[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1878-1919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-32150]
[[Page 1877]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of Housing and Urban Development
_______________________________________________________________________
Office of the Secretary
_______________________________________________________________________
24 CFR Part 91, et al.
Consolidated Submission for Community Planning and Development
Programs; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules
and Regulations
=======================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 1878]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Office of the Secretary
24 CFR Parts 91, 92, 570, 574, 576, and 968
[Docket No. R-94-1731; FR-3611-F-02]
RIN 2501-AB72
Consolidated Submission for Community Planning and Development
Programs
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends the Department's existing regulations to
completely replace the current regulations for Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategies (CHAS) with a rule that consolidates into a
single consolidated submission the planning and application aspects of
the Department's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency
Shelter Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), and Housing
Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) formula programs with the
requirements for the CHAS. This new consolidated submission will
replace the current CHAS, the HOME program description, the Community
Development plan and the CDBG final statement, and the ESG and HOPWA
applications. The rule also consolidates the reporting requirements for
these programs, replacing five general performance reports with one
performance report. Thus, in total, the consolidated plan and
consolidated report will replace 12 documents.
Although this rule does not incorporate the public housing
Comprehensive Grant process into the consolidated planning and
application process, it makes a modification to the Comprehensive
Grants rule to encourage cooperation in the development of the
Comprehensive Grant plan and the consolidated plan. The changes are
intended to ensure that the needs and resources of public housing
authorities are included in a comprehensive planning effort to
revitalize distressed neighborhoods and help low-income residents
locally.
In addition, the rule amends the separate regulations for the CDBG,
HOME, ESG, and HOPWA programs to remove some duplicative provisions,
cross-reference the new provisions, and to conform terminology to that
used in the consolidated plan rule (revised part 91).
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 6, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph F. Smith, Director, Policy
Coordination, Office of Community Planning and Development, 451 Seventh
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410-7000, telephone (202) 708-1283 (voice)
or (202) 708-2565 (TDD). (These are not toll-free telephone numbers.)
Copies of this rule will be made available on tape or large print for
those with impaired vision that request them. They may be obtained at
the above address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Information Collections
The information collection requirements for the planning process,
the application process, and the reporting process contained in this
rule have been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned
approval number 2506-0117, which expires on March 31, 1995.
II. Background
This final rule providing for a consolidated plan and a single
performance report for all HUD community planning and development
formula grant programs reflects the Department's view that the purpose
to be served by the submissions is to enable States and localities to
examine their needs and design ways to address those needs that are
appropriate to their circumstances. The planning activities embodied in
the rule are those of the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) requirements, enacted by the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act (NAHA, at 42 U.S.C. 12701), and of the Community
Development Plan requirements, added to the CDBG program by NAHA (42
U.S.C. 5304).
The consolidated plan was a result of discussions with local
jurisdictions and community groups all over the United States
representing many different viewpoints. The intent of this rule is to
(1) promote citizen participation and the development of local priority
needs and objectives by providing comprehensive information on the
jurisdiction that is easy to understand; (2) coordinate these statutory
requirements in such a manner as to achieve the purposes of the Acts in
a comprehensive way, while reducing paperwork and minimizing the
federal intrusion into State and local planning activities and to
simplify the process of requesting and obtaining federal funds
available to the jurisdictions on a formula basis; (3) promote the
development of an action plan that provides the basis for assessing
performance; and (4) encourage consultation with public and private
agencies, including those outside a single jurisdiction, to identify
shared needs and solutions. In addition, HUD is providing software for
jurisdictions to facilitate meeting the planning, application and
reporting requirements, helping to move us into the 21st century.
In keeping with this approach, the rule emphasizes the role
citizens and community groups should play in identifying their needs
and recommending actions government should take in addressing those
needs. Thus, the outcome is determined at the level of government
closest to the affected persons. However, to assure that a jurisdiction
does not ignore identified needs, the rule includes the language from
the CHAS instructions to require that the consolidated plan contain a
comparative analysis of the needs identified, and explain how the
jurisdiction determined priority needs and include proposed actions
that address the identified needs.
The proposed rule for the consolidated plan was published on August
5, 1994 (59 FR 40129). During the process of developing both the
proposed and final rule, the Department has indicated its intent to
apply the new rule to Federal Fiscal Year 1995 funding. Therefore,
affected jurisdictions have been in contact with HUD about the
expectations for speedy publication of a final rule that would permit
them to start preparation of this new consolidated plan in time to make
the projected deadlines.
Another proposed rule was published in August of 1994 that would
affect some of the provisions dealing with the CDBG program that are
covered by this rule. That rule, ``Community Development Block Grant
Program: Miscellaneous Amendments to Correct Identified Deficiencies''
(59 FR 41196, August 10, 1994), proposed changes to the citizen
participation process and in treatment of CDBG ``float-funded
activities,'' for example. This rule makes changes covering both of
these topics (discussed below) but leaves other provisions of that
``CDBG miscellaneous amendments'' rule untouched, for final disposition
through that separate rulemaking. In fact, the performance standards
for the certification found in this rule that a jurisdiction is
``following'' its HUD-approved consolidated plan will be included in
that final rule. In light of the emphasis on economic development in
the CDBG program, HUD will shortly issue a final [[Page 1879]] rule on
economic development guidelines for the CDBG program.
A proposed rule on citizen participation for the CDBG Entitlement
program was published on March 28, 1990 (55 FR 11556). This rule
reflects consideration of the public comments on that rule, and
constitutes the final rule for that rulemaking.
III. Public Comments
The proposed rule drew 138 public comments from 38 local
governments or groups representing their interests, 19 States or groups
representing State interests, 62 groups advocating for the interests of
low-income persons, 15 groups advocating for the interests of persons
with disabilities, three professional organizations with no apparent
client constituency, and one individual.
In addition, the Department officials have talked by telephone to
representatives of 19 national groups that had submitted written
comments, to more fully understand their views. These groups are:
National Association for County Community and Economic Development,
Council Of State Community Development Agencies, National Community
Development Association, Local Initiatives Support Corporation,
National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, Housing
Assistance Council, AIDS Council, National Coalition for the Homeless,
Center for Community Change, National Low Income Housing Coalition,
National Alliance to End Homelessness, National Council of State
Housing Agencies, Corporation for Supportive Housing, Enterprise
Foundation, United Cerebral Palsy, Coalition for Low Income Community
Development, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights under Law, National
Association for Developmental Disabilities, and the National Housing
Law Project. Low-income advocates, cities and States often had
diametrically opposing views on the rule.
The general views of the low-income and disability advocacy groups
were that data requirements concerning needs had been removed from the
CHAS to produce the consolidated plan; a stronger linkage between need,
strategy, and action should be required to be stated in the plan;
``worst case'' needs should be addressed on the basis of a ``fair
share'' of the funds to be made available from HUD; the citizen
participation process should be augmented and adequate notice should be
provided for hearings. Many of these concerns apply equally to the CHAS
process as to the consolidated plan. Many low-income advocates also
expressed concern about the requirement making the consolidated plan
applicable for Fiscal Year 1995 funding of the formula programs, with
the short deadlines that this will require for jurisdictions--and the
impact it would have on their clients.
To respond to these concerns, the Department has added a clearer
statement of specific data requirements on needs (including a specific
description of the needs of non-homeless persons with disabilities), a
statement on how the priorities in the strategic plan relate to the
statement of needs, and a clearer statement on how the activities
proposed in the action plan relate to the strategic plan. Citizen
participation has been strengthened in a number of places, including
improved guidelines for providing adequate notice.
The Entitlement communities responded to the rule with diverse
concerns. Some objected to the use of and reporting on ``extremely low-
income'' category particularly with regard to CDBG. Many expressed
concern about the usefulness of estimating needs for community
development facilities in terms of the dollars to address those needs.
Although the term ``extremely low-income'' (0-30 percent) was
retained in the plan, since this category was familiar in the CHAS, the
reporting burden for CDBG has been reduced by requiring reporting on
beneficiaries by income only where income data is required for CDBG
eligibility. Language has been added codifying the field office
authority to grant exceptions and extensions for FY 1995 for good
cause. To meet concerns of these communities that the rule has gone
beyond the statute and become too prescriptive, suggestions for
revisions that would have added significant detail to the plan were
rejected. Other changes to accommodate entitlement community concerns
are to require that the basis be assigned for relative priority to each
category of needs in the strategic plan rather than each separate need;
that flexibility be provided for consortia; that more flexible
amendment language be provided; and that the time period for comments
on performance reports be reduced to 15 days.
A number of States had a particular concern about being required to
implement the plan in FY 1995, particularly those with early program
years. Other States wanted specific guidance on citizen participation
specifically for the States because of their unique situation. They
felt that it was inappropriate to offer technical assistance directly
to low-income groups under the citizen participation plan at the State
level. Several States suggested that HUD and the Department of Health
and Human Services should get together with regard to making estimates
of homeless needs. Several States said that the priority needs tables,
goals, and target dates for completion are too detailed for the States
since they have less degree of control over what actions are taken than
entitlement jurisdictions do. Other States felt that it was unrealistic
that States show how funds were distributed geographically since most
States distributed funds by competition for different categories of
assistance and cannot control geographical distribution.
Most States have been in contact with the appropriate HUD field
office about the timing and content of their submissions for FY 1995.
In most cases, agreement has already been reached on both matters. With
respect to tables, the States are expected to complete the information
to the extent that they are able to do so. The requirement for
information about geographic distribution is included because it is a
CHAS statutory requirement. To the extent that funds are distributed by
competition and a prediction of the ultimate geographic distribution
cannot be made, the State should so indicate. A separate section on
citizen participation has been added that applies just to States. The
Department believes that it is responsive to the comments of the
States, including the request to remove the technical assistance
provision.
In order to provide technical assistance, HUD intends to issue
supplemental guidance on effective ways to undertake consolidated
planning, prepare adequate submissions, and implement subsequent
projects and activities. In addition, the Department will issue
supplemental guidance on various cross-cutting concerns. These include
historic preservation, the role of community based organizations, urban
design and strategic planning, environmental justice, viable
communities and sustainable development.
One comment that was made by both low-income advocates and local
governments was that the status of the guidelines should be clarified.
The commenters noted that the regulations specify the requirements for
the consolidated plan, and the guidelines appear to state the
recommendations for the plan. They asked, ``How closely will grantees
be held to the `recommendations'?''
The Department agrees that this subject needs clarification. The
[[Page 1880]] regulations state the requirements. The guidelines
contain the tables and instructions for data submissions, which
constitute the ``required format'' referenced in the regulations.
Therefore, these tables and instructions are required, but the specific
format may be modified with HUD approval. Other suggestions or
recommendations included in the guidelines are to assist jurisdictions
in the preparation of the plan.
A county and a State complained about the Department's Federalism
Impact discussion. They stated that the rule requires duplication of
effort by State and local governments, since both will be preparing
consolidated plans for their jurisdiction. They argued that
consolidation has resulted in overregulation of previously less
regulated programs. They suggested that the Department seek legislative
change to really streamline the requirements.
The Department believes that there is not much duplication of
effort between State and local consolidated plans, since the State
plans focus on the nonentitlement areas of the State that are not
covered by the consolidated plan of a locality. In creating a new
framework for submissions for the CPD formula grant programs covered, a
few requirements, such as the more detailed citizen participation
requirements, have been applied to programs not previously covered.
However, the consolidation will give governments and citizens the
advantage of looking at the needs to be addressed by HUD programs all
at once. Legislative changes have been sought to combine the McKinney
Act programs, but those changes have not been enacted. Statutory change
is not necessary just to coordinate the submissions for the different
programs.
The following is a section by section summary of comments received
and HUD responses.
Section 91.1 Purpose
This section states the goals of the community development and
planning programs covered by the part and the function of the
consolidated plan. There were four primary areas of comment on the
goals portion (Sec. 91.1(a)) of this section.
First, a low-income advocacy group and the State of Florida took
stands on the Department's attempt to restate and consolidate the
statutory goals of the various programs covered. The low-income
advocacy group praised the broad discussion of goals, while the State
criticized the language as confusing and failing to reflect all the
goals of the covered programs. For example, the State said that the
CDBG goal of eliminating slum and blight is not included. It also
stated that the NAHA goal of increasing the supply of decent housing
that is accessible to job opportunities has been converted to
``provision of jobs accessible to housing affordable to low-income
persons.'' Obviously, the low-income advocacy group recommended
preserving the language, while the State advocated citing the specific
legislative language of goals to be served by the specific programs.
The Department believes that this statement of broad goals is
useful. The language concerning job accessibility mirroring the NAHA
statutory language is included in the paragraph on decent housing,
while the economic development language of the CDBG statute is
reflected in the paragraph on expansion of economic opportunity.
Elimination of slum and blight is implicit in the language of the goals
provision pertaining to improving the safety and livability of
neighborhoods.
Second, several disabilities groups objected to the phrasing of the
goals section on supportive housing, stating that it is potentially
stigmatizing, because it assumes that all persons with special needs
require housing with special features, unlike other housing that exists
in the community. The potentially offending section reads ``* * *
Decent housing also includes increasing the supply of supportive
housing, which combines structural features and services needed to
enable persons with special needs to live with dignity and
independence.'' These commenters suggested modifying the sentence to
read ``* * * Decent housing also includes increasing the supply of
housing, which may or may not require certain unique structural
features and which can be linked to on-site or community based services
desired by persons with special needs.''
The Department does not disagree with the point that many disabled
persons may require housing which does not need structural
modifications. Jurisdictions are free to provide such housing for
persons with disabilities. However, the statement of purpose on this
item was taken directly from purposes section of the National
Affordability Housing Act, and it is not necessary to change this
statement.
Third, several disability groups advocated changing the language
about ``assisting homeless persons to obtain appropriate housing'' to
include the concept of ``permanent housing.'' The Department agrees
that among the actions taken to address the needs of homeless persons
is providing permanent housing (along with providing emergency and
transitional shelter). Such an approach is part of a total homeless
strategy laid out in the strategic plan. However, to carry out this
plan, it is not necessary to change the statement of purpose to focus
on only one element of this approach. Therefore, the final rule
contains no change in response to this request.
Fourth, several States objected to the impact on them of the
expanded definition of ``suitable living environment'' and ``economic
opportunity'' found in the goals section. They indicated that the
requirement that the State's short and long term goals ``must be
developed in accordance with the statutory goals described in
Sec. 91.1'' puts greater emphasis on these goals than is desirable,
from their point of view. They also note that the goals emphasize low-
income housing and the effort to tie public facility and economic
development activities to low income and public housing, while
objectives set forth in the CDBG statute are missing. States indicated
that the emphasis on expanding economic opportunity including job
creation creates a linkage to community development that is often made
at the local level rather than being imposed from the State. States
will explore these new linkages in community building, but where such
linkages are not appropriate or possible, neither the State nor its
grantees should be penalized.
The description of what is meant by expanded economic opportunity
is consistent with the current CDBG program requirements for States at
Sec. 570.483(b)(4). This language should not limit grantees'
flexibility, and therefore, it is not being changed in the final rule.
Section 91.5 Definitions
a. Income Categories
The proposed rule used the terms ``very low-income household'' and
``low-income household'' for the households traditionally identified in
the CDBG program as ``low-income households'' and ``moderate-income
households.'' This change drew two types of comments. First, a State
pointed out that a CDBG proposed rule published on August 10, 1994 used
the traditional CDBG terms, and the two rules should be consistent.
Second, a city, county, and a professional organization of government
CDBG administrators, recommended that the consolidated plan rule should
use the terms traditionally used in the CDBG program. They argued that
to do otherwise is damaging to the perception of the program in cities
that are [[Page 1881]] struggling to keep income balance in their
community, whose citizens are more willing to see CDBG funds devoted to
income groups that appear to be more inclusive of average families.
The Department believes that the consolidated plan must use uniform
definitions of income categories for all programs covered by the plan.
The terms chosen in the proposed rule (as in the CHAS) were drawn from
the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, which created
the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (that is applicable to
all the CPD formula grant programs) and the HOME program. However, we
believe that the comments have merit. Therefore, this final rule
returns to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 terms:
``low-income'' (does not exceed 50 percent of median income) and
``moderate-income'' (does not exceed 80 percent of median income). This
rule adds a new term ``middle income'' to encompass the group described
as ``moderate income'' in the proposed rule, to fulfill the
responsibility under the CHAS statute to consider affordable housing
needs for this category of families and to include impact on them in
the performance report.
The ``extremely low-income'' category of 0-30 percent of median
income was praised by low-income advocacy groups and some States, while
local jurisdictions and some States took issue with its addition to the
evaluation of needs and performance reports as not statutorily required
and too burdensome.
The purpose of including this income category is to assure that
jurisdictions consider the needs of the households that have the least
ability to improve their access to affordable housing on their own. It
is a category that was addressed in the CHAS tables and there was much
support from low-income advocates for its use in the consolidated plan.
The data for the needs assessment is census data provided by HUD
that has been used under the CHAS rule. The data for the performance
report is similarly available. To accommodate the concern about data
availability, the language has been changed to require reporting on the
number of extremely-low, low-, moderate-income, and middle-income
persons served by each activity only where information on income by
family size is required to determine the eligibility of the activity.
b. Definitions of Terms That Were in the CHAS
Two local jurisdictions stated that the rule should contain
definitions for terms that are used in Sec. 91.205(b) of the rule--
moderate income, elderly, large family, cost burden, and severe cost
burden--and which were defined in the CHAS rule. An advocate for low-
income households stated that the rule needs definitions for additional
terms: assisted family, disabled family, federal preference, and
overcrowding. These definitions are needed to define ``worst case''
housing needs, which another low-income advocacy group wanted included
in the defined terms. (``Worst case needs'' was a term defined only in
the CHAS guidelines; it was not a term found in the CHAS rule.)
The terms mentioned above that are essential to the consolidated
plan rule are being added in the final rule. Those terms are ``moderate
income,'' ``elderly person,'' ``person with disability,'' ``large
family,'' ``cost burden,'' ``severe cost burden,'' and
``overcrowding.'' The last three terms are derived from the census, and
the definitions used in the rule are, therefore, those of the census.
The other definitions being added follow the definitions provided for
those terms in the CHAS rule.
One disability group advocate urged HUD to adopt the definition of
``persons with disabilities'' used in the Americans with Disabilities
Act. The definition used in the CHAS rule is consistent with the one
required for use in the assisted housing programs. The Department sees
no reason to abandon this definition.
The terms ``assisted family,'' ``federal preference,'' and ``worst
case'' are not being used in the rule, and therefore no definitions for
them are needed.
c. Homeless
Legal service agencies, homeless and low-income advocates, and
various disability and public interest organizations were concerned
that the rule's definition of ``homeless'' was not identical to the
definition of that term in the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance
Act. The definition requires the individual or family to both lack ``a
fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and [have] a primary
nighttime residence that is [a supervised emergency shelter]; * * * an
institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals
intended to be institutionalized; or a * * * place not designed for, or
ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human
beings.'' The commenters argued that the McKinney Act defines a
homeless individual as either one who lacks a fixed, regular, and
adequate nighttime residence or one whose primary nighttime residence
is one of the three described types. Their point seems to be that
families that are overcrowded, because more than one original family
unit resides in a housing unit intended for one, should be considered
``homeless.''
The Department agrees that the definition used in this rule should
be essentially the same as the definition in the McKinney Act. This
change does not, however, signal that the Department is altering its
position that the definition must read within the context of the
findings and purpose section of the McKinney Act. It is clear to the
Department that the McKinney Act was enacted in 1987 to assist the
rapidly growing numbers of persons living on the streets and in
shelters. It was not enacted for the purpose of assisting the
substantially larger number of persons who unfortunately live in
substandard housing or with others in so-called doubled-up arrangements
because of the problem of a lack of affordable housing. The latter
problems have been the subject of legislation since 1934, and the
Department administers many programs designed to address these
problems. Persons living in substandard housing or in doubled-up
arrangements are not homeless, although they may be at high risk of
becoming homeless. Although the Department is not changing the core
definition of homelessness in the McKinney Act, it should be noted that
the prevention of homelessness is an essential part of a larger
homeless program and the homeless plan includes actions to help low-
income families avoid becoming homeless. This would include persons who
are precariously housed.
The Department does believe that the wording of the definition for
``homeless family'' in the proposed rule was confusing. Therefore, the
definition has been renamed ``homeless family with children,'' and the
language has been clarified.
d. Other Definitions
A local jurisdiction pointed out that the definition of
``consolidated plan'' indicates that it is a document submitted
annually. Only parts of it are submitted annually--the action plan and
the certifications. The Department agrees that the definition of
consolidated plan needs to be clarified so that it does not appear that
every element must be submitted annually. A modification of the
proposed language [[Page 1882]] that adds references to provisions of
the rule has been adopted in the final rule.
Local and State governments suggested that the definitions of
income categories need to be clarified with respect to whether they
apply to ``household'' or ``family.'' The terms seem to be used
interchangeably, although they have distinct demographic meanings
resulting in different median incomes.
The final rule defines the income categories in terms of
``family''. For planning purposes, the definition HUD uses for that
term in its assisted housing programs is used in this rule (in
accordance with the definition that is adopted by the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act). The connection between data supplied
by the Census, which uses a different definition of ``family'', is
explained in the Guidelines. The individual program definitions govern
the actual use of the funds and reporting on beneficiaries.
The District of Columbia points out that the definition of
``State'' includes the District of Columbia and the definition ``unit
of general local government'' excludes the District of Columbia;
however, the District is defined as an entitlement jurisdiction (local
government) for purposes of the CDBG and ESG programs. These
definitions should not adversely impact grant allocations or
application requirements. The final rule removes reference to the
District of Columbia from the definitions, and adds a new section to
the rule to specify consolidated plan requirements for the District of
Columbia.
A State suggests that the definition of ``jurisdiction'' should be
clarified to assure that it includes only those jurisdictions receiving
funds directly from HUD. It states that the rule, as written, appears
to apply directly to the units of general local government that are
State recipients of HOME and CDBG funds. The applicability section,
Sec. 91.2(b), states that ``[a] jurisdiction must have a consolidated
plan that is approved by HUD as a prerequisite to receiving funds from
HUD under the following programs. * * *.'' The provision does not state
that a jurisdiction must have such a plan in order to receive funds
from a State. However, the section has been revised to clarify its
applicability rather than to revise the definition of ``jurisdiction.''
Section 91.10 Program Year
Representatives of county officials and local governments commented
on the requirement that a jurisdiction must have one program year for
all four of its CPD formula programs. One city praised this change as
``a positive step in streamlining the application process.'' It went on
to say that the flexibility of permitting the jurisdiction to select
this program year also is beneficial. On the other hand, an
organization of county officials stated that the change of program year
will cause additional administrative costs. It proposed that HUD permit
waiver of the cap on administrative costs in the first year under this
rule to accommodate the additional cost of changing program years.
The administrative cap is statutory.
Section 91.15 Submission date
One concern of States, local governments, disability group
advocates, and low-income advocates was the timing of the deadline for
submission of the first consolidated plan. The proposed rule states
that the consolidated plan must be submitted to HUD ``at least 45 days
before the start of its program year.'' Since the Department has made
it known that it plans to implement the rule for Federal Fiscal Year
1995 funds, many commenters have indicated that there is insufficient
time before the required submission date to comply with the process
required under the rule. More specifically, they indicate that the
stated submission deadlines do not provide for the negotiation of
exceptions to a jurisdiction's implementation of the consolidated plan
for FY 1995, as expected.
Several alternatives were suggested: (1) Delay implementation until
FY 1996 or make implementation optional in FY 1995; (2) implement the
new rule by a demonstration, giving incentive grants to several
jurisdictions to gain experience with the process; (3) start
implementation with jurisdictions that have a program year beginning
180 days following the effective date of the rule; or (4) give explicit
authority in the rule to HUD field offices to provide exceptions to the
submission deadline where they are warranted. One large city commented
that it is pleased with the apparent expanded role of local HUD offices
in granting exceptions and would like the criteria for their action to
be stated in the final rule.
The Department has chosen option number 4. The rule has been
revised to add a provision, Sec. 91.20, that explicitly authorizes HUD
field offices to grant three types of exceptions: from the requirement
to submit all or part of the consolidated plan in FY 1995 (and permit
submission of a CHAS annual update plus the individual program
submissions), from the deadline for submission, and from the
guidelines. Exceptions to requirements found in the guidelines require
that no statutory or regulatory requirements may be overridden and that
there must be a finding of good cause by the HUD field office,
documented by sending written memoranda periodically to HUD
Headquarters stating the authorized exception and the basis for the
exception.
Commenters who suggested option number 4 commended HUD for
empowering its field offices, a change that will allow local HUD staff
to more effectively coordinate the process to accommodate local needs.
One commenter recommended that the exception provision state what steps
must be taken by a jurisdiction in order to request an exception. The
rule does not deal with the procedure in this level of detail. However,
any interested jurisdiction should contact its HUD field office for the
specific information to be contained in a particular request.
Many States have been in contact with their HUD field offices and
have worked out agreed upon schedules for complying with the
requirements of this rule. It is anticipated that most jurisdictions
will work out arrangements that are mutually agreeable for the
submission of a consolidated plan that comes close to that envisioned
in this rule for this fiscal year.
Another deadline stated in the proposed rule (Sec. 91.15(a)(2)) is
the date required by the CDBG statute: ``Failure to submit the plan by
August 16 will automatically result in a loss of the CDBG funds to
which the jurisdiction would otherwise be entitled.'' State, county and
local government entities stated that this provision does not appear to
encompass the flexibility expected from HUD, based on discussions with
HUD field office staff. They recommend that the rule allow some
flexibility on HUD's part not to penalize jurisdictions that may have a
bona fide problem in making the complete submission in any given year.
The August 16 date for CDBG submissions has been established
pursuant to section 116(b) of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5316) as the final date for submission of final
statements for each fiscal year.
Section 91.100 Consultation
a. Adjacent Local Governments
Several local governments criticized the proposed rule's
requirement to notify adjacent local governments regarding priority
nonhousing community development needs and [[Page 1883]] suggested that
it should be deleted. On the other hand, two low-income advocates
expressed support for the regulatory section providing that the
jurisdiction should consult with adjacent local governments.
One local government believed the provision on consultation should
be deleted because it is burdensome, particularly for large local
governments which have dozens of adjacent local governments. The needs
of its own residents are overwhelming and will use all available
resources. Consultation with adjacent local governments would
unreasonably raise expectations for services and assistance.
