[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-8065]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: April 6, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Department of Housing and Urban Development





_______________________________________________________________________



Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing; Federal Housing 
Commissioner



_______________________________________________________________________



Notice of Funding Availability for Intermediaries to Administer 
Preservation Technical Assistance Grants; Notice
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing; Federal Housing 
Commissioner
[Docket No. N-94-3719; FR-3473-N-02]

 

NOFA for Intermediaries to Administer Preservation Technical 
Assistance Grants

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing 
Commissioner, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of funding availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department requests applications from intermediaries 
seeking to administer grant funds as described in the body of this 
NOFA. An intermediary that applies to cover an area smaller than one 
State must seek to administer grants in a jurisdiction covering at 
least one HUD area office. Intermediaries will receive funding, to be 
used as processing fees, from a portion of the $45 million funding that 
is available for technical assistance grants to promote the ability of 
residents of eligible low-income housing to participate meaningfully in 
the preservation process established by the Emergency Low Income 
Housing Preservation Act of 1987 (ELIHPA) and the Low-Income Housing 
Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 (LIHPRHA). The NOFA 
describes the technical assistance grants that will be made available 
through intermediaries and the selection criteria that will be used for 
those grants; however, this is not a request for applications for those 
direct technical assistance grants.
    Of the available funds, $13.5 million will be available for 
Resident Capacity Grants and $31.5 million will be available for 
Predevelopment grants. Both of these grant categories are described in 
Appendix A of this NOFA. Dollar amounts have been made available by 
State, utilizing the Department's estimates of preservation activity. 
Any additional amounts made available from the termination of the 
September 3, 1992, NOFA, or by appropriation in future years, if any, 
will be divided proportionately between the grant categories.
    In the body of this document is information concerning eligible 
intermediary applicants; the funding available by State; HUD's 
processing of the intermediary applications; grant applicants eligible 
for technical assistance; and the selection criteria for both the 
intermediary applicants and technical assistance grant applicants. 
Technical assistance applicants should be aware that the determination 
of which regulatory requirements apply to an applicant's purchase 
depends on the preservation program under which the owner has filed a 
Notice of Intent. Thus, applicants must comply with 24 CFR part 248 and 
with either ELIHPA or LIHPRHA, as appropriate. (Applicants should note 
that part 248, as codified in the April 1, 1993, revision of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR) was amended subsequently in a rule 
published on July 13, 1993 (57 FR 3384), which reflects requirements of 
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.)

DATES: The deadline for submission of intermediary applications is June 
6, 1994. Applications must be physically received in the Preservation 
Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, room 6284, 451 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, by 5 p.m., EST, on the due 
date.

ADDRESSES: Application kits for intermediaries may be obtained from the 
Multifamily Preservation Division, Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, room 6284, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; 
and from the Multifamily Housing Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 6424, 
Rockville, MD 20850, telephone 1-800-955-2232.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin J. East, Director, Preservation 
Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, room 6284, 451 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-2300. To 
provide service for persons who are hearing- or speech-impaired, this 
number may be reached via TDD by dialing the Federal Information Relay 
Service on 1-800-877-TDDY (1-800-877-8339) or 202-708-9300. (Except for 
the ``800'' number, telephone numbers are not toll-free).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    The information collection requirements contained in this notice 
have been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). The OMB control number is 2502-0502.

Background

    On July 13, 1993, the Department took the unusual step of 
publishing a draft Notice of Fund Availability (58 FR 37819), 
specifically inviting public comments on the Department's proposed 
methodology for implementing the provisions of section 312 of the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-550, 
approved October 28, 1992) (1992 HCDA), which added sections 251-257 to 
the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 
1990 (Pub. L. 101-625, section 601 of the National Affordable Housing 
Act (NAHA), approved November 28, 1990) (LIHPRHA). The comment period 
expired on August 28, 1993. The Department received a total of 26 
comments. Two comments were from legal/advocacy organizations; eight 
were from low-income housing organizations that are involved in 
development of and advocacy for affordable housing; nine were from 
tenant organizations; three were from community development 
corporations; two were from community service organizations; one was 
from a local government agency; and one was from an individual housing 
consultant.
    This NOFA implements sections 251, 252, 253, 255, 256, and 257 of 
LIHPRHA, as added by section 312 of the 1992 HCDA. This NOFA does not 
implement section 254 of LIHPRHA, which will be implemented soon 
through a separate NOFA. Therefore, the comments received on section 
254 as a result of the draft NOFA published July 13, 1993, will not be 
addressed here, but will be considered in that separate NOFA.
    The first section of this NOFA is a discussion of the public 
comments and modifications from the draft NOFA that were made in 
response to the public comments and as a result of additional HUD 
consideration. The actual NOFA follows the discussion of public 
comments and begins with the section designated ``II. Purpose and 
Substantive Description.''

