BOULDER HOUSING PARTNERS

REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

OCTOBER 8, 2012 2:30 PM

BHP OFFICE 4800 N. BROADWAY, BOULDER COLORADO

Our primary mission is to provide quality affordable housing that is developed and managed

with respect for the dignity of all involved. We also seek to create a sense of community strength

and spirit that supports resident efforts to realize success in their lives.

REGULAR AGENDA

I. Call to order

II. Determination of Quorum

III. Partnership Awards

IV. Public Participation**

V. Committee Reports

1. Governance

2. Finance/Audit

3. Resident Representative Council

4. Boulder Housing Partners Foundation

5. Development

VI. Approval of the Agenda

VII. Consent Agenda

1. Minutes from September 10, 2012

VIII. Action and Discussion Agenda

Director’s Report

1. 2013 MTW Plan

2. Resolution #26: Approval of 2013 MTW Plan

Management Report

1. August 2012 Financial Summary

Development Report

1. Lee Hill Housing

2. Public Housing Conversion

3. WestView

4. High Mar

5. Red Oak Park

X. Closing Matters and Wrap-Up

XI. Adjourn

** Any member of the public is invited to address the Board on any topic that is on, or not on, the

agenda during Public Participation. Anyone wishing to speak will have the floor for a maximum of 3

minutes.

1

BOULDER HOUSING PARTNERS

ANNUAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 2:30 PM

BHP OFFICE, 4800 N. BROADWAY, BOULDER COLORADO

Commissioner Harris Betsey Martens Kathy Haddock (CAO)

Commissioner O’Neal Stuart Grogan

Commissioner Eckert Jim Koczela Public:

Commissioner McCormick Penny Hannegan Amy Tremper

Commissioner Ageton Rene Brodeur

Commissioner Holton Jeremy Ehrhart

Commissioner Klerman Betsy Wagner

Commissioner Haggerty Karen Kreutzberg

Commissioner Mitchell Tim Beal

I. Call to order

Commissioner McCormick called the regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners to

order at 2:37 pm.

II. Determination of Quorum

A quorum was declared.

III. Public Participation

Amy Tremper, a north Boulder resident, updated the Board about the North Boulder

library initiative called the “Little Lending Library.” Lucky’s Market will be hosting a

barbeque with proceeds donated to the project. Commissioner Eckert voiced his support

of the idea that the community space at WestView be considered as a possible location

for a small branch library. Betsey reiterated her interest in further discussions about this.

IV. Board Announcements

Commissioner Klerman and McCormick announced that they will be attending the

Housing Now conference in October.

COMMISSIONER KLERMAN MADE A MOTION TO RECESS INTO

EXECUTIVE SESSION AS PER COLORADO STATUTE C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(a)

TO DISCUSS A REAL ESTATE MATTER. COMMISSIONER AGETON

SECONDED THE MOTION. The motion passed unanimously.

2

V. Board Committee Reports

Governance

Commissioners McCormick and Klerman had been presented at the July meeting as the

slate of candidates for the office of chairperson and vice chairperson, respectively.

Commissioner Eckert opened the floor for additional nominations for Chair and Vice

Chair of the Board of Commissioners for Boulder Housing Partners. There were no other

nominations;

COMMISSIONER ECKERT MADE A MOTION NOMINATING

COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK AS CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS FOR BOULDER HOUSING PARTNERS. THE MOTION

WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOLTON.

COMMISSIONER AGETON MADE A MOTION NOMINATING

COMMISSIONER KLERMAN AS VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS FOR BOULDER HOUSING PARTNERS. THE MOTION

WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER O’NEAL.

THE SLATE OF NOMINATIONS WAS UNAMIMOUSLY APPROVED BY

ACCLAMATION.

Finance

Commissioner Klerman, representing the Finance Committee, reported that the

Committee had discussed revisions to the current Cash Management Policy and

Procedures and would bring a resolution to the Board next month after the revisions had

been reviewed by BHP’s auditors. The Committee also discussed HUD funding of the

Section 8 program.

RRC

Commissioner O’Neal, President of the Resident Representative Council, stated the RRC

will be meeting on Sept 12th

. They will discuss the hiring of a bookkeeper and the option

of taking a break until January 2013 to give them time to reorganize and strategize about

having more resident participation.

Foundation

Commissioner Holton, reporting for the Foundation, stated that the Foundation has been

reevaluating its role and looking at best practices for their non-profit partnership with

BHP. At their last meeting they discussed other local foundation partnership models

3

(Mental Health Partners, Parks and Recreation, Golden West and Fresno Housing

Authority Foundation). Commissioner Ageton suggested also talking with the

Community Foundation about partnership models given the breadth of who they serve in

our community. Commissioner Holton suggested that resident services programming be

a future Board development topic.

Development

Commissioner McCormick, representing the Development Committee, stated that the

Development Committee supported Resolutions 21, 23, 24, and 25 related to the

financing of WestView and the committee recommends that BHP proceed with the

acquisition.

VI. Approval of the Agenda

Consent agenda items:

1. Minutes from July 9, 2012

2. Minutes from August 13, 2012 Special Meeting of the Board

COMMISSIONER O’NEAL MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

COMMISSIONER KLERMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. The motion passed

unanimously.

VII. Action Agenda

Directors Report

Retreat Planning

Betsey described the potential retreat topics. The Board agreed with the proposed

agenda.

Betsey announced that BHP has won the National NAHRO Award of Excellence in

Housing and Community Development for Red Oak Park which will be presented at the

National conference in Nashville, TN in October.

Management Report

July 2012 Financial Summary

Jim K. gave an overview of the July financial summary. Jim explained the Housing

Assistance Payment (HAP) funding situation with HUD as described in the Board packet.

4

Jim reported that the Finance Committee had discussed revisions to the current Cash

Management Policy and Procedures and would not be asking for approval of Resolution

#22 at this meeting, but instead would bring a resolution to the Board next month after

the revisions had been reviewed by BHP’s auditors.

Jim presented a summary of the post-issuance compliance procedures relating to the tax-

exempt bond compliance asked for in Resolution #21.

Development Report

Stuart and the project manager, Danica Powell, reported that the preleasing activity at

WestView is showing strong market interest in the apartments. Stuart also stated that the

community space would be used as a leasing office initially, and the process for

determining the subsequent use of the space would be determined in the near future.

Danica stated that the project had received 4% tax credits from the Colorado Housing and

Finance Authority (CHFA). Danika stated that the sale of the property to BHP is

scheduled to close on October 10 with move-ins to begin November 1. Danica will

schedule a tour of the apartment complex before the next Board meeting on October 8

and will be organizing a grand-opening ribbon cutting event.

Adoption of Resolutions 21, 23, 24, 25

COMMISSIONER HARRIS MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION #21,

#23, #24 AND #25 RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISIION OF

THE 4600 BROADWAY (WESTVIEW) HOUSING PROJECT.

COMMISSIONER ECKERT SECONDED THE MOTION. The motion passed

unanimously.

Lee Hill Housing

Betsy Wagner and Stuart updated the Board about the Community Engagement activities

to date for 1175 Lee Hill. Currently, 46 people have signed up for the two focus group

topic sessions. The focus groups will begin the week of September 17. Advisory Group

applications are now being accepted for the nine member group.

Stuart reported that BHP had received 9% tax credits for the project.

Commissioner McCormick stated that she had met with Ardie Sehulster, Board Chair for

the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless.

Betsey informed the Board that the City Council will be having a study session about

homelessness issues in the city on October 30, 2012.

5

VIII. Executive Session

The Board recessed into Executive Session as per Colorado Statute C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(a)

to discuss a real estate matter at 4:37 pm. Commissioner Mitchell recused herself from

the discussion due to a potential conflict of interest.

IX. Closing Matters and Wrap Up

COMMISSIONER KLERMAN MADE A MOTION TO CONTINUE WITH THE

SALE OF NORTH HAVEN PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE SALE.

COMMISSIONER HARRIS SECONDED THE MOTION. The motion passed

unanimously.

X. Adjourn

COMMISSIONER AGETON MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE

REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS.

COMMISSIONER KLERMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. The motion passed

unanimously.

The regular session of the Board of Commissioners adjourned at 5:25 pm

SEAL

DATE: 09/10/12

ANGELA MCCORMICK, CHAIR

Boulder Housing Partners

BETSEY MARTENS

Executive Director

PENNY HANNEGAN

Recording Secretary

6

1

MEMORANDUM

To: Board of Commissioners

From: Betsey Martens, Executive Director

Subject: Director’s Report

Date: October 4, 2012

This month’s Director’s report includes:

Consent: None at this time

Action: Partnership Awards

Moving to Work

Updates: Third Quarter Work Plan

Summary of BHP in the News

NAHRO Updates

City Issues Affecting Affordable Housing

Attachments: Summary of Public Comments on MTW Plan

2012 Work Plan

Resolution #26: 2013 Annual Plan for MTW

Summary of City Issues Affecting Affordable Housing

ACTION ITEMS:

Partnership Awards

Non- Profit Partner: Community Cycles – Presented by Karin Stayton

Community Cycles makes a unique and positive contribution that greatly enhances

the quality of life for children, youth, and families in Boulder Housing Partners'

housing sites. Several times a year, Community Cycles provides bicycle repair and

safety clinics to the residents of our family sites, at no cost to our residents.

Government Partner: Olga Jacoby – Community Programs Specialist,

Boulder County Area Agency on Aging -Presented by Sally Miller

The Boulder County Short-Term Assistance Program with Boulder County Area Agency

on Aging is being recognized for providing financial assistance to Boulder County residents

who are age 60 or older. When our residents have a financial emergency they know they

can call on the Boulder County Short Term Assistance Program for help. Whether it’s a

7

2

financial crisis which might cause them to lose their housing, or a dental problem for which

they have no other resources, this program can help.

Community Partner: David Shurman and Residents of Presbyterian Manor -

Presented by Shelly Miezwa

Presbyterian Manor and their Board of Directors have opened their doors as a designated

evacuation site for our residents at Arapahoe Court. The residents of Presbyterian Manor

have graciously agreed to assist in the event of an evacuation bringing peace of mind to

these residents.

Moving to Work

As noted last month, participating in the Moving to Work Program requires BHP to write

an Annual Plan. The Annual Plan is the tool used to create activities which change the way

BHP administers the Public Housing and Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Programs. For

2013, BHP wrote five activities. They are:

- 2013- 1: Housing Quality Standard (HQS) inspections to follow recertification

schedule

- 2013-2: Elimination of Utility Reimbursement Payments

- 2013-3: Special voucher program for our partnership with the Boulder Safehouse

Progressive Alliance for Non-Violence

- 2013-4: Waiver of Project-based Voucher Rules

- 2013-5: Broader Use of Funds for the Replacement Housing Factor Funds

On September 6, 2012, the 2013 MTW Annual Plan was posted on our website for public

review. Hard copies were also available at our front desk. Two public hearings were held

on September 20 and 21, 2012. Postcards were mailed to all Public Housing residents and

Section 8 participants. Nine people attended the public hearings. Positive comments were

received, no changes were suggested. Comments that were received via email and phone

are attached.

In order to submit the 2013 MTW Annual Plan to HUD, we are asking for Board approval

on Resolution #26. The Plan will then be submitted to HUD by October 15 for final

approval from the MTW Office. Activities will be implemented as of January 1, 2013.

UPDATES:

Third Quarter Work Plan

Attached is a summary of the progress to date on the 2012 Work Plan. Project plans or

goals that have been completed are indicated with a green check; goals that are progressing

well have a blue dot and projects that have been discontinued or moved into 2013 are

identified with a red X. The highlights of the quarter include:

8

3

Board decision to hold 101 Pearl and allow for a significant renovation (underway)

Completion of the Bridgewalk renovation

Total transition of Red Oak Park from development to management

Refinance of all existing debt

Year 2 MTW plan drafted

First meeting of the MTW RAC

Lee Hill public process going well

Creation of resident services goals and outcomes

Summary of BHP in the News September 2012

Our PR efforts highlight a number of happenings, hiring’s, and newsworthy events at BHP

this past month.

Articles Published featuring BHP and/or Affordable Housing:

Story about fresh food delivery to Northport Boulder Food Rescue delivers 170000th pound of perishables

News items posted on our website

2013 Moving to Work Annual Plan

2011 Annual Report to the Community

WestView apartments Closing Planned for Early October

Now accepting applications for the 1175 Lee Hill Advisory Group

Highlights of Social Media.

We are becoming more and more our own newspaper by creating consistent messages

about BHP and our community via Facebook, Twitter, our Blog and Constant Contact.

Some of our postings this month included:

NoBo Little Libraries http://www.facebook.com/BoulderHousingPartners

Boulder Community Hospital free screenings

BHP 2011 Annual report

1175 Lee Hill Advisory Group Application Survey

Ciclovia Event on Sept. 16, 2012

WestView Apartments updates http://twitter.com/Boulderhousing

Secretary Polis to Host Live Twitter Chat on Entering the Job Workforce

The Canyon Point Green Retrofit post-rehab utility consumption report found that

we had on average 37% savings on all utilities (water, electricity and gas).

http://boulderhousing.tumblr.com/

NAHRO UPDATE

The national news continues to focus almost entirely on appropriations news. As an MTW

agency, we are affected by appropriations for public housing operating subsidy, capital

9

4

funds and Section 8 administrative fee formulas. As the mainstream media has reported,

both the House and the Senate have agreed on a continuing resolution through March 30,

2013. There are a number of problems for housing authorities related to the continuing

resolution decision. The Board might remember that last year HUD used a budgeting

approach of requesting $1 billion less than necessary in operating subsidy in order to

require PHAs to draw down their operating reserves to levels that HUD considers more

appropriate.

That strategy, fiercely opposed by PHAs and NAHRO, and many others, has created two

unintended consequences. One, it means that in a continuing resolution environment, we’re

short by $1 billion, and two, it has caused several hundred PHAs to join in litigation against

HUD challenging the legality of taking operating reserves.

In addition to the continuing resolution challenges, HUD has released its interpretation of

sequestration impact. HUD has advised PHAs to plan for an 8.2% across the board

reduction.

In good news, NAHRO was successful in introducing a first-ever piece of sponsored

legislation into the Senate. Last month Senators Johanns and Tester, on behalf of NAHRO,

introduced a small housing agency deregulation bill. There is no expectation that it will be

considered this year, but it is monumental to have the legislation introduced and ready for

discussion in the next congress.

City Issues affecting Affordable Housing

Summary: There were several issues that staff identified for Board review that are

currently under consideration by the City of Boulder; a summary is included in the

attachments.

10

5

Comments on 2013 MTW Annual Plan

Date How From Comment Response

9/5/2012 email Service Provider

It looks wonderful (and ambitious). I love seeing the practical and common sense ideas that have been floated around for years finally applied to benefit our vulnerable families.

9/10/2012 phone call

Public Housing Resident

Wanted to know what postcard was all about, thought it meant she was going to get Section 8.

9/10/2012 letter Section 8 Participant

I can't go to the meeting, as I am completely disabled. I don't have comments at this time.

9/13/2012 phone call Section 8 Participant

Concern about the "moving to work" part, am disabled and as much as I would like to work, I am unable to. Can you please send me a copy of the plan so I can read it and let you know of any other comments I may have?

It was explained that elderly persons and people with disabilities were not going to be required to work, it is the name the program was given by HUD when created. Plan was sent on 9/14/12

9/19/2012 phone call Section 8 Participant Are the meetings mandatory?

No. Changes were explained, response was currently pays own rent and utilities, so would not affect them

9/24/2012 phone call Section 8 Participant

The plan looks wonderful and so kind. Well thought out, but it does bring up some questions. Is BHP really a landlord, or are they social services? What is the fear that as more services are provided, the people receiving them will become more dependent on them? Most people can become self-sufficient without help, why offer services to all? Why not only to those who are really elderly?

We had a conversation about PHAs being both landlords and service coordinators, where we provide the link from the resident/participant to the service provider in the community in order to allow that person to stay successfully housed and/or transition out.

11

ATTACHMENT

Summary of Current City, State, and National Issues Affecting Affordable Housing

City Issues

Clarification on the Metro Denver Homelessness Point-in-Time Survey

Several months ago, Boulder Councilmember KC Becker asked some clarifying questions of

City staff in regards to a Daily Camera article about the Metro Denver Point-in-Time

Homelessness Survey. Karen Rahn from the City of Boulder Housing and Human Services

responded to her questions. One of Councilmember Becker’s question specifically addressed

changes within the data gathered as part of the Point-in-Time survey and Karen Rahn provided a

thorough explanation. Both are included here due to its interest and pertinence when discussing

homelessness in Boulder.

Question: It seems like reliable data is hard to come by. How can Boulder work to assure

more consistent and reliable data?

Response: In [July 24, 2012] Daily Camera was an article titled, “Homeless Numbers Up in

Longmont.” I thought I would provide some context and clarification regarding the data

provided. Each year in January the Metro Denver Homeless Initiative completes a Point in Time

Survey (PIT) of the homeless population across the state. The data is reported county-wide, with

city-specific data provided for some local areas upon request. The cities of Longmont and

Boulder requested MDHI do a break out. In the article, the reference to Boulder was: “Boulder's

homeless population dropped 18 percent, falling from 914 last year to 750 this year. It's the first

time since 2006 that Boulder's homeless numbers have dropped, and the first year since 2009

that Longmont's numbers have surpassed Boulder's.”

The PIT provides a snapshot of the community, however assuming trends from one year to

another is problematic for the following reasons:

1. The PIT survey methodology has changed year to year, making it difficult to draw any

conclusions regarding trends. In 2012, fewer agencies participated in conducting the survey, and

many fewer surveys were collected in the city of Boulder in 2012 than in 2011. Additionally,

there were disproportionately fewer surveys collected in Boulder than in Longmont. Four major

city of Boulder agencies that provided 131 surveys in 2011 did not participate in 2012. In total,

there were 27% fewer agencies participating in the city of Boulder than in 2012. As a result,

17% fewer surveys were collected from city of Boulder agencies than in 2011. While 23% fewer

agencies participated in Longmont than participated in 2011, only 4% fewer surveys were

collected than in 2011. Also, in 2012, few surveys were collected from those on the street. Most

12

surveys were collected at agencies or locations where people access services, which changes the

demographics of the total population.

2. Boulder is the county seat home to a disproportionately greater number of service providers

who focus on serving homeless individuals (Boulder Shelter, ARC, Mental Health Partners). It’s

likely that Boulder serves a disproportionately greater population of single homeless, and

Longmont serves a disproportionately greater number of families. From the 2012 PIT survey, the

total number of homeless people in households with children in Longmont was 544, whereas the

total number of homeless in households with children in Boulder was 391. In 2011, this was the

opposite: Boulder had 553 homeless in households with children and Longmont had 386. This

can largely be attributed to survey methodology changes.

State Issues

Energy Conservation Measures a Significant Part of Colorado’s Energy Future

In his June 7 blogpost, Denver Post writer Mark Jaffe describes how “energy efficiency is the

quiet champion of the New Energy Economy” in Colorado and affirming BHP’s commitment to

energy use reduction in its portfolio for the benefit of residents, the organization, and the

environment. The article is below.

Colorado energy efficiency law: a kilowatt saved, a kilowatt earned

By Mark Jaffe, the Denver Post

June 7, 2012

There is, by Xcel Energy’s estimate, one less new power plant in Colorado – or

the equivalent – thanks to compact fluorescent light bulbs and energy efficient

refrigerators.

Colorado’s push for energy efficiency began five years ago this month with the

passage of a law directing the Public Utilities Commission to create energy

efficiency plans for the state’s two investor-owned utilities Xcel and Black Hills

Energy.

The law – HB 1037 – gave the utilities commission the power to set efficiency

goals, place a charge on electricity bills to raise funds for efficiency programs and

set incentives for the utilities to cut consumption of the very product they sell to

make money.

The utilities get quick recovery for energy-efficiency program costs and a

percentage of the energy savings as a bonus. In 2010, for example, Xcel spent

$54.7 million on programs and saved $225 million — for which it was in line for

13

a $17.5 million bonus.

Colorado isn’t alone its push for energy efficiency — about half the states have

adopted energy-efficiency standards and utilities across the country are

implementing programs.

The economics are on the side of efficiency – with the cost of saving a kilowatt-

hour estimated a 3 cents and the cost of generating a kilowatt-hour from a new

plant at 8 cents.

So how has Colorado fared?

In the last five years Xcel, the largest electricity utility in the state with 1.4

million customers, spent $162 million on energy efficiency programs and Black

Hills, serving 93,000 customers in southeast Colorado, spent $3.9 million – based

on data from the Boulder-based Southwest Energy Efficiency Program or

SWEEP.

Those programs led households and businesses to reduce their electricity use in

2011 by more than 800 million kilowatt-hours – equal to the electricity use of

100,000 typical households, according to SWEEP.

Last year, the state utilities commission boosted the efficiency target for Xcel by

30 percent, asking the utility to cut energy sales by 1.4 percent by 2016. SWEEP

estimates that if Xcel achieves the goals set through 2020 Xcel will have cut

consumption by about 4 billion kilowatt-hours a year —equivalent to 14% of the

total electricity consumption by Xcel’s customers today.

As it is Xcel is projecting very small growth in electricity demand through 2018

having cut its estimate late last year to 292 megawatts from 1,000 megawatts.

There are a number of factors in that reduction, but energy efficiency was one of

them.

“Energy efficiency is the quiet champion of the New Energy Economy,” said

Howard Geller, SWEEP executive director. “People tend to picture wind turbines

and fields of solar panels, but the simple actions of hundreds of thousands of

homeowners and businesses changing out lights bulbs, upgrading appliances and

air conditioning equipment and the like has yielded the cleanest, most cost-

effective supply of energy today.”

14

1

MEMORANDUM

To: Board of Commissioners

From: Management Staff

Subject: Report of Activity

Date: 10/3/2012

This month’s Management report includes:

Consent: None at this time

Action: August 2012 Financial Summary

Updates: Occupancy Status and Net Rental Income

Attachments: August 2012 Financials

CONSENT ITEMS:

None at this time

ACTION ITEMS:

August 2012 Financial Summary

Boulder Housing Partners year to date revenues of $12,256,456 and expenses of

$12,671,817 and a gain on sale of a BHP vehicle of $800 results in a net loss of ($414,561)

versus budgeted net loss of ($103,007). The negative variance of ($311,554) is explained

below.

Statement of Activities

Total Operations Revenue of $4,051,206 (A) is favorable with the year to date budget by

$85,570 as a result of fewer rental concessions required at Bridgewalk to lease-up

remodeled units. (Rental concessions are netted against rent revenue.) Bridgewalk is now

fully leased and operating at new increased rents in line with our proforma refinance plan.

Resident Services revenue of $230,588 (B1) is favorable to budget by $75,448. This

amount is directly offset by the negative variance in Service Grant Expense of ($71,810)

(B2) due to a difference in accounting procedure vs. the budget to allow for ease of HUD

reporting at year end. The amounts will be eliminated in consolidation.

15

2

Housing Choice Voucher – HAP revenue of $4,761,817 (C1) is favorable to budget by

$238,991. We are still waiting to get a final decision from HUD on how they will be

funding the MTW and Non-MTW vouchers in 2012 and 2013. HUD has indicated they

will short our total funding for 2012 HAP by ($452,000) from our budget. We made a

request for set-aside funds from HUD to mitigate this funding shortfall and expected to hear

before the end of the Federal fiscal year. Given the environment at HUD, we may well find

they are unwilling to provide any additional funds. The impact of this funding shortage is

that we will be required to spend 100% of our HAP reserves to keep the Section 8 tenants

housed in 2012. Not having reserves is not fiscally prudent but we cannot short our

landlord payments. If we are unsuccessful, HUD will likely stop our funding before year

end so that the current favorable variance will turn negative. HAP expense of $4,469,294

(C2) is unfavorable to budget by ($63,134). We have been managing this expense down to

budget from our previous over leased situation to prepare for a potential funding shortfall

from HUD.

Federal Capital Grants of $121,422 (D) is unfavorable to budget by ($1,087,743). This is a

timing difference between our budget and the planned start of the rehabilitation project at

our workforce properties, Dakota Ridge, Midtown, Twin Pines and Whittier. The City of

Boulder has awarded BHP $1,600,000 for this project. As reported last month,

management has determined that it is best for our tenants, staff and the project to delay this

work into 2013. This will therefore create a revenue shortfall at year end 2012.

There are three primary reasons for the project delay. First, we learned from our

experience at Sanitas Place project last year that we should avoid disruption to our tenants

over the holidays. Second, we have a capacity issue with project management staff to get

this project started while completing work on the wetlands at Bridgewalk, subdividing and

rehabbing 101 Pearl and starting interior renovations at Woodlands. Finally, our original

request to the City for funding of this project, made in July of 2011, was based on a basic

needs analysis and estimated pricing. We have now completed a design for each site and

received pricing quotes from our general contractor that are significantly more than we had

requested from the City. We are expecting to have some funds left over from the loan

proceeds that are funding the 101 Pearl and Woodlands projects that we could bring to help

close the gap. Until we can get these two projects fully priced out and underway, we will

not know how much of the loan funding will be available for this project.

