[Federal Register: February 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 27)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6949-6971]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09fe06-12]
[[Page 6949]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Housing and Urban Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
24 CFR Parts 91 and 570
Consolidated Plan Revisions and Updates; Final Rule
[[Page 6950]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Parts 91 and 570
[Docket No. FR-4923-F-02]
RIN 2501-AD07
Consolidated Plan Revisions and Updates
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and
Development, HUD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule makes streamlining and clarifying changes to the
consolidated plan regulations of state and local governments so that
the plans are more results-oriented and useful to communities in
assessing their own progress toward addressing the problems of low-
income areas. The rule also eliminates obsolete and redundant
provisions and makes other changes that conform these regulations to
HUD's public housing regulations that govern the Public Housing Agency
(PHA) Plan. A consolidated plan is a document that jurisdictions submit
to HUD if they receive funding under any of HUD's Community Planning
and Development formula grant programs. The consolidated plan also
serves as the jurisdiction's planning document for the use of the funds
received under these programs.
DATES: Effective Date: March 13, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Salvatore Sclafani, Office of
Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7240, Washington, DC 20410-
7000. Telephone: (202) 708-1817. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Individuals with hearing and speech impairments may contact this
telephone number through the toll-free Federal Information Relay
Service at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On December 30, 2004, HUD published the proposed rule to update and
streamline the consolidated plan (69 FR 78830). The rule built on the
existing framework that established the consolidated plan as a
collaborative process whereby a community establishes a unified plan of
housing and community development actions. That framework gave states
and local governments the flexibility to use existing plans and
strategies to help citizens understand the jurisdiction's priority
needs, and assess the jurisdiction's progress toward meeting identified
goals and objectives through measurable indicators.
The proposed rule resulted from an extensive consultation process
that involved stakeholders representing the interests of state and
local governments and low-income persons. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2002, the
President's Management Agenda directed HUD to work with local
stakeholders to streamline the consolidated plan by making it more
results-oriented and useful to communities in assessing their own
progress toward addressing the problems of low-income areas. To launch
this activity, several HUD Office of Community Planning and Development
(CPD) field offices held focus group sessions with grantees and other
stakeholders in February 2002 to discuss ways to streamline the
consolidated plan and improve performance measurement. On March 14,
2002, CPD convened a national planning meeting to introduce the concept
of the Consolidated Plan Improvement Initiative. In attendance were
public interest groups, grantees, other stakeholders, along with staff
from HUD Headquarters and field offices, and from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
At a meeting of these stakeholders, participants agreed that
addressing the issues of streamlining and performance measurement would
be best served by small working groups that represent the full range of
people involved in and affected by the consolidated plan, including
grantee practitioners, public interest groups, HUD staff, and other
stakeholders. Six working groups were created to assess alternative
planning requirements, examine and suggest performance measures, and
identify communities that would be willing to test pilots of
alternative planning procedures. The Department carefully considered
ideas generated by the working groups concerning alternative planning
requirements and suggestions for improving the consolidated plan.
Representatives from the following national groups participated in the
working groups: Council of State Community Development Agencies,
National Community Development Association, National Association for
County, Community and Economic Development, National Association of
Housing and Redevelopment Officials, and National Low Income Housing
Coalition.
Alternative planning procedures were tested by representatives of
state and local governments that participated in eight pilots. One
pilot looked at streamlining the consolidated plan by referencing
existing documents to avoid requiring redundant information. Another
pilot evaluated alternative means of satisfying non-housing community
development plan requirements. A third pilot addressed alternative
formats for submission of consolidated plans, action plans, and
performance reporting. A fourth pilot explored ways to enhance the
citizen participation process. A fifth pilot involved development and
use of templates. The sixth pilot involved coordination of consolidated
plan and PHA plan. A seventh pilot explored the development and review
of tools to submit consolidated plans, track results, and report
performance. An eighth pilot documented useful practices for
streamlining and performance measurement. An analysis of these pilots
helped HUD determine how the consolidated planning process and
regulatory requirements might be streamlined, made more results-
oriented, and ultimately made more useful to communities in addressing
the needs of their low-income residents and areas.
This rule also conformed the consolidated plan regulations to
sections 568 and 583 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act
of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-276, 112 Stat. 2461, approved October 21, 1998,
codified at 42 U.S.C. 12705). Those sections required state and local
consolidated plans to describe the manner in which the jurisdiction
will help address the needs of public housing, and also mandated that a
consolidated plan from a state or unit of general local government in
which any troubled PHA is located must include a description of the
manner in which the state or local government will provide financial or
other assistance to remove the PHA's troubled designation. Those
sections of the rule also made certain other conforming amendments and
clarification changes.
II. This Final Rule
This final rule takes into consideration the public comments
received on the December 30, 2004, proposed rule. After reviewing the
public comments, the significant changes described below have been
incorporated into the final rule.
A. Executive Summary
The Department believes an executive summary is useful and has
included references to this requirement at Sec. Sec. 91.200, 91.220,
91.300, and 91.320. The final rule does not specify the precise content
or format. However, the executive summary must include a summary of
objectives and outcomes
[[Page 6951]]
identified in the consolidated plan, and an evaluation of past
performance.
B. Chronic Homelessness
The references to including any persons that are chronically
homeless in the inventory of facilities and services at Sec. 91.210
and Sec. 91.310 have been modified to make it clear that a separate
inventory identifying chronic homeless facilities and services is not
required. Rather, the inventory should include an estimate of the
percentage or number of beds and supportive services programs that are
serving people that are chronically homeless, to the extent that
information is available to the jurisdiction.
C. Relative Allocation Priorities
The Department has decided to eliminate the requirement regarding
relative allocation priorities and to allow jurisdictions to designate
one. The regulation has also been revised to make it clear that the
jurisdiction must describe the relationship between the allocation
priorities and the extent of need given to each category of priority
needs, particularly among extremely low-income, low-income, and
moderate-income households. The plan should be explicit about what the
jurisdiction plans to do with formula grant funds in the context of
their larger strategy.
D. Objectives and Outcomes
The consolidated plan's strategy requirements are modified to take
into account the proposed performance measurement framework that was
developed by a working group that included representatives from
national groups, including the Council of State Community Development
Agencies; the National Association for County, Community and Economic
Development; and the National Community Development Association.
Changes have been made to Sec. 91.215 and Sec. 91.315 indicating that
these requirements will be provided in accordance with guidance issued
by HUD.
E. Abandoned Buildings
Data regarding the number of vacant or abandoned buildings should
be included in the Housing Market Analysis section of the consolidated
plan rather than in the section dealing with the non-housing community
development plan. The estimate of the number of vacant or abandoned
buildings and whether units are available that are suitable for
rehabilitation should be provided to the extent information is
available.
F. Resources
The Department agreed that local jurisdictions should include Low-
Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) among the federal resources
discussed in the consolidated plan, even though HUD does not administer
them. The importance of the LIHTC program to jurisdictions cannot be
overstated as a means of accomplishing the goals of a jurisdiction to
provide housing for extremely low-income and low-income households.
III. Summary of Public Comments
The comment period for the proposed rule closed on January 31,
2005. HUD received 53 comments, including 20 from local governments or
groups representing their interests, 22 from states or groups
representing their interests, five from groups representing the
interests of homeless or low-income persons, one from an organization
representing a coalition of organizations advocating for the interests
of persons with disabilities, two from trade associations representing
home builders and manufactured housing, and three from individuals.
Low-income advocates, cities, and states often expressed opposing views
on the rule.
For example, one of the groups representing low-income persons
welcomed improvements in the rule that increased the emphasis on
accountability and results, but indicated that many consolidated plans
fail to demonstrate how funds allocated by the plan address the needs
of extremely low-income persons. That group indicated that federal
funds should be used to solve the most pressing problems and that
failure to link spending decisions to priority needs should be a factor
that HUD can use to disapprove a plan. On the other hand, one of the
groups representing local governments thought some of the proposed
changes to the rule went beyond the current statute and were too
prescriptive, particularly in the area of assigning quantifiers to
priority needs and requiring grantees to estimate the amount of funding
in target areas. That group expressed concern that HUD might use these
reports to penalize communities for not reaching their goals. Another
group representing local governments said that requiring jurisdictions
to address the chronically homeless in the strategic plan and to
include specific action steps to end chronic homelessness in the action
plan diminished the consolidated plan's ability to be a ``concise'' and
``streamlined'' document. This new requirement would ask CPD formula
programs to be accountable for yet another objective, making it less
targeted and less streamlined. One state suggested that HUD, by
focusing on trying to influence grantees to use their resources on
assisting the homeless, especially the chronic homeless, was violating
both the intent of the consolidated plan as well as Congress's
directions to HUD that prevents HUD from conveying federal housing
priorities to local governments.
IV. Summary of Public Comments From Local Governments and Interest
Groups
A. Concise Action-Oriented Management Tool
Groups representing local governments expressed support for making
the consolidated plan a concise, action-oriented management tool. One
group representing local governments was pleased that some concerns
were addressed in the proposed rule but was disappointed that the
``revisions and updates'' appeared to have usurped the ``streamlining
effort'' in favor of additional requirements, particularly in the area
of assigning quantifiers to priority needs and requiring grantees to
estimate the amount of funding they will use in target areas. Another
group representing local governments expressed support for the
Consolidated Plan Management Process (CPMP) Tool as part of the
streamlining effort, but felt the Tool did not produce a consumer-
friendly document that allowed community residents to understand the
goals and achievements of their jurisdictions' federal grant programs.
The group urged HUD to amend the CPMP Tool so that it generates a
document that more simply communicates program goals. One county cited
the addition or expansion of required narratives on homelessness and
public housing as prime examples that made the process more burdensome
and questioned why it was necessary to repeat information contained in
other HUD documents in consolidated plans. It suggested that it would
be far simpler to cross-reference the pages of the relevant document
where the information could be found. One large city suggested that HUD
permit localities with PHAs the option of cross-referencing materials
contained in their approved PHA Plan or other similar documents. Two
other cities also indicated that it was redundant to require
jurisdictions to include needs identified in the PHA Plan.
HUD response: The final rule provides more flexibility while also
asking for more accountability in terms of the ability to track
results. With
[[Page 6952]]
respect to the CPMP Tool, the Department plans to revise the tool so
that it generates a document that more simply communicates program
goals. The Department will also allow jurisdictions the option to
cross-reference pages of relevant documents like the PHA Plan and
Continuum of Care Plan in order to streamline the consolidated plan and
make the process less burdensome. The Department will issue
supplemental guidance on how local jurisdictions can implement some of
these requirements.
B. Citizen Participation
Representatives of county officials and local governments supported
the language at Sec. 91.1 and Sec. 91.105 to include a broader list
of stakeholders in the consolidated planning process and encouraging
jurisdictions to explore alternative public involvement techniques such
as focus groups and use of the Internet. A national group representing
homebuilders also expressed support for widening the participation of
stakeholders, which it suggested would help foster more public-private
partnerships and leverage more community resources. Several cities and
counties indicated to HUD that they had already undertaken efforts to
broaden stakeholder involvement. One city, however, commented that
broadening the scope of the required section would be a time-consuming
administrative burden and should be deleted.
HUD response: The Department has determined that including a
broader list of stakeholders in the process and encouraging alternative
public involvement techniques would not significantly increase the
administrative burden.
Executive Summary. The preamble of the proposed rule invited
comment on whether an executive summary would be a useful tool for both
citizens and jurisdictions. The preamble also indicated that HUD was
particularly interested in comments on what specific information should
be included in an executive summary and whether the benefit of an
executive summary would outweigh the burden. Eleven local governments
and one of the groups representing their interests expressed support
for an executive summary, thought it might be useful, and indicated
that many communities currently use one. Another group representing
local governments, however, did not support an executive summary as a
way of simplifying the information for the general public. Instead, it
suggested that HUD reduce the scope and administrative burden of the
consolidated plan itself, to what would essentially be an executive
summary and argued an executive summary would add more work. Some
commenters that support an executive summary indicated that the summary
would be a powerful and meaningful document only if jurisdictions were
allowed to present it in a format that was most consistent with local
citizen participation and program management processes. Most local
governments felt that because each jurisdiction knew the most effective
way to provide that information to citizens and governing bodies, HUD
should not be mandating the format. A group representing low-income
housing advocates also thought a well-written executive summary would
be a useful device for citizen participation and expressed support for
maintaining citizen participation requirements and continuing to seek
input on how to make citizen participation as effective and meaningful
as possible. One local government indicated that it made extended use
of an executive summary not only in its five-year plan and annual
action plan but also in its Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report. The city suggested that the executive summary
include not only short-term and long-term performance goals and the
major activities and projects a city plans to fund, but also provide a
strong evaluation of the previous year's results, information on
targeting of consolidated plan funds, and information on how these
funds directly affected neighborhoods. Three cities expressed
reservations about an executive summary. One maintained that the
strategic plan should be well organized so that it functions as an
executive summary. Another indicated that an executive summary would
become a burden to both citizens and jurisdictions unless other changes
were made that condense or consolidate the changes. A third said it
should be left to the option of grantees because, in trying an
executive summary format in the past, the city found it raised more
questions from readers than if one had not been written.
HUD response: The Department believes an executive summary is
useful and has included references to this requirement at Sec. Sec.
91.200, 91.220, 91.300, and 91.320. The final rule does not specify the
precise content or format. However, the executive summary must include
a summary of objectives and outcomes identified in the consolidated
plan, and an evaluation of past performance.
C. Clarification of Chronic Homelessness
While representatives of county officials and local governments
supported the goal of ending chronic homelessness, they cited the
difficulty of identifying and tracking transient individuals and
families. In addition, they cited the difficulty of asking CPD formula
programs to be accountable for yet another objective, thereby making
the plans less targeted and streamlined. One group expressed a concern
that the definition of chronic homelessness was too broad and difficult
to determine in most cases, and impossible in many. Several communities
suggested expanding the definition to include families, while others
indicated that funds were too limited. Others cited the expansion in
the number of narratives dealing with chronic homelessness as
burdensome and the need for a more explicit linkage with the Continuum
of Care process. One city stated that a separate inventory identifying
chronic homeless facilities was not needed, and that instead, it was
the programs and priorities that should be identified.
HUD response: The Department recognizes that jurisdictions may find
it difficult to maintain documentation for a chronically homeless
person and has developed technical assistance guides that describe
methods for identifying and counting the homeless. These are available
at: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/hmis/assistance/index.cfm#materials.
The Department believes there should be a more
explicit linkage with the Continuum of Care process, and the definition
of chronic homelessness is identical with the definition that is used
in that process. The 2006 consolidated plan update for the city of
Seattle, which is available at: http://www.cityofseattle.net/humanservices/director/consolidatedplan/default.htm
, provides an
example of the linkage between the Continuum of Care process, the King
County/Seattle Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness, and the Consolidated
Plan. In addition, the reference to including any persons that are
chronically homeless in the inventory of facilities and services at
Sec. 91.210 has been modified to make it clear that a separate
inventory identifying chronic homeless facilities and services is not
required. Rather, the inventory should include an estimate of the
percentage or number of beds and supportive services programs that are
serving people that are chronically homeless, to the extent that
information on those subjects is available to the jurisdiction. With
regard to the term ``disabling condition,'' the
[[Page 6953]]
term applies specifically to the sections of the consolidated plan that
relate exclusively to chronically homeless people.
D. Removal of Barriers to Affordable Housing
One representative of the local governments agreed with the
constructiveness of working to remove barriers to affordable housing
development. However, the representative did not think the HUD-27300
Form would be useful in collecting information on regulatory barriers,
since it did not ask specific-enough questions about regulatory
barriers so that the results could be aggregated nationally. Two cities
commented that the additional language contained in Sec. 91.220(j),
which specified annual actions to address affordable housing barriers,
was too restrictive and should be eliminated. While recognizing the
importance of the topic, two other local jurisdictions opposed adding
additional requirements and cited the complexity of the issue.
HUD response: The Department believes that the removal of barriers
to affordable housing is an important issue and has decided to include
the additional clarifying language with the understanding that it is
not imposing a new requirement.
E. Clarification of Strategic Plan Provisions
Priorities and Priority Needs. Representatives of county officials,
local governments, and most commenters did not find the current method
of assigning ``relative'' allocation priorities of ``high,''
``medium,'' and ``low'' particularly useful. Some large cities
suggested making it optional or assigning a federal, federal/local,
local, or no-priority designation to more clearly communicate how a
community intends to fund a need and with what resources (which could
tie into the proposed measurement framework). One city argued that the
designation should be linked not to the funding, but to whether the
need is high, medium, or low. Another city indicated that only those
needs that will be funded should be included in the consolidated plan,
and that an amendment could be made with the new priorities if
priorities changed later.
HUD response: The Department has decided to eliminate the
requirement regarding relative allocation priorities but to allow
jurisdictions to designate one. The regulation has also been revised to
make it clear that the jurisdiction must describe the relationship
between the allocation priorities and the extent of need given to each
category of priority needs, particularly among extremely low-income,
low-income, and moderate-income households. The consolidated plan
should be explicit about what the jurisdiction intends to do with
formula grant funds in the context of their larger strategy. For
example, jurisdictions may wish to indicate that they intend to
allocate formula grant funds for gap financing, while using tenant-
based rental assistance or vouchers for low-income households that
require a deeper subsidy. The rationale for establishing the allocation
priorities should flow logically from the analysis. As part of the
analysis, the jurisdiction must also identify any obstacles to
addressing underserved needs.
Summary of objectives. A number of commenters indicated that the
consolidated plan's strategy requirements should be influenced by a
proposed performance measurement framework that has been developed by a
working group that included representatives from the Council of State
Community Development Agencies; the National Association for County,
Community and Economic Development; and the National Community
Development Association. HUD has been working with the working group to
develop workable outcome measures that will be acceptable to the
Department and its grantees.
HUD response: Changes are being made to Sec. 91.215(a)(4)
indicating that these requirements would be provided in accordance with
guidance issued by HUD.
Non-homeless special needs. One national group representing persons
with disabilities was concerned that the reference to persons with
disabilities in the priority housing needs table is only to those
persons who may require housing with supportive services. The group
recommended the reference to persons with disabilities in the priority
housing needs table not be limited to persons that may require housing
with supportive services but to all people with disabilities, since
many people with disabilities do not need supportive housing but do
need decent, safe, and affordable housing. The group was also concerned
that the proposed rule did not refer to the President's New Freedom
Initiative, a nationwide effort that encourages both the removal of
barriers to community living for people with disabilities, and the
integration of persons with disabilities into local communities.
Another group expressed a concern that the proposed rule did not
promote integration between the consolidated plan and the Analysis of
Impediments (AI) to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).
HUD response: The Department agrees that the reference to persons
with disabilities in the priority needs table should not be limited to
persons that require supportive services, and will make the appropriate
changes to the consolidated plan guidelines and instructions. With
regard to the President's New Freedom Initiative, the consolidated plan
rule requires communities to conduct an analysis to identify
impediments to fair housing choice and take appropriate actions to
overcome the effects of any impediments. In addition, the Department
issued a notice (CPD Notice 05-03) addressing the President's New
Freedom Initiative. This notice, which is available on HUD's Web site
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/lawsregs/notices/2005/index.cfm,
encourages communities to develop ``comprehensive, effective working
plans'' aimed at providing services to individuals with disabilities in
the most integrated settings possible.
With regard to the second comment, this final rule focuses on
streamlining the consolidated plan and making it more results-oriented
in accordance with the President's Management Agenda. The final rule
does not address the topic of affirmatively furthering fair housing
that the Department believes merits separate consideration and
consultation with stakeholders. The Department is considering a
proposed rule that would invite comments on better ways to integrate
the Consolidated Plan and the Analysis of Impediments to AFFH. The
Department is also considering issuing guidance dealing with AFFH and
other fair housing issues.
Dollars to address. Almost all commenters agreed with the proposal
to eliminate the requirement to quantify ``dollars to address'' in the
non-housing community development plan. One large city, however, argued
for retention of the requirement to quantify ``dollars to address''
non-housing community development needs. It argued that the estimated
``dollars to address'' has a practical utility for understanding the
scope of unmet needs.
HUD response: The Department has decided to eliminate the
requirement to quantify ``dollars to address'' in the non-housing
community development plan, but to allow jurisdictions to provide an
estimate of ``dollars to address'' unmet needs or to identify estimated
dollars that will be targeted to address the need.
Abandoned Buildings. Most commenters said they did not
[[Page 6954]]
understand the intention behind mandating jurisdictions to estimate the
number of abandoned buildings and that there appeared to be many
logistical problems with this requirement, including definitional and
data collection issues. One commenter indicated that the requirement to
estimate the number of abandoned buildings in the non-housing community
development plan would be redundant because the Housing Market Analysis
of the plan includes data on the number of abandoned buildings as part
of its calculation of the housing vacancy rate, and because the
description of the condition of housing includes the number of
abandoned (residential) buildings. Others indicated that collecting
this information would be burdensome, unless there were specific plans
for a site.
HUD response: The Department agrees with the comment that this
provision would be redundant because the Housing Market Analysis
section of the consolidated plan should include both an estimate of the
number of vacant or abandoned buildings as part of its calculation of
the housing vacancy rate and the description of the condition of
housing. Therefore, the Department has determined that data regarding
the number of vacant or abandoned buildings should be included in the
Housing Market Analysis section of the consolidated plan instead of the
section dealing with the non-housing community development plan. The
estimate of the number of vacant or abandoned buildings and whether
units in the building are suitable for rehabilitation should be
provided to the extent information is available.
For jurisdictions that wish to use it, HUD will make data available
from the U.S. Postal Service on the number of vacant addresses at the
census tract level, and plans to provide updated data on the number of
vacant addresses annually. The U.S. Postal Service collects data on
addresses that are vacant 90 days or longer. The Department finds
vacant and abandoned buildings depress property values, reduce tax
revenues, attract crime, and serve as a good measure of neighborhood
blight. Vacant properties also degrade the quality of life for
remaining residents. A large number of vacant buildings in a
neighborhood increases the likelihood that property values will
continue to decline and that further abandonment will persist.
Lead-based Paint Hazards. A national organization advocating
solutions to childhood lead poisoning commented that jurisdictions
should describe how their plan for the reduction of lead-based hazards
will increase access to housing without such health hazards. In
addition, one commenter on HUD regulations that address barriers to the
production and rehabilitation of affordable housing stated that HUD
should clarify that the consolidated plan should describe the
relationship between plans for reducing lead hazards and the extent of
lead poisoning and lead hazards.
HUD response: The Department agrees and has modified Sec.
91.215(i) accordingly. In addition, the description of the consultation
process described in Sec. 91.200 is being modified to include a
reference to consultations with state or local health and child welfare
agencies regarding lead-based paint hazards conducted in accordance
with Sec. 91.100(a)(3).
F. Action Plan
Federal resources. With regard to describing resources, one city
expressed concern that the clarified term ``federal resources''
included Section 8 resources made available to the jurisdictions and
competitive McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act funds. The city
maintained that by including these funds as resources in the action
plan, it might be inferred that these funds are available for
allocation through the consolidated plan process, which is not the
case. Another city argued that an estimate of Section 8 funding should
be contained in the PHA's annual plan and that the best a jurisdiction
could do for a tabulation of competitive McKinney-Vento resources would
be an estimate. Another city indicated that only those jurisdictions
that administer Section 8 vouchers and public housing programs should
be required to report on the vast breadth of the public housing
requirements listed in the consolidated plan. Therefore, jurisdictions
should be mandated to report on public housing requirements on a more
limited, scaled-down basis in the consolidated plan. This would help
jurisdictions that might choose to fund an occasional public housing
project without duplicating the reporting requirements that already
exist in the Public Housing Agency Plan.
HUD response: The Department recognizes that Section 8 funds and
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance funds may be administered by other
entities. The regulation only requires the jurisdiction to identify
these programs as sources of funding.
A national group representing homebuilders and one representing
low-income housing advocates said it would also be useful to include
expected allocations of LIHTC in its discussion of expected federal
resources, even though HUD does not administer the LIHTC program. They
pointed out that the importance of the LIHTC program to jurisdictions
cannot be overstated and that jurisdictions should consider linking
Section 8 rental assistance to LIHTC projects as a means of
accomplishing their goals to provide housing for extremely low-income
and low-income households.
HUD response: The Department agrees that LIHTCs should be listed
among the federal resources.
Summary of annual objectives. One representative of the local
governments expressed support for the provision requiring jurisdictions
to submit a summary of annual objectives and also indicated that most
of its members already meet this requirement. One city also asked for
clarification as to whether the annual objectives identified in the
action plan were a subset of the specific objectives identified in the
strategic plan. Another city thought it was unclear whether this
provision would actually enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the action plan since objectives tend to be broad. Still another city
thought the provision was unnecessary since it was addressed by other
parts of the plan.
HUD response: The Department believes a summary of annual specific
objectives is a useful feature of the action plan since it identifies
the subset of specific objectives that jurisdictions expect to achieve
during the forthcoming program year.
Activities to be undertaken. One group representing low-income
housing advocates recommended that the consolidated plan include a
stronger linkage between the priority needs identified in the plan and
the action plan. It said jurisdictions should spend federal funds to
solve the most pressing problems and that the failure of plans to link
spending decisions to priority needs should be one of the factors that
HUD considers when it approves a consolidated plan.
HUD response: The Department agrees the consolidated plan must
describe the linkage between priority needs identified in the plan and
activities that are funded. Section 105(b)(8) of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act requires that the plan of the
jurisdiction describe how the plan will address housing and homeless
needs, describe the reasons for allocation priorities, and identify any
obstacles to addressing underserved needs. Since the allocation of
resources is described in the action plan, the Department has revised
the section of the regulation dealing with
[[Page 6955]]
the description of activities to be undertaken by requesting grantees
to describe the reasons for their allocation priorities and to identify
any obstacles to addressing their underserved needs.
Outcomes. Groups representing local governments expressed support
for measuring outcomes and accomplishments in the consolidated plan so
that the positive impact of CPD formula programs may be compellingly
communicated at the national level. However, one group pointed out that
it does not support reporting on outcomes if doing so becomes a means
by which HUD uses these reports to penalize communities for not
reaching their goals. Planning is not an exact science, and funding
levels, lack of viable projects, along with many other factors can
determine if goals will be met.
Nine local governments commented on this provision. One large city
recommended that HUD modify the provision by permitting localities to
demonstrate that they currently provide appropriate housing and
community development performance measures through other documents and
by enabling these jurisdictions to meet the federal requirement by
cross-referencing (e.g., providing the Internet site address for)
materials published by the locality. The large city pointed out that
requiring detailed outcome measures to somehow be reconfigured to fit
the specific parameters of the consolidated plan would lead to
additional burdensome accounting without necessarily improving the
public's sense of the situation.
Another city agreed that outcome measures should be included.
However, the commenter argued that the use of outcome measures to
measure the result of each activity was misguided and would result in
redundant and duplicative entries. The commenter indicated that outcome
measures measure long-term results, such as assessed valuation, crime
rates, poverty rates, etc. It was that city's experience that it takes
more than one activity to result in a significant change in an outcome
measure. The city added that outcome measures should be associated with
the achievement of a larger goal such as neighborhood revitalization,
homeownership, and employment rates. For example, in its plan, the city
could claim that up to ten different activities could be linked to a
single outcome such as homeownership rate. The jurisdiction suggested
that outcome measures be required to measure stated larger goals,
rather than small activities, and then associate activities with each
goal. This would eliminate a great deal of confusion and needless
paperwork.
Others supported outcome measures, but only if they were
implemented in a meaningful way and did not place an undue burden on
jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions felt that maximum flexibility must be
provided to grantees in determining outcomes based on local program
experience and knowledge of current housing and community development
needs, and supported development of such outcome indicators from a
broad spectrum, with input from residents, city departments, related
city agencies, counties, states, other grantees, and non-profit and
for-profit organizations. They did not think it necessary that either
the Department, or the Office of Management and Budget needed to define
national outcome measures. One large city thought that until outcome
measures were further developed by the Department and published, it was
premature to add this requirement to the rule. Another said it was not
able to take a position since HUD had not released its guidance
regarding specific outcome measures: It requested that HUD publish a
proposed rule on the specific outcome measures rather than issuing
guidance in order to allow an opportunity to review and submit comments
on an area that would greatly impact the way jurisdictions do business.
However, it strongly opposed the insertion of, as burdensome and of no
practical or analytical use, a provision at Sec. 91.520 requiring that
the performance report ``must explain variances between proposed and
actual outcomes.''
HUD response: The Department has decided to require outcomes in the
consolidated plan rule in accordance with guidance to be issued by HUD.
Accordingly, it has modified the provision at Sec. 91.520 by requiring
that the performance report explain why progress was not made toward
meeting goals and objectives. HUD published a notice outlining the
framework for a draft performance measurement system for comment in the
Federal Register on June 10, 2005 (70 FR 34004).
Percentage of funds to target areas. Groups representing local
governments expressed concern about this provision and did not
understand the relevance of requiring a jurisdiction to estimate the
percentage of funds the jurisdiction plans to dedicate to target areas,
since at least 70 percent of the distribution of CDBG funds is mandated
to be spent on projects that benefit low- and moderate-income persons.
While expressing support for funding activities in target areas, one
group opposing this requirement indicated that it suggests that HUD is
pushing jurisdictions to spend funds in target areas, which also
creates the impression that if grantees do not spend funds in target
areas, they may be sanctioned or penalized in some manner. The group
indicated that using a target area approach in funding activities is a
locally determined decision and one that should remain as such.
Eight local governments also commented on this provision. One city
suggested that it would be better to require a listing, in the action
plan, of any target areas as well as funds and projects dedicated to
those target areas. Another indicated that there already is a
requirement to provide a description of the geographic distribution of
funds and that additional details required in federal regulations
usually translate into extra research, documentation, recordkeeping,
and reports. Some jurisdictions said they do not have target areas and
jurisdictions and should have the flexibility to serve low- and
moderate-income clients throughout the jurisdiction. Others urged HUD
to make the designation of target areas (and specific objectives for
those areas) optional, rather than having the federal government
mandate the kind of system to be employed.
HUD response: The Department believes that identification of the
percentage of funds a jurisdiction plans to dedicate to target areas
will be useful in determining the degree to which activities are being
carried out in a concentrated manner.
One-year housing goals. A representative of local governments
argued that it is too narrow a requirement if jurisdictions must
specify a goal for the number of homeless, non-homeless and special
needs families to be assisted by three different categories of housing
assistance. When a double breakdown of data like this is required, the
numbers become artificial estimates and are confusing to the public.
However, the group indicated that setting separate goals for the number
of homeless, non-homeless and special needs families to be assisted is
useful and would inform the public of the community's priorities.
Similarly setting separate goals for the number of households to be
served by rent assistance, new construction units, rehab, or
acquisition is also good and would inform the public of the community's
priorities. Several other cities thought this requirement might be
redundant or duplicative of the goals required in the strategic plan.
HUD response: The Department agrees with the point made by the
group representing local governments and is clarifying the regulation
to require two sets of annual housing goals. One set of
[[Page 6956]]
annual goals is for the number of households to be served by rent
assistance, new construction units, rehabilitation, or acquisition
during the year with funds made available by HUD to the jurisdiction. A
second set of annual goals is for the number of homeless, non-homeless,
and special needs families to be assisted during the program year with
funds made available by HUD to the jurisdiction. The program funds
providing the benefits (i.e., CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, ESG) may be from any
funding year or combined funding years.
Estimate amount of CDBG funds to benefit low/mod persons. One of
the groups representing local governments expressed support for
including an estimate of the amount of CDBG funds that would be used
for activities benefiting low- and moderate-income persons. Two cities,
however, commented that requiring an estimate of the amount of CDBG
funds used for activities benefiting low- and moderate-income persons
was redundant because the program already requires that at least 70
percent of a jurisdiction's CDBG funding benefit this income group. A
group representing low-income advocates, however, indicated that the
consolidated plan requires an assessment of the number of extremely
low-income, low-income, and moderate-income people who need affordable
housing and to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing.
It thought it would be incongruous if jurisdictions were not expected
to demonstrate how low-income people are actually aided by CDBG funds.
HUD response: The Department believes this provision should be
required by the regulation, since Section 104(a)(2) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974 requires the jurisdiction's statement
of community development and housing activities include the estimated
amount of funds proposed to be used for activities that will benefit
persons of low- and moderate-income.
G. Submission Requirements
Needs, Market Analysis, and Strategic Plan. One of the groups
representing local governments and one local government strongly
supported giving jurisdictions the flexibility to submit and update
plans in a manner that facilitates orderly program management. A local
government indicated that allowing for this flexibility will greatly
improve the ability of urban counties to synchronize the consolidated
planning process with the 3-year cooperation agreement cycle and other
local planning and data collection cycles.
Consolidated Plan Submission. Clarifying changes are made to Sec.
91.15 and Sec. 91.200 identifying both the submissions that make up
the component parts of the consolidated plan submission and the
sections of the rule that contain the comprehensive housing
affordability strategy for local jurisdictions.
H. Public and Assisted Housing
Financial and other assistance for troubled housing. One group
representing local governments commented that requirements related to
public housing would seem to encumber the consolidated planning process
rather than streamline it. Requiring a jurisdiction to ``describe the
manner in which the jurisdiction will address the needs of public
housing and the financial or other assistance the jurisdiction will
provide to improve the operations of a public housing agency if that
agency is designated as ``troubled'' is beyond the scope of CPD's
formula grant programs and becomes a logistical nightmare for urban
counties that have many PHAs within their jurisdictions. Three local
jurisdictions also commented on these provisions. One jurisdiction said
providing financial or other assistance for troubled PHAs constituted
an unfunded mandate, especially to an agency that may not even be an
agency of the grant recipient. Two jurisdictions thought it was
appropriate to address the needs of public housing. Two jurisdictions
also objected to giving HUD the ability to disapprove a plan or risk
future funding if a jurisdiction either did not offer assistance or
provide information on how it would help a PHA to remove a troubled
designation.
HUD response: As indicated in the preamble of the proposed rule,
these amendments were made pursuant to the requirements of sections 568
and 583 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (42
U.S.C. 12705). The statute requires that the consolidated plan of a
jurisdiction describe the manner in which the jurisdiction will address
the needs of public housing and the financial or other assistance it
will provide to improve the operations of a PHA designated as
``troubled,'' in order to remove such designation. The statute also
considers the failure to include a description of the manner in which a
jurisdiction will provide financial or other assistance to remove a
PHA's troubled designation as cause for HUD to disapprove a
consolidated plan or determine that one is substantially incomplete.
Also, HUD is clarifying that the provision at Sec. 91.500 applies to
states as well as units of general local government. Such assistance
need not be financial assistance but can include other assistance such
as technical assistance provided by the jurisdiction.
V. Summary of Public Comments From State Governments and Interest
Groups
A. Concise Action-Oriented Management Tool
A group representing state community development agencies expressed
support for HUD's efforts to streamline the consolidated plans and
action plans and reduce the administrative burdens on states. However,
they argued that several provisions would not streamline the
preparation of plans or were inconsistent with the state role as a
grantor agency. Among the issues raised were provisions that would
require reporting on activities and outcomes that cannot be funded or
achieved primarily with the formula grant programs covered by the
consolidated plan. For example, state grantees would be required to
describe their strategy for ``helping homeless persons (especially any
persons that are chronically homeless) make the transition to permanent
housing and independent living.'' Several states contended that
requiring additional information regarding chronic homelessness, public
housing, and outcome measurement would entail considerable additional
work for which HUD has committed no additional administrative or
planning funds. Several states also indicated that the proposed rule
failed to take into account the unique nature of the small cities CDBG
program as administered by the states. One state said it would make
more sense to include some of the requirements in applications
submitted by applicants instead of in the plan submitted to HUD. Some
states indicated some of the requirements involving public housing
would be redundant since some of this information was already included
in local PHA plans. Many states expressed that putting outcome measures
in the final rule was premature since more work was needed before this
change was implemented.
HUD response: HUD recognizes that the states as grantor agencies
have less control over fulfillment of sections of the regulations
dealing with annual goals and performance than do local jurisdictions.
However, states are expected to provide the information to the extent
that they are able to do so. HUD recognizes that states generally do
not originate specific projects or activities, but offer programs
through which local communities apply to
[[Page 6957]]
accomplish specific objectives. These local applications are submitted
after the consolidated plan is submitted to HUD and approved. With
regard to the provisions dealing with chronic homelessness, this
section has been revised to require estimation ``to the extent
practicable.'' The information about public housing has been included
because it is a comprehensive housing affordability strategy (CHAS)
statutory requirement. However, the Department will also allow states
the option to cross-reference pages of relevant documents like the PHA
plan and Continuum of Care Plan in order to streamline the consolidated
plan and make the process less burdensome. Also, the Department may
issue supplemental guidance on how states can implement some of these
requirements.
B. Citizen Participation
Representatives of state governments recommended that HUD continue
to pursue ways that state grantees can use electronic and other forms
of input, particularly to help states reach rural populations. In
addition, representatives of state governments recommended that HUD
allow input from local governments to meet citizen participation
requirements, since they are representatives of citizens and are more
likely to provide input to states than individual citizens. Several
states were in agreement with provisions to include citizens,
organizations, businesses, and other stakeholders among those that
should be involved in the citizen participation process and exploring
alternative public involvement techniques. However, one state objected
to adding quantitative ways to measure efforts that encourage citizen
participation. One state suggested the section be modified to state
that ``the citizen participation process should encourage participation
of citizens of the jurisdiction, and agencies, organizations, and
private for-profit businesses and private non-profit entities that are
involved with, or affected by, the programs or activities covered by
the consolidated plan.'' Another state indicated that an analysis and
evaluation of performance should be referenced and made available to
citizens during the citizen participation process for the annual plan
so that citizens and others could view the progress the grantee is
making on addressing the identified needs in the strategy.
Executive Summary. The preamble of the proposed rule invited
comment on whether an executive summary would be a useful tool for
citizens as well as jurisdictions. It also indicated that HUD was
particularly interested in comments on what specific information should
be included in an executive summary and whether the benefit of an
executive summary would outweigh the burden. While some states
considered the concept of an executive summary as having some benefit,
they said it would be more useful to entitlement communities. Some
thought that HUD's intent was to make local citizens aware of programs
and activities, but argued that requiring that proposed projects and
activities be stated would amount to restating the content of the
consolidated plan and thus would hardly be a ``summary.'' Several
states suggested that condensing state plans would not be worth the
effort and a table of contents would be much more effective and could
accomplish the same goal.
HUD response: The Department has determined that including a
broader list of stakeholders in the process and encouraging alternative
public involvement techniques would not significantly increase the
administrative burden. Accordingly, it has modified the section to make
it clear that it refers to entities that are involved with or affected
by programs covered by the consolidated plan. The Department also
believes an executive summary is useful and has included references to
this requirement at Sec. Sec. 91.300 and 91.320. To meet the concerns
raised by the commenters, HUD will allow states to determine the format
but that the executive summary must include a summary of objectives and
outcomes identified in the consolidated plan and an evaluation of past
performance.
C. Clarification of Chronic Homelessness
A group representing state community development organizations
indicated there were several problems associated with implementing the
proposed changes involving chronic homelessness. Its first concern was
that the definition of a ``chronically homeless person'' was far too
restrictive and ignored the existence of chronically homeless families,
including couples without children and disabled parents with children.
Moreover, it expressed concern about the ability of grantees to
document either such disabling conditions or the length of time that
each individual has been homeless. Such documentation would require, at
a minimum, a year's worth of high quality data in the grantee's
Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). Also, the proposed
addition to include an inventory of all facilities meeting the needs of
the chronically homeless is unnecessary from the perspective of factors
that may influence the state's method of distribution for the Emergency
Shelter Grant program and is impractical at the state level,
particularly since the provision does not limit the inventory of
facilities to those that have received CDBG funding. One state claimed
there was no basis in the statute for the definition of chronic
homelessness and that while such priorities are reasonable for making
competitive funding decisions, such requirements should not be imposed
on the consolidated plan. Another state indicated that the resources
for chronically homeless are not expected to be much different than
they are for other homeless persons. Several states indicated that the
proposed changes regarding the chronic homelessness provide tracking
challenges. One state that was in the early stages of building its HMIS
indicated that it eventually would be able to extract chronic homeless
data from HMIS, but could not do so at present. Further, the chronic
homeless definition includes persons who have been homeless at least
three times in a year, and most states are not going to have data in
their systems to determine whether a household meets that part of the
homeless definition. Homeless shelters in small communities have small,
usually volunteer staff and don't have time to spend an hour with each
homeless person to determine if that person has a disabling condition,
nor can they document how often the person has been homeless. The state
pointed out that the federal, ten-year Census could not adequately
document this and small organizations will have a difficult time
providing this information, and the requirement could affect the amount
they are funded. On the other hand, another state expressed a concern
that the regulations did not include a discussion on ``coordinated
discharge policy'' and asked for more guidance on this issue.
HUD response: In response to these comments, the Department
recognizes that states and local governments may find it difficult to
maintain documentation for chronically homeless persons. The Department
wishes to point out that the CHAS statute requires states and local
jurisdictions to describe their strategy on addressing the emergency
shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons (including a
brief inventory of facilities and services that meet such needs). The
statute does not limit the description to the projected use of
Emergency Shelter Grant funds. However, the Department is modifying the
reference to including
[[Page 6958]]
any persons that are chronically homeless in the inventory of
facilities and services at Sec. 91.310, to make it clear that a
separate inventory identifying chronic homeless facilities and services
is not required. Rather, the inventory should include an estimate of
the percentage or number of beds and supportive services programs that
are serving people that are chronically homeless, to the extent that
information is available to the state. States are encouraged to use
information from their Continuum of Care applications to satisfy this
requirement. The existing regulations at 24 CFR 91.310(c) currently
require states to describe programs for ensuring that persons returning
from mental and physical health institutions receive appropriate
supportive housing. The regulations at Sec. Sec. 91.225 and 91.325 now
require states and local jurisdictions to include a certification that
they have developed a coordinated discharge policy. Such a policy
should include policies and protocols for the discharge of persons from
publicly funded institutions or systems of care (such as health care
facilities, foster care, or other youth facilities, or correction
programs and institutions) in order to prevent such discharge from
immediately resulting in homelessness for such persons. HUD will issue
supplemental guidance on what elements should be included in such a
policy.
D. Removal of Barriers to Affordable Housing
A group representing state community development agencies stated
that it was difficult for states to meet goals for affordable housing
barrier removal because states have very minimal control over the major
barriers identified by HUD (zoning, local fees, etc). Zoning and land
use decision-making are an inherently local process, subject to a range
of influences including market forces and citizen input. One state
indicated that it had already addressed those areas over which the
state has regulatory control and that the existing regulatory relief
barrier requirement on HUD's Notice of Funding Availability process is
sufficient to reward those HUD applicants that have made efforts to
reduce constraints on affordable housing. Another suggested that these
issues could be addressed in the applicant's application, but they
could not require a local jurisdiction to change its policies. Still
another indicated it was not clear exactly what kinds of barriers HUD
believes still exist and what specific information it has on such
barriers in local communities. It suggested that HUD share this
information with grantees so that they could better respond to these
issues.
HUD response: The Department recognizes that states have less
control over barrier removal than do entitlement jurisdictions. The
Department believes the removal of barriers to affordable housing is
important and has decided to include the additional clarifying language
with the understanding that it is not imposing a new requirement. The
Department has also established a regulatory barrier clearinghouse at
http://www.huduser.org/rbc/ that provides examples of how communities
can identify and remove barriers to affordable housing.
E. Clarification of Strategic Plan Provisions
Priorities and Priority Needs--Relative priorities. A group
representing state community development agencies recommended that HUD
remove this classification system for high, medium, or low priorities
in favor of the overarching goals and outcomes established by each
grantee, which will be required if other sections of this rule are
implemented. The group argued that these goals and outcomes should
become, in effect, the priorities established by the grantee to meet
the intent of the statutory provision pertaining to priorities.
Most of the states that commented welcomed the elimination of the
requirement to designate relative priorities. One said the new
performance and outcome measures should serve this purpose more
effectively. Another indicated that a priority could be important to a
state, but that it may not spend federally allocated money on that
priority. Indicating where federal funds will be spent could easily be
accomplished with a checkbox, or something similar and less able to be
misconstrued. HUD and citizens should be able to discern the relative
importance a jurisdiction has placed on funding a certain area by
looking at the goals relative to unmet needs. The same state felt that
general priorities and the reasons for allocation priorities are better
described in narratives where program obstacles can be identified.
Also, many programs are not designed to serve extremely low-income
households, for instance, without supplementary operating subsidy. One
state suggested local communities be able to assign their own
priorities depending on local needs and suggested making ``high''
priority mean the needs are widespread or urgent, ``medium'' mean
moderate in terms of extent and urgency, and ``low'' mean the activity
may be funded at a very low level if funds are available. Another state
suggested including only high priorities because it would be confusing
and misleading if medium and low priorities were included that could
not be addressed through the available funding allocation.
HUD response: The Department has decided to eliminate the
requirement regarding setting a relative allocation priority but to
allow states to set one. The regulation has also been revised to make
it clear that the state must describe the relationship between the
allocation priorities and the extent of need given to each category of
priority need, particularly among extremely low-income, low-income, and
moderate-income households. The consolidated plan should be explicit
about what the state intends to do with formula grant funds in the
context of their larger strategy. For example, states may wish to
indicate that they intend to allocate formula grant funds for projects
that involve gap financing, while allocating low-income tax credits to
projects for low-income households that require a deeper subsidy. The
rationale for establishing the allocation priorities should flow
logically from the analysis. Also as part of the analysis, the state
must also identify any obstacles to addressing underserved needs.
