOR RENT DUE FOR HDFC'S ENTERED INTO AFTER MAY OF 2025 OR
WHATEVER. 
          NOW THE PRE ENACTMENT HFCS, THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. SO WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE LIKE TEN YEARS TO ADJUST TO THE NEW
DEFINITION. 
          THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. SO THE PRE ONES UNLESS THEY HIT CERTAIN LEVERS LIKE A REFI OR STUFF
LIKE THAT, THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO THESE OTHER PROVISIONS LIKE THE DEFINITION OF THE RENT LIMITATION
THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO DEALS AFTER MAY OF 2025. 
          AND ALL HFCS HAVE TO GET IN LINE WITHIN TEN YEARS. 
          AND SO WE WOULD SEE EVERYONE FIGURING THIS OUT,
SHAKING IT OUT, YOU KNOW, BY THAT TEN YEAR DEADLINE THAT'S ALLOWED FOR WITHIN THE STATUTE. 
          BUT IF THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO THE ENHANCED AFFORDABILITY NOW,
WHY NOT JUST HAVE THE ONE DEFINITION, I GUESS. I'M NOT FOLLOWING. WHAT DO YOU MEAN THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO THE ENHANCED
AFFORDABILITY REENACTMENT. 
          WELL SO PRE ENACTMENT STILL HAD PROVISIONS IN PLACE. 
          THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE SAME DEFINITIONS OF WHAT RENT IS AND THE SAME DEFINITION OF RENT
LIMITATIONS. 
          AND SO THOSE REGULATORY AGREEMENTS HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS THAN WE WOULD OTHERWISE SEE. 
          RIGHT. AND SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ANNUAL COMPLIANCE AUDIT AND WE'RE ASSESSING
WHETHER OR NOT THEY MEET THOSE PROVISIONS, THOSE REGULATORY REFERENCES HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS. 
          EXISTING AFFORDABILITY, WHATEVER IT IS. OKAY. 
          I THINK TO YOUR POINT THE AUDIT REPORTS FOR A PREEXISTING HFC DON'T INCLUDE,
YOU KNOW, ONE THROUGH FIVE, ALL OF THOSE RENT. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. 
          THEY DON'T. YES. SO I THINK WHAT MR. WILKINSON IS GETTING AT IS IF YOU'RE NOT USING THAT
RENT ANALYSIS, THEN WHY HAVE A DIFFERENT DEFINITION FOR IT? IF YOU'VE GOT TEN YEARS OR UNTIL,
EXCUSE ME, UNTIL YOU REFINANCE. WHY? RIGHT. WHY CREATE THIS SEPARATION THAT ALSO DOES NOT EXIST IN
STATUTE TO ACCOMMODATE SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE PREEXISTING? IT'S A MOOT POINT ANYWAY. SO LET ME GIVE AN EXAMPLE. 
          SO LIKE, YOU KNOW, PRE STATUTE, THE REGULATORY AGREEMENT COULD SAY THE DEFINITION OF THE
RENT LIMITATION IS, YOU KNOW, $1,500. AND THE MANNER IN WHICH FOLKS HAVE BEEN OPERATING IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF
TENANT RENT THAT IS BEING CHARGED HAS TO BE LESS THAN THAT $1,500. 
          AND SO FROM A COMPLIANCE PERSPECTIVE, WHEN AN AUDITOR IS DOING THE WORK AND AND THERE'S A
TENNIS FILE SAMPLE REQUIREMENT THAT IS PART OF THIS RULE. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT TENANT ELIGIBILITY. 
          AND WE'RE ALSO ASSESSING WHETHER OR NOT THE RENT CHARGE THE TENANT IS LESS THAN THE RENT
LIMIT APPLICABLE TO THAT DEAL. 
          AND SO IF YOU'RE OPERATING PRE, YOU KNOW, HB 21,
WE WOULD BE FOCUSING ON IS THE AMOUNT OF RENT BEING CHARGED TO THE TENANT ALONE LESS THAN THAT $1,500. NOW IF WE APPLY THIS DEFINITION TO EXISTING DEALS DURING THAT AUDIT REPORT,
IF THERE ARE FEES, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, A $15 FEE FOR,
LET'S CALL IT TRASH. 
          [01:15:06]
ADDING THAT $15 TO THE ALREADY CHARGED $1,500 OF TENANT RENT IS MORE THAN THAT RENT
LIMITATION. 
          SO THOSE AUDIT REPORTS WILL SHOW THAT THAT TENANT IS BEING OVERCHARGED RENT. 
          SO WHILE THE ANNUAL CALCULATION IS NOT A REQUIREMENT,
THERE IS STILL A REVIEW PROCESS THAT IS INHERENT IN THE ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORTING THAT WOULD REQUIRE US TO LOOK AT THESE FEES AND INCLUDE THOSE IN THAT INFORMATION THAT IS
REPORTED TO THE DEPARTMENT. 
          AND TRASH FEES IN THIS EXAMPLE ARE NOT REQUIRED OF ALL TENANTS AS A CONDITION OF
OCCUPANCY. 
          THEY ARE REQUIRED OF ALL TENANTS. AND AND I UNDERSTAND THAT GOING FORWARD,
THIS TRASH FEE NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE RENT LIMIT. 
          WHAT WE ARE COMMUNICATING IS, IS THAT THAT WAS NOT PART OF WHAT THE CONSIDERATIONS WERE
FOR ANY HFC DEALS PRIOR TO THAT. 
          SO OPERATIONALLY, PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, HFC USERS WERE NOT CONSIDERING THOSE FEES IN
COMPARISON TO THAT RENT LIMITATION. 
          AND BECAUSE OF THAT, AND I'LL JUST SAY LIKE,
WHEN THIS CAME OUT, IT WAS OKAY, THIS CHANGED AS AN INDUSTRY, HOW DO WE CHANGE? WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO COURSE CORRECT AND FIGURE OUT,
YOU KNOW, HOW COMPLIANCE WITH THIS, WHICH IS WHAT SPARKED IMMEDIATE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT TO HELP CLARIFY WHAT THE
INTENTION WOULD BE AS FAR AS BIFURCATING OUT THESE TYPES OF FEES. 