Miscellaneous Revenue of $114,608 (E) is favorable to budget by $88,138. This includes

pet charges of $17,850 primarily for new pets at Bridgewalk and an unexpected refund of

$33,600 from Xcel for infrastructure at Red Oak Park. This amount was paid by BHP so

the refund is credited to BHP rather than ROP.

Miscellaneous Expense of $93,216 (F) includes $76,642 of predevelopment expenses

related to the application for the disposition of our Public Housing Assets.

16

3

Balance Sheet

Reserved Cash for Replacements increased by $245,098 (G). This includes $188,000

funded by the City of Boulder as part of the rehabilitation projects completed in May.

Accounts receivable of $187,631 (H) has declined due to the receipt of funds from grants

that were accrued at year end 2011. Accounts Receivable –Tax Credits of $931,221 (I)

declined from the receipt of developer fees of $209,000 from Red Oak Park in February,

$148,000 from Red Oak Park in April and $27,000 from Broadway West in May. We are

expecting to receive the remaining Red Oak Park developer fee of $850,000 by the end of

September.

Restricted Cash – Other increased by $2,083,407 (J). This includes $2,094,000 of funds

borrowed as part of the refinance project which are restricted for capital projects and

targeted for 101 Pearl and Woodlands. To the extent we may have excess funds after we

complete these projects the money will be used to assist with other capital projects in the

BHP portfolio, specifically the workforce renovation as mentioned above.

Construction in Progress decreased by $2,858,210 (K1) reflecting the capitalization of the

rehabilitation work at Bridgewalk which moved from Construction in Progress to Real

Estate Assets-Land and Buildings causing an increase of $6,412,230 to $65,426,628 (K2).

It is important to recognize that as each of these projects is completed they provide our

tenants with a substantially improved quality of living space, however, we begin to incur

depreciation expense that will continue for the 10 year depreciable life of the project. The

$6 million in work at Bridgewalk will alone result in an additional $600,000 in expense in

2013 that will be a challenge for future budgets.

Accounts Payable declined by $660,608 to $126,946 (L) as invoices accrued in 2011 were

paid. Mortgages Payable increased by ($5,744,664) (M) reflecting continued draws to the

Bridgewalk construction loan and the additional $2,094,000 borrowed for 101 Pearl and

Woodlands offset by normal amortization.

Statement of Cash Flows

The Statement of Cash Flows provides detail on the overall year-to-date increase in Cash

and Cash Equivalents of $920,564 (N). For the month of August Cash and Cash

Equivalents declined by ($267,473). The only significant item which affected our cash

position in August was the reduction in Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses of

$221,721. This is a combination of payments of $111,000 on normal vendor accounts, a

reduction in accrued payroll and benefits of $85,950 and recognition of deferred revenue

from HUD for Section 8 administration fees of $47,350.

Portfolio Analysis Report

The portfolio Analysis for July shows overall debt service coverage of 1.45

This includes Bridgewalk numbers starting in July when we reached full occupancy.

Income and expenses for 101 Pearl reflect only Jan-Apr when the property was fully

occupied. The NOI is compared to the current debt payment The two combined loans are

performing well at 1.54 and 1.46. These loans were modified in April and July

respectively, reducing the interest rate and improving the debt service. The Tax credit

properties are all performing well with an average ratio of 1.48.

17

4

UPDATES:

Occupancy Status and Net Rental Income

The combined net rental income for all of BHP properties for August was $4,051,205

compared to a budgeted net rental income of $3,965,635 which is a positive variance to

budget of $85,570 (+2.16%).The combined net rental income for all of the Tax Credit

Properties for July was $1,969,580 compared to a budgeted net rental income of $1,896,132

which is a positive variance to budget of $73,448. (+3.87%)

The Public Housing portfolio, which is a sub category of the BHP portfolio, is running a

negative variance of $39,474 (-2.92%). This variance is partially due to a decrease in tenant

rental income across properties, a reduction in the rental rate charged to CPWD for their

master leased units at Arapahoe Court and a timing issue on the allocation of funding from

HUD.

The BHP portfolio occupancy for August was 95.26%, compared to a budgeted annual

occupancy rate of 95%. The combined physical occupancy rate for the Tax Credit portfolio

year-to-date through august was 99.12%, compared to a budgeted annual occupancy of

97%.

August 2012

Net Rental

Income - YTD

Net

Rental

Income -

Budget

Net

Rental

Income -

Variance

Physical

Occ

YTD

Physical

Occ

Budget

Variance

to

Budget

Public

Housing $1,313,762 $1,353,236 ($39,474) 98.33% 97% 1.33%

PB Sec. 8

properties $844,506 $832,520 $11,986 98.01% 97% 1.01%

Work

Force $1,892,937 $1,779,879 $113,058 87.76% 91% -3.24%

BHP

portfolio

combined

$4,051,205 $3,965,635 $85,570 94.42% 95% -0.58%

Broadway

East $329,302 $308,771 $20,531 97.68% 97% 0.68%

Broadway

West $182,285 $171,580 $10,705 98.74% 97% 1.74%

Foothills $631,630 $614,748 $16,882 99.09% 97% 2.09%

Holiday $326,200 $314,831 $11,369 100.00% 97% 3.00%

Red Oak

Park $403,862 $392,488 $11,374 99.48% 97% 2.48%

Vistoso $96,301 $93,714 $2,587 99.59% 97% 2.59%

TC

portfolio

combined

$1,969,580 $1,896,132 $73,448 99.76% 97% 2.76%

18

5

Resident Services Update

We appreciate the Board’s conversation at the retreat about the work we’ve done to develop

a matrix of outcomes for our residents. We also heard the Board’s interest in bringing more

attention to the resident services’ part of our mission. We’re considering how best to satisfy

that interest and will bring you thoughts in November.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Betsey Martens, Executive Director Stuart Grogan, Director of Development Shannon Cox Baker, Project Manager Kevin Knapp, Project Manager Betsy Wagner, Assistant Project Manager Liz Wolfert, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Development Report DATE: October 3, 2012

This month’s development report includes:

Consent: None at this time Action/Discussion: 1175 Lee Hill Road

Public Housing Conversion WestView Apartments High Mar Red Oak Park

Attachments: Development Tracking Sheet

CONSENT ITEMS None at this time

26

ACTION/ DISCUSSION ITEMS

1175 LEE HILL ROAD

Previous Board Meeting: At the last meeting, we provided the following information:

· Update on 1175 Lee Hill community engagement process that was approved in August; and

· Request to keep the focus group survey form open for one more week to allow for additional participants to sign up.

