[0:57] Okay, I guess we'll go ahead and get

[0:59] this thing started considering we have a

[1:01] 3:00 uh meeting right after this. All

[1:04] right, it is now 2 p.m. on September

[1:06] 1st, 2026. It is now the time for the

[1:10] affordable housing ad hoc committee

[1:12] meeting and this meeting will come to

[1:14] order. Uh madame clerk, if you'll call

[1:17] the role.

[1:24] » Weaver

[1:25] » Here.

[1:26] » Cooper

[1:27] » Here. Ailen

[1:29] » Here.

[1:30] » Maki,

[1:32] we have a quorum.

[1:34] » Very good. Okay. Next on the agenda, we

[1:36] have um approval of minutes. Are there

[1:38] any changes that anyone wants to see to

[1:41] the minutes?

[1:43] Okay. If no changes, uh I'll entertain a

[1:45] motion to approve the minutes.

[1:47] » Move to approve the minutes.

[1:48] » Second.

[1:49] » Okay. It's been made a motion and

[1:51] seconded. Uh madame clerk, would you

[1:52] call that?

[1:54] » Teratio?

[1:55] » Yes.

[1:55] » Weaver?

[1:56] » Yes.

[1:57] » Yes. Ailen,

[1:58] » Yes.

[1:58] » Maki, motion approved.

[2:01] » Okay. Next on the agenda, we have

[2:03] adoption of the agenda. U Mr. Brown or

[2:05] any staff member, any changes that

[2:07] you're aware of?

[2:08] » No changes, Mr. Chair.

[2:10] » Okay. Very good. I will accept a motion

[2:12] to approve the agenda.

[2:14] » So move.

[2:15] » Second.

[2:17] » Okay. It's been moved and seconded.

[2:19] Madame clerk, will you call that please

[2:21] when you can?

[2:23] » Terio.

[2:24] » Yes.

[2:24] » Weaver.

[2:25] » Yes.

[2:26] » Cooper.

[2:26] » Yes. Ailen.

[2:27] » Yes.

[2:28] » Maki.

[2:29] » Motion approved.

[2:30] » Okay. And next is the best part. Our

[2:34] items for action.

[2:36] Uh Mr. Brown, anything you want to start

[2:38] us off with?

[2:40] » Uh yes, sir. Uh we'll just go in order

[2:42] if it's okay with uh the committee.

[2:44] » Absolutely.

[2:44] » Uh so for 4 A, we're going to recognize,

[2:46] if you would, uh Mr. here uh director of

[2:49] community planning development Cathia

[2:50] Williams uh to give us an uh update

[2:53] regarding uh the Richland County and

[2:54] Columbia Housing Rehab Partnership.

[2:57] » Okay, very good.

[3:05] » Good afternoon.

[3:07] This is just a verbal update. It wasn't

[3:09] um that much to update the briefing

[3:11] document from our last time we got

[3:13] together. Um, we did let you know at the

[3:15] last meeting in that briefing that

[3:17] Columbia Housing had submitted their

[3:19] request to release a declaration of

[3:21] trust back in July. They confirmed that

[3:24] was done. They've talked through the HUD

[3:26] reps. They had to do a couple of

[3:27] revisions to their application. They

[3:29] still anticipate receiving the release

[3:31] um in late October, but in the meantime

[3:34] um they've sent over an agreement

[3:37] specifically to the HUD funded homes

[3:41] because we have some timeliness with the

[3:42] home funds that were satisfied with that

[3:44] that the office of grants and community

[3:46] outreach are reviewing with the county

[3:48] attorney's office. That agreement will

[3:50] allow us to do some work on those HUDf

[3:52] funed homes before the release of the

[3:54] declaration of trust. So, they're

[3:56] working very diligent diligently to try

[3:58] to get that agreement finalized and

[4:00] cleaned up with the goal of doing some

[4:02] of the work starting on those homes

[4:04] September 24th. So, that is kind of the

[4:07] goal with that. The other homes, we

[4:09] anticipate more movement once that

[4:11] release of the declaration of trust

[4:13] comes through. Uh we've already prompted

[4:15] them to say now that we've got the

[4:16] agreement for some of the HUD funded

[4:18] homes, can we look at agreements related

[4:20] to the general funded homes so we can

[4:22] also get some movement on those homes as

[4:24] well?

[4:25] So, we do anticipate prioritizing that

[4:28] agreement with them. We've already asked

[4:29] for an update related to that. Um, and

[4:32] again, the next item on the agenda,

[4:34] we'll start talking to you about um

[4:36] application procedures for the general

[4:39] fund homes. But that's kind of the brief

[4:41] update of what's happening um with that

[4:44] partnership with Columbia Housing.

[4:47] » Any questions from any of the committee

[4:48] members for Director Williams?

[4:51] Um I I do have one question on selecting

[4:54] contractors. Has that already been done

[4:56] or are we in the process of that or?

[4:58] » So once the homes are released from the

[5:01] trust through HUD, they'll be

[5:03] transferred to Columbia Housing's

[5:05] Development Arm. Um it's called the

[5:08] Columbia Houses Development Authority,

[5:09] their Chad. Uh they are working to

[5:12] already identify contractors um related

[5:14] to the HUDF funded homes, the homes

[5:16] we're using block grants funds for. So,

[5:19] they'll they're working on that process

[5:20] because they'll be serving as uh the the

[5:23] Chad we're working with to do those

[5:25] rehabilitations. The contractors for the

[5:27] other homes have not gone through that

[5:29] process to be selected just yet.

[5:31] » Okay. And my last question is um when do

[5:34] we get keys? Do we when do we get

[5:36] access?

[5:37] » Uh once it's completed, the work is

[5:39] completed.

[5:41] But no, if the the goal again to start

[5:43] work on them in September, each home has

[5:46] a different amount of time associated

[5:47] with the I I don't have right now to say

[5:50] each house is going to take 3, six, 90

[5:52] days, I get that like that. Um, so sorry

[5:55] for making the joke back to you in the

[5:56] setting, but yeah, we're trying to

[5:58] hopefully get the work started and once

[6:00] we can get that on, then we'll have a

[6:02] better timeline of how long it will take

[6:04] to complete the repairs.

[6:05] » Okay.

[6:05] » So, apparently they don't want us going

[6:07] over there during the process is is kind

[6:08] of what I'm hearing,

[6:09] » Right? We once we have the the plans

[6:11] finalized as far as plans as this home

[6:14] needs this amount of work done and that

[6:16] contractor's on board, then we know

[6:18] better. It's going to take us 30 days to

[6:20] do this repair versus it may take 60

[6:23] days to complete a repair.

[6:24] » Okay. Okay. Very good.

[6:26] » All right. Yeah, Counciloman Tracio.

[6:27] » Uh, just listening in on this exchange.

[6:30] You know, it kind of makes me think um I

[6:33] I'm hoping like I'm guessing that we are

[6:35] documenting the process because I think

[6:37] it'd be great to show folks, you know,

[6:39] what we've been able to do, maybe what

[6:41] some of these homes needed and how they

[6:44] ended up so that we we can show folks

[6:46] that we've got something we we can

[6:48] really be proud of that we're doing.

[6:52] » Okay. Any further comments? If not,

[6:55] Director Williams, thank you. Thank you

[6:56] for [snorts] the update. All right, Mr.

[6:58] Brown, you want to move on?

[6:59] » Yes, sir, Mr. Chair. So, the next item

[7:00] will also be addressed by uh Director

[7:03] Williams. Uh it is 4B, the general fund

[7:06] application procedures for a home

[7:07] rehabilitation project. Uh there is some

[7:10] uh updates in your packet, but Director

[7:12] Williams will walk you through that that

[7:14] item. Thank

[7:16] » Okay. Um, so again, in anticipation of

[7:19] being able to have work done on the

[7:22] general funded homes, uh, we wanted to

[7:25] come back to council with some

[7:26] recommendations for how we would select

[7:28] the potential owners or applicants for

[7:31] those homes. That's those guid the

[7:33] guidelines in front of you. Um, in

[7:36] previous discussions, uh, we talked

[7:38] about making the general funded homes

[7:40] available to, uh, folks that fall within

[7:44] that 80 to 120 AMI, average medium

[7:48] income, because the other funded homes

[7:50] through the block grant funds will be

[7:52] the low moderate income up to the 80%

[7:54] AMI. So, we just need a little bit more

[7:57] guidance from council. So in the

[7:59] guidelines um there are a lot of bullet

[8:01] points that I listed of things that we

[8:04] just want you to take into consideration

[8:05] but to me there's three that are you

[8:08] know key for this discussion

[8:10] one being the first bullet point

[8:12] eligible participants must be a

[8:14] government government official employee

[8:16] or teacher with preference to employees

[8:19] of Richland County. We just want to get

[8:21] a little bit more guidance from the

[8:22] committee. Um there was a lot of things

[8:24] thrown out of who we wanted these homes

[8:26] to potentially go to um that may fall

[8:29] within that um above 80 to 120 AMI. So

[8:33] we just want to make sure we're clear on

[8:35] these are the areas you want to

[8:37] prioritize or do you want to just narrow

[8:40] it where it's specifically just to

[8:42] government employees take out teachers

[8:43] or specifically to Richland County

[8:45] government employees. Um so that's why

[8:48] right now the recommend we have in the

[8:50] guidelines all of that because all of

[8:52] those were mentioned but would like to

[8:54] you know kind of get some feedback

[8:55] related to that. Um the other two bullet

[8:58] points that I think are key to this

[9:00] discussion uh is the applicant

[9:03] maintaining the location as their

[9:05] primary residence for at least 5 years

[9:07] from the date of closing just to make

[9:09] sure you're good with that time frame of

[9:11] five years. Are you thinking longer? In

[9:13] the guidelines, we have some

[9:14] recommendations of how we may recoup

[9:16] some of the money we may spend into the

[9:18] rehab based off the length of time they

[9:20] spend in there if they move before the

[9:22] five years. And then finally, the

[9:25] conflict of interest um recommendations.

[9:29] What's in the guidelines currently were

[9:31] based off of the previous conflict of

[9:33] interest requirements related to some of

[9:35] the minor home repair and down payment

[9:37] assistance programs that were happening

[9:39] in our block grants department. that is

[9:41] very stringent. Um, and as you can see

[9:43] by the county attorney's note, that

[9:45] eliminates about a 100 plus in community

[9:48] planning development. There's a it's a

[9:49] 100 people in my department. So that's

[9:52] at least 100 people who would not

[9:53] qualify. Um, we put that in there so you

[9:56] could see what the original um

[9:58] recommendation was, but since then we've

[10:00] kind of looked at what Grants Community

[10:02] Outreach does. uh they kind of narrowed

[10:05] that conflict of interest to people who

[10:07] have a direct directly touching the

[10:09] program are the ones who would have the

[10:12] conflict of interest versus you're in

[10:14] the county attorney's office, you never

[10:18] touch the contracts associated with

[10:19] this, you can still qualify for it. So,

[10:22] we just want to make sure point that out

[10:25] because that was a note to see if you

[10:26] have any concerns with that or if you

[10:28] want all the people within the

[10:30] departments that may touch it to be um

[10:31] considered a potential conflict of

[10:33] interest. But I guess those are the

[10:35] three ones that I think are the big

[10:36] ones. But I just like to bring it back

[10:37] to the first one that I brought up

[10:40] eligible eligibility. Um any thoughts

[10:43] related to just county employees,

[10:46] government employees, but also expanding

[10:48] it to teachers and even within county

[10:49] employees? I know there's been

[10:51] discussion of, you know, potentially

[10:53] first responders. I just want to make

[10:54] sure I put it in here correctly because

[10:57] everybody will there will be a lot of

[10:59] interest in this program. And with the

[11:01] general fund, we're only doing four to

[11:03] five houses to start off with.

[11:05] » Any questions for Director Williams?

[11:10] » Cooper. No, no questions. Okay. I

[11:12] » I don't have a question, but I just want

[11:14] to make a comment that um I think I

[11:20] I agree with the recommendations that

[11:23] the staff is bringing forth specifically

[11:25] when we look at eligible um governmental

[11:30] um

[11:31] officers or official officers. I think

[11:34] that when we we look at the teachers

[11:36] employees if they're employed by

[11:38] Richland County um and then taking a

[11:42] step further when we look at our

[11:43] educators employed by a Richland County

[11:48] school district um even though Lexington

[11:52] Richland 5 is not funded through

[11:56] Richland County government they are part

[11:58] of Richland County and I think if uh

[12:00] Councilman Brandham was here he would

[12:02] argue that point again. Uh so I think

[12:05] when we look the educators are probably

[12:07] this the stickier um topic. Uh but

[12:13] everyone else if they are employed by

[12:16] Richland County in some sort, we have to

[12:18] also take into consideration our fire

[12:20] department because our fire department

[12:23] is funded um from the city as well as

[12:27] the county.

[12:29] And so I would like to include I think

[12:31] including them would also be helpful.

[12:33] And then to your other recommendation

[12:36] um

[12:38] eliminating

[12:40] folks because they are in particular

[12:44] departments but have nothing to do with

[12:47] the grant I think is unfair.

[12:50] Um, so I would like to take your

[12:52] recommendation to um those individuals

[12:56] who actually touch the project. Um, and

[13:00] I and I think I've shared my personal

[13:02] stories as being a local business owner

[13:05] right here in Richland County there

[13:07] during CO I could not participate in in

[13:11] some of the funding that was, you know,

[13:14] offered by the county because I was a

[13:15] county council member. Uh, but I owned a

[13:20] company that was closed for 11 months.

[13:23] Um, definitely could have used those

[13:24] funds, but I didn't necessarily touch

[13:28] those projects. So, county council is

[13:32] probably one of those things. We touch

[13:34] everything. So, of course, we, you know,

[13:36] we get eliminated, but people that like

[13:39] in your department and other

[13:41] departments, I think it's we do oursel a

[13:43] disservice if we don't. Um because I

[13:46] look forward to the day then it's more

[13:48] than just five houses. Thank you.

[13:51] » Okay. Anyone else? Councilwoman Alen.

[13:54] » Thank you. When you say eligible um

[13:56] particip participants must be government

[14:00] officials. Are we talking just Richland

[14:02] County? Because it goes on to say with

[14:04] preference given to employees of

[14:06] Richland County. So does the

[14:08] recommendation

[14:10] include for instance state um government

[14:13] employees?

[14:14] » That's a good question. Yes. So it is

[14:16] all government. So state, local,

[14:19] federal, um with preference given to

[14:22] Richland County employees. So it does

[14:25] that that was one of the reason we want

[14:26] to discuss it because it says government

[14:29] um not particularly in here, but you

[14:32] know the question may even come up

[14:33] nonprofits considered quasi. We didn't

[14:36] even put that in there, but um just want

[14:39] to bring that up if you want to keep it

[14:40] just lo state or local government or

[14:44] just Richland County government. Thank

[14:47] you. Okay.

[14:49] » Yeah. So, if I may, Mr. Chair,

[14:51] » Go ahead.

[14:52] » So, that's one of those things where

[14:54] there's information there, but we do

[14:55] need

[14:57] um that to be specific. So, one of the

[14:58] things I I would ask uh attorney right,

[15:01] please let me know if this is not

[15:02] necessary. But I think that in my mind

[15:05] would require a motion so that it's

[15:07] clear that this particular body and

[15:10] ultimately potentially the council that

[15:12] they are given direction that this plan

[15:15] um is for those purposes. So hope that's

[15:19] not too much, but I just I think that's

[15:21] going to help down the line when we have

[15:23] interested parties um and there's a

[15:25] dispute.

[15:27] We don't have if we don't have a motion.

[15:30] » Mr. Chair,

[15:30] » Mr. Chair. Oh, Councilman Cooper,

[15:33] » The attorney wants to speak.

[15:34] » Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Attorney, and I

[15:37] would agree that I think it u it does

[15:39] require or need a motion to to make the

[15:42] adjustments. U I did also want to point

[15:45] out that if you say just Rich County,

[15:48] that would exclude firefighters or fire

[15:51] department as well as 911 because

[15:53] they're city of Columbia employees, not

[15:55] Richland County employees.

[15:59] » Okay. I think I'd recognize Councilwoman

[16:01] Cooper and I think Councilwoman Little

[16:03] wants to weigh in, but Miss Cooper, go

[16:04] ahead.

[16:05] » I'll defer. Okay,

[16:06] » I'll I defer to Councilwoman um Little I

[16:09] because I was getting ready to make a

[16:10] motion.

[16:12] » Had to remember I wasn't on this

[16:13] committee because I wanted to make one

[16:14] too, but I just wanted [laughter]

[16:17] » I just want to make a comment. Um, when

[16:20] we're talking speaking about the

[16:21] firefighters and because they are City

[16:23] of Colombia employees, the city has a

[16:26] program that they use for their

[16:30] employees already. So, it's not like

[16:32] they would be excluded because the city

[16:35] has something very similar that they're

[16:36] doing. I think it's called home keys or

[16:39] I can't remember what it is, but they

[16:41] they have a program. They're still

[16:43] covered.

[16:44] » That's correct. The city does have a

[16:45] program for city employees. That's a

[16:48] good point, Councilwoman Cooper.

[16:50] » Yeah. So before I make the motion, um,

[16:52] and

[16:54] I I hear and I I remember the program

[16:57] for the city, but I'm I'm wondering, you

[17:01] know,

[17:02] keeping all things clean and with some

[17:06] continuity even if we do still include

[17:09] them in the motion, noting that they

[17:12] have an option, but if they've received

[17:15] funding from one spot, then they perhaps

[17:18] could not receive funding from another

[17:20] spot. Uh that would be

[17:24] that's a question before I make the

[17:27] motion because I you know I would say

[17:29] that you know if they were if they you

[17:32] know I would make my motion to say with

[17:34] the exception of um

[17:38] Columbia Richland Fire Department or

[17:40] firefighters they would you know they

[17:42] would be included to have them be

[17:44] included uh in ours and then note that

[17:47] if they were included

[17:50] they could not rece receive additional

[17:52] funding from somewhere else. But I'm I

[17:53] mean, now that I'm talking out loud,

[17:56] they they're buying a home.

[17:58] » So,

[17:59] » That's correct.

[18:00] » You know, if they get funding from one

[18:02] spot, I can't imagine they're trying to

[18:04] buy two and three homes because it's for

[18:07] Yeah, because it's for their res primary

[18:10] residents.

[18:11] » I think Councilwomania wanted to weigh

[18:13] in.

[18:14] » Thank you. And yeah, this uh this brings

[18:17] up something else for me, which is, you

[18:19] know, do we have um I don't know, let's

[18:23] just say that there is a Richland County

[18:25] uh employee, they're married to a

[18:28] firefighter and the firefighter has

[18:30] gotten some benefit through the city of

[18:31] Columbia. You know, how do we make sure

[18:34] that um you know, folks are um that

[18:38] we're not double dip? Yeah, that's the

[18:41] word I was looking. I was trying to find

[18:43] a better word, but that's that's is

[18:44] that's good enough for now. Okay. Um,

[18:46] and then the other thing that I wanted

[18:48] to uh mention was just the um the bullet

[18:52] point on here for the eligibility that

[18:56] just gives me a little bit of pause is

[18:58] the firsttime home buyer uh bullet. And

[19:01] I can understand probably most of my

[19:02] colleagues are like, well, of course,

[19:03] these are going to be first-time home

[19:05] buyers, but they might be somebody who,

[19:09] I don't know, had a like bought a home

[19:11] decades ago and then found themselves

[19:14] renting for a long time due to, you

[19:16] know, circumstances.

[19:18] Um, and yes, that so divorce, change of

[19:23] jobs, uh, death in the family, something

[19:26] like that. Is there a way to um maybe

[19:30] look at that as a part of the policy to

[19:32] say maybe

[19:35] if if there was a period of time that

[19:38] somebody would need to be a renter

[19:39] before you know between because you know

[19:42] again like maybe you were able to buy a

[19:44] house before 2008 and you haven't been

[19:47] able to do so since. So that's kind of

[19:49] what I'm thinking about.

[19:51] » Okay. Councilwoman I Oh, I'm sorry.

[19:53] Councilwoman Eileen and then Director

[19:54] Williams if you want to weigh in. Um, I

[19:56] I have one question. T usually when you

[19:58] see the firsttime home buyers program,

[20:00] seems like there's always a reference to

[20:03] three years that they couldn't have

[20:04] owned a home three years prior. Is that

[20:08] correct? And

[20:09] » So with that on on both of your points,

[20:12] if you look at um eligible participants,

[20:15] the actual um guidance document D1 and

[20:18] two, it gives the definition of

[20:20] firsttime home buyer. I think we can

[20:22] expand upon that definition um because

[20:25] it shows that um sorry I don't know the

[20:28] page number in the actual agenda but

[20:31] it's the um

[20:32] » First page thank you page 12. Uh so the

[20:35] way we are currently defining it is a

[20:37] individual and their spouse who have not

[20:38] owned a home during the three-year

[20:40] period prior to the purchase of a home

[20:42] with assistance under this program or an

[20:45] individual or family which has been

[20:47] displaced and is transitioning to become

[20:49] a homeowner. The term displace refers to

[20:51] any person who moves from real property

[20:53] as a direct result of acquisition, fire,

[20:55] rehabilitation, or demolition. So, what

[20:58] we can do is just make sure it's very

[20:59] clear and kind of work on that language

[21:02] to make sure it clearly states um some

[21:04] of the things I think you're saying is

[21:05] your intent.

[21:06] » Thank you. Yes.

[21:08] » Okay. Any final comments before a

[21:10] motion? Councilwoman Eileen,

[21:12] » I do have one question um in terms of

[21:16] the applicants and who's eligible. Um,

[21:19] this council voted some time ago um to

[21:22] set aside 15%

[21:24] um of the previous year's accommodation.

[21:26] They made these individuals eligible.

[21:28] And I just wonder um about the exclusion

[21:33] of firefighters and 911 employees and

[21:36] whether or not they're actually included

[21:37] in this particular motion. So, it's

[21:40] really a question I have. Um for that

[21:42] motion it was uh Richland County

[21:45] employees public safety EMS Richland one

[21:48] and two teachers and teachers employed

[21:50] at Lexington Richland District 5 uh to

[21:54] in schools that are located in Richland

[21:56] County. So, do do those individuals do

[21:59] fall within the public safety

[22:02] um umbrella.

[22:14] » You're right. I think they're waiting.

[22:15] They're expecting to guess,

[22:17] » Right? You want me Let me jump in there

[22:19] real quick. So, just you just read the

[22:21] motion and you're absolutely right. Um,

[22:23] and I think your real question is

[22:25] whether or not we can cross over because

[22:27] that motion was for a tax. Uh, and

[22:31] » It's more about are we being

[22:31] inconsistent

[22:33] is is I guess what I'm asking. On the

[22:36] one hand, we're saying they're eligible

[22:37] under this program, but we don't want

[22:39] them. And and certainly that's our our

[22:41] right. I'm not saying it's not, but I'm

[22:43] I'm thinking of more the inconsistency.

[22:45] » Okay. So,

[22:47] so if we were being consistent, then the

[22:50] answer to your question would be yes,

[22:51] council member, the those public safety

[22:54] personnel or public safety personnel

[22:57] regardless. Uh, and so if if for a ease

[23:01] of use, we did not want to draw a

[23:04] distinction between general fund dollars

[23:07] and a tax dollars, then I think that's

[23:10] where you go back to your preference.

[23:13] Um, I think I don't know if that you can

[23:17] necessarily make you you all can. Let me

[23:20] not limit you on your abilities.

[23:23] The a motion that would address what

[23:26] you're trying to accomplish without

[23:29] excluding but then allowing for funding

[23:33] to be available in some secondary nature

[23:36] to what other funding may be available

[23:38] from different sources certainly I think

[23:41] makes sense. Um, I can't think of how we

[23:44] could work that off just right now off

[23:46] of the top of of my head, but it sounds

[23:48] like that would be the nuance that would

[23:51] give the program the ability

[23:54] to operate consistently and not exclude

[23:57] any of those public safety personnel

[24:00] regardless of the funding that's being

[24:02] used to support uh this housing program.

[24:11] Councilwoman

[24:12] Cooper, I think we're next.

[24:14] » I'm gonna I'm going to take a stab at a

[24:16] motion. Um, and the motion

[24:21] that I'm going to make is I move

[24:25] uh to make eligible participants.

[24:34] criteria

[24:36] mirror the existing a tax

[24:41] program already in place.

[24:44] » Second.

[24:47] » Okay, we have a motion and a second. Mr.

[24:49] Brown, does that seem to fulfill what

[24:50] you're hoping for?

[24:53] » Yes, I believe that answer the question

[24:55] that council member Alen was was

[24:56] addressing. Yes, sir. [laughter]

[24:59] » Okay, we have a motion in a second. Um I

[25:01] think we're ready for a vote if there's

[25:03] no more discussion. No, Councilwoman

[25:04] Tracio,

[25:04] » Just one more. I mean, I I love this

[25:07] program. I don't know, you know, how how

[25:10] long it will last, how many homes, how

[25:12] many folks will be affected. Um, I'm

[25:16] thinking about maybe future iterations

[25:18] of the program. And, uh, if there is a

[25:21] want, need, desire to open it up further

[25:24] or, you know, contract or expand. I did

[25:28] my hands differently. contract or expand

[25:31] uh who's eligible that can be revisited

[25:35] if there's a later trunch of homes or

[25:37] something like that that comes out. Is

[25:39] that fair to say?

[25:41] » Yes, ma'am. That's fair to say. Um once

[25:43] we go through this first amount of

[25:46] funding related to these homes, I think

[25:47] it's fair to say we kind of revisit the

[25:49] program to see how it worked or did not

[25:51] work um before any additional funding is

[25:53] allocated.

[25:54] » Thank you.

[25:56] Okay, if there's no more comments or

[25:58] questions, I think Oh, I'm sorry,

[25:59] Attorney Wright, you want to weigh in?

[26:01] » Just for clarification, I just wanted to

[26:03] make sure that with that motion, uh, I

[26:06] know there was commentary about the

[26:09] limitations for people that are members

[26:11] of certain departments. Um, I just want

[26:15] to make sure know is that one of the

[26:17] things that's included in here or not?

[26:21] » Think, um, if I may.

[26:22] » Go ahead. Well, well, if you're speaking

[26:25] of the conflict of interest, I think

[26:27] that's a separate that that was under a

[26:31] separate bullet and it wasn't my intent

[26:33] to include it.

[26:34] » Um, but to um definitely make sure that

[26:38] we highlight law enforcement, the fire

[26:42] firefighters as well as um Richland

[26:45] County employees and then be very

[26:48] specific about our schools.

[26:50] And I think that um what we are already

[26:53] doing with a with a tax will cover that

[26:56] but I did not include that as a part of

[27:00] my motion. Okay.

[27:03] » Okay. I think everyone's got their

[27:05] questions solved. So we have a motion in

[27:07] a second. I'm going to ask the clerk

[27:08] because we still have to get to down

[27:10] payment. So madam clerk, can you call

[27:12] the vote on that motion?

[27:18] » Teratio.

[27:18] » Uh yes.

[27:19] » Weaver. Yes.

[27:20] » Cooper.

[27:21] » Yes.

[27:21] » Ailen.

[27:22] » Yes.

[27:22] » Mackey.

[27:23] » Yes.

[27:24] » Motion approved.

[27:25] » Okay. Very good. Go ahead, Mr. Brown.

[27:27] » Mr. Chair, I know you're trying to move

[27:28] on. Um, just want to make it clear that

[27:31] the point that the county attorney was

[27:33] making just hasn't been addressed at

[27:36] this point. So, if we leave it as is,

[27:40] understand that that means that there'll

[27:41] be groups of people automatically that

[27:43] do not qualify. Um, and if that is the

[27:45] intent of the committee, clearly

[27:47] understood. just didn't know if you plan

[27:50] on taking it up today or at a future

[27:52] meeting related to this matter.

[27:56] » Um trac

[27:58] » Yes. Uh Mr. Chair, so if I'm hearing uh

[28:00] county administrator correctly, uh that

[28:03] would be best clarified with another

[28:05] motion uh right now.

[28:08] » That's my understanding from uh the

[28:10] county attorney that that would be

[28:11] necessary.

[28:12] » Okay. So

[28:16] » Can I interrupt her once again? While

[28:17] she's putting her potential motion in

[28:19] order, I I have one oversight. We've

[28:22] been joined by Councilwoman Newton and

[28:24] Councilwoman Little, who actually I

[28:26] thought you were on the committee, which

[28:28] is why I didn't introduce you.

[28:30] [laughter]

[28:30] You had your profile upgraded. Uh but

[28:33] realizing you were not. So, uh but

[28:35] welcome to the housing committee.

[28:39] Um

[28:41] okay. So um uh regarding uh potential

[28:46] conflicts of interest with county uh

[28:49] staff, um I move to um only exclude the

[28:56] staff members who would directly uh uh

[29:00] have connection to this program

[29:03] or is that clear?

[29:07] No, that's not clear. I'm getting nos.

