- Dallas Ultraground
- Posts
- Dallas PFC & HFC
Dallas PFC & HFC
4/23/25 – 4/22/25
Welcome to Ultraground. We send you data on housing decisions.
CC April 23, 2025 - HHSC April 22, 2025
Citywide
State of the PFC & HFC | Discussion/Briefing
District: 13 | North Dallas
399-Unit Multifamily PFC | 5585 LBJ Fwy | Approved
District: 6 | West Dallas
344-Unit Mixed-use PFC | 1400 W Commerce St | Upcoming
District: 1 | Oak Cliff
200-Unit Multifamily HFC | 4710 W Illinois Ave | Upcoming
You saved: 3h 17m, 3h 26m
 |  |
CITYWIDE
Geographic Restrictions X PFC & HFC Deals 2024-Present (Ultraground Dataset)
State of the PFC & HFC
4/23/25 – 4/22/25
The Dallas Housing Finance Corporation (DHFC) and Dallas Public Facility Corporation (DPFC) have become critical tools for addressing Dallas's housing crisis, collectively accounting for 73% of all affordable housing units delivered in 2023-2024. Both of these corporations have been under review since October 2024 with Housing Department staff issuing significant recommendations to modify their policies, operations, and bylaws on January 28, 2025.
Most controversially:
– Limiting DPFC projects to areas with poverty rates above 20%
– Prohibiting DHFC from requesting LIHTC waivers in high-poverty areas
– Implementing deeper affordability requirements at 50% AMI
– Mandating community meetings; and placing housing staff as ex-officio board members.
The April 22, 2025 public hearing revealed significant differences between Housing Department recommendations and the positions of corporation board chairs and various council members. This analysis examines these positions based solely on the transcripts and documents provided, ahead of the planned May 9th meeting between Housing staff and corporation boards.
1. Administrative Oversight and Corporation Independence
The January 28, 2025 memo from Assistant City Manager Robin Bentley recommended:
Housing Director or designee should have a seat on the Board of Directors as an ex-officio board member. |
Corporations should hire their own staff with administration costs capped at the lesser of $1M or 20% of annual revenue. |
Corporations should reimburse the city when city resources are utilized. |
During the April 22 hearing, Housing Director Rogers-Ellickson stated she spends "at least half of my time" on HFC and PFC activities and explained that the ex-officio proposal was intended "to ensure that City staff are in the loop on all corporation actions."
Board Chair responses:
 | "This change would jeopardize the DPFC’s independence. Public Facilities Corporation are designed by state statute to operate independently from the City's administrative structure." …Warned this "could create a conflict of interest" with "competing priorities." Keith Pomykal, DPFC D14 |
 | "Our concerns are in regard to circumvention of our statutory structure, breaches of fiduciary duties of our directors, and potential violations of Section 51.002 of the Local Government Code." Marcy Helfand, DHFC D11 |
Council positions varied:
Stated "accountability has to rest with the elected officials" and "You should absolutely be part of that" regarding staff ex-officio membership. Cara Mendelsohn, CM D12 |  |
Stated he had "not seen any compelling justification for significant changes in your policies or procedures." Paul Ridley, CM D14 |  |
According to the April 22 memo, the City Attorney's office is currently reviewing the legal questions related to these governance recommendations.
2. Location Restrictions and Distribution of Projects
The January 28, 2025 memo recommended:
"DPFC projects will be limited to areas with poverty rates greater than 20%." |
"DHFC will not request waivers for LIHTC in R/ECAP areas in Dallas or areas with 20% poverty or higher, unless redevelopment of an existing low-income property is proposed." |
All corporation projects in TIF districts must be reviewed and approved by the TIF board. |
Clickable Map:
Housing Director Rogers-Ellickson explained in the April 22 hearing:
R/ECAP areas "have difficulty getting new developments and they have a high poverty level."
The goal was to "help bring up those income levels and stabilize those very low income areas by providing mixed income housing."
