[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 76 (Thursday, April 18, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17218-17225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9543]
[[Page 17217]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VIII
Department of Housing and Urban Development
_______________________________________________________________________
Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program; Funding Availability for
Fiscal Year 1996; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 76 / Thursday, April 18, 1996 /
Notices
[[Page 17218]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing
[Docket No. FR-4037-N-01]
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for Comprehensive
Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP)
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian
Housing, HUD.
ACTION: Notice of Funding Availability for Fiscal Year (FY) 1996.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Notice informs Public Housing Agencies and Indian Housing
Authorities (herein referred to as HAs) that own or operate fewer than
250 public housing units and, therefore, are eligible to apply and
compete for CIAP funds, of the requirements and application deadline
date for FY 1996 CIAP funding and the expected availability of up to
$257 million of CIAP funds. HAs with 250 or more public housing units
are entitled to receive a formula grant under the Comprehensive Grant
Program (CGP) and are not eligible to apply for CIAP funds.
DATES: The CIAP Application is due on or before 3:00 p.m. local time on
June 17, 1996 at the HUD Field Office with jurisdiction over the HA,
Attention: Director, Office of Public Housing (OPH), or Administrator,
Office of Native American Programs (ONAP).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William J. Flood, Director, Office of
Capital Improvements, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451
Seventh Street, SW., Room 4134, Washington, DC 20410. Telephone (202)
708-1640. (This is not a toll free number.)
IHAs may contact Deborah M. LaLancette, Director, Housing
Management Division, Office of Native American Programs (ONAP),
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW.,
B-133, Washington, DC 20410. Telephone (202) 755-0088. (This is not a
toll free number.)
Hearing or speech impaired individuals may call HUD's TTY number
(202) 708-4595. (This is not a toll-free number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Allocation Amounts
(a) The Congress has not yet enacted the FY 1996 appropriations for
HUD. However, HUD is publishing this notice in order to give potential
applicants adequate time to prepare applications. The amount of funds
announced in this NOFA is an estimate of the amount that may be enacted
in 1996. HUD is not bound by the estimate set forth in this notice. The
estimated amount may be adjusted downward based on the enacted 1996
appropriation.
(1) Modernization funds are allocated between CIAP and CGP agencies
based on the relative shares of backlog needs (weighted at 50%) and
accrual needs (weighted at 50%), as determined by the field inspections
conducted for the HUD-funded ABT study of modernization needs. This
allocation results in CIAP agencies receiving approximately 10.49% and
CGP agencies receiving approximately 89.51% of the total funds
available.
(i) Backlog needs are needed repairs and replacements of existing
physical systems, items that must be added to meet the HUD
modernization and energy conservation standards and State or local/
tribal codes, and items that are necessary for the long-term viability
of a specific housing development.
(ii) Accrual needs are needs that arise over time and include
needed repairs and replacements of existing physical systems and items
that must be added to meet the HUD modernization and energy
conservation standards and State or local/tribal codes.
(2) The modernization funds available to CIAP agencies are
allocated between Public Housing at approximately 91.8505% and Indian
Housing at approximately 8.1495%. This allocation also is based on the
relative shares of backlog needs (weighted at 50%) and accrual needs
(weighted at 50%).
(b) Sub-assignment of Funds to Field Offices of Public Housing
(OPH). Headquarters has determined the distribution of Public Housing
CIAP funds for each Field OPH, based on the relative shares of backlog
and accrual needs for CIAP PHAs, adjusted as necessary.
(1) The Field OPH Director shall have authority to make Joint
Review selections and CIAP funding decisions.
(2) If additional funds for Public Housing CIAP become available,
Headquarters will allocate the funds to one or more Field OPHs based on
their relative shares of modernization need, approvable applications,
and PHA capability to carry out the modernization.
(3) If a Field OPH does not receive sufficient fundable
applications to use its allocation, Headquarters will reallocate the
remaining funds to one or more Field OPHs based on approvable
applications and PHA capability to carry out the modernization.
Of the amount available for Public Housing, 1% will be set aside to
carry out goals related to pending civil rights litigation (e.g., Young
v. Cisneros), which is subject to judicial oversight. The following
table shows the percentage distribution of CIAP funds for PHAs,
excluding IHAs, assigned by Headquarters to each Field OPH:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
of public
Office of Public Housing (OPH) housing
funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New England:
Massachusetts State Office................................. 2.6187
Connecticut State Office................................... .9266
New Hampshire State Office................................. 1.5066
Rhode Island State Office.................................. .7365
New York/New Jersey:
Buffalo Area Office........................................ 2.1551
New Jersey State Office.................................... 2.7271
New York State Office...................................... 1.1576
Mid-Atlantic:
Maryland State Office...................................... .4142
West Virginia State Office................................. 1.4359
Pennsylvania State Office.................................. 1.1444
Pittsburgh Area Office..................................... 1.2048
Virginia State Office...................................... .5756
District of Columbia Office................................ .1686
Southeast:
Georgia State Office....................................... 5.3561
Alabama State Office....................................... 4.7698
South Carolina State Office................................ .9216
North Carolina State Office................................ 3.0244
Mississippi State Office................................... 1.7112
Jacksonville Area Office................................... 2.9639
Knoxville Area Office...................................... .9171
Kentucky State Office...................................... 4.7691
Tennessee State Office..................................... 1.8640
Midwest:
Illinois State Office...................................... 3.5943
Cincinnati Area Office..................................... .4374
Cleveland Area Office...................................... .5098
Ohio State Office.......................................... 1.1247
Michigan State Office...................................... 2.0393
Grand Rapids Area Office................................... 3.0354
Indiana State Office....................................... 1.2262
Wisconsin State Office..................................... 2.8249
Minnesota State Office..................................... 2.9713
Southwest:
New Mexico State Office.................................... 1.3454
Texas State Office......................................... 5.4523
Houston Area Office........................................ 1.1773
Arkansas State Office...................................... 3.0053
Louisiana State Office..................................... 3.9795
Oklahoma State Office...................................... 1.9327
San Antonio Area Office.................................... 2.6835
Great Plains:
Iowa State Office.......................................... 1.4211
Kansas/Missouri State Office............................... 3.8535
Nebraska State Office...................................... 1.2155
St. Louis Area Office...................................... 2.2640
Rocky Mountain:
Colorado State Office...................................... 3.5448
Pacific/Hawaii:
Los Angeles Area Office.................................... 1.2057
Arizona State Office....................................... 1.2634
Sacramento Area Office..................................... .2747
California State Office.................................... 1.5927
Northwest/Alaska:
Oregon State Office........................................ 1.2688
Washington State Office.................................... 1.6876
----------
[[Page 17219]]
Total.................................................. 100.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Sub-assignment of Funds to Offices of Native American Programs
(ONAP). Headquarters has determined the distribution of Indian Housing
CIAP funds for each ONAP, based on the relative shares of backlog and
accrual needs for CIAP IHAs, adjusted as necessary. The fund assignment
will cover Indian Housing and any Public Housing owned and operated by
IHAs.
(1) The ONAP Administrator shall have authority to make Joint
Review selections and CIAP funding decisions.
(2) If additional funds for Indian Housing CIAP become available,
Headquarters will allocate the funds to one or more ONAPs based on
their relative shares of modernization need, approvable applications,
and IHA capability to carry out the modernization.
(3) If an ONAP does not receive sufficient fundable applications to
use its allocation, Headquarters will reallocate the remaining funds to
one or more ONAPs based on approvable applications and IHA capability
to carry out the modernization.
The following table shows the percentage distribution of CIAP funds
for IHAs, assigned by Headquarters to each ONAP:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
of Indian
Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) housing
funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern/Woodlands............................................ 14.8444
Southern Plains.............................................. 12.3324
Northern Plains.............................................. 13.3174
Southwest.................................................... 29.9263
Northwest.................................................... 24.4868
Alaska....................................................... 5.0927
----------
Total.................................................. 100.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Purpose and Substantive Description
(a) Authority. Sec. 14, United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 14371); Sec. 7(d) Department of Housing and Urban Development
Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)). A final rule further streamlining the CIAP
regulation, 24 CFR Part 968, Subparts A and B, for PHAs and 24 CFR Part
950, Subpart I, for IHAs, was published on March 5, 1996.
(b) Program Highlights.
(1) Departmental Priority. Improving Public and Indian Housing is
one of the Department's major priorities. Accordingly, a review has
been made of the entire Public and Indian Housing Program.
Specifically, the Department is very concerned about several aspects of
the Modernization Program, as follows:
(i) Design. When identifying physical improvement needs to meet the
modernization standards, HAs are encouraged to consider design which
supports the integration of public housing into the broader community.
Although high priority needs, such as those related to health and
safety, vacant, substandard units, structural or system integrity, and
compliance with statutory, regulatory or court-ordered deadlines, will
receive funding priority, HAs should plan their modernization in a way
which promotes good design, but maintains the modest nature of public
housing. The HA should pay particular attention to design, which is
sensitive to traditional cultural values, and be receptive to creative,
but cost-effective approaches suggested by architects, residents, HA
staff, and other local entities. Such approaches may complement the
planning for basic rehabilitation needs. It should be noted that there
will be no increase in operating subsidy due to improved design
promoting the blend of public housing into the surrounding neighborhood
or to additional amenities improving the quality of life.
(ii) Expediting the Program. HAs are reminded that they are
expected to obligate all funds within two years and to expend all funds
within three years of program approval (Annual Contributions Contract
(ACC) Amendment execution) unless a longer implementation schedule
(Part III of the CIAP Budget) is approved by the Field Office due to
the size or complexity of the program. Failure to obligate funds in a
timely manner may result in the termination of the program and
recapture of the funds.
(iii) Resident Involvement and Economic Uplift. HAs are required to
explore and implement through all feasible means the involvement of
residents, including duly-elected resident councils, in every aspect of
the CIAP, from planning through implementation. HAs shall use Section 3
provisions to the maximum feasible extent. HAs are encouraged to seek
ways to employ Section 3 residents in all aspects of the CIAP's
operation and to develop means to promote contracting opportunities for
businesses in Section 3 areas. Refer to 24 CFR 85.36(e) regarding the
provision of such opportunities.
(iv) Elimination of Vacant Units. HAs are encouraged to apply for
CIAP funds to address vacant units where the work does not involve
routine maintenance, but will result in re-occupancy.
(2) Relationship to Technical Review Factors. The Departmental goal
of improving Public and Indian Housing is reflected in the technical
review factors, set forth in section IV(c)(5), on which the Field
Office scores each HA's CIAP Application. Based on the HA's total
score, the Field Office then ranks each HA to determine selection for
Joint Review. The technical review factors emphasize the following
Departmental initiatives to improve Public and Indian Housing:
(i) Restoration of vacant units to occupancy;
(ii) Resident capacity-building and resident involvement in HA
operations, including opportunities for resident management and
homeownership;
(iii) Job training and employment opportunities for residents and
contracting opportunities for Section 3 businesses;
(iv) Drug elimination initiatives;
(v) Partnership with local government; and
(vi) Provision of appropriate replacement housing, as described in
paragraph (c) below.
(c) Expansion of Eligible Activities.
(1) FY 1995 and Prior FY Modernization Funds. The FY 1995
Rescissions Act expanded the eligible activities that may be funded
with CIAP or CGP assistance provided from FY 1995 and prior FY funds.
These activities include: new construction or acquisition of additional
public housing units, including replacement units; modernization
activities related to the public housing portion of housing
developments held in partnership or cooperation with non-public housing
entities; and other activities related to public housing, including
activities eligible under the Urban Revitalization Demonstration (HOPE
VI), such as community services.
(2) FY 1996 Modernization Funds. The Continuing Resolution provides
for the continuation of the Department's programs and activities.
Funding provided under the Continuing Resolution is subject to the
authority and conditions of the 1995 appropriation, including the FY
1995 Rescissions Act. Therefore, FY 1996 funds provided under the
Continuing Resolution may be used for the eligible activities set forth
in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph with prior HUD approval.
III. Application Preparation and Submission by HA
(a) Planning. In preparing its CIAP Application, the HA is
encouraged to assess all its physical and management improvement needs.
Physical
[[Page 17220]]
improvement needs should be reviewed against the modernization
standards, as set forth in HUD Handbook 7485.2, as revised, and any
cost-effective energy conservation measures, identified in updated
energy audits. The modernization standards include development specific
work to ensure the long-term viability of the developments, such as
amenities and design changes to promote the integration of low-income
housing into the broader community. See section II(b)(1)(i). In
addition, the HA is strongly encouraged to contact the Field Office to
discuss its modernization needs and obtain information. The term
``Field Office'' includes the ONAP.
(b) Resident Involvement and Local/Tribal Official Consultation
Requirements.
(1) Residents/Homebuyers. The CIAP regulations at Secs. 968.215 or
950.624 require the HA to establish a Partnership Process to ensure
full resident participation in the planning, implementation and
monitoring of the modernization program, as follows:
(i) Before submission of the CIAP Application, consultation with
the residents, resident organization, and resident management
corporation (herein referred to as residents) of the development(s)
being proposed for modernization regarding its intent to submit an
application and to solicit resident comments;
(ii) Reasonable opportunity for residents to present their views on
the proposed modernization and alternatives to it, and full and serious
consideration of resident recommendations;
(iii) Written response to residents indicating acceptance or
rejection of resident recommendations, consistent with HUD requirements
and the HA's own determination of efficiency, economy and need, with a
copy to the Field Office at Joint Review. If the Joint Review is
conducted off-site, a copy is mailed to the Field Office;
(iv) After HUD funding decisions, notification to residents of the
approval or disapproval and, where requested, provision to residents of
a copy of the HUD-approved CIAP Budget; and
(v) During implementation, periodic notification to residents of
work status and progress and maximum feasible employment of residents
in the modernization effort.
(2) Local/Tribal Officials. Before submission of the CIAP
Application, consultation with appropriate local/tribal officials
regarding how the proposed modernization may be coordinated with any
local plans for neighborhood revitalization, economic development, drug
elimination and expenditure of local funds, such as Community
Development Block Grant funds.
(c) Contents of CIAP Application. Within the established deadline
date, the HA shall submit the CIAP Application to the Field Office,
with a copy to appropriate local/tribal officials. The HA may obtain
the necessary forms from the Field Office. The CIAP Application is
comprised of the following documents:
(1) Form HUD-52822, CIAP Application, in an original and two
copies, which includes:
(i) A general description of HA development(s), in priority order,
(including the current physical condition, for each development for
which the HA is requesting funds, or for all developments in the HA's
inventory) and physical and management improvement needs to meet the
Secretary's standards in Sec. 968.115 or Sec. 950.603; description of
work items required to correct identified deficiencies; and the
estimated cost. Where the HA has not included some of its developments
in the CIAP Application, the Field Office may not consider funding any
nonemergency work at excluded developments or subsequently approve use
of leftover funds at excluded developments. Therefore, to provide
maximum flexibility, the HA may wish to include all of its developments
in the CIAP Application, even though there are no known current needs.
Following is an example of the general description:
Development 1-1: 50 units of low-rent; 25 years old; physical needs
are: new roofs; storm windows and doors; and electrical upgrading at
estimated cost of $150,000.
Development 1-2: 40 units of low-rent; 20 years old; physical needs
are: physical accessibility in 2 units; kitchen floors; shower/bathtub
surrounds; fencing; and exterior lighting at estimated cost of $90,000.
Development 1-3: 35 units of Turnkey III; 15 years old; physical
needs are: physical accessibility in 3 units; and roof insulation at
estimated cost of $50,000.
Development 1-4: 20 units of low-rent; 5 years old; no physical
needs; no funding requested.
(ii) Where funding is being requested for management improvements,
an identification of the deficiency, a description of the work required
for correction, and estimated cost. Examples of management improvements
include, but are not limited to the following areas:
(A) the management, financial, and accounting control systems of
the HA;
(B) the adequacy and qualifications of personnel employed by the HA
in the management and operation of its developments by category of
employment; and
(C) the adequacy and efficacy of resident programs and services,
resident and development security, resident selection and eviction,
occupancy and vacant unit turnaround, rent collection, routine and
preventive maintenance, equal opportunity, and other HA policies and
procedures.
(iii) a certification that the HA has met the requirements for
consultation with local/tribal officials and residents/homebuyers and
that all developments included in the application have long-term
physical and social viability, including prospects for full occupancy.