I. Public Comments

A. Direct Technical Assistance Grants

1. Resident Notification
    The proposed NOFA required each applicant for a technical 
assistance grant to notify the residents of the property of the 
application. Seventeen commenters requested that this requirement be 
clarified or strengthened. Six commenters requested that the 
notification be in writing, and be required to include a summary of the 
proposed plan for the property including items on the development team, 
budget, and proposed tasks. The Department has adopted this 
recommendation.
    A number of commenters requested that the notification advise that 
residents themselves can also apply for grant funds and can endorse an 
eligible organization of their choice. Several others said this 
information should be given, not by the applicant, but by the 
Department, possibly as part of current resident notification forms 
under 24 CFR part 248. The Department has decided to require, as part 
of the applicant's resident notification, a statement that residents 
may themselves become eligible grantees. One commenter said the notice 
must have a name and contact number for the intermediary and the 
applicant. The Department has implemented this requirement. The same 
commenter suggested that intermediaries be required to supply a copy of 
the application with translations. The Department has decided that this 
requirement would be too burdensome on the intermediary and too costly 
to the Department. In general, however, translation expenses would be 
considered a reimbursable expense under the grant.
    Three commenters expressed concern that owners may thwart access to 
buildings to prevent distribution of notices and/or resident meetings. 
Therefore, HUD should require managers to provide addresses of tenants 
to intermediaries, and any costs to owners would be reimbursable. The 
Department agrees that this could be a problem in certain cases. If the 
applicant is having difficulties getting access to the building, it may 
contact the administering intermediary, who will have the authority to 
contact the owner for access to the property and the names and 
addresses of residents.
    Twelve commenters requested, as part of resident notification, an 
advance notification of application submission for technical 
assistance, followed by a tenant comment period. Many of these 
commenters also requested the inclusion of a requirement that the 
applicants meet with the residents prior to application submission. The 
comments ranged from requiring a 15-day notice prior to application 
submission, to a 30-day comment period following a resident meeting, 
with a seven-day notification that the meeting itself will take place. 
One commenter said at least two resident meetings should be required, 
one informational and one for tenant comment. One commenter suggested 
that the tenant comment period could partially overlap with the 
administering intermediary's review of the application so there would 
be less delay in grant awards. Another said that the general 
requirement to notify all residents could be too burdensome in large 
projects, and when owners are not cooperative, the applicant could 
simply certify that a public meeting was held.
    The Department seeks to maximize resident participation, where 
appropriate, without unduly delaying the grant award process. 
Therefore, the Department will require written notification that a 
resident meeting will take place. This notification shall include 
summary information on the grant proposal and an indication that the 
residents will be able to comment on the grant proposal subsequent to 
the resident meeting. The meeting shall occur at least 14 days prior to 
application submission and resident comments may be submitted to the 
intermediary and the applicant during that 14-day period. If there are 
substantive objections by the residents, the applicant must provide a 
response to the residents and to the intermediary before the grant can 
be awarded. If necessary, the applicant will meet again with the 
residents to resolve issues. In any case, if a majority of residents 
are opposed to the application, the application will be rejected.
2. Applicant Eligibility
    Seven commenters were concerned with the requirement that, if the 
owner has not submitted a Notice of Intent to sell, the applicant must 
have a binding commitment from the owner to sell to the applicant. 
Several suggested that a letter of intent to sell should be adequate, 
others that a letter to work exclusively with the applicant should be 
sufficient. The wording ``binding agreement to sell'' is statutory; 
however, the Department agrees that it would be impractical to require 
a purchase and sale agreement before the applicant has become an 
eligible purchaser under the preservation program and/or has become a 
sponsor with the capacity to purchase, own, and manage the property. 
Therefore, the Department interprets the binding agreement to sell as 
an exclusive agreement to work with the applicant entity towards a sale 
unless it subsequently becomes clear that the applicant is not moving 
towards that goal in a reasonable and timely manner. If the owner seeks 
to work with another entity without the consent of the applicant, 
consultation with the intermediary on what constitutes a timely manner 
would be required.
    Four commenters requested that HUD clarify what ``seeking to 
purchase with a majority of resident support'' means. One suggested it 
should be clear that the intention of the applicant is to become an 
eligible purchaser in the first six months of the sale period. Several 
thought applicants should be required to detail the method for securing 
support and adhere to that method. One thought that to require a 
majority-supported preferred priority purchase in order to receive 
later grant funds is not inconsistent with the statute. The application 
kit will require that each applicant detail its method for securing 
resident support, and this will be reviewed by the intermediary in 
deciding whether the plan to achieve a resident-supported purchase is 
reasonable and achievable. In general, applicants must adhere to their 
grant plans to receive further funding.
    Seven commenters said documented resident opposition to a grantee 
should be sufficient to reject or terminate a grant; four of these 
commenters also requested that resident withdrawal of support for a 
grantee stop all funding. Two commented that HUD should be required to 
address the reasons for withdrawal of funding. One commented that 
residents should be able to appeal the selection of a Community-Based 
Nonprofit Organization (CBO) applicant, and that termination should be 
allowed for nonperformance.
    The Department reiterates that termination of a grant for 
nonperformance has always been the Department's practice. The 
Department has included in the NOFA the provision that a majority of 
resident opposition to the applicant prior to approval of an 
application would be sufficient for the intermediary to reject the 
application. In addition, a majority of resident support for another 
eligible entity at any time would be sufficient for termination of the 
grant.
    One commenter stated that Resident Capacity grants should only be 
given to groups that will not seek to purchase and recipients should be 
disqualified as a priority purchaser. Another, however, said that 
potential purchasers should not be categorically prohibited from 
receiving Resident Capacity grant funds. One commenter said the NOFA 
should maintain the Resident Capacity-applicant concept that RCs, 
Resident Groups and Community-Based Nonprofit Housing Developers (CBDs) 
are equally eligible.
    The Department believes that the statute is clear on eligibility in 
this case. Nonprofit community-based housing developers may receive 
Resident Capacity grants in order to educate and organize the residents 
and resident organizations. However, in the case of competing 
applications for Resident Capacity grants, the intermediaries will give 
preference to resident groups and resident organizations.
    A commenter said that grantees should be required to demonstrate 
fiscal standards or to use grant funds to establish them. The 
Department has included this requirement in previous grant programs and 
will continue to include the requirement.
    Four commenters suggested that the threshold for resident 
membership in resident groups should be raised to 10% of the units. One 
suggested that all recipients should have this support. Another 
suggested that a committee structure that involves residents by 
building or floor should be required. Another commenter, however, felt 
that the proposed NOFA set a realistically low threshold for 
demonstrating resident support at an early stage and that, instead, the 
requirement should be for ongoing progress toward gaining greater 
resident support. The Department has not increased the minimum unit 
threshold, but will, through its guidance to intermediaries, require 
direct assistance grantees to show continued effort towards gaining 
resident support.
    One commenter stated that resident groups that are not yet Resident 
Councils should not be able to apply for Resident Capacity grants. 
Again, the statute is clear on this point--resident groups are eligible 
for these grants. Two commenters felt that Resident Capacity grant 
applicants should be required to identify persons carrying out 
activities and their qualifications. The Department has clarified this 
in the NOFA.
    One commenter suggested that joint venture applications should be 
permitted from any eligible applicants. The Department has clarified 
this in the NOFA.
    Five commenters wanted clarification that a Notice of Election to 
Proceed under the provision of section 604 of LIHPRHA (Form 9610) 
should count as a Notice of Intent for purposes of eligibility. The 
Department has made this clarification. Two others suggested that the 
Form 9610 should make a property eligible regardless of whether or not 
the owner is currently proceeding under the program.
    The Department will not allow applications in properties when the 
owner is not proceeding under the program at this time. A Form 9610 
will count as a Notice of Intent under this NOFA only if the owner has 
checked box B on that form and is proceeding under the program. Not 
many owners have submitted a Form 9610 electing to proceed through the 
LIHPRHA appraisal process, but have not subsequently submitted a Notice 
to the Department indicating their intent to proceed.
    Three commenters suggested expanding the definition of eligible 
applicants. One suggested including Community Action Agencies, which 
have been servicing the low-income community in all areas for more than 
25 years, and Community-Based Nonprofit Organizations. One felt 
Statewide organizations should be eligible for Resident Capacity 
grants. The third suggested that where there is no existing CBD (in 
rural or underserved areas), a new CBO should be able to align itself 
with an existing nonprofit that has two years of experience. Again, the 
Department believes the statute is clear: these are not eligible 
applicants.
    One commenter sought clarification that if the owner is not 
selling, residents can receive a Resident Capacity grant. Two 
commenters sought further clarification that resident capacity grants 
are separate from Predevelopment grants and can be awarded concurrently 
and to separate organizations. The Department has made both of these 
clarifications.
    One commenter felt the word ``community'' was vaguely defined in 
the NOFA, and that even if an organization has not been active 
throughout its entire region for some time, the organization should not 
be precluded from applying for a grant. The Department has repeated the 
statutory requirement in this case, and believes it is clear.
    One commenter requested that HOPE 2 grantees not be required to 
wait for notification of termination of HOPE 2 grant before applying 
for a technical assistance (resident capacity or predevelopment) grant 
because there might be HUD delays. Because an owner cannot file a 
Notice of Intent (NOI) until HOPE 2 is terminated, the criterion for 
previous HOPE selectees should be an owner's filing of a NOI. The 
Department has adopted this suggestion.
    One commenter requested that existing owner/sellers (including 
nonprofits) should not be able to apply for Resident Capacity grants. 
In general, this is the Department's requirement, with the exception of 
nonprofit general partners seeking to buy out their limited partners. 
Substantive objections from residents in the case of an application 
from a nonprofit general partner, however, will be considered by 
intermediaries.
    One commenter was concerned that grantees under the 1992 NOFA may 
not be eligible to apply for additional funds under this NOFA because 
they are not Community-Based Nonprofit Housing Developers. The 
Department considers the statute clear and finds no reason to change 
the statutory requirement or the NOFA. Community-Based Nonprofit 
Organizations funded under the previous NOFA are not necessarily 
eligible under this NOFA.
3. Eligible Activities
    Seven commenters sought clarification on eligible activities for 
Resident Capacity grants. Suggestions for additional eligible 
activities included: providing training on rights and opportunities 
under LIHPRHA; training on resident issues if an owner is not selling; 
hiring architect or other consultants to advise residents during the 
Preservation Capital Needs Assessment (PCNA)/appraisal process; hiring 
a tenant coordinator or a project manager; expense to cover phone and 
copying; and legal services to interpret preservation documentation. 
The Department has made these clarifications.
    Seven commenters sought clarification on eligible activities for 
Predevelopment grants. Suggestions for additional eligible activities 
included: obtaining a financial feasibility analysis; preparing a Plan 
of Action or Resident Homeownership Plan; preparing a Transfer of 
Physical Assets package; tenant and board training on ``development'' 
and the preservation process; legal expenses; and hiring a project 
manager. The Department has made these clarifications.
    Six commenters felt tenant-related expenses, such as child care, 