          AND THERE WAS GUIDANCE PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT,
BOTH PUBLICLY IN THE ROUNDTABLE AND INFORMALLY, TO LOTS OF FOLKS THAT CERTAIN FEES WOULD NOT BE PART OF THIS CATEGORY. 
          AND SO OWNERS WERE OPERATING IN GOOD FAITH THROUGH THIS RULEMAKING PROCESS THAT THAT IS
WHAT THE DETERMINATION WOULD ULTIMATELY BE. 
          THAT'S CHANGED IN THIS KIND OF FINAL STEP OF THE RULEMAKING PROCESS,
WHERE NOW MARCH OF 2026, WHICH MEANS YOU KNOW, IF, IF THESE THINGS HAD BEEN KIND OF CODIFIED AND FINALIZED IN 2025, THOSE HFC USERS WITHIN REPORTING YEAR 2025 WOULD HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE
ADJUSTMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED. 
          BUT HERE WE ARE. AND THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED. 
          AND SO FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF, YOU KNOW, CREATING NONCOMPLIANCE FOR HFC USERS THAT WERE
OPERATING IN GOOD FAITH, WE REALLY THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CHANGE THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE OR. 
          REVERTED BACK TO AS PROPOSED. SO EVEN JUST FOR THIS ONE YEAR,
IF WE DID A SEPARATE PRE ENACTMENT DEFINITION, THAT WOULD. AND THEN THAT WOULD GIVE THEM TIME TO ADJUST. 
          AND HAVE TO MAYBE LOWER THOSE RATES. I THINK,
YOU KNOW, I THINK THE, OBVIOUSLY THE PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT, YOU KNOW WHICH MAKES SENSE IF WE'RE THINKING ABOUT WHAT THE RENT DEFINITION IS AND HOW
IT'S USED WITHIN LIKE STATUTE AS IT'S NEWLY REVISED. 
          BUT IN ABSENCE OF THAT, YES, WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESERVE REPORTING YEAR 2025 AND GIVE HSC
USERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ALIGN WITH THE RULE ONCE IT BECOMES IN EFFECT. I COULD SEE GIVING A WAIVER FOR THE FIRST YEAR. 
          I MEAN THIS WE PROBABLY NEED TO USE A BETTER DEFINITION. 
          TRASH IS SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE HAS TO HAVE. 
          MAYBE AN EXAMPLE IS MORE LIKE CABLE TV DISCOUNT. 
          YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT THE COMPLEX HAS A DEAL WITH COMCAST OR WHATEVER,
AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE CABLE TV. 
          BUT THAT WOULD BE A VOLUNTARY FEE. THAT WOULD BE A VOLUNTARY. SO IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE
MANDATE IT SOUNDS LIKE. 
          IF IT'S MANDATORY, I MEAN, OR COMMON SENSE THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR TRASH PICKED UP. 
          YEAH. RIGHT. I MEAN, THOSE ARE EVERYWHERE I LIVE. 
          I HAVE TO PAY ELECTRICITY, RIGHT? EVERYWHERE I LIVE,
I HAVE TO PAY UTILITIES. AND SO THE INTERPRETATION UNDER WHICH WE WERE OPERATING WAS LIKE THESE FEES THAT WOULD BE LIKE. SO TO YOUR EXAMPLE,
LIKE LIKE I GOT TO PAY TO USE THE POOL, RIGHT? EVERYONE HAS LIKE THAT'S A CONDITION OF OCCUPANCY THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE. 
          WE SEE LOTS OF AMENITY FEES, COMMUNITY FEES,
LIKE WE AGREE, LIKE THOSE FIT WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF FEES FOR A CONDITION OF OCCUPANCY. 
          WE JUST YEAH. SORRY, MR. MERCHANT, YOU. IN HELPING MY SISTER IN THE LAST MONTH, FIND AN APARTMENT AND WALKING THROUGH THE 11 ADDENDUMS THAT WE HAD TO REVIEW, WE FOUND THAT THE RENT QUOTED WHEN YOU ADDED THESE FEES,
LIKE WALKING IN THE DOOR FEE WALKING OUT OF THE DOOR FEE, PUTTING YOUR TRASH IN THE TRASH BIN. 
          THOSE WERE ALL I JUST SAID TO HER, WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST TELL ME WHAT THE RENT WAS GOING TO
BE? I MEAN, BECAUSE IT'S VERY DISTORTING. SO I'M NOT AGAINST THE ONE YEAR MORATORIUM,
BUT I AM VERY MUCH FOR 
          [01:20:02]
US NOT ALLOWING THESE WHAT ANYBODY WOULD CONSIDER TO BE IF IF THE LEASING AGENT SHOWS YOU
THE POOL AND THEN WHEN YOU'RE SIGNING THE LEASE,
SHE SAID, BUT YOU CAN'T USE THE POOL UNLESS YOU PAY $72 A MONTH AND, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THOSE KIND OF THINGS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO GET
AT. 
          I 1,000% AGREE, LIKE THOSE SORTS OF FEES WE NEED TO BE RECOGNIZING AND RENT. 
          AND THOSE ARE KIND OF IN EXCESS THAN WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY COMMONLY EXPECT TO LIKE BE
CHARGED WHEN WE LIVE AT A, BUT THE SATELLITE WE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD, YOU KNOW,
SHE'S GETTING SATELLITE, SHE'S GETTING THIS SERVICE. 
          SHE. SO SHE WAS ABLE TO DECLINE MANY OF THEM. 
          AND I'M JUST SAYING I'M, I'M FORGIVING YOU A YEAR,
BUT I, I WOULD LIKE, I WOULD LIKE THIS BUTTON DOWN AND WE. 
          YEAH. AND I WANT TO JUST SAY WE HAVE NO INTEREST IN LIKE OVER LIKE PRICE GOUGING LOW
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS OR ADDING FEES THAT ARE UNNECESSARY. 
          THAT'S NOT THE KIND OF WHAT I'M SPEAKING TO HERE. 
          IT'S REALLY JUST MORE OF A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS NEEDS TO BE APPLIED FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THE ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT, GIVEN KIND OF WHERE WE ARE. SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR,
I'M NOT ASKING FOR A NO FEE THING. 
          I'M JUST LIKE TRYING TO BIFURCATE OUT WHAT THE REASONABLENESS IS FOR THIS,
FOR THE APPLICATION OF IT. 