If the HA cannot make this certification with respect to long-term
viability, the HA shall attach a narrative, explaining its viability
concerns.
(2) A narrative statement, in an original and two copies,
addressing each of the technical review factors in section IV(c)(5)
and, where applicable for Public Housing, the bonus points in section
IV(c)(6).
(3) Form HUD-50071, Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and
Cooperative Agreements, in an original only, required of HAs
established under State law, applying for grants exceeding $100,000.
(4) SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, in an original only,
required of HAs established under State law, only where any funds,
other than federally appropriated funds, will be or have been used to
influence Federal workers, Members of Congress and their staff
regarding specific grants or contracts. The HA determines if the
submission of the SF-LLL is applicable.
(5) Form HUD-2880, Applicant/Recipient Update/Disclosure Report, in
an original only, required of HAs established under State law.
(6) At the option of the HA, photographs or video cassettes showing
the physical condition of the developments.
IV. Application Processing by Field Office
(a) Completeness Review (Corrections to Deficient Applications). To
be eligible for processing, the CIAP Application must be physically
received by the Field Office by the time and date specified in this
NOFA. Immediately after the application deadline, the Field Office
shall perform a completeness review to determine whether an application
is complete, responsive to the NOFA, and acceptable for technical
processing.
[[Page 17221]]
(1) If either Form HUD-52822, CIAP Application, or the narrative
statement on the technical review factors is missing, the HA's
application will be considered substantially incomplete and, therefore,
ineligible for further processing. The Field Office shall immediately
notify the HA in writing.
(2) If Form HUD-50071, Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans,
and Cooperative Agreements, or SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying
Activities, are required, but missing, or Form HUD-2880, Applicant/
Recipient Update/Disclosure Form, is missing, or there is a technical
mistake, such as no signature on a submitted form or the HA failed to
address all of the technical review factors, the Field Office shall
immediately notify the HA in writing to submit or correct the
deficiency within 14 calendar days from the date of HUD's written
notification. This is not additional time to substantially revise the
application. Deficiencies which may be corrected at this time are
inadvertently omitted documents, as specified in this subparagraph, or
clarifications of previously submitted material and other changes which
are not of such a nature as to improve the competitive position of the
application.
(3) If the HA fails to submit or correct the items within the
required time period, the HA's application will be ineligible for
further processing. The Field Office shall immediately notify the HA in
writing after this occurs.
(4) The HA may submit a CIAP Application for Emergency
Modernization whenever needed. See section IV(j).
(b) Eligibility Review. After the HA's CIAP Application is
determined to be complete and accepted for review, the Field Office
eligibility review shall determine if the application is eligible for
full processing or processing on a reduced scope.
(1) Eligibility for Full Processing. To be eligible for full
processing:
(i) Each eligible development for which work is proposed has
reached the Date of Full Availability (DOFA) and is under ACC at the
time of CIAP Application submission; and
(ii) Where funded under Major Reconstruction of Obsolete Projects
(MROP) after FY 1988, the development/building has reached DOFA or,
where funded during FYs 1986-1988, all MROP funds for the development/
building have been expended.
(2) Eligibility for Processing on Reduced Scope. When the following
conditions exist, the HA's application will be reviewed on a reduced
scope:
(i) Section 504 Compliance. Where the HA has not completed all
required structural changes to meet the need for accessible units, as
identified in the HA's Section 504 needs assessment, the HA is eligible
for processing only for Emergency Modernization or physical work needed
to meet Section 504 requirements.
(ii) Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Testing Compliance. Where the HA has
not complied with the statutory requirement to complete LBP testing on
all pre-1978 family units, the HA is eligible for processing only for
Emergency Modernization or work needed to complete the testing.
(iii) Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) Compliance. Where
the HA has not complied with FHEO requirements as evidenced by an
enforcement action, finding or determination, the HA is eligible for
processing only for Emergency Modernization or work needed to remedy
civil rights deficiencies--unless the HA is implementing a voluntary
compliance agreement or settlement agreement designed to correct the
area(s) of noncompliance. The enforcement actions, findings or
determinations that trigger limited eligibility are described in
paragraphs (A) through (E) below:
(A) A pending proceeding against the HA based upon a Charge of
Discrimination issued under the Fair Housing Act. A Charge of
Discrimination is a charge under Section 810(g)(2) of the Fair Housing
Act, issued by the Department's Assistant Secretary for FHEO or legally
authorized designee;
(B) A pending civil rights suit against the HA, referred by the
Department's Assistant Secretary for FHEO and instituted by the
Department of Justice;
(C) Outstanding HUD findings of HA noncompliance with civil rights
statutes and executive orders under 24 CFR Part 5 and 24 CFR 968.110 or
24 CFR 950.115, or implementing regulations, as a result of formal
administrative proceedings;
(D) A deferral of the processing of applications from the HA
imposed by HUD under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and HUD
implementing regulations (24 CFR 1.8), the Attorney General's
Guidelines (28 CFR 50.3), and procedures (HUD Handbook 8040.1), or
under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and HUD
implementing regulations (24 CFR 8.57); or
(E) An adjudication of a violation under any of the authorities
specified in 24 CFR Part 5 and 24 CFR 968.110 or 24 CFR 950.115 in a
civil action filed against the HA by a private individual.
(c) Selection Criteria and Ranking Factors. After all CIAP
Applications are reviewed for eligibility, the Field Office shall
categorize the eligible HAs and their developments into two processing
groups, as defined in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph: Group 1 for
Emergency Modernization; and Group 2 for Other Modernization. HA
developments may be included in both groups and the same development
may be in each group. However, the HA is only required to submit one
CIAP Application.
