This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
End of dialog window.
[Housing and Homelessness Solutions on March 24, 2025.]
[00:00:03]
THE TIME IS 9:10 AND WE ARE CALLING THE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS SOLUTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING TO ORDER.FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
>>> IT'S BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> A SECOND. ANY CORRECTIONS SAYING NONE.
WE'LL NOW GO ON TO BRIEFING MEMOS ITEM A.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL MEMBER AND CHAIR AND OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS, KRISTINE CROSLEY, OFFICE OF HOME SOLUTIONS DIRECTOR.
>> GOOD MORNING, COMMITTEE, CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS, DARWIN WAITE ASSISTANT HOUSING DIRECTOR.
BEFORE YOU THIS MORNING, YOU HAVE THE, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
>> IT'S OKAY, DARWIN. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR.
GLORIA SANDOVAL, PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF HOMES SOLUTIONS.
>> WE'RE READY. TODAY, YOU HAVE THE PROPERTIES TRACKER DATE FOR THE THREE PROPERTIES FORT WORTH AVENUE, INDEPENDENCE DRIVE, AND HAMPTON.
TO BRING SOME THINGS TO YOUR ATTENTION, WE DID UPDATE THE CHART WITH ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION THAT WAS REQUESTED AT THE LAST MEETING.
YOU WILL SEE THAT INFORMATION AT THE TOP ROW THERE WITH ACQUISITION APPRAISAL, ACQUISITION COST, OTHER COSTS.
ON 1954 WORTH AVENUE, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CITY REHAB INCENTIVE AS APPROVED BY COUNCIL WAS 4.7 MILLION.
THAT COST PER UNIT BASED ON THAT AMOUNT BY COUNCIL IS ABOUT 67,000 EVEN THOUGH THAT NUMBER IS ON THE BOTTOM LINE.
BUT THE TRUE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST PER UNIT, BASED ON THE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST OF 10 MILLION IS AROUND $142,000 PER UNIT.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION FOR 1954 WORTH AVENUE.
WE ALSO ADDED ADDITIONAL ITEMS SUCH AS THE ADJACENT AMENITIES AS REQUESTED IN THE LAST MEETING.
FOR 4150 IN THIS DRIVE, WE INCLUDED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE LAST MEETING THAT WAS REQUESTED.
SAME THING AS ACQUISITION HOLDING COST, AND WE ITEMIZED THE PROPOSALS THAT WERE RECEIVED IN THE 2024 NOFA AND THE 2022 RFP.
THAT INFORMATION IS THERE FOR YOUR PERUSAL.
WE ADDED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO THE HAMPTON PROJECT AS WELL BASED OFF OF THE APPRAISALS AT ACQUISITION.
>> FOR THE HAMPTON PROPERTY, AS WE TALKED ABOUT IN FEBRUARY.
WE WILL BE DOING AN RFI PROCESS TO BE ISSUED.
OUR TIMELINE IS APRIL TO SEE WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR.
THAT'S GOING TO HAVE A VERY BROAD SCOPE.
AS I SAID BEFORE, IT'LL BE EVERYTHING FROM WHAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED TO DO, WHICH IS HOUSING FOR FORMERLY UNSHELTERED TO THE BUY RIGHT USE, WHICH IS MEDICAL TO WHAT THE COMMUNITY HAS LOOKED AT IN TERMS OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.
WE'RE REALLY JUST GOING TO SEE WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR.
THEN WE'LL BRING BACK VERY HIGH LEVEL AGGREGATE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION.
SAME AS WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THE INTERIM HOUSING NEXT MONTH AND WE WILL THEN BRING THAT INFORMATION FORWARD AND PROPOSE AND ASK FOR POLICY GUIDANCE ON WHAT AN RFP OR NOFA SHOULD HAVE IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.
THE RFIS I SAID SHOULD BE ISSUED NEXT MONTH.
THEN GLORIA, DO YOU WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT TIMELINE OF WHEN WE EXPECT THAT BACK AND WHEN AN RFP MIGHT GO ALIVE?
>> YES, MA'AM. THE RFI FOR 29 29, SOUTHAMPTON, AS KRISTINE SAID, WE ARE PLANNING TO ISSUE IT BY THE END OF APRIL, NO LATER THAN APRIL 30.
WE'LL KEEP IT OPEN FOR ABOUT A MONTH.
ABOUT 10 DAYS INTO IT BEING LIVE.
THERE'LL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR POTENTIAL RESPONDENTS TO MEET WITH OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES TO ASK QUESTIONS, POST QUESTIONS FOR ANOTHER WEEK.
I LEARNED FROM THIS LAST RFI, THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTION, GREAT QUESTIONS ASKED.
[00:05:03]
IT DEPENDS ON HOW MANY RESPONSES WE RECEIVE.IT MAY TAKE ABOUT A MONTH TO COMPILE ALL OF THAT INFORMATION AND BRING BACK A SUMMARY FOR YOU.
MY GUESSTIMATE IS JUNE TO HAVE A FULL REPORT BACK ON THE RESPONSES TO THE RFI.
WITH THOSE RESPONSES, EXCUSE ME, KRISTINE, AS A REMINDER, THE PURPOSE OF THE RFI IS TO GATHER INFORMATION TO HELP US DEVELOP NOFA OR AN RFP.
ONCE WE GET SOME DIRECTION FROM THE COMMITTEE, WE'LL GO BACK AND START WORKING ON THAT RFP OR NOFA AFTER WE GET THE FEEDBACK IN JUNE, SAME THING, WE WOULD PROBABLY DO ISSUE A NOFA OR RFP MAYBE IN AUGUST.
IT JUST DEPENDS ON RESPONSES WE GET TO THE RFI AND WHAT THE DIRECTION WE GET FROM THE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU.
>> WITH THAT, WE WILL TURN IT BACK OVER CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU. DID I MISS IT, BUT DID YOU ALL GIVE A QUICK UPDATE ON INDEPENDENCE?
>> THE LATEST INFORMATION ON INDEPENDENCE IS WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING WITH COUNCILMAN GRACIE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PSC AND HFC CORPORATIONS TO DETERMINE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT SITE.
THERE ARE ONGOING CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CORPORATIONS TO DETERMINE IF THERE'S ANY INTEREST FROM DEVELOPERS TO HELP WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT SITE, WHICH WILL INCLUDE WHICH COULD POSSIBLY INCLUDE DEMOLITION AND SOME TYPE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION OR NEW DEVELOPMENT, VARIETY OF AMIS, MIXED USE, MIXED INCOME TYPE DEVELOPMENT.
DISCUSSIONS ARE UNDERWAY, AND MORE WILL BE DETERMINED AT A LATER DATE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. BEFORE WE GO TO QUESTIONS, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE ADDED INFORMATION, ESPECIALLY ON THE COSTS.
I THINK THIS IS GREAT FOR TRANSPARENCY AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RESIDENTS KNOW HOW WE'RE UTILIZING THEIR DOLLARS.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE RFI, THE SCOPE, IS THAT BEING DRIVEN BY STAFF OR IS THAT BEING DRIVEN BY COUNCIL DIRECTIVE ON RFI FOR HAMPTON?
>> THE SCOPE IS BEING DRIVEN BY STAFF IN TERMS OF INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN COLLECTED.
IT IS LITERALLY ALL THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN COLLECTED BOTH FROM THIS BODY AND FROM THE BEST AND HIGHEST USE THAT WILL BE IDENTIFIED BY THE MARKET STUDY AND THE BUY RIGHT.
WE'RE JUST TAKING EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT AND PUTTING IT IN THAT RFI TO SEE WHAT THE MARKET WOULD BRING BACK.
>> THAT MARKET STUDY IS NOT CURRENTLY READY IS THAT, CORRECT?
>> WE'RE GOING TO BE BRINGING A HIGH LEVEL MEMO ABOUT THE MARKET STUDY IN APRIL, YES.
>> WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND BECAUSE I KNOW THIS QUESTION IS GOING TO BE RAISED IS WHO THAT INPUT CAME FROM FOR THE SCOPE? IS IT COUNCIL MEMBERS, IS IT COMMUNITY, MAKING SURE THAT WHAT'S BEING REFLECTED, IS ACTUALLY WHAT HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY INCLUDING COUNCIL?
>> YES, AS I SAID, THE SCOPE IS, I THINK IT'S ABOUT FOUR PARTS, WHICH IS WHAT IT WAS PURCHASED FOR, WHAT IT COULD BE USED FOR BY RIGHT, BOTH OF WHICH HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BY THIS BODY.
THEN ANYTHING ELSE THAT IS LOOKED AT, WHICH WOULD BE OPEN ENDED, BUT I KNOW THAT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AROUND HERE.
I DON'T KNOW WE WOULD PUT THAT FINE A POINT ON IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW, GLORIA, IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
>> YES. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAD TALKED ABOUT DOING, LIKE YOU SAID, THERE WERE FOUR PIECES BY RIGHT USE, WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED HERE.
THE RESULTS OF THE MARKET STUDY, THE FEEDBACK THAT WAS RECEIVED FROM THAT STUDY.
THE THIRD PIECE IS GOING TO BE THE COMMUNITY FEEDBACK THROUGH THE ENGAGEMENT THAT COUNCIL MEMBER GRACIE DID WITH RESIDENTS.
THEN THE FOURTH PIECE IS WHAT THE PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO BE USED FOR.
THEY'LL BE INCORPORATE ALL OF THAT INTO THE RFI.
AS KRISTINE SAID EARLIER, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY BROAD AND WE'LL HIGHLIGHT THAT'LL BE PART OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
HERE ARE SUGGESTED USES FOR THIS PROPERTY, BUT IF SOMEONE MAY COME FORWARD WITH SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, OF COURSE, WE'D ENTERTAIN THAT AS WELL.
>> THE LAST THING THAT I'LL SAY BEFORE, WE GO TO MY COLLEAGUES IS TIMELINE.
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE EARLIEST DECISION BEING IN JUNE, THE CONSTRUCTION TIME POSSIBLE.
DO WE HAVE AN INTERIM PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THAT GAP IN TIME BEFORE SOMETHING ACTUALLY HAPPENS ON SITE?
[00:10:04]
>> INTERMS OF WHAT WE WOULD DO WITH THE PROPERTY UNTIL WE MOVE FORWARD WITH CONSTRUCTION. NO, SIR. WE DON'T.
I MEAN, AS YOU KNOW, AS COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS VISITED THE PROPERTY, WE HAVE, WE'RE MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY, KEEPING IT SAFE, THERE'S SECURITY.
WE'RE DOING REGULAR MAINTENANCE, BUT WE HAVE NO OTHER PLANS AS YOU SAW WHEN YOU TOURED.
THERE'S NOT MUCH YOU CANNOT DO ANYTHING WITHOUT PROPERTY IN THE STATE THAT IT'S IN RIGHT NOW WITHOUT INVESTING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY TO ALLOW PEOPLE INTO THE BUILDINGS.
WHEN GLORIA TALKED ABOUT THE RFI TIMELINE, THAT WOULD BRING BACK MARKET INTEREST PROBABLY IN JUNE, AND THEN FROM THERE, WE'D CRAFT AN RFP OR OFA.
ACTUALLY HAVING AN AWARDED PARTNER OR VENDOR WOULD BE FARTHER OUT.
>> THANK YOU. THEN JUST MOVING FORWARD, IF WE CAN INCLUDE A MAP OF ACTIVE HOMELESS SITES BY DISTRICT.
I KNOW ALL ARE WORKING ON THAT.
>> I MEAN, OUR PROJECTS BY DISTRICT.
>> THANK YOU. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START HERE IN THE CHAMBER, COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS.
>> WE HAVE SOME NEW EQUIPMENT HERE, SO I GUESS WE'RE BREAKING IT IN.
LET'S GO BACK TO INDEPENDENCE.
WHAT HAS THE MARKETPLACE TOLD US ABOUT THIS PROPERTY, MR. WADE?
>> THE MARKETPLACE HAS TOLD US THAT IT'S A PROJECT THAT WILL REQUIRE A LOT OF INVESTMENT TO REDEVELOP, TO REHAB, AND IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE A LOT OF INVESTMENT, A LOT OF PUBLIC DOLLARS, IF THE CITY IS GOING TO BE PART OF THAT PARTNERSHIP.
WE HAVE WENT OUT SEVERAL TIMES TO SOLICIT PROPOSALS, AND WE HAVE BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL.
THE LATEST AND GREATEST ONE THAT YOU HAVE THAT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE PROVIDES YOU THE FINANCIAL DATA ON WHAT WE RECEIVED, AND THE GAPS ARE ENORMOUS.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'LL DEFINITELY HAVE TO LOOK AT MOVING FORWARD.
>> I MEAN, I THINK THAT CAME TO LIGHT AT OUR LAST MEETING.
I MEAN, I THINK I'M STILL IN RECOVERY OVER THE $29 MILLION FIGURE THAT WAS SHARED WITH US.
AS YOU LOOK EVEN COMPARATIVELY AT FORT WORTH AVENUE, THAT 67,000 A DOOR AND RIGHT NOW, INDEPENDENCE IS AT $277,000 A DOOR.
I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT CONTINUING TO TAKE THE COMPLEXITY OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND CONTINUE TO PURSUE IT.
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S BEING DISCUSSED WITH HFC AND PFC, BUT I MEAN, THIS IS JUST FEELING LIKE SOMETHING, ESPECIALLY AFTER VISITING IT THAT WE NEED TO UNLOAD.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S AN ANSWER ON THAT ONE, AND I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED WITH OUR COMMUNITY PROBLEM ISSUE THAT WE HAVE TO SOLVE AND HOW MUCH TIME WE'RE SPENDING ON THIS, AFTER SEEING IT IN PERSON, AFTER SEEING THESE NUMBERS, GOING TO THE MARKETPLACE TWO TIMES AND GETTING NO INTEREST, PROBABLY BECAUSE OF THESE NUMBERS, AND IT JUST SEEMS LIKE PULLING THE RIP CORD ON THIS NEEDS TO BE THE PRIORITY.
I THINK I VOICED THAT LAST TIME AND I'M JUST REITERATING THAT. GO BACK.
>>> COUNCIL MEMBER, JUST LIKE TO ADD.
ALSO, JUST WHAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM DEVELOPERS IS THAT IT'S THE UNKNOWN OF THE BUILDING.
IT'S THE UNKNOWNS OF THE CONDITION OF THE BUILDING.
IT HAS BEEN SITTING FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND NOT KNOWING WHAT YOU MAY UNCOVER AS YOU'RE DOING THE REHABILITATION.
THAT IS ANOTHER FACTOR THAT HAS FACTORED INTO THEIR CALCULUS IF THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT.
>> WELL, I MEAN, I'M A LAYMAN, BUT IT JUST LOOKS LIKE A DEMO.
MOVING TO HAMPTON, DO WE KNOW HOW MUCH BRINGING IT UP TO CODE WOULD COST AT THIS POINT, ISN'T THAT IN WORK?
>> NO, MA'AM. WE DON'T KNOW YET.
>> WE DON'T REALLY KNOW IF IT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY.
>> I MEAN, SO I DON'T WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE BECAUSE RELATIVELY, GIVEN THAT WE'VE JUST PASSED A BOND, MIGHT BE OKAY FOR HELPING US ACCOMPLISH SOME OF WHAT WE NEED TO.
I GUESS IN HEARING ABOUT THE FOUR DIFFERENT PIECES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO US WITH.
THERE'S ONE PIECE THAT I THINK WE'VE GOT TO INCLUDE.
[00:15:02]
WE'RE GETTING WHAT THE MARKET WILL TELL US ABOUT THIS PROPERTY, HOW IT COULD BE USED, WHAT ITS HIGHEST AND BEST USE IS.BUT WE'RE A CITY THAT HAS AN ISSUE WITH PEOPLE SLEEPING ON THE STREETS AND LIVING ON THE STREETS.
I THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE PIT COUNT COME OUT AND EVEN IF IT SHOWS A DECREASE, WE STILL ARE GOING TO HAVE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE A ROOF OVER THEIR HEAD.
I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT SOLOING THIS INFORMATION.
I MEAN, THIS IS THE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS COMMITTEE.
I WANT TO BE SURE THAT THE OFFICE OF HOMELESS SOLUTIONS IS ALSO GOING TO HAVE A PILLAR IN THERE OF HERE'S WHAT THE MARKETPLACE SAYS.
BUT HERE'S WHAT OUR CITY NEEDS. HERE'S WHAT'S GOING ON.
