[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 82 (Friday, April 29, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-9877]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: April 29, 1994]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing
Commissioner
[Docket No. N-94-3487; FR-3630-N-01]
Funding Availability (NOFA) for Fiscal Year 1994 Congregate
Housing Services Program
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing
Commissioner, HUD; Office of the Administrator, Farmers Home
Administration (FmHA).
ACTION: Notice of Funding Availability for Fiscal Year 1994.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) announces the
funding of Regional competitions for HUD dollars and a national
competition for dollars allotted to the Farmers Home Administration
(FmHA), which are available for the supportive services component of
the Congregate Housing Services Program (CHSP). A Final Common Rule for
the CHSP is published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, as 7 CFR
part 1944 and 24 CFR part 700. Funding announced in today's document
covers new grants for congregate services for frail elderly persons,
persons with disabilities, and temporarily disabled individuals living
in eligible housing for the elderly. States, Indian tribes, units of
general local government, Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) and Indian
Housing Authorities (IHAs) and local nonprofit housing sponsors, are
eligible applicants. Applications from PHA/IHAs and local non-profit
housing sponsors are limited to the housing they own. States, Indian
tribes and units of general local government may submit one or more
applications on behalf of one or more owners of eligible housing who
may be either local non-profit housing sponsors or for-profit housing
owners.
This document contains information concerning: (a) The purpose of
the NOFA; (b) where to get the application package; (c) deadline for
filing applications; (d) eligibility, available amounts, and selection
criteria; and (e) information on application processing, and the
selection process.
DATES: The deadline date for submission of an application to HUD for
funding under the CHSP is on or before 3 p.m., local time, July 13,
1994, at the appropriate HUD field office.
The deadline date for submission of an application to FmHA for
funding under the CHSP is on or before 3 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time,
July 13, 1994, at FmHA Headquarters.
RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS: HUD will receive applications at the Field
Office for the jurisdiction in which the projects are located.
FmHA will receive applications at the FmHA Headquarters Building in
Washington, DC. Copies will also be received at the FmHA State office
which has jurisdiction over the project.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information concerning
grants under the CHSP, or limited technical assistance by telephone
regarding the preparation of an application for the CHSP, potential
applicants may contact HUD and FmHA as follows:
For questions regarding HUD projects, applicants applying for
Public and/or Indian Housing Projects should contact the Housing
Management Specialist in the Field Office which has jurisdiction for
the projects.
Applicants applying for Section 8, 202, 221(d) or 236 Projects
should call the Loan Servicer in the field office which has
jurisdiction for the projects.
HUD and FmHA Field office addresses and telephone numbers are
listed in Attachment 1 to this NOFA.
Applicants for FmHA projects should contact John Pentecost or Sue
Harris at FmHA Headquarters at 202-720-1606. (This is NOT a toll-free
number.) Hearing impaired individuals may reach FmHA by calling the
central TDD number of (202)-245-0846, HUD by calling (202)-708-9300, or
either agency by calling the TDD number of the Federal Relay Service 1-
800-877-TDDY and requesting a transfer.
Applicants for HUD projects should not contact HUD Headquarters:
such calls will normally be referred to the appropriate HUD Field
Office.
Applicants for FmHA projects should not contact FmHA State or
District Offices; such calls will normally be referred to FmHA
Headquarters.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
The information collection requirements contained in this NOFA have
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). No
person may be subjected to a penalty for failure to comply with these
information collection requirements until they have been approved and
assigned an OMB control number. The OMB control number, when assigned,
will be announced by separate notice in the Federal Register.
Public reporting burden for the collection of information
requirements contained in this NOFA is estimated to include the time
for reviewing the instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information. Information on the estimated public
reporting burden is provided under Other Matters. Send comments
regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Rules Docket Clerk, 451
Seventh Street, SW., room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500; and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for HUD, Washington, DC 20503.
I. Purpose and Substantive Description
A. Authority and Background
(1) Authority
(a) Section 802 of the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable
Housing Act (NAHA) (42 USC 8011) created a new CHSP.
(b) Section 604 and 672 of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1992 amended the CHSP.
(c) A final common rule for the CHSP is published elsewhere in
today's Federal Register.
(2) Background
The CHSP was originally authorized and funded as a demonstration
program under the Congregate Housing Services Act of 1978 (1978 Act)
(42 USC 8001). It provided congregate housing and coordinated
supportive services for elderly handicapped or non-elderly handicapped
individuals to allow them to maintain their independence and avoid
costly and unnecessary institutionalization. Congress appropriated
funds for Fiscal Years 1979 through 1982, to remain available until
expended. Since then, Congress has provided funds on an annual basis to
continue funding grantees that previously received assistance. The
demonstration became a permanent program in 1987.
Based upon the experience of the grantees funded under the
demonstration, Congress created a new CHSP as one of the components of
NAHA, which was enacted on November 28, 1990 and amended in 1992. HUD,
in coordination with the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) of the
Department of Agriculture, administers the CHSP under a Common Rule in
accordance with the statute. This Notice announces the availability of
both HUD and FmHA funds for the CHSP and invites applications from both
HUD and FmHA applicants.
The CHSP is a program with two components: A retrofit and
renovation component which has not yet been implemented and a
supportive services component. RETROFITTING AND RENOVATION OF
FACILITIES ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING UNDER THIS NOFA.
Funds are available under the supportive services component for
five-year, renewable, congregate services grants for frail elderly
persons, persons with disabilities, and temporarily disabled
individuals living in eligible housing for the elderly. The program
serves as a means of preventing unnecessary institutionalization and
encouraging deinstitutionalization of those potentially eligible
residents who do not need an institutionalized setting. It also
improves the capacity of management to assess the supportive service
needs of eligible residents, and to either ensure the coordination and
delivery of supportive services from third party providers or provide
the services directly in order to meet the minimum needs of eligible
residents.
HUD and FmHA are interested in using the services funds in the most
cost-efficient manner and with appropriate targeting. Thus, a number of
changes have been made from last year's program to increase efficiency,
target the program more effectively and attempt to make the limited
funds available to more applicants. The major changes are to:
(a) stress the service coordination/case management aspects of the
program by making the service coordinator a clearly mandated function,
whether funded wholly or in part by CHSP, or funded by a third party;
(The more coordinators that are funded, the larger the number of
projects whose residents will ultimately benefit from supportive
services in the community.)
(b) target the available funds to meals and service coordination/
case management and limit funds for additional supportive services, by
capping the amount of funds that an applicant may receive for other
supportive services thus allowing more potential grants; (Thus, an
applicant may receive a maximum of $1,200/person/year in HUD funds for
supportive services other than case management/service coordination and
the mandatory meals program.)
(c) focus on projects nearly fully occupied this year. (Occupied
projects more readily are able to plan programs for existing needs and
get them operational in the most effective manner and the shortest
time. Thus, CHSP is offered this year only to projects which are at
least 85 percent occupied as of the date of the CHSP application to
HUD.)
Additionally, HUD and FmHA are clarifying the meals requirement.
While the current requirement that each CHSP provide at least one hot
meal per day in a group setting for some or all of the participants who
are assessed as needing such assistance is not changed, additional
meals can be available for frail elderly or non-elderly disabled
participants who are assessed with a need for them. Such additional
meals can be either hot or cold and may be home delivered.
The CHSP will ensure the long-term provision of supportive services
in a manner which insures the program participant's freedom of choice
and which respects the dignity of the persons served. It will also
provide readily available and efficient services with emphasis on
providing only those services minimally necessary to maintain
independent living, but maintaining a continuum of support for
individual program participants over time.
B. Allocation Amounts
The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (P.L.
102-389) appropriated $21,000,000 in FY 1993. Approximately $14,500,000
of these funds remained after the FY 1993 competition and the refunding
of the 53 existing grantees for an additional 24 months. Additionally,
the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development,
and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (P.L. 103-124) made
available $25,000,000 for the CHSP, all of which is included in the
NOFA. Together with the carryover funds, $39,500,000 is available for
new grants. In consultation with FmHA, the dollars are allocated as
follows:
--Approximately 20 percent ($7,900,000) of the total funds are
available to applicants with FmHA projects.
--The remainder, approximately 80 percent ($31,600,000) is for
applicants with HUD projects.
1. HUD Projects
Applicants for HUD projects may apply for grants from the available
$31,600,000. The formula for the HUD allocation is stated below:
a. Compute the total number of section 8 New Construction/
substantial rehabilitation elderly, section 202, section 221(d)
elderly, section 236 elderly and PIH/IHA elderly units in each Region
for the nation as a whole.
b. Calculate the proportion of the national total represented by
each Region's share.
c. Divide the available dollars proportionally in accordance with
the Regional share of the elderly housing inventory, as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of
Region units Dollars Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I................................... 102,257 $2,844,000 9
II.................................. 127,124 3,476,000 11
III................................. 135,760 3,792,000 12
IV.................................. 182,684 4,740,000 15
V................................... 273,075 7,268,000 23
VI.................................. 82,319 2,212,000 7
VII................................. 95,605 2,528,000 8
VIII................................ 36,616 948,000 3
IX.................................. 96,958 2,528,000 8
X................................... 42,837 1,264,000 4
-----------------------------------
Total............................. 1,175,235 $31,600,000 100\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Percentages are rounded to equal 100%.
The funds for the CHSP will be awarded by HUD through 10 Regional
competitions, in which applicants are selected to receive supportive
services grants by HUD. The funding process is further described in
Section II. of this NOFA.
2. FmHA Projects
Applicants for FmHA projects may apply for grants from the
available $7,900,000.
The funds for the CHSP will be awarded by FmHA through a national
competition, in which applicants are selected to receive supportive
services grants by FmHA Headquarters. HUD will fund the grants, and
administer them with FmHA assistance. The funding process is further
described in Section II. of this NOFA.
C. Eligibility
1. General
Applicants must submit applications for HUD projects to HUD field
offices and applications for FmHA projects to FmHA Headquarters and
State offices. Applicants may apply for either HUD and/or FmHA dollars.
Applications may only be submitted to the HUD field office/FmHA State
office which has jurisdiction over the project.
Projects submitted by eligible applicants under this NOFA are
limited to eligible housing for the elderly, as defined below.
2. Eligible Applicants
Eligible applicants are States, Indian Tribes, units of general
local government, PHA/IHAs or local non-profit housing sponsors as
defined in 7 CFR 1944.252 and 24 CFR 700.105. Local non-profit housing
sponsors and PHA/IHAs may only apply on behalf of projects they own.
For-profit owners of eligible housing for the elderly may not apply
directly for CHSP grants; the request must be submitted under an
application by a State, Indian tribe or unit of general local
government (but NOT under an application submitted by a local non-
profit sponsor or a PHA/IHA).
3. Eligible Housing Projects
Eligible projects under this NOFA must be eligible housing for the
elderly as defined in 7 CFR 1944.252 and 24 CFR 700.105, and must be 85
percent occupied as of the date of the application deadline for funding
under this NOFA. For-profit owners of eligible housing for the elderly
may not apply directly for CHSP grants; the request may be submitted
under an application by a State, Indian tribe or unit of general local
government (but NOT under an application submitted by a local non-
profit sponsor or a PHA/IHA).
4. Services Required by the CHSP
Each application must provide documentation that it will provide or
is already providing the following required services.
a. A meals program of at least one hot meal a day, seven days a
week in a group setting for some or all of the participants; and,
b. A service coordinator to provide case management and other
activities as required by section 700.220 and 225 or 1944.257 and 258
of the common rule.
5. Funding Limits
There is a limit on the amount of dollars HUD/FmHA will approve for
supportive services other than case management/ service coordination
and meals. This limit is $1,200 in HUD funds per person per year in FY
1994. (Costs for meals and case management/service coordination are not
capped, but follow normal market considerations for that jurisdiction.)
The proposed amount for case management/service coordination together
with the capped amount for other services and a limited amount make up
the 40 percent that HUD will pay as its share of the grant.
THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF FUNDS WHICH WILL BE GRANTED TO ANY ONE
APPLICANT UNDER THIS NOFA is $2,000,000, subject to Section II.G.(6).
D. Selection Criteria/Ranking Factors
1. General
To provide each applicant a fair and equitable opportunity to
receive FY 1994 funds under the CHSP, HUD and FmHA will use the
selection criteria stated below to rate all eligible applications which
have passed eligibility, threshold and technical review.
2. Selection Criteria
The selection criteria, with a maximum total rating value of 75
points, are as follows:
Selection Criteria
a. Experience or capability of the applicant:
The applicant currently administers an effective, successful
service program for the frail elderly or for persons with disabilities,
or evidences relevant experience or capability to develop and implement
such service programs. The applicant is:
Experienced ________ (10)
Has capability only ________ (5)
Unqualified ________ (0)
b. The degree of adequacy of local service providers,
appropriateness of the targeting of the services and the relationship
of the proposal to the needs and characteristics of the eligible
residents of the projects where the services are to be provided:
Proposed services to be provided by both the applicant and local
social service agencies:
(1) Appropriately address the daily living needs of the residents
presented in the application;
(2) Adequately appear to both provide a core of necessary services
and fill the gap between the existing services and those that are not
available/affordable; and,
(3) Will serve all residents identified as either disabled or frail
(deficient in at least 3 activities of daily living).
Meets all three ________ (15)
Meets 2 of 3 ________ (10)
Meets one ________ (5)
Meets none ________ (0)
c. The schedule for establishment of services following approval of
the application:
The applicant's timetable for implementation of services is
reasonable and credible based upon HUD/FmHA's experience with the
applicant.
Implementation in 6 months or less ________ (5)
From 7 to 12 months ________ (3)
Over 12 months ________ (0)
Plan is not credible as presented ________ (0)
d. The professional qualification of the members of the PAC:
The proposed PAC consists of no less than three individuals, and
includes both social service professionals and at least one qualified
medical or other health professional. PAC members are competent to
appraise the functional abilities of frail elderly individuals and
persons with disabilities in regard to performing activities of daily
living.
Acceptable ________ (5)
Not acceptable ________ (0)
e. The reasonableness and application of fee schedules established
for congregate services:
The applicant proposes reasonable fees which meet prescribed
requirements. The applicant has:
(1) Accurately calculated meal fees according to Exhibit 20, or did
not utilize meal fees as the meals are funded totally from the Older
Americans Act;
(2) Presented flat fees for services other than meals that do not
exceed the cost of each service, or had no other service fee(s); and,
(3) Proposed total fees that do not exceed 20% of a participant's
adjusted income.
Yes, meets all three ________ (10)
Yes, meets one or two ________ (5)
No, fee schedule meets none ______ (0)
f. The adequacy and accuracy of proposed budgets:
The budget conforms to the following conditions:
(1) Service costs are consistent with local market conditions;
(2) Costs of all services correspond directly to the proposed
number of participants;
(3) All costs proposed are eligible;
(4) The limits on administrative costs (10% of program), in-kind
contributions (10% of match), local government proportion of match when
a State is the applicant (10%) and the $1,200 per/person/year limit are
not exceeded; and,
(5) Total participant fees as shown in the first year budget are
equal to or greater than 10% of total program cost.
Conforms to all five ________ (15)
Conforms to at least two ________ (5)
Conforms to one or none ________ (0)
g. The extent to which the applicant proposes funds from other
services in excess of that required:
The applicant proposes matching funds for the first year and for
the next four years in an amount that exceeds the minimum required. The
applicant's match is:
(1) 55% or more of total program cost for the first year and/or one
or more of the next four years ________ (3)
(2) Under 55% of total program cost for the first and other years.
________ (0)
h. The methods of providing for deinstitutionalized older
individuals and persons with disabilities:
The application has a proposed plan to identify and transfer
potential participants from institutions to the project and into the
CHSP.
There is a plan and it is acceptable. Yes ________ (2); No ________
(0)
i. Existing/new services;
The applicant or other third parties currently do not provide
supportive services to frail or disabled residents and the proposed
CHSP services will constitute an entirely new program. ________ (5)
The applicant or other third party provides some supportive
services to eligible residents; the proposed CHSP services will expand
or add to existing services. ________ (0)
j. Housing/Services Assistance for Minorities and Minority Business
Enterprise/Women Business Enterprise (MBE/WBE).
1. Housing/services experience:
Applicant has significant previous experience in serving minorities
(i.e., previous housing/services to minorities was equal to or greater
than the percentage of minorities in the jurisdiction where the
previous housing/service experience occurred AND has direct experience
in serving the client group proposed to be served in the application.
________ (3)
Applicant has previous experience in serving minorities, BUT
previous housing/services to minorities was less than the percentage of
minorities in the jurisdiction where the previous service experience
occurred. ________ (1)
Applicant does not have experience in serving minorities. ________
(0)
2. Minority business enterprise/Women business enterprise
experience (MBE/WBE).
