**U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development**

**Office of Housing**

**Special Attention of:** **NOTICE** H 00-11 (HUD)

Multifamily Hub Directors;

Program Center Supervisors; Issued: 5/31/2000

Supervisory Project Managers Expired: 5/31/2001

Cross References: Handbook 4571.2 (811)

Handbook 457l.3 REV-1 (202)

**Subject:** Fiscal Year 2000 Policy for Capital Advance Authority
Assignments, Instructions and Program Requirements for the Section 202
and Section 811 Capital Advance Programs, Application Processing and
Selection Instructions, and Processing Schedule.

**1. [PURPOSE]{.underline}. This Notice transmits for Fiscal Year
2000:**

A. Changes to Application/Selection Process

B. Application Processing Schedule

C. Allocations for Section 202 (ATT.1)

D. Allocations for Section 811 (ATT.2)

E. Section 811 Workshop Instructions (ATT.3)

F. Section 202 Funding Notification (ATT.4)

G. Section 811 Funding Notification (ATT.5)

H. Applications Processing and Selections Policy (ATT.6) I.
Congressional Notification Memorandum Formats (ATT.7) J. Section 202
Minority Business Enterprise Goals (ATT.8)

K. Section 811 Minority Business Enterprise Goals (ATT.9)

L. Initial Screening for Curable Deficiencies (ATT.10)

M. Technical Review Sheets (ATT.11)

N. Section 202 Standard Rating Criteria Form (ATT.12)

O. Section 811 Standard Rating Criteria Form (ATT.13)

P. Draft Letter to Appropriate State or Local Agency with

Enclosures (ATT.14)

R.  List of Statewide Independent Living Councils and Local

Centers for Independent Living (ATT.15)

This Notice should be used in conjunction with the Final Rule (Part
891), the Super Notice of Funding Availability (SuperNOFA) published in
the [Federal Register]{.underline} on February 24, 2000, and Handbook
4571.3 REV-1 - Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly or
Handbook 4571.2 - Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with
Disabilities, as appropriate.

**NOTE:** In addition to following the requirements in the

Section 202 and/or Section 811 program section of the SuperNOFA, it is
essential to pay particular attention to the General Section of the
SuperNOFA which includes important information regarding the application
submission procedures which have changed since Fiscal Year 1999 and
additional application requirements that are applicable to all programs
contained in the SuperNOFA including the standard forms that must be
submitted with the application.

**2. [CHANGES TO THE FY 2000 SECTION 202 AND SECTION 811
PROGRAMS]{.underline}:**

**A. [Initial Screening for Curable Deficiencies]{.underline}.** As in
FY 1999, the list of exhibits or portions of exhibits that are
considered curable deficiencies have been included in the FY 2000
Section 202 and Section 811 program sections of the SuperNOFA (see
paragraph V(A) of the Section 202 or Section 811 program section of the
SuperNOFA, as appropriate). Three exhibits have been added to just the
Section 202 program NOFA list of curable deficiency exhibits, Exhibits
4(d)(ii)(Evidence site is free of limitations, restrictions or
reverters), 4(d)(iii)(Evidence of permissive zoning), and 4(d)(vi)(Phase
I). Also, the requirement for the site control document (Exhibit
4(d)(i)) to have been executed prior to the application deadline date
has been deleted for FY 2000.

HUD Offices will complete an initial screening for curable deficiencies
(using the Initial Screening Checklist in Attachment 10) of all
applications received by the application deadline date (see Paragraph
4A(5) below). Curable deficiencies include those items in the
application that are required but do not have an impact on the rating of
the application (e.g., missing certifications). Applicants will no
longer be afforded the opportunity to submit missing exhibits or parts
of exhibits that have an impact on the rating of the application (e.g.,
a failure to include a description of local government support for the
project in the Sponsor\'s description of its purpose, community ties and
experience). Applicants will be given 14 calendar days from the date of
HUD notification to correct any curable deficiencies. At the end of the
14-day curable deficiency period, all applications received in
accordance with the application submission requirements will be placed
into technical processing.

B. **[Technical Rejections]{.underline}.** At the conclusion of
technical processing, the HUD Office will send out technical

reject letters to Sponsors of applications in which curable deficiencies
were not corrected during the curable deficiency period, incurable
deficiencies were discovered during initial screening, and/or technical
deficiencies were identified during technical processing. The technical
reject letter will indicate all of the reasons for rejection of the
application and provide the Sponsor 14 calendar days from the date of
the letter to appeal the rejection. HUD must respond to the Sponsor
within five (5) working days of receipt of the appeal.

> **NOTE:** If the rejection is due to the nonsubmission of
>
> the following exhibits because of the failure of a third party to
> provide information under the control of the third party but outside
> the control of the Sponsor (i.e., a contractual arrangement with a
> third party) and the Sponsor was not notified of the deficiency during
> the curable deficiency period, the Sponsor must be afforded the
> opportunity to cure the deficiency during the 14 calendar day appeal
> period. The exhibits are:

1.  Exhibit 4(d)(iii) - Evidence of permissive zoning. (Applies to
    Section 202 only.)

    \(2\) Exhibit 7(g) - Form-HUD 2991, Certification of Consistency
    with the Consolidated Plan. (Applies to Section 202 and Section
    811.)

> \(3\) Exhibit 7(l) - Supportive Services Certification. (Applies to
> Section 811 only.)

The Sponsor must submit the deficient exhibit and documentation showing
that the information had been requested from the third party at least 45
days prior to the application deadline date in order to cure the
deficiency.

C.  **[Site Control]{.underline}.** The specific forms of site control

> acceptable to the Department have been clarified (see paragraph
> VI(B)(4)(d) of the Section 202 or Section 811 program section of the
> SuperNOFA, as applicable). One of the clarifications that Sponsors
> must pay particular attention to is the site option which must remain
> in effect for six months from May 18, 2000, the date on which the
> applications are due, and must state a firm price binding on the
> seller. The only condition on which the option may be terminated is if
> the Sponsor is not awarded a fund reservation. The option must be
> renewable at the end of the six months option period.

**NOTE:** If the contract of sale or the option agreement contains
provisions that allow a Sponsor not to purchase the property for reasons
such as environmental problems, failure of the site to pass inspection,
or the appraisal is less than the purchase price, then such provisions
are not objectionable and a Sponsor is allowed to terminate the contract
of sale or the option agreement.

Sponsors must also provide evidence (a title policy or other acceptable
evidence) that the site is free from any limitations, restrictions, or
reverters which could adversely affect the use of the site for the
proposed project for the 40-year capital advance period (e.g., reversion
to seller if title is transferred).

If the title evidence contains restrictions or covenants, the Sponsor
must submit copies of such covenants or restrictions with the
applications. However, if not submitted, this is a curable deficiency
for Section 202 applications only. If the site is subject to any such
limitations, restrictions, or reverters: 1) for Section 202, the
application will be rejected; or 2) for Section 811, the site will be
rejected, the application will not receive points for site control, for
Site Approvability from Valuation or for Site Suitability from FHEO, and
the application will be processed as \"site identified\" as long as the
Sponsor indicated its willingness to seek an alternate site.

**NOTE:** Purchase money mortgages that will be satisfied from capital
advance funds are not considered to be limitations or restrictions that
would adversely affect the use of the site.

**D.** **[Suitability of the Site from the Standpoint of Promoting a
Greater Choice of Housing Opportunities for Minority Elderly
Persons/Families and Persons with Disabilities, Including
Minorities]{.underline}.** In accordance with the Secretary\'s December
16, 1996, memorandum that requires NOFAs to include a selection factor
addressing affirmatively furthering fair housing, the application
submission requires a narrative description of how the Sponsor will use
the site to affirmatively further fair housing opportunities for
minority elderly persons/ families and persons with disabilities,
including minorities.

To determine the acceptability of the site and to rate the application,
FHEO will review the narrative submitted by the Sponsor (see Rating
Factor 3(b), paragraph V(D) and Application Submission Requirements,
paragraph VI(B)(4)(d)(iv)(or paragraph VI(B)(4)(d)(x) for Section 811
site identified applications) of the Section 202 or Section 811 program
section of the SuperNOFA, as appropriate.) The site will be deemed
acceptable if it increases housing choice and opportunity by (1)
expanding housing opportunities in non-minority neighborhoods (if
located in such a neighborhood); or by (2) contributing to the
revitalization of and reinvestment in minority neighborhoods, including
improvement of the level, quality and affordability of services
furnished to the minority elderly and persons with disabilities. FHEO is
providing more detailed instructions on the rating of Section 202 and
Section 811 applications in a Memorandum to be sent to FHEO field staff.

For FY 2000, the term "minority neighborhood (area of minority
concentration)" has been defined as one where any one of the following
statistical conditions exists: (1) the percentage of persons of a
particular racial or ethnic minority is at least 20 points higher than
the minority's or combination of minorities' percentage in the housing
market as a whole; or,

\(2\) the neighborhood's total percentage of minority persons is at
least 20 points higher than the total percentage of minorities for the
housing market as a whole; or, (3) in the case of a metropolitan area,
the neighborhood's total percentage of minority persons exceeds 50
percent of its population. The term "nonminority area" is defined as one
in which the minority population is lower than 10 percent.

**E.** **[Bonus Points for Location of Site]{.underline}.** An
application containing satisfactory evidence of control of an approvable
site which is located in a high performing Federally designated
Empowerment Zone (EZ) or Enterprise Community (EC), Urban Enhanced
Enterprise Community (EEC) or Strategic Planning Community and serves
the residents of these federally designated references (collectively
referred to as "ECs/EZs"), will be awarded two (2) bonus points. To be
eligible to receive the two bonus points, the Sponsors must certify (see
Exhibit 7(j) of the application) that the proposed project(s): (1) is
consistent with the strategic plan of the EZ/EC; (2) will be located in
a Federally designated EZ/EC; and (3) will serve residents of the EZ/EC;
and. CPD must determine that the area is in an EC/EZ (see CPD\'s
Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum in Attachment 11 of
this Notice). For a scattered site application with site control, all
sites must be located in an EZ/EC area, be approvable and have
acceptable evidence of site control to receive the two (2) bonus points.
If the Certification requirements are met and HUD determines that the
site is in an EZ/EC, then the application will receive the two bonus
points.

A list of the Federally designated EZs/ECs is attached to the General
Section of the SuperNOFA, is available from the SuperNOFA Information
Center, and is available through the Internet at the following address:
http://www.hud.gov. Local HUD Offices should also provide information
about the local community agency for applicants to contact to determine
if their proposed projects will be located in one of the Federally
designated areas identified above.

**F. [Evidence of Need/Demand]{.underline}.** Where EMAS finds there is
not sufficient sustainable demand for additional units of the number and
type of units proposed, without long-term adverse impact on the
occupancy in existing Federally assisted housing for the elderly or
persons with disabilities, a detailed report of EMAS's findings must be
prepared. The report must present the data and findings justifying the
conclusion. A copy of the report must be attached to the Technical
Processing Review and Findings Memorandum, and one copy is to be sent to
the Headquarters Economic and Market Analysis Division, Office of Policy
Development and Research, Room 8224.

The maximum number of points to be awarded for need is 12. **Under
Section 202,** the 12 points are to be awarded as follows:

**12 points**: if the number of units proposed is 10 percent or less of
the unmet need, **OR**

if the number of units proposed is greater than 10 percent but no more
than 15 percent of unmet need AND the market area has not received any
Federally funded project based rental assistance for the elderly since
1990 (HUD or RHS programs.

**6 points**: if the number of units proposed is 11 percent or more of
the income eligible unmet need and the market area has received
Federally funded project based rental assistance (HUD or RHS) for the
elderly between 1990 and 1999; **OR**

if the number of units proposed is 16 percent or more of the income
eligible unmet need.

**Under Section 811**, the application is to receive 12 points if a
determination has been made that there is a need for additional
supportive housing for persons with disabilities in the area to be
served. If not, the application is to be awarded 0 points and will be
technically rejected. Awarding of points between 0 and 12 is not
permitted.

> **G. [Section 811 - Exceptions to Project Size Limits]{.underline}.**
>
> Sponsors may no longer use "economic feasibility of the
>
> project" as a justification for requesting an exception
>
> to the project size limits. Instead, they must justify
>
> that the increased number of units/people is warranted
>
> by the market conditions in the area in which the
>
> project is to be located. Field Offices will continue
>
> to have the authority to approve exceptions up to and
>
> including 8 persons if the project is a group home and
>
> up to and including 24 units if the project will be an
>
> independent living project. Any requests for
>
> exceptions over these limits must be reviewed in
>
> Headquarters. See paragraph 4B.(15) of this Notice for further
> information.
>
> **H. [Section 811 - Integrated Housing]{.underline}.** In order to
> encourage more integrated housing, Sponsors will receive 3 points for
> Criterion 1(c) if they demonstrate experience in developing integrated
> housing (condominium units scattered within one or more buildings or
> non-contiguous independent living units on scattered sites).
> Furthermore, if the project the Sponsor is proposing will meet the
> definition of integrated housing, the Sponsor will receive 3 points
> for Criterion 3(a)(ii).

**I. [Section 811 - Minimum Size of Group Home]{.underline}.** The
minimum size of a group home has been reduced to two (2) persons to more
closely resemble shared housing in a community. A two (2) person cost
limit has been provided. A Sponsor can submit an application requesting
two units if it is proposing to develop one group home for two persons
with disabilities.

**J**. **[Section 811 - Reduction in Number of Units that Can
be]{.underline} [Applied for in a Single Hub]{.underline}.** A Sponsor
may apply for the lesser of 70 units or 4 projects in a single Hub in
order to facilitate the participation by Sponsors that have not yet
participated in the program.

> **K**. **[Section 811 - Access to Community Services
> and]{.underline}** **[Amenities]{.underline}.** Proposed project sites
> that are either in close proximity to community services and amenities
> or accessible to them other than by sole means of a project residence
> or private vehicle will be rated more favorably than sites located in
> areas where the residents must be dependent upon a project residence
> or private vehicle as their only means of accessing such services and
> amenities.

**L. [Section 811 - Sponsor's Board Comprised of At Least 51% Persons
with Disabilities]{.underline}.** Although Sponsors will continue to
receive 5 points if their Boards are comprised of at least 51% persons
with disabilities, the composition of the Board no longer has to include
persons with the same disability or disabilities as those of the
proposed residents.

> **M. [Section 811 - Involvement of Centers for Independent
> ]{.underline}**
>
> **[Living]{.underline}.** In order to encourage Sponsors to work with
> their local Center for Independent Living they are required to
> indicate in their applications the extent to which they involved their
> local Center for Independent Living in the development of their
> applications. In addition, the NOFA and Application Kit identifies
> local Centers for Independent Living and Statewide Independent Living
> Councils as examples of organizations from which they can obtain
> letters or support for their projects to include in their
> applications. A listing of Centers for Independent Living and
> Statewide Independent Living Councils is in Attachment 15 of this
> Notice.
>
> N. **[Section 811 - Supportive Services]{.underline}.** The
> requirements for the Supportive Services Plan have been streamlined to
> coincide with the philosophy that residents must be given the freedom
> to choose whether they want to
>
> 1\) receive supportive services available in the community, 2) receive
> supportive services available to them from the Sponsor directly or
> coordinated by the Sponsor, or 3) receive no supportive services at
> all. If the Sponsor will be providing any supportive services directly
> or coordinating the availability of any supportive services, they must
> include a letter in their Supportive Services Plan that describes the
> services they will either make available directly or by their
> coordination and describes how the coordination will be implemented;
> provides an assurance that any supportive services made available to
> the residents will be based on their individual needs; and, states
> their commitment to make the supportive services available or
> coordinate their availability for the life of the project.
>
> O. **[Section 811 - Opportunities for Employment]{.underline}**.
> Sponsors must include in their Supportive Services Plans a description
> of how the residents will be afforded opportunities for employment.

**3.** **[CHANGES PURSUANT TO THE APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF
2000]{.underline}:** In accordance with the waiver authority provided in
the FY 2000 Appropriations Act, the Secretary is extending the following
determination made in the Notice, published in 61 F.R. 3047 and in the
FY 1997, 1998, and FY 1999 Section 202 and Section 811 NOFAs, to FY 2000
funding by waiving the statutory and regulatory provisions governing the
amount and term of the Project Rental Assistance Contract (PRAC).

Project rental assistance funds will be reserved based on **75 percent**
of the current operating cost standards to support the units selected
for capital advances sufficient for a minimum **five-year** project
rental assistance contract term. The Department anticipates that at the
end of the contract term, renewals will be approved depending upon the
availability of funds. **PLEASE NOTE THAT THE WAIVER BROADENING THE
ELIGIBILITY OF TENANTS TO PERSONS WITH INCOMES AT 80 PERCENT OF THE
MEDIAN OR BELOW (61 F.R. 3047, JANUARY 30, 1996) IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT.
THE STATUTORY PROVISION LIMITING ELIGIBILITY TO PERSONS WITH INCOMES AT
50 PERCENT OF THE MEDIAN OR BELOW REMAINS IN EFFECT.**

**4. [FISCAL YEAR 1999 AND EARLIER YEAR CHANGES STILL IN
EFFECT]{.underline}:**

**A. [Changes Applicable to Both Programs]{.underline}.**

**(1) [Rating Factors]{.underline}.** One of the purposes of publishing
the SuperNOFA instead of 40 individual program NOFAs was to improve
customer service by simplifying the application process. To that end,
the Department developed five standard Rating Factors by which all
applications for HUD funding will be rated, regardless of the program.

In expanding the Rating Factors for the Section 202 and Section 811
programs from three to five and from two to five, respectively, the
existing criteria within the previous factors were retained for the most
part but, in some cases, were reorganized to fit within the new Rating
Factors.

Furthermore, to ensure consistency among all HUD programs, it was
necessary to add some additional criteria within the new Rating Factors
as well as corresponding application submission requirements. The new
criteria for the Section 202 and Section 811 programs in FY 1998 and
still in effect in FY 2000 are:

-   The extent to which the Sponsor coordinated its application with
    other organizations to complement and/or support the proposed
    project;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The extent to which the Sponsor demonstrates that it has been
    actively involved, or if not currently active, the steps it will
    take to become actively involved in the community\'s Consolidated
    Planning process to identify and address a need/problem that is
    related in whole or part, directly or indirectly to the proposed
    project; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The extent to which the Sponsor developed or plans to develop
    linkages with other activities, programs or projects related to the
    proposed project to coordinate its activities so solutions are
    holistic and comprehensive.

In addition to these three criteria, for the

Section 811 program only, the following criteria

also apply:

-   The extent to which the proposed design of the

> project and its placement in the neighborhood
>
> will facilitate the integration of the
>
> residents into the surrounding community and, for FY 2000, promote the
> ability of the
>
> residents to live as independently as
>
> possible.