HOW COULD THIS POTENTIALLY HELP US MANAGE THAT BETTER? EVEN IF IT'S JUST IN THE NEAR TERM, WITH LONG TERM, SOME OF WHAT HAS BEEN EXPRESSED COULD STILL BE POSSIBLE, BUT WE HAVE NEAR TERM ISSUES.
I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT IGNORING THAT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE NATURE OF THIS COMMITTEE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS, AS I SAID, THERE'S FOUR PIECES THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT INTO THAT RFI.
THE FIRST, OF COURSE, WILL BE WE'LL EXPLAIN THAT THIS WAS THE INTENDED USE OF THIS FACILITY OR THIS PROPERTY WHEN WE FIRST ACQUIRED IT.
IT WAS PURCHASED WITH PROPOSITION J FUNDS FROM 2017, WHICH WAS TO INCREASE HOUSING FOR FORMER AND SHELTERED, SO THAT WILL BE INCLUDED.
>> WELL, I THINK WE ALL KNOW THE INTENT OF IT.
I HAD TO BE BOUGHT WITH THOSE MINE. THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
I'M TALKING ABOUT WHERE ARE WE TODAY WITH PEOPLE AT INTERSECTIONS AND UNDER UNDERPASSES AND IN PARKLAND AND SLEEPING IN CULVERTS AND THAT THING. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN.
IT'S THE RIGHT NOW AND WHERE ARE A ARE WE MAKING A LOT OF PROGRESS? ARE WE MAKING HEADWAY? WE COULD LOOK AT THIS? I THINK IT CAN FORM HOW WE ENTERTAIN WHAT WE GET BACK.
THEN INCLUDING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S FINE, BUT I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HERE, AS FAR AS SENIOR HOUSING OR HOSPICE CARE OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE WASN'T REALLY PART OF THAT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S IT WAS A FULLY BAKED PRESENTATION.
>> MAYBE WE HAVE A CAVEAT ON THAT. I DON'T KNOW.
I THINK THAT, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO HAVE ALL OF THOSE OPTIONS PRESENTED.
THEN I THINK FINALLY, WE TALKED ABOUT, MISS.
CROSSLEY AND I TALKED ABOUT ON THE WAY IN THIS MORNING ADDING THE TRACKER FOR EVERY DISTRICT.
IT COULD BE WHERE WE ARE BECAUSE SOME DISTRICTS HAVE A CONGREGATE SHELTER THAT ANSWERS THEIR NEED, AND OTHERS HAVE OTHER PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN UP AND RUNNING FOR A WHILE.
OTHERS DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE ANYTHING GOING.
I MEAN, I THINK IT HELPS US TO SEE THAT WHOLE MENU.
I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU NEED TO GO INTO ALL OF THIS DETAIL.
FOR INSTANCE, I'VE GOT DISTRICT 13 HAS A PROJECT THAT'S BEEN UP AND RUNNING FOR ALMOST SEVEN YEARS, SUCCESSFUL, CLOSE TO AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, A SENIOR CENTER, A REC-CENTER, AND A PARK WITH NO ISSUES, AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO INTO ALL THAT ON THAT ONE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SEE WHERE EVERY DISTRICT IS SO WE CAN THINK OF THAT AS MORE OF A HOLE.
>> THANK YOU. LET'S SEE IF WE CAN MAKE THE MICROPHONE THING WORK TODAY.
I ALSO WANT TO ECHO WHAT THE CHAIR SAID ABOUT, APPRECIATING THAT YOU'VE ADDED IN THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR THESE PROPERTIES.
I WANT TO GO THROUGH AND MAKE SURE I'VE GOT THIS RIGHT.
FOR FORT WORTH AVENUE, WHICH WAS PURCHASED DECEMBER 2020, MOVEMENT IS EXPECTED IN MARCH OF 26.
MORE THAN FIVE YEARS AFTER WE ACQUIRE IT, WE'RE EXPECTING TO HAVE MOVEMENT, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WE ACQUIRED IT FOR $3.5 MILLION.
DID AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR $285,000 GAVE A REHAB INCENTIVE FOR $4.8 MILLION.
WE'RE IN FOR $8.6 MILLION ON THAT PROPERTY.
>> THE APPRAISAL AT THE TIME THAT WE PURCHASED IT WAS FOR TWO MILLION, AND THE DEVELOPER IS EXPECTED TO PUT IN ANOTHER $10 MILLION, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> INDEPENDENCE PURCHASED MAY 2022, YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S BEEN SITTING FOR SOME TIME AND THEREFORE, MAY NOT BE HABITABLE.
BUT YET WHEN WE PURCHASED IT, PEOPLE WERE LITERALLY LIVING IN THERE, CORRECT?
[00:20:03]
>> THERE WERE SOME PEOPLE IN SOME OF THE UNITS, IT WAS NOT 100% OCCUPIED.
>> BUT SOME PEOPLE WERE ACTUALLY LIVING THERE.
>> YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE IT'S BEEN VACANT FOR THREE YEARS, IT MAY NEED TO BE DEMOLISHED?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IT IS NOW?
>> WE'RE SAYING THAT DUE TO THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT IT'S BEEN SITTING VACANT, DUE TO WEATHER ROOFING ISSUES, WATER DAMAGE, THE CONDITIONS OF THE BUILDING HAS DWINDLED, SUBSTANTIALLY.
>> WHEN WE PURCHASED THIS BUILDING, WE WERE TOLD CERTAIN THINGS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION ABOUT THE CONDITION.
NONE OF THEM INCLUDED A PROBLEM WITH ROOFING OR WATER PENETRATION.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE ARE CONDITIONS THAT WERE EXISTING THEN?
>> I'M NOT SURE. THAT ASSESSMENT WAS NOT DONE BY US, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT AS OF TODAY, THAT IS WHAT IS AN ISSUE WITH THE PROPERTY.
>> ARE WE LEAVING THESE ISSUES UNRESOLVED? CITY ASSETS WITH ROOF PROBLEMS, WE'RE JUST LETTING IT FALL APART.
>> COUNSEL MEMBER, WE HAVE BOARDED UP WINDOWS.
WE'VE ENSURED THAT THE LIGHTS STAY ON ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY TO MAINTAIN IT SAFETY.
>> WELL, THAT SOUNDS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> PARDON ME. THAT SOUNDS LIKE THINGS THAT WE DO WITH THINGS WE'RE GOING TO DEMOLISH? WE BOARD UP THE WINDOWS AND WE PUT A SAFETY FENCE AROUND US.
>> WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN WITHOUT SPENDING MONEY THAT ISN'T JUSTIFIED BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE OF THE PROPERTY IS AND RESOURCES ARE VERY SCARCE.
>> SPEAKING OF MONEY, [LAUGHTER] THAT WE DON'T HAVE.
WE ACQUIRED THIS FOR $4.9 MILLION, DID AN ENVIRONMENTAL FOR $80,000, AND THEN WE INVESTED $1.87 MILLION IN RENOVATING IT.
>> IN A PROPERTY THAT YOU SAY HAD ROOFING PROBLEMS?
>> THIS WAS FOR THE CENTER BUILDING THAT WAS GOING TO BE A COMMUNITY SERVICES AREA.
>> THAT BUILDING HAS NO ROOFING PROBLEMS, NO WATER PENETRATION, THAT BUILDING IS TOTALLY FINE.
>> THE RESIDENT SERVICES BUILDING IS IN EXCELLENT CONDITION.
WE INSTALLED A NEW ROOF, NEW HVC, NEW ELECTRICAL, NEW PLUMBING.
>> THAT BUILDING DOES NOT NEED TO COME DOWN, SHOULD NOT BE DEMOLISHED, IT'S FINE?
>> I MEAN, IF IT WAS DEMOLISHED AS PART OF THE LARGER PROPERTY, I CAN'T SAY IN TERMS OF WHAT THE PROPERTY IN THE MARKET BEAR, BUT I CAN SAY THAT IT'S IN GOOD CONDITION AND COULD STAY AND COULD FUNCTION.
>> DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM WITH TALKING ABOUT DEMOLISHING A BUILDING THAT WE SPENT $6.85 MILLION PURCHASING AND RENOVATING AND NOW YOU [LAUGHTER] WANT TO TALK ABOUT DEMOLISHING IT?
>> WE ARE PRESENTING WHAT WAS ASKED OF US AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS REQUESTED WAS TO DISCUSS DEMOLITION.
>> THE POINT THAT WE PURCHASED IT, THE APPRAISAL CAME IN AT $3.2 MILLION.
AGAIN, WE'RE IN FOR $6.85 MILLION AT THIS POINT.
YOU'RE SAYING IT WOULD COST ABOUT $350,000 TO DEMOLISH IT, CORRECT?
>> THEN YOU'RE SAYING ALMOST $5 MILLION IN GAP FINANCING TO CREATE 60 UNITS?
>> THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME BACK FROM THE NOFA.
>> ALTHOUGH IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO HAVE 100 UNITS, CORRECT?
>> YES. THE CURRENT NUMBER OF UNITS IN THE BUILDING NOW IS 108.
WHEN WE DID THE NOFA BACK IN 2024, THE NOFA HAD A MINIMUM OF 100 UNITS TO DO THE REHAB.
THE FIRST PROPOSAL HAD A REHAB ABOUT 108 UNITS.
THEN THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AROUND DEMOLITION.
WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE IF THE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST WAS REDUCED? THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE THE 60 UNITS AS A ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL TO THE 108 REHAB DEVELOPMENT.
>> WHAT'S INTERESTING TO ME, ESPECIALLY IS, I MEAN, [LAUGHTER] BESIDES THE CRAZINESS OF THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION, IS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT $400,000 A UNIT.
WHEN WE BUILT THE BRIDGE WHICH SERVES 800 PEOPLE FOR DAY SERVICES AND 249 PEOPLE FOR OVERNIGHT SERVICES, IT WAS 104,000 A UNIT.
LET'S GO TO HAMPTON AND JUST AGAIN, TALKING ABOUT FINANCIALS.
YOU'RE SAYING ACQUISITION $6.53 MILLION ENVIRONMENTAL $55,000 PLUS WE'VE DONE SOME CONSULTING.
[00:25:04]
WE'LL JUST ROUND IT UP TO $6.6 MILLION.THE APPRAISAL SAID SIX MILLION.
NOW, THIS PROPERTY'S BEEN SITTING ALMOST THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME AS THE INDEPENDENCE PROJECT.
ARE WE HAVING THE SAME ISSUE THAT MAYBE IT NEEDS TO BE DEMOLISHED?
>> AGAIN, THE PROPERTY IS SITTING VACANT BECAUSE WE ARE AWAITING DIRECTION ON WHAT TO DO WITH IT.
IN THAT TIME, WE ARE DOING AS MUCH AS WE CAN TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY WITH THE RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE.
IF THERE IS SOME LARGER ISSUE THAT HAPPENS THOUGH, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY LARGER ISSUE RIGHT NOW, BUT IF THERE WAS, WE WOULD AGAIN, NEED COUNSEL DIRECTION OR COUNSEL GUIDANCE ON SPENDING ANY CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO FIX IT, ESPECIALLY IF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LONG-TERM USE IS GOING TO BE.
>> WELL, THE LAST COMMENT I MAKE IS, I HOPE THAT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO ARE HEARING THIS, WHO WERE PART OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSIONS WHERE WE WERE BRIEFED ON THESE BUILDINGS BEFORE THEY WERE PURCHASED, WILL JOIN ME IN ASKING FOR RECORDINGS OF EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, SO WE CAN GO BACK AND VERIFY EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE TOLD, WHICH SEEMS TO BE EVER CHANGING. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. [NOISE] I GUESS I'LL START WITH FIRST, JUST WITH THE HAMPTON PROPERTY.
I HEARD SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I WAS DRIVING IN ABOUT THE INFLUENCE ON THE RFIS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT I WAS PUT IN THIS POSITION TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE, AND AS A RESULT OF THOSE MEETINGS, FOUR OF THEM, TWO OF THEM WITH TWO DIFFERENT SENIOR GROUPS.
SOME OF THOSE IDEAS THAT MY COLLEAGUE MENTIONED JUST NEVER CAME UP.
THERE WERE IDEAS ABOUT SENIOR CARE OPTIONS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY THOSE PARTICULAR IDEAS.
MY QUESTION IS, I WANT TO MAKE SURE REALLY A STATEMENT PUBLICLY, THAT AS WE'RE DRAFTING THIS RFI, COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE SOME FEEDBACK IN THAT DOCUMENT.
BUT ALSO, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT JUST YOUR DEPARTMENT, MISS.
CROSSLEY, HAVING DRAFTING THAT DOCUMENT TO MY COLLEAGUE'S POINT.
I THINK IT SHOULD ALSO HAVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
HOUSING SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE INCLUDED IN THERE.
PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THESE CONVERSATIONS AS WELL SO THAT WE CAN ENSURE THAT EVERYTHING HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND IT'S NOT LEADING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANT.
WE'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR ON THAT IN TERMS OF RESIDENTIAL AND SOME RETAIL OF SOME SORT THERE THAT CAN SERVE THE RESIDENTS IN THERE.
THAT'S BEEN VERY CLEAR IN TERMS OF THAT, AND THAT'S HOW WE ADDRESS HOUSING.
THEN I WANT TO SAY, AGAIN, AS WE TALK ABOUT THIS, AND I'VE HEARD IT COME UP A COUPLE OF TIMES THAT WE HAVE BOND MONEY THAT COULD POTENTIALLY GO IN AND INVEST IN THAT BUILDING AND DO THOSE TYPE OF SUGGESTED REHABS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WHICH IS NOT A BAD IDEA.
HOWEVER, AGAIN, I WANT TO REINFORCE THE FACT THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE PEOPLE ASK.
THIS IS NOT COUNCIL MEMBER GRACIE TRYING TO SAY, I WANT.
THIS IS COUNCIL MEMBER GRACIE TRYING TO REPRESENT THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE FOR THAT.
I WANT TO JUST CONTINUE TO MAKE SURE AS THAT DOCUMENT IS DEVELOPED, ALL OF THOSE DEPARTMENTS THAT I'VE MENTIONED HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE SOME FEEDBACK AND CONSIDERATION FOR EVERY ASPECT.
IT'S NOT GUIDED ONE DIRECTION OR ANOTHER.
AGAIN, I WANT TO SAY THE INTENT OF THIS, JUST BY THE WAY, FOR THE RECORD.
THIS PROPERTY, AS YOU MENTIONED, HAS ALWAYS BEEN INTENDED TO BE USED FOR PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
THE INTENT OF THIS EXERCISE WAS TO SHOW TO MY COLLEAGUES THAT THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED.
AGAIN, WHEN I SAY, I THINK THAT THIS DOCUMENT SHOULD EXCLUDE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
THE REASON I'M SAYING THAT IS BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THERE'S A WISH FROM THIS COUNSEL AND SOME TO MOVE FORWARD IN THAT DIRECTION, BUT WHAT WE HAVEN'T CONSIDERED ALONE.
IS THE IDEA OF HAVING WHAT OTHER OPTIONS OUTSIDE OF PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING COULD BE DONE IN THAT SPACE.
I JUST WANTED TO GO ON THE RECORD AND MAKE THAT CLEAR.
IT WASN'T ABOUT TRYING TO EXCLUDE IT.
IT WAS ABOUT TRYING TO BE FAIR TO THE PROPERTY AND TO THE COMMUNITY TO REALLY SEE WHAT ELSE IS OUT THERE BESIDES A PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
BECAUSE IF IT WENT OUT THERE AND NOBODY RESPONDED, WELL, WE HAVE OUR ANSWER.
THERE'S NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY.
COUNCILMAN WILLIS, LET'S GO FORWARD WITH MOVING FORWARD AND TRYING TO FIGURE HOW WE CAN HAVE A DIFFERENT OPTION.
IT WASN'T ABOUT NOT TRYING TO DO IT.
IT'S ABOUT TRYING TO, SAY WE OWE THIS CONVERSATION FROM THE VERY BEGINNING HAS ONLY
[00:30:04]
BEEN ABOUT PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IN THIS PROPERTY.AS I STOPPED AND WE HAD THESE COMMUNITY MEETINGS, WE HEARD DIFFERENT IDEAS.