Applicant has substantial prior MBE AND WBE experience (awarded
services or other contracts over $10,000). ________ (2)
Applicant has substantial prior MBE OR WBE experience (awarded
services or other contracts over $10,000). ________ (1)
Applicant does not have significant MBE/WBE experience. ________
(0)
II. Application Process
A. Obtaining Application Packages
CHSP applications can be obtained ONLY from the Multifamily Housing
Clearinghouse at 1-800-955-2232. The Clearinghouse must be called
regardless of whether the potential applicant is considering HUD
projects or FmHA projects. Applications will not be available to
applicants directly from HUD Headquarters or Field offices or from FmHA
Headquarters or State offices.
The application packages will be available from April 29, 1994
through July 13, 1994.
B. Application Requirements
All applications must contain the following information, in such
form and in such detail as HUD/FmHA require in the application package:
Part A: Applicant Information
1. SF-424, ``Request for Federal Assistance.''
General information:
Exhibit 1: Applicant Information
Exhibit 2: Evidence of Eligibility
Exhibit 3: List of Applications Submitted to Other HUD Field/FmHA State
Offices
Exhibit 4: Applicant Experience Statement
Disclosures and certifications:
Exhibit 5: HUD-2880, ``Applicant/Recipient Disclosure/Update Report,''
Exhibit 6: Applicant's Anti-lobbying Certifications (certification for
Grants, Loans, Contracts and Cooperative Agreements and SF-LLL,
``Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,'')
Exhibit 7: Applicant Certifications (SF-424B ``Assurances, Non-
construction Programs'', Drug-Free Workplace Certification and Civil
Rights Certifications)
Exhibit 8: CHSP Blanket certification
Part B: Project Information
General information:
Exhibit 1A: Applicant Identifier
Exhibit 9: Letter of Support from Area Agency on Aging/Agency Serving
the Disabled
Exhibit 10: Project Information
Exhibit 11: Evidence of Eligibility
Exhibit 12: Certification for HUD-Approved Budget and for use of
Residual Receipts (section 202 only)
Exhibit 13: Existing Services Description
Needs of residents and need for supportive services:
Exhibit 14: Profile of Eligible Project Residents
Exhibit 15: Description of the Need for the Supportive Services
Exhibit 16: Deinstitutionalization Plan
Proposed CHSP program:
Exhibit 17: Description of Proposed Services
Exhibit 18: Meals description
Exhibit 19: Implementation Start-up Schedule
Exhibit 20: Participant Fees Calculation Form
Exhibit 21: Budget Forms:
--HUD-91178--``Annual Program Budget, Applicant'',
--HUD-91179--``Summary Budget, Five-Year Projection'', and,
--HUD-91180--``Summary Budget, Applicant.''
Matching funds:
Exhibit 22: Summary Form for Match
Exhibit 23: Match Letters
Exhibit 24: Documentation of Residual Receipts (NOT for use of Public/
Indian Housing Agencies)
Professional assessment committee (PAC):
Exhibit 25: Qualification of PAC members
For applicant's information, the application package contains a
copy of the Joint Common Rule and three Attachments:
--Attachment 1: CHSP Questions and Answers;
--Attachment 2: Discussion of Service Coordinator; and,
--Attachment 3: Instructions for Completing Budget Forms.
C. Packaging of Applications
Applications must be submitted on the basis of ``one application--
one project''. A HUD PHA/IHA project is defined either by number or by
distinct building name; HUD Multifamily and FmHA projects are defined
by a project number and/or a Section 8 contract number. The applicant's
portion of the application submission is ``Part A'' and the project's
portion of the application with project and program information is
``Part B.''
FmHA applicants must submit an original ``Part A and one or more
Part Bs'' to FmHA Headquarters; A copy of each Part A and Part B must
be submitted to the appropriate FmHA State offices.
An applicant submitting one application for one project only must
submit one Part A and one Part B. (For example, the Smalltown Housing
and Redevelopment Authority submits one application for one project
``Pleasant Valley Towers'' to the HUD Omaha Field Office. That
application must contain one Part A and one Part B.)
Applicants submitting applications for multiple projects must
submit a separate application for each project, in each jurisdiction in
which it is submitting applications.
However, for multiple applications from the same applicant in the
same jurisdiction, only one copy of Part A is submitted. Thus, an
applicant submitting three applications in one jurisdiction must submit
one Part A and three Part Bs (e.g., the North Carolina Office on Aging
is submitting three applications for three HUD projects to the HUD
Greensboro office. It submits one Part A to that office, with a Part B
for each of the three separate projects.)
However, if an applicant is submitting applications to more than
one HUD Field office or FmHA State office or to both HUD and FmHA, it
must submit one ``Part A'' and the appropriate number of ``Part Bs'' in
EACH jurisdiction. For example, the Ohio Office of Aging is submitting
two applications for two HUD projects to the Cleveland HUD Office, one
application for one HUD project to the Columbus HUD Office and one FmHA
application to the FmHA Columbus State office. An original Part A must
be submitted to EACH of the three Offices, with two Part Bs to the
Cleveland Office, one Part B to the HUD Columbus office and one Part B
to the FmHA Columbus Office.
Each Part A and each Part B must be in separate folders. Each Part
must be appropriately tabbed and numbered according to the instructions
in the Application Package.
D. Submission of Applications
1. Submission of Applications to HUD
All applicants shall submit an original and THREE copies (a FAX
copy of the application is NOT acceptable) of the CHSP application to
the Director of Housing Management in the HUD Field Office which has
jurisdiction over the project at the address noted in Attachment 1 of
the NOFA by 3 p.m., Local Time, on or before July 13, 1994. In the case
of IHAs, the submission is to the Director of Housing Management in the
HUD Field Office in which is located the Office of Native American
Programs which has jurisdiction over that project. The deadline date is
firm as to date and hour.
In the interest of fairness to all applicants requesting CHSP
funds, HUD will treat as ineligible for consideration any request which
is received after the deadline.
Applicants making requests for CHSP funds should take this practice
into account and make early submission of their materials to avoid any
risk of lost eligibility brought about by unanticipated delivery-
related problems.
Applications received after the date and time stated herein will
not be accepted, and will be returned to the applicant.
Each application package must be identified on the envelope or
wrapper as follows: Director of Housing Management, CHSP FY 1994
Application Package, Due by 3 p.m., Local Time July 13, 1994.
Determination whether an application is received in a timely manner
is solely the responsibility of the receiving HUD Field Office.
2. Submission of Applications to FmHA
All applicants shall submit an original and TWO copies (a FAX copy
of the application is NOT acceptable) of the CHSP application to FmHA
Headquarters by 3 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, on or before July 13,
1994. The deadline date is firm as to date and hour. The Address is:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration, ATTN: Sue
M. Harris-Green, South Building, room 5343, 14th and Independence Ave,
SW., Washington, DC 20250.
One copy of the application must also be submitted to the FmHA
State office which has jurisdiction over the project.
In the interest of fairness to all applicants requesting CHSP
funds, the FmHA will treat as ineligible for consideration any request
which is received by FmHA Headquarters after the deadline.
Applicants making requests for CHSP funds should take this practice
into account and make early submission of their materials to avoid any
risk of lost eligibility brought about by unanticipated delivery-
related problems.
Applications received after the date and time stated herein will
not be accepted, and will be returned to the applicant.
Each application package must be identified on the envelope or
wrapper as follows: CHSP FY 1994 Application Package, Due by 3 p.m.,
Eastern Daylight Time July 13, 1994.
Determination whether an application is received in a timely manner
is solely the responsibility of FmHA Headquarters. The decision of that
Office is not subject to appeal.
E. Eligibility Review
HUD Field Office/FmHA State office staff will review all timely
applications for eligibility. Both applicants and projects will be
reviewed to determine that the applicant entity and the project
included in the application, if different, is eligible under the terms
of this NOFA and the common rule to participate in the FY 1994 CHSP.
Applicants must submit a copy of their charter or other evidence of
legal status and of their authority to run a CHSP, or evidence of non-
profit status as a local non-profit housing sponsor, as appropriate.
Applicants that are applying as local non-profit housing sponsors or
PHA/IHAs must ALSO submit proof of ownership of the project submitted
in the application.
Applicants must also submit proof of project eligibility, as shown
by a copy of the regulatory agreement, the HAP contract, or other
document which shows the project's legal identity.
All proofs of eligibility or ownership must be legally signed and
dated on or before the application deadline.
Eligibility will also include determination that the application
was submitted to the appropriate HUD or FmHA office.
Applicants and/or projects which are not eligible or have been
submitted to the incorrect HUD field office/FmHA State office will be
rejected and so notified by the appropriate office at this time.
Applications which pass eligibility review will proceed to threshold/
technical deficiency review. If eligibility material is missing, it
will be treated as a deficiency, subject to sections II.F(4) and III
below.
F. Threshold and Technical Deficiency Review
1. General. HUD Field Offices/FmHA Headquarters staff will review
applications for threshold and technical acceptability concurrently.
2. First, each application will be checked for completeness. Any
application missing three or more exhibits other than certifications
will be rejected by the HUD Field Office/FmHA Headquarters, with the
applicant being notified.
3. Second, the applications will be checked for threshold
eligibility. During this review, an applicant (or project in the case
of an application from a governmental jurisdiction) will be rejected
if:
a. The project is not 85 percent occupied;
b. It has not met the match requirement (i.e., there is a lack of
clear and documented evidence of at least a 50 percent eligible match
for the supportive services from the applicant or project owners, or
from third party providers, for the first year of the five-year grant).
Indicators of clear and documented evidence are:
(i) There is a separate match letter on letterhead of the provider
from each provider of match;
(ii) Match letters show committed dollar levels at least equal to
the dollar level in the first year budget;
(iii) The match items provided are firm commitments not contingent
upon any other action (e.g., state or county legislation, board of
directors or local county legislation/approval); and
(iv) For match other than in-kind, the required certification for
new or expanded services is included.
c. It has not submitted a participant fee-collection plan that
proposes to collect at least 10 percent of the cost of the CHSP (up to
20 percent of adjusted incomes or the cost of providing the services,
whichever is less).
d. The proposal includes a retrofit or renovation component in the
budget subject to section 802(a)(2) of the Act.
e. The meals program does not provide at least one hot meal a day
in a group setting SEVEN days a week, for some or all of the
participants. (The meals program may be an existing program; it may be
funded fully or in part with funds other than the CHSP.)
f. A service coordinator is NOT included as part of the services
program. (The coordinator may be paid fully or in part from funds other
than the CHSP.)
g. There is:
--A pending civil rights suit against the applicant (or project owner,
if different) brought by the Department of Justice;
--An outstanding finding of non-compliance as a result of formal
administrative proceedings under any of the statutes, regulations, or
other requirements listed in the civil rights certification, unless the
applicant is operating under a HUD-approved compliance agreement
designed to correct the area(s) of noncompliance, or, in cases of
noncompliance with state or local statutes, regulations or other
requirements, is operating under a compliance agreement approved by the
appropriate state or local agency designed to correct the area(s) of
non-compliance.
--A charge issued by the Secretary concerned against the applicant (or
project owner, if different) under Section 810(g) of the Fair Housing
Act as implemented by 24 CFR 103.400.
--A pending denial of application processing by HUD or by FmHA under
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, under the Attorney General's
guidelines (28 CFR 50.3), or the HUD Title VI regulations (24 CFR 1.8)
and procedures (HUD Handbook 8040.1), or under Section 504 of the
rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the HUD Section 504 regulations (24 CFR
8.57); or,
--An adjudication adverse to the applicant (or the project owner, if
different) of a civil rights violation in a civil action brought
against it under any of the statutes, regulations or other requirements
listed in the civil rights certification, unless the sponsor is
operating in compliance with a court order designed to correct the
area(s) of noncompliance.
h. There exist serious, unaddressed or outstanding Inspector
General audit findings or HUD Headquarters/Field Office/FmHA State
Office Management monitoring review findings for any of the applicant's
(or project's, if different) ongoing management operations or in
connection with its administration of existing grants;
i. There exist serious, unaddressed or outstanding Inspector
General audit findings or HUD Headquarters/Field Office/FmHA State
Office FH&EO monitoring review findings for any of the applicant's (or
project's, if different) ongoing management operations or in connection
with its administration of existing grants; or,
j. The applicant (or project owner, if different) is involved with
litigation which could seriously jeopardize its ability to administer
the CHSP.
If an applicant (or project within an application) is determined to
be the subject of a rejection on the basis of one or more of the above
criteria, the HUD field office or FmHA Headquarters staff shall reject
the application; the review cannot be completed nor the application
scored.
If the applicant agency is a governmental jurisdiction supporting
one or more projects in multiple applications and the applicant agency
is rejected, all projects submitted by that applicant agency will be
disqualified. However, any individual project may be rejected without
disqualifying the applicant agency, if a different legal entity.
All applicants whose application(s) have been rejected by HUD field
offices or FmHA Headquarters will be notified that they have been
rejected, in writing, at the time the decision to reject is made.
4. Third, applicants will be reviewed for technical completeness
(deficiency review).
During the technical review process, if HUD or FmHA determines that
an application is missing up to two exhibits (other than
certifications), or has certain technical deficiencies, the applicant
will be given 14 calendar days from the date of written notification in
which to correct such deficiencies.
The purpose of this process is to assist an applicant in completing
a fundable proposal, and not to provide an opportunity for an
application to be substantively improved, once it has been submitted.
Curable, technical deficiencies relate to submission of a limited
number of missing items, submission of items that are not necessary for
HUD review under threshold review or selection criteria/ranking
factors, e.g., a missing certification, inadvertent blank spot in
certain forms and certifications or missing signature; substantive
items for which information exists elsewhere in the application showing
that the items have been created (e.g., an annual first year budget
summary is missing, but there are sufficient program budgets to
determine what the annual budget is; or revision of match letters to
include missing data, when the amount of resources is clearly
indicated); or, missing match letters in certain instances (see next
paragraph).
Submission of missing items or correction of technical deficiencies
does not allow additional time to complete, amend or correct the
application to overcome any substantive defects in the original
submission. Thus, missing match letters, or corrected match letters
adding the required certification of new or expanded qualifying
resources must be submitted together with proof that the match was
available to the applicant on or before the application deadline (e.g.,
copy of dated Board resolution approving the allocation of the match
dollars). Also, missing documents dealing with applicant or project
eligibility (e.g., articles of incorporation) must be dated on or
before the application deadline date.
The HUD Field Office or FmHA Headquarters will request documents as
necessary to correct technical deficiencies in any CHSP application. (A
FAX copy of an original document may NOT be submitted to meet any
technical deficiency correction request.) A response to a letter
request from HUD or FmHA to an applicant for correction of technical
deficiencies must be received by the requesting HUD Field Office/FmHA
Headquarters, by 3 p.m., Local Time on the 14th calendar day following
the date on the request letter to the applicant. This means (for
example) that if the deficiency letter to the applicant is dated June
15, 1994, the response must be received by 3 p.m., Local Time, in the
HUD Field Office or FmHA Headquarters on June 29, 1994. Information
provided after 3 p.m. on the fourteenth day of the correction period
will be rejected as non-responsive. In any such situation, the
application, or the appropriate project, will be rejected.
All applicants are encouraged to review the Table of Contents
provided in the application package. The Table of Contents identifies
all technical exhibits needed for application processing. Filling in
the appropriate page number indicates that the exhibit has been
prepared.
5. HUD/FmHA reserves the right to reduce the amount of funding
requested in any application. Examples of reasons to reduce initial
funding requests during HUD Field office/FmHA Headquarters review
include, but are not limited to: (a) activities proposed in any project
are not eligible or not approved by HUD or FmHA; (b) HUD or FmHA
determines that the cost of any particular component of a proposed
program is more than necessary to make the activity feasible; and, (c)
the cost of the grant is reduced to meet the funding limits of Section
I.C(5).
Reductions may take place in the Field offices as part of the
review process.
6. Once threshold and technical reviews have been completed, HUD
Field offices, or the FmHA Headquarters (as appropriate) will score all
selection criteria.
HUD Field offices will send preliminary scores and full reports to
the HUD Regional offices. The Regional offices will: (a) Review all
materials and preliminary ratings for accuracy and conformance to
program policy; (b) make corrections, if necessary; (c) integrate the
Field Office recommendations; (d) do final rating and ranking; and, (e)
select projects.
Within each HUD Regional allocation and the FmHA Headquarters
allocation, applications will be rank-ordered by score.
G. Final Selection
1. General
HUD recognizes that the Regional role stated herein may have to be
modified later in the fiscal year, depending on the reorganization and
the manner in which the transition to the Field organization takes
place. If necessary there will be appropriate notification to the
procedures stated in this Notice.
All eligible applications, other than those noted as rejects, will
be rank-ordered by score in either the FmHA Headquarters or each HUD
Regional Office.
2. Final Reductions in Funding Within Applications
HUD/FmHA reserves the right to additionally reduce the amount of
funding requested in any application at time of selection to reduce the
cost of the grant to meet the funding limits of section I.C(5).
Reductions may also take place after selection and announcement of
award, as part of final negotiations.
3. Ranking of Projects
a. Ranking of FmHA Projects. FmHA Headquarters will select
applicants by rank-order until all CHSP funds allocated have been
exhausted. If there is more than one unfunded application at the next-
highest score (in a tie) and there are insufficient funds to cover
both, funding will be decided subject to section II.F.4, below. Further
selections will be made until any residual funds are insufficient to
fund another FmHA project.
If there is a residual amount after all eligible applications in
rank order are funded, the next application(s) on the list which
contain funding requests above the level of the residual may be skipped
over to reach a fundable project lower down on the list which is within
the level of the residual amount. The first remaining fundable but
unfunded project on the list which is within the residual limit must be
funded, as well as any subsequent projects which are still within any
remaining residual.
If funds remain available after ranking all the approvable FmHA
projects, these funds will be utilized by HUD Headquarters for
reallocation to HUD projects which were approvable but unfunded (see
subsection II.G(3)(b), below). The FmHA Headquarters reserves the right
to reduce any proposed amount of CHSP funds requested.
b. Ranking of HUD projects. HUD will select applicants in rank-
order in each Region until the funds allotted to that Region are
exhausted.
If there is more than one unfunded application at the next-highest
score (in a tie) and there are insufficient funds to cover both,
funding will be decided subject to section II.G.4, below. Further
selections will be made until any residual funds are insufficient to
fund another HUD project.
If there is a residual amount after most eligible applications are
funded in rank order, the next application(s) on the list which contain
funding requests above the level of the residual may be skipped over to
reach a fundable project lower down on the list which is within the
level of the residual amount. The first remaining fundable but unfunded
project on the list which is within the residual limit must be funded,
as well as any subsequent projects which are still within any remaining
residual.
Regions (and FmHA) will return any excess funds to Headquarters.
Headquarters will integrate by score order all approvable but not
funded applications sent in from Regions in which there were too many
projects to fund from within the Regional allocation. Headquarters will
then fund additional projects in rank order from this score ranking
using residual funds, consistent with section II.G(4), below.
If there are insufficient fundable applications, any excess funds
will be made available to approvable but unfunded FmHA applicants.
4. Tie Scores
In the event of a tie score among the last-to-be-considered
applications in either FmHA Headquarters or in a HUD Regional
allocation, the application that scores higher on Selection Criteria
Numbers b, f, g, and i will be selected, if that application is within
the limits of the remaining dollars or can be so modified. If there is
still a tie score among two or more applications, one of the tied
applications will be selected by lottery.
5. Multi-Project Grants
HUD and FmHA reserve the right to aggregate into one grant award
multiple applications from a single applicant in any jurisdiction.
6. Self-Monitoring
HUD and FmHA reserve the right to require self-monitoring of those
applications approved for States, Indian tribes and units of general
local government (NOT PHA/IHAs). In such cases, HUD/FmHA will add an
amount equal to one percent of the total HUD grant approved, for
monitoring costs, under which certain responsibilities will be
delegated to that agency subject to 24 CFR 700.325 or 7 CFR 1944.270.
As this is a HUD or FmHA-directed add-on, it may bring the total award
granted to more than the limit stated in section I.C(5).
7. Excess Funds
In the event that funds still remain after completion of the
selection process, such funds will be allotted to the HUD Headquarters
Reserve Fund, subject to section 700.405 of the Joint Common Rule.
H. Awarding of Grants
Once selections are made, the HUD Field Office, or FmHA
Headquarters, as appropriate, will negotiate the final amount of the
grant with the selected applicant. Once agreement is reached on all
issues, a grant award will be prepared and sent to the HUD or FmHA
applicant for signature. Once the signed grant award is returned to
HUD, it will be executed by an appropriate HUD Official.
If an applicant cannot complete negotiations so that a grant can be
executed before September 30, 1994, and the reserved dollars revert to
the Treasury, the grant award may be canceled.
III. Checklist of Application Submission Requirements
The checklist specifies the required information that must be
submitted as part of an application, and identifies those materials
necessary to pass eligibility and threshold requirements. Other items
including forms and certifications may be corrected during the
technical deficiency correction period, subject to section II.F(4) of
this Notice.
The Checklist is the Table of Contents in the application package;
the check is done by filling in the appropriate application page number
in the blank space.
IV. Other Matters
A. Environmental Impact
A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment
has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50,
which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). The Finding is available for public
inspection between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays in the Office of
the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the General Counsel, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, room 10276, 451 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20410.
B. Family Executive Order
The General Counsel of HUD, as the Designated Official under
Executive Order 12606, The Family, has determined that the policies
contained in this NOFA will have some significant impact on the
maintenance and general well-being of families. The revised CHSP can be
expected to provide supportive services which can prevent or postpone
unnecessary or premature institutionalization, and reduce unnecessary
stress and financial burdens on participants' families by allowing them
to remain in their apartments. Because the impact on family concerns is
wholly beneficial, no further review under the executive order is
considered necessary.
C. Federalism Executive Order
The General Counsel of HUD, as the Designated Official under
section 6(a) of the Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has determined
that the policies contained in this NOFA do not have Federalism
implications, and, thus, are not subject to review under the order.
These guidelines are limited to providing the procedures under which
HUD would make rental assistance available to applicants under a
program designed to provide housing assistance and supportive services
to frail elderly individuals. The program involves intergovernmental
cooperation, but in no manner will involve federal incursion upon local
or state decision making, or the administration of local or state law.
D. Section 102 of the HUD Reform Act--Accountability in the Provision
of HUD Assistance
1. Documentation and Public Access
HUD will ensure that documentation and other information regarding
each application submitted pursuant to this NOFA are sufficient to
indicate the basis upon which assistance was provided or denied. This
material, including any letters of support, will be made available for
public inspection for a five-year period beginning not less than thirty
days after the award for assistance. Material will be made available in
accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and HUD's
implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 15. In addition, HUD will
include the recipients of assistance pursuant to this NOFA in its
quarterly Federal Register notice of all recipients of HUD assistance
awarded on a competitive basis. (See 24 CFR 12.14(a) and 12.16(b) and
the notice published in the Federal Register on January 16, 1992 (57 FR
1942) for further information on these requirements.)
2. Disclosures
HUD will make available to the public for five years all applicant
disclosure reports (Form HUD-2880) submitted in connection with this
NOFA. Update reports (also Form HUD-2880) will be made available along
with the applicants' disclosure reports, but in no case for a period of
less than three years. All reports--both applicant disclosures and
updates--will be made available in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act (95 U.S.C. 552) and HUD's implementing regulations at
24 CFR part 15. (See 24 CFR, subpart C, and the notice published in the
Federal Register on January 16, 1992 (57 FR 1942) for further
information on disclosure requirements.)
3. Subsidy-Layering Determinations
24 CFR 12.52 requires HUD to certify that the amount of HUD
assistance is not more than necessary to make the assisted activity
feasible after taking into account other government assistance. HUD
will make the decision with respect to each certification available
free of charge, for a three-year period. (See the notice published in
the Federal Register on January 16, 1992 (57 FR 1942) and the
guidelines published in the Federal Register on February 25, 1994 (59
FR 9332) for further information on this certification.) Additional
information about applications, HUD certifications and assistance
adjustments, both before assistance is provided or subsequently, are to
be made under the Freedom of Information Act (24 CFR part 15).
E. Section 103 of the HUD Reform Act--Prohibition of Advance
Disclosures of Funding Decisions
HUD's regulation implementing section 103 of the Reform Act was
published on May 13, 1991 (56 FR 22088) and became effective on June
12, 1991. That regulation, codified as 24 CFR part 4, applies to the
funding competition announced today. The requirements of the rule
continue to apply until the announcement of the selection of successful
applicants. Also, refer to (58 FR 61016), a final rule amending part 4
regarding the regulations of certain conduct by HUD employees and by
applicants for HUD assistance during the selection process for the
award of financial assistance by HUD.
HUD and FmHA employees involved in the review of applications and
in the making of funding decisions are restrained by part 4 from
providing advance information to any person (other than an authorized
employee of HUD or FmHA) concerning funding decisions, or from
otherwise giving any applicant an unfair competitive advantage. Persons
who apply for assistance in this competition should confine their
inquiries to the subject areas permitted under 24 CFR part 4.
Applicants who have questions should contact the HUD Office of
Ethics, (202) 708-3815. (This is not a toll-free number.) The Office of
Ethics can provide information of a general nature to HUD employees, as
well. However, a HUD or FmHA employee who has specific program
questions, such as whether particular subject matter can be discussed
with persons outside the Department, should contact his or her Regional
or Field Office Counsel, or Headquarters Counsel for the program to
which the question pertains.