bus fare to meetings, and beverages at meetings, should be allowable. 
The Department has made this clarification. However these expenses are 
only allowable to the extent that they support residents in their 
ability to participate in resident meetings and in planning for the 
grant.
    Two commenters suggested that newly formed resident groups should 
be required to ensure a democratic process developed in conjunction 
with the National Alliance of HUD Tenants, that residents should have 
oversight authority over recipients, and that tenant input should be a 
criterion in receiving additional funds. The Department decided that a 
requirement to work with a specific national organization would be too 
burdensome on the grantees. The Department is clarifying that residents 
should be notified of the progress of the grant, but requiring resident 
oversight will be too burdensome on the grantee and the intermediaries.
    One commenter requested that HUD consider the administrative 
structure necessary for providing the grants, given that the nonprofit 
grantees may not end up being purchasers/sponsors. The Department 
considered this issue and believes the statutory intent is clear. The 
creation of an eligible Community-Based Nonprofit Organization (CBO) 
purchaser is a requirement of a Community-Based Nonprofit Housing 
Developer (CBD) seeking a grant to purchase a property under LIHPRHA. 
The Department will work with intermediaries to ensure that grant fund 
release is not delayed due to the creation of a new entity. Funds for 
activities subsequent to a purchase offer may be released to the new 
entity. However, that new entity is expected to continue working with 
the Community-Based Nonprofit Housing Developer through the term of the 
grant.
    A commenter suggested that the requirement that grantees be in 
conformance with appropriate program regulations and guidelines is too 
burdensome on grantees and, rather, should be a requirement of HUD or 
intermediaries as part of monitoring. The Department believes this 
requirement is not too burdensome. A grantee may use the grant to fund 
administrative activities in order to conform with the grant and the 
preservation programs.
    Three commenters felt HUD should spell out a clear priority to 
maximize grant funds to tenant-controlled coalitions. Two others 
requested a requirement that all grantees obtain tenant group approval, 
to ensure maximum tenant control over the eventual purchaser. While the 
Department has clarified that resident organizations have preference 
for Resident Capacity grants, the Department believes that the other 
priorities listed by the commenters are contrary to statutory intent.
4. Conflicts of Interest
    The Department received six comments on the proposed NOFA's 
conflict of interest requirements. One commenter believed that the 
requirements should be stronger. Another felt the requirement should 
involve disclosure rather than strict guidelines, so groups could 
continue to work with current consultants. Three commenters believed 
that the conflict of interest requirements should require grant 
recipients to certify that there is no violation of the Related Party 
rule, as defined in 24 CFR 248.101. Further, to prevent ``straw'' 
buyers, the Related Party Rule should: apply to entities other than 
individuals (e.g., corporations and partnerships); prohibit an identity 
of interest with a for-profit owner; not prohibit use of consultants 
and attorneys who are arms length; and require all related parties to 
make disclosures. One commenter felt the applicant should also disclose 
any intent to be involved in management, development, or provision of 
services for money, but that continued use of architects, management 
agents, development consultants, etc., should not be prohibited after 
acquisition. Another felt there should not be a blanket prohibition on 
a grantee contracting with owner consultants, as long as full 
disclosure is made and residents, through these disclosures, are able 
to have a say in personnel decisions. One commenter suggested a 
requirement that the applicant submit: Forms 2530 for the applicant and 
all board members; articles of incorporation; statements of officers 
and directors; financial statements for the last five years; and a 
listing of properties owned and operated in the last ten years. This 
commenter felt that conflicts with current management as well as the 
owner should be disclosed.
    The Department has decided to tighten the proposed NOFA's conflict 
of interest requirements. The required certification will state that 
there has been no conflict of interest relationship during the previous 
five years, and it will include a requirement that the applicant not 
seek any financial benefit from project ownership. The Department has 
further clarified that nonprofit general partners seeking to buy out 
their limited partners are exempt from this rule. In addition, the NOFA 
will require disclosure to tenants and to the intermediary to include 
any relationship with owners, management, or any other parties to the 
sale. The Department will also require certification by the applicant 
that it will not interfere with the tenants' right to organize.
5. Funding
    Six commenters requested that the Department allow funding for 
activities conducted prior to grant award. Two of these specifically 
made this suggestion to prevent lack of assistance where there are 
delays in funding that are not the fault of the grantee--suggesting 
funding of activities beginning at the earlier of award approval or 30 
days after application submission, which is the date by which funds 
should have been awarded. One suggestion was to allow funding for 
activities conducted prior to the grant award and after NOI submission 
because this would be consistent with other HUD programs--specifically 
the Department's Section 202 (12 U.S.C. 1701q) program. Under the 
Section 202 program, previous expenses must be fully documented and 
fall within application budget.
    The Department has decided to allow reimbursement of funds back to 
the time when the applicant became eligible for grant funds. For 
Resident Capacity grants this will be the time the owner files any 
Notice of Intent to Proceed. For Predevelopment grants this will be the 
time the owner has indicated an intent to sell the property. This 
decision was based in part on the increased resident notification 
period, which will inherently delay the time which grant funds are 
awarded and received by the recipient. While grantees may be reimbursed 
for eligible activities, they undertake these activities at their own 
risk. If a grant is not subsequently awarded, there will be no 
mechanism for compensating the applicant. To qualify for reimbursement, 
activities performed prior to the grant award must be eligible 
activities under the NOFA and must be clearly identified in the 
application submission package.
    One commenter requested that residents be informed when grant is 
awarded. The Department has adopted this requirement.
    The Department has rejected a suggestion that the grants be 
competitive with quarterly awards, rather than ongoing awards, in order 
to give residents more time to get applications and formally comment. 
The statute allows applications on a rolling basis, and requiring a 
grantee to wait several months for an award could hinder a resident-
supported purchase for the property.
    One commenter was concerned that $200,000 would not be enough to 
cover predevelopment costs for most projects. This funding limit is 
statutory, and the Department has no discretion to alter the limit.
    Four commenters sought clarification on what terminating the 
current grant program means. In order to ensure continuity of the 
program, they suggest that: awardees under the September 3, 1992, NOFA 
should be able to apply for new funds as soon as old funds are 
obligated; grantees should not be able to receive grants over the total 
of this NOFA; and, because it is an ongoing process, grantees should 
not be required to expend all funds awarded in the 1992 NOFA. In this 
NOFA the Department is allowing applications from grantees with active 
grants under the September 3, 1992, NOFA; however, as awards are made 
by the intermediary, the previous awards shall be terminated. It is 
impractical for grantees to report to both the HUD field office and the 
intermediary on ongoing grant status. The total grant award from both 
NOFAs must not be greater than the total allowed in this NOFA.
    There were ten comments on the Department's method for funding 
technical assistance grants on a State-by-State basis. One concern was 
that basing fund allocation solely on active Notices of Intent, plus 
active Plans of Action, will be skewed, because this does not directly 
correlate with preservation sales activity. The Department should not 
include cases where owners have not yet indicated an intention to sell; 
rather, funding for predevelopment grants should be tied to the number 
of NOIs to sell plus binding sales commitments. Another suggested that 
the same allocation formula should not be used for both Resident 
Capacity and Predevelopment grants. Several commented that the formula 
should remain flexible to reflect actual activity levels in States, and 
suggested a hold-back so that funds could be reallocated according to 
actual participation levels. Several others suggested a reallocation 
method between States. The Department seriously considered using only 
Notices of Intent to Sell as the criteria for a State breakdown of 
funding. The Department cannot use binding commitments as an indicator, 
because it will not have these in advance of the State-by-State 
allocation. However, experience from the September 3, 1992, NOFA shows 
that an owner's Initial Notice of Intent is only a partial indication 
of what an owner will actually do. Therefore, the Department will not 
change its method for allocation by State. The Department has also 
decided not to maintain a holdback, but will reallocate funds between 
intermediaries if levels of grant activity justify a reallocation.
    One commenter requested HUD to allocate unused funds from the 1992 
NOFA using the 90/10 formula in the statute, rather than giving all 
unused funds to technical assistance grants. The Department has decided 
to allocate unused funds using the 90/10 formula. Another commenter 
sought clarification of the exact amount of funds available from 1992 
NOFA and how these funds will be divided. Because the 1992 NOFA is 
active, and will be for several months, the Department cannot know 
exactly how much will be available once the 1992 NOFA is terminated.
6. Applicant Selection
    Several commenters felt that the application review should include 
review of the financial viability of the property and an analysis of 
the development team, rather than a simple review of the applicant 
itself. One commenter was concerned that resident support would 
override strong underwriting criteria. The Department has chosen not to 
amend this selection criteria, but will also instruct intermediaries 
reviewing Predevelopment grant applications to conduct a review on the 
feasibility of the purchase, including a review of the development 
team.
    One commenter requested that if any award is made by an 
intermediary or HUD, the procurement requirements of OMB Circular A-110 
should be deemed to have been met. This would permit continuity of 
service for consultants who were identified by grantees prior to the 
availability of Federal funds. The Department finds it unnecessary to 
address this in the NOFA. However, if the organization is currently 
meeting the OMB requirements, the Department anticipates that the 
organization will continue to do so under another grant.
    A commenter pointed out that the NOFA says grants are awarded 
within 30 days, and that this should be specified as 30 calendar days. 
Another commenter requested that the NOFA specify the appeals process 
to HUD. The Department has adopted both of these suggestions in this 
NOFA.
    Several commenters recommended requiring intermediaries to explain 
why an application was not funded or why items within an application 
were not funded. The Department has adopted this recommendation.
    One commenter suggested that applicant resident groups should be 
able to request the intermediary to provide expertise and assistance in 
grant activities. Because the Department does not wish to have 
intermediaries performing activities inconsistently across the country, 
it has not made this a requirement of intermediaries.
    Eleven comments were received regarding the NOFA's guidance on 
competing applications. One area of concern was the time by which 
another application could be received. Several commenters suggested 
allowing an applicant 30 days to gain support, others suggested 20 
days, another 14 days. Several commenters also suggested giving the 
intermediary additional review time should two applications be 
received. Several commenters felt the intermediary should attempt to 
resolve the situation or require that competing applicants meet and 
attempt to come to a resolution. Three commenters suggested that in the 
case of dual applicants, a clear priority should be for resident groups 
and resident councils over Community-Based Nonprofit Housing 
Developers.
    The Department has decided if a second application is received 
within 30 days of receipt of the first application, the intermediary 
will have an additional 20 days to complete the review of both. If the 
applications are for a Resident Capacity grant, the intermediary will 
give funding preference to a resident group or a Resident Council over 
another applicant. If there are competing Predevelopment grant 
applicants and both are otherwise acceptable, the intermediary will 
send back the applications and give applicants an opportunity to meet, 
explain differences to tenants, and come to a resolution/compromise. If 
no compromise is reached the intermediary would fund the applicant that 
it found most capable of performing grant and nonprofit sponsor 
activities. The fact that a nonprofit developer is receiving a 
Predevelopment grant would not preclude a separate resident group from 
getting a Resident Capacity grant.

