General Management -- Issue Paper

1.  **Issue Statement: Resident Issues --** How can residents be better
    informed about asset management?

> How can residents help move towards asset management?

2.  **Background:**

> (24 CFR, Subpart H) 990.260 (a). PHAs that own and operate 250 or more
> dwelling rental units under title I of the 1937 Housing Act, including
> units managed by a third-party entity (for example, a resident
> management corporation) but excluding section 8 units, are required to
> operate using an asset management model consistent with this subpart.

3.  **Proposal(s):**

    a.  **Proposal 1:** Reach out to residents through resident
        conferences

    b.  **Proposal 2:** Provide AM Training material on website

    c.  **Proposal 3:** Dedicate a monthly edition of AM newsletter to
        residents

    d.  **Proposal 4:** Promote Asset Management help desk 1(800)
        511-8478

4.  **Outcome/Results: a.** To expand HUD's outreach efforts to inform
    and educate residents on asset management.

> **b.** Better understanding by residents of the impact of asset
> management.

5.  **Program Cost/Savings:** Minimal cost to HUD

6.  **Regulatory/Statutory Reference:** None needed.

7.  **Stakeholder Impact:** Residents

8.  **Other Factors for Consideration:** N/A

General Management -- Issue Paper

1.  **Issue Statement: HUD should provide A/C in Public Housing**

2.  **Background:**

> (24 CFR, Part 965, Subpart D) 965.401- 407: Individual metering of
> utilities for existing PHA-owned projects.
>
> (24 CFR, Part 965, Subpart E) 965.501-508: Resident allowances for
> utilities

3.  **Proposal(s):**

    a.  **Proposal 1:** Include A/C as eligible expense without
        increasing subsidy

> eligibility

b.  **Proposal 2:** Utility allowance includes A/C -- resident pays
    surcharge for

> excess

c.  **Proposal 3:** HUD pays for higher utility allowance to include A/C

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  **Outcome/Results:** a. Improve quality of life for residents

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
b.  Reduce maintenance due to mold and mildew

c.  Increases asset value of the property, improves marketing potential

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
5.  **Program Cost/Savings:** a. Estimate cost of A/C is \$600 million
    annually

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
b.  Some PHAs include A/C in subsidy eligibility related to:

    1.  A/C in buildings that lack resident option to use A/C

    2.  PHAs that invoke 965.508 -- Emergency

c.  Increase cost of A/C can be offset by reduced utility costs from
    implementation of energy conservation measures. PHAs retain savings
    to pay for A/C.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
6.  **Regulatory/Statutory Reference:** 24 CFR, Subpart B, 965.505.

7.  **Stakeholder Impact:** PHA and Residents

8.  **Other Factors for Consideration:** HUD pays for A/C in Section 8
    Voucher Program

General Management -- Issue Paper

> **1. Issue Statement: Lead Base Paint --** Once PHA has been
> determined to have proper
>
> certification, do not require re-evaluation

2.  **Background:**

> (24 CFR, Part 902, Subpart B) 902.23: Physical condition standards for
> public housing-decent, safe, and sanitary housing in good repair
> (DSS/GR).
>
> 902.23(C) *Health and safety concerns:* All areas and components of
> the housing must be free of health and safety hazards. These areas
> include, but are not limited to, ... lead-based paint. The housing
> must comply with all regulations and requirements related to the
> evaluation and reduction of lead-based paint hazards and have
> available proper certifications or such (see 24 CFR part 35).
>
> (24 CFR, Part 965, Subpart H) 965.701: The requirements of the
> Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 4821-4846), the
> Residential Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
> 4851-4856), and implementing regulations at part 35, subparts A, B, L,
> and R of this title apply to this program.
>
> (24 CFR, Part 965, Subpart B) 965.215: Lead-based paint liability
> insurance coverage.

3.  **Proposal(s):**

    a.  **Proposal 1:** Do not require re-evaluation once it has been
        determined that the PHA has proper certification

4.  **Outcome/Results:** Reduces administrative workload on the PHA

5.  **Program Cost/Savings:** Reduces administrative workload on the PHA

6.  **Regulatory/Statutory Reference:** 24 CFR, Subpart H, 965.701

7.  **Stakeholder Impact:** PHAs and residents

8.  **Other Factors for Consideration:** N/A

> General Management -- Issue Paper
>
> **1. Issue Statement:** Procurement of Insurance -- Procurement
> regulation requires 3 bids for contracts under \$100K. In small
> towns/rural areas difficult to get three bids.