F. Section 112 of the HUD Reform Act
Section 13 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act
(section 112 of the Reform Act) contains two provisions dealing with
efforts to influence HUD's decisions with respect to financial
assistance. The first imposes disclosure requirements on those who are
typically involved in these efforts--those who pay others to influence
the award of assistance or the taking of a management action by the
Department and those who are paid to provide the influence. The second
restricts the payment of fees to those who are paid to influence the
award of HUD assistance, if the fees are tied to the number of housing
units received or are based on the amount of assistance received, or if
they are contingent upon the receipt of assistance.
Section 13 was implemented by final rule published in the Federal
Register on May 17, 1991 (56 FR 22912), as 24 CFR part 86. If readers
are involved in any efforts to influence the Department in these ways,
they are urged to read the final rule, particularly the examples
contained in Appendix A of the rule.
Any questions regarding the rule should be directed to: Acting
Director, Office of Ethics, room 2158, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410. Telephone:
(202) 708-3815; TDD: (202) 708-1112. (These are not toll-free numbers.)
Forms necessary for compliance with the rule may be obtained from the
local HUD office.
G. Prohibition Against Lobbying Activities
The use of funds awarded under this NOFA is subject to the
disclosure requirements and prohibitions of section 319 of the
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 1990 (31 U.S.C. 1352) and the implementing regulations at
24 CFR part 87. These authorities prohibit recipients of Federal
contracts, grants, or loans from using appropriated funds for lobbying
the Executive or Legislative Branches of the Federal Government in
connection with a specific contract, grant, or loan. The prohibition
also covers the awarding of contracts, grants, cooperative agreements,
or loans unless the recipient has made an acceptable certification
regarding lobbying. Under 24 CFR part 87 and 7 CFR part 1944, subpart
G, applicants, recipients, and subrecipients of assistance exceeding
$100,000 must certify that no Federal funds have been or will be spent
on lobbying activities in connection with the assistance.
Indian Housing Authorities (IHAs) established by an Indian tribe as
a result of the exercise of the tribe's sovereign power are excluded
from coverage of the Byrd Amendment, but IHAs established under State
law are not excluded from the statute's coverage.
IHAs established by an Indian tribe as a result of the tribe's
sovereign power are excluded from coverage of the Byrd Amendment, but
IHAs established under State law are not excluded from the statute's
coverage.
Required Reporting
A certification is required at the time application for funds is
made that federally appropriated funds are not being or have not been
used in violation of section 319 and the disclosure will be made of
payments for lobbying with other than federally appropriated funds.
Also, there is a standard disclosure form, SF-LLL, ``Disclosure Form to
Report Lobbying'', which must be used to disclose lobbying with other
than federally appropriated funds at the time of application.
Public Reporting Burden
The information collection requirements contained in this NOFA have
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The Department
has determined that the following provisions contain information
collection requirements.
Revised Congregate Services Housing Program
14 responses are estimated from each respondent.
5.10 hours is the estimated average response time for each
respondent per response.
Total Respondents time is 9,675.
Estimate of cost to the respondents is $15.00 per hour.
Total respondents time @ $15/hour=9675 x $15=$145,125.
Tabulation of Reporting Burden
Revised Congregate Housing Services Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of
Information collected No. X responses per = Total X Hours Totalhours
ofrespondents respondent annualresponses perresponse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5
Initial owner applications.................................... 150 1 150 14 2100
Budget formats................................................ 50 1 50 3 150
Semiannual program reports.................................... 50 1 50 1.5 75
Annual program reports........................................ 50 1 50 3 150
Participant applications to new CHSP.......................... 50 36 1800 4 7200
Summary....................................................... 150 14 avg. 2100 5.10 9675
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program title and number
is 14.170, Congregate Housing Services Program.
Authority: Section 802, Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable
Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8012).
Section 604 and 672, Housing and Community Development
Amendments of 1992 (Pub.L. 102-550).
Dated: April 14, 1994.
Nicolas P. Retsinas,
Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.
HUD Field Offices
Region I
Boston, Massachusetts Regional Office (Jurisdiction: Massachusetts)
Casimir Kolaski (Acting) Regional Administrator-Regional Housing
Commissioner, HUD--Boston Regional Office, Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
Federal Building, 10 Causeway Street, Room 375, Boston, Massachusetts
02222-1092, (617) 565-5234, TDD (617) 565-5453
Hartford, Connecticut Office (Jurisdiction: Connecticut)
Robert Donovan (Acting Manager), HUD--Hartford Office, 330 Main
Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06106-1860, (203) 240-4522, TDD (203)
240-4665
Manchester, New Hampshire Office (Jurisdiction: New Hampshire, Maine)
David B. Harrity, Manager, HUD--Manchester Office, Norris Cotton
Federal Building, 275 Chestnut Street, Manchester, New Hampshire 03101-
2487, (603) 666-7681, TDD (603) 666-7518
Providence, Rhode Island Office (Jurisdiction: Rhode Island)
Michael Dziok (Acting Manager), Manager, HUD--Providence Office,
330 John O. Pastore Federal Building and U.S. Post Office--Kennedy
Plaza, Providence, Rhode Island 02903-1785, (401) 528-5351, TDD (401)
528-5364
Region II
New York Regional Office (Jurisdiction: New York)
Burton Bloomberg (Acting), Regional Administrator-Regional Housing
Commissioner, HUD--New York Regional Office, 26 Federal Plaza, New
York, New York 10278-0068, (212) 264-6500, TDD (212) 264-0927
Buffalo, New York Office (Jurisdiction: Western New York)
Joseph B. Lynch, Manager, HUD--Buffalo Office, Layette Court, 5th
Floor, 465 Main Street, Buffalo, New York 14203-1780, (716) 846-5755
Newark, New Jersey Office (Jurisdiction: New Jersey)
Diane J. Johnson (Acting Manager), HUD--Newark Office, Military
Park Building, 60 Park Place, Newark, New Jersey 07102-5504, (201) 877-
1662, TDD (201) 645-6649
Region III
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Regional Office (Jurisdiction: Eastern
Pennsylvania)
Harry W. Staller (Acting), Regional Administrator, HUD--
Philadelphia Regional Office, Liberty Square Building, 105 South 7th
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-3392, (215) 597-2560 (Ext. 6),
TDD (215) 597-5564
Washington, DC Office (Jurisdiction: District of Columbia Area)
I. Toni Thomas, Manager, HUD--Washington, DC Office, Union Center
Plaza, Phase II, 820 First Street, N.E., Suite 300, Washington, DC
20002-4205, (202) 275-9200, TDD (202) 275-0967
Baltimore, Maryland Office (Jurisdiction: Maryland)
Maxine S. Saunders, Manager, HUD--Baltimore Office, 10 South Howard
Street, 5th Fl., Baltimore, Maryland 21201-2505, (410) (962-2520--Ext.
3474, TDD (410) 962-0106
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Office (Jurisdiction: Western Pennsylvania)
Choice Edwards, Manager, HUD--Pittsburgh Office, Old Post Office
Courthouse Bldg., 700 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1939, (412)
644-6428, TDD (412) 644-5747
Richmond, Virginia Office (Jurisdiction: Virginia)
Mary Ann Wilson, Manager, HUD--Richmond Office, The 3600 Centre,
3600 West Broad Street, P.O. Box 90331, Richmond, Virginia 23230-0331,
(804) 278-4507, TDD (804) 278-4501
Charleston, West Virginia Office (Jurisdiction: West Virginia)
Frederick S. Roncaglione (Acting Manager), HUD--Charleston Office,
405 Capitol Street, Suite 708, Charleston, West Virginia 25301-1795,
(304) 347-7000, TDD (304) 347-5332
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia Regional Office (Jurisdiction: Georgia)
Raymond A. Harris, Regional Administrator-Regional Housing
Commissioner, HUD--Atlanta Regional Office, Richard B. Russell Federal
Building, 75 Spring Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3388, (404)
331-5136, TDD (404) 730-2654,
Birmingham, Alabama Office (Jurisdiction: Alabama)
Robert E. Lunsford, Manager, HUD--Birmingham Office, 600 Beacon
Parkway West, Suite 300, Birmingham, Alabama 35209-3144, (205) 290-
7617, TDD (205) 790-7624
Louisville, Kentucky Office (Jurisdiction: Kentucky)
Verna V. Van Ness, Manager, HUD--Louisville Office, 601 West
Broadway, Post Office Box 1044, Louisville, Kentucky 40201-1044, (502)
582-5251
Jackson, Mississippi (Jurisdiction: Mississippi)
Sandra Freeman, Manager, HUD--Jackson Office, Dr. A.H. McCoy
Federal Building, 100 W. Capitol Street, Room 910, Jackson, Mississippi
39269-1096, (601) 965-5308, TDD (601) 965-4171
Greensboro, North Carolina (Jurisdiction: North Carolina)
Larry J. Parker, Manager, HUD--Greensboro Office, 2306 W.
Meadowview Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27407, (919) 547-4000, TDD
(919) 547-4010
Caribbean Office (Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico)
Rosa C. Villagonga, Manager, HUD--Caribbean Office, New San Juan
Office Building, 159 Carlos E. Chardon Avenue, San Juan, Puerto Rico
00918-1804, (809) 766-6121
Columbia, South Carolina Office (Jurisdiction: South Carolina)
Ted B. Freeman, Manager, HUD--Columbia Office, Strom Thurmond
Federal Building, 1835-45 Assembly Street, Columbia, South Carolina
29201-2480, (803) 765-5592
Knoxville, Tennessee Office (Jurisdiction: Eastern Tennessee)
Richard B. Barnwell, Manager, HUD--Knoxville Office, John J. Duncan
Federal Bldg., 710 Locust Street SW., Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-2526,
(615) 549-4384, TDD (615) 549-4379
Nashville, Tennessee Office (Jurisdiction: Western Tennessee)
John H. Fisher, Manager, HUD--Nashville Office, 251 Cumberland Bend
Drive, Suite 200, Nashville, Tennessee 37228-1803, (615) 736-5213
Jacksonville, Florida Office (Jurisdiction: Florida)
James T. Chaplin, Manager, HUD--Jacksonville Office, 301 West Bay
Street, Suite 2200, Jacksonville, Florida 32202-5121, (904) 232-2626
Region V
Chicago, Illinois Regional Office (Jurisdiction: Illinois)
Edwin Eisendrath, Regional Administrator-Regional Housing
Commissioner, HUD--Chicago Regional Office, Ralph H. Metcalfe Federal
Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60606, (312)
353-5680
Detroit, Michigan Office (Jurisdiction: Eastern Michigan)
Harry I. Sharrott, Manager, HUD--Detroit Office, Patrick V.
McNamara Federal Building, 477 Michigan Avenue, Detroit, Michigan
48226-2592, (313) 226-7900
Indianapolis, Indiana Office (Jurisdiction: Indiana)
J. Nicholas Shelley, Manager, HUD--Indianapolis Office, 151 North
Delaware Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2526, (317) 226-6303
Grand Rapids, Michigan Office (Jurisdiction: Western Michigan)
Ronald C. Weston, Manager, HUD--Grand Rapids Office, 2922 Fuller
Avenue NE., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505-3499, (616) 456-2100
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota (Jurisdiction: Minnesota)
Thomas Feeney, Manager, HUD--Minneapolis-St. Paul Office, 220
Second Street South, Bridge Place Building, Minneapolis, Minnesota
55401-2195, (612) 370-3000
Cincinnati, Ohio Office (Jurisdiction: Southeast Ohio)
William J. Harris, Manager, HUD--Cincinnati Office, Federal Office
Building, room 9002, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3253,
(513) 684-2884
Cleveland, Ohio Office (Jurisdiction: Northwest Ohio)
George L. Engel, Manager, HUD--Cleveland Office, Renaissance
Building, 1350 Euclid Avenue, 5th Fl., Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1815,
(216) 522-4058
Columbus, Ohio Office (Jurisdiction: Central Ohio)
Robert W. Dolin, Manager, HUD--Columbus Office, 200 North High
Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215-2499, (614) 469-5737
Milwaukee, Wisconsin Office (Jurisdiction: Wisconsin)
Delbert F. Reynolds, Manager, HUD--Milwaukee Office, Henry S. Reuss
Federal Plaza, 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1380, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin 53203-2289, (414) 291-3214
Region VI
Fort Worth, Texas Regional Office (Jurisdiction: North Texas)
Frank L. Davis (Acting), Regional Administrator-Regional Housing
Commissioner, HUD--Fort Worth Regional Office, 1600 Throckmorton, Post
Office Box 2905, Fort Worth, Texas 76113-2905, (817) 885-5401, TDD
(817) 728-5447
Houston, Texas Office (Jurisdiction: East Texas)
George H. Rodriguez (Acting Manager), HUD--Houston Office, Norfolk
Tower, 2211 Norfolk, Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77098-4096, (713) 653-
3274
San Antonio, Texas Office (Jurisdiction: South Texas)
A. Cynthia Leon, Manager, HUD--San Antonio Office, Washington
Square Building, 800 Dolorosa Street, San Antonio, Texas 78207-4563,
(512) 229-6800, TDD (512) 229-6885
Little Rock, Arkansas Office (Jurisdiction: Arkansas)
John Suskie, Manager, HUD--Little Rock Office, TCBY Tower, 425 West
Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3488, (501) 324-5231, TDD
(501) 324-5931
New Orleans, Louisiana Office (Jurisdiction: Louisiana)
Robert J. Vasquez, Manager, HUD--New Orleans Office, Fisk Federal
Building, Suite 3100, 1661 Canal Street, P.O. Box 70288, New Orleans,
Louisiana, 70112-2887, (504) 589-7200
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Office (Jurisdiction: Oklahoma)
Edwin I. Gardner, Manager, HUD--Oklahoma City Office, Alfred P.
Murrah Federal Building, 200 NW. 5th Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
73102-3202, (405) 231-4181, TDD (405) 231-4181
Oklahoma City--Indian Programs Division
(405) 231-4102
Tulsa, Oklahoma--Tulsa Office (Jurisdiction: Oklahoma)
James S. Coglan, Manager, 1516 S. Boston Avenue, Suite 110, Tulsa,
Oklahoma 74119-4032, (918) 581-7434
Region VII
Kansas City, Missouri Regional Office (Jurisdiction: Western Missouri,
Kansas)
William H. Brown, Regional Administrator-Regional Housing
Commissioner, HUD--Kansas City Regional Office, Gateway Tower II, 400
State Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101-2406, (913) 551-5462, TDD (913)
236-3972
Omaha, Nebraska Office (Jurisdiction: Nebraska)
Robert M. Massey, Manager, HUD--Omaha Office, 10909 Mill Valley
Road, Omaha, Nebraska 68154-3955, (402) 942-3100, TDD (402) 221-3703
St. Louis, Missouri Office (Jurisdiction: Eastern Missouri)
Kenneth G. Lange, Manager, HUD--St. Louis Office, 1222 Spruce
Street, Room 3207, St. Louis, Missouri 63103-2836, (314) 539-6583, TDD
(314) 539-6331
Des Moines, Iowa Office (Jurisdiction: Iowa)
William McNarney, Manager, HUD--Des Moines Office, Federal
Building, 210 Walnut Street, Room 239, Des Moines, Iowa 50309-2155,
(515) 284-4512, TDD (515) 284-4728
Region VIII
Denver, Colorado Regional Office (Jurisdiction: Colorado, Utah,
Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota)
Donald J. Dirksen, (Acting), Regional Administrator-Regional
Housing Commissioner, HUD--Denver Regional Office, Executive Tower
Building, 1405 Curtis Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-2349, (303) 844-
4513
Region IX
San Francisco, California Regional Office (Jurisdiction: Western
California)
Art Agnos, Regional Administrator-Regional Housing Commissioner,
HUD--San Francisco Regional Office, Philip Burton Federal Building &
U.S. Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, P.O. Box 36003, San Francisco,
California 94102-3448, (415) 556-4752, TDD (415) 566-8357
Honolulu, Hawaii Office (Jurisdiction: Hawaii)
Gordon Y. Furutani, Manager, HUD--Honolulu Office, 500 Ala Moana
Boulevard, Suite 500, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-4918, (808) 541-1323, TDD
(808) 541-1356
Los Angeles, California Office (Jurisdiction: Southern California)
Charles Ming, Manager, HUD--Los Angeles Office, 1615 W. Olympic
Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90015-3801, (213) 251-7122, TDD
(213) 251-7038
Sacramento, California Office (Jurisdiction: Northeast California)
Anthony A. Randolph, Manager, HUD--Sacramento Office, 777 12th
Street, Suite 200, Post Office Box 1978, Sacramento, California 95814-
1977, (916) 551-1351, TDD (916) 551-1367
Phoenix Office (Jurisdiction: Arizona)
Dwight A. Peterson, Manager, HUD--Phoenix Office, Two Arizona