B. Selection of Intermediaries

1. Fee Structure
    Twelve commenters were concerned that the proposed fee structure 
for intermediaries would not yield sufficient funds to cover the scope 
of services listed in the NOFA. The proposed NOFA contemplated a $5,000 
start-up fee, plus 2 percent of the grant awards for the State or 
States in which the intermediary administered grants. Suggestions 
ranged from 4 to 5 percent of the grant awards. One commenter suggested 
that the minimum start-up fee should be $15,000 so smaller States will 
participate. Several others suggested that the fee should vary 
according to the level of activities that the intermediary is 
performing.
    The Department considered seriously the appropriateness of the fee 
and awarding a different level of funding to intermediaries performing 
a higher level of activities. The Department has chosen a processing 
fee structure through which each intermediary will receive a $15,000 
start-up fee and five percent of each technical assistance grant it 
administers, which will be allocated as the grants are disbursed. Each 
intermediary will also receive a flat fee of $500 for each grant 
application rejected. If a selected intermediary receives no grant 
applications, it will receive only the start-up fee.
2. Intermediary Selection
    At least one commenter felt that the Department should give 
preference to local intermediaries, then State and regional 
intermediaries, over national intermediaries. The Department has 
decided to allow sub-State intermediaries in areas where there appears 
to be enough preservation activity to justify a sub-State intermediary. 
However, any sub-State intermediary must apply to administer grants in 
a geographic area covering at least one HUD area office. In most 
States, any economies of scale would be lost if there was more than one 
intermediary. In its review of intermediaries the Department will 
review and rate all local intermediaries before reviewing State and 
regional intermediaries. However, the Department will consider the 
capacity, experience, and point scores of all local, State and regional 
intermediaries before making final intermediary selection. National 
intermediaries will be chosen for those areas for which no other 
acceptable intermediary has applied.
    Concern from eleven commenters lead to suggestions that outside 
parties, particularly resident groups, should be able to comment on the 
applications and selections of intermediaries. Because the selection of 
intermediary grantees is competitive, the disclosure of grant 
applications would be in violation of section 12 of the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3537a), and, therefore, 
the Department cannot implement this suggestion.
    One commenter suggested that intermediaries be required to state in 
their proposals how they will deal with the problem of monitoring 
unincorporated entities to ensure that they act with proper fiscal 
standards. The same commenter agreed with the Department's preference 
for an intermediary handling both Resident Capacity and Predevelopment 
grants. As part of its overall evaluation of each intermediary's 
application, the Department will evaluate proposals to deal with the 
problem of monitoring fiscal standards.
    One commenter requested that Community Action Agencies, which have 
been the leader in services to the low-income community in all areas 
for more than 25 years, be eligible intermediaries. The Department is 
adhering to the statutory definition of intermediary, but to the extent 
such an agency has the capacity to become an eligible applicant under 
the guidelines, a Community Action Agency could apply.
    Several commenters suggested that intermediaries receive preference 
if they have a structured plan that maximizes resident participation in 
administrative policy issues. Another commenter requested that HUD 
require intermediaries to work with a tenant-based coalition, and if an 
intermediary cannot develop this support, HUD should administer the 
grants. The Department will not include this requirement because it 
would be too burdensome, particularly for national intermediaries. 
However, four commenters suggested giving preference to intermediaries 
with demonstrated resident/nonprofit accountability. The Department 
will give preference for such a demonstrated track record.
    One commenter recommended deleting language that requires 
intermediaries to have a record of service in ``multiple communities'' 
because the language is vague and confusing. The requirement is 
statutory and therefore the language remains unchanged. The Department 
does not agree that it is confusing. The Department considers ``a 
record of service * * * in multiple communities'' to mean the 
intermediary has worked with various types of organizations within 
varied communities. Preferably these communities would include a cross-
section of the geographic area for which the intermediary is applying 
to administer grants. The definition would exclude an intermediary that 
has worked solely in one community or neighborhood.
3. Intermediary Tasks
    Seven commenters requested more detail in the NOFA of the 
Department's expectations to guide intermediaries, particularly in 
their monitoring activities, with standards and timeframes. Several 
sought clarification of the legal responsibilities of the 
intermediaries, others felt intermediary activities should be expanded 
and negotiated with HUD to include underwriting, monitoring, servicing, 
site visits, and technical assistance provision. One commenter sought 
clarification of whether an intermediary will act as a delegated 
processor with final grant authority, or whether it will function under 
some other model. One commenter disagreed with negotiating the level of 
activities, arguing that HUD should require specific tasks of all 
intermediaries to get all essential tasks covered. The Department has 
seriously considered this issue and has provided a greater level of 
detail of its expectations of the intermediaries.
    The Department will not allow a variety of participation levels by 
intermediaries. However, if an intermediary seeks to perform a higher 
level of activities, such as technical assistance, it may apply to 
perform these activities under a separate HUD NOFA that will implement 
section 254 of LIHPRHA as added by section 312 of the Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1992. That NOFA is expected to be 
published soon.
    One commenter stated that intermediaries, in general, should not 
have say over who is selected as a priority purchaser, which 
consultants are hired, what are the contract terms, etc. While the 
Department's regulations regarding priority purchasers are separate 
from this NOFA, the intermediaries will have review authority over 
consultants hired and terms of contracts under the technical assistance 
grants.
    One commenter suggested that some technical assistance grantees may 
want closer oversight and assistance, and intermediaries should be 
required to provide to those grantees what is agreed upon in the grant. 
As discussed above, and in order to provide consistency nationwide, the 
grantees cannot request a higher level of service from the 
intermediaries.
4. Accountability
    Three commenters suggested that resident groups should be able to 
formally monitor intermediaries prior to their receipt of further 
funding, and to include standards that encourage intermediaries to have 
accountability to residents and nonprofits without micromanagement by 
the intermediary. One of these commenters suggested that intermediaries 
should show evidence of a commitment to tenant organizing; another 
suggested a stronger conflict of interest proviso and performance 
benchmarks for the intermediary. However, a fourth commenter believed 
oversight of intermediaries should not be by tenant groups or other 
prospective grantees; rather, HUD should provide this oversight. This 
commenter recommended a selection of intermediaries when the track 
record indicates absence of abuse. As part of its monitoring of 
intermediaries, the Department will accept comments from outside 
parties on intermediary performance after intermediary grants are in 
place and active. However, the Department does not find it appropriate 
to include, nor does it desire to delay intermediary funding by 
including, resident groups directly in the monitoring process.
5. Other Comments
    One commenter recommended that the benchmarks for Technical 
Assistance Grantees be made by the Department, rather than left up to 
the intermediary. The statute requires that HUD work with 
intermediaries to come up with the performance benchmarks for the 
Predevelopment Grant phases. The Department intends these benchmarks to 
be consistent across the country.
    One commenter requested clarification that intermediaries, at their 
own risk, may incur costs from the date they are selected, as opposed 
to the date of contract execution. The Department agrees with this 
request; however, no actual fees will be paid prior to the date of 
contract execution and the intermediary may not begin funding technical 
assistance grantees prior to such execution.

II. Purpose and Substantive Description

A. Authority and Background

    The funding made available under this NOFA is authorized by section 
312 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-
550, approved October 28, 1992) in order to provide assistance to 
resident groups and Community-Based Nonprofit Housing Developers (CBDs) 
involved in projects proceeding under the provisions of the Emergency 
Low-Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987 (Pub. L.100-242, section 
201 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, approved Feb. 
5, 1988) (ELIHPA) or the Low Income Housing Preservation and Resident 
Homeownership Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-625, section 601 of the National 
Affordable Housing Act (NAHA), approved November 28, 1990) (LIHPRHA).
    The origins of LIHPRHA are in ELIHPA. The purpose of ELIHPA was to 
preserve low-income affordability restrictions on certain HUD-insured 
or assisted multifamily projects. ELIHPA authorized the use of 
incentives to encourage owners to retain low-income affordability 
restrictions or to transfer the property to purchasers who would agree 
to retain those restrictions. The fundamental principles underlying 
ELIHPA were that the low-income housing should be preserved for the 
intended beneficiaries and that owners should be guaranteed a fair and 
reasonable return on their investments.
    ELIHPA was intended to be a temporary measure that would allow 
Congress time to fashion a permanent program for the preservation of 
existing low-income housing projects. This permanent program is 
LIHPRHA, which replaced ELIHPA except to the extent that section 604 of 
NAHA provides a transition option for certain owners. In addition, 
section 226 of LIHPRHA establishes the Resident Homeownership Program, 
under which tenants may become homeowners of eligible low income 
housing. The Department's regulations implementing these statutory 
provisions are set out in 24 CFR part 248. (Applicants should note that 
part 248, as codified in the April 1, 1993, revision of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) was amended subsequently in a rule published 
on July 13, 1993 (57 FR 3384). Most requirements under this NOFA were 
imposed by title III of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1992 and are included in the July 13, 1993, amendments to part 248.)

B. Request for Applications

    Eligible intermediaries are invited to apply to administer funds 
under the provisions of this NOFA (see Section V.A, ``Obtaining 
Intermediary Applications'' of this NOFA). The Department will announce 
the selected intermediaries and will publish the addresses of the 
intermediaries and the date on which applicants may apply to 
intermediaries for technical assistance grant funds. Selected 
intermediaries will also announce the availability of technical 
assistance grant funds as described in Section III of this NOFA.