-   If the project will be an intergrated model as described in Section
    IV(D) of the Section 811 NOFA section of the SuperNOFA.

**(2) [Adjustments to Rating Factors]{.underline}.** In FY 1999, because
the Department had become increasingly concerned that Section 202 and
Section 811 projects be selected in areas with the greatest need for the
units, greater weight was given to the need factor. In order to give the
need factor greater weight in the selection of Section 202 and Section
811 applications, five (5) additional points have been added to the
Need/Extent of the Problem factor for a total of 15 points. To provide
the additional five points to the Need/Extent of the Problem factor,
five points were taken from the Capacity of the Applicant and Relevant
Organizational Staff factor, reducing that factor to 25 points.

**(3)** **[Allocation of Funds]{.underline}.** The allocation of funds
reflects the revised Field Office Multifamily Hub structure.

**(4) [Points for the Involvement of the Target Population in the
Development of the Application and in the Future Development and
Operation of the Project]{.underline}.** Applications will receive four
(4) base points if the Sponsor has involved the target population
(elderly persons, particularly minority elderly persons for Section 202
or persons with disabilities (including minorities) for Section 811), in
the development of the application, and intends to involve the target
population in the development and operation of the project.

**(5)** **[Revised Application Submission Procedures]{.underline}.**
Application submission procedures have been made consistent for all
programs in the SuperNOFA. Hand carried applications must be received in
the appropriate HUD Office by the deadline date and time published in
the [Federal Register]{.underline}. Mailed applications will be
determined acceptable as long as they are postmarked on or before
midnight on the application deadline date and received by the
appropriate HUD Office within ten (10) days of the application deadline
date. Applications sent by overnight or express mail delivery will be
accepted before or on the application deadline date or after that date
as long as there is documentary evidence that they were placed in
transit with the overnight delivery service no later than the
application due date.

**The last page of the Application Kit contains an Acknowledgement of
Application Receipt form which must be completed and returned to the
Sponsor indicating whether or not the local HUD Office received the
application by the deadline as described above and, consequently,
whether it will be considered for funding.**

**(6)** **[Revised Selection Process]{.underline}.** At the conclusion
of technical processing, Rating/Selection Panels must score each Rating
Factor for all applications that successfully complete technical
processing. Applications that receive a score of 60 base points or
higher are then ranked in descending order. The Rating/Selection Panels
then select for funding the highest rated applications ranked in
descending order which most reasonably approximate the number of units
and capital advance funds available to each HUD Office. The
Rating/Selection Panels must select in rank order down to the next
highest rated application that can utilize the remaining funds
**[WITHOUT]{.underline}** skipping over a higher rated application.
**NOTE: For Section 811, the Baltimore Hub will first fund the
application submitted by Lt. Joseph P. Kennedy Institute, Inc. and the
Milwaukee Program Center will first fund the application submitted by
Eternal Life Church of God in Christ, FY 1999 applications which were
not funded due to HUD error.**

After making the initial selections, any residual funds may be used to
fund the next rank-ordered application by reducing the units by no more
than 10 percent rounded to the nearest whole number; provided the
reduction will not render the project infeasible. Projects of five units
or less may not be reduced. An example of a project becoming infeasible
by a unit reduction is a project that will be rehabilitated (for Section
811 this applies only if the Sponsor has site control), where the
project will not be able to sustain fewer units than those requested.
Acceptance by a Sponsor of a project where the units have been reduced
means acceptance of the reduced number of units.

Under Section 202, the above processes must be done separately for each
HUD Office\'s metropolitan and nonmetropolitan allocations. Once this is
completed, HUD Offices may combine their unused metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan funds to select the next highest ranked application in
either category using the unit reduction policy described above.

After the Offices have funded all possible projects based on the process
above, residual funds from all HUD Offices in each Multifamily Hub will
be combined. These funds will be used first to restore units to projects
reduced by HUD Offices based on the above instructions. Second,
additional applications within each Multifamily Hub will be selected in
rank order with no more than one additional application selected per HUD
Office unless there are insufficient approvable applications in other
HUD Offices within the Multifamily Hub. This process will continue until
there are no more approvable applications within the Multifamily Hub
that can be selected with the remaining funds. However, any remaining
residual funds may be used to fund the next rank-ordered application by
reducing the number of units by no more than 10% rounded to the nearest
whole number, provided the reduction will not render the project
infeasible. For this purpose, HUD will not reduce the number of units in
projects of five units or less.

Funds remaining after these processes are completed will be returned to
Headquarters. **Under Section 202, these funds will be used first to
fund FY 1999 applications submitted by Metropolitan Low Income Housing
and CDC, Inc., in the jurisdiction of the Columbia, SC Program Center
and by White Sands Manor, in the jurisdiction of the Jacksonville, FL
Hub. These two applications were not funded in FY 1999 due to HUD
error.** Then for both Section 202 and Section 811, the residual funds
will be used to restore units to projects reduced by HUD Offices as a
result of the instructions above and, third, for selecting applications
based on field office rankings, beginning with the next highest rated
application nationwide. No more than one application will be selected
per HUD Office (excluding the Columbia, SC Multifamily Program Center
and the Jacksonville, FL Hub for the 202 program, already funded) from
the national residual amount, unless there are insufficient approvable
applications in other HUD Offices. If there are no approvable
applications in other HUD Offices, the process will begin again with the
selection of the next highest rated application nationwide. This process
will continue until all approvable applications are selected using the
available remaining funds.

**(7)** **[Application Unit Limit]{.underline}.** A Sponsor or a
Co-sponsor may apply for a maximum of 200 units within a single Hub
under the Section 202 program.

**(8)** **[Ineligible Activities]{.underline}.** The NOFAs include a
list of activities that are ineligible for funding through either the
Section 202 or Section 811 programs.

**(9)** **[Appeal Period for Technical Rejection]{.underline}.** The
appeal period for applications that receive a technical rejection is 14
calendar days from the date of HUD\'s letter notifying the Sponsor of
the technical rejection.

**(10) [Sponsors Cannot Require Residents to Accept Supportive
Services]{.underline}.** Section 202 and Section 811 Sponsors must
certify in their applications that they will **not** require residents
to accept any supportive services as a condition of occupancy. Although
the acceptance of services has never been a program requirement, it has
come to the Department\'s attention that in many cases residents have
been required to accept services in order to live in housing for persons
with disabilities developed under either the Section 202 Direct Loan
program or the Section 811 program.

**(11) [Congressional Notification Memoranda]{.underline}.**
Congressional Notification Memoranda are to be sent along with the other
Headquarters submission requirements (see Attachment 6 for details on
the submission requirements) to: Office of Housing Assistance and Grant
Administration, room 6138, Attention: 202/811. DO **NOT** SEND THEM TO
THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS.

12. **[Environmental Site Assessment]{.underline}.** In conformance with
    24 CFR 50.3(i), as revised (effective October 28, 1996), all Section
    202 applicants and those Section 811 applicants who have site
    control are required to submit a Phase I Environmental Site
    Assessment of their proposed site(s) with their applications. The
    Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is to be completed in
    accordance with the American Society for Testing and Material
    (ASTM), Standards E 1527-93, as amended, and must be submitted with
    the application by the application deadline date. Under **Section
    202**, the Phase I **is** a curable deficiency. Under **Section
    811**, the Phase I **is** **NOT** a curable deficiency.

> **Section 811** Sponsors submitting applications with **identified
> sites** (i.e., not under control) are not required to submit a Phase I
> with their applications. However, if they are selected for funding,
> they must complete the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment upon
> obtaining site control and prior to submitting their Application for
> Firm Commitment.

**NOTE:** [The Transaction Screen Process is no longer accepted as an
application submission requirement]{.underline}.

If the Phase I study indicates the possible presence of contamination
and/or hazards, further study must be undertaken. At this point, the
Sponsor must decide whether to continue with this site or choose another
site. Should the Sponsor choose another site, the same environmental
site assessment procedure identified above must be followed for that
site. **It is important that the Sponsor start the site assessment
process as soon after NOFA publication as possible. Ensure that Sponsors
receive a copy of \"Choosing an Environmentally Safe Site\" to assist
them in this process.**

If the Sponsor chooses to continue with the original site on which the
Phase I study indicated possible contamination or hazards, then a
detailed Phase II Environmental Site Assessment by an appropriate
professional will have to be undertaken. **NOTE: THE COST OF THE STUDY
MUST BE BORNE BY THE SPONSOR IF THE APPLICATION IS NOT SELECTED**. If
the Phase II Assessment reveals site contamination, the extent of the
contamination and a plan for clean‑up (as identified in Section
VI.(B)(4)(d)(v) of the Section 202 NOFA and Section VI.(B)(4)(d)(i)(5)
of the Section 811 NOFA) of the site must be submitted to the local HUD
Office. The plan for clean‑up must include a contract for remediation of
the problem(s) and an approval letter from the applicable Federal,
State, and/or local agency with jurisdiction over the site. For Section
202 applications to be considered for review and Section 811
applications with evidence of control of an approvable site to be
eligible for 5 points for site control, the Phase II Assessment and the
plan for clean-up including the contract for remediation (if
appropriate) must be submitted to the local HUD Office no later than
June 19, 2000. In the Section 202 program, if the required information
is not received by the deadline specified in the Section 202 NOFA, the
application must be rejected. In the Section 811 program, if the
information is not received by the deadline specified in the Section 811
NOFA, the application will be considered a \"site identified\"
application and will **NOT** receive any points for Site Approvability
(Criterion 3(a)(i)), 5 points for Site Control (Criterion 3(a)(iii)) or
any points for Site Suitability (Criterion 3(b)). **NOTE: THIS COULD BE
AN EXPENSIVE UNDERTAKING. THE COST OF ANY CLEANUP AND/OR REMEDIATION
MUST BE BORNE BY THE SPONSOR.**

To be considered valid, no more than 6 months can elapse after
completion of the Phase I study. If the Phase I is more than 6 months
old, the preparer must update the environmental site assessment. If
there have been no changes since the previous assessment, the preparer
must certify to same.

**(13) [Historic Preservation]{.underline}.** Sponsors are to submit
with their applications, a letter from the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) indicating whether the proposed site has any historic
significance or whether it impacts any site or area of historic
significance. Having this information submitted with the application
will assist HUD in the timely completion of its environmental review.
Sponsors must be informed to request a letter from the SHPO well in
advance of the application deadline date to ensure a timely response
from the SHPO.

If the Sponsor cannot obtain a letter from the SHPO due to the SHPO not
responding to the Sponsor\'s request or the SHPO responding that it
cannot or will not comply with the requirement, the Sponsor must submit
the following: (1) a letter indicating that it attempted to get the
required letter from the SHPO but that the SHPO either had not responded
to the Sponsor\'s request or would not honor or recognize the Sponsor\'s
request; (2) a copy of the Sponsor\'s letter to the SHPO requesting the
required letter; and, (3) a copy of the SHPO\'s response, if available.

In such cases, the HUD Office must process the application in accordance
with the standard environmental review procedures in place prior to the
NOFA publication (i.e., file with the SHPO, allow time for a response
from the SHPO, and then make the appropriate finding, which must be
received prior to convening the Rating/Selection Panel).

**(14)** **[Threshold Score]{.underline}.** The threshold score for an
application to be eligible for selection is 60 base points, not
including EZ/EC bonus points.

**(15)** **[Sponsor as Consultant]{.underline}.** The Sponsor may also
serve as a consultant to the project. Section 891.130(a)(2)(iii) of the
final rule for the Section 202 and Section 811 programs states that
developer (consultant) contracts between the Owner and the Sponsor or
the Sponsor\'s nonprofit affiliate will not constitute a conflict of
interest if no more than two persons salaried by the Sponsor or
management affiliate serve as nonvoting directors on the Owner\'s board
of directors.

**(16)** **[Limit on Amendments]{.underline}.** Per Section 891.100(d)
of the final rule for the Section 202 and Section 811 programs, fund
reservations may be amended only after initial closing, subject to the
availability of funds. This change must be emphasized to Sponsors so
that as they plan their projects they will be aware that they need to
keep the cost of the project within the fund reservation amount. Should
the cost exceed the fund reservation amount, it may be necessary for
Sponsors/Owners to seek outside funding sources to cover any additional
expenses.

**(17) [Limit on Fund Reservation Extensions]{.underline}.** Section
891.165 of the final rule for the Section 202 and Section 811 programs
permits fund reservations to be extended up to 24 months on a limited
case-by-case basis. This approval will be made at the local HUD Office
level.

**(18)** **[Minimum and Maximum Project Sizes]{.underline}.**

For **Section 202** applications, the minimum project size for both
metro and nonmetro proposals is five **(5)** units including the
nonrevenue manager\'s unit, if applicable. A Sponsor can propose
scattered sites in its application as long as each site consists of at
least 5 units and the Sponsor has site control for all sites. In such
cases, for the rating criteria pertaining to the need for supportive
housing in the area and the suitability of the site, each site is to be
rated separately and then the scores averaged. The maximum of 125 units
for projects in metro and nonmetro areas is unchanged.

For **Section 811** projects, the limits are as follow:

[Group home]{.underline} - The minimum number of persons with
disabilities that can be housed in a group home is two **(2)** and the
maximum number is six **(6)**, with one person per bedroom unless two
residents choose to share one bedroom or a resident determines he/she
needs another person to share his/her bedroom. The corresponding
development cost limits for the larger group homes have been eliminated
from the NOFA since, in many States, funding for supportive services
will not be provided to persons with disabilities living in larger
housing developments.

[Independent living project]{.underline} - The minimum number of units
that can be applied for in one application is five; not necessarily in
one structure. The maximum number of persons with disabilities that can
be housed in an independent living project is 18.

**(19) [Secretary\'s Representative]{.underline}.** The Secretary\'s
Representative will not participate in the rating of applications
submitted in response to the Fiscal Year 2000 SuperNOFA. The Project
Manager will perform the function that was assigned to the Secretary\'s
Representative in FY 1998 (review of Factor 5).

**(20)** **[Development Cost Limits]{.underline}.** The Development Cost
Limits for the Section 202 program and for Section 811 independent
living projects have been changed to be consistent with the statutory
limits for multifamily insured Section 221(d)(3) projects. The
Development Cost Limits for Section 811 group homes have also been
increased. The high cost factors have been changed to correspond to the
factors used for the multifamily insured Section 221(d)(3) projects.

**(21)** **[Selection of Projects from Residual Funds]{.underline}.**
The restriction on the size of a project that can be reduced to use
residual funds has been changed from projects of nine (9) units or less
to those of five (5) units or less, **except** for **Section 811 Group
Homes** where the restriction is two (2) units or less.

**B. [Changes Applicable to the Section 811 Program Only]{.underline}.**

**(1) [Points for Applications Submitted by Sponsors]{.underline} [whose
Boards are Comprised of at Least 51%]{.underline} [Persons
with]{.underline} [Disabilities]{.underline}.** Section 811 applications
submitted by Sponsors whose boards are comprised of at least 51% persons
with disabilities will receive five (5) base points.

**(2)** **[Occupancy Issues]{.underline}.**

> **(a) [Mixed Occupancy]{.underline}.** In the application submission
> requirements, the Sponsor is asked to specify whether the proposed
> housing will serve persons with physical disabilities, developmental
> disabilities or chronic mental illness, or any combination of the
> three.
>
> **(b) [Restricted Occupancy]{.underline}.** Sponsors may request
>
> approval to limit occupancy to a subcategory of one of the three main
> disability categories (i.e., physically disabled, developmentally
> disabled, chronically mentally ill). For example, autism is a
> subcategory of developmentally disabled. If requesting approval to
> limit occupancy, Sponsors must submit more detailed information in
> their Supportive Service Plans for HUD to determine whether approval
> is justified. Such information includes: 1) a description of the
> population to which occupancy will be limited, 2) an explanation of
> why it is necessary to limit occupancy, 3) how restricted occupancy
> will promote the goals of the Section 811 program, 4) why the needs of
> the proposed occupants cannot be met in a more integrated setting, 5)
> a description of the Sponsor\'s experience in providing housing and/or
> supportive services to the proposed occupants, and 6) a description of
> how the Sponsor will ensure that the occupants will be integrated into
> the neighborhood and surrounding community.

The Project Manager (PM) will be responsible for reviewing requests for
restricted occupancy and the PM Technical Processing Review and Findings
Memorandum has been modified accordingly. If the PM determines that
approval of restricted occupancy is justified, a memorandum to the file
shall be developed for the signature of the Supervisory Project Manager
and attached to the PM Technical Processing Review and Findings
Memorandum. If the Sponsor is selected for funding, the Notification of
Selection Letter must include the information in the Supervisory Project
Manager\'s approval memorandum.

> **(c) [Single Occupancy Bedrooms in Group Homes]{.underline}.**
>
> Sponsors proposing to develop a group home may not require residents
> to share a bedroom unless a resident indicates a preference or need to
> share a bedroom with another resident.
>
> **(3) [Intermediate Care Facilities (ICFs) are no
> Longer]{.underline}**
>
> **[Eligible]{.underline}.** Sponsors may no longer propose the
> development of an ICF. Due to the quasi- institutional nature of an
> ICF which is contrary to programmatic goals, the Department decided to
> eliminate its eligibility for development under the program.

**(4)** **[Tenant-based Assistance]{.underline}.** Twenty-five percent
of the Section 811 appropriations will be used for tenant-based
assistance to be administered through public housing agencies and
nonprofit disability organizations under the \"Mainstream Housing
Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (Mainstream Program)\" which
was also published in the SuperNOFA on February 24, 2000.

**(5) [Site Issues]{.underline}.**

> **(a) [Review of Sites under Control/Sites]{.underline}
> [Identified]{.underline}.** Sites under control and sites identified
> will be evaluated using the same review factors. However, applications
> with sites identified will have to specifically include information on
> how the site will promote greater housing opportunities for persons
> with disabilities, including minorities, affirmatively further fair
> housing and any other information on the suitability of the site for
> persons with disabilities.
>
> **(b) [Rejection of a Site Identified Application]{.underline}.** If,
> in the case of a site identified application, the evidence provided in
> the site description is not sufficient to lead to the conclusion that
> the Sponsor will have site control within six months, the application
> will be rejected.

Although identified sites are **NOT** to receive an environmental
review, if the local HUD Office has knowledge about an identified site
that would result in rejection of the site, (e.g., it is located in a
community that is already impacted with assisted housing), the
application is to be rejected on the basis that it is unlikely that the
Sponsor will be able to obtain control of an

approvable site within six months of fund

reservation. The reason for treating Sponsors who submit applications
with site control where the site is unacceptable differently from
Sponsors who submit applications with identified sites where the site is
unacceptable, is that the Department can be more reasonably assured that
Sponsors who were able to obtain site control during the application
preparation period will be

able to obtain site control within six months of fund reservation than
are Sponsors who were only able to identify sites during this period.
The statute requires that the Department have \"reasonable assurances
that the applicant will own or have control of an acceptable site for
the proposed housing not later than six months after notification of an
award for assistance\".

c.  **[Specific Street Address Required]{.underline}.** Sponsors must
    provide the specific street address of the site, even if it is an
    identified site. If the Sponsor proposes one or more condominium
    units, the unit number(s) must also be provided.

d.  **[Zoning]{.underline}.** Sponsors must provide evidence that the
    proposed projects are either permissible under applicable zoning
    ordinances or regulations or describe action that is required to
    make the projects permissible as well as the basis for the belief
    that the proposed action will be completed successfully before
    issuance of the firm commitment application. Furthermore, Sponsors
    should be aware that, under certain circumstances, the Fair Housing
    Act requires localities to make reasonable accommodations to their
    zoning ordinances or regulations to offer persons with disabilities
    an opportunity to live in an area of their choice. If the Sponsor is
    relying upon a theory of reasonable accommodation to satisfy the
    zoning requirement, then the Sponsor must clearly articulate the
    basis for its reasonable accommodation theory.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
e.  **[Relaxation of Site Location Requirements]{.underline}.** Under
    Section 891.320(b) of the final rule for the Section 811 program,
    the site and neighborhood standards were revised to provide more
    flexibility to the site location requirements for Section 811
    housing. The final rule now indicates that Section 811 housing
    [should]{.underline}, rather than [must]{.underline}, be located
    where other family housing is located and [should not]{.underline},
    rather than [must]{.underline} [not]{.underline}, be located
    adjacent to or in areas concentrated by: schools or day-care centers
    for persons with disabilities, workshops, medical facilities, or
    other

> housing primarily serving persons with disabilities. Local HUD Offices
> will make these determinations and must ensure that, in doing so, the
> selected site will facilitate the integration of persons with
> disabilities into the surrounding community. The requirements that not
> more than one group home be located on one site and two group homes
> not be next to each other remains in Section 891.320(b), since the
> prohibitions are statutory.
>
> **(6) [Scattered-site Applications]{.underline}.** If Sponsors are
> applying for a scattered-site project consisting of different project
> types (e.g., group home and independent living project) they may do so
> in one application. In order to come up with an overall rating for the
> rating criteria pertaining to the need for supportive housing in the
> area and the approvability and suitability of the site, each site is
> to be rated separately and then the scores averaged.
>
> **(7) [Experience with Integrated Housing Developments]{.underline}.**
> When describing any rental housing projects sponsored, owned and
> operated by the Sponsor as part of the description of its housing
> and/or supportive services experience, the Sponsor should include its
> experience with integrated housing developments (i.e., condominium
> units scattered within one or more buildings or non- contiguous
> independent living units on scattered sites).
>
> **(8) [Contact for Agency Providing Independent Living ]{.underline}**
>
> **[Services]{.underline}.** The State Independent Living Council and
> the local Center for Independent Living must be included on the list
> of State and local agency contacts provided to Sponsors for submission
> of the Supportive Services Plan of their applications. A current
> listing is in
>
> Attachment 15.
>
> **(9) [Restrictions Removed from Acquisition Projects]{.underline}.**
> In Section 891.305 of the final rule, the definition of
> \"acquisition\" under Section 811 was revised. The restriction to
> group homes and Resolution Trust Corporation properties was removed so
> that any housing type may now be acquired. The restriction to
> properties that are at least three years old was also removed.

**(10)** **[Supportive Services]{.underline}.**

> **(a) [Residents\' Choice in Supportive Services]{.underline}
> [Plan]{.underline}.** Since Sponsors cannot require potential
> residents to accept any supportive services as a condition of
> occupancy, they must design a Supportive Services Plan that offers
> potential residents the following choices: 1) to take responsibility
> for choosing and acquiring their own services; 2) to receive any
> supportive services made available directly or indirectly by the
> Sponsor; or 3) to not receive any supportive services at all. Such a
> Supportive Services Plan will offer maximum choice for residents while
> meeting the statutory requirement that Section 811 housing provide
> supportive services that address the individual health, mental health,
> and other needs of the residents.

b.  **[Supportive Services Certification]{.underline}.** The Sponsor is
    required to submit a copy of its

> Supportive Services Plan and Supportive Services Certification to the
> appropriate State or local agency for review of the Supportive
> Services Plan and completion of the Supportive Services Certification
> which is a requirement of the Section 811 application. The Supportive
> Services Certification provides HUD with information about whether the
> Sponsor\'s Plan is well designed to serve the individual needs of
> persons with disabilities. Furthermore, it indicates whether the
> proposed housing is consistent with State or local policies or plans
> governing the development and operation of housing to serve persons
> with disabilities. In addition, the appropriate State or local agency
> must indicate on the Supportive Services Certification whether the
> Sponsor demonstrated that the necessary supportive services will be
> available on a consistent, long-term basis.

If the Supportive Services Certification is

missing or incomplete, the Sponsor must be

notified that it is a curable deficiency and be given the 14-day period
to have the appropriate State or local agency complete the
Certification. If the Supportive Services Certification is not received
during the curable deficiency period the

application must be rejected but must still

undergo technical processing. If the

Certification comes in during the curable

deficiency period and the appropriate State or local agency did not
indicate whether the

Supportive Services Plan is well designed to meet the needs of the
residents, or indicated that it was **not** well designed, the
application must also be rejected. If the appropriate State or local
agency failed to respond to either one or both of the other two
questions (whether or not the housing is consistent with State or local
policies or plans governing the development and operation of housing for
persons with

disabilities population and whether or not the supportive services will
be available on a consistent, long-term basis), the Project Manager must
review the Supportive Services Plan and respond to these two questions.

If the appropriate State or local agency or, if necessary, the Project
Manager, determines that the housing is inconsistent with State or local
policies or plans governing the development and operation of housing to
serve the proposed population and the appropriate State or local agency
will be a primary funding or referral source for the project or is
required to license the project; or, that supportive services will

> not be provided on a consistent, long term
>
> basis, the application must be rejected.
>
> Sponsors must be reminded to send their
>
> Supportive Services Plans to the appropriate
>
> State or local agency in ample time so that
>
> the agency can review them, complete the
>
> Supportive Services Certifications and
>
> return them to the Sponsors for inclusion in
>
> their applications to HUD.
>
> **(11) [Applicant Eligibility]{.underline}.** Section 603 of the
> Housing and Community Development Act of l992 (HCD Act of l992)
> amended Section 811 of the NAHA by striking the language
> \"incorporated private\" and thus expanding the definition of private
> nonprofit organization in Section 811(k)(6) to include public and
> unincorporated institutions or foundations. This amendment also
> requires such sponsoring organizations to have received tax- exempt
> status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Code of
> l986 which effectively limits the eligibility of public bodies.
> (Temporary clearance to receive section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status is
> not permissible.) The same requirements apply to the Owner except that
> the Owner must be incorporated.
>
> **(12) [Davis-Bacon Act]{.underline}.** Davis-Bacon Labor standards
> apply to housing containing 12 or more units. A group home is
> considered as one unit for this purpose; therefore, the labor
> standards do not apply. Independent living projects with 12 or more
> units **are** covered by the standards.
>
> **(13) [Lead-Based Paint]{.underline}.** The requirements of the Lead-
> Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 4821-4846) and
> implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 35, and 24 CFR part 891.325
> apply to all Section 811 dwelling units in structures constructed
> before 1978 and in which any child under six years of age resides or
> is expected to reside.
>
> **(14) [Exhibit 6 of the Application Kit]{.underline}.** Exhibit 6
> which must be completed if the site will involve relocation does not
> apply to Section 811 applications that are \"site identified.\"
>
> **(15) [Section 811 - Exceptions to Project Size
> Limits]{.underline}.**
>
> Sponsors of site control applications requesting approval to exceed
> the project size limits must provide the information required in the
> application kit and in Section VI(B)(4)(d)(ix) of the Section 811
> NOFA, including documentation (e.g., results of a written or verbal
> survey) that people with disabilities similar to those of the
> prospective residents of the proposed project(s) have indicated
> acceptance of and/or a preference to living in housing with as many
> people with disabilities as proposed for the project(s).

Although the elimination of the upper limit for exceptions to project
size limits remains the policy for FY 2000, local HUD Offices will only
have authorization to approve exceptions up to 8 persons for a group
home and 24 persons for an independent living project. However, Offices
should be extremely cautious in approving exceptions to project size
limits that would exceed the 6 person limit for a group home and the 18
person limit for an independent living project. Offices need to ensure
that the program goal of integration is not compromised and should
handle each request on a case-by-case basis following the criteria
outlined in the NOFA.

Requests for exceptions to exceed 8 persons for a group home and 24
persons for an independent living project must be submitted to
Headquarters, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration,
room 6138, Attention: 202/811, immediately upon the conclusion of
initial screening for curable deficiencies. Please submit Exhibits 1,
4(a), (b), (c), and (d)(ix) of each application requesting such an
exception. If the site is rejected (i.e., receives a score of 0 for
Criterion 3(a)(i) or Criterion 3(b), or the request is denied, the
application must be processed at the project size limit.

**(16) [Section 811 - Site Issues]{.underline}.** Applications
containing satisfactory evidence of control of an approvable site will
**NOT** be awarded 10 bonus points. Instead, an application will receive
5 points for Criterion 3(a)(iii), Site Control, if it contains legally
acceptable site control for all proposed sites and if all of the
proposed sites are approvable by Valuation (a score of 1 or higher for
Criterion 3(a)(i), Site Approvability) and FHEO (a score of 1 or higher
for Criterion 3(b), Site Suitability).

**If the site control is NOT acceptable** in a single site application,
the application will be treated as \"site identified\" and may still
receive up to 7 points for Site Approvability (Criterion 3(a)(i)) from
Valuation and up to 10 points from FHEO for the suitability of the site
in promoting a greater choice of housing opportunities for persons with
disabilities, including minorities (Criterion 3(b)).

> **If either VAL or FHEO REJECTS the site** in a single site
> application, the application will receive 0 points for Criterion
> 3(a)(i), Criterion 3(a)(iii) and Criterion 3(b). The application will
> be treated as \"site identified\" and remain in the competition as
> long as the Sponsor indicated in Exhibit 4(d)(viii) that it is willing
> to seek an alternate site. Otherwise, the application will be
> rejected.

**NOTE:** For a scattered site application to receive points for
Criterion 3(a)(i), Criterion 3(a)(iii) and Criterion 3(b), **all**
proposed sites must be under acceptable control and be approvable.

> **(17) [Section 811 - Accessibility]{.underline}.** All Section 811
>
> applications, whether proposing new construction, rehabilitation, or
> acquisition with or without rehabilitation, must adhere to the
> provisions of 24 CFR 891.310. The applications must also adhere to the
> provisions of 24 CFR 8.4(b)(5) which prohibits the selection of a site
> or location which has the purpose or effect of excluding persons with
> disabilities from the project. Sponsors who choose to use existing
> structures must make sure that the structures can be made accessible
> without resulting in infeasible projects.

**(18) [Section 811 - Project Type Name Change]{.underline}**. The term
\"independent living facility\" has been changed to \"independent living
project\" to eliminate the institutional connotation associated with the
term \"facility\".

**5. [SITES LOCATED IN FLOODPLAINS OR WETLANDS]{.underline}:** Due to
the length of the review process required for all sites that are located
in floodplains or (for new construction projects) wetlands (see
Attachment 6, paragraph A.5.), HUD Offices may not be able to complete
their reviews in time for the applications to be considered for funding.
Therefore, Sponsors should take this into consideration when selecting
project sites and put forth all efforts to locate sites that are not in
floodplains or (for new construction projects) wetlands.

**6. [FISCAL YEAR 2000 CAPITAL ADVANCE AUTHORITY
ASSIGNMENTS]{.underline}:**

**A.** **[Fair Share Factors]{.underline}.** Although not subject to the
section 213(d) requirements, a formula is still used for allocating
Section 202 and Section 811 funds. The allocation formula was developed
to reflect the \"relevant characteristics of prospective program
participants\", as specified in 24 CFR 791.402(a).

**Section 202.** The FY 2000 formula for allocating Section 202 capital
advance funds consists of one data element: a measure of the number of
one and two person renter households with incomes at or below the
Department\'s Very-low Income Limit (50 percent of area median family
income, as determined by HUD, with an adjustment for household size),
which have housing deficiencies. The counts of elderly renter households
with housing deficiencies were taken from a special tabulation of the
1990 Decennial Census. The formula focuses the allocation on targeting
the funds based on the unmet needs of elderly renter households with
housing problems.

A fair share factor is developed for each metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan portion of each local HUD Office jurisdiction by
dividing the number of renter households for the jurisdiction by the
total for the United States. The resulting percentage for each local HUD
Office jurisdiction is then adjusted to reflect the relative cost of
providing housing among the HUD Office jurisdictions. The adjusted needs
percentage for the applicable metropolitan or nonmetropolitan portion of
each jurisdiction is then multiplied by respective total remaining
capital advance funds available nationwide.

Eight-five (85) percent of the total capital advance amount is allocated
to metropolitan areas and 15 percent to nonmetropolitan areas. Each HUD
Office jurisdiction receives sufficient capital advance funds for a
minimum of 20 units in metropolitan areas and 5 units in nonmetropolitan
areas. The total amount of capital advance funds to support these
minimum set-asides is subtracted from the respective (metropolitan or
nonmetropolitan) total capital advance amount available. The remainder
is fair shared to each HUD Office jurisdiction whose original fair share
exceeded the minimum set-aside, based on its respective fair share
factor.

**NOTE:** The allocations for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan portions
of the Multifamily Hub or Program Center jurisdictions reflect the most
current definitions of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, as
defined by the Office of Management and Budget.

**Section 811.** The FY 2000 formula for allocating Section 811 capital
advance funds consists of two data elements from the 1990 Decennial
Census: (1) the number of non-institutionalized persons age 16 or older
with a work disability and a mobility or self-care limitation; and (2)
the number of non-institutionalized persons age 16 or older having a
mobility or self-care limitation but having no work disability.

The fair share factors were developed by taking the sum of the number of
persons in each of the two elements for each state, or state portion, of
each HUD Office jurisdiction as a percent of the sum of the two data
elements from the Decennial Census, as described above, for the total
United States. The resulting percentage for each local HUD Office is
then adjusted to reflect the relative cost of providing housing among
the local HUD Office jurisdictions. The adjusted needs percentage for
each local HUD Office jurisdiction is then multiplied by the total
amount of capital advance funds available nationwide.

Each HUD Office jurisdiction receives sufficient capital advance funds
for a minimum of 10 units. The total amount of capital advance funds to
support this minimum set-aside is then subtracted from the total capital
advance available. The remainder is fair shared to each HUD Office
jurisdiction whose original fair share exceeded the minimum set-aside,
based on the allocation formula fair share factors described above.

**B.** **[Program Fund Assignments]{.underline}.** HUD-185s will be
processed assigning funds to the field offices when all of the
selections for the FY 2000 program are finalized.

**7. [LOCAL HUD OFFICE ALLOCATIONS]{.underline}:**

**A. [Allocation of Funds]{.underline}.**

**Section 202:** The Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform
Act of 1989 (HUD Reform Act) provides that allocations of funds be made
to the smallest practicable areas consistent with the delivery of
assistance through meaningful competition. The HUD Reform Act also
states that program funding under Section 202 shall be allocated in a
manner that ensures selections of projects of sufficient size to
accommodate facilities for supportive services appropriate to the needs
of the population to be served. To meet the intent of the Reform Act,
the following rules will apply to the FY 2000 Section 202 allocations.

\(1\) Offices are required to establish allocation areas only for the
respective metropolitan and nonmetropolitan assignments of capital
advance authority for the entire Office jurisdiction. Therefore, all
applications received from metropolitan areas will compete against each
other and all applications from nonmetropolitan areas will compete
against each other.

\(2\) There is a minimum proposal size of **5** units and a maximum of
**125** units for projects in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.
**Offices may NOT establish their own minimum or maximum application
sizes.**

Where the Office allocation in either the metropolitan or
nonmetropolitan areas is less than 125, the maximum proposal size will
be limited by the allocated amount. Among other requirements, to be
considered responsive to the NOFA, an applicant must not request a
larger number of units for the specific geographical area (metropolitan
or nonmetropolitan) than permitted in the NOFA (see Attachment 1) and
must not exceed the maximum number of units per application as
established herein.

**Section 811:** The allocations for Section 811 housing for persons
with disabilities are not subject to the Section 213(d) requirements
including the control on nonmetropolitan funding and the requirement for
a formula allocation. Accordingly, there will not be any division of
funding between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. We will,
however, continue funding the program on a formula basis.

In accordance with 24 CFR part 791, the Assistant Secretary has
allocated the amounts available for capital advances for supportive
housing for persons with disabilities for FY 2000. To be responsive to
the NOFA, a Sponsor must request at least five (5) units if proposing to
develop an independent living project (all five (5) units do not have to
be on one site) or two (2) units if proposing to develop a group home.
The Sponsor cannot request more units in a Field Office jurisdiction
than allocated to that Office in the NOFA (see Attachment 2).

**B. [Project Rental Assistance Contract Funds]{.underline}.** The
Department reserves project rental assistance contract funds for five
(5) years consistent with current operating cost standards.

**C.** **[Local HUD Office Funding Notifications]{.underline}.** This
paragraph expands on Paragraph 2-1 of Handbooks 4571.2 (Section 811) or
4571.3 REV-1 (Section 202) as appropriate. All Offices shall issue
Funding Notifications in accordance with this paragraph and the above
Handbook references. See Attachments 4 and 5 for Funding Notification
Formats. The funding notification formats shall be used by all Offices
with no deviations.

Although previous advertising requirements have been eliminated, Offices
must notify potential applicants by following the instructions in
Handbooks 4571.2 and 4571.3 REV-1 and Attachment 3 of this Notice.

**8. [CONSOLIDATED PLAN CERTIFICATION]{.underline}:** Each applicant
must submit a certification by the jurisdiction in which the proposed
project is to be located that the application is consistent with the
jurisdiction\'s HUD-approved Consolidated Plan for FY 2000. The
certification is to be signed by the unit of general local government if
it is required to have, or has, a complete Consolidated Plan. Otherwise,
the certification may be made by the State, or if the project will be
located within the jurisdiction of a unit of general local government
authorized to use an abbreviated strategy, by the unit of general local
government if it is willing to prepare such a plan.

All Consolidated Plan Certifications must be made by the public official
responsible for submitting the plan to HUD. All plan certifications must
be submitted as part of the application by the application submission
deadline set forth in the NOFA. The Plan regulations are published in 24
CFR Part 91.