Several states objected to the provision at Sec. 91.315(b)(1)
requiring states to identify how local market conditions led to the use
of HOME funds for tenant-based assistance.
HUD response: This provision is required by section 212(a)(3) of
the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act that requires
states to specify the local market conditions that led to the choice of
tenant-based rental assistance.
Summary of Specific Objectives. A number of commenters indicated
that the consolidated plan's strategy requirements should be influenced
by a proposed performance measurement framework that has been developed
by the working group that included representatives from the Council of
State Community Development Agencies; the National Association for
County, Community and Economic Development; and the National Community
Development Association. HUD has been working with that group to
develop workable outcome measures that will be acceptable to the
Department and its grantees. One state pointed out that the purpose of
a strategic plan is to identify categories and types and areas of need,
and to develop strategies for addressing those needs. Annually, the
performance report
[[Page 6959]]
should examine the needs of these population groups against the actual
activities to determine how well their needs are being met. The state
argued that if the strategy is created correctly, the types and
magnitude of needs, goals, objectives, and priorities will become
apparent and there would be no need to try to force communities to
develop specific statements such as ``the grantee will install 983
linear feet of sidewalks on Elm Street.'' The fact that the need for
sidewalks has been identified as a need is sufficient. Therefore, the
annual action plan would merely need to be evaluated and demonstrate
that it makes progress toward addressing that need through specific
activities.
HUD response: The Department agrees that the consolidated plan's
strategy requirements should be influenced by the proposed performance
measurement framework that has been developed. Accordingly, changes
have been made to Sec. 91.315 to indicate that these requirements
would be provided in accordance with guidance issued by HUD.
Antipoverty strategy. A group representing state community
development agencies and several states suggested that the regulation
involving the antipoverty strategy be revised to indicate that states
can meet this requirement by referring to their statewide plans related
to poverty.
HUD response: The Department agrees that states can satisfy this
requirement by referring to statewide plans related to poverty by
allowing states the option to cross-reference pages of relevant
documents like the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Plan
in order to streamline the plan and make the process less burdensome.
The Department will issue supplemental guidance on how states can
implement some of these requirements.
F. Action Plan
Summary of annual objectives. One state and group representing
state community development agencies asked for clarification as to
whether the summary of annual objectives was the same as the outcome
measures a grantee would submit. Meanwhile, several states expressed
support for the provision requiring jurisdictions to submit a summary
of annual objectives. One state agreed that long-term objectives should
be stated in the strategy and that short-term objectives should be
covered in the action plan.
HUD response: The Department believes that a summary of annual
specific objectives is a useful feature of the plan since it identifies
the subset of specific objectives (identified in the strategic plan)
that will be addressed in the action plan.
Outcomes. Although some states supported outcome measurement and
indicated it was a good idea, many states felt that putting outcome
measures in the final rule was premature since more work was needed
before this change could be implemented. One state indicated that HUD's
guidance for these measures should be flexible enough to recognize that
many entitlement jurisdictions and states are charged with developing
allocation and rating systems to be responsive to the needs of many
different local communities. Any direction from HUD should preserve the
flexibility of state and local jurisdictions to develop outcome
measures that are consistent with the jurisdiction's approved
allocation method and application rating system, but which do not
narrow or preclude varying choices among eligible activities among
grantees throughout the state. One state felt that measurements for
outcomes/performance measurements would be more appropriately addressed
within the content requirements of the Performance Evaluation Report
and the Integrated Disbursement and Information System. Based on the
nature of their programs as grantor agencies, several other states said
they could only make estimates based on historical funding and past
experience.
HUD response: The Department has decided to require outcomes in the
consolidated plan in accordance with guidance to be issued by HUD and
has modified the provision at Sec. 91.520 to explain why progress was
not made toward meeting goals and objectives. HUD recognizes that some
of these estimates may be based on historical funding and past
experience of states.
Percentage of funds to target areas. While several states were
unclear how this provision could be applied to their state, one, in
expressing support for estimating the amount of funds spent in target
areas, indicated that it would help show impact.
HUD response: The Department believes that identification of the
percentage of funds a state plans to dedicate to target areas, where
appropriate, would be useful in determining the degree to which
activities are being carried out in a concentrated manner.
One-year housing goals. The preamble to the proposed rule added a
new section requiring jurisdictions to specify one-year goals for the
number of homeless, non-homeless, and special-needs households to be
provided with affordable housing through activities that provide rental
assistance, production of new units, rehabilitation of existing units,
or acquisition of existing units with funds made available to the
jurisdiction. One state asked HUD to clarify how these numbers should
be counted.
HUD response: The Department is clarifying the regulation to
require two sets of annual housing goals. One set of annual goals is
for the number of households to be served by rent assistance, new
construction units, rehabilitation, or acquisition during the program
year with funds made available to the jurisdiction. A second set of
annual goals is for the number of homeless, non-homeless, and special-
needs households to be assisted during the program year. The program
funds providing the benefits (i.e., CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, ESG) may be from
any funding year or combined funding years.
One state opposed the requirement for the number of homeless, non-
homeless, and special-needs households because the requirement implies
that the federal government desires that federal funds be used for
these categories of households. States may have non-federal funds that
they use for addressing these categories of households. Consequently,
states should not be judged negatively for not having goals for using
federal funds for households that are as aggressive as HUD may wish, or
for not allocating funds from programs that are not specifically
required to be used for these populations. Another state indicated that
it would be impossible to carry out this requirement to specify one-
year goals for the number of homeless, non-homeless, and special-needs
families to be provided affordable housing with any level of accuracy.
The states indicated that they can set priorities and forecast results
after projects are chosen, and can later report on accomplishments. It
would also be impossible to know who the tenants of an affordable
housing project might be or the detailed characteristics of households
that might receive down payment assistance before those events occur.
HUD response: The Department recognizes that the states as grantor
agencies have less control over fulfillment of sections of the
regulations dealing with annual goals and performance that do local
jurisdictions. However, states are expected to provide the information
to the extent that they are able to do so.
G. Submission Requirements
Needs, Market, and Strategic Plan. One state commented that it
agreed with
[[Page 6960]]
the proposed rule that allows the submission of the housing and
homeless needs assessment, housing market analysis, and strategic plan
sections every five years, or at such time agreed upon by HUD and the
state in order to facilitate orderly, program management, and to
coordinate consolidated plans with time periods used for cooperation
agreements, other plans, or the availability of data. The state
encouraged adoption of this rule as a reasonable approach to using the
most currently available data.
Consolidated Plan Submission. A clarifying amendment has been made
to Sec. 91.300 identifying the sections of the rule concerning a
state's comprehensive housing affordability strategy.
H. Public and Assisted Housing
Financial and other assistance for troubled housing. A group
representing state community development agencies acknowledged that
this requirement comes from the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility
Act, but indicated the funds covered by the consolidated plan would
likely not be used to assist troubled PHAs. It recommended use of a
more appropriate document, other than the consolidated plan, for states
to report this type of information. Several states also acknowledged
the statutory requirement but some argued that states should not be
held responsible for assisting a PHA with removing the ``troubled''
designation. Several states indicated that they have provisions in
various programs that allow PHAs to participate and that they will
continue to work with those PHAs to ensure that their programs are
available to them. However, they maintain that PHAs are essentially an
arm of local governments and that the state should not be held
responsible for assisting a PHA with removing the ``troubled''
designation. Rather, assisting ``troubled'' PHAs should be a local
government issue and a HUD issue. Two states and a group representing
state community development agencies asked that HUD provide each state
with a list of troubled PHAs in their state.
HUD response: As indicated in the preamble of the proposed rule,
these amendments were made pursuant to the requirements of sections 568
and 583 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (42
U.S.C. 12705). The statute requires that the plan of a state describe
the manner in which the jurisdiction will address the needs of public
housing and the financial or other assistance the jurisdiction will
provide to improve the operations of a PHA designated as ``troubled''
in order to remove such designation. The regulation excludes PHAs that
are entirely within the boundaries of a unit of general local
government that must submit a consolidated plan to HUD. The statute
also considers the failure to include a description of the manner in
which a jurisdiction will provide financial or other assistance to
remove a PHA's troubled designation as cause for HUD to disapprove a
plan or determine that it is substantially incomplete. Also, the final
rule clarifies that the provision at Sec. 91.500 applies to states as
well as units of general local government. Such assistance need not be
financial assistance but can include other assistance such as technical
assistance provided by the jurisdiction. The Department will also
provide each state with a list of troubled PHAs in their state in order
to facilitate state grantee compliance with this requirement.
I. State Method of Distribution
Most commenters agreed that the method of distribution should
include all of the state's selection criteria used to select
applications for funding. One state thought it added nothing and argued
that it attempts to remove all program flexibility. The state also
found the language insulting and inappropriate to reference perceived
notions that senior management overturns staff decisions in the program
and argued that it promotes a guilty-until-proven innocent mentality.
Another state indicated that the section went well beyond
reasonableness in requiring that any decisions made by senior
management be included in the criteria description of the method of
distribution. In addition, a group representing state community
development agencies and six states objected to the provision that
approval of the plan shall not be deemed to indicate that the method of
distribution was in compliance with CDBG program requirements. The
group argued that each state needs to have a point at the beginning of
its program year when its method of distribution is officially approved
by HUD. Most of the states that commented on this point argued that
such a decision should be made in tandem with the approval of the
consolidated plan. One state asked how states become aware in advance
if their method of distribution will meet HUD's acceptability criteria
when scrutinized by HUD during a future monitoring visit, what the
penalty would be, and would all funds awarded become disallowed costs.
HUD response: HUD acknowledges the desire among states to know that
their method of distribution has been determined to be in compliance
with program requirements before the state implements its method of
distribution. However, HUD has long recognized that it is not practical
to expect a state's annual action plan to contain every detail about a
state's distribution process--otherwise a state would have to
incorporate the contents of its application manuals into the action
plan. To further streamline the consolidated plan, the proposed rule
provided that a state's method of distribution could contain a summary
of the state's selection criteria, so long as the details are contained
in other readily available state documents. HUD has retained that
provision in the final rule and has modified the final language to
indicate that HUD may monitor the method of distribution as part of its
audit and review responsibilities in order to determine compliance with
program requirements.
This final rule also makes several technical changes to the
proposed rule. Duplicative language regarding the content of the method
of distribution and provisions regarding records a state must keep to
document its funding decisions, proposed at Sec. 91.320(j)(1), has
been moved to Sec. 570.490(a), which is the section of the state CDBG
regulations governing recordkeeping requirements.
VI. Findings and Certifications
Information Collections
The information collection requirements contained in this final
rule are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2506-0117. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless the collection displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this rule in
accordance with Executive Order 12866, (captioned ``Regulatory Planning
and Review''). OMB determined that this rule is a ``significant
regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of the Order (although
not an economically significant regulatory action under the Order). Any
changes to the rule resulting from this review are available for public
inspection between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays in the Office of
the Rules Docket Clerk.
[[Page 6961]]
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The undersigned, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed and approved this final rule, and in so
doing certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule makes only
clarifying and conforming changes to a regulation to make it more
internally consistent and consistent with recent statutory changes.
Environmental Impact
This rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and
mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property
acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration,
demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for
standards for construction, or construction materials, manufactured
housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this rule
is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (entitled ``Federalism'') prohibits an agency
from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule
either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local
governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state
law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements
of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule does not have federalism
implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on
state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of
the Executive Order.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1531-1538) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments, and the private sector. This final rule does not impose
any federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal government, or on
the private sector, within the meaning of the UMRA.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)
program number is 14.218.
List of Subjects
24 CFR Part 91
Aged, Grant programs--housing and community development, Homeless,
Individuals with disabilities, Low- and moderate-income housing,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
24 CFR Part 570
Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Community
development block grants, Grant programs--education, Grant programs--
housing and community development, Guam, Indians, Loan programs--
housing and community development, Low- and moderate-income housing,
Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific Islands Trust Territory, Puerto Rico,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid, Virgin Islands.
0
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, HUD amends 24 CFR
parts 91 and 570 as follows:
PART 91--CONSOLIDATED SUBMISSIONS FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
0
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 3601-3619, 5301-5315, 11331-11388,
12701-12711, 12741-12756, and 12901-12912.
0
2. In Sec. 91.1, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.1 Purpose.
* * * * *
(b) Functions of plan. The consolidated plan serves the following
functions:
(1) A planning document for the jurisdiction, which builds on a
participatory process among citizens, organizations, businesses, and
other stakeholders;
(2) A submission for federal funds under HUD's formula grant
programs for jurisdictions;
(3) A strategy to be followed in carrying out HUD programs; and
(4) A management tool for assessing performance and tracking
results.
0
3. Add Sec. 91.2(d) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.2 Applicability.
* * * * *
(d) The Public Housing Agency Plan submission (PHA Plan) (see 24
CFR part 903) includes a certification by the appropriate state or
local official that the PHA Plan is consistent with the applicable
consolidated plan for the jurisdiction in which the public housing
agency is located and must describe the manner in which the applicable
contents of the PHA Plan are consistent with the consolidated plan.
0
4. Amend Sec. 91.5 by adding alphabetically definitions for
``chronically homeless person'' and ``disabling condition'' and
revising the definition of ``consolidated plan'' to read as follows:
Sec. 91.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Chronically homeless person. An unaccompanied homeless individual
with a disabling condition who has been continuously homeless for a
year or more, or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the
past three years. To be considered chronically homeless, a person must
have been sleeping in a place not meant for human habitation (e.g.,
living on the streets) and/or in an emergency shelter during that time.
Consolidated plan or (``the plan''). The document that is submitted
to HUD that serves as the comprehensive housing affordability strategy,
community development plan, and submissions for funding under any of
the Community Planning and Development formula grant programs (e.g.,
CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA), that is prepared in accordance with the
process described in this part.
* * * * *
Disabling condition. For the purposes of chronic homelessness, a
disabling condition is a diagnosable substance use disorder, serious
mental illness, developmental disability, or chronic physical illness
or disability, including the co-occurrence of two or more of these
conditions. A disabling condition limits an individual's ability to
work or perform one or more activities of daily living.
* * * * *
0
5. Revise Sec. 91.15 to read as follows:
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. 92.104 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 receive the plan
[[Page 6962]]
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, 2005 through September 30, 2006,
for federal fiscal year 2006 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 summary of the citizen
participation and consultation process, the action plan, and the
certifications must be submitted on an annual basis.
(2) The housing, and homeless needs assessment, market analysis,
and strategic plan must be submitted at least once every five years, or
as such time agreed upon by HUD and the jurisdiction in order to
facilitate orderly program management, coordinate consolidated plans
with time periods used for cooperation agreements, other plans, or the
availability of data.
(3) A jurisdiction may make amendments that extend the time period
covered by their plan if agreed upon by HUD.
0
6. Revise Sec. 91.20 to read as follows:
Sec. 91.20 Exceptions.
The HUD Field Office may grant a jurisdiction an exception from the
submission deadline for plans and reports and from a requirement in the
implementation guidelines for good cause, as determined by the field
office and reported in writing to HUD Headquarters, unless the
requirement is required by statute or regulation.
0
7. In Sec. 91.100, revise paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows:
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 and fair housing
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 the consolidated plan describing
the jurisdiction's homeless strategy, the jurisdiction shall consult
with public and private agencies that provide assisted housing, health
services, and social services to determine what resources are available
to address the needs of any persons that are chronically homeless.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) The jurisdiction also should consult with adjacent units of
general local government, including local government agencies with
metropolitan-wide planning responsibilities, particularly for problems
and solutions that go beyond a single jurisdiction.
* * * * *
(c) Public housing. The jurisdiction shall consult with the local
public housing agency (PHA) concerning consideration of public housing
needs and planned programs and activities. This consultation will help
provide a better basis for the certification by the authorized official
that the PHA Plan is consistent with the consolidated plan and the
local government's 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 will also help
ensure that activities with regard to local drug elimination,
neighborhood improvement programs, and resident programs and services,
funded under a PHA's program and those funded under a program covered
by the consolidated plan, are fully coordinated to achieve
comprehensive community development goals. If a PHA is required to
implement remedies under a Section 504 Voluntary Compliance Agreement
to provide accessible units for persons with disabilities, the local
jurisdiction should consult with the PHA and identify actions it may
take, if any, to assist the PHA in implementing the required remedies.
A local jurisdiction may use CDBG funds for eligible activities or
other funds to implement remedies required under a Section 504
Voluntary Compliance Agreement.
0
8. In Sec. 91.105, paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (iii) are revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 91.105 Citizen participation plan; local governments.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(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. The jurisdiction shall encourage the participation of
local and regional institutions and other organizations (including
businesses, developers, and community and faith-based organizations) in
the process of developing and implementing the consolidated plan. The
jurisdiction should also explore alternative public involvement
techniques and quantitative ways to measure efforts that encourage
citizen participation in a shared vision for change in communities and
neighborhoods, and the review of program performance, e.g., use of
focus groups, and use of the Internet.
(iii) The jurisdiction shall encourage, in conjunction with
consultation with public housing agencies, 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 public housing agency about consolidated
plan activities related to its developments and surrounding communities
so that the public housing agency can make this information available
at the annual public hearing required for the PHA Plan.
* * * * *
0
9. Revise Sec. 91.110 to read as follows:
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
[[Page 6963]]
housing agency administering public housing), health services, and
social and fair housing services (including those focusing on services
to children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, persons with
HIV/AIDS and their families, and homeless persons) during preparation
of the consolidated plan. When preparing the portion of the
consolidated plan describing the state's homeless strategy, the state
shall consult with public and private agencies that provide assisted
housing, health services, and social services to determine what
resources are available to address the needs of any persons that are
chronically homeless. 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.
0
10. Revise Sec. 91.115(a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.115 Citizen participation plan; states.
(a) * * *
(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. 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. The state shall encourage the
participation of statewide and regional institutions and other
organizations (including businesses, developers, and community and
faith-based organizations) that are involved with or affected by the
programs or activities covered by the consolidated plan in the process
of developing and implementing the consolidated plan. The state should
also explore alternative public involvement techniques that encourage a
shared vision of change for the community and the review of program
performance, e.g., use of focus groups, and use of Internet.
* * * * *
0
11. Revise Sec. 91.200 to read as follows:
Sec. 91.200 General.
(a) A complete consolidated plan consists of the information
required in Sec. 91.200 through Sec. 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. A comprehensive housing affordability strategy consists
of the information required in Sec. 91.200 through Sec. 91.215(e),
Sec. 91.215(h) through Sec. 91.215(l), Sec. 91.220(c), Sec.
91.220(g), Sec. 91.225 and Sec. 91.230.
(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, health, and child
service agencies and other entities.
(c) In order to facilitate citizen review and comment each year,
the plan shall contain a concise executive summary that includes the
objectives and outcomes identified in the plan as well as an evaluation
of past performance. The plan shall also include a concise summary of
the citizen participation process, public comments, and efforts made to
broaden public participation in the development of the consolidated
plan.
0
12. Revise Sec. 91.205 (a), (b), and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.205 Housing and homeless needs assessment.
(a) General. The consolidated plan must provide a concise summary
of 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 unmet needs of low-income 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 public housing residents, for families on the
public housing and section 8 tenant-based waiting list, for persons
with HIV/AIDS and their families, and for persons with disabilities.
The description of housing needs shall include a concise summary 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. (The
jurisdiction must define in its consolidated plan the terms ``standard
condition'' and ``substandard condition but suitable for
rehabilitation.'')
(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 in a category of need is at least 10
percentage points higher than the percentage of persons in the category
as a whole.
(c) Homeless needs. The plan must provide a concise summary of the
nature and extent of homelessness (including rural homelessness and
chronically homeless persons), 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 brief narrative description of the nature and
extent of homelessness
[[Page 6964]]
by racial and ethnic group, to the extent information is available.
* * * * *
0
13. In Sec. 91.210, revise paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (c) to
read as follows:
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 other low-income persons with
special needs, including persons with HIV/AIDS and their families. Data
on the housing market should include, to the extent information is
available, an estimate of the number of vacant or abandoned buildings
and whether units in these buildings are suitable for rehabilitation.
The jurisdiction must also 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 and
identify the public housing developments and the number of public
housing units in the jurisdiction, 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
PHA Plan.
(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, such as expiration of
Section 8 contracts.
(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, including any persons that
are chronically homeless. The inventory should also include (to the
extent the information is available to the jurisdiction) an estimate of
the percentage or number of beds and supportive services programs that
are serving people that are chronically homeless.
* * * * *
0
14. Revise Sec. 91.215 to read as follows:
Sec. 91.215 Strategic plan.
(a) General. For the categories described in paragraphs (b), (c),
(d), (e), and (f) 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 different activities and needs, as identified
in tables prescribed by HUD.
(2) Describe the rationale for establishing the allocation
priorities given to each category of priority needs, particularly among
extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income households;
(3) Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs;
(4) Summarize the priorities and specific objectives the
jurisdiction intends to initiate and/or complete during the time period
covered by the strategic plan and how funds that are reasonably
expected to be available will be used to address identified needs. For
each specific objective statement, identify proposed accomplishments
and outcomes the jurisdiction hopes to achieve in quantitative terms
over a specified time period (e.g., one, two, three or more years), or
in other measurable terms as identified and defined by the
jurisdiction. This information is to be provided in accordance with
guidance to be issued by HUD.
(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 affordable housing section shall describe how the
characteristics 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 rationale for establishing allocation priorities and use
of funds made available for rental assistance, production of new units,
rehabilitation of existing units, or acquisition of existing units
(including preserving affordable housing units that may be lost from
the assisted housing inventory for any reason). Household and income
types may be grouped together for discussion where the analysis would
apply to more than one of them. If the jurisdiction intends to use HOME
funds for tenant-based assistance, it must specify local market
conditions that led to the choice of that option.
(2) The affordable housing section shall include specific
objectives that describe proposed accomplishments the jurisdiction
hopes to achieve and must 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) Public housing. The consolidated plan must describe the manner
in which the plan of the jurisdiction will address the needs of public
housing, including the need to increase the number of accessible units
where required by a Section 504 Voluntarily Compliance Agreement. The
consolidated plan must also describe the jurisdiction's activities to
encourage public housing residents to become more involved in
management and participate in homeownership. If the public housing
agency is designated as ``troubled'' by HUD under 24 CFR part 902, the
jurisdiction must describe the manner in which it will provide
financial or other assistance to improve its operations and remove the
``troubled'' designation.
(d) 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 (especially any persons that are
chronically homeless) make the transition to permanent housing and
independent living.
(e) Other special needs. With respect to special needs of the non-
homeless, the consolidated plan must provide a concise summary of the
priority housing and supportive service needs of persons who are not
homeless but who may or may not require supportive housing
[[Page 6965]]
(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). If the jurisdiction intends to use HOME funds for tenant-
based assistance to assist one or more of these subpopulations, it must
specify local market conditions that led to the choice of this option.