C. Allocation and Funding

    The purpose of this NOFA is to make available $45 million in funds 
to and through intermediaries for eligible resident and community 
organizations. The dollar amounts will be made available on a State-by-
State basis for two types of grants: Resident Capacity grants and 
Predevelopment grants. The description of how funds will initially be 
divided by State is listed in Appendix B of this NOFA. The Department 
will rate local intermediaries, then State intermediaries, then 
regional intermediaries before making selections for each geographic 
area. Some States may be subdivided for purposes of the NOFA activities 
if there are a sufficient number of eligible low-income housing 
projects in the State to justify sub-State intermediaries. Local or 
sub-State intermediaries applying to perform grant administration 
activities must apply to perform activities covering at least the 
jurisdiction of one HUD area office. The Department will generally 
favor local or sub-State intermediaries over State intermediaries, and 
will favor State intermediaries over regional intermediaries.
    However, before making the final intermediary selections, the 
Department will assess the overall capacity and experience of 
intermediary applicants. If no intermediary applicant applies to 
administer grants in a particular State or area, the Department will 
select a national intermediary to perform those activities in that 
State or area. If no acceptable application is received from a national 
intermediary, the Department's field offices will administer the 
Resident Capacity and Predevelopment grants for all areas not covered 
by local, State, or regional intermediaries.
    The Preservation Technical Assistance Grant program that is 
currently being administered by the Department, in accordance with a 
NOFA published on September 3, 1992, at 57 FR 40570 (as amended at 57 
FR 56929 (December 1, 1992) and 58 FR 8766 (February 17, 1993)), will 
be terminated at intermediary selection. A portion of the unreserved 
funds from that earlier NOFA will be made available under this NOFA 
through the intermediaries. Grantees active under the September 3, 
1992, NOFA will continue under that grant program unless they apply for 
and receive funds under this NOFA.
    The two forms of technical assistance grants that will be made 
available through intermediaries are Resident Capacity grants and 
Predevelopment grants. These are described in Appendix A to this NOFA. 
Of the $45 million available from FY 1993 and 1994 appropriations, 
$13.5 million is available for Resident Capacity grants and $31.5 
million is available for Predevelopment grants. Of any additional funds 
made available under this program, 30 percent will be set aside for 
Resident Capacity grants and 70 percent for Predevelopment grants. The 
dollar amounts available to the individual resident and community 
organizations shall be limited to $30,000 for Resident Capacity grants 
and $200,000 for Predevelopment grants. The Predevelopment grants will 
be funded in at least two phases. The performance benchmarks for these 
phases will be negotiated between the Department and selected 
intermediaries prior to technical assistance application submission.

III. Intermediaries

A. Eligible Intermediaries

(1) General Definition
    An eligible intermediary applicant is a local, State, regional, or 
national nonprofit or quasi-public organization or a State or local 
housing agency that has as a central purpose of its organization the 
preservation of low-income housing and the prevention of displacement 
of low- and moderate-income residents. An eligible intermediary must 
not receive direct Federal appropriations for operating support. All 
intermediaries must have a record of service to low-income individuals 
or community-based nonprofit housing developers in multiple 
communities, and must meet the standards of fiscal responsibilities 
established in OMB Circulars A-110 and A-122 or, if a State or local 
agency, 24 CFR 85 and OMB Circular 87. In addition, intermediaries must 
have experience with the allocation or administration of grant or loan 
funds. (Copies of OMB circulars are available from E.O.P. Publications, 
room 2200, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, 
telephone (202) 395-7332. (This is not a toll-free number.) There is a 
limit of two free copies.)
(2) Intermediary Categories
    (a) A national nonprofit applicant must also have been in existence 
for at least five years and be classified as an exempt organization 
under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
    (b) A regional, State or local nonprofit applicant must also have 
been in existence for at least three years and either be classified as 
an exempt organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 or be recognized otherwise as a tax-exempt entity.
    (c) A State or local agency. This category includes public housing 
agencies and State housing finance agencies.

B. Fees

    Each selected intermediary will receive processing fees. The fees 
will include a start-up fee of $15,000 and an additional fee of five 
percent of each technical assistance grant the intermediary 
administers, which will be allocated as the grants are disbursed. These 
fees are based on the intermediary performing the following activities: 
Announcing the availability of grant funds; producing and distributing 
application kits; accepting, reviewing and approving and/or rejecting 
grant applications; executing grant agreements; disbursing grant funds; 
monitoring the grantees' activities under the grant award; monitoring 
compliance with the grant agreement through the term of the grant; and 
maintaining documentation of grant activities for the Department's 
monitoring of the intermediary.
    Intermediaries will be legally responsible to the Department for 
approving eligible applicants, activities, and budgets, and shall 
maintain all correspondence with and documentation regarding the 
technical assistance grantees for not less than five years. All 
intermediaries will receive the start-up fee when the intermediary 
contract is executed. Intermediaries will draw down five percent of 
each technical assistance grant award at the time those awards are 
disbursed, not to exceed five percent of the total funds available to 
the jurisdiction. If an intermediary reviews and rejects a technical 
assistance application, it will receive an administrative fee of $500. 
If an intermediary receives no technical assistance grant applications, 
it will receive only its start-up fee. On occasion, the Department will 
review grant activity to determine if reallocation of funds between 
geographic regions is necessary.

C. Eligible Tasks

    Intermediaries may apply for one or both parts of the intermediary 
tasks described in this NOFA. The two distinct tasks are:
     Administering Resident Capacity grants; and
     Administering predevelopment grants. Through its 
application, an intermediary must describe the specific jurisdiction in 
which it proposes to perform such tasks.
    There will be no duplication of geographic coverage for any 
administrative task. In States where there is sufficient preservation 
activity to justify sub-State intermediaries, State or regional 
intermediaries may apply to perform activities in areas that include 
the jurisdiction of one or more HUD field offices. In no case will a 
field office jurisdiction be subdivided for purposes of intermediary 
selection for grant administration. To assure maximum geographic 
coverage by intermediaries, HUD may negotiate geographic coverage with 
intermediaries as part of intermediary selection.
    Specific tasks for all intermediaries will include the following:
     Advertising fund availability for the jurisdiction 
overseen.
     Producing and distributing grant application kits. (A 
sample kit will be provided by the Department.)
     Accepting grant applications.
     Reviewing and approving or rejecting grant applications.
     Executing grant agreements. (A draft grant agreement will 
be provided by the Department.)
     Vouchering for funds through the Department.
     Disbursing grant funds.
     Monitoring activities under the grant, including 
compliance under the grant agreement, throughout the term of the grant.
     Reporting to the Department at least quarterly on the 
status of applications, grant awards, grantee activities, and funds 
expended.
     Maintaining grant documentation for HUD monitoring and 
audits.

D. Ineligible Intermediary Activities

    Intermediaries may not receive payment, directly or indirectly, 
from the proceeds of grants they have approved. In addition, 
intermediaries may not provide other services to grant recipients with 
respect to the specific properties for which the grant has been 
awarded.

E. Selection Criteria

1. Threshold
    Intermediaries must meet minimum criteria described in Section 
III.A, ``Eligible Intermediaries,'' of this NOFA. If in its review the 
Department determines that the applicant does not meet the threshold 
criteria, the application will be rejected. If the application does 
meet the threshold criteria, then the Department will select 
intermediaries through a rating and ranking competition described in 
Section III.E(2) of this NOFA.
2. Preferences and Factors for Award
    The intermediary applications will be rated and ranked on a point 
system, with the maximum point score of 100. The Department will first 
rate and rank any local or sub-State intermediary applications, then 
all State intermediary applications, and then regional applications. In 
general, the Department will give preference to local intermediaries, 
as discussed in Section II.C, ``Allocation and Funding'', of this NOFA; 
however, capacity, experience, and overall points for these 
intermediaries will be considered before selection. The Department may 
establish a threshold score on capacity and experience that local 
applicants must meet in order to qualify for funding.
    After selecting local, State, and regional intermediaries, the 
Department will rate and rank all national intermediary applications to 
select an intermediary in States or regions for which no other eligible 
intermediary, acceptable to the Secretary, has submitted a proposal to 
participate. If no such national intermediary applies to perform NOFA 
activities, the Department, through its field offices, will administer 
technical assistance grant funds for all areas without an acceptable 
intermediary. The Department will consider joint venture applications 
as long as one eligible intermediary is identified in the application 
as the primary applicant. The rating points will be allocated based on 
the categories below:
    (a) Preservation Experience. (30 points) The Secretary shall give 
rating points to applications from eligible intermediaries based on 
expertise or experience with ELIHPA and LIHPRHA. Maximum points will be 
given to applicants with significant demonstrated expertise or 
experience with ELIHPA or LIHPRHA.
    (b) Range of Activities. (10 points) These points will be given to 
organizations applying to administer both the Resident Capacity grants 
and the Predevelopment grants, rather than applying to administer just 
one of those grant programs.
    (c) Direct Experience. (30 points) Rating points will be given to 
intermediaries based on their direct experience in performing the tasks 
for which they have applied. This would include administration of 
grants to resident organizations, administration of grants to nonprofit 
organizations and State or local agencies, and monitoring of nonprofit 
grantees. The Department will not assign preference to intermediaries 
with experience in administering Federal grants, but may exclude 
applicants that have failed to perform under prior contracts of a 
similar nature.
    (d) Organizational Capacity. (30 points) Each applicant will be 
rated on its organizational capacity to implement its plan to 
administer grants. Each applicant should submit evidence that its 
organization can implement the proposed activities in an efficient 
manner, based on demonstrated organizational capacity and staff 
expertise.

IV. Responsibilities of Intermediaries

A. General

    Intermediaries will be responsible for performing the tasks listed 
in Section III.C, ``Eligible Tasks,'' of this NOFA. The technical 
assistance grant program that the intermediaries will be administering 
is described in detail in Appendix A to this NOFA.

B. Timeframes

    Once funding availability is advertised by the intermediary for its 
jurisdiction, technical assistance applications will be submitted to 
the intermediaries on an ongoing basis. If the applications are 
acceptable, grants must be awarded no later than 30 calendar days after 
a complete application is received by the intermediary. If the 
application is found to be substantially complete (i.e., there are no 
missing exhibits), but technically deficient (i.e., an exhibit does not 
adequately meet the application requirements), the intermediary shall 
send the applicant a deficiency letter and allow 14 days for 
resubmission of deficient exhibits. The intermediary will have an 
additional 30 days to review and approve an application, following 
receipt of application revisions. If the application is not 
substantially complete, it will be rejected.

