Comment submitted by Maricopa HOME Consortium

The Proposed Rule, ?Revisions and Updates to Consolidated Plan?, indicates that a participating jurisdiction must provide a ?description of the manner in which it will address the needs of public housing and, where necessary, the manner in which it will provide financial or other assistance to a troubled PHA to improve its operations and remove such designation?.It is not appropriate to tie the Consolidated Plan, and ultimately the receipt of HUD grants, to the financial condition of a public housing authority. Further, it is not reasonable to expect a participating jurisdiction to provide fiscal and financial assistance to bail out a troubled public housing authority for the following reasons.? Many, if not most, public housing authorities throughout the country are legal entities separate from the unit of local government in which they are located. Unless statutorily or contractually identified, there is generally no legal obligation for a local government to provide fiscal or financial assistance to bail out a separate and distinct legal entity. ? CDBG funding allocations are generally much less than HUD allocations for Public Housing and Section 8 programs. Further, there are limitations and prohibitions on the use of HOME funds for public housing purposes. This requirement could potentially drain such programs to the point that funding is not available to meet other community needs. ? This requirement could put a significant burden on the local revenue of a participating jurisdiction. Much of the revenue received by a local government is either restricted by statutory or contractual requirements, or is earmarked for essential services such as health and safety. ? The Proposed Rule, Supplementary Information, Section III, Findings and Certifications, indicates that this Proposed Rule does not violate Executive Order 13132, entitled ?federalism?. However, this requirement does, indeed, have the potential to impose ?substantial direct Maricopa HOME Consortium