Sylvester Turner layor Ponais . Lente Git Airey February 24, 2017 ‘Via Electronic Mail and Fed Ex Thurman G. Miles, Direczor USS. Department of Housing and Urban Development Fort Worth FHEO Center 801 Chesty St, Unit 45 Suite 2500 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Thutman.G.Miles(@iud.gow Re: Response to Letter Finding Noncomplance mith Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Case Number: 06-16-ROO1-6 ‘Dear Director Miles: The City of Houston (hereinafter refeered to as “Houston”), hereby submits its response! to the U.S. Department of Housing and Usban Development's (HUD) January 11, 2017, Lewer Finding Noncompliance with Tide VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the “Letter”) . HUD initiated an investigation pursuant to 2: CER, § 1.7(¢) allegedly based on information that che City’s actions with respect to the Houston Housing Authority's (HHA) proposed affordable housing development at 2640 Fountain View (hereinafier referred to as “Fountain View”) may have had the purpose ot effect of discriminating on the basis of mice and national origin. ‘The Letter accuses Mayor Syivester Turner, the second Aftican-Amesican mayor in Houston’s history, of discriminating against the very Houstonians he has spent his lifetime + Houston in no way waites right (o present new or additional facts or arguments. This response is being submitted to assist the Department in resolving this matter in accordance with 24 CER. § 1.7%(€). While believed ta be ue and correct in all respects, this rexponte does aot constitute sn affidavit and is not intended ta be used a§ evidence of any kind in any HUD o¢ court proceeding in connection with the investigation that forms the basis of HUD’s Findings CCounet emer: Brande Satyr Dans Coben Dvight A Bovine Dave Mar Stave Le Greg Tris Kare Caneios Foner Gallegos Uke Laser LonyV. Grsan Wk Knox DovigW.fsbincon’ WichaalKuboeh Ane Sesnrde Jack Chsto, Conirles Cs Sonn‘Thurman G. Biles Case No, O6-16-ROOI-6 serving. Ignoring the fact that he was born, raised and currently zesides in a neighbothood that HUD has determined lacks the characteristics which would allow a designation of “high opportunity”, HUD hastily attributes (1) the comments of Fountain View's neighbors, (2) a very selective view of the facts, (@) incozrect legal analysis, and (4) questionable logic to establish a finding of noncompliance as a means to force Houston to continue to ignore historically neglected communities in favor of HUD’s agenda for Houston. A finding of noncompliance requires evidence that race and national origin were significant factors in the Houston’s action. Contrary to its unsupported and misleading statement of facts, there is no evidence that Mayor Turner took any action that was discriminatory, had a disctiminatory effect, or that was inconsistent with affirmatively furthering fair housing. Houston denies that it discriminated against any Houstonian based on zace or national origin or that its procedures for approving Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) developments reinforces and perpetuates existing patterns of discrimination, For the reasons set forth in more detail below, the January 11, 2017, Letter should be svithdrawn in its entizety. A. Costis a legitimate, non-disctiminatory reason to oppose the Fountain View project. HHA approached Mayor Turner about the Fountain View project approximately 2 month after he begen his first teem as mayor. At that time, HHA estimated thet the Fountain View project would cost $58 Million, which amounts t0 $240,000 pet unit. In this meeting, which included the Mayor's Economic Development Dizector, Andy Icken, the Mayor opined that the costs were high and that he had reservations about this project. HHA did not offer to lower the costs or to seek a second cost estimate. HHA did not offer to climinate the developer's fee. To the contrary, HHA Board Chair, Lance Gilliam, threatened to delay other HHA multifamily affordable housing projects in the pipeline if the Mayor would not place a resolution of suppost or no objection on the agenda for consideration by Houston’s City Council HEHA’s Fountain View project, with the corrected cost estimate at $260,000 a un the most expensive multifamily affordable housing project that sought tax eredits to date. In 2016, Houston’s Housing and Community Development Department (HCDD) received 21 S%-Tax Credit applicants. The average estimated cost per unit for those projects that requested resolutions of support or no objection was $159,750, with the highest cost pet nit being $184,836, See Exhibit B, 9% Tax Applicants for 2016 (Bates COH HCD 0042839). In 2017, there were3 9%-tax credit applicants, with aa average estimated cost per unit at $168,505.46, with the highest being $214,614. See Exhibir C, 9% Tax applicants for 2017. 2 HHA estimated the current total cost per unic to construct the project was not $240,000 per unit, but instead $260,000 per unit. See Exhibit A, October 20, 2016 correspondence from HHA Executive Dizector, Tory Gunsolley.‘Thurman G. Miles Case No, 06-16-ROOI-6 Februayy 24, 2017 : Page 3 Additionally, Houston sought and confirmed that comparable cost pet unit for a similar project in the same area was not nearly as expensive as the Fountain View Project. See Exhibit, October 2016 Correspondence from Trammel Crow Residential. The $26 Million Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG DR) funds HHA planned to use to fund the Fountain View project would come from Houston. Pursuant to an agreement between Houston and HHA, Houston would be responsible for funding eligible HHA projects “mutuelly agreed upon by the parties.” See Eshibit B, at Section 2.1. Houston “has the responsibility under the City [Genetal Land Office] Agreement, as amended, to monitor the compliance of HHA with all applicable legal standards respecting any and all funds disbursed pursuant to [the] Agreement” Id. Houston reserved “‘the sight to review, upon reasonable request by the City, HHA’s records in connection with the Project” Id. Further, the General Affirmations requited as a patt of the CDBG-DR Program Rental Housing Projects Sub-recipient Grant Agreement, state that Houston, as the grant recipient, “must take steps to avoid or mitigate occuzrences of fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, especially with respect to finantial management of the Contract...” See General Affirmations, at para. 12. Thus, under Howston’s GLO agreement Houston is “accountable for the distribution and eligible use of all funds pursuant to the Agreement” Jd, at pg. 2. HUD’s explicit and implicit premise that Houston should rubber stamp a project that was proposed to use $26 Million of an approximately $30 Million alloument of grant funds is nonsensical. In addition to the CDBG-DR funds, HHA estimated § 14 Million of 4% tax credits were 10 be used to partially fand the Fountain View project. The use of this amount of public money for one project, that would serve only 23 of Houstoa’s families who need the most help, was, in the Mayor's opinion, not the best use of public funds. Suggesting that Houston has absolutely ao interest, monetary or otherwise, in scrutinizing any use of public fonds that directly impact its citizens is nonsensical and contsary to the obligetions elected officials have to their citizens. B. False facts and unreliable information are not evidence of discriminatory intent. HUD uses false facts and unreliable evidence to support its Letter. The Letter states that, “[elontemporaneous newspaper editotials, opinion pieces, and [unnamed] local non- profits also suimised the opposition was racially motivated.” Letter, p. 3. It also notes that HUD considered “local news reports”, and quotes a Houston Chronicle article that quotes an opinion piece in another newspaper as purportedly quoting Mayor Tuer. Letter p. 6. Newspaper editorials and opinion pieces are bathed in hearsay, do not lay ptoper foundation and are not reliable evidence to establish dicect or circumstantial evidence of a violation of law. See Jim Sowell Construction Co., Ine. 2. City of Coppell, 61 F. Supp. 2d 542, 550 (ND. Tex. 1999), om reconsieration sub nom. Jim Sowell Const. Ca, Ine, x City of Coppell, Texas, 3:96-cv-0666-‘Thurman G. Miles Case No. 06-16-ROD-S Februagy 24,2017 Page 4 D, 2000 WL 968782 (ND. Tex. July 12, 2000)(holding that newspaper articles chat puxport to quote the mayor were “obviously hearsay” and “inadmissible evidence” to support a finding that race was a significant factor in the city’s decision). In addition to relying on hearsay, HUD speculates as to why, during the relevant time petiod of the investigation, there were few projects proposed by ptivate developers in areas, it deemed “high opportunity”. HUD cites that Houston’s alleged complete deference to local opposition “perpetuates segzegation by deterring developers from proposing projects in areas where there ate likely to face opposition.” Left, p. 2. Speculation as to why developers have not in the past proposed projects in “high opportunity” areas ox “white neighborhoods” has no more weight on the scales of justice than hearsay. Indeed, there are many factors outside tax credits which may impact a developer's plans for a multifamily development. HUDs citing as a “fact” the purported lack of opposition for market rate properties in the same area is at best misleading. As HUD is aware, resolutions of no objection are not sequired for private developments. ‘There is no law ~ local, state, or federal —_which requires ptivate developers in Houston, Texas to hold a public heating befoze proceeding with the development of property that is not using public dollars. HUD does aot identify any quantifiable data to support its findings ther there was n0 opposition to the market rate properties, Contrary to HUD"s statement, HHA did not offer to lower the costs of the project, seek a second cost estimete, or eliminate the developer's fees. HHA did not present, in ‘writing, any alternative estimate of costs for the Fountain View Project before the Mayor’s decision. When specifically asked in interviews, HCDD Director, Tom McCasland, Andy Icken and Mayor Turner all stated that HHA did not make such offers. To unequivocally state that this occurred would suggest that the investigation was slanted from the onset, Finally, HUD’s reliance on (1) what City Council Members consider in supposting LIHTC projects generally; (2) the previous administration’s practices and procedures for supporting LIHTC projects; and (3) the local opposition is illogical based on the sequence of events. Before a public meeting was ever held, the Mayor expressed reservations about the Fountain View project because of its costs. Because HHA did not propose any alternatives that resulted in reduced costs, the Mayor chose not to place the Fountain View project on the agenda. What others said or considered is irrelevant to this analysis. The Mayot was the sole decisionmaker. When considering selisble and accurate facts regarding the events leading up to and subsequent to the Mayor’s decision in August 2016 not to place the Fountain View project on the agenda, there is ebsolutely no evidence of the Mayor acting with discriminatory intent,Thurman G, Miles Case No. 06-16-RO01-6 February 24, 2017 Page 5 C. The Mayor's basis for opposing the project as presented in 2016 was not pretext. HUD sejected the Mayor's basis for opposing the project as pretext for invidious race and national origin discrimination based on HUD"s belief that (1) no City funds were involved in the project; (2) costs were not regularly considered for LIHTC Resolutions, (3) projects with similar costs had been approved; (4) the Mayor's decision was based in part on acially motivated local opposition; and (5) the City has an established pattern of fuling to site or support affordable housing projects in predominately white neighbochoods. A discriminatory motive involves the decisionmaker selecting or reaffirming a particular course of action, in part, because of its adverse effect upon an identifiable protected class, Jinr Sowell, 61 F. Supp. 24 at 546. Because rarely is there diect evidence of inteat to discriminate, the courts make a “sensitive inquiry” into circumstantial evidence which may be available, guided by the following non-exhaustive list of factors: (1) che disctiminatory effect of the official action; (2) the historical background of the decision; (3) the specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision; (4) departures from the normal procedural sequence; (5) departures from the normal substantive factors; and (6) the legislative or administrative history of the decision. Id. at 546-547. As is demonstrated in detail below, there is ao direct or cizcumstential evidence that Mayor Turner acted with the intent to discriminate against the very class of people for which he has dedicated his entire cateer in government to serving. The evidence HUD should have considered establishes that (1) Houston’s proffered alternatives to the Fountain View met fair housing standards, (2) the historical background and sequence of events leading up to the Mayor's decision do not support an inference of discrimination; and (2) the costs for the proposed Fountain View projected warranted second consideration by the new administration. 1. Houston’s proffered alternatives obviate any purported discriminatory effect of delaying a project like Fountain View. In support of its findings that Houston's decision had the purpose ot effect of discriminating on the basis of zace and national origin, HUD focused on (1) the “importance” of the Fountain View site for the desegregation efforts of the “housing authority”; (2) the “onique” opportunity HHA had to build affordable housing at the Fountain View site; and @) the belief that the project was 2 “key component of HH.\’s plan to begin to remedy the legacy of segregation in its housing programs”. Letter, p. 7. Pet HUD, the Fountain View proposal would have provided housing opportunities for minority residents in a laxgely “white neighbothood”, noting that that those persons on the Public Housing waitlist who would have qualified for the 30% AMI units in Fountain view were 78% black and 19.2% Hispanic. At $240,000.00 a unit ~ the most expensive multifamily bousing proposal to date,‘Thurman G. Miles Case No. 06-16-RO01-6 Febroasy 24,2017 Page 6 this “unique” “ ‘oppornunity” would have served 23 of Houston's families living below the poverty line, At the time Mayor Turner chose not to present HHA’s Fountain View project to City Council, he contemporancously asked HHA to issue a RFI and look for altemative sites in the same District. See Exhibit F, RFI for District G. Mayor Turner presented to City Council on February 15, 2017, the Heritage proposal, which would involve the rehabilitation of an existing multifamily complex, located in the same City Council District and zoned to the same schools as the Fountain View project. The Heritage, which is located 1.2 miles from the location of the proposed Fountain View project, has an estimated cost pet unit of $187,216. City Council unanimously approved 2 resohution of support for the project oa February 15, 2017. See Exhibit G, Resolution of Support. Therefore, the resolution of support for the Heritage unequivocally establishes that Mayor Turner's decision not to present the Fountain View project to City Council was not based on the sace and/or national origin of che potential residents. Fer from abandoning affordable housing in District G, at the direction of Mayor ‘Turner, the City began @ program with HHA to increase low income citizens’ access to private multifamily buildings in high oppornanity areas. Houston staff actively identified and recruited owners and managers of multifamily housing units in District G, and other high opportunity areas, and obtained their agreement to participate in the program. The Voucher Mobility Plan is a pilot program in which a non-profit agency serves as an intermediary between private apartment owners and housing authorities, assisting families with children to access units in “high opportunity” areas that were previously unavailable. See Ewhibit H. Duting the pilot petiod, the program will target families with children who are in kindergarten through thitd grade and who are interested ia moving to an area of high opportunity. The non-profit will lease the unit from the cooperating apartment complex and then sublet the unit to eligible families. In addition to acting as landlord, the non-profit will offer other services, including but not limited to secutity deposit assistance and social services to help the children make @ successful transition to a new neighborhood and school. This pilot plans to serve 350 families through 2018. At this time, 12 owners of private multifamily housing units have agreed to participate in the Voucher Mobility Program, which would cost an estimaied $500,000 per yeat, far below the price tag of the proposed Fountain View project. If statistics govern a determination as to disparate impact, indeed the Mayor’s plan will serve far moze than the 23 families purported to be served by the Fountain View project. 2, HUD ignores the Mayor's plan for Complete Communities, Courts consider a municipality’s response to prior similar proposals to determine if a discriminatory purpose exists. See Jin Sovell, 61 F. Supp. 2d at 547. HUD’s decision to take action against Houston in this case is clearly besed on the Fountain View project alone. HUD ignores Mayor Turner’s plan to address housing dispacities. Under Mayo: Turner,Thurman G, Miles Case No. 06-16-R001-6 February 24, 2017 Page 7 Houston supports projects that will contribute to the development of complete communities actos the City a, Houston is committed to transforming previously neglected communities into communities of opportunity. Many Houston neighborhoods ate either on the cusp of or are curently going through gentrification. In some communities, existing family homes are being tora down and replaced with new townhome communities that ate being marketed to single, working professionals rather than families with childsen®. This results in the number of students who live in a school’s attendance zone decreasing. As attendance declines, school resources decline and eventually the school closes. To prevent these ncighborhoods from dying, Mayor Tumer has proposed transforming these neighborhoods one step at a time into complete neighborhoods through his Complete Communities Plan. This plan seeks to transform neighborhoods in such a way that residents will have access to grocery stores, quality schools, public transportation and work, within a short geographic distance. Mayor ‘Tumer’s vision is to transform previously neglecsed neighbothoods into acighborhoods HUD would define as “high opportunity”. The Trails at Palm Center is an example of a project receiving a resolution of support that furthers the Mayor's Complete Communities plan. Centered in Houston’s Third Ward District, the Trails at Palm Center will be within a 3-minute walk to a light rail stop, which connects Third Ward to the University of Houston, the Texas Medical Center, and other employment centers Downtown. Indeed, the revitalization of these neighborhoods is one aspect of affirmatively furthering fair housing. See 24 CPR. § 5.152. Independence Heights, an HHA affordable multifamily housing project, is another example of a project furthers the Mayor's Complete Communities plan that received a resolution of support. Independence Heights is within a neighborhood designated as both a Community Revitalization Outreach Area of the Hurricane Ike Disaster Recovery Round 2 program and as a Gteat Opportunities neighborhood by Local Initiatives Support Corporation. At the time the Mayor made his decision to support HHA’s Independence Heights project, the Houston independent School District (HISD) was planning to build the new Booker T. Washington High School in the Independence Heights area, To build the school, HISD acquired neatly 16 actes of land adjacent to the school, which resulted in the loss of several homes in the area. The Mayor and the neighborhood stakeholders recognized that affordable housing was needed for the area to replace the demolished houses and populate the school with students. In addition, a partnership between the Houston- Galveston Area Council (H-GAQ), the Greater Northside Management District, shutp:/ /wwow houstonisd.org/cms/lib2/TX01001591 /Centricity/Domain/4/021014 School"420Closure%42 Oand %20Consolidation’420FAQs%20UPDATED pdfThurman G. Miles Case No. 06-16-2001-6 Febronty 24,2017 Page § Independence Heights Redevelopment Council and Noxthline Development obtained a livable centers study in 2012 which identified a goal of encouraging a mix of housing types and maintaining housing affordability. Contrary to HUD"s representation, the Independence Heights project did not have similar costs to the Fountain View project. In fact, the Independence Heights project, at an estimated $195,858, is approximately 19% cheaper than the Fountein View project and a closer cost per unit to other projects chat received sesolutions of suppost or no objection. See Exhibit A. HUD ignores its own regulations in issuing the Letter. HUD’s zegulations define “affirmatively furthering fair housing”, in part, as taking meaningful actions that, “taken together, address significant disparities. in housing needs and in access to opportunity...transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into ateas of opportunity...” See 24 CFR § 5.152. Additionally, HUD regulations acknowledge the importance of “...zelying on local knowledge and local decision-making to determine best strategies for meeting their fair housing obligations at the local level — including making place-based investments to revitalize distressed areas, o expanding access to quality affordable housing throughout 2 community.” See HUD’s Affimetively Furthering Fair sing Final Rule Executive Summary. Thus, Houston's efforts at building affordable multifamily housing in neighbochoods HUD does not deem “high opportunity” but chat are on the edge of transformation are consistent with the affirmatively furthering fait housing principle. b. The City has issued resolutions of support or no objection for projects in “predominately white” neighborhoods. The City does aot have an established pattern of failing to site or support affordable housing projects in predominately white neighborhoods. In 2016, six of the twenty-two 9% LIHTC applicants seeking resolutions of no objection were for projects to be located in “predominately white” neighborhoods. Of the four applications considered by City Council, three’ (75%) of those projects received resolutions of no objection. In 2017, thtee of the twenty-seven applications for projects seeking 9% tax cxedits were in “predominately white” neighborhoods. All three applicants received resolutions of suppoxt or ao objection. AAs stated earlier, in addition to supporting the above-mentioned projects, Houston is launching a housing voucher program that would provide 350 families apartment homes in areas defined as “high opportunity” throughout Houston and Hasris County. ‘There is + Chapman Crossings, Crosby Meadows, and Magnolia Gardens received resolutions of ao objection Gardens at Cinco Ranch did not receive a resolution of no objection. Providence Stoneforest snd Somerall Apartments voluntarily withdeew theis applications, 5” Catlon at Harvest Green and Crosby Plaza Apartments ceceived resolutions of support. Timberedge Lofts seceived a resolution of no objection,“Thurman G. Miles Case No, 05-16-RO01-6 February 24, 2017 Page 9 absolutely no evidence to support HUD's findings that Houston has a history of not supporting developments in areas of high oppostunity or “white neighborhoods”. 3. Mayor Turner's decision not to support the Fountain View project was based on costs and not local opposition to the project. The Letter suggests that Houston swiftly changed its support for the project after the residents of Briergrove voiced theie opposition to the Fountain View project. HUD states that Houston was well aware of the costs and had previously suppotted the project. First, any previous support was under a different administration and City Council. Second, at the time Houston posted the Combined Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact and Intent to Request Release of Funds, the project was a 250-unit multi-family housing development, vsing $20 Million of DR funds, and costing $144,000.00 per vait. See Exhibit | The most disturbing of HUD”s “alternative” narrative is the assertion thet Mayor Tusner’s stated reason for his decision (costs of the project) was a lie, and that the real season behind his decision was acquiescence to che macially-motivated opposition of the local community. HUD spent 1 % pages of its findings retelling the comments of the residents, then adopted those comments and hearsay from newspapers to bolster its lack of evidence, ignoring the history of documented actions of the Mayor who has spent his entire career serving those historically marginalized communities Prior to becoming Mayor of Houston, Mayor Tumer served as the Representative for District 139, a predominantly Aftican-American community. While in the Texas legislature, he intzoduced legislation that would expand Medicaid in Texas pursuant to the Affordable Care Act and voted for bills thet prevented gas companies from cutting off service during freezing temperatures of those who were unable to pay theit bills. He was instrumental in passage of HB 2154 (Physician Education Loza Repayment Program) which funds a loan repayment program for doctors who practice in medically underserved areas across Texas, which attracted more than 225 physicians annually to the state's Health Professional Shortage Aseas in many urban centers. In May 2009, he supported HB 2962 which directed the Health and Human Services Commission to establish income eligibility levels so that childzen under the ages of 19 whose net family income was at or below 300 percent of the federal poverty level would be eligible for health benefits coverage. Prior to leaving his seat in the Texas House of Representatives, Mayor Turner helped pass legislation in the 83% legislative session to spend funds remaining in the System Benefit Fund® to continue to help pay the electric bills of elderly and low-income citizens. Mayor Tumer also proposed a measure increasing state funding for mental health services in Harris County from $32 Million to $200 Million, and worked to increase funds for legal aid for poor Texans. © The State of Texas charged everyone with an clecisie bill a fee that went into the System Benet Fund (SBF). SBF funded the LITE-UP Texas progcam, which helped elderly and lowrincome citizens pay their electric bills during the sermmer months.‘Thurman Giles Case No. 06.16-R001-6 February 24, 2017 Page 10 Again, HUD relies on unseliable information to support its finding of discrimination HUD quotes an article in a newspaper (that quotes an opinion in another newspapet) that purports to quote the Mayor stating that he would not support HHA’s Pinemont project because the community did not support the project. Upon further inquiry, HUD would hhave leamed thet this statement was taken out of context and that the Mayor believed that many of the issues raised regarding the Pinemont project could have been averted if HHA had involved the community stakeholders in coming to a consensus about the Pinemont development. Consensus-building and taking a collaborative approach can lead to successful outcomes. Indeed, HUD's regulations expect that the development of affordable housing requires community involvement and collaboration with ocher governmental stakeholders. See 24 CER. § 5.158; see alto, HUD's Affcmatively Furthering Fair Housing Final Rule Executive Summary. To unequivocally attribute discriminatory intent on (1) the second Aftican-Amezican mayor in the history of the City of Houston; (2) who has spent his career working for the disadvantages; and @) who still ives in a community that HUD does not deem “high opportunity” is not supported by any legal standacd. 4, There is no evidence Houston has discriminatory “normal” procedures of deviated from non-disctiminatory “normal” procedures. HUD sometimes argues that Houston has a single discriminatosy system and at other times argues that Houston has race-neutral procedures from which it deviated. Both contentions are without merit. HUD cites the City’s failure to follow its nosmal procedures for LIHTC credits, including considering costs as a substantive factor for not supporting the Fountain View project, as evidence of pretext. Specifically, HUD cites to the alleged lack of evidence thet HDD made a zecommendation regarding the Fountain View project and the fact that the Mayor did not place the resolution of no objection for Fountain View on the agenda. However, this is not a departure from procedure, but instead, actions consistent with the Houston’s Code of Ordinances’. Pursuant to Houston's Code of Ordinances, the Mayor controls the agenda to be considered at City Council. The Mayor, not HCDD, is the chief policymaker for Houston, HHA Board Chair met with the Mayor about the Fountain View Project. Based on the information provided directly to the Mayor by HHA, the Mayor determined that the costs of the project were not in the best interest of Houston. The Mayor chose not to place the Fountain View project on the agenda for City Council. % See Rule 3 of Section 2-2, Coun! rer of procedure which states, “The mayor may submit all new items of business as a ‘consent agenda, which may contain one or more ordinances, resolutions o: matters incosporated in a written motion as part of the regular agenda of matters to be considered by city council” Houston, Tex., Rev: Ordinances ch. 2, ast I, § 2-2 (1968)‘Taueman G. Miles Case No. 06-16-RODI-6 Febraary 24,2017 Page 11 HUD, ignoring its own rules, argues that Mayor Turner should lack the discretion to even consider that $240,000 per unit for an affordable housing development is exorbitant, and that he would need recommendation from HCDD to convince him that this cost pet tunit was an acceptable use of public fands. Since, HHA was financing this project with $26 Million of Houston CDBG funds, it was the Mayor's job to consider the costs of the project. HUD’s infetence that a mayor in 2 new administration is requized to defer to a previous administration when confronted with different facts is not sensible. The sequence of events is most telling as to the Mayor’s intent. Mayor Tumer met with former HHA Board Chair, Lance Gilliam, and Executive Dizector Tory Gunsolley, at HHA’s request, soon after Mayor Tuner was sworn into office (and before HHA’s public meeting on the project). HHA quoted the costs per unit to be $240,000.00. The Mayor, at this meeting, exptessed his hesitation about the project, citing the high costs. Bight months later, with no change on the costs and HHA not making any offers? to adjust the costs, the Mayor determined that the project was not i the best interest of the citizens of Houston ~ a project that would serve so few of those who need the most help. D. _ The remedies and corrective actions proposed by HUD are not necessary. Before the Mayot had a chance to appoint 2 permanent director for HCDD and develop and present his plan of action for transforming Houston neighbothoods, including addressing affordable housing matters in Houston, HUD hastily opened an investigation and issued Sndings based on the Mayor's decision not to support one project (Fountain View). As stated above, there is no evidence that the Mayor’s decision not to place the Fountain View project before Houston City Council for a vote on a resolution of support or no objection was based on the race or national origin of the potential residents of the project. Furthermoze, Houston has implemented or already had plans to implement actions similar to those proposed by HUD. As such, the proposed remedies and coszective actions are redundant and wholly unnecessary. Hovston’s response to each proposed remedy and cozzective action proposed ia the Letter of Findings is as follows: 1. The City shall provide the Houston Housing Authority with the fading needed to supplement HELA's allocation of CDBG-DR fitnds lo ‘cover the cost of construction of the Fountain View projec or another new construction or acquisition project in a low minority and igh opportunity consus tracts in the city of Houston. 8 Scaife ac 3-8 9 Contrary to HUD's findings, here was no offe, verbally of in writing, by HELA to elimi inate the developer's Fee or lower the costs of the project.Thurman G.MGes Case No, 06-16-R001-6 Febroaty 24, 2017 Page 12, As stated above, on February 15, 2017, the Houston City Council approved a resolution of support for the Heritage, a multifamily affordable housing project located in District G, zoned to the same schools as the Fountain View project. As always, the City continues to welcome any LIHTC proposals, including those presented by HHA, that will provide affordable housing for Houstonians. 2, The City shall develop a strategy 10 enconrage development of affordable housing for low and very law income persons in areas of Houston thai do not perpetuate segregation and without a bigh concentration of poverty, specifically in census tracts in the City with poverty rate less than ‘sweney percent (20%). Houston’s Voucher Mobility Plan is slated to provide 350 affordable housing vnits in cooperating private apartment complexes located in high opportunity areas, Additionally, for applicants secking LIHTC for multifamily developments ia the City, HCDD has developed a matrix that provides points for properties located in areas where the poverty concentration is less than 15%. ‘The points provided for these projects will contribute to their ultimate rankings in receiving HCDDs recommendation for a resolution of support or no objection. Houston will continue to research and evaluate new strategies for encouraging development of affordable housing throughout the City. 3. The City shall assess City as, polices, and practies affecting the sation, cost and availabilty of bousing and develop and implement a strategy for revising or eliminating any policies or practices that hinder or ereate barriers t0 affordable housing or fair housing, in areas of Houston shar do vot perpetuate segregation and without a bigh concentration of poverty specifically in census tracts in the City with a poverty rate less thaw ‘oenty percent (20%). ‘The City is expected to soll out the Mayor’s Complete Communities program which will specifically addzess affordable housing and identify plans to transform those areas with poverty sates above 20% to areas of “high opportunity” as defined by HUD. See also Houston's responses above. 4. Working with the Houston Housing Authority, the City shall develop and implement a sivategy to incentive owners 10 accxpt Housing Choice Voucher bolders within areas of Houston that do not perpetuate segregation and without a bigh concentration of poverty specifically in census traits in the City with a poverty rate les than bventy percent (20%). Houston bas already developed the Voucher Mobility Plan to specifically address identifying and placing families in apartment homes located in areas with a poverty rate less than 15%.‘Thosmaa C. Miles Case No. O6-16-RODI-6 February 24,2017 Page 13, 5. The City shal reae adopt, and implement a site selection poi for switing and reviewing requests for Resolutions of Support and Resolutions of No Objection jor Low Income Housing Tace Credit projets whic results in ‘the development of affordable housing in areas of Houston that do wot perpetuate segregation and nithous a bioh concentration of poverty speafcaly ‘in census tracts in she City with a poversy rate less than soenty perent 20%). The City has developed and recently utilized a matrix with objective mettics to identify projects seeking resolutions of support or no objection for LIHTC that do not perpetuate segregation based on race, national origin and/or socioeconomic stars: A copy of that matrix is attached as Exhibit 6. The City shall submit to ETUD for renew and approval each proposed itfenily bousing project that will uilize FIUD funds for rebabiltation or new construction. As there is no evidentiary basis for HUD’s finding that Houston hes engaged in discsiminatoty ptactices, there is no need for HUD to review and approve futute projects. 7. The City shall establish a City Fair Housing Commission that includes members of the Houston Housing Auabority Board and Honston residents who reside in areas of low minority concentration and areas of bigh ‘minority concentration and that Conomission will works in conjunction with HUD to eiminish bowing segregation As noted in Houston’s 2016 Anoual Action Plan, Houston has/will cteate a Community Development Advisory Council which is made up of public and private agencies that provide assisted housing, health services, and social services, community-based and regionally-based organizations that represent protected class members, and organization that enforce fait housing laws. See Exhibit K 8. The City shall develop criteria for determining site selection of Cily fended multifamily bousing that ensures that selstions do aot have a segrgative fit As stated above, the City has developed and utilized a matrix with objective mettics to identify projects seeking resolutions of support or no objection for LIHTC that do not perpetuate segregation based on race, national origin and/or socioeconomic status. Houston will regularly assess the effectiveness of this tool and adjust and modify the metrics as necessaty to affirmatively further fair housing,‘Thorman G. Miles Case No. 06-16-R001-6 February 24,2017 Page 14 E. Conclusion There is absolutely no factual basis 10 support HUD’s letter of findings of noncompliance. Additionally, the remedies and cosrective actions proposed by HUD are not necessary because Houston, as demonstrated above, had instituted most, if not all, proposed actions before the issuance of the letter of findings. Moreover, the fact that Houston has alteady done much of what HUD seeks disproves HUD’s fundamental claim that Mayor Turner discriminates against che poor. As such, Houston sespectfully requests thet HUD withdraw the Letter and close this matter. Sincerely, ald C. Lewis City Attorney Deidra Norris Sullivan Senior Assistant City Atvomey RCL:DNS EnclosuresCase No. 06-16-R001-6 Sullivan, Deidra N. - LGL eee From: Gunsolley, Tory Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 5:48 PM To: Teken, Andy - MYR; MCasland, Tom - HCD Subject: Independence Heights vs Fountainview developments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ‘Tom and Andy, ‘Thanks for talking to me today. I'd like to try to address the concem I heard. The comparison of $240,000 to $225,000 per unit cost is not an apples to apples comparison. I'd like to try to explain where I think the $240,000 per unit number came from and then provide a direct true comparison of the two projects cost. At the end of the comparison I believe that Independence Heights is about 19% cheaper than Fountainview when controlling for certain unique expenses with each property. Iam hopeful this will be helpful in gaining your support to move forward. Independence Heights is currently on the TDHCA November's agenda, however if the Resolution of No Objection does not pass City Council at it’s meeting on the 26th, HHA will have to be rescheduled at a future TDHCA board meeting and result in further delays to this project moving forward. I realize at this time there may be nothing that can be done to avoid this as the City Council agenda may already be finalized. Where did $240,000 per unit come from? ‘The number that had been shared with Developers and the City in early 2016 and may have been shared with ‘the supporters of the Stop Fountainview group was a Total Development Cost (as defined by TDHCA. which does not include land) of $52,314,631 or $224,526 per unit. If we include the land cost, the estimated total in early 2016 would have been $61,884,631 or $265,599 per unit. I am not positive where the $240,000 per unit cost came from, but it may been from a discussion between HHA and the Mayor where we talked about the real cost per unit not including developer fee. As we had stated then that the developer fee was not a true cost, per se, as it would be recycled into future affordable housing developments, after covering our staffing expenses. ‘The estimated cost including land minus the developer fee in the early 2016 time period would have resulted in a cost of $55,494,848, with a per unit cost of $238,175 which we may have rounded to $240,000 in our discussions with the Mayor. Since thet time we have worked a little to reduce the estimated cost of the project by refining our cost estimate. ‘The current estimated cost without land (TDHCA TDC) is $50,831,597 or $218,161 per unit. If we include the Jand cost the current estimated total is $60,401,597 or $259,234 per unit. These are still estimates as we have never bid the project out to determine actual costs. A waile ago we stopped expending funds on architects and construction consultants to further value engineer the project. We not yet refined these estimates when we talked with the Mayor in February 2016, so the above numbers make sense to me of where the $240,000 per unit came from. Apples to Apples Comparison ‘we compare the cost of the Independence Heights project using the same approach thet resulted in the $238,175 Fountainview estimate — the developer fee at Independence Heights needs to be removed resulting in a cost of $30,657,140 or $199,072 per unit. ‘There are also several extenuating circumstances that that are related to each project where adjustments need to be made to have a true comparison as each project is different. Our A&E costs at Independence Heights are substantially higher than Fountainview $6,684 per unit versus $3,926 per unit as we terminated the original architect and had to start over with a new design which increased the cost by $2,758 per unit (but we believe resulted in a better project that is more responsive to the community’s and HHA's vision). We also experienced 1 Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ACase No. 06-16-RO01-6 additional costs ($70,263) related to the condemnation process on one of the parcels that we assembled which is equal to $456 per unit. Both of these additional costs have been subtracted from the Independence Heights tomake a fair comparison of similar costs. AsT’ve taken a deeper look into all of the costs to HHA related to both deals there was one other item that is very different between the projects. These costs were not included in any of the cost information provided to you previously astheyt would be considered pre-development costs (but indeed are costs of the complete total Start to finish). These costs are demolition and relocation of current tenants. At the Fountainview project we estimated about $3,100,000 ($4,721 per unit) of demolition and relocation expenses of existing tenants under the Uniform Relocation Act (URA). The Independence Heights project had only $291,960 ($1,896 per unit) of demolition expenses and no relocation expenses. This results in a difference of $2,825 per unit which should be added to the Fountainview project per unit cost. ‘Taking all of these factors into account to try to give a true apples to apples comparison of the costs between ‘the two projects, if conditions are the same, results in a per unit cost at Fountainview of $241,000 and {$195,858 for Independence heights. Comparing the two projects in this way, Independence Heights is about 39% cheaper per unit to build. Thope this analysis is helpful and am happy to answer any questions you may have. Tory Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ACase No. 06-16-RO01-6 Controller's Office To the Honorable Mayor and City Council of the City of Houston: I hereby certify, with respect to the moncy required for the contract, agreement, obligation or expenditure contemplated by the ordinance set out below that: (.) Funds have been encumbered out of funds previously appropriated for such purpose. ()_ Funds have been certified and designated to be appropriated by separate ‘ordinance to be approved prior to the approval of the ordinance set out below. () Funds will be available out of current or general revenue prior to the maturity of any such obligation. ()__No pecuniary obligation is to be incurred as a result of approving the ance set out below. (.) That the money required for the expenditure or expenditures specified below is in the treasury, in the fund or funds specified below, and is not appropriated for any purposes. () A certificate with respect to the money required for the expenditure or expenditures specified below is attached hergtp and incorporated hereby by this reference. : WY pee ree (0 Other-Grant Funds Available °C ok i. Boe sense PES Date: 423, 2013 City Controller of the City of Houston & 7 xe _FUND REF:_30}0- $2 00AMOUNT: 22 2/6571 EXcums. ENBLOSL-/8 db et City of Houston, Texas, Ordinance No. 2013-355" y AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HOUSTON AND THE HOUSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $30,292,591.00 OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - DISASTER RECOVERY PROGRAM ROUND 2 FUNDS TO PROVIDE STATE REQUIRED SUBSIDIZED HOUSING FOR LOW INCOME RESIDENTS; CONTAINING FINDINGS AND OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE FOREGOING SUBJECT; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ECase No. 06-16-RO01-6 @ WHEREAS. in January. 2013. the City entered into grant agreements with the ‘Texas General Land Office (“GLO”), to receive over $152 million of Community Development Block Grant ~ Disaster Recovery Round 2 (*DR-2") finds for housing activities (GLO Agreements"): and WHEREAS. under the GLO Agreements the City is required to set aside and use a portion of funds on specific activities designated by the Houston-Galveston Area Council (“H-GAC"}: and WHEREAS, based on a formula stipulsted by H-GAC. the City set aside approximately $30 million dollars to provide subsidized housing: and WHEREAS, the Houston Housing Authority (“HHA”) is the primary provider of. subsidized rental housing in Houston; and WHEREAS, the City desires to partner and work together with HHA to administer/use the subsidized housing portion of the DR-2 funds to design and implement various activities, including, but not limited to, rental rehabilitation. reconstruction and/or new construction (“Project”) WHEREAS, HHA has agreed to fund the costs associated with the development and construction of the Project and request reimbursement for eligible costs from the City: and WHEREAS, under the GLO Agreements the City will request reimbursement fiom the GLO (the same process for reimbursement as used in the Disaster Recovery Round 1 Program): and WHEREAS, HHA is familiar with federal regulations and agrees to follow and administer/use the DR-2 funds in accordance with Section 3, Davis-Bacon Act and other applicable federal requirements and will be responsible for repayment to the City of any Project costs incurred by HHA that are deemed ineligible for DR-2 funding: and WHEREAS, the City and HHA now desire City Council approval of the Interlocal Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A” (Interlocal Agreement”) and incorporated herein by reference, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS: Section 1. That the facts and recitals contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct and are adopted as part of this Ordinance. Section 2. That the City Council hereby approves and authorizes the Interlocal Agreement, in substantially the form as shown in the documents which are attached Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ECase No. 06-16-RO01-6 hereto under EXHIBIT A and incorporated herein by this reference. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents and all related documents on behalf of the City of Houston, ‘The City Secretary is hereby authorized to attest to all such signatures and to affix the seal of the City to all such documents. The City Attorney is hereby authorized to take all action necessary 10 enforce legal obligations under said contract without further authorization from City Council. Section 3. That there exists a public emergency requiring thet this Ordinance be passed finally on the date of its introduction as requested in writing by the Mayor; therefore. this Ordinance shall be passed finally on such date and shall take effect immediately upon its passage and approval by the Mayor, however, in the event that the Mayor fails to sign this Ordinance within five days after its passage and adoption, it shall take effect in accordance with Article VI, Section 6, Houston City Charter. rasseo arm anorren ie 4h ayes Cael am, APPROVED this dayof___ 2013. Mayor of the City of Houston Pursuant to Anicle VI Seetion 6, Houston City Charter, the effective date ofthe foregoing Ordinance is__FPR 3.0 2013 Onntelace City Secretary ; onc) (Prepared by Legal Dept.‘ Mee (BIPITE/04/17/13) Sénior Assistant City Momey (Requested by Neal Rackleff - Director, Housing and Community Department) (LD. File No. 0290900087007) FUND REF: Grant Fund Phetensnanecordhtareidheh 2013 doe capmoN PUBLSHED NDALY COUR? Ear aR 20 203 : Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ECase No. 06-16-RO01-6 |_wavor paren [eOUNGL MEMBERS eee BROWN ad Tons Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ECase No. 06-16-R001-6 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THESTATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF HARRIS § THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ("Agreement") made and entered into pursuant to Tex. Gov't Code Ann., Chapter 791, Interlocal Cooperation Contracts (Vernon, 1997) by and between the HOUSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY, a body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Texas (“HHA"), and the CITY OF HOUSTON, a municipal corporation and home-rule city under the laws ofthe State of Texas, principelly located in Harris County, Texas, acting by and through its City Council (the “City”. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, HHA is a public housing agency that operates and manages its housing developments to provide decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing to low income families, the elderly, and the disabled, and implements verious programs designed and funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD"); and WHEREAS, the City's Housing & Community Development Department (“HCDD") has a primary objective to provide decent housing, cteate a suitable living environment and expand economic opportunities, principally for low and moderate income persons; and WHEREAS, the State of Texas, through the General Land Office (“GLO”), has entered into @ Grant Agreement with HUD for federal funding of a Community Development Block Grant Disaster Relief Program (“CDBG-DR”) under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2011, GLO released guidance for regional methods of distribution for the second round of approximately $1.7 billion of CDBG-DR funding and instructed the Houston-Galveston Area Council (“H-GAC") to use such guidance to allocate approximately $969 million in second round Hurricane Ike disaster recovery funds to the region's local governments; and WHEREAS, H-GAC was required to allocate 2 $90 million set-aside for the repair and replacement of federally subsidized rental housing damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Ike in Galveston County and Harris County; and WHEREAS, HCDD, on behalf of the City, submitted an application for federal assistance to H-GAC to receive an award of CDBG-DR funding; and WHEREAS, H-GAC approved end adopted @ “Method of Distribution” that allocated $30,292,591 to the City, as administered through HCDD, to be set aside for repair and replacement of federally subsidized rental housing in Houston that was damaged or destroyed by 1 804906.4002420.000000 ‘Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ECase No. 06-16-R001-6 fnurricanes and the administration of HHA’s housing choice voucher program providing rental assistance for families displaced by such disasters (the “Subsidized Housing Set-Aside”); and WHEREAS, HCDD has entered into a grant agreement with GLO entitled GLO Contract, No. 13-181-000-7294 Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program Rental Housing Projects Round 2 Subrecipient Grant Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit “A” (the “City GLO Agreement”); and WHEREAS, under the City GLO Agreement, the City is accountable to GLO for the distribution and eligible use of all funds pursuant to said agreement, including the Subsidized Housing Set-Aside funds, and must ensure that all such funds continue to be used for eligible purposes throughout the applicable ten-year compliance period; and WHEREAS, HHA administers and/or participates in several programs and activities ‘elated to the provision of affordable housing to low-income residents displaced or otherwise affected by area hurricanes including (1) the recent disposal of 174 scattered site properties that were previously public housing but had been rendered uninhabitable, in part due to the effects of the storms; (2) owning and operating a 197-unit rental project for the elderly in need of comprehensive modemization to increase occupancy and ensure long-term viability for lowe income seniors; and (3) administering the Disaster Housing Assistance Program created by FEMA and HUD to provide emergency rental assistance for families displaced by Hurricanes Ike ‘and Gustav, WHEREAS, the City and HHA desire to work together to use the Subsidized Housing Set-Aside to design and implement various activities o remediate the damage and resulting vacancies caused by the hurricanes, including rental rehabilitation, reconstruction, or new construction, and whieh may include additional construction (collectively, the “Project"); and WHEREAS, the recitals hereto are incorporated into the body and substance of this Agreement for all purposes NOW, THEREFORE, in consideretion of the sum of Ten and No/100 Dollars and other good end valuable consideration, mutual covenarts, agreements and benefits to both partes, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: SECTION 1: Funding, Upon HHA compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, standards and program guidelines, the City will make the entire amount of the Subsidized Housing Set-Aside available to HHA for projects that are mutually agreeable, to HCDD and HHA, to provide rental rehabilitation, reconstruction, andlor hew construction activities for eligible residents displaced or otherwise affecied by area hurricanes in connection with the Project. These activities may include, but are nat limited to, those costs that address acquisition, clearance, demolition, and removal, in addition 10 rehabilitation or construction costs. HHA will provide HCDD monthly draw requests for each project and such draws will be promptly processed and funded through the City. ll draws will bbe funded within fifteen (15) business days unless a delay in funding is caused by the GLO. ‘169808 4003420.000000 Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ECase No. 06-16-RO01-6 SECTION 2: Roles of the Parties, 2.1 Duties of the City. The City shall be responsible to fund eligible HHA. projects mutually agreed upon by the parties hereto, to the extent such funds are made available by the GLO. The City has the responsibility under the City GLO Agreement, as amended, to monitor the compliance of HHA with all applicable legal standards respecting any and all funds disbursed pursuant to this Agreement. However, the City has no obligation or responsibility for the actual design or construction of any components of the Project, performance of the work completing the Project, or maintenance or operation of any portion of the Project. The City agrees to cooperate with HHA and GLO in a timely manner to accommodate any required changes to terms and conditions. The City shall have the right to review, upon reasonable request by the City, HHA’s records in connection with the Project. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the City is not requized to expend funds under this Agreement other than the Subsidized Housing Set-Aside, If the City does not receive the allocation from the GLO and therefore is not able to provide HHA the funds from the Subsidized Housing Set-Aside, HHA may terminate this Agreement in accordance with Section 3 herein. 22 Duties of HHA. (2) __ HHA shall be responsible for utilizing the Subsidized Housing Set-Aside to implement the Project in conformity with the terms and conditions of the City GLO Agreement, as amended, and in accordance with all applicable federal, stste end local laws, tules, regulations, ordinances, guidelines or requirements, including but not limited to the Fair Housing Act. () HHA agrees that it will reimburse the City ina sum equivalent to the amount of any and all disallowed expenditures in the event that (i) HUD or GLO determines that HELA’s expenditure of finds awarded under this Agreement for the implementation, design and/or construction of the Project was not made in compliance with this Agreement or the Cit GLO Agreement or (ti) if any other relevant federal, state or local court, jurisdiction, department ot agency, audit exception or any other final action or final decision, efter HHA has exhausted all appeals, determines that HHA's expenditure of funds awarded under this Agreement for the implementation, design and/or construction of the Project was not made in compliance with this Agreement, the City GLO Agreement, or any applicable federal, state or local lews, rules, regulations, ordinances, guidelines or requirements, including but not limited to the Fair Housing Act. (6) The Housing Authority shall provide certification to the City of Houston with cach draw that the work subject to each draw is in compliance with Davis-Bacon and Section 3. SECTION 3: Term/Termination, ‘e240 020420000000 Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ECase No. 06-16-RO01-6 3.1 Agreement Term. This Agreement becomes effective when all parts are signed by the last party whose signature renders the Agreement fully executed. Unless otherwise terminated in accordance with this Agreement, the term of this Agreement ("Agreement Term") shall end on the date of termination of the City GLO Agreement, as amended. 32. Extension. The Director of HCDD ("Director") and the PresidentiCEO of HHA may mutually agree, by written agreement between the parties, to extend the Agreement Term or the time of performance for any of HHA's covenants or conditions set forth in this Agreement as they determine necessary or desirable to maintain compliance with the requirements of the CDBG-DR program and City GLO Agreement, as amended, end such right to extend is hereby delegated to the Director of HCDD without necessitating the need of further approval by the City Council 3.3. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated: (@) By the mutual agreement of the City and the HHA with sixty (60) days written notice; (b)__By the City if HUD issues a Limited Denial of Participation, suspension or debarment or otherwise takes action against HHA. and such HUD action is not cured within thirty (30) calendar days of weitten notice. (©) Ifthe HHA defaults under the terms of this Agreement in any manner that could reasonably result in repayment of funds or other liability to the City if such action is not cured within thirty (30) calendar days of written natice, 3.4 Damages. In the event of termination of this Agreement pursuant to this Section 3, HHA shall be entitled to receive reimbursement in the amount already expended on predevelopment costs reasonably incurred in anticipation of the Subsidized Housing Set-Aside and made in connection with the Project. SECTION 4: Representations and Warranties. 4.1, HHA hereby unconditionally warrants and represents to the City as follows: (@) It has the legal and financial capacity to assume responsibility for compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, rules, programs and agreements and to enter into this Agreement and to perform all of the undertakings set forth herein. {n connection with the Project, HHA will comply with all legal requirements required to be met, inchuding but not limited to the following: (i) any and all present and future judicial decisions, and present and future statutes, rulings, rules, regulations, permits, certificates or ordinances of any governmental authority in any way applicable to HHA or the Project, including, without limitation, the ownership, use, construction, occupancy, possession, operation, maintenance, alteration, repair ‘or reconstruction thereof, (ii) any and all covenants, conditions, and restrictions contained in any deed or other form of conveyance or in any other instrument of any nature that relate in any way or are applicable to the ownership, use, construction, occupancy, possession, operation, ‘see4aoe.aon2420.000ce0 Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT BCase No, 06-16-RO01-6 2 7 ‘maintenance, alteration, repair or reconstruction thereof, (iii) HHA's presently or subsequently effective bylaws and articles of incorporation or partnership, limited partnership, joint venture, trust or other form of business association agreement, (iv) any and all terms, provisions and conditions of any commitment which ere to be performed or observed by HHA. (v) eny and ell leases and other written contracts of any nature that relate in any way to the Project and to which HHA may be bound and (vi) all applicable restrictive covenants, zoning ordinances, subdivision and building codes, or if no local building codes are in place, then the most recent version of the International Building Code, flood disaster laws, applicable health and environmental laws and regulations and all other ordinances, orders or requirements issued by any stale, federal or ‘municipal authorities having or claiming jurisdiction over the Project. {b) Iisa duly organized and validly existing legal entity under the laws of the State of Texas. (©) This Agreement has been duly and validly executed and delivered by HHA and constitutes a valid and legally binding dbligation of HHA enforceable in accordance with its terms, (@ HRA is not a patty to any contract or agreement or subject to any charter ‘or other legal restriction of any kind which materially and adversely affects the business, property or assets, or the condition, financial or otherwise, of HHA. Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, nor compliance with the terms, conditions and provisions hereof, will conflict with or result in a breach of the terms, conditions or provisions of, or constitute a default under any law or any regulation, order or decree of any court o governmental agency, or any indenture or othet agreement or instrument to which HELA is currently subject, or will cesult in the creation or imposition of any lien, charge or encumbrance of any nature whatsoever upon any of the property or assets of HHA pursuant to the terms of any such indenture or agreement or instrument, and will not require the approval of any federal regulatory body or of any state or local commission or authority having jurisdiction with respect thereto, unless such approval has ‘been obtained and is in full force and effect on the date hereof. (©) __ There is no action, proceeding or investigation now pending before any court or any governmental department or agency nor any basis therefor, known or believed to exist which: () questions the validity of this Agreement or any action or act taken or to be taken by HHA pursuant to this Agreement, or (i) is likely to result in a material adverse change in the authority, property, assets, liabilities or condition of HHA which will materially and substantially impair its ability wo perform pursuant to the terms ofthis Agreement (9 There has been no administrative action taken nor is any administrative action pending against HHA, its members or, to the best of HHA’s knowledge, partes serving as subcontractors relating to Limited Denial of Participation, suspension or debarment. (@) Any and al information, reports, papers and other data (including, without limitation, any and all balance sheets, statements of income or loss, reconciliation of surplus and financial data of any other kind) heretofore furnished, or to be furnished, to the City by or on behalf of HHA are, or when delivered will be, tue and correct in all ‘material respects; all ‘s91a0e 4003420000000 Houston Response to Findings EXHIBITE,Case No. 06-16-RO01-6 financial data has been, ot when delivered wilt have been, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied and fully and accurately present, or will present, the financial condition of the subjects thereof as of the detes thereof; and, with respect to the financial data heretofore furnished, no materially adverse change has occurred in the financial condition reflected therein since the dates thereof. 42, The City hereby unconditionally warrants and represents to HHA as follows: (a) _ It has legal capacity to assume responsibility for compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, rules, programs and agreements and to enter into this Agreement and to perform all the undertakings set forth herein, (©) It ise duly organized and validly existing legal entity under laws of the State of Texas, (©) This Agreement has been duly and validly executed and hereby binds the City and constitutes valid and legally binding obligation enforceable in accordance with its tenmns (@) Intentionally omitted (©) Intentionally omitted (The authorization of the City Council to proceed with the execution of this Agreement shall include the authorization of the Director of HDD to provide any approvals or ‘consents required from the City pursuant to this agreement without the need for further action by the City Council. To the extent the Director of HCDD deems any consent or approval item needs to be brought before the City Council, the Director shall present such item to the City Council within a reasonable time frame SECTION 5: Dependeney Upon HUD and GLO Funding. 5.1 HUD Funding. HHA understands that the availability of the Subsidized Housing Set-Aside is dependent upon federal and state finding. Unless and until the City receives adequate funds from HUD through the GLO, the City shall have no obligation to HHA under this Agreement, In the event that the funds received by the City under the CDBG-DR agreement with HUD are insufficient to meet the City’s commitments, the Director may reallocate all or a portion of the funds that are budgeted for this Agreement, provided HHA is treated the same as any other grantee of the City in the reallocation of such funds, 5.2 Cessation of HUD Funding. In the event that HUD (for whatever reason) instructs ‘the City to cease funding of the Subsidized Housing Set-Aside, the City may do so without obligation to HHA and without being liable to HHA for any damages HHA may incur as a result of such cessation in funding; provided, however, the City agrees to deliver to HHA proper documentation evidencing HUD's instruction to cease funding, ‘894808 s003420.000000 Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ECase No. 06-16-ROO1-6 & @ SECTION 6, Records and Reports. The HHA shall maintain such records and make such reports as are required under applicable laws and regulations and as may be reasonably requested from time to time by the Director to document compliance with HUD regulations and with the requirements of this Agreement. Reporting forms will be specified by the Director or be those forms specified by applicable laws and regulations. HHA shell, upon the request of the Director, make available to the City at HHA’s principal office (or other location in Houston, ‘Texas as determined by HHA) all records, reports and other information and data, including financial records sufficient to ensure proper accounting and disbursements relating to the Project, ‘and shall cooperate with the City in connection with the City's review of such records and monitoring of the Project. HHA shall maintain all records and other information relating to the Project for @ period of not less than three (3) years, following the final expenditure of Subsidized Housing Set-Aside funds. SECTION 7. Notices. All notices and communications under this Agreement shall be mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, or delivered to the HHA at the following address: Houston Housing Authority 2640 Fountain View Dr, Suite 400 Houston, Texas 77057 Attn: Tory Gunsolley, President & CEO with @ copy to: Coats | Rose 3B, Greenway Plaza, Suite 2000 Houston, Texas 77046 Attn: Barry J, Palmer All notices and communications under this Agreement shall be mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, or delivered to the City atthe following address: City of Houston Housing and Community Development Department 601 Sawyer Street Houston, Texas 77007 Atin: Neal Rackleff, Director with a copy to: ity of Houston Legal Department 900 Beaby, 4* El 900 Bawby, 4 Floor Houston, TX 77002 Attention: City Attorney 183608 4003420 000000 Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ECase No. 06-16-R001-6 G& Notice will be considered given and completed upon deposit of the notice ina United States Postal Service receptacle. Either party may change its designated address for notice purposes upon ten (10) days’ prior written notice to the other party SECTION 8. Cooperation and Compliance. The parties hereto agree to cooperate with each other and provide all necessary documentation, certificates and consents and to take all necessary action in order to satisfy the terms and conditions hereof and the applicable laws, regulations and agreements relating thereto. SECTION 9.INDEMNIFICATION.TO THE EXTENT LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE, HHA SHALL INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD THE CITY (AND ITS COUNCIL. MEMBERS) AND ANY AUTHORITY AFFILIATE, AND EACH OTHER AUTHORITY PARTY (INCLUDING THE DIRECTOR) HARMLESS FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LOSSES, LIABILITIES, COSTS AND EXPENSES ("CLAIMS") ARISING FROM (A) ANY BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT BY HHA, OR (8) ANY BODILY INJURY, SICKNESS, DISEASE OR DEATH, OR TO INJURY TO OR DESTRUCTION OF TANGIBLE PROPERTY DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT CAUSED BY HHA'S GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT. SUCH INDEMNITY SHALL APPLY ONLY TO CLAIMS TO THE EXTENT CAUSED BY AN ACT OR OMISSION BY HHA, ITS AFFILIATES, JOINT VENTURE PARTNERS, GENERAL CONTRACTOR, AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES OF ANY OF THEM OR ANYONE FOR WHOSE ACTS THEY MAY BE LIABLE. SECTION 10. Miscellaneous. 10.1 Waivers. No delay or omission by either party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the other party's obligations under this Agrecment or to exercise any right ‘or remedy available hereunder shall impair any such right or remedy or constitute a waiver thereof in the event of any subsequent occasion giving rise to such right or availability or remedy or obligation, whether of a similar or dissimilar nature. 10.2 Assignment and Successors. No party to this Agreement will make, in whole or in Part, ony assignment of this Agreement or any obligation hereunder without the prior viitten consent of the other party. The terms, covenants, agreements, provisions, and conditions contained herein shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their suocessors and assigns and shell not bestow any rights upon any third party. This restriction does not pertain 0 Project development and construction activities with affiliates, related entities and/or codevelopers. 10.3 Intentionally omitted. 104 Ginal_ Agreement, This Agreement constitutes the final understanding and agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings and agreements between the parties, whether written or oral. This Agreement may be amended, supplemented or changed only by a writing signed or authorized by or on behalf of the party to be bound thereby. ‘804808 o03420.c00000 ‘Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ECase No. 06-16-R001-6 € 105 Approvals. Any approvals required fiom the parties in connection with this ‘Agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 10.6 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, such term or provision shall be deemed severed from this Agreement and the remaining parts shall continue in fall force as though such invalid or tmenforceable term or provision had not been part of this Agreement 10.7 Headings. The Section and Subsection entitlements hereof are inserted for convenience of reference only and in no way shall alter, modify or define, or be used in construing, the text of such Sections and Subsections, 10.8 Counterparts. This Agreement and any amendmenis hereto may be executed in several counterpaits, each of which shall be deemed to be an original copy, and all of which together shall constitute one agreement binding on all parties hereto, notwithstanding that all the parties shall aot have signed the same counterpart. 10.9 Further Assurances. Each party shall execute such other and further documents as may be reasonably necessary or proper for the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, 10.10. Interpretation and Governing Law, This Agreement shall not be construed against the party who prepared it but shell be construed as though prepared by both parties. This Agreement shall be construed, interpreted, and governed by the laws of the State of Texas, and ‘with respect to any dispute hereunder, jurisdiction and venue shall lie with the courts of Harris County, Texas. Should any party hereto retain counsel for the purpose of initiating litigation or arbitration to enforce, prevent the breach of any provision hereof, or for any other judicial remedy, then the prevailing party shall be entitied to be reimbursed by the losing party for all costs and expenses incurred thereby, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred by such prevailing party 10.11 Parties Bound. No officer, director, shareholder, employee, agent, or other person authorized to act for and on behalf of either party shall be personally liable for any obligation, express or implied, hereunder. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] ‘e0480s.4000420,000000, Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ECase No. 06-16-RO01-6 a & IN WITNESS HEREOF, the City and HHA have made an executed this Agreement, CITY OF HOUSTON (City) Date: Mayor ATTESTISEAL: Date City Secretary ‘COUNTERSIGNED BY: Date: City Controller ates —AAB=L. Neal Rackleff, Directo? Housing & Community Development Department APPROVED AS TO FORM: Date: ‘Assistant City ARomey LD. File No. HOUSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY (“HHA”) 13 Date: _“t Lance Gilliam, Chairman ia fe b ohn ae: YYC> ‘ory solley, Presigént & CEO. ssapas9sams 4 10 ‘e04009.aena420. 00800 Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ECase No. 06-16-R001-6 EXHIBIT A Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT E,Case No. 06-16-RO01-6 RVG A Poll - (oe GLO Contract No. 13-181-000-7294 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT DisASTER RECOVERY PROGRAM RENTAL HOUSING PROJECTS ROUND 2 SUBRECIPIENT GRANT AGREEMENT WuEREAS, the City of Houston (“Subrecipient’) isa selfperforming subrecipient under the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (“CDBG-DR") grant programm, and WHEREAS. Subrecipient submitied an application for Round 2 Program funding: and WHEREAS, the General Land Office (the “GLO”) has approved Subrecipient’s application for Round 2 Program funding: and WHEREAS, the GLO wishes to cooperate with Subrecipient in achieving its objectives and goals, including those arrived at through negotiations with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and citizen stakeholders and their representatives potentially including revitalization objectives in Areas of Opportunity. Now, therefore: This Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (“CDBG-DR") grant agresment (the *Contract”) is entered into by and between the GENERAL LAND OFFICE (“the GLO"), a ‘Texas state agency, and CiTy oF HOusTON (“Subrecipient”), hereinafter referred to collectively as “the Panes.” to provide financial assistance with funds appropriated by the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriation Act (Public Law 110-329) enacted ‘on September 30, 2008. to facilitate disaster recovery, restoration, economic revitalization, and to affirmatively further fair housing. in accordance with Executive Order 12892, in areas affected by Hurricanes Dolly and tke, which are Presidentially-declared major disaster areas under Title 1V of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et se4.) ARTICLE I - GENERAL PROVISIONS LOL SCoPE OF PROJECT AND GRANT AWARD (@) Scope of Project ‘The purpose of this Contract is to set forth the terms and conditions of a Grant from the GLO to Subrecipient under the CDBG Disaster Recovery program (“CDBG- DR"). In strict conformance with the terms and conditions of this Contract, Subrecipient shall perform. or cause to be performed, repair. reconstruction, and new construction, of rental housing. as applicable, in Subrecipien's jurisdictional area (the “Project”). The Project shall be conducted in striet accordance with the terms of GLO Cuntru: No. 13-18-000-7294 Page (022 scour Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ECase No. 06-16-R001-6 eS this Contract, including all Contract Documents in SECTION: 1.02, below, and any ‘Amendments, Revisions or Technical Guidance Leters issued by the GLO. (b) Grant Award Subrecipient submitted a Grant Application for grant under the Program, and the GLO is entering into this Contract based on Subrecipient's Application, Subject to the terms and conditions of this Contract and Subrecipient's Application, the GLO agrees to make a grant to Subrecipient in an amount not to exceed EIGHTY NINE MILLION ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-NINE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FORTY- Five DoLLARs (589,139,345.00), payable as reimbursement of allowable expenses incurred by Subrecipient, to be used in strict conformance with the terms of this Contract, and the Project Budget in Attachment B. ‘The GLO is not liable to Subrecipient for any costs ineurred by Subrécipient before the effective date of this Contract or after the expiration or termination of this Contract. However, the GLO in its sole discretion, may reimburse Subrecipient for allowable program costs incurred prior to the effective date of this Contract, 1.02 Contract Documents The GLO and Subrecipient hereby agree that this document and the following Attachments, attached hereto and incorporated herein in their entirety for all purposes, shall govern this Contract ATTACHMENT A: Performance Statements and Ber Projects rehmarks for Rental Housing. ATTACHMENT B: Project Budgets for Rental Housing Projects ATTACHMENT C: —_ Nonexclusive list of Applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations ATTACHMENT D: General A Tirmat ATTACHMENT E: Federal Assurances ~ Non-Construetion Programs SF-424B (Rev. 1-97) and Certifications Regarding Lobbying Lower Tier Covered Transactions (Form CD-512, Rev. 12-04) ATTACHMENT: Special Conditions 1.03 GutpaNce Documents Subrecipient shall be deemed to have read and understood and agrees to abide by all guidance documents applicable to the CDBG-DR program including but not limited to: (1) the CDBG-DR Project Implementation Manual found at: hupufvww. glo.texas.sow/GL Oidisaster-recoserv/nonhousings forms: publications. tral; (2) the State of Texas Action Plan for Disaster Recovery found at; hupiswww.glo texas. sov/GL Oidisaster-recoverv/action-plans html: and @) the Conciliation Agreement between: the Texas Low Income Housing Information Service and Texas Appleseed, and the State of Texas, by and through the Texas GLO Contract No. 1-181-000-7294 Page of 22 Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ECase No. 06-16-R001-6 Deparment of Rural Affairs and the Texas Department of Housing and Community Alfeirs, as approved by HUD in its letter dated May 26, 2010. to the Office of the Attorney General of Texas 1.04 Derixrtions “Act” means Title { of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sec. 5301 et seg.): and Public Law 110-329. “Auminisraive and Audit Revulations” means the regulations included in Title 24, CFR, Part 85. Chapier 321 of the Government Code: Subchapter F of Chapter 2153 of the Government Code; and the requirements of Artiele Vil herein. With regard to any federal funding. agencies with the necessary legal authority inelude: the relevant federal agency, the Comptroler General, the General Accounting Offic, the Office of Inspector General, and any of their authorized representatives. In addition, with regard to any state funding, state agencies with the necessary legal authority include: the GLO, the GLO's contracted ‘examiners, the State Auditor's Office, and the Texas Attorney General's Office. Amendment” means a written agreement, signed by the parties hereto, which documents alterations to the Contract other than those permitted by Work Orders, Technical Guidance Leuiess, or Revisions, as herein defined. Application” or “Grant Anplication” means the information provided by Subrecipient, which is the basis for the award of funding under this Contract. Benchmark” means the time periods allowed in Attachment A for the completion by Subrecipient of various requirements under the Contract. Bud * means the budget for the Projects funded by the Contract, a copy of which is included in Attachment B, “CER” means the United States Code of Federal Regulations ‘CDBG-OR” means the U.S. Depanment of Housing and Urban Development's ‘Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program. ‘Construction Documents” means the engineering specifications, construction plans, andlor architectural plans for the construction oF impravements approved by the GLO under the Contract, if any ‘Contra” means this entie document, along with any Attachments, both physical and incorporated by ceference; and any Amendments, Revisions, or Technical Guidence Letters that may be issued by the GLO, to be incorporsted by reference herein forall purposes as they ete issued, if eny. "Contract Documenss” means the dacuments listed in SECTION 1.02 ‘Detiverablets)” means the work product(s) required ta be submited to the GLO as set forth in the Performance Statement, which is included in Attachment A. “Equipment” means tangible personal property have a useful life of more than one (1) year and an acquisition cost of Five Thousand Dollars (85,000.00) or more per unt. “Event of Default” means the occurrence of any of the events ser forth in SECTION 3.03, herein. GLO Contract No, 1-181-000-7294 Page of 22 Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ECase No, 06-16-R001-6 |_Assursnees"” means Standard Form 424B (Rev. 7-97), as prescribed by OMB Cireular A-102 (non-construction programs) in Attachment E. Fexleral Certifications” means U.S. Department of Commerce Form CD-512 (Rev 12- 04), “Cenifications Regarding Lobbying - Lower Tier Covered Transactions,” and Standard Form LLL (Rev. 7-97), Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, in Attachment F Final_lesneetion Report” means the document submitted by a housing inspector to @ Subrecipient under a CDBG-DR Housing grant contract, indicating the completed construction of one Housing Unit (as defined below). Fiscal Veut™ means the period beginning September | and ending August 31 each year, ‘which is the annual accounting period forthe State of Texas, GAAP” means “generally accepted accounting principles” as applicable. GASB” means accounting principals a5 defined by the Goverimental Accounting Standards Board, as applicable. “ieneral A firmations” means the affirmations in Attachment D, to which Subrecipient certifies by the signing of this Contract. LUI" means the Texas General Land Office, its officers, employees, and designees. Housing” refers to a project involving home repair. home reconstruction, and new home ‘construction; including housing for single-family and multi-family rental units under 2 CDBG-DR program grant. Housing Guidelines” means a set of guidelines adopted by Subrecipient and approved by the GLO governing the implementation of the Program under this Contract. “Liousine Linit” means one house, or one multi-family rental unit “LS” means the Housing Quality Standards adopted by HUD and found at 24 CFR Part ‘982, which standards shall apply to any services authorized under this Contract. HHLB™ means Historically Underutilized Business as defined by Chapter 2161 of the ‘Texes Government Code. 10" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Heeformance Statement” means the statement of work contained in Attachment 4. “PXIC” means the GLO's Project Management Company. HNTB Corp,, Ine. ~Proaram” means the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program, edministered by HUD, in cooperation with the GLO. Project” means the work to'be performed under this Contract, as deseribed in SECTION 1.01(a) above, SCoPE OF PROJECT, and as detailed in Attachment A. “Project Completion Report” means a report containing an “as built” accounting of all projects completed under a CDBG-DR grant, and containing all information required to completely close out a grant file Project Implemsnation Manual” means a set of guidelines for the CDBG-DR grant program: GLO Contrace Ne, 5-181-000-7284 Page tof oer, Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ECase No. 06-16-R001-6 & © Public Informarion Aer" means Chapter 552 of the Texas Government Code. ‘Quarteds Renons” means written progress reports that must be received by the GLO, as set forth in Attachment A. Lssision” means written approval by the GLO to allow changes to Deliverable due dates, movement of funds among budget categories. and other Contract adjustments that ‘may be approved outside the GLO's formal Amendment process. Sctup” means documentation, submitted by a Subcecipient, necessary for the GLO to determine that housing sites meet minimum eligibility erteria, resulting in approval for the Subrecipient to move forward with the projects. “*Subrecipieas” means the City of Houston, awarded the CDBG-DR grant that is the subject of this Contract “Technical Guidance Lener_tor TGLY" means an instruction, elatification, or interpretation of the requirements of the CDBG-DR, issued by the GLO to specified recipients. applicable to specific subject matter, t© which the addressed Program participants shall be subject. Texas General Code Ci Government Code. U.S.C." means the Linited States Code. INTERPRETIVE PROVISIONS @ is" means Section 2306.514 of the Texas i meanings of defined terms are equally applicable to the singular and plural forms of the defined terms; (b) The words “hereof.” “herein,” “hereunder.” and similar words refer to this Contract as a whole and not to any particular provision, section, attachment, work order, or schedule of this Contract, unless otherwise specified: (©) The term “including” is not limiting, and means “including without limitation” and, unless otherwise expressly provided in this Contract, (@) references to contracts (including this Contrast) and other contractual instruments shall be deemed to include all subsequent Amendments and other modifications thereto, but only to the extent thet such Amendments and other modifications are not prohibited by the terms of this Contract, and (©) references to any statute or regulation are to be construed as including all Statutory and regulatory provisions consolidating, amending, replacing, supplementing, or interpreting the statute or regulation; () The captions and headings ofthis Contract are for convenience of referenes only and shall not affect the interpretation ofthis Contract, (@) Ail Attachments within this Contract, including those incorporated by ceference, and any Amendments, are considered part ofthe terms ofthis Contract GLO Contras No, 13181-00284 Pages of 2 coun, Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ECase No. 06-16-R001-6 (h) This Contract may use several different limitations, regulations. or policies 1o regulate the same or similar maters. All such limitations, regulations, and policies are cumulative and each shall be performed in accordance with its terms; (@ Unless otherwise expressly provided, reference to any action of the GLO or by the GLO by way of consent. approval. or waiver shall be deemed modified by the phrase “in the sole discretion of the GLO." Notwithstanding the preceding semtence, any approval, consent, or waiver required by, or requested of, the GLO shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed: G) —_Allddue dates and/or deadtines referenced in this Contract that occur ona weekend or holiday shall be considered as if occurring on the next business day; (%) All time periods in this Contract shall commence on the day after the date on which the applicable event occurred, report is submitted, or request is received; and © Time is of the essence in this Contract, REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK {GLO Contract No, 1-181-900-7294 ase 6of2 Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT EBCase No. 06-16-RO01-6 e Cc SIGNATURE PAGE FoR GLO Conraract No. 13-181-000-7294 SUBRECIPIENT HOUSING GRANT AGREEMENT — ROUND 2 GENERAL LAND OFFICE, oF Houston cy } aD. kel Ira D. een — Alita te Dap, any Laie, Chief Coad By denise D, Packer Deputy Land Commissioner Title,_Heyor Date of execution_} fA J { PUES ceca We Mis oy Ace ATTACHED To Tus CONTRACT: Date of execution: 22-2/-/— ATTACHMENT A: Performance Statement and Benchmarks ~ Rental Housing Projects ATTACHMENTB: Project Budgets — Rental Housing Projects ATTACHMENTC: —_ Nonexclusive list of Applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations ATTACHMENTD: General Affirmations ATTACHMENT: Federal Assurances - Non-Construction Programs SF-424B (Rev. 7-97) and Certifications Regarding Lobbying Lower Tier Covered ‘Transactions (Form CD-512, Rev. 12-04) ATTACHMENTF: Special Conditions ATTACHMENTS FOLLOW Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ECase No. 06-16-RO01-6 City of Houston Signature Page for GLO Contract No. 13-(81-000-7294 Subrecipient Housing Grant Agreement ~ Round 2 SEALTATTEST: CITY OF HI N, TEXAS CP{Y OF HOUSTON, Te a Nat DD. elders Anna Russell, City Secretary ‘Knnise D, Parker, Mayor 22 AE 77 o APPROVED: Neal Rackleff, Diré¢tor Ronald G. Greer ler Housing and Community Development Gn Fk Department APPROVED AS TO FORM: COUNTERSIGNATURE DATE: fle. Zz ed Lr-U-( bh Senior Assistant Cty Atomey LD# 0291100079001 Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT BCase No. 06-16-RO01-6 é Attachment D General Atirmations Page tof? GENERAL AFFIRMATIONS Grantee agrees without exception to the following affirmations: t The Grantee has not given, offered to give, nor intends to give at anytime bereafier any economic opportunity, future employment, gift, loan, gratuity, special discount. trip, favor, or service to a public servant in connection with this Contract. Pursuant (0 Title 10, Section 2155.04 of the Texas Government Code, the Grantee has not received compensation from the GLO for preparing any pat of this Contract Under Section 231.006, Family Code, the vendor or applicant certifies that the individual or business entity named in this contract, bid, or application is not ineligible (o receive the specified grant, loan, or payment and acknowledges that this contract may be terminated and payment may be withheld if this certification is inaccurate. Any Grantee subject to this section must include names and Social Security numbers of cach person with at least twenty-five percent (25%) ownership in the business entity named in this Contraet. This information must be provided prior to execution of any offer. Grantee certifies that the individual or business entity named in this Contrect: hs not been subjected to suspension, debarrent, or similar ineligibility to receive the specified contraci as determined by any federal, sate, or local governmental ity; i) is in compliance with the State of Texas statutes and rules relating to procurement; and iii) is not listed on the federal governments terrorism waich list tas described in executive order 13224, Entities ineligible for federal procurement are listed at bupu/wwwcnls.gov. Grantee acknowledges that this contract may be terminated and payment withheld if this certification is inaccurate, 5. Grantee agrees that any payments due under this Contract will be applied towards any debt, including, but not limited to, delinquent taxes and child support tht is owed tthe State af Texas 6 Grantee cemifies that they aré in complience with Texas Government Code, Title 6 Subtitle B, Section 669,003, relating to contracting withthe executive head of a state agency. If this section applies, Grantee will complete the following information in order for the bid to be evaluated Name of Former Executive: Name of State Agency Date of Separation from State Agency: Posi with Grantee: Date of Employment with Grantee: 7. Grantee agrees to comply with Texas Government Code, Title 10, Subtitle D, Section 2155,4441, relating to the purchase of products produced in the State of Texas under service contract. Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT ECase No. 06-16-R001-6 Nore: eS Ausehonent D Generat Affirmations Page ot2 Grantee understands that acceptance of funds under this Contract acts as acceptance of the authority ofthe State Auditor's Office. or any successor agency, to conduct an audit or investigation in connection with those funds. Grantee further agrees to cooperate fully with the State Auditor's Office, or its successor, in conducting the auditor investigation, including providing all records requested Grantee will ensure that this clause is inctuded in any subcontract it awards Grantee certifies that if it employs any former employee of the GLO, such employee will perform no work in connection with this Contract during the twelve (12) month period immediately following the employee's last date of iployment at the GLO. ‘The Grantee shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, disability, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin. The Grantee shail take affirmative action 10 ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated without regard to their race, color, sex, religion, age, disability, or national origin. Such action shall include, but is not be limited 10, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layaff of termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The Grantee agrees 10 post notices, which set forth the provisions of this non- discrimination article, in conspicuous places available to employees or applicants for employment. ‘The Grantee shall include the above provisions in all subcontracts pertaining to the work. Grantee understands that the GLO does not tolerate any type of fraud, The agency's policy is to promote consistent, legal, and ethical organizational behavior by assigning responsibilities and providing guidlines (o enforce controls. Any violations of law, agency policies, or standards of ethical conduct will be investigated, and appropriate actions will be taken, Grantees are expected to report any possible fraudulent or dishonest acs, waste, or abuse affecting any transaction with the GLO to the GLO’s Internal Audit Director at 512.463.5338 ot wacey.hall @glo state.tx.us Grantge must take steps to avoid or mitigate occurrences of fraud, abuse, end mismanagement, especially with respect lo the financial management of the Contract and pronouncements made under this Contract, whether so directed by the GLO or at Grantee's initiative, Upon discovery of any alleged or suspected fraud, abuse of power, kickbacks, the embezzlement or loss of funds under this Contract, or the theft of any assets provided for under this Contract, the Grante= immediately shall notify the GLO and appropriate law enforcement authorities and cooperate in eny investigation and enforcement ection that follows. information, documentation, and other material in connection with this Contract may be subject to public disclosure pursuant to the “Public Information Act," Chapter $52 of the Texas Government Code. ‘Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT B,Case No. 06-16-R001-6 2640 Fountain View Driv, Suite $0, Howton, Houston Housing Authority Board of Commissioners: Lance Gillam, chor | LaRence Snowden, Vice Chair ‘Veronica R. Chapa | Kristy Kiendll | Niels Fuentes Tb | Pils Wilson |Shondra Wives REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RET 16-24 ‘The Houston Housing Authority (HHA), has issued this Request for Information (RFT) 16-24, for the purposes of determining the level of interest from perties who may have or know of propesty(jes) which are available for purchase which would be suitable for the development of a high opportunity multifamily housing development in City of Houston Council District G. HHA will nonexclusively work with brokers, developers, direct sellers, government entities, commercial businesses that can make available a vacant site, improved site or existing housing that could be utilized for the development of housing, By 10 A.M. September 9, 2016, interested firms should send a letter indicating their level of interest, with the attached Development Site Assessment Form to: Houston Housing Authority Attn: Kevin M, Coleman, M.S. C.P-M. RE: RFT 16-24 Land Acquisition (District G) 2640 Fountain View, Suite 408D Houston, Texas 77057 HHA is requesting that the letter be on compeny letterhead, dated, and contain a manual signature, It can be emailed (preferably) to Purchasine@housingforhouston.com, or seat via fax to 713-260-0810. HHA may elect to enter into negotiations ‘M. Coleman, MS, C.P.M. rement Manager Houston Housing Authority A Fair Housing end Equal Employnent Opportunity Agancy. For azatance: Indvducs wit disables may contact he SOUADA ‘Aniniseator at 1 20-35%, TTY 13-2600574 or Bla houting ahaa Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT FCase No, 06-16-R001-6 LT Houston Housing Authority 2640 Fountain View Dr. | Houston, Texas 77087 | Phone: 713.260.0500 | TTY: 713.260.0547 | wwwhousineforhouston.com, DEVELOPMENT SITE ASSESSMENT FORM. Development Name (ifany) Address: Total Acreage of Site: Census Tract Site is Located in: Terms of Sale: The following ACS 2014 Census Tract Data: ‘count Percent Poverty Rate: ‘Non-Hispanic White: ‘Affican American: Hispanic: ‘asians Asking Price: Price per Saft |s there low concentration of subsidized housing within one mile of the site? Yes 's the site focated in a neighborhood that Is seriously detrimental to familylife or Yes in which substandard dwellings or other undesirable conditions predominate? Is the site located in a neighborhood that has @ Pert |violent crimes rating thatis Yes, greater than 18 per 1,000 persons? Name of the Elementary School the site is zoned too: Does the zoned Elementary School have a rating of Met Standards in the TEA Yes STARR ratings? Name of the Middle Schoo! the site is zoned too: Does the zoned Middle School meet standard in the TEA STARR ratings? Yes ‘Name ofthe High Schoo! the site is zoned to Does the zoned High Schoo! meet standard in the TEA STARR ratings? Yes IB seratsepstatin noe enh SOANOA tate 7 040,15 00087 BoA @bnatahstn can Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT FCase No. 06-16-R001-6 Houston Housing Authority 2640 Fountain View Dr | Houston, Texas 77087 | Phone: 713.260.0500 | TTY: 713.260.0547 | wwwhousingforhouston.com Is the nearest Bus Stop located within ¥ mile ofthe site? Yes No If the nearest Bus Stop is located within ¥ mile of the site, is the walking Yes No Toute to the Bus stop pedestrian safe/friendly and ADA safe/friendly? Isthe site located within a 1 mile radius of the following listed below? Grocery Store Yes No Police station Yes No Yes No Park Yes No| Health Facilities Yes No! Ust any other social, recreational, educational, commercial and health feclities and services and other municipal facilities and services thet are within a 1 mile radius of the site: Is the site adequate in size, exposure, and contour to accommodate at least Yes No 50 units? Is the site serviced by adequate utilities (gas, weter, sewage, electric) and Yes No avaliable streets? \s the site located outside the 100-year flood plsin? Yes No. Isthe site located outside the 50-year flood plain? Yes No List any known environmental hazards and explain: Is the site located within 300 feet of junkyards? Yes No| {s the site located within 100 feet of active railroad tracks? Yes No Isthe site focated within $00 feet of heavy industrial or dangerous uses suchas. ‘Yes No! ‘manufacturing plants, fuel storage faciities (excluding gas stations) refinery blast zones, etc? EB seas ot etna nner UO Aut 20005, 260" SUCK soedattnson Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT FCase No. 06-16-R001-6 Houston Housing Authority 2640 Fountain View Dr. { Houston, Texas 77057 | Phone: 713.260.0800 | TTY: 713.260.0547 | wwwhousingfarhouston.com Is the site located within 2 miles of potentially hazardous uses such as efineries Yes No capable of refining more than 100,000 barrels of oil dally? Is the site located within 300 feet of a solid waste or sanitary landiils? Yes No. |s the site located within the easement of any overhead high voltage transmission Yes, No. line, support structures for high voltage transmission lines, radio antennae, a satelite towers, or other similar structures? [s the site located within the accident zones or clear zones for commercial or Yes No) military arports? 300 feet of a sexually-oriented business? Yes No ‘Any Additional Comments: ED sets etn a og SiON nee 27 250089,71 79:26 ceghnlrsen con Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT FCase No, 06-16-RO01-6 City of Houston, Texas, Resolution No. 2017-_ 0006 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES, EACH LOCATED IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS, AND THE SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR HOUSING TAX CREDITS FOR SUCH DEVELOPMENTS; MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT. WHEREAS, the City Council (the *City Council’) of the City of Houston (the “City") finds that each of the entities whose name is listed in the column on Schedule | captioned “Applicant Name” (individually referred to as “Applicant’) has proposed a development for affordable rental housing whose name and location are set forth beside the name of such Applicant in the columns on Schedule | captioned "Project Name" and “Project Address” (individually referred to as “Applicant's Project” with respect to the Applicant whose name is listed beside such information), each located in the City of Houston, Texas; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that each Applicant has advised that it intends to submit an application, bearing the number set forth beside the name of such Applicant in the column on Schedule | captioned “TDHCA Number” (individually referred to as “Applicant's Application” with respect to the Applicant whose name is listed beside such TOHCA Number), to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Aifairs for 2017 Competitive 9% Housing Tax Credits for the Development; and WHEREAS, the City Council, as the governing body of the City, supports each Applicant's Project and the submittal of Applicant's Application related thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNGIL OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON: Section 1. That the findings contained in the preamble of this Resolution are Getermined to be true and correct and are hereby adopted as a part of this Resolution. Section 2. That the City Council hereby confirms that it supports each Applicant's Project and the submittal of Applicant's Application related to such project Section 3. That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage and approval by the Mayor; however, in the event that the Mayor fails to sign this Resolution within five days after its passage and adoption, it shall take effect in accordance with Article VI, Section 6, Houston City Charter. Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT GCase No. 06-16-RO001-6 PASSED AND ADOPTED this an of EUOD » 2017. Mayor of the City of Houston Pursuant to Article VI, Section 6, Houston City Charter, the effective date of the foregoing Resolution is__££B 71 ay7 ~ Lp (Prepared by Legal Dept. ae Zt did 1 eae Senior Assistant City Attomey (Requested by Tom McCasland, Director, Housing and Community Development Department) a SHOE — a ae COHEN, sores > : — tas cook OTs CSNEROS ra CALEGOE oe LASTER = aa — KNOX — ROBINSON: eae KUBOSH = eae ee PUBUSHED IN DAILY COURT — ou oS TEE eaeneat | acre a ae EXHIBIT GCase No. 06-16-R001-6 oszer ausngaya zzz ngayD Zezz 1 auUINgaID weeT zzeut 4g Is2:91M pue emo. wedsemA DAN In Te UOISIAOIg ySOI2qEA4 Ye UOISIADIE TSecT i agewaH Ou, 8H AEDHEO JIN BBELE 4S vosjoden pue Ys 21409 40 IMS syoroges, 1 syor. ae] foquinn, sseuppy walo1g ‘auien 7a! auen wedyddy vouaL stvafoig uoisnoH Jo Ai - Hoddns 30 suonnjosou quauniedag uoudojanag Aajunuuioy pue ‘Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT GCase No, 06-16-RO01-6 Plan Overview The Problem: ‘The Housing Choice Voucher program (“HCV,” formerly called Section 8), funded by HUD and administered by housing authorities, has become the primary mechanism nationally for housing seniors, disabled individuals and families living at or below the poverty line. Unfortunately, despite ‘theoretically offering housing choice to participants, in practice the choice offered is far too often limited to neighborhoods with failing schools, high poverty rates, high crime rates and apartment complexes nearing the end of their usable life. Indeed, fewer than two percent of apartments in what are called high opportunity neighborhoods even accept HCV clients. Other cities have dealt with this issue by passing ordinances (or sometimes state law) banning source of income discrimination, which prevents apartments owners from refusing to accept HCV clients simply because they participate in the HCV program. While opening opportunities for some HCV clients, such source of income discrimination ordinances do not prevent apartments from refusing to rent to HCY clients due to low credit scores or eviction history. Thus, they are often not Ideal tools for addressing the issue. In Texas, the state legislature has prevented cities from passing, such ordinances. This act has forced Houston to examine the possibility of creating a market-based solution to the problem in cooperation with apartment owners, managers, the Houston Apartment Association and the Texes Apartment Association. ‘The Pilot: A Texas non-profit, NestQuest Houston Inc. (NestQuest), proposes to serve as an intermediary between the apartments and the housing authorities as well as provide apartment locator services and social service referrals. For the pilot period, NestQuest proposes to limit its services to families with school children in kindergarten through third grade, Both housing authorities would refer all ‘families either in initial lease up or near the end of their lease that meet the above criteria to NestQuest: Staff from NestQuest would contact the family and determine whether there is an Interest in moving to an area zoned to a high opportunity area. The definition of this area would still need to be defined, but at a minimum should be a home zoned to a high performing elementary school. The services would be provided County-wide and would allow families to choose to live both inside and outside the City limits. ‘Once a rental unit has been identified near a good school, NestQuest would lease the unit from the cooperating apartment complex as 2 corporate apartment, and simultaneously sublet the apartment, to the HCV client. NestQuest would be responsible for all the traditional roles of a landlord in a Housing Assistance Program (HAP) contract. Additionally, NestQuest would do the following: offer security deposit assistance, hold the utilities in ts name, collect rent and utility payments from the client and housing authority, pay the landlord a single payment for combined rent, Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT HCase No. 06-16-R001-6 + make immediate referrals to social services, * serve as the stop gap for any damages to the apartment not covered by the deposit upon move out. ‘The planning period will include: creating all documents necessary to lease the unit, confirming the process with specific apartment complexes, identifying the initial participation of apartment complexes, and hiring a bookkeeper, apartment locator/counselor, and Housing Choice Voucher expert. ifthe pilot project is successful, NestQuest believes long term funding for the program could come from local governmental entities. The target numbers thru 2018 would be 350 families. The program would be assessed at the end of 2018 and a determination made at that point regarding continued viability based on outcomes. Measurable outcomes: + Annual evictions at or below [5}t of total families served. * Annual lease renewals of at least [80] of families served. * [Other measurable outcomes? Should increase in household income be a priority for this program?] Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT HCase No. 06-16-R001-6 Process for calculating scores: 2 Remove any application proposed for a census tract that has a poverty concentration rate of 25% or higher and is not located within a Complete Community.” Remove any general (family) application proposed for an area that is zoned to @ school on the TEA’s Improvement Required (IR) list. Score the remaining properties as follows: 2, 2 points: zoned to an A or B rated elementary school based on the Children at Risk rankings b. 2 points: zoned to an A or B rated middle school based on the Children at Risk rankings 2 points: zoned to an A or B rated high school based on the Children at Risk rankings 4,2 points: with 4 miles of city hall (this is @ QAP bonus scoring factor fram TDHCA) 4 points: located within a soon to be announced Complete Community (2 points provided for being in close proximity to a Complete Community) 2 points: poverty concentration is less than 15% 2 points: rehabilitation of an existing property that deconcentrates poverty” + point: written letter of support from Councilmember i. 2 points: 3-4 bedroom units Community feedback may move an application to a lower priority based on specific documentable issues relating to amenities, transportation, or other site issues not immediately obvious from the application Community support may result in moving a development to a higher priority than the one recommended by HCDD staff. Unless a development falls within a Complete Community, staff will not recommend more than ‘two applications in an individual City Council district. * Only one ofthe properties submitted had @ poverty rate over 30% and it was nat lacated in a Complete Community * De-concentration of poverty can occur by rehabbing an existing highly concentrated property and inserting a mix fof incomes or by taking @ market rate property and making some of the units affordable Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT(0, 06-16-ROO1-6 ‘ot 0 waste Hous ano onary Bevesornen Community Development Advisory Council (CDAC) Guidelines Housing and Community Development Department Overview ‘The City of Houston Housing and Community Development Department (HCDD) strives to promote and encourage community involvement in the consolidated planning process. HCDD’s goal is to receive community input to produce meaningful strategies to best serve Houstonians using four (4) federal formula grant programs: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA\, as well as any special grants that may become available. ‘The Community Development Advisory Council (CDAC) is one way in which HCDD strengthens collaborative partnerships while gai formation about community needs and strategic guidance from Houston's housing and community development stakeholders. The CDAC serves as an advisory council, not a decision-making body. Role of Community Development Advisory Council Representing a broad spectrum of organizations in the fields of housing, community and economic development, and social services, the CDAC will provide input into the development of HCDD's strategic planning process. Specifically, the CDAC will provide assistance in the following roles: © Review data and other resources to identify and assess Houston’s housing and community development needs, especially the needs of low- and moderate-income citizens and persons with special needs including the homeless, elderly, and HIV positive ‘Assist in defining critical community issues and develop recommendations to improve and enhance Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan strategies and general HCDD program direction © Advise HCDD on the citizen participation process for and encourage citizen participation in the development of the Consolidated Pian, Annual Action Plan, and CAPER ‘Assist in public relations by informing citizens about consolidated planning developments and other HCDD programs, activities, and accomplishments Responsibilities of Community Development Advisory Council Members of the CDAC are asked to fully participate in all activities and discussions regarding the consolidated planning process. At a minimum, CDAC members are required to: ‘+ Provide data, resources, and information to HCDD that is needed for or can enhance the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, CAPER, or other HCDD documents ‘Create draft documents supporting CDAC recommendations for HCDD staff evan s0s4n019 page tots Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT KCase No. 06-16-R001-6 ‘© Review the City’s Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, CAPER, and other documents submitted to HUD, as needed * Attend all CDAC meetings (approximately 3 general meetings held annually) * Attend Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan public hearings and meetings Ifa member is absent from a CDAC scheduled meeting (general meeting or other assigned meeting), attendance may be counted if a representative for the CDAC member Is in attendance. HCDD may revoke membership if a member is not in attendance at most scheduled meetings. Appointment CDAC candidate agencies will receive an invitation to join the CDAC. HCDD’s goal is to have a minimum of twelve CDAC agencies each year, but HCDD aims to have a larger, diverse group of members. Appointment of candidates shall be from organizations required in the consultation section of the consolidated submission requirements. In accordance with federal regulations, when preparing the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan, the City of Houston shall consult with various public and private agencies. Table 1 summarizes the general requirements set forth in 24 CFR 91 used to select candidate agencies. Table 1: Summary of Consultation Requirements in 24 CFR 91.100 for Consolidated Plan & Annual Action Plan Requirements (2) General Needs Housing Services Health Services Social Services | Fair Housing Services Homeless Services (2) Homeless Needs Coc Public and Private Agencies that | address residents needs Publicly funded institution of care Business/Civic Leaders (8) Lead-Based Paint Hazards State or Local Health Agencies Child Welfare Agencies (4) Non-housing Community Development | Adjacent Government Needs (5) Metropolitan-Wide Planning Needs Local Government Planning Agen Term of Servi CDAC memberships are two (2) year terms coinciding with the Program Year, beginning July 1st and ending June 30th. CDAC members appointed to vacancies will complete the unexpired term of office. After the term has expired, CDAC agencies may receive a letter extending an esos 30/34/2033 Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT K age 2083Case No. 06-16-R001-6 invitation to continue as a member agency of the CDAC for another term, Agencies do not have term limits. Compensation CDAC members are volunteers and shall not receive any salary, reimbursement, or other compensation for their services. Conflict of Interest Although the CDAC will not be involved in funding decisions or exercise responsibilities in regards to HCDD funding, there may be occasions when potential requests for proposals, pending funding announcements, or other information may be discussed in order for HCDD to receive strategic feedback from CDAC members. During these discussions, CDAC members with conflicts of interest, real or perceived, will be asked to recuse themselves from the discussion. All CDAC members will be required to sign a conflict of interest disclosure form, Appendix 2, to help HCDD identify and eliminate potential conflicts of interest. CDAC members are required to disclose any HCDD assisted activity in which they or a member of their immediate family may obtain or has obtained financial interest or benefit in the past year. Conflicts may include, but are not limited to, associations with organizations in which a person: ‘owns or has had an ownership interest in is or has been a board member is or has been a consultant is or has been involved in a contractual relationship CDAC members are required to disclose immediately all potential new conflicts of interest that arise during their term of service as a CDAC member. Appendices 1. Member Contact Information 2. Conflict of interest Disclosure asd 30/4/2013 Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT K age 303- 06-16-RO01-6 es. at nora HOUSING ane umunty Member Contact Information for the Community Development Advisory Council Name: Tide: Organization: Address: Telephone and Fax: Email: Information for Government Monitoring Purposes These questions are voluntary and will only be used for reporting purposes. 1. Please select one or more that best describes your race: American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific islander white ____ Other Multiracial 2. Please select one that best describes your ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino Not Hispanic or Latino 3. Please select one that best describes you: Female Mate 4. Do you consider yourself a person with a disability? Yes No. soveed 7sn013 open ages Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT KHOUSING AND couiunny BeveLorwent Conflict of interest Disclosure Form 4 ACKNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTAND that by signing this document, | have received and am hereby committing to follow the Community Development Advisory Council Guidelines. 1. Lam volunteering my services to the Community Development Advisory Council (CDAC), without any expressed or implied promise by the City to compensate me for my services. | ACKNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTAND that | am not entitled to and will not receive remuneration of any kind, including, but not limited to, salary or reimbursement for my transportation, parking, travel, or any other expenses whatsoever which may be incidental to my services as a volunteer for the CDAC. 2. | may be exposed to confidential information while participating in the CDA, and | agree to respect the confidential nature of all information, whether in files or in electronic form and/or any other confidential information which may be revealed to me in any other manner (including contacts with third parties who relate confidential information to the City). 3. If L represent or am affiliated with an entity that currently receives funding or is likely to apply for future funding from HCDD, | must disclose such information to HCDD and may be subject to receiving limited information regarding relevant or potential funding requirements and processes. 4, Ifa conflict of interest exists | shall not participate in or be permitted to hear the CDAC discussion of, the matter except to disclose material facts and to respond to questions. Such person shall not attempt to exert his or her personal influence with respect to the matter, either at or outside the meeting. 5. | am required to disclose all organizations | am or my immediate family members are affiliated with including agencies outside of the agency represented on the CDAC, Print Name: ‘Agency/Organization Represented: Position: Please check one: _____ lam or I represent an agency that is currently receiving funding directly/indirectly from HCD. | am not and | do not represent an agency that is currently receiving funding directly/indirectly from HDD. 1am not and | do not represent an agency that is receiving funding directly/indirectly from HCDD; however, | plan or an agency that | am affiliated with plans to apply for funding in the future. ever 0/2018 Aopen age ofa Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT KPlease list for-profit or nonprofit organizations that you or your immediate family members are affiliated with that have received HCDD funding {entitlement or otherwise) in the past twelve months or that intend to seek HDD funding in the next year. Affiliations can be paid or volunteer and may include, but are not limited to, ‘owner, officer, board member, majority shareholder, director, employee, consultant, sub-recipient, or other relationships such as contractual. ‘Name of individual Agency/Organization | _Position/Role Ownership | Date (Years) Thereby certify that the information set forth above is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. Ihave reviewed and agree to abide by the Community Development Advisory Council Conflict of Interest Disclosure and the Community Development Advisory Council Guidelines of the City of Houston Housing and Community Development Department. Signature: Date: Reviewed By feveed m/nesa sevendd tage 22 Houston Response to Findings EXHIBIT K