C. Technical Assistance Grant Selection Criteria

1. Resident Capacity Grants
    All Resident Capacity applicants will receive an application kit, 
which will be produced and distributed by the intermediary. A sample 
application kit will be provided to the intermediaries from the 
Department. Applications will be accepted on an ongoing basis, and all 
acceptable applications will be approved unless there are no funds 
available for Resident Capacity grants. Intermediaries must review and 
approve or reject applications for Resident Capacity grants based on 
the following threshold criteria:
    (a) The applicant meets the eligible applicant criteria listed in 
paragraph A of Appendix A to this NOFA.
    (b) The applicant is applying for funds for eligible activities 
listed in paragraph D(1) of Appendix A to this NOFA.
    (c) The applicant has notified the residents of its application in 
accordance with paragraph B of Appendix A to this NOFA.
    (d) The plan for promoting the ability of residents to participate 
meaningfully in the preservation process is reasonable and feasible.
    (e) The budget submitted with the application reflects reasonable 
costs directly associated with the grant activities.
    (f) The estimate of time necessary to achieve completion of 
activities and delivery of products is reasonable and realistic and 
within the time frames set forth in the applicable program regulation.
2. Predevelopment Grants
    All Predevelopment grant applicants will receive an application kit 
that will have been produced and distributed by the intermediary. A 
sample application kit will be provided to the intermediaries from the 
Department. Applications will be accepted on an ongoing basis, and all 
acceptable applications will be approved unless there are no funds 
available for Predevelopment grants. Intermediaries must review and 
approve or reject applications for Predevelopment grants based on the 
following threshold criteria:
    (a) The applicant meets the eligible applicant criteria listed in 
paragraph A of Appendix A to this NOFA;
    (b) The applicant is applying for eligible activities listed in 
paragraph D(2) of Appendix A to this NOFA;
    (c) The applicant has notified the residents of its application in 
accordance with paragraph B of Appendix A to this NOFA;
    (d) The plan for promoting and achieving a resident supported 
purchase of the property must be reasonable and feasible and in 
conformance with the appropriate program regulations and guidelines. 
This will include an evaluation of the experience and capacity of the 
applicant's development team;
    (e) The budget submitted with the application reflects reasonable 
costs directly associated with the grant activities that would result 
in the development of a feasible purchase; and
    (f) The estimate of time necessary to achieve completion of 
activities and delivery of products is reasonable and realistic and 
within the time frames set forth in the applicable program regulation.
3. Competing Grant Applications
    If a second technical assistance application is received within 30 
days of receipt of the first application for any property, and if that 
application is for the same grant category, the intermediary shall have 
an additional 20 days to review both applications. The total review 
time for any grant cannot exceed 50 days. If the competing applications 
are for Resident Capacity grants, resident groups and Resident Councils 
shall have priority over other applicants. If the competing 
applications are for Predevelopment grants, and both are found 
technically acceptable, the Intermediary will return the applications 
with instructions that the applicants meet together and with the 
residents to reach a resolution for a final application. If no 
compromise is reached, the intermediary will approve the applicant that 
the intermediary finds most capable of performing grant and nonprofit 
sponsor activities. In addition, in the case of any application, if 
there is an indication that a majority of the residents oppose the 
applicant's selection, that application shall be denied.
4. Decision Not To Fund
    In any denial of award letter, the intermediary shall be required 
to explain the reasons for its determination. In addition, if the 
intermediary makes a determination that results in a reduction of 
proposed grant funds, that determination shall also be explained in 
writing.
5. Appeals
    If an application for either a Resident Capacity grant or a 
Predevelopment grant is denied, the applicant will have the right to 
appeal that denial to the Department. The appeal must be made within 45 
days of application rejection to: Multifamily Preservation Division, 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, NW., room 
6284, Washington DC, 20410. The Department will make a binding 
determination within 45 days of the appeal.
6. Award Notification
    If an applicant is awarded and accepts a Resident Capacity or 
Predevelopment grant, the applicant must inform the residents of the 
property about the award, by posting a notice or through a resident 
meeting or both, within three weeks of the applicant's acceptance of 
the award.

V. Intermediary Application Process

A. Obtaining Intermediary Applications

    Intermediary application kits are available from the Multifamily 
Preservation Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
room 6284, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 
708-2300; and the Multifamily Housing Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 6424, 
Rockville, MD 20850, telephone 1-800-955-2232.

B. Submitting Applications

    Applications will be submitted to the Multifamily Preservation 
Division Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, 
SW., room 6284, Washington, DC 20410. Applications must be received no 
later than June 6, 1994. No facsimiled (FAXed) applications will be 
accepted. Any application received after 5:00 p.m., E.D.T., on the due 
date will not be accepted for processing and will be returned to the 
applicant. Any corrections to deficient applications made in accordance 
with Section V.E of this NOFA may be transmitted by facsimile; however, 
the original subsequently must be submitted by mail.

C. Submission Requirements

    An intermediary must provide the following:
    (1) A completed application, including the following, as 
applicable:
    (a) OMB Standard Form 424;
    (b) Identification of proposed geographic area in which it will 
perform intermediary activities;
    (c) Information about how the applicant meets the Factors for Award 
listed in Section III.E(2) of this NOFA;
    (d) Information about the applicant, including its history, its 
staff and their qualifications, and its experience;
    (e) Summary of plan to advertise grant availability, distribute 
applications, review applications, disburse funds, and monitor 
activities under the grant;
    (f) Evidence of tax exempt status, if applicable;
    (g) Certification that the intermediary will not receive payment, 
directly or indirectly, from the proceeds of the grants it has 
approved;
    (h) Certification that assistance provided under this NOFA will not 
be used to supplant or duplicate other resources for the proposed 
activities. For purposes of this paragraph, ``other resources'' means 
resources provided from any source other than under this NOFA;
    (i) Other disclosures, certifications, and assurances (including 
Drug-Free Workplace and Anti-Lobbying certifications), as required 
under the law and this NOFA; and
    (j) Other information and materials as may be described in the 
application kit.

D. Intermediary Selection Process

    The selection process for intermediaries consists of a threshold 
screening to determine whether the application meets the technical 
requirements for application submission contained in this NOFA and the 
application kit. If the application meets the technical requirements, 
it will be reviewed and ranked by the Preservation Division in HUD 
Headquarters according to the selection criteria in Section III.E of 
this NOFA. Within 60 days from the application deadline, the 
Preservation Division will notify an intermediary of its selection or 
rejection. Selected intermediaries will be required to sign a grant 
agreement. If no intermediary is selected for a particular State, the 
HUD field offices will administer the grants directly.

E. Corrections to Deficient Applications

    If an application submitted by an intermediary is found to be 
deficient in a nonsubstantive manner, the Department will inform the 
applicant of such deficiency within 15 days after the application 
deadline and the applicant will have seven days to submit revisions to 
its application. Nonsubstantive deficiencies are those that are not 
integral to the application's review, such as a certification. If an 
application is substantively deficient at the time of application 
deadline, the application will be rejected.

F. Application Selection Timeframe

    The Department will complete its review and selection process 
within 60 days of the deadline date for intermediaries. Once 
intermediaries are selected and agreements are executed, intermediaries 
will have 30 days to make grant funds available to eligible technical 
assistance applicants. Grants from technical assistance applicants will 
be accepted on a rolling basis by the intermediaries administering such 
grants.

G. Intermediary Information

    The Department will publish in the Federal Register the list of 
selected Intermediaries within 30 days of the date that the 
Department's intermediary selection process is completed. That 
publication will include information for potential technical assistance 
applicants on how to obtain application kits and will list contact 
names at the Intermediary organizations selected to administer the 
grants.

VI. Other Matters

Environmental Impact

    In accordance with 40 CFR 1508.4 of the regulations of the Council 
on Environmental Quality and 24 CFR 50.20(b) of the HUD regulations, 
the policies and procedures contained in this notice relate only to 
technical assistance and, therefore, are categorically excluded from 
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.

Federalism Impact

    The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under section 6(a) 
of Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has determined that the policies 
contained in this notice will not have substantial direct effects on 
States or their political subdivisions, or the relationship between the 
federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. As a result, 
the notice is not subject to review under the Order. Specifically, the 
funds available under this NOFA will be used to select intermediaries 
that will administer technical assistance grants to eligible 
recipients. The grants to eligible recipients will be for technical 
assistance activities related to the preservation of low-income 
housing.

Family Executive Order

    The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under Executive 
order 12606, The Family, has determined that this notice does not have 
potential for significant impact on family formation, maintenance, and 
general well-being, and, thus, is not subject to review under the 
Order. No significant change in existing HUD policies or programs will 
result from promulgation of this notice, as those policies and programs 
relate to family concerns.