These recommendations came from council concerns about "how sustainable is it to continue to do tax exemptions."
Board Chair responses:
 | "The proposed change would severely impact our ability to create new affordable housing units and in effect reduce the DPFC to an asset management corporation." Keith Pomykal, DPFC D14 |
 | "It is already extremely difficult to make LIHTC projects work for developers in Dallas" in high opportunity areas. Marcy Helfand, DHFC D11 |
Council positions showed significant division:
Stated tax incentives "should be restricted to areas that need that investment" and "all of our abatements should probably be Southern Dallas." Cara Mendelsohn, CM D12 |  |
Strongly opposed this approach, stating "continuing to concentrate... is very telling" and it would "perpetuate the problematic decisions of our past." Adam Bazaldua, CM D7 |  |
Noted the strategic importance of securing affordable housing now because "current market rate affordable homes are exactly the units that are gonna be torn down and turned into luxury units... as soon as those LURAs expire, which is coming in all of them, in the next 10 years." Jaynie Schultz, CM D11 |  |
Cited Bush Institute data showing "affordable new builds fell by 88% from 2016 to 2023" and cautioned against "putting roadblocks" in successful programs. Chad West, CM D1 |  |
3. Income Mix and AMI Requirements
The January 28, 2025 memo recommended:
For DHFC non-LIHTC projects, "minimize market-rate units (81% AMI and higher) to 10% overall in each project with matching units for 50% AMI." |
Market-rate units should not exceed 20% of total units. |
The April 22 memo noted this had been revised to:
Instead of utilizing this formula...limit the number of non-LIHTC projects to two projects that the DHFC can perform annually." |
Board Chair response:
 | "Of the 4,616 completed units 3,613 serve those at 80% AMI or below, 317 serve those at 50% AMI or below... Of the 3,352 units under construction 3,115, serve those at 80% AMI or below and 1,417 serve those at 50% AMI or below." Marcy Helfand, DHFC D11 |
| "The more they have to lower the rents, the more subsidy they need" and "we don't have a lot of city funds available to give those subsidies." Marcy Helfand, DHFC D11 |
Council positions:
"Yes, we absolutely have to have units at that 50% affordability level. These are the people who actually need the public benefit and the investment." Cara Mendelsohn, CM, D12 | |
"Until there's more housing, housing is gonna continue to be expensive. So we need it at every price point. There's no reason to do these caps." Jaynie Schultz, CM D11 |  |
Emphasized meeting needs "at every price point." Gay Donnell Willis, CM D13 |  |
Several developers testified that these requirements would make projects financially infeasible, including Jake Walker who stated that "to try to target those two disparate income categories with one program is extremely difficult and extremely inefficient."
4. Community Input and Notice Requirements
The January 28, 2025 memo recommended:
"Corporations will notify property owners and homeowners associations surrounding the proposed development site." |
Each developer must hold "at least one community meeting about the proposed project before HHS Committee or Council consideration." |
"The City Council member of the district...shall be invited to all community meetings." |
Explained this came about when "several Council members heard from their constituents in their areas that they were not aware of developments that were going on that were getting a public benefit."
Board Chair responses:
 | This "represents a city outlook that there is something about a property having lower income households that is different from a property that serves higher income households." Marcy Helfand, DHFC D11 |
 | Indicated they already ask developers if they've "spoken to your city council person" and encourage communication. Keith Pomykal, DPFC D14 |
Council positions:
Council members stressed the importance of community engagement, with Mendelsohn noting "talking to our communities more" is essential. Gracey warned that implementing projects "without telling them" would "defeat the purpose," while Schultz recommended community input "in partnership with the council member" of the district.
Asked city attorney whether the city requires "special community notices for all types of benefit in every department," questioning whether this was being applied selectively. Chad West, CM D1 |  |
5. Revenue Control and Utilization
The January 28, 2025 memo recommended:
"Limit uses of revenue to development opportunities only as defined by Housing Director." |
Development activities could include "acquisition, construction, rehabilitation (multifamily) and infrastructure for housing development." |
The April 22 memo noted this had been revised to:
"Use of the corporations' revenue will be approved by both the Housing Director and Board of Directors rather than just the Housing Director." |
Board Chair response:
| "I do have very serious concerns about the housing director having approval authority over DPFC revenues. The state legislation governing PFCs clearly defined its operation as independent from their governing body." Keith Pomykal, DPFC D14 |
| Warned this could open questions about "commingling the authority and its revenue" potentially subjecting it to "recent Charter amendments." Keith Pomykal, DPFC D14 |
Council positions:
"I would like to examine the revenue redirection...is it 10% of a revenue?"
Suggested using revenue for "infrastructure and public safety improvements within a half mile of the development." Cara Mendelsohn, CM D12 | |
"I would like to examine the revenue redirection...is it 10% of a revenue?" Gay Donnell Willis, CM D13 | |
Expressed interest in using revenue for "single-family homes" in high poverty areas. Zarin D. Gracey, CM D3 |  |
6. Timeline and Next Steps
During the April 22 hearing, Chair Moreno indicated the committee would take no action that day.
Keith Pomykal stated: "Meetings with the Boards will continue into May 2025 to clarify and possibly redefine parameters around the recommendations" with a specific meeting "not scheduled until May 9th."
The April 9, 2025 memo from Council Members West, Willis, and Ridley recommended a two-phase process:
Phase One: Focus first on administrative/operating procedures with direct collaboration between Housing staff and board officers
Phase Two: Conduct public hearings on policy issues including AMI requirements, location restrictions, and revenue control
Council members expressed varied positions regarding the timeline for action on housing corporation changes. Chair Jesse Moreno indicated his intention to "hold an agenda item to discuss this issue with the possibility of an action-item during April's regular meeting," while Paul Ridley urged against "premature action." Gay Donnell Willis preferred delaying action "until we have all of these learned minds in the same room," and Cara Mendelsohn voiced concerns about discussing these matters during "election season."
7. Economic and Production Impact
Multiple stakeholders provided specific data on the corporations' impact:
| "Last year the HFC produced 1,466 affordable units. The PFC produced 485. In comparison, our land transfer program produced 64, Land Bank 17." Chad West, CM D1 |
| "In 2023-2024, 73% of the affordable housing units brought to market were through our tools, our incentives, our HFC and PFC—73%." Gay Donnell Willis, CM D13 |
| "We currently have 35 properties, either operating or under construction, representing homes for 7,668 households and $1 billion of investment in our city." “The city subsidy...for the units we have created so far averages $925 per year per unit. And the total tax exemptions to date represents $6 million a year, which is one 10th of 1% of the city budget." Marcy Helfand, DHFC D11 |
During the April 22, 2025 public hearing, numerous stakeholders presented viewpoints on the proposed changes. These comments reveal significant industry concerns:
Developers and Industry Representatives:
Swede Hansen (Smart Living Residential): Called the proposals "misguided and counterproductive," noting his PFC projects in Districts 3 and 4 "would not have moved forward" under the proposed rules. He highlighted that his District 4 project is "the first non-tax credit multifamily project ever in the district."
Hunt Neurohr (Savoy Equity): Stated Child Poverty Action Lab's Alan Cohen confirmed the location restrictions "would concentrate poverty further." Urged using poverty maps "as a guide, not a gating tool." Noted his PFC project in the Cedars is replacing "3000 feet of sanitary sewer pipe" and adding "10 foot sidewalks, dozens of trees" - infrastructure that "wouldn't be possible without the PFC."
Phillip Kingston: Called the proposals "a solution in search of a problem" and urged the committee to "abandon them 100%." Noted the corporations "have performed better than anyone really thought that they would."
Michael Williams (The Real Estate Council): Expressed concern about "arbitrarily limit[ing] the geography and targeted income bans," warning this could lead to "economic segregation."
Nathan Hall (Waterford Property Company): Testified that displacement of essential workers is "detrimental to the city's health" and cited data showing "parents are much more engaged with their children's after school and extracurricular activities when the commute time to their job is 30 minutes or less."
Trey Kostohryz (Ethos Property Development): Noted their 322-unit PFC project in the International District has "well over twice the rent savings of any other Dallas PFC project" but "would not be economically viable with additional affordability."
Corporate Representatives:
Aaron Eaquinto (DHFC General Manager): Explained the complexity of these programs: "It took me three or four years of doing this every single day to understand the nuances." Emphasized board members are "residents in the communities where they're approving these projects" with "personal buy-in."
Tony Page (DHFC Board Secretary): Urged a "collaborative, transparent and data-driven process" and stated the boards "with your support have repeatedly offered to work in partnership with the Housing Department."
Summer Greathouse (DPFC Legal Counsel): Cited a Texas Comptroller report showing "the State of Texas has a deficit of at least 320,000 units, all levels." Emphasized that "housing development requires long-term planning that spans electoral cycles."
David Ellis (DHFC Board Member): Explained why 140% AMI units are included: "To satisfy state law, we have to offer an additional 40% of the units at a higher middle income ban...to qualify for the tax exemption." Noted LIHTC projects in dense areas would cost "$370,000 to $450,000 per unit, which is not financially viable."
Industry-Wide Concerns: Every developer testified that the proposed changes would make projects financially infeasible, with no speaker indicating support for the proposed restrictions. Multiple speakers cited data showing Dallas lags behind other cities in affordable housing production and emphasized these tools have been crucial in addressing this gap.
Next Steps: The May 9th meeting represents the next critical juncture in this process. Given the documented success of these corporations in producing affordable housing and the concerns raised about potential negative impacts of the proposed changes, significant modifications to the January recommendations appear likely.
Full Bylaws Review Analysis: 4/23/25 – 8/26/24 PFC & HFC Bylaws Review
DISTRICT: 13
5550 LBJ Fwy 5550 LBJ Fwy
North Dallas | 8.6 Acres | 399 Units | Approved
City Council 4/23/25
The Dallas City Council recently approved a 399-unit mixed-income deal at 5550 LBJ Freeway using the Dallas Public Facility Corporation (DPFC) structure, demonstrating how this tax exemption tool works in a high-value corridor. The $111.9M project ($233,905/unit excluding soft costs) is transforming a vacant office building at the southeast corner of Dallas North Tollway and I-635 into a mixed-income community near the Galleria.
The affordability mix shows how these deals are currently structured in Dallas: 5% at 50% AMI, 5% at 60% AMI, 40% at 80% AMI, and 50% market rate. The rent discounts are substantial - market rate two-bedrooms running $2,875 compared to $1,986 at 80% AMI, $1,489 at 60% AMI, and $1,241 at 50% AMI. This represents rental savings of approximately $20.9M over the first 15 years according to Hilltop Securities' analysis.
For developers considering similar structures, the financial underwriting confirms what we're all experiencing: without the tax exemption, the project wouldn't reach the minimum 1.15 DSCR until year 11, making conventional financing impossible. The tax exemption improves year-one DSCR from 1.03 to 1.42, enabling the $61.5M mortgage with $50.3M in equity investment.
The political landscape around these deals is shifting. The Council approved this project, but it was pulled from the consent agenda and debated extensively. DPFC/HFC deals are facing increasing scrutiny with Housing Director Cynthia Rogers-Ellickson's department proposing substantial policy changes to the program. The Council is notably divided on these projects:
Council members from northern districts (like Willis and Schultz) strongly support bringing affordable units to high-opportunity areas, with Schultz noting:
‟Mixed income communities are much more economically stable than any other, whether it's wealthy or poverty.
The Council members representing southern districts are increasingly concerned about concentration of tax abatements, with Mendelsohn arguing such incentives "should be restricted to areas that need that investment" and estimating the 75-year tax exemption at $170.3M for this single project.
What makes this deal notable for developers is the revenue structure back to the DPFC: $250,000 structuring fee at closing, $921,531 in contractor fees (split between closing and CO), annual lease payments starting at $231,855 with 3% annual increases, 20% of net profits after preferred returns on first capital event, and 2% of gross profits on future capital events.
Hilltop's deal analysis might be instructive - they calculated a "Public Benefit Percentage" of 75.56%-127.22% depending on capital event assumptions, showing how cities are increasingly scoring these deals based on public benefit versus forgone tax revenue.
The fundamental tension remains balancing affordability in high-opportunity areas against tax base preservation.
Here are some highlights from the deal’s history:
Housing & Homelessness Solutions Committee 3/24/25
Briefing Discussion
On March 24, the Dallas Housing & Homelessness Solutions Committee briefed a 399-unit PFC deal that will go before full City Council on April 23, 2025. The development team initially attempted to structure the deal without PFC involvement, but market conditions made that approach infeasible. Council Member Willis expressed support for the project, noting:
‟I'm excited about that. I was hoping the original deal would go through, but then some market factors just prevented that.
Dallas Public Facility Corporation (DPFC) 2/25/25
MOU | Approved
While typical Dallas PFC deals require 50% of units at restricted rates (40% at 80% AMI and 10% at 60% AMI), Trammell Crow proposed:
40% at 80% AMI
5% at 60% AMI
5% at 50% AMI
The inclusion of units at 50% AMI in a prime Dallas location represents a shift in what developers consider financially viable. DPFC President Keith Pomykal noted the rarity of achieving 50% AMI units in this in "one of the prime areas of Dallas."
‟I do appreciate the number of 50% units that are, that are in your program eventually I might like to debrief you on your secret sauce on how Trammell Crow is able to do that because that's something that we're looking at all over Dallas, and the fact that you can do that in basically one of the prime areas of Dallas is really kudos to your financial team that you're able to do that cause it's certainly something that's in tune with the 2033 Dallas housing policy to get more 50% units on the floor… I know it'll be looked at by other developers on how you're able to do that, especially on such an expensive piece of property.
Additional DPFC directors commended the work:
Director Victor Toledo, District 7, commended the efficient zoning process and encouraged highlighting financial benefits during council presentation:
‟The fact that you got the zoning done quietly, efficiently, speaks well to the project. I'm very supportive, you know, bringing this this level of affordability this neighborhood obviously is a, you know, is terrific. Some people on council don't agree with that. You'll get comments about the tax base. I would I would encourage you to talk about the lease payments you know when you get to council, that seems to be.
Director Laurel Stone also raised questions about the phasing approach and whether it preserved future flexibility, highlighting some of the nuances that go along with pairing PFC with market rate for future phases.
‟I had gotten from my council member [Willis] was that she wanted to see this still work as a market rate. It didn't work as a market rate, but I think this still leaves the door open for phase two being a market rate, which I think increases the value of the PFC proposition as well in my opinion…is there some kind of timeline that we're tying to on phase two or guarantee that phase two will happen via PFC or market rate?
U/ Finance
Looking at the ground lease payment structure, the term sheet offers two distinct choices. The standard option provides for a $200,000 annual payment beginning six months after the project reaches 90% physical occupancy, with a 3% annual escalation thereafter. The alternative upfront approach, which appears to be what Trammell Crow ultimately selected based on the board meeting discussion, involves a $1,000,000 payment at stabilization, followed by no payments until Year 6, at which point annual payments of $231,855 commence with the same 3% escalator. This structuring allows the developer to optimize early cash flows when the project is most financially vulnerable, potentially improving the initial debt service coverage ratios that lenders scrutinize closely.
The project's financial structure includes significant upfront payments to the Dallas Public Facility Corporation:
$250,000 PFC structuring fee
$200,000 for PFC legal fees
$35,000 for financial advisor fees
These combined upfront costs of $485,000 establish a meaningful financial threshold for project viability.
For refinancing events prior to the initial sale, the PFC receives 15% of proceeds only after payment of all debt, closing costs, reserves, return of equity capital, and an 8% return to equity partners. This 8% return threshold appears to be the preferred return for initial investors, ensuring they receive their anticipated yield before the PFC participates in refinancing proceeds. This relatively modest preferred return rate may reflect current market expectations for stabilized multifamily assets with tax-advantaged structures.
For the initial sale event, the waterfall structure maintains similar priority but increases both the PFC's participation rate to 20% and the equity partner return threshold to 10%. This higher hurdle rate for sale events versus refinancing acknowledges the increased risk and patience required from equity partners for a disposition strategy. After the initial sale, subsequent sales trigger a simplified 2% participation for the PFC based on gross sales price rather than net proceeds, providing more predictable economics for future transactions.
Term | 5550 LBJ Fwy MOU |
|---|---|
PFC Structuring Fee | $250,000 |
PFC Management/Administrative Fee | 2-4% |
Contractor Fee | 25% of Sales Tax Savings |
Lease Payment to PFC | Two options: (ii) Alternative: $1,000,000 upfront payment, then $231,855 annually starting Year 6 (Selected) |
Lease Escalator | 3% on annual payments |
First Sale/Refinancing | 15% of Refinancing proceeds after debt, costs, reserves, equity return of 8%; 20% of Initial Sale proceeds after debt, costs, reserves, equity return of 10% |
Subsequent Sale/Refinancing Fee | 2% |
Contingency | 5% |
Total Development Costs (TDC) | $111,931,580 |
Developer Fee | 4% of TDC |
Other Nuanced Terms | $200,000 in legal fees for PFC paid by tenant $35,000 in financial advisor fees for PFC paid by tenant Property management fee: 2-4% M/WBE participation goal of 32% Engineering assessments at 7-year intervals |
The developer fee structure specified at 4% of total development costs appears relatively modest compared to market norms, which frequently range from 4.5% to 5% in Texas PFC deals.
Read the Full Analysis: 4/23/25 – 4/4/24 | 5550 LBJ Fwy
Developer: Trammell Crow Company, High Street Residential (Trammell Crow Subsidiary), Acram Group, Kevin Hickman Phone: (214) 863-4277 Email: [email protected], Gio Lincón Phone: (214) 863-4277 Email: [email protected] LinkedIn
Public Partner: Dallas Public Facility Corporation (DPFC), Cynthia Rogers-Ellickson Phone: (214) 670-3601 Email: [email protected]
Original Owner: Denley Investment & Management David Balour Phone: (310) 844-7806 Email: [email protected]
Legal (Zoning): Winstead, Tommy Mann Phone: (214) 745-5724 Email: [email protected]
Case Report: 5550 LBJ Fwy
Pro Forma: 5550 LBJ Fw PF
Project Plans: 5550 LBJ Fwy Plan
Presentation 2/25/25: 5550 LBJ Fwy Pres
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): 5550 LBJ Fwy MOU
$2,000,000
DISTRICT: 6
The Caroline 1400 W Commerce St
West Dallas | 8.64 Acres | 344 Units | Upcoming
Ojala Partners is pursuing a $2M conditional grant from Dallas to close a newly identified financing gap for its West Commerce development. The funding request appeared on the April 22 Housing and Homelessness Solutions Committee agenda but wasn't discussed, and is now scheduled for full Council consideration on May 28.