(f) Nonhousing community development plan. If the jurisdiction
seeks assistance under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program, the consolidated plan must provide a concise summary of the
jurisdiction's priority non-housing community development needs
eligible for assistance under HUD's community development programs by
CDBG eligibility category, 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 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.
(g) Neighborhood Revitalization. Jurisdictions are encouraged to
identify locally designated areas where geographically targeted
revitalization efforts are carried out through multiple activities in a
concentrated and coordinated manner. In addition, a jurisdiction may
elect to carry out a HUD-approved neighborhood revitalization strategy
that includes the economic empowerment of low-income residents with
respect to one or more of its areas. If HUD approves such a strategy,
the jurisdiction can obtain greater flexibility in the use of the CDBG
funds in the revitalization area(s) as described in 24 CFR part 570,
subpart C. This strategy must identify long-term and short-term
objectives (e.g., physical improvements, social initiatives and
economic empowerment), expressing them in terms of measures of outputs
and outcomes the jurisdiction expects to achieve in the neighborhood
through the use of HUD programs.
(h) 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(e), 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 (h), 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.
(i) Lead-based paint hazards. The consolidated plan must outline
actions proposed or being taken to evaluate and reduce lead-based paint
hazards and increase access to housing without such health hazards, how
the plan for the reduction of lead-based hazards is related to the
extent of lead poisoning and hazards, and how the plan for the
reduction of lead-based hazards will be integrated into housing
policies and programs.
(j) Anti-poverty strategy. The consolidated plan must provide a
concise summary of 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. These policies may include the jurisdiction's
policies for providing employment and training opportunities to section
3 residents pursuant to 24 CFR part 135.
(k) Institutional structure. (1) The consolidated plan must provide
a concise summary of the institutional structure, including private
industry, nonprofit organizations, community and faith-based
organizations, and public institutions, through which the jurisdiction
will carry out its housing, homeless, and community development plan,
and which assesses the strengths and gaps in that delivery system.
(2) The plan must provide a concise summary of what the
jurisdiction will do to overcome gaps in the institutional structure
for carrying out its strategy for addressing its priority needs.
(l) Coordination. The consolidated plan must provide a concise
summary of 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 preparation of its homeless strategy, the jurisdiction must
describe efforts in addressing the needs of persons that are
chronically homeless. 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. With respect to
economic development, the jurisdiction should describe efforts to
enhance coordination with private industry, businesses, developers, and
social service agencies.
0
15. Revise Sec. 91.220 to read as follows:
Sec. 91.220 Action plan.
The action plan must include the following:
(a) Standard Form 424;
(b) A concise executive summary that includes the objectives and
outcomes identified in the plan as well as an evaluation of past
performance, a summary of the citizen participation and consultation
process (including efforts to broaden public participation) (24 CFR
91.200 (b)), a summary of comments or views, and a summary of comments
or views not accepted and the reasons therefore (24 CFR 91.105 (b)(5)).
(c) Resources and objectives. (1) Federal resources. The
consolidated plan must provide a concise summary of the federal
resources (including grant funds and program income) expected to be
made available. Federal resources should include Section 8 funds made
available to jurisdictions, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, and
competitive McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act funds, expected to
be available to address priority needs and specific objectives
identified in the strategic plan.
(2) Other resources. The consolidated plan must indicate resources
from private and state and local 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, the jurisdiction may indicate publicly owned land or
property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address
the needs identified in the plan;
(3) Annual objectives. The consolidated plan must contain a summary
of the annual objectives the jurisdiction expects to achieve during the
forthcoming program year.
(d) Activities to be undertaken. The action plan must provide a
description of the activities the jurisdiction will
[[Page 6966]]
undertake during the next year to address priority needs and
objectives. 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. The plan must also
describe the reasons for the allocation priorities and identify any
obstacles to addressing underserved needs;
(e) Outcome measures. Each jurisdiction must provide outcome
measures for activities included in its action plan in accordance with
guidance to be issued by HUD.
(f) Geographic distribution. A description of the geographic areas
of the jurisdiction (including areas of low-income and minority
concentration) in which it will direct assistance during the ensuing
program year, giving the rationale for the priorities for allocating
investment geographically. When appropriate, jurisdictions should
estimate the percentage of funds they plan to dedicate to target areas.
(g) Affordable housing. The jurisdiction must specify one-year
goals for the number of homeless, non-homeless, and special-needs
households to be provided affordable housing using funds made available
to the jurisdiction and one-year goals for the number of households to
be provided affordable housing through activities that provide rental
assistance, production of new units, rehabilitation of existing units,
or acquisition of existing units using funds made available to the
jurisdiction. The term affordable housing shall be as defined in 24 CFR
92.252 for rental housing and 24 CFR 92.254 for homeownership.
(h) Public housing. Actions it plans to take during the next year
to address the needs of public housing and actions to encourage public
housing residents to become more involved in management and participate
in homeownership. If the public housing agency is designated as
``troubled'' by HUD under part 902 of this title, the jurisdiction must
describe the manner in which it will provide financial or other
assistance to improve its operations and remove the ``troubled''
designation.
(i) 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, specific action
steps to end chronic homelessness, and to address the special needs of
persons who are not homeless identified in accordance with Sec.
91.215(e);
(j) Barriers to Affordable Housing. Actions it plans to take during
the next year to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public
policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing. Such policies,
procedures and processes include, but are not limited to, land use
controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building
codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the
return on residential investment.
(k) Other actions. Actions it plans to take during the next year to
address obstacles to meeting underserved needs, foster and maintain
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 (see Sec. 91.215 (a), (b), (i), (j), (k),
and (l)).
(l) 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) Proceeds from Section 108 loan guarantees that will be used
during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives
identified in its strategic plan;
(C) Surplus from urban renewal settlements;
(D) Grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the
planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan; and
(E) 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
because other financial resources are not available.
(iv) The plan shall identify the estimated amount of CDBG funds
that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low- and
moderate-income. The 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).
(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.
(iii) If the participating jurisdiction intends to use HOME funds
to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is being
rehabilitated with HOME funds, it must state its refinancing guidelines
required under 24 CFR 92.206(b). The guidelines shall describe the
conditions under which the participating jurisdictions will refinance
existing debt. At minimum, the guidelines must:
(A) Demonstrate that rehabilitation is the primary eligible
activity and ensure that this requirement is met by establishing a
minimum level of rehabilitation per unit or a required ratio between
rehabilitation and refinancing.
(B) Require a review of management practices to demonstrate that
disinvestment in the property has not occurred; that the long-term
needs of the project can be met; and that the
[[Page 6967]]
feasibility of serving the targeted population over an extended
affordability period can be demonstrated.
(C) State whether the new investment is being made to maintain
current affordable units, create additional affordable units, or both.
(D) Specify the required period of affordability, whether it is the
minimum 15 years or longer.
(E) Specify whether the investment of HOME funds may be
jurisdiction-wide or limited to a specific geographic area, such as a
neighborhood identified in a neighborhood revitalization strategy under
24 CFR 91.215(g) or a federally designated Empowerment Zone or
Enterprise Community.
(F) State that HOME funds cannot be used to refinance multifamily
loans made or insured by any federal program, including CDBG.
(iv) If the participating jurisdiction will receive funding under
the American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) (see 24 CFR part 92,
subpart M), it must include:
(A) A description of the planned use of the ADDI funds;
(B) A plan for conducting targeted outreach to residents and
tenants of public and manufactured housing and to other families
assisted by public housing agencies, for the purposes of ensuring that
the ADDI funds are used to provide downpayment assistance for such
residents, tenants, and families; and
(C) A description of the actions to be taken to ensure the
suitability of families receiving ADDI funds to undertake and maintain
homeownership.
(3) HOPWA. For HOPWA funds, the jurisdiction must specify one-year
goals for the number of households to be provided housing through the
use of HOPWA activities for: short-term rent, mortgage, and utility
assistance payments to prevent homelessness of the individual or
family; tenant-based rental assistance; and units provided in housing
facilities that are being developed, leased, or operated with HOPWA
funds and shall identify the method of selecting project sponsors
(including providing full access to grassroots faith-based and other
community organizations).
0
16. Amend Sec. 91.225 by adding paragraph (c)(10) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.225 Certifications.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(10) A certification that the jurisdiction has established a policy
for the discharge of persons from publicly funded institutions or
systems of care (such as health care facilities, foster care or other
youth facilities, or correction programs and institutions) in order to
prevent such discharge from immediately resulting in homelessness for
such persons.
* * * * *
0
17. Revise Sec. 91.300 to read as follows:
Sec. 91.300 General.
(a) A complete consolidated plan consists of the information
required in Sec. 91.300 through Sec. 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. A
comprehensive housing affordability strategy consists of the
information required in Sec. 91.300 through Sec. 91.315(e), Sec.
91.315(h) through Sec. 91.315(m), Sec. 91.320(c), Sec. 91.320 (g),
Sec. 91.225 and Sec. 91.330.
(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, health, and child service agencies
and other entities.
(c) The plan shall contain a concise executive summary that
includes the objectives and outcomes identified in the plan as well as
an evaluation of past performance. The plan shall also contain a
concise summary of the citizen participation process, public comments,
and efforts made to broaden public participation in the development of
the consolidated plan.
0
18. In Sec. 91.305, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 91.305 Housing and homeless needs assessment.
(a) General. The consolidated plan must provide a concise summary
of 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 unmet needs of low-income persons with HIV/AIDS and
their families in areas outside of eligible metropolitan statistical
areas.
(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 concise summary 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. (The state must define in its consolidated plan the
terms ``standard condition'' and ``substandard condition but suitable
for rehabilitation.'')
(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 in a category of need is at least 10
percentage points higher than the percentage of persons in the category
as a whole.
(c) Homeless needs. The plan must provide a concise summary of the
nature and extent of homelessness (including rural homelessness and
chronically homeless persons) 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 brief narrative description of the nature
and extent of homelessness by racial and ethnic group, to the extent
information is available.
* * * * *
0
19. Revise Sec. 91.310(b) to read as follows:
[[Page 6968]]
Sec. 91.310 Housing market analysis.
* * * * *
(b) 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 state. The inventory should also include
(to the extent the information is available to the state) an estimate
of the percentage or number of beds and supportive services programs
that are serving people that are chronically homeless.
* * * * *
0
20. Revise Sec. 91.315 to read as follows:
Sec. 91.315 Strategic plan.
(a) General. For the categories described in paragraphs (b), (c),
(d), (e), and (f) of this section, the consolidated plan must do the
following:
(1) Indicate the general priorities for allocating investment
geographically within the state and among different activities and
needs.
(2) Describe the rationale for establishing the allocation
priorities given to each category of priority needs, particularly among
extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income households.
(3) Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs.
(4) Summarize the priorities and specific objectives the state
intends to initiate and/or complete during the time period covered by
the strategic plan describing how the proposed distribution of funds
will address identified needs. For each specific objective statement,
identify proposed accomplishments and outcomes the state hopes to
achieve in quantitative terms over a specified time period (e.g., one,
two, three or more years), or in other measurable terms as identified
and defined by the state. This information shall be provided in
accordance with guidance to be issued by HUD.
(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 affordable housing section shall describe how the
characteristics 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 rationale for establishing allocation priorities and use
of funds made available for rental assistance, production of new units,
rehabilitation of existing units, or acquisition of existing units
(including preserving affordable housing units that may be lost from
the assisted housing inventory for any reason). Household and income
types may be grouped together for discussion where the analysis would
apply to more than one of them. If the state intends to use HOME funds
for tenant-based assistance, it must specify local market conditions
that led to the choice of that option.
