Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs - Building Homes and Strengthening Communities
Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Raquel Morales

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3
 #1 
Attached are proposed changes to the Amendments section of the Asset Management rules.

 
Attached Files
pdf Subchapter_E-_Working_2017_Draft_Amendments_FORUM.pdf (85.29 KB, 41 views)

LStephens

Registered:
Posts: 9
 #2 
Raquel, thank you for posting this and holding the workshop today.  I shared these comments at the meeting but wanted to post them so they are in writing

1.  The change for some items to a notification process rather than an amendment is greatly appreciated and hopefully will be more efficient for both staff and developers!

2.  Development costs are very fluid and if there is not a Department Direct Loan involved and no anticipated effect on the credits, then it probably does not make sense to have a requirement to notify for changes in costs or financing other than at the required times - carryover, 10% test and cost certification (unless otherwise required by an amendment.)

3.   Regarding material amendments and the proposed language in section 5, I understand the need to notify residents (if any) of changes in amenities and/or tenant programs.  However, this can be done outside of a formal public hearing.

Notification of changes to the syndicator and lender are not an issue as those are typically required by the affected parties already.   

Regarding the other noted notifications and requirement for a public hearing, I understand that this is being modeled after the statutory requirement for LURA amendments.  However, statute specifically considers material amendments and does not require the same public hearing and notification process as is required for LURA amendments.  Further, TDHCA added last year a requirement that an applicant provide disclosure to neighborhoods, elected officials, etc that certain elements of the application are subject to being changed, modified, etc as permitted by the TDHCA rules.   Therefore, those parties are already being informed that the information they receive when they provide their support is preliminary in nature and could be modified.   

At most, any follow up notification at the time of amendment should be limited to the same items that were required to be disclosed at pre-application/application and only to the same parties that received the original notification.  However, even that is going beyond what is required by statute.

A public hearing is not required by TDHCA or statute at any point in the process of preparing and submitting the application (this was removed several years ago) so to require one upon an application amendment when one is not required at the time of application does not seem to make sense.

Thank you for the time today and the opportunity to discuss and comment on these rules.
SallieB

Registered:
Posts: 14
 #3 
While a material amendment is significant to TDHCA, such modifications have a modest impact on the community at large. The need for a Public Hearing is inconsistent with the changes that trigger an amendment. A significant change from the community's perspective would not be permitted by TDHCA. Thank you.
JamieR

Registered:
Posts: 3
 #4 
"(2) Notification Items. The following amendments in this paragraph must be identified and provided to the Department however, subject to staff agreement based on a review of the amendment request and any additional information or documentation, shall satisfy this notification requirement by receipt of an acknowledgment of the specific change(s) not requirefrom the Department approval, unless staff determines through review of the amendment request and any additional information that approval will be required and notifies the Development Owner that approval will be required:"

Should probably read "The following items..." instead.  Seems like we are mixing the term amendment and notification and the function of the two. 

Several items require judgement on the part of the applicant.  To avoid the debate, simply require notification to the department of any changes from application and let asset management determine if it rises to the level of requiring a full blow amendment.  Confirmation by e-mail from the Department confirming acceptance and no further action required of the applicant to a notification would be sufficient.      
============================================================
"(5) the Development Owner must hold a public hearing at least seven (7) business days prior to the
Board meeting where the Board will consider their request. The Notice of the hearing and requested change
  must be provided to each tenant of the Development, and, if prior to issuance of IRS fForms 8609
by the   Department, the current lender and/or investors, the State Senator and Representative for
the district   containing the Development, and the chief elected official for the municipality, if
located in a   municipality, or the county commissioners, if located outside of a municipality; and 
  
(6) ten (10) business days before the public hearing the Development Owner must submit a draft
provide   evidence that a notice of the hearing was sent to the appropriate parties identified in
paragraph (5). for    approval by the Department. The Department will create and provide upon
request a sample notice and    approve or amend the notice within three (3) business days of
receipt. "

So am I reading this correctly in that in order to submit a material amendment to an application we will now have to notify certain parties 10 days (or more?) before the date the board will hear the amendment and hold a public meeting 7 days before?  Exactly 7 and 10?  7 or more or 10 or more?  This will make the amendment process more cumbersome.  I think this should be removed and the issue driving this reconsidered for another possible solution.       
=====================================================

(2) Material Amendments. Amendment requests which require Board approval must have submit the request and all required documentation necessary for staff’s review of the request received by the Department at least forty-five (45) calendar days prior to the Board meeting in which the amendment is anticipated to be considered. Before the fifteenth (15th) day preceding the date of Board action on the amendment, notice of an amendment and the recommendation of the Executive Director and Department staff regarding the amendment will be posted to the Department's website and the Applicant will be notified of the posting. (§2306.6717(a)(4)). The Board must consider and approve the following material amendments:

Would change "Material Amendments" to "Material Amendments to the LURA" as this section applies to LURAs.

3) Other Material Amendment Requirements. Prior to staff taking a recommendation to the Board for consideration, the following must take place:

Would change this too to "...Material Amendment to the LURA Requirements."

Sanderson

Registered:
Posts: 45
 #5 
As written, this seems to indicated that essentially any increase in cost has to be submitted to TDHCA.

Either as a notification:

(C) increases in development cost or changes in financing that do not affect the Department’s direct loan financing structure or, risk or result in reductions of credit;

Or as a material amendment:

(H) Significant increases in development costs or changes in financing that affect the Department's direct Direct loan Loan financing structure or result in reductions of credit and where either of such changes are not agreed to by the Applicant or Development Owner; 

This seems to be a rather onerous requirement considering that the year and a half to three years between application and development will almost always result in some increase. Increases happen at multiple points in the process -- with changes orders they can happen at almost every draw .

Would we really be expected to send TDHCA a notification every time an increase happens?  This will bury staff under a mountain of paperwork for no discernable reason. 

I don't see how this benefits TDHCA or the Developer, or how it improves the process. 

The point of these rule changes is to streamline and reduce work and many of the suggestions seem to accomplish that goal. In this case though, it makes little sense. 

Section C should be deleted. 



Sanderson

Registered:
Posts: 45
 #6 
I would like to reiterate Lisa Stephens comments regarding the addition of public hearings for material changes to a development. When public hearings are required with regard to changes seems to have already been contemplated statutorily and material amendment were exempted.

If the Department does not agree with this assessment, it should be noted that all parties are already notified that the development information they received is preliminary in nature and could be modified. This would seem to negate the need for any additional notification as changes occur. 


JenBrewerton

Registered:
Posts: 1
 #7 
I would like to concur with and support all of the comment made by Lisa Stephens and Sarah Anderson. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: