6580 Executed Contract - Federal Legislative Consulting Svcs
Docusign City Council Transmittal Coversheet
File Name
Purchasing Contact
City Council Target Date
Contract Value
Piggy Back Option
Contract Expiration
Ordinance
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
Yes
Karen Smith
$177,000
Federal Legislative Consulting Svcs
RFP
11/7/17
6580
11/7/2017
2017-339
Contract 6580
CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND CAPITALEDGE STRATEGIES, LLC FOR
LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATION
(CONTRACT 6580)
This agreement (“Agreement”), made this day ___________________________, by and between
the City of Denton, a Texas Municipal Corporation, with its principal office at 215 East McKinney
Street, Denton, Denton County, Texas 76201, (“City”), and CapitalEdge Strategies, LLC_,
(“Consultant”), with its principal office at 1212 New York Avenue NW, Suite 250, Washington
D.C., 20005 acting herein, by and through their duly authorized representatives.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the City desires for the Consultant to provide Federal legislative representation to
assist the City in advancing its Federal Legislative Program, addressing its proposed legislation,
and notifying it of any legislative or administrative initiatives believed to be detrimental or
beneficial to the interests of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City further desires to have the Consultant provide notification and advocacy to
the City for funding opportunities, to augment the City's existing relationship with key legislators
and policy administrators, and to maintain a high level of effective advocacy with the legislative
and executive branches of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Consultant has professional staff experienced and qualified to provide and perform
the services desired by City as set forth hereinabove;
NOW, THEREFORE, and in consideration of the terms, covenants and conditions herein
contained, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. Period of Service
The initial term of the agreement specified herein shall be for a one (1) year period, commencing
upon contract execution. The City and the Consultant shall have the option to renew this contract for
an additional two (2) one-year periods. Materials and services undertaken pursuant to this solicitation
will be required to commence within fourteen (14) days of delivery of a Notice to Proceed.
The Contract shall commence upon the issuance of a Notice of Award by the City of Denton and
shall automatically renew each year, from the date of award by City Council, unless either party
notifies the other prior to the scheduled renewal date. At the sole option of the City of Denton, the
Contract may be further extended as needed, not to exceed a total of six (6) months.
ARTICLE 2. Termination
A. The City and the Consultant shall have the right to terminate this Agreement, with or without
cause, upon 60 days written notice.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
November 7, 2017
Contract 6580
B. The City may also terminate this Agreement with 30 days written notice to the Consultant for
an irreconcilable conflict of interest or failure to allot sufficient funds.
C. If the Agreement is terminated prior to completion of the services to be provided hereunder,
Consultant shall immediately cease all services and shall render a final bill for services to the City
within thirty (30) days after the date of termination. The City shall pay Consultant for all services
properly rendered and satisfactorily performed and for reimbursable expenses to termination
incurred prior to the date of termination, in accordance with Article V “Compensation.” Should
the City subsequently contract with a new consultant for the continuation of services, Consultant
shall cooperate in providing information. The Consultant shall turn over all documents prepared
or furnished by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement to the City on or before the date of
termination, but may maintain copies of such documents for its use.
ARTICLE 3. Compensation
A. The City agrees to compensate the Consultant for services rendered in a not-to-exceed amount
of, $4,500 per month, for a total of $54,000 annually, for a contract total of $162,000, for the
specified services. Invoice and payments will be sent monthly. The City will not be responsible
for any additional expenses incurred by the Consultant, with the exception of travel costs requested
and authorized by the City. These reimbursable costs will be billed at cost and shall not to exceed
$5,000 annually, for a contract total of $15,000.
B. Reasonable pre-approved costs incident to travel shall be reimbursed to the Consultant upon
submission of its invoice to the City. Consultant understands and agrees that travel is to be
pre-authorized by the City. Expenses may include travel, lodging and business meals incurred on
behalf of the City and at its request. Such itemized expenses, with corresponding paid receipts,
shall be paid separately and shall be reviewed and approved by the City, prior to payment.
C. Such expenses do not include the normal office functions or daily expenses of the Consultant
in the course of his functions in Washington, D.C. representing the interest of the City.
ARTICLE 4. Scope of Services
A. The Consultant must perform the following services:
1. Operate a unit to act as a Washington office for the City and head this unit acting as a
Washington representative for the City. The Consultant will make available office space
for meetings necessary to promote the City’s legislative agenda.
2. Assist in communicating the position of the City to the legislative and executive branches
of Federal government, interested parties and the public.
3. Consult with the City to determine issues of specific interest to the City and to determine
policies and positions which the City wishes to pursue.
4. Provide a regular report on Washington issues and events of interest to the City. This will
be done by:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
Contract 6580
a. A regular summary;
b. Written reports, bulletins, memoranda, and e-mails on developments regarding
Texas- specific issues and Denton-specific issues; and
c. Direct phone and e-mail contact with City officials and representatives.
5. Provide Federal affairs briefings for the City at times and places specified by the City at
least once per year.
6. Establish and maintain Congressional relations with Texas Senators and the City’s
delegation in the House of Representatives.
7. Provide advice and consult in relation with the White House and the following federal
agencies or departments: Commerce, SBA, Treasury, HUD, Labor, HHS, DOT, EPA,
Interior, Justice, DOE, and such other agencies, departments, and commissions as may be
necessary to the performance of Washington service to the City.
8. Notify the City of potential federal funding opportunities that are available and provide
assistance with capturing that funding.
ARTICLE 6. Independent Contractor
A. The consultant will not:
1. Directly or indirectly participate in or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of or
in opposition to any candidate for city office.
2. Will not represent the interest of local constituents in pursuit of federal business.
3. By virtue of this Agreement, represent other local agencies in the City except those which
are instrumentalities or agencies of the City.
4. Perform any legal, engineering, accounting or other similar professional services.
B. The Consultant shall perform all services as an independent contractor not under the direct
supervision and control of the City. Nothing herein shall be construed as creating a
relationship of employer and employee or joint venture between the parties. The Consultant
is customarily engage to provide services as described herein independently and on a
nonexclusive basis in the course of its business. Consultant agrees to perform the services
based on the skills required for the scope of work in connection with the services herein.
ARTICLE 7. Indemnity Agreement
The City and Consultant agree to cooperate in the defense claims, actions, suits, or
proceedings of any kind brought by a third party which may result from or directly or
indirectly arise from any breach of the Consultant's obligations under this agreement. In the
event of any litigation or claim under this Agreement in which the City is joined as a party,
Consultants shall provide competent legal counsel to defend City and Consultant against such
claim, provided that Consultant shall have the right to proceed with the competent legal
counsel of its own choosing.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
Contract 6580
THE CONSULTANT AGREES TO DEFEND, INDEMNIFY, AND HOLD
HARMLESS THE CITY AND ALL OF ITS OFFICIALS, OFFICERS, AGENTS,
SERVANTS, AND EMPLOYEES AGAINST ANY ALL CLAIMS RELATED TO AND
INCIDENTAL TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT. THE
CONSULTANT AGREES TO PAY ALL EXPENSES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ATTORNEY'S FEES, COSTS OF COURT, REASONABLE
EXPENSES, AND SATISFY ALL JUDGMENTS, WHICH MAY BE INCURRED OR
RENDERED AGAINST THE CONSULTANT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS
DUTIES HEREIN. NOTHING HEREIN CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF ANY
RIGHTS OR REMEDIES THE CITY MAY HAVE TO PURSUE UNDER EITHER
LAW OR EQUITY, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATIONS, A CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR FOR DAMAGES, A LOSS TO THE
CITY RESULTING FROM CONSULTANT'S NEGLIGENT ERRORS OR
OMISSIONS, OR BREACH OF CONTRACT, AND ALL SUCH RIGHTS AND
REMEDIES ARE EXPRESSLY RESERVED.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create a liability to any person who is not a party
to this Agreement, and nothing herein shall waive any of the parties’ defenses, both at law or
equity, to any claim, cause of action, or litigation filed by anyone not a party to this Agreement,
including the defense of governmental immunity, which defenses are hereby expressly reserved.
This Agreement does not inure to the benefit of third parties.
ARTICLE 8. Insurance
The Consultant shall maintain and shall be caused to be in force at all times during the terms of
this Agreement, a legally binding policy of commercial liability insurance, with a rating of at least
A with Best Rated Carriers. Such coverage shall cover any claim hereunder occasioned by the
Consultant’s negligent professional act and/or error or omission, in an amount not less than
$500,000 combined single limit coverage occurrence. In the event of change or cancellation of the
policy by the insurer, the Consultant herby covenants to forth with advise the City thereof; and in
such event, the Consultant shall, prior to the effective date of change or cancellation, serve
substitute policies furnishing the same coverage. The Consultant shall provide a copy of s uch
policy or the declarations page of the policy or a certificate of insurance, whichever is reasonably
satisfactory, to the City through its City Manager simultaneously with the execution of this
Agreement. Consultant's insurance policies, through policy endorsement, shall include wording
which states that the policy shall be primary and non-contributory with respect to any insurance
carried by the City. The certificate of insurance must reflect that the above wording is included in
evidenced policies.
ARTICLE 9. Ethical Requirements
The Consultant covenants and agrees that its officers, employees, and agents will have no interest,
including personal financial interest, and will acquire no interest, either directly or indirectly,
which will conflict in any manner with the performance of the services called for under this
agreement. No officer or employee of the City shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in
any contract with the City, or be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in the sale to the City
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
Contract 6580
of any land, materials, supplies or services, except on behalf of the City or in compliance with the
provisions of the City of Denton's Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual. Any violation of
this provision shall render this Agreement voidable at the discretion of the City.
ARTICLE 10. Compliance with Laws
The Consultant shall comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations.
ARTICLE 11. Discrimination Prohibited
In performing the services required hereunder, the Consultant shall not discriminate against any
person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age, or physical
handicap.
ARTICLE 12. Notice
All notices, communications and reports required or permitted under this Agreement shall be
personally delivered or mailed to the respective parties by depositing same in the United States
mail to the address shown below, certified mail, return receipt requested, unless otherwise
specified herein. Mailed notices shall be deemed communicated as of three (3) days' mailing
To City:
City Manager
Contract 6580
215 E.McKinney St.,
Denton, TX 76201
To Consultant:
CapitalEdge Strategies, LLC
1212 New York Avenue NW, Suite 250
Washington, DC 20005
All notices shall be deemed effective upon receipt by the party to whom such notice is given, or
within three (3) days’ mailing.
ARTICLE 13. Venue
The laws of the State of Texas shall govern this Agreement without regard to the conflict of
laws, and any cause of action arising under this Agreement shall lie exclusively in a court of
competent jurisdiction sitting in venue as Denton County, Texas.
ARTICLE 14. Assignability
Consultant understands that this Agreement is personal as to the Contractor and the Contractor
shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement (whether by assignment, transfer,
novation or otherwise) without the prior written consent of the City.
ARTICLE 15. Modification
No waiver or modification of this Agreement or of any covenant, condition, or limitation herein
contained shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by the party to be charged therewith,
and no evidence of any waiver or modification shall be offered or received in evidence in any
proceeding arising between the parties hereto out of or affecting this Agreement, or the rights or
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
Contract 6580
obligations of the parties hereunder, and unless such waiver or modification is in writing and duly
executed; and the parties further agree that the provisions of this section will not be waived unless
as set forth herein.
ARTICLE 16. Severability
If any provision of this Agreement is found or deemed by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
invalid or unenforceable, it shall be considered severable from the remainder of this Agreement
and shall not cause the remainder to be invalid or unenforceable.
ARTICLE 17. Right to Audit
The City shall have the right to audit and make copies of the books, records and computations
pertaining to this agreement. The Consultant shall retain such books, records, documents and other
evidence pertaining to this agreement during the contract period and five years thereafter, except
if an audit is in progress or audit findings are yet unresolved, in which case records shall be kept
until all audit tasks are completed and resolved. These books, records, documents and other
evidence shall be available, within 10 business days of written request. Further, the Consultant
shall also require all Subcontractors, material suppliers, and other payees to retain all books,
records, documents and other evidence pertaining to this agreement, and to allow the City similar
access to those documents. All books and records will be made available within a 50 mile radius
of the City of Denton. The cost of the audit will be borne by the Consultant unless the audit reveals
an overpayment of 1% or greater. If an overpayment of 1% or greater occurs, the reasonable cost
of the audit, including any travel costs, must be borne by the Consultant which must be payable
within five business days of receipt of an invoice. Failure to comply with the provisions of this
section shall be a material breach of this contract and shall constitute, in the City’s sole discretion,
grounds for termination thereof. Each of the terms "books", "records", "documents" and "other
evidence", as used above, shall be construed to include drafts and electronic files, even if such
drafts or electronic files are subsequently used to generate or prepare a final printed document.
ARTICLE 18. Registration Requirements
Texas ethic laws require Consultant to disclose his representation of the City and to report certain
moneys paid for some of the activities to be conducted under this Agreement. Consultant will
comply with all rules regarding such disclosure and shall communicate with the City prior to filing
such disclosures. In addition, if the Consultant performs any lobbying for the City with any local
jurisdiction, it is the responsibility of the Consultant to properly register and comply with all local
lobbying ordinances. Consultant agrees not to engage in any activity on behalf of the City, which
is contrary to any Federal, State, or local law or regulation. Furthermore, Consultant agrees not to
make or offer any gifts or gratuities to any public official on behalf of the City.
ARTICLE 19. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, along with the RFP 6580, which is on file in the City of Denton Purchasing
Department, and the Consultant’s Proposal attached as Exhibit A to this Agreement, all of which
are incorporated herein, constitute the complete and final expression of the agreement of the parties
(“Agreement Documents”). In the event of conflict between the Agreement Documents, the
controlling terms will be in the following order of precedence: (1) this Agreement; (2) the RFP
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
Contract 6580
6580; and (3) the Consultant’s Proposal. No oral statement of any person shall modify or otherwise
change or affect the terms, conditions or specifications stated in this agreement. All change orders
to the Agreement will be made in writing by the City and approved by the City Council.
ARTICLE 20. Statutory Requirements
By executing this Agreement below in conformance with Sec. 2270.001 of the Texas Government
Code, the Consultant verifies that the Consultant: (1) does not boycott Israel currently; and (2) will
not boycott Israel during the term of this Agreement with the City of Denton. The Consultant
further certifies that the Consultant does not and will not engage in business with Iran, Sudan, or
a Foreign Terrorist Organization as defined under Section 2252.151 of the Texas Government
Code, and is not listed on the website of the Comptroller of the State of Texas concerning the
listing of companies for that purpose. Consultant further certifies that should it enter into a contract
with an entity or individual that is on said listing of companies which do business with Iran, Sudan
or any Foreign Terrorist Organization, it will immediately notify the City of Denton.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the City of Denton, Texas has caused this Agreement to be
executed by its duly authorized City Manager, and Consultant has executed this Agreement
through its duly authorized undersigned officer on this date ____________________.
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
__________________________________
TODD HILEMAN, CITY MANAGER
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY: __________________________________
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
AARON LEAL, CITY ATTORNEY
BY: __________________________________
CapitalEdge Strategies, LLC
CONSULTANT:
BY: _______________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
November 7, 2017
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND LOBBYING SERVICES
CITY OF DENTON
RFP 6580
October 2, 2017
CapitalEdge
1212 New York Avenue NW – Suite 250
Washington DC 20005
202‐842‐5430 (phone)
202‐842‐5051 (fax)
http://www.capitaledge.com
Ralph Garboushian, Managing Member
ralphg@capitaledge.com
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
City of Denton
RFP for Supply of Federal Governmental Relations and Lobbying Services
Page 2 of 25
PRICING SHEET – EXHIBIT 1
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
XXXXXX
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
City of Denton
RFP for Supply of Federal Governmental Relations and Lobbying Services
Page 4 of 25
ATTACHMENT A – BUSINESS OVERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE AND FORMS
1. Contract Information
Firm’s Legal Name:
CapitalEdge Strategies, LLC
Address:
1212 New York Avenue NW – Suite 250
Washington DC 20005
Agent authorized to sign contract:
Ralph Garboushian
Agents email address:
ralphg@capitaledge.com
2. Subsidiary of:
NA
3. Organization class:
Partnership Corporation Individual Association
4. Taxpayer ID#:
27‐0248027
5. Date Established:
January 1, 1995
6. Historically Underutilized Business:
No. However, CapitalEdge is a small business with 5 employees.
7. Does your company have an established physical presence in the State of Texas, or the City
of Denton? Yes or No, in which?
No, CapitalEdge Strategies is located in Washington, District of Columbia.
8. Please provide a detailed listing of all products or services that your company provides.
CapitalEdge provides federal government relations to local governments and their
instrumentalities.
Corporation
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
XXXXXXX
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
City of Denton
RFP for Supply of Federal Governmental Relations and Lobbying Services
Page 5 of 25
9. Has your company filed or been named in any litigation involving your company and the Owner
on a contract within the last five years under your current com pany name or any other company
name? If so provide details of the issues and resolution if available. Include lawsuits where
Owner was involved. (Notice: Failure to disclose this information during proposal submission,
and later discovered, may result in contract termination at the Owner’s option.)
No.
10. Have you ever defaulted on or failed to complete a contract under your current company name
or any other company name? If so, where and why? Give name and telephone number of
Owner.
No.
11. Have you ever had a contract terminated by the Owner? If so, where and why? Give name and
telephone number (s) of Owner (s).
No.
12. Has your company implemented an Employee Health and Safety Program compliant with 29 CFR
1910 “General Industry Standards” and/or 29 CFR 1926 “General Construction Standards” as
they apply to your Company’s customary activities?
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owasrch.search_form?p_doc_type=STANDARDS&p_toc
_level=1&p_keyvalue=1926
NA – CapitalEdge is not a construction company.