Section 102 of the HUD Reform Act: Documentation and Public Access 
Requirements; Applicant/Recipient Disclosures

Documentation and Public Access Requirements
    HUD will ensure that documentation and other information regarding 
each application submitted pursuant to this NOFA are sufficient to 
indicate the basis upon which assistance was provided or denied. This 
material, including any letters of support, will be made available for 
public inspection for a five-year period beginning not less than 30 
days after the award of the assistance. Material will be made available 
in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and 
HUD's implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 15. In addition, HUD will 
include the recipients of assistance pursuant to this NOFA in its 
quarterly Federal Register notice of all recipients of HUD assistance 
awarded on a competitive basis. (See 24 CFR 12.14(a) and 12.16(b) for 
further information on these documentation and public access 
requirements.)
Disclosures
    HUD will make available to the public for five years all applicant 
disclosure reports (HUD Form 2880) submitted in connection with this 
NOFA. Update reports (also Form 2880) will be made available along with 
the applicant disclosure reports, but in no case for a period generally 
less than three years. All reports--both applicant disclosures and 
updates--will be made available in accordance with the Freedom of 
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and HUD's implementing regulations at 24 
CFR part 15. (See 24 CFR part 12, subpart C, for further information on 
these disclosure requirements.)

Section 103  HUD Reform Act

    HUD's regulation (24 CFR part 4) implementing section 103 of the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (42 
U.S.C. 3537a) (Reform Act) applies to the funding competition announced 
today. The requirements of the rule continue to apply until the 
announcement of selection of successful applicants.
    Both HUD and intermediary employees involved in the review of 
applications and in the making of funding decisions are limited by 24 
CFR part 4 from providing advance information to any person (other than 
an authorized employee of HUD) concerning funding decisions, or from 
otherwise giving any applicant an unfair competitive advantage. Persons 
who apply for assistance in this competition should confine their 
inquiries to the subject areas permitted under 24 CFR part 4.
    Applicants who have questions should contact the HUD Office of 
Ethics (202) 708-3815 (voice/TDD). (This is not a toll-free number.) 
The Office of Ethics can provide information of a general nature, as 
well. However, a HUD employee who has specific program questions, such 
as whether particular subject matter can be discussed with persons 
outside the Department, should contact his or her Regional or Field 
Office Counsel, or Headquarters counsel for the program to which the 
question pertains.

Section 112 of the Reform Act

    Section 112 of the HUD Reform Act added a new section 13 to the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3537b). 
Section 13 contains two provisions dealing with efforts to influence 
HUD's decisions with respect to financial assistance. The first imposes 
disclosure requirements on those who are typically involved in these 
efforts--those who pay others to influence the award of assistance or 
the taking of a management action by the Department and those who are 
paid to provide the influence. The second restricts the payment of fees 
to those who are paid to influence the award of HUD assistance, if the 
fees are tied to the number of housing units received or are based on 
the amount of assistance received, or if they are contingent upon the 
receipt of assistance.
    Section 13 was implemented by regulations codified in part 86. If 
readers are involved in any efforts to influence the Department in 
these ways, they are urged to read the regulations, particularly the 
examples contained in Appendix A of part 86.
    Any questions about the rule should be directed to the Office of 
Ethics, room 2158, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-3000. Telephone: (202) 708-
3815 (voice/TDD). (This is not a toll-free number.) Forms necessary for 
compliance with the rule may be obtained from the local HUD office.

Prohibition Against Lobbying Activities

    The use of funds awarded under this NOFA is subject to the 
disclosure requirements and prohibitions of section 319 of the 
Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 
Fiscal Year 1990 (31 U.S.C. 1352) (the ``Byrd Amendment'') and the 
implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 87. These authorities prohibit 
recipients of Federal contracts, grants, or loans from using 
appropriated funds for lobbying the Executive or Legislative branches 
of the Federal Government in connection with a specific contract, 
grant, or loan. The prohibition also covers the awarding of contracts, 
grants, cooperative agreements, or loans unless the recipient has made 
an acceptable certification regarding lobbying. Under 24 CFR part 87, 
applicants, recipients, and subrecipients of assistance exceeding 
$100,000 must certify that no Federal funds have been or will be spent 
on lobbying activities in connection with the assistance.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    Dated: March 29, 1994.
Jeanne K. Engel,
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing 
Commissioner.

Appendix A: Technical Assistance Applications

A. Eligible Applicants

    (1) General Definition. An eligible applicant must notify 
residents of all occupied units that it is applying for a grant. 
That notification shall meet the specifications of paragraph B 
below. An eligible applicant is one of the entities described in the 
following paragraphs (a) through (c) that complies with the 
applicable criteria:
    (a) Resident Group. Resident Groups are eligible for Resident 
Capacity grants only. For an applicant to be considered a resident 
group, the following must be submitted:
    (i) Evidence that the greater of 5% of the occupied units or 10 
units of the subject property have heads of households that are 
members;
    (ii) A copy of a notice announcing an organizational meeting to 
discuss resident participation in decisions affecting the project;
    (iii) A copy of the agenda of the organizational meeting 
referred to in item (ii) of this paragraph; and
    (iv) A list of attendees of the organizational meeting referred 
to in item (ii) of this paragraph.
    (b) Resident Council. (RC) For an applicant to be considered an 
RC, it must meet the definition of ``resident council'' as set out 
in Sec. 248.101. Specifically, an RC is any incorporated nonprofit 
organization or association in which membership is available to all 
the tenants, and only the tenants, of a particular project and:
    (i) Is representative of the residents of the project;
    (ii) Adopts written procedures providing for the election of 
officers on a regular basis; and
    (iii) Has a democratically elected governing board, elected by 
the residents of the project.
    (c) Community-Based Nonprofit Housing Developer. (CBD) For an 
applicant to be considered a CBD it must submit evidence that it:
    (i) Is classified as tax exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
    (ii) Has been in existence for at least two years, and has at 
least two years of housing and community development experience, 
prior to the date of grant application;
    (iii) Has a record of service to low- and moderate-income people 
in the community in which the project is located;
    (iv) Is organized at the neighborhood, city, county or a multi-
county level;
    (v) In the case of an organization seeking to acquire eligible 
housing under LIHPRHA, agrees to form a purchasing entity that 
conforms to the definition of a community-based nonprofit 
organization (CBO) in Sec. 248.101;
    (vi) Agrees to use its best efforts to secure majority tenant 
consent to the acquisition of the project for which grant assistance 
is requested. Evidence of ``best efforts'' shall include a plan in 
the application which details method for securing such support. In 
addition, continued evidence of ``best efforts,'' such as additional 
resident meetings and notices, is required as a grantee moves 
towards a purchase.
    (2) Resident Capacity Grant Applicants. Applicants for Resident 
Capacity grants must meet the eligibility criteria listed in 
paragraph A of this Appendix. In addition, these grants may be made 
only with respect to eligible low-income housing, as defined in 
Sec. 248.101, for which the owner has filed a Notice of Intent under 
ELIHPA, an Initial Notice of Intent under LIHPRHA, or a Notice of 
Election to Proceed under section 604 of NAHA and is proceeding 
under the LIHPRHA appraisal process.
    (3) Predevelopment Grant Applicants. Predevelopment grant 
applicants must be RCs or CBDs meeting the criteria listed in 
paragraph A of this Appendix. These grants may be made only to 
organizations seeking to purchase the property with a majority of 
resident support for the purchase. These grants may be made only 
with respect to eligible low-income housing projects for which: (i) 
the owner has filed an initial or second Notice of Intent to 
transfer the housing to a qualified purchaser under LIHPRHA, or has 
filed any Notice of Intent under LIHPRHA or ELIHPA and the owner has 
entered into a binding agreement to sell the housing to the 
applicant organization, or (ii) the owner has filed a Notice of 
Election to Proceed under section 604 of NAHA and is proceeding 
under the LIHPRHA appraisal process and has entered into a binding 
agreement to sell the housing to the applicant organization. This 
binding agreement shall not necessarily be a formal sales contract; 
rather, it may state that the owner will neither work with nor 
accept a purchase offer from any other entity during the term of the 
grant, as long as the grantee is progressing towards a purchase 
offer, plan of action or resident homeownership plan, and 
acquisition in a reasonable period of time.
    (4) Conflict of Interest. Each applicant must certify that its 
organization is not a ``Related Party'', as set forth in 24 CFR 
248.101, and that no individual that has, or has had within the last 
five years, a personal or professional relationship with the owner 
entity will receive financial benefit from the grant funds. This 
certification shall prohibit using mutual consultants, attorneys, 
etc. It shall not explicitly prohibit using architects or engineers 
that have worked with the owner or in the property in the past, as 
long as there is no ongoing professional relationship with the owner 
that could be perceived as a conflict of interest. A nonprofit 
general partner of an eligible property that is attempting to buy 
out its limited distribution partners is exempt from this part of 
the conflict of interest requirement. A certification shall also 
require disclosure, to the intermediary and the tenants of any 
relationship with ownership, management, or any other parties to a 
sale, and will state that the applicant will not seek any financial 
benefit from project ownership or operations other than those 
disclosed.