Progress Since Previous Board Meeting:

Advisory Group: Nineteen (19) individuals applied for the Advisory Group. BHP staff did an initial sort of the applications for the Development Committee to create a general balance of interests and skills on the Advisory Group. The initial sort, after placing them in the categories approved by the Board at the last meeting, arranged applicants based on the following criteria:

· Interest in participating; · Contribution to process; · Neighborhood/geographic representation (e.g. Holiday, Dakota Ridge, etc…); and · Gender.

After reviewing and discussing all the applications for the Advisory Group at their regular meeting on October 1, 2012, the Development Committee selected eight members they will recommend that the Board consider for the Advisory Group and will discuss their selection at the October 8, 2012 Board meeting. The Development Committee tried to balance for project perspective, seeking a blend of people with reservations and people who are enthusiastic. Development Committee members were pleased with the caliber of the applicants and are very grateful to the community for volunteering it’s time for this effort. Focus Group Update

1: Since the Board meeting in September, we have hosted six focus group

sessions with approximately 44 participants. The two focus group topics were:

1. Resident eligibility and selection, resident support services, and resident accountability2; and

2. Property Management, property management accountability, and response to neighborhood concerns regarding 1175 Lee Hill.

1 Complete summaries of each of the focus group topics will be sent to the community and to the Board to review and provide additional comments. 2 Resident accountability was discussed in greater detail in focus group topic 2 sessions with the conversation about the lease and dealing with potential complaints from the neighborhood about residents.

27

Table 1. Summary of focus group session participation

Date Topic Number of

Participants

Monday, Sept. 17 6:30 – 8:30 PM

1

8

Tuesday, Sept. 18 10 AM – 12 PM

1

6

Monday, Sept. 24 6:30 – 8:30 PM

2 4

Tuesday, Sept. 25 6:30 – 8:30 PM

2

6

Wednesday, Sept 26 10 AM – 12 PM

2

8

Tuesday, October 2 6:30 – 8:30 PM

1

9

TOTAL 41

At the focus group meetings, we used the draft Statement of Operations framework as the foundation of the discussions with the community. The focus group discussions resulted in critical input and positive suggestions about the operation of 1175 Lee Hill to both BHP staff which will be passed on to the Advisory Group. Each participant had the opportunity to express their opinions and beliefs about the specific sections of the draft Statement of Operations framework. We had a range of individuals participate in the focus group sessions, including North Boulder residents, human service providers, and homeless individuals. At the beginning of each focus group session, we asked why individuals wanted to participate in the process. In general, they expressed the following reasons:

· To get more information / the facts; · To understand how this will impact the community (economic development and safety); · To understand how this will help address homelessness (“that we see”) in Boulder; and · To help humanize the homeless (social justice).

In all of the sessions, we discussed the project’s Governing Principles and the Housing First Program Principles prior to digging deeper into the specific topics as follows: Governing Principles: Most participants did not find the current governing principles to be comprehensive. Some wanted a preamble to set the context so that the connection between the building/residents and the housing first program is clearer. At least one individual in each focus group session questioned what it meant to “integrate the building and its residents into the surrounding neighborhood,” and how this would be accomplished, and we had several good discussions around this principle. A few participants pointed out that these governing principles were very building centric and did not focus enough on the resident or the relation of the project to the neighborhood, indicating that all stakeholders interests (e.g. asset manager/building, resident, and community) should be addressed so that the broader community context is understood upfront.

28

Housing First (HF) Program Principles. Several participants wanted clarification on the HF Goal and what it meant to “retain housing in perpetuity.” In addition, we heard questions in several focus group sessions related to what happens if a client does not continue to demonstrate the desired outcomes of the HF Program? How can a resident increase skills and income if they are disabled and what is their incentive to do so? Greg Harms, Executive Director of the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless, provided clarification that the program goal was not necessarily to create a path to, or to require treatment. These often emerge naturally once housing is stabilized and individuals are supported with case management. Whether or not there is “progress”, HF Programs have demonstrated community benefits and savings by removing residents from chronic use of the community’s services. Focus Group Topic 1 Summary.

3 Although the participants appreciated learning about the selection criteria, they all wanted to see more details about what criteria the HF Case Managers use to determine suitability, and if there were additional criteria BHP used to evaluate residents beyond the Section 8 regulations. Some participants were especially relieved to learn about the criminal background check and mandatory denial of registered sex offenders. Issues of drug and alcohol use came up in each session (even focus group 2 sessions). Staff noted that illegal drug use will not be tolerated and experts emphasized that the residents will be accountable for behavior resulting from alcohol or other substance abuse. They also noted that we will not monitor alcohol use by residents living in the apartment building. The primary question related to case management involved the frequency and type of support services the residents would receive. One individual in particular noted that given that the health of the residents was a criteria for their eligibility (e.g. dually diagnosed disability) that managing personal health should be a bigger emphasis in the project and Statement of Operations.

Focus Group Topic 2 Summary.4 Few participants provided comments directly related to how

BHP should manage the property. However, several individuals commented during the conversation about the security measures used to help manage the property. Some noted the need to be considerate when prescribing security measures so as to avoid marginalizing the building and its residents. Others noted the need to make this building feel like a home, and not an institution. The lease was another topic of discussion, especially the guest policy for residents and accountability for behavior offsite. Some ideas including limiting the number of overnight stays and how off site behavior could be included in the lease were suggested. Several individuals would like to see a long term strategy to keep the community informed and provide them the opportunity to comment on the building operation. Some of the proposed ideas for this included:

1) An annual report that provides information on certain metrics (e.g. number of complaints about property management versus residents and how they were handled), for example;

2) Online form to provide comment; and 3) A type of ombudsman who acts as a liaison between the community and the

property.

3 Focus group topic 1 discussion included: resident eligibility and selection, resident support services, and resident accountability. 4 Focus group topic 2 discussed: property Management, property management accountability, and response to neighborhood concerns regarding 1175 Lee Hill

29

At the end of each session, we asked the participants to provide feedback on the focus group. Nearly every participant had something positive to say about their experience in the focus group session. Although many participants noted the community’s frustration over not being engaged earlier in the planning, more acknowledged a need to continue to build relationships in the community and create communication channels that will provide a foundation for future conversation. In general, we heard the following:

· Appreciate being asked to participate; · Well facilitated; · Great information from experts / staff; · Learned a lot of facts (had previously heard only third party information); and · Continue to keep the community informed.