AS A RESULT, I WANTED TO SEE IF WE CAN GO FORWARD WITH AN RFI THAT SAYS, WHAT DOES THE MARKET? IS THERE A TRUE INTEREST IN THIS PROPERTY TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
I DO WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR IF WE CAN PUT THAT IN THERE SOMEHOW, JUST AS WE'RE SAYING, YES, THIS WAS THE INTENT, BUT LET'S GIVE A FULL BACKGROUND AND MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THOSE DEPARTMENTS ARE INCLUDED ON THAT.
AS FAR AS INDEPENDENCE IS CONCERNED.
THE IDEA THERE, AGAIN, IF WE WERE ABLE TO SELL HAMPTON, WE COULD TAKE THOSE PROCEEDS AND BEGIN DEVELOPING THE INDEPENDENCE PROPERTY.
NOW, WITH THAT ONE, IT WAS SET UP FOR PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
AGAIN, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT ADDRESSING THE NEEDS IN THE CITY, OVER THERE ON THAT PROPERTY ON HAMPTON, THERE ISN'T A NEED, AND WE DON'T WANT TO BE A SOLUTION WHERE THERE ISN'T ANY PROBLEM.
IN INDEPENDENCE, IT IS AN OPTION TO CREATE A SOLUTION FOR THAT COMMUNITY.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I STRUGGLE WITH IT JUST BEING PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IS THERE'S MANY PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE MOTELS RIGHT AROUND THERE.
YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THOSE MOTELS WOULD NOT QUALIFY FOR PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IF THEY WERE COMING TO IT THROUGH THE HOMELESSNESS SYSTEM, THEY WOULD FIRST HAVE TO BE HOMELESS AND PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING MEANS YOU HAVE A VERIFICATION OF DISABILITY, SO YOU HAVE TO QUALIFY FOR IT.
I'M SURE THAT MANY PEOPLE NEED HOUSING ASSISTANCE, BUT THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS A VOUCHER.
>> THE POINT I'M MAKING THERE IS, YOU'RE RIGHT, ONCE WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF THE COST OF REHABBING AND DOING ALL OF THESE THINGS, THOSE ARE ASTRONOMICAL NUMBERS AND PRETTY MUCH SAW THAT COMING.
AS A RESULT, I INTRODUCED THE DISCUSSION OF DEMOLISHING THE BUILDING SO THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY SEE IF THAT WOULD CHANGE THE DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF RESPONSES FROM DEVELOPERS.
GOING A STEP FURTHER, CONSIDERING THOSE THAT LIVE IN THOSE MOTELS.
I'VE ALSO ASKED OUR HOUSING DEPARTMENT, I'M SORRY IF I DID NOT COPY YOU, KRISTINE ON THAT, BUT I'VE ASKED THEM TO CONSIDER WHAT IT COULD LOOK LIKE, IF IT COULD PENCIL, IF IT WOULD MAKE SENSE, IF WE WERE TO DO A COMBINATION OF PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATION.
SINCE THE CITY ALREADY OWNS IT, COULD WE THEN MOVE IT OVER TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION AND PROVIDE SOME SORT OF COMBINATION OF PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING WITH THE PLAN OF POTENTIAL DEMOLITION AROUND THERE.
THAT IS WHERE WE ARE. THAT IS THE DISCUSSION I WAS HAVING ABOUT THE INDEPENDENCE PROPERTY.
AGAIN, AS WE TRY TO CONTINUE TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING NEEDS IN THE CITY AND IN OUR DISTRICT, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I WANT TO WORK ON.
BUT AGAIN, THE STATEMENT OVERALL, IS THAT YOU INCLUDE THOSE DEPARTMENTS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE SOME FEEDBACK IN THIS RFI, HOUSING DEPARTMENT, URBAN DESIGN DEPARTMENT, AND HOUSING, OF COURSE, AND YOU ALL. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU ALL FOR THE PRESENTATION.
AS YOU ALL KNOW, HOMELESSNESS CONTINUES TO RISE TO THE TOP AS NUMBER ONE, NUMBER TWO CONCERN OF OUR RESIDENTS.
NO MATTER WHAT, WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO BRING IN MORE PARTNERS AND ADDITIONAL SPACE TO MEET THE NEED TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT ENCAMPING ON OUR CITY SIDEWALKS, OUR PARKS, OR CREEK BEDS.
APPRECIATE THE UPDATE ON FORT WORTH.
WHEN IT COMES TO HAMPTON, I'VE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH THE HFC AND PFC.
HELP ME UNDERSTAND, DID THE HFC AND THE PFCS REACH OUT TO THE CITY, OR DID THEY EXPRESS INTEREST IN THIS PROPERTY AT INDEPENDENCE?
>> FOR THE INDEPENDENCE PROPERTY, COUNCILMAN GRACIE ASKED US TO EXPLORE THOSE OPTIONS WITH THE PFC AND THE HFC, IF THERE WOULD BE ANY INTEREST IN SOME TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE.
WE MADE THOSE INTRODUCTIONS TO BOTH THE PRESIDENTS AND THE BOARDS FOR THOSE CORPORATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS ARE UNDERWAY TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY ACTIONS FROM THE BOARD, AND IF THERE'S ANY DEVELOPERS THAT MAY BE INTERESTED.
>> I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH LOOKING AT ALL OPTIONS.
HOWEVER, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE INTENT OF PH AND HFCS IS THAT THEY ARE THE ONE TO INITIATE AND IDENTIFY PROPERTIES AS
[00:35:03]
OPPOSED TO THE CITY GOING OUT AND ASKING THEM TO BE A PARTNER.>> THAT'S CORRECT. TYPICALLY, DEVELOPERS WILL COME TO THOSE CORPORATIONS WITH A PROPOSAL.
THIS IS JUST AN EXPLORATION TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY POSSIBILITY OF SOME TYPE OF PARTNERSHIP WITH A DEVELOPER.
IT MAY BE SOME TYPE OF PROCUREMENT THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED, BUT WE JUST WANTED TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY INTEREST FROM THE CORPORATIONS TO SEEK A WAY TO PARTNER WITH THE CITY THROUGH A DEVELOPER FOR THE SITE.
>> DO WE SEE ANY CONFLICT THERE WITH LIMITING IT TO A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS?
>> I THINK IT'S SOMETHING TO BE DETERMINED.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY CONFLICT, BUT WE WILL DEFINITELY LOOK AT ALL OF THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS LEGAL AND ON THE UP AND AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE.
>> MY HOPE AND INTENT IS THAT WE DON'T PURCHASE ANY OTHER BUILDINGS.
HOWEVER, IF THAT DOES HAPPEN OR AS WE LOOK AT BEST PRACTICES, THE PURPOSE, THE PROCESS OF PURCHASING THESE BUILDINGS, KRISTINE, YOU MENTIONED THAT HHS WAS NOT THE DEPARTMENT THAT PURCHASED THE BUILDING.
I WOULD IMAGINE THAT REAL ESTATE DID THAT.
NOW, I WOULD HOPE THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME FORM OF INPUT AND BUY IN FROM HHS TO DETERMINE WHAT THE CONDITION OF THE BUILDING, THE ASSESSMENT, AND FIGURING OUT WHAT THE FINANCIAL BURDEN WAS GOING TO BE TO GET THAT FACILITY UP TO CODE.
DID THAT NOT HAPPEN? YOUR COLLEAGUES ARE ASKING HERE, WHAT'S THE COST TO BRING ANY BUILDING, WHETHER IT'S INDEPENDENT FOR NORTHAMPTON UP TO CODE TO HAVE THE INTENDED USE, AND WE DON'T KNOW THAT NUMBER.
>> OHS OBVIOUSLY IS NOT HOUSING OR DEVELOPMENT.
IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THE USE THAT WE WOULD LIKE FOR A BUILDING BASED ON THE CHARGE GIVEN BY HHS AND THE COUNCIL ABOUT HAVING SOMETHING PER DISTRICT, THAT IS THE EXTENT OF OUR EXPERTISE, AND SO WE RELY ON THE EXPERTISE OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS ABOUT COST FOR THE BUILDING, WHAT IT SHOULD BE, WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE, AND POSITIONS THAT MADE THOSE DECISIONS ARE NO LONGER HERE.
I DON'T ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS CURRENT PRACTICE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THOSE DEPARTMENTS EVEN FUNCTION THAT WAY ANYMORE, BUT I CAN'T SAY BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS NORMALLY DONE, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN WE GOT THE BUILDING, THE THINGS IN FRONT OF YOU ARE WHAT WE'RE DONE.
BEYOND THAT, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYTHING ELSE IS NORMALLY DONE UNLESS IT'S BY A DEVELOPER WHO'S LOOKING TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY.
UNFORTUNATELY, I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO IT.
>> I'LL JUST ADD TO THAT. HOUSING, OUR ROLE IN THE PURCHASE OF THE BUILDINGS, WE CAME INTO THIS PROCESS AS A PARTNER TO HELP OHS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT.
AFTER THE BUILDINGS WERE ACQUIRED, THAT'S WHEN HOUSING WAS INVOLVED IN THIS SITUATION, AND SO THAT'S HOW WE'RE PARTNERS WITH OHS TO GET THE BUILDINGS DEVELOPED.
AS FAR AS ACQUISITION AND HOLDING COSTS, THAT WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW.
>> SOMETHING THAT I WOULD ADD IN THERE IS A DOLLAR FIGURE FOR UNIT COST.
THE UNIT COSTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, ALL OF THESE PROJECTS, IN MY OPINION, IS BETTER TO BUY RAW LAND AND BUILD FROM THE GROUND UP.
GLORIA, WHEN AND HOW WOULD WE COME UP WITH A COST TO GET ANY BUILDING UP TO OPERATION STANDARDS?
>> I BELIEVE THAT YOU ALL HAD REQUESTED THAT THAT BE DONE, THAT WE ENGAGE A THIRD PARTY TO COME IN, ASSESS THE BUILDING TO DETERMINE WHAT IT WOULD COST TO BRING IT UP TO CODE.
WE ARE CURRENTLY STILL WAITING ON HOW MUCH THAT WOULD COST FOR THE VENDOR TO COME IN AND DO THAT WORK.
WE RECEIVED ONE PROPOSAL, BUT IT WAS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE OF EVERYTHING WE NEEDED, ALL THE MECHANICAL.
WE'VE ASKED FOR AN UPDATED QUOTE.
WE SHOULD BE GETTING THAT ANY DAY NOW.
>> THAT'S FOR WHICH PROPERTIES?
>> THAT IS ONLY FOR SOUTHAMPTON.
THAT WAS THE ONLY PROPERTY THAT WAS REQUESTED.
>> I'M SURE THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME ROUND 2'S ON THIS.
THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO START WITH MY LEFT WITH CHAIR GRACIE.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. AS FAR AS THE PFC QUESTION IS CONCERNED,
[00:40:06]
DARWIN, CAN A PROPERTY OWNER REACH OUT TO THE CITY? IF THEY HAVE ONE, AND IF THEY ARE THE OWNER AND WANTED TO CONSIDER THEIR PROPERTY FOR A PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION DEAL, ARE THEY ABLE TO REACH OUT TO THE CITY?>> PROPERTY OWNERS CAN REACH OUT TO THE CITY IF THEY'RE LOOKING TO DEVELOP AND PARTICIPATE IN SOME TYPE OF PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY THROUGH ALL OF OUR TOOLS.
>> THE REASON I ASKED THAT QUESTION IS BECAUSE WE ESSENTIALLY, WE OWN THE PROPERTY.
AGAIN, THIS IS ME TRYING TO FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THE PREDICAMENTS THAT WE AIM.
COLLEAGUE JUST MENTIONED, WE PURCHASED THESE PROPERTIES AND FOR WHATEVER REASONS, THEY DIDN'T GET DEVELOPED IN A TIMELY FASHION, WHICH BRINGS ME TO THAT.
WHEN WE PURCHASED ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES, HOW DID WE DETERMINE PRIORITY WISE WITH TIMELINES, WHICH ONES WOULD BE DEVELOPED, FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, AND SO FORTH? HOW DID ALL OF THAT, BECAUSE I KNOW WE LIST THESE THREE OR FOUR PROPERTIES ON HERE, BUT AT ONE POINT THERE WERE SEVERAL.
HOW DID WE DETERMINE THE TIMELINE FOR WHEN EACH ONE WOULD BE DEVELOPED AND PRIORITIZE THEM?
>> SORRY. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE TIMELINE IS WHEN I FIRST CAME IN, WHAT WAS IT? 1950 FORT WORTH AVENUE AND THE FAMILY GATEWAY NORTH PROPERTY HAD ALREADY BEEN PURCHASED, AND SO TALKS WERE ALREADY UNDERWAY ABOUT BOTH OF THOSE, AND THERE WAS ALREADY A COMPETITIVE PROCESS UNDERWAY.
FOR ONE OF THOSE IT WORKS, THE OTHER ONE WE HAD TO RECONFIGURE THAT PROCESS, AND THAT ULTIMATELY BECAME SUCCESSFUL WHEN WE PARTNERED WITH HOUSING.
THEN FROM THERE, THE OTHER TWO PROPERTIES WERE BOUGHT IN 2022, AND BOTH WERE PUT THROUGH COMMUNITY PROCESSES.
THEN FROM THERE, BECAUSE WE HAD RECONFIGURED THE 1950 FORT WORTH AVENUE PROCESS INTO A SUCCESSFUL PERMANENT SUPPORT OF HOUSING NOFA, WE CAME HERE AND COMMUNICATED THAT WE WANTED TO PUT 4150 ON HOLD FOR A MINUTE, WHILE WE GOT THAT PROCESS DONE AND THEN IMPLEMENTED ANY BEST PRACTICES, WHICH IS WHAT WAS DONE, AND THEN 4150 CAME BACK TWICE WITH NOTHING VIABLE, AND IN THE MEANTIME, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON HAMPTON, BUT, OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, THAT HAD OTHER DIFFICULTIES, AND SO IT NEVER GOT TO AN RFI OR RFP STAGE.
>> THE POINT IS, YOU SEE AROUND THIS HORSESHOE.
YOU SEE THESE CONFLICTING ISSUES TOO.
AGAIN, TO NO FAULT OF Y'ALLS, YOU'VE BEEN ASKING FOR DIRECTION, AND SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE AND I GOT A FULL GRASP AND UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT HAPPENED, I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GIVE DIRECTION AND GETTING BUY IN FROM MY COLLEAGUES.
PERHAPS I COULD HAVE COMMUNICATED A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY OR WHATEVER, BUT REALLY TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD, AND THAT ESSENTIALLY WAS TO SELL HAMPTON PROPERTY, USE THE PROCEEDS SO THAT WE COULD HAVE DEVELOPED INDEPENDENCE.
WE'RE STILL HERE. THAT CAN'T BE TWO YEARS AGO, MAYBE A YEAR. IT WAS IN DECEMBER.
EITHER WAY, I REMEMBER PUTTING THAT PLAN TOGETHER AND TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT SOLUTION, BUT WE KEPT GETTING THIS PUSHBACK, AND AS A RESULT, THESE PROPERTIES CONTINUE TO DWINDLE.
WE ARE AT A POINT NOW WHERE IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER OTHER OPTIONS, AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN DOING.
AGAIN, I WANT TO JUST SAY THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT NO TO PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
THIS IS NOT A NOT IN MY BACKYARD.
THIS IS ABOUT, NOW, CAN YOU JUST PLEASE EXPLAIN A BIT, NOT TO PUT YOU ON A SPOT.
THIS IS A COMMENT TOO THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M SAYING ON THE RECORD.
IN THAT DOCUMENT, I ALSO WANT TO PUT IN THERE THE HOUSING CRISIS BECAUSE WE TALK ABOUT THE HOMELESS CRISIS, BUT LET'S ALSO CONSIDER THE HOUSING CRISIS WHEN WE DEVELOP THESE DOCUMENTS, BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT IN SOUTHERN DALLAS AS WELL, AND THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT, BUT THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE.
BUT I GUESS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY AND I REALLY SAID THE COMMENT, SO YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO ANSWER IT, BUT THERE IS INDEED A HOUSING CRISIS IN THE CITY AS WELL.
>> YES, THERE'S DEFINITELY A HOUSING CRISIS.
THERE'S DEFINITELY A NEED FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE DEFINITELY HAVE A SHORTAGE AS IT RELATES TO AMIS AT THE 50% LEVEL AND BELOW.