**9. [WORKSHOPS]{.underline}:** To the extent possible, experienced
program and technical staff should conduct the workshops to provide
guidance, particularly for new program participants. Since first time
applicants may have difficulty with the complexity of the Section 202 or
Section 811 program, Offices are urged to conduct pre-workshops (to be
held prior to the start of the regularly scheduled session) for first
time applicants. These applicants should attend the pre-workshop and
remain for the regular session.

Particular emphasis should be placed on the new requirements for the FY
2000 program.

It should also be pointed out to potential applicants at the workshop
that the second to the last page of the Application Kit is an optional
form for them to fill out with their comments and suggestions about the
NOFA and the Application Kit which they can include as part of their
applications or submit separately to HUD Headquarters, 451 7th Street,
SW, Washington, DC, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant
Administration, room 6138. Attention: Section 202/811. Local HUD Offices
are also encouraged to complete this form and return it to HUD
Headquarters at the above address, along with any Sponsor-completed
forms that may have been attached to applications.

**10.** **[SUBMISSIONS TO HEADQUARTERS]{.underline}:** For FY 2000,
application selection information will be reported to Headquarters via
the Development Application Processing System (DAP).

Multifamily Hubs will submit the following hard copies separately for
the Section 202 and Section 811 programs to Headquarters, Office of
Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, room 6138, Attention:
Section 202/811 (See Attachment 6 for more detailed instructions): (1) a
transmittal memorandum summarizing the results of the selection process
(e.g., number of applications received and number of applications
selected, identification of any selected applications where units and
dollars were reduced by up to 10% and the number of units and funds
needed to restore the application to its original request,
identification of any approvable but unfunded applications the
Multifamily Hub funded with residual funds received from the Program
Centers, amount of residual money being returned to Headquarters,
achievement of MBE goals, nonmetro achievement for Section 202, etc.);
(2) a separate completed recapitulation form for each program by Program
Center and by Hub, (3) an initial selection list in rank order for each
Program Center (for Section 202, metro and nonmetro selections must be
on separate lists), (4) an approvable but unfunded list in rank order
for each Program Center (for Section 202, metro and nonmetro must be on
separate lists), (5) a list of applications in rank order that received
a score of less than 60 base points, (6) A list of applications that
have been technically rejected, (7) A completed Congressional
Notification form for each application on the Initial Selection Lists.
(Do **NOT** send originals or copies to the Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations), (Headquarters will notify HUD Offices of
which additional applications selected with residual funds will need
completed Congressional Notification forms.), and (8) all selection
information (excluding technical processing review and findings
memoranda) submitted by the Multifamily Program Centers to the
Multifamily Hub). Headquarters will notify Offices when to submit the
718s and PADs for the initial selections to the Office of the
Comptroller, Field Accounting Division. **NOTE: IF ANY PROJECT WAS
REDUCED BY UP TO 10 PERCENT SO IT COULD BE FUNDED FROM RESIDUAL FUNDS,
PLEASE IDENTIFY THE PROJECT IN THE APPLICABLE TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM AND
ON THE SELECTION LIST. ALSO, INCLUDE IN THE MEMORANDUM THE NUMBER OF
UNITS REDUCED AND THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL ADVANCE AND PRAC FUNDS NEEDED TO
RESTORE THE UNITS TO THE PROJECT.**

**11. [MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE GOALS]{.underline}:** The Department
encourages participation by the Minority Business Enterprise (MBE)
sector in HUD programs and establishes MBE goals each fiscal year.
Therefore, MBE goals (expressed in dollars and units) have been
established for the Section 202 and Section 811 FY 2000 funding round as
set forth in Attachments 8 and 9. (These goals do not affect the rating
of Section 202 or Section 811 applications.) A minority Sponsor is one
in which more than 50 percent of the board members are minority (i.e.,
Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian Pacific, or Asian Indian).
Offices are expected to encourage participation by minority Sponsors.

**12. [NOTIFICATION TO PROGRAM APPLICANTS]{.underline}:** Sponsors must
be advised that all applications submitted under the FY 2000 program
must be in conformance with the [Federal]{.underline}
[Register]{.underline} SuperNOFA, Regulations, Handbook and local HUD
Office Funding Notifications. To this end, FY 2000 applications must
follow the format provided in the Section 202 or Section 811 Application
Kit, as applicable, which is in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-511).

**13. [PROCESSING SCHEDULE]{.underline}:** In accordance with the
schedule included in the SuperNOFA published in the
[Federal]{.underline} [Register]{.underline}, the following processing
schedule has been

developed. It is not mandatory that Offices maintain all dates in this
schedule. However, the underscored dates and actions are specific
deadlines which must be met:

[Application Deadline]{.underline} May 18, 2000

Initial Screening for Curable

Deficiencies Completed and

Deficiency Letters Mailed June 1, 2000

[Expiration of 14-day period]{.underline}

[for submission of missing application]{.underline}

[items]{.underline} June 15, 2000

Notification of Technical rejects July 7, 2000

[End of 14 day appeal period for]{.underline}

[Technical Rejects]{.underline} July 21, 2000

[Program Center Offices submit]{.underline}

[transmittal memoranda,]{.underline}

[recapitulation sheets, lists]{.underline}

[of initial selections, approvable]{.underline}

[but unfunded applications, applications]{.underline}

[that scored less than 60 base pts.,]{.underline}

[and Congressional Notification]{.underline}

[Memoranda to Hubs]{.underline} [July 31, 2000]{.underline}

[Hubs submit lists of initial]{.underline}

[selections, approvable but]{.underline}

[unfunded applications,]{.underline}

[applications that scored less]{.underline}

[than 60 base pts., transmittal]{.underline}

[memoranda, recapitulation sheets]{.underline}

[and Congressional Notification]{.underline}

[Memoranda to Headquarters]{.underline}

[and submit 718s and PADs to]{.underline}

[appropriate location]{.underline} [Aug. 14, 2000]{.underline}

**14. [RELEASE OF INFORMATION ON RATINGS AND RANKINGS]{.underline}:**

Release of information regarding selections or nonselections is
prohibited until after funding announcements are made. Local HUD Offices
may not release selection letters until authorized to do so by
Headquarters. It is the policy of the Department to operate an open
selection system. Release of rating and ranking information to Section
202 and Section 811 applicants or their authorized representatives is
permitted, but only after the release of selection letters. If standard
rating criteria forms or technical processing review and findings
memoranda are requested, they may also be released. However, the name of
the reviewer must be deleted from the copy released to the applicant.

The above information may also be released to any member of the public
requesting such information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

**15. [HUD REFORM ACT PROVISIONS]{.underline}:** As required by the HUD
Reform Act, the Department will publish the funding decisions in the
[Federal Register]{.underline} at the conclusion of the funding cycle.
Local HUD Office staff also are reminded that the HUD Reform Act
prohibits advance disclosure of funding decisions. Also see 24 CFR Part
4.

**16.** **[UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION
ACT (URA)]{.underline}: It is imperative that the following information
be covered at the workshops:**

In addition to complying with the URA, Sponsors must be reminded of its
site acquisition provisions. These provisions apply to the acquisition
of sites with or without existing structures. The implementing
instructions regarding site acquisition under the URA are contained in
Chapter 5 of HUD Handbook 1378, Tenant Assistance, Relocation and Real
Property Acquisition.

Sponsors that do not have the power of eminent domain are exempt from
compliance with the site acquisition requirements of the URA under
certain conditions. The site acquisition requirements do not apply to
the above Sponsors if, [prior]{.underline} to entering into a contract
of sale or any other method of obtaining site control, the Sponsor
informs the seller of the land:

A.  That it does not have the power of eminent domain and,

> therefore, will not acquire the property if negotiations fail to
> result in an amicable agreement; and

B.  Of its estimate of the fair market value of the property.

> An appraisal is not required; however, the Sponsor\'s files must
> include an explanation, with reasonable evidence, of the basis for the
> estimate.

In those cases, prior to submission of an application for a fund
reservation, where there are existing contracts or options and Sponsors
did not provide the pre-contractual notifications to the sellers, the
Sponsor must provide the notification after-the-fact and give the seller
an opportunity to withdraw from the contract/option. All Section 202 and
Section 811 applications for fund reservations that are filed in
response to the FY 2000 NOFAs must be in compliance with the above.

**17. [PRIOR SUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS]{.underline}:** Sponsors applying for
a Section 202 or Section 811 fund reservation who have received a
Section 202 or Section 811 fund reservation, as applicable, within the
last three funding cycles are **NOT** required to submit the following:

\- Articles of Incorporation, constitution, or other organizational
documents;

\- By-laws;

\- IRS tax exemption ruling

Instead, these Sponsors must submit the project number of the last
appropriate application selected and the local HUD Office to which it
was submitted. If there have been any modifications or additions to the
subject documents, Sponsors must indicate such, and submit the new
material.

**18. [APPLICATION KITS]{.underline}:** Applicants may request
Application Kits from the SuperNOFA Information Center by calling
1-800-HUD-8929 (the TDD number is 1-800-483-2209), by contacting the
appropriate HUD Office, or accessing the HUD Homepage on the Internet at
http://www.hud.gov. Program staff can also obtain Application Kits for
their use by accessing them from the HUD homepage at www.hud.gov. A
checklist of steps and exhibits involved in the application process is
included in the Application Kit.

Programmatic questions concerning the FY 1999 Section 202 or Section 811
program may be discussed with the Office of Business Products in
Headquarters at 202-708-2866. Questions concerning DAP should be
directed to Eva Lantz, (202-708-4135, extension 2463).

Questions concerning Section 202 or Section 811 Capital Advance or
Project Rental Assistance Contract Authority should be directed to the
Funding Control Division (202-708-2750).

Assistant Secretary for Housing -

Federal Housing Commissioner

Attachments

ATTACHMENT 1

+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| **FY 2000     |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| SECTION 202   |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| ALLOCATIONS   |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| BY FIELD      |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| OFFICE**      |       |            |     |        |     |          |
+===============+=======+============+=====+========+=====+==========+
|               | **[ME |            | **  |        | **[ |          |
|               | TROPO |            | [NO |        | TOT |          |
|               | LITAN |            | NME |        | ALS |          |
|               | ]{.sm |            | TRO |        | ]{. |          |
|               | allca |            | ]{. |        | sma |          |
|               | ps}** |            | sma |        | llc |          |
|               |       |            | llc |        | aps |          |
|               |       |            | aps |        | }** |          |
|               |       |            | }** |        |     |          |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| OFFICES       | UNITS | CAPITAL    | UN  | C      | **U | **C      |
|               |       |            | ITS | APITAL | NIT | APITAL** |
|               |       | ADVANCE    |     |        | S** |          |
|               |       |            |     | A      |     | **A      |
|               |       |            |     | DVANCE |     | DVANCE** |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| **BOSTON      |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| HUB**         |       |            |     |        |     |          |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| BOSTON        | 168   | 15,214,143 | 9   | 7      | 177 | 16       |
|               |       |            |     | 97,706 |     | ,011,849 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| HARTFORD      | 84    | 7,297,153  | 5   | 4      | 89  | 7        |
|               |       |            |     | 34,195 |     | ,731,348 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| MANCHESTER    | 44    | 3,013,806  | 33  | 2,2    | 77  | 5        |
|               |       |            |     | 35,212 |     | ,249,018 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| PROVIDENCE    | 50    | 4,472,832  | 5   | 4      | 55  | 4        |
|               |       |            |     | 46,369 |     | ,919,201 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| TOTAL         | 346   | 29,997,934 | 52  | 3,9    | 398 | 33       |
|               |       |            |     | 13,482 |     | ,911,416 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| **NEW YORK    |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| HUB**         |       |            |     |        |     |          |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| NEW YORK      | 460   | 44,777,600 | 5   | 4      | 465 | 45       |
|               |       |            |     | 86,948 |     | ,264,548 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| **BUFFALO     |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| HUB**         |       |            |     |        |     |          |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| BUFFALO       | 129   | 10,340,281 | 26  | 2,0    | 155 | 12       |
|               |       |            |     | 36,996 |     | ,377,277 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| *             |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| *PHILADELPHIA |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| HUB**         |       |            |     |        |     |          |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| CHARLESTON    | 20    | 1,404,033  | 16  | 1,1    | 36  | 2        |
|               |       |            |     | 50,835 |     | ,554,868 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| NEWARK        | 193   | 18,302,320 |     |        | 193 | 18       |
|               |       |            |     |        |     | ,302,320 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| PHILADELPHIA  | 162   | 13,439,971 | 20  | 1,6    | 182 | 15       |
|               |       |            |     | 79,861 |     | ,119,832 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| PITTSBURGH    | 83    | 5,954,042  | 17  | 1,2    | 100 | 7        |
|               |       |            |     | 44,808 |     | ,198,850 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| TOTAL         | 458   | 39,100,366 | 53  | 4,0    | 511 | 43       |
|               |       |            |     | 75,504 |     | ,175,870 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| **BALTIMORE   |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| HUB**         |       |            |     |        |     |          |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| BALTIMORE     | 71    | 5,164,560  | 10  | 7      | 81  | 5        |
|               |       |            |     | 19,592 |     | ,884,152 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| RICHMOND      | 67    | 4,269,338  | 23  | 1,4    | 90  | 5        |
|               |       |            |     | 43,330 |     | ,712,668 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| WASHINGTON    | 72    | 5,552,109  |     |        | 72  | 5        |
|               |       |            |     |        |     | ,552,109 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| TOTAL         | 210   | 14,986,007 | 33  | 2,1    | 243 | 17       |
|               |       |            |     | 62,922 |     | ,148,929 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+

+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
|               | **[ME |            | **  |        | **[ |          |
|               | TROPO |            | [NO |        | TOT |          |
|               | LITAN |            | NME |        | ALS |          |
|               | ]{.sm |            | TRO |        | ]{. |          |
|               | allca |            | ]{. |        | sma |          |
|               | ps}** |            | sma |        | llc |          |
|               |       |            | llc |        | aps |          |
|               |       |            | aps |        | }** |          |
|               |       |            | }** |        |     |          |
+===============+=======+============+=====+========+=====+==========+
| OFFICES       | UNITS | CAPITAL    | UN  | C      | **U | **C      |
|               |       |            | ITS | APITAL | NIT | APITAL** |
|               |       | ADVANCE    |     |        | S** |          |
|               |       |            |     | A      |     | **A      |
|               |       |            |     | DVANCE |     | DVANCE** |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| **GREENSBORO  |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| HUB**         |       |            |     |        |     |          |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| COLUMBIA      | 47    | 3,133,698  | 18  | 1,1    | 65  | 4        |
|               |       |            |     | 63,257 |     | ,296,955 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| GREENSBORO    | 78    | 6,269,766  | 37  | 2,9    | 115 | 9        |
|               |       |            |     | 40,328 |     | ,210,094 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| TOTAL         | 125   | 9,403,464  | 55  | 4,1    | 180 | 13       |
|               |       |            |     | 03,585 |     | ,507,049 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| **ATLANTA     |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| HUB**         |       |            |     |        |     |          |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| ATLANTA       | 77    | 4,856,545  | 34  | 2,1    | 111 | 7        |
|               |       |            |     | 65,619 |     | ,022,164 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| KNOXVILLE     | 38    | 2,268,404  | 11  | 6      | 49  | 2        |
|               |       |            |     | 80,724 |     | ,949,128 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| LOUISVILLE    | 50    | 3,302,515  | 27  | 1,7    | 77  | 5        |
|               |       |            |     | 87,028 |     | ,089,543 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| NASHVILLE     | 52    | 3,271,794  | 19  | 1,1    | 71  | 4        |
|               |       |            |     | 83,302 |     | ,455,096 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| SAN JUAN      | 40    | 3,442,146  | 14  | 1,2    | 54  | 4        |
|               |       |            |     | 26,049 |     | ,668,195 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| TOTAL         | 257   | 17,141,404 | 105 | 7,0    | 362 | 24       |
|               |       |            |     | 42,722 |     | ,184,126 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| **J           |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| ACKSONVILLE** |       |            |     |        |     |          |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| BIRMINGHAM    | 59    | 3,687,389  | 24  | 1,4    | 83  | 5        |
|               |       |            |     | 70,824 |     | ,158,213 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| JACKSON       | 20    | 1,209,254  | 29  | 1,7    | 49  | 2        |
|               |       |            |     | 54,942 |     | ,964,196 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| JACKSONVILLE  | 227   | 15,074,328 | 15  | 9      | 242 | 16       |
|               |       |            |     | 73,769 |     | ,048,097 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| TOTAL         | 306   | 19,970,971 | 68  | 4,1    | 374 | 24       |
|               |       |            |     | 99,535 |     | ,170,506 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| **CHICAGO     |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| HUB**         |       |            |     |        |     |          |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| CHICAGO       | 211   | 18,704,076 | 32  | 2,8    | 243 | 21       |
|               |       |            |     | 08,201 |     | ,512,277 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| INDIANAPOLIS  | 79    | 5,480,717  | 23  | 1,5    | 102 | 7        |
|               |       |            |     | 67,809 |     | ,048,526 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| TOTAL         | 290   | 24,184,793 | 55  | 4,3    | 345 | 28       |
|               |       |            |     | 76,010 |     | ,560,803 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| **COLUMBUS    |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| HUB**         |       |            |     |        |     |          |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| CINCINNATI    | 64    | 4,296,481  | 5   | 3      | 69  | 4        |
|               |       |            |     | 36,806 |     | ,633,287 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| CLEVELAND     | 105   | 7,873,284  | 14  | 1,0    | 119 | 8        |
|               |       |            |     | 67,414 |     | ,940,698 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| COLUMBUS      | 48    | 3,209,421  | 17  | 1,1    | 65  | 4        |
|               |       |            |     | 34,315 |     | ,343,736 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| TOTAL         | 217   | 15,379,186 | 36  | 2,5    | 253 | 17       |
|               |       |            |     | 38,535 |     | ,917,721 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+