          OKAY. SO IF WE WANT TO DO THAT, IT WOULD BE FOR REPORTING YEAR 2025 FOR PRE ENACTMENT HFC
DEVELOPMENTS ONLY. 
          FEES MAY BE INCLUDED IN RENT. YES. ONE YEAR. YES. 
          AND THAT THAT GIVES US THE CURRENT HFC USERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THEIR POLICIES
CHANGE IT UP. 
          CHANGE THINGS FROM MANDATORY TO OPTIONAL IF NEED BE,
AND REALLY FIGURE OUT HOW, HOW TO HOW TO FIT IN WITH THE DEFINITION AS IT IS WRITTEN. 
          OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU STEPHANIE. DID YOU GUYS HAVE ANY OTHER FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
EXTENSION THING? WELL, THE DARREN SPOKE TO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I DON'T I DON'T AGAIN,
WE APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT ON THAT? YEAH. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE LIMITATION. 
          IT'S JUST, AGAIN, I THINK FOR A VALID GOOD REASON FOR NEEDING EVEN AN ADDITIONAL EXTENSION
OVER 60 DAYS. I THINK YOU'VE SEEN WHERE THE DEPARTMENT AND THIS BOARD HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY MORE
THAN REASONABLE, AT LEAST IN THE LAST SEVEN, EIGHT YEARS ON. RIGHT? WELL, WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO IS COME TO YOU IF IT'S OVER 60 DAYS TO GET IT DONE. 
          OKAY. GET IT DONE. WELL, YES, OF COURSE WE IT IS OUR GOAL TO GET IT DONE RIGHT. 
          LIKE WE ALL WANT TO GET IT DONE ON SIX ONE. BUT THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS PARTICULAR STATUTE
DOES REQUIRE THE HFC USER AND THE AUDITOR TO RELY ON OTHER PARTIES OF WHICH THEY DON'T HAVE CONTROL, AND IN SOME RESPECT, IT IS JUST NECESSARY. 
          AND I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE THAT AN HFC USER HAS TO SHOW THE
DEPARTMENT GOOD CAUSE, AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY AGREE WITH THAT TIME FRAME AND IF
THAT IS GOOD CAUSE. 
          SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE GET JUST AN EXTENSION BECAUSE WE ASKED FOR IT. 
          THERE IS A COMPONENT OF DISCRETION THAT IS BUILT IN THERE. 
          YOU KNOW, IF THIS BOARD IS, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THAT 60 DAY WINDOW AS OPPOSED TO THE 120
DAYS THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED, I THINK WE WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT SO LONG AS THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE RULE THAT ALLOWS
THE DEPARTMENT DISCRETION ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS TO CONSIDER LONGER EXTENSIONS. 
          SO IT COULD BE AN INITIAL 60 DAY EXTENSION AND IT COULD BE EXTENDED BASED ON DISCRETION,
WHICH IS ACTUALLY VERY MUCH IN LINE WITH HOW THE DEPARTMENT OPERATES WITH THEIR OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS AND HOW THEIR EXTENSION PROCESS WORKS. 
          I ASSURE YOU THAT IS WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED,
IS THE WAY THE PROCESS WILL WORK. 
          I MEAN, WE HEARD IT HERE, GUYS. YES, YES. FOR THE RECORD,
EVERYONE HERE. 
          OKAY. I MEAN, IT'S YES. I MEAN, THE DEPARTMENT WILL HAVE DISCRETION. 
          THERE'S ALL THE TIME. YEAH. UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING ABSOLUTE IN STATUTE THAT SAYS. 
          RIGHT. WELL, LET'S JUST DOUBLE CHECK THAT THE RULE DOESN'T SAY LIMITED TO 60 DAYS,
BECAUSE I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A A ROADBLOCKS FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO HAVE THAT DISCRETION. 
          I THINK IT'S, IT'S AT THE TAIL END OF THE SENTENCE THAT BEGINS. 
          THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION MUST INCLUDE AN EXPLANATION OF THE REASON AND THE REQUESTED
SUBMISSION DATE NOT TO EXCEED 60 DAYS FROM THE JUNE 1ST REPORTING DEADLINE. RIGHT. SO THIS MAKES IT SO THAT WHEN YOU'RE MAKING YOUR REQUEST,
YOU'RE NOT AUTOMATICALLY GOING TO 120 DAYS, YOU'RE GOING TO 60 DAYS MAX, RIGHT? BUT DOES DOES THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN,
IF IT SAYS IT CANNOT NOT TO EXCEED 60 DAYS, ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT OF DISCRETION IF THAT AT THE END OF THE 60 DAYS,
THERE'S STILL TROUBLE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS THE DISCRETION TO EXTEND IT LONGER. 
          [01:25:05]
IT DOESN'T SAY WE CANNOT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE COOL AGAIN. 
          WE APPRECIATE YOUR PERSPECTIVE, BUT GET IT DONE BY JUNE 1ST. 
          OH, BELIEVE ME, I'M NOT TRYING TO LIKE, NOT GET IT DONE BY JUNE 1ST. 
          I'M JUST LIKE, THE REALITY IS SUCH. THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH,
I APPRECIATE IT. 
          THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MISS QUACKENBUSH OR. 
          IF NOT, I THINK WE HAVE SOME CONSENSUS THAT WE CAN WORK IN,
AS BOBBY DESCRIBED. 
          FOR THE PREEXISTING PRE ENACTMENT, GIVE THEM BASICALLY WAIVE THEIR RENT FORMULA
CALCULATION FOR THIS FIRST REPORT. NOT NOT TO WAIVE IT, BUT TO ALLOW ALLOW FEES CERTAIN OTHER CHARGES
THAT MAY HAVE BEEN FIT. THE NEW THE NEW CLEAR DEFINITION. OKAY. YES. 
          NOT A PROBLEM. OKAY. WOULD ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT? CAN YOU WORD THAT? YOU'RE LOOKING AT ME TO SAY IT. 
          YOU GOT THAT VOICE? YEAH. THIS IS 23, AND WE NEED TO MAKE THE ADJUSTMENT ON 22. 
          IT'S STILL 22. YEAH. ESSENTIALLY INCORPORATING THOSE MATTERS AS DESCRIBED BY THE BOARD TO
BE REVISED. 
