Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Meeting Minutes January 4, 2022 <br />Council Member Baker would like to have a bicycle facility as a requirement <br />on the conditional use permit. <br />The motion carried by the following vote: <br />For: 5 - Mayor Hughson, Mayor Pro Tem Scott, Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Garza, Council <br />Member Prather and Council Member Gleason <br />Against: 1 - Council Member Baker <br />Absent: 1 - Council Member Gonzales <br />17. Receive a Staff presentation and hold a Public Hearing to receive comments for or against <br />Resolution 2022-09R, providing no objection to the submission of an application for Low <br />Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) to the Texas Department of Housing and Community <br />Affairs for the renovation of the existing Champions Crossing multifamily housing project <br />located at 345 Champions Boulevard, approving findings related to such application, imposing <br />conditions for such non objection; providing authorizations for execution or submission of <br />documents related to such application; and declaring an effective date; and consider approval <br />of Resolution 2022-09R. <br />Shannon Mattingly, Director of Planning and Development Services, provided <br />a presentation on the Champion Crossing Rehabilitation Low Income Housing <br />Tax Credit Project Amendment. <br />Mayor Hughson opened the Public Hearing at 6:41 p.m. <br />Forrest Yarbrough, supports this project and appreciates the help from staff. <br />He thanked council for consideration of the application. <br />Tyler Hunt, supports this project and he is available to answer questions. <br />Janna Cormier, is a Tax Credit Consultant and is available to answer questions <br />for the tax credit process. <br />There being no further speakers, Mayor Hughson closed the Public Hearing at <br />6:43 p.m. <br />A motion was made by Council Member Gleason, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem <br />Scott, to approve Resolution 2022-09R. <br />Council Member Baker would like staff on future agendas to include income <br />restrictions and noted the 30% is misleading for San Marcos as that number <br />comes from the Austin Metropolitan area. He would like to have the actual <br />income ranges instead of percentages. He is not pleased with the percentages <br />that are 51% 60% income from Austin and not San Marcos. <br />City of San Marcos Page 5 <br />