13. Resident/Non‐Resident Bidder Determination:
Texas Government Code Section 2252.002: Non‐resident bidders. Texas law prohibits cities and
other governmental units from awarding contracts to a non‐resident firm unless the amount of
such a bid is lower than the lowest bid by a Texas resident by the amount the Texas resident
would be required to underbid in the non‐resident bidders’ state. In order to make this
determination, please provide the name, address and phone number of:
a. Responding firms principle place of business:
1212 New York Avenue NW – Suite 250
Washington DC 20005
b. Company’s majority owner principle place of business:
1212 New York Avenue NW – Suite 250
Washington DC 20005
c. Ultimate Parent Company’s principle place of business:
1212 New York Avenue NW – Suite 250
Washington DC 20005
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
City of Denton
RFP for Supply of Federal Governmental Relations and Lobbying Services
Page 6 of 25
14. Provide details to support the evaluation criteria, including experience and delivery.
a) Compliance with specifications, quality, reliability, characteristics to meet stated or
implied needs
b) Indicators of Probable Performance under contract
As outlined in greater detail in question 15, CapitalEdge is one of the largest lobbying
firms in Washington that solely represents local governments and their agencies. We have
strong knowledge of cities and their needs and prospects for federal assistance and we
are widely recognized for our expertise on federal‐local relations and local government
issues. Our clients are mostly of long standing; we have worked with many of them for
over 20 years. This track record is perhaps the clearest demonstration of our
performance.
We are one of the few firms in Washington that provides services exclusively to local
governments and their agencies. We spend all day of every day working on the
distinctive issues of importance to municipalities.
We have a strong record of legislative and regulatory achievements on behalf of our
clients that stretch over 20 years.
We have established significant long‐term relationships with our clients that are
based on providing timely, effective, and personalized service. As a result, our clients
enjoy an uninterrupted, non‐partisan presence in Washington.
c) Price, Total Cost of Ownership
The total price of the proposed contract is $54,000 per year as outlined on the pricing
sheet.
15. Provide details on how firm meets the minimum qualifications stated in this Main document
Section 3.
Three (3) year’s experience providing similar products or services.
CapitalEdge is one of the largest lobbying firms in Washington that solely represents local
governments and their agencies. We have strong knowledge of cities and their needs and
prospects for federal assistance and we are widely recognized for our expertise on federal‐
local relations and local government issues. Our clients are mostly of long standing; we have
worked with many of them for over 20 years. This track record is perhaps the clearest
demonstration of our performance.
Our current clients (with first year of service) include:
City of Arlington, TX (2008)
City of Austin, TX (1992)
City of Dallas, TX (1984)
City of Denton, TX (1997)
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
City of Denton
RFP for Supply of Federal Governmental Relations and Lobbying Services
Page 7 of 25
City of Avondale, AZ (2010)
City of Beaumont, TX (1981)
City of Columbia, SC (1979)
City of Huntsville, AL (1992)
City of Pasadena, CA (1981)
City of Reno, NV (1999)
City of Santa Cruz, CA (1992)
City of Sumter, SC (2007)
Denton County, TX Transportation Authority (2012)
Santa Cruz County, CA (1999)
Santa Cruz, CA Regional Transportation Commission (1995)
Santa Cruz, CA Metropolitan Transit District (1995)
Soquel Creek Water District (2017)
Some unique aspects of CapitalEdge:
We are one of the few firms in Washington that provides services exclusively to local
governments and their agencies. We spend all day of every day working on the
distinctive issues of importance to municipalities.
We have a strong record of legislative and regulatory achievements on behalf of our
clients that stretch over 20 years.
We have established significant long‐term relationships with our clients that are
based on providing timely, effective, and personalized service. As a result, our clients
enjoy an uninterrupted, non‐partisan presence in Washington.
CapitalEdge provides high‐quality services to local governments across the country. Our
clients benefit from a number of distinctive aspects of the firm:
We are one of the few firms in Washington that provides advocacy services exclusively
to local governments and their agencies. We spend all of our time working on issues
that are important to municipalities.
We have a strong record of legislative and regulatory achievements on local
government issues.
We have long‐term relationships with our clients and their congressional delegations
that are based on timely, effective and personalized service, allowing us to provide
our clients with a continuous, nonpartisan presence in our nation’s capital.
We have a strong working relationship of long‐standing with the various public
interest groups that represent local elected officials and their agencies in Washington,
including the National League of Cities, the US Conference of Mayors, the National
Community Development Association, the National Association of Clean Water
Agencies, the American Water Works Association, and other similar organizations.
We have a long history of developing broad‐based, bipartisan coalitions on behalf of
priority projects.
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
City of Denton
RFP for Supply of Federal Governmental Relations and Lobbying Services
Page 8 of 25
We are non‐partisan and pride ourselves in serving as a trusted and effective liaison
between elected officials of differing political parties who have a common goal of
serving their constituents. We have served communities and dealt with congressional
delegations covering the entire political spectrum.
CapitalEdge also uses this same idea to create and participate in coalitions that assist
in forwarding the federal agendas of our clients.
We also have been active on issues of common interest to Texas cities, including working with
the Texas Municipal League when appropriate, regarding common issues such as:
Preservation of the language that protects the ability of Texas cities to charge rent for
the use and management of public rights‐of‐way in the Internet Tax Freedom Act;
Preservation of the Contract Tower Program and turning back a proposal to increase
local cost share under the program;
Increased sub‐allocation of federal highway funds to the Regional Transportation
Commission;
Preservation of the tax exempt status of municipal bonds; and
Preservation of core local government programs in a period of austerity, including
CDBG, HOME, UASI, and local law enforcement assistance.
CapitalEdge proposes to continue working with Denton as part of the Texas Cities Legislative
Coalition, which also includes Arlington, Austin, and Dallas. This arrangement allows for a
united voice on issues of common interest and helps keep the cost of services reasonable.
CapitalEdge enjoys an excellent working relationship with the Texas congressional
delegation and has built close ties during our many years of work. We also have strong ties
with officials at key federal agencies of interest to local governments, including the
Departments of Housing & Urban Development, Transportation, Justice and Homeland
Security.
Three (3) references from governmental entities for the products or services requested.
As outlined in Attachment D, references among current clients include:
Ms. Jennifer Wichmann
Administrative Services Manager
City of Arlington
817‐459‐6408
jennifer.wichmann@arlingtontx.gov
The Honorable Stephen K. Benjamin
Mayor
City of Columbia
803‐545‐3038
skbenjamin@columbiasc.net
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
City of Denton
RFP for Supply of Federal Governmental Relations and Lobbying Services
Page 10 of 25
ATTACHMENT A – SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS
16. Organization, Credentials, and Experience
a. Provide a summary of the company’s qualifications, credentials, and related past
experience.
CapitalEdge provides high‐quality services to local governments across the country. Our
clients benefit from a number of distinctive aspects of the firm:
We are one of the few firms in Washington that provides advocacy services exclusively
to local governments and their agencies. We spend all of our time working on issues
that are important to municipalities.
We have a strong record of legislative and regulatory achievements on local
government issues.
We have long‐term relationships with our clients and their congressional delegations
that are based on timely, effective and personalized service, allowing us to provide
our clients with a continuous, nonpartisan presence in our nation’s capital.
We have a strong working relationship of long‐standing with the various public
interest groups that represent local elected officials and their agencies in Washington,
including the National League of Cities, the US Conference of Mayors, the National
Community Development Association, the National Association of Clean Water
Agencies, the American Water Works Association, and other similar organizations.
We have a long history of developing broad‐based, bipartisan coalitions on behalf of
priority projects.
We are non‐partisan and pride ourselves in serving as a trusted and effective liaison
between elected officials of differing political parties who have a common goal of
serving their constituents. We have served communities and dealt with congressional
delegations covering the entire political spectrum.
CapitalEdge also uses this same idea to create and participate in coalitions that assist
in forwarding the federal agendas of our clients.
We also have been active on issues of common interest to Texas cities, including working with
the Texas Municipal League when appropriate, regarding common issues such as:
Preservation of the language that protects the ability of Texas cities to charge rent for
the use and management of public rights‐of‐way in the Internet Tax Freedom Act;
Preservation of the Contract Tower Program and turning back a proposal to increase
local cost share under the program;
Increased sub‐allocation of federal highway funds to the Regional Transportation
Commission;
Preservation of the tax exempt status of municipal bonds; and
Preservation of core local government programs in a period of austerity, including
CDBG, HOME, UASI, and local law enforcement assistance.
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
XXXXXXX
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
City of Denton
RFP for Supply of Federal Governmental Relations and Lobbying Services
Page 11 of 25
CapitalEdge proposes to continue working with Denton as part of the Texas Cities
Legislative Coalition, which also includes Arlington, Austin, and Dallas. This arrangement
allows for a united voice on issues of common interest and helps keep the cost of services
reasonable. CapitalEdge enjoys an excellent working relationship with the Texas
congressional delegation and has built close ties during our many years of work. We also
have strong ties with officials at key federal agencies of interest to local governments,
including the Departments of Housing & Urban Development, Transportation, Justice and
Homeland Security.
Track Record on Behalf of our Clients
Legislative Solutions
After the 2000 Census combined the Denton and Lewisville urbanized areas and increased
the urbanized area population to over 200,000, rendering the City ineligible for federal
transit operating assistance, CapitalEdge worked with the Denton congressional
delegation, the relevant House and Senate Committee, the Federal Transit
Administration, and other similarly impacted communities to secure federal operating
assistance for Denton for several years up to and through the transition from a City‐
operated transit agency to the creation of DCTA. We took the le ad in forming the coalition
that successfully fought for the enactment of legislative language allowing for the
continued use of federal transit formula grants for operating assistance in Denton and
other similarly impacted communities.
Working with Denton, other Texas cities, and the Texas congressional delegation, we
helped preserve language that protects the City’s ability to charge rent for the use and
management of City rights‐of‐way in the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act.
When a draft version of a surface transportation reauthorization bill proposed the
elimination of some metropolitan planning organizations, including client cities,
CapitalEdge worked with that client’s congressional delegation to oppose that language,
which was not included in the final bill signed by the President.
Regulatory Relief
We worked with Denton, Dallas, and North Central Texas congressional delegation to turn
back a Bureau of Land Management mineral lease proposal for land next to Lake
Lewisville.
In recent years, cities have lost some zoning authority over collocation on existing towers
through legislation and regulatory actions. CapitalEdge prepared comments in response
to a Federal Communications Commission proposed rule regarding zoning approval for
colocation of new equipment on existing cell phone towers. The comments filed by Texas
local governments resulted in a final rule that pared back the original proposals
preemption of local authority and gives cities some leeway when working with providers
to approve and site attachments to existing cell phone towers.
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
City of Denton
RFP for Supply of Federal Governmental Relations and Lobbying Services
Page 12 of 25
Grants Assistance
CapitalEdge has worked with the City’s congressional delegation and relevant House and
Senate Committees to fight back proposals to eliminate the Federal Aviation
Administration Contract Tower Program, which funds staffing for the air traffic control
tower at Denton Enterprise Airport. It would cost the City over $1 million annually to staff
the tower in the absence of the Contract Tower Program.
CapitalEdge worked with Denton, Arlington, Dallas, other Metroplex cities, and other
impacted cities to successfully lobby against proposals to eliminate the Department of
Homeland Security Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) program, which provides
Metroplex cities with approximately $14 million per year in flexible security assistance.
CapitalEdge worked closely with the US Conference of Mayors, the National League of
Cities, the National Association of Regional Council, and the Texas congressional
delegation to secure increased sub‐allocation of federal highway funds to the Regional
Transportation Commission recently enacted surface transportation reauthorization bill,
the FAST Act. Under the FAST Act, the Denton‐Lewisville Urbanized Area’s annual
allocation will increase from $6.4 million in FY 2015 to $7.9 million in FY 2020.
Over the course of one weekend in late 2015, a CapitalEdge client was inundated with
over 20 inches of rain in 48 hours, resulting in widespread flood damage, including to the
City’s primary water treatment plant. CapitalEdge worked with the City’s legislative
delegation to secure supplemental CDBG‐Disaster Recovery funding in the FY 2015
Omnibus Appropriations Act. We then worked with HUD and White House officials, to
secure a direct CDBG‐Disaster Recovery allocation of $26 million to the City, ensuring that
the State will not complicate or slow down recovery efforts.
We ensure that our client cities are aware of all federal grant opportunities and work with
their congressional delegation to ensure their applications receive all due consideration.
The congressional earmark moratorium has limited the role of Congress in allocating grant
funds; prior to the moratorium, the City received $4.5 million for capital improvements
to Denton Enterprise Airport, $3.2 million for the construction of the Euline Brock
Downtown Denton Transit Center, and $1.8 million for police technology.
City Official Leadership
CapitalEdge client city officials have served in a number of leadership positions in national
organizations and we have helped staff them in that capacity. Our clients have served in
the highest leadership positions at the United States Conference of Mayors, and the
National League of Cities, including President. Other organizations that we work with
closely include the National Community Development Association, the American Water
Works Association, and Municipal Bonds for America. We have staffed them in many
ways, including organizing lobbying trips, assisting them at national meetings, preparing
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
City of Denton
RFP for Supply of Federal Governmental Relations and Lobbying Services
Page 13 of 25
background and talking points, and organizing educational seminars for congressional
staff.
b. Describe the size of your company, and indicate the principal, company official(s), and
other personnel who will be assigned to work on behalf of the City.
CapitalEdge has 5 employees.
The principal CapitalEdge contact for Denton will be:
Ralph Garboushian
1212 New York Avenue NW – Suite 250
Washington DC 20005
202‐842‐5430 (telephone)
202‐674‐3027 (cell)
202‐842‐5051 (fax)
ralphg@capitaledge.com
Joy Grewatz and Amy Jo Jacobsen will also continue to work with the City of Denton on a
regular basis. In addition, Christopher Giglio and Niharika Pendurthi will be available to assist
Denton as needed. Resumes for Ralph, Joy, Amy Jo, Chris, and Niharika are attached
(Appendix I).
Ralph Garboushian
Ralph has been honing his skills on behalf of local governments since he joined CapitalEdge
in 1995. In the decade that Ralph has worked for cities in Washington, his interests have
varied broadly. He is the only person in Washington who has actually read all of the major
local government legislation passed during his tenure, and he has developed special expertise
in transportation. He has helped his clients secure funding for a wide array of projects and
has helped them navigate legislative and regulatory challenges ranging from maintaining
transit operating assistance for several clients, including Denton, after Census changes
threatened it to ensuring the direct allocation of disaster recovery assistance to his client
cities and
Ralph holds a B.A. from Skidmore College, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and a
M.A. in Political Science from Syracuse University
Christopher F. Giglio
Chris has been providing advocacy and information services to local governments in
Washington for over 20 years. During that time, he has worked with a wide variety of federal
agencies, congressional offices and committees, and local government organizations to
promote the priorities of his clients. Federal matters in which Chris frequently performs
services for his clients include transportation, community development, public safety, the
environment and water resources, human services, and job training. In recent years, Chris
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
City of Denton
RFP for Supply of Federal Governmental Relations and Lobbying Services
Page 14 of 25
played an integral part in the creation of the Small Transit Intensive Cities (STIC) program in
the 2005 SAFETEA‐LU surface transportation law. The program provides additional federal
transit funds to smaller communities that provide higher levels of transit services than their
larger counterparts, and has assisted over 160 communities in 45 states and Puerto Rico since
its inception. Chris was also involved on behalf of a client with the enactment of
a provision the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act that allows General Aviation
Airports under certain circumstances to spend revenues derived from mineral rights on
Airport property to be used for off‐Airport transportation projects.
Chris has been with CapitalEdge since its inception in 1995. For the five years previous to that,
he served as an Assistant City Representative at the National Center for Municipal
Development, a non‐profit advocacy organization formed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors
and National League of Cities. In addition, Chris has worked on Capitol Hill on the staff of a
former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as the U.S. Senate Committee
on Foreign Relations.
Chris holds a B.A. in Political Science from Williams College in Massachusetts and is a Past
President of the Williams College Society of Alumni, unofficially regarded as the oldest college
alumni association in North America.
Joy Grewatz
Joy joined CapitalEdge in 2010 and brought with her an extensive background in local
government and a strong knowledge of urban policy issues. Joy uses her experience in
federal government relations and municipal government to promote client interests with
congressional offices and federal agency staff. Since joining the firm, Joy has distinguished
herself as a policy expert on issues relating to homeland security and defense.
Prior to joining CapitalEdge, Joy began her professional career working for the City of Dallas,
Texas. In her role as legislative coordinator, she assisted in successfully representing the City’s
interest before the Texas State legislature and Congress. The Office of Intergovernmental
Services relied upon Joy to track legislation, draft timely correspondence, and research
various legislative programs and issues.
Joy received her Master’s Degree in Public Administration from the University of North Texas
and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Texas at Arlington. She serves
as a board member of the DC Chapter of Women in Transportation and is involved with
various professional organizations including Women in Government Relations and the Texas
State Society.
Amy Jo Jacobsen
Amy Jo joined the CapitalEdge team in 2008 fresh out of college with a desire to pursue a
government‐related career and serve others. Her interest in the political system was peaked
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
City of Denton
RFP for Supply of Federal Governmental Relations and Lobbying Services
Page 15 of 25
at an early age when campaigning for or tagging along with her mother, a locally elected
official.
Amy Jo performs a wide variety of activities on any given day at CapitalEdge, including
drafting correspondence, scheduling meetings, researching issues and seeking grant
opportunities. Her broad interests in urban affairs and ability to conquer the task immediately
at hand serve the firm well.
During her college years, Amy Jo held a number of internships, ranging from a community
bank and private law firms to the Consumer Protection Division in the Iowa Attorney
General’s Office. She opted to spend her final semester participating in the Capitol Hill
Internship Program. The program entailed talking courses and working nearly full‐time for a
United States Senator, allowing her to gain valuable knowledge of the legislative process and
begin learning how Washington operates.
Amy Jo earned a B.A. with Honors from Simpson College with a double major in Political
Science and Corporate Communication.
Niharika Pendurthi
Niharika joined CapitalEdge in February 2016 as a Legislative and Grants Research Assistant.
Niha’s responsibilities include researching federal grant opportunities, tracking legislation,
scheduling meetings for visiting clients, and contributing to the weekly newsletter.
Niha’s interest in local governments began in 2013 when she served as a Research Assistant
for the Economic Policy Research Institute (EPRI) in Cape Town, South Africa. As a member of
EPRI’s Savings and Investments Linkages Team, Niha researched how to promote financial
inclusion in Cape Town’s township communities. This experience introduced her to the
importance of local policy initiatives. In June 2014, Niha was awarded $4000 by the
International Public Service Fund to conduct qualitative research on the roles of nonprofits
and local governments in improving the rates of adolescent girl education in rural, eastern
Uganda. Niha then applied her passion for advocacy in a domestic context through her
internships at the White House Office of Presidential Correspon dence and on Capitol Hill with
the offices of Congressman John Delaney and the Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions’ Minority Health Team.
She is a cum laude graduate of Williams College with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
with a concentration in Gender in Politics.
17. Provide a narrative of the company’s understanding of the Scope of Work and detailed
proposal to meet the City’s goals and priorities.
CapitalEdge will provide the City of Denton with congressional relations services and will
maintain regular contact with the Texas Senators and the City’s House delegation and assure
its presence and visibility in their considerations of priority issues and projects.
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
City of Denton
RFP for Supply of Federal Governmental Relations and Lobbying Services
Page 16 of 25
We will initiate and respond to requests for meetings, research, reports, consultation, and
other activities on behalf of the City throughout the year. As needed we will meet with City
elected officials and City staff to review City budgets and priorities in order to outline a federal
program. Working from that program, CapitalEdge will represent the City’s position to
legislative and Administration officials and facilitate communication among them.
We will communicate on a regular basis, at least weekly, with the City’s legislative liaison and
reports will be provided weekly and as requested, including our Washington Report, which
we distribute to City officials and staff each week Congress is in session (Appendix II). We will
also work with the City on grants, on resolving issues with federal programs and regulations
and on other tasks as required.
Federal Program Development
Since 1997, CapitalEdge staff has visited Denton at least once a year in order to discuss federal
issues of interest with elected officials and City staff with the intention of developing a federal
program for the coming year. The visits also have included CapitalEdge staff updating the City
Council on federal matters in a public City Council meeting or work session and usually include
visits to Denton neighborhoods to receive first hand updates on projects and priorities.
Following these visits, we assist City officials with the development of an annual Federal
Program for the City based on the information acquired during the visit. This plan involves
projects on the local level that would benefit from federal assistance (legislatively or through
grants), legislative issues we anticipate the City would take a position on throughout the year,
and policy on Executive Branch actions like proposed regulations at federal agencies that
might affect Denton.
Certainly, unanticipated issues have come up after the visit, and through frequent contact
with City staff, we address them in an effective and efficient fashion.
Advice and Advocacy on the City’s Behalf
Early each year, we begin the process of advocating Denton priorities with both Congress and
the Executive Branch. Over time, we have developed relationships with the offices of the
Denton congressional delegation, which we believe is a crucial element in this process. With
direct federal assistance to local governments declining in recent years as Congress focuses
on deficit reduction, it is extremely important that the City’s congressional delegation be
unified (and heard) in support of local priority projects in what has become an extremely
competitive atmosphere.
We have also provided the City with detailed background on a variety of federal issues so that
the City can develop an informed decision in response to any inquiries while advocating their
position. While we provide advice, information, and assistance, we have found in most cases
that city officials are their own best lobbyists, and a well‐timed, well‐informed visit or
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
City of Denton
RFP for Supply of Federal Governmental Relations and Lobbying Services
Page 17 of 25
telephone call from the Mayor or members of the City Council – coordinated through the city
staff – can make the difference in the success of a project.
There are several instances throughout the year when it is necessary for the City to react
quickly to legislation that is unexpectedly addressed in Congress. We anticipate these
situations and assist the City in drafting letters and contacting the congressional delegation
to advise them of the City’s position prior to the vote.
Federal Information Services
The backbone of almost every successful lobbying effort includes the flow of accurate and
timely information on the subject of interest. It is for this reason that we consider our federal
information services as important as the advocacy services that we provide.
In coordinating support for Denton in Washington, we look to provide all the involved parties
with as much information on a project as possible in a timely manner. This includes drafting
letters of support from key City officials, talking points for the City official who is promoting
the project, and the current status of the legislation or regulation that is of interest. We pride
ourselves on our accessibility to our clients.
We also use all of the available resources, electronic and otherwise, to obtain the latest
information from Congress and the Executive Branch. These resources include legislation,
committee reports, hearing testimony, rules, regulations, and grant notices.
Rather than simply passing this information along to Denton with little or no explanation, we
look to present it to City officials in a form that is timely and brief, informative and coherent,
and provides recommended courses of action. Periodic email and telephone communication
with Denton staff is the favored vehicle for such transmittals. In addition, our Washington
Report, which we send to the City each week Congress is in session, outlines federal actions
that may have an impact on the City.
Meetings such as the annual National League of Cities Legislative Conference in Washington
also provides CapitalEdge the opportunity to update Denton officials on federal activities,
including a formal briefing with other Texas cities, and annual visits to Denton often include
presentations to the City Council in public meetings or work sessions.
CapitalEdge is committed to providing Denton with all of the information it needs to make
informed decisions regarding federal policies. In order to present that information in the
manner that work best for the City, we encourage and enjoy frequent communication with
City officials.
Support for City Officials Traveling on Federal Business
CapitalEdge works to make Denton visits to Washington as effortless and as productive as
possible. We participate in all aspects of the planning process, including suggesting and
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
City of Denton
RFP for Supply of Federal Governmental Relations and Lobbying Services
Page 18 of 25
making appointments with pertinent officials, providing background materials and talking
points, itineraries, and strategies in preparation for the meetings, as well as logistical
assistance with navigating around Washington.
CapitalEdge offices would also double as a Washington Office for the City of Denton. Located
in downtown Washington, blocks from the White House and minutes from the Capitol, we
provide a fully‐equipped office that is available for use whenever Denton officials are in
Washington. The office has telephone, fax, copying, word processing, and Internet services,
as well as a conference room and office services staff that may be used by Denton officials.
An important aspect of Denton visits to Washington is that they are scheduled at
appropriate times in order to make the best use of City resources. There have been
instances where we have recommended that Denton officials not make a trip to
Washington, for a variety of reasons. Keeping track of the congressional schedule, having
a daily feel of the political mood in Washington, and knowing whether the proper officials
will be amenable to the City’s argument all factor into these decisions.
Equally important to these visits by Denton officials is the follow‐up with pertinent federal
officials. CapitalEdge works with congressional staff and federal agency officials after a visit
to provide them with the tools they need to successfully advocate on behalf of the City. In a
situation such as the NLC conference, where so many communities are in Washington making
their case at one time, such follow‐up ensures that Denton priorities are not lost among the
many requests these offices receive.
Performance Reports
As mentioned above in the “Federal Information Services” section, we use several vehicles to
keep Denton up‐to‐date on our activities on your behalf, as well as providing you with timely
and pertinent updates regarding matters in Washington.
These include the Washington Report, sent to the City each week Congress is in session. It
covers events, activities, legislation, rulemakings, and funding opportunities in Congress and
the Executive Branch that may be of interest to Denton and local governments in general.
In addition to an annual in‐person visit to brief the City Council and city staff, CapitalEdge
works with city staff on the federal items that are part of periodic intergovernmental affairs
reports to the City Council.
In the same spirit of supporting the frequent flow of information to the city, CapitalEdge is
pleased to provide any updates or reports that the City requires, whether they are formally
included in the agreement or determined to be useful at a later date.
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
City of Denton
RFP for Supply of Federal Governmental Relations and Lobbying Services
Page 19 of 25
National Organization Support
CapitalEdge staff has long‐standing relationships with the main local government
membership organizations in Washington, the National League of Cities (NLC) and US
Conference of Mayors (USCM). Numerous clients have served in leadership positions of the
organizations, and we attend both their legislative conferences and annual meetings each
year. In addition, we have developed strong relationships with the staff for both groups, and
they often call on us to provide them with input, support, or information on an issue.
Each year at the NLC legislative conference in March, in coordination with Denton city staff,
we arrange and manage a comprehensive schedule for Denton officials in attendance. This
includes a briefing with other Texas cities, assisting in preparing background and talking
points on federal priorities; arranging meetings with the City’s congressional delegation and
pertinent federal agencies, and monitoring sessions at the conference that others may be
interested in but not able to attend.
On the staff level, we attend periodic meetings of Washington Representatives of local
governments hosted by USCM, NLC, and other similar organizations where common issues
and strategies are discussed.
18. Provide a written statement that the Consultant shall comply with all applicable local,
state and federal laws, rules, and regulations.
CapitalEdge Strategies, LLC shall comply with all laws, rules, and regulations of the United
States, the State of Texas, the District of Columbia, the County of Denton, and the City of
Denton.
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
XXXXXXX
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
City of Denton
RFP for Supply of Federal Governmental Relations and Lobbying Services
Page 21 of 25
ATTACHMENT D – REFERENCES
Please list three (3) Government references, other than the City of Denton, who can verify the
quality of service your company provides. The City prefers customers of similar size and scope
of work to this solicitation.
REFERENCE ONE
GOVERNMENT/COMPANY NAME: City of Arlington, Texas
LOCATION: Arlington, Texas
CONTACT PERSON AND TITLE: Jennifer Wichmann, Administrative Services Manager
TELEPHONE NUMBER: 817‐459‐6408
SCOPE OF WORK: Federal government relations
CONTRACT PERIOD: 2008 ‐ Present
REFERENCE TWO
GOVERNMENT/COMPANY NAME: City of Columbia, South Carolina
LOCATION: Columbia, South Carolina
CONTACT PERSON AND TITLE: Mayor Stephen K. Benjamin
TELEPHONE NUMBER: 803‐545‐3038
SCOPE OF WORK: Federal government relations
CONTRACT PERIOD: 1995 ‐ Present
REFERENCE THREE
GOVERNMENT/COMPANY NAME: City of Dallas, Texas
LOCATION: Dallas, Texas
CONTACT PERSON AND TITLE: Brett Wilkinson, Intergovernmental Services Director
TELEPHONE NUMBER: 214‐670‐5797
SCOPE OF WORK: Federal government relations
CONTRACT PERIOD: 1995 ‐ Present
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
XXXXXXX
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
City of Denton
RFP for Supply of Federal Governmental Relations and Lobbying Services
Page 22 of 25
ATTACHMENT E – CONFLICT OF INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE
CONFLICT OF INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE ‐ FORM CIQ
For vendor or other person doing business with local governmental entity
This questionnaire reflects changes made to the law by H.B. 23, 84th Leg., Regular Session.
This questionnaire is being filed in accordance with Chapter 176, Local Government Code, by a vendor who has a
business relationship as defined by Section 176.001(1‐a) with a local governmental entity and the vendor meets
requirements under Section 176.006(a).
By law this questionnaire must be filed with the records administrator of the local government entity not later than
the 7th business day after the date the vendor becomes aware of facts that require the statement to be filed. See
Section 176.006(a‐1), Local Government Code.
A vendor commits an offense if the vendor knowingly violates Section 176.006, Local Government Code. An offense
under this section is a misdemeanor.
1 Name of vendor who has a business relationship with local governmental entity.
2
Check this box if you are filing an update to a previously filed questionnaire.
(The law requires that you file an updated completed questionnaire with the appropriate filing authority
not later than the 7th business day after the date on which you became aware that the originally filed
questionnaire was incomplete or inaccurate.)
3 Name of local government officer about whom the information in this section is being disclosed.
Name of Officer
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
XXXXXXX
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
City of Denton
RFP for Supply of Federal Governmental Relations and Lobbying Services
Page 24 of 25
ATTACHMENT F – ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned agrees this submission becomes the property of the City of Denton after the official
opening.
The undersigned affirms he has familiarized himself with the specification, drawings, exhibits and
other documents; the local conditions under which the work is to be performed; satisfied himself of
the conditions of delivery, handling and storage of materials and equipment; and all other matters
that will be required for the work before submitting a response.
The undersigned agrees, if this submission is accepted, to furnish any and all items/services upon
which prices are offered, at the price(s) and upon the terms and conditions contained in the
specification. The period for acceptance of this submission will be 120 calendar days unless a
different period is noted.
The undersigned affirms that they are duly authorized to execute this contract, that this submission
has not been prepared in collusion with any other respondent, nor any employee of the City of
Denton, and that the contents of this submission have not been communicated to any other
respondent or to any employee of the City of Denton prior to the acceptance of this submission.
Respondent hereby assigns to the City any and all claims for overcharges associated with this
contract which arise under the antitrust laws of the United States, 15 USCA Section 1 et seq., and
which arise under the antitrust laws of the State of Texas, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code,
Section 15.01, et seq.
The undersigned affirms that they have read and do understand the specifications, all exhibits and
attachments contained in this solicitation package.
The undersigned agrees that the solicitation package posted on the website are the official
specifications and shall not alter the electronic copy of the specifications and/or pricing sheet (Exhibit
1), without clearly identifying changes.
The undersigned understands they will be responsible for monitoring the City of Denton Purchasing
Website at: http://www.cityofdenton.com/index.aspx?page=397 to ensure they have downloaded
and signed all addendum(s) required for submission with their response.
I certify that I have made no willful misrepresentations in this submission, nor have I withheld
information in my statements and answers to questions. I am aware that the information given by
me in this submission will be investigated, with my full permission, and that any misrepresentations
or omissions may cause my submission to be rejected.
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
XXXXXXX
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
Ralph Garboushian
1212 New York Avenue, NW ‐ Suite 250
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 842‐5430 Fax: (202) 842‐5051
ralphg@capitaledge.com
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Managing Member, CapitalEdge Strategies, LLC
Washington, DC
January, 2010 – Present
Principal of a consulting firm providing Washington advocacy assistance to local governments
and their agencies that represents the concerns of the Texas Cities Legislative Coalition
(Arlington, Austin, Dallas and Denton) and the cities of Columbia, SC; Huntsville, AL, and Sumter,
SC. Service to clients falls into three basic areas:
Legislative Branch: liaison between the City and its Congressional delegation, analyzing
both the positive and negative impact of relevant legislation, strategizing and mobilizing
support for legislation of direct benefit to the city.
Executive Branch: facilitator for exploring grant opportunities and assisting the city
through the process of application and review; monitoring regulations which affect the
city; anticipating and communicating new program opportunities to the city; and cutting
bureaucratic red tape.
Washington Resources: locator of private resources available in Washington to advance
the city’s efforts and increase its role and recognition nationally, including private
organizations and foundations.
Legislative Associate, Barbara T. McCall Associates, Inc. / CapitalEdge Strategies, LLC
Washington, DC
May 1995 – December 2009
Responsibilities included: identifying, researching and analyzing legislative, executive and
administrative action regarding urban issues and recommend legislative strategies. Tracked
federal grant opportunities and assist client cities through the grant application process.
Prepared and contributed to weekly reports.
EDUCATION
BA, Government (Phi Beta Kappa), Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, New York, May, 1992.
MA, Political Science, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University,
Syracuse, New York, December, 1994.
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
Christopher F. Giglio
1212 New York Avenue, NW ‐ Suite 250
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 842‐4930 Fax: (202) 842‐5051
giglio@capitaledge.com
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
January 1995 CapitalEdge, Washington, DC
Present Managing Principal of a government relations firm specializing in federal
advocacy for local governments and their agencies before Congress and
the Executive Branch. Activities on behalf of clients include:
Seeking Federal aid for City projects in areas such as
transportation, flood control, law enforcement, housing, human
services, and community and economic development
Serving as liaison between clients and the U.S. Congress and
federal agencies
Assisting in the Federal grant application process
Monitoring federal regulatory activity
Crafting, advocating, and/or opposing Federal legislation
Contributing and editing articles for weekly newsletter
March 1990‐ National Center for Municipal Development, Washington, DC
January, 1995 Assistant City Representative for a public interest group that represents
individual cities in Washington. Promoted from Staff Assistant in March,
1993. Performed legislative advocacy and Federal grants research on
behalf of clients and assisted proposal writing and marketing of new
clients. Duties included frequent contact with local elected officials, city
staff, and congressional offices of client cities.
September 1989‐ U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC
March 1990 Staff Assistant for the Majority Staff of the full committee. Duties
included coordinating hearings, responding to constituent requests and
correspondence, handling and organizing testimony, and communicating
committee operations with staff of committee members.
June‐August 1988 U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
Staff Assistant in the Legislative Department of a former U.S. House
Member from the State of Maryland. Responsibilities included answering
constituent correspondence, performing legislative research and making
contact with the local media.
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
EDUCATION
Williams College, Williamstown, MA
Graduated with Bachelor of Arts degree, June, 1989. Political Science major with a
concentration in American Government.
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
Joy Grewatz
1212 New York Avenue, NW ‐ Suite 250
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 842‐5430 Fax: (202) 842‐5051
grewatz@capitaledge.com
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Legislative Associate, CapitalEdge Strategies, LLC
Washington, DC
October 2010 ‐ Present
Responsibilities include: identifying, researching and analyzing legislative, executive and
administrative action regarding urban issues and recommend legislative strategies. Track federal
grant opportunities and assist client cities through the grant application process. Prepare and
contribute to weekly reports.
Legislative Coordinator, Office of Intergovernmental Services, City of Dallas, TX
Dallas, TX
June 2008 – October 2010.
Responsibilities include: identifying, researching and analyzing state and federal legislative action
regarding urban issues. Track department budget throughout fiscal year. Provide direct
oversight of administrative tasks for the department.
EDUCATION
BA, Political Science, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, May, 2008.
MA, Public Administration, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, August, 2010.