NSAG Update:

The following is a note from the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless’s board chair to the City Council regarding the progress and activities of the Neighborhood Shelter Advisory Group (NSAG):

From: Boulder Shelter for the Homeless Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 8:52 PM To: City Council Subject: Good Neighbor Update from the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless Dear Council Members: Each client who stays at the Shelter is asked to comply with a list of desired behaviors while in the Shelter; these are conveyed in a document entitled "Conditions of Stay." The Shelter is adding a condition which asks clients to conduct themselves in a responsible manner while in the neighborhood. This addition is a direct result of the work of the Neighborhood Shelter Action Group which, at its September meeting, initiated discussions about (1) ways to engage the clients in good neighbor efforts and (2) ways to increase neighborhood familiarity with Shelter operations. These activities are part of the Shelter's efforts to increase communications - with neighbors, with clients, with partners, with the community and with public officials - all especially important as we prepare for the Shelter's cold weather sheltering season which begins October 15. Best Regards, Ardie Sehulster, Shelter Board Chair

30

Next steps:

· Schedule first Advisory Group meeting (anticipated for Monday, October 15, 2012 at 6:00 PM);

· Complete summaries for the focus group sessions and allow for public comment; and · Host focus group session with homeless individuals and current Housing First clients.

PUBLIC HOUSING CONVERSION

Previous Board Meeting: At the last meeting, we provided the following information:

· An update on the status of the Capital Needs Assessment and the expanded analysis; and · A schedule for submitting our response to the Department of Housing and Urban

Development’s (HUD) third letter for additional information. Progress since Previous Board Meeting:

As of the writing of this memorandum, BHP is drafting the final language and analysis for the response to HUD for the conversion of our public housing units. The letter documents the need to address deferred maintenance costs, energy and sustainability improvements needed to meet the City of Boulder’s codes and policies, and exterior improvements to address market acceptance and neighborhood compatibility concerns. We would like to have a decision on our public housing conversion application before the end of the year, however some applicants have been in our review position for more than a year. It is entirely unpredictable. Next steps:

· Respond to the latest HUD letter with the clarifications they requested; and · Track and respond to any further requests for information.

WESTVIEW APARTMENTS

Previous Board Meeting: At the last meeting, we provided the following information:

· An update on the status of the purchase and sale agreement; · That the name of the project had been changed to WestView Apartments; · An update on marketing and preleasing activities; and

· A summary of the structure of the deal and a request for the adoption of four resolutions to enable issuance of the bonds and closing.

31

Progress since the Previous Board Meeting:

Purchase and Sales Contract: We have received letters approving an allocation of 4% low income housing tax credits and adoption of a recommendation for full funding from the State Housing Board. Further, we have received a recommendation for full funding as a grant from the City of Boulder’s staff and the Technical Review Group that has been approved by he City Manager. Based on that information, we have waived the financing contingency as of September 12, 2012 and our earnest money is not refundable. As part of that waiver, we extended the closing date in the contract to October 10, 2012, in anticipation of the completion of the HUD environmental review process. Financing: As noted above, financing commitments are mostly in place. The last month has been spent primarily in document review and coordination between First Bank and their attorneys, the bond attorney, the City and State, and us. There are a large number of documents circulating in addition to the basic due diligence matters such as survey, environmental review, and appraisal updates. Fortunately, everything seems to be moving ahead on schedule for the proposed closing on October 10, 2012.

Next steps:

· Prepare for closing; and

· Continue pre-leasing and marketing activities.

HIGH MAR REDEVELOPMENT

Previous Board Meeting: At the last meeting, we provided the following information:

· That the procurement process for our financing partners at High Mar had begun; · The planning process for a pre-construction project to clear the property was underway; · That a proposal was submitted to the City’s Affordable Housing Fund for a $1,900,000

grant to fill the financing gap in the project’s budget; and

· That preparation of the low income housing tax credit (LIHTC) and state funding applications had begun.

Progress Since the Previous Board meeting: Financing: In the last month, we have completed High Mar’s 4% (non-competitive) LIHTC application and submitted it to the Colorado Housing Finance Authority (CHFA). In the coming weeks, there will be a series of questions and clarifications requested by CHFA as they complete their review of the underwriting of the project. A decision regarding the award of LIHTCs is expected in the next 4-6 weeks.

32

We also prepared and submitted an application to the Colorado Department of Housing (CDoH) for grant funding in the amount of $590,000, approximately $10,000/unit. The State will complete a similar underwriting process as CHFA and we will be working with them to make sure they have the necessary information to make a funding determination. We followed up our application to the City of Boulder with a presentation to the City of Boulder’s affordable housing Technical Review Group (TRG) in support of our request for around $1,900,000. This amount was requested to fill the gap at High Mar which was created when the financing strategy switched to 4% LIHTCs instead of 9%’s. We expect to hear soon on the TRG’s decision but the funds won’t be confirmed until the City Council approves the City staff’s recommendation in December. We completed the procurement process for financing partners for High Mar during the past month. On the debt side, we will be working with Wells Fargo who offered the best terms that included a 4.11% interest rate on the permanent mortgage over 30 years. Boston Capital will be our tax credit investor. While we have not worked with them before, they had good recommendations and provided the best tax credit pricing. Their proposal was aggressive, in part, because they did not win the process for the WestView Apartment project. Their terms included purchasing the LIHTCs at $0.98 as well also purchasing any solar energy tax credits at $1.00. Preconstruction: We have begun working with Deneuve on a preconstruction phase of work that needs to be completed at High Mar before full construction begins next year. This small “pre-project” work will entail allowing Xcel to complete the re-routing of their gas and electric lines that will be necessary for construction. Also included will be the demolition of the current building, tennis courts and pool on the property to provide a clean site for when full construction will begin after the project is capitalized. The work will begin in October and be complete before the end of the year. Next steps:

· Begin work with our new financing partners on the due diligence process leading up to

the financial closing; · Work with our potential grant funders at the City and State to make sure that High Mar

will receive the grant funds needed to construct the project; and · Implement pre-construction work at the site.

RED OAK PARK

Previous Board Meeting: At the last meeting, we provided the following information:

· That staff was working with our tax credit investor to finalize the compliance issues that have delayed the final capital installments owed to BHP; and

· Staff reported that Red Oak Park was awarded a National Award of Excellence in Community Development by NAHRO.

