I 111th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 2246 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 5, 2009 Mr. Moore of Kansas (for himself, Mrs. Biggert, and Ms. Titus) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services A BILL To promote and enhance the operation of local building code enforcement administration across the country by establishing a competitive Federal matching grant program.

1.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the Community Building Code Administration Grant Act of 2009.

2.

Grant program authorized

(a)

Grant authorization

The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall to the extent amounts are made available for grants under this Act provide grants to local building code enforcement departments. (b)

Competitive awards

The Secretary shall award grants under subsection (a) on a competitive basis pursuant to the criteria set forth in section 6, but also taking into consideration the following: (1)The financial need of each building code enforcement department. (2)The benefit to the jurisdiction of having an adequately funded building code enforcement department. (3)The demonstrated ability of each building code enforcement department to work cooperatively with other local code enforcement offices, health departments, and local prosecutorial agencies. (c)

Maximum amount

The maximum amount of any grant awarded under this section shall not exceed $1,000,000.

3.

Required elements in grant proposals

In order to be eligible for a grant under section 2, a building code enforcement department of a jurisdiction shall submit to the Secretary the following: (1)A demonstration of the jurisdiction’s needs in executing building code enforcement administration. (2)A plan for the use of any funds received from a grant under this Act that addresses the needs discussed in paragraph (1) and that is consistent with the authorized uses established in section 4. (3)A plan for local governmental actions to be taken to establish and sustain local building code enforcement administration functions, without continuing Federal support, at a level at least equivalent to that proposed in the grant application. (4)A plan to create and maintain a program of public outreach that includes a regularly updated and readily accessible means of public communication, interaction, and reporting regarding the services and work of the building code enforcement department to be supported by the grant. (5)A plan for ensuring the timely and effective administrative enforcement of building safety and fire prevention violations.

4.

Use of funds; matching funds

(a)

Authorized uses

Amounts from grants awarded under section 2 may be used by the grant recipient to supplement existing State or local funding for administration of building code enforcement. Such amounts may be used to increase staffing, provide staff training, increase staff competence and professional qualifications, or support individual certification or departmental accreditation, or for capital expenditures specifically dedicated to the administration of the building code enforcement department. (b)

Additional requirement

Each building code enforcement department receiving a grant under section 2 shall empanel a code administration and enforcement team consisting of at least 1 full-time building code enforcement officer, a city planner, and a health planner or similar officer. (c)

Matching funds required

(1)

In general

To be eligible to receive a grant under this Act, a building code enforcement department shall provide matching, non-Federal funds in the following amount: (A)In the case of a building code enforcement department serving an area with a population of more than 50,000, an amount equal to not less than 50 percent of the total amount of any grant to be awarded under this Act. (B)In the case of a building code enforcement department serving an area with a population of between 20,001 and 50,000, an amount equal to not less than 25 percent of the total amount of any grant to be awarded under this Act. (C)In the case of a building code enforcement department serving an area with a population of less than 20,000, an amount equal to not less than 12.5 percent of the total amount of any grant to be awarded under this Act. (2)

Economic distress

(A)

In general

The Secretary may waive the matching fund requirements under paragraph (1), and institute, by regulation, new matching fund requirements based upon the level of economic distress of the jurisdiction in which the local building code enforcement department seeking such grant is located. (B)

Content of regulations

Any regulations instituted under subparagraph (A) shall include— (i)a method that allows for a comparison of the degree of economic distress among the local jurisdictions of grant applicants, as measured by the differences in the extent of growth lag, the extent of poverty, and the adjusted age of housing in such jurisdiction; and (ii)any other factor determined to be relevant by the Secretary in assessing the comparative degree of economic distress among such jurisdictions. (d)

In-kind contributions

In determining the non-Federal share required to be provided under subsection (c), the Secretary shall consider in-kind contributions, not to exceed 50 percent of the amount that the department contributes in non-Federal funds. (e)

Waiver of matching requirement

The Secretary shall waive the matching fund requirements under subsection (c) for any recipient jurisdiction that has dedicated all building code permitting fees to the conduct of local building code enforcement.

5.

Rating and ranking of applications

Eligible applications will be rated and ranked according to the criteria under section 6. All complete applications shall be compared to one another and points shall be assigned on a continuum within each criteria with the maximum points awarded to the application that best meets the criteria.

6.

Criteria

The criteria under this section are as follows: (1)

Need and community benefit from code enforcement grant funds

The degree to which the application demonstrates the intent and means to ensure cooperative and effective working relationships between local building code enforcement officials and other local agencies, as well as a community-oriented approach to building code enforcement, with points awarded as follows: DescriptionMaximum Points A detailed description of the capital expenditures to be acquired with grant funds and a demonstration that the items’ costs are reasonable.0–10 The jurisdiction’s need for the capital expenditure and how the grant funds will fulfill this need.0–10 The joint benefits provided by the proposed expenditure for the following groups or activities. Provide a brief explanation of the benefit. (1 point will be awarded for each response, 5 points maximum). 1. Code enforcement program. 2. Community or jurisdiction. 3. Interdisciplinary code enforcement team. 4. Housing preservation, rehabilitation programs, or neighborhood improvement programs. 5. Special needs groups (disabled, elderly or low or very-low income, etc.).0–5 Does the proposed capital expenditure provide a cost savings benefit to the jurisdiction? Provide a brief explanation of the cost savings.0–5. (2)