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
Amy Jo Jacobsen
1212 New York Avenue, NW ‐ Suite 250
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 842‐5430 Fax: (202) 842‐5051
jacobsen@capitaledge.com
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Legislative Associate, CapitalEdge Strategies, LLC
Washington, DC
August 2008 ‐ Present
Responsibilities include: identifying, researching and analyzing legislative, executive and
administrative action regarding urban issues and recommend legislative strategies. Track federal
grant opportunities and assist client cities through the grant application process. Prepare and
contribute to weekly reports.
Legislative Intern, Office of Senator Charles E. Grassley
Washington, DC
February 2008 ‐ May 2008
Responsibilities included: Drafting constituent reply mail, researching upcoming legislative
issues, compiling appropriations data, leading tours of the Capitol and completing administrative
tasks assigned by legislative staff to the Senator.
EDUCATION
BA, Political Science and Corporate Communications, Simpson College, Indianola, Iowa, May,
2008.
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
N i h a r i k a P e n d u r t h i
1212 New York Avenue NW, Suite 250, Washington, D.C. 20005 | pendurthi@capitaledge.com | 202-842-4930
CapitalEdge Washington, D.C.
Legislative and Grants Research Assistant February 2016 – Present
● Research federal grant opportunities for clients, track legislation, schedule Capitol Hill meetings for visiting clients, and
contribute to weekly written reports.
The White House Washington, D.C.
Office of Presidential Correspondence Intern Aug. 2016 – Jan. 2017
(on leave from CapitalEdge)
Read and responded to over 300 letters a day from the American people on behalf of President Obama.
Suggested and responded to letters included in President Obama’s 10 Letters a Day, a sample of ten letters from the
American people that President Obama requested to read nightly.
Selected to write one of President Obama’s 10 Letters a Day in the President’s voice, that was reviewed by the Director of
the Office of Presidential Correspondence, and read and hand-signed by President Obama himself.
Processed potentially threatening correspondence sent to the President on behalf of the U.S. Secret Service using Salesforce.
Senate HELP Committee, Ranking Member Senator Patty Murray’s Health Office Washington, D.C.
Legislative and Communications Intern September 2015 – February 2016
● Researched and wrote policy recommendations on ways to stop sexual assault and intimate partner violence on college
campuses for the Senior Health Counsel.
● Designed and implemented the first electronic and hardcopy filing system for all official committee correspondence received
by the Health Policy Office.
● Managed front office, greeted visitors, sorted mail, answered phones, prepared daily press clips, researched legislation using
tools like CRS, Thomas, and LIS, wrote policy memos, and attended briefings and hearings for legislative staffers.
Office of Congressman John Delaney (D-MD-6) Washington, D.C.
Legislative and Communications Intern July - September 2015
● Greeted constituents, answered phones, sorted mail, completed flag requests, and processed and batched all incoming
correspondences using Intranet Quorum.
● Prepared daily press clips and wrote constituent letters and policy memos for legislative staffers.
Williams College Democrats Williamstown, MA
Volunteer July - November 2012
● Called constituents through Obama for America to discuss President Obama’s reelection platform.
● Called Massachusetts residents to advocate for Elizabeth Warren’s Senate campaign.
Pearl Community Empowerment Foundation (PCE) Kampala, Uganda
International Public Service Fellow June - August 2014
● Awarded $4000 by the Williams College International Public Service Fund to conduct qualitative research on the role of
sponsorship programs in improving the rates of adolescent girl education in rural, eastern Uganda.
● Created an impact assessment of the Pearl Community Empowerment Foundation’s sponsorship program from its starting
date in January 2012 to present.
Leadership
McDonald Cadet Leadership Conference (MCLC) at the United States Military Academy West Point, NY
Participant April 16 - 19 2015
● One of two Williams students selected to attend the annual conference hosted by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Bob
McDonald, that brings student leaders together with world-class leaders to discuss current global issues.
● Wrote and published an op-ed for the New York Times’ Leadership section titled, “To confront labor shortages, international
businesses must utilize technology, education, and cross-cultural strategies”, in collaboration with Secretary McDonald and
six other students.
Academics
Williams College Williamstown, MA
● Bachelor of Arts, Political Science (cum laude) September 2011 - June 2015
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
TEXAS CITIES
LEGISLATIVE
COALITION
Volume 23, Issue 4
January 27, 2017
WASHINGTON REPORT
EXECUTIVE ORDERS FOCUS ON CAMPAIGN PROMISES
EXECUTIVE ACTIONS ..................... 1
INFRASTRUCTURE .......................... 2
IMMIGRATION & FEDERALISM ....... 3
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ................ 4
GRANTS & NOTICES........................ 6
INSIDE:
TCLC
Washington Office
Ralph Garboushian
ralphg@capitaledge.com
Amy Jo Jacobsen
jacobsen@capitaledge.com
Joy Grewatz
grewatz@capitaledge.com
1212 New York Ave NW
Suite 250
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 842-5430
Fax: (202) 842-5051
http:// www.capitaledge.com
EXECUTIVE ACTIONS
President spends busy first week issuing directives addressing campaign promises. In his
first full week as President, Donald Trump used the power of his pen to make several high-
profile orders designed to address issues he had stressed during his campaign. While the
effectiveness of these orders is in question, they have established the President’s intent to
move quickly on matters of interest, and in some cases, attempt to bypass Congress.
The orders came in the form of Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda, the
differences between the two being relatively minor and both hold the force of law over the
Executive Branch.
Executive Orders included:
Construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border (Congress must
appropriate the funds for the multi-billion-dollar project),
Enforcement of federal immigration law, including withholding federal funding
to so-called “sanctuary cities” (see related story below),
Expedite environmental reviews and approvals for infrastructure projects
designated as “high priority” by the White House (Presidents Obama and Bush
issued similar Orders but had limited success in accelerating the National
Environmental Protection Act process), and
Allow federal agencies to “minimize… the burdens” of the Affordable Care Act
pending repeal by Congress (there is much debate over how much impact this
will have).
Presidential Memoranda included:
Streamlining permitting and reducing regulatory burdens for domestic
manufacturing facilities,
Allowing construction of the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines,
Requiring “Buy America” provisions regarding construction of American
pipelines (this may violate World Trade Organization rules, however),
Freezing all non-defense related federal hiring,
Withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
negotiations and agreement,
Prohibiting federal funding for international organizations that provide abortion
counseling, and
Freezing all new and pending federal regulations pending review.
Archives& Funding Chart at:
http://www.capitaledge.com
password: capitaledge
Twitter
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
Between the two, it appears that the Presidential
Memoranda will have more of an immediate impact than the
Executive Orders, as many address Obama Administration
actions that required no congressional involvement.
In addition to the Orders and Memoranda, The Trump
Administration has also undertaken less formal
administrative actions, such as the instructions to the
Environmental Protection Agency to temporarily prohibit the
awarding of grants or contracts. Reports are that the EPA
freeze could be lifted as early as today.
Meanwhile, Congress continues to consider the President’s
nominees for Cabinet positions. Thus far, James Mattis at
Defense, John Kelly at Homeland Security, Mike Pompeo at
the CIA, and Nikki Haley at the United Nations have been
confirmed by the Senate. Elaine Chao at Transportation,
Ben Carson at HUD, and Wilbur Ross at Commerce appear
to be next in line for Senate floor consideration.
While Senate Democrats are taking all their allotted time in
vetting the Trump nominees and questioning them rigorously
in hearings, it does not appear that any of his slate will have
trouble ultimately being approved. Republicans hold a 52-48
majority in the Senate, and nominees will not need 60 votes
for approval due to a 2013 rule change in that chamber that
prevents filibusters of Cabinet appointees.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Senate Democrats propose $1 trillion infrastructure plan;
Chao confirmation close. Senate Democrats offered a plan
this week to spend $1 trillion in direct federal spending on
transportation and other infrastructure projects over 10
years. The proposal is designed as early engagement with
President Trump, whose own $1 trillion infrastructure plan is
said to rely heavily on tax breaks for private investment, as
opposed to direct federal spending.
The Democrats’ plan does not provide specifics on revenue
to fund the proposal, nor does it name specific projects to
fund. Some of the sixteen spending categories in the plan
include:
$100 billion for roads and bridges,
$100 billion to “revitalize America’s Main
Streets”,
$10 billion for the TIGER discretionary grant
program,
$110 billion for water and sewer systems,
$50 billion for modernizing rail infrastructure,
2 January 27, 2017 Washington Report
$130 billion for repairing and expanding
transit,
$30 billion for improving airports,
$10 billion for ports and waterways, and
$100 billion for 21st Century Energy
Infrastructure.
The proposal is not expected to garner much support from
congressional Republicans, although key GOP legislators
have endorsed the idea of direct federal spending, just not
$1 trillion. In addition, the idea of using “repatriated” funds
from the return of U.S. company profits currently overseas
also has some support among Republicans, although that
debate would be part of a larger, more complicated
comprehensive overhaul of the tax system. Additional
information on the Senate Democrat plan can be found
here:
http://bit.ly/2ka02XU.
In a related event, the existence of a list of 50 large-scale
infrastructure projects across the country is being reported
by news outlets this week. The list appears to have been
compiled by the National Governors’ Association and
presented to the Trump transition team in December.
Trump transition officials denied seeing the list earlier this
week, while congressional sources claim that the list has
been circulating among the Trump team. Look at the list
here if you wish, but please do not consider it to be
endorsed by the Trump Administration or Congress:
http://bit.ly/2kBoLWd.
President Remarks on Infrastructure
For his part, Trump is reportedly unhappy that House
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) did not include infrastructure in
his priorities for the “first 200 days” of the 115th Congress.
At a GOP congressional retreat this week, Trump
mentioned that he wants to fix existing infrastructure first
before diving into new projects:
“Our infrastructure is in serious trouble. We will
build new roads and highways and tunnels and
airports and railways across the nation. We will fix
our existing product before we build anything
brand new, however. We have to fix what we
have. It's a mess. So we're going to fix it first. The
thing I do best in life is build. We will fix it first
'cause we have a lot of things that are in bad
shape."
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
Senate Panel Approves DOT Nominee
Meanwhile, the Senate Commerce, Science and
Transportation Committee approved the nomination of
Transportation Secretary-nominee Elaine Chao this week by
voice vote. The full Senate is expected to vote on the
nomination of Chao on January 31, and she should be
approved easily, if not unanimously. Chao will be central to
Trump’s infrastructure plans.
IMMIGRATION & FEDERALISM
Trump issues Executive Order targeting ‘sanctuary’ cities. In
an effort to quickly fulfill a campaign promise, President
Trump signed an Executive Order this week designed to
expedite the deportation of certain classes of undocumented
immigrants and to punish state and local governments that
he argues obstruct federal immigration authorities.
Titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United
States, the Order’s stated purpose is to: “Direct federal
executive departments and agencies to employ all lawful
means to enforce the immigrations laws of the United
States.”
It follows that statement by arguing that although federal law
provides a framework for federal-local cooperation, the
“federal government has failed to discharge this basic
sovereign responsibility”. Expanding blame beyond federal
agencies, the Order argues that:
“Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States
willfully violate federal law in an attempt to shield
‘aliens’ from removal from the United States. These
jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the
American people and to the very fabric of our
Republic”.
Specific policies outlined in the Order include:
Directing federal agencies to “employ all lawful
means to ensure the faithful execution of the
immigration laws of the United States”;
Prioritizing the removal of undocumented
immigrants who are criminals and of new
arrivals who do not have permission to enter the
United States, including refugees and people
seeking political asylum;
Ordering the Department of Homeland Security
to issue guidance and promulgate regulations to
ensure the assessment and collection of all
fines and penalties from undocumented
3 January 27, 2017 Washington Report
immigrants that are authorized by law;
Hire 10,000 new immigration and customs
officers, subject to available appropriations;
Eliminating the Obama Administration’s
Priority Enforcement Program and reinstating
the Bush Administration’s Secure
Communities Program;
Directing the Attorney General and the
Secretary of Homeland Security to designate
‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ and withhold federal
grants from those jurisdictions;
Directing the Secretary of Homeland Security
to compile and make public, on a weekly
basis, a comprehensive list of criminal actions
committed by undocumented immigrants and
any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise
failed to honor federal immigration detainers
with respect to those undocumented
immigrants;
Directs the Office of Management and Budget
to obtain and provide relevant information
about federal grant funds received by any
‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions;
Creates an Office of Crimes Committed by
Removable ‘Aliens’ within Immigration and
Customs Enforcement charged with assisting
victims and providing quarterly reports about
the “effects of victimization” of crimes
committed by undocumented immigrants;
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security
and the Attorney General to collect data and
provide quarterly reports on the immigration
status of all undocumented immigrants
incarcerated by federal, state, and local
prisons and jails;
Directs the Attorney General and the
Secretary of Homeland Security to develop
and implement a program that ensures that
adequate resources are devoted to the
prosecution of criminal immigration offenses
and to develop a strategy to reduce violent
crime and the reach of transnational criminal
organizations in the United States;
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security
and the Secretary of State to discontinue
granting visas to nationals of a country
denying or delaying accepting an
undocumented immigrant who is a citizen or
national of that country upon the request of
the United States, as appropriate; and
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
Directs the Secretary of State to ensure that
diplomatic efforts and negotiations with other
countries include as a condition the acceptance
by those foreign states of their nationals who
are subject to removal from the United States.
The Order drew strong rebukes from local elected officials
and from human rights and immigrant advocacy
organizations. In addition, some legal experts questioned
the extent to which the Administration will be able to fulfill
some of the policy goals outlined in the Order. For example,
hiring 10,000 new immigration and customs officers can only
happen if Congress appropriates funding for immigration
and customs agencies that accommodates that level of
staffing. At a more complicated level, many legal experts
question whether taking punitive actions against ‘sanctuary’
jurisdictions will stand up to legal challenges. (Indeed, some
legal experts argue that provision of law cited in the
Executive Order, 8 USC 1373, might itself not pass
Constitutional muster.) In addition, many critics argue that
this Executive Order, like the others the White House issued
this week, was prepared hastily without input from relevant
agencies and other experts, making it more vulnerable to
legal challenges and generally more difficult to translate into
concrete policy outcomes.
Nevertheless, the Executive Order could create challenges
for local governments. For example, even if the punitive
actions the Order outlines against ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions
are eventually struck down by the Courts, in the short term
local governments could face the loss of federal grants. The
Order gives the Secretary of Homeland Security and the
Attorney General broad latitude to determine which
jurisdictions are not complying with 8 USC 1373. In addition,
it does not make clear which grants would be withheld from
those jurisdictions they dub as ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions. So,
in the short term, while cases are making their way through
the Courts, cities could face a sudden loss of federal grants.
Even if Courts granted stays, the process could create
considerable uncertainty in local government budgeting.
It is important to note that under the Executive Order,
participation in Secure Communities remains voluntary (as
was participation in the Priority Enforcement Program). In
addition, under the Executive Order, the federal government
still cannot compel any local government to have their police
officers perform the duties of federal immigration officers.
Any such program requires a written agreement and the full
consent of the local government.
4 January 27, 2017 Washington Report
The White House posted the Executive Order on its
website:
http://bit.ly/2jybzNG.
A detailed summary of the Executive Order:
http://bit.ly/2kayDFe.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Preemption threat avoided in Senate for now, but the
challenges to local authority are just getting started. The
Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Committee approved a spectrum reallocation legislation (S
19 – The Mobile Now Act) this week. The bill is similar to
legislation that the Committee approved last year. Facing
a packed agenda that included several bills, approving the
Committee’s rules and subcommittee assignments, and
voting on two cabinet appointments, the Committee did
not take up many amendments.
So, Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK) did not offer his
amendment to preempt local zoning and rights-of-way
management authority over cell phone facilities. However,
Sullivan reportedly plans to offer his amendment when the
Senate takes up S 19. Local government concerned about
the amendment should plan on contacting their senators
ahead of that vote; this office will give notice when that
happens.
The Sullivan Amendment is similar to language that was
included in the first discussion drafts of the bill that the
Committee approved last year. The preemption language
was taken out of last year’s bill before it was formally
introduced.
The Sullivan Amendment would:
Significantly expand the Communication Act’s
standard regarding “unreasonable
discrimination”, which prohibits local
governments from treating providers
differently, to preempt any local requirements
that have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of wireless service or the ability of
“any entity to provide any service in support of
personal wireless service”,
Impose the most conservative interpretation
of the FCC’s “shot clocks”, which require local
government action on a permit application for
the placement of wireless infrastructure within
60 days, and apply it collectively to all
proceedings required for the approval of the
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
request, with all applications deemed granted if
the local government fails to meet that deadline,
Preempt local government ability to require
removal or replacement of wireless facilities due
to “the passage of time” or “the availability of
alternative technology or design”,
Prohibited local government from requiring
information to evaluate a provider’s claim that
there is “gap in coverage” when evaluating an
application for wireless infrastructure
placement, and
Prohibit local governments from governing the
size or placement of emergency backup power
systems that comply with federal and state
environmental regulations.
The Sullivan Amendment comes a few weeks after the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a notice
inviting comments on how the Commission might preempt
local authority to help spur wireless deployment. The FCC
action, the Sullivan Amendment, and preemption efforts in
several states signal that industry has launched a
multipronged attack on local authority that will pose a major
challenge to local governments in the coming months and
years.
The extent of that challenge grew when President Trump
this week appointed FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai as
Chairman of the Commission. Since he has already been
approved by the Senate, Pai takes up his position as
Chairman immediately. In addition, he will have a 2-1
majority, meaning that he will be able to move his agenda
relatively easily. (There are two vacancies on the
Commission, one Republican and one Democratic.)
Most media reports about Pai’s appointment have focused
on his opposition to recent FCC policies enacted by its then
Democratic majority, included rules regarding network
neutrality, Internet privacy, and the expansion of the Lifeline
Program to direct billions of dollars to broadband access at
schools and libraries. However, Pai, whose resume includes
a stint as Associate General Counsel at Verizon and as a
staff person for the Senate Judiciary Committee, has also
regularly expressed strong opinions that local government
regulations are a barrier to broadband and advanced
wireless deployment and that the Commission must act
strongly to preempt local government authority to manage
public rights-of-way and other locally-owned infrastructure
and to collect compensation for their use and management.