(1) Grouping Modernization Types.
(i) Group 1, Emergency Modernization. This is a type of
modernization program for a development that is limited to physical
work items of an emergency nature to correct conditions that pose an
immediate threat to the health or safety of residents or are related to
fire safety, and that must be corrected within one year of CIAP funding
approval. Funding may not be used for management improvements.
Emergency Modernization includes all LBP testing and abatement of units
housing children under six years old with elevated blood lead levels
(EBLs) and all LBP testing and abatement of HA-owned day care
facilities used by children under six years old with EBLs. Group 1
developments are not subject to the technical review rating and ranking
in subparagraphs (5), (6) and (7) of this paragraph and the long-term
viability and reasonable cost determinations in section V(a).
(ii) Group 2, Other Modernization. This is a type of modernization
program for a development that includes one or more physical work
items, where the Field Office determines that the physical improvements
are necessary and sufficient to extend substantially the useful life of
the development, and/or one or more development specific or HA-wide
management work items (including planning costs), and/or LBP testing,
professional risk assessment, interim containment, and abatement.
Therefore, eligibility of work under Other Modernization ranges from a
single work item to the complete rehabilitation of a development. Refer
to section II(b)(1)(i) regarding modest amenities and improved design.
Group 2 developments are subject to the technical review rating and
ranking in subparagraphs (5), (6) and (7) of this paragraph and the
long-term viability and reasonable cost determinations in section V(a).
(2) Assessment of HA's Management Capability. As part of its
technical review of the CIAP Application, the Field Office shall
evaluate the HA's
[[Page 17222]]
management capability. Particular attention shall be given to the
adequacy of the HA's maintenance in determining the HA's management
capability. This assessment shall be based on the compliance aspects of
on-site monitoring, such as audits, reviews or surveys which are
currently available within the Field Office, and on the performance
review under the Public Housing Management Assessment Program (PHMAP)
for PHAs or the Administrative Capability Assessment for IHAs, and
other information sources, as follows:
(i) Public Housing. A PHA has management capability if it is (A)
not designated as Troubled under Part 901, PHMAP, or (B) designated as
Troubled, but has a reasonable prospect of acquiring management
capability through CIAP-funded management improvements and
administrative support. A Troubled PHA is eligible for Emergency
Modernization only, unless it is making reasonable progress toward
meeting the performance targets established in its memorandum of
agreement or equivalent under 24 CFR 901.140 or has obtained
alternative oversight of its management functions.
(ii) Indian Housing. An IHA has management capability if it is (A)
not designated as High Risk under 24 CFR 950.135 or (B) designated as
High Risk, but has a reasonable prospect of acquiring management
capability through CIAP-funded management improvements and
administrative support. A High Risk IHA is eligible for Emergency
Modernization only, unless it is making reasonable progress toward
meeting the performance targets established in its management
improvement plan under 24 CFR 950.135.
(3) Assessment of HA's Modernization Capability. As part of its
technical review of the CIAP Application, the Field Office shall
evaluate the HA's modernization capability, including the progress of
previously approved modernization and the status of any outstanding
findings from CIAP monitoring visits, as follows:
(i) Public Housing. A PHA has modernization capability if it is (A)
not designated as Modernization Troubled under Part 901, PHMAP, or (B)
designated as Modernization Troubled, but has a reasonable prospect of
acquiring modernization capability through CIAP-funded management
improvements and administrative support, such as hiring staff or
contracting for assistance. A Modernization Troubled PHA is eligible
for Emergency Modernization only, unless it is making reasonable
progress toward meeting the performance targets established in its
memorandum of agreement or equivalent under 24 CFR 901.140 or has
obtained alternative oversight of its modernization functions. Where a
PHA does not have a funded modernization program in progress, the Field
Office shall determine whether the PHA has a reasonable prospect of
acquiring modernization capability through hiring staff or contracting
for assistance.
(ii) Indian Housing. An IHA has modernization capability if it is
(A) not designated as High Risk under 24 CFR 950.135, or (B) designated
as High Risk, but has a reasonable prospect of acquiring modernization
capability through CIAP-funded management improvements and
administrative support, such as hiring staff or contracting for
assistance. An IHA that has been classified High Risk with regard to
modernization is eligible for Emergency Modernization only, unless it
is making reasonable progress toward meeting the performance targets
established in its management improvement plan under 24 CFR
950.135(f)(2) or has obtained alternative oversight of its
modernization functions. Where an IHA does not have a funded
modernization program in progress, the ONAP shall determine whether the
IHA has a reasonable prospect of acquiring modernization capability
through hiring staff or contracting for assistance.
(4) Technical Processing. After categorizing the eligible HAs and
their developments into Group 1 and Group 2, the Field Office shall
review and rate each Group 2 HA on each of the technical review factors
in subparagraph (5) of this paragraph. With the exception of the
technical review factor of ``extent and urgency of need,'' a Group 2 HA
is rated on its overall HA application and not on each development. For
the technical review factor of ``extent and urgency of need,'' each
development for which funding is requested in the CIAP Application by a
Group 2 HA is scored; the development with the highest priority needs
is scored the highest number of points, which are then used for the
overall HA score on that factor.