          OKAY. I'LL GIVE IT MY BEST SHOT HERE. I'LL MOVE THE BOARD,
ADOPT THE PROPOSED TEN TECH SECTIONS 10.1201 THROUGH TEN .12067 TO IMPLEMENT THE REQUIREMENTS OF HB 21 IN THE 2000. 
          CORRECTION IN THE 89TH REGULAR LEGISLATIVE SESSION,
SUBJECT TO A PROVISION OF LEAVING RENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2025 QA OR ALL IS DESCRIBED AND AUTHORIZED IN THE BOARD ACQUISITION
BOARD ACTION AND REQUEST ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS. THIS ITEM BEFORE A SECOND,
IF I COULD. 
          JUST TO CLARIFY, IT'S NOT THE SHAPE, IT'S THE. 
          OKAY. HELP ME OUT THERE. IT'S THE IT'S THE ACTUALLY THE TEN TECH SUBJECT TO THE RENT. 
          CLARIFICATION AS CLARIFIED BY MR. WILKINSON AND THE CHAIR IN TODAY'S MEETING. 
          NO. WELL. I THINK THIS THING IS DESCRIBED AS DISCUSSED IN TODAY'S MEETING. 
          I MEAN, WE HAVE A SECTION FOR THAT SPECIFICALLY. 
          IN THE RULE. WHAT'S THAT RULE THAT YOU HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THERE? CAN YOU GIVE IT TO ME, PLEASE? TEN 1202 16. 10.10 2.16. 
          YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. LET ME DO THIS AGAIN. Y'ALL READY? PREVIOUS MOTION WITHDRAWN, PLEASE. THANK YOU. 
          I'M GOING TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS ONE. I MOVE THE BOARD ADOPT THE PROPOSED NEW TEN TAX
SECTIONS. 
          10.1201 THROUGH TEN. 10.1207 TO IMPLEMENT THE REQUIREMENTS OF HB 21 AND THE TWO AND THE
89TH REGULAR LEGISLATIVE SESSION, EXCEPT FOR TIN TAC RULE. 
          10.12 02.1 16 LEAVING THAT AS RENT DEFINED IN THE 2025. 
          ALL IS DESCRIBED AND AUTHORIZED IN THE BOARD ACTION REQUESTS AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON
THIS ITEM. SECOND. 
          GOOD. LET'S GO WITH THAT. I THINK THE INSTRUCTIONS ARE TO CARRY FORWARD WITH THE REVISION
TO THAT. 
          DEALING WITH PRE EXISTING OR PREEXISTING HFCS FOR ONE YEAR UNDER THE RULE AS PUBLISHED. 
          NO PROBLEM. I THINK THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT PROPERLY. 
          GREAT. MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER. SECONDED BY MISS FARIA TO STAFF. 
          EXCUSE ME, SIR. DOES THAT REFLECT THE CHANGES THAT WENDY MENTIONED ABOUT THE THE. 
          AS ADDRESSING CHAIRMAN GATES'S CONCERNS? BECAUSE THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE MOTION. 
          THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE MOTION. THAT'S AN EXCELLENT CLARIFICATION. 
          WENDY DID MAKE SOME CLARIFICATIONS ABOUT REVISIONS AT THE HEAD OF HER PRESENTATION. 
          SO DOES YOUR MOTION. MR. HARPER, I'M GOING TO AMEND IT TO INCLUDE THE REVISIONS FROM MRS. 
          [01:30:06]
QUACKENBUSH. OKAY. AND I THINK YOU'RE NOT GOING TO REPEAT IT. 
          OKAY. MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER, SECONDED BY MRS. FARIAS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. THANKS, EVERYONE,
FOR THEIR THEIR INPUT. 
          AND THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YES. GOOD JOB. MICHAEL. 
          THANK YOU TO THE LEGISLATURE FOR GIVING THIS TO US. 
          OKAY. ITEM 23 PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN ORDER. 
          ADOPTING ACTION ON FIVE SECTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT'S RULES. 
          AND TEN TECH TO BE AMENDED TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES NECESSARY TO BRING THEM INTO CONSISTENCY
WITH SECTION 0.410 DETERMINATION OF ALIEN STATUS FOR PROGRAM BENEFICIARIES AND DIRECTING THEIR
PUBLICATION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE TEXAS REGISTER AS RELATED TO SECTIONS 6.204,
SECTION 7.28, SECTION 7.44, SECTION 20.4, AND SECTION 20.6. IS THAT GOOD? MR. BOSTON THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN VAZQUEZ. 
          BOARD MEMBERS, I WON'T REPEAT THE AGENDA ITEM. 
          SO AS YOU RECALL, I'VE DISCUSSED WITH YOU OVER SEVERAL MEETINGS,
A FEDERAL LAW CALLED THE WE CALL PRWORA, WHICH STANDS FOR THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF
1996. 
          THAT LAW PROVIDES THAT AN ALIEN IS NOT A QUALIFIED ALIEN,
IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL PUBLIC BENEFITS. 
          AND SO OVER A COURSE OF SEVERAL MONTHS, WE'VE BEEN ENACTING THIS IN DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT
RULES. 
          SO THE BOARD HAD RECENTLY ADOPTED CHANGES TO TEN TAC 1.410 RELATING TO DETERMINATION OF
ALIEN STATUS FOR PROGRAM BENEFICIARIES, WHICH RELATED TO THE LEGAL STATUS REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONS RECEIVING ASSISTANCE FROM THE
DEPARTMENT, SPECIFICALLY IN OUR COMMUNITY AFFAIRS PROGRAMS,
OUR HOMELESSNESS AND SINGLE FAMILY PROGRAMS. THAT RULE PROVIDES FOR THE REQUIREMENT TO PERFORM A REVIEW FOR ALIEN STATUS FOR PROGRAM
PARTICIPANTS, BUT IT DID NOT SPECIFY HOW EACH PROGRAM WILL CALCULATE BENEFITS BASED ON THOSE
DETERMINATIONS. 
