Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Austin Housing Finance Corporation approves five housing agreements on consent
Summary
The Austin Housing Finance Corporation board approved five consent items — loan agreements and contract amendments totaling several million dollars for new construction, rehabilitation and vouchers — after brief presentations and one public comment urging greater transparency and transit access.
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Austin Housing Finance Corporation board on Sept. 25 approved five consent items that authorize loan agreements, contract amendments and tax-credit financing for several affordable-housing projects and a local voucher program.
Mandy DeMayo, representing the Austin Housing Finance Corporation, presented the five consent items and said she offered them “on consent.” The board approved the consent agenda without objection after a brief public comment period and no requests to pull items for separate consideration.
The items approve or authorize negotiations for financing and agreements for projects described as follows: a loan negotiation with Foundation Communities for up to $11,700,000 to develop Crossroads Apartments in District 7 (described as 110 rental units); an amendment to a contract with the Housing Authority of the City of Austin for the local housing voucher program for $7,800,000; an agreement with the Housing Authority of the City of Austin for the redevelopment of Santa Rita Courts in District 3 (approximately 96 units, about $4,500,000); a loan agreement for redevelopment of St. George’s Court senior housing in District 4 (60 units, up to $1,700,000); and authorization to execute a loan agreement tied to a 9% tax credit project in District 9 called Waverly North (rehab and new construction totaling 76 units, approximately $5,500,000).
Public commenter Zenobia Joseph raised concerns about transparency for project materials and public comment deadlines, transit access to Coronado Hills and policy compliance for HUD VASH vouchers. Joseph said the online portal lacks clear deadlines and asked staff to provide clearer links to application materials: “I have no idea which quarter I’m supposed to click to figure out where the application is.” Joseph also urged staff to update voucher policy language in line with the HUD VASH federal register update of Aug. 13, 2024, and said the distribution of vouchers at Espero Rutland amounted to “101 vouchers out of 171 units” when residents were told a lower number would be used for that site.
Council Member Vela, speaking as a board member, voiced support for the St. George’s Court redevelopment, saying it would preserve deeply affordable units for older Austin residents. Council Member Siegel (identified as a board member in the meeting) thanked the housing department for its work and noted the department’s role in producing housing across its programs.
A motion to approve the consent agenda was made by Board Member Velasquez, seconded by Board Member Duchin, and adopted without objection. The board adjourned at 11:27 a.m.
Votes at a glance: Crossroads Apartments (Foundation Communities) — authorize negotiation of loan agreement, amount not to exceed $11,700,000; outcome: approved as part of consent agenda. Local housing voucher program (Housing Authority of the City of Austin) — amendment to contract, $7,800,000; outcome: approved as part of consent agenda. Santa Rita Courts redevelopment (Housing Authority of the City of Austin) — redevelopment funding, approximately $4,500,000 for about 96 units; outcome: approved as part of consent agenda. St. George’s Court senior housing — loan agreement up to $1,700,000 for 60 units; outcome: approved as part of consent agenda. Waverly North (9% tax credit) — loan agreement for rehab and new construction, 76 units, approximately $5,500,000; outcome: approved as part of consent agenda.
The board did not take separate roll-call votes on individual items and no board members requested abstention or recusal during the meeting. Public comments and questions about transit access, voucher policy compliance and transparency were recorded; no formal staff responses or timetable for follow-up were provided in the meeting record.