+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
|               | **[ME |            | **  |        | **[ |          |
|               | TROPO |            | [NO |        | TOT |          |
|               | LITAN |            | NME |        | ALS |          |
|               | ]{.sm |            | TRO |        | ]{. |          |
|               | allca |            | ]{. |        | sma |          |
|               | ps}** |            | sma |        | llc |          |
|               |       |            | llc |        | aps |          |
|               |       |            | aps |        | }** |          |
|               |       |            | }** |        |     |          |
+===============+=======+============+=====+========+=====+==========+
| OFFICES       | UNITS | CAPITAL    | UN  | C      | **U | **C      |
|               |       |            | ITS | APITAL | NIT | APITAL** |
|               |       | ADVANCE    |     |        | S** |          |
|               |       |            |     | A      |     | **A      |
|               |       |            |     | DVANCE |     | DVANCE** |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| **DETROIT     |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| HUB**         |       |            |     |        |     |          |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| DETROIT       | 111   | 8,587,701  | 5   | 3      | 116 | 8        |
|               |       |            |     | 87,529 |     | ,975,230 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| GRAND RAPIDS  | 45    | 2,937,094  | 18  | 1,1    | 63  | 4        |
|               |       |            |     | 78,858 |     | ,115,952 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| TOTAL         | 156   | 11,524,795 | 23  | 1,5    | 179 | 13       |
|               |       |            |     | 66,387 |     | ,091,182 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| **MINNEAPOLIS |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| HUB**         |       |            |     |        |     |          |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| MINNEAPOLIS   | 74    | 6,068,463  | 27  | 2,2    | 101 | 8        |
|               |       |            |     | 48,294 |     | ,316,757 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| MILWAUKEE     | 84    | 6,587,923  | 30  | 2,3    | 114 | 8        |
|               |       |            |     | 59,726 |     | ,947,649 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| TOTAL         | 158   | 12,656,386 | 57  | 4,6    | 215 | 17       |
|               |       |            |     | 08,020 |     | ,264,406 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| **FT. WORTH   |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| HUB**         |       |            |     |        |     |          |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| FT. WORTH     | 102   | 6,300,968  | 31  | 1,8    | 133 | 8        |
|               |       |            |     | 86,723 |     | ,187,691 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| HOUSTON       | 66    | 4,043,731  | 12  | 7      | 78  | 4        |
|               |       |            |     | 24,819 |     | ,768,550 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| LITTLE ROCK   | 37    | 2,039,902  | 26  | 1,4    | 63  | 3        |
|               |       |            |     | 69,556 |     | ,509,458 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| NEW ORLEANS   | 67    | 3,965,559  | 16  | 9      | 83  | 4        |
|               |       |            |     | 41,449 |     | ,907,008 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| SAN ANTONIO   | 56    | 3,315,084  | 12  | 7      | 68  | 4        |
|               |       |            |     | 22,758 |     | ,037,842 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| TOTAL         | 328   | 19,665,244 | 97  | 5,7    | 425 | 25       |
|               |       |            |     | 45,305 |     | ,410,549 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| **KANSAS CITY |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| HUB**         |       |            |     |        |     |          |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| DES MOINES    | 37    | 2,396,698  | 27  | 1,7    | 64  | 4        |
|               |       |            |     | 50,419 |     | ,147,117 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| KANSAS CITY   | 62    | 4,184,417  | 27  | 1,7    | 89  | 5        |
|               |       |            |     | 68,064 |     | ,952,481 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| OKLAHOMA CITY | 45    | 2,629,918  | 21  | 1,2    | 66  | 3        |
|               |       |            |     | 38,986 |     | ,868,904 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| OMAHA         | 20    | 1,363,454  | 15  | 1,0    | 35  | 2        |
|               |       |            |     | 17,753 |     | ,381,207 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| ST LOUIS      | 59    | 4,485,112  | 20  | 1,5    | 79  | 5        |
|               |       |            |     | 04,193 |     | ,989,305 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| TOTAL         | 223   | 15,059,599 | 110 | 7,2    | 333 | 22       |
|               |       |            |     | 79,415 |     | ,339,014 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| **DENVER      |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| HUB**         |       |            |     |        |     |          |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| DENVER        | 79    | 5,634,696  | 38  | 2,4    | 117 | 8        |
|               |       |            |     | 77,076 |     | ,111,772 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+

+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
|               | **[ME |            | **  |        | **[ |          |
|               | TROPO |            | [NO |        | TOT |          |
|               | LITAN |            | NME |        | ALS |          |
|               | ]{.sm |            | TRO |        | ]{. |          |
|               | allca |            | ]{. |        | sma |          |
|               | ps}** |            | sma |        | llc |          |
|               |       |            | llc |        | aps |          |
|               |       |            | aps |        | }** |          |
|               |       |            | }** |        |     |          |
+===============+=======+============+=====+========+=====+==========+
| OFFICES       | UNITS | CAPITAL    | UN  | C      | **U | **C      |
|               |       |            | ITS | APITAL | NIT | APITAL** |
|               |       | ADVANCE    |     |        | S** |          |
|               |       |            |     | A      |     | **A      |
|               |       |            |     | DVANCE |     | DVANCE** |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| **SAN         |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| FRANCISCO     |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| HUB**         |       |            |     |        |     |          |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| SAN FRANCISCO | 191   | 17,985,288 | 12  | 1,0    | 203 | 19       |
|               |       |            |     | 46,877 |     | ,032,165 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| HONOLULU      | 20    | 2,921,688  | 5   | 7      | 25  | 3        |
|               |       |            |     | 30,422 |     | ,652,110 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| PHOENIX       | 59    | 3,851,831  | 10  | 6      | 69  | 4        |
|               |       |            |     | 27,305 |     | ,479,136 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| SACRAMENTO    | 59    | 4,977,489  | 11  | 8      | 70  | 5        |
|               |       |            |     | 90,316 |     | ,867,805 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| TOTAL         | 329   | 29,736,296 | 38  | 3,2    | 367 | 33       |
|               |       |            |     | 94,920 |     | ,031,216 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| **LOS ANGELES |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| HUB**         |       |            |     |        |     |          |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| LOS ANGELES   | 342   | 28,901,223 | 5   | 4      | 347 | 29       |
|               |       |            |     | 22,022 |     | ,323,245 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| **SEATTLE     |       |            |     |        |     |          |
| HUB**         |       |            |     |        |     |          |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| SEATTLE       | 78    | 6,386,021  | 16  | 1,3    | 94  | 7        |
|               |       |            |     | 22,249 |     | ,708,270 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| ANCHORAGE     | 20    | 2,921,688  | 5   | 7      | 25  | 3        |
|               |       |            |     | 30,422 |     | ,652,110 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| PORTLAND      | 61    | 4,552,133  | 22  | 1,5    | 83  | 6        |
|               |       |            |     | 56,784 |     | ,108,917 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| TOTAL         | 159   | 13,859,842 | 43  | 3,6    | 202 | 17       |
|               |       |            |     | 09,455 |     | ,469,297 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+
| NATIONAL      | 4,572 | 3          | 899 | 63,9   | 5,  | 426      |
| TOTAL         |       | 62,320,087 |     | 38,839 | 471 | ,258,926 |
+---------------+-------+------------+-----+--------+-----+----------+

ATTACHMENT 2

+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| **Fiscal Year 2000 Allocations for           |              |        |
| Supportive Housing for Persons with          |              |        |
| Disabilities**                               |              |        |
|                                              |              |        |
| **\[Fiscal Year 2000 Section 811             |              |        |
| Allocations\]**                              |              |        |
+==============================================+==============+========+
| **Office**                                   | **Capital    | **U    |
|                                              | Advance      | nits** |
|                                              | Authority**  |        |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| **Boston** **HUB:**                          |              |        |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Boston                                       | 2,783,966    | 32     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Hartford                                     | 1,818,322    | 22     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Manchester                                   | 1,213,828    | 19     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Providence                                   | 853,270      | 10     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Total                                        | 6,669,386    | 83     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| **New York HUB:**                            |              |        |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| New York                                     | 6,812,035    | 73     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Total                                        | 6,812,035    | 73     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| **Buffalo HUB:**                             | 2,156,373    | 28     |
|                                              |              |        |
| Buffalo                                      |              |        |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Total                                        | 2,156,373    | 28     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| **Philadelphia HUB:**                        |              |        |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Newark                                       | 3,773,225    | 42     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Pittsburgh                                   | 1,848,175    | 27     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Philadelphia                                 | 3,669,256    | 46     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Charleston                                   | 1,334,792    | 20     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Total                                        | 10,625,448   | 135    |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| **Baltimore HUB:**                           |              |        |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Baltimore                                    | 1,643,037    | 24     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Richmond                                     | 1,620,222    | 27     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| DC**\***                                     | 1,762,227    | 24     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Total                                        | 5,025,486    | 75     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+

**Fiscal Year 2000 Allocations for Supportive Housing for Persons with
Disabilities**

**\[Fiscal Year 2000 Section 811 Allocations\]**

+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| **Greensboro HUB:**                          | 1,705,342    | 27     |
|                                              |              |        |
| Columbia                                     |              |        |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Greensboro                                   | 3,034,703    | 40     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Total                                        | 4,740,045    | 67     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| **Atlanta HUB:**                             | 2,295,378    | 38     |
|                                              |              |        |
| Atlanta                                      |              |        |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| San Juan                                     | 2,242,725    | 28     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Louisville                                   | 1,772,891    | 28     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Knoxville                                    | 1,159,818    | 20     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Nashville                                    | 1,341,080    | 22     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Total                                        | 8,811,892    | 136    |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| **Jacksonville HUB:**                        |              |        |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Jacksonville                                 | 4,505,996    | 71     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Birmingham                                   | 1,897,123    | 32     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Jackson                                      | 1,431,507    | 25     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Total                                        | 7,834,626    | 128    |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| **Chicago HUB:**                             | 4,685,263    | 55     |
|                                              |              |        |
| Chicago                                      |              |        |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Indiana                                      | 2,024,107    | 31     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Total                                        | 6,709,370    | 86     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| **Columbus HUB:**                            |              |        |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Cincinnati                                   | 1,304,121    | 20     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Cleveland                                    | 2,357,806    | 33     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Columbus                                     | 1,284,106    | 20     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Total                                        | 4,946,033    | 73     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+

**Fiscal Year 2000 Allocations for Supportive Housing for Persons with
Disabilities**

**\[Fiscal Year 2000 Section 811 Allocations\]**

+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| **Detroit HUB:**                             | 2,838,898    | 38     |
|                                              |              |        |
| Detroit                                      |              |        |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Grand Rapids                                 | 1,138,459    | 18     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Total                                        | 3,977,357    | 56     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| **Minneapolis HUB:**                         |              |        |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Milwaukee**\*\***                            | 1,861,973    | 25     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Minneapolis                                  | 1,726,083    | 22     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Total                                        | 3,588,056    | 47     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| **Ft. Worth HUB:**                           | 2,522,670    | 43     |
|                                              |              |        |
| Ft. Worth                                    |              |        |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Houston                                      | 1,691,257    | 29     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Little Rock                                  | 1,222,654    | 23     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| New Orleans                                  | 1,754,639    | 31     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| San Antonio                                  | 1,541,612    | 27     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Total                                        | 8,732,832    | 153    |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| **Kansas City HUB:**                         | 1,181,843    | 19     |
|                                              |              |        |
| Des Moines                                   |              |        |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Kansas City                                  | 1,640,307    | 26     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Omaha                                        | 651,588      | 10     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Oklahoma City                                | 1,315,642    | 23     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| St. Louis                                    | 1,667,826    | 23     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Total                                        | 6,457,206    | 101    |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| **Denver HUB:**                              | 1,939,997    | 30     |
|                                              |              |        |
| Denver                                       |              |        |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Total                                        | 1,939,997    | 30     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+

**Fiscal Year 2000 Allocations for Supportive Housing for Persons with
Disabilities**

**\[Fiscal Year 2000 Section 811 Allocations\]**

+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| **San Francisco HUB:**                       | 1,396,260    | 10     |
|                                              |              |        |
| Honolulu (Guam)                              |              |        |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Phoenix                                      | 1,412,695    | 23     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Sacramento                                   | 1,521,656    | 19     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| San Francisco                                | 4,010,877    | 44     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Total                                        | 8,341,488    | 96     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| **Los Angeles HUB:**                         | 6,601,939    | 82     |
|                                              |              |        |
| Los Angeles                                  |              |        |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Total                                        | 6,601,939    | 82     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| **Seattle HUB:**                             |              |        |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Anchorage                                    | 1,396,260    | 10     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Portland                                     | 1,575,517    | 22     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Seattle                                      | 1,832,997    | 24     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| Total                                        | 4,804,774    | 56     |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+
| **National Total**                           | **1          | **1    |
|                                              | 08,774,343** | ,505** |
+----------------------------------------------+--------------+--------+

**\*** This amount includes Capital Advance Authority of \$1,130,500

> to fund Lt. Joseph P. Kennedy Institute, Inc., Berwyn Heights,
> Maryland. Since this 12 unit project was not selected in FY 1999 due
> to HUD error, the application will be funded from the FY 2000
> allocation to the Washington, DC Office.

**\*\*** This amount includes Capital Advance Authority of \$871,000 to
fund the Eternal Life Church of God in Christ, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Since this 12 unit project was not selected in FY 1999 due to HUD error,
the application will be funded from the FY 2000 allocation to the
Milwaukee Office.

ATTACHMENT 3

**[SECTION 811 WORKSHOP INSTRUCTIONS]{.underline}**

The local HUD Office will send a copy of the Funding Notification and
information regarding the date, time and place of the workshop
(Attachment 5) to the following:

\- Disabled and minority media, and minority and other organizations
involved in housing and community development within the Office\'s
jurisdiction;

\- Groups with a special interest in housing for persons with
disabilities, including State and local disability agencies (e.g.,
Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities); State
Independent Living Councils and Centers for Independent Living;

\- The applicable State Single Point of Contact (Executive Order 12372)
and Chief Executive Officers of appropriate units of State/local
government in all instances where there is a Consolidated Plan.

In addition, the following must be notified, where feasible:

\- Trade association journals;

\- Associations representing persons with disabilities;

\- State Agencies, such as Departments of Human Resources;

\- Fair Housing Groups (the names and addresses of such organizations
and groups shall be provided to the PC&R staff by the Equal Opportunity
Division Directors).

ATTACHMENT 4

**FUNDING NOTIFICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000**

**SECTION 202 SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY**

**CAPITAL ADVANCE PROGRAM**

The Department of Housing and Urban Development will accept applications
from private nonprofit organizations for rental or cooperative housing
under the Section 202 Capital Advance Program for Supportive Housing for
the Elderly subject to the following:

[Units]{.underline} [Capital Advance]{.underline}

METROPOLITAN AREA: \$

NONMETROPOLITAN AREA:

This represents the funding available for the Office. The minimum number
of units per application is 5 and the maximum number is 125\* (including
the manager\'s unit). Applicants submitting applications for units in
either of the areas identified above may not request more units than
advertised for the specific area (metropolitan or nonmetropolitan).

Appropriate filing information is contained in an Application Kit which
may be obtained from the SuperNOFA Information Center at 1-800-HUD-8929
(TDD: 1-800-483-2209); or from [(HUD Office Address)]{.underline} ; or
on the Internet by accessing the HUD Homepage at http://www.hud.gov.

This office will conduct a workshop on [(date)]{.underline} at
[(time)]{.underline} for interested applicants to explain the Section
202 program, to distribute Application Kits and to discuss application
procedures. The facility for the workshop is accessible to individuals
with disabilities. The VOICE/TDD telephone number is .

THE DEADLINE DATE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS IS MAY 18, 2000.

\* If your office\'s allocation is less than 125 units, then insert

that number instead of 125.

ATTACHMENT 5

**FUNDING NOTIFICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000**

**SECTION 811 SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES**

**CAPITAL ADVANCE PROGRAM**

The Department of Housing and Urban Development will accept applications
from nonprofit organizations for rental or cooperative housing under the
Section 811 Capital Advance Program for Supportive Housing for Persons
with Disabilities subject to the following:

[Units]{.underline} [Capital Advance]{.underline}

\$

This represents the funding available for the Office. Applicants must
not request more units than available.

Appropriate filing information is contained in an Application Kit which
may be obtained from the SuperNOFA Information Center at 1-800-HUD-8929
(TDD-1-800-483-2209); or from [(HUD Office Address) ;]{.underline} or on
the Internet by accessing the HUD Homepage at http://www.hud.gov.

This office will conduct a workshop on [(date)]{.underline} at
[(time)]{.underline} for interested applicants to explain the Section
811 program, to distribute Application Kits and to discuss application
procedures. The facility for the workshop is accessible to individuals
with disabilities. The VOICE/TDD telephone number is .

THE DEADLINE DATE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS IS MAY 18, 2000.

ATTACHMENT 6

**Fiscal Year 2000 Policy for Section 202 and Section 811 Applications
Processing and Selections**

The modifications outlined below eliminate the need for technical review
documents being forwarded to Headquarters for review.

Separate selection lists, lists of unfunded but approvable applications
and lists of applications that received base scores below 60 for the
Section 202 and Section 811 programs are still to be submitted to
Headquarters prior to completion of the selection and announcement
process.

Residual funds not used by Multifamily Hubs for each program shall be
identified in the transmittal memorandum to accompany the above lists.
These funds will be recaptured by Headquarters and will be used to
restore units, where possible, to projects that had units reduced in
order to be selected and to fund additional applications based on field
office ratings, beginning with the highest rated application nationwide,
ensuring equity among field offices as described in paragraph 4(A)(5) on
page 9 above.

Headquarters will coordinate Congressional notification of selected
applicants with the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental
Relations based upon Congressional Notification Memoranda completed by
HUD Offices. See Attachment 7 for the current Congressional Notification
Memorandum format and a sample completed format.

Responsibility for notifying State Points of Contact of
nonaccommodations has been transferred from Headquarters to the local
HUD Offices.

**REVISED REVIEW, RATING AND SELECTION PROCEDURES**

The following revised review, rating and selection procedures are to be
used in place of Paragraphs 3-51 through 3-58 of Handbooks 4571.3 REV-1
and 4571.2.

A. [Considerations Prior to Forwarding Applications to the
Rating/Selection Panel]{.underline}.

1\. Applications that are determined to be technical rejects after the
conclusion of the appeal process, will receive a final score of 0 and
cannot be considered by the Rating/Selection Panel.

**NOTES:**

> **(a)** Sponsors whose applications are found technically unapprovable
> must be promptly notified when all technical reviews are complete. The
> letters shall be sent by certified mail and shall enumerate all
> reasons for technical rejection including missing or incomplete
> Exhibits identified during the initial screening for curable
> deficiencies period but were not requested due to their impact on the
> rating of the applications. Sponsors shall have 14 calendar days from
> the date of the letter to appeal the rejection.
>
> **(b)** Sponsors whose applications are found technically unapprovable
> due to the nonsubmission of Exhibit 7(g), Form HUD-2991, Certification
> of Consistency with the Consolidated Plan, and/or Exhibit 4(d)(iii),
> Evidence of Permissive Zoning (if it is a 202 application) or Exhibit
> 7(l), Certification for Provision of Supportive Services (if it is an
> 811 application) and the nonsubmission was not discovered during the
> curable deficiency period must be given the opportunity to cure the
> deficiency during the 14 calendar day appeal period. In order for the
> technical rejection to be overturned, the Sponsor must submit the
> deficient Exhibit and documentation showing that the information had
> been requested from the third party at least 45 days prior to the
> application deadline date.