          BECAUSE EACH PROGRAM IS DIFFERENT ENOUGH IN ITS ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES THAT SUCH
APPLICABILITY NEEDED TO BE TAILORED TO THOSE SPECIFIC PROGRAMS. THAT RULE WENT INTO EFFECT MARCH 2ND. THESE FIVE RULES ACTIONS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY
ARE APPLYING THAT RULE TO THESE FIVE DISTINCT PROGRAMS. THE RULE ACTIONS WERE RELEASED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE DID RECEIVE COMMENT FROM SIX
COMMENTERS. 
          THE PRIMARY THEMES OF THE COMMENT WERE FIRST REQUESTS THAT WE WITHDRAW THE RULE ENTIRELY
UNTIL FURTHER GUIDANCE IS RELEASED FROM HUD AND DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. 
          SECOND, ON THE HARMFUL NEGATIVE IMPACT THAT IS EXPECTED TO OCCUR BY IMPLEMENTING POWERA
AND THIRD, ON THE CONCERN THAT APPLYING THIS TO SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WILL HAVE A VERY HARSH
EFFECT. 
          IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENT ABOUT SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
MORE SPECIFICALLY FAMILIES THAT ARE PROTECTED UNDER TWO FEDERAL LAWS, VAWA, THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT AND THE FVPSA,
WHICH IS THE FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND SERVICES ACT. 
          IN RESPONSE TO THAT, WE HAVE AMENDED THE RULES TO INDICATE THAT THOSE POPULATIONS WILL BE
ACCEPTED FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE PRE-WAR RULE. 
          AND PART OF THAT REASON WHY IS IT'S UNCLEAR BECAUSE BOTH OF THOSE ACTS ARE FEDERAL
PROTECTIONS ON THOSE HOUSEHOLDS. 
          AND IT'S SOMEWHAT CHALLENGING TO, TO TRY AND NAVIGATE EXACTLY HOW THEY CAN HARMONIZE
NICELY. 
          SO THEY, WE ALSO RECEIVED COMMENT THAT AN APPEALS PROCESS HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED FOR. 
          SO WHEN A HOUSEHOLD OR INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE DECLINED SERVICES BECAUSE OF THEIR,
THEIR LEGAL STATUS. 
          THERE HAD NOT BEEN A CLEAR SPECIFICATION IN OUR RULE THAT THEY NEEDED TO HAVE AN APPEAL
PROCESS AT OUR SUBRECIPIENT LEVEL. 
          SO WE DID GO AHEAD AND ADD THAT AS WELL. STAFF RECOMMENDS ADOPTION OF THE RULE AND I'M
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANKS, BROOK. SO OBVIOUSLY THERE'S BEEN EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION AND THOUGHT AND OUTREACH TO
THE INDUSTRY AND FEEDBACK. YES. OKAY. DEFINITELY. 
          MR. MORRISON WHEN YOU WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LAW,
IT SAYS A THE WORD ALIEN. 
          IT DOESN'T SAY ILLEGAL ALIEN. CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME DEFINITION AROUND THE WORD ALIEN? IT'S UNQUALIFIED, AND I WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO DEFER TO BO OR MEGAN TO GET INTO THE
SPECIFICS OF OF HOW THAT. 
          [01:35:04]
OKAY. BECAUSE THERE IS A SLIVER OF FOLKS THAT COULD BE HERE LEGALLY,
BUT STILL NOT BE QUALIFIED FOR FOR SOME OF OUR SERVICES. 
          CORRECT. LIKE IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS JUST SAYING,
OH, THEY HAVE A REAL ID OR THEY HAVE A GREEN CARD OR. 
          RIGHT. THERE'S A LITTLE MORE TO IT THAN THAT. OKAY. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GET DEEPER INTO THOSE DEFINITIONS. 
          I'M JUST ASKING. I'M JUST ASKING FOR SOME DEFINITION. 
          I'M NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE THE. CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR. 
          I'LL ASK MEGAN TO COME UP. YEAH. NO. SHE KNOWS. 
          AND IF THERE'S. I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ON THE FRONT ROW,
SO. 
          NOPE. IF SOMEBODY'S COMING TO THE FRONT ROW AGAINST THIS,
I'LL LEAVE ALONE THEN. 
          OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE CARE TO MAKE ON THIS ITEM? I WILL MOVE THE BOARD. GRANT, ENTERTAIN THE MOTION,
MR. MARTIAN. I MOVE THE BOARD. ADOPT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TEN TECH SECTION
6.2047.287.4422.4 AND 20.6. RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEN TECH. 
          SECTION 1410 DETERMINATION OF ALIEN STATUS FOR PROGRAM BENEFICIARIES,
ALL AS DESCRIBED. 
          CONDITION AND AUTHORIZED IN THE BOARD ACTION,
REQUEST AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON THIS ITEM. 
          SECOND MOTION MADE BY MR. MARCHANT, SECONDED BY MISS FARIAS. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. 
          MOTION CARRIES. THANKS, BROOKE. ITEM 24 PRESENTATION,
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A STAFF INITIATED WAIVER OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF TEN TAC SECTION 11.9 E6B FOR APPLICANTS IN THE 2026 9% HOUSING TAX CREDIT ROUND. GOOD MORNING. 
          THANK YOU, MR. VASQUEZ. MY NAME IS CODY CAMPBELL. I'M THE DIRECTOR OF MULTIFAMILY PROGRAMS
FOR THE DEPARTMENT. 
          THIS ITEM CONCERNS A STAFF INITIATED INITIATED WAIVER FOR 2026 TAX CREDIT APPLICANTS UNDER
THE SHAPE. 
          THERE ARE POINTS AVAILABLE TO APPLICATIONS THAT CONTAIN A CERTIFIED HISTORIC STRUCTURE,
AND THE SHAPE LAYS OUT TIMELINES BY WHICH APPLICANTS MUST REQUEST REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION FROM THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION. 
          IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR THOSE POINTS, THE POINTS. THE APPLICATION MUST INCLUDE
DOCUMENTATION FROM THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION OR THC, EVIDENCING THAT EITHER A PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE THAT THE BUILDINGS ARE
CERTIFIED HISTORIC STRUCTURES OR THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN CERTIFIED. 
          APPLICANTS MUST SUBMIT THAT REQUEST TO THC BY FEBRUARY 1ST,
WHICH GIVES THC 30 DAYS TO PRODUCE THAT DOCUMENTATION. 