WITH THIS RFI THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING OF, WE WOULD DEFINITELY WANT TO INCLUDE VERBIAGE IN THAT DOCUMENT THAT RELATES TO THE CITY'S OR OUR DEPARTMENT'S HOUSING ACTION PLAN AND THEN WHAT WE'RE DOING TO REACH THOSE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND MILESTONES AS RELATES TO THE DEMAND.
WE WOULD DEFINITELY WANT TO INCLUDE THAT INFORMATION IN THAT RFI.
[00:45:03]
>> THANK YOU. AGAIN, IT'S REALLY ABOUT US TRYING TO ADDRESS BOTH OF THOSE NEEDS.
WHEN WE'RE MOVING FORWARD, COLLEAGUES, ALL I'M DOING IS TRYING TO ADDRESS THE SOLUTION AND DO WHAT I WAS PLACED IN OFFICE TO DO, AND THAT IS REPRESENT DISTRICT 3, AND THAT IS INTRODUCING DEVELOPERS TO DIFFERENT AREAS WITHIN THE DISTRICT, SHARING THE VISION, NOT JUST MINE, BUT THE VISION OF THE COMMUNITY TO ENSURE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHERE WE WANT TO GO AND WHERE WE WANT TO TAKE THE DISTRICT TOGETHER WHILE ADDRESSING BOTH OUR HOUSING AND OUR HOMELESS CRISES WITHIN THE DISTRICT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF EMAILS FROM THE COMMUNITY IN DISTRICT 3 ABOUT THIS PROPERTY, AND YOU JUST SAID SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T QUITE SQUARE WITH WHAT WE'RE HEARING, WHICH IS IN LOOKING AT HOUSING AS A POSSIBLE OPTION, WHICH WE HAVE HEARD MANY PEOPLE FROM DISTRICT 3 SUGGEST, BUT YOU'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT A PRETTY LOW AMI BAND FOR THAT HOUSING.
I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT COME FROM DISTRICT 3.
I'VE ONLY HEARD DISTRICT 3 TALK ABOUT MARKET RATE HOUSING, AND SO THERE SEEMS TO BE A DISCONNECT IN THAT CONVERSATION THAT JUST HAPPENED, AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WERE INTENTIONALLY LETTING THAT GO BY TO ADDRESS LATER, BUT IF THE INTENT IS TO BRING FORWARD SOME LOW INCOME HOUSING, I FEAR THAT WE COULD END UP IN THE SAME SITUATION.
AGAIN, I WOULD JUST ASK YOU TO CONSIDER WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY, WHICH HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANT.
CHAIR GRACIE BROUGHT UP WHAT HAD HAPPENED PRIOR WITH OTHER PROPERTIES, AND COULD YOU REMIND ME WHEN YOU STARTED, KRISTINE? WHEN DID YOU BEGIN?
>> MARCH. ARE YOU SURE THAT'S RIGHT?
>> THE FAMILY GATEWAY PROPERTY IN DISTRICT 12, I'LL JUST TELL YOU AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH SEVEN MONTHS OF COMMUNITY MEETINGS, THE PROPERTY WAS ALREADY IN USE AS A HOTEL.
NOT UNLIKE THE INDEPENDENCE PROPERTY, THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO WERE LIVING THERE, SOMEONE PAY TO STAY FOR A WEEK AT THE TIME, SAME THING.
BUT IT'S A MUCH BETTER CONDITION THAN YEARS.
HOWEVER, NOW UNLIKE SOME OF THESE OTHER PROPERTIES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THERE WASN'T A SUFFICIENT ASSESSMENT OF THE BUILDING.
WHILE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AT THIS COMMITTEE MEETING, AT THE GPFM COMMITTEE MEETING, WE'VE HAD AN ONGOING ITEM ABOUT FAMILY GATEWAY AND ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WITH THE BUILDING.
WE'VE DONE VERY SIGNIFICANT ROOFING.
GLORIA, YOU MIGHT WANT TO BE ABLE TO SHARE THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT, AND THEN EVEN TODAY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WINDOW PROBLEMS AND THE LEAKAGE OF WATER FROM THERE.
WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SHARE ANY OF THAT?
>> YES, MA'AM. I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE THOSE NUMBERS RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME ABOUT WHAT WE SPENT ON REPLACING THE ROOF, BUT WE DID REPLACE THE ROOF DUE TO, WE THOUGHT IT WAS RELATED TO A STORM DAMAGE A STORM IN MAY OF LAST YEAR.
>> PARDON ME. IT WASN'T JUST A STORM DAMAGE.
IT WAS ALREADY DAMAGED, IT HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED, AND THEN THE STORM FURTHER DAMAGED IT.
>> YES, MA'AM, AND THEN NOW WE'RE MOVING INTO PHASE 2.
WE REPAIRED ALL THE DAMAGES THAT OCCURRED RESULTING FROM THE ROOF LEAK.
NOW WE'RE MOVING INTO PHASE 2 TO FIX THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.
IT'S CALLED THE EIFS OF THE BUILDING, AND WHAT OTHER WORK ARE WE DOING? REPLACING ALL WINDOWS, AND WE ALREADY DID THE MOLD REMEDIATION, THAT WAS ALL PHASE 1.
PHASE 2, THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING, REPLACING ALL THE WINDOWS AND INCLUDING THE FRAMING FOR THOSE WINDOWS THAT MAY NEED IT.
>> MY POINT IS THAT AS WAS DOCUMENTED IN THE GPFM MEETING, APPARENTLY, THE CITY KNEW THAT THERE WAS A ROOFING PROBLEM AND DIDN'T ADDRESS IT.
NOW, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT, BUT THAT WAS APPARENTLY KNOWN TO THE CITY AND SAID AT THE GPFM MEETING.
>> I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE ACQUISITION OF THAT PROPERTY.
I DON'T THINK WE WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE PROPERTY.
WE THOUGHT IT WAS IN GOOD CONDITION, ABLE TO BE MOVED INTO.
I THINK WHEN THERE WAS ALL THAT SIGNIFICANT RAINFALL AND STORM LAST YEAR, THAT EVERYTHING CAME TO LIGHT AS WE STARTED DOING SOME WORK AND MAKING REPAIRS, OTHER THINGS WERE DISCOVERED IN THE PROCESS.
[00:50:02]
>> WELL, I BELIEVE ELLEN MAGNIS, THE CEO, SUBMITTED THE DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THAT THE CITY KNEW THAT THERE WAS A ROOFING PROBLEM THAT WAS NOT ADDRESSED.
I THINK THAT WAS ACTUALLY SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE.
MY POINT IS ONLY THAT WE'RE NOT DOING A GOOD JOB OF BUYING PROPERTY.
WE'RE NOT DOING A GOOD JOB OF EVALUATING THE CONDITION IT'S IN.
THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE EXAMPLES.
THERE'S MORE. WE SHOULD NOT BE IN THIS BUSINESS, AND THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY.
IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ITEM? THERE YOU GO.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER, I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD TO THE POINT THAT YOU MADE BRIEFLY REGARDING THE HOUSING ACTION PLAN AND OUR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.
YES, WE WILL MAKE SURE IN THE RFI THAT IT WILL ADDRESS HOMEOWNERSHIP BECAUSE HOMEOWNERSHIP IS A PRIORITY OF THE COUNCIL, AND WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THAT OPTION AVAILABLE FOR FAMILIES AT 80% AND HIGHER.
YES, MARKET RATE HOMEOWNERSHIP OPTIONS IS DEFINITELY PART OF OUR ACTION PLAN, AND THAT WILL ALSO BE INCLUDED IN THE RFI FOR HAMPTON.
>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.
WHEN WE TOURED INDEPENDENCE, MISS SANDOVAL AND LOOKING AT THOSE UNITS, YOU HAD SHARED THAT I KNOW WE TALK A LOT ABOUT HOW THERE WERE PEOPLE LIVING THERE WHO WERE DISPLACED AND THAT'S AWFUL, BUT IT WAS ON THE EDGE OF HABITABILITY THAT THOSE UNITS WERE REALLY ON THE EDGE AND PROBABLY PAST THAT POINT.
THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE MET CODE.
IT'S AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION, BUT IT WASN'T LIKE THE PROPERTY WHERE FAMILY GATEWAY VERY DIFFERENT.
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT, YES.
THE CONDITION OF I LOOKED AT BOTH PROPERTIES SHORTLY AFTER ACQUISITION FOR FAMILY GATEWAY NORTH PROPERTY, I LOOKED AT IT PRIOR TO ACQUISITION, AND THE CONDITION OF THE UNITS OF THE BUILDING AT FAMILY GATEWAY NORTH WAS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT, MUCH BETTER THAN INDEPENDENCE DRIVE.
>> I MEAN, WALKING ON THE FLOOR.
I THOUGHT I MIGHT GO THROUGH IT.
I THINK GOING BACK TO TALKING ABOUT THE IMPACTS ON THE HAMPTON PROPERTY, THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT.
I WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE INCLUDE IF THE SITE WAS ACTIVATED IN ITS USE THAT IT COULD BY RIGHT BE.
I MEAN, THERE'S AN ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PEOPLE COMING AND BRINGING THEIR WALLETS EVERY DAY WHEN THEY GO TO WORK, TAKING CARE OF PEOPLE IN HOSPICE OR SENIOR LIVING OR IN A HOSPITAL, ETC.
I WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT JUST LOOKING AT ECONOMIC IMPACT FROM, IF THIS WAS REDEVELOPED INTO HOUSING, BUT I MEAN, LET'S INCLUDE THE FACT THAT IT COULD BE ACTIVATED AND THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT ON THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE GROCERY STORE AND THE RESTAURANTS, AND OTHER PLACES AS WELL.
I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE PURSUING THE THOUGHT AROUND THE BACK FOUR ACRES OF THAT PROPERTY THAT RIGHT NOW IS JUST THE MECHANICAL PLANT.
IT'S LIKE A PARKING LOT THAT IS ADJACENT TO SENIOR HOUSING THAT COULD VERY MUCH BE MARKET RATE.
I MEAN, TOWN HOME, SINGLE FAMILY, ETC. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
THAT'S JUST OBVIOUSLY WOULD AFFECT THE FACT THAT IT WAS BOUGHT WITH BOND DOLLARS.
I MEAN, WE'D HAVE TO WORK THAT OUT, WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS WOULD BE ON THE CITY.
BUT THAT COULD DEFINITELY MET A COMMUNITY REQUEST FOR HOUSING AND OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES.
>> AGAIN, WE JUST NEED TO SEE WHAT THE RFI WILL BRING BEFORE WE'RE POURING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY AND RESOURCES INTO THE PROPERTY OVER WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY DONE WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE FINAL MOVE FORWARD IS GOING TO BE, SO WE WILL HAVE MORE INFORMATION.
>> I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS ONE PACKAGE.
I MEAN, IF SOMEONE WAS JUST INTERESTED IN THAT PIECE, THAT THAT'S ON THE MENU.
>> I MEAN, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, SOMEONE COULD APPROACH THE CITY ABOUT THE PROPERTY.
>> GOING BACK INTO JUST SOME OF THE OTHER USES, I MEAN, IN THE MEETINGS THAT I ATTENDED, IT DIDN'T COME UP ORGANICALLY ABOUT SENIOR HOUSING OR HOSPICE CARE OR WHATEVER, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING YOU PROBABLY HAVE TO PRESENT TO THE COMMUNITY.
IT MIGHT NOT BE THE FIRST THING THAT THEY THINK OF.
CLEARLY, THERE'S A COMPATIBLE USE BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY SENIOR LIVING ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY I HAD THOUGHT IT WOULD BE PRESENTED IN A MORE PROACTIVE WAY BECAUSE I THINK PEOPLE MIGHT CONSIDER THAT USE.
THEN FINALLY, AS WE TALK ABOUT OUR CONSIDERATIONS, NEAR TERM AND LONG TERM BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT THE COMMUNITY HAS SAID THEY WANT, MARKET RATE HOUSING, SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, ETC, BUT WE ALSO HAVE OUR NEAR TERM ISSUES AS A CITY THAT WE'RE ALL
[00:55:01]
ELECTED TO LOOK AT ALL OF THESE ISSUES.I MEAN, NOT JUST IN OUR DISTRICT, BUT HOMELESSNESS ACROSS THE CITY.
I'LL FORWARD AN ARTICLE TO YOU JAMA DID SOME RESEARCH ON A HOSPITAL BED SHORTAGE THAT'S PROJECTED BY 2032.
BY ACTIVATING SOMETHING IN THE NEAR TERM IN MORE OF A HEALTH CARE REALM, COULD TEE IT UP FOR VALUE IN THE LONGER TERM WHEN THE MARKETPLACE MIGHT BE MORE RECEPTIVE TO A PROPERTY LIKE THAT UNDER ITS INTENDED USE.
I'LL JUST GO ON AND STOP THERE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ALL HAVE A LOT TO PUT TOGETHER IN MAKING THIS RFI, NOT A PHONE BOOK. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY PICK UP THERE ON THE RFI AND THE SCOPE.
WHEN WILL YOU BE, I KNOW YOU VERBALLY HAVE KIND OF TOLD US WHAT SOME OF THOSE USES MIGHT BE IN THE SCOPE, WILL YOU BE DISCLOSING THE FULL LIST TO COUNSEL PRIOR TO BEING PUT OUT ON THE MARKET?
>> WE DON'T NORMALLY DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S A VERY GRANULAR DETAIL.
I THINK WE CERTAINLY CAN IF YOU'RE REQUESTING IT.
WE JUST DON'T NORMALLY DO THAT.
>> I KNOW THAT WHEN WE DID THE SAME FOR THE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, THIS COMMITTEE GAVE YOU ALL SOME IDEA, SOME SCOPE ON HOW TO PROCEED WITH THAT?
>> YES. I THINK WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW IS WE RECEIVED ALL OF THAT FEEDBACK OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
WE HAVE THAT FOR THE RFI ALREADY.
IT'S ON A LITTLE BIT LONGER OF A TIMELINE.
BUT I MEAN, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO ONE MORE ROUND BY EMAIL IF THAT'S BEING REQUESTED.
>> I THINK, MR. MARINO TOO, WE'D LIKE TO TALK TO OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES TO MAKE SURE WHAT WE CAN SHARE IN ADVANCE.
I'D LIKE TO FOLLOW THEIR DIRECTION, THEIR LEAD ON.
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS FOR THE ATTORNEYS.
WHEN IF WE GET TO A POINT IN TIME WHERE WE ARE DISCUSSING THE POSSIBILITY OF A CELL OR PARTIAL CELL.
HOW WOULD WE HAVE TO POST THAT AND IF THEY COULD GO OVER THE REAL ESTATE PROCESS OF DOES THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SURPLUS PROCESS?
>> GOOD MORNING, HANNA PEACOCK ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION?
>> SURE, NO WORRIES. IF THIS BOY THIS COMMITTEE INTENDS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A SALE OR A PARTIAL SALE OF A PROPERTY, WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW TO GET AN AGENDA ITEM POSTED?
>> FOR DELIBERATIONS OVER THE SALE OR PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE, THAT WOULD NEED TO BE NOTICED AS A CLOSED SESSION UNDER THE REAL ESTATE MATTERS EXCEPTION TO TOMA?
>> THANK YOU. THEN FOR ALINA, I'VE HEARD THROUGHOUT A SERIES OF MEETINGS THAT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS OR DEPARTMENTS WERE NOT PART OF THE ACQUISITION TEAM.
COULD WE GET THOSE DEPARTMENTS OR INDIVIDUALS TO ATTEND OUR NEXT MEETING TO GO OVER SOME OF THOSE PROCESSES AND WHAT WAS KNOWN OF THOSE BUILDINGS AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE?
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION. JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, YOU WANT SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THESE PRIOR PURCHASES TO COME AND EXPLAIN THE PROCESS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESS, BUT ALSO TO GO OVER THE VALUATION AND THE ASSESSMENT OF THOSE PROPERTIES.
>> I CAN DEFINITELY LOOK INTO THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF SOME OF THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE STILL HERE BASED ON WHAT KRISTINE SAID EARLIER.
>> YES. I BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE LEADING THE PROCESS HAVE SINCE LEFT THE CITY, BUT WE CAN SEE WHO'S STILL HERE.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER CHAIR GRACIE?
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. JOG MY MEMORY.
LET'S JUST MOVE FORWARD AND GET TO A POINT.
THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION COMES BACK AND THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT INTEREST IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND RETAIL AND ALL OF THESE THINGS.