(2) The affordable housing section shall include specific
objectives that describe proposed accomplishments the state hopes to
achieve and must specify the number of extremely low-income, low-
income, and moderate-income families to whom the state 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) Public housing. With respect to public housing, the
consolidated plan must do the following:
(1) 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;
(2) Public housing needs. The consolidated plan must describe the
manner in which the plan of the state will address the needs of public
housing; and
(3) Troubled public housing agencies. If a public housing agency
located within a state is designated as ``troubled'' by HUD under part
902 of this title, the strategy for the state or unit of local
government in which any troubled public housing agency is located must
describe the manner in which the state or unit of general local
government will provide financial or other assistance to improve the
public housing agency's operations and remove the ``troubled''
designation. A state is not required to describe the manner in which
financial or other assistance is provided if the troubled public
housing agency is located entirely within the boundaries of a unit of
general local government that must submit a consolidated plan to HUD.
(d) 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 (especially any persons that are
chronically homeless) make the transition to permanent housing and
independent living.
(e) Other special needs. With respect to supportive needs of the
non-homeless, the consolidated plan must provide a concise summary of
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. If the state intends to
use HOME funds for tenant-based assistance to assist one or more of
these subpopulations, it must specify local market conditions that led
to the choice of this option.
(f) Nonhousing community development plan. If the state seeks
assistance under the CDBG program, the consolidated plan must concisely
describe the state's priority nonhousing community development needs
that affect more than one unit of general local government. 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 identify 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 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.
(g) Community Revitalization. States are encouraged to identify
areas where geographically targeted revitalization efforts are carried
out through multiple activities in a concentrated and coordinated
manner. In addition, a state may elect to allow units of general local
government to carry out a community revitalization strategy that
includes the economic empowerment of low-income residents, in order to
obtain the additional flexibility available as provided in 24 CFR part
570, subpart I. A state must approve a local government's
revitalization strategy before it may be implemented. If a state elects
to allow revitalization strategies in its program, the method of
[[Page 6969]]
distribution contained in a state's action plan pursuant to Sec.
91.320(k)(1) must reflect the state's process and criteria for
approving local government's revitalization strategies. The strategy
must identify the long-term and short-term objectives (e.g., physical
improvements, social initiatives, and economic empowerment), expressing
them in terms of measures of outputs and outcomes that are expected
through the use of HUD programs. The state's process and criteria are
subject to HUD approval.
(h) 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.
(i) Lead based paint. 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.
(j) Anti-poverty strategy. The consolidated plan must provide a
concise summary of 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 such as Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families as well as employment and training 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.
(k) Institutional structure. (1) The consolidated plan must provide
a concise summary of the institutional structure, including private
industry, nonprofit organizations, and public institutions, through
which the state will carry out its housing, homeless, and community
development plan, assessing the strengths and gaps in that delivery
system.
(2) The plan must provide a concise summary of what the state will
do to overcome gaps in the institutional structure for carrying out its
strategy for addressing its priority needs.
(l) Coordination. The consolidated plan must provide a concise
summary of 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
preparation of its homeless strategy, the state must describe efforts
in addressing the needs of persons that are chronically homeless. 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. With respect to economic development, the state should describe
efforts to enhance coordination with private industry, businesses,
developers, and social service agencies.
(m) Low-income housing tax credit. 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.
0
21. Revise Sec. 91.320 to read as follows:
Sec. 91.320 Action plan.
The action plan must include the following:
(a) Standard Form 424;
(b) A concise executive summary that includes the objectives and
outcomes identified in the plan as well as an evaluation of past
performance, a summary of the citizen participation and consultation
process (including efforts to broaden public participation) (24 CFR
91.300 (b)), a summary of comments or views, and a summary of comments
or views not accepted and the reasons therefore (24 CFR 91.115 (b)(5)).
(c) Resources and objectives. (1) Federal resources. The
consolidated plan must provide a concise summary of the federal
resources expected to be made available. 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
identified in the plan;
(3) Annual objectives. The consolidated plan must contain a summary
of the annual objectives the state expects to achieve during the
forthcoming program year.
(d) 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, the reasons for the allocation priorities, how the
proposed distribution of funds will address the priority needs and
specific objectives described in the consolidated plan, and any
obstacles to addressing underserved needs.
(e) Outcome measures. Each state must provide outcome measures for
activities included in its action plan in accordance with guidance
issued by HUD. For the CDBG program, this would include activities that
are likely to be funded as a result of the implementation of the
state's method of distribution.
(f) Geographic distribution. A description of the geographic areas
of the State (including areas of low-income and minority concentration)
in which it will direct assistance during the ensuing program year,
giving the rationale for the priorities for allocating investment
geographically. When appropriate, the state should estimate the
percentage of funds they plan to dedicate to target area(s).
(g) Affordable housing goals. The state must specify one-year goals
for the number of households to be provided affordable housing through
activities that provide rental assistance, production of new units,
rehabilitation of existing units, or acquisition of existing units
using funds made available to the state, and one-year goals for the
number of homeless, non-homeless, and special-needs households to be
provided affordable housing using funds made available to the state.
The term affordable housing shall be as defined in 24 CFR 92.252 for
rental housing and 24 CFR 92.254 for homeownership.
(h) 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, specific action
steps to end chronic homelessness, and to address the special needs of
persons who are not homeless identified in accordance with Sec.
91.315(e);
(i) Barriers to Affordable Housing. Actions it plans to take during
the next year to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public
policies that
[[Page 6970]]
serve as barriers to affordable housing. Such policies, procedures, and
processes include but are not limited to: land use controls, tax
policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and
charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on
residential investment.
(j) Other actions. Actions it plans to take during the next year to
implement its strategic plan and 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), evaluate and reduce lead-based paint hazards,
reduce the number of poverty level families, develop institutional
structure, enhance coordination between public and private housing and
social service agencies, address the needs of public housing (including
providing financial or other assistance to troubled public housing
agencies), and encourage public housing residents to become more
involved in management and participate in homeownership.
(k) Program-specific requirements. In addition, the plan must
include the following specific information:
(1) CDBG. The action plan must set forth the state's method of
distribution.
(i) 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, where
applicable. The action plan must include a description of how all CDBG
resources will be allocated among funding categories and the threshold
factors and grant size limits that are to be applied. The method of
distribution must provide sufficient information so that units of
general local government will be able to understand and comment on it,
understand what criteria and information their application will be
judged, and be able to prepare responsive applications. The method of
distribution may provide a summary of the selection criteria, provided
that all criteria are summarized and the details are set forth in
application manuals or other official state publications that are
widely distributed to eligible applicants. HUD may monitor the method
of distribution as part of its audit and review responsibilities, as
provided in Sec. 570.493(a)(1), in order to determine compliance with
program requirements.
(ii) If the state intends to help nonentitlement units of general
local government apply 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. If a state elects to
allow units of general local government to carry out community
revitalization strategies, the method of distribution shall reflect the
state's process and criteria for approving local government's
revitalization strategies.
(2) HOME. (i) The state shall describe other forms of investment
that are not described in 24 CFR 92.205(b).
(ii) If the state intends to use HOME funds for homebuyers, it must
state the guidelines for resale or recapture, as required in 24 CFR
92.254.
(iii) If the state intends to use HOME funds to refinance existing
debt secured by multifamily housing that is being rehabilitated with
HOME funds, it must state its refinancing guidelines required under 24
CFR 92.206(b). The guidelines shall describe the conditions under which
the state will refinance existing debt. At minimum, the guidelines
must:
(A) Demonstrate that rehabilitation is the primary eligible
activity and ensure that this requirement is met by establishing a
minimum level of rehabilitation per unit or a required ratio between
rehabilitation and refinancing.
(B) Require a review of management practices to demonstrate that
disinvestment in the property has not occurred; that the long-term
needs of the project can be met; and that the feasibility of serving
the targeted population over an extended affordability period can be
demonstrated.
(C) State whether the new investment is being made to maintain
current affordable units, create additional affordable units, or both.
(D) Specify the required period of affordability, whether it is the
minimum 15 years or longer.
(E) Specify whether the investment of HOME funds may be state-wide
or limited to a specific geographic area, such as a community
identified in a neighborhood revitalization strategy under 24 CFR
91.315(g), or a federally designated Empowerment Zone or Enterprise
Community.
(F) State that HOME funds cannot be used to refinance multifamily
loans made or insured by any federal program, including the CDBG
program.
(iv) If the state will receive funding under the American Dream
Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) (see 24 CFR part 92, subpart M), it must
include:
(A) A description of the planned use of the ADDI funds;
(B) A plan for conducting targeted outreach to residents and
tenants of public and manufactured housing and to other families
assisted by public housing agencies, for the purposes of ensuring that
the ADDI funds are used to provide downpayment assistance for such
residents, tenants, and families; and
(C) A description of the actions to be taken to ensure the
suitability of families receiving ADDI funds to undertake and maintain
homeownership, such as provision of housing counseling to homebuyers.
(3) ESG. The state shall identify the process for awarding grants
to state recipients and a description of how the state intends to make
its allocation available to units of local government and nonprofit
organizations (including community and faith-based organizations).
(4) HOPWA. For HOPWA funds, the state must specify one-year goals
for the number of households to be provided housing through the use of
HOPWA activities for short-term rent; mortgage and utility assistance
payments to prevent homelessness of the individual or family; tenant-
based rental assistance; and units provided in housing facilities that
are being developed, leased or operated with HOPWA funds, and shall
identify the method of selecting project sponsors (including providing
full access to grassroots faith-based and other community-based
organizations).
0
22. In Sec. 91.325, amend paragraph (c) by adding (c)(10) to read as
follows:
Sec. 91.325 Certifications.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(10) A certification that the state has established a policy for
the discharge of persons from publicly funded institutions or systems
of care (such as health care facilities, foster care, or other youth
facilities, or correction programs and institutions) in order to
prevent such discharge from immediately resulting in homelessness for
such persons.
* * * * *
0
23. In Sec. 91.500, revise paragraph (b)(3) and add paragraph (b)(4)
to read as follows:
Sec. 91.500 HUD approval action.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(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; and
(4) A plan that does not include a description of the manner in
which the unit of general local government or state will provide
financial or other assistance to a public housing agency if
[[Page 6971]]
the public housing agency is designated as ``troubled'' by HUD.
* * * * *
0
24. Amend Sec. 91.520 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.520 Performance reports.
* * * * *
(g) The report will include a comparison of the proposed versus
actual outcomes for each outcome measure submitted with the
consolidated plan and explain, if applicable, why progress was not made
toward meeting goals and objectives.
PART 570--COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS
0
25. The authority citation for part 570 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 5301-5320.
0
26. Revise Sec. 570.490(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 570.490 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) State records. (1) The state shall establish and maintain such
records as may be necessary to facilitate review and audit by HUD of
the state's administration of CDBG funds under Sec. 570.493. The
content of records maintained by the state shall be as jointly agreed
upon by HUD and the states and sufficient to enable HUD to make the
determinations described at Sec. 570.493. For fair housing and equal
opportunity purposes, and as applicable, such records shall include
data on the racial, ethnic, and gender characteristics of persons who
are applicants for, participants in, or beneficiaries of the program.
The records shall also permit audit of the states in accordance with 24
CFR part 85.
(2) The state shall keep records to document its funding decisions
reached under the method of distribution described in 24 CFR
91.320(j)(1), including all the criteria used to select applications
from local governments for funding and the relative importance of the
criteria (if applicable), regardless of the organizational level at
which final funding decisions are made, so that they can be reviewed by
HUD, the Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office, and
citizens pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 570.490(c).
* * * * *
Dated: January 31, 2006.
Pamela H. Patenaude,
Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
[FR Doc. 06-1182 Filed 2-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P