Readers might remember that for a few months, I summarized the City of Houston agendas, first on Houblog, and later, here on blogHOUSTON. However, work commitments and the fact that it took me upwards of six hours to craft those posts led to my abandoning the effort. It’s past time I picked the task back up, though I’m not going to go so overboard this time. I will no longer attempt to post explanations or comments about each and every item on the agenda; instead I will select the items I think are most noteworthy and bring them to readers’ attention each week. This will make the articles much shorter and easier to get through as well, perhaps inviting more comment.
The drawback is that the original style allowed the reader to decide what was important; now it’s up to my judgment. I invite readers to bring any overlooked agenda item to my attention in the comments if they believe it is important; I’ll endeavor to update the article prior to the meeting if I have any input to add.
Once again, readers are cautioned that I delete what I judge to be extraneous text, and often paraphrase in order to make the legalese a lot more readable. Such deletions may accidentally result in a key omission; if you wish to read the original text, please follow ths link to the currently posted agenda. Note that I use the full “backup”; the agenda with the actual Requests for Council Action appended. These are often quite illuminating, but are not available online to the public prior to council meetings.
It’s a long agenda this week, and I’ve cherry-picked some really good items for you. Head below the fold and check it out.
Starting with item # 1. Barely into the agenda, and a good one already! It is a request for approval of the GREATER HARRIS COUNTY 9-1-1 EMERGENCY NETWORK Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 – January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007, in the amount of $42,125,000.
Yes, that’s the world class and money-saving Lee P. Brown Emergency Center, set up during they heyday of Chief Bradford.
Not that we’re, you know, worried about that track record or anything. Chief Bradford and Mayor Brown promised us it would cost about $13 million a year, saving us about $7 million annually. This means we’re saving a whopping negative $29 million this year! We can only hope the Chief is less successful in bringing any of these “savings” to the Sheriff’s department, if elected to that post.
Item # 20 authorizes issuance of City of Houston, Texas Taxable Pension Obligation Bonds, Series 2007A; blah, blah, blah. “The proceeds are being used to make payments to the Houston Municipal Employee Pension System (HMEPS) and the Houston Police Officers Pension System (HPOPS) for $33 million and $30 million respectively, with the remainder to cover expenses.”
Why, no, I’m not concerned that the city is using debt financing to fund my pension. No, no. Not at all! There’s more room under the mattress…
47-68. Calls public hearings at which interested persons will be given the opportunity to be heard on a proposal for the City of Houston and Bridgestone Municipal Utility District, Chelford City Municipal Utility District, Fort Bend County Municipal Utility District No. 119, Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 33, Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 53, Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 55, Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 154, Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 165, Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 179, Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 185, Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 188, (pant, pant…) Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 222, Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 189, Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 264, Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 286, Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 322, Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 358, (pant, pant, pant…) West Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 6, Northwest Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 9 , Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 365, White Oak Bend Municipal Utility District, Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 368, Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 397, Timber Lane Utility District, Sagemeadow Utility District, Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 468, and Harris County Water Control And Improvement District No. 119 to enter into a strategic partnership agreement and on a proposal by the City of Houston to annex for limited purposes certain territory. (I’m going to go rub liniment on my knuckles now…)
“I for one, welcome our new municipal overlords.” I’d heard that the Legislature was going to take a hard look at banning these limited purpose annexations. Clearly the City of Houston is trying to grab as much land while the grabbin’s good. If you live in any of the above districts, keep your eyes open for those public meetings and be sure to appear.
69-72. Calls public hearings at which interested persons will be given the opportunity to be heard on a proposal for the City of Houston and Horsepen Bayou Municipal Utility District, Morton Road Municipal Utility District, North Forest Municipal Utility District, and Northwest Park Municipal Utility District to enter into an amendment to the strategic partnership agreement and on a proposal by the City of Houston to annex for limited purposes certain territory.
The problem is, once you pay the Danegeld, you’re never rid of the Dane…
The last one’s a humdinger–of course I saved the best for last! Item #45. authorizes amendments to Ordinance Nos. 96-908, 95-349, and 97-1167 to reallocate Economic Development Initiative (EDI) Grant Funds issued in connection with the Rice Hotel and other Section 108 Program activities, authorizes future reallocations of EDI Grant Funds among all existing Section 108 Notes as needed, and “removes certain Housing projects from the scope of the City’s Section 108 Program.”
Under the EDI/Section 108 program, participating jurisdictions (including the City) are required to pledge future years’ CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) allocations as security for loans guaranteed by HUD. EDI funds act as a reserve to offset losses resulting from credit risk.
Readers are referred to two items from the August 8, 2006 Agenda post, which I’ll quote here, since it was a long article:
18. Amendment to Ordinance No. 2002-0328, restructuring the City’s Second Lien Section 108 Loan on the MAGNOLIA HOTEL and to spend up to $7,384,849 of EDI Grant Funds to protect the City’s position on its Section 108 Notes. Also authorize the Mayor to negotiate with HUD additional EDI Grant Funds up to such amount and to execute an amendment to the contract between the City and HUD relating to the project.
Translation: “Dear HUD: we loaned these guys a bunch of money to build a hotel. Now they won’t pay us back, and since we’re second lienholder, we can’t do anything about it. However, if you give us ANOTHER $7.3 million and let us amend our agreement, we don’t think we’ll be shafted any worse.”
19. Amendment to Ordinance No. 1999-1186, restructuring of the City’s Second Lien Section 108 Loan on the CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL (formerly the Whitehall Hotel) and to spend up to $3,984,818 of additional EDI Grant Funds to protect the City’s position on its Section 108 Notes. Also to authorize the Mayor to negotiate with HUD for additional EDI Grant Funds up to such amount and execute an amendment to the contract between the City and HUD relating to the project.
Translation: “Oops, we did it again.”
Summarizing, the intent of the new ordinance is to divert about $7,000,000 away from the Crowne Plaza and Magnolia Hotels, and toward the Rice Lofts. Everyone’s cashed in their chips and left the taxpayers holding the bag on the first two, so the funds aren’t needed there anymore. Could it be that the third is about to have “problems” paying the city? Just how much did the Rice Lofts loot receive from the Housing and Community Development Department? In short, this translation is: Dear HUD: thanks for being such suckers. We took your your guarantees and used them to underwrite really bad loans at terms so obviously disadvantageous that we must be stupid. What dummies we are! Of course, we weren’t paid, so we just looked innocent, collected our money from you instead, and now we’re back to do it again with the Rice Hotel. Oh and by the way, while we’re at it, we’re tired of pretending that housing funds are really supposed to be for, you know, affordable housing. Everyone knows it’s really welfare for deserving wealthy developers. So we’re just going to remove all single-family housing from eligibility anyway.“
No, I’m not kidding. From the last paragraph of the RCA:
Based on the full utilization of all available EDI Grant Funds as described above, HCDD further requests City Council to approve the amendment of Ordinance Nos. 95-349 and 97-1167 to delete single family and multi-family housing projects from the scope of the City’s Section 108 HUD-guaranteed Loan Program.
It’s merely icing on that cake to note that $385,000 of the over $7 million being reallocated is to pay legal fees for “workout activities, default/foreclosure, and collection.” For some people, the Houston Housing and Community Development Department is like a game of Monopoly: “Pass Go. Collect $200.” Perhaps we should rename it the “Housing and Developer Development Department”? I’m taking suggestions, and will see about setting up a poll to vote on it if I get enough!
See you next week.
BLOGVERSATION: Slampo’s Place.