          WE HAVE SEVERAL APPLICANTS IN THE SPRINT WE HAD. 
          WE STARTED WITH TWO, AND I BELIEVE WE'RE DOWN TO ONE AT THIS POINT THAT DID REQUEST THAT
DOCUMENTATION FROM THC BY THE FEBRUARY 1ST DEADLINE. 
          IN FACT, THE ONE THAT I BELIEVE IS STILL IN THE RUNNING REQUESTED IT ON JANUARY 23RD,
IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, BECAUSE OF DELAYS AT THC, THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION HAS NOT BEEN SUPPLIED AND WAS NOT
INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION. 
          STAFF IS REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD WAIVE THAT REQUIREMENT THAT THAT DOCUMENTATION FROM THC
BE INCLUDED IN THAT APPLICATION CONTINGENT UPON THREE THINGS. 
          FIRST, THAT THE APPLICANT IN QUESTION DID TIMELY REQUEST THE DOCUMENTATION FROM THC TO
THAT. 
          THE APPLICATION DOES ACTUALLY QUALIFY FOR THESE POINTS,
AND THREE THAT THE DOCUMENTATION BE SUBMITTED TO US BY APRIL 1ST. 
          THIS IS THE SECOND YEAR THAT STAFF HAS BROUGHT THIS WAIVER TO THE BOARD. 
          SO IT IS LIKELY THAT WE WILL RECOMMEND CHANGES TO THE 2027 SHAPE TO ADDRESS THIS. 
          BUT BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IN QUESTION DOES APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN OPERATING IN GOOD FAITH AND
SUBMITTED TIMELY FOR THE DOCUMENTATION, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THIS WAIVER,
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. OKAY, THANKS. SO AGAIN, THIS IS ONLY APPLYING TO GROUPS WHO DID APPLY TO THE HISTORICAL
COMMISSION IN ADVANCE OF THEIR 30 DAY. 
          YES, SIR. BY FEBRUARY 1ST OR THEIR DEADLINE? YEAH,
APPARENTLY WE ALREADY HAD THAT AS A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAD TO THE FEBRUARY 1ST. 
          RIGHT? YES. WASN'T THAT ALREADY IN THE RULE? YES,
SIR. YEAH. OKAY. SO I JUST DIDN'T KNOW THAT WHEN WE TALKED EARLIER. YEAH. OKAY. 
          DO ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. CAMPBELL? AND AGAIN, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THIS. 
          IT'S A WAIVER. YES, SIR. IT'S A STAFF INITIATED WAIVER. 
          OKAY. STAFF INITIATED WAIVER. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK AGAINST STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION? OKAY. ALL RIGHT, THEN LET'S COME ON UP. SAY HELLO,
INTRODUCE YOURSELVES AND SIGN IN. 
          [01:40:07]
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR. AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. 
          MY NAME IS CASSIDY SMITH. I'M A PROJECT MANAGER WITH PROSPERO HOUSING COMMUNITY SERVICES. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE COMMENT TODAY. I'D LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
OUR OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED WAIVER RELATED TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT FOR THE 2026 9% HOUSING TAX CREDIT ROUND. 
          THE CURRENT DEADLINE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTATION TO THE TEXAS HISTORICAL
COMMISSION WAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED IN THE QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN AS BEING PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1ST, AND APPLICANTS SEEKING HISTORIC POINTS ARE REQUIRED TO STRUCTURE THEIR FULL
APPLICATION SUBMISSIONS AROUND THAT REQUIREMENT. 
          GRANTING A WAIVER AFTER THAT FEBRUARY 1ST DEADLINE EFFECTIVELY PROVIDES AN ADVANTAGE TO
APPLICANTS WHO WERE UNABLE TO SECURE A HISTORIC DESIGNATION OR PRELIMINARY ELIGIBILITY IN TIME. IN SOME CASES, APPLICANTS FOR THESE DEVELOPMENTS ARE SEEKING HISTORIC STATUS
SPECIFICALLY TO QUALIFY FOR POINTS IN THE TAX CREDIT PROGRAM, AND EXTENDING THIS DEADLINE CHANGES THE COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE AFTER FULL APPLICATIONS HAVE
ALREADY BEEN PREPARED AND SUBMITTED. 
          LEOTECH PROJECTS WITH HISTORIC STRUCTURES ALREADY RECEIVE THE ADVANTAGE OF TWO ADDITIONAL
POINTS UNDER THE AIP, PROVIDED THAT THEY CAN PROVE THEIR STRUCTURE IS HISTORIC WHERE IT ALREADY. 
          SO APPLICANTS WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SECURE EVIDENCE OF THE DESIGNATION SOME TIME AGO. 
          MONTHS AGO PERHAPS. AS WITH ANY OTHER REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION FOR A FULL 9% APPLICATION
SUBMISSION, THIS EVIDENCE SHOULD BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTABLISHED FULL
APPLICATION DELIVERY DATE OF FEBRUARY 27TH. 
          FOR THESE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY URGE THE BOARD NOT TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED WAIVER. 
          KEPT IT BRIEF. SORRY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. 
          THANK YOU. OKAY, SO TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE NOT WAIVING THE FEBRUARY 1ST DEADLINE FOR THEM TO
APPLY TO THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION. 
          ONLY THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION'S RESPONSE. SO IT'S IT'S NOT THE APPLICANT. 
          IT'S OUR FELLOW AGENCY THAT THEY'VE GOT TO LOOK AT WINDOWS AND SPITTOONS. 
          DIDN'T YOU HAVE TO PUT A SPITTOON IN A. NO. SPITTOONS. 
          I'M I'M WELL VERSED IN THIS BUSINESS. SO JUST FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND, WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. 
          WE'RE MAKING SURE AS LONG AS THESE APPLICANTS HAVE REQUESTED,
PUT THEIR REQUESTS INTO THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION BEFORE FEBRUARY 1ST. 
          IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT THAT THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION ISN'T STANDING BY THEIR 30 DAY WINDOW
THAT THEY. 
          YEAH. I THINK THE, THE CONCERN IS MORE ABOUT CHANGING THAT AFTER THE FULL APPLICATIONS
ARE, ARE DUE AND SUBMITTED. DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING JUST OR EXTENDING I GUESS OFFERING THAT
EXTENSION. 