(5) Technical Review Factors. The technical review factors for
assistance are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Technical review factors points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extent and urgency of need, including need to comply with
statutory, regulatory or court-ordered deadlines, to
complete previously funded modernization work, or to provide
appropriate replacement housing for HUD- approved demolition/
disposition................................................. 40
HA's modernization capability................................ 15
HA's management capability................................... 15
Extent of vacancies, where the vacancies are not due to
insufficient demand......................................... 10
Degree of resident involvement in HA operations.............. 5
Degree of HA activity in resident initiatives, including
resident management, economic development, and drug
elimination efforts......................................... 5
Degree of resident employment through direct hiring or
contracting or job training initiatives..................... 5
Local government support for proposed modernization.......... 5
----------
Total maximum score.................................... 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) Bonus points.
(i) For Public Housing only, the Field Office shall provide up to 5
bonus points for any PHA that can demonstrate that it has obtained
funds, within the last 12 months, from a non-HUD source to support the
modernization activities or improve the general operation of the PHA.
Non-HUD sources of funding may include: local government, over and
above what is required under the Cooperation Agreement for municipal
services such as police and fire protection and refuse collection;
private non-profit organizations; or other public and private entities.
To qualify for the bonus points, the PHA shall identify the entity, the
amount of funds, the date on which the funds were or will be provided,
and the purpose of the funding.
(ii) For Public Housing only, the Field Office shall provide up to
2 bonus points for any PHA that can demonstrate that it has awarded
contracts, including subcontracts, to minority business enterprises
(MBEs) or women's business enterprises (WBEs) within the last 12
months. PHAs are
[[Page 17223]]
required by 24 CFR 968.110(b) to take every affirmative action to meet
Departmental goals for awarding contracts to MBEs and WBEs. To qualify
for the bonus points, the PHA shall identify the contractor or
subcontractor, the dollar value of the contract or subcontract, and the
date of award.
(7) Rating and Ranking. After rating all Group 2 HAs/developments
on each of the technical review factors and providing any bonus points
as set forth in subparagraph (6) of this paragraph, the Field Office
shall then rank each Group 2 HA based on its total score, list Group 2
HAs in descending order, subject to confirmation of need and cost at
Joint Review, and identify for Joint Review selection the highest
ranking applications in Group 2 and other Group 2 HAs with lower
ranking applications, but with high priority needs. High priority needs
are non-emergency needs, but related to: health or safety; vacant,
substandard units; structural or system integrity; or compliance with
statutory, regulatory or court-ordered deadlines. All Group 1
applications are automatically selected for Joint Review. The Field
Office shall consult with Headquarters regarding any identified FHEO
noncompliance.
(d) Joint Review. The purpose of the Joint Review is for the Field
Office to discuss with the HA the proposed modernization program, as
set forth in the CIAP Application, review long-term viability and cost
reasonableness determinations, and determine the size of the grant, if
any, to be awarded.
(1) The Field Office shall select HAs, including all Group 1 HAs,
for Joint Review so that the total dollar value of all proposed
modernization recommended for funding exceeds the Field Office's
estimated funding amount by at least 15 percent. This preserves the
Field Office's ability to adjust cost estimates and work items as a
result of Joint Review.
(2) The Field Office shall notify each HA whose application has
been selected for further processing as to whether Joint Review will be
conducted on-site or off-site (e.g., by telephone or in-office
meeting).
(3) The HA shall prepare for Joint Review by preparing a draft CIAP
Budget and reviewing the other items to be covered during Joint Review,
as prescribed by the Field Office, such as the need for professional
services, method of accomplishment of physical work (contract or force
account labor), HA compliance with various Federal statutes and
regulations, etc. If conducted on-site, Joint Review may include an
inspection of the proposed physical work.
(4) The Field Office shall advise in writing each HA not selected
for Joint Review of the reasons for non-selection.
(e) Funding Decisions. After all Joint Reviews are completed, the
Field Office shall adjust the HAs, developments, and work items to be
funded and the amounts to be awarded, on the basis of information
obtained from Joint Reviews, FHEO review, and environmental reviews
(refer to paragraph (h) of this section) and make the funding
decisions. Such adjustments are necessary where Joint Review determines
that actual Group 1 emergencies and Group 2 high priority needs, HA
priorities, or cost estimates vary from the HA's application. Such
adjustments may preclude the Field Office from funding all of the
higher ranked HA applications in order to accommodate the funding of
high priority needs. However, where the information obtained from Joint
Reviews, FHEO review, and environmental reviews does not substantially
alter the information used to establish the rankings before Joint
Review, the Field Office shall make funding decisions in accordance
with its rankings. An HA will not be selected for Joint Review if there
is a duplication of funding (refer to section V(c)). After
Congressional notifications, the Field Office shall notify the HAs of
their funding approval, subject to submission of the CIAP Budget,
including an implementation schedule, and other required documents.
(f) HA Submission of Additional Documents. After Field Office
funding decisions, the HA shall submit the following documents within
the time frame prescribed by the Field Office:
(1) Form HUD-52825, CIAP Budget/Progress Report, which includes the
implementation schedule(s), in an original and two copies.
(2) Form HUD-50070, Certification for a Drug-Free Workplace, in an
original only.
(3) Form HUD-52820, HA Board Resolution Approving CIAP Budget, in
an original only.
(g) ACC Amendment. After HUD approval of the CIAP Budget, the Field
Office and the HA shall enter into an ACC amendment in order for the HA
to draw down modernization funds. The ACC amendment shall require low-
income use of the housing for not less than 20 years from the date of
the ACC amendment (subject to sale of homeownership units in accordance
with the terms of the ACC). The HA Executive Director, where authorized
by the Board of Commissioners and permitted by State/tribal law, may
sign the ACC amendment on behalf of the HA. HUD has the authority to
condition an ACC amendment (e.g., to require an HA to hire a
modernization coordinator or contract administrator to administer its
modernization program).