5 January 27, 2017 Washington Report
His official biography on the FCC website
(http://fcc.us/2kCdEfs) includes a statement about his
general views on local government authority:
It [the FCC] must create a roadmap for state and
local governments so that companies that want to
compete in the broadband market don’t have to
jump through unnecessary regulatory hoops in
order to lay fiber to consumers. It must promote
common-sense policies like “Dig Once” and
reform pole attachment rules to reduce the costs
of building digital networks. It must streamline the
process for deploying wireless infrastructure, from
big towers to small cells.
In a speech to the Competitive Carriers Association last
September (http://fcc.us/2jFRUvc), Pai expanded on these
views, laying out specifically how the Commission should
act to preempt local governments:
First, the FCC must aggressively use its legal
authority to make sure that local governments
don’t stand in the way of broadband deployment.
That means taking a fresh look at section 253 of
the Communications Act and preempting state
and local regulations that prohibit or have the
effect of prohibiting the provision of service. It
means looking at section 332(c)(7) of the
Communications Act and section 6409 of the
Spectrum Act, where Congress clearly and
specifically granted the Commission the power to
remove barriers to infrastructure deployment.
It’s time for us to fully use those authorities to
preempt barriers to broadband deployment. For
example, the FCC has already established a shot
clock within which local governments are
supposed to review wireless infrastructure
applications. But if a city doesn’t process the
application in that timeframe, a company’s only
remedy is to file a lawsuit. We should give our
shot clock some teeth by adopting a “deemed-
grant” remedy, so that a city’s inaction lets that
company proceed.
Second, the FCC needs to reform its rules
governing pole attachments. We need to bring
down the costs that ISPs currently pay to attach
fiber, coax, and other infrastructure to utility poles.
We should exclude capital expenses from the
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
pole attachment formula and re-examine the
reasonableness of costs charged by pole owners for
preparing poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way
for pole attachments. And where our authority is
lacking—say, poles owned by governments or
railroads—Congress should expand it.
Third, the FCC should develop a model code for
cities and towns that want to encourage broadband
deployment and competitive entry. To do this, we
should establish a new advisory committee, a
Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, and
ask it to draft for the Commission’s consideration a
model code covering local franchising, zoning,
permitting, and rights-of-ways regulations. Its
approach should be forward-looking. It should
recommend to the FCC an appropriate shot clock
for local action. It should consider what fees are
reasonable. It should recommend allowing ISPs to
hire certified, private safety inspectors to speed up
the work of deployment. It should examine how to
ensure new entrants get speedy access to poles
and conduit. It should identify categories of
deployments, particularly wireless, for which there
should be minimal regulatory hoops for providers to
jump through.
Fourth, it’s time for the federal government to do its
part to speed up the deployment of broadband on
federal lands.
Fifth, we must make “dig once” a central tenet of our
nation’s transportation policy. The concept is simple
enough: Every road and highway construction
project should include the installation of the conduit
that can carry fiber optic cables. This step could go
a long way in lowering the cost of broadband
deployment.
GRANTS & NOTICES
Department of Commerce
The National Institute of Standards and Technology
released proposed updates to Cybersecurity Framework:
http://bit.ly/2ePWDZM
Department of Housing and Urban Development
HUD announced the expansion of the Moving to Work
demonstration program to support public housing agencies:
http://bit.ly/2j3meSJ
6 January 27, 2017 Washington Report
Department of Justice
The Bureau of Justice Assistance announced the
availability of $7 million for its FY 2017 Comprehensive
Opioid Abuse Site-based Program. Applications are due
April 25:
http://bit.ly/2jxdynC
100 Resilient Cities
100 Resilient Cities released the report titled, “Catalyzing
the Urban Resilience Market” on water management, big
data management, innovative financing, and technologies
for community engagement:
http://bit.ly/2jmuqdt
American Legion Child Welfare Foundation
The American Legion Child Welfare Foundation is seeking
applications for its competitive grant program to award
grants to child welfare organizations to disseminate
information about new programs to benefit children.
Applications are accepted on a rolling basis:
http://bit.ly/1UcX01C
US Conference of Mayors
The Conference of Mayors announced the availability of
$3 million through its CommunityWINS Grant Program to
provide grants to nonprofits to promote long-term
economic prosperity and wellness in communities.
Applications are due March 17:
http://bit.ly/1Qx9ZXc
US Water Alliance
The US Water Alliance is seeking applications for the
2017 US Water Prize competitive grant program that will
award five prizes to organizations and individuals to
advance water resource management strategies.
Nominations are due March 8:
http://bit.ly/1MSPgPF
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
TEXAS CITIES
LEGISLATIVE
COALITION
Volume 23, Issue 17
May 26, 2017
WASHINGTON REPORT
TRUMP ISSUES DETAILED FY 2018 BUDGET
CONGRESS ...................................... 1
BUDGET ............................................ 2
INFRASTRUCTURE .......................... 3
IMMIGRATION ................................... 4
GRANTS & NOTICES........................ 5
INSIDE:
TCLC
Washington Office
Ralph Garboushian
ralphg@capitaledge.com
Amy Jo Jacobsen
jacobsen@capitaledge.com
Joy Grewatz
grewatz@capitaledge.com
1212 New York Ave NW
Suite 250
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 842-5430
Fax: (202) 842-5051
http:// www.capitaledge.com
CONGRESS
Legislative agenda faces many hurdles. Congress enters its summer months far behind
the schedule that both the White House and congressional leadership had hoped to
achieve by now. While the gridlock is not unusual, particularly for the last several years,
Republicans leaders had hoped that having a Republican in the White House again would
smooth passage of their agenda.
Reasons for the lack of output range from investigations into presidential campaign
activities, delays in filling important Executive Branch jobs, internal disagreements among
Republicans in Congress, and a closely divided Senate where Democrats can block
consideration of many bills. Some of the high-level issues include:
Health Care
Republicans are using a parliamentary procedure known as “reconciliation” to speed
approval of the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. However, the measure recently
approved by the House would not pass the Senate even by a simple majority if a vote were
held today. A group of GOP Senators is reportedly working on an alternative but there is
not much confidence that consensus can be achieved. A Congressional Budget Office
estimate that 23 million would be uninsured if the House-approved bill became law did not
help advocates of that measure. Democrats have thus far been excluded from talks in the
Senate.
Tax Reform
Tax reform has been the ultimate goal for House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-OH), and he and
his caucus had hoped to approve health care first in order to reap the benefits of the hefty
tax cuts in the ACA repeal measure. If the health care measure were to become law, it
would include $1 trillion in tax cuts that would not have to be offset in a separate tax bill.
While the House Ways and Means Committee appears to be close to unveiling a bill, its
future is unclear, as its centerpiece offset is expected to be a “Border Adjustment Tax,” or
tax on imports, that the White House has publicly opposed. Some Members of Congress
now openly talk about not completing tax reform until 2018.
Archives& Funding Chart at:
http://www.capitaledge.com
password: capitaledge
Twitter
Congress is in recess next week; we will send the next
issue of the weekly report on June 9.
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
Infrastructure
The President this week released a brief outline of what he
sees to be the main components of a ten year, $1 trillion
infrastructure plan. As expected, the focus would be on
private investment, with only about $200 billion in federal
spending included. White House officials are hoping to send
some legislative proposals to Congress in the fall. The issue
appears to be stuck in line behind health care and tax
reform even though many observers believe that
infrastructure might be the President’s best path to a
legislative victory. See related story below.
Budget
The only true “must pass” legislation each year, approval of
an FY 2018 budget prior to the start of the new fiscal year
on October 1 appears to be a near impossibility. President
Trump has proposed a FY 2018 budget that includes deep
cuts to domestic discretionary programs that are likely to be
unacceptable to Congress and he has indicated that a
government shutdown in the fall might be necessary to
accelerate changes in the current congressional system
(most believe he was referring to the 60 votes necessary to
break a filibuster in the Senate). Add to that the specter of a
battle between the White House and conservative House
Republicans over an increase in the debt limit, and chances
for an easy budget season have been extinguished. See
related story below.
Both the House and Senate are in recess for Memorial Day
week and both will return to Capitol Hill the week of June 5.
BUDGET
White House releases detailed FY 2018 budget request. The
Trump Administration unveiled a detailed FY 2018 budget
request this week, and there were few surprises in the
document that builds on the budget outline the White House
released in March.
The budget proposal recommends steep cuts, and even
elimination, for a number of non-defense discretionary
programs in order to fund a proposed $54 billion increase in
Defense Department programs. Among those programs and
agencies marked for elimination include:
Community Development Block Grant program at HUD,
HOME Investment Partnerships program at HUD,
Economic Development Administration at Commerce,
National Corporation for National and Community
Service (AmeriCorps),
National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities,
2 May 26, 2017 Washington Report
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program at
HHS,
Community Services Block Grant at HHS,
TIGER Discretionary grant program at DOT,
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program at Justice,
Legal Services Corporation at Justice,
Institute of Museum and Library Services, and
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Only three federal departments would receive increases in
the Trump proposal – Defense (+9%), Homeland Security
(+7%), and Veterans’ Affairs (+6%). The hardest hit
agencies would be EPA (-31%), State (-29%), and
Agriculture and Labor (-21% each).
The Budget also outlines $1.7 trillion in cuts to entitlement
programs over the next decade. It assumes the passage
of the House-passed health care bill, resulting in turning
Medicaid into a block grant for savings of $610 billion over
10 years, plus another $250 billion in reduced health care
spending from reduced subsidies.
Other cuts over the next decade would include $193 billion
for Food Stamps (with those costs passed on to the
states), $22 billion in Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families, and the elimination of contributions from Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac profits to the Housing Trust Fund
and the Capital Magnet Fund for a savings of $2.8 billion.
Response to the Trump budget proposal from Congress
ranged from outrage (from Democrats) to concern (from
Republicans). It is not likely that all of the President’s
recommendations would become law. However, that does
not mean that endangered programs are out of the woods.
Pressure to stay below pre-determined budget caps will
make it difficult for Congress to fund all programs at or
near their current levels.
Partisan differences, combined with a very slow start to
the FY 2018 budget season makes it highly unlikely that
all 12 appropriations bills that compose the budget will be
considered individually by the House and Senate. In fact,
some Republican appropriators are already promoting
moving a 12-bill “omnibus” appropriations bill prior to the
August recess. While the House could go that route, it
would likely include some objectionable cuts to domestic
discretionary programs and face a tough road in the
Senate.
On top of that, the White House budget office has
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
indicated that Congress may need to consider an increase in
the debt limit prior to August. House conservatives have
threatened to withhold their vote for a debt limit increase
unless federal spending is sharply reduced. Without those
votes, House GOP leaders would have to rely on Democrats
to raise the debt limit, giving that group leverage that the
minority party usually does not enjoy in the House.
INFRASTRUCTURE
DOT budget request includes outline of infrastructure
package. The President’s FY 2018 budget proposal for the
Department of Transportation (DOT) adhered to the same
recommendations the White House outlined in March and
added a six-page outline of a $1 trillion infrastructure
package that would include $200 billion in direct federal
spending over the next 10 years.
The DOT budget proposal would honor the FAST Act
authorized funding levels for highway and transit programs,
equating to approximately a 2% increase over current levels.
As expected the budget focuses its suggested cuts on DOT
programs funded outside of the Highway Trust Fund,
including elimination of the popular TIGER discretionary
grant program, the Capital Investment Grant Program (New
Starts/Small Starts), the Essential Air Service Program at
FAA, Restoration Enhancement grants at FRA, and funding
for Amtrak long-distance routes.
The DOT budget also proposes funding levels for new
intercity rail grant programs created by the FAST Act well
below their authorized levels, including $25 million for the
Consolidated Rail Grants Program (authorized at $230
million) and $26 million for the Good Repair Partnership
Grants Program (authorized at $175 million).
In another nod towards privatization, the FY 2018 budget
outlines a plan to transfer responsibility over air traffic
control from the FAA beginning in 2021. House
Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill
Shuster (R-PA) was pleased to see this proposal included,
as his plans to privatization air traffic control have been met
with resistance by his House and Senate colleagues.
Congress is not expected to go along with the proposed cuts
to DOT, similar to its reaction to the President’s FY 2017
proposals.
President’s Infrastructure Initiative Short on Details. While
the President rolled out his much anticipated Infrastructure
Initiative in the budget proposal, it was little more than a set
3 May 26, 2017 Washington Report
of principles. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao said
the Administration will be sending a legislative package to
Congress later this year. The Administration indicated that
it will be reevaluating the role for the Federal government
in infrastructure investment, since they do not believe that
more Federal funding is the solution, and that emphasis
should be placed on incentives, procedures, and policies
to spur better infrastructure decisions.
While the 2018 budget suggests $200 billion over the next
ten years for the infrastructure initiative, the funds are to
be used for incentivizing non-federal funding to bring total
investments to the $1 trillion number the White House has
touted. The following are some “Key Principles” outlined in
the Infrastructure Initiative Fact Sheet:
Make Targeted Federal Investments. Focusing Federal
dollars on the most transformative projects and processes
stretches the use and benefit of taxpayer funds.
Encourage Self-Help. Localities are better equipped to
understand the right level – and type – of infrastructure
investments needed for their communities.
Align Infrastructure Investment with Entities Best
Suited to Provide Sustained and Efficient Investment.
The Federal Government provides services that non-
Federal entities, including the private sector, could deliver
more efficiently. The Federal Government can also be
more efficient about disposing underused capital assets.
Leverage the Private Sector. The private sector can
provide valuable benefits for the delivery of infrastructure,
through better procurement methods, market discipline,
and a long-term focus on maintaining assets.
Examples of funding proposals the Administration will be
pursuing in the Infrastructure Initiative are the following:
Expand the TIFIA program at DOT,
Lift the cap on private activity bonds,
Incentivize innovative approaches to congestion
mitigation,
Liberalize tolling policies,
Fund the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Act program at EPA,
Encourage the use of Army Corps of Engineers
Contributed/Advanced Funding Authorities, and
Streamlining the environmental review and permitting
processes.
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
The push for infrastructure privatization does not sit well with
either Democrats or Republicans. Republicans were more
muted in their responses, but made it clear that the
President’s Infrastructure Initiative is only a starting point
and that Congress will have their own set of ideas.
A link to the Infrastructure Initiative Fact Sheet is below:
http://bit.ly/2rdFhiv.
IMMIGRATION
It was a busy week for those tracking the issue of so-called
‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions. On Monday, Attorney General Jeff
Sessions issued a memo regarding enforcement of
Executive Order 13768. Two days later, the Administration
released a FY 2018 Budget proposal that includes
legislative language that would significantly expand the role
of local law enforcement in immigration enforcement. The
next day, the House Judiciary Committee approved
legislation (HR 2431) that includes provisions similar to
those proposed by the Administration.
In the memo released on Monday, Session backtracks
considerably from previous statements made by the Trump
Administration. The memo appears to have been written
with an eye to pending Court challenges to Executive Order
13768, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United
States, which the Administration issues in January, a few
days after President Trump took office. The Executive
Order’s stated purpose is to: “Direct federal executive
departments and agencies to employ all lawful means to
enforce the immigrations laws of the United States.” A
central goal of the Executive Order is to direct the
Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland
Security to identify and punish, through the withholding of
federal grants, so-called ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’.
In the memo, Sessions concedes that only jurisdictions that
“willfully” refuse to comply with 8 USC 1373 will be labeled a
‘sanctuary jurisdiction’ subject to penalty under the
Executive Order. That statute simply prohibits state and
local governments from restricting communication between
local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. In
addition, the memo clearly states that only grants funds from
the Department of Homeland Security and the Department
of Justice can be withheld from a jurisdiction labeled a
‘sanctuary jurisdiction’ under the Executive Order. The
memo is clearly designed to help the government’s case in
the lawsuit filed against the Executive Order, which is
pending in District Court in California. Nevertheless, the
memo closes on a more defiant note, stating:
4 May 26, 2017 Washington Report
“While the Executive Order’s definition of ‘sanctuary
jurisdiction’ is narrow, nothing in the Executive Order limits
the Department’s ability to point out ways that state and
local jurisdictions are undermining our lawful system of
immigration or to take enforcement action where state or
local practices violate federal laws, regulations, or grant
conditions.”
Two days after the memo was issued, the Administration
released its FY 2018 Budget Proposal. Buried deep in the
Appendix to the FY 2018 Budget Proposal is proposed
legislative language that would significantly expand the
scope of 8 USC 1373 to require local law enforcement to
take a much more proactive approach to collecting and
transmitting information about immigration status and to
enforcing federal immigration laws.
Perhaps of most concern to local governments, the
proposed language would expand 8 USC 1373 to
condition all Justice and Homeland Security grants on not
prohibiting a local government entity, official, or employee
from inquiring into or verifying information of any individual
in custody or suspected of violating the law. In addition, it
would expand the scope of the law from communications
regarding citizenship or immigration status between local
and federal authorities to “the nationality, citizenship,
immigration status, removability, scheduled release date
and time, home address, work address, or contact
information, of any individual in custody or suspected of a
violation of law.” In addition, the proposed language would
condition grants on maintaining custody of a person
subject to an immigration detainer for 48 hours, a
provision that could force local authorities to risk violating
the 4th Amendment’s prohibition against warrantless
detention.
Also this week, the House Judiciary Committee completed
a contentious markup of legislation (HR 2431) that would
authorize increased funding and staffing for federal
immigration enforcement and would generally make it
easier for federal immigration authorities to detain and
deport people. The Committee approved the bill by a party
line vote of 19-13.
Title I of the bill is title “Immigration Law Enforcement by
States and Localities” and the entirety of that title focuses
on that issue. In what could be a troubling intrusion into
federalism, the bill would allow state and local
governments to enact, implement, and enforce criminal
penalties for being in the United States without
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
documentation, as long as those criminal penalties do not
exceed relevant federal criminal penalties. The bill would
also allow state and local law enforcement to investigate,
identify, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer to federal
custody people in the United States without documentation.