THERE IS ONE RESPONSE THAT AGAIN,
[01:00:01]
I'M NOT TRYING TO GET DIG INTO THE EVALUATIONS, BUT I'M TRYING TO JUST SET THE PARAMETERS AND THE EXPECTATION FOR WHAT, AND WE CAN SAY THIS BECAUSE WE'RE REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE, BUT WHAT THE DESIRED OUTCOME OF THIS IS, ULTIMATELY, WE'VE ALREADY SAID IT AND IT IS TO ADDRESS OUR HOUSING CRISIS AND USE THIS PROPERTY FOR A MARKET RATE APARTMENT, SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS, TOWN HOMES, THINGS LIKE THAT, WITH SOME RETAIL ON THERE.BUT LET'S JUST MOVE FORWARD PAST THAT.
LET'S FAST FORWARD, WE GET ALL OF THIS INFORMATION BACK, AND A MAJORITY OF IT SAYS THAT WE COULD DO RETAIL AND TWO SAY WE COULD DO HOUSING OF SOME SORT FROM THAT DEPARTMENT.
ONE SAYS, THEY COULD DO PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FROM THERE.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT WITH THAT INFORMATION? CAN YOU JUST WALK US THROUGH THAT?
>> SURE. SAME THING THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE INTERIM HOUSING, WE ARE ABLE TO BRING BACK VERY HIGH LEVEL AGGREGATE OVERVIEW OF THE RESPONSES TO AN RFI.
WE'RE WE CAN'T GO INTO DETAIL BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THEN THAT DIRECTION WILL BE USED FOR A COMPETITIVE PROCESS.
SAME THING WITH INTERIM HOUSING, WE'RE GOING TO BRING THAT FORWARD IN APRIL AND SAY, HEY, HERE ARE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE OR THE NUMBER OF PROPOSERS.
HERE IS THE GENERAL DIRECTION IN WHICH THE PROPOSALS WENT.
HERE IS THE AVERAGE OF COST ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE.
BASED ON THAT, WE WOULD PROPOSE THAT AN RFP OR A NOFA ASK FOR THIS CERTAIN TYPE OF PRODUCT, THEN THAT WOULD BE UP FOR YOU GUYS TO TALK ABOUT IN TERMS OF POLICY GUIDANCE.
IT'LL BE THE SAME THING WITH THIS RFI.
WE ARE JUST NETTING THE INFORMATION, AND WE WILL BRING BACK A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN NETTED.
BASED ON THAT, WE CAN GIVE YOU HERE THE PIECES THAT THE MARKET SEEMS TO HAVE, HERE ARE THE PIECES THAT THEY DON'T, HERE THE HIGHLIGHTED GAPS, AND WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO WITH THAT INFORMATION.
>> NOW, HELP ME UNDERSTAND OR HELP US ALL UNDERSTAND, HOW DO WE GET TO THE POINT FROM THERE FROM THIS RFP?
>> WELL, THE RFI IS WHERE WE GET THE INFORMATION.
BUT AT WHAT POINT DO WE GET TO A POTENTIAL SALE? IF THAT'S THE GENERAL DIRECTION AND THE OUTCOME, HOW DO WE THEN TRANSITION TO THAT? IS THAT ALSO THROUGH THAT RFP PROCESS, OR IS THAT NOFA OR IS THAT THROUGH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION? LIKE, I GUESS I WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND THE ENTIRE EXIST.
WHETHER IT'S ON THIS SIDE AND EVERYTHING COMES BACK, PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, BUT, WHATEVER, IT GOES THERE.
BUT THEN BUT IF IT GETS TO THE POINT, LIKE WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO IN TERMS OF THE MARKET, HOW DO WE GET FROM THAT RFP TO A SALE OR DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY TO WALK US THROUGH THE NEXT STEPS FOR ALL OF THAT.
>> COUNSEL, IF I MAY CHIME IN, SOME OF THE RESULTS THAT COME IN MAY INDICATE IN THEIR PROPOSAL THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE THEM PURCHASING THE PROPERTY.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY NECESSARILY WOULD LIKE TO PARTNER WITH THE CITY.
SOME OF THAT MAY COME JUST THROUGH THE RESPONSE.
YOU MIGHT HAVE AN INTERESTED PARTY THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP XYZ AND I KNOW THAT WOULD REQUIRE US TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FROM THE CITY.
>> THE LANGUAGE WOULD BE FOR A PURCHASE OR PARTNERSHIP.
>> NO, THE PROPOSAL MIGHT COME BACK AND JUST SUBMIT THAT AND SAY, WE WOULD LIKE TO JUST DEVELOP IT ON OUR OWN.
OR YOU MAY HAVE SOMEBODY THAT JUST SAYS, WE WOULD LIKE TO PARTNER WITH THE CITY IN THIS FASHION, WHICH WOULD THEN TRIGGER AN RFP.
AGAIN, UNLESS UNTIL WE GO OUT AND WE SEE WHAT COMES BACK, I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO DETERMINE THE PATH OF, YES, WE NEED TO DO AN RFP OR A NOFA OR, YOU KNOW, ALL THE RESPONSES THAT YOU SUBMITTED SAY THEY WOULD LIKE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY.
AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL WE ACTUALLY ISSUE THAT RFI.
>> BUT AGAIN, FOR THAT LANGUAGE AND HOW IT'S INCLUDED IN THAT RFI, WOULD IT BE FOR SALE, FOR PARTNERSHIP, I GUESS I'M NOT TRYING TO LEAD.
I'M JUST BECAUSE ONCE WE HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS, IT GOES INTO NEVERLAND, AND WE CAN NEVER TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN UNTIL IT RESURFACES PUBLICLY AFTER AFTER THE OUTCOMES AND THINGS, AND I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE AGAIN, AS MUCH AS I CAN REPRESENT WHAT MY DISTRICT HAS BEEN ASKING FOR AND ENSURING THAT INFORMATION IS INCLUDED.
BUT ALSO, THERE AREN'T ANY TRICKS IN THE LANGUAGE THAT CREATES THIS BARRIER TO ALL, WELL, NOW, WE HAVE TO KEEP IT BECAUSE OF X Y AND Z OR THOSE THINGS.
I'M TRYING TO ENSURE THAT IF THE OUTCOME GOES IN THAT DIRECTION, WE CAN GET TO A POINT WHERE IT GOES RFI, RFP OR RFI AND NOTICE OF FUNDING OR RFI AND LIST THE THING OR SURPLUS IT WHATEVER.
[01:05:01]
I'M TRYING TO GET TO HOW DO WE GET TO WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE FOR THE SO THAT PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND FOR TRANSPARENCY?>> RFI IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
I MEAN, IT IS JUST, HEY, HERE ARE THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED OVER THE YEARS.
HERE'S WHAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FOR, HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO BY RIGHT.
HERE'S THE COMMUNITY FEEDBACK.
>> COUNSEL'S FEEDBACK BASED ON WHAT.
>> COUNSEL FEEDBACK. YES, THERE'S A HOMELESSNESS CRISIS.
YES, THERE'S A HOUSING CRISIS, KNOWING ALL OF THESE THINGS, WHAT WOULD YOU PROPOSE? WE'RE LOOKING FOR YOU TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOT PI IN THIS GUY? TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, DO YOU HAVE THE FINANCIAL BACKING FOR THIS? WHAT WOULD YOUR PLAN LOOK LIKE? HOW QUICKLY DO YOU THINK IT COULD GO? DO YOU HAVE ANY LOCAL TRACK RECORD OF SUCCESS? WHO WOULD YOUR PARTNERS BE? THAT'S ACROSS ALL OF THE DIFFERENT THINGS.
WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT AS WIDE AS POSSIBLE TO CATCH ALL OF THAT.
THERE IS NOTHING IN THERE THAT'S LANGUAGE, LIKE YOU SAID, THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE THAT WOULD TRICK SOMEONE OR SAY, OH, IT HAS TO BE THIS ONE THING BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH DISCUSSION FOR.
>> BY SOMEONE, BY THE WAY, I'M TALKING ABOUT TRICK US.
I'M BEING VERY CLEAR, VERY TRANSPARENT WITH THIS WITH THIS.
I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T COME BACK BY THE TIME IT RESURFACES AND YOU PRESENT IT TO US.
IT'S NOT PRESENTED IN A WAY THAT MISLEADS ANY ONE OF US IN ANY DIRECTION FROM THERE, BUT IT GETS US MOVING ON THIS PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN SITTING HERE FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS.
THAT'S THE RFI PIECE. I GOT IT.
NOW, YOU GO THROUGH THE RFP OR WHATEVER THE PLAY PROCESS.
I GUESS RFP. THEN WHAT? NOW WE TAKE ALL OF THAT INFORMATION AND WE DEVELOP AN RFP BASED ON WHAT? HOW DOES IT COME BACK TO US?
>> WE BRING BACK THE AGGREGATE DATA FROM THE RFI HERE AND DO A BRIEFING MEMO ON, HEY, HERE'S WHAT CAME BACK.
BASED ON THAT, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS THAT WE COULD PROBABLY GO WITH THE PROCESS AND WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO? THAT IS COMPLETELY UP TO YOU GUYS.
THERE'S NO MISLEADING INFORMATION.
IT IS JUST HERE IS THE INFORMATION WE HAVE NETTED.
>> I JUST WANT TO THAT IS WHATEVER PROJECT THAT WE IDENTIFY OR PARTNER WILL MORE THAN LIKELY REQUIRE FUNDING FROM THIS BODY.
THAT WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS COUNCIL TO WEIGH IN.
>> WHETHER WE SUPPORT THE PROJECT OR NOT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WHATEVER COMES OUT OF THE RFI DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO BE HOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD, THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE ENGAGEMENT BOTH FROM COMMUNITY AND COUNCIL.
>> BUT AGAIN, AS WE'RE MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARITY AND HOW ALL OF THIS, AND I'M AWARE OF ALL OF THAT.
BUT AGAIN, IN ORDER TO GET THERE, WE STILL HAVE ALL OF THESE STEPS.
SO FAR FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS, THESE STEPS KEEP GETTING HINDERED, AND I'M TRYING TO ENSURE FOR THE FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE HERE AND FROM DISTRICT 3 AND THE FOLKS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, WE HAVE A SOLID PLAN THAT MOVES THIS PROPERTY FORWARD, AND WE CAN REALLY START STOP HAVING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT IT, BUT REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.
>> THAT WILL HAVE TO BE DETERMINED BY THIS BODY WHEN WE BRING BACK THE AGGREGATE DATA FROM THE RFI AND HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS.
YOU COULD CHOOSE TO NOT USE THEM AT ALL.
YOU COULD CHOOSE TO GO A DIRECTION BASED ON THOSE, YOU COULD CHOOSE TO GO A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, BUT THAT IS UP TO THIS BODY.
THAT'S THE POLICY GUIDANCE THAT WE WILL COME BACK AND ASK FOR.
>> CNS THE PART. YOU SAID, WE COULD CHOOSE TO NOT USE IT AT ALL.
>> I HOPE, MY COLLEAGUES, THAT WE DON'T GET TO THAT POINT WHERE IF IT DOES COME BACK, IF THE MARKET HAS SPOKEN, IF THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN, THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
AGAIN, UNDERSTANDING THAT YES, THERE IS A HOMELESS CRISIS, AND I WISH I HAD AS MUCH TIME TO DRIVE THROUGH OTHER DISTRICTS TO REALLY ASSESS THEIR NEEDS AND ALL THOSE THINGS.
I JUST DON'T. I CONTINUE TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS AND THOSE SOLUTIONS IN A WAY THAT FITS DISTRICT 3, AND I'LL CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
I'M ASKING THAT MY COLLEAGUES JUST TRUST WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GO WITH DISTRICT 3, AS WELL AS TRUST THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS BOTH HOUSING AND HOMELESS SOLUTIONS, AND I'LL CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, LOOKING FOR AREAS WHERE WE CAN DEVELOP HOUSING FOR THOSE AGING OUT OF THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM, BECAUSE THAT IS A PASSION OF MINE, AND I'M LOOKING IN DISTRICT 3 TO TRY AND FIND THOSE SOLUTIONS BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST A ONE SIZE FITS ALL, ONE SHOP FITS ALL, BUT IT'S REALLY FINDING SOLUTIONS THAT ADDRESS THE NEEDS IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT WAY.
I JUST CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME AS INTENSELY AS THEY ARE TRYING TO FIND SOLUTIONS FOR HAMPTON, AND I MEAN THAT IN A VERY MOST SINCEREST WAY POSSIBLE.
NOT A JAB, NOT ANYTHING, IT'S JUST THAT'S THE ENERGY THAT WE NEED TO SOLVE
[01:10:01]
THIS HOMELESS SOLUTIONS PROBLEM COLLECTIVELY.IT'S ABOUT TRUSTING OUR COLLEAGUES THAT WE HAVE THAT SAME INTENTION AND THAT SAME HEART FOR THAT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU FOR THIS FEEDBACK, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE MEETING IN APRIL.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO ITEM B.
>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
THIS IS A NOFA PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO US FOR GAP FINANCING.
THIS IS A PROJECT THAT'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPED BY SYCAMORE STRATEGIES, AND THERE'S A CO-DEVELOPER, AIDS SERVICES OF DALLAS.
THIS IS A SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECT THAT WILL PROVIDE 48 UNITS OF SUPPORTIVE HOUSING TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES AFFECTED BY LIVING WITH OR ARE AT RISK OF HIV/AIDS TO LEAD MORE STABLE LIVES.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR GAP FINANCING OF ABOUT $7 MILLION.
THAT WILL BE FUNDED THROUGH THE OPA REDEVELOPMENT FUND.
WE DO HAVE SYCAMORE STRATEGIES HERE IN THE GALLERY TODAY TO DISCUSS ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, BUT THIS IS A PROJECT THAT WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF, AND WE'LL ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME.
>> THANK YOU. I'LL START TO MY LEFT THIS TIME. CHAIR MIDDLETON.
>> THANK YOU. HAVE THEY ALREADY SECURED HOPLA VOUCHERS FOR THIS? I'M ASSUMING THEY'RE GOING TO USE HOPLA VOUCHERS.
>> YES. THEY HAVE MENTIONED TO US THAT IT'S 100% VOUCHER FUNDED, SO YES.
>> BUT THEY'RE ALREADY DEDICATED TO THAT THEY'RE, SHAKING THEIR HEAD, NO.
>> THEY'RE GOING TO COME DOWN AND SPEAK.
>> JUST FOR THE PUBLIC, THE HOPLA VOUCHERS ARE SPECIFIC FOR PEOPLE OR FAMILIES IMPACTED BY AIDS.
>> BECAUSE OF HOW TDHCA UNDERWRITES CERTAIN THINGS, YOU CAN'T [OVERLAPPING]
>> CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME?
>> JUST MOVE IT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER, ZACH.
>> BECAUSE OF HOW TDHCA UNDERWRITES CERTAIN THINGS, GOING INTO AN APPLICATION WITH VOUCHERS ALREADY DESIGNATED FOR A PROPERTY CHANGES THE WAY UNDERWRITING WORKS, AND SO WE GENERALLY DON'T DO THAT.
ALSO, BECAUSE THIS BUILDING IS OVER FOUR STORIES, IF YOU HAVE VOUCHERS ALREADY DEDICATED ON A PROJECT-BASED SETTING, THEN YOU ACTUALLY TRIGGER DAVIS BACON COMMERCIAL WAGES VERSUS DAVIS BACON RESIDENTIAL WAGES.
THIS IS PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
WE DO ANTICIPATE EVERYONE TO HAVE A VOUCHER WHEN THEY COME IN.
BUT HAVING PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING VOUCHERS ALREADY COMMITTED TO A BUILDING LIKE THIS WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE FINANCING.
>> GIVEN THE FEDERAL FOCUS ON REDUCING EXPENSES, THIS IS AN ITEM, HOPLA VOUCHERS ARE BEING DISCUSSED FOR A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS IS BUILT AND THERE AREN'T ENOUGH PEOPLE WITH A HOPLA VOUCHER?
>> THE TARGETED POPULATION IS PEOPLE WITH HIV/AIDS, BUT THE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING SET ASIDE FOR TDHCA DOES ALLOW YOU TO PIVOT TO OTHER TYPES OF PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING NEEDS.
THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF OVERLAP ON THOSE THINGS AS WELL.
>> HAVE YOU TALKED TO DALLAS HOUSING AUTHORITY ABOUT BEING ABLE TO PRIORITIZE VOUCHERS FOR THE SITE? SHOULD IT HAPPEN?