(h) Environmental review.
(1) Public Housing. The Field Office shall review the environmental
impact of all modernization activities, proposed by PHAs, under 24 CFR
Part 50, in accordance with the provisions of Part 968. The Field
Office may obtain the information required to conduct the environmental
review during Joint Review. The PHA shall provide any documentation to
the Field Office that it needs to carry out its review under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). After all Joint Reviews are
conducted, the Field Office shall complete the environmental reviews
before funding decisions are made and announced and before PHAs are
invited to submit CIAP Budgets. Therefore, in requesting CIAP Budgets,
the Field Office shall specify any PHA modification or elimination of
activities or expenditures that the Field Office has determined, after
review under NEPA or related laws, to have an unacceptable
environmental impact. Upon approval of the CIAP Budget, the Field
Office shall send an approval letter to the PHA which includes
notification that HUD has complied with its responsibilities under
Sec. 968.110 (c) and (d) before entering into an ACC amendment with the
PHA.
(2) Indian Housing. For IHAs, the environmental impact of
modernization activities is reviewed by a responsible entity under 24
CFR Part 58 in accordance with Sec. 950.120(a). The responsible entity
may be an Indian tribe or, in the case of IHAs in Alaska, an Alaska
native village, a state, or unit of local government. Under this
procedure, the environmental impact of each IHA project will be
considered before an IHA obligates or expends funds for physical
improvements.
(i) Declaration of Trust. Where the Field Office determines that a
Declaration of Trust is not in place or is not current, the HA shall
execute and file for record a Declaration of Trust, as provided under
the ACC, to protect the rights and interests of HUD throughout the 20-
year period during which the HA is obligated to operate its
developments in accordance with the ACC, the Act, and HUD regulations
and requirements. HUD has determined that its interest in Mutual Help
units is sufficiently protected without the further requirement of a
Declaration of Trust; therefore, a Declaration of Trust is not required
for Mutual Help units.
[[Page 17224]]
(j) ``Fast Tracking'' Applications. Emergency applications do not
have to be processed within the normal processing time allowed for
other applications. Where an immediate hazard must be addressed, HA
applications may be submitted and processed at any time during the year
when funds are available. The Field Office shall ``fast track'' the
processing of these emergency applications so that fund reservation may
occur as soon as possible.
V. Other Program Items
(a) Long-Term Viability and Reasonable Cost. On Form HUD-52822,
CIAP Application, the HA certifies whether the developments proposed
for modernization have long-term physical and social viability,
including prospects for full occupancy. During Joint Review, the Field
Office will review with the HA the determination of reasonable cost for
the proposed modernization to ensure that unfunded hard costs do not
exceed 90 percent of the computed total development cost (TDC) for a
new development with the same structure type and number and size of
units in the market area. The Field Office shall make a final viability
determination. Where the estimated per unit unfunded hard cost is equal
to or less than the per unit TDC for the smallest bedroom size at the
development, no further computation of the TDC limit is required.
(1) If the Field Office determines that completion of the
improvements and replacements will not reasonably ensure the long-term
physical and social viability of the development at a reasonable cost,
the Field Office shall only approve Emergency Modernization or non-
emergency funding for essential non-routine maintenance needed to keep
the property habitable until the demolition or disposition application
is approved and residents are relocated.
(2) Where the Field Office wishes to fund a development with hard
costs exceeding 90 percent of computed TDC, the Field Office shall
submit written justification to Headquarters for final decision. Such
justification shall include:
(i) Any special or unusual conditions have been adequately
explained, all work has been justified as necessary to meet the
modernization and energy conservation standards, including development
specific work necessary to blend the development in with the design and
architecture of the neighborhood; and
(ii) Reasonable cost estimates have been provided, and every effort
has been made to reduce costs; and
(iii) Rehabilitation of the existing development is more cost-
effective in the long-term than construction or acquisition of
replacement housing; or
(iv) There are no practical alternatives for replacement housing.
(b) Use of Dwelling Units for Economic Self-Sufficiency Services
and/or Drug Elimination Activities. CIAP funds may be used to convert
dwelling units for purposes related to economic self-sufficiency
services and/or drug elimination activities. Regarding the eligibility
for funding under the Performance Funding System of dwelling units used
for these purposes, refer to 24 CFR 990.108(b)(2) or 24 CFR
950.720(b)(2).
(c) Duplication of Funding. The HA shall not receive duplicate
funding for the same work item or activity under any circumstance and
shall establish controls to assure that an activity, program, or
project that is funded under any other HUD program shall not be funded
by CIAP.
VI. Application Deadline Date and Summary of FY 1996 CIAP Processing
Steps
The deadline date for submission of the FY 1996 CIAP Application is
June 17, 1996. Dates for other processing steps will be established by
each Field Office to reflect local workload issues.
Summary of Processing Steps
1. HA submits CIAP Application.
2. Field Office conducts completeness review and requests
corrections to deficient applications or notifies HAs of ineligible
applications.
3. HA submits corrections to deficient applications within 14
calendar days of notification from Field Office.
4. Field Office conducts eligibility review and technical review
(rating and ranking) and makes Joint Review selections.
5. Field Office completes Joint Reviews, environmental reviews (for
PHAs) and FHEO review.
6. Field Office makes funding decisions and forwards Congressional
notifications to Headquarters.
7. Congressional notification is completed and Field Office
notifies HA of funding decisions.