2\. The selection process cannot take place until after receipt of
comments from the State Single Point of Contact or upon expiration of
the comment period, whichever occurs first.

3\. HUD Offices should alert the Rating/Selection Panel of any
applications with adverse State comments.

4\. The Environmental Assessment and Compliance Findings for the Related
Laws Form (Form 4128) must be completed for applications with
satisfactory evidence of site control, all compliance findings made,
including the Finding of No Significant Impact, and properly executed by
the Appraiser and Supervisory Project Manager before technical
processing can be completed. For projects that required the WRC 8-Step
procedure (Floodplains/ Wetlands), the Form 4128 should indicate that
Steps 1 through 6 have been completed, documentation attached. Also, if
the application does not include a letter from the SHPO indicating that
the site has no historic significance, and does not impact on a site or
area of historic significance, the applicable determination under
Historic Preservation procedures must be made and documented by HUD
Office staff. After completion of technical processing, the Form 4128
must be executed by the Supervisory Project Manager and attached to the
Valuation Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum.

5\. HUD Offices should have initiated the eight-step process for sites
located in the 100-year floodplain (500-year floodplain for critical
actions) and/or, in the case of sites for new construction, a wetland,
prior to submission to the Rating/Selection Panel. The first six steps
**must** be completed prior to the convening of the Rating/Selection
Panel.

B. [Notification of Technical Rejection]{.underline}. Upon completion of
technical processing, a copy of the Technical Reject Log and a copy of
each technical rejection letter shall be sent to Headquarters, Office of
Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, room 6138, Attention:
202/811.

C. [Determining Approvable Applications]{.underline}.

1\. [Establishing the Rating/Selection Panel]{.underline}. The HUD
Office will convene a Rating/Selection Panel to assure each Section 202
and Section 811 application is approvable, to complete final ratings and
to rate and rank the approvable applications.

2\. [Composition of Panel]{.underline}. The Panel will include the
Project Manager and staff from the following Technical Disciplines:

a\. Valuation

b\. Architectural and Engineering

c\. Economic and Market Analysis

d\. Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

e\. Community Planning and Development

3\. [Area of Competition (Section 202 Only)]{.underline}. All
metropolitan applications will compete against each other and all
nonmetropolitan applications will compete against each other within each
local HUD Office\'s jurisdiction.

4\. [Review for Consistency]{.underline}. If the Supervisory Project
Manager\'s review reveals that a particular Technical Discipline\'s
review comments have violated or are inconsistent with any outstanding
instructions, the Supervisory Project Manager shall take corrective
action prior to making selections. Such items should be noted and
maintained in the application file.

5\. [Recommended Scores]{.underline}. Based on the findings from the
Technical Processing Review and Findings Memoranda, the Project Manager
will complete the appropriate Standard Rating Criteria Form (Attachment
12 for 202, Attachment 13 for 811), to be used by the Rating/Selection
Panel in assigning final ratings to all approvable applications.

6\. [Rank Order]{.underline}. All approvable applications are to be
placed in rank order.

D. [Selection of Applications]{.underline}. The Panel shall select
applications according to the following process:

1\. [Descending Order]{.underline}. Applications shall be selected in
descending order which most reasonably approximate the number of units
and capital advance authority allocated to each HUD Office without
skipping over a higher rated application. For Section 202, this process
must be done separately for the metropolitan and nonmetropolitan
categories. For Section 811, the Washington, D.C. Office will first fund
the application submitted by the Lt. Joseph P. Kennedy Institute, Inc.,
and the Milwaukee Office will first fund the application submitted by
the Eternal Life Church of God in Christ, both of which were FY 1999
applications which were not funded due to HUD error.

2\. [Units and Dollars Control]{.underline}. The selection process is
controlled by the number of units and dollars stated in the NOFA.
Therefore, a HUD Office may not select more units nor approve more funds
than it was allocated.

3\. [Minimum Score]{.underline}. Only those applications that receive a
score of 60 base points or above may be considered for selection. (The
base score does not include bonus points.)

**NOTE: In no case may applications with technical deficiencies (e.g.,
ineligible Sponsor, missing or unsatisfactory Supportive Services
Certification (Section 811), be considered by HUD Office panels, or
included on the lists described in E. 3. and 4. below.**

4\. [EZ/EC Bonus Points]{.underline}. After rating applications, those
that receive at least 60 base points, have complete EZ/EC
certifications, and acceptable site control of an approvable site(s)
should be reviewed against HUD\'s list of EZs/ECs to determine if they
are eligible to receive two (2) bonus points. Only those applications
where the proposed site(s) is consistent with the strategic plan of the
EZ/EC, will be located in an EZ/EC, and will serve residents of the
EZ/EC may receive the two (2) bonus points.

5\. [Residual Funds]{.underline}. After making the initial selections,
any residual funds may be utilized to fund the next rank-ordered
application by reducing the units by no more than 10 percent rounded to
the nearest whole number; provided the reduction will not render the
project infeasible. Applications proposing 5 units or less may not be
reduced. For Section 202, the HUD Office may then combine its unused
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan funds in order to select the next
ranked application in either category, using the unit reduction policy,
if necessary.

6\. [Approvable but Unfunded Applications]{.underline}. After the above
process has been completed, HUD Offices must identify all unfunded but
otherwise approvable applications.

7\. [Program Center\'s Submission to the Multifamily Hub]{.underline}.
Each Program Center, after completion of its selection process, shall
submit the following items separately for Section 202 and Section 811 to
the Director of the appropriate Multifamily Hub in accordance with the
schedule in Paragraph 13:

a\. A transmittal memorandum summarizing the results of the selection
process (e.g., number of applications received and number of
applications selected, identification of those applications, if any,
where the number of units requested was reduced by up to 10 percent and
the amount of the reduction (units and dollars), the amount of residual
funds being returned to the Multifamily Hub, achievement of MBE goals,
nonmetro achievement for Section 202, etc.

b\. A separate completed recapitulation form.

c\. An initial selection list in rank order (For Section 202, metro and
nonmetro selections must be on separate lists).

d\. An approvable but unfunded list in rank order (For Section 202,
metro and nonmetro selections must be on separate lists).

e\. A list of applications in rank order that received a score of less
than 60 base points.

f\. A list of applications that have been technically rejected.

g\. A completed Congressional Notification form for each application on
the Initial Selection Lists.

h\. The Standard Rating Criteria Form for each application.

**NOTE:** HUD Offices **must** use the DAP System to complete items b.
through h. above. (See Paragraph 10 of Notice.)

8\. [Multifamily Hub\'s Use of Residual Funds]{.underline}. After the
HUD Offices within each Hub have funded all possible projects for the
Section 202 and Section 811 programs, the residual funds will be
combined within each program (for Section 202, metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan funds are to be combined). These funds will first be
used to restore units to projects reduced by HUD Offices. Then,
additional applications within each Multifamily Hub will be selected in
rank order with no more than one application selected per HUD Office
unless there are insufficient approvable applications in other HUD
Offices within the Multifamily Hub. This process will continue until
there are no more approvable applications within the Multifamily Hub
that can be selected with the remaining funds. If necessary, any
remaining residual funds may be used to fund the next rank-ordered
application by reducing the number of units by no more than 10 percent,
rounded to the nearest whole number, provided the reduction will not
render the project infeasible. HUD will not reduce the number of units
in projects of 5 units or less.

9\. [Headquarters\' Use of Residual Funds]{.underline}. Headquarters
will use residual funds first to restore units to projects that were
reduced by HUD Offices and/or Multifamily Hubs **(with the exception
that in the Section 202 program, the residual funds will be used first
to fund FY 1999 applications submitted by Metropolitan Low Income
Housing and CDC, Inc., in the jurisdiction of the Columbia, SC Program
Center and by White Sands Manor, in the jurisdiction of the
Jacksonville, FL Hub which were not funded due to HUD error)** and,
second, for selecting additional applications on a national rank order.
However, no more than one application will be selected per HUD Office
(excluding the Columbia, SC Multifamily Program Center and the
Jacksonville, FL Hub for the 202 program, already funded) from the
national residual amount unless there are insufficient approvable
applications in other HUD Offices. If funds still remain, additional
applications will be selected based on field office ratings, beginning
with the highest rated application nationwide insuring an equitable
distribution among all HUD Offices.

E. [Submission to Headquarters]{.underline}. Each Multifamily Hub shall
submit the following items separately for Section 202 and Section 811 to
Headquarters, Office of Business Products, room 6138, Attention:
202/811, in accordance with the schedule in Paragraph 13:

1\. A transmittal memorandum summarizing the results of the selection
process (e.g., number of applications received and number of
applications selected, identification of those applications, if any,
where the number of units was reduced by up to 10% and the number of
units and funds needed to restore the application to its original
request, identification of any approvable but unfunded applications the
Multifamily Hub funded with residual funds from the Program Centers,
amount of unused funds being returned for recapture by Headquarters,
achievement of MBE goals, nonmetro achievement for Section 202, etc.

2\. A separate completed recapitulation form.

3\. An initial selection list in rank order (For Section 202, metro and
nonmetro selections must be on separate lists).

4\. An approvable but unfunded list in rank order (For Section 202,
metro and nonmetro selections must be on separate lists).

5.  A list of applications in rank order that received a score of less
    than 60 base points.

> 6\. A list of applications that have been technically rejected.

7\. A completed Congressional Notification form for each application on
the Initial Selection Lists (Do **NOT** send the originals or copies to
the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations).
Headquarters will notify HUD Offices of which additional applications
selected with residual funds will need completed Congressional
Notification forms.

**NOTE:** HUD Offices **must** use the DAP System to complete items 2.
Through 7. Above.

8\. All selection information (**excluding** Technical Processing Review
and Findings Memoranda) submitted by the Multifamily Program Centers to
the Multifamily Hub.

ATTACHMENT 7

**HUD NOTIFICATION**

**U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development**

Washington, D.C. 20410-8000

ATTACHMENT 8

SECTION 202 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) GOALS

SECTION 202

CAPITAL [OFFICES ADVANCE UNITS]{.underline}

**BOSTON HUB**

Boston \$ 1,078,865 12

Hartford 517,455 6

Manchester 342,478 5

Providence 447,283 5

**NEW YORK HUB**

New York City 10,225,437 105

**BUFFALO HUB**

Buffalo 2,361,312 29

**PHILADELPHIA HUB**

Charleston 351,008 5

Newark 4,179,528 44

Pittsburgh 1,166,452 16

Philadelphia 2,633,015 32

**BALTIMORE HUB**

Baltimore 1,011,785 14

Richmond 836,403 13

DC 1,087,710 14

**GREENSBORO HUB**

Columbia 817,305 12

Greensboro 1,635,229 20

**ATLANTA HUB**

Atlanta 1,266,644 20

San Juan 897,752 10

Louisville 861,335 13

Knoxville 591,626 10

Nashville 853,322 14

ATTACHMENT 8

SECTION 202 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) GOALS

SECTION 202

CAPITAL [OFFICES ADVANCE UNITS]{.underline}

**JACKSONVILLE HUB**

Jacksonville 3,931,562 59

Birmingham 961,714 15

Jackson 315,388 5

**CHICAGO HUB**

Chicago 2,742,607 31

Indianapolis 803,646 12

**COLUMBUS HUB**

Cincinnati 629,999 9

Cleveland 1,154,472 15

Columbus 470,602 7

**DETROIT HUB**

Detroit 1,259,228 16

Grand Rapids 430,671 7

**MINNEAPOLIS HUB**

Milwaukee 965,997 12

Minneapolis 889,828 11

**FT. WORTH HUB**

Ft. Worth 1,613,074 26

Houston 1,035,212 17

Little Rock 522,223 9

New Orleans 1,015,200 17

San Antonio 848,675 14

**KANSAS CITY HUB**

Des Moines 323,878 5

Kansas City 392,281 6

Oklahoma City 292,213 5

Omaha 340,864 5

St. Louis 420,470 6

ATTACHMENT 8

SECTION 202 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) GOALS

SECTION 202

CAPITAL [OFFICES ADVANCE UNITS]{.underline}

**DENVER HUB**

Denver 541,786 8

**SAN FRANCISCO HUB**

Honolulu (Guam) 839,265 6

Phoenix 1,106,452 17

Sacramento 1,429,801 17

San Francisco 5,166,337 55

**LOS ANGELES HUB**

Los Angeles 8,301,978 98

**SEATTLE HUB**

Anchorage 730,422 5

Portland 410,340 5

Seattle 575,651 7

**TOTAL** \$73,623,784 527

ATTACHMENT 9

SECTION 811 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) GOALS

SECTION 811

CAPITAL [OFFICES ADVANCE UNITS]{.underline}

**BOSTON HUB**

Boston \$ 260,997 3

Hartford 247,953 3

Manchester 191,657 3

Providence 255,981 3

**NEW YORK HUB**

New York City 774,094 8

**BUFFALO HUB**

Buffalo 245,042 3

**PHILADELPHIA HUB**

Charleston 200,219 3

Newark 428,775 5

Pittsburgh 180,175 3

Philadelphia 357,708 4

**BALTIMORE HUB**

Baltimore 205,380 3

Richmond 157,952 3

DC 220,278 3

**GREENSBORO HUB**

Columbia 221,327 4

Greensboro 393,858 5

**ATLANTA HUB**

Atlanta 297,905 5

San Juan 291,071 4

Louisville 230,094 4

Knoxville 150,526 3

Nashville 174,051 3

ATTACHMENT 9

SECTION 811 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) GOALS

SECTION 811

CAPITAL [OFFICES ADVANCE UNITS]{.underline}

**JACKSONVILLE HUB**

Jacksonville 584,809 9

Birmingham 246,217 4

Jackson 185,788 3

**CHICAGO HUB**

Chicago 341,867 4

Indianapolis 195,881 3

**COLUMBUS HUB**

Cincinnati 195,518 3

Cleveland 214,346 3

Columbus 192,616 3

**DETROIT HUB**

Detroit 207,144 3

Grand Rapids 189,743 3

**MINNEAPOLIS HUB**

Milwaukee 223,437 3

Minneapolis 235,375 3

**FT. WORTH HUB**

Ft. Worth 321,369 5

Houston 215,453 4

Little Rock 155,757 3

New Orleans 223,527 4

San Antonio 196,389 3

**KANSAS CITY HUB**

Des Moines 186,606 3

Kansas City 189,267 3

Oklahoma City 171,606 3

Omaha 195,477 3

St. Louis 217,543 3

ATTACHMENT 9

SECTION 811 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) GOALS

SECTION 811

CAPITAL [OFFICES ADVANCE UNITS]{.underline}

**DENVER HUB**

Denver 194,000 3

**SAN FRANCISCO HUB**

Honolulu (Guam) 418,878 3

Phoenix 201,934 3

Sacramento 217,509 3

San Francisco 573,325 6

**LOS ANGELES HUB**

Los Angeles 943,697 12

**SEATTLE HUB**

Anchorage 418,878 3

Portland 214,843 3

Seattle 229,125 3

**TOTAL** \$14,352,496 192

ATTACHMENT 10

**SECTION 202/SECTION 811 CAPITAL ADVANCE PROGRAM**

**APPLICATION FOR FUND RESERVATION**

**INITIAL SCREENING FOR CURABLE DEFICIENCIES CHECKLIST FORMAT**

[Instructions]{.underline}:

1\. The Project Manager shall screen each application to determine if
the application has any curable deficiencies (i.e., deficiencies that
have no affect on the rating of the application). Other deficiencies
such as exhibits or portions of exhibits that are incomplete or missing
and will affect the rating of the application shall be noted on the
checklist for inclusion in a technical reject letter to the Sponsor.
They shall **NOT** be requested during the curable deficiency period.
**NOTE:** During initial screening, the contents of the exhibits are not
to be reviewed; only the inclusion of the material.

2\. When completed, the Project Manager shall draft a letter to the
Sponsor identifying the deficiencies that must be corrected within 14
calendar days from the date of the letter.

3\. **(Section 811 Only)** If the Sponsor checks box 9b. of Form
HUD-92016-CA indicating that it is requesting approval to restrict
occupancy of the proposed project to a subcategory of persons with
disabilities within one of the three main categories (i.e., physically
disabled, developmentally disabled, chronically mentally ill) the
Project Manager must ensure that the Sponsor has submitted the required
information in Exhibit 4(e)(ii) to justify its request.

Project Sponsor:

Project Location:

Project No.: No. of Units/Residents:

[INITIAL SCREENING SUMMARY]{.underline}

Date Received for Screening:

Date Screening Completed:

Application is complete.

OR

Application is incomplete.

Date of curable deficiency letter (attach copy):

Date of response to curable deficiency letter:

Date Application Placed into Technical Processing:

Signature of Project Manager Date

**Section 202/Section 811 - Application for Fund Reservation**

**Initial Screening for Curable Deficiencies Checklist**

**Project Manager**

Sponsor Name:

Project Location:

Project No.:

The Project Manager must complete an initial screening of each
application to determine if there are any curable deficiencies (See
Section 202 or Section 811 Program Section of the SuperNOFA or Paragraph
of this Notice for a list of curable deficiencies). The Project Manager
shall also note whether there are any missing or incomplete Exhibits
that would affect the rating of the application and, thus, will need to
be included in a technical reject letter to the Sponsor.