The bill would also would require that violators of
immigration law be listed in the National Crime Information
Center Database, regardless of whether they are suspected
of or have committed another crime.
It would also significantly expand the information that state
and local law enforcement must provide to federal
immigration authorities under 8 USC 1373 regarding
undocumented persons in their custody, including:
Name,
Address,
A physical description,
The date, time, and location of the encounter and
reason for stopping, detaining, apprehending, or
arresting the person,
Driver’s license number,
The type and number of any other identification
document,
License plate number of the person’s car, if applicable,
A photo if available or readily obtainable, and
Fingerprints, if available or readily obtainable.
The bill requires the federal government to reimburse state
and local governments for all reasonable costs of providing
such information but does authorize funding to do so or
define what would constitute reasonable costs.
Similar to the language proposed by the Administration in its
Budget, HR 2431 would also expand the scope of the law
from communications regarding citizenship or immigration
status between local and federal authorities. It would also
expand the 287(g) Program, which allows state and local
law enforcement to serve as immigration enforcement
officers, by requiring that the Attorney General approve any
request to participate in the program.
Under the bill, the Department of Homeland Security would
have to prepare an annual report regarding compliance with
8 USC 1373 and would also have to prepare a detailed
report about any individual jurisdiction upon the request of
the House or Senate Judiciary Committee.
Committee Democrats criticized the bill’s interference with
state and local law enforcement and unsuccessfully offered
5 May 26, 2017 Washington Report
several amendments to strip all or parts of Title I from the
bill. They argue that giving involving local law enforcement
unchecked authority, with little restraint from the cities that
employ them, the authority to enforce federal immigration
laws, the bill would harm police-community relations and
thus decrease public safety. They point to data showing
that communities that participate in the 287(g) Program
generally have higher crime rates and less success with
community policing.
Most local government and police management
organizations and several state organizations oppose the
bill, including the Major Cities Police Chief Association, US
Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, National
Association of Counties, and National Conference of State
Legislatures. Nevertheless, we may soon see similar bills.
The Senate Republican leadership is reportedly working
with House Homeland Security Committee Chairman
Michael McCaul (R-TX) and with the Administration on an
immigration bill that will include ‘sanctuary jurisdiction’
provisions.
GRANTS & NOTICES
Department of Justice
The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office
is accepting applications for approximately $137 million in
grant funding through the FY 2017 COPS Hiring Program
(CHP). Additional consideration will be given to
applications who select one of the following focus areas:
violent crime, homeland security problems, and illegal
immigration. A 25 percent local cash match is required.
Applications are due July 10:
http://bit.ly/2l62xv9
The COPS Office announced the availability of $11 million
through its FY 2017 Community Policing Development
(CPD) Program. A total of $7.5 million is reserved for
preparing for active shooter situation projects. No local
match is required. Applications are due June 23:
http://bit.ly/2qh9KMc
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
is seeking applications for the 2017 Juvenile Justice
Emergency Planning Demonstration Program. The
program will provide funding up to $150,000 for projects
that create emergency preparedness plans specifically for
children, youth, and families involved in the justice system.
Cost sharing is not required. Applications are due June
26:
http://bit.ly/2r4Ra9f
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
DOJ announced the nationwide rollout of the National Blue
Alert Network, which promotes rapid dissemination of
information to law enforcement, the media, and the public
about violent offenders. It can also alert when an officer is
missing in connection with official duties, and it is
operationally similar to an AMBER alert:
http://bit.ly/2rmuUsl
Administration for Children & Families
ACF is seeking applications for its FY 2017 Basic Center
Program. The program will award approximately 90 grants of
$50,000-$200,000 annually for three years to community
organizations that provide temporary shelter and meet
immediate needs of runaway and homeless youth and their
families. A 10 percent non-federal cash or in-kind match is
required. Applications are due July 14:
http://bit.ly/2rEvUrE
ACF announced the availability of $20 million for its
Transitional Living Program and Maternity Group Homes
grant programs. The goal of these programs is to help
runaway and homeless youth ages 16-22 to establish
sustainable living for themselves and their children. A 10
percent non-federal cash or in-kind match is required.
Applications are due July 14:
http://bit.ly/2rlSvcS
Department of Education
The Office of Postsecondary Education announced the
availability of $14 million for the Veterans Upward Bound
Program. The program will support projects that assist
military veterans in postsecondary education programs. No
cost sharing is required. Applications are due June 21:
http://bit.ly/2qjGRPu
Department of Labor
The Employment and Training Administration published
updated tables defining “low income individual” qualifications
for program eligibility under the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act:
http://bit.ly/2qh9IQu
Department of Transportation
The Federal Railroad Administration extended the stay on a
final rule requiring passenger railroads to develop and
implement a system safety program until June 5:
http://bit.ly/2pZrD21
Department of the Treasury
The 2017 New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) Program
6 May 26, 2017 Washington Report
electronic application is now available online. Applications
are due June 21:
http://bit.ly/2qd5gpR
The CDFI Fund updated the 2017 NMTC Program FAQ
document in response to questions raised during two May
webinars for interested applicants:
http://bit.ly/2r4cgCR
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA announced a 90-day stay on the updated emissions
guidelines for municipal solid waste landfills issued in
August 2016. EPA is reconsidering these guidelines and
expects to prepare a proposed rule regarding the matter:
http://bit.ly/2riolYa
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA issued a guidance notice on how FY 2016 Fire
Prevention and Safety grants will be awarded through its
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. Of
approximately 1,000 applications, FEMA anticipates it will
make 100 awards totaling $34.5 million:
http://bit.ly/2rAyTBw
Small Business Administration
SBA launched a new, free online training series for small
businesses about cybersecurity. The classes are first
come, first serve and require registration:
http://bit.ly/2rp8WoF
Census Bureau
New nationwide population estimates were released –
statistics as of July 1, 2016:
http://bit.ly/2rUHFru
American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
is seeking Letters of Intent (LOI) for its Focus competitive
grant program. The program will provide awards of
$500,000 per year for up to three years to support suicide
prevention efforts. LOIs are due August 1:
http://bit.ly/2qr7Wvy
Value of Water Campaign
The Value of Water Campaign is hosting a webinar on
May 31 to discuss the findings of its March report entitled,
“The Economic Benefits of Investing in Water
Infrastructure”:
http://bit.ly/2s3NAte
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
TEXAS CITIES
LEGISLATIVE
COALITION
Volume 23, Issue 25
August 4, 2017
WASHINGTON REPORT
CONGRESS FACES PACKED SEPTEMBER AGENDA
CONGRESS ...................................... 1
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES .............. 1
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ................ 2
IMMIGRATION ................................... 3
PUBLIC SAFETY ............................... 4
LAW ENFORCEMENT ...................... 4
CLEAN AIR ........................................ 5
GRANTS & NOTICES........................ 5
INSIDE:
TCLC
Washington Office
Ralph Garboushian
ralphg@capitaledge.com
Amy Jo Jacobsen
jacobsen@capitaledge.com
Joy Grewatz
grewatz@capitaledge.com
1212 New York Ave NW
Suite 250
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 842-5430
Fax: (202) 842-5051
http:// www.capitaledge.com
CONGRESS
Senate adjourns for summer recess. The Senate adjourned for a month-long summer
recess on Thursday after a relatively quiet week that did not achieve leadership goals of
making progress on health care reform and the FY 2018 budget. The House started its
break last week.
The Senate did use the week to clear more than 80 Trump Administration nominees for
sub-cabinet level positions, federal judgeships, and various ambassadorships. Democrats
had been holding up many of those nominations in protest of the way that Senate
Republican leaders were rushing health care reform to the floor.
Among those approved this week were: FBI Director Christopher Wray, former Texas
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison as Ambassador to NATO, Neal Rackleff of Houston as
Assistant HUD Secretary for Community Planning and Development (which administers
CDBG and HOME), several important positions at the Treasury and Justice Departments,
and two commissioners at the FCC. The entire list can be found here:
http://bit.ly/2v5pIsa.
Congress will return to Washington after Labor Day with a significant laundry list of items
that must be approved prior to October 1, but with only 12 legislative days to complete the
tasks. Some of the issues that must be addressed include: the FY 2018 budget, an
increase in the debt limit, a reauthorization of programs at the Federal Aviation
Administration, and the National Flood Insurance Program, and the Children’s Health
Insurance Program (CHIP).
In addition, Republican leadership wants to move quickly on comprehensive tax reform in
September, and there are reports of various groups of Members trying to resurrect health
care reform discussions.
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
House panel approves autonomous vehicle measure. By a vote of 54-0, the House Energy
and Commerce Committee approved legislation (HR 3388) that would outline a regulatory
framework for autonomous vehicles.
Archives& Funding Chart at:
http://www.capitaledge.com
password: capitaledge
Twitter
Congress is in recess through Labor Day; we will send the
next issue of the weekly report on September 8.
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
According to reports, negotiations on the bill went down to
the wire, with the final version not posted on the
Committee’s website until late in the evening before the
Committee took up the bill. The bipartisan effort and
extensive stakeholder outreach to produce a bill indicate
that lawmakers feel pressed to address this issue and codify
a regulatory framework that accommodates the
development of autonomous vehicles.
As approved by the Committee, the bill, dubbed the SELF
DRIVE Act (Safely Ensuring Lives Future Deployment and
Research in Vehicle Evolution Act), would outline the federal
and state roles in regulating autonomous vehicles. In
general, the bill would reserve the regulation of the design,
construction, and performance of autonomous vehicle for
the federal government, mostly the national Highway Safety
Administration (NHTSA). The following areas would be the
domain of the state and local governments:
Registration,
Licensing,
Driving education and training,
Insurance,
Law enforcement,
Crash investigation,
Safety and emissions inspections,
Congestion management of vehicles, or
Traffic.
Many of the above provisions were added in response to
concerns raised by local government organizations that
earlier versions of the bill would rob cities of the authority to
regulate and manage city streets. However, the language
reserving those powers for state and local governments is
followed by a large caveat that reads “unless the law or
regulation is an unreasonable restriction on the design,
construction, or performance of highly automated vehicles,
automated driving systems, or components of automated
driving systems.”
The bill does not include a definition of “unreasonable
restriction” and one does not have to be a legal or regulatory
expert to imagine the regulatory and legal battles that this
section of the bill could spawn if it becomes law. Local
government organizations remain concerned that the bill
could compromise local authority to manage city streets for
safety and congestion management as well as local
government efforts to address air quality.
Although the Committee approved the bill unanimously,
2 August 4, 2017 Washington Report
some Committee Democrats share those concerns and
are also concerned that NHTSA does not have the
bandwidth or resources to implement the bill.
In a victory for local governments, the bill specifically
states that state and local governments are allowed to set
performance requirements higher than those set by the
federal governments for vehicles they are purchasing for
their own use. In addition, is response to lobbying by local
government organizations, the bill would require local
government representation on the Highly Automated
Vehicle Advisory Council that it would establish.
The other provisions of the bill outline the regulatory
regime for autonomous vehicles, set cybersecurity
requirements for autonomous vehicles, and provide for the
gradual deployment of autonomous vehicles, with a
manufacturer allowed to produce 25,000 vehicles in the
first year it obtains regulatory approval, ramping up to
50,000 the second year and 100,000 the third and fourth
years.
The Senate Commerce Committee has been working on
autonomous vehicle but is not likely to consider it until the
fall.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Court slaps down FCC cable rules; decision could have
far reaching implications on network neutrality and other
controversial issues. Last month, the 6th Circuit Court of
Appeals in Cincinnati overturned Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) rules that limited local government
ability to negotiate franchise agreements with cable
providers.
More specifically, the FCC rules:
Allowed cable providers to deduct the cost of in-kind
services negotiated by a franchising authority from the
franchise payments due the franchising authority, and
Limited the ability of franchising authorities (state and
local governments) to regulate the non-
telecommunications offerings of cable providers (the
“mixed-use” rule),
Forbade franchising authorities from regulating
institutional networks or requiring that cable operators
provide them.
The ruling in the case, Montgomery County, Maryland v.
Federal Communications Commission, was a victory for
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
local governments and local authority.
On the first issue of in-kind services, the Court excoriated
the FCC, stating that:
“…the FCC has offered no explanation as to why
the statutory text allows it to treat “in-kind” cable-
related exactions as franchise fees. The FCC
likewise has offered no explanation as to why Local
Regulators’ structural arguments are, as an
interpretive matter, incorrect…
…if an agency wants the federal courts to adopt
(much less defer to) its interpretation of a statute,
the agency must do the work of actually interpreting
it. The FCC’s orders reflect none of that work as to
whether “in-kind” cable-related exactions are
“franchise fees” under 541(g)(1). We therefore
vacate, as arbitrary and capricious, the orders to the
extent they treat “in-kind” cable-related exactions as
“franchise fees” under 541(g)(1). On remand, the
FCC should determine and explain anew whether,
and to what extent, cable-related exactions are
“franchise fees” under the Communications Act. And
the FCC should do so expeditiously, rather than
take another seven years to issue a proper order
under the law.”
On the second issue regarding the “mixed-use” rule, the
Court found that the FCC order overstepped the agency’s
bounds when it prohibited franchising authorities from
regulating the non-telecommunications offerings of
incumbent cable providers, most of which are not primarily
common carrier telecommunications companies. In arguing
the case, the plaintiffs agreed that the FCC order was
correct insofar as it applies to new entrant cable providers
that are primarily common carrier telecommunications
providers. In siding with the plaintiffs, the Court states:
“In sum, the FCC’s orders offer no valid basis –
statutory or otherwise – for its application of the
mixed-use rule to bar local franchising authorities
from regulating the provision of non-
telecommunications services by incumbent cable
providers. Thus, on the record now before us, the
FCC’s extension of the mixed-use rule to incumbent
cable providers that are not common carriers is
arbitrary and capricious.”
On the final issue of institutional networks – which link to
community institutions such as schools and libraries and
3 August 4, 2017 Washington Report
which local governments use for public, educational, and
governmental programming – the FCC conceded the point
and the Court accepted that concession.
The decision could potentially put the FCC and cable-
based Internet service providers in a bind. It has issued
proposed rules that would reclassify Internet service.
Current rules classify it as Title II common carrier service,
thus placing it out of reach of local regulators, particularly
Internet service provided by incumbent cable providers.
Should the FCC move ahead with its reclassification, it
would allow cable franchising authorities to require that
Internet service provided by incumbent cable providers
treat all traffic equally, meet minimum customer standards,
and protect customer information. The FCC has been
moving to reclassify Internet service at the behest of
Internet service providers. Internet service providers
dislike the current network neutrality rules, which were
issued under the current classification of the Internet as a
Title II common carrier service. The specter of local
franchising authority involvement in network neutrality,
customer privacy, and customer service may raises new
questions for the industry.
The 6th Circuit’s decision is at:
http://bit.ly/2uS7tWB.
IMMIGRATION
Justice Department and Congress continue to look for
ways to punish “sanctuary cities.” Attorney General Jeff
Sessions this week reportedly sent letters to four
communities warning them that they would be ineligible for
a new Justice Department program unless they that they
are cooperating with federal immigration officials.
DOJ told Albuquerque, Baltimore, San Bernardino, and
Stockton (CA) that their request to be including in the DOJ
Public Safety Partnership program would be denied
unless they could show proof of compliance with federal
immigration law by August 18. The Public Safety
Partnership is a new DOJ initiative that provides technical
assistance to state and local governments looking for
ways to reduce crime. The letters imply that those
jurisdictions in questions have policies that would define
them as a so-called sanctuary city
Last week, Sessions released guidelines for cooperation
with federal immigration officials that local law
enforcement must comply with in order to receive Byrne
Justice Assistance Grant formula allocations:
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
http://bit.ly/2u2HKJl.
Meanwhile, a group of Republican Senators this week
introduced legislation designed to provide additional
resources to border security efforts that also includes
punishments for sanctuary cities. This measure, which does
not include funding for a border wall, would deny CDBG
funds at HUD and Economic Development Administration
funds at Commerce to communities defined as sanctuary
cities.
Finally, President Trump made a public appearance with two
Republican Senators this week to endorse their legislation to
reform the U.S. immigration process. The measure is
designed to change immigration policy from what they see
as a family-based system of entry to one that is based on
skills. While a merit-based immigration system is currently
used by developed countries such as Canada, those nations
also admit many more immigrants than the 50,000 annually
that the legislation would allow.
http://bit.ly/2wea79G.
The White House event came amid increasing reports that
the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is
increasing its arrests and deportation of illegal immigrants
who have not committed crimes while in the U.S. The
agency under the Obama Administration did not focus on
that population in favor of directing resources to violent
criminals.
PUBLIC SAFETY
Senate approves measure to reauthorize AFG and SAFER
programs. This week, the Senate unanimously passed
legislation (S 829) that would reauthorize the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant program (AFG), the Staffing for Adequate
Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) program, and Fire
Prevention and Safety (FP&S) grant program at the
Department of Homeland Security through FY 2023.
Of particular interest, the legislation would eliminate a
sunset provision in the original authorization for the AFG and
SAFER programs that would have ended each on January
2, 2018.
In addition, the bill includes a provision that would update
SAFER eligibility requirements to allow grants funds to be
used for fire departments to change part-time or paid-on-call
firefighters to full-time firefighters. The measure would also
codify current DHS policy that permits waivers to allow for
the use of SAFER funds to supplant state and local funds,
4 August 4, 2017 Washington Report
the local match, and the requirement that applicants have
sustained their fire-related programs and emergency
response budgets by at least 80 percent in the three
preceding years.
In FY2017, Congress appropriated $345 million for AFG
and $345 million for SAFER. For FY2018, the House has
proposed level funding and the Senate is expected to do
the same.
The Congressional Fire Services Institute (CFSI), the
Board of the International Association of Fire Chiefs and
the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC) has all
endorsed the legislation. Similar legislation is expected to
be introduced in the House in the near future.