The cost escalation stems from three specific infrastructure mandates that weren't part of the original 2022 PFC approval:
On-site improvements including extensive grading, utilities, paving, and drainage work
Off-site wastewater infrastructure requiring 1,864 linear feet of new 12" wastewater line along West Commerce Street
Streetscape improvements along all three frontages: West Commerce, Neal, and Seale streets
Now branded "The Caroline" (formerly "The Standard on Commerce"), the development has grown from 300 to 344 units. The affordability mix has also been refined, with 51% of units (176 total) restricted - specifically 19 units at or below 60% AMI and 157 at or below 80% AMI. The remaining 168 units will be market rate.
The funding mechanics involve a conditional grant using 2017 General Obligation Bond Funds (Proposition I: Economic Development/Housing Bond). This would be structured as a lump sum reimbursement payable upon completion and acceptance of the public improvements. The $2M grant would supplement, not replace, the original PFC structure that provides a 75-year tax exemption.
City staff appears supportive, citing both the mixed-income housing benefits and the broader infrastructure impact. The new wastewater line will unlock development potential for 42.5 surrounding acres (75 parcels), making this investment strategically valuable beyond just Ojala's project. The proposal scored 99 out of 152 points under the city's NOFA criteria, clearing the threshold for funding.
Read the Full Analysis: 4/22/25 – 4/27/22 | The Caroline
Developer: Ojala Partners, Clay Likover Phone: (214) 865-6901 Email: [email protected] LinkedIn
Public Partner: Dallas Public Facility Corporation (DPFC), Cynthia Rogers-Ellickson Phone: (214) 670-3601 Email: [email protected]
Original Owner: Brent Burns Email: [email protected] LinkedIn
Case Report: The Caroline
Project Plans: Z212-186(JA) Plan
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): The Caroline MOU
$3,970,000 + $2,980,000
DALLAS DISTRICT: 1
HiLine Illinois 4710 W Illinois Ave
Oak Cliff | 6.55 Acres | 200 Units | Upcoming
Generation Housing Partners is seeking nearly $7M in public funding for its 200-unit HiLine at Illinois development at 4710 W Illinois Avenue in Oak Cliff. The funding request will appear on the May 28, 2025 City Council agenda after initial introduction via an April 22, 2025 memo to the Housing and Homelessness Solutions Committee.
The proposed $70M project has evolved significantly since its earlier iterations. In 2024, the company secured $35M in tax-exempt bonds from the Dallas Housing Finance Corporation and Council approval for 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The latest funding request represents the final piece to close the project's financing stack.
The newly requested $6.95M includes $2.98M in HOME funds as a cash flow loan to the developer and $3.97M in CDBG funds for the DHFC to acquire the property. The DHFC would then enter a 99-year ground lease with TX Illinois 2024, Ltd., an affiliate of Generation Housing Partners.
The four-story wrap development scored 123 of 169 possible points under the city's NOFA criteria, with perfect scores in both readiness (53/53) and developer experience (27/27). Staff classified the project as a "City special initiative" within the Far West Oak Cliff Area Plan boundaries, helping it overcome some scoring shortfalls.
The affordability mix has been refined to include deeper targeting than earlier iterations: 22 units at 0-30% AMI, 20 units at 31-50% AMI, 120 units at 51-60% AMI, and 38 units at 61-70% AMI. The development will include high-end amenities: granite countertops, large balconies, resort-style pool, and a children's playground.
The project represents Generation Housing Partners' continued expansion in Dallas, adding to their portfolio that includes Estates at Shiloh and Westmoreland Station developed in partnership with the DHFC.
Developer: Generation Housing Partners, Adrian Iglesias Phone (Mobile): (512) 971-9127 Phone (Office): (214) 613-6569 Email: [email protected], Chris Applequist Phone: (817) 501-9577 Email: [email protected]
Public Partner: Dallas Housing Finance Corporation (DHFC), Aaron Eaquinto Phone: (214) 670-4941 Email: [email protected]
Original Owner: Templo de Alabanza Church, Brian Sandoval Phone: (214) 333-2147 Email: [email protected]
Case Report: HiLine Illinois
Thank you for being a part of Ultraground.
How was this report? |