Travis County Commssioners Court
October 15, 2002
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.
Housing Finance Corporation
Now let's call to order the Travis County housing finance corporation, one item of business. 1. Consider changes and clarifications to the fee reimbursement agreements with bell-nash/rathgeber joint venture, and take appropriate action.
>> good afternoon, I’m harvey Davis, manager of the corporation. Milburn homes has requested a clarification and a few changes to the agreement that I would like to go over with the board. And as -- ask your approval of -- of the clarification is if you will recall in the agreement there is accessibility and energy efficiency standards and they are asking if a -- if their architect's affidavit would be sufficient to meet those standards. The affidavit pretty much follows the language that is in the agreement. I -- I asked tom nuckols when his opinion was as far as complying with the agreement, he felt that the affidavit would comply with the agreement. The reason they are asking that -- to use the affidavit is that they said that if they went and did an inspection, had an inspector go an do a separate inspection, it would cost more than the -- than the flat fees reimbursement, so it wouldn't really be worth it for them to -- to ask for the reimbursements. Then on the changes, if you will recall there was an income certification agreement, if -- we are relying on the mortgage company to certify as to the income of the home buyer and then with that information we are able to determine that the home buyer meets the -- meets the income limit, which is 80% of Austin area median income. They are asking for some changes to that form because they -- when they read it they said they felt that it would confuse the home buyer, may confuse the home buyer and that the home buyer would think that there might be some subsidy or benefit from the corporation for them. Then when I read it with that thought in mind, I felt that they -- this -- their discomfort with the certification had some merit. In your backup, the -- the changes that I’m recommending are -- are in legislative -- how the certification would look. I feel it does not change the essence of the form, which is that we are relying on the information from the mortgage company as to the home buyer's income and the home buyer is signing the form, authorizing the mortgage company to give us the information. So with that, I do recommend approval of these changes and if you have any questions --
>> judge, I would like to move approval of those particular recommended changes that were presented to us by harvey Davis and I guess, though, well, let me put that motion out and see -- see what the will of the court is.
>> second.
>> all right. And with that, though, especially with the form that actually captured the information from the persons that are -- that are go there through -- that are going through the process of purchasing the home, to ensure that the minimum familiar income complies and all of those things are actually still captured. This particular separate form, is that still going to be a part of the overall packet of information?
>> yes. The home buyer will sign and the mortgage company will sign the form and the mortgage company will give us the information of what the home buyer's income is. And then we as staff will sign a form stating whether the -- whether the home buyer meets the 80 are% income limit -- 80% income limit or not.
>> there was a very interesting article in this past week's american business section of the newspaper that actually highlights and points out some of these things as far as the subdivision [inaudible] being used. In fact I think it's a real good policy. I think we need to clean up the ambiguity out of that. I think this is a direction that we need to go. And I don't have anything else at this time. With the exception of I guess the -- well, I guess that you will bring it up later as far as the -- the program itself, as far as reimbursement that's just another part of it.
>> right. When -- when they have submitted sufficient information to earn the reimbursement, then of course I would bring that information to the board.
>> the motion is to approve recommended changes and clarification. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> move we adjourn.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote, also,.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM