[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.
[53:47] » 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.