          JUST WANTED TO OFFER THIS GRACE. DO YOU HAVE A DEAL IN LINE BELOW ONE OF THESE DEALS? I DO YES. YEAH. OH. OH, I MEAN, TO BE FRANK,
RIGHT? TO BE HONEST, YES, WE WE HAVE NOT CHANGED ANYTHING OTHER THAN ALLOWING. 
          AS LONG AS THEY SUBMIT, THEY APPLIED IN TIME TO THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION. 
          WERE WAITING FOR THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION TO RESPOND. 
          AND AND THIS IS OUT OF THE HANDS OF AN APPLICANT. 
          THEY'RE DOING A LOT OF HISTORICAL THINGS OVER THERE. 
          YEAH. AND THEY USE ABACUS, ABACUS TO DO THEIR FOR,
FOR CLARITY. 
          LIKE THERE'S THERE'S ONE OTHER BULLET POINT IN THE BAR THAT SAYS THAT THEY DO HAVE TO GET
A DETERMINATION OF PRELIMINARY ELIGIBILITY NO LATER THAN APRIL 1ST. SO IF IT DRAGS INTO THE ROUND SO FAR THAT IT GETS PASSED APRIL 1ST. 
          IT'S DONE THERE TOO. SO THEY NEED TO BE NAGGING THE HECK OUT OF THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION
TO GET GET A RESPONSE. 
          THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT. DO YOU HAVE ANY. 
          BACK. DARREN SMITH WITH THE PIVOTAL HOUSING PARTNERS IN DEVELOPMENT. 
          YEAH, JUST WITH ANYTHING ELSE. I MEAN THE APPLICATION HAS DEADLINES. AND SO,
YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO PREPARE AND I HAVE TO PREPLAN THIRD PARTY REPORTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HAPPENED. SO I GET IT. WE'RE WAITING ON. 
          I DIDN'T WANT TO REPEAT EVERYTHING SHE SAID JUST FOR YOU,
BUT YOU HAVE TO PREPARE. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T GET THE ADVANTAGE BECAUSE MY,
YOU KNOW, FEASIBILITY STUDY WASN'T DONE. 
          IT HAS TO GO IN WITH THE APPLICATION. SO THAT'S REALLY MY COMMENT. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. 
          GOOD MORNING. STILL. MY NAME IS LAURA MYRICK AND I AM WITH VETCO CONSULTING AND I AM IN
FAVOR OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. 
          [01:45:05]
I DO NOT HAVE A HISTORIC DEAL. AND I'M, YOU KNOW,
PEOPLE WOULD SAY THAT I DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THIS HUNT, BUT ACTUALLY WE DO IF WE'RE ALL AT SOME POINT GOING TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION THAT IS
HISTORIC. 
          I CAN TELL YOU WE DID LAST YEAR, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE GOT OUR HISTORIC LETTER JUST
WITH AN HOUR TO GO ON APP SUBMISSION. 
          AND THAT WAS THE MOST NERVE RACKING DAY. SO WHEN WE DO FOLLOW THE RULES AND WE DO GET OUR
APPLICATIONS AND WE DO GET OUR INFORMATION INTO A THIRD PARTY, AND WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT DONE,
AND THEY DON'T, IT'S NOT REALLY THE FAULT OF THE APPLICANT. 
          SO I AM VERY GRATEFUL THAT T-H-E-A IS LOOKING AT THIS AND UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE
SOME THINGS THAT ARE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE DEVELOPER. 
          SO I DO HAVE A DEAL IN A FEW ROUNDS IN SOME OF THESE REGIONS WHERE I WOULD BENEFIT IF THEY
DIDN'T GET IT, BUT THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO. SO I THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. 
          THANK YOU. GREAT. THANKS, LAURA. AGAIN, AS LONG AS EVERYONE'S APPLIED BEFORE THE DEADLINE
THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          I MEAN, I THINK THIS IS AKIN TO SORT OF THE USDA,
RIGHT? WE HAVE TO WAIT FOREVER FOR THEM TO GET BACK ON STUFF. 
          I MEAN, IT'S JUST WE'RE WELL OVER MACHINE, BUT OTHER PARTS OF THE GOVERNMENT STATE AND
FEDERAL, CAN'T ALL BE RIGHT. YEP. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? IF NOT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 24 OF THE AGENDA. 
          I MOVE THE BOARD GRANT THE STAFF INITIATED WAIVER OF TEN TECH SECTION 11 POINT 9E6. 
          BRAVO FOR THE 2026 COMPETITIVE HOUSING CREDIT ROUND. 
          ALL IS DESCRIBED. CONDITION AUTHORIZING THE BOARD ACTION REQUEST ON THIS ITEM. 
          SECOND. MOTION MADE BY MR. HARPER WILL GIVE THE SECOND TO MR. THOMAS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. NOW THE BOARD HAS ADDRESSED THE POSTED AGENDA ITEMS. NOW IS THE TIME OF THE MEETING WHEN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN RAISE ISSUES WITH THE BOARD
ON MATTERS OF RELEVANCE TO THE DEPARTMENT'S BUSINESS, OR MAKE REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD PLACE SPECIFIC ITEMS ON FUTURE AGENDAS FOR CONSIDERATION. 
          IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD CARE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? YES, INDEED, THERE IS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS YOU TODAY. 
          I'M JOYCE BROWN, NEW HOPE HOUSING'S PRESIDENT AND CEO IN HOUSTON,
TEXAS. 
          AND AS I HAVE SAT IN THESE MEETINGS FOR SOME 30 YEARS NOW,
I HAVE HEARD SO MANY PEOPLE APPROACH THIS MICROPHONE TO CAJOLE AND COMPLAIN. AND I PROBABLY HAVE DONE THAT AS WELL. 