LAW ENFORCEMENT
Juvenile Justice Bill goes to Conference Committee. The
Senate approved legislation this week (S 860) that would
modify and reauthorize juvenile justice programs and
activities at the Department of Justice for five years. The
House passed a similar bill (HR1809) in May, so now
representatives of the two chambers will meet to reconcile
their differences.
Last reauthorized in 2002, the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) authorizes federal
funding for delinquency prevention programs, sets federal
standards for treatment of youth in the juvenile justice
system, and supports the operation of the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).
In general, both the Senate and House bills have a strong
focus on making the juvenile justice system less punitive
and more focused on rehabilitation, and on ensuring that
juvenile offenders are separated from their adult
counterparts.
Both bills would significantly change state reporting
requirements for juvenile justice grants, with a strong
focus on having states outline alternatives to
incarceration, protecting children in the juvenile justice
system from abuse and dangerous practices, addressing
the needs of children in the juvenile justice system
suffering from mental health and substance abuse
problems, and ensuring that children in the juvenile justice
system are adequately represented.
The major difference between the two bills is a provision in
the House bill that would phase out valid court order
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
exceptions for status offenders known as
Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders and Valid Court
Orders. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AK) has objected to
language that would limit the ability of judges to lock up
juveniles charged with status offenses (minor offenses such
as truancy, curfew violations, and drinking alcohol).
Currently, the JJDPA prohibits the detention of minors for
status offenses, behaviors such as truancy or running away
that are only considered offenses when committed by
minors, unless a judge issues a court order.
For funding, the Senate bill authorizes $160 million for FY
2017, with a 1.5 percent increase each fiscal year for the
five-year term of the reauthorization. The House bill would
authorize $92 million for FY 2018 and FY 2019 with a 1.5%
increase for each additional year.
CLEAN AIR
EPA backs off proposal to delay implementation of new
ozone standards. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) announced this week that the agency will not delay
implementation of a new National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for ozone.
The decision reverses a June announcement that EPA
would delay implementation of the new standard for one
year until October 2018 and came two days after sixteen
states (New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois,
Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington,
and the District of Columbia) sued EPA challenging the
delay. It also came a few weeks after the US Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down an EPA
decision to delay implementation of an Obama-era methane
emissions rule.
EPA issued a new NAAQS standard for ozone of 70 parts
per billion in 2015, down from the previous standard of 75
parts per billion. Under the schedule and guidance issued by
the Obama Administration, EPA is scheduled to make
designations of compliance with new ozone standard this fall
and the states are required to start developing
implementation plans for meeting the new standard in the
coming years, with compliance targets ranging from 2020 to
2037. This week’s reversal means that the original schedule
is intact.
Last month, the House passed legislation (HR 806) that
would delay the implementation of the new NAAQS for
ozone from 2017 until 2025. The bill would also change the
5 August 4, 2017 Washington Report
change the schedule for EPA review of NAAQS from
every five years to every ten years. The House vote of
229-199 to pass the bill was largely along party lines, with
4 Democrats voting yes and 11 Republicans voting no.
The Senate is unlikely to consider or pass HR 809 or any
similar proposal to delay or weaken ozone standards, as
they would not be able to reach the 60-vote threshold to
end an all-but-certain Democratic filibuster.
A wide array of industry groups, led by the American
Petroleum Institute, lobbied in favor of the postponement
while a number of state and local governments, the
American Lung Association, other medical associations,
and environmental organizations lobbied against it. The
same groups faced off on either side of the debate over
HR 809.
The decision to reverse course on the delay of the ozone
rule was made via press release. The press release states
that EPA “is moving forward with 2015 ozone
designations, working with states to help areas with
underlying technical issues, disputed designations, and/or
insufficient information.” However, it goes on to state that
“The Clean Air Act gives EPA the flexibility to allow one
additional year for sufficient information to support ozone
designations. EPA may take further action to use its delay
authority and all other authority legally available to the
Agency to ensure that its designations are founded on
sound policy and the best available information.” The
press release cites the issues of whether the new
standard was so low that some areas would violate it
based on naturally occurring background levels of ozone.
The June 6 EPA notice extending the deadline:
http://bit.ly/2wsQbza.
The June 6 EPA letter to governors about the extension:
http://bit.ly/2vpSMgC.
The August 2, EPA announcement repealing the delay:
http://bit.ly/2u8Fe5j.
GRANTS & NOTICES
Department of Justice
The Bureau of Justice Assistance is seeking applications
for the FY 2017 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG). Applications are due September
5:
http://bit.ly/2vp13kS
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
The COPS Office released the August issue of its monthly e-
newsletter:
http://bit.ly/2uqnBS3
Department of Housing & Urban Development
HUD announced the availability of over $38 million in FY
2017 funding through its Fair Housing Initiatives Program to
support the enforcement of fair housing laws and policies
and educate the public, housing providers, and local
governments about their rights and responsibilities under the
Fair Housing Act. No cost sharing is required. Applications
are due September 18:
http://bit.ly/2vwO1SO
Department of the Interior
The National Park Service is seeking applications for its FY
2017 African American Civil Rights (AACR) Grant program.
The program will support Historical and Preservation
projects up to $50,000 that document, interpret, and
preserve historical sites that relate to the African American
struggle for equality in the 20th Century. No cost sharing is
required. Applications are due September 29.
Physical Preservation Projects: http://bit.ly/2vx5wRY
Research/Documentation Projects: http://bit.ly/2vwOQu6
Department of Transportation
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued a proposed
rule that would allow recipients of federal funding for public
transportation projects to request that certain FTA
regulations be waived in order to encourage more private
investment. Public comments on the proposed rule are due
September 29:
http://bit.ly/2ukYX0H
The Federal Aviation Administration made additional
announcements of discretionary and entitlement grants
through its Airport Improvement Program totaling nearly
$186 million in infrastructure grants:
http://bit.ly/2uV7haX
Department of the Treasury
The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
released a new, independent report on the New Markets Tax
Credit Program entitled, “Compliance Review of New
Markets Tax Credit Program:”
http://bit.ly/2uqEQhV
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA published its annual air quality report, which includes
interactive graphics with detailed information by pollutant,
6 August 4, 2017 Washington Report
geographic location and time period:
http://bit.ly/2w75z57
Federal Communications Commission
FCC announced a nationwide test of all Emergency Alert
Systems (EAS) on September 27, 2017:
http://bit.ly/2wbiAe1
National Endowment for the Humanities
NEH awarded over $39 million in grants for 245
humanities projects through its third and final round of FY
2017 awards:
http://bit.ly/2f873If
Small Business Administration
SBA launched a new Historically Underutilized Business
Zones map to help small businesses determine if they are
eligible to participate in SBA’s HUBZone program:
http://bit.ly/2u5rIPN
Local Initiatives Support Corporation
The Local Initiatives Support Corporation in partnership
with the National Football League is seeking applications
for the NFL Foundation Grassroots Program. General
Field Support grants of up to $50,000 are available for
capital improvement projects that provide access to clean,
safe football fields for children in underserved
communities; Field Surface Grants of up to $250,000 are
available to help finance the resurfacing of a community,
middle school or high school football field. A minimum 1:1
local funding match is required. Applications are due
October 16:
http://bit.ly/2wsAHvl
Quadratec
Quadratec is seeking applications for its Energize the
Environment grant program. The program will support one
project up to $3,500 to pursue a program or initiative
designed to benefit the environment in the local
community. Applications are due October 30:
http://bit.ly/2oUcPzC
Target Foundation
Target is accepting applications for its Youth Soccer
Grants Program that provides $1,000 grants to schools
and organizations serving youth 5 to 18 years old for
player registration fees, equipment and training for
volunteer coaches. Applications are due August 30:
http://bit.ly/2wpB9KD
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
FAST ACT
On December 4, 2015 President Obama signed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act (PL 114‐94).
o The FAST Act is a five‐year, $305 billion surface transportation bill.
STP Sub‐Allocation ‐ A Local Government Victory
In a victory for local governments, the bill addresses a top local government priority: increased
Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding for urbanized areas.
Under the FAST Act, STP will grow from the FY 2015 level of $10 billion to $11.1 billion in FY 2016
and $12.3 billion in FY 2020. In addition, the FAST Act will increase the share of STP funds sub‐
allocated to urbanized areas, incrementally increasing it from the current 50 percent to 55
percent.
Broad FAST Act Overview
In the broadest terms, the FAST Act is a status quo bill that largely maintains the basic structure
of the federal highway and transit programs and funds those programs at roughly current levels
plus inflation.
That said, there are some important policy changes in the bill.
o It includes an intercity passenger rail title ‐ the first time that intercity passenger rail has
been in the same bill as highway and transit programs. The bill authorizes $1.6 billion for
intercity passenger rail grants in FY 2016, growing to $2.4 billion in FY 2020. Unlike most
highway and transit programs, which are funded from the Highway Trust Fund and thus
receive guaranteed funding each year, the funding levels for Amtrak and intercity
passenger rail grants are subject to annual appropriations.
o With $70 billion of the bill’s five‐year, $305 billion cost paid for by General Funds transfers
and other non‐Highway Trust Fund revenue sources, the bill may signal that the era of
paying for highway and transit programs through user fees (mostly the federal gas tax
plus federal taxes on truck tires and similar products) may indeed be over. The fact that
the House and Senate both overwhelmingly passed the bill and General Fund transfers to
the Highway Trust Fund have become routine over the past five years signals that there
is not too much heartburn on Capitol Hill about paying for highway and transit programs
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
2
from non‐user fee sources. (Or at least less heartburn about it than there is about raising
the gas tax.)
In terms of opportunities for local governments: although the bill is a status quo bill, it has good
news for local governments and there are some provisions in its 1,300 pages that could provide
cities and metropolitan areas with some opportunities.
Transit
The FAST Act provides $11.5 billion for transit in FY 2016, growing to $12.5 billion in FY 2020.
Most transit funds will continue to be allocated by formula to transit agencies (urbanized areas
over 200,000 population, with the MPO generally acting as the fiscal agent for the funds) and
the states (urbanized areas under 200,000 population and rural areas).
o Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants are allocated by formula to transit
agencies in urbanized areas for use on capital projects and, in urbanized areas under
200,00 population, operating expenses ($4.5 billion in FY 2016).
o Section 5310 Senior and Persons with Disabilities Grants are allocated to the states
small urban and rural) and transit agencies (large urban) for transit service targeted to
seniors and persons with disabilities. ($262 million in FY 2016)
o Section 5311 Rural Area Formula Grants are allocated by formula to the states for the
capital projects and operating costs of rural transit. ($620 million in FY 2016)
o Section 5337 State of Good Repair Grants are allocated to transit agencies to maintain
and modernize rail transit systems and large city bus fleets; the program used to be
called Rail Modernization. ($2.5 billion in FY 2016)
o Section 5339 Bus & Bus Facilities Formula Grants are allocated by formula to transit
agencies in urbanized areas for bus and bus facility capital costs ($428 million in FY
2016).
The FAST Act also:
o Revives the Section 5339 Bus & Bus Facilities Discretionary Grant Program and funds it at
$268 million in FY 2016 growing to $344 million in FY 2020. All transit agencies can apply
for these funds.
o Authorizes $2.3 billion for the Section 5309 Capital Investment Grants Program (New
Starts). New Starts would be the primary source of federal funding for a rail or bus rapid
transit project.
o Note that New Starts is one of the few highway or transit programs that is not
funded from the Highway Trust Fund, which means that final funding each year is
up to the Appropriations Committees and may fall short of $2.3 billion in any given
year.
o The bill allows New Starts funds to be used for construction of the transit portion
of a joint intercity passenger rail/transit facility with the 5309 funds covering the
net capital costs of the transit portion of the project.
o Makes investment in Transit‐Oriented Development eligible for TIFIA financing.
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
3
Highways
The FAST Act provides $43.1 billion for highways in FY 2016, growing to $47.1 billion in FY 2020.
The bulk of highway funding will continue to be allocated to the states by formula through two
large programs.
o The National Highway Performance Program ($22.3 billion in FY 2016) is allocated to the
states for the construction and maintenance of the National Highway System (NHS).
o The Surface Transportation Block Grant ($11.1 billion in FY 2016) is allocated to the states
for use on non‐NHS routes.
o In FY 2016, 51% of STP funds are sub‐allocated to urbanized areas over 200,000
population, with the sub‐allocated amount increasing incrementally to 55%
o Metropolitan planning organizations decide how to spend sub‐allocated funds.
Remaining federal highway funds ($9.7 billion in FY 2016) are allocated to the states through five
formula programs and a handful of competitive grants programs.
o The Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) is allocated to the states by formula for
pedestrian, bicycle, safe routes to school, recreational trail and similar projects, with 50%
of each state’s funds sub‐allocated to urbanized areas over 200,000 population;
metropolitan planning organizations must make the funds available to constituent
governments through a competitive grants process (the state must do the same with its
half of TAP funds).
o The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) is allocated to the states by
formula for projects that reduce pollution Clean Air Act nonattainment areas.
o The Metropolitan Planning Program allocates funds by formula to metropolitan planning
organizations to help meet federally‐mandated planning requirements.
o The Safety Program allocates funds to the states by formula for highway safety projects.
o The National Highway Freight Program is a new program that allocates funds to the state
by formula for highway freight improvement projects.
o The Nationally Significant Freight & Highway Projects Program is a discretionary grant
program funded at $800 million per year; MPOs are eligible to apply.
In addition to increased STP funding for MPOs, the bill maintains the Transportation Alternatives
Program, which funds bicycle, pedestrian, trail and safe routes to school projects (albeit as a
subset of STP) and funds it at $835 million in FY 2016 growing to $850 million in FY 2020.
o Half of TAP funds will continue to be sub‐allocated to MPOs, which must make them
available to their constituent governments via a competitive process (as the state must
do with its half).
o Note that the bill gives MPOs the authority to transfer half of its TAP allocation to the
regular STP Program.
o It also gives the Governor the authority to redirect the portion of TAP reserved for
Recreational Trails to the regular STP Program, a move he will likely make absent
pressure from recreational trails advocates.
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
4
The bill also:
o Maintains the small but important Rail‐Highway Grade Crossing Program, funding it at
$225 million in FY 2016 growing to $245 million in FY 2020. Rail‐Highway Grade Crossing
funds go by formula to state DOTs, including TXDOT.
o Makes bridges that are not on the National Highway System eligible for National Highway
Performance Program funds. The bulk of the highway program, $23 billion per year, is
allocated to the state DOTs by formula under NHPP to maintain and improve roads on the
National Highway System. TXDOT will continue to exercise complete control over these
funds, but if there are bridges in a city that are in desperate need of repair or
replacement, cities will at least be able to make a case to TXDOT to access these funds.
o Provides $100 million per years for Intelligent Transportation Systems grants.
o Makes some policy changes regarding design that will help the cities better accommodate
bicyclists and pedestrians on major streets. Specifically, the bill incorporates the design
manual of the National Association of City Transportation Officials in addition to the
traditional design manual of the American Association of State Highway & Transportation
Officials. The bill also makes bicycle and pedestrian safety projects specifically eligible for
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Section 405 National Priority Safety
Program, which is funded at $280 million per year.
o Creates a new formula National Highway Freight Program funded at $1.03 billion in FY
2016 growing to $1.4 billion in FY 2020. As its names implies, the program focuses on
highway freight movement at the expense of rail, ports, etc. (FY 2016 applications are due
April 14.)
o Creates a discretionary Nationally Significant Freight & Highway Projects Grant program,
which DOT is calling FASTLane, funded at $800 million in FY 2016 and growing to $1 billion
in FY 2020; MPOs and local governments are eligible to apply. Unlike the formula freight
program, a broad array of freight projects are eligible for funding.
Intercity Passenger Rail
The FAST Act authorizes $1.6 billion for intercity passenger rail grants in FY 2016, growing to $2.4
billion in FY 2020.
o Unlike most highway and transit programs, which are funded from the Highway Trust
Fund and thus essentially receive guaranteed funding each year, the funding levels for
Amtrak are authorizations of expenditures from the General Fund subject to
appropriations, which means that the Appropriations Committees will determine the
actual level of funding for each year.
The bill separates federal funding for Amtrak into separate accounts for the Northeast Corridor
(owned by Amtrak) and the National Network.
o It generally maintains the requirement that states provide operating support for non‐long
distance corridor service.
It authorizes:
o $2.591 billion over five years for the Northeast Corridor Improvement Fund, for capital
improvements to the Northeast Corridor,
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
5
o $5.454 billion over five years for the National Network, for capital and operating costs of
state‐supported and long distance service,
o $1.103 billion over five years for Consolidated Rail Safety & Infrastructure Grants, for
capital costs to improve rail safety and infrastructure, including quiet zones (state and
local governments eligible to apply) and
o $997 million over five years for State of Good Repair Grants, for intercity passenger rail
capital projects (state and local governments eligible to apply).
For FY 2016, appropriators ignored this new structure and instead provided funding for the
traditional Amtrak capital and operating subsidies.
The FAST Act also:
o Makes changes to the Railroad Infrastructure Financing loan program (RRIF) designed to
make it easier to access loans,
o Makes “improving rail station and increasing transit‐oriented development” eligible for
Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) assistance and
o Provides $199 million for Positive Train Control (PTC) implementation in FY 2017 and
authorizes additional funding subject to appropriations in future years.
Planning
The FAST Act generally maintains the state and metropolitan planning processes, including the
performance and asset management measures instituted by MAP‐21.
Important changes include:
o Adds resiliency and reliability and enhancing travel and tourism as required planning
issues and
o Adds freight to the scope of the state planning process.
Freight
Freight is a major focus of the FAST Act. As outlined above, it creates two new freight programs:
o The National Highway Freight Program is a new program that allocates funds to the state
by formula for highway freight improvement projects.
o Focused on freight project on the National Highway Freight Network.
o The Nationally Significant Freight & Highway Projects Program is a discretionary grant
program funded at $800 million per year; MPOs are eligible to apply.
MAP‐21 established the National Highway Freight Network (NHFN):
o NHFN is 41,518 miles of highways identified by USDOT, state DOTs and MPOs.
