Travis County Commissioners Court
June 30, 2009,
Travis County Housing Finance Corporation
>> good afternoon.
let's call to order the Travis County housing finance corporation.
item number 1 is consider and take appropriate action on the following items related to an application for neighborhood stabilization 2 funds available through the american recovery and reinvestment act.
a, review and consider an application to the u.s.
department of housing and urban development for neighborhood stabilization 2 funds.
b, approve the planned program information for public comment related to the use of neighborhood stabilization 2 funds available through the u.s.
department of housing and urban development.
and c, authorize the advertising of a public hearing on July 7, 2009.
>> good afternoon.
i'm harvey Davis, manager of the corporation here with mike gonzalez.
and this is -- if we move forward with nsp 2, it is a major venture because the minimum grant is five million dollars, but I'd like to have mike explain the process.
>> as y'all recall, earlier this year we applied to the Texas department of housing and community affairs for nsp 1.
that was actually funded through hera.
as part of the american recovery and reinvestment act, it pretty much extended nsp 1 and it's now being referred to nsp 2.
the significant difference is under nsp 1, each state was given a specific allocation or a direct allocation for which the state was going to redistribute, and that's what we applied to on the original one.
for nsp 2 they did away with the formula direct allocation and everyone applies directly to h.u.d.
so we do proceed on this, the application will not go to the state, but it will actually go directly to h.u.d.
and also they kind of raised the bar for applicants.
it's pretty high threshold.
you have to have at least 75 units of transactions or experience in the program that you want to administer in the last 24 month, which we do have.
and also the minimum grant requirement is five million dollars over a three-year period for 100 units.
so it's a pretty significant program if we do decide to apply for it and move forward.
for perspective, this would be larger than our current cdbg program.
it is a pretty significant undertaking.
after we apply for nsp 1, we knew this was coming down the pipe, but we didn't think that our foreclosure numbers were going to be significant enough for us to warrant us applying directly to h.u.d.
however, a few weeks ago h.u.d.
came out -- a couple of months ago h.u.d.
came out with the actual statistical foreclosure numbers for the whole country, and it turned out that Travis County did have significant foreclosure activity and pretty much warranted us seeking an application.
if you look at your agenda backup, we have a map that was provided by the state.
everything in red is everything that scored 18 or higher on the foreclosure risk score.
and that was a pretty high threshold.
we knew that was going to be a requirement, and that's why we didn't feel that we were just going to have the numbers for it.
we thought it would be us score a 20 and it had to be 18 and higher.
we thought it was a pretty high threshold.
looking at the state, you can see the state of Texas has a pretty significant census track that diso have a foreclosure risk score of 18 or higher.
the next map behind it kind of zooms in central Texas and really shows Travis County pretty well.
as you can see, most of the census tracks that have a score of 18 or higher is in the eastern portions of our county, but those are also the same portions that were currently addressing under our nsb 1 application to the state.
it's a similar program that we have already started to implement.
we do have some tracks that popped up on the western part of the county.
under nsp 2.
the overall process -- again, since this is stimulus money, the emphasis is to distribute the money quickly, sos this has a pretty aggressive time line.
the application deadline to h.u.d.
is actually July 17th, so it's only a few weeks away.
but still h.u.d.
will not make a determination until six months later, so we probably won't hear anything back until December.
the other thing also to recognize is that the state is making an application also.
they're calling it a balance estate, which pretty much says any local jurisdiction that is not applying for nsp 2 funds, we want to include those tracts within our application.
so if you look at your agenda memo towards the back, we outlined four options how we can proceed on this.
the first option would be to apply directly to h.u.d.
the advantage of a plan directly to h.u.d.
is that they did include a 10% admin, so the minimum application amount is five million dollars, 10% would be 500,000 that we would actually get to administer those funds or to administer an nsp 2 program.
if the other option we could do is wait and apply through the state, the Texas department of housing and community affairs stated that they are going to apply to h.u.d., so the way is that they would apply to h.u.d.
for nsp 2 funds and later, possibly around time this next year, we could apply to the state for a similar program.
the one disadvantage with doing that is the admin fee will probably be a lot lower.
we anticipate them at least keeping half, so we only had five percent to administer our nsp program.
option 3 would be apply to h.u.d., and then if we're unsuccessful in our application, we could still apply to the state.
i think we've established a pretty good relationship with the state that that won't be considered a negative for us.
if we apply to the state later.
and option number 4 is not to pursue nsp 2 funds altogether.
that's pretty much all our presentation.
i can answer any questions or comments that you may have.
>> I think the staff recommendation is option 3.
i think our belief is that the community warrants us applying for these funds because we could hopefully make -- help out a lot of people and make good use of these funds, then this would require -- if we were successful, it would obviously require some additional staffing needs, but again, it would be funded through the -- through the grant, so I wouldn't see any effect on the county's budget.
it would be grant funded.
>> a unit is a single-family dwelling?
>> right.
for our activity, since we're industry-wide, we will do the exhibit same thing for nsb 2, which is to offer down payment assistance or gap financing, so it would be any individual household that we help purchase, you know, whatever family unit.
it could be single-family, it could be a condo.
it's pretty flexible on that.
>> on this map, I'm seeing -- is there any opportunity to partner with -- there's significant foreclosure action in Williamson and bastrop and hays as well.
it looks like the majority of our foreclosure is occurring outside the city limits of Austin, is that correct?