B. Resident Notification

    Each applicant will be required to notify residents of the 
property of its application prior to submitting the application 
package to the intermediary. That notification shall be in writing, 
be distributed to each resident of the property, and include a 
summary of the applicant's plan for the property. The notification 
shall also include a statement that residents can themselves become 
eligible applicants under the Preservation Technical Assistance 
grant program. In addition, the applicant must meet with the 
residents of the property at least two weeks prior to application 
submission, and give the residents at least two weeks notification 
of such meeting. In the meeting the applicant must provide the 
following information to the residents:
     A summary of the grant proposal;
     A list of members of the board of directors, if known;
     A list of the proposed development team and management 
company, if known;
     A list of all proposed consultants and attorneys;
     Disclosure of any relationship with ownership, 
management, or any other parties related to the owner or, if 
applicable, related to the sale; and
     Information on how the residents may comment to the 
intermediary on the applicant's proposal and that residents shall 
have 14 days to submit comments to the applicant and to the 
intermediary on the proposal. This information shall include a name 
and contact number for the intermediary and a name and phone number 
for a contact person in the applicant organization.
    If the applicant is unable to make this notification due to lack 
of access to the property or lack of resident addresses, the 
applicant may contact the intermediary for assistance. The 
intermediary may contact the owner to request access or resident 
addresses for the applicant. If the owner is uncooperative, the 
intermediary may contact the HUD field office for assistance. If 
residents make substantive comments to the intermediary, the 
applicant will be required to address these comments prior to any 
grant award from the intermediary.

C. Ineligible Technical Assistance Applicants

    (1) Entities that have applications pending for funds under the 
HOPE 2 program are not eligible to apply for funding under this NOFA 
(because the owner would have already elected to proceed under the 
distinct requirements applicable to HOPE 2 grants and is precluded 
from concurrently filing the prerequisite Notice of Intent under 
LIHPRHA or ELIHPA). An entity that is receiving HOPE 2 funding for 
preservation-eligible property is ineligible to apply under this 
NOFA for a grant for that property until the HOPE 2 grant has been 
terminated due to HUD's acceptance of the owner's filing of a Notice 
of Intent under ELIHPA or LIHPRHA.
    (2) Entities that have been awarded grants under the 
Preservation NOFA (entitled ``Technical Assistance Planning Grants 
for Resident Groups, Community Groups, and Community-Based Nonprofit 
Organizations and Resident Councils'') issued September 3, 1992 (57 
FR 40570), may not receive funds under this NOFA for any properties 
for which those grants were funded either until all funds awarded to 
the grantee under the 1992 NOFA have been expended, or until the 
grant under the September 3, 1992, NOFA has been terminated as a 
result of a new grant approval under this NOFA. The total funds 
received from the September 3, 1992, NOFA plus the total grant award 
for this NOFA may not exceed the funding limits of this NOFA. A 
grantee under the September 3, 1992, NOFA is eligible for funds 
under this NOFA only if it also meets the eligibility criteria of 
this NOFA and meets the notification requirements of Paragraph B 
above.

D. Eligible Technical Assistance Grant Activities

    (1) Resident Capacity Grants. Resident Capacity grants may be 
used to cover expenses for the following activities:
     Resident outreach and coordination;
     Legal services to incorporate the resident organization 
or RC, establish a board of directors, write by-laws, or establish 
nonprofit status;
     Accounting services for budgeting, planning, and 
creation of accounting systems that are in compliance with OMB 
Circular A-110 or A-122;
     Conducting resident meetings and democratic elections;
     Training residents and developing resident leadership; 
and
     Hiring an architect or engineer to advise the residents 
during the Preservation Capital Needs Assessment and or the 
appraisal stage of the Preservation process.
     Other technical assistance related to developing the 
capacity of the residents of the organization to meaningfully 
participate in decisions related to the project.
    (2) Predevelopment Grants. Predevelopment grants may be used to 
cover consultant costs, and grantee staff and overhead costs related 
to the following activities:
     Legal services to organize a purchasing entity;
     Accounting services for budgeting, planning, and 
creation of accounting systems that are in compliance with OMB 
Circular A-110 or A-122;
     Preparing bona fide offers including contracts and 
other documents to purchase the property;
     Training residents, resident council staff and board 
members on the Preservation process and in skills related to the 
operation and management of the project;
     Developing and negotiating management contracts, 
related contract monitoring, and management procedures;
     Engineering studies, such as site, water, and soil 
analysis, mechanical inspections; and estimations of the cost of 
rehabilitation and of meeting local building and zoning codes, in 
anticipation of purchasing a property, as necessary to supplement 
the capital needs assessment developed by HUD (see the Final 
Guidelines for Determining Appraisals of Preservation Value Under 
LIHPRHA, 57 FR 1970 (May 8, 1992));
     Securing financing and preparation of mortgage 
documents, transfer documents, and other documentation incident to 
closing a purchase offer;
     Preparing feasibility analyses, market studies and 
management plans;
     If applicable, creating a Community-Based Nonprofit 
Organization that conforms to the definition of such organization 
under 24 CFR Sec. 248.101;
     Preparing a Plan of Action, Resident Homeownership 
Plan, and related documents, such as a Transfer of Physical Assets 
in accordance with 24 CFR Secs. 248.213, 135, and 173; and
     Other activities related to promoting the ability of 
eligible applicants to acquire, rehabilitate and competently own and 
manage eligible housing.

E. Ineligible Grant Activities

    Examples of activities that are not eligible to be funded for 
technical assistance grantees include:
     Earnest money deposits as part of a purchase offer made 
under 24 CFR 248.157, 248.161, 248.173, and 248.175;
     Purchase of land or buildings or any improvements to 
land or buildings;
     Activities not directly related to the eligible 
activities listed in paragraph D of this Appendix A;
     Entertainment, including associated costs such as food 
and beverages, except that refreshments served at resident meetings 
shall be allowable to the extent they facilitate resident 
participation in planning for the grant;
     Payments of fees for lobbying services;
     Activities funded from other sources;
     Activities completed prior to the time an applicant 
becomes eligible for a grant; and
     Activities performed by the administering intermediary.

Appendix B: Activity Level and State Allocation

    The allocation of funds by State will be determined according to 
the level of activity in that State as of the closing date for 
intermediaries to submit applications to become intermediaries. If 
additional grant funds are made available, the State allocations 
will be revised according to the activity levels at the time the new 
funding is made available. The total funding under this NOFA has 
been divided by the number of active Notices of Intent submitted by 
owners for properties in the State. Regional and national 
intermediaries may utilize funds for their entire geographical areas 
on a first come first serve basis, rather than maintaining the State 
allocations in funding grants. Sub-State intermediaries will be 
considered in the States of California, Texas, and Washington. The 
following is a breakdown of dollar amounts by state based on 
activity level by State as of November 30, 1993. This will be 
updated prior to actual release of funds based on activity levels at 
the time of intermediary selection, but provides a good estimate of 
expected funds available by State. In addition, the Department will 
periodically assess activity levels and, if necessary, reallocate 
funds among intermediaries.

Resident Capacity Grants

Alabama: $131,250
Alaska: $37,500
Arizona: $150,000
Arkansas: $150,000
California: $3,693,750
Colorado: $75,000
Connecticut: $187,500
Delaware: $0
District of Columbia: $37,500
Florida: $168,750
Georgia: $93,750
Hawaii: $131,250
Idaho: $243,750
Illinois: $243,750
Indiana: $375,000
Iowa: $243,750
Kansas: $18,750
Kentucky: $112,500
Louisiana: $168,750
Maine: $18,750
Maryland: $281,250
Massachusetts: $750,000
Michigan: $262,500
Minnesota: $375,000
Mississippi: $187,500
Missouri: $168,750
Montana: $93,750
Nebraska: $187,500
Nevada: $0
New Hampshire: $18,750
New Jersey: $225,000
New Mexico: $18,750
New York: $225,000
North Carolina: $150,000
North Dakota: $56,250
Ohio: $131,250
Oklahoma: $0
Oregon: $581,250
Pennsylvania: $262,500
Puerto Rico: $75,000
Rhode Island: $300,000
South Carolina: $93,750
South Dakota: $75,000
Tennessee: $187,500
Texas: $543,750
Utah: $56,250
Vermont: $18,750
Virginia: $206,250
Virgin Islands: $0
Washington: $1,143,750
West Virginia: $0
Wisconsin: $543,750
Wyoming: $0

Predevelopment Grants

Alabama: $306,250
Alaska: $87,500
Arizona: $350,000
Arkansas: $350,000
California: $8,618,750
Colorado: $175,000
Connecticut: $437,500
Delaware: $0
District of Columbia: $87,500
Florida: $393,750
Georgia: $218,750
Hawaii: $306,250
Idaho: $568,750
Illinois: $568,750
Indiana: $875,000
Iowa: $568,750
Kansas: $43,750
Kentucky: $262,500
Louisiana: $363,750
Maine: $43,750
Maryland: $656,250
Massachusetts: $1,750,000
Michigan: $612,500
Minnesota: $875,000
Mississippi: $437,500
Missouri: $393,750
Montana: $218,750
Nebraska: $437,500
Nevada: $0
New Hampshire: $43,750
New Jersey: $525,000
New Mexico: $43,750
New York: $525,000
North Carolina: $350,000
North Dakota: $131,250
Ohio: $306,250
Oklahoma: $0
Oregon: $1,356,250
Pennsylvania: $612,500
Puerto Rico: $175,000
Rhode Island: $700,000
South Carolina: $218,750
South Dakota: $175,000
Tennessee: $437,500
Texas: $1,268,750
Utah: $131,250
Vermont: $43,750
Virginia: $481,250
Virgin Islands: $0
Washington: $2,668,750
West Virginia: $0
Wisconsin: $1,268,750
Wyoming: $0

[FR Doc. 94-8065 Filed 4-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-27-P