Center, 400 N. 5th Street, Suite 1600, Post Office Box 13468, Phoenix,
Arizona 85004-2361, (602) 379-4434, TDD (602) 379-4461
Phoenix, Arizona--Indian Programs Office
Two Arizona Center, Suite 1650 Phoenix, Arizona 85004, (602) 379-
4156, TDD Number: (Commercial) (602) 379-4461
Las Vegas, Nevada Office (Jurisdiction: Nevada)
Andrew Robinson, Manager, HUD--Las Vegas Office, 1500 East
Tropicana Avenue, Suite 205, Las Vegas, NV 89119-6516, (702) 388-6500,
TDD Number (702) 388-6245
Region X
Seattle, Washington Office (Jurisdiction: Washington)
Lynn Stowell (Acting), Regional Administrator-Regional Housing
Commissioner, HUD--Seattle Regional Office, Federal Office Building,
909 First Avenue, Suite 200, Seattle, Washington 98104-1000, (206) 220-
5101
Seattle, Washington--Office of Indian Programs
Arcade Plaza Building, 1321 2nd Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101-
2058, (206) 553-0330 TDD Number (Commercial) (206) 553-4351
Portland, Oregon Office (Jurisdiction: Idaho and Oregon)
Richard C. Brinck, Manager, HUD--Portland Office, Cascade Building,
520 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204-1596, (503) 326-2561
Anchorage, Alaska Office (Jurisdiction: Alaska)
Arlene L. Patton, Acting Manager, HUD--Anchorage Office, University
Plaza Building, 949 East 36th Avenue, Suite 401, Anchorage, Alaska
99508-4399, (907) 271-4170
Farmers Home Administration State Offices
Horace R. Horn, Jr., Alabama State Office, Sterling Center, Office
Building, 4121 Carmichael Road, Suite 601, Montgomery, AL 36108-3683,
(205) 279-3400
Ernest W. Brannon, Alaska State Office, 634 South Bailey, Suite 103,
Palmer, AK 99645, (907) 745-2176
Alan Stephens, Arizona State Office, Phoenix Corporate Center, 3003
North Central Avenue, Suite 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012, (602) 280-8700
Michael L. Dunaway, Arkansas State Office, 700 W. Capitol, PO Box 2778,
Little Rock, AR 72203, (501) 324-6281
Michael M. Reyna, California State Office, 194 West Main Street, Suite
F, Woodland, CA 95695-2915, (916) 668-2000
Ruth Rodriguez, Colorado State Office, 655 Parfet St., Room E100,
Lakewood, CO 80215, (303) 236-2801
John S. Walls, Delaware State Office, (includes Maryland), 4611 South
Dupont Highway, PO Box 400, Camden, DE 19934-9998, (302) 697-4300
Jan E. Shadburn, Florida State Office, 4440 NW 25th Place, PO Box
147010, Gainesville, FL 32614-7010, (904) 338-3400
Laura Medows, Georgia State Office, Stephens Federal Building, 355 E.
Hancock Avenue, Athens, GA 30610, (706) 546-2162
Francis Blanco, Hawaii State Office, (includes Western Pacific Areas),
Room 311, Federal Building, 154 Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720,
(808) 933-3000
Loren A. Nelson, Idaho State Office, 3232 Elder Street, Boise, ID
83705, (208) 334-1301
Wallace D. Furrow, Illinois State Office, Illinois Plaza, Suite 103,
1817 South Neil Street, Champaign, IL 61810, (217) 398-5235
John Thompson, Indiana State Office, 5975 Lakeside Boulevard,
Indianapolis, IN 46278, (317) 290-3100
Ellen King Huntoon, Iowa State Office, 873 Federal Building, 210 Walnut
Street, Des Moines, IA 50309, (515) 284-4663
Bill Kirk, Kansas State Office, 1200 SW Executive Drive, PO Box 4653,
Topeka, KA 66604, (913) 271-2700
Thomas G. Fern, Kentucky State Office, Suite 200, 771 Corporate Drive,
Lexington, KY 40503, (606) 224-7300
Austin J. Cormier, Louisiana State Office, 3727 Government Street,
Alexandria, LA 71302, (318) 473-7921
Seth Bradstreet, Maine State Office, 44 Stillwater Avenue, PO Box 405,
Bangor, ME 04402-0405, (207) 990-9160
William H. Bradley, Massachusetts State Office, (includes Connecticut
and Rhode Island), 451 West Street, Amherst, MA 01002, (413) 253-4302
Donald L. Hare, Michigan State Office, 3001 Coolidge Road, Suite 200,
East Lansing, MI 48823, (517) 337-6635
Howard Boatman, Minnesota State Office, 410 Farm Credit Service Bldg.,
375 Jackson Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-1853, (612) 290-3842
George E. Irvin, Sr., Mississippi State Office, Federal Building, Suite
831, 100 W. Capitol St, Jackson, MS 39269, (601) 965-4318
William Shay, Missouri State Office, 601 Business Loop 70 West, Parkade
Center, Suite 235, Columbia, MO 65203, (314) 876-0976
Anthony J. Preite, Montana State Office, 900 Technology Blvd., Unit 1,
Suite B, Bozeman, MT 59715, (406) 585-2580
Stanley E. Foster, Nebraska State Office, 100 Centennial Mall N,
Lincoln, NE 68508, (402) 437-5551
Sara J. Mersereau, Nevada State Office, 1390 South Curry St, Carson
City, NV 89703-5405, (702) 887-1222
Takashi Moriuchi, New Jersey State Office, Tarnsfield Plaza, Suite 22,
790 Woodland Road, Mt. Holly, NJ 08060, (609) 265-3600
Steven Anaya, New Mexico State Office, Federal Building, Room 3414, 517
Gold Avenue, SW, Albuquerque, NM 87102, (505) 766-2462
James Bays, New York State Office, James M. Hanley Federal Building,
Room 871, PO Box 7318, Syracuse, NY 13261-7318, (315) 423-5308
James C. Kearney, North Carolina State Office, 4405 Bland Road, Suite
260, Raleigh, NC 27609, (919) 790-2731
Charles F. Mertens, North Dakota State Office, Federal Building, Room
208, 220 East Rosser, PO Box 1737, Bismarck, ND 58502, (701) 250-4781
Linda K. Page, Ohio State Office, Federal Building, Room 507, 200 North
High Street, Columbus, OH 43215, (614) 469-5608
Charles P. Rainbolt, Oklahoma State Office, 100 USDA, Suite 108,
Stillwater, OH 74074-2654, (405) 624-4250
Scott W. Duff, Oregon State Office, Federal Building, Room 1590, 1220
SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, OR 97204, (503) 326-2731
Cheryl L. Cook, Pennsylvania State Office, One Credit Union Place,
Suite 330, Harrisburg, PA 17110-2996, (717) 782-4476
Ramon Z. Martinez (Acting), Puerto Rico State Office, New San Juan
Office Building, Room 501, 159 Carlos E. Chardon St, Hato Rey, PR
00918-5481, (809) 766-5095
Bernie L. Wright, South Carolina State Office, Strom Thurmond Federal
Building, 1835 Assembly Street, Room 1007, Columbia, SC 29201, (803)
765-5163
Dallas Tonsager, South Dakota State Office, Federal Building, Room 308,
200 Fourth Street, SW, Huron, SD 57350, (605) 353-1430
David Seivers, Tennessee State Office, Suite 300, 3322 West End Ave.,
Nashville, TN 37203-1071, (515) 783-1300
L. George Ellis, Texas State Office, Federal Building, Suite 102, 101
South Main, Temple, TX 76501, (817) 774-1301
James Harvey, Utah State Office, Wallace F. Bennet Federal Building,
125 South State Street, Room 5438, Salt Lake City, UT 84138, (801) 524-
4063
Roberta Harold, Vermont State Office (includes New Hampshire and Virgin
Islands), City Center, 3rd Floor, 89 Main Street, Montpelier, VT 05602,
(802) 828-6002
Lloyd A. Jones, Virginia State Office, Culpepper Building, Suite 238,
1606 Santa Rosa Road, Richmond, VA 23229, (804) 287-1552
George W. Aldaya, Washington State Office, Federal Building, Room 319,
301 Yakima Street, PO Box 2427, Wenatchee, WA 98807, (509) 664-0240
Robert D. Lewis, West Virginia State Office, 75 High Street,
Morgantown, WV 26505-7500, (304) 291-4791
Bryce E. Luchterhand, Wisconsin State Office, 4949 Kirschling Court,
Stevens Point, WI, (715) 345-7600
Derrel Carruth, Wyoming State Office, 100 East B, Federal Building,
Room 1005, PO Box 820, Casper, WY 82602, (307) 261-5271
State Director at Large, M.J. (Mayo) Pena, 101 South Main, Suite 102,
Temple, TX 76501, (817) 774-1301
[FR Doc. 94-9877 Filed 4-28-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-27-P