[29:10] Um I

[29:14] I'm open to help [laughter]

[29:16] with this item.

[29:17] » Mr. Chair,

[29:19] » I'm sorry.

[29:19] » Go ahead, Mr. Brown.

[29:20] » I was going to say if you would if you

[29:22] would like, Mr. Chair, I think it would

[29:23] be potentially appropriate for us to

[29:25] move to the next item.

[29:26] » Okay.

[29:27] » Uh and if there are time remaining, you

[29:29] could take that up

[29:30] » Later on.

[29:30] » Yeah. I think we're still in the process

[29:32] of defining the program. So, it gives

[29:34] the the county attorney's office time to

[29:36] come back to us as to what may or may

[29:37] not be a conflict of interest. Is that

[29:39] is that fine with the committee? Because

[29:40] we I would like to get into down payment

[29:42] a little bit. So,

[29:44] » Um I'm sorry, Councilwoman Eileen.

[29:45] » Well, let me What about the remain?

[29:49] » All right. us today, but we would still

[29:53] need to at least address the the

[29:55] remaining recommendations or are we

[29:56] going to move that to another meeting or

[29:58] can we bundle that into another motion?

[30:02] » Um what is left, Director Williams, what

[30:05] is left on that um score there?

[30:09] » Thank you u Mr. Chair. So, based off of

[30:13] the feedback that I got from the

[30:14] committee, um the my plan was to go back

[30:17] and revise this document based off of

[30:19] what you said and bring it back to you

[30:20] all. Um that way you can see the

[30:23] guidelines again, update it based off of

[30:25] that feedback before it's voted to move

[30:27] forward. Um you can check with the

[30:29] county attorney's office to see if that

[30:31] is suitable for us to do the revision

[30:33] and bring the document back to you.

[30:36] » Mr. Chair,

[30:38] Mr. Turner,

[30:41] you voted on one bullet point. So the

[30:43] only bullet point that was changed is

[30:44] that one. So everything else is as you

[30:46] read here. So if you want to change

[30:49] something else, you can do it now. Um if

[30:52] you want to if you already know that you

[30:53] want to change it, but you do have the

[30:55] opportunity to before it passes up to uh

[30:59] full count. So if it's if it's going to

[31:01] stay in committee that you can can do

[31:03] that as well.

[31:04] » Okay. So Eileen, I think you still hold

[31:07] the floor. Are you are you satisfied

[31:08] with that answer or anything else you

[31:10] want to point out?

[31:12] » Well, I guess for me, I'm I'm okay with

[31:14] the remaining recommendations. I think

[31:17] it's just the conflict of interest that

[31:20] we need to um get the wording for. Other

[31:23] than that, I'm fine with the other

[31:24] recommendations and and would be willing

[31:26] to vote on it today.

[31:30] » And I think Mr. Chair,

[31:31] » Go ahead. uh I think that with Miss

[31:33] Tatio's um motion

[31:37] basically what it seems that she was

[31:38] attempting to say is that it would be

[31:40] only employees who exercise functions

[31:42] and responsibilities regarding the

[31:44] program.

[31:45] » Correct.

[31:45] » So those will be the only ones who would

[31:47] be uh disqualified not these full

[31:50] departments.

[31:51] » Correct.

[31:54] » Council go ahead. I was just saying I

[31:56] can I just say uh if the clerk is good,

[32:00] can I just take what attorney Wright

[32:03] just said and say so moved or we need to

[32:07] repeat exactly what he said cuz that's

[32:10] exactly what we need to to hear. Try

[32:13] could could you repeat it again just and

[32:16] I'll I'll I'll scribe it the best I can.

[32:19] » Right. that the program only excludes

[32:22] employees who exercise functions and

[32:24] responsibilities regarding the program.

[32:29] » Okay.

[32:29] » Is that your motion, Councilman Cooper?

[32:31] » Yes, but according to the clerk, I have

[32:33] to state

[32:33] » Read it. Okay.

[32:34] » I need to say it. So, uh I move to um as

[32:39] it relates I move to

[32:45] take the recommendation of the

[32:48] committee. I'm as of the staff as

[32:51] relates to conflict of interest uh to

[32:55] only exclude the county staff who work

[32:59] directly

[33:02] who work rel directly related to this

[33:05] program. Made my own little remix.

[33:08] » Second.

[33:09] » Okay, we have a motion to second. And

[33:11] Council Mackey, did you want to weigh in

[33:13] before we vote?

[33:14] » Yes, please.

[33:15] Uh just for additional clarity related

[33:17] to this motion, would this also include

[33:20] um

[33:22] anyone that is a spouse of said person

[33:26] that may work in departments?

[33:32] That's a a question for the committee. I

[33:33] just want clarification on what we're

[33:34] voting on.

[33:36] » It's not Mr. Chair.

[33:38] » Go ahead. Go ahead, Councilman Cooper.

[33:39] It's I did not include it, but it is a

[33:42] great um additive to [snorts] the

[33:44] motion. So, I accept your friendly

[33:47] amendment.

[33:49] » Thank you. And I I I'm good with this. I

[33:52] don't have our general language as it

[33:54] relates to conflicts of interest that

[33:56] maybe the county utilizes as a whole,

[33:58] but if there right where

[34:03] » Okay, I believe we have a motion, a

[34:05] second.

[34:06] » Sorry, I paused. So, um because she said

[34:09] at conf

[34:12] I guess what I was looking for uh

[34:14] Councilman Cooper was do we have

[34:16] language that states spouses

[34:20] grandmothers c like do we have anything

[34:22] like that that already exists in the

[34:24] county if so then I would say follow

[34:25] that same language so they're not

[34:27] recreating unfairness but if we don't

[34:30] have any language that's that specific

[34:32] to conflict of interest then I'm

[34:41] Mr. Chair, your

[34:42] » Attorney believe we do have uh do we do

[34:45] have language u in general regarding the

[34:48] county? I don't know. I don't have

[34:49] exactly what specifically what it says,

[34:51] but there is language that u regarding

[34:54] conflicts of ventures for relatives.

[34:57] » Is it in this packet like Miss Cooper

[34:59] said? Am I

[34:59] » No, it's not in this packet. Just making

[35:01] sure. Okay. So, if I may,

[35:05] » Miss Mackey, you done? Council Kaki.

[35:07] » Yes. Thank you so much.

[35:08] » Sorry, Councilwoman Cooper.

[35:10] » So, um just when the staff were

[35:13] providing us an update, they stated that

[35:17] the conflict of interest um bullet

[35:19] that's listed in our packet in it is um

[35:24] includes

[35:25] this excerpt that they provided for us.

[35:29] So that's where I was going with that.

[35:32] But to your point, it it does not

[35:35] further unpack relatives and things um

[35:39] other and other relatives that may be um

[35:42] applying for these funds.

[35:46] » Okay. Again, we have a motion and a

[35:49] second. I believe all the discussion has

[35:50] been held. Madam clerk, will you call

[35:51] the role?

[35:54] » I think Mr. Tracio seconded it. Yep.

[35:58] » And then you have she accepted the

[36:00] amendment. Thank you.

[36:04] » Whenever you're ready.

[36:04] » Terio,

[36:06] » Yes.

[36:06] » Weaver,

[36:06] » Yes.

[36:07] » Cooper,

[36:08] » Yes.

[36:08] » Ailen,

[36:09] » Yes. Mackey,

[36:10] » Yes.

[36:11] » Motion approved.