          BUT TODAY I COME GRATEFULLY AND WITH CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU AND TO THE STAFF FOR WHAT YOU
HAVE HELPED US DO AT NEW HOPE HOUSING. WHEN I FIRST MET YOU,
IT WAS ABOUT 2003 AND WE HAD FEWER THAN 200 APARTMENT HOMES. TODAY WE HAVE 15 COMMUNITIES, FOUR OF THEM FUNDED BY THIS DEPARTMENT WITH MORE THAN 2000 APARTMENT HOMES. AND TONIGHT, WHEN I GO TO SLEEP,
I CAN DO THAT FEELING CONFIDENT AND REALLY SATISFIED IN THE WORK WE'VE DONE TOGETHER,
BECAUSE AS MANY AS 4000 SOULS WILL BE ABLE TO SLEEP PEACEFULLY IN OUR BUILDINGS TONIGHT AND AWAKEN IN THE MORNING WITH THE SERVICES THAT THEY NEED TO HELP
ADVANCE THEIR LIVES. 
          SO IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS ALONE, WE HAVE INCREASED OUR PORTFOLIO BY 34%. 
          AND SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, 34% IN 30 YEARS. IT JUST SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE OPTIMUM TIME FOR ME
TO BEGIN TO STEP AWAY FROM THIS ROLE, WHICH IS WHAT I'M DOING THIS YEAR,
AND I'LL STILL BE AROUND IN A DIMINISHING WAY UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR. BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO SLIDE AWAY WITHOUT SAYING THANK YOU TO
YOU. 
          AND TO ASSURE YOU THAT I AM COMMITTED TO A SMOOTH TRANSITION AND TO SUPPORTING NEW
LEADERSHIP THAT WILL BE HERE AGAIN AND AGAIN. I'M AFRAID, CAJOLING AND COMPLAINING,
BUT I HOPE TO GREAT EXTENT WE'LL ALSO BE CONGRATULATING YOU AND THE STAFF ON THE EXTRAORDINARY WORK YOU DO FOR THE PEOPLE OF TEXAS. 
          [01:50:02]
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JOY. IT'S BEEN A JOY WORKING WITH YOU AND THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE AT NEW HOPE HOUSING HAS JUST BEEN EXTRAORDINARY. 
          THANK YOU. SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE ORGANIZATION THAT YOU'VE HELPED BUILD,
CONTINUING TO GROW IN THE FUTURE. 
          AND THANK YOU. WORKING WITH WORKING WITH THE DEPARTMENT IN MANY WAYS. 
          WELL, I CAN ASSURE YOU I'M NOT GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR ANOTHER FULL TIME JOB,
BUT I MAY WELL BE LOOKING FOR A MISSION. 
          SO YOU MAY HEAR FROM ME IN OTHER WAYS IN OTHER TIMES. 
          ALWAYS REMEMBERING. PLEASE. MY GRATITUDE. THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. ECOMMENTS MR.. YES. 
          I WANT TO CONGRATULATE YOU. THE ONLY SOCIAL MEDIA THAT I BELONG TO IS LINKEDIN,
AND I HAVE NOT UPDATED THAT SINCE I LEFT HEART FIVE YEARS AGO, AND I DON'T INTEND TO, BUT IT IS ALWAYS A PLEASURE AS I'M GOING SCROLLING ABOUT
PEOPLE THAT I'VE KNOWN IN THE PAST AND WHERE THEY ARE EVERY AT LEAST ONCE A MONTH. I COME ACROSS YOUR PICTURE AND GRAND OPENINGS AND PEOPLE
CONGRATULATING YOU ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE DONE. 
          AND I KNOW THAT A LOT OF US GO TO SHOVEL READY AND I GO,
YEAH, I CARE. 
          I LIKE SHOVELS, BUT I PREFER SCISSORS WHEN THEY HAVE THE GRAND OPENINGS,
BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN WE KNOW HOW THE MONIES ARE SPENT. 
          WELL, AND YOU HAVE ALWAYS YOU MAKE PROMISES YOU NEVER OVER PROMISED AND THEN
UNDERPERFORMED. 
          YOU ALWAYS MAKE PROMISES AND OVERPERFORMED. AND WHEN I READ THE STUFF ON LINKEDIN,
IT'S NOT FROM YOUR COMPETITORS OR YOUR EQUALS, BUT A LOT OF THE PEOPLE THAT YOU ACTUALLY HELPED. 
          AND THAT'S THE BIG DIFFERENCE. THANK YOU. SO I TRUST THAT YOU HAVE ACTUALLY TRAINED AT
LEAST A DOZEN PEOPLE TO FOLLOW IN YOUR FOOTSTEPS. 
          AND I KNOW THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE GOING AWAY. 
          YOU JUST CAN'T. YOU DON'T GO FROM GOING 100 MILES AN HOUR TO ALL OF A SUDDEN GOING,
GOING FIVE MILES. 
          IT NEVER WORKS THAT WAY. BUT ONCE AGAIN, CONGRATULATIONS FOR ALL THE WONDERFUL WORK THAT
YOU'VE DONE, NOT JUST IN HOUSTON. I'M SURE A LOT OF PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE STATE OF TEXAS AND OTHER
STATES ALWAYS CALLED YOU FOR YOUR EXPERTISE. 
          AND HOW DO YOU CONVINCE ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT JUST STARE AT YOU AND DON'T ALWAYS WANT TO
DO WHAT YOU KNOW NEEDS TO BE DONE, BUT ENJOY SOME OF YOUR RETIREMENT A LITTLE BIT? AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO GET BORED. THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU. 
          SO ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? DID MR. MERCHANT. 
          YEAH, I'VE GOT A QUESTION. AND ON THE NEWS, IT'S BEEN STATED THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A
HOUSING BILL THAT'S POSSIBLY GOING TO BE PASSED IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS OR WEEKS. 
          CAN WE GET A BRIEFING AT SOME POINT FROM THE STAFF ABOUT HOW THAT HOUSING BILL,
AS WRITTEN, MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT AFFECT US? YEAH. WE CAN EMAIL YOU AN ANALYSIS AND THEN WE CAN TALK
ABOUT IT NEXT BOARD MEETING AS WELL. 
          YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. YEAH. I'M NOT NOT SURE. 
          I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO READ IT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF IT HURTS US OR HELPS US. 
          SURE. WE'LL DO IT. THANKS. GREAT. SO THE NEXT SCHEDULED BOARD MEETING OF THE. 
          BOARD IS AT 10 A.M. ON BACK TO THURSDAY, APRIL 9TH,
AND RIGHT HERE IN THE SAME GREER STATE HIGHWAY BUILDING. 
          WITH THAT, IT'S 1159. WE ARE ADJOURNED. YEAH.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.