Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Revenue Bonds Hud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Caller disputes city's statement on revenue bonds and cites HUD reprimand for housing department
Summary
A caller asserted revenue bonds require public notice and a referendum and alleged the housing department had been reprimanded by HUD; the claims were offered without statutory citation and drew no immediate correction on the record.
Malik Shelton, speaking during public comment, disputed a city official's earlier assertion and said revenue bonds "do require public notice of intent to issue as well as a referendum." Shelton said a city official (identified in his remarks as "mister Neglect") had stated otherwise and that Shelton stood by his own statement "and I stand by what I say."
Shelton also alleged that the Housing and Revitalization Department had received a reprimand from HUD for oversight failures and potential for fraud, and said the documents and laws exist to back up his claims. Shelton referenced a date around "02/2021" in connection with the HUD action but did not provide a statute or a copy of the HUD notice during his spoken remarks.
Why it matters: Questions about required procedures for revenue bonds and allegations of federal oversight actions are procedural and legal issues that could affect how the city issues debt and manages housing programs. Shelton presented his assertions as factual but did not read statutes or present documentary evidence in the public comment record.
What is not in the record: The public comment segment did not include a statutory citation, a copy of any HUD reprimand, or a staff response that confirmed or corrected the factual claims about bond notification or referendum requirements.
Next steps: No formal staff response or motion was made in the recorded session; the assertions remain claims on the public record.