Current code enforcement and housing conservation plan

Whether the local legislative body in which the applicant resides has adopted a plan that addresses residential structure conservation and building code enforcement. Points shall be awarded, based on which of the descriptions from the following list best reflects such jurisdiction’s plan for building code enforcement activities, as follows: DescriptionMaximum Points The plan provides for proactive code enforcement (not just responding to complaints), an interdisciplinary approach, and includes funding options for repairs and rehabilitation.10 The plan only provides for proactive code enforcement (not just responding to complaints) and calls for an interdisciplinary approach and does not address funding options for repairs and rehabilitation.8 The plan provides for some type of proactive code enforcement (other than just responding to complaints) but doesn’t address coordinated interdisciplinary activities with other local public agencies or funding options.6 The plan provides for only reactive code enforcement.4 The plan only refers to a need to preserve and/or improve existing housing stock, without any code enforcement program.2 No existing plan.0. (3)

Community-oriented or interdisciplinary code enforcement

The degree to which the application demonstrates the intent and means to ensure cooperative and effective working relationships between building code enforcement officials and other local agencies, as well as a community-oriented approach to code enforcement, with points awarded as follows: DescriptionMaximum Points Identify current or proposed interdisciplinary code enforcement programs or activities and the team members (example: code enforcement, police, local prosecutors, health department, building and planning, fire, etc.). Provide a description of the team’s code enforcement and coordination procedures, activities and services provided. If the current programs or resources are limited in scope, explain how receipt of the grant will be used to improve the program.0–10 Identify current or proposed community-oriented code enforcement programs, activities, or services. (Examples: community clean-ups, Neighborhood Watch programs, community meetings, door-to-door code enforcement knock and talks, etc.). If the current programs or resources are limited in scope, explain how receipt of the grant will be used to improve the program.0–10. (4)

Proactive code enforcement activities

The effectiveness of the proposed or existing proactive activities and programs operated by any existing building code enforcement program, which shall include points awarded as follows for any such activities or programs: DescriptionMaximum Points Encourages repairs and preservation, rather than demolition or abandonment, of substandard residences.0–5 Abatement of (a) lead hazards and lead-based paints, (b) toxic molds and dampness, and (c) displacement or relocation of residents.0–5 Community clean-up campaigns. This may include recycling dates, free or reduced disposal rates at dumpsite, public clean-up days that encourage removal of unwanted or excess debris by making available extra trash pick-ups, dumpsites or trash/recycling containers on specific dates to dispose of household debris, inoperable vehicles, tires, toxic materials, etc.0–5 Resource or referral programs for Federal, State, local, and private funds and other resources available in your jurisdiction that can assist with housing rehabilitation and repairs to rectify code violations.0–5 Public education programs on housing issues. These could include community housing meetings dealing with homeownership, tenant/landlord issues, housing code enforcement, school age children's programs with coloring books or handouts, housing safety pamphlets, etc.0–5 Programs that encourage community involvement with groups; such as schools, church nonprofits, community service groups, utility companies, local stores, housing agency banks, etc.0–5. (5)

Capacity to financially and technically support proposed capital expenditures

The degree to which the application demonstrates the jurisdiction’s financial and technical capacity to properly use and successfully support the proposed capital expenditure during the term of the grant, with points awarded as follows: DescriptionMaximum Points The anticipated ongoing program funding for the duration of the grant program is adequate to financially support the use of the grant-financed equipment. Include details of funding and technical support sources for the capital expenditure (examples: insurance, paper, maintenance, training, supplies, personnel, monthly billing costs, etc.). 0–5 The jurisdiction has the technical capabilities to use and support equipment (examples: adequately trained staff or resources to provide training to operate technical equipment, local service provider for cell phones or 2-way radios, trained personnel to operate equipment, etc.).0–5.

7.

Evaluation and report

(a)

In general

Grant recipients shall— (1)be obligated to fully account and report for the use of all grants funds; and (2)provide a report to the Secretary on the effectiveness of the program undertaken by the grantee and any other criteria requested by the Secretary for the purpose of indicating the effectiveness of, and ideas for, refinement of the grant program. (b)

Report

The report required under subsection (a)(2) shall include a discussion of— (1)the specific capabilities and functions in local building code enforcement administration that were addressed using funds received under this Act; (2)the lessons learned in carrying out the plans supported by the grant; and (3)the manner in which the programs supported by the grant are to be maintained by the grantee. (c)

Content of reports

The Secretary shall— (1)require each recipient of a grant under this Act to file interim and final reports under subsection (b) to ensure that grant funds are being used as intended and to measure the effectiveness and benefits of the grant program; and (2)develop and maintain a means whereby the public can access such reports, at no cost, via the Internet.

8.

Definitions

For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall apply: (1)

Building code enforcement

The term building code enforcement means the enforcement of any code, adopted by a State or local government, that regulates the construction of buildings and facilities to mitigate hazards to life or property. Such term includes building codes, electrical codes, energy codes, fire codes, fuel gas codes, mechanical codes, and plumbing codes. (2)

Building code enforcement department

The term building code enforcement department means an inspection or enforcement agency of a jurisdiction that is responsible for conducting building code enforcement. (3)

Jurisdiction

The term jurisdiction means a city, county, parish, city and county authority, or city and parish authority having local authority to enforce building codes and regulations and to collect fees for building permits. (4)

Secretary

The term Secretary means the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

9.

Authorization of appropriations

(a)

In general

There are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to carry out the provisions of this Act. (b)

Reservation

From the amount made available under subsection (a), the Secretary may reserve not more than 5 percent for administrative costs. (c)

Availability

Any funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) shall remain available until expended.