>> WE HAVE TALKED TO THEM PRELIMINARILY, BUT BECAUSE OF THOSE RULES WITH DAVIS BACON AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WE CAN'T ACTUALLY GET INTO THE FULL DISCUSSION.
BECAUSE EVEN SHOWING INTENT BEFORE THE PROJECT IS CONSTRUCTED CREATES THOSE TRIGGERS.
>> I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL VOUCHERS TO DEDICATE TO THE PROJECT, GIVEN WHAT I'M HEARING ABOUT OTHER THINGS THAT THEY'RE DOING.
MOST PEOPLE WITH PERMANENT BOARD OF HOUSING NEEDS DO COME WITH A VOUCHER, EVEN IF IT'S NOT A PROJECT-BASED VOUCHER.
[01:15:02]
WE'RE ALSO OBVIOUSLY WORKING WITH AIDS SERVICES OF DALLAS AND THEY HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT PROJECTS.THEY HAVE A LOT OF TENANTS THAT ALREADY HAVE VOUCHERS, THEY COULD MOVE FROM ONE PROPERTY TO ANOTHER AS WELL.
THIS IS 48 UNITS, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE IN TERMS OF FINDING OBVIOUSLY 48 PEOPLE THAT NEED THIS HOUSING THAT MAY HAVE VOUCHERS ALREADY.
>> WELL, THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE BECAUSE I'VE WORKED CLOSELY WITH THAT ORGANIZATION, BUT THEY MAY END UP WITH LESS VOUCHERS.
IT MAY ACTUALLY BE THE OPPOSITE.
THEY MAY HAVE MORE SPACE THAN VOUCHERS IN THE FUTURE.
WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PROPOSED FINANCING, WHY IS THE CONTINGENCY SO LOW?
>> THE UNDERWRITING FOR A LOT OF THESE THINGS IS BASED ON TDHDA GUIDELINES, SO THE CONTINGENCY IS LOW.
BUT IN THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR CONTRACT, THERE'S A SEPARATE GENERAL CONTRACTOR CONTINGENCY ASIDE FROM AN OWNER'S CONTINGENCY.
>> FOR STAFF, THIS IS USING ARPA FUNDS. ARE THESE ARPA FUNDS? ARE THEY RESTRICTED FOR HOUSING OR NO? I DIDN'T KNOW IF THIS IS PART OF THE OFFSET WE DID WITH DFR.
>> THESE WERE DESIGNATED TO THE HOUSING ACTIVITIES. THESE ARE THE LAST [OVERLAPPING]
>> ARE THEY RESTRICTED OR THAT WAS WHAT THE COUNCIL SAID WE WOULD GENERALLY LIKE TO SEE?
>> THIS IS THE ARPA REDEVELOPMENT FUND SO THESE ARE LIKE [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT, DON, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.
THESE ARE MORE LIKE GENERAL FUNDS THAT WE'VE RE-APPROPRIATED.
>> THIS IS PART OF THE DFR OFFSET?
>> ACTUALLY, THESE DOLLARS COULD BE USED FOR ANYTHING WE DESIRE.
>> WELL, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S USED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING SINCE IT'S RUNNING THROUGH OUR NOFA AND THROUGH OUR POLICY, SO THERE WILL BE RESTRICTIONS FOR THAT WITH THOSE DOLLARS, AND THE AFFORDABILITY TO ENSURE LONG-TERM USE.
>> YES, MA'AM. THE OVERALL ALLOCATION OF FUNDING, IT COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR OTHER THINGS BESIDES JUST COMING TO HOUSING.
THEY COULD HAVE DEDICATED IT TO WHATEVER THOSE OTHER AREAS OF NEED WERE FOR THE CITY.
>> WELL, CERTAINLY WE HAVE HOUSING NEEDS, I'M NOT IN ANY WAY SAYING THAT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SCOPE OF THE UNIVERSE IS.
THE CITY ATTORNEYS ARE SITTING OVER THERE, SO YOU'RE VERIFYING THAT THESE FUNDS ACTUALLY COULD BE USED FOR ANYTHING, THEY'RE NOT RESTRICTED IN ANY WAY.
>> CHAIR GRACIE. COUNCILMAN WILLIS.
>> I JUST WANTED TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING YOU SAID AND A POINT THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON MADE ABOUT IF THERE'S MORE SPACE THAN VOUCHERS, YOU SAID THERE'S SOME TRANSFERABILITY.
WE DON'T WANT THIS TO BE EMPTY, WE HAVE PLENTY OF NEED.
>> WHEN YOU GO INTO A TDHA APPLICATION, YOU ACTUALLY PUT A TARGET PERMIT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING POPULATION AS YOUR APPLICATION NEED.
HOWEVER, ONCE IT'S BUILT, IF THAT TARGET POPULATION DOESN'T FILL IT, THEN YOU'RE ALLOWED TO GO TO OTHER TARGET POPULATIONS SUCH AS TRANSITIONING FROM HOMELESSNESS, TRANSITIONING OUT OF FOSTER LIVING, THINGS LIKE THAT.
AIDS SERVICES OF DALLAS HAS BEEN LOOKING AT THOSE OPTIONS AS WELL IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT OTHER TARGET POPULATIONS IF THOSE NEEDS AREN'T NEEDED.
>> THAT'S ALREADY IN THERE SO IT'S NOT GOING TO CREATE A PROBLEM LATER?
>> THEN, CYNTHIA, WE WERE TALKING EARLIER ABOUT THE DISCREPANCIES OR DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE TWO DIFFERENT MEMOS, THE ONE FROM JANUARY OF 2024 TO WHAT WE'VE GOT NOW, AND JUST TO CLEAR THAT UP.
>> THE MEMO THAT COMES EARLY ON IS FOR THE SUPPORT FOR THE LITECH APPLICATION.
AS THAT GOES THROUGH ITS PROCESS, THE DEVELOPER IS STILL WORKING ON PERMANENT FINANCING AND ALL THE FINANCIAL STACKS THAT HE NEEDS AS WELL AS OTHER THINGS THAT HE'S WORKED ON, CONSTRUCTION FINANCING AND ALL THOSE THINGS.
THE FINAL NUMBERS DON'T COME OUT TO US UNTIL WE'RE READY TO PRESENT TO YOU A CONTRACT, WHICH IS WHAT THIS IS FOR ON OUR FINANCING GAP.
IT COULD CHANGE FROM THE INITIAL REQUEST OF FINANCIAL STACK THAT IS PRELIMINARY TO WHAT IS FINAL TODAY.
AGAIN, ZACH CAN SPEAK TO HIS PROCESSES AND HOW HE OBTAINED HIS FINANCING AS IT SITS TODAY.
>> IN LOOKING AT IT, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AMBITIOUS AT THAT FIRST POINT TO HAVE $18 MILLION IN LITECH, BECAUSE NOW WE'RE COMING BACK IN AND BACK FILLING IT WITH THIS ARPA. TELL ME ABOUT THAT.
[01:20:03]
>> THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS FOR A 9% ALLOCATION OF TAX CREDITS, AND THAT'S WHY THERE WAS MORE LITECH IN THE INITIAL APPLICATION.
DUE TO UNDERWRITING REASONS, OUR APPLICATION FOR 9% LITECH WAS TERMINATED, AND SO WE WENT BACK IN AND WORKED WITH THE DEPARTMENT AT TDHCA.
THE GOVERNOR GRANTED US A FORWARD COMMITMENT OF TAX CREDITS FOR 4% TAX CREDITS.
THOSE ARE LESS CREDITS PER UNIT.
BUT THE ASK FOR THE GAP FINANCING FROM THE CITY HAS NOT CHANGED FROM THE 9% TO THE 4%.
THE STATE WORKED WITH US AND THEY HAD EXCESS TCAP FUNDS TO FILL IN WHAT WAS A GAP IN THE LITECH FROM THE 18 TO THE 10.
THE UNDERWRITING CHANGED, BECAUSE IT WENT FROM A 9% TO A 4%, A LOT OF DIFFERENT VARIABLES CHANGED BECAUSE OF THAT UNDERWRITING, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
>> THANK YOU. ZACH, CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROPERTY? IT'S A REALLY COOL ICONIC BUILDING.
HOW LONG IS IT VACANT? HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN THERE? HOW DID YOU ALL COME TO ACQUIRE OR HOPING TO ACQUIRE IT?
>> IT'S BEEN VACANT, I WANT TO SAY ALMOST 20 YEARS NOW AT THIS POINT.
THE LAST PEOPLE THAT WERE OFFERING TO TAKE IT OVER AND USE IT FOR SELF STORAGE, DATA CENTER, THINGS LIKE THAT.
WE JUST SAW IT AS JUST AN AMAZING OPPORTUNITY TO BRING PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
TO DO MARKET RATE HOUSING OR EVEN AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEAL THAT DOESN'T TARGET PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AT 48 UNITS IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT.
OBVIOUSLY, THE EXPENSES WHEN YOU'RE ONLY DIVIDING THINGS BY 48 VERSUS 400 MAKES THINGS A LOT MORE DIFFICULT TO OPERATE ON A MARKET STANDPOINT.
WE REALLY LIKE AIDS SERVICES OF DALLAS, THINK THAT THEY'RE A GREAT ORGANIZATION.
WE APPROACH THEM TO SPREAD THEIR FOOTPRINT AROUND A LITTLE BIT MORE TOO BECAUSE THEY'RE REALLY CONCENTRATED IN OAK CLIFF.
THIS IS THEIR FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO BRANCH OUT OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND BRING PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING TO ANOTHER LOCATION.
>> YOU'RE GETTING HISTORIC TAX CREDITS.
>> IS THIS BUILDING LANDMARK? IS IT PROTECTED?
>> YES, IT IS. IT IS INDIVIDUALLY LISTED BY THE FEDERAL REGISTER.
IT HAS ALREADY BEEN THROUGH THAT, IT'S ALREADY BEEN GRANTED A PART 2.
A LOT OF THINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY GOING TO BE PROPOSED AS A HOSPITALITY PLAY.
>> BUT YOU GUYS WON'T HAVE TO GET ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATENESS OF CERTIFICATIONS.
>> NO ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATIONS.
WE WILL HAVE TO OBVIOUSLY MODIFY THE PLAN THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.
BUT BECAUSE WE ARE A HISTORIC STRUCTURE, WE ARE BY RIGHT ALLOWED TO GET THOSE TAX CREDITS.
>> TALK TO ME ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I WOULD SAY IT HAS DECENT WALKABILITY.
IT'S IN A REALLY GOOD LOCATION IN TERMS OF A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE ARE LIVING THERE.
IT'S GOT A LOT OF ACTIVITY, AND WHEN YOU CROSS OVER THE HIGHWAY, THERE'S A LOT MORE THINGS THAT ARE BEING DEVELOPED, MORE RETAIL, MORE RESTAURANTS ARE COMING THERE.
WE THINK IT'S A REALLY GOOD LOCATION.
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING JUST NEEDS TO BE SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO GIVE PEOPLE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE NEAR MAYBE RELATIVES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
IF THEY HAVE PART TIME JOBS OR ROLES IN THE COMMUNITY, HAVE EASIER WAY TO GET TO THOSE PLACES.
IT ALSO DOES HAVE GOOD DART BUS ACCESS AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU. FOR STAFF, THE NOFA THAT WE'RE USING, IS THIS USING THE NEW GUIDELINES AFTER THE 2024 BONDS HAVE BEEN APPROVED? HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE GUIDELINES FOR AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO MEET WITH THESE NEW NOFA.
>> BASICALLY, OUR NOFA INCORPORATES THE COUNCIL'S POLICY AS IT RELATES TO HOUSING PRIORITIES.
THAT WILL BE INCLUSIVE OF HOUSING FOR HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS AFFECTED BY HIV/AIDS.
AND SO IN THAT NOFA, THERE'S A CRITERIA, HOW THIS PROJECT ALIGNS WITH OUR OVERALL ACTION PLAN.
IT PROVIDES MUCH NEEDED HOUSING.
THIS PROJECT ALIGNS WITH OUR POLICY.
ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE IN OUR NOFA, AND SO WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT AND WE THINK IT HELPS US MEET OUR GOALS AND IT FURTHERS AVAILABLE HOUSING FOR THESE INDIVIDUALS.
>> THE SEVEN MILLION LOAN, IS THAT A FORGIVABLE LOAN OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S REIMBURSED?
>> PER OUR POLICY, THE DALLAS HOUSING RESOURCE CATALOG, ANYTIME THERE IS A FUNDING GAP PROVIDED FOR PERMIT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, THAT CAN BE A FORGIVABLE LOAN.
>> IN THIS PROJECT, IS IT FORGIVABLE? [LAUGHTER]
>> YES, IT IS A PROVABLE LOAN.
THIS SUPPORT HOUSING PROJECT, AND FOR OUR POLICY, IT IS A FORGIVABLE LOAN.
>> THERE'S SOME MENTION HERE ABOUT RESIDENT SERVICES,
[01:25:01]
SOCIAL EVENTS, INCOME TAX, PREP, FOOD PANTRY.ARE THOSE TO MEET A REQUIREMENT OR ARE THOSE SOMETHING THAT IS BEING PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER?
>> PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING COMES WITH SERVICES THAT ARE REQUIRED BY TDHCA AND UNDER THEIR LURA, AND SO THOSE WOULD BE THE SERVICES THAT AIDS SERVICES OF DALLAS IS PROVIDING TO THOSE TENANTS.
>> THEN HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT THOSE TENANTS ARE ACTUALLY RECEIVING THE SERVICES THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED TODAY?
>> TDHCA DOES MONITORING ON ALL OF THEIR PROPERTIES, ESPECIALLY THEIR LURAS, AND THEY WILL BE DOING THOSE MONITORING, BUT ALSO THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT MONITORS FOR AFFORDABILITY, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT FOR ALL OF OUR PROJECTS THAT WE FUND.
>> LAST QUESTION, HAVE WE AS THE DEVELOPER CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY?
>> WHAT'S THE TIMELINE FOR THAT?
>> DO YOU NEED A MOTION ON THIS OR?
>> WE WOULD LIKE YOUR SUPPORT TO MOVE IT FORWARD TO COUNCIL.
>> I'M SORRY, JUST A CLARIFICATION.
YOU HAVE AIDS SERVICES OF DALLAS AS A PARTNER, BUT YOU'RE INTENDING THEY'LL OPERATE IT, CORRECT?
>> GOT YOU. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM C. THERE'S NO MOTION.
>> ITEM C IS OUR HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. THANK YOU, DARWIN.
OUR HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION PROJECT.
THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
WE BROUGHT IT TO YOU IN OCTOBER, NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR, AS A HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT, AND WE HAD TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU AGAIN FOR SOME CHANGE IN THE FINANCIAL.
THIS IS THE PRESENTATION BEFORE IT GOES ON TO COUNCIL AGAIN.
>> YOU LIST THIS AS REMOVING $9.5 MILLION FROM THE TAX ROLLS OVER THE NEXT 15 YEARS.
CAN YOU TELL ME HOW MUCH REVENUE THIS PROPERTY BROUGHT IN THIS YEAR?
>> YOU'RE ASKING HOW MUCH OF REVENUE?
>> HOW MUCH THEY PAY IN PROPERTY TAXES THIS YEAR?
>> I'M SORRY. DO WE HAVE THAT NUMBER FOR THIS YEAR?
>> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
IF SOMEONE CAN LOOK THAT UP ON DCAD.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT ANSWER BEFORE WE'RE DONE.
DOES THIS ACQUISITION CREATE ANY NEW UNITS OF HOUSING?
>> NO, IT DOES JACQUELINE ORDER ADMINISTRATOR.
>> WE'RE GOING TO GIVE UP ALL THAT REVENUE, AND WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY GOING TO EVEN CREATE A SINGLE NEW UNIT OF HOUSING?
>> NO, BUT THE PROPERTY WILL ACQUIRE HALF OF THE UNITS, AND THEY WILL TRANSITION INTO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
>> HOW MANY PROPERTIES ARE IN THE HFC PORTFOLIO?
>> ABOUT 30. DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH REVENUE WOULD HAVE BEEN GENERATED IF THEY WERE NOT HFC PROPERTIES FROM THESE PORTFOLIO ITEMS?
>> I DON'T HAVE THAT AT MY FINGERTIPS. SORRY.
>> CAN I ASK STAFF TO CALCULATE THAT?