8. HA submits additional documents as required in section IV(f).
9. Field Office completes fund reservations and forwards ACC
amendment to HA for signature and return.
10. Field Office executes ACC amendment and HA begins
implementation.
VII. Other Matters
(a) Environmental Impact. A Finding of No Significant Impact with
respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD
regulations at 24 CFR Part 50 implementing section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). The Finding
of No Significant Impact is available for public inspection and copying
between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays at the Office of the Rules
Docket Clerk, 451 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 10276, Washington, DC
20410.
(b) Federalism Impact. The General Counsel, as the Designated
Official under section 6(a) of Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has
determined that the policies and procedures contained in this NOFA will
not have substantial direct effects on States or their political
subdivisions, or the relationship between the federal government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. As a result, the NOFA is not subject
to review under the Order.
(c) Impact on the Family. The General Counsel, as the Designated
Official for Executive Order 12606, The Family, has determined that
this NOFA will likely have a beneficial impact on family formation,
maintenance and general well-being. Accordingly, since the impact on
the family is beneficial, no further review is considered necessary.
(d) Accountability in the Provision of HUD Assistance. The
Department has promulgated a final rule to implement section 102 of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (HUD
Reform Act). The final rule is codified at 24 CFR Part 12. Section 102
contains a number of provisions that are designed to ensure greater
accountability and integrity in the provision of certain types of
assistance administered by the Department. On January 16, 1992, the
Department published at 57 FR 1942, additional information that gave
the public (including applicants for, and recipients of, HUD
assistance) further information on the implementation, public access,
and disclosure requirements of section 102. The documentation, public
access, and disclosure requirements of section 102 are applicable to
assistance awarded under this NOFA as follows:
(1) Documentation and Public Access. The Department will ensure
that documentation and other information regarding each application
submitted pursuant to this NOFA are sufficient to indicate the basis
upon which assistance was provided or denied. This
[[Page 17225]]
material, including any letters of support, will be made available for
public inspection for a five-year period beginning not less than 30
days after the award of the assistance. Material will be made available
in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and
HUD's implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 15. In addition, HUD will
include the recipients of assistance pursuant to this NOFA in its
Federal Register notice of all recipients of HUD assistance awarded on
a competitive basis. (See 24 CFR 12.14(a) and 12.16(b), and the notice
published in the Federal Register on January 16, 1992 (57 FR 1942), for
further information on these requirements.)
(2) HUD Responsibilities--Disclosures. The Department will make
available to the public for five years all applicant disclosure reports
(Form HUD-2880) submitted in connection with this NOFA. Update reports
(also Form HUD-2880) will be made available along with the applicant
disclosure reports, but in no case for a period less than three years.
All reports, both applicant disclosures and updates, will be made
available in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.
552) and HUD's implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 15. (See 24 CFR
Part 12, Subpart C, and the notice published in the Federal Register on
January 16, 1992 (57 FR 1942), for further information on these
disclosure requirements.)
(e) Prohibition Against Advance Information on Funding Decisions.
HUD's regulation implementing section 103 of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, codified as 24 CFR part 4,
applies to the funding competition announced today. The requirements of
the rule continue to apply until the announcement of the selection of
successful applicants. HUD employees involved in the review of
applications and in the making of funding decisions are limited by part
4 from providing advance information to any person (other than an
authorized employee of HUD) concerning funding decisions, or from
otherwise giving any applicant an unfair competitive advantage. Persons
who apply for assistance in this competition should confine their
inquiries to the subject areas permitted under 24 CFR part 4.
Applicants or employees who have ethics related questions should
contact the HUD Office of Ethics (202) 708-3815. (This is not a toll-
free number.) For HUD employees who have specific program questions,
such as whether particular subject matter can be discussed with persons
outside HUD, the employee should contact the appropriate Field Office
Counsel, or Headquarters counsel for the program to which the question
pertains.
(f) Prohibition Against Lobbying Activities.
The use of funds awarded under this NOFA is subject to the
disclosure requirements and prohibitions of Section 319 of the
Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 1990 (31 U.S.C. 1352) and the HUD implementing regulations
at 24 CFR Part 87. These authorities prohibit recipients of federal
contracts, grants or loans from using appropriated funds for lobbying
the Executive or Legislative Branches of the Federal Government in
connection with a specific contract, grant or loan. The prohibition
also covers the awarding of contracts, grants, cooperative agreements
or loans unless the recipient has made an acceptable certification
regarding lobbying. Under 24 CFR Part 87, applicants, recipients and
subrecipients of assistance exceeding $100,000 must certify that no
federal funds have been or will be spent on lobbying activities in
connection with the assistance.
IHAs established by an Indian tribe as a result of the exercise of
the tribe's sovereign power are excluded from coverage of the Byrd
Amendment, but IHAs established under State law are not excluded from
the statute's coverage.
If the amount applied for is greater than $100,000, the
certification is required at the time application for funds is made
that federally appropriated funds are not being or have not been used
in violation of the Byrd Amendment. If the amount applied for is
greater than $100,000 and the HA has made or has agreed to make any
payment using non-appropriated funds for lobbying activity, as
described in 24 CFR Part 87 (Byrd Amendment), the submission also must
include the SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities. The HA
determines if the submission of the SF-LLL is applicable.
(g) Paperwork Reduction Act Statement. The information collection
requirements contained in this NOFA have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and have been assigned OMB control number 2577-
0044. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless the
collection displays a valid control number.
VIII. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number is
14.852.
Dated: April 3, 1996.
Michael B. Janis,
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
[FR Doc. 96-9543 Filed 4-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-33-P