Another local government wanted clarification regarding whether
consultation with local governments is required or optional and the
subject of the consultation. Another local government said the language
regarding notification and consultation is vague and the purpose to be
served by ``notifying'' another jurisdiction is unclear.
The consultation provision with respect to adjacent local
governments is statutorily required. The CDBG statute (section
104(m)(2)(A)) of the HCDA (42 U.S.C. 5304(m)) states, that in preparing
the community development plan (``CD plan'') describing the
jurisdiction's priority nonhousing community development needs, the
jurisdiction must, ``to the extent practicable, notify adjacent units
of general local government and solicit the views of citizens on
[these] needs.'' The following paragraph of the statute requires
submission of the CD plan to the State or any other unit of general
local government within which the jurisdiction is located, as well as
to HUD.
From the statutory context, the Department presumes that the views
of adjacent jurisdictions are to be welcomed on the validity of the
needs identified by these governments, just as the comments of the
citizens are to be considered. Consultation with adjacent jurisdictions
is not to be assumed to entail taking financial responsibility for
satisfying the needs of the adjacent jurisdictions, but only reflects
the perspective that adjacent jurisdictions may have occasion to know
of needs of their neighbors.
With respect to the burden of notifying a multitude of adjacent
jurisdictions, the rule does not require personal meetings with each
one. The burden of mailing a document that has been prepared by the
jurisdiction to a number of adjacent jurisdictions should be minimal.
An urban county asked for clarification on how this provision
applies to an urban county. If there is no adjacent unit of general
local government, the intergovernmental consultation requirement
requires only submission of the CD plan to the State. (The language
concerning submission of the CD plan to the State was not included in
the proposed rule but has been added to the section in this final
rule.)
Two local governments recommended that all jurisdictions in areas
that receive funding under the HOPWA program should assist the
jurisdiction responsible for submitting the HOPWA allocation in the
preparation of its consolidated plan. This is the type of issue that
was intended to be covered by the rule's provision concerning
consultation for problems that go beyond a single jurisdiction, found
in the penultimate sentence of Sec. 91.100(a).
The Department has determined that the provision concerning
consultation for problems and solutions that go beyond a single
jurisdiction should have one more element added: consultation with
``agencies with metropolitan-wide planning responsibilities where they
exist.''
b. Public and Private Service Providers
One county commented that the regulation should recommend, rather
than require, consultation with public and private agencies because the
current CDBG citizen participation process is sufficient to ensure an
open process for citizen participation. On the other side of the issue,
several nonprofit disability advocates commented that the regulation
should mandate, rather than encourage, consultation with public and
private agencies. They suggest that the consultation should be
undertaken at least 30 days before the jurisdiction develops its
proposed consolidated plan.
The CHAS statute (section 105(b)(17), 42 U.S.C. 12705(b)(17))
requires a jurisdiction to consult with public and private agencies
concerning programs and services to be provided in accordance with the
housing strategy. Consequently, the proposed rule required such
consultation. Section 91.100(a) provides: ``When preparing the plan,
the jurisdiction shall consult with other public and private agencies
that provide assisted housing, health services, and social services
(including those focusing on services to children, elderly persons,
persons with disabilities--including HIV/AIDS, homeless persons) during
preparation of the plan.'' However, the Department does not want to
prescribe the precise timetable for these consultations. Presumably,
the consultation will take place well in advance of the jurisdiction's
submission of its proposed consolidated plan.
Homeless and low-income advocates recommended that the regulation
specifically mention consultation with specific entities. Most of the
suggested groups are already included in the categories stated in the
proposed rule. In addition, as residents, any persons not contacted as
part of the consultation process will receive notice of and have the
opportunity to participate in the development of the consolidated plan
as part of the citizen participation process, described in Sec. 91.105.
In fact, residents in public and assisted housing developments are
specifically mentioned in paragraph (a)(3) of that section. The
Department believes it is unnecessary to lengthen the list of entities
consulted.
A homeless advocate suggested adding a new paragraph to this
section dealing with consultation on homeless needs. The advocate
wanted the regulation to require the jurisdiction to convene a local
board whose members are appointed by the jurisdiction and a majority of
whom are currently or formerly homeless or nonprofit providers serving
the homeless. The local board would be responsible for completing the
homeless portions of the consolidated plan, which would be submitted to
the jurisdiction for inclusion in the overall plan. The board would be
responsible for considering comments on the homeless portion of the
plan. This proposal may be authorized by legislative change; however,
there is no statutory basis for it now. Elsewhere, the Department is
encouraging communities to establish coordinating boards to carry out a
homeless plan, but it is inappropriate to require it now in this rule.
c. Public Housing Agency
Paragraph (c) of this section of the proposed rule requires the
jurisdiction ``to consult with the local public housing agency
participating in an approved Comprehensive Grant program concerning
consideration of public housing needs and planned Comprehensive Grant
program activities.'' One large housing authority commented that there
should be a mutual exchange of information between the jurisdiction and
the housing authority needed for the housing authority's Comprehensive
Grant Program plan and for the jurisdiction's consolidated plan.
One local government interest group commented that HUD should be
[[Page 1884]] sensitive to the difficulties involved in the requirement
of consultation and interagency coordination, particularly with public
housing authorities over which the jurisdiction has no control. They
recommended that HUD pursue public housing regulation which require
public housing agencies (PHAs) to work with the department of the
jurisdiction that has responsibility for the consolidated plan. One
city commented that the Comprehensive Grant program regulations already
provide for local government cooperation in providing resident program
and services to low-income public housing residents. The proposed rule
contained a change in that regulation (Sec. 968.320) designed to have
exactly the effect suggested by the first commenter.
d. Lead-Based Paint Consultation
The consultation requirement for the portion of the consolidated
plan concerning lead-based paint hazards is to consult with State or
local health or child welfare agencies and ``examine health department
data on the addresses of housing units in which children have been
identified as lead poisoned.'' One city stated that the information it
receives from its health department is related to areas or blocks in
which lead-poisoning cases have been identified, not specific
``addresses,'' due to Privacy Act concerns about making information
available to the public.
The CHAS statute (section 105(e)(2), 42 U.S.C. 12705(e)(2)) is
stated in terms of requiring the jurisdiction to consult with the
agencies and to ``examine existing data related to lead-based paint
hazards and poisonings, including health department data on the
addresses of housing units in which children have been identified as
lead poisoned.'' The statute does not pre-empt the Privacy Act, and the
approach taken in this particular jurisdiction is reasonable. In
addition, neither the statute nor the regulation requires the
jurisdiction to provide data regarding the addresses to the public. The
consolidated plan section for lead-based paint hazards under the
housing needs assessment requires the plan to estimate the number of
housing units that are occupied by low- and moderate-income families
and that contain lead-based paint hazards.
Several low-income advocates point out that the regulation fails to
restate the statutory language concerning consultation for lead-based
paint hazards to examine ``existing data related to lead-based paint
hazards and poisonings,'' although the regulation does include the
statutory language to examine data on the addresses of housing units in
which children have been identified as lead poisoned. The rule has been
revised to include the missing statutory language.
e. Description of the Consultation Process
Disability community and low-income community advocates recommend
that the consolidated plan require a description of the consultation
process and an identification of those who participated in the process.
Such a description is required under the CHAS regulations (Sec. 91.15,
as published on September 1, 1992). The rule has been revised to
include such a provision.
Section 91.105 Citizen Participation (``CP'') Plan
a. General
An urban county recommends that a section be added for urban county
programs, enabling urban counties to complete a consortium-wide citizen
participation plan, instead of a separate plan for each municipality.
No change is needed. An urban county is the jurisdiction, and the
regulation requires only one citizen participation plan for the
jurisdiction.
One State commented that the regulation is not clear regarding what
is applicable or required for State governments. The regulation seems
to impose additional requirements for the planning process over and
above CDBG requirements. The State believes that in the CDBG program,
the State passes citizen participation requirements to local
governments, which actually propose and carry out activities. It
comments that the requirements imposed by the proposed rule are
excessive and impractical at the State level.
Two States and two State interest groups commented that the
guidelines indicate that States do not have to provide a detailed
citizen participation plan for citizens, but must have such a plan for
units of general local government. The regulations detail a laundry
list of requirements and do not mention the fact that States are exempt
from this requirement. Clarification is needed.
One State agency commented that it would be difficult to implement
the regulatory provision that encourages the participation of all
citizens, including minorities, non-English speaking persons, and
persons with disabilities. The State action plan does not require the
State to identify the geographic areas within the state that will
receive funds or the specific activities to be funded. Therefore, such
participation would be required by every potentially involved
geographic area of the state and every potentially affected population.
The agency suggested that the rule permit States to develop citizen
participation plans that include participation of citizens and groups
representative of potentially affected geographic areas (i.e., rural,
urban and/or suburban) or potentially affected populations.
Two State agencies commented on the provision requiring the
jurisdiction to provide information to the public housing agency about
housing and community development plan activities related to its
development and surrounding communities, so the housing agency can make
this information available at the public hearing required under the
Comprehensive Grant program. One State said that the provision does not
make sense for States and should not apply to States. Another State
explained that it does not currently have ties with every public
housing authority throughout the State, although it is developing these
relationships.
A citizen participation process is statutorily required for the
CDBG program and the CHAS. Under the CDBG program, citizen
participation requirements are imposed by the statute for both the
State and the local governments. The rule has been revised to have a
separate section on the citizen participation plan for States, which
takes into account the unique situation of States, eliminating the
requirement that information be furnished to the public housing agency
for its use in developing its Comprehensive Grant program.
One local government thought that this section was extremely
confusing; it is not clear whether hearings and comments pertain to the
citizen participation plan, the consolidated plan, or both. The
Department agrees that the language needs to be more precise. This
section has been reorganized and clarified.
Low-income advocates commented that HUD should give clear and
precise minimum standards to jurisdictions in terms of time periods for
each step in the process and the type of notice, in order to avoid
confusion as to whether or not the jurisdiction is complying with HUD's
purpose and to ensure meaningful citizen participation. Expressing a
different point of view, one local government commented that the
requirement for more citizen and agency participation may complicate an
already lengthy consultative process. This local government already has
a nine month process to include citizens and agencies in determining
the elements of the CDBG application; adding components
[[Page 1885]] could significantly slow down an already unwieldy
process. On balance, the Department has decided not to prescribe
additional detailed minimums for all elements, since that would reduce
the flexibility of the jurisdictions. It is up to the jurisdictions to
adopt a detailed citizen participation plan (with citizen input) that
fits local conditions.
The Department notes that the statutes require more extensive
citizen participation for the proposed CHAS/final statement/
consolidated plan than for amendments and reports, which only require
notice and an opportunity to comment. The final rule has been revised
to distinguish the citizen participation required for the consolidated
plan from the citizen participation required for reports and
amendments.
One local government requested that the rule address the citizen
participation process in a jurisdiction where separate agencies
administer homeless services and housing services. The city would like
to be able to continue to use two separate citizen participation
processes and to incorporate the homeless plan into the consolidated
plan. The Department believes that two separate processes would hinder
a key premise of the consolidated plan, i.e., to require the
jurisdiction to comprehensively consider and address the housing and
community development needs of all persons within the jurisdiction.
b. Applicability
This section of the regulation requires the jurisdiction to adopt a
citizen participation plan for the consolidated plan process before a
jurisdiction's start of the next program year. The rule also provides
that any amendment of a jurisdiction's current citizen participation
plan for the CDBG program to satisfy these requirements must be
completed before the beginning of the program year, if it starts on or
after 180 days after the effectiveness of the final rule.
Several low-income and disability community advocates recommended
that the regulation must clearly provide that the citizen participation
plan must be adopted by the jurisdiction before the development of the
proposed consolidated plan, and the plan must describe the
jurisdiction's specific efforts to ensure participation of housing
consumers, including people with mental retardation and other
disabilities and their advocates. One individual commenter stated that
the new citizen participation plan must be adopted as soon as possible,
not after the initial consolidated submission is submitted.
Since the Department is eager to implement the consolidated plan
expeditiously, the rule does not require that the citizen participation
plan be developed, approved, and used, before any consolidated planning
process begins. It merely requires that the citizen participation plan
be completed, in accordance with this rule, before the first program
year under the consolidated plan begins. In the first year, the
jurisdiction must follow the substance of the citizen participation
plan requirements, but it does not have to have a written citizen
participation plan that follows the specific provisions of Sec. 91.105
if its program year starts within 180 days of the effective date of the
rule. In the following years, the new written citizen participation
plan will be used in developing the consolidated plan.
Several disability and low-income community advocates suggested
that the regulation set forth the process for developing and adopting
the citizen participation plan, e.g., publish the citizen participation
plan for comment, require one or more public hearings on the plan,
require a 30 day comment period, and publish the final plan. The
proposed rule's provision requires only a ``reasonable opportunity'' to
comment, not a hearing process. The Department has concluded, after
listening to the suggestions of jurisdictions, that it should not
impose greater procedural requirements on the development of the
citizen participation plan, although we have made a few modifications
to the citizen participation requirements to reflect improved notice to
citizens.
Two local governments commented that it is unclear whether the
citizen participation plan is a specific, written document that must be
submitted for approval, or whether the jurisdiction may merely report
on its activities to meet the requirements of the citizen participation
plan. The regulation suggests a separate document is required, but the
guidelines are unclear. A separate document is required; however, the
citizen plan is not required to be submitted to HUD. The requirement
for a citizen participation plan came from the CDBG statute.
c. Affected Citizens
Several disability and low-income community advocates requested
that the regulation state that the plan must ``provide for'', not just
``encourage'', participation by residents of low and moderate income
neighborhoods. They also wanted the word ``although'' stricken from the
beginning of paragraph (a)(2) because it diminishes the importance of
the first part of the sentence. These changes have been made.
Several low-income community advocates supported the regulatory
language encouraging the participation by minorities, non-English
speakers, persons with mobility, visual, or hearing impairments, and
public housing residents. One disability community advocate wanted the
language broadened to include ``persons with disabilities,'' not just
those with physical impairments. Although it may be more difficult for
a jurisdiction to determine how to provide for participation of persons
with disabilities other than the physical ones specified, the
Department agrees that the obligation should relate to the whole
category of persons with disabilities. The rule has been revised
accordingly.
Several low-income community advocates said that the regulation
does not sufficiently address the statutory requirement that ``affected
citizens'' must be given a reasonable opportunity to examine the
contents of the proposed consolidated plan and to submit comments. They
want the regulation to state that ``extremely low and very low-income''
people are among those most ``affected.'' They want the regulation to
require the jurisdictions to take additional actions to publicize/give
notice to these affected citizens, e.g., notice should be in the non-
legal section of major daily newspapers, in major non-English
newspapers, and in public service announcements on TV and radio.
The rule is written in terms of all citizens, rather than just
``affected'' citizens. One could certainly argue that all citizens in
the jurisdiction are affected. This comment is just another way of
saying that the citizen participation requirements should be stated in
greater detail. That level of detail will be provided not in this
section of the HUD rule but in the citizen participation plan prepared
by the jurisdiction.
d. Information To Be Provided
This section of the rule requires that, before it adopts a
consolidated plan, a jurisdiction must make available to the public
``information that includes the amount of assistance the jurisdiction
expects to receive and the range of activities that may be undertaken,
including the amount that will benefit persons of low- and moderate-
income and the plans to minimize displacement of persons and to assist
any persons displaced.'' [[Page 1886]]
Fearing that jurisdictions will make this information available the
day before a consolidated plan is adopted, low-income advocates urged
that the regulation specify a time period for the jurisdiction to make
information available to the public. The commenters suggested various
periods of 10 to 30 days before the consolidated plan is prepared, and
at least 30 days or 60 days before the consolidated plan is adopted.
This requirement is derived from both the CDBG statute and the CHAS
statute. Since the Department is not aware of any controversy
concerning the implementation of the CDBG requirement to furnish
information, it declines to impose a time limit in this rule, whose
purpose is to consolidate requirements--not to impose more strict
timeframes on jurisdictions. Again, the jurisdiction's citizen
participation plan is the appropriate place for these timeframes.
Local governments and local government interest groups supported
the regulation for permitting publication of a summary of the proposed
consolidated plan, rather than the entire plan. Low-income and
disability community advocates indicated disapproval of this proposal.
One local government requested that the regulation should list precise
content requirements for the plan summary to avoid lengthy disputes
about what content is acceptable. The Department continues to believe
that publication of a summary of the consolidated plan is more
meaningful to stimulate general interest in the process than
publication of the lengthy and complicated document. However, the rule
is not being revised to specify its precise contents.
Low-income and disability community advocates indicated that the
entire draft consolidated plan, plan amendments, and the performance
reports, must be made available to citizens within a period such as two
working days free of charge. The Department agrees that the documents
needed for public comment must be made available without charge in a
timely fashion. This requirement is being added to the rule.
Low-income advocates want the consolidated plan computer software
to be made available to community-based organizations. They suggested
that one local grassroots organization could be chosen to act as a lead
and to share the software with other such organizations. The software
should also be made available at no or reduced cost to local libraries.
Among the options that HUD is considering at this point are
participating in a number of demonstrations with city-wide low income
coalitions where HUD would provide the software and providing reduced
cost copies of the software to various groups.
One local government asked when the period begins for access to
records and information relating to the jurisdiction's use of program
assistance during the preceding five years. The commenter also said
that the CDBG program only requires records to be maintained for three
years and suggests the regulation be amended to give access to records
for the preceding three years. The current CDBG program regulation
requires records to be maintained for three years after the date of
submission of the performance report in which the specific activity is
reported on for the final time. The CHAS statute requires access to
records regarding assistance received during the preceding five year
period. Blending these provisions to cover all the programs requires
use of the five-year period.
Accordingly, the program regulations are being amended in this rule
to require records to be retained for a longer period than is currently
required. Since performance reports are submitted after the program
year, retention of records for four years after the activity is last
included in a performance report yields a five-year retention period.
For the CDBG program, the retention period has been changed to four
years after the CDBG activity is last included in the performance
report. Since program closeout would occur no earlier than the end of
the program year in which the activity is initiated, retention of
records for four years after closeout yields a five-year retention
period. For programs other than the CDBG program, the retention period
has been changed to four years after closeout.
e. Notice
Some low-income advocates support the requirements in the proposed
regulation for the kind of citizen participation required, but
virtually all of the advocates believe that the regulation fails to
provide sufficient specificity regarding ``publish'' and ``notice'' and
reasonable opportunity to comment.
Suggestions for specific elements to be included in the rule were
the following: how notice is given; what groups and populations must
receive notice; time period for advance notice before issuance of the
draft plan (45 days); and responses provided in draft plan to all oral
and written comments received at or before the first public hearing.
The notice should be in the non-legal section of major daily
newspapers, in major non-English newspapers, and in public service
announcements on TV and radio. The jurisdiction should maintain a
mailing list of interested individuals, nonprofit organizations, low-
income neighborhood organizations, and other interested parties and be
required to send written notice of the opportunity to comment on the
proposed consolidated plan, as well as a copy of the final plan. Copies
also should be available at public and private agencies that provide
assisted housing, health services, and social services. In addition, a
reasonable number of copies are to be provided without charge to
citizens and groups that request a copy.
The Department declines to add all of these elements to the rule.
However, recognizing that citizen notice of hearings is critical to
success of citizen participation, the Department has added language to
indicate that publishing small print notices in the newspaper a few
days before the hearing does not constitute adequate notice. Also, the
examples provided by commenters are excellent examples of how to
provide notice, and they will be included in the Guidelines issued to
assist jurisdictions in implementing the rule.
The proposed rule contained three provisions related to
accessibility of the process to persons with disabilities: the
statement about encouraging the participation in the citizen
participation process in paragraph (a)(2), discussed above, the
statement that accommodations for persons with disabilities must be
made at public hearings in paragraph (b)(5), and the statement about
accessibility of the citizen participation plan in paragraph (c).
Several disability community advocates commented that section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794) requires each jurisdiction to
make the content of the proposed plan available to persons with
disabilities in a form that is accessible to them. Further, they stated
that it is essential that announcements, materials, training sessions,
and hearings related to the plan are accessible to persons with
disabilities.
Several cities asked whether the format accessible to persons with
disabilities had to be available regardless of demand for the format.
Two cities suggested that the regulatory provision for the citizen
participation plan to be made available in a format accessible to
persons with disabilities should be based upon a specific request. One
city based this suggestion on the fact that taped or Braille version of
information had not been requested in [[Page 1887]] the past 20 years.
The rule has been revised to require provision of the materials in
accessible form, upon request.
f. Comment Period
Comments were received about the appropriateness of the 30-day
comment period on the consolidated plan, as well as on the 30-day
comment period for plan amendments and for performance reports. Several
local governments believe that the 30-day comment period for the
consolidated plan is reasonable. Several low-income advocates want the
minimum period for the jurisdiction to receive comment from citizens on
the consolidated plan to be increased from 30 days to 60 days to give
residents more adequate opportunity to research, discuss, and comment
on the proposed consolidated plan.
The opportunity to comment on the consolidated plan derives from
the CHAS statute, section 107(a), which requires that a jurisdiction
provide a reasonable opportunity to examine the content of the proposed
housing strategy and to submit comments on the proposed housing
strategy and from the CDBG statute, section 104(a)(2)(B), which
requires CDBG grantees to provide a reasonable opportunity to examine
the content of the proposed statement of CDBG activities and to submit
comments on the proposed statement. The Department believes the 30-day
period specified in the rule for this process is appropriate,
especially given the comments from both sides of the issue.
Thirty days was stated to be too long and burdensome a comment
period for amendments by several local governments. The commenters
suggested a 15-day comment period for amendments to the plan or suggest
that the regulation not prescribe the period and instead required a
``reasonable period.''
One local government stated the 30 day period for receiving
comments on reports is a new requirement and is infeasible because the
report is due 90 days after the end of the program year and the report
will require information on all the formula programs. Two other local
governments agreed that the requirement for notification and a 30 day
comment period for performance reports is time consuming, redundant,
and should be eliminated. Others suggested a 15-day period for the
performance report or a ``reasonable period.''
A public comment period is required for substantial amendments and
performance reports in accordance with the CHAS statute, section
107(b). Section 91.62 of the current CHAS rule contains this same
requirement. The requirement, therefore, is not totally new, although
jurisdictions may not have been required to submit performance reports
concerning formula grant programs for public comment before submitting
them to HUD.
We note that not all changes in activities constitute a
``substantial amendment'' that will trigger this public comment
process. See the provision that permits the jurisdiction's citizen
participation plan to determine what type of change requires a
substantial amendment.
The final rule has been revised to provide that the comment period
for performance reports is 15 days, instead of 30 days, and the
deadline for submission of the reports is preserved at 90 days after
the end of the program year.
Several low-income community advocates also suggested that the
regulation specify a period between the end of the comment period and
the submission of the plan so that the jurisdiction will be able to
make changes in plan based on citizen comments. Different timeframes
were suggested: at least 10 working days, 30 days. The final rule has
been reorganized so that the provision requiring a minimum 30 day
public comment period also requires that the jurisdiction must consider
the comments. The jurisdictions need to give themselves adequate time
to consider the comments, but the regulation does not prescribe this
time period.
g. Technical Assistance
Paragraph (b)(4) of the proposed rule requires that the citizen
participation plan ``must provide for technical assistance to groups
representative of persons of low- and moderate-income that request such
assistance in developing proposals for funding assistance under any of
the programs covered by the consolidated plan, with the level and type
of assistance determined by the jurisdiction.''
One State and one State interest group asked for clarification of
how this provision would apply to States. They indicated that since
some States do not develop proposals for CDBG and HOME programs, but
instead receive requests from local governments for funds for what they
determine to be their local needs, the States would not be in a
position to provide this type of technical assistance. A local
government wanted clarification regarding whether this requirement is
statutory, and suggested eliminating it if it is not statutorily
required.
This provision comes from the CDBG statute and has applied to the
CDBG State and Entitlement programs since 1988, so it cannot be
eliminated. However, the CDBG rule has applied the requirement to
States via the local governments' citizen participation plans (see
Sec. 570.486(a)(4)). The final rule has been revised to treat it the
same way in the separate States provision on citizen participation.
Two states commented that the regulation is unclear on the extent
of the technical assistance that is to be provided. Government interest
groups and a local government expressed support for the regulation
language, which requires the jurisdiction to determine the level and
type of technical assistance. There is no change to the final rule on
this issue, although more guidance is provided on it in the Guidelines.
Two agencies from one State wanted to know the source of funds to
provide the technical assistance and requested that the regulation
specifically permit federal administrative funds to cover the costs of
providing technical assistance. One low-income advocate also asked
whether funds will be available to jurisdictions to provide this
technical assistance to them. Another State also wanted to know the
extent of any tracking of such assistance that might be required.
Technical assistance is an eligible administrative expense under the
CDBG and HOME programs.
One low-income advocate suggested that technical assistance
available to groups representative of very low and low-income people
should be advertised via mailings to all such groups in the
jurisdiction. Available technical assistance should include written
guidance, telephone contact and one-on-one meetings. Low-income and
disability community advocates want HUD to provide funding to their
organizations to develop materials and training for citizen groups to
allow for meaningful participation. The rule does not prescribe the
forms of technical assistance, but the implementing guidelines will
include suggestions.
h. Public Hearings
Local government interest groups stated that they believe that
public hearings are not the most effective way to obtain citizen views.
One city and low-income advocate recommended neighborhood meetings as
useful in the process. The rule follows the statute in requiring public
hearings, but is open to other forms of involving the public.
[[Page 1888]]
One local government suggested that HUD interpret ``public
hearing'' to mean traditional public hearings, as well as, public
meetings. This would give jurisdictions flexibility to use public
meetings and other public forums to gather citizen comments. Formal
public hearings in local government require city council members to be
present and for comments to be tape recorded. The requirement for
public hearing has been in the CDBG statute for many years, and HUD has
not found it necessary to define what this means. Public hearings are
governed by state and local law.
The question of how many hearings are required and at what point
was raised by a number of commenters. Several local government
representatives read the regulation to require two public hearings
during the plan development process and believe only one should be
required. The low-income advocates commented that the regulation should
require three hearings, instead of two, each program year, indicating
that they believe the CDBG statute requires three hearings. Various
timeframes for these hearings were also suggested.
