[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 148 (Monday, August 3, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41384-41385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20786]



[[Page 41383]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Department of Housing and Urban Development





_______________________________________________________________________



Notice of Application Kit Clarification Concerning HOPE VI 
Revitalization

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 1998 / 
Notices  

[[Page 41384]]



DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4340-N-03]


Notice of Application Kit Clarification Concerning HOPE VI 
Revitalization

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian 
Housing, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On March 31, 1998, HUD published a Super Notice of Funding 
Availability (SuperNOFA) for Housing and Community Development Programs 
(63 FR 15489). This SuperNOFA contained a component for Revitalization 
of Severely Distressed Public Housing (HOPE VI Revitalization NOFA) at 
63 FR 15577. In order to help public housing agencies (PHAs) in 
preparing their applications for HOPE VI Revitalization funds, HUD also 
made available an Application Kit. The purpose of this Notice is to 
advise applicants of a discrepancy between the HOPE VI Revitalization 
NOFA and the Application Kit and to allow them to clarify their 
applications with respect to this discrepancy.

CLARIFICATION DUE DATE: Clarifications to the HOPE VI application must 
be received at HUD Headquarters on or before 12:00 Noon Eastern time on 
August 17, 1998.

ADDRESSES AND CLARIFICATION SUBMISSION PROCEDURES: Addresses: 
Clarifications must be submitted to: Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Room 4138, Washington, D.C. 20410.
    Submission Procedures: Applicants are advised that all 
clarifications must be received by HUD by the date and time specified 
in this Notice. No information provided after that date and time will 
be considered in review of the application. Applicants may send 
clarifying information by facsimile (fax) to (202) 401-2370. Applicants 
should contact the Office of Urban Revitalization at the telephone 
number given below to verify the receipt of any information sent by 
fax. Because of the importance of timely submission of clarifying 
information, applicants are advised to submit such information at the 
earliest time possible to avoid the risks brought about by 
unanticipated delays or delivery-related problems.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information you may call 
Mr. Milan Ozdinec, Office of Urban Revitalization, Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 4142, 
Washington D.C. 20410; telephone (202) 401-8812 (this is not a toll 
free number.) Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access 
this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 
1-800-877-8399.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Notice informs the public about a 
discrepancy between the HOPE VI Revitalization NOFA and the Application 
Kit with respect to the requirement that an application that proposes 
new construction of replacement public housing must comply with the 
requirements of section 6(h) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937.
    Section 6(h) provides that the Secretary may enter into a contract 
involving new construction only if the PHA demonstrates to the 
satisfaction of the Secretary that the cost of new construction in the 
neighborhood where the housing is needed is less than the cost of 
acquisition or acquisition and rehabilitation in such neighborhood. 
Section III.A.(4) of the HOPE VI Revitalization NOFA provided that an 
applicant could satisfy the section 6(h) requirement by ``submitting 
the information described in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section:
    ``(a) A PHA comparison of the costs of new construction (in the 
neighborhood where the PHA proposes to construct the housing) and the 
costs of acquisition of existing housing or acquisition and 
rehabilitation in the same neighborhood (including estimated costs of 
lead-based paint testing and abatement), or
    ``(b) A PHA certification, accompanied by supporting documentation, 
that there is insufficient existing housing in the neighborhood to 
develop housing through acquisition of existing housing or acquisition 
and rehabilitation.''
    In an effort to help applicants address this section 6(h) 
requirement, the Application Kit provided instructions that may have 
confused applicants with respect to satisfaction of the NOFA 
requirement. Section D.8 of the Application Kit instructed the 
applicants to ``include a narrative that contains information described 
in paragraphs a or b below. If the application involves new 
construction, provide evidence of compliance with section 6(h) of the 
1937 Act in one of the following two ways:
    ``a. Compare the cost of construction in the neighborhood where the 
applicant proposes to construct housing and the cost of acquisition and 
rehabilitation in the same neighborhood.
    ``b. State that there is insufficient existing housing in the 
neighborhood to develop public housing through acquisition and/or 
acquisition and rehabilitation where such cost would be lest (sic) than 
new construction. Describe how you came to that conclusion.''
    In the event of discrepancies between the NOFA and the Application 
Kit, or between the NOFA and any other supplemental information issued 
by HUD, the language of the NOFA supersedes and prevails over any 
inconsistency in the Application Kit. However, HUD believes that the 
differences between the text in the HOPE VI Revitalization NOFA and the 
text in the Application Kit with respect to the 6(h) requirement caused 
confusion in a couple of different ways. First, with respect to the 
cost comparison method in (a), the Application Kit does not describe 
with the precision of the NOFA the cost comparison that HUD was 
seeking. Some of the detail in the NOFA description is not contained in 
the Application Kit. For instance, the NOFA cites the costs of lead-
based paint testing and abatement in connection with acquisition and 
rehabilitation and the Application Kit fails to do so. In addition, the 
Application Kit in paragraph (b) discusses the cost of rehabilitation 
and new construction, thus confusing the differences between method (a) 
and method (b). This discrepancy between the NOFA and Application Kit 
language created ambiguities in a number of applications which need to 
be clarified.
    With respect to method (b), the NOFA required a PHA certification, 
accompanied by supporting documentation, that there is insufficient 
existing housing in the neighborhood to develop housing through 
acquisition of existing housing or acquisition and rehabilitation. The 
Application Kit fails to use the words ``accompanied by supporting 
documentation''. The Application Kit merely requests that applicants 
state that there is insufficient existing housing and describe how the 
applicant came to that conclusion. We think that this discrepancy 
between the NOFA and the Application Kit caused confusion among 
applicants as to what the applicant had to submit in order to support 
the applicant's contention that there is insufficient existing housing 
in the neighborhood.
    In addition, the Application Kit introduced into method (b) a cost 
factor that is totally lacking in the NOFA. This further confused 
applicants as to the kind of information that was needed to support the 
applicant's contention that there is insufficient existing housing in 
the neighborhood for acquisition or acquisition and rehabilitation. 
And, as

[[Page 41385]]

indicated above, by introducing a cost element into method (b) the 
Application Kit confused the distinction between the two methods. Under 
method (b) in the NOFA, the application only had to provide supporting 
documentation that there was an insufficient supply of existing housing 
in the neighborhood to acquire for replacement public housing. The cost 
of acquiring or acquiring and rehabilitating the insufficient supply of 
existing housing is irrelevant to the determination to be made under 
method (b).
    For these reasons, the Department has determined that the 
discrepancy between the HOPE VI Revitalization NOFA and the Application 
Kit has caused a need for some applications to be clarified. Therefore, 
HUD has determined, in order to provide fundamental fairness to all 
applicants, that a number of HOPE VI applicants should be requested to 
clarify their applications with respect to the section 6(h) 
requirement. In addition to the publication of this Notice, HUD will be 
contacting these applicants by telephone to advise them that their 
applications need clarification with respect to the satisfaction of the 
section 6(h) requirement. In accordance with section III of the HOPE VI 
Revitalization NOFA and this Notice, HUD will advise the applicants 
that the applicant must submit either a comparison of costs in 
accordance with section III.(A)(4)(a) of the HOPE VI Revitalization 
NOFA, or supporting documentation with respect to the certification 
that there is insufficient existing housing in the neighborhood in 
accordance with section III.(A)(4)(b) of the HOPE VI Revitalization 
NOFA.

    Dated: July 30, 1998.
Deborah Vincent,
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
[FR Doc. 98-20786 Filed 7-30-98; 3:14 pm]
BILLING CODE 4210-33-P