Houston Housing Authority outlines PFC strategy, bond deals and affordability targets; council presses on timelines and resiliency

The committee received an extended briefing from the Houston Housing Authority (HHA) and its development partners on how PFC and other financing tools are being used to produce affordable housing and to support the agency’s portfolio.

HHA President and CEO David Northern opened by correcting media reporting and noting an internal compliance review that HHA shared with city and mayoral offices; he said the review found the agency at ‘‘near‑complete’’ levels of compliance and that the authority is working to improve transparency. "That report was important... and again, I wanna reiterate the housing authority's board members along with myself decided to do that internal review," Northern said.

HHA explained three financing tracks used to produce affordability: tax‑exempt bond conduit deals, public facility corporation (PFC) 303 transactions, and traditional public housing mechanisms under chapter 392. Bond counsel and HHA staff described several projects being advanced: a $3,000,000 HOME investment for a 101‑unit Rushmore development (total development cost cited at about $32.9M), a $2,500,000 HOME request for Boulevard 61 (total cost ~$34.8M), and TEFRA‑noticed bond financings for Alcott Village (rehab, up to $25.5M in bonds) and Emily at Mesa Gardens (new construction, up to $35M in bonds). HHA staff noted affordability periods typically associated with the funding source — tax credit deals were described as having 35‑year affordability, while HOME funding carries 20‑year terms for new construction and 15 years for rehab under the HOME program.

Shannon Davis Hunter (development counsel) and independent consultant David Kooperman described a public‑benefit framework HHA uses to evaluate PFC deals; Kooperman said their analysis seeks to return at least 95% of tax‑exemption value back to public benefit over a 10‑year model (through rental discounts, direct cash flows to HHA and other mechanisms), and HHA staff said they are negotiating higher percentages of 60% AMI units in deals where possible.

Councilmembers pressed HHA and staff on multiple fronts: why only three responses came to the Stellar Link NOFA despite strong preproposal attendance, how Davis‑Bacon wage rules and tight federal timelines complicate DR17‑financed single‑family development, and whether city approvals are sufficient for PFC/303 transactions under recent Chapter 303 rule changes. Council members also raised resiliency and senior facility preparedness: public commenters and developers urged the city to find funding for communal generators and cooling solutions for vulnerable residents after recent storms.

HHA said it will continue to refine solicitation packages, engage developers about required resilience plans for new NOFAs, and coordinate with HCDD on approval procedures for any PFC deals that require council action under Chapter 303 changes.

Next steps: HHA will return with solicitation materials and bring pending PFC/bond packages to the appropriate boards and council sessions as required; staff and council offices will continue follow‑up on senior facility resiliency and NOFA timing for 9% tax‑credit deals needing gap funding.