The proposed rule was based on the requirements of the CDBG
statute, which requires (at 42 U.S.C. 5304(a)(3)((D)) that a
jurisdiction have a citizen participation plan that
Provides for public hearings to obtain citizen views and respond
to proposals and questions at all stages of the community
development program, including at least the development of needs,
the review of proposed activities, and review of program performance
* * *
One local government requested that the regulation clearly say how
many hearings are required and what topics are required to be covered.
In an attempt to give jurisdictions as much flexibility as possible,
the regulation requires a minimum of two public hearings, since the
statutory language uses the plural ``hearings,'' to be conducted at two
different stages of the process. Under this wording, the jurisdiction
may combine the hearing on needs for the coming year's planning with
the hearing on the previous year's performance, for example. However, a
jurisdiction may choose to hold one public hearing on needs, a second
on the draft consolidated plan, and a third on the draft performance
report.
One advocate wanted the regulation to require the hearing on needs
to be expanded to permit citizens the opportunity to respond to
proposals and questions. The rule has been revised to reflect the CDBG
statutory language requiring response to proposals and questions.
The low-income and disability community advocates stated that the
development of needs in the consolidated plan must be based on
determination of housing needs made after public hearings. Several
disability community advocates commented that the timeframes for
citizen participation through the public hearing process do not require
citizen participation in the earliest stages of the consolidated
planning process, when ``worst case'' housing needs can be identified.
They argued that timeframes permitted by the regulation significantly
reduce the likelihood that meaningful housing needs information or
housing strategies will be sought from persons with disabilities,
advocates, or service providers as the consolidated plan is developed.
The rule does require that the hearing on needs be conducted before the
proposed consolidated plan is published.
One nonprofit and several low-income advocates stated that HUD must
assure that meeting places and times are convenient to the persons most
affected by these programs, by providing guidance in the rule. The rule
requires the citizen participation plan to provide that hearings be
held at times and locations convenient to potential and actual
beneficiaries.
A local government interest group commended HUD for not prescribing
how the needs of non-English speaking residents will be met. The rule
does require that the citizen participation plan specify how the
jurisdiction will meet these needs.
Clarification was requested by jurisdictions on whether flexibility
is also permitted to meet the needs of disabled persons. Disability
advocates stated that the physical accessibility of meeting or hearing
sites should be ensured. Since accommodation for persons with
disabilities is required by the CDBG statute (42 U.S.C. 5304(a)(3)(D)),
by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and by
the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101-12213) and
implementing regulations, it does not seem necessary for the rule to
spell out exactly what is required for accommodation in this rule.
i. Comments and Complaints
Local governments and local government interest groups believe that
the requirement to attach a summary of public comments or views and set
forth the reasons for not accepting comments should be eliminated
because it is not statutory, is too burdensome, and creates additional
paperwork. One low income advocate wanted the regulation to require
detailed summaries of comments indicating the number of comments for
each constituency type and responding appropriately to each comment
that was not incorporated into the final version of the consolidated
plan.
Section 107(c) of the CHAS statute, 42 U.S.C. 12707(c), requires
the jurisdiction to consider comments and views and to attach a
summary. Although the statute does not require a discussion of the
consideration of the views/comments, the Department believes that such
a provision strengthens the citizen participation process.
Low-income advocates suggested that the regulation include a time
period from close of the comment period to submission of the
consolidated plan to ensure that the jurisdiction has adequate time to
consider the comments. The Department is reluctant to specify
additional time periods that must be honored, but citizens can
certainly seek addition of this element to a local government's citizen
participation plan.
One large city and one local government interest group commented
that the regulation should not require ``substantive responses'' to
every citizen complaint within 15 days because it is not practicable in
its city to respond to every comment individually within 15 days. HUD
should delete the reference to 15 days in the rule and allow local
control over public response time. The CDBG statute and the
consolidated plan regulation specify the 15 day period, ``where
practicable.''
Several low-income advocates stated that the regulatory requirement
for a timely substantive written response to written complaints is not
sufficient to provide resolution of the complaints. Advocates also
wanted the regulation to set forth an appeals process to HUD on
complaints and on comments on the consolidated plan.
The CDBG statute (section 104)(a)(3)(E)) requires a ``written
answer,'' while the CHAS statute (section 107(d)) requires a
jurisdiction to follow HUD-established ``procedures appropriate and
practicable for providing a fair hearing and timely resolution of
citizen complaints.'' The rule requires each jurisdiction to specify in
its citizen participation plan the procedures it has determined are
``appropriate and practicable'' to resolve complaints. A system
involving an appeal to HUD would not be possible, given the limited
staff available.
One state agency commented that it is unclear whether each
commenter on the consolidated plan is required to be sent an individual
response, separately from [[Page 1889]] the responses that must be
prepared as a part of the consolidated plan document. If so, this would
be burdensome. The provision on responses to complaints was not
intended to cover comments on the consolidated plan. The rule has been
revised to have a separate paragraph for comments and a separate
paragraph for complaints.
j. Criteria for Amendments
One state interest group commented on behalf of a state that the
citizen participation plan is very idealistic and will restrict states'
flexibility to amend individual programs. The regulation requires the
citizen participation plan to specify the criteria that the
jurisdiction will use to determine what constitutes a ``substantial
change'' which necessitates citizen participation to amend the
consolidated plan.
k. Adoption of Citizen Participation Plan
One state commenter believes that HUD presents no rationale for the
provision requiring citizen input on the citizen participation plan and
it exceeds the statute. The state is also concerned that the need to
allow for input on the citizen participation plan will require a much
earlier initiation of actions than may have been contemplated by many
states.
The Department believes that input by citizens and their advocates
is necessary for a meaningful citizen participation plan that will meet
the needs of citizens in the jurisdiction, particularly those who are
the intended beneficiaries of programs covered by the consolidated
plan. The regulation does not require adoption of a new citizen
participation plan each year.
l. Pending CDBG Rule on Citizen Participation
The citizen participation requirements in the consolidated plan
regulation incorporate the citizen participation requirements of the
CDBG program and supersede the pending rulemaking on citizen
participation for the CDBG Entitlement program. In that rulemaking, a
proposed rule was published on March 28, 1990 (55 FR 11556).
Publication of a final CDBG regulation on citizen participation was
delayed primarily by a moratorium on rulemaking.
HUD received comments on citizen participation requirements in the
proposed CDBG program from eight commenters. Some of the comments on
public hearings duplicated comments made on the proposed consolidated
plan regulation and are addressed above. Comments that apply equally to
citizen participation under the consolidated plan have been considered
by HUD in the development of the final consolidated plan regulation as
follows.
Two commenters expressed concern about the proposed requirements
that grantees must provide citizens an opportunity to comment on the
original citizen participation plan and any amendments to the plan, and
must make the plan public. The comments expressed the view that these
requirements were duplicative and would only serve to increase costs of
compliance with little benefit to the objective of public
participation.
The Department disagrees. Because the plan sets forth the detailed
mechanisms for involving citizens in the development and review of the
grantee's CDBG program and consolidated plan, it must certainly be made
public. But it is also important that the citizens, who will be so much
affected by the approaches selected by the grantee for involving them,
be given the opportunity to comment on the development and amendment of
that plan. Although this will be more costly than simply making the
plan public, it is largely a one-time added expense and is fully
justified in light of the importance placed on meaningful involvement
of citizens in the development and review of local CDBG programs and
the consolidated plan.
One of the commenting citizen organizations recommended that the
rule require that hearings be held each time a final statement is
proposed to be amended and that language be added to encourage the use
of hearings for the purpose of enabling citizens to participate in
project design and implementation. Neither of the suggestions was
adopted. The Department believes that to require hearings to discuss
amendments would be very costly, since a grantee could be expected to
have several amendments during a program year. It is also highly
questionable that holding a hearing to discuss an amendment would be
more effective in getting citizen views than the current requirement of
providing citizens the opportunity to comment in writing. It is
reasonable to assume that many citizens would be willing to submit
comments in writing about a proposal but would not be willing or able
to attend a hearing to register those comments.
In a related matter, another commenter recommended the removal of
the requirement that the hearings be held at different times during the
year. This requirement is statutory.
A commenter recommended that the requirement that the grantee
provide ``reasonable'' notice of public hearings be replaced with the
need for providing ``adequate'' notice, noting that the statute had
used the word ``adequate'' for this purpose. The Department believes
that there is little difference between the meaning of the two words in
this application. Accordingly, the final rule uses the word contained
in the statute. The commenter also recommended that the rule set a
standard for ``adequate notice,'' suggesting as a model what the
Department of Treasury has established for small-issue private purpose
industrial revenue bonds. The final rule does not contain such a model,
since HUD believes that each grantee should be given the flexibility to
meet the notice requirement in its own way, describing in its plan how
it will provide adequate notice.
One commenter questioned the inclusion of the requirement that
grantees provide ``timely notice of local meetings'' (other than for
public hearings) in addition to the requirement that they provide
``reasonable and timely access to local meetings, information, and
records * * *''. The commenter noted that the requirement to provide
timely notice went beyond the provision in the statute, and appeared to
require formal legal notices in daily newspapers. Believing this to be
unnecessary and costly, the commenter suggested that the regulation
simply retain the statutory language. This suggestion is adopted in the
final rule.
A large city expressed concern about the need for targeting citizen
participation to low- and moderate-income persons residing in certain
areas. This requirement is statutory and cannot be removed from the
rule. This commenter also objected to the requirement that the citizen
participation plan contain information on the types and levels of
assistance to be provided to persons who may be displaced by CDBG-
assisted activities. It was noted that this information is already
required to be made public and the need to duplicate it in another
document would be costly. The regulations do not duplicate requirements
concerning plans for displacement. Instead, the citizen participation
requirements in the proposed CDBG regulation and in the consolidated
plan regulation combine all citizen participation requirements,
including the requirement the plan for displacement, into a single
citizen participation plan.
One of the citizen organizations suggested that grantees be
required to [[Page 1890]] maintain all of the key CDBG materials
together in several locations throughout the community to make it
easier for citizens to involve themselves in the program. HUD is
unwilling to require this of all grantees, but notes that local citizen
groups having particular problems in this regard may want to press
their grantee to do this on a voluntary basis.
One commenter recommended that grantees be required to identify the
amount of ``unexpended'' funds allocated in previous years at the time
it provides information to citizens about the amount of CDBG funds
available in the coming year. The expressed objectives of this
suggestion were that it would help citizens identify problem areas
(presumably with performance) and would highlight that certain needs
will not have to be addressed in the coming year's program because of
earlier allocation decisions.
The Department does not believe that such a change would be
appropriate, since the rule already requires sufficient disclosure of
performance. (The rule requires that performance be covered at a public
hearing and that the grantee's performance report be subjected to
public review and comment.)
Section 91.205 Housing and homeless needs assessment
a. Categories of Persons Affected
Numerous low-income and disability community advocates commented
that the proposed rule does not require the level of detail on
subpopulations that was required in the CHAS Table 1C. They argue that
this information is essential to illustrate the needs of special
populations. A disability group advocate indicates that the rule fails
to create a comprehensive, inclusive and detailed needs analysis for
programs that address the needs of persons living with HIV/AIDS. The
commenter states that all jurisdictions are likely to be affected by
the HIV epidemic and should have a needs assessment for residents in
their areas who are living with HIV/AIDS, even if they are not seeking
funds under the HOPWA program.
The low-income advocates also note that the proposed rule does not
require that the needs of single, non-elderly or households of
nonrelated individuals be identified. Also missing is the requirement
to identify needs of nonhomeless people with disabilities, especially
those with AIDS.
The Department has revised the rule to specify that the needs must
be estimated for the number and type of families by income groups and
tenure. The requirement now includes specific reference to single
persons. Nonelderly persons presumably fall into the general categories
of persons whose needs are identified. Households of nonrelated
individuals are covered by the HUD definitions.
Nonhomeless people with special needs are now the subject of a
separate paragraph (d) in Sec. 91.205. This category covers elderly,
frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical
developmental), persons with alcohol or other drug addiction, persons
with HIV/AIDS and their families, and any other categories the
jurisdiction may specify.
We note that with regard to identification of special needs
populations, the use of HOME tenant-based rental assistance to be used
exclusively for assistance to one subpopulation of the disabled will
only be permitted if the grantee can demonstrate that (1) the need has
been documented in its consolidated plan, and (2) the reason for their
preferential treatment is to narrow the gap in available benefits and
services to the group. Therefore, this element is essential to the
consolidated plan.
The Department declines to require all the information contained in
CHAS Table 1C, because that would be contrary to our efforts to avoid
unnecessary requirements and detailed tables. However, we have
attempted to assure that the categories of special need to be served by
the Department's programs are adequately addressed in the assessment of
need.
Low-income advocates also stated that an indicator of need which
should be included is analysis of the public housing and Section 8
waiting lists. We are including this suggestion in the implementing
Guidelines.
Several public interest groups and local government commenters
questioned the requirement to collect data on ``extremely low-income''
families, indicating that this information was not statutorily
required, not required by the four grant programs included in the
proposed rule for targeting program assistance, and not required in the
past. As described above in the discussion of definitions, the term
``extremely low-income'' has been preserved in the final rule.
b. Disproportionate Need
Two local governments disagreed with the methodology on
disproportionate need, indicating that it should be weighted for
population size. Several low-income advocacy commenters thought the
approach was excellent. The Department is preserving the language on
calculation of disproportionate need from the proposed rule.
c. Lead-Based Paint Hazards
Several local government commenters requested that they not be
required to provide data on lead-based paint hazards, since it was not
easily available. One local government commenter suggested a rough
analysis between Census data on pre-1970 housing and low-income
occupancy data as a way to yield a pool of units likely to have some of
lead-based paint.
The requirement to provide this information is statutory. The
commenter's suggestion for a method to estimate the scope of hazard is
not unreasonable. However, the consultation section (Sec. 91.100) does
require consultation with local health and child welfare agencies and
examination of health department data on this subject in the
preparation of the consolidated plan.
d. Homeless
Several low-income advocates and disability community advocates
complained about the deletion of the CHAS rule's more detailed homeless
needs assessment. Commenters indicated that the rule should spell out
in detail the data required to be submitted. The proposed rule requires
that a homeless needs table be included in the plan that is prescribed
by HUD. This follows the statutory language. The final rule preserves
this provision intact.
e. Racial Impact
A number of low-income advocates stated that racial impact should
be addressed in the needs assessment. In fact, several groups advocated
that if this rule were implemented without the anticipated Fair Housing
Plan rule it should contain consideration of racial impact in every
element of the consolidated plan.
The Department has decided to deal with the more comprehensive
issue of a Fair Housing Plan in a separate proposed rule, which is
expected to be published shortly. To assure that some minimal
requirements for compliance with the statutorily required certification
that a jurisdiction is affirmatively furthering fair housing, this rule
includes, in the certification section, the requirement that an
analysis of impediments be done and that the steps to address the
impediments be described, mirroring the language added to the CDBG
regulations on the same subject. In addition, the performance report
now includes for all programs the element of data on race and ethnicity
of beneficiaries. [[Page 1891]]
Section 91.210 Housing Market Analysis
a. General Characteristics
A few low-income advocates suggested that a description of housing
stock be related to income, race and neighborhoods and ranked as
housing needs are. The language of the rule does require the
description to relate to income, race, and neighborhoods. Since this
section does not deal with needs, but with the available stock, ranking
would be inappropriate.
There were several comments on redundancy between what must be
reported in the market analysis section and what must be reported in
the strategy, especially on coordination, institutional structure and
barriers to affordable housing. The final rule has been revised by
consolidating the provisions on coordination and institutional
structure with the provisions on the same subject in the strategy
section. However, the provision on barriers to affordable housing is
seen as necessary to an analysis of the housing market and have been
retained in this section.
Two commenters suggested that a description of the housing market
should include information on vacancy rates and the availability of
credit. Such language is not being added to the rule, but it will be
included in the implementing Guidelines.
Local definitions of areas of low-income and minority
concentrations may be inconsistent with the fair housing rule once it
is published, local government commenters suggested. They requested the
ability to choose either local or HUD's definitions. This rule will
permit local definitions. However, when the Fair Housing Plan rule is
published as a final rule, it will prescribe use of its definitions for
this purpose.
One low-income advocacy commenter suggested that a city should be
required to assess whether it has sufficient sites to meet the low-
income housing needs in its community. The consolidated plan rule is
not being expanded to require this assessment in this section. However,
the Department does plan to address the question of site selection in a
later proposed rule.
b. Public and Assisted Housing
Eight disability community advocates indicated that jurisdictions
must assess the loss of public housing units which will occur because
of the implementation of Title VI of Housing and Community Development
Act of 1992. They recommended that an analysis of these issues be
required by reviewing the PHA's allocation plan and identifying the
number of units lost to persons with disabilities. The provision to
which the commenters refer is the provision that permits public housing
and Section 8 housing projects to be designated for only elderly
families, only disabled families, or for either. The Department is
considering how to encourage balancing the resources available for
these different groups. If special funding is announced to further this
end, applicants will need to supply such information.
c. Barriers to Affordable Housing
Several local government and government interest group commenters
objected to the provision requiring cities to identify public policies
that affect the cost or incentive to develop affordable housing. They
should not be required to do a self-analysis but only relate criticisms
they have received. Cities suggested that they be required to list
Federal policies that create barriers.
This element is statutorily required, so it has not been
eliminated. The Department believes that listing of Federal policies in
this part of the local plan is not appropriate. However, HUD will work
with localities to assess the impact of HUD policies separately.
Section 91.215 Strategies, Priority Needs, and Objectives
a. General
The majority of low-income and disability community advocates
recommended inclusion of the link between needs and priorities, with
the worst case needs being given the highest priority. Several
commenters wanted to restore the comparative analysis required by the
CHAS at 91.19(b)(1), matching housing inventory with severity of needs
and types of housing problems of each priority category. Some
recommended that the rule require that a jurisdiction commit to
providing a ``fair share'' of its resources to meet the ``worst case''
needs.
The Department agrees with the low-income and disability community
advocates that the strategy must explain how the priorities have been
established and how the strategic plan addresses the needs identified
in the needs assessment. The rule has been strengthened to require a
comparative analysis of the severity of housing problems and needs of
extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income renters and
owners. The rationale for establishing the priorities and determining
the relative priorities should flow logically from this analysis. The
title of the section has been revised to ``Strategic Plan'' to
emphasize the cohesive nature of this section of the document.
The Department declines, however, the suggestion to adopt a ``fair
share'' approach. The Department's goal for this rule is to provide the
framework for communities to have meaningful plans, serving low-income
families. The Department does not want to substitute its judgment for
locally developed plans and priorities framed through a strong citizen
participation process.
However, by establishing a stronger rationale for relating
priorities to needs, the Department hopes to discourage such situations
as the following: A major city identified a large need for housing by
low-income groups and homeless persons and proposed actions to address
these needs. Then the city council overturned these proposals and built
a high profile ``trophy'' project which completely ignored those needs.
Several commenters were critical about the level of detail which
seems to be required about specific objectives at 91.215(a)(2). This
section seems to require localities to quantify and geographically
locate Federal grant budget resources for a 3 to 5 year period in the
consolidated plan. They claimed this level of specificity is only
practical for an annual plan. There was a fear that a listing of
projects would preclude the funding of other worthwhile projects not on
the list.
The burden of the analysis has been decreased by focusing the
discussion of the basis for assigning the relative priority given to
priority needs by category of priority needs instead of by each
priority need. In addition, the information is to be provided for a
specific period of time, which is determined by the jurisdiction.
Some low-income and disability advocacy groups have argued that
priority needs of non-homeless persons with disabilities should be
added. The Department agrees. A separate section on this group has been
added.
b. Affordable Housing
Several low-income advocacy commenters wanted the Department to
require jurisdictions to address the proposed availability of
affordable housing for each income group, especially extremely low-
income, very low-income and low-income (as these terms were used in the
proposed rule), and to define affordable housing as housing for which a
low-income family pays less than 30 percent of income. The Department
agrees, and the rule has been revised accordingly to more closely
approximate what was in the CHAS. It requires specific housing
[[Page 1892]] objectives that identify the number of extremely low-,
low-, and moderate-income families (using the revised terminology) to
whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing.
c. Community Development
Several low-income advocates recommended that needs of extremely
low-, very low- and low-income people be expressly addressed in the CD
plan. One commenter suggested that this discussion of needs belongs in
Sec. 91.205 with the discussion of housing and homeless needs. Since
there is a statutory requirement for a discussion of priority
nonhousing community development needs, the Department is keeping the
CD plan as a part of the strategy, and not part of the housing and
homeless needs description. The Department agrees that the needs of
these income groups need to be discussed in this plan, and language
referring to the statutory goal of serving these income groups has been
added to the paragraph on the CD plan.
In addition, language has been added indicating that jurisdictions
may elect to develop a neighborhood revitalization strategy that
includes the economic empowerment of area residents. HUD is willing to
provide greater flexibility in program rules governing the use of CDBG
funds for jurisdictions that develop such a strategy, in accordance
with rule changes being made in another pending rulemaking. Approval of
the consolidated plan does not imply approval of a neighborhood
revitalization strategy proposal. A jurisdiction's neighborhood
revitalization strategy must provide that the area selected is
primarily residential and contains a percentage of low-income and
moderate-income residents that is no less than 51 percent. In addition,
the jurisdiction should consider the following:
(1) Developing the strategy in consultation with the area's
stakeholders, including residents, owners/operators of businesses and
financial institutions, non-profit organizations, and community groups
that are in or serve the area(s);
(2) Including an assessment of the economic situation in the area
and examination of economic development improvement opportunities and
problems;
(3) Developing a realistic development strategy and implementation
plan to promote the area's economic progress;
(4) Focusing on activities to create meaningful jobs for the
unemployed and low-income people in the area as well as activities to
promote the substantial revitalization of the area(s); and
(5) Identifying the results expected to be achieved, expressing
them in terms that are readily measurable.
With respect to the proposed rule, local governments commented that
the information required in the table prescribed by HUD to describe the
jurisdiction's priority nonhousing community development needs eligible
for assistance in dollar amounts is not very useful, only raises
expectations concerning infrastructure needs that cannot be met, and is
very difficult to cost out. Low-income advocates commented that there
is too little information in this section compared to the housing
section.
It is clear that Congress wanted data that could be aggregated
nationally. The key to the table is ``priority needs'' and those
covered in the table are to be those activities that are eligible for
CDBG assistance. All needs do not have to be covered. Further, it is
not difficult to estimate the dollar amounts when linear or square feet
for facilities are known and the average cost per that unit of measure
is known. The guidelines will be clarified on this point.
d. Barriers to Affordable Housing
One commenter requested that the rule state that the plan cannot be
rejected for the content of its regulatory barrier assessment. One
commenter admonished HUD to put stronger teeth in the plan to make
cities remove barriers. The CHAS statute does not permit HUD to reject
a consolidated plan on the basis of the jurisdiction's inaction to
remove identified barriers. The Department will comply with that
requirement but sees no need to add a provision to the rule on the
subject.
Another public interest group wanted jurisdictions to explain the
purpose of the policy perceived as a barrier and offer alternative
options. The Department declines to make this a more burdensome
requirement.
e. Anti-Poverty Strategy
Several public interest group and city commenters were critical of
this paragraph, indicating that it was difficult to measure how HUD
programs directly reduced the number of families with incomes below the
poverty line. Of primary concern was describing their actions in terms
of ``factors over which the jurisdiction has control,'' language from
the statute. They recommended that the requirement be restated for
programs discussed in the housing component of the consolidated plan
that the city directed to poverty families. The rule has been revised
accordingly.
Section 91.220 Action Plan
a. Linkage
The low-income and disability community advocates were critical of
what they viewed as inadequate linkage in the action plan between the
needs of the extremely low-income families and those in the worst
housing conditions and the proposed activities to be undertaken by the
jurisdiction under the draft language of this section.
In response to these concerns, the rule has been revised to require
a clearer statement of priority needs and local objectives covered in
the strategic plan, including the number and type of families to be
benefitted from the activities proposed for the year, with a required a
target date for completion of each activity. We also have required
information on location of projects, to allow citizens to determine the
degree to which they are affected.
b. Resources
With regard to describing resources, several commenters insisted
that only those resources under the control of the jurisdiction should
be listed. There was resistance to including private and nonfederal
resources. The CHAS statute requires private and nonfederal resources
that are reasonably expected to be available to be identified. The CHAS
statute also requires the extent of leverage of Federal resources to be
discussed. However, all discussion of resources has been moved from the
strategic plan section of the rule to the action plan section, in
response to commenters suggestions.
c. CDBG Float-Funded Activities
The CDBG ``miscellaneous amendments'' rule included provisions
governing float-funded activities that are perceived as providing some
risk to the CDBG program. A ``float-funded activity'' is an activity
that uses undisbursed funds in the line of credit or program account
that have been previously budgeted in an action plan (formerly, the
CDBG final statement) for one or more activities that do not need the
funds immediately.
Ten comments were received with respect to these requirements.
Responses to these comments and the specific requirements for treatment
of CDBG float-funded activities will be published in the final
miscellaneous amendments rule. However, for purposes of this rule, the
Department notes that there are two primary risks to the CDBG program
inherent in the float funding process. First, the float-funded activity
will not generate sufficient program income in a manner to allow
[[Page 1893]] for timely undertaking of previously budgeted activities.
Second, in undertaking a float-funded activity that exceeds a certain
size or duration, grantees are apparently relying on additional CDBG
funds being received in future years to enable them to continue funding
previously budgeted activities until the float-funded activity
generates program income.
The paragraph of the action plan dealing with CDBG program-specific
requirements now deals with float-funded activities, requiring a
jurisdiction to show the stream of income from repayment of float-
funded activities. This provision is designed to address: (1) the
problems identified by the Department's Inspector General in managing
such activities and (2) the need for citizens to have sufficient
information for them to know the extent to which they are likely to be
affected by these activities, particularly the consequences of their
default, so that they may have an opportunity to object to such a use
of the funds.
The action plan section also requires that jurisdictions receiving
CDBG entitlement funds may generally budget no more than 10 percent of
the total available CDBG funds described for the contingency of cost
overruns. The Department has had a longstanding requirement that the
amount so budgeted must be reasonable in relation to the grant. This is
based largely on the statutory requirement under section 104(a) of the
HCD Act that, as a prerequisite to receive its annual grant, a
community must submit a statement describing how it intends to use the
funds. When the grantee's statement contains a set-aside of funds for
contingencies in an amount that goes beyond the amount that reasonably
may be expected to be needed for cost overruns of activities
specifically identified in the statement, the net effect is that the
grantee is simply deferring making a decision as to the use of the
funds. The Department believes that this is not allowable under the
statute. The Department provided guidance in the form of a notice
(dated September 18, 1992) that it would not question the
``reasonableness'' of a set-aside of up to 10 percent of the amount of
CDBG funds described in the final statement (now part of the action
plan) for cost overruns. The regulatory language contained in this rule
now reflects this threshold. This would not, however, prohibit a
jurisdiction from setting an amount higher than 10 percent if the
jurisdiction has data available, drawing on its prior experience, to
show that actual cost overruns are likely to require a higher
contingency amount.
d. Public Housing
A provision has been added to the housing market analysis section,
to the institutional structure paragraph of the strategic plan section,
and, most importantly, to the ``other actions'' paragraph of the action
plan section, to require a jurisdiction to state any actions it is
taking to assist a public housing agency that has been designated as
``troubled'' by HUD to overcome its problems.
Section 91.225 Certifications
One commenter pointed out that the paragraph on consultation ``by
States'' is inapplicable to local governments, who are covered by this
provision. Another commenter recommended that the certification
currently found in the CDBG program that a jurisdiction's notification,
inspection, testing and abatement procedures concerning lead-based
paint will comply with the provisions of Sec. 570.608 should be
included here. We agree with both of these comments, and the rule has
been revised accordingly.
One low-income advocate suggested that jurisdictions should be
required to certify, in connection with the CDBG program, that they
have satisfied their obligations under the regulation interpreting
section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5309), which is found at 24 CFR 570.602. It requires a
jurisdiction that has discriminated in the administration of the CDBG
program or activity, or where there is sufficient evidence to conclude
that there was discrimination, on the basis of race, color, national
origin, or sex, to take remedial affirmative action to overcome the
effects of the discrimination.
There are two provisions of the certifications section that have a
bearing on anti-discrimination laws. The first mirrors the current
requirements for the CDBG program to require specific certification of
compliance with two civil rights laws: Title VI of the 1964 Act and the
Fair Housing Act. Although the Department agrees that section 109 is
applicable to the CDBG program, it is encompassed within the second
certification, which requires certification that the jurisdiction/State
will comply with all applicable laws. We note that the underlying CDBG
regulation requiring compliance with section 109 remains in effect.
Section 91.235 Abbreviated Plan
One State pointed out that paragraph (a) appears to make use of the
abbreviated plan permissive, but paragraph (b)(1) appears to make it
required--if a jurisdiction is permitted to use it. The commenter also
complained about the lack of any requirement for the jurisdiction to
consult with the State.
The Department agrees that the provision needs clarification, so it
is now clear that a jurisdiction eligible to submit an abbreviated plan
instead of a full consolidated plan may do so, but is not required to
do so. Consultation with the State has been added.
Section 91.305 Housing and Homeless Needs Analysis
Two States complained that the requirement for a State seeking
HOPWA funding to collect data about the size and characteristics of the
population with HIV/AIDS and their families was too burdensome and
costly for States. The language for this provision and its local
government counterpart have been revised to require estimation, ``to
the extent practicable,'' of the number of persons in various
categories of special need, including persons with HIV/AIDS and their
families.
Section 91.310 Housing Market Analysis
A few low-income advocates recommended requiring States to describe
substate markets, including those that have higher poverty areas. The
rule requires analysis of the State's ``housing markets.'' This implies
that there is more than one housing market within the State.
One State commented that paragraphs (b) (Low income tax credit
use), (e) (Institutional structure), and (f) (Governmental
coordination) relate not to market analysis but to strategy. It
recommended moving them to Sec. 91.315. The Department agrees and has
revised the rule accordingly.
Several low-income advocates recommended that the paragraph on
barriers to affordable housing should require that all jurisdictions do
their ``fair share'' to provide housing opportunities to low-income
persons. They also stated that States should look at cross-
jurisdictional barriers. The Department is constrained by the statutory
limit that prevents disapproval of a plan that does not provide for
removal of barriers to affordable housing. Therefore, it cannot require
such a ``fair share'' proposal. Analysis of cross-jurisdictional
barriers would be beneficial, but the Department does not want to add
to the burden of requirements imposed by this rule. [[Page 1894]]
Section 91.315 Strategy, Priority Needs, and Objectives
Two States stated that the requirement for a statement of the
reasons for the State's choice of priority needs is too detailed a
requirement for States, since they respond to priorities established by
localities and to their requests for funding. Low-income advocates, on
the other hand, argued that States should be required to describe the
basis for assigning the relative priority to a category of needs since
the CHAS statute requires it. The language of this provision has been
revised to refer to each category of priority needs since that is the
most flexibility the Department can give to States under the statute.
The priority needs table that the rule requires States to complete
was criticized as being too detailed. The table is less detailed than
the table that was required for the State CHAS. However, HUD recognizes
that the States have less control over fulfillment of this section than
do local jurisdictions.
Several States objected to the requirement that the States include
a target date for completion of specific objectives. The final rule
indicates that the State must identify the proposed accomplishments
that the State hopes to achieve in quantitative terms, or in other
measurable terms as identified and defined by the State.
A number of States objected to the requirement that the State
furnish a projection of its resource allocation geographically within
the State, since often the funds are awarded on the basis of
competitive selection rather than on some geographic distribution plan.
The rule has been revised to reflect that a State must describe how the
State's method of distribution contributes to its general priorities
for allocating investment geographically within the State.
Three commenters recommended that the only non-Federal funds that
be included in the resource description be those that are ``available
for use in conjunction with Federal funds to address needs
identified.'' We decline to make this change, since the CHAS statute
does not so limit the language.
Section 91.325 Certifications
One commenter pointed out that the certification concerning
excessive force was not applicable to States. That provision has been
modified to clarify that the States must require the localities to make
this certification.
Sections 91.400-91.435 Consortia
Several local governments complained that the proposed rule was
confusing about which units of general local government are directed to
participate in the development of a consolidated plan of the consortium
as well as submit their own consolidated plan to cover all programs
other than HOME. They suggested that Sec. 91.400 should be revised to
clarify that units of local government that participate in a consortium
must participate in submission of a consolidated plan for the
consortium, prepared in accordance with subpart E, as well as
submitting for their own jurisdiction the following components of
subpart C: Sec. 91.215(e) (CD plan), Sec. 91.220 (Action Plan) and
Sec. 91.225 (Certifications). The preparation and submission of a
separate housing and homeless needs assessment (Sec. 91.205), housing
market analysis (Sec. 91.210) and strategies, priority needs and
objectives (Sec. 91.215) for the entitlement jurisdictions should be
optional not a requirement. We agree, and the rule has been modified
accordingly.
The majority of the commenters on this issue raised the problems
presented by the same program year for all consortium members;
suggesting this will cause consortia to break up. One suggested
solution was to eliminate the requirement. Instead the consortium would
develop its housing and homeless needs, housing market analysis and
strategy on a planning year that coincides with the program year of the
earliest entitlement jurisdiction in the consortium. Individual action
plans would be submitted on individual entitlement members' program
year cycle. Individual CD plans would be submitted at the same time as
the strategic plan or with the individual entitlement submissions. The
lead agency's action plan and program year would control the timing of
the HOME program year. The rule has not been changed; however, we will
develop waiver policies to handle this issue with consortia.
Local governments urged that Secs. 91.105 and 91.430 be clarified
to explain what citizen participation requirements apply to entitlement
jurisdictions that are part of a consortium. Such clarification is now
provided in Sec. 91.401.
Section 91.500 HUD Approval Action
Low-income advocacy groups argued that the standards for review of
the consolidated plan do not provide adequate guidance to participating
jurisdictions, citizens, and HUD field offices about what would
constitute an acceptable plan. They suggest that a consolidated plan
should be approved by HUD only if it ``demonstrates integrity when read
as a whole.'' They suggest that the needs assessment, priority
assignments, and action plan must be sound and consistent with each
other and with the purposes of the statute. For example, they state
that a housing strategy that failed to seriously address ``worst case''
needs would lack the logical link between needs and action required by
section 105(b)(8) of the CHAS statute.
We agree that the current regulations provide few guidelines on the
standards for approval. We have modified the proposed regulations to
make them more similar to the existing CHAS rule. While we agree with
the desirability of internal consistency and require a certification
that housing activities undertaken under CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA
funds are consistent with the strategic plan, we feel that the
provision recommended by the advocacy groups is needlessly directive.
Section 91.505 Amendments to Consolidated Plan
Several government interest groups, citing HUD's proposed CDBG rule
published on August 10, 1994, suggest that jurisdiction be allowed to
notify HUD after adoption of amendments to the consolidated plan. The
majority of the commenters were concerned that the specificity of the
action plan will trigger a number of amendments that will need to
undergo citizen participation and submission to the Department. The
preference was to list major activities under which projects could fall
without creating the need for amendments. One community suggested if
the jurisdiction deemed a change consistent with its need section it
could be done without citizen participation or HUD review. An alternate
suggestion was to consider an increase or decrease in the original
allocation mix over 35 percent as a substantial change.
Jurisdictions are free to determine and describe in the citizen
participation plan what constitutes a ``substantial amendment,'' upon
which public comment is required. The suggestions offered by these
commenters may be good options for defining when a change requires a
``substantial amendment.''
Section 91.510 Consistency Determinations
One commenter suggested that HUD clarify the meaning of this
section by stating that it only applies to sources of funds that are
not applied for through [[Page 1895]] the consolidated plan; for
example, the HOPE Program and Section 811. This section has been
revised to cover competitive programs only. In addition, because the
CHAS statute requires this statement of consistency for the formula
grant programs as well, the certifications have been changed to require
consistency with the strategic plan.
Section 91.520 Performance Reports
One commenter objected to reporting on the results of on-site
inspections of affordable rental housing assisted with HOME funds,
citing it as a new requirement. This is a statutory requirement at
section 226(b) of the NAHA (42 U.S.C. 12756) and is contained at
Sec. 92.504(e)(1) of the HOME regulation. That rule requires annual on-
site inspections of projects of 25 units or more, requiring every other
year inspections of projects of fewer than 25 units.
Two commenters stated that the 90-day period provided after the
program year for submission of the performance report is inadequate
time, especially for large cities, given the lack of information about
the format of the report and the computer software that HUD says it
will make available for this purpose. The 30-day comment period on the
performance report increases the difficulty of making the 90-day
deadline.
As discussed above in the citizen participation section, the
comment period on reports has been shortened to 15 days. Therefore, the
final rule retains the 90 day deadline for performance reports. HUD
will facilitate the provision of information needed by the
jurisdictions to submit the reports.
Several local governments complained about the requirement to
report on the degree to which the CDBG program was used to benefit
extremely low-income persons. The reasons stated for eliminating the
requirement are that it is not required by statute, the program is not
targeted to that specific group, and it is burdensome. A low-income
community advocate found the language of the provision inadequate in
that it was not strong enough in emphasizing the requirement of the
CDBG statute that the program benefit low-income and moderate-income
persons.
In fact, both the CDBG and HOME programs have specific requirements
with regard to income targeting. Previous reporting instructions (if
not regulations) have required information about benefits to extremely
low-income persons for activities where income information and family
data are required to justify the activity. In these cases, the
information is readily available, and therefore this reporting is not
considered to be a burdensome requirement.
Sections 570.487, 570.601 and 570.904 Fair Housing Certifications
One commenter stated that there was no justification for imposing
new CDBG fair housing requirements. The commenter argued that the
changes to these sections provide minimal requirements for compliance
with the certification that a jurisdiction will affirmatively further
fair housing. The rule now states requirements rather than performance
standards for affirmatively furthering fair housing. The requirements
include conducting an analysis of impediments, taking actions to
address the impediments, and maintaining records reflecting both. A
jurisdiction need not do an analysis of impediments every year, but is
expected to have conducted its first analysis of impediments no later
than 12 months following February 6, 1995.
Subpart G Insular Areas
In the proposed rule, there was a heading reserved for a separate
subpart to specify the consolidated plan requirements for insular
areas. There were no public comments received on this topic. The
Department has decided to handle the few jurisdictions that are insular
areas individually, through administrative guidance. Therefore, this
rule contains no subpart G.
Findings and Certifications
Regulatory Review
This rule was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Any changes made
to the rule as a result of that review are clearly identified in the
docket file, which is available for public inspection in the office of
the Department's Rules Docket Clerk, room 10276, 451 Seventh St., SW.,
Washington, DC.
Impact on the Environment
A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment
has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50 that
implement 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 during regular business hours (7:30
a.m. to 5:30 p.m.) in the Office of the Rules Docket Clerk, room 10276,
451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-0500.
Federalism Impact
The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under section 6(a)
of Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has determined that the policies
contained in this rule do not have significant impact on States or
their political subdivisions since the requirements of the rule are
limited to requirements imposed by the statutes being implemented. The
final rule reflects revisions to decrease the impact on States, in
particular. Duplication of effort by State and local governments is
being avoided by focusing the efforts of the States on the CDBG
nonentitlement areas within their borders.
Impact on the Family
The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under Executive
Order 12606, The Family, has determined that this rule does not have
potential for significant impact on family formation, maintenance, and
general well-being, and, thus is not subject to review under the Order.
The rule merely carries out the mandate of federal statutes with
respect to planning documents for housing and community development
programs.
Impact on Small Entities
The Secretary, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this rule before publication and by
approving it certifies that this rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities, because it does not
place major burdens on jurisdictions.
Regulatory Agenda
This rule was listed as sequence number 1723 under the Office of
the Secretary in the Department's Semiannual Regulatory Agenda
published on November 14, 1994 (59 FR 57632, 57641), under Executive
Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Catalog
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers for the programs
affected by this rule are 14.218, 14.231. 14.239, and 14.241.
List of Subjects
24 CFR Part 91
Grant programs--Indians, Homeownership, Low and moderate income
housing, Public housing.
24 CFR Part 92
Grant programs--housing and community development, Manufactured
homes, Rent subsidies, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
[[Page 1896]]
24 CFR Part 570
Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs--housing and
community development, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands,
Pacific Islands Trust Territory, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands.
24 CFR Part 574
Community facilities, Disabled, Emergency shelter, Grant programs--
health programs, Grant programs--housing and community development,
Grant programs--social programs, HIV/AIDS, Homeless, Housing, Low and
moderate income housing, Nonprofit organizations, Rent subsidies,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Technical assistance.
24 CFR Part 576
Community facilities, Emergency shelter grants, Grant programs--
housing and community development, Grant programs--social programs,
Homeless, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
24 CFR Part 968
Grant programs--housing and community development, Loan programs--
housing and community development, Public housing, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, parts 91, 92, 570, 574, 576, and 968 of title 24 of
the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
1. Part 91 is revised to read as follows:
PART 91--CONSOLIDATED SUBMISSIONS FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Subpart A--General
Sec.
91.1 Purpose.
91.2 Applicability.
91.5 Definitions.
91.10 Consolidated program year.
91.15 Submission date.
91.20 Exceptions.
Subpart B--Citizen Participation and Consultation
91.100 Consultation; local governments.
91.105 Citizen participation plan; local governments.
91.110 Consultation; States.
91.115 Citizen participation plan; States.
Subpart C--Local Governments; Contents of Consolidated Plan
91.200 General.
91.205 Housing and homeless needs assessment.
91.210 Housing market analysis.
91.215 Strategic plan.
91.220 Action plan.
91.225 Certifications.
91.230 Monitoring.
91.235 Special case; abbreviated consolidated plan.
91.236 Special case; District of Columbia.
Subpart D--State Governments; Contents of Consolidated Plan
91.300 General.
91.305 Housing and homeless needs assessment.
91.310 Housing market analysis.
91.315 Strategic plan.
91.320 Action plan.
91.325 Certifications.
91.330 Monitoring.
Subpart E--Consortia; Contents of Consolidated Plan
91.400 Applicability.
91.401 Citizen participation plan.
91.402 Consolidated program year.
91.405 Housing and homeless needs assessment.
91.410 Housing market analysis.
91.415 Strategic plan.
91.420 Action plan.
91.425 Certifications.
91.430 Monitoring.
Subpart F--Other General Requirements
91.500 HUD approval action.
91.505 Amendments to the consolidated plan.
91.510 Consistency determinations.
91.515 Funding determinations by HUD.
91.520 Performance reports.
91.525 Performance review by HUD.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 3601-3619, 5301-5315, 11331-11388,
12701-12711, 12741-12756, and 12901-12912.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 91.1 Purpose.
(a) Overall goals. (1) The overall goal of the community planning
and development programs covered by this part is to develop viable
urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living
environment and expanding economic opportunities principally for low-
and moderate-income persons. The primary means towards this end is to
extend and strengthen partnerships among all levels of government and
the private sector, including for-profit and non-profit organizations,
in the production and operation of affordable housing.
(i) Decent housing includes assisting homeless persons to obtain
appropriate housing and assisting persons at risk of becoming homeless;
retention of the affordable housing stock; and increasing the
availability of permanent housing in standard condition and affordable
cost to low-income and moderate-income families, particularly to
members of disadvantaged minorities, without discrimination on the
basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status,
or disability. Decent housing also includes increasing the supply of
supportive housing, which combines structural features and services
needed to enable persons with special needs, including persons with
HIV/AIDS and their families, to live with dignity and independence; and
providing housing affordable to low-income persons accessible to job
opportunities.
(ii) A suitable living environment includes improving the safety
and livability of neighborhoods; increasing access to quality public
and private facilities and services; reducing the isolation of income
groups within a community or geographical area through the spatial
deconcentration of housing opportunities for persons of lower income
and the revitalization of deteriorating or deteriorated neighborhoods;
restoring and preserving properties of special historic, architectural,
or aesthetic value; and conservation of energy resources.
(iii) Expanded economic opportunities includes job creation and
retention; establishment, stabilization and expansion of small
businesses (including microbusinesses); the provision of public
services concerned with employment; the provision of jobs involved in
carrying out activities under programs covered by this plan to low-
income persons living in areas affected by those programs and
activities; availability of mortgage financing for low-income persons
at reasonable rates using nondiscriminatory lending practices; access
to capital and credit for development activities that promote the long-
term economic and social viability of the community; and empowerment
and self-sufficiency opportunities for low-income persons to reduce
generational poverty in federally assisted and public housing.
(2) The consolidated submission described in this part 91 requires
the jurisdiction to state in one document its plan to pursue these
goals for all the community planning and development programs, as well
as for housing programs. It is these goals against which the plan and
the jurisdiction's performance under the plan will be evaluated by HUD.
(b) Functions of plan. The consolidated plan serves the following
functions:
(1) A planning document for the jurisdiction, which builds on a
participatory process at the lowest levels;
(2) An application for federal funds under HUD's formula grant
programs;
(3) A strategy to be followed in carrying out HUD programs; and
(4) An action plan that provides a basis for assessing performance.
[[Page 1897]]
Sec. 91.2 Applicability.
(a) The following formula grant programs are covered by the
consolidated plan:
(1) The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs (see 24
CFR part 570, subparts D and I);
(2) The Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) program (see 24 CFR part
576);
(3) The HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program (see 24 CFR
part 92); and
(4) The Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) program
(see 24 CFR part 574).
(b) The following programs require either that the jurisdiction
receiving funds directly from HUD have a consolidated plan that is
approved by HUD or that the application for HUD funds contain a
certification that the application is consistent with a HUD-approved
consolidated plan:
(1) The HOPE I Public Housing Homeownership (HOPE I) program (see
24 CFR Subtitle A, Appendix A);
(2) The HOPE II Homeownership of Multifamily Units (HOPE II)
program (see 24 CFR Subtitle A, Appendix B);
(3) The HOPE III Homeownership of Single Family Homes (HOPE III)
program (see 24 CFR part 572);
(4) The Low-Income Housing Preservation (prepayment avoidance
incentives) program, when administered by a State agency (see 24 CFR
248.177);
(5) The Supportive Housing for the Elderly (Section 202) program
(see 24 CFR part 889);
(6) The Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities program
(see 24 CFR part 890);
(7) The Supportive Housing program (see 24 CFR part 583);
(8) The Single Room Occupancy Housing (SRO) program (see 24 CFR
part 882, subpart H);
(9) The Shelter Plus Care program (see 24 CFR part 582);
(10) The Community Development Block Grant program--Small Cities
(see 24 CFR part 570, subpart E);
(11) HOME program reallocations;
(12) Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing (section
24 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.));
(13) Hope for Youth: Youthbuild (see 24 CFR part 585);
(14) The John Heinz Neighborhood Development program (see 24 CFR
part 594);
(15) The Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction program (see 24 CFR part
35);
(16) Grants for Regulatory Barrier Removal Strategies and
Implementation (section 1204, Housing and Community Development Act of
1992 (42 U.S.C. 12705c)); and
(17) Competitive grants under the Housing Opportunities for Persons
With AIDS (HOPWA) program (see 24 CFR part 574).
(c) Other programs do not require consistency with an approved
consolidated plan. However, HUD funding allocations for the Section 8
Certificate and Voucher Programs are to be made in a way that enables
participating jurisdictions to carry out their consolidated plans.
Sec. 91.5 Definitions.
Certification. A written assertion, based on supporting evidence,
that must be kept available for inspection by HUD, by the Inspector
General of HUD, and by the public. The assertion shall be deemed to be
accurate unless HUD determines otherwise, after inspecting the evidence
and providing due notice and opportunity for comment.
Consolidated plan (or ``the plan''). The document that is submitted
to HUD that serves as the planning document (comprehensive housing
affordability strategy and community development plan) of the
jurisdiction and an application for funding under any of the Community
Planning and Development formula grant programs (CDBG, ESG, HOME, or
HOPWA), which is prepared in accordance with the process prescribed in
this part.
Consortium. An organization of geographically contiguous units of
general local government that are acting as a single unit of general
local government for purposes of the HOME program (see 24 CFR part 92).
Cost burden. The extent to which gross housing costs, including
utility costs, exceed 30 percent of gross income, based on data
available from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Elderly person. A person who is at least 62 years of age.
Emergency shelter. Any facility with overnight sleeping
accommodations, the primary purpose of which is to provide temporary
shelter for the homeless in general or for specific populations of the
homeless.
Extremely low-income family. Family whose income is between 0 and
30 percent of the median income for the area, as determined by HUD with
adjustments for smaller and larger families, except that HUD may
establish income ceilings higher or lower than 30 percent of the median
for the area on the basis of HUD's findings that such variations are
necessary because of prevailing levels of construction costs or fair
market rents, or unusually high or low family incomes.
Homeless family with children. A family composed of the following
types of homeless persons: at least one parent or guardian and one
child under the age of 18; a pregnant woman; or a person in the process
of securing legal custody of a person under the age of 18.
Homeless person. A youth (17 years or younger) not accompanied by
an adult (18 years or older) or an adult without children, who is
homeless (not imprisoned or otherwise detained pursuant to an Act of
Congress or a State law), including the following:
(1) An individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate
nighttime residence; and
(2) An individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is:
(i) A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to
provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels,
congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
(ii) An institution that provides a temporary residence for
individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
(iii) A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily
used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.
Homeless subpopulations. Include but are not limited to the
following categories of homeless persons: severely mentally ill only,
alcohol/drug addicted only, severely mentally ill and alcohol/drug
addicted, fleeing domestic violence, youth, and persons with HIV/AIDS.
HUD. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Jurisdiction. A State or unit of general local government.
Large family. Family of five or more persons.
Lead-based paint hazards. Any condition that causes exposure to
lead from lead-contaminated dust, lead-contaminated soil, lead-
contaminated paint that is deteriorated or present in accessible
surfaces, friction surfaces, or impact surfaces that would result in
adverse human health effects as established by the appropriate Federal
agency.
Low-income families. Low-income families whose incomes do not
exceed 50 percent of the median family income for the area, as
determined by HUD with adjustments for smaller and larger families,
except that HUD may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 50
percent of the median for the area on the basis of HUD's findings that
such variations are necessary because of prevailing levels of
construction costs or fair market rents, or unusually high or low
family incomes.
Middle-income family. Family whose income is between 80 percent and
95 [[Page 1898]] percent of the median income for the area, as
determined by HUD, with adjustments for smaller and larger families,
except that HUD may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 95
percent of the median for the area on the basis of HUD's findings that
such variations are necessary because of prevailing levels of
construction costs or fair market rents, or unusually high or low
family incomes. (This corresponds to the term ``moderate income
family'' under the CHAS statute, 42 U.S.C. 12705.)
Moderate-income family. Family whose income does not exceed 80
percent of the median income for the area, as determined by HUD with
adjustments for smaller and larger families, except that HUD may
establish income ceilings higher or lower than 80 percent of the median
for the area on the basis of HUD's findings that such variations are
necessary because of prevailing levels of construction costs or fair
market rents, or unusually high or low family incomes.
Overcrowding. A housing unit containing more than one person per
room.
Person with a disability. A person who is determined to:
(1) Have a physical, mental or emotional impairment that:
(i) Is expected to be of long-continued and indefinite duration;
(ii) Substantially impedes his or her ability to live
independently; and
(iii) Is of such a nature that the ability could be improved by
more suitable housing conditions; or
(2) Have a developmental disability, as defined in section 102(7)
of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (42
U.S.C. 6001-6007); or
(3) be the surviving member or members of any family that had been
living in an assisted unit with the deceased member of the family who
had a disability at the time of his or her death.
Poverty level family. Family with an income below the poverty line,
as defined by the Office of Management and Budget and revised annually.
Severe cost burden. The extent to which gross housing costs,
including utility costs, exceed 50 percent of gross income, based on
data available from the U.S. Census Bureau.
State. Any State of the United States and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico.
Transitional housing. A project that is designed to provide housing
and appropriate supportive services to homeless persons to facilitate
movement to independent living within 24 months, or a longer period
approved by HUD. For purposes of the HOME program, there is no HUD-
approved time period for moving to independent living.
Unit of general local government. A city, town, township, county,
parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a
State; an urban county; and a consortium of such political subdivisions
recognized by HUD in accordance with the HOME program (24 CFR part 92)
or the CDBG program (24 CFR part 570).
Urban county. See definition in 24 CFR 570.3.
Sec. 91.10 Consolidated program year.
(a) Each of the following programs shall be administered by a
jurisdiction on a single consolidated program year, established by the
jurisdiction: CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA. Except as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section, the program year shall run for a twelve
month period and begin on the first calendar day of a month.
(b) Once a program year is established, the jurisdiction may either
shorten or lengthen its program year to change the beginning date of
the following program year, provided that it notifies HUD in writing at
least two months before the date the program year would have ended if
it had not been lengthened or at least two months before the end of a
proposed shortened program year.
(c) See subpart E of this part for requirements concerning program
year for units of general local government that are part of a
consortium.
Sec. 91.15 Submission date.
(a) General. (1) In order to facilitate continuity in its program
and to provide accountability to citizens, each jurisdiction should
submit its consolidated plan to HUD at least 45 days before the start
of its program year. (But see Sec. 92.52(b) of this subtitle with
respect to newly eligible jurisdictions under the HOME program.) With
the exception of the August 16 date noted in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, HUD may grant a jurisdiction an extension of the submission
deadline for good cause.
(2) In no event will HUD accept a submission earlier than November
15 or later than August 16 of the Federal fiscal year for which the
grant funds are appropriated. (Failure to submit the plan by August 16
will automatically result in a loss of the CDBG funds to which the
jurisdiction would otherwise be entitled.)
(3) A jurisdiction may have a program year that coincides with the
Federal fiscal year (e.g., October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996
for Federal fiscal year 1996 funds. However, the consolidated plan may
not be submitted earlier than November 15 of the Federal fiscal year
and HUD has the period specified in Sec. 91.500 to review the
consolidated plan.
(4) See Sec. 91.20 for HUD field office authorization to grant
exceptions to these provisions.
(b) Frequency of submission. (1) The action plan and the
certifications must be submitted on an annual basis.
(2) The complete submission must be submitted less frequently, in
accordance with a period to be specified by the jurisdiction; however,
in no event shall the complete submission be submitted less frequently
that every five years.
Sec. 91.20 Exceptions.
The HUD field office may grant a jurisdiction an exception from
submitting all or part of the consolidated plan in FY 1995, from the
submission deadline, or from a requirement in the implementation
guidelines for good cause, as determined by the field office, and
reported in writing to HUD Headquarters--to the extent the requirement
is not required by statute or regulation.
Subpart B--Citizen Participation and Consultation
Sec. 91.100 Consultation; local governments.
(a) General. (1) When preparing the consolidated plan, the
jurisdiction shall consult with other public and private agencies that
provide assisted housing, health services, and social services
(including those focusing on services to children, elderly persons,
persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families,
homeless persons) during preparation of the consolidated plan.
(2) When preparing the portion of its consolidated plan concerning
lead-based paint hazards, the jurisdiction shall consult with State or
local health and child welfare agencies and examine existing data
related to lead-based paint hazards and poisonings, including health
department data on the addresses of housing units in which children
have been identified as lead poisoned.
(3) When preparing the description of priority nonhousing community
development needs, a unit of general local government must notify
adjacent units of general local government, to the extent practicable.
The nonhousing community development plan must be submitted to the
state, and, if the jurisdiction is a CDBG entitlement grantee other
than an urban county, to the county.
(4) The jurisdiction also should consult with adjacent units of
general [[Page 1899]] local government, including local government
agencies with metropolitan-wide planning responsibilities where they
exist, particularly for problems and solutions that go beyond a single
jurisdiction.
(b) HOPWA. The largest city in each eligible metropolitan
statistical area (EMSA) that is eligible to receive a HOPWA formula
allocation must consult broadly to develop a metropolitan-wide strategy
for addressing the needs of persons with HIV/AIDS and their families
living throughout the EMSA. All jurisdictions within the EMSA must
assist the jurisdiction that is applying for a HOPWA allocation in the
preparation of the HOPWA submission.
(c) Public housing. The jurisdiction shall consult with the local
public housing agency participating in an approved Comprehensive Grant
program concerning consideration of public housing needs and planned
Comprehensive Grant program activities. This consultation will help
provide a better basis for the certification by the local Chief
Executive Officer that the Comprehensive Grant Plan/annual statement is
consistent with the local government's assessment of low-income housing
needs (as evidenced in the consolidated plan) and that the local
government will cooperate in providing resident programs and services
(as required by Sec. 968.320(d) of this title for the Comprehensive
Grant program). It will also help ensure that activities with regard to
local drug elimination, neighborhood improvement programs, and resident
programs and services, funded under the public housing program and
those funded under a program covered by the consolidated plan are fully
coordinated to achieve comprehensive community development goals.
Sec. 91.105 Citizen participation plan; local governments.
(a) Applicability and adoption of the citizen participation plan.
(1) The jurisdiction is required to adopt a citizen participation plan
that sets forth the jurisdiction's policies and procedures for citizen
participation. (Where a jurisdiction, before March 6, 1995, adopted a
citizen participation plan that complies with section 104(a)(3) of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5304(A)(3))
but will need to amend the citizen participation plan to comply with
provisions of this section, the citizen participation plan shall be
amended by the first day of the jurisdiction's program year that begins
on or after 180 days following March 6, 1995.)
(2) Encouragement of citizen participation. (i) The citizen
participation plan must provide for and encourage citizens to
participate in the development of the consolidated plan, any
substantial amendments to the consolidated plan, and the performance
report.
(ii) These requirements are designed especially to encourage
participation by low- and moderate-income persons, particularly those
living in slum and blighted areas and in areas where CDBG funds are
proposed to be used, and by residents of predominantly low- and
moderate-income neighborhoods, as defined by the jurisdiction. A
jurisdiction also is expected to take whatever actions are appropriate
to encourage the participation of all its citizens, including
minorities and non-English speaking persons, as well as persons with
disabilities.
(iii) The jurisdiction shall encourage, in conjunction with
consultation with public housing authorities, the participation of
residents of public and assisted housing developments, in the process
of developing and implementing the consolidated plan, along with other
low-income residents of targeted revitalization areas in which the
developments are located. The jurisdiction shall make an effort to
provide information to the housing agency about consolidated plan
activities related to its developments and surrounding communities so
that the housing agency can make this information available at the
annual public hearing required under the Comprehensive Grant program.
(3) Citizen comment on the citizen participation plan and
amendments. The jurisdiction must provide citizens with a reasonable
opportunity to comment on the original citizen participation plan and
on substantial amendments to the citizen participation plan, and must
make the citizen participation plan public. The citizen participation
plan must be in a format accessible to persons with disabilities, upon
request.
(b) Development of the consolidated plan. The citizen participation
plan must include the following minimum requirements for the
development of the consolidated plan.
(1) The citizen participation plan must require that, before the
jurisdiction adopts a consolidated plan, the jurisdiction will make
available to citizens, public agencies, and other interested parties
information that includes the amount of assistance the jurisdiction
expects to receive (including grant funds and program income) and the
range of activities that may be undertaken, including the estimated
amount that will benefit persons of low- and moderate-income. The
citizen participation plan also must set forth the jurisdiction's plans
to minimize displacement of persons and to assist any persons
displaced, specifying the types and levels of assistance the
jurisdiction will make available (or require others to make available)
to persons displaced, even if the jurisdiction expects no displacement
to occur. The citizen participation plan must state when and how the
jurisdiction will make this information available.
(2) The citizen participation plan must require the jurisdiction to
publish the proposed consolidated plan in a manner that affords
citizens, public agencies, and other interested parties a reasonable
opportunity to examine its contents and to submit comments. The citizen
participation plan must set forth how the jurisdiction will publish the
proposed consolidated plan and give reasonable opportunity to examine
the contents of the proposed consolidated plan. The requirement for
publishing may be met by publishing a summary of the proposed
consolidated plan in one or more newspapers of general circulation, and
by making copies of the proposed consolidated plan available at
libraries, government offices, and public places. The summary must
describe the contents and purpose of the consolidated plan, and must
include a list of the locations where copies of the entire proposed
consolidated plan may be examined. In addition, the jurisdiction must
provide a reasonable number of free copies of the plan to citizens and
groups that request it.
(3) The citizen participation plan must provide for at least one
public hearing during the development of the consolidated plan. See
paragraph (e) of this section for public hearing requirements,
generally.
(4) The citizen participation plan must provide a period, not less
than 30 days, to receive comments from citizens on the consolidated
plan.
(5) The citizen participation plan shall require the jurisdiction
to consider any comments or views of citizens received in writing, or
orally at the public hearings, in preparing the final consolidated
plan. A summary of these comments or views, and a summary of any
comments or views not accepted and the reasons therefor, shall be
attached to the final consolidated plan.
(c) Amendments. (1) Criteria for amendment to consolidated plan.
The citizen participation plan must specify [[Page 1900]] the criteria
the jurisdiction will use for determining what changes in the
jurisdiction's planned or actual activities constitute a substantial
amendment to the consolidated plan. (See Sec. 91.505.) It must include
among the criteria for a substantial amendment changes in the use of
CDBG funds from one eligible activity to another.
(2) The citizen participation plan must provide citizens with
reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment on substantial
amendments. The citizen participation plan must state how reasonable
notice and an opportunity to comment will be given. The citizen
participation plan must provide a period, not less than 30 days, to
receive comments on the substantial amendment before the amendment is
implemented.
(3) The citizen participation plan shall require the jurisdiction
to consider any comments or views of citizens received in writing, or
orally at public hearings, if any, in preparing the substantial
amendment of the consolidated plan. A summary of these comments or
views, and a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the
reasons therefor, shall be attached to the substantial amendment of the
consolidated plan.
(d) Performance reports. (1) The citizen participation plan must
provide citizens with reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment
on performance reports. The citizen participation plan must state how
reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment will be given. The
citizen participation plan must provide a period, not less than 15
days, to receive comments on the performance report that is to be
submitted to HUD before its submission.
(2) The citizen participation plan shall require the jurisdiction
to consider any comments or views of citizens received in writing, or
orally at public hearings in preparing the performance report. A
summary of these comments or views shall be attached to the performance
report.
(e) Public hearings. (1) The citizen participation plan must
provide for at least two public hearings per year to obtain citizens'
views and to respond to proposals and questions, to be conducted at a
minimum of two different stages of the program year. Together, the
hearings must address housing and community development needs,
development of proposed activities, and review of program performance.
To obtain the views of citizens on housing and community development
needs, including priority nonhousing community development needs, the
citizen participation plan must provide that at least one of these
hearings is held before the proposed consolidated plan is published for
comment.
(2) The citizen participation plan must state how and when adequate
advance notice will be given to citizens of each hearing, with
sufficient information published about the subject of the hearing to
permit informed comment. (Publishing small print notices in the
newspaper a few days before the hearing does not constitute adequate
notice. Although HUD is not specifying the length of notice required,
it would consider two weeks adequate.)
(3) The citizen participation plan must provide that hearings be
held at times and locations convenient to potential and actual
beneficiaries, and with accommodation for persons with disabilities.
The citizen participation plan must specify how it will meet these
requirements.
(4) The citizen participation plan must identify how the needs of
non-English speaking residents will be met in the case of public
hearings where a significant number of non-English speaking residents
can be reasonably expected to participate.
(f) Meetings. The citizen participation plan must provide citizens
with reasonable and timely access to local meetings.
(g) Availability to the public. The citizen participation plan must
provide that the consolidated plan as adopted, substantial amendments,
and the performance report will be available to the public, including
the availability of materials in a form accessible to persons with
disabilities, upon request. The citizen participation plan must state
how these documents will be available to the public.
(h) Access to records. The citizen participation plan must require
the jurisdiction to provide citizens, public agencies, and other
interested parties with reasonable and timely access to information and
records relating to the jurisdiction's consolidated plan and the
jurisdiction's use of assistance under the programs covered by this
part during the preceding five years.
(i) Technical assistance. The citizen participation plan must
provide for technical assistance to groups representative of persons of
low- and moderate-income that request such assistance in developing
proposals for funding assistance under any of the programs covered by
the consolidated plan, with the level and type of assistance determined
by the jurisdiction. The assistance need not include the provision of
funds to the groups.
(j) Complaints. The citizen participation plan shall describe the
jurisdiction's appropriate and practicable procedures to handle
complaints from citizens related to the consolidated plan, amendments,
and performance report. At a minimum, the citizen participation plan
shall require that the jurisdiction must provide a timely, substantive
written response to every written citizen complaint, within an
established period of time (within 15 working days, where practicable,
if the jurisdiction is a CDBG grant recipient).
(k) Use of citizen participation plan. The jurisdiction must follow
its citizen participation plan.
(l) Jurisdiction responsibility. The requirements for citizen
participation do not restrict the responsibility or authority of the
jurisdiction for the development and execution of its consolidated
plan.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 91.110 Consultation; States.
When preparing the consolidated plan, the State shall consult with
other public and private agencies that provide assisted housing
(including any State housing agency administering public housing),
health services, and social services (including those focusing on
services to children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities,
persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, homeless persons) during
preparation of the consolidated plan. When preparing the portion of its
consolidated plan concerning lead-based paint hazards, the State shall
consult with State or local health and child welfare agencies and
examine existing data related to lead-based paint hazards and
poisonings, including health department data on the addresses of
housing units in which children have been identified as lead poisoned.
When preparing its method of distribution of assistance under the CDBG
program, a State must consult with local governments in nonentitlement
areas of the State.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 91.115 Citizen participation plan; States.
(a) Applicability and adoption of the citizen participation plan.
(1) The State is required to adopt a citizen participation plan that
sets forth the State's policies and procedures for citizen
participation. (Where a State, before March 6, 1995, adopted a citizen
participation plan that complies with section 104(a)(3) of the Housing
and [[Page 1901]] Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5304(A)(3)) but will need to amend the citizen participation plan to
comply with provisions of this section, the citizen participation plan
shall be amended by the first day of the State's program year that
begins on or after 180 days following March 6, 1995.
(2) Encouragement of citizen participation. The citizen
participation plan must provide for and encourage citizens to
participate in the development of the consolidated plan, any
substantial amendments to the consolidated plan, and the performance
report. These requirements are designed especially to encourage
participation by low- and moderate-income persons, particularly those
living in slum and blighted areas and in areas where CDBG funds are
proposed to be used and by residents of predominantly low- and
moderate-income neighborhoods, as defined by the State. A State also is
expected to take whatever actions are appropriate to encourage the
participation of all its citizens, including minorities and non-English
speaking persons, as well as persons with disabilities.
(3) Citizen and local government comment on the citizen
participation plan and amendments. The State must provide citizens and
units of general local government a reasonable opportunity to comment
on the original citizen participation plan and on substantial
amendments to the citizen participation plan, and must make the citizen
participation plan public. The citizen participation plan must be in a
format accessible to persons with disabilities, upon request.
(b) Development of the consolidated plan. The citizen participation
plan must include the following minimum requirements for the
development of the consolidated plan.
(1) The citizen participation plan must require that, before the
State adopts a consolidated plan, the State will make available to
citizens, public agencies, and other interested parties information
that includes the amount of assistance the State expects to receive and
the range of activities that may be undertaken, including the estimated
amount that will benefit persons of low- and moderate-income and the
plans to minimize displacement of persons and to assist any persons
displaced. The citizen participation plan must state when and how the
State will make this information available.
(2) The citizen participation plan must require the State to
publish the proposed consolidated plan in a manner that affords
citizens, units of general local governments, public agencies, and
other interested parties a reasonable opportunity to examine its
contents and to submit comments. The citizen participation plan must
set forth how the State will publish the proposed consolidated plan and
give reasonable opportunity to examine the contents of the proposed
consolidated plan. The requirement for publishing may be met by
publishing a summary of the proposed consolidated plan in one or more
newspapers of general circulation, and by making copies of the proposed
consolidated plan available at libraries, government offices, and
public places. The summary must describe the contents and purpose of
the consolidated plan, and must include a list of the locations where
copies of the entire proposed consolidated plan may be examined. In
addition, the State must provide a reasonable number of free copies of
the plan to citizens and groups that request it.
(3) The citizen participation plan must provide for at least one
public hearing on housing and community development needs before the
proposed consolidated plan is published for comment.
(i) The citizen participation plan must state how and when adequate
advance notice will be given to citizens of the hearing, with
sufficient information published about the subject of the hearing to
permit informed comment. (Publishing small print notices in the
newspaper a few days before the hearing does not constitute adequate
notice. Although HUD is not specifying the length of notice required,
it would consider two weeks adequate.)
(ii) The citizen participation plan must provide that the hearing
be held at a time and location convenient to potential and actual
beneficiaries, and with accommodation for persons with disabilities.
The citizen participation plan must specify how it will meet these
requirements.
(iii) The citizen participation plan must identify how the needs of
non-English speaking residents will be met in the case of a public
hearing where a significant number of non-English speaking residents
can be reasonably expected to participate.
(4) The citizen participation plan must provide a period, not less
than 30 days, to receive comments from citizens and units of general
local government on the consolidated plan.
(5) The citizen participation plan shall require the State to
consider any comments or views of citizens and units of general
received in writing, or orally at the public hearings, in preparing the
final consolidated plan. A summary of these comments or views, and a
summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons
therefore, shall be attached to the final consolidated plan.
(c) Amendments. (1) Criteria for amendment to consolidated plan.
The citizen participation plan must specify the criteria the State will
use for determining what changes in the State's planned or actual
activities constitute a substantial amendment to the consolidated plan.
(See Sec. 91.505.) It must include among the criteria for a substantial
amendment changes in the method of distribution of such funds.
(2) The citizen participation plan must provide citizens and units
of general local government with reasonable notice and an opportunity
to comment on substantial amendments. The citizen participation plan
must state how reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment will be
given. The citizen participation plan must provide a period, not less
than 30 days, to receive comments on the substantial amendment before
the amendment is implemented.
(3) The citizen participation plan shall require the State to
consider any comments or views of citizens and units of general local
government received in writing, or orally at public hearings, if any,
in preparing the substantial amendment of the consolidated plan. A
summary of these comments or views, and a summary of any comments or
views not accepted and the reasons therefore, shall be attached to the
substantial amendment of the consolidated plan.
(d) Performance Reports. (1) The citizen participation plan must
provide citizens with reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment
on performance reports. The citizen participation plan must state how
reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment will be given. The
citizen participation plan must provide a period, not less than 15
days, to receive comments on the performance report that is to be
submitted to HUD before its submission.
(2) The citizen participation plan shall require the state to
consider any comments or views of citizens received in writing, or
orally at public hearings in preparing the performance report. A
summary of these comments or views shall be attached to the performance
report.
(e) Citizen participation requirements for local governments. The
citizen participation plan must describe the citizen participation
requirements for units of general local government receiving CDBG funds
from the State in 24 CFR 570.486. The citizen
[[Page 1902]] participation plan must explain how the requirements will
be met.
(f) Availability to the public. The citizen participation plan must
provide that the consolidated plan as adopted, substantial amendments,
and the performance report will be available to the public, including
the availability of materials in a form accessible to persons with
disabilities, upon request. The citizen participation plan must state
how these documents will be available to the public.
(g) Access to records. The citizen participation plan must require
the state to provide citizens, public agencies, and other interested
parties with reasonable and timely access to information and records
relating to the state's consolidated plan and the state's use of
assistance under the programs covered by this part during the preceding
five years.
(h) Complaints. The citizen participation plan shall describe the
State's appropriate and practicable procedures to handle complaints
from citizens related to the consolidated plan, amendments, and
performance report. At a minimum, the citizen participation plan shall
require that the State must provide a timely, substantive written
response to every written citizen complaint, within an established
period of time (within 15 working days, where practicable, if the State
is a CDBG grant recipient).
(i) Use of citizen participation plan. The State must follow its
citizen participation plan.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Subpart C--Local Governments; Contents of Consolidated Plan
Sec. 91.200 General.
(a) A complete consolidated plan consists of the information
required in Secs. 91.205 through 91.230, submitted in accordance with
instructions prescribed by HUD (including tables and narratives), or in
such other format as jointly agreed upon by HUD and the jurisdiction.
(b) The jurisdiction shall describe the lead agency or entity
responsible for overseeing the development of the plan and the
significant aspects of the process by which the consolidated plan was
developed, the identity of the agencies, groups, organizations, and
others who participated in the process, and a description of the
jurisdiction's consultations with social service agencies and other
entities. It also shall include a summary of the citizen participation
process, public comments, and efforts made to broaden public
participation in the development of the consolidated plan.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 91.205 Housing and homeless needs assessment.
(a) General. The consolidated plan must describe the jurisdiction's
estimated housing needs projected for the ensuing five-year period.
Housing data included in this portion of the plan shall be based on
U.S. Census data, as provided by HUD, as updated by any properly
conducted local study, or any other reliable source that the
jurisdiction clearly identifies and should reflect the consultation
with social service agencies and other entities conducted in accordance
with Sec. 91.100 and the citizen participation process conducted in
accordance with Sec. 91.105. For a jurisdiction seeking funding on
behalf of an eligible metropolitan statistical area under the HOPWA
program, the needs described for housing and supportive services must
address the needs of persons with HIV/AIDS and their families
throughout the eligible metropolitan statistical area.
(b) Categories of persons affected. (1) The plan shall estimate the
number and type of families in need of housing assistance for extremely
low-income, low-income, moderate-income, and middle-income families,
for renters and owners, for elderly persons, for single persons, for
large families, for persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, and for
persons with disabilities. The description of housing needs shall
include a discussion of the cost burden and severe cost burden,
overcrowding (especially for large families), and substandard housing
conditions being experienced by extremely low-income, low-income,
moderate-income, and middle-income renters and owners compared to the
jurisdiction as a whole.
(2) For any of the income categories enumerated in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section, to the extent that any racial or ethnic group has
disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that
category as a whole, assessment of that specific need shall be
included. For this purpose, disproportionately greater need exists when
the percentage of persons in a category of need who are members of a
particular racial or ethnic group is at least 10 percentage points
higher than the percentage of persons in the category as a whole.
(c) Homeless needs. The plan must describe the nature and extent of
homelessness (including rural homelessness), addressing separately the
need for facilities and services for homeless individuals and homeless
families with children, both sheltered and unsheltered, and homeless
subpopulations, in accordance with a table prescribed by HUD. This
description must include the characteristics and needs of low-income
individuals and families with children (especially extremely low-
income) who are currently housed but threatened with homelessness. The
plan also must contain a narrative description of the nature and extent
of homelessness by racial and ethnic group, to the extent information
is available.
(d) Other special needs. (1) The jurisdiction shall estimate, to
the extent practicable, the number of persons who are not homeless but
require supportive housing, including the elderly, frail elderly,
persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons
with alcohol or other drug addiction, persons with HIV/AIDS and their
families, public housing residents, and any other categories the
jurisdiction may specify, and describe their supportive housing needs.
(2) With respect to a jurisdiction seeking funding on behalf of an
eligible metropolitan statistical area under the HOPWA program, the
plan must identify the size and characteristics of the population with
HIV/AIDS and their families within the eligible metropolitan
statistical area it will serve.
(e) Lead-based paint hazards. The plan must estimate the number of
housing units within the jurisdiction that are occupied by low-income
families or moderate-income families that contain lead-based paint
hazards, as defined in this part.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 91.210 Housing market analysis.
(a) General characteristics. Based on information available to the
jurisdiction, the plan must describe the significant characteristics of
the jurisdiction's housing market, including the supply, demand, and
condition and cost of housing and the housing stock available to serve
persons with disabilities and to serve persons with HIV/AIDS and their
families. The jurisdiction must identify and describe any areas within
the jurisdiction with concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities and/or
low-income families, stating how it defines the terms ``area of low-
income concentration'' and ``area of minority concentration'' for this
purpose. The locations and degree of these concentrations must be
identified, either in a narrative or on one or more maps.
(b) Public and assisted housing. (1) The plan must describe the
number of public housing units in the jurisdiction, [[Page 1903]] the
physical condition of such units, the restoration and revitalization
needs, results from the Section 504 needs assessment (i.e., assessment
of needs of tenants and applicants on waiting list for accessible
units, as required by 24 CFR 8.25), and the public housing agency's
strategy for improving the management and operation of such public
housing and for improving the living environment of low- and moderate-
income families residing in public housing. The consolidated plan must
identify the public housing developments in the jurisdictions that are
participating in an approved HUD Comprehensive Grant program.
Activities covered by the consolidated plan that are being coordinated
or jointly funded with the public housing Comprehensive Grant program
must be identified by project and referenced to the approved
Comprehensive Grant program. Examples of supportive activities for
Comprehensive Grant program activities are efforts to revitalize
neighborhoods surrounding public housing projects (either current or
proposed); cooperation in provision of resident programs and services;
coordination of local drug elimination or anti-crime strategies;
upgrading of police, fire, schools, and other services; and economic
development projects in or near public housing projects to tie in with
self-sufficiency efforts for residents.
(2) The jurisdiction shall include a description of the number and
targeting (income level and type of family served) of units currently
assisted by local, state, or federally funded programs, and an
assessment of whether any such units are expected to be lost from the
assisted housing inventory for any reason.
(c) Homeless facilities. The plan must include a brief inventory of
facilities and services that meet the emergency shelter, transitional
housing, permanent supportive housing, and permanent housing needs of
homeless persons within the jurisdiction.
(d) Special need facilities and services. The plan must describe,
to the extent information is available, the facilities and services
that assist persons who are not homeless but who require supportive
housing, and programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental
and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive
housing.
(e) Barriers to affordable housing. The plan must explain whether
the cost of housing or the incentives to develop, maintain, or improve
affordable housing in the jurisdiction are affected by public policies,
particularly by policies of the jurisdiction, including tax policies
affecting land and other property, land use controls, zoning
ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limits, and
policies that affect the return on residential investment.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 91.215 Strategic plan.
(a) General. For the categories described in paragraphs (b), (c),
(d), and (e) of this section, the consolidated plan must do the
following:
(1) Indicate the general priorities for allocating investment
geographically within the jurisdiction (or within the EMSA for the
HOPWA program) and among priority needs, as identified in the priority
needs table prescribed by HUD;
(2) Describe the basis for assigning the priority (including the
relative priority, where required) given to each category of priority
needs;
(3) Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs;
(4) Summarize the priorities and specific objectives, describing
how funds that are reasonably expected to be made available will be
used to address identified needs; and
(5) For each specific objective, identify proposed accomplishments
the jurisdictions hopes to achieve in quantitative terms over a
specified time period (i.e., one, two, three or more years), or in
other measurable terms as identified and defined by the jurisdiction.