[EXHIBIT NO.]{.underline} [COMPLETE]{.underline}
[INCOMPLETE]{.underline} [MISSING]{.underline}

[1]{.underline}

[2(a)]{.underline}

[2(b)]{.underline}

[2(c)]{.underline}

[2(d) (811)]{.underline}

[3(a)]{.underline} [3(b)]{.underline}

[3(c)]{.underline}

[3(d)]{.underline}

[3(e)]{.underline}

[3(f)]{.underline} [3(g)]{.underline} [3(h)(i)]{.underline}

[3(h)(ii)]{.underline}

[3(h)(iii)]{.underline}

[3(i)]{.underline}

[4(a)]{.underline} [4(b)]{.underline}

[4(c)(i)]{.underline} [4(c)(ii)]{.underline}

[4(d)(i)]{.underline} [4(d)(ii)]{.underline} [4(d)(iii)]{.underline}
[4(d)(iv)]{.underline}

[4(d)(v)]{.underline}

[4(d)(vi)]{.underline}

[4(d)(vii)]{.underline}

[4(d)(vii)(A)]{.underline}

[4(d)(vii)(B)]{.underline}

[4(d)(vii)(c)]{.underline}

[EXHIBIT NO.]{.underline} [COMPLETE]{.underline}
[INCOMPLETE]{.underline} [MISSING]{.underline}

[4(d)(viii) (811)]{.underline} [4(d)(ix)(A) (811)]{.underline}
[4(d)(ix)(B) (811)]{.underline} [4(d)(ix)(C) (811)]{.underline}

[4(d)(ix)(D) (811)]{.underline} [4(d)(ix)(E) (811)]{.underline}

[4(d)(ix)(F) (811)]{.underline}

[4(d)(ix)(G) (811)]{.underline}

[4(d)(x) (811)]{.underline}

[4(d)(xi) (811)]{.underline}

[4(d)(xii) (811)]{.underline}

[4(d)(xiii) (811)]{.underline}

[4(d)(iv) (811)]{.underline}

[4(e)(i) (202)]{.underline}

[4(e)(ii) (202)]{.underline}

[4(e)(iii) (202)]{.underline}

[4(e)(i) (811)]{.underline}

[4(e)(ii)(A) (811)]{.underline}

[4(e)(ii)(B) (811)]{.underline}

[4(e)(ii)(C) (811)]{.underline}

[4(e)(ii)(D) (811)]{.underline}

[4(e)(iii) (811)]{.underline}

[4(e)(iv) (811)]{.underline}

[4(e)(v) (811)]{.underline}

[4(e)(vi) (811)]{.underline}

[4(e)(vii) (811)]{.underline}

[4(e)(viii) (811)]{.underline}

[4(e)(ix) (811)]{.underline}

[4(e)(x) (811)]{.underline}

[5]{.underline}

[6(a)]{.underline}

[6(b)]{.underline}

[6(c)]{.underline}

[6(d)]{.underline}

[7(a)]{.underline}

[7(b)]{.underline}

[7(c)]{.underline}

[7(d)]{.underline}

[7(e)]{.underline}

[7(f)]{.underline}

[7(g)]{.underline}

[7(h)]{.underline}

[7(i)]{.underline}

[7(j)]{.underline}

[7(k)]{.underline}

[7(l) (811)]{.underline}

[7(m) (811)]{.underline}

**NOTES:**

1\. **Section 811 Only** - Sponsors must provide **either** evidence of
control of an approvable site (Exhibit 4(d)(i) through (viii) **or**
information on an identified site(s)(Exhibit 4(d)(x) through (iv). Put
N/A for those parts of Exhibit 4d that are not applicable to the
application.

2\. **Section 811 Only** - Exhibit 4(d)(ix)([A]{.underline}) through
([G]{.underline}) applies only to site control applications in which the
Sponsor requests an exception to the project size limits. If the request
for an exception to the project size limits exceeds 8 persons with
disabilities for a group home or 24 persons with disabilities for an
independent living project, send Exhibits 1, 4(a), (b), (c) and (d)(ix)
to Headquarters, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration,
room 6138, Attn: Section 202/811 immediately upon the conclusion of
initial screening so Headquarters can review the request and inform the
field office of its decision to approve or disapprove the request. If
the site is rejected or the exception is not approved, the application
must be processed at the project size limit. If an exception to the
project size limits was not requested, put N/A for Exhibit
4(d)(ix)([A]{.underline}) through ([G]{.underline}).

3\. **Section 202 Only** - For those Exhibits or parts of Exhibits that
apply only to Section 811, put N/A in the column titled, \"Complete\".

After review of the application for curable deficiencies, and missing or
incomplete Exhibits, complete 1. or 2. below, as applicable:

1\. The Sponsor shall be notified of the following curable deficiencies:

[Curable Deficiencies Identified]{.underline}

The following Exhibits or portions of Exhibits are missing or incomplete
and, since they have an impact on the rating of the application, they
cannot be corrected. They shall be included in a technical reject letter
sent to the Sponsor at the conclusion of technical processing:

[Information to be identified in technical reject letter]{.underline}

**OR**

2\. The application is complete.

Comments:

Signature of Project Manager Date

ATTACHMENT 11

**SECTION 202/811 CAPITAL ADVANCE**

**APPLICATION FOR FUND RESERVATION**

**TECHNICAL PROCESSING REVIEW AND FINDINGS MEMORANDA FORMATS**

[Instructions]{.underline}:

1\. The attached contains 7 separate suggested memoranda formats for use
by the reviewing disciplines during technical processing at the fund
reservation stage. The memoranda formats provide for:

\- the assignment of recommended rating points by the reviewing
discipline for the Section 202 or Section 811 Rating/Selection Panel.

\- identification of all required findings and applicable program
instructions.

\- identification of substantive comments by the reviewer.

**NOTE:** Other review formats may be used as long as the required
information is recorded.

2\. The rating criteria on the memoranda formats correspond to the
Rating Factors on the Standard Rating Criteria Form (Attachment 12 (202)
and Attachment 13 (811)). For example, on the Project Manager\'s
Memorandum Format there is no (b) under Rating Factor 1 because that
criterion is rated by FHEO. Furthermore, the points for each overall
factor on the memoranda formats relate to the maximum points the
particular technical discipline can assign to the rating criterion and
may not equal the total points for the corresponding Rating Factor on
the Standard Rating Criteria Form. For example, Rating Factor 1 on the
Standard Rating Criteria Form is worth 25 base points. However, on the
Project Manager\'s Memoranda Format, Rating Factor 1 is worth 15 points
because the Project Manager does not rate Rating Criterion 1(b) which is
worth 10 points.

3\. **[Missing Information]{.underline}.** If the reviewing discipline
discovers that an exhibit or part of an exhibit is missing which was not
identified during initial screening for curable deficiencies, the
Project Manager must be notified immediately. The Project Manager shall
telephone the Sponsor and request the missing information if it is a
curable deficiency to be submitted within 14 calendar days from the date
of the telephone call. The Project Manager shall also request this
information on the same day by certified mail. Any other missing
information shall be listed in a technical reject letter to the Sponsor.
If any of the following exhibits are discovered missing during technical
processing, the Sponsor must be given the opportunity to submit the
missing exhibits during the 14 calendar day technical reject appeal
period: Exhibit 7(g), Form HUD-2991, Certification of Consistency with
the Consolidated Plan (202 or 811), Exhibit 4(d)(iii), Evidence of
Permissive Zoning (202 only), or Exhibit 7(l), Certification for
Provision of Supportive Services (811 only).

4\. **[Restricted Occupancy]{.underline}**. Under Section 811, if the
Project Manager determines, based on a review of the Sponsor\'s
justification, that the Sponsor\'s request for restricted occupancy
should be approved, it must prepare a memorandum to the file for the
signature of the Supervisory Project Manager indicating that the
Sponsor\'s request to restrict occupancy has been approved. The
memorandum shall be attached to the Project Manager\'s Technical
Processing Review and Findings Memorandum and include the following
language which must be inserted in the Notification of Selection Letter
should the Sponsor be selected for funding:

\"Your request to restrict occupancy to (insert applicable subcategory
of persons with disabilities) is approved. However, you must permit
occupancy by any otherwise qualified very low income person with a
disability, provided the person can benefit from the housing and/or
services provided.\"

5\. **[Requests for Exceptions to Project Size Limits]{.underline}**. If
a Sponsor of a \"site control\" application requests an exception to the
project size limits of up to 8 persons for a group home or up to 24
persons for an independent living project, the HUD Office must review
the request (Exhibit 4(d)(ix)) and make a determination ensuring that
the integration goals of the program will be met. If the request exceeds
8 persons for a group home or 24 persons for an independent living
project, you must ensure that Exhibits 1, 4(a),(b),(c) and (d)(ix) of
the application are submitted to Headquarters, Office of Housing
Assistance and Grant Administration, room 6138, Attn: 202/811, at the
conclusion of initial screening for review and approval/disapproval. If
the HUD Office or Headquarters denies the request or the site is
rejected, the application must be processed at the project size limit.

6\. **[Section 811 Site Control Applications]{.underline}**. A single
site application with site control will receive 5 points for Site
Control (Criterion 3(a)(iii)) **ONLY** if the evidence of site control
is acceptable and the site is approvable by Valuation (this includes the
Phase I and Phase II, if necessary, being received according to the NOFA
instructions) and FHEO.

If the site control is **NOT** acceptable for a single site application,
the application may still receive up to 7 points for Site Approvability
(Criterion 3(a)(i)) from Valuation and up to 10 points from FHEO for the
suitability of the site in promoting a greater choice of housing
opportunities for persons with disabilities, including minorities
(Criterion 3(b)).

If either VAL or FHEO rejects the site, the application will receive 0
points for Criterion 3(a)(i), Criterion 3(a)(iii) and Criterion 3(b).
The application will be treated as \"site identified\" and remain in the
competition as long as the Sponsor indicated in Exhibit 4(d)(viii) that
it is willing to seek an alternate site. Otherwise, the application will
be rejected.

**NOTE:** For a scattered site application, site control must be
acceptable for all sites and all sites must be approvable for the
application to receive points for Criterion 3(a)(i), Criterion 3(a)(iii)
and Criterion 3(b).

7\. Review Disciplines Summary: The Project Manager shall complete the
following:

[Reviewing Office]{.underline} [Recommendation]{.underline}
[1/]{.underline}

[Acceptable]{.underline} [Not Acceptable]{.underline}

PROJECT MANAGER

A & E

VAL

EMAS

FH&EO

COUNSEL

CPD

[1/]{.underline} If an application receives a \"not acceptable\"
recommendation, the application is a \"technical reject\" and a letter
must be sent to the Sponsor outlining all reasons for rejection and
providing the Sponsor 14 calendar days from the date of HUD\'s
notification to appeal the rejection. If the Sponsor submits an appeal
which causes the rejection to be overturned, the application is then
rated, ranked and submitted to the Rating/Selection Panel for
consideration. If the Sponsor does not appeal the rejection or does
appeal but the rejection is not overturned, the application remains a
\"technical reject\", receives a final score of 0 and is not to be
considered by the Rating/Selection Panel.

SECTION 202/811

TECHNICAL PROCESSING REVIEW AND FINDINGS MEMORANDUM

**[Project Manager]{.underline}**

MEMORANDUM FOR: Supervisory Project Manager

FROM: , Project Manager

SUBJECT: Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum

Sponsor\'s Name:

Project Location:

Project No.:

Section 811 Only: Proj. Type/# of Sites:

\# of Units per Site:

The subject application has been reviewed and the Project Manager\'s
findings are as follows:

1\. The proposed housing and intended occupants are eligible under the
Section 811 or Section 202 program (check one).

Yes No If No, the application must be rejected.

Comments :

2\. The Sponsor has previous experience in developing, operating and/or
providing housing, related facilities or services for the elderly (if
202) or persons with disabilities (if 811), including minorities,
preferably, but not necessarily, among those in the low to moderate
income category.

Yes No If No, the application must be rejected.

Comments:

(Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

Project No.

3\. The Sponsor/Co-sponsor submitted a board resolution stating its
commitment to cover the required minimum capital investment, estimated
start-up expenses, and the estimated cost of any amenities or features
and (operating costs related thereto) which would not be covered by the
approved capital advance.

Yes No If No, was a board resolution provided by another organization to
furnish these funds or a combination thereof?

Yes No If No, the application must be rejected.

If Yes, name of organization:

Comments:

4\. The Sponsor submitted properly executed Exhibits including
Certifications and Resolutions.

Yes No If No, the application must be rejected.

Comments:

5\. HUD\'s experience with the Sponsor has been satisfactory, if
self-management or identity of interest management is proposed.

Yes No N/A

Comments:

6\. Is project likely to affect adversely other HUD-insured and assisted
housing? (Coordinate response with EMAS)

Yes No If yes, application must be rejected.

Comments:

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

Project No.

7\. **Section 811 Only:** The likelihood that the Sponsor will have site
control (if not already in control of a site) within six months of
receiving a notice of Section 811 Capital Advance.

Yes No If No, the application must be rejected.

Comments:

8\. **Section 811 Only:** Did the State/local agency Supportive Services
Certification indicate that the supportive services plan is well
designed to meet the needs of the persons with disabilities the housing
is intended to serve?

Yes No If No, the application must be rejected.

9\. **Section 811 Only:** Did the State/local agency Supportive Services
Certification indicate that the proposed housing is consistent (or the
Supportive Services Plan if the State/local agency fails to complete
this part of the Certification) with the agency\'s plans/policies
governing the development and operation of housing to serve persons with
disabilities?

Yes No If No, and the agency will be a major funding or referral source
for the proposed project, or must license the project, the application
must be rejected.

10\. **Section 811 Only:** Did the State/local agency Supportive
Services Certification (or the Supportive Services Plan if the
State/local agency fails to complete this part of the Certification)
indicate that the necessary supportive services will be available on a
consistent, long-term basis?

Yes No If No, the application must be rejected.

Comments:

(Technical Processing - Project Manager) continued

Project No.

11\. **Section 811 Only:** If the Sponsor requested approval to limit
occupancy to a subcategory of one of the three main categories of
disability (see paragraph 4.B(2)(b) of the Notice above), did the
Sponsor sufficiently respond to all six requirements to justify an
approval of the request?

Yes No (Explain below) N/A

Comments:

**NOTE**: If approval is granted, a memorandum to the file indicating
such must be signed by the Supervisory Project Manager and attached to
this Review Sheet. If the Sponsor is selected for funding, the paragraph
in item 4. of the Instructions above must be included in the
Notification of Selection Letter.

12\. **Section 811 Only:** If the Sponsor of a site control application
is requesting approval to exceed the project size limits, does the
Sponsor sufficiently justify approval of such an exception?

**NOTE**: If the request requires Headquarters review (exceeds 8 persons
for a group home or 24 persons for an independent living project),
ensure that Exhibits 1, 4(a),(b),(c), and (d)(ix) have been submitted to
Headquarters, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration,
room 6138, Attn: 202/811. Headquarters will respond within 5 working
days. The response must be attached to this technical review sheet. If
the site is rejected or the exception is not approved, the application
must be processed at the project size limit; provided in the latter case
that the Sponsor indicated its willingness to have its application
processed at the project size limit.

Yes No (Explain below) N/A

Comments:

(Technical Processing - Project Manager) continued

Project No.

**RATING FACTORS**

**1. CAPACITY OF THE APPLICANT AND RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONAL STAFF (25
POINTS)**

In determining the Sponsor\'s ability to develop and operate the
proposed housing on a long-term basis, consider:

**(a)** The scope, extent and quality of the Sponsor\'s experience in
providing housing or related services to those proposed to be served by
the project and the scope of the proposed project (i.e., number of
units, services, relocation costs, development, and operation) in
relationship to the Sponsor\'s demonstrated development and management
capacity as well as its financial management capability. (**202**-15
points maximum, **811**-12 points maximum)

Recommended rating:

Comments:

**(c) Section 811 Only:** The Sponsor has experience in developing
integrated housing (condominium units scattered within one or more
buildings or non-contiguous independent living units on scattered
sites). (3 or 0 points)

Recommended rating:

Comments:

**2. NEED/EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM (15 POINTS)**

In determining the extent to which there is a need for funding the
proposed supportive housing to address a documented problem in the
market area, consider:

b.  The extent that information in the community\'s Analysis of
    Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) or other planning document
    that analyzes fair housing issues and

c.  

(Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

Project No.

is prepared by a local planning or similar organization is used by the
Sponsor in identifying the level of the

problem and the urgency in meeting the need for the project. (3 points
maximum)

**NOTES:** **1)** Applications in which the Sponsor not only uses the AI
to identify the level of the problem and the urgency in meeting the need
for the project but also establishes a connection between the proposed
project and the AI will be given 3 points. Applications in which the
Sponsor uses the AI to identify the level of the problem and the urgency
in meeting the need for the project will receive 1 point.

**2)** Consider FHEO\'s comments in rating this Factor.

Recommended rating:

Comments:

**3. SOUNDNESS OF APPROACH (40 POINTS)**

In determining the quality and effectiveness of the project as well as
the relationship between the project, the community\'s needs and
purposes of the program funding, consider:

**(e) Section 811 Only:** The Sponsor\'s board is comprised of at least
51% persons with disabilities. (0 or 5 points)

Recommended rating:

Comments:

**(f) Section 202 Only:** The extent to which the proposed supportive
services meet the identified needs of the (anticipated) residents. (3
points maximum)

Recommended rating:

(Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

Project No.

Comments:

**(g) Section 202 Only:** The extent to which the Sponsor demonstrated
that the identified supportive services will be provided on a
consistent, long-term basis.

(3 points maximum)

Recommended rating:

Comments:

**4. LEVERAGING RESOURCES. (10 POINTS)**

In determining the ability of the Sponsor to secure other community
resources which can be combined with HUD\'s program resources to achieve
program purposes, consider:

(10 points)

**(a)** The extent of local government support (including financial
assistance, donation of land, provision of services, etc.) for the
project. (5 points maximum)

Recommended rating:

Comments:

**(b)** The extent of the Sponsor\'s activities in the community,
including previous experience in serving the area where the project is
to be located, and the Sponsor\'s demonstrated ability to enlist
volunteers and raise local funds. (5 points maximum)

Recommended rating:

Comments:

(Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

Project No.

**5. COMPREHENSIVENESS AND COORDINATION (10 POINTS)**

In determining the extent to which the Sponsor coordinated its
activities with other known organizations, participates or promotes
participation in the community\'s Consolidated Planning process, and is
working towards addressing a need in a holistic and comprehensive manner
through linkages with other activities in the community, consider: (10
points)

**(a)** The Sponsor\'s involvement of elderly persons, particularly
minority elderly persons (Section 202), persons with disabilities
(including minority persons

with disabilities) (Section 811), in the development of the application,
and its intent to involve elderly persons, particularly minority elderly
persons (Section 202) persons with disabilities (including minority
persons with disabilities (Section 811), in the development and
operation of the project. (4 points maximum)

Recommended rating:

Comments:

**(b)** The extent to which the Sponsor coordinated its application with
other organizations (including the local Center for Independent Living
for 811 applications) to complement and/or support the proposed project.
(2 points maximum)

Recommended rating:

Comments:

c.  The extent to which the Sponsor demonstrates that it has been
    actively involved or, if not currently active, the steps it will
    take to become actively involved in the community\'s Consolidated
    Planning process to identify and address a need/problem that is
    related in whole or part, directly or indirectly to the proposed
    project. (2 points maximum)

(Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

Project No.

Recommended rating:

Comments:

**(d)** The extent to which the Sponsor developed or plans to develop
linkages with other activities, programs (for example, the Mainstream
Housing Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities Program for Section
811 applications) or projects related to the proposed project to
coordinate its activities so solutions are holistic and comprehensive.
(2 points maximum)

Recommended rating:

Comments:

In summary, the subject application is acceptable.