[36:12] » Very good. All right, Mr. Brown, are we

[36:14] ready to move on to the down payment?

[36:16] » Yes, sir. Uh, if you were recognized,

[36:18] I'm sorry, M.

[36:19] » I'm sorry, Councilwoman Eileen. I'm

[36:20] sorry.

[36:20] » We have the remaining recommendations.

[36:24] If so, I I move to adopt the staff's

[36:26] remaining recommendations not previously

[36:27] voted on.

[36:28] » Second.

[36:30] » Okay, we have a motion and a second to

[36:33] accept the staff recommendations as we

[36:35] have printed here, which I think were

[36:37] very good. I like the recapture clause

[36:38] down to zero after 5 years. Very good.

[36:41] All right. Any further discussion before

[36:43] the vote? No. Okay, madam clerk.

[36:46] » Teratio,

[36:48] » Yes.

[36:48] » Weaver, yes.

[36:49] » Hooper,

[36:50] » Yes. Ailen,

[36:51] » Yes. Mackey. Motion approved.

[36:54] » Okay. Now, Mr. Brown, sorry.

[36:56] » Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, uh, as we get ready

[36:58] to move to the next item, I just want

[36:59] you to know that my understanding is

[37:00] we're going to bring back a clean copy

[37:02] of what was all just voted on uh, at the

[37:05] next meeting uh, before that item is

[37:07] ready to go before council, madam clerk.

[37:09] » Okay.

[37:09] » Uh, the next item is for C. If you would

[37:12] recognize assistant county administrator

[37:13] Eric Jensen, he will brief the committee

[37:15] on this item.

[37:16] » Okay. Mr. Jensen, you are recognized.

[37:18] [clears throat]

[37:19] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon. Um

[37:22] if you will flip to the very last page

[37:24] in your packet which is the uh worksheet

[37:27] that I provided uh previously. Um

[37:32] at this point the committee has already

[37:34] um decided three items um on these

[37:38] potential policy decisions related to a

[37:41] down payment assistance program. Um they

[37:44] uh previously said that they wanted to

[37:46] go with a maximum 120% county median

[37:50] home sales price. Um they wanted to uh

[37:53] have a loan amount that did not exceed

[37:56] 3% of the eligible purchase price and

[37:59] they uh recommended that the property

[38:01] must be located in Richland County. So

[38:04] those are the three criteria that the

[38:05] committee already um talked about and

[38:08] and recommended. Uh in addition to that

[38:10] I have several other bullet points here

[38:12] that are other um criteria. Now

[38:15] obviously the committee can reverse its

[38:17] decision from previous meetings. Those

[38:19] are just the ones that the committee had

[38:21] um come to a consensus on um previously.

[38:25] So what I was hoping to do today, Mr.

[38:26] Chair, if we would just simply go down

[38:28] through each one of these bullet points

[38:30] and have the committee discuss and see

[38:31] if there's a consensus around the

[38:34] criteria for each one of these.

[38:36] » Okay, that sounds reasonable to me. You

[38:37] want to start us out maybe at the top?

[38:38] Loan terms, I guess.

[38:40] » Yes, sir. So, um, and actually I'm going

[38:43] to skip one. I'm going to skip down to

[38:45] where it says forgiveness because what

[38:47] you decide to do in terms of forgiveness

[38:49] will will affect what your loan period

[38:51] will be. So, as um with uh any loan, you

[38:56] know, you have the ability to forgive

[38:59] the amount of the loan after a period of

[39:00] time if that is your interest, if that

[39:02] is your desire. And so, what I put down

[39:04] here were several options. You could

[39:05] have no forgiveness. the loan has to be

[39:07] paid back in full. You could have it a

[39:10] forgiveness that is prrated annually. In

[39:12] other words, it declines. So, every

[39:14] year, if it was a 10-year loan, then

[39:16] they would 10%. Um, you could simply

[39:19] just say that at the end of the loan

[39:21] term, that's when you're forgiven. So,

[39:22] that if you go 9 years and it's a

[39:24] 10-year period, you're not nothing is

[39:26] forgiven. You have to go the full term.

[39:28] Um, and then you could obviously come up

[39:30] with whatever you wanted. So, I would

[39:31] open it to you to discuss um what the

[39:34] committee wants to do in terms of

[39:35] forgiveness.

[39:35] » Okay. Councilwoman Eileen.

[39:37] » Um I'm going to address um forgiveness,

[39:40] but when I was thinking about this, I

[39:42] kind of looked at the loan term as well.

[39:45] Um the loan period, the interest rate as

[39:48] well as forgiveness. Um so I I would um

[39:52] be interested in a program that has a

[39:54] pr-rated annual forgiveness of 10% with

[39:58] a 10-year loan term.

[40:02] Um, I think 10 year is long enough to to

[40:05] encourage um sustainable home home

[40:08] ownership and discourage like a quick

[40:10] sale. And I I think I prefer a simple

[40:13] interest rate, a fixed simple interest

[40:15] rate. Um

[40:22] um that's that's kind of how I I looked

[40:24] at it.

[40:26] » Okay. Um any other discussion? I I have

[40:29] a feeling though on the interest rate. I

[40:31] I I have an issue with uh charging

[40:34] interest rate on down payment assistance

[40:36] cuz I mean does that require a payment

[40:38] or Councilwoman?

[40:40] » Well, I think you can do an interest

[40:43] rate but it would be more of deferred

[40:48] interest. Um I'm not sure what the term

[40:51] is. I guess my thoughts are you would

[40:53] only be paying interest if there's a

[40:55] triggering event like they sell the

[40:58] house um before the 10 years um they

[41:03] transfer ownership, they're no longer

[41:05] the primary that's no longer their

[41:07] primary um residence. That's when I

[41:10] those that's when I would see the

[41:12] interest rate actually being paid. But

[41:15] if you're in the house for 10 years,

[41:18] you're not paying anything.

[41:21] Yeah, that would be my preference would

[41:23] be a zero interest rate because I can

[41:24] tell you as a lender, you got to

[41:26] remember there's going to be a lender

[41:27] involved here, not just the county. And

[41:29] if I'm at the lender's desk,

[41:32] underwriter, and I'm looking at a

[41:33] potential interest rate, we don't know

[41:35] what it is because we don't know how

[41:36] long they're going to be there. We don't

[41:37] know what the liability is. The lender

[41:40] is going to look at it and say, "We

[41:42] don't want to give our borrower, you

[41:44] know, something that could sink them in

[41:45] the long run." I I I just I I would say

[41:49] I'm I'm comfortable with a zero interest

[41:50] rate, just no interest at all.

[41:54] » Mr. Chair, uh

[41:55] » Counciloman Tracio, Councilman Alen, are

[41:58] you done with that point for now?

[41:59] » I would again just say that that

[42:00] interest wouldn't be paid until unless

[42:02] there's a triggering event. If they sell

[42:04] the house, um that's when they would pay

[42:06] interest. And I would say that the

[42:08] interest would only acrue against the

[42:10] remaining balance. So for every year

[42:13] that they're in the house, 10% will be

[42:16] taken off of that loan.

[42:19] » Okay. All right, Councilwoman.