33

Progress since Previous Board Meeting: Compliance: CHFA recently reviewed a sample of initial tenant files and provided their determination that the initial tenants complied with the income restrictions and other requirements of the program. In addition to additional information provided by BHP, WNC, the tax credit investor, agreed to accept the files based on CHFA’s judgment. Shortly after the CHFA visit, we submitted our 2011 tax returns. With the return filed, we have now received the final equity payment which included the majority of our developer fee, an upward adjuster on the solar tax credits and the release of some reserves. Wireless: A new amenity was installed at Red Oak Park which is a community-wide and free wi-fi system. We are particularly excited about this news because we have been looking for years for a way to bridge the “digital divide”5 at our sites. The system has been installed and is operational. It was paid for out of the remainder of the construction budget and will be a pilot project within our portfolio for use of this technology.

Next steps:

· None. This item will transition to management and will no longer appear in the

Development Report.

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TRACKING MATRIX

The following Development Division tracking tool, which is updated monthly, is attached to this memo:

· Development Tracking Sheet

5 “Digital divide” is a term used to describe the gap between low income household’s access to, use of, and skill with internet and web based applications, information and services when compared to more affluent households.

34

D e v e l o p m e n t T r a c k i n g October 2012

Research, Evaluation, On Hold or Tracking

Wallace Acquisition Potential partnerships Valmont (ROP II) Transit Village Acquisitions Armory Redevelopment Hogan Pancost Palo Park Tax Exempt Partnerships

Pre Development

Public Housing Rehabilitation /

MtoW

1175 Lee Hill

High Mar

North Haven

Construction/Acquisition

WestView Apartments (4600 Broadway)

101 Pearl

Rehab Four Midtown

Dakota Ridge Twin Pines Whittier

Transition/ Lease-Up

Leased-Up/ Completed

Red Oak Park Bridgewalk

Infeasible

Orchard Grove 28th and Kalmia Landmark Lofts Junior Academy Depot Square at

(Boulder Transit Village/ RTD)

Board Action This Month 1175 Lee Hill: AG selection

Technical

Assistance

35

1

RESOLUTION # 26

SERIES OF 2012

A RESOLUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPROVING THE ANNUAL MOVING TO

WORK PLAN AND CERTICIATIONS OF COMPLIANCE

Annual Moving to Work Plan

Certifications of Compliance

Certifications of Compliance with Regulations:

Board Resolution to Accompany the Annual Moving to Work Plan

Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the Public Housing Agency (PHA)

listed below, as its Chairman, I approve the submission of the Annual Moving to Work

Plan for the PHA fiscal year beginning January 1, 2013, hereinafter referred to as "the

Plan", of which this document is a part and make the following certifications and

agreements with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in

connection with the submission of the Plan and implementation thereof:

1. The PHA published a notice that a hearing would be held, that the Plan and all

information relevant to the public hearing was available for public inspection for at

least 30 days, that there were no less than 15 days between the public hearing and the

approval of the Plan by the Board of Commissioners, and that the PHA conducted a

public hearing to discuss the Plan and invited public comment.

2. The Agency took into consideration public and resident comment before approval of

the Plan by the Board of Commissioners or Board of Directors in order to

incorporate any public comments into the Annual MTW Plan.

3. The PHA will carry out the Plan in conformity with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, the Fair Housing Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title

II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

4. The PHA will affirmatively further fair housing by examining its programs or

proposed programs, identify any impediments to fair housing choice within those

programs, address those impediments in a reasonable fashion in view of the

resources available and work with local jurisdictions to implement any of the

jurisdiction's initiatives to affirmatively further fair housing that require the PHA's

involvement and maintain records reflecting these analyses and actions.

5. The PHA will comply with the prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of

age pursuant to the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.

6. The PHA will comply with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and 24 CFR Part 41,

36

2

Policies and Procedures for the Enforcement of Standards and Requirements for

Accessibility by the Physically Handicapped.

7. The PHA will comply with the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and

Urban Development Act of 1968, Employment Opportunities for Low or Very Low-

Income Persons, and with its implementing regulation at 24 CFR Part 135.

8. The PHA will comply with requirements with regard to a drug free workplace as

required by 24 CFR Part 24, Subpart F.

9. The PHA will comply with requirements with regard to compliance with restrictions

on lobbying as required by 24 CFR Part 87, together with disclosure forms if

required by this Part, and with restrictions on payments to influence Federal

Transactions, in accordance with the Byrd Amendment and implementing

regulations at 49 CFR Part 24.

10. The PHA will comply with acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform

Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and

implementing regulations at 49 CFR Part 24, as applicable.

11. The PHA will take appropriate affirmative action to award contracts to minority and

women's business enterprises under 24 CFR 5.105( a).

12. The PHA will provide HUD or the responsible entity any documentation that the

Department needs to carry out its review under the National Environmental Policy

Act and other related authorities in accordance with 24 CFR Part 58.

13. With respect to public housing the PHA will comply with Davis-Bacon or HUD

determined wage rate requirements under section 12 of the United States 1937 Act

and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.

14. The PHA will keep records in accordance with 24 CFR 85.20 and facilitate an effective

audit to determine compliance with program requirements.

15. The PHA will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act and

24 CFR Part 35.

16. The PHA will comply with the policies, guidelines, and requirements of OMB

Circular No. A-87 (Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments)

and 24 CFR Part 85 (Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative

Agreements to State, Local and Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments.).

37

3

17. The PHA will undertake only activities and programs covered by the Plan in a

manner consistent with its Plan and will utilize covered grant funds only for

activities that are approvable under the Moving to Work Agreement and Statement

of Authorizations and included in its Plan.

18. All attachments to the Plan have been and will continue to be available at all times

and all locations that the Plan is available for public inspection. All required

supporting documents have been made available for public inspection along with

the Plan and additional requirements at the primary business office of the PHA and

at all other times and locations identified by the PHA in its Plan and will continue

to be made available at least at the primary business office of the PHA.

Boulder Housing Partners

I hereby certify that all the information stated herein, as well as any information

provided in the accompaniment herewith, is true and accurate. Warning: HUD will

prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal and/or

civil penalties. (18 U.S.C. 1001, 1010)

Adopted this 8th

day of October, 2012.

(SEAL)

_______________________________

Angela McCormick,

Chair, Board of Commissioners

Housing Authority of the City of Boulder

ATTEST:

_______________ __________

BETSEY MARTENS

Executive Secretary

38