>> that's correct.
we talked about that option, but because we're on such a tight time line we have to have the public hearing next week.
we have this July 17th deadline, so it is incorporately not feasible to do something on a joint effort with the other counties that have -- that are adjacent, that have high foreclosure.
>> but hopefully if we go through the state later on, there might be some opportunity?
>> perhaps, right.
>> I'm seeing -- it looks like from the map, although the map is small,, blowing it up, while it doesn't look like there's much foreclosure action inside the city of Austin, it looks like the gray area also includes Pflugerville, manor, elgin.
>> right.
>> this western portion, I don't know if the western portion would include a municipality or not.
>> it would include manor and a large part of Pflugerville would be in the red part.
>> does the h.u.d.
guideline apply if you don't get the cdbg money, even if you're a city you can be included in the county?
>> they won't actually be part of the application, but we do need their consent to conduct these type of activities within their limits.
>> Pflugerville had previously --
>> the folks of manor and I guess Pflugerville, I guess, as far as the other jurisdictions.
>> Pflugerville has been approached and previously rejected it.
>> all right.
but I'm saying manor.
>> right.
we haven't reset any jurisdictions.
this is the first time we've brought it before our board.
and again, the biggest thing, there were some -- there was some super in reaching out owe some interest in reaching out to other jurisdictions or governments.
you can apply as the consortium, but the only problem is the time line and the -- it's a pretty aggressive application as far as just the size of it.
and trying to coordinate that with other entities would be a challenge.
>> how aggressive would it be to -- after the deadlines have been made, talking about the July situation here as far as applicability, my point now is after that has been reached and you follow all of the due diligence things that you needed to adhere to, when would you expect persons to actually become a part and get involved in the program?
>> to actually participate in the program?
>> yes.
because that's what folks want to know.
we're doing procedural stuff here now, today, which we have to do.
but at the end of all of this, the person on the other end that will be receiving the benefits of what we do here, we ask the question, when do we have some type of relief?
>> we would expect it to be offered to the public hopefully sometime in the spring 2010.
>> 2010.
all right.
let me jot that down.
>> I think the one thing with your nsb 1 wrapping up now, I think it's going to be the very similar households that can utilize nsv 2.
i think we even have somewhat of a database of households that would need this type of assistance and would qualify under nsb 2.
and that's -- even someone from the state communicated that they were a little bit disappointed that nsb 2 has come along on the heels of nsb 1 so fast because we haven't had any actual implementation in Texas of the first nsb program, so we can see what does work and procedural what's a good way to move the money through.
but again, since we're trying to design an nsb 2 program that's very similar to the nsb 1, I think we will have individuals that could qualify for either one.
if for whatever reason they don't make it under nsb 1, they could make it under nsb 2.
>> move approval of 1-a.
>> second.
>> with option 3 of the 4 being the one that we pursue.
discussion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners -- show a unanimous court.
now, b, where is that plan?
>> under b-4, the actual application, the program plans, the only thing that is out there is the exact amount.
in this case it would be five million dollars, which is the minimum.
the use of the funds which would be plans through mcnivments of down payment assistance and gap financing, and the last thing would be target areas, which would pretty much which would pretty much be what h.u.d.
has defined for what we could use these funds, which would be the areas in red.
and that's -- under the nsb 2 notice of funding from h.u.d., we're not actually required to have a public hearing.
the only thing they require is 10-day comment period.
and they set the posting requirement very low.
the only thing they said you really have to do is to post citizen comment period on your official website.
we felt -- and being consistent with what we're doing with cdbg, we felt it would be necessary to have a public hearing, but just to give you the background, it's not really required in the notice from h.u.d.
but again, what we're going to put out there for citizens comment is just the five million dollars, so over a three-year period, the phones will be for financing mechanisms only.
and last would be the areas which would be the h.u.d.
qualified census tracts.
that's pretty much all the details that we have, unlike cdbg programs which the uses are pretty wide and you can get pretty creative on, these were pretty narrow on what to use the funds for.
they give five options.
it's more narrow in scope than what you can do under a cdbg program.
>> so the program information is what you just described basically.
>> right.
so if you do allow the public hearing, then what we'll do is for the following Tuesday when we actually post it, we'll have the background as far as what the scope of the program should be, which again would be the dollar amount, where it's going to be and what the uses are going to be.
>> move approval of b and c.
>> second.
>> and part of the request for approving b is permission to put this on the county's website.
>> yes.
>> b and c, including the website.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
number 2 is to consider and take appropriate action' requests to pursue the creation after city/county housing committee.
in light of our conversation this morning, should we just put this on for two weeks?
>> I do want to add one thing, is that I did attend the housing authority board meeting on Saturday, and they did discuss this committee and their board voted to say that if a committee is formed, they would like to participate.
>> did they say what they would like to see this committee do?
>> no, sir, they didn't.
>> let's do that two weeks from now.
we may as well include their input, right?
>> are you talking about the Austin --
>> Travis County.
>> Travis County housing authority -- housing authority of Travis County.
>> you're talking about our housing authority?
>> yes, sir.
>> any more discussion of 2 today?
two weeks from today is July 14th.
number 3 is to consider and take appropriate action on request to approve minutes of board of directors meetings of may 12th, 19th, 26th and June 2nd, 2009.
>> move approval.
>> could we pull 26th out of there?
i wasn't here for that.
>> we will pull 26 out for separate vote.
we will vote on the other three.
how's that?
>> that would be great.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
now I move approval of may 26th.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
show director Eckhardt abstaining.
Commissioners -- the rest of the court voting in favor.
>> move we adjourn.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:31 PM