[42:22] » So I I need would need to do a little

[42:24] math here, but you know, if we're

[42:26] charging interest, so what I'm trying to

[42:28] get to here is, you know, whatever

[42:30] amount of interest that we might get off

[42:31] of this loan probably going to be pretty

[42:34] small, right? And is the juice worth the

[42:37] squeeze? Sort of like what Mr. weaver

[42:40] saying like, you know, to go through

[42:42] that with dealing with uh permutations

[42:45] or whatever with the lender. Um maybe

[42:48] it's just not worth I mean, I sort of

[42:50] get you like you want the you want the

[42:52] borrower to have skin in the game and to

[42:54] want to um uh hopefully stay in the

[42:58] house and have the forgiveness um

[43:01] prrated so that it's eventually down to

[43:03] zero and so they're not having to pay

[43:05] anything. But I don't know that the

[43:07] amount of interest we might get from it

[43:10] was is worth the um uh what we would

[43:13] have to do to get it.

[43:15] » Councilwoman Eileen,

[43:16] » I guess then one of the questions that I

[43:18] would have is are we looking to

[43:21] recapitalize this program or is this

[43:24] just going to be a oneanddone thing?

[43:26] Because if we're talking about it just

[43:28] being one and done, then sure, don't

[43:29] charge any interest. But if you want to

[43:31] recapitalize, I think that we should

[43:34] charge an interest. And again, it would

[43:35] only be paid if there's a triggering

[43:37] event.

[43:42] » Well,

[43:44] I'll just weigh in here. So, if we said

[43:46] it was 3% and we look at this 120% count

[43:50] county median home sale price I

[43:52] calculated earlier, it would come out to

[43:54] about $342,000

[43:55] maximum sales price. So, if we did 3%,

[43:58] that's about give or take 94 9500. If it

[44:02] was 10% that's um what about $900 a

[44:07] year? I mean I I'm just wondering is it

[44:10] I mean certainly we wouldn't expect them

[44:11] to make a payment on that. Like you say

[44:13] it would just be added to the loan

[44:14] balance. Okay. Because it would almost

[44:16] be more trouble for county staff to

[44:18] collect it than it would be worth it. So

[44:19] » It would be a deferred payment.

[44:22] » Guess is that's what you call it.

[44:23] » Okay.

[44:24] » Maybe I could ask a question here, Mr.

[44:27] Chair. Um, is that something that that

[44:30] staff could talk to lenders that we

[44:32] might work with about just, you know,

[44:35] like or do we already know the answer to

[44:37] that maybe?

[44:39] » So, most likely, if if I may, Mr. Chair,

[44:42] so most likely we will be in a second

[44:44] position behind the lender and so it's

[44:47] probably not an issue because the lender

[44:49] will be protected by the first position.

[44:50] They would get any funds in the event of

[44:52] a default or something and we would be

[44:54] left with whatever's there. All

[44:56] » Right. I think I saw Councilwoman Mackey

[44:58] and then Councilwoman Cooper.

[45:00] » Thank you. I I do see both sides of it

[45:03] and you know I'm fine whichever one we

[45:07] go right now, but I I do think it is um

[45:10] Mr. Chair good for future conversations,

[45:13] right? we have this that we're starting

[45:14] now, but I think as we look longterm and

[45:18] where we want to be in this, I think

[45:20] that is a good conversation to figure

[45:21] out, okay,

[45:23] do we just say no interest at all and

[45:25] really set a goal to that where once we

[45:27] reach this number of houses kind of we

[45:29] check the box and we feel completed. Um,

[45:33] and maybe that encourages more or helps

[45:35] us get there faster. I don't know, but I

[45:37] I can see both sides of it for sure.

[45:40] » Thank you, Councilwoman Cooper.

[45:41] » Yeah. So, and I just wanted to weigh in

[45:43] as well. I think that we've had lots of

[45:46] conversation already about um whether or

[45:50] not we want this to be a oneanddone or

[45:53] reinvestment program. And I it appeared

[45:57] that you know it was the body that was

[45:59] we made this one of our priorities and

[46:02] so making it one of our priorities

[46:04] perhaps it says to me that we want to

[46:07] have an investment and something that we

[46:09] want to continue to do. So, how do we do

[46:11] that is to continue to find ways to um

[46:15] fund what it is that we're doing without

[46:17] taking funds away from our general fund

[46:20] budget. Um definitely going to always

[46:23] give a shout out to the grants team for

[46:24] coming up with creative ways to help us

[46:27] fund these projects. But if we have an

[46:29] opportunity um to take some dollars that

[46:34] can be reinvested based upon the dollars

[46:37] that we put in, I think that would

[46:39] that's a a a great way to keep things

[46:42] rolling in the future.

[46:45] » Okay. Very good. Um any further

[46:47] comments? Um Mr. Jason, did you want to

[46:49] move on from that? I don't know if that

[46:51] gives you any clarity going forward or

[46:53] » I think it does. Let me ask the

[46:55] committee. Um are you comfortable with

[46:58] the um the concept of it being prrated

[47:01] annually dropping down 10% as um council

[47:04] member Alen has suggested. Okay, good.

[47:06] I'm seeing head nod. Okay, so that gives

[47:08] us a 10-year that gives us um prrated

[47:12] annually. Okay. In terms of interest

[47:14] rate, do we have a consensus?

[47:21] » Anyone want to weigh in on that? I since

[47:23] I don't see any hands, I would just say

[47:25] very low. 3%, 4%. We we don't want to be

[47:29] um you know, I I would say very low on

[47:31] that because again, we're trying to

[47:32] encourage this, not discourage it would

[47:35] be my preference, but if we're going to

[47:37] charge an interest rate at all,

[47:40] » Mr. Chair.

[47:41] » Yes, sir. M. Uh, may I address Council

[47:43] Member Alene to have a question?

[47:45] » Sure, absolutely.

[47:46] » Council member Leen, what you stated in

[47:48] the beginning, would you feel

[47:49] comfortable in just making that a

[47:50] motion?

[47:53] » I my Yeah, I think I can.

[47:59] » Yeah, I know. Um,

[48:02] I move that we

[48:05] adopt a loan period of 10 years

[48:10] with an interest rate a fixed interest

[48:14] rate of 3%

[48:17] um, and the forgiveness prrated annually

[48:22] 10 with a a 10% um, proration annually.

[48:27] » Does does that work?

[48:29] » May I Mr. here and and did you want to

[48:31] include your language regarding the

[48:33] interest rate being deferred to

[48:34] triggering event?

[48:35] » Absolutely. Yes.

[48:36] » Okay.

[48:40] Okay. Everyone understand the motion?

[48:44] Okay. All right. Everyone's nodding yes.

[48:46] So, um at that point, it's been motioned

[48:49] and second. Madam clerk, I think we're

[48:51] ready for a vote.

[48:54] » Teratio,

[48:55] » No.

[48:56] » Weaver.

[48:57] » Yes.

[48:58] Cooper,

[48:59] » Yes. Ailen,

[49:01] » Yes.

[49:01] » Mackey,

[49:02] » Yes. Motion approved.

[49:07] » Okay, Mr. Chair.

[49:08] » Jensen, go ahead.

[49:09] » Thank you. So, the other items to be

[49:10] addressed, um, loan security. I I'm I'm

[49:14] assuming that the county or not I'm

[49:15] assuming, I'm suggesting that the

[49:17] program won't move forward unless the

[49:19] county takes a junior position behind

[49:21] the the primary. So, that's why that's

[49:22] there. Um,

[49:25] » It would have to be some document

[49:26] attached to the title. Unfortunately,

[49:28] Councilman Brandham's not here to to

[49:30] guide us on that, but I'm sure he could.

[49:31] Uh, but it'll be something the closing

[49:33] attorney will have to add.

