[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 148 (Monday, August 3, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41384-41385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20786]
[[Page 41383]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Housing and Urban Development
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Application Kit Clarification Concerning HOPE VI
Revitalization
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 1998 /
Notices
[[Page 41384]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR-4340-N-03]
Notice of Application Kit Clarification Concerning HOPE VI
Revitalization
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian
Housing, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 31, 1998, HUD published a Super Notice of Funding
Availability (SuperNOFA) for Housing and Community Development Programs
(63 FR 15489). This SuperNOFA contained a component for Revitalization
of Severely Distressed Public Housing (HOPE VI Revitalization NOFA) at
63 FR 15577. In order to help public housing agencies (PHAs) in
preparing their applications for HOPE VI Revitalization funds, HUD also
made available an Application Kit. The purpose of this Notice is to
advise applicants of a discrepancy between the HOPE VI Revitalization
NOFA and the Application Kit and to allow them to clarify their
applications with respect to this discrepancy.
CLARIFICATION DUE DATE: Clarifications to the HOPE VI application must
be received at HUD Headquarters on or before 12:00 Noon Eastern time on
August 17, 1998.
ADDRESSES AND CLARIFICATION SUBMISSION PROCEDURES: Addresses:
Clarifications must be submitted to: Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Room 4138, Washington, D.C. 20410.
Submission Procedures: Applicants are advised that all
clarifications must be received by HUD by the date and time specified
in this Notice. No information provided after that date and time will
be considered in review of the application. Applicants may send
clarifying information by facsimile (fax) to (202) 401-2370. Applicants
should contact the Office of Urban Revitalization at the telephone
number given below to verify the receipt of any information sent by
fax. Because of the importance of timely submission of clarifying
information, applicants are advised to submit such information at the
earliest time possible to avoid the risks brought about by
unanticipated delays or delivery-related problems.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information you may call
Mr. Milan Ozdinec, Office of Urban Revitalization, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 4142,
Washington D.C. 20410; telephone (202) 401-8812 (this is not a toll
free number.) Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access
this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at
1-800-877-8399.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Notice informs the public about a
discrepancy between the HOPE VI Revitalization NOFA and the Application
Kit with respect to the requirement that an application that proposes
new construction of replacement public housing must comply with the
requirements of section 6(h) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937.
Section 6(h) provides that the Secretary may enter into a contract
involving new construction only if the PHA demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Secretary that the cost of new construction in the
neighborhood where the housing is needed is less than the cost of
acquisition or acquisition and rehabilitation in such neighborhood.
Section III.A.(4) of the HOPE VI Revitalization NOFA provided that an
applicant could satisfy the section 6(h) requirement by ``submitting
the information described in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section:
``(a) A PHA comparison of the costs of new construction (in the
neighborhood where the PHA proposes to construct the housing) and the
costs of acquisition of existing housing or acquisition and
rehabilitation in the same neighborhood (including estimated costs of
lead-based paint testing and abatement), or
``(b) A PHA certification, accompanied by supporting documentation,
that there is insufficient existing housing in the neighborhood to
develop housing through acquisition of existing housing or acquisition
and rehabilitation.''
In an effort to help applicants address this section 6(h)
requirement, the Application Kit provided instructions that may have
confused applicants with respect to satisfaction of the NOFA
requirement. Section D.8 of the Application Kit instructed the
applicants to ``include a narrative that contains information described
in paragraphs a or b below. If the application involves new
construction, provide evidence of compliance with section 6(h) of the
1937 Act in one of the following two ways:
``a. Compare the cost of construction in the neighborhood where the
applicant proposes to construct housing and the cost of acquisition and
rehabilitation in the same neighborhood.
``b. State that there is insufficient existing housing in the
neighborhood to develop public housing through acquisition and/or
acquisition and rehabilitation where such cost would be lest (sic) than
new construction. Describe how you came to that conclusion.''
In the event of discrepancies between the NOFA and the Application
Kit, or between the NOFA and any other supplemental information issued
by HUD, the language of the NOFA supersedes and prevails over any
inconsistency in the Application Kit. However, HUD believes that the
differences between the text in the HOPE VI Revitalization NOFA and the
text in the Application Kit with respect to the 6(h) requirement caused
confusion in a couple of different ways. First, with respect to the
cost comparison method in (a), the Application Kit does not describe
with the precision of the NOFA the cost comparison that HUD was
seeking. Some of the detail in the NOFA description is not contained in
the Application Kit. For instance, the NOFA cites the costs of lead-
based paint testing and abatement in connection with acquisition and
rehabilitation and the Application Kit fails to do so. In addition, the
Application Kit in paragraph (b) discusses the cost of rehabilitation
and new construction, thus confusing the differences between method (a)
and method (b). This discrepancy between the NOFA and Application Kit
language created ambiguities in a number of applications which need to
be clarified.
With respect to method (b), the NOFA required a PHA certification,
accompanied by supporting documentation, that there is insufficient
existing housing in the neighborhood to develop housing through
acquisition of existing housing or acquisition and rehabilitation. The
Application Kit fails to use the words ``accompanied by supporting
documentation''. The Application Kit merely requests that applicants
state that there is insufficient existing housing and describe how the
applicant came to that conclusion. We think that this discrepancy
between the NOFA and the Application Kit caused confusion among
applicants as to what the applicant had to submit in order to support
the applicant's contention that there is insufficient existing housing
in the neighborhood.
In addition, the Application Kit introduced into method (b) a cost
factor that is totally lacking in the NOFA. This further confused
applicants as to the kind of information that was needed to support the
applicant's contention that there is insufficient existing housing in
the neighborhood for acquisition or acquisition and rehabilitation.
And, as
[[Page 41385]]
indicated above, by introducing a cost element into method (b) the
Application Kit confused the distinction between the two methods. Under
method (b) in the NOFA, the application only had to provide supporting
documentation that there was an insufficient supply of existing housing
in the neighborhood to acquire for replacement public housing. The cost
of acquiring or acquiring and rehabilitating the insufficient supply of
existing housing is irrelevant to the determination to be made under
method (b).
For these reasons, the Department has determined that the
discrepancy between the HOPE VI Revitalization NOFA and the Application
Kit has caused a need for some applications to be clarified. Therefore,
HUD has determined, in order to provide fundamental fairness to all
applicants, that a number of HOPE VI applicants should be requested to
clarify their applications with respect to the section 6(h)
requirement. In addition to the publication of this Notice, HUD will be
contacting these applicants by telephone to advise them that their
applications need clarification with respect to the satisfaction of the
section 6(h) requirement. In accordance with section III of the HOPE VI
Revitalization NOFA and this Notice, HUD will advise the applicants
that the applicant must submit either a comparison of costs in
accordance with section III.(A)(4)(a) of the HOPE VI Revitalization
NOFA, or supporting documentation with respect to the certification
that there is insufficient existing housing in the neighborhood in
accordance with section III.(A)(4)(b) of the HOPE VI Revitalization
NOFA.
Dated: July 30, 1998.
Deborah Vincent,
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
[FR Doc. 98-20786 Filed 7-30-98; 3:14 pm]
BILLING CODE 4210-33-P