(b) Affordable housing. With respect to affordable housing, the
consolidated plan must include the priority housing needs table
prescribed by HUD and must do the following:
(1) The description of the basis for assigning relative priority to
each category of priority need shall state how the analysis of the
housing market and the severity of housing problems and needs of
extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income renters and
owners identified in accordance with Sec. 91.205 provided the basis for
assigning the relative priority given to each priority need category in
the priority housing needs table prescribed by HUD. Family and income
types may be grouped together for discussion where the analysis would
apply to more than one of them;
(2) The statement of specific objectives must indicate how the
characteristics of the housing market will influence the use of funds
made available for rental assistance, production of new units,
rehabilitation of old units, or acquisition of existing units; and
(3) The description of proposed accomplishments shall specify the
number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income
families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as
defined in 24 CFR 92.252 for rental housing and 24 CFR 92.254 for
homeownership over a specific time period.
(c) Homelessness. With respect to homelessness, the consolidated
plan must include the priority homeless needs table prescribed by HUD
and must describe the jurisdiction's strategy for the following:
(1) Helping low-income families avoid becoming homeless;
(2) Reaching out to homeless persons and assessing their individual
needs;
(3) Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs
of homeless persons; and
(4) Helping homeless persons make the transition to permanent
housing and independent living.
(d) Other special needs. With respect to supportive needs of the
non-homeless, the consolidated plan must describe the priority housing
and supportive service needs of persons who are not homeless but
require supportive housing (i.e., elderly, frail elderly, persons with
disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons with alcohol or
other drug addiction, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, and
public housing residents).
(e) Nonhousing community development plan. (1) If the jurisdiction
seeks assistance under the Community Development Block Grant program,
the consolidated plan must describe the jurisdiction's priority non-
housing community development needs eligible for assistance under HUD's
community development programs by CDBG eligibility category, reflecting
the needs of families for each type of activity, as appropriate, in
terms of dollar amounts estimated to meet the priority need for the
type of activity, in accordance with a table prescribed by HUD. This
community development component of the plan must state the
jurisdiction's specific long-term and short-term community development
objectives (including economic development activities that create
jobs), which must be developed in accordance with the statutory goals
described in Sec. 91.1 and the primary objective of the CDBG program to
develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a
suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities,
principally for low-income and moderate-income persons.
(2) A jurisdiction that elects to carry out a neighborhood
revitalization [[Page 1904]] strategy that includes the economic
empowerment of low-income residents with respect to one or more of
their areas may submit this strategy as part of its community
development plan. If HUD approves such a strategy, the jurisdiction can
obtain greater flexibility in the use of the CDBG funds in the
revitalization area(s). The additional flexibility that the
jurisdiction would be entitled to for this purpose will be described in
24 CFR part 570, subpart C, at a future date. The criteria for approval
of the strategy will not be established by regulation, but
jurisdictions will be notified of these criteria.
(f) Barriers to affordable housing. The consolidated plan must
describe the jurisdiction's strategy to remove or ameliorate negative
effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable
housing, as identified in accordance with Sec. 91.210(d), except that,
if a State requires a unit of general local government to submit a
regulatory barrier assessment that is substantially equivalent to the
information required under this paragraph (f), as determined by HUD,
the unit of general local government may submit its assessment
submitted to the State to HUD and shall be considered to have complied
with this requirement.
(g) Lead-based paint hazards. The consolidated plan must outline
the actions proposed or being taken to evaluate and reduce lead-based
paint hazards, and describe how the lead-based paint hazard reduction
will be integrated into housing policies and programs.
(h) Anti-poverty strategy. The consolidated plan must describe the
jurisdiction's goals, programs, and policies for reducing the number of
poverty level families and how the jurisdiction's goals, programs, and
policies for producing and preserving affordable housing, set forth in
the housing component of the consolidated plan, will be coordinated
with other programs and services for which the jurisdiction is
responsible and the extent to which they will reduce (or assist in
reducing) the number of poverty level families, taking into
consideration factors over which the jurisdiction has control.
(i) Institutional structure. (1) The consolidated plan must explain
the institutional structure, including private industry, nonprofit
organizations, and public institutions, through which the jurisdiction
will carry out its housing and community development plan, assessing
the strengths and gaps in that delivery system.
(2) The jurisdiction shall describe the organizational relationship
between the jurisdiction and the public housing agency, including the
appointing authority for the commissioners or board of the housing
agency; relationships regarding hiring, contracting and procurement;
provision of services funded by the jurisdiction; and review by the
jurisdiction of proposed development sites, of the comprehensive plan
of the public housing agency, and of any proposed demolition or
disposition of public housing developments.
(3) The plan must describe what the jurisdiction will do to
overcome gaps in the institutional structure for carrying out its
strategy for addressing its priority needs. If the public housing
agency is designated as ``troubled'' by HUD, or otherwise is performing
poorly, the jurisdiction shall describe any actions it is taking to
assist the public housing agency in addressing these problems.
(j) Coordination. The consolidated plan must describe the
jurisdiction's activities to enhance coordination between public and
assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental
health, and service agencies. With respect to the public entities
involved, the plan must describe the means of cooperation and
coordination among the State and any units of general local government
in the metropolitan area in the implementation of its consolidated
plan.
(k) Public housing resident initiatives. The consolidated plan must
describe the jurisdiction's activities to encourage public housing
residents to become more involved in management and participate in
homeownership.
Sec. 91.220 Action plan.
The action plan must include the following:
(a) Form application. Standard Form 424;
(b) Resources. (1) Federal resources. The consolidated plan must
describe the Federal resources expected to be available to address the
priority needs and specific objectives identified in the strategic
plan, in accordance with Sec. 91.215. These resources include grant
funds and program income.
(2) Other resources. The consolidated plan must indicate resources
from private and non-Federal public sources that are reasonably
expected to be made available to address the needs identified in the
plan. The plan must explain how Federal funds will leverage those
additional resources, including a description of how matching
requirements of the HUD programs will be satisfied. Where the
jurisdiction deems it appropriate, it may indicate publicly owned land
or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to carry
out the purposes stated in Sec. 91.1;
(c) Activities to be undertaken. A description of the activities
the jurisdiction will undertake during the next year to address
priority needs in terms of local objectives that were identified in
Sec. 91.215. This description of activities shall estimate the number
and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities,
the specific local objectives and priority needs (identified in
accordance with Sec. 91.215) that will be addressed by the activities
using formula grant funds and program income the jurisdiction expects
to receive during the program year, proposed accomplishments, and a
target date for completion of the activity. This information is to be
presented in the form of a table prescribed by HUD;
(d) Geographic distribution. A description of the geographic areas
of the jurisdiction (including areas of minority concentration) in
which it will direct assistance during the ensuing program year, giving
the rationale for the priorities for allocating investment
geographically;
(e) Homeless and other special needs activities. Activities it
plans to undertake during the next year to address emergency shelter
and transitional housing needs of homeless individuals and families
(including subpopulations), to prevent low-income individuals and
families with children (especially those with incomes below 30 percent
of median) from becoming homeless, to help homeless persons make the
transition to permanent housing and independent living, and to address
the special needs of persons who are not homeless identified in
accordance with Sec. 91.215(d);
(f) Other actions. (1) General. Actions it plans to take during the
next year to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs, foster and
maintain affordable housing, remove barriers to affordable housing,
evaluate and reduce lead-based paint hazards, reduce the number of
poverty level families, develop institutional structure, and enhance
coordination between public and private housing and social service
agencies and foster public housing improvements and resident
initiatives (see Sec. 91.215 (a), (b), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and
(k)).
(2) Public housing. Appropriate reference to the annual revisions
of the action plan prepared for the Comprehensive Grant program. If the
public housing agency is designated as ``troubled'' by HUD, or
otherwise is performing poorly, the jurisdiction's plan, if any, to
assist the public housing [[Page 1905]] agency in addressing these
problems; and
(g) Program-specific requirements.--(1) CDBG. (i) A jurisdiction
must describe activities planned with respect to all CDBG funds
expected to be available during the program year (including program
income that will have been received before the start of the next
program year), except that an amount generally not to exceed ten
percent of such total available CDBG funds may be excluded from the
funds for which eligible activities are described if it has been
identified for the contingency of cost overruns.
(ii) CDBG funds expected to be available during the program year
includes the following:
(A) Any program income that will have been received before the
start of the next program year and that has not yet been programmed;
(B) Surplus from urban renewal settlements;
(C) Grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the
planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan; and
(D) Income from float-funded activities. The full amount of income
expected to be generated by a float-funded activity must be shown,
whether or not some or all of the income is expected to be received in
a future program year. To assure that citizens understand the risks
inherent in undertaking float-funded activities, the recipient must
specify the total amount of program income expected to be received and
the month(s) and year(s) that it expects the float-funded activity to
generate such program income.
(iii) An ``urgent needs'' activity (one that is expected to qualify
under Sec. 570.208(c) of this title) may be included only if the
jurisdiction identifies the activity in the action plan and certifies
that the activity is designed to meet other community development needs
having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious
and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community and
other financial resources are not available.
(iv) This information about activities shall be in sufficient
detail, including location, to allow citizens to determine the degree
to which they are affected.
(2) HOME. (i) For HOME funds, a participating jurisdiction shall
describe other forms of investment that are not described in
Sec. 92.205(b) of this title.
(ii) If the participating jurisdiction intends to use HOME funds
for homebuyers, it must state the guidelines for resale or recapture,
as required in Sec. 92.254 of this subtitle.
Sec. 91.225 Certifications.
(a) General. The following certifications, satisfactory to HUD,
must be included in the annual submission to HUD. (See definition of
``certification'' in Sec. 91.5.)
(1) Affirmatively furthering fair housing. Each jurisdiction is
required to submit a certification that it will affirmatively further
fair housing, which means that it will conduct an analysis to identify
impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction, take
appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments
identified through that analysis, and maintain records reflecting the
analysis and actions in this regard.
(2) Anti-displacement and relocation plan. Each jurisdiction is
required to submit a certification that it has in effect and is
following a residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan
in connection with any activity assisted with funding under the CDBG or
HOME programs.
(3) Drug-free workplace. The jurisdiction must submit a
certification with regard to drug-free workplace required by 24 CFR
part 24, subpart F.
(4) Anti-lobbying. The jurisdiction must submit a certification
with regard to compliance with restrictions on lobbying required by 24
CFR part 87, together with disclosure forms, if required by that part.
(5) Authority of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction must submit a
certification that the consolidated plan is authorized under State and
local law (as applicable) and that the jurisdiction possesses the legal
authority to carry out the programs for which it is seeking funding, in
accordance with applicable HUD regulations.
(6) Consistency with plan. The jurisdiction must submit a
certification that the housing activities to be undertaken with CDBG,
HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds are consistent with the strategic plan.
Where the HOPWA funds are to be received by a city that is the most
populous unit of general local government in an EMSA, it must obtain
and keep on file certifications of consistency from the authorized
public officials for each other locality in the EMSA in which housing
assistance is provided.
(7) Acquisition and relocation. The jurisdiction must submit a
certification that it will comply with the acquisition and relocation
requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601), and
implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 24.
(8) Section 3. The jurisdiction must submit a certification that it
will comply with section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701u), and implementing regulations at 24 CFR part
135.
(b) Community Development Block Grant program. For jurisdictions
that seek funding under CDBG, the following certifications are
required:
(1) Citizen participation. Each jurisdiction must certify that it
is in full compliance and following a detailed citizen participation
plan that satisfies the requirements of Sec. 91.105.
(2) Community development plan. A certification that this
consolidated housing and community development plan identifies
community development and housing needs and specifies both short-term
and long-term community development objectives that have been developed
in accordance with the primary objective of the statute authorizing the
CDBG program, as described in 24 CFR 570.2, and requirements of this
part and 24 CFR part 570.
(3) Following a plan. A certification that the jurisdiction is
following a current consolidated plan (or Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy) that has been approved by HUD.
(4) Use of funds. A certification that the jurisdiction has
complied with the following criteria:
(i) With respect to activities expected to be assisted with CDBG
funds, the Action Plan has been developed so as to give the maximum
feasible priority to activities that will benefit low- and moderate-
income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or
blight. The plan may also include CDBG-assisted activities that are
certified to be designed to meet other community development needs
having particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious
and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community where
other financial resources are not available to meet such needs;
(ii) The aggregate use of CDBG funds, including section 108
guaranteed loans, during a period specified by the jurisdiction,
consisting of one, two, or three specific consecutive program years,
shall principally benefit low- and moderate-income families in a manner
that ensures that at least 70 percent of the amount is expended for
activities that benefit such persons during the designated period (see
24 CFR 570.3 for definition of ``CDBG funds''); and
(iii) The jurisdiction will not attempt to recover any capital
costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG [[Page 1906]] funds,
including Section 108 loan guaranteed funds, by assessing any amount
against properties owned and occupied by persons of low- and moderate-
income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of
obtaining access to such public improvements. However, if CDBG funds
are used to pay the proportion of a fee or assessment attributable to
the capital costs of public improvements (assisted in part with CDBG
funds) financed from other revenue sources, an assessment or charge may
be made against the property with respect to the public improvements
financed by a source other than CDBG funds. In addition, with respect
to properties owned and occupied by moderate-income (but not low-
income) families, an assessment or charge may be made against the
property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source
other than CDBG funds if the jurisdiction certifies that it lacks CDBG
funds to cover the assessment.
(5) Excessive force. A certification that the jurisdiction has
adopted and is enforcing:
(i) A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law
enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals
engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and
(ii) A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against
physically barring entrance to or exit from, a facility or location
that is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations
within its jurisdiction.
(6) Compliance with anti-discrimination laws. The jurisdiction must
submit a certification that the grant will be conducted and
administered in conformity with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601-3619), and
implementing regulations.
(7) Compliance with lead-based paint procedures. The jurisdiction
must submit a certification that its notification, inspection, testing,
and abatement procedures concerning lead-based paint will comply with
the requirements of 24 CFR 570.608.
(8) Compliance with laws. A certification that the jurisdiction
will comply with applicable laws.
(c) Emergency Shelter Grant program. For jurisdictions that seek
funding under the Emergency Shelter Grant program, the following
certifications are required:
(1) In the case of assistance involving major rehabilitation or
conversion, the applicant will maintain any building for which
assistance is used under the ESG program as a shelter for homeless
individuals and families for not less than a 10-year period;
(2) In the case of assistance involving rehabilitation less than
that covered under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the applicant will
maintain any building for which assistance is used under the ESG
program as a shelter for homeless individuals and families for not less
than a three-year period;
(3) In the case of assistance involving essential services
(including but not limited to employment, health, drug abuse, or
education) or maintenance, operation, insurance, utilities and
furnishings, the applicant will provide services or shelter to homeless
individuals and families for the period during which the ESG assistance
is provided, without regard to a particular site or structure as long
as the same general population is served;
(4) Any renovation carried out with ESG assistance shall be
sufficient to ensure that the building involved is safe and sanitary;
(5) It will assist homeless individuals in obtaining appropriate
supportive services, including permanent housing, medical and mental
health treatment, counseling, supervision, and other services essential
for achieving independent living, and other Federal, State, local, and
private assistance available for such individuals;
(6) It will obtain matching amounts required under Sec. 576.71 of
this title;
(7) It will develop and implement procedures to ensure the
confidentiality of records pertaining to any individual provided family
violence prevention or treatment services under any project assisted
under the ESG program, including protection against the release of the
address or location of any family violence shelter project except with
the written authorization of the person responsible for the operation
of that shelter;
(8) To the maximum extent practicable, it will involve, through
employment, volunteer services, or otherwise, homeless individuals and
families in constructing, renovating, maintaining, and operating
facilities assisted under this program, in providing services assisted
under the program, and in providing services for occupants of
facilities assisted under the program; and
(9) It is following a current HUD-approved consolidated plan (or
CHAS).
(d) HOME program. Each participating jurisdiction must provide the
following certifications:
(1) If it plans to use HOME funds for tenant-based rental
assistance, a certification that rental-based assistance is an
essential element of its consolidated plan;
(2) A certification that it is using and will use HOME funds for
eligible activities and costs, as described in Secs. 92.205 through
92.209 of this subtitle and that it is not using and will not use HOME
funds for prohibited activities, as described in Sec. 92.214 of this
subtitle; and
(3) A certification that before committing funds to a project, the
participating jurisdiction will evaluate the project in accordance with
guidelines that it adopts for this purpose and will not invest any more
HOME funds in combination with other federal assistance than is
necessary to provide affordable housing.
(e) Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS. For jurisdictions
that seek funding under the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS
program, a certification is required by the jurisdiction that:
(1) Activities funded under the program will meet urgent needs that
are not being met by available public and private sources; and
(2) Any building or structure assisted under that program shall be
operated for the purpose specified in the plan:
(i) For a period of not less than 10 years in the case of
assistance involving new construction, substantial rehabilitation, or
acquisition of a facility; or
(ii) For a period of not less than three years in the case of
assistance involving non-substantial rehabilitation or repair of a
building or structure.
Sec. 91.230 Monitoring.
The plan must describe the standards and procedures that the
jurisdiction will use to monitor activities carried out in furtherance
of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance with
requirements of the programs involved, including minority business
outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements.
Sec. 91.235 Special case; abbreviated consolidated plan.
(a) Who may submit an abbreviated plan? A jurisdiction that is not
a CDBG entitlement community under 24 CFR part 570, subpart D, and is
not expected to be a participating jurisdiction in the HOME program
under 24 CFR part 92, may submit an abbreviated consolidated plan that
is appropriate to the types and amounts of assistance sought from HUD
instead of a full consolidated plan.
(b) When is an abbreviated plan necessary? (1) Jurisdiction. When a
jurisdiction that is permitted to use an abbreviated plan applies to
HUD for [[Page 1907]] funds under a program that requires an approved
consolidated plan (see Sec. 91.2(b)), it must obtain approval of an
abbreviated plan (or full consolidated plan) and submit a certification
that the housing activities are consistent with the plan.
(2) Other applicants. When an eligible applicant other than a
jurisdiction (e.g., a public housing agency or nonprofit organization)
seeks to apply for funding under a program requiring certification of
consistency with an approved consolidated plan, the jurisdiction--if it
is permitted to use an abbreviated plan--may prepare an abbreviated
plan appropriate to the project. See Sec. 91.510.
(3) Limitation. For the HOME program, an abbreviated consolidated
plan is only permitted with respect to reallocations to other than
participating jurisdictions (see 24 CFR part 92, subpart J). For the
CDBG program, an abbreviated plan may be submitted for the HUD-
administered Small Cities program, except an abbreviated plan may not
be submitted for the HUD-administered Small Cities program in the State
of Hawaii.
(c) What is an abbreviated plan? (1) Assessment of needs,
resources, planned activities. An abbreviated plan must contain
sufficient information about needs, resources, and planned activities
to address the needs to cover the type and amount of assistance
anticipated to be funded by HUD.
(2) Nonhousing community development plan. If the jurisdiction
seeks assistance under the Community Development Block Grant program,
it must describe the jurisdiction's priority non-housing community
development needs eligible for assistance under HUD's community
development programs by CDBG eligibility category, reflecting the needs
of families for each type of activity, as appropriate, in terms of
dollar amounts estimated to meet the priority need for the type of
activity, in accordance with a table prescribed by HUD. This community
development component of the plan must state the jurisdiction's
specific long-term and short-term community development objectives
(including economic development activities that create jobs), which
must be developed in accordance with the statutory goals described in
Sec. 91.1 and the primary objective of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5301(c), of the development of
viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable
living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally
for low-income and moderate-income persons.
(3) Separate application for funding. In addition to submission of
the abbreviated consolidated plan, an application must be submitted for
funding is sought under a competitive program. The applicable program
requirements are found in the regulations for the program and in the
Notice of Funding Availability published for the applicable fiscal
year. For the CDBG Small Cities program, the applicable regulations are
found at 24 CFR part 570, subpart F.
(d) What consultation is applicable? The jurisdiction must make
reasonable efforts to consult with appropriate public and private
social service agencies regarding the needs to be served with the
funding sought from HUD. The jurisdiction must attempt some
consultation with the State. (Section 91.100 does not apply.)
(e) What citizen participation process is applicable? If the
jurisdiction is seeking CDBG funds under the CDBG Small Cities program,
before submitting the abbreviated consolidated plan and application to
HUD for funding, the jurisdiction must comply with the citizen
participation requirements of 24 CFR 570.431. If it is not seeking such
funding, the jurisdiction must conduct a citizen participation process
as provided in section 107 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12707). (Section 91.105 does not apply.)
Sec. 91.236 Special case; District of Columbia.
For consolidated planning purposes, the District of Columbia must
follow the requirements applicable to local jurisdictions
(Secs. 91.100, 91.105, and 91.200 through 91.230). In addition, it must
submit the component of the State requirements dealing with the use of
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (Sec. 91.315(j)).
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Subpart D--State Governments; Contents of Consolidated Plan
Sec. 91.300 General.
(a) A complete consolidated plan consists of the information
required in Secs. 91.305 through 91.330, submitted in accordance with
instructions prescribed by HUD (including tables and narratives), or in
such other format as jointly agreed upon by HUD and the State.
(b) The State shall describe the lead agency or entity responsible
for overseeing the development of the plan and the significant aspects
of the process by which the consolidated plan was developed, the
identity of the agencies, groups, organizations, and others who
participated in the process, and a description of the State's
consultations with social service agencies and other entities. It also
shall include a summary of the citizen participation process, public
comments, and efforts made to broaden public participation in the
development of the consolidated plan.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 91.305 Housing and homeless needs assessment.
(a) General. The consolidated plan must describe the State's
estimated housing needs projected for the ensuing five-year period.
Housing data included in this portion of the plan shall be based on
U.S. Census data, as provided by HUD, as updated by any properly
conducted local study, or any other reliable source that the State
clearly identifies and should reflect the consultation with social
service agencies and other entities conducted in accordance with
Sec. 91.110 and the citizen participation process conducted in
accordance with Sec. 91.115. For a State seeking funding under the
HOPWA program, the needs described for housing and supportive services
must address the needs of persons with HIV/AIDS and their families in
areas outside of eligible metropolitan statistical areas.
(b) Categories of persons affected. (1) The consolidated plan shall
estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance
for extremely low-income, low-income, moderate-income, and middle-
income families, for renters and owners, for elderly persons, for
single persons, for large families, for persons with HIV/AIDS and their
families, and for persons with disabilities. The description of housing
needs shall include a discussion of the cost burden and severe cost
burden, overcrowding (especially for large families), and substandard
housing conditions being experienced by extremely low-income, low-
income, moderate-income, and middle-income renters and owners compared
to the State as a whole.
(2) For any of the income categories enumerated in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section, to the extent that any racial or ethnic group has
disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that
category as a whole, assessment of that specific need shall be
included. For this purpose, disproportionately greater need exists when
the percentage of persons in a category of need who are members of a
particular racial or ethnic group is at least 10 percentage points
[[Page 1908]] higher than the percentage of persons in the category as
a whole.
(c) Homeless needs. The plan must describe the nature and extent of
homelessness (including rural homelessness) within the State,
addressing separately the need for facilities and services for homeless
individuals and homeless families with children, both sheltered and
unsheltered, and homeless subpopulations, in accordance with a table
prescribed by HUD. This description must include the characteristics
and needs of low-income individuals and families with children
(especially extremely low-income) who are currently housed but
threatened with homelessness. The plan also must contain a narrative
description of the nature and extent of homelessness by racial and
ethnic group, to the extent information is available.
(d) Other special needs. (1) The State shall estimate, to the
extent practicable, the number of persons who are not homeless but
require supportive housing, including the elderly, frail elderly,
persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons
with alcohol or other drug addiction, persons with HIV/AIDS and their
families, and any other categories the State may specify, and describe
their supportive housing needs.
(2) With respect to a State seeking assistance under the HOPWA
program, the plan must identify the size and characteristics of the
population with HIV/AIDS and their families within the area it will
serve.
(e) Lead-based paint hazards. The plan must estimate the number of
housing units within the State that are occupied by low-income families
or moderate-income families that contain lead-based paint hazards, as
defined in this part.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 91.310 Housing market analysis.
(a) General characteristics. Based on data available to the State,
the plan must describe the significant characteristics of the State's
housing markets (including such aspects as the supply, demand, and
condition and cost of housing).
(b) Homeless facilities. The plan must include a brief inventory of
facilities and services that meet the needs for emergency shelter and
transitional housing needs of homeless persons within the State.
(c) Special need facilities and services. The plan must describe,
to the extent information is available, the facilities and services
that assist persons who are not homeless but who require supportive
housing, and programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental
and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive
housing.
(d) Barriers to affordable housing. The plan must explain whether
the cost of housing or the incentives to develop, maintain, or improve
affordable housing in the State are affected by its policies, including
tax policies affecting land and other property, land use controls,
zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limits, and
policies that affect the return on residential investment.
Sec. 91.315 Strategic plan.
(a) General. For the categories described in paragraphs (b), (c),
(d), and (e) of this section, the consolidated plan must do the
following:
(1) Indicate the general priorities for allocating investment
geographically within the State and among priority needs;
(2) Describe the basis for assigning the priority (including the
relative priority, where required) given to each category of priority
needs;
(3) Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs;
(4) Summarize the priorities and specific objectives, describing
how the proposed distribution of funds will address identified needs;
(5) For each specific objective, identify the proposed
accomplishments the State hopes to achieve in quantitative terms over a
specific time period (i.e., one, two, three or more years), or in other
measurable terms as identified and defined by the State.
(b) Affordable housing. With respect to affordable housing, the
consolidated plan must do the following:
(1) The description of the basis for assigning relative priority to
each category of priority need shall state how the analysis of the
housing market and the severity of housing problems and needs of
extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income renters and
owners identified in accordance with Sec. 91.305 provided the basis for
assigning the relative priority given to each priority need category in
the priority housing needs table prescribed by HUD. Family and income
types may be grouped together for discussion where the analysis would
apply to more than one of them;
(2) The statement of specific objectives must indicate how the
characteristics of the housing market will influence the use of funds
made available for rental assistance, production of new units,
rehabilitation of old units, or acquisition of existing units; and
(3) The description of proposed accomplishments shall specify the
number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income
families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as
defined in Sec. 92.252 of this subtitle for rental housing and
Sec. 92.254 of this subtitle for homeownership over a specific time
period.
(c) Homelessness. With respect to homelessness, the consolidated
plan must include the priority homeless needs table prescribed by HUD
and must describe the State's strategy for the following:
(1) Helping low-income families avoid becoming homeless;
(2) Reaching out to homeless persons and assessing their individual
needs;
(3) Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs
of homeless persons; and
(4) Helping homeless persons make the transition to permanent
housing and independent living.
(d) Other special needs. With respect to supportive needs of the
non-homeless, the consolidated plan must describe the priority housing
and supportive service needs of persons who are not homeless but
require supportive housing (i.e., elderly, frail elderly, persons with
disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons with alcohol or
other drug addiction, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, and
public housing residents).
(e) Nonhousing community development plan. If the State seeks
assistance under the Community Development Block Grant program, the
consolidated plan must describe the State's priority nonhousing
community development needs that affect more than one unit of general
local government and involve activities typically funded by the State
under the CDBG program. These priority needs must be described by CDBG
eligibility category, reflecting the needs of persons or families for
each type of activity. This community development component of the plan
must state the State's specific long-term and short-term community
development objectives (including economic development activities that
create jobs), which must be developed in accordance with the statutory
goals described in Sec. 91.1 and the primary objective of the CDBG
program to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing
and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities,
principally for low-income and moderate-income persons. [[Page 1909]]
(f) Barriers to affordable housing. The consolidated plan must
describe the State's strategy to remove or ameliorate negative effects
of its policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing, as
identified in accordance with Sec. 91.310.
(g) Lead-based paint hazards. The consolidated plan must outline
the actions proposed or being taken to evaluate and reduce lead-based
paint hazards, and describe how the lead-based paint hazard reduction
will be integrated into housing policies and programs.
(h) Anti-poverty strategy. The consolidated plan must describe the
State's goals, programs, and policies for reducing the number of
poverty level families and how the State's goals, programs, and
policies for producing and preserving affordable housing, set forth in
the housing component of the consolidated plan, will be coordinated
with other programs and services for which the State is responsible and
the extent to which they will reduce (or assist in reducing) the number
of poverty level families, taking into consideration factors over which
the State has control.
(i) Institutional structure. The consolidated plan must explain the
institutional structure, including private industry, nonprofit
organizations, and public institutions, through which the State will
carry out its housing and community development plan, assessing the
strengths and gaps in that delivery system. The plan must describe what
the State will do to overcome gaps in the institutional structure for
carrying out its strategy for addressing its priority needs.
(j) Coordination. The consolidated plan must describe the State's
activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing
providers and private and governmental health, mental health, and
service agencies. With respect to the public entities involved, the
plan must describe the means of cooperation and coordination among the
State and any units of general local government in the implementation
of its consolidated plan.
(k) Low-income housing tax credit use. The consolidated plan must
describe the strategy to coordinate the Low-income Housing Tax Credit
with the development of housing that is affordable to low-income and
moderate-income families.
(l) Public housing resident initiatives. For a State that has a
State housing agency administering public housing funds, the
consolidated plan must describe the State's activities to encourage
public housing residents to become more involved in management and
participate in homeownership.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 91.320 Action plan.
The action plan must include the following:
(a) Form application. Standard Form 424;
(b) Resources. (1) Federal resources. The consolidated plan must
describe the Federal resources expected to be available to address the
priority needs and specific objectives identified in the strategic
plan, in accordance with Sec. 91.315. These resources include grant
funds and program income.
(2) Other resources. The consolidated plan must indicate resources
from private and non-Federal public sources that are reasonably
expected to be made available to address the needs identified in the
plan. The plan must explain how Federal funds will leverage those
additional resources, including a description of how matching
requirements of the HUD programs will be satisfied. Where the State
deems it appropriate, it may indicate publicly owned land or property
located within the State that may be used to carry out the purposes
stated in Sec. 91.1;
(c) Activities. A description of the State's method for
distributing funds to local governments and nonprofit organizations to
carry out activities, or the activities to be undertaken by the State,
using funds that are expected to be received under formula allocations
(and related program income) and other HUD assistance during the
program year and how the proposed distribution of funds will address
the priority needs and specific objectives described in the
consolidated plan;
(d) Geographic distribution. A description of the geographic areas
of the State (including areas of minority concentration) in which it
will direct assistance during the ensuing program year, giving the
rationale for the priorities for allocating investment geographically;
(e) Homeless and other special needs activities. Activities it
plans to undertake during the next year to address emergency shelter
and transitional housing needs of homeless individuals and families
(including subpopulations), to prevent low-income individuals and
families with children (especially those with incomes below 30 percent
of median) from becoming homeless, to help homeless persons make the
transition to permanent housing and independent living, and to address
the special needs of persons who are not homeless identified in
accordance with Sec. 91.315(d);
(f) Other actions. Actions it plans to take during the next year to
address obstacles to meeting underserved needs, foster and maintain
affordable housing (including the coordination of Low-Income Housing
Tax Credits with the development of affordable housing), remove
barriers to affordable housing, evaluate and reduce lead-based paint
hazards, reduce the number of poverty level families, develop
institutional structure, and enhance coordination between public and
private housing and social service agencies and foster public housing
resident initiatives. (See Sec. 91.315 (a), (b), (f), (g), (h), (i),
(j), (k), and (l).)
(g) Program-specific requirements. In addition, the plan must
include the following specific information:
(1) CDBG. (i) An ``urgent needs'' activity (one that is expected to
qualify under Sec. 570.208(c) of this title) may be included only if
the State identifies the activity in the action plan and certifies that
the activity is designed to meet other community development needs
having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious
and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community and
other financial resources are not available.
(ii) The method of distribution shall contain a description of all
criteria used to select applications from local governments for
funding, including the relative importance of the criteria--if the
relative importance has been developed. The action plan must include a
description of how all CDBG resources will be allocated among all
funding categories and the threshold factors and grant size limits that
are to be applied. If the State intends to aid nonentitlement units of
general local government in applying for guaranteed loan funds under 24
CFR part 570, subpart M, it must describe available guarantee amounts
and how applications will be selected for assistance. (The statement of
the method of distribution must provide sufficient information so that
units of general local government will be able to understand and
comment on it and be able to prepare responsive applications.)
(2) HOME. (i) The State shall describe other forms of investment
that are not described in Sec. 92.205(b) of this subtitle.
(ii) If the State intends to use HOME funds for homebuyers, it must
state the guidelines for resale or recapture, as required in
Sec. 92.254 of this subtitle.
(3) ESG. The State shall state the process for awarding grants to
State recipients and a description of how the State intends to make its
allocation [[Page 1910]] available to units of local government and
nonprofit organizations.
(4) HOPWA. The State shall state the method of selecting project
sponsors.
Sec. 91.325 Certifications.
(a) General--(1) Affirmatively furthering fair housing. Each State
is required to submit a certification that it will affirmatively
further fair housing, which means that it will conduct an analysis to
identify impediments to fair housing choice within the State, take
appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments
identified through that analysis, and maintain records reflecting the
analysis and actions in this regard. (See Sec. 570.487(b)(2)(ii) of
this title.)
(2) Anti-displacement and relocation plan. The State is required to
submit a certification that it has in effect and is following a
residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan in
connection with any activity assisted with funding under the CDBG or
HOME programs.
(3) Drug-free workplace. The State must submit a certification with
regard to drug-free workplace required by 24 CFR part 24, subpart F.
(4) Anti-lobbying. The State must submit a certification with
regard to compliance with restrictions on lobbying required by 24 CFR
part 87, together with disclosure forms, if required by that part.
(5) Authority of State. The State must submit a certification that
the consolidated plan is authorized under State law and that the State
possesses the legal authority to carry out the programs for which it is
seeking funding, in accordance with applicable HUD regulations.
(6) Consistency with plan. The State must submit a certification
that the housing activities to be undertaken with CDBG, HOME, ESG, and
HOPWA funds are consistent with the strategic plan.
(7) Acquisition and relocation. The State must submit a
certification that it will comply with the acquisition and relocation
requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and implementing
regulations at 49 CFR part 24.
(8) Section 3. The State must submit a certification that it will
comply with section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968
(12 U.S.C. 1701u), and implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 135.
(b) Community Development Block Grant program. For States that seek
funding under CDBG, the following certifications are required:
(1) Citizen participation. A certification that the State is
following a detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the
requirements of Sec. 91.115, and that each unit of general local
government that is receiving assistance from the State is following a
detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the requirements of
Sec. 570.486 of this title.
(2) Consultation with local governments. A certification that:
(i) It has consulted with affected units of local government in the
nonentitlement area of the State in determining the method of
distribution of funding;
(ii) It engages or will engage in planning for community
development activities;
(iii) It provides or will provide technical assistance to units of
general local government in connection with community development
programs;
(iv) It will not refuse to distribute funds to any unit of general
local government on the basis of the particular eligible activity
selected by the unit of general local government to meet its community
development needs, except that a State is not prevented from
establishing priorities in distributing funding on the basis of the
activities selected; and
(v) Each unit of general local government to be distributed funds
will be required to identify its community development and housing
needs, including the needs of the low-income and moderate-income
families, and the activities to be undertaken to meet these needs.
(3) Community development plan. A certification that this
consolidated plan identifies community development and housing needs
and specifies both short-term and long-term community development
objectives that have been developed in accordance with the primary
objective of the statute authorizing the CDBG program, as described in
24 CFR 570.2, and requirements of this part and 24 CFR part 570.
(4) Use of funds. A certification that the State has complied with
the following criteria:
(i) With respect to activities expected to be assisted with CDBG
funds, the action plan has been developed so as to give the maximum
feasible priority to activities that will benefit low- and moderate-
income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or
blight. The plan may also include CDBG-assisted activities that are
certified to be designed to meet other community development needs
having particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious
and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community where
other financial resources are not available to meet such needs;
(ii) The aggregate use of CDBG funds, including section 108
guaranteed loans, during a period specified by the State, consisting of
one, two, or three specific consecutive program years, shall
principally benefit low- and moderate-income families in a manner that
ensures that at least 70 percent of the amount is expended for
activities that benefit such persons during the designated period (see
24 CFR 570.481 for definition of ``CDBG funds''); and
(iii) The State will not attempt to recover any capital costs of
public improvements assisted with CDBG funds, including Section 108
loan guaranteed funds, by assessing any amount against properties owned
and occupied by persons of low- and moderate-income, including any fee
charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such
public improvements. However, if CDBG funds are used to pay the
proportion of a fee or assessment attributable to the capital costs of
public improvements (assisted in part with CDBG funds) financed from
other revenue sources, an assessment or charge may be made against the
property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source
other than with CDBG funds. In addition, with respect to properties
owned and occupied by moderate-income (but not low-income) families, an
assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to
the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds if
the State certifies that it lacks CDBG funds to cover the assessment.
(5) Compliance with anti-discrimination laws. A certification that
the grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) and the Fair
Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601-3619) and implementing regulations.
(6) Excessive force. A certification that the State will require
units of general local government that receive CDBG funds to certify
that they have adopted and are enforcing:
(i) A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law
enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals
engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and
(ii) A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against
physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location that
is the subject of such [[Page 1911]] non-violent civil rights
demonstrations within its jurisdiction.
(7) Compliance with laws. A certification that the State will
comply with applicable laws.
(c) Emergency Shelter Grant program. For States that seek funding
under the Emergency Shelter Grant program, a certification is required
by the State that it will ensure that its State recipients comply with
the following criteria:
(1) In the case of assistance involving major rehabilitation or
conversion, it will maintain any building for which assistance is used
under the ESG program as a shelter for homeless individuals and
families for not less than a 10-year period;
(2) In the case of assistance involving rehabilitation less than
that covered under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, it will maintain
any building for which assistance is used under the ESG program as a
shelter for homeless individuals and families for not less than a
three-year period;
(3) In the case of assistance involving essential services
(including but not limited to employment, health, drug abuse, or
education) or maintenance, operation, insurance, utilities and
furnishings, it will provide services or shelter to homeless
individuals and families for the period during which the ESG assistance
is provided, without regard to a particular site or structure as long
as the same general population is served;
(4) Any renovation carried out with ESG assistance shall be
sufficient to ensure that the building involved is safe and sanitary;
(5) It will assist homeless individuals in obtaining appropriate
supportive services, including permanent housing, medical and mental
health treatment, counseling, supervision, and other services essential
for achieving independent living, and other Federal, State, local, and
private assistance available for such individuals;
(6) It will obtain matching amounts required under Sec. 576.71 of
this title;
(7) It will develop and implement procedures to ensure the
confidentiality of records pertaining to any individual provided family
violence prevention or treatment services under any project assisted
under the ESG program, including protection against the release of the
address or location of any family violence shelter project except with
the written authorization of the person responsible for the operation
of that shelter;
(8) To the maximum extent practicable, it will involve, through
employment, volunteer services, or otherwise, homeless individuals and
families in constructing, renovating, maintaining, and operating
facilities assisted under this program, in providing services assisted
under the program, and in providing services for occupants of
facilities assisted under the program; and
(9) It is following a current HUD-approved consolidated plan.
(d) HOME program. Each State must provide the following
certifications:
(1) If it plans to use program funds for tenant-based rental
assistance, a certification that rental-based assistance is an
essential element of its consolidated plan;
(2) A certification that it is using and will use HOME funds for
eligible activities and costs, as described in Secs. 92.205 through
92.209 of this subtitle and that it is not using and will not use HOME
funds for prohibited activities, as described in Sec. 92.214 of this
subtitle; and
(3) A certification that before committing funds to a project, the
State or its recipients will evaluate the project in accordance with
guidelines that it adopts for this purpose and will not invest any more
HOME funds in combination with other federal assistance than is
necessary to provide affordable housing.
(e) Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS. For States that
seek funding under the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS
program, a certification is required by the State that:
(1) Activities funded under the program will meet urgent needs that
are not being met by available public and private sources; and
(2) Any building or structure purchased, leased, rehabilitated,
renovated, or converted with assistance under that program shall be
operated for not less than 10 years specified in the plan, or for a
period of not less than three years in cases involving non-substantial
rehabilitation or repair of a building or structure.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 91.330 Monitoring.
The consolidated plan must describe the standards and procedures
that the State will use to monitor activities carried out in
furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance
with requirements of the programs involved, including the comprehensive
planning requirements.
Subpart E--Consortia; Contents of Consolidated Plan
Sec. 91.400 Applicability.
This subpart applies to HOME program consortia, as defined in
Sec. 91.5 (see 24 CFR part 92). Units of local government that
participate in a consortium must participate in submission of a
consolidated plan for the consortium, prepared in accordance with this
subpart. CDBG entitlement communities that are members of a consortium
must provide additional information for the consolidated plan, as
described in this subpart.
Sec. 91.401 Citizen participation plan.
The consortium must have a citizen participation plan that complies
with the requirements of Sec. 91.105. If the consortium contains one or
more CDBG entitlement communities, the consortium's citizen
participation plan must provide for citizen participation within each
CDBG entitlement community, either by the consortium or by the CDBG
entitlement community, in a manner sufficient for the CDBG entitlement
community to certify that it is following a citizen participation plan.
Sec. 91.402 Consolidated program year.
(a) Same program year for consortia members. All units of general
local government that are members of a consortium must be on the same
program year for CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA. The program year shall run
for a twelve month period and begin on the first calendar day of a
month.
(b) Transition period. (1) A consortium in existence on March 6,
1995, with all members having aligned program years must comply with
paragraph (a) of this section. A consortium in existence on March 6,
1995, in which all members do not have aligned program years will be
allowed a transition period during the balance of its current
consortium agreement to bring the program year for all members into
alignment.
(2) During any such transition period, the lead agency (if it is a
CDBG entitlement community) must submit, as its consolidated plan, a
plan that complies with this subpart for the consortium, plus its
nonhousing Community Development Plan (in accordance with Sec. 91.215).
All other CDBG entitlement communities in the consortium may submit
their respective nonhousing Community Development Plans
(Sec. 91.215(e)), an Action Plan (Sec. 91.220) and the certifications
(Sec. 91.425(a) and (b)) in accordance with their individual program
years.
[[Page 1912]] (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget
under control number 2506-0117).
Sec. 91.405 Housing and homeless needs assessment.
Housing and homeless needs must be described in the consolidated
plan in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 91.205 for the entire
consortium. In addition to describing these needs for the entire
consortium, the consolidated plan may also describe these needs for
individual communities that are members of the consortium.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 91.410 Housing market analysis.
Housing market analysis must be described in the consolidated plan
in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 91.210 for the entire
consortium. In addition to describing market conditions for the entire
consortium, the consolidated plan may also describe these conditions
for individual communities that are members of the consortium.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 91.415 Strategic plan.
Strategies and priority needs must be described in the consolidated
plan in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 91.215 for the entire
consortium. The consortium is not required to submit a nonhousing
Community Development Plan; however, if the consortium includes CDBG
entitlement communities, the consolidated plan must include the
nonhousing Community Development Plans of the CDBG entitlement
community members of the consortium. The consortium must set forth its
priorities for allocating housing (including CDBG and ESG, where
applicable) resources geographically within the consortium, describing
how the consolidated plan will address the needs identified (in
accordance with Sec. 91.405), describing the reasons for the
consortium's allocation priorities, and identifying any obstacles there
are to addressing underserved needs.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 91.420 Action plan.
(a) Form application. The action plan for the consortium must
include a Standard Form 424 for the consortium for the HOME program.
Each entitlement jurisdiction also must submit a Standard Form 424 for
its funding under the CDBG program and, if applicable, the ESG and
HOPWA programs.
(b) Description of resources and activities. The action plan must
describe the resources to be used and activities to be undertaken to
pursue its strategic plan. The consolidated plan must provide this
description for all resources and activities within the entire
consortium as a whole, as well as a description for each individual
community that is a member of the consortium.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 91.425 Certifications.
(a) Consortium certifications--(1) General--(i) Affirmatively
furthering fair housing. Each consortium must certify that it will
affirmatively further fair housing, which means that it will conduct an
analysis to identify impediments to fair housing choice within the
area, take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any
impediments identified through that analysis, and maintain records
reflecting the analysis and actions in this regard.
(ii) Anti-displacement and relocation plan. Each consortium must
certify that it has in effect and is following a residential
antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan in connection with any
activity assisted with funding under the HOME or CDBG program.
(iii) Drug-free workplace. The consortium must submit a
certification with regard to drug-free workplace required by 24 CFR
part 24, subpart F.
(iv) Anti-lobbying. The consortium must submit a certification with
regard to compliance with restrictions on lobbying required by 24 CFR
part 87, together with disclosure forms, if required by that part.
(v) Authority of consortium. The consortium must submit a
certification that the consolidated plan is authorized under State and
local law (as applicable) and that the consortium possesses the legal
authority to carry out the programs for which it is seeking funding, in
accordance with applicable HUD regulations.
(vi) Consistency with plan. The consortium must certify that the
housing activities to be undertaken with CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA
funds are consistent with the strategic plan.
(vii) Acquisition and relocation. The consortium must certify that
it will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601), and implementing regulations
at 49 CFR part 24.
(viii) Section 3. The consortium must certify that it will comply
with section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12
U.S.C. 1701u), and implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 135.
(2) HOME program. The consortium must provide the following
certifications:
(i) If it plans to use HOME funds for tenant-based rental
assistance, a certification that rental-based assistance is an
essential element of its consolidated plan;
(ii) That it is using and will use HOME funds for eligible
activities and costs, as described in Secs. 92.205 through 92.209 of
this subtitle and that it is not using and will not use HOME funds for
prohibited activities, as described in Sec. 92.214 of this subtitle;
and
(iii) That before committing funds to a project, the consortium
will evaluate the project in accordance with guidelines that it adopts
for this purpose and will not invest any more HOME funds in combination
with other federal assistance than is necessary to provide affordable
housing.
(b) CDBG entitlement community certifications. A CDBG entitlement
community that is a member of a consortium must submit the
certifications required by Sec. 91.225 (a) and (b), and, if applicable,
of Sec. 91.225 (c) and (d).
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 91.430 Monitoring.
The consolidated plan must describe the standards and procedures
that the consortium will use to monitor activities carried out in
furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance
with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business
outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements.
Subpart F--Other General Requirements
Sec. 91.500 HUD approval action.
(a) General. HUD will review the plan upon receipt. The plan will
be deemed approved 45 days after HUD receives the plan, unless before
that date HUD has notified the jurisdiction that the plan is
disapproved.
(b) Standard of review. HUD may disapprove a plan or a portion of a
plan if it is inconsistent with the purposes of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12703), or it is
substantially incomplete. The following are examples of consolidated
plans that are substantially incomplete: [[Page 1913]]
(1) A plan that was developed without the required citizen
participation or the required consultation;
(2) A plan that fails to satisfy all the required elements in this
part; and
(3) A plan for which a certification is rejected by HUD as
inaccurate, after HUD has inspected the evidence and provided due
notice and opportunity to the jurisdiction for comment.
(c) Written notice of disapproval. Within 15 days after HUD
notifies a jurisdiction that it is disapproving its plan, it must
inform the jurisdiction in writing of the reasons for disapproval and
actions that the jurisdiction could take to meet the criteria for
approval. Disapproval of a plan with respect to one program does not
affect assistance distributed on the basis of a formula under other
programs.
(d) Revisions and resubmission. The jurisdiction may revise or
resubmit a plan within 45 days after the first notification of
disapproval. HUD must respond to approve or disapprove the plan within
30 days of receiving the revisions or resubmission.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 91.505 Amendments to the consolidated plan.
(a) Amendments to the plan. The jurisdiction shall amend its
approved plan whenever it makes one of the following decisions:
(1) To make a change in its allocation priorities or a change in
the method of distribution of funds;
(2) To carry out an activity, using funds from any program covered
by the consolidated plan (including program income), not previously
described in the action plan; or
(3) To change the purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries of an
activity.
(b) Criteria for substantial amendment. The jurisdiction shall
identify in its citizen participation plan the criteria it will use for
determining what constitutes a substantial amendment. It is these
substantial amendments that are subject to a citizen participation
process, in accordance with the jurisdiction's citizen participation
plan. (See Secs. 91.105 and 91.115.)
(c) Submission to HUD. (1) Upon completion, the jurisdiction must
make the amendment public and must notify HUD that an amendment has
been made. The jurisdiction may submit a copy of each amendment to HUD
as it occurs, or at the end of the program year. Letters transmitting
copies of amendments must be signed by the official representative of
the jurisdiction authorized to take such action.
(2) See subpart B of this part for the public notice procedures
applicable to substantial amendments. For any amendment affecting the
HOPWA program that would involve acquisition, rehabilitation,
conversion, lease, repair or construction of properties to provide
housing, an environmental review of the revised proposed use of funds
must be completed by HUD in accordance with 24 CFR 574.510.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 91.510 Consistency determinations.
(a) Applicability. For competitive programs, a certification of
consistency of the application with the approved consolidated plan for
the jurisdiction may be required, whether the applicant is the
jurisdiction or another applicant.
(b) Certifying authority. (1) The certification must be obtained
from the unit of general local government if the project will be
located in a unit of general local government that: is required to have
a consolidated plan, is authorized to use an abbreviated consolidated
plan but elects to prepare and has submitted a full consolidated plan,
or is authorized to use an abbreviated consolidated plan and is
applying for the same program as the applicant pursuant to the same
Notice of Funding Availability (and therefore has or will have an
abbreviated consolidated plan for the fiscal year for that program).
(2) If the project will not be located in a unit of general local
government, the certification may be obtained from the State or, if the
project will be located in a unit of general local government
authorized to use an abbreviated consolidated plan, from the unit of
general local government if it is willing to prepare such a plan.
(3) Where the recipient of a HOPWA grant is a city that is the most
populous unit of general local government in an EMSA, it also must
obtain and keep on file certifications of consistency from such public
officials for each other locality in the EMSA in which housing
assistance is provided.
(c) Meaning. A jurisdiction's certification that an application is
consistent with its consolidated plan means the jurisdiction's plan
shows need, the proposed activities are consistent with the
jurisdiction's strategic plan, and the location of the proposed
activities is consistent with the geographic areas specified in the
plan. The jurisdiction shall provide the reasons for the denial when it
fails to provide a certification of consistency.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 91.515 Funding determinations by HUD.
(a) Formula funding. The action plan submitted by the jurisdiction
will be considered as the application for the CDBG, HOME, ESG, and
HOPWA formula grant programs. The Department will make its funding
award determination after reviewing the plan submission in accordance
with Sec. 91.500.
(b) Other funding. For other funding, the jurisdiction must still
respond to Notices of Funding Availability for the individual programs
in order to receive funding.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 91.520 Performance reports.
(a) General. Each jurisdiction that has an approved consolidated
plan shall annually review and report, in a form prescribed by HUD, on
the progress it has made in carrying out its strategic plan and its
action plan. The performance report must include a description of the
resources made available, the investment of available resources, the
geographic distribution and location of investments, the families and
persons assisted (including the racial and ethnic status of persons
assisted), actions taken to affirmatively further fair housing, and
other actions indicated in the strategic plan and the action plan. This
performance report shall be submitted to HUD within 90 days after the
close of the jurisdiction's program year.
(b) Affordable housing. The report shall include an evaluation of
the jurisdiction's progress in meeting its specific objective of
providing affordable housing, including the number and types of
families served. This element of the report must include the number of
extremely low-income, low-income, moderate-income, and middle-income
persons served.
(c) CDBG. For CDBG recipients, the report shall include a
description of the use of CDBG funds during the program year and an
assessment by the jurisdiction of the relationship of that use to the
priorities and specific objectives identified in the plan, giving
special attention to the highest priority activities that were
identified. This element of the report must specify the nature of and
reasons for any changes in its program objectives and indications of
how the jurisdiction would change its programs as a result of its
experiences. This element of the report also must include the number of
extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income persons served by
each activity where information on income by family size is required to
determine the eligibility of the activity. [[Page 1914]]
(d) HOME. For HOME participating jurisdictions, the report shall
include the results of on-site inspections of affordable rental housing
assisted under the program to determine compliance with housing codes
and other applicable regulations, an assessment of the jurisdiction's
affirmative marketing actions and outreach to minority-owned and women-
owned businesses, and data on the amount and use of program income for
projects, including the number of projects and owner and tenant
characteristics.
(e) HOPWA. For jurisdictions receiving funding under the Housing
Opportunities for Persons With AIDS program, the report must include
the number of individuals assisted and the types of assistance
provided.
(f) Evaluation by HUD. HUD shall review the performance report and
determine whether it is satisfactory. If a satisfactory report is not
submitted in a timely manner, HUD may suspend funding until a
satisfactory report is submitted, or may withdraw and reallocate
funding if HUD determines, after notice and opportunity for a hearing,
that the jurisdiction will not submit a satisfactory report.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 91.525 Performance review by HUD.