2.  **Background:**

> (24 CFR, Subpart B) 965.201: Required Insurance Coverage
>
> \(a\) Contractual requirements for insurance coverage
>
> \(b\) Method of selecting insurance coverage

3.  **Proposal(s):**

    a.  **Proposal 1:** This issued is address under 24 CFR 85.36 (d)
        (4), therefore, no proposal is being suggested.

4.  **Outcome/Results:** Reduces administrative expense to PHAs

5.  **Program Cost/Savings:** Reduces administrative expense to PHAs;
    savings may vary

6.  **Regulatory/Statutory Reference:** 24CFR85.36; procurement
    handbook.

7.  **Stakeholder Impact:** PHA

8.  **Other Factors for Consideration:** N/A

General Management -- Issue Paper

> **1. Issue Statement:** Annual Inspections -- Requirement for PHAs to
> inspect 100% of their units is unnecessary, time consuming and
> expensive to PHA
>
> **2. Background:** (24 CFR, Part 902) Public Housing Assessment System
>
> **Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS)** -- measures the physical
> condition of HUD properties through an inspection process
>
> **3. Proposal:** To eliminate requirement to have 100% of occupied
> unit inspections as part of MASS.
>
> **4. Outcome/Results:** As part of any major reform efforts HUD would
> consider removing requirement.
>
> **5. Program Cost/Savings:** N/A
>
> **6. Regulatory/Statutory Reference:** U.S. Housing Act 1937- Section
> 6(G).
>
> **7. Stakeholder Impact:** PHA
>
> **8. Other Factors for Consideration:** N/A

General Management -- Issue Paper

> **1. Issue Statement: Energy Performance Contracting --** Don't
> prorate add-ons. Add-on should be funded at 100%.

2.  **Background:** (24 CFR, Subpart C, 965.308) Energy performance
    contracts.

3.  **Proposal(s):**

> **Proposal 1:** Once approved by HUD**, a**dd-on incentives for energy
> performance contracts should be funded at 100% for the life of the
> contract should be funded at 100%.

4.  **Outcome/Results:** Greater cost savings to PHAs

5.  **Program Cost/Savings:** Cannot be determined

6.  **Regulatory/Statutory Reference:** HUD is subject to appropriation.
    HUD prorates available funds to PHAs based upon subsidy eligibility.

7.  **Stakeholder Impact:** PHAs, residents

8.  **Other Factors for Consideration:** N/A

General Management -- Issue Paper

> **1. Issue Statement:** Energy Audit -- Reduce the number of audits,
> study, reviews by eliminating energy audits.

2.  **Background:** 24 CFR, Subpart C, 965.302: Requirements for energy
    audits.

3.  **Proposal(s):**

    a.  **Proposal 1:** Combine energy audits with physical need
        assessment every 5 years as part of capital fund requirement.

4.  **Outcome/Results:** a. Improve the value of the PNA and energy
    audit when coordinated in one assessment.

> b\. Provides coordinated approach to capital planning

5.  **Program Cost/Savings:** Provides savings due to coordinated
    approach; greater value.

6.  **Regulatory/Statutory Reference:** Capital Fund regulation - 24
    CFR, Part 905

7.  **Stakeholder Impact:** PHA

8.  **Other Factors for Consideration:** N/A

General Management -- Issue Paper

> **1. Issue Statement: Administrative Cost --** Raise threshold amount
> to \$100,000 for HUD determined wages

2.  **Background:** 24 CFR, Subpart A, 965.101

3.  **Proposal(s):**

    a.  **Proposal 1:** a. HUD will consider as part of any revisions to
        the 24 CFR 965

> regulations

4.  **Outcome/Results:** Reduced administrative cost especially to small
    PHAs

5.  **Program Cost/Savings:** not determined

6.  **Regulatory/Statutory Reference:** U.S. Housing Act of 1937,
    Section 12(a) Labor Standards.

7.  **Stakeholder Impact:** PHAs

8.  **Other Factors for Consideration:** N/A

General Management -- Issue Paper

1.  **Issue Statement: [Energy Performance Contracting]{.underline}**

2.  **Background: (24 CFR, Subpart C, 965.308 (b)) HUD Review**

3.  **Proposal(s):**

    a.  **Proposal 1: Create HUD regional centers for approval of
        contracts**

    b.  **Proposal 2: Field office education/training and certification
        on correct procedures ad process**

4.  **Outcome/Results:** Shorten the time process from the issuance of
    RFP to actual work starting on an EPC contract.