I'M GOING TO MAKE A NOTE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT IF THAT'S RIGHT. THANK YOU.
>> I'M SORRY, COUNCILWOMAN. LET ME GET THAT QUESTION RIGHT.
YOU WANTED TO KNOW HOW MUCH REVENUE THE PORTFOLIO PROPERTIES WOULD HAVE GENERATED HAD THEY NOT BEEN EXEMPT?
>> JUST VERIFY THAT THERE'S 30.
I'M ASSUMING IT'S APPROXIMATELY 30.
>> IT'S A LITTLE OVER 30 THE LAST I SAW. [OVERLAPPING]
>> SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I WOULD GENERALLY HAVE ASKED YOU IN ADVANCE.
IF YOU COULD JUST CONFIRM IT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
THE NEXT QUESTION IS REALLY A POLICY QUESTION WHICH IS IN LOOKING AT HOW YOU'RE CONSIDERING AREA MEDIAN INCOME FOR THIS PROPOSED PROJECT,
[01:30:01]
YOU'VE GOT 20% BELOW 60% AMI, 30%, THAT'S 80% AMI, 40% THAT'S 140% AMI, AND 10% THAT'S MARKET.MY FIRST QUESTION FOR YOU IS THE 10% THAT'S MARKET, ARE YOU INTENDING FOR THAT OR EXPECTING IT'LL BE MORE THAN 140% AMI?
>> FOR THAT, I'D LIKE TO BRING UP AARON AQUINO, GENERAL MANAGER FOR THE HFC.
>> WELL, HE LOOKS FAMILIAR. HI AARON.
>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. THANK YOU.
YES. THE MARKET RATE WILL BE MARKET RATE.
IT WILL NOT BE RESTRICTED AT ALL.
IT WILL JUST BE WHAT THE MARKET IS IN THAT AREA.
>> BUT ARE YOU EXPECTING IT WILL BE HIGHER THAN THE 140?
>> THEN THE POLICY QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR YOU IS, IF WE'RE EXEMPTING TAXES ON THIS PROPERTY, THE CITY HAS TO INCREASE REVENUE, WE CAN'T FUNCTION WITHOUT THAT.
THAT MEANS THAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BEAR A GREATER PORTION OF THOSE TAX DOLLARS.
EVERY TIME WE EXEMPT SOMETHING, IT ACTUALLY RAISES TAXES FOR OTHER PEOPLE.
IN THIS CASE, YOU GOT 40% OF THE UNITS AT 140% AREA MEDIAN INCOME, MEANING THESE ARE FOLKS WHO MAKE AS A HOUSEHOLD 40% MORE THAN THE MEDIAN.
YOU'RE NOW GOING TO ASK PEOPLE WHO ARE LOWER HOUSEHOLD INCOME TO BEAR A GREATER TAX TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SUBSIDIZED HOUSING, ESSENTIALLY.
>> I GUESS I DON'T FOLLOW THE QUESTION.
IF THE WHOLE PROPERTY IS TAX EXEMPT, ARE YOU SAYING THE FOLKS AT THE PROPERTY ARE GOING TO BEAR TAXES?
>> NO. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THE WHOLE PROPERTY IS TAX EXEMPT, BUT SOMEBODY STILL HAS TO PAY FOR THE ROADS AND THE POLICE AND THE LIBRARIES AND THE PARKS.
THAT PROPERTY WON'T BE BEARING THOSE TAXES.
EVERYONE ELSE WILL, AND THEREFORE, THEY WILL HAVE TO BEAR A HIGHER TAX BECAUSE THIS ONE ISN'T PAYING ANYTHING.
SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE WILL BE MAKING A LOT MORE THAN THE OTHER PEOPLE YOU'RE GOING TO INCREASE TAXES ON.
>> I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION NOW.
REALLY, LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S A POLICY QUESTION.
DOES THE COUNCIL THINK THE INVESTMENT INTO AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS WORTH THE FOREGOING OF THE REVENUE? NOW, OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S A DECISION YOU'LL MAKE.
WE CONTEND THAT YES, THE PROVIDING OF THE RESTRICTED RATE UNITS IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA WILL PROVIDE A GOOD BENEFIT TO THOSE PEOPLE OR BELOW THE CERTAIN RESTRICTED RATE.
WE OFFER 20% AT 60%, AND THE CERTAIN AMOUNT OF 80%.
WE ALSO WOULD ADD THAT ALL OF OUR PROPERTIES THAT THE HFC OWNS, WE ACCEPT THE VOUCHER.
EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT STATED ON THE RENT RESTRICTIONS, WE DO GO DOWN TO THESE 30% LEVELS BECAUSE WE ARE PARTICIPATING IN THESE PROJECTS.
AGAIN, IT'S A POLICY QUESTION.
IS IT WORTH THE CITY'S INVESTMENT? I'M NOT THE ONE VOTING ON THAT, IT'S UP TO YOU ALL TO DECIDE THAT.
>> THANK YOU. I WOULD SAY THIS, THAT AS WE TALK ABOUT OUR SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM ABOUT HOMELESSNESS, WE LITERALLY HAD PEOPLE SITTING IN OUR AUDIENCE TODAY SEEKING HELP, COMING TO A COUNCIL MEETING.
FRANKLY, I WELCOME EVERYBODY WHO'S EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS COME TO OUR COUNCIL MEETING.
YOU ACTUALLY WILL GET SERVED BETTER. WE WANT TO SEE YOU.
BUT HOW CAN WE SIT HERE AND TALK ABOUT OUR NEED FOR HOMELESSNESS AND THEN EXEMPT TAXES FOR PEOPLE MAKING 40% HIGHER THAN OUR MEDIAN INCOME? I'M SORRY, I DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT.
>> WE'RE NOT EXEMPTING THE TAXES OF THE RESIDENTS.
>> OF COURSE YOU ARE. PART OF YOUR RENT PAYS FOR PROPERTY TAXES, WHETHER YOU'RE A SINGLE-FAMILY HOMEOWNER AND YOU'RE LITERALLY WRITING THE CHECK ANNUALLY, OR YOU'RE A RENTER, YOU ARE PAYING PROPERTY TAXES.
THERE'S NO ENTITY THAT ISN'T PART OF THAT.
YES, IF WE EXEMPT THOSE TAXES, THEN EVERY OTHER PERSON WHO PAYS IT, WHETHER IT'S DIRECTLY AS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OR THROUGH MULTIFAMILY, EVERYBODY ELSE WILL BEAR THAT COST FOR THIS PROPERTY.
[01:35:01]
>> AGAIN, IT'S A POLICY QUESTION.
WE FIND THAT THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO SUBSIDIZE HOUSING.
YOU EITHER POUR MONEY IN ON THE TOP OR YOU TAKE IT OFF THE EXPENSE SIDE ON THE BOTTOM.
IF WE WANT TO SEE THE CITY INVEST IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THERE'S A COUPLE OF WAYS YOU CAN DO IT.
WE FIND THAT THIS IS A VERY EFFICIENT WAY TO GET A LOT OF UNITS INTO THIS RESTRICTED AFFORDABILITY SPECTRUM.
TO FIND A PROPERTY OF THIS QUALITY IN THIS AREA AND TO BUILD IT FROM THE GROUND UP AND TO OFFER IT AT AN AFFORDABLE RATE, YOU JUST CAN'T DO THAT RIGHT NOW.
THIS IS NOT THE BREAD AND BUTTER OF HSC.
WE DON'T PREFER TO PURCHASE PROPERTIES, AND WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE MONEY OFF THE TAX ROW.
THAT'S NOT OUR GOAL, BUT OUR GOAL IS TO PROVIDE DECENT, SAFE AND SANITARY AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO THE RESIDENTS OF DALLAS.
THIS IS ONE STRATEGY THAT WE CAN DO SOMETIMES.
OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE VERY SELECTIVE IN THESE TYPES OF ACQUISITIONS, BUT WE THINK THIS IS A VERY SELECTIVE OPPORTUNITY THAT WE FOUND THAT IT'S PROBABLY WORTHWHILE.
AGAIN, THE POLICY DECISIONS IS UP TO ALL.
>> COUNCILWOMAN, I WILL ALSO ADD THAT AGAIN, I AM READY TO BRING BACK THE POLICY CHANGES THAT I HAVE RECOMMENDED, AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO TALK THROUGH EACH ONE AGAIN SO THAT WE CAN MAKE A DECISION ON WHAT WE WANT THE POLICY TO BE.
IF WE DECIDE THAT WE DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE TO DO HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATIONS OR PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATION ACTIVITIES, THOSE ARE TOOLS THAT WERE ADOPTED BY THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT THROUGH THE COUNCIL, AND WE CAN PUT OUR PARAMETERS AROUND THOSE AS I HAVE PRESENTED BEFORE.
HAPPY TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU SO THAT WE CAN MOVE IT ON TO POLICY AND MAKE IT AN ACTUAL POLICY IN OUR DALLAS HOUSING POLICY ACTIVITIES THAT WE FOLLOW.
>> WELL, THANK YOU. YOUR RECOMMENDATION DIDN'T SUGGEST ENDING THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION.
>> I WOULD NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF ENDING THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION.
IN SIX YEARS, I VOTED AGAINST ONE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION PROJECT.
THIS WILL PROBABLY BE THE SECOND ONE.
ONE, YOU'RE TAKING ACTUAL DOLLARS OFF OUR TAX ROLL, NOT DEVELOPING SOMEWHERE NEW, WHERE WE DIDN'T ALREADY GET TAXES.
YOU'RE LITERALLY REDUCING OUR REVENUE.
NUMBER 2, YOU'RE DOING THAT FOR 140% AMI.
CYNTHIA, I BELIEVE THAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO US WAS NOT TO DO THAT.
>> MY RECOMMENDATION WAS NOT TO TAKE EXISTING MARKET RATE PROPERTIES OFF THE TAX ROLL AND HAVE THEM REDEVELOPED.
THAT WAS ONE OF MY RECOMMENDATIONS, NOT TO KILL HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION ACTIVITIES ALTOGETHER, BUT FOR THAT PARTICULAR TYPE OF ACTIVITY, THAT WAS ONE OF MY RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> SECOND, I BELIEVE ONE OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, WAS NOT TO INCLUDE UNITS AT 140% AMI?
>> THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR THAT DEEPER AFFORDABILITY.
>> THAT IS THE PUBLIC GOOD AND THE PUBLIC BENEFIT OF PROVIDING THIS VERY SIGNIFICANT TAX EXEMPTION.
I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS, AND I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE DOING IT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE LOCATION IS GOOD.
WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO PRESERVE HOUSING THERE? I GET IT. BUT THERE'S OTHER OPPORTUNITIES.
THIS IS NOT AN AREA THAT IS 100% BUILT OUT.
I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS ONE WHEN IT COMES TO COUNSEL. THANK YOU.
>> CHAIR GRACIE. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS.
>> I'M LOOKING AT IT. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S 40% THAT FALL INTO THE 140% AMI CATEGORY.
WE'VE GOT 60% OF IT THAT DOES MEET THE GIVEN, WHERE THIS LOCATION IS AND WHAT THE GROWTH WILL BE, THAT 140%.
NOW, SO ONLY, WAIT, NINE, 10, 41 UNITS WILL BE MARKET RATE.
I TOO, IT GIVES ME PAUSE WHENEVER I SEE THAT NUMBER AT 140%.
HOWEVER, GIVEN DALLAS GROWTH, I REALLY LOOK AT 10 YEARS FROM NOW, IS HOW I TEND TO LOOK AT THESE, IS THAT WHERE WOULD WE BE AND WHERE THAT WOULD BE VERY ATTRACTIVE FOR KEEPING PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE ABLE TO LIVE CLOSE TO DOWNTOWN TO LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE PART OF THE CITY WHERE THIS IS LOCATED CURRENTLY.
BUT I GUESS I STARTED THINKING MORE PHILOSOPHICALLY ABOUT, WE'VE LOWERED OUR TAX RATE MORE THAN IT HAS BEEN IN 40 YEARS, SO TAXES AREN'T BEING RAISED ON THIS, BUT IT ALSO SPEAKS TO OUR PHILOSOPHY AS A COUNSEL ON WHEN NEW PROJECTS COME TO US, NEW CONSTRUCTION, NEW DEVELOPMENT COMES TO US,
[01:40:01]
THAT WE NEED TO GROW OUR TAX BASE SO THAT WE CAN DO THIS THING WITHOUT IT HAVING A KITCHEN TABLE EFFECT, AND THAT WE'VE GOT A PROPERTY TAX CAP ON EXISTING CONSTRUCTION, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO NEW CONSTRUCTION, WE DON'T HAVE THAT.IT'S MORE ON HOW WE LOOK AT THIS TODAY, BUT THEN WE LOOK AT THE OVERALL EQUATION OF WHEN THINGS COME BEFORE US.
STARTING OUR FRAMEWORK OF THINKING FROM A DIFFERENT PLACE SO WE CAN DO THIS AND ANSWER OUR HOUSING NEED. A COMMENT.
>> YES. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS, I JUST WANT TO ADD TO THAT COMMENT.
THERE'S A STUDY DONE LAST YEAR BY THE CONCORD GROUP, AND THEY ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THIS, THEY CALL IT AN INDUCEMENT EFFECT.
EVEN THOUGH WE'RE EXEMPTING ONLY 50% OF THIS PROPERTY AND THEN THE OTHER 50% OR 40% IS 140% AMI.
YOU TAKE OFF THAT CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MARKET RATE UNITS IN THAT CERTAIN AREA, THAT ALSO INDUCES A DEMAND FOR MORE MARKET RATE UNITS TO BE BUILT IN THAT SUBMARKET.
EVEN THOUGH IT LAGS A LITTLE BIT, IT'S GOING TO TAKE ANOTHER COUPLE OF YEARS TO BUILD THAT BACK UP.
YOU ARE ADDING AFFORDABLE UNITS TO OUR AFFORDABLE STOCK, EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE NOT BUILDING NEW ONES, BUT THEN THAT IN TURN CREATES THAT DEMAND FOR THOSE NEW MARKET RATE UNITS TO BACK FILL INTO THAT SPACE.
>> I'M REALLY GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT STUDY BECAUSE THAT'S RIGHT, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME IN AND DO WHAT'S ATTRACTIVE TO THEM.
WE JUST SAT THROUGH OUR LAST AGENDA ITEM.
THE COMPLEXITIES OF MAKING SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAPPEN AND THE STACK YOU'VE GOT TO CREATE AND ALL THE DIFFERENT SOURCES AND WHAT MIGHT FALL APART.
IT'S JUST NOT ATTRACTIVE. IT'S HARD TO DO, AND THE FACT THAT PEOPLE EVEN COME FORTH AND WANT TO DO IT IS PUZZLING SOMETIMES, BUT WE DEFINITELY HAVE THIS NEED.
I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THAT, THE INDUCEMENT EFFECT.
THIS MAKES IT ATTRACTIVE FOR OTHERS TO COME IN AND DO WHAT THEY DO AND NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THESE COMPLEXITIES OF TAX CREDITS AND WHERE THIS FUNDING COMES FROM, ETC.
THANK YOU. PLEASE SEND ME THAT, MAYBE OUR WHOLE COMMITTEE CAN SEE THAT REPLY.
>> THANK YOU. I HAD TO LOOK AT THESE PROJECTS 10, 15 YEARS UP THE ROAD AND KNOWING THAT EVEN THOSE THAT ARE AT THE 100 OR 140 AMI HOUSE BURDEN AS WELL.
BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION.
THERE'S ONE PARCEL OF PROPERTY CLOSER TO ROSS AND 75, BUT THAT'S ABOUT IT.
HELP ME UNDERSTAND, HOW IS THIS PROJECT GOING TO SERVE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS ALREADY BUILT-OUT COMMUNITY.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION, CHAIR RENO.
WHEN WE TOURED THIS WITH COUNCILMEMBER RIDLEY, HE WAS VERY EXCITED ABOUT IT BECAUSE, AS YOU KNOW, ANYTHING NEW IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA IT'S VERY HIGH-END LUXURY PRODUCT.
NOTHING IS BEING BUILT TO SUSTAIN A POPULATION THAT MAKES 60% OF INCOME.
LET ALONE THE 30% PEOPLE THAT COULD COME AND BE SERVED WITH OUR VOUCHERS.
TO YOUR POINT, WHERE ARE WE GOING TO BUILD ANY NEW STUFF? THERE ARE REAL ESTATE CYCLES, AND THERE ARE BUILDING CONVERSIONS AND KNOCKDOWNS THAT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME.