[49:34] » Okay. Um, the property, we already the

[49:38] committee already discussed that. Um, in

[49:40] terms of the applicants, having heard

[49:43] your previous discussion, um, let me

[49:46] suggest that you use a similar standard

[49:48] unless you want to use a different

[49:50] standard. Um, if you want consistency

[49:52] across the board, you could use the same

[49:53] standard as you just used in your

[49:55] previous motion or the previous agenda

[49:57] item.

[50:00] » Councilman Eileene,

[50:03] » I do have a motion that I that I wanted

[50:05] to present and we can talk about it

[50:08] afterwards obviously. So, I'm just going

[50:10] to read this motion that I have and then

[50:12] we can um particularly since it's 250.

[50:15] Um, so I move that we um initially fund

[50:17] the down payment assistance program with

[50:19] one $1 million of the$2 million

[50:22] previously allocated uh with the

[50:24] remaining 1 million held in obeyance

[50:26] pending evaluation of the program.

[50:28] Eligibility shall be limited to

[50:30] first-time home buyers who are Richland

[50:31] County employees, public safety or EMS

[50:34] employees serving Richland County,

[50:36] Richland County 1 or Richland 2 teachers

[50:39] or teachers employed at District 5

[50:41] schools located in Richland County with

[50:44] the el with all eligible homes located

[50:46] in Richland County. I further move that

[50:48] we align this program with the proposed

[50:50] 15% accommodations tax funding uh

[50:54] subject to whatever legal um I don't

[50:59] know availability or or what whatever

[51:02] I'm not sure how to say that um but I'd

[51:04] als but I also would like to re-evaluate

[51:07] the program after the first 50 closings

[51:10] or 12 months whichever comes first.

[51:14] » That's a good provision there at the

[51:15] end. Okay, we have a motion second by

[51:17] Councilwoman Cooper. All right,

[51:19] discussion.

[51:20] » Mr. Chair,

[51:21] » Council Tracio.

[51:22] » Thank you. Um I don't think I heard Miss

[51:25] Ailen uh address the maximum household

[51:28] income. Is that right?

[51:30] » Did not. And so

[51:32] » Okay. Um

[51:36] are you proposing? Well, I'm happy to

[51:39] propose a friendly amendment unless we

[51:41] could just vote on this clean um clean

[51:43] motion maybe and then address the

[51:46] household income. Maybe that's simpler.

[51:52] » It either you can do either way. Do it

[51:54] together one motion or you could

[51:55] separate that out if you want.

[51:57] » Okay. Um so it's been moved and seconded

[52:01] and so we could just vote on Miss Aen's

[52:03] motion.

[52:05] » Why don't we do that? So she doesn't

[52:06] have to read it all again. [laughter]

[52:09] » It all I'm not even sure if I should.

[52:12] » Councilwoman Cooper.

[52:14] » Uh so and to we're kind of connecting

[52:17] dots in all of our conversations. Uh so

[52:20] I'm wondering you know the the

[52:22] discussion that we had about spouses as

[52:24] well to include in that language. Um it

[52:28] we do have a common thread here that we

[52:30] almost want to create a standard it

[52:33] seems like for these types of programs

[52:36] to you know just go from one program to

[52:39] the next so that we don't have to

[52:40] continue to recreate things. So I don't

[52:43] know if we want to um add on or do

[52:47] separate as well. Maybe we'll marry the

[52:49] two together in the next one.

[52:53] » Okay. All right. We've got a motion and

[52:55] a second. Um, any further discussion?

[52:58] Okay. If not, uh, Madame Clerk,

[53:03] » Teratio,

[53:04] » Yes.

[53:04] » Weaver,

[53:05] » Yes.

[53:05] » Uer,

[53:06] » Yes.

[53:06] » Ailen,

[53:07] » Yes. Mackey,

[53:08] » Yes.

[53:08] » Motion approved. All

[53:09] » Right, Miss Jensen, where does that

[53:10] leave us for this list? We got maximum

[53:12] household income still and applicants. I

[53:15] guess we just settled the applicants

[53:16] question.

[53:17] » You did.

[53:17] » Okay, that's it. Do

[53:18] » Do you want us to get into the maximum

[53:20] household income?

[53:22] » Do we even need that? like what what's

[53:24] the

[53:26] » I I would I would recommend it.

[53:28] » Okay.

[53:29] » But again, it's the committee's

[53:30] pleasure.

[53:31] » Did we did we set anything with the

[53:33] other program? We could just mimic that.

[53:35] » Yes. 80 to 120% is the other program.

[53:39] » Okay. All right. Well,

[53:41] » But that I would just simply say a

[53:44] maximum a cap. You don't I don't think

[53:46] you need a minimum.

[53:47] » Okay.

[53:48] » Um and

[53:50] » Discussion.

[53:51] » Well, go ahead,

[53:52] » Mr. Chair. I just wanted to be if we

[53:54] could remind it of what the actual uh me

[53:58] um median how uh county median income is

[54:02] at this point just so just for a frame

[54:04] of reference.

[54:06] Do we know

[54:07] » At this point? Um I'd be shooting from

[54:09] the hip. I I couldn't tell you exactly

[54:10] what it is, but um it's going to be 120%

[54:14] is going to be somewhere in the $90,000

[54:16] range.

[54:17] » Okay. Looks like Miss

[54:19] » I just Yeah. here. Here, here's somebody

[54:22] who does it every day.

[54:25] » Um, so for a family of four, currently

[54:27] the median income is 92,400.

[54:30] So at the 120% limit, that would be a

[54:34] household income family of four,

[54:36] $110,850.

[54:38] So that's your family for a household of

[54:40] one, the maximum could would be $77,650

[54:45] if we did 120%.

[54:49] And so um I guess my question is uh

[54:57] if we choose 120%

[55:00] I mean then then everybody under that is

[55:04] eligible if they if they qualify for the

[55:06] loan. Is that okay? Great. Well, then I

[55:09] would move to um uh recommend the

[55:13] maximum household income of 120% of

[55:16] county median income.

[55:19] » All right. Do we have a second to that

[55:21] motion?

[55:23] » I'll second it. Oh, okay. Councilman

[55:25] Cooper. Second. All right.

[55:26] » Discussion.

[55:30] » Everybody ready? Okay. Madam clerk,

[55:34] » Yes.

[55:34] » Weaver,

[55:35] » Yes.

[55:36] » Cooper,

[55:36] » Yes. Ailen,

[55:37] » Yes. Mackey.

[55:38] » Yes.

[55:39] » Motion approved.

[55:40] » Right, M. Jens, we're about out of time.

[55:42] Anything else? Uh,

[55:43] » No, sir. And I will also bring this back

[55:45] to you in a clean form at your next

[55:47] committee meeting so you can um make

[55:49] sure it it meets your standards and what

[55:51] you voted for.

[55:53] » Okay. Um, I think the next item on our

[55:56] agenda is adjournment unless has

[56:00] » Anything else.

[56:02] » Okay. I think I heard a motion and a

[56:03] second, Madame Clerk, for adjournment.

[56:08] Teratio Weaver.

[56:10] » Yes.

[56:10] » Cooper,

[56:11] » Yes. Ailen,

[56:12] » Yes.

[56:13] » Mackey,

[56:14] » Yes. Motion approved.

[56:15] » Thanks everyone. I think we made a lot

[56:17] of progress today. Thank you.

Affordable Housing Committee - Sept. 1, 2026

Transcript