5.  **Program Cost/Savings:** Cost of training, which should be taking
    place anyway for through monitoring of Energy Contracts

6.  **Regulatory/Statutory Reference:**

7.  **Stakeholder Impact:** PHA

8.  **Other Factors for Consideration:** Would benefit in making EPC an
    easier process in the initial stages for HA's. HA's also need a
    better understanding from field office the benefits that might be
    achieved from Energy Performance Contracting.

General Management -- Issue Paper

> **1. Issue Statement: [Energy Performance Contracting]{.underline}**

2.  **Background: (24 CFR, Subpart C, 965.308**

3.  **Proposal(s):**

    a.  **Proposal 1:** **Incentives for aggregation for small
        authorities**

4.  **Outcome/Results:** More participation from small authorities

5.  **Program Cost/Savings:** Dollars currently being spent from capital
    funds and subsidy for energy upgrades will be available for other
    capital improvements and energy efficient measures funded from
    savings of contract.

6.  **Regulatory/Statutory Reference:**

7.  **Stakeholder Impact:** PHA, residents

8.  **Other Factors for Consideration:** Most ESCO's are not interested
    in HA's with less than 300 units which means smaller authorities
    need to self-manage. In turn smaller authorities use capital funds
    and operating subsidy on energy conservation measures as they can.

General Management -- Issue Paper

1.  **Issue Statement: [Procurement]{.underline}**

2.  **Background:** 24 CFR 85.36 (D) (1) Micro-purchase \$2,000

3.  **Proposal(s):**

    a.  **Proposal 1: Raise micro-purchase cap to \$25,000 or applicable
        state law threshold**

4.  **Outcome/Results:** Major time saving and lessening of the
    administrative burden to PHA. If procurement officials are not
    spending so much time on the minor purchases, they can better plan
    and execute major purchases and thus add value.

5.  **Program Cost/Savings:** NA

6.  **Regulatory/Statutory Reference:** The HUD Procurement Handbook.

7.  **Stakeholder Impact:**

The PHA is impacted by quicker purchase turnaround time and less
bureaucratichoops to jump through.

The taxpayer benefits because less administrative time is spent on
bureaucratic functions. With the requirement for sealed bids being
\$100,000, having a requirement to get written quotes at \$2,000 is very
cumbersome. Governments typically set their requirement for written
quotations at 25% or even 50% of the threshold at which sealed bids are
required. That eases the administrative burden on the employees. The
\$2,000 threshold is but 2% of the \$100,000 threshold.

8.  **Other Factors for Consideration:**

General Management -- Issue Paper

1.  **Issue Statement: [Administrative Cost - Wages]{.underline}**

2.  **Background:**

The Department of Labor's Prevailing Wage policies require the
application of Davis-Bacon policies to any construction type contract
over \$2,000. At one time, several generations ago, \$2,000 was a large
labor contract and the rules were written to ensure that laborers were
paid fair wages. However the \$2,000 limit has not been adjusted for
inflation. It is now an irrelevant and archaic threshold.

3.  **Proposal(s):**

    a.  **Proposal 1** Raise the limit at which Prevailing Wage policies
        are applicable to \$100,000.

4.  **Outcome/Results:**

> Major time saving and lessening of the administrative burden to the
> PHA and to the contractors. Again this frees staff up to concentrate
> on tasks with higher value.

5.  **Program Cost/Savings:**

There will probably not be a direct cost impact. However administrative
costs would be drastically reduced. Enforcing the same Davis Bacon rules
on a \$5,000 job like it is a \$5,000,000 job is really time consuming
and accomplishes little.

Costs might decrease as:

a\. More bidders may participate in the process and;

b\. Less overhead cost for bidders if Davis Bacon does not apply until
the \$100,000 threshold.

There are bidders that will not participate in bids because of this
requirement and raising the threshold will help PHA's get those bidders
to participate.

6.  **Regulatory/Statutory Reference:** What regs/statues/handbooks
    governance would need to been changed to implement your proposal

Department of Labor regulations concerning Prevailing Wages.

7.  **Stakeholder Impact:** (Who is impacted +/- by your proposal - PHA,
    Resident, Industry, HUD, Taxpayer)

PHA's would be freed of very burdensome regulations and reporting
requirements on relatively minor jobs. PHA's may also have a broader
pool of bidders if they do not have to supply all of the reports.

Bidders would be freed from much arcane paperwork that adds no value to
the process. Bidders might lower prices since they are less tied up with
paperwork.

Taxpayers will benefit by freeing up contractor and staff time for more
value added tasks.

8.  **Other Factors for Consideration:**