I CAN'T TELL YOU WHERE THE FUTURE IS GOING TO GO, BUT I KNOW THAT DALLAS IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO GROW, AND AS IT CONTINUES TO GROW, THE DEMAND FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND SURROUNDING PARTS WILL CREATE MARKET DEMAND FOR NEW RESIDENCES IN THIS AREA.
>> WHEN WAS THIS COMPLEX BUILT?
>> THIS COMPLEX, I BELIEVE IT WAS INITIALLY BUILT IN 2017, AND THEN THEY HAD A CRANE ACCIDENT, WHICH COMPLETELY TOOK IT OUT OF OPERATION.
IT WAS REBUILT, AND IT JUST OPENED, I THINK TWO YEARS AGO, AND THEY'VE LEASED UP NOW.
>> AS I MENTIONED, WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO MEET SOME OF THESE AMIS, BUT STILL, ARE PUTTING A HUGE PERCENTAGE OF THEIR INCOME INTO HOUSING.
IF THIS MOVES FORWARD, WHO QUALIFIES FOR THESE UNITS? DOES IT OPEN UP TO THE INDIVIDUALS LIVING IN THE COMPLEX?
>> EXACTLY. IF THEY ARE ALREADY QUALIFIED BASED ON INCOME THEIR RENT WILL IMMEDIATELY BE REDUCED.
THAT'S THE BENEFIT TO THESE PURCHASES IS THAT YOU CAN HAVE AN IMMEDIATE EFFECT TO THOSE WHO ARE IN PLACE RIGHT NOW THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE RENT BURDEN RIGHT BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE CHOOSING TO LIVE HERE AND THEY'RE JUST CHOOSING TO SPEND A GREATER PORTION OF THEIR INCOME BECAUSE THEY LIKE THIS LOCATION OR IT'S CLOSE TO WORK OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
[01:45:01]
BUT IF WE CAN PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF RELIEF TO THEM, THAT WILL CERTAINLY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU.>> IS THAT SOMETHING THAT MANAGEMENT DOES AUTOMATICALLY, OR DO SOMEONE HAS TO GO IN AND REAPPLY?
>> YEAH. MANAGEMENT WILL GO AND IF THEY WANT TO BE CONSIDERED, OBVIOUSLY, THEY'LL HAVE TO SUBMIT THEIR INCOME QUALIFICATIONS AND REQUALIFY BASED ON THOSE STANDARDS.
BUT THEN OVER THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO AS IT LEASES UP AND TURNS OVER, THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE QUALIFIED WILL BE ABLE TO MOVE IN.
>> OKAY. CYNTHIA, THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AND YOUR WORK ON THIS AND REALLY TAKING COUNSEL'S QUESTIONS INTO ACCOUNT ON HOW WE CAN ENSURE THAT WHEN WE ARE DOING THESE PROJECTS THAT THEY'RE REALLY BENEFITING THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
GO AHEAD BECAUSE I HAVE A BRAIN FREEZE, SO GO AHEAD.
>> NO PROBLEM. I JUST LOOKED UP ON DCAD THIS PROPERTY ADDRESS.
WHAT IT SAID IS THAT THIS YEAR, THIS PROPERTY PAID $510,907 TO THE CITY, 722,995 TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, 156,237 TO THE COUNTY, 76,556 TO THE COLLEGE, AND 153,700 TO THE HOSPITAL.
WE WOULD BE EXEMPTING FOR THESE OTHER JURISDICTIONS, INCLUDING OURSELVES, $1.6 MILLION JUST THIS YEAR.
WHEN YOU'RE TELLING US THAT IT'S GOING TO REMOVE 9.5 MILLION FROM THE TAX ROLLS OVER 15 YEARS, YOU'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE CITY PORTION, CORRECT?
>> BUT ACTUALLY, IT'S GOING TO HAVE A PRETTY DEVASTATING EFFECT TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, WHICH HAS MORE TAXES THAN US.
I THINK THIS IS ON WEDNESDAY'S AGENDA, RIGHT?
>> I'LL BE ASKING YOU ABOUT THE 15 YEAR IMPLICATION FOR ALL JURISDICTIONS.
>> WE'LL MAKE SURE WE HAVE THAT.
>> THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD, THIS IS IN THEDEEP ELLUM TIF.
WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS ON THE TIM? HAVE WE GOT ANY INPUT FROM THAT FOUNDATION?
>> YES, WE'VE TALKED WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND THEY HAVE ISSUED A NEGOTIATED PAYMENT THAT BASICALLY MAKES THEM WHOLE FOR THE REST OF THE TIF AGREEMENT.
I THINK IT EXPIRES IN ABOUT THREE YEARS.
THERE'S GOING TO BE AN UPFRONT PAYMENT THAT WILL COVER ALL OF THE MONEY THAT WAS GOING TO GO TO THE TIF THERE.
>> OKAY. THEN I'LL JUST LOOK TO MY COLLEAGUES HERE WHEN TOMORROW WILL BE DOWN IN AUSTIN TESTIFYING ON SOME HOUSING BILLS.
WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO REALLY DO WHAT'S BEST FOR DALLAS CURRENTLY.
BUT THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE US TO PUT IN LIMITATIONS AND TO PUT IN BEST PRACTICES, IF NOT THE STATES GOING TO.
I WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO REALLY LOOK AT THE PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THE NECESSARY CHANGES.
AARON, WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE IS THAT WE'RE NOT CHANGING IT UP MIDSTREAM.
WHAT I WOULD ASK FROM YOU IS TO PROVIDE US A LIST OF PROJECTS THAT YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED AND ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY LAST MINUTE CHANGES IN THAT WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT NEW RULES MOVING FORWARD ON PROJECTS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE NOT STARTED WORK ON.
>> YEAH. I'LL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW.
I'VE TOLD DEVELOPERS, WE'RE GOING TO PAUSE ON THIS TYPE OF ACQUISITION JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT YOU GUYS WANT IS CLEAR AND WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO IS CLEAR.
I CAN'T GO AROUND PROMISING ANYTHING IF I DON'T KNOW WHAT I CAN PROMISE.
WE'RE PRETTY MUCH HOLDING OFF UNTIL WE GET SOME MORE CLARITY FROM THIS COMMUNITY.
>> CAN I ASK THAT THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATIONS BE BROUGHT BACK NEXT MONTH?
>> CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS ASKING ME TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD THAT THIS ITEM WILL ONLY BE FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE HFC PROJECT AND NOT FOR THE REPAYMENT BACK? THAT'S A SEPARATE ITEM.
[01:50:03]
>> SO YOU NEED A MOTION ON THIS ITEM?
>> TO MOVE IT FORWARD TO COUNSEL.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION SO THAT IS GOING ON TO COUNCIL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS SAYING NONE. WE'LL GO TO ITEM D.
>> THIS ITEM IS A PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATION ACTIVITY, 5550 LBJ, MIXED INCOME MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S LIKE I SAID, FOR A PFC PROJECT.
ON AN EXISTING DEVELOPED ALREADY IMPROVED PROPERTY.
>> ANY QUESTIONS? IONS? COUNSEL M. WILLIS.
>> WE HAD HOPED THAT THIS WOULDN'T NEED PFC HELP, BUT IT DIDN'T COME TOGETHER.
THESE ARE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDINGS ACROSS FROM WHERE THE INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT WILL BE AT 635 AND THE TOLLWAY.
AGAIN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE SEEING, TRENDING AND CONVERTING OFFICE SPACE INTO HOUSING UNITS.
I WAS HOPING THE ORIGINAL DEAL WOULD GO THROUGH, BUT THEN SOME MARKET FACTORS JUST PREVENTED THAT.
I'M ANXIOUS TO SEE THIS MOVE TO HELP REVIT EXTEND THE REVITALIZATION ACROSS THAT SIDE OF 635.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? VICE CHAIR MIDDLETON.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS NOT IN THE INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT.
>> OKAY. THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME CONFUSING LANGUAGE ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THE MEMO.
THE FIRST LINE OF THE SECOND PAGE SAYS 40% OF THE UNITS FOR RESIDENTS EARNING AT OR BELOW 80%.
AT LEAST 10% OF THE UNITS FOR RESIDENTS AT OR BELOW 60%. GOT IT.
THE PROJECT WILL RESERVE 5% OF THE UNITS AT 50%, AND 5% OF THE UNITS AT BELOW 60%.
THAT'S REDUNDANT WITH THE 10% ABOVE, COULD YOU JUST RUN THROUGH WHAT THE PERCENTAGES ARE AND THEN IT GOES BACK TO 40% AT 80.
DO YOU SEE IF THE NUMBERS DON'T ADD UP?
I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE BREAKDOWN OF THE UNIT MIX.
>> THE UNIT MIX IS CORRECT IN THE BOX BECAUSE I WENT THROUGH AND CALCULATED IT MYSELF TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS ACCURATE.
THIS HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM THE LAST MEMO I HAD, BUT THIS WAS ADDED.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT WAS ADDED, BUT THE BOX ITSELF, THE PERCENTAGES WITHIN THE BOX IS ACCURATE.
>> WOULD YOU KNOW THE TOTAL PERCENT THAT ARE AT 50.
IN THIS CASE, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT YOU DID LIST THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE REMOVED FROM OUR REVENUE STREAM.
THIS YEAR, THEY WERE PAYING $78,000 IN PROPERTY TAXES TO THE CITY AND OF COURSE, WE WOULD BE EXEMPTING THE FOR ALL JURISDICTIONS, INCLUDING DALLAS ISD.
>> I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO, COUNCIL WOMAN IS BE CONSISTENT IN OUR TWO CORPORATIONS IN THE WAY THAT WE REPORT TAX EXEMPTION.
IN PFC, WE INCLUDE EVERYTHING, TAXES TO ALL TAXING ENTITIES.
THAT NUMBER USUALLY IS PRETTY MUCH LARGER THAN IT SHOWS ON AN HFC.
IN THE HFC ACTIVITIES, IT TENDS TO BE JUST THE CITY PORTION, WE WILL MAKE SURE MOVING FORWARD TO CALCULATE THAT DIFFERENTLY AND SHOW THE TOTAL TAX EXEMPTION AMOUNT.
>> IT'S POSSIBLE TO BREAK IT DOWN BY THE JURISDICTION.
I WONDER IF SOME OF THEM EVEN KNOW THAT WE'RE EXEMPTING THE TAXES.
>> IT'S A LITTLE BIT HYPOCRITICAL THAT WE'RE DOWN IN AUSTIN SAYING, HEY, DON'T ALLOW OTHER JURISDICTIONS TO EXEMPT CITIES, WHICH I BELIEVE CHAIR YOU JUST TESTIFIED ON.
WE DON'T WANT SOMEBODY OUTSIDE OF OUR JURISDICTION TO EXEMPT OUR TAXES,
[01:55:01]
BUT YET WE DO THAT FOR OTHER ENTITIES.>> THEY'RE NOT EVEN NOTIFIED AS FAR AS I'M AWARE.
AT LEAST IF WE COULD POST IT, THEY COULD BECOME AWARE IF THEY WISH TO.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE 78,000 THAT HAVE IN THIS MEMO IS THE COMBINATION OF ALL JURISDICTIONS TAXES? IT'S AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 2, BECAUSE IT SAYS THE CURRENT CITY TAX BILL FOR THIS PROPERTY IS 78,000.
>> THAT IS THE CURRENT PROPERTY TAX TAX EXCUSE ME. DCAD.
>> SO IT'S NOT INCLUSIVE OF ALL TAXES THEN?
>> THE DOLLAR AMOUNT YOU HAVE IN OTHER PLACES, THAT IS ALSO ONLY CITY, CORRECT?
>> FOR 75 YEARS THAT IS JUST THE CITY, BUT THAT IS PROJECTION.
>> THAT'S JUST A CITY ALSO, BUT THAT'S A PROJECTION.
>>WELL, AGAIN, WEDNESDAY, I'LL BE ASKING ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS FOR ALL OUR JURISDICTIONS COMBINED.
BECAUSE WE DO RELY ON THE COUNTY TO HELP FUND THINGS, AND IF WE'RE TAKING AWAY THEIR TAX REVENUE, THAT'S GOING TO BE MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEM.
SAME THING FOR PARKLAND, BEING ABLE TO SERVE OUR FOLKS.
>> WE'LL MAKE SURE WE'RE CONSISTENT ON THE WAY THAT WE POST THESE EXEMPTIONS IN BOTH CORPORATIONS.
THE NUMBERS THAT I CAME UP WITH, IT IS 5% AT 50%, 5%, AT 60%, 40%, AT 80%, AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE 50% MARKET RATE.
>> 50% MARKET, 40% IS THAT 80% AMI AND THEN 5% AT 50 AND 60.
GOT IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THAT'S ALL.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO ITEM E, FORECAST.
CYNTHIA, WE CAN JUST NOTE THE UPDATES TO THE HFC RULES.
THEN I'M TRYING TO LOOK THROUGH THESE REAL QUICK.
>> I'M SORRY, COUNSELMAN, WHAT DID YOU SAY YOU WANT TO KNOW.
DO YOU WANT ME TO BRING BACK THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'M SORRY. I THINK WHEN THE ATTORNEY WAS TALKING WITH YOU, I HAD ASKED THE CHAIR IF NEXT MONTH, WE COULD GO BACK TO THE BRIEFING WHERE YOU AND THE DEPARTMENT MADE RECOMMENDATIONS TO US ABOUT CHANGES TO HFCS, WHICH AGAIN, ARE AN IMPORTANT TOOL FOR US THAT WE NOT DIMINISH, BUT SHOULD USE WISELY.
>> THEN, CYNTHIA, I SEE NEXT MONTH, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE NOFA HIGHLINE AT ILLINOIS.
IF YOU CAN GIVE US EITHER AT THAT MEETING OR BEFORE THAT CRITERIA AND THE GOALS OF THE NOFA.
ENSURING THAT WHAT YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING FOR WHAT THE POLICY HAS BEEN, THAT THAT'S THE TYPE OF HOUSING THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY FUNDING THROUGH NOFA.
>> YES. YOU WANT THAT IN A SEPARATE MEMO, OR YOU WANT IT AS PART OF THE PROJECT THAT WE'RE PRESENTING?
LET'S MOVING FORWARD, DO SOME BACKGROUND IN.
BUT A MEMO WOULD BE GREAT OVERALL.
THEN FROM OFFICE OF HOME OWNERS SOLUTIONS, I'M TRYING TO COME THROUGH HERE REAL QUICKLY.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE WILL BE HAVING THE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING UPDATE IN APRIL.
>> YES. THAT IS CORRECT, CHAIR.
>> DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE AN ITEM THAT EITHER IS NOT ON OR HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON?
>> CHAIR, THE ONLY THING I WOULD ASK IS IF WE CAN HAVE A LITTLE MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT OUR HOMELESS SITUATION.
OF COURSE, WE'LL HAVE A POINT IN TIME RESULTS COMING.
I THINK THAT COUNCILMAN WILLIS WAS CORRECT, THAT IT'S LIKELY TO SHOW THAT WE'VE HAD A REDUCTION.
BUT WE ALSO HAD A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF VOLUNTEERS THAT DID
[02:00:02]
THAT EFFORT BECAUSE OF OUR WEATHER SITUATION AND MOVING IT BACK A WEEK.AGAIN, THE VALIDITY OF THAT COULD BE QUESTIONABLE WHEN WE ALL ARE EXPERIENCING SIGNIFICANT INCREASE.
I'M EXPERIENCING SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN DISTRICT 12.
I HEAR FROM OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS, THEY HAVE SIMILAR SITUATIONS.
THERE'S JUST A MISMATCH THERE, AND I THINK WE NEED A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF ACCURATE DATA, WHETHER WE'RE LOOKING AT THE 31 CALLS AND 91 CALLS, WHETHER WE'RE LOOKING AT ANY OTHER DATA THAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE.
>> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF ACCURATE INFORMATION.
I'LL SAY THIS ONE LAST THING WITHOUT TRYING TO GET OFF THE AGENDA IS WHEN WE GO TO 311, THERE IS NO DROP DOWN FOR STREET FEEDINGS, AND SO WE'RE ASKING OUR COMMUNITY TO GIVE US THEIR CONCERNS, BUT YET THERE'S NOWHERE TO REPORT STREET FEEDING, AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH 311 TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL DROP DOWN FOR THAT.
THE TIME IS 11:12, AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.