(a) General. HUD shall review the performance of each jurisdiction
covered by this part at least annually, including site visits by
employees--insofar as practicable, assessing the following:
(1) Management of funds made available under programs administered
by HUD;
(2) Compliance with the consolidated plan;
(3) Accuracy of performance reports;
(4) Extent to which the jurisdiction made progress towards the
statutory goals identified in Sec. 91.1; and
(5) Efforts to ensure that housing assisted under programs
administered by HUD is in compliance with contractual agreements and
the requirements of law.
(b) Report by HUD. HUD shall report on the performance review in
writing, stating the length of time the jurisdiction has to review and
comment on the report, which will be at least 30 days. HUD may revise
the report after considering the jurisdiction's views, and shall make
the report, the jurisdiction's comments, and any revisions available to
the public within 30 days after receipt of the jurisdiction's comments.
PART 92--HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM
2. The authority citation for part 92 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 12701-12839.
3. In Sec. 92.2, the definition of ``housing strategy'' is removed
and a definition of ``consolidated plan'' is added in alphabetical
order, to read as follows:
Sec. 92.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Consolidated plan. The plan prepared in accordance with part 91 of
this subtitle, which describes needs, resources, priorities and
proposed activities to be undertaken with respect to HUD programs,
including the HOME program. An approved consolidated plan means a
consolidated plan that has been approved by HUD in accordance with part
91 of this subtitle.
* * * * *
4. Section 92.52 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 92.52 Formula allocations.
Not later than 20 days after funds become available to HUD, HUD
will allocate HOME funds and then will promptly notify all
jurisdictions receiving a formula allocation the amount of each
jurisdiction's formula allocation.
5. In Sec. 92.103, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 92.103 Notification of intent to participate.
(a) A jurisdiction must notify HUD in writing, not later than 30
days after receiving notice of its formula allocation amount under
Sec. 92.52, of its intention to become a participating jurisdiction.
* * * * *
6. Section 92.104 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 92.104 Submission of consolidated plan.
A jurisdiction that has not submitted a consolidated plan to HUD or
has submitted an abbreviated consolidated plan (as provided for in
Sec. 91.235 of this subtitle) must submit to HUD, not later than 90
days after providing notification under Sec. 92.103, a consolidated
plan in accordance with part 91 of this subtitle.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
numbers 2501-0013).
7. Section 92.105 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 92.105 Designation as a participating jurisdiction.
When a jurisdiction has complied with the requirements of
Secs. 92.102 through 92.104 and HUD has approved the jurisdiction's
consolidated plan in accordance with part 91 of this subtitle, HUD will
designate the jurisdiction as a participating jurisdiction.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
numbers 2501-0013 and 2506-0117).
8. Section 92.150 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 92.150 Submission requirements.
In order to receive its HOME allocation, a participating
jurisdiction must submit a consolidated plan in accordance with 24 CFR
part 91. That part includes requirements for the content of the
consolidated plan, for the process of developing the consolidated plan,
including citizen participation provisions, for the submission date,
for HUD approval, and for the amendment process.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 92.151 [Removed]
9. Section 92.151 is removed.
Sec. 92.152 [Removed]
10. Section 92.152 is removed.
Sec. 92.200 [Amended]
11. In Sec. 92.200, the term ``housing strategy'' is removed from
each place where it appears, and the term ``consolidated plan'' is
added in each place.
Sec. 92.201 [Amended]
12. In Sec. 92.201, the term ``housing strategy'' is removed from
paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) from each place where it appears, and the
term ``consolidated plan'' is added in each place.
Sec. 92.204 [Amended]
13. Section 92.204 is amended by removing from paragraph (c) the
phrase, ``subpart D (Program Description),''.
Sec. 92.207 [Amended]
14. Section 92.207 is amended by removing from paragraph (f) the
term ``housing strategy'' in each place where it occurs and adding in
its place the term ``consolidated plan''.
15. In Sec. 92.211, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 92.211 Tenant-based rental assistance.
(a) * * *
(1) The participating jurisdiction makes the certification about
inclusion of this type of assistance in its consolidated plan in
accordance with Secs. 91.225(d)(1), 91.325(d)(1), or 91.425(b)(1)) of
this subtitle; and
* * * * * [[Page 1915]]
Sec. 92.220 [Amended]
16. Section 92.220 is amended by removing the last sentence from
paragraph (a)(6)(ii).
Sec. 92.222 [Amended]
17. Section 92.222 is amended by removing from paragraphs (a)(3)
and (a)(4) the word ``published'' in each place where it appears, and
adding in its place the word ``made''.
Sec. 92.300 [Amended]
18. Section 92.300 is amended by removing from paragraph (b) the
term ``housing strategy'' where it occurs and adding it its place the
term ``consolidated plan''.
Sec. 92.302 [Amended]
19. Section 92.302 is amended by removing from paragraph (b)(2) the
term ``housing strategy'' where it occurs and adding it its place the
term ``consolidated plan''.
Sec. 92.350 [Amended]
20. Section 92.350 is amended by removing from paragraph (b) the
term ``housing strategy'' where it occurs and adding it its place the
term ``consolidated plan''.
Sec. 92.450 [Amended]
21. Section 92.450 is amended by removing from paragraph (b) the
term ``housing strategy'' where it occurs and adding it its place the
term ``consolidated plan''.
Sec. 92.451 [Amended]
22. Section 92.451 is amended by removing from paragraph
(a)(1)(iii), the phrase ``housing strategy in accordance with
Sec. 92.104'' and by adding in its place, the phrase ``consolidated
plan, in accordance with part 91 of this subtitle''; and by removing
from paragraph (a)(2) the phrase ``Sec. 91.70 of this title'' and by
adding in its place, the phrase ``part 91 of this subtitle''.
Sec. 92.453 [Amended]
23. Section 92.453 is amended by removing from paragraph (b)(2)(ii)
the phrase ``housing strategy'' each place where it occurs, and by
adding the phrase ``consolidated plan''.
Sec. 92.508 [Amended]
24. Section 92.508 is amended by removing from paragraph (c)(1) the
word ``three'' and adding in its place the word ``four''.
25. In Sec. 92.509, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 92.509 Performance reports.
(a) * * *
(b) Annual performance report. For annual performance report
requirements, see part 91 of this subtitle.
* * * * *
PART 570--COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS
26. The authority citation for part 570 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 5300-5320.
27. In Sec. 570.3, the definition of ``Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS or housing strategy)'' is removed, and the
definition of ``consolidated plan'' is added in alphabetical order, to
read as follows:
Sec. 570.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Consolidated plan. The plan prepared in accordance with 24 CFR part
91, which describes needs, resources, priorities and proposed
activities to be undertaken with respect to HUD programs, including the
CDBG program. An approved consolidated plan means a consolidated plan
that has been approved by HUD in accordance with 24 CFR part 91.
* * * * *
Sec. 570.205 [Amended]
28. In Sec. 570.205, paragraph (a)(3)(i) is amended by removing the
term ``Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy'', and adding in
its place the term ``consolidated plan''.
Sec. 570.301 [Removed]
29. Section 570.301 is removed.
30. Section 570.302 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 570.302 Submission requirements.
In order to receive its annual CDBG entitlement grant, a grantee
must submit a consolidated plan in accordance with 24 CFR part 91. That
part includes requirements for the content of the consolidated plan,
for the process of developing the consolidated plan, including citizen
participation provisions, for the submission date, for HUD approval,
and for the amendment process.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
31. Section 570.303 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 570.303 Certifications.
The jurisdiction must make the certifications that are set forth in
24 CFR part 91 as part of the consolidated plan.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
32. In Sec. 570.304, paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) are revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 570.304 Making of grants.
(a) Approval of grant. HUD will approve a grant if the
jurisdiction's submissions have been made and approved in accordance
with 24 CFR part 91.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) The consolidated plan is not received by the first working day
in September or is not approved under 24 CFR part 91, subpart F, in
which case the grantee will forfeit the entire entitlement amount; or
* * * * *
Sec. 570.305 [Removed]
33. Section 570.305 is removed.
Sec. 570.306 [Removed]
34. Section 570.306 is removed.
Sec. 570.308 [Amended]
35. In Sec. 570.308, paragraph (d) is amended by removing the
phrase, ``this subpart'', and adding in its place the phrase, ``24 CFR
part 91''.
Sec. 570.420 [Amended]
36. In Sec. 570.420, paragraph (d) is amended by removing the word
``CHAS'' and adding in its place the phrase ``consolidated plan''; and
by removing the phrase ``Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy''
and adding in its place the phrase ``consolidated plan''.
37. In Sec. 570.423, paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)(1) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 570.423 Application for the HUD-administered New York Small
Cities Grants.
(a) Proposed application. The applicant shall prepare and publish a
proposed application and comply with citizen participation requirements
as described in Sec. 570.431, and in 24 CFR part 91--if the application
contains housing activities and the applicant is required to prepare
and submit an abbreviated consolidated plan.
(b) Final application. The applicant shall submit to HUD a final
application containing its community development objectives and
activities. This final application shall be submitted, in a form
prescribed by HUD, to the appropriate HUD office. The application also
must contain a priority nonhousing community development plan, in
accordance with 24 CFR 91.235.
(c) Certifications. (1) Certifications shall be submitted in a form
prescribed by HUD. If the application contains any housing activities,
the applicant shall certify that the proposed housing activities are
consistent with its abbreviated consolidated plan, as described at 24
CFR part 91.
* * * * * [[Page 1916]]
38. Section 570.429 is amended as follows:
a. By removing from paragraph (b) the word ``through'' and by
adding, in its place, the word ``and''; and
b. By revising paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 570.429 Hawaii general and grant requirements.
* * * * *
(f) Required submissions. In order to receive its formula grant
under this subpart, the applicant must submit a consolidated plan in
accordance with 24 CFR part 91. That part includes requirements for the
content of the consolidated plan, for the process of developing the
plan, including citizen participation provisions, for the submission
date, for HUD approval, and for the amendment process.
(g) Application approval. HUD will follow the requirements of 24
CFR 91.500.
* * * * *
Sec. 570.430 [Amended]
39. Section 570.430 is amended by removing paragraph (f).
Sec. 570.431 [Amended]
40. Section 570.431 is amended by removing paragraph (f).
41. In Sec. 570.485, paragraphs (b), (c), and (e) are removed;
paragraph (d) is redesignated as paragraph (b); and paragraph (a) is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 570.485 State submissions and state citizen participation
requirements.
(a) Required submissions. In order to receive its annual CDBG grant
under this subpart, a State must submit a consolidated plan in
accordance with 24 CFR part 91. That part includes requirements for the
content of the consolidated plan, for the process of developing the
plan, including citizen participation provisions, for the submission
date, for HUD approval, and for the amendment process.
* * * * *
42. Section 570.487 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 570.487 Other applicable laws and related program requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Affirmatively furthering fair housing. The Act requires the
state to certify to the satisfaction of HUD that it will affirmatively
further fair housing. The act also requires each unit of general local
government to certify that it will affirmatively further fair housing.
The certification that the State will affirmatively further fair
housing shall specifically require the State to assume the
responsibility of fair housing planning by:
(1) Conducting an analysis to identify impediments to fair housing
choice within the State;
(2) Taking appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any
impediments identified through that analysis;
(3) Maintaining records reflecting the analysis and actions in this
regard; and
(4) Assuring that units of local government funded by the State
comply with their certifications to affirmatively further fair housing.
* * * * *
43. Section 570.491 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 570.491 Performance and evaluation report.
The annual performance and evaluation report shall be submitted in
accordance with 24 CFR part 91.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
44. In Sec. 570.502, paragraph (a)(16) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 570.502 Applicability of uniform administrative requirements.
(a) * * *
(16) Section 85.42, ``Retention and access requirements for
records,'' except that the period shall be four years;
* * * * *
45. In Sec. 570.506, paragraphs (e) and (g)(1) are revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 570.506 Records to be maintained.
* * * * *
(e) Records that demonstrate compliance with the citizen
participation requirements prescribed in 24 CFR part 91, subpart B, for
entitlement recipients, or in 24 CFR part 91, subpart C, for HUD-
administered small cities recipients.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) Documentation of the analysis of impediments and the actions
the recipient has carried out with its housing and community
development and other resources to remedy or ameliorate any impediments
to fair housing choice in the recipient's community.
* * * * *
46. In Sec. 570.507, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 570.507 Reports.
(a) Performance and evaluation report--(1) Entitlement grant
recipients and HUD-administered small cities recipients in Hawaii. The
annual performance and evaluation report shall be submitted in
accordance with 24 CFR part 91.
(2) HUD-administered small cities recipients in New York. (i)
Content. Each performance and evaluation report must contain completed
copies of all forms and narratives prescribed by HUD, including a
summary of the citizen comments received on the report.
(ii) Timing. The performance and evaluation report on each grant
shall be submitted:
(A) No later than October 31 for all grants executed before April 1
of the same calendar year. The first report should cover the period
from the execution of the grant until September 30. Reports on grants
made after March 31 of a calendar year will be due October 31 of the
following calendar year, and the reports will cover the period of time
from the execution of the grant until September 30 of the calendar year
following grant execution. After the initial submission, the
performance and evaluation report will be submitted annually on October
31 until completion of the activities funded under the grant;
(B) Hawaii grantees will submit their small cities performance and
evaluation report for each pre-FY 1995 grant no later than 90 days
after the completion of their most recent program year. After the
initial submission, the performance and evaluation report will be
submitted annually until completion of the activities funded under the
grant; and
(C) No later than 90 days after the criteria for grant closeout, as
described in Sec. 570.509(a), have been met.
(iii) Citizen comments on the report. Each recipient shall make
copies of the performance and evaluation report available to its
citizens in sufficient time to permit the citizens to comment on the
report before its submission to HUD. Each recipient may determine the
specific manner and times the report will be made available to citizens
consistent with the preceding sentence.
* * * * *
Sec. 570.509 [Amended]
47. Section 570.509 is amended by removing from paragraph (b)(1)
the word, ``Sec. 570.507'' and adding in its place the words, ``24 CFR
part 91''; and by removing from paragraph (d) the phrases,
``comprehensive housing affordability strategy'', ``Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)'', and ``fiscal year'', and
adding, in their place, the phrases, ``consolidated plan'',
``Consolidated Plan'', and ``program year'', respectively.
[[Page 1917]]
Sec. 570.601 [Amended]
48. In Sec. 570.601, paragraph (b) is amended by adding the
following sentence to the end of the paragraph, to read as follows:
Sec. 570.601 Public Law 88-352 and Public Law 90-284; affirmatively
furthering fair housing; Executive Order 11063.
* * * * *
(b) * * * For each community receiving a grant under subpart D of
this part, the certification that the grantee will affirmatively
further fair housing shall specifically require the grantee to assume
the responsibility of fair housing planning by conducting an analysis
to identify impediments to fair housing choice within its jurisdiction,
taking appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments
identified through that analysis, and maintaining records reflecting
the analysis and actions in this regard.
* * * * *
Sec. 570.605 [Amended]
49. Section 570.605 is amended by removing the phrase, ``final
statement pursuant to Sec. 570.302'', and by adding, in its place, the
phrase, ``consolidated plan, in accordance with 24 CFR part 91''.
Sec. 570.606 [Amended]
50. In Sec. 570.606, paragraph (c)(3)(iv) is amended by removing
the term ``Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy'', and adding
in its place the term ``consolidated plan''.
Sec. 570.704 [Amended]
51. Section 570.704 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(1)(v), the phrase, ``statements of community
development objectives and projected use of funds prepared for its
annual grant pursuant to Sec. 570.301'' is removed, and the phrase,
``consolidated plan'' is added in its place; and the phrase, ``include
in these statements'', is removed and the phrase, ``include in the
consolidated plan'', is added in its place.
b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, the phrase ``final
statement'' is removed and the phrase ``consolidated plan'' is added in
its place.
c. In paragraph (a)(2), the third and fourth sentences are revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 570.704 Application requirements.
(a) * * *
(2) Citizen participation plan. * * * The plan may be the citizen
plan required for the consolidated plan, modified to include guaranteed
loan funds. The public entity is not required to hold a separate public
hearing for its consolidated plan and for the guaranteed loan funds to
obtain citizens' views on community development and housing needs. * *
*
* * * * *
Sec. 570.901 [Amended]
52. Section 570.901 is amended by removing from paragraph (d) the
phrase, ``presubmission requirements at Sec. 570.301, the amendment
requirements at Sec. 570.305'', and adding in its place the phrase,
``submission requirements of 24 CFR part 91''.
53. In Sec. 570.904, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 570.904 Equal Opportunity and Fair Housing Review Criteria.
* * * * *
(c) Fair housing review criteria. Section 570.601(b) sets forth the
general requirements for the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601-3620) and
the grantee's certification that it will affirmatively further fair
housing.
* * * * *
Sec. 570.910 [Amended]
54. Section 570.910 is amended by removing from paragraph
(b)(2)(iii) the phrase, ``subpart D'', and adding in its place the
phrase, ``24 CFR part 91''.
PART 574--HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS
55. The authority citation for part 574 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 12901-12912.
56. Section 574.2 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 574.2 Overview.
(a) Available funds. The Department awards funds appropriated for
any fiscal year for the program through a formula allocation and a
competitive grant process. Ninety percent of funds appropriated for
this program are distributed by formula entitlement. The remaining ten
percent is awarded through the competitive process.
(b) Formula entitlements. The formula grants are awarded upon
submission and approval of a consolidated plan, pursuant to 24 CFR part
91, that covers the assistance to be provided under this part. Certain
States and cities that are the most populous unit of general local
government in eligible metropolitan statistical areas will receive
formula allocations based on their State or metropolitan population and
proportionate number of cases of persons with AIDS. They will receive
funds under this part (providing they comply with 24 CFR part 91) for
eligible activities that address the housing needs of persons with AIDS
or related diseases and their families (see Sec. 574.130(b)).
(c) Competitive grants. The competitive grants are awarded based on
applications, as described in subpart C of this part, submitted in
response to a Notice of Funds Availability published in the Federal
Register. All States and units of general local government and
nonprofit organizations are eligible to apply for competitive grants to
fund projects of national significance. Only those States and units of
general local government that do not qualify for formula allocations
are eligible to apply for competitive grants to fund other projects.
57. In Sec. 574.3, the definitions for ``Eligible State'' and
``Qualifying city'' are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 574.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Eligible State means a State that has:
(1) More than 1,500 cumulative cases of AIDS in those areas of the
State outside of eligible metropolitan statistical areas that are
eligible to be funded through a qualifying city; and
(2) A consolidated plan prepared, submitted, and approved in
accordance with 24 CFR part 91 that covers the assistance to be
provided under this part. (A State may carry out activities anywhere in
the State, including within an EMSA.)
* * * * *
Qualifying city means a city that is the most populous unit of
general local government in an eligible metropolitan statistical area
(EMSA) and that has a consolidated plan prepared, submitted, and
approved in accordance with 24 CFR part 91 that covers the assistance
to be provided under this part.
* * * * *
58. In Sec. 574.100, the existing text is designated as paragraph
(a), and a new paragraph (b) is added, to read as follows:
Sec. 574.100 Eligible applicants.
* * * * *
(b) HUD will notify eligible States and qualifying cities of their
formula eligibility and allocation amounts and EMSA service areas
annually.
59. Section 574.120 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 574.120 Responsibility of applicant to serve EMSA.
The EMSA's applicant shall serve eligible persons who live anywhere
within the EMSA, except that housing assistance shall be provided only
in localities within the EMSA that have a [[Page 1918]] consolidated
plan prepared, submitted, and approved in accordance with 24 CFR part
91 that covers the assistance to be provided under this part. In
allocating grant amounts among eligible activities, the EMSA's
applicant shall address needs of eligible persons who reside within the
metropolitan statistical area, including those not within the
jurisdiction of the applicant.
Sec. 574.160 [Removed]
60. Section 574.160 is removed.
Sec. 574.170 [Removed]
61. Section 574.170 is removed.
Sec. 574.180 [Removed]
62. Section 574.180 is removed.
63. In Sec. 574.190, the first sentence is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 574.190 Reallocation of grant amounts.
If an eligible State or qualifying city does not submit a
consolidated plan in a timely fashion, in accordance with 24 CFR part
91, that provides for use of its allocation of funding under this part,
the funds allocated to that jurisdiction will be added to the funds
available for formula allocations to other jurisdictions in the current
fiscal year. * * *
Sec. 574.240 [Amended]
64. In Sec. 574.240, paragraph (c)(11) is amended by removing the
phrase, ``CHAS approved by HUD (see Sec. 574.160(a))'' and by adding in
its place the phrase, ``consolidated plan approved by HUD in accordance
with 24 CFR part 91''.
65. Section 574.520 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 574.520 Performance reports.
(a) Formula grants. For a formula grant recipient, the performance
reporting requirements are specified in 24 CFR part 91.
(b) Competitive grants. A grantee shall submit to HUD annually a
report describing the use of the amounts received, including the number
of individuals assisted, the types of assistance provided, and any
other information that HUD may require. Annual reports are required
until all grant funds are expended.
Sec. 574.530 [Amended]
66. In Sec. 574.530, the word ``three-year'' is removed and the
word ``four-year'' is added in its place.
PART 576--EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM: STEWART B. McKINNEY
HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT
67. The authority citation for part 576 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 11376.
68. In Sec. 576.3, the definition of ``Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy'' is removed and a definition of ``Consolidated
plan'' is added in alphabetical order, to read as follows:
Sec. 576.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Consolidated plan. The plan prepared in accordance with part 91 of
this title, which describes needs, resources, priorities and proposed
activities to be undertaken with respect to HUD programs, including the
HOME program. An approved consolidated plan means a consolidated plan
that has been approved by HUD in accordance with part 91 of this title.
* * * * *
Subpart C--[Removed and Reserved]
69. Subpart C is removed and reserved.
70. Section 576.51 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 576.51 Application requirements.
In order to receive a grant under this part, a State or formula
city or county must submit and obtain HUD approval of a consolidated
plan in accordance with 24 CFR part 91 that includes activities to be
funded under this part. 24 CFR part 91 includes requirements for the
content of the plan, for the process of developing the plan, including
citizen participation provisions, for the submission date, for HUD
approval, and for the amendment process. This plan serves as the
jurisdiction's application for funding under this program.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0117).
Sec. 576.53 [Amended]
71. In Sec. 576.53, paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) are removed; and
paragraphs (c) and (d) are redesignated as paragraphs (a) and (b),
respectively.
72. In Sec. 576.61, the section heading and paragraph (a) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 576.61 Reallocation of grant amounts; formula cities and
counties.
(a) Applicability. This section applies where a formula city or
county fails to submit or obtain HUD approval of its consolidated plan
within 90 days of the date upon which amounts under this part first
become available for allocation in any fiscal year.
* * * * *
73. In Sec. 576.63, the section heading, paragraph (a), paragraph
(d) introductory text, and paragraph (d)(1) are revised, to read as
follows:
Sec. 576.63 Reallocation of grant amounts; States and Territories.
(a) Applicability. This section applies where a State or Territory
fails to submit or obtain HUD approval of its consolidated plan by the
deadline specified in Sec. 576.61(a), or grant amounts cannot be
reallocated to a State under Sec. 576.61.
* * * * *
(d) Eligibility for reallocation amounts. In order to receive
reallocation amounts under this section, the formula city or county, or
State or Territory, must:
(1) Submit an amendment, in accordance with 24 CFR part 91, to its
consolidated plan for that program year to cover activities for the
reallocation amount it wishes to receive; and
* * * * *
74. In Sec. 576.67, paragraphs (c)(5) and (f)(1) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 576.67 Reallocation of grant amounts; returned or unused amounts.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) The responsible HUD field office will announce the availability
of returned grant amounts. The announcement will establish deadlines
for submitting applications, and will set out other terms and
conditions relating to grant awards, consistent with this part. The
announcement will specify the application documents to be submitted.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) For purposes of this section, emergency shelter grant amounts
are considered ``returned'' when they become available for reallocation
because a jurisdiction does not execute a grant agreement with HUD for
them.
* * * * *
Sec. 576.85 [Removed]
75. Section 576.85 is removed.
Sec. 576.87 [Amended]
76. In Sec. 576.87, the word ``three-year'' is removed and the word
``four-year'' is added in its place.
PART 968--PUBLIC HOUSING MODERNIZATION
77. The authority citation for part 968 continues to read as
follows:
[[Page 1919]] Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437d, 1437l, 3535(d).
78. Section 968.320 is amended by:
a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (c) introductory text;
b. Redesignating paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) as paragraphs (e),
(f), and (g), respectively;
c. Adding a new paragraph (d);
d. Amending the newly redesignated paragraph (e) by adding two new
sentences preceding the last sentence of the introductory text;
e. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (e)(4)(i); and
f. Removing from paragraph (e)(6)(ii) the phrase ``Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy'' and adding in its place the phrase
``consolidated plan''; to read as follows:
Sec. 968.320 Comprehensive Plan (including Five-Year Action Plan).
* * * * *
(c) Local government participation. A PHA shall consult with and
provide information to appropriate local government officials with
respect to the development of a comprehensive plan to ensure that there
is coordination between the actions taken under the consolidated plan
(see 24 CFR part 91) for project and neighborhood improvements where
public housing units are located or proposed for construction and/or
modernization and improvement and to coordinate meeting public and
human service needs of the public and assisted housing projects and
their residents. * * *
* * * * *
(d) Participation in coordinating entities. To the extent that
coordinating entities are set up to plan and implement the consolidated
plans (under 24 CFR part 91), the PHA shall participate in these
entities to ensure coordination with broader community development
strategies.
(e) * * * Where long-term physical and social viability of the
development is dependent upon revitalization of the surrounding
neighborhood in the provision of or coordination of public services, or
the consolidation or coordination of drug prevention and other human
service initiatives, the PHA shall identify these needs and strategies.
In addition, the PHA shall identify the funds or other resources in the
consolidated plan that are to be used to help address these needs and
strategies and the activities in the comprehensive plan that strengthen
the consolidated plan. * * *
* * * * *
(4) * * * (i) * * * Where necessary, HUD will review the PHA's
documentation in support of its cost reasonableness and taking into
account broader efforts to revitalize the neighborhoods in which the
development are located;
* * * * *
Dated: December 22, 1994.
Henry G. Cisneros,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-32150 Filed 12-29-94; 3:48 pm]
BILLING CODE 4210-32-P