FAST builds on the NHFN and establishes the National Multimodal Freight Network (NMFN) to
be established by USDOT and state DOTS over the coming year. It will include:
o The NHFN,
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
6
o Class I freight railroads,
o Ports,
o Inland and intracoastal waterways,
o Great Lakes and the Saint Lawrence Seaway,
o Marine highways,
o 50 airports with highest annual landed weight, and
o Other assets identified by USDOT and the states.
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
6
$0$3,332$1,996$916$76$4$201$18$164$24$101$3,501$2,041$940$76$4$205$19$168$25$96$3,573$2,080$960$78$4$209$19$171$25$105$3,650$2,122$979$78$4$213$19$174$26$118$3,733$2,167$1,002$78$4$217$20$177$27$131$3,822NHPP STP STP ‐ TAP STP ‐ REC
TRAILS
SAFETY RAIL‐HWY
GRADE
XINGS
CMAQ METRO
PLANNING
NAT HWY
FREIGHT
TOTAL
TX FAST HIGHWAY ALLOCATIONS (MILLIONS)
FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
7
$23.8 $24.8 $25.9 $27.0 $28.0 $29.2
FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Austin Urbanized Area STP Sub‐Allocation
$89.7 $93.1 $97.4 $101.4 $105.3 $109.8
FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Dallas‐FW‐Arlington Urbanized Area STP Sub‐
Allocation
$6.4 $6.7 $7.0 $7.2 $7.5 $7.9
FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Denton‐Lewisville Urbanized Areas STP Sub‐
Allocation
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
4
Austin Urbanized Area Transit Allocations
5307
Urbanized Area
5310
Seniors & Disabled
5338
Bus & Bus Facilities
Total
FY 2015 $28,219,376 $786,909 $2,083,713 $31,089,998
FY 2016 $28,750,201 $848,593 $1,920,917 $31,519,711
Dallas‐FW‐Arlington Urbanized Area Transit Allocations
5307
Urbanized Area
5310
Seniors &
Disabled
5337
State of Good
Repair
5338
Bus & Bus
Facilities
Total
FY 2015 $75,147,275 $3,218,853 $20,383,784 $6,361,080 $105,110,992
FY 2016 $76,226,856 $3,355,413 $23,602,700 $5,813,822 $108,998,791
Denton‐Lewisville Urbanized Area Transit Allocations
5307
Urbanized Area
5310
Seniors & Disabled
5338
Bus & Bus Facilities
Total
FY 2015 $5,612,341 $190,806 $418,016 $6,221,163
FY 2016 $5,685,427 $204,799 $377,955 $6,268,181
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
AffirmaƟvely Furthering Fair Housing
Summary – Final Rule
Overview
At the broadest level, the rule would replace the Analysis of Impediments to fair housing (AI) that
every HUD grantee must produce with a standardized Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH), a much
more comprehensive document that calls for using socioeconomic and geographic data provided
by HUD to identify barriers to fair housing and outline a plan and take “meaningful actions” to
address them.
The rule defines “affirmatively furthering fair housing” as:
“Taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome
patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict
access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively
furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address
significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated
living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially
and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and
maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively
further fair housing extends to all of a program participant’s activities relating to housing
and urban development.”
The rule defines “meaningful actions” as:
“Significant actions that are designed and can be reasonably expected to achieve a
material positive change that affirmatively furthers fair housing by, for example,
increasing fair housing choice or decreasing disparities in access to opportunity.”
In addition to the replacement of the AI with the AFH, the other components of the new fair
housing compliance regime include:
Providing grantees with nationally uniform data and a uniform assessment tool to serve
as the basis of assessing grantee fair housing barriers and strategies for overcoming those
barriers;
A concrete link between the AFH and consolidated plans (five year plans in the case of
public housing authorities;
An emphasis on requiring grantees to “take meaningful action” and proactively address
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
AffirmaƟvely Furthering Fair Housing
Summary ‐ Final Rule
2
fair housing issues, and
A focus on regionalism, with strong encouragement for neighboring jurisdictions to
cooperate on a joint AFH and for local government grantees to cooperate with public
housing authorities on a joint AFH.
Changes from Proposed Rule to Final Rule
Place‐Based and Mobility‐Based Strategies
A major change from the proposed rule to the final rule is a clarification that the regulations call
for a balanced approach to affirmatively furthering fair housing that includes mobility‐based and
place‐based efforts to address fair housing issues.
The clarification is in response to comments, mostly from HUD grantees, that the
proposed rule overemphasized mobility‐based solutions to fair housing to the extent that
it devalued or could be construed to prohibit investments in low‐income neighborhoods
and in neighborhoods with racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty.
Some commenters also expressed concern that it could be construed in a manner that
constrained efforts to maintain and preserve existing units of affordable housing located
in such neighborhoods.
In its preamble to the final rule, HUD writes:
“HUD’s rule recognizes the role of place‐based strategies, including economic
development, to improve conditions in high poverty neighborhoods, as well as
preservation of the existing stock of affordable housing, including HUD‐assisted housing,
to help respond to the overwhelming need for affordable housing.”
Other Changes from Proposed Rule to Final Rule
A definition of “housing programs serving specified populations” to clarify that
participation in HUD and federal housing programs serving specified populations (i.e. the
elderly or the disabled) does not present a fair housing issue of segregation;
Clarification that HUD acceptance of an AFH does not mean that a grantee has complied
with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing or has complied with the Fair
Housing Act or other civil rights laws, and
New AFH submission deadlines to help small grantees comply with the new process and
to accommodate any delays in HUD’s finalization of the assessment tool. (HUD issued a
proposed assessment tool last September and expects to finalize it later this year.)
Assessment of Fair Housing
The first AFH will be due no later than 270 days before the beginning of the program year for
which the first consolidated plan is due.
Subsequent AFHs will be due 195 days before the beginning of the next consolidated
plan period (at least every five years for collaboraƟve AFHs).
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
AffirmaƟvely Furthering Fair Housing
Summary ‐ Final Rule
3
HUD grantees will use the AFH to assess four fair housing issues:
1. PaƩerns of integraƟon and segregaƟon;
2. Racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty;
3. DispariƟes in access to opportunity; and
4. DisproporƟonate housing needs.
Program parƟcipants are required to set goals to overcome fair housing issues and related
contribuƟng factors.
Those goals must inform subsequent housing and community development planning
processes.
Part DescripƟon
Part One:
Provision of Data and
AFH Assessment Tool
HUD provides each program parƟcipant with data and an AFH assessment tool
to use in assessing fair housing issues in its community. In addiƟon, HUD will
provide technical assistance to aid program parƟcipants in submiƫng its AFH.
Part Two: Analysis Using the HUD data, local data and knowledge, the required community
parƟcipaƟon process, and the assessment tool, each program parƟcipant
prepares and submits a complete AFH to HUD, including fair housing goals.
Part Three:
Review and Response
HUD reviews each AFH within 60 days aŌer receipt to determine whether the
program parƟcipant has met the requirements for providing its analysis,
assessment, and goal seƫng. HUD either accepts the AFH or provides the
program parƟcipant wriƩen noƟficaƟon of why the AFH was not accepted and
guidance on how the AFH should be revised in order to be accepted. HUD will
not accept an AFH if HUD finds that an AFH or a porƟon of the AFH is
inconsistent with fair housing or civil rights requirements or is substanƟally
incomplete.
Part Four:
IncorporaƟon into
Subsequent Planning
Processes and AcƟon
The goals idenƟfied in the AFH must inform the strategies and acƟons of the
Consolidated Plan, the Annual AcƟon Plan, the PHA Plan, and the Capital Fund
Plan.
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
AffirmaƟvely Furthering Fair Housing
Summary ‐ Final Rule
4
The AFH must include, at a minimum, 7 elements.
1. A summary of fair housing issues and capacity, including any findings, lawsuits,
enforcement actions, settlements, or judgements related to fair housing or other civil
rights laws, an assessment of compliance with fair housing laws and regulations, and an
assessment of the grantee’s fair housing enforcement and fair housing outreach capacity.
2. An analysis of data using HUD‐provided data, local data and local knowledge that is
informative of the following:
Identification of integration and segregation patterns and trends based on race, color,
religion, sex, familial status and disability,
Identification of racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty,
Identification of significant disparities in access to opportunity for protected any
protected class of people, and
Identification of disproportionate housing needs for any protected class of people.
3. An assessment of fair housing issues that, using the assessment tool provided by HUD,
identifies the contributing factors for segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated
areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity and disproportionate housing needs.
4. Identification of fair housing priorities and goals consistent with elements 1, 2 and 3 and
including:
Identification and discussion of fair housing issues arising from the assessment,
Identification of significant factors, prioritization of those factors and justification of
that prioritization that the grantee will address in it fair housing goals, and
Setting goals for overcoming the effects of priority contributing factors.
5. Strategies and actions to implement goals and priorities in the grantees consolidated plan
and annual plan (five year plans for public housing authorities). Strategies and actions
may include, but are not limited to:
Enhancing mobility,
Encouraging the development of new affordable housing in areas of opportunity, and
Place‐based strategies to encourage community revitalization, including preservation
of existing affordable housing.
6. A summary of community participation; the final rule includes a detailed outline that
grantees must follow to maximize community and public participation in the AFH.
7. A review of the progress achieved since the submission of the previous AFH.
Data/Proposed Assessment Tool
Based on a review of the final rule and its accompanying background materials, the data will
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
AffirmaƟvely Furthering Fair Housing
Summary ‐ Final Rule
5
perhaps be the keystone of the new AFH process; HUD will provide grantees and the general
public with data in the form of maps and tables covering a large array of fair housing factors,
including:
Integration and segregation,
Racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty,
Access to assets in education, employment, transportation, and environmental health,
Disproportionate housing needs, and
The location of public housing and the geographic distribution of Section 8 voucher units
and Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit projects.
The HUD fair housing website has information about the proposed assessment tool and details
about the data and mapping tool that HUD will provide grantees:
http://www.huduser.org/portal/affht_pt.html.
Given the emphasis on data, a major change from the proposed rule to the final rule is the
inclusion of a definition of “data” that references both HUD‐provided data and local data.
The final rule also includes a definition of “local knowledge.”
In the preamble to the final rule, HUD recognizes that local data and local knowledge can
provide important background and context.
However, HUD makes clear that it will be final arbiter of whether local data and local
knowledge are relevant and appropriate.
HUD provided data will be posted on HUD’s website and the final rule outlines that HUD
expects local data to be similarly accessible to the general public.
Citizen Participation & Consultation
The final rule includes significant changes to citizen participation, both in the development of the
AFH and the Consolidated Plan.
Grantees must develop a citizen participation plan.
Grantees must actively consult with the housing authority, neighboring jurisdictions and
representatives of protected populations.
Grantees must actively consult with public and private agencies that serve protected
populations, including community‐based and regionally‐based organizations.
The proposed rule suggested that grantees create a Fair Housing Advisory Council to meet the
citizen participation requirements, but withdrew this suggestion in response to comments that
the suggestion could lead to grantees engaging a hand‐picked group of people and avoiding
broader stakeholder and citizen participation.
Instead, HUD intends to provide guidance to grantees on models for meeting citizen
participation and consultation requirements.
Exhibit A
Contract 6580
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FDDA183-0DC0-48AA-A6BD-507827E25A63
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 7FDDA1830DC048AAA6BD507827E25A63 Status: Completed
Subject: City Council Docusign Item - 6580 CapitalEdge
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 71 Signatures: 4 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 6 Initials: 0 Karen E. Smith
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada)
karen.smith@cityofdenton.com
IP Address: 129.120.6.150
Record Tracking
Status: Original
11/2/2017 3:48:13 PM
Holder: Karen E. Smith
karen.smith@cityofdenton.com
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Karen E. Smith
karen.smith@cityofdenton.com
Interim Purchasing Manager
City of Denton
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(Optional)
Completed
Using IP Address: 129.120.6.150
Sent: 11/2/2017 3:52:07 PM
Viewed: 11/2/2017 3:52:17 PM
Signed: 11/2/2017 3:53:34 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Ralph Garboushian
ralphg@capitaledge.com
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(Optional)
Using IP Address: 73.200.238.95
Sent: 11/2/2017 3:53:36 PM
Viewed: 11/2/2017 4:16:40 PM
Signed: 11/2/2017 4:18:16 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 11/2/2017 4:16:40 PM
ID: e369c8fb-bf1f-4396-b0fe-614dde7e427e
Jennifer DeCurtis
jennifer.decurtis@cityofdenton.com
Deputy City Attorney
City of Denton
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(Optional)
Using IP Address: 129.120.6.150
Sent: 11/2/2017 4:18:19 PM
Viewed: 11/2/2017 4:19:14 PM
Signed: 11/2/2017 4:19:15 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Julia Winkley
julia.winkley@cityofdenton.com
Contracts Administration Supervisor
City of Denton
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(Optional)
Completed
Using IP Address: 129.120.6.150
Sent: 11/2/2017 4:19:19 PM
Viewed: 11/2/2017 4:25:17 PM
Signed: 11/8/2017 9:41:31 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Todd Hileman
todd.hileman@cityofdenton.com
City Manager
City of Denton
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(Optional)
Using IP Address: 47.190.47.120
Signed using mobile
Sent: 11/8/2017 9:41:34 AM
Viewed: 11/8/2017 9:45:35 AM
Signed: 11/8/2017 9:45:43 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Accepted: 7/25/2017 11:02:14 AM
ID: 57619fbf-2aec-4b1f-805d-6bd7d9966f21
Jennifer Walters
jennifer.walters@cityofdenton.com
City Secretary
City of Denton
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(Optional)
Using IP Address: 129.120.6.150
Sent: 11/8/2017 9:45:45 AM
Viewed: 11/8/2017 11:30:57 AM
Signed: 11/8/2017 11:32:28 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Julia Winkley
julia.winkley@cityofdenton.com
Contracts Administration Supervisor
City of Denton
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(Optional)
Sent: 11/2/2017 4:18:18 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Sherri Thurman
sherri.thurman@cityofdenton.com
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(Optional)
Sent: 11/2/2017 4:18:18 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Jane Richardson
jane.richardson@cityofdenton.com
Assistant City Secretary
City of Denton
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(Optional)
Sent: 11/8/2017 9:41:33 AM
Viewed: 11/8/2017 9:43:44 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Robin Fox
Robin.fox@cityofdenton.com
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(Optional)
Sent: 11/8/2017 9:41:33 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Jennifer Bridges
jennifer.bridges@cityofdenton.com
Procurement Assistant
City of Denton
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(Optional)
Sent: 11/8/2017 11:32:30 AM
Viewed: 11/8/2017 12:59:09 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Jane Richardson
jane.richardson@cityofdenton.com
Assistant City Secretary
City of Denton
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(Optional)
Sent: 11/8/2017 11:32:31 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Charles Rosendahl
Charles.Rosendahl@cityofdenton.com
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(Optional)
Sent: 11/8/2017 11:32:32 AM
Viewed: 11/8/2017 11:42:30 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 11/8/2017 11:32:32 AM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 11/8/2017 11:32:32 AM
Signing Complete Security Checked 11/8/2017 11:32:32 AM
Completed Security Checked 11/8/2017 11:32:32 AM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure
ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURE
From time to time, City of Denton (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to
you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for
providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through your DocuSign, Inc.
(DocuSign) Express user account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly,
and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms
and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of
this document.
Getting paper copies
At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available
electronically to you by us. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of the
DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to you
through your DocuSign user account for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such
documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of
any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may
request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below.
Withdrawing your consent
If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time
change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures
only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and
disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures
electronically is described below.
Consequences of changing your mind
If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the
speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to
you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format,
and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such
paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must
withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your
DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive
required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your
DocuSign Express user account to receive required notices and consents electronically from us
or to sign electronically documents from us.
All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically
Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide
electronically to you through your DocuSign user account all required notices, disclosures,
authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or
made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of
you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required
notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given
us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through
the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as
described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the
consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures
electronically from us.
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 7/21/2017 3:59:03 PM
Parties agreed to: Ralph Garboushian, Todd Hileman
How to contact City of Denton:
You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically,
to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to
receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows:
To contact us by email send messages to: purchasing@cityofdenton.com
To advise City of Denton of your new e-mail address
To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures
electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at melissa.kraft@cityofdenton.com
and in the body of such request you must state: your previous e-mail address, your new e-mail
address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address..
In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc to arrange for your new email address to be reflected
in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in DocuSign.
To request paper copies from City of Denton
To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided
by us to you electronically, you must send us an e-mail to purchasing@cityofdenton.com and in
the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and
telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any.
To withdraw your consent with City of Denton
To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic
format you may:
i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign account, and on the subsequent
page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may;
ii. send us an e-mail to purchasing@cityofdenton.com and in the body of such request you
must state your e-mail, full name, IS Postal Address, telephone number, and account
number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The
consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions
may take a longer time to process..
Required hardware and software
Operating Systems: Windows2000? or WindowsXP?
Browsers (for SENDERS): Internet Explorer 6.0? or above
Browsers (for SIGNERS): Internet Explorer 6.0?, Mozilla FireFox 1.0,
NetScape 7.2 (or above)
Email: Access to a valid email account
Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum
Enabled Security Settings:
•Allow per session cookies
•Users accessing the internet behind a Proxy
Server must enable HTTP 1.1 settings via
proxy connection
** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, we will
provide you with an email message at the email address we have on file for you at that time
providing you with the revised hardware and software requirements, at which time you will
have the right to withdraw your consent.
Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically
To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to
other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you
were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or
electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to
e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or
save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and
disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above,
please let us know by clicking the 'I agree' button below.
By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that:
• I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF
ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURES document; and
• I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can
print it, for future reference and access; and
• Until or unless I notify City of Denton as described above, I consent to receive from
exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations,
acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made
available to me by City of Denton during the course of my relationship with you.