Travis County Commssioners Court
April 15, 2003
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
Travis County housing finance corporation let's call it to order. 1. Consider (1) release of lien and (2) reimbursement payment to Texas department of housing and community affairs for repayment of home project loan #36662000-14, and take appropriate action.
>> my name is harvey Davis, I知 the manager for the corporation. And in -- in November of 1996, the corporation made a $2,000 non-interest bearing home loan to a first-time home buyer. This loan was paid back in March, last March. And by our -- by our contract with the Texas department of housing and community affairs, we have to -- we have to reimburse them the $2,000 and the home owner is asking us to release the lien on the -- on that -- that it was on the home. So I知 requesting board approval for those actions.
>> the $2,000 comes from the buyer, kind of funneled through us.
>> that's right. It's been deposited in our bank account.
>> that's why I move approval of release of the lien plus the reimbursement to the state.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. 2. Consider (1) release of lien and (2) reimbursement payment to Texas department of housing and community affairs for repayment of home project loan #36662000-68, and take appropriate action.
>> this is the same situation as the prior item, except the amount of the repayment was $1,574, the loan was made in may of 1997.
>> hogs to approve the release of lien plus repayment to the state.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes unanimously. 3. Consider results of compliance audit of $17,740,000 multi-family housing revenue bonds, series 2002 (the park at wells branch), and take appropriate action.
>> in June of -- of 2002, the corporation issued $17,740,000 of -- of bonds for the acquisition of an existing 304 unit apartment complex. The owner -- and the location is 1915 wells branch parkway. The owner is a chodo non-profit entity. I -- last month I initiated a compliance audit of the development. I had -- and I raised two issues. The first issue was that -- that when the -- when they were certifying tenants that were renewing leases, tenants that were residents at the time that the acquisition was made in 2002, when they were renewing those leases, they were not doing income verification procedures. They were -- they were having the tenants fill out income certification forms, but they were not doing the second step which is verifying the income by either a tax return or -- or pay stub or verification with the employer. The second issue that I raised at the audit is again principally on renewing tenants that is they were not having the tenants sign an addendum stating that -- that condition of their lease was the accuracy of their income certification and it was found that the income certification was not correct, then that could be grounds for eviction. The owner has agreed with these findings and attached in the backup is a -- is a letter from the owner saying that they will make -- take the corrective actions. So I am recommending to the board that -- that we accept this letter and that I do a follow-up on -- do a follow-up audit within the next year to make sure that they have actually followed through with those items.
>> seems that sometimes we give three months, other times we give a year. How do we determine --
>> well, that was a judgment call on my part. I felt that these -- these deficiencies were not as serious as some of the other situations. The -- the [indiscernible] in general they were doing the things that they were required to in the regulatory agreement. They were doing all of the proper things with new tenants and they -- all the tenants were completing the income certification forms. But so -- so it was a judgment call on -- on -- on my determining that this was not quite as serious as some of the other situations where you had -- where you had more or less not -- the management company was not well versed in the requirements of the regulatory agreement and -- and --
>> so do you think that if you are faced with the same facts for another project at some point in the future that your judgment call will -- will dictate the same [indiscernible] period, that's the problem. It wouldn't hurt to have I guess a little set of written guidelines that we try to follow. The first time that you give somebody 30 days, they will remember the one year and say -- why are you so hard on me, won't they?
>> well, they could.
>> I would.
>> they could. The regulatory agreements have in there a 60 day default provision that you notify the owner and they have 60 days to take corrective measures if they don't the board can then proceed to the next step in the process. So that -- that's all --
>> that's my point, though. Instead of 60 addition, six times that period. And if it's a minor matter, it would seem to be tobility -- let's finish the thought.
>> okay.
>> it may make sense on something like this that we, rather than go back out in 60 days, we give a longer period. Except when a similar circumstance comes up in the future, we need to respond similarly is our challenge. To be fair. But -- but you are saying we really don't see any problems, they have been trying to comply, this is an oversight that they will correct, we will be back in about a year, is that what you are --
>> within a year, yeah. That was my judgment.
>> now, within a year and one day, or 365?
>> within -- within 365 days. [laughter]
>> not to exceed.
>> yeah.
>> move approval. My judgment is to approve -- that we ought to approve this recommendation.
>> second.
>> and request -- and request written, broad guidelines for future use.
>> all right. I will work on that, sir.
>> seconded by director Gomez. We know you are fair and even handed. It's your recollection from time to time that we question, so -- [laughter] all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Early afternoon humor. Well, I --
>> four is to --
>> well, I知 -- I知 sorry, I知 glad that you consider me even handed.
>> that's a major accomplishment here at the county. [laughter] 4. Consider request for a fee reimbursement agreement with Travis County and bell-nash/rathgeber joint -- rath gaber not burger. Rathgaber joint venture for the waiver of subdivision fees for phase three of a mixed-income, residential subdivision known as briarcreek, and take appropriate action.
>> and this is a contract that was approved by the Travis County Commissioners court last week on consent and the corporation is also a party to the suit, I do want to make it clear that -- that this agreement is not a waiver of subdivision fees, but it gives the -- the right of the developer if they fulfill the requirements in the agreement, to be reimbursed those subdivision fees. And so they don't get reimbursement until they bring the proper documentation to -- to the corporation.
>> similar to the one that we did for the other phase or phases?
>> the other two phases, yes, sir.
>> phase 1 and phase 2.
>> move approve.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. 5. Approve minutes of board of directors meetings for March 18 and March 25, 2003.
>> so moved.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And 6. Consider (1) a budget transfer and (2) payment to deloitte & touche llp for audit of the component unit corporations, and take appropriate action. Deloitte and touche has sent $6,000 invoices for all of the corporations for the 2002 audit. The audit has been completed. Actually the [inaudible] has been released. The housing corporation's portion is 4,865.32, so I知 requesting approval to pay that amount.
>> and the reason for that is that most of the activity has been in this one corporation not the others?
>> right. The -- the bill is allocated among the corporation based on the fund balance at -- at September 30th, 2002.
>> that's why I move approval.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 9, 2003 3:52 PM