Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Finance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee approves resolutions supporting 12 competitive 9% tax credit projects

Planning & Community Development Committee (San Antonio) · January 27, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Neighborhood & Housing Services recommended city resolutions of support for 12 competitive 9% low‑income housing tax credit applications (12 of 16 applicants still active), including new construction and rehabilitation projects across multiple districts; committee approved the staff recommendation.

Erica Ragsdale of the Neighborhood & Housing Services Department briefed the Planning & Community Development Committee on the city's recommendations for competitive 9% low‑income housing tax credit applications for 2026.

Ragsdale said the city received 16 applications (12 new construction, 4 rehabilitation), of which four withdrew; NHSD recommended issuing resolutions of support for 12 remaining projects that met the city's scoring threshold. The projects include new construction proposals such as Nuestra Tierra, Razor Lofts and Vista at Culebra, and rehabilitation projects including 111 West Travis and several National Church Residences properties.

Ragsdale explained that resolutions of support can include waiver language for state scoring rules (for example, one‑mile/three‑year proximity waivers or census‑tract saturation waivers) and emphasized that a city resolution does not guarantee a state award. She also highlighted that some projects propose deeper affordability (units at or below 30 percent AMI) and that three projects include high‑quality pre‑K facilities as part of their proposals.

Councilmembers applauded projects with deep affordability and the Housing Trust's role in several applications, asked why some projects withdrew (Ragsdale said they dropped out after assessing state competitiveness), and then moved and approved the staff recommendation to issue resolutions of support for the recommended projects. The committee carried the motion with voice vote; the transcript records the motion and the chair stating "motion carries" without a recorded roll‑call tally in the committee record.