Yes No

Comments:

Signature of Project Manager Date

**NOTE:** ALL OF THE EXHIBITS WERE REVIEWED TO DETERMINE THE ABOVE
FINDINGS.

SECTION 202/811

TECHNICAL PROCESSING REVIEW AND FINDINGS MEMORANDUM

**[ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING, AND COST (A&E)]{.underline}**

MEMORANDUM FOR: Supervisory Project Manager

FROM: , A&E

SUBJECT: Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum

Sponsor\'s Name: Project Location: Project No.:

Section 811 Only: Proj. Type/# of Sites:

\# of Units per Site:

The subject application has been reviewed and Architectural, Engineering
and Cost\'s findings are as follows:

**RATING FACTORS**

**3. SOUNDNESS OF APPROACH (40 POINTS)**

In determining the quality and effectiveness of the project as well as
the relationship between the project, the community\'s needs and
purposes of the program funding, consider:

**(c)** The extent to which the proposed design(both interior and
exterior design) will meet the special physical needs of elderly persons
(**Section 202**) or the individual needs of persons with disabilities
the housing is expected to serve (**Section 811**). (3 points maximum
(**202**); 5 points maximum (**811**)

Recommended rating:

Comments:

(Technical Processing - A&E) - continued

Project No.

**[Section 202 Only:]{.underline}**

**(d)** The extent to which the proposed size and unit mix of the
housing will enable the Sponsor to manage and operate the housing
efficiently and ensure that the provision of supportive services will be
accomplished in an economical fashion. (3 points maximum)

Recommended rating:

Comments:

**(e)** The extent to which the proposed design of the housing will
accommodate the provision of supportive services that are expected to be
needed, initially and over the useful life of the housing, by the
category or categories of elderly persons the housing is intended to
serve. (3 points maximum)

Recommended rating:

Comments:

**[Section 811 Only:]{.underline}**

**(d)** The extent to which the proposed design of the project and its
placement in the neighborhood will facilitate the integration of the
residents into the surrounding community and promote the ability of the
residents to live as independently as possible. (5 points maximum)

Recommended rating:

Comments:

(Technical Processing - A&E) - continued

Project No.

The application is acceptable from an Architectural, Engineering and
Cost viewpoint.

Yes No

Comments:

Signature of Reviewer Date

NOTE: EXHIBITS 1, 4(c),4(d),4(e) WERE REVIEWED TO DETERMINE THE ABOVE
FINDINGS.

SECTION 202/811

TECHNICAL PROCESSING REVIEW AND FINDINGS MEMORANDUM

**[VALUATION BRANCH]{.underline}**

MEMORANDUM FOR: Supervisory Project Manager

FROM: , Chief Appraiser

SUBJECT: Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum

Sponsor Name: Project Location:

Project No:

Section 811 Only: Proj. Type/# of Sites:

\# of Units per Sites:

Site Control **OR** Site Identified

The subject application has been reviewed and comments are as follows:

**NOTES**: 1) If the Section 811 Sponsor did not submit either evidence
of site control or an identified site, the application must be rejected.
2) If the Section 811 Sponsor has control of a single site, and the site
control documentation is not acceptable, it can still receive points for
Criterion 3(a)(i) below but 0 points for Criterion 3(a)(iii) below.
However, if the Sponsor submits a scattered site application, the site
control documentation must be acceptable for all sites and all sites
must be approvable in order for the application to receive points for
Criteria 3(a)(i), 3(a)(iii), and 3(b) below. Otherwise, the application
will be considered as \"site identified\" and remain in the competition
as long as the Sponsor indicated in Exhibit 4(d)(viii) that it is
willing to locate an alternate site.

1\. The number of units and bedroom sizes are marketable.

Yes No

Comments:

(Technical Processing - Valuation) - continued

Project No.

2\. The proposed site is located inside the 100-year floodplain (or, if
a critical action, the 500-year floodplain) and, if a new construction
project, the proposed site is located in a wetland.

Yes No If Yes, initiate the 8-step process.

Comments:

**NOTE**: Six steps of the 8-step process identified in 24 CFR Part 55
must be completed prior to convening of the Rating/ Selection Panel.

3\. For **Section 202 applications** and **Section 811 applications with
site control only**, the proposed project meets Environmental Assessment
requirements, including Compliance Findings (including SHPO historic
findings) set forth in attached Form HUD-4128.

Yes No N/A (Section 811 - site identified)

**Section 202:** If No, the application is rejected.

**Section 811:** If No, the site must be rejected and the application
shall receive 0 points for Criterion 3(a)(i) and Criterion 3(a)(iii)
above.

Comments:

4\. Is the site located in a floodway, Coastal High Hazard Area, and/or
within the designated Coastal Barrier Resources System (Coastal Barrier
Resources Act, as amended)?

Yes No N/A (811 site identified)

**Section 202:** If Yes, the application must be rejected.

**Section 811:** If Yes, the site must be rejected and the application
shall receive 0 points for Criterion 3(a)(i) and Criterion 3(a)(iii)
above.

(Technical Processing - Valuation) - continued

Project No.

Comments:

5\. Was the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment submitted?

Yes No N/A (811 site identified)

**Section 202:** If no, the application must be rejected.

**Section 811:** If No, the site must be rejected and the application
shall receive 0 points for Criterion 3(a)(i) and Criterion 3(a)(iii)
above.

If yes, check one of the following:

No further study was indicated.

Further study was indicated and the Phase II Environmental Assessment
was completed.

Comments:

6\. If the Phase II Assessment was completed, did it reveal site
contamination?

Yes No N/A

Comments:

7\. If the answer to Question #6 is Yes, was the extent of contamination
and an acceptable plan for clean-up, including a contract for
remediation and an approval letter from the applicable Federal, State
and/or local agency submitted to HUD within the appropriate time?

Yes No N/A

**Section 202:** If No, the application must be rejected.

**Section 811:** If No, the site must be rejected and the application
shall receive 0 points for Criterion 3(a)(i) and Criterion 3(a)(iii)
above.

(Technical Processing - Valuation) - continued

Project No.

Comments:

8\. If the answer to Question #7 is Yes, do the approval letters appear
to reflect proper governmental approval of the clean- up plan and
remediation contract, and does the clean-up plan and remediation
contract appear adequate to address the contamination?

Yes No

**Section 202:** If no, the application must be rejected.

**Section 811:** If No, the site must be rejected and the application
shall receive 0 points for Criterion 3(a)(i) and Criterion 3(a)(iii)
above.

Comments:

9\. The proposed construction or rehabilitation is permissible under
applicable zoning ordinances or regulations, or a statement was included
indicating the proposed action required to make the proposed project
permissible and the basis for belief that the proposed action would be
completed successfully before the submission of the firm commitment
application.

Yes No

**Section 202:** If no, the application must be rejected.

**Section 811:** If No, the site must be rejected and the application
shall receive 0 points for Criterion 3(a)(i) and Criterion 3(a)(iii)
above.

Comments:

(Technical Processing - Valuation) - continued

Project No.

10\. **Section 202 Only:** The proposed congregate dining facility will
be financially viable.

Yes No N/A

Comments:

**RATING FACTOR**

**3. SOUNDNESS OF APPROACH (40 POINTS)**

In determining the quality and effectiveness of the project as well as
the relationship between the project, the community\'s needs and
purposes of the program funding, consider: (10 base points maximum)

**811**

**(a)(i) Site approvability**

**202** Proximity or accessibility of the site to shopping, medical
facilities, transportation, places of worship, recreational facilities,
places of employment and other necessary services to the intended
occupants, adequacy of utilities and streets and freedom of the site
from adverse environmental conditions **(applies only to site control
projects for 811)** and compliance with the site and neighborhood
standards. (15 points maximum for Section 202, 7 points maximum for
Section 811)

Recommended rating:

Comments:

(Technical Processing - Valuation) - continued

Project No.

**811 Only**

**(a)(ii) Integrated Housing**

Application proposes integrated housing (condominium units scattered
within one or more buildings or non-contiguous independent living units
on scattered sites. (0 or 3 points)

Recommended rating:

Comments:

**(a)(iii) Site Control**

Application contains legally acceptable site control for all proposed
sites and all proposed sites are approvable. (0 or 5 points)

Recommended rating:

Comments:

In summary, the subject Section 202 application is:

Acceptable Not Acceptable

the subject Section 811 site is:

Acceptable Not Acceptable

(Technical Processing - Valuation) - continued

Project No.

If \"Not Acceptable\", the Section 811 application shall be treated as
\"site identified\" as long as the Sponsor indicated its willingness to
seek an alternate site (Exhibit 4(d)(viii)); otherwise, the application
will be rejected.

Explain:

(Signature or Appraiser) Date

[Attachment]{.underline}: Form HUD-4128 with supporting documentation.

**NOTE:** EXHIBITS 1, 4(a), 4(c), 4(d) and 4(e) WERE REVIEWED TO
DETERMINE THE ABOVE FINDINGS.

SECTION 202/811

TECHNICAL PROCESSING REVIEW AND FINDINGS MEMORANDUM

**[ECONOMIC & MARKET ANALYSIS]{.underline}**

MEMORANDUM FOR: Supervisory Project Manager

FROM: , Economic & Market Analysis

SUBJECT: Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum

Sponsor Name:

Project Location: Project No.:

Section 811 Only: Proj. Type/# of Sites:

\# of Units per Site:

In determining the need for additional supportive housing (elderly or
disabled), EMAS should take into consideration the Sponsor's evidence of
need; current and anticipated market conditions in assisted housing
(elderly or disabled); economic, demographic and housing market data
available to the HUD Office; and in accordance with an agreement between
HUD and RHS, comments from RHS on the need for additional assisted
housing and the possible long-term impact on existing projects in the
same housing market area.

The data should include a count of the available Federally (HUD and RHS)
assisted housing (elderly or disabled) in the market area; the current
occupancy and waiting lists in such facilities; and the extent of the
pipeline of assisted housing (for the elderly or disabled) under
construction and for which fund reservations have been issued.

Based on the above, the subject application has been reviewed and EMAS\'
findings are as follows:

1.  Taking into consideration the information available, including the
    Sponsor\'s evidence of need, comments from the Rural Housing Service
    (RHS), and EMAS's independent analysis, there is sufficient
    sustainable demand for additional units of the number and type of
    units proposed, without long-term adverse impact in existing
    Federally assisted housing.

Yes No

**If No, the application is a technical reject and is to be**

(Technical Processing - EMAS) - continued

Project No.

**given zero (0) points on Rating Factor 2 below. A detailed report must
be attached presenting the data and findings justifying the conclusion
of insufficient demand.**

2\. The proposed location is acceptable and desirable for the target
population (elderly (202) or disabled (811)) taking into consideration
the proximity or accessibility of public facilities, health care and
other necessary services to the intended occupants. **NOTE:** EMAS
should complete this question only if it has available relevant
information on the site and location.

Yes No

Comments:

**RATING FACTOR**

**2. NEED/EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM (15 POINTS)**

[Rating Section 202 projects]{.underline}: Rating points for all Section
202 projects, determined to have sufficient demand, are to be based on
the ratio of the number of units in the proposed project to the estimate
of unmet need for housing assistance by the income eligible elderly
households with selected housing conditions. Unmet housing need is
defined as the number of very low-income elderly renter households with
housing problems, as of the 1990 Census minus the number of Federally
assisted housing units for the elderly provided since the 1990 Census.
Units to be occupied by resident managers are not to be counted.

To the extent practicable, consider all units provided for the very
low-income elderly under the Section 8 programs, the Public and Indian
Housing programs, the Section 202 program, and Section 515 Rural Rental
Housing program under RHS. (12 points maximum)

12 points: The number of units proposed is 10 percent or less of the
unmet need, **OR**

(Technical Processing - EMAS) - continued

Project No.

The number of units proposed is greater than 10 percent but no more than
15 percent of unmet need; **AND** the market area has not received any
Federally funded project based rental assistance for the very
low-elderly

since 1990 (HUD or RHS programs).

6 points: The number of units proposed is 11 percent or more of the
income eligible unmet need and the market area has received Federally
funded project based rental assistance (HUD or RHS) for the elderly
between 1990 and 1999; **OR**

The number of units proposed is 16 percent or more of the income
eligible unmet need.

Project/Needs Ratio:

Recommended rating:

Comments:

**[Rating Section 811 projects]{.underline}**: If a determination has
been made that there is a need for additional supportive housing for
persons with disabilities in the area to be served, the project is to be
awarded 12 points maximum. If not, the project is to be awarded 0
points. Awarding of points between 0 and 12 points is not permitted.

Recommended rating:

Comments:

(Technical Processing - EMAS) - continued

Project No.

Based on the EMAS review, the application is:

Acceptable Not Acceptable

Explain:

(Signature of Economist) Date

**NOTE:** EXHIBITS 1, 4(a) and 4(c) WERE REVIEWED TO DETERMINE THE ABOVE
FINDINGS.

SECTION 202/811

TECHNICAL PROCESSING REVIEW AND FINDINGS MEMORANDUM

**[FAIR HOUSING & EQUAL OPPORTUNITY (FHEO)]{.underline}**

MEMORANDUM FOR: Supervisory Project Manager

FROM: , Director, Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

SUBJECT: Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum

Sponsor Name:

Project Location:

Project No.:

Section 811 Only: Proj. Type/# of Sites:

\# of Units per Site:

The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) has reviewed the
subject application in accordance with the Rating Factors as outlined in
the SuperNOFA, this Notice, other applicable notices, and in accordance
with applicable civil rights requirements. FHEO\'s recommended ratings
and comments on the acceptability of the application are as follows:

1\. Based on the application submission, even without the benefit of a
site visit, the proposed site meets site and neighborhood standards.

Yes No

**Section 202 Only**: If no, without proper justification, the
application must be rejected.

**Section 811 Only**: If No, without proper justification, site is
rejected and application receives 0 points for Criterion 3(b) under
\"Rating Factors\" below.

Comments:

2\. Sponsor is in compliance with civil rights laws and applicable
regulations, i.e., there is no pending Department of Justice civil
rights lawsuit alleging ongoing pattern or practice of discrimination;
or outstanding letter of noncompliance findings under Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973

(Technical Processing - FHEO) - continued

Project No.

involving systemic discrimination, or Secretarial charge alleging
ongoing discrimination under the Fair Housing Act which have not been
resolved to the satisfaction of the Secretary. In cases where such
problems exist, HUD will decide whether a charge, lawsuit or finding has
been satisfactorily resolved, based on whether the applicant has taken
appropriate actions to address the allegations of ongoing
discrimination.

Yes No

Comments:

3\. The Sponsor\'s Certifications are acceptable in connection

with compliance with civil rights laws, regulation,

Executive Orders, and equal opportunity requirements.

**NOTE**: FHEO shall accept the Certifications unless

there is documented evidence to the contrary.

Yes No

Comments:

**NOTE:** Any application that would require rejection based on a \"No\"
response in any of the above questions (with the exception of Question
#1 for Section 811 only) must be rated. However, the application will
not be ranked. The applicant will not be notified of the rejection until
technical processing has been completed.

**RATING FACTORS**

**1. CAPACITY OF THE APPLICANT AND RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONAL STAFF (25
POINTS)**

In determining the Sponsor\'s ability to develop and operate the
proposed housing on a long-term basis, consider:

**(b)** The scope, extent and quality of the Sponsor\'s experience in
providing housing or related services to minority persons or families
(10 points maximum).

(Technical Processing - FHEO) - continued

Project No.

**NOTE:** If the Sponsor has no previous housing

experience, all relevant supportive services experience

should be examined.

Recommended rating:

Comments:

**2. NEED/EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM (15 points)**

Did the Sponsor utilize the community\'s Analysis of Impediments to Fair
Housing Choice (AI) or other planning document that analyses fair
housing issues and was prepared by a local planning or similar
organization in identifying the level of the problem and the urgency in
meeting the need of the project? Extra consideration should be given to
the Sponsor that also shows how the AI or other planning documents
support the need for the project.

**NOTE:** Although FHEO doesn\'t rate this Factor, its comments

are to be considered in the award of points by the Project

Manager.

Comments:

**3. SOUNDNESS OF APPROACH (40 POINTS)**

In determining the quality and effectiveness of the project as well as
the relationship between the project, the community\'s needs and
purposes of the program funding, consider:

**(b)** The suitability of the site from the standpoints of promoting a
greater choice of housing opportunities for minority elderly
persons/families (**Section 202**) or persons with disabilities,
including minorities (**Section 811**) and affirmatively furthering fair
housing. The site will be deemed acceptable if it increases housing
choice and opportunity by (a) expanding housing opportunities in
non-minority neighborhoods (if located in such a neighborhood); or

(Technical Processing - FHEO) - continued

Project No.

\(b\) contributing to the revitalization of and reinvestment in minority
neighborhoods, including improvement of the level, quality and
affordability of services furnished to the minority elderly (202) or
minority persons with disabilities (811). (10 points maximum)

Recommended rating:

**Section 202:** If 0 points, application must be rejected.

**Section 811:** If 0 points, site must be rejected and

the application will also receive 0 points for Criterion 3(a)(1) and
Criterion 3(a)(2).

Comments:

**5. COMPREHENSIVENESS AND COORDINATION (10 POINTS)**

**(a)** Did the Sponsor involve minority elderly (202) or minority
persons with disabilities (811) in the development of the application?

Yes No

Does the applicant intend to involve minority elderly (202) or minority
persons with disabilities (811) in the development and operation of the
project?

Yes No

Comments

**NOTE: Although the Project Manager assigns the rating points on this
factor, FHEO is to make recommendations and comments to the Project
Manager.**

(Technical Processing - FHEO) - continued

Project No.

The following additional findings have been made:

1\. The project addresses a low participation rate and an identified
need for housing for very low income minority

elderly persons/families (**Section 202**) or persons with disabilities,
including minorities (**Section 811**).

Yes No

Comments:

2\. Based upon data submitted in Exhibit 3(b), the Sponsor indicates
ties to the minority community.

Yes No

Comments:

3\. The Sponsor\'s project is consistent with the affirmatively
furthering fair housing provisions of the jurisdiction\'s Consolidated
Plan Certification.

Yes No

Comments:

4\. For projects with relocation indicated, is the information submitted
in Exhibit 6 acceptable?

Yes No N/A

Comments:

(Technical Processing - FHEO) - continued

Project No.

The subject application is acceptable from an FHEO

viewpoint.

Yes No

Explain:

(Signature of FHEO Reviewer) Date

**NOTE:** EXHIBITS 1, 3(a), 3(b), 3(d), 3(e), 3(f), 3(h), 4(a), 4(d), 6
and 7 WERE REVIEWED TO DETERMINE THE ABOVE FINDINGS.

SECTION 202/811

TECHNICAL PROCESSING REVIEW AND FINDINGS MEMORANDUM

**[FIELD OFFICE COUNSEL]{.underline}**

MEMORANDUM FOR: Supervisory Project Manager

FROM: , Field Office Counsel

SUBJECT: Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum

Sponsor Name:

Project Location:

Project No.:

Section 811 Only: Proj. Type/# of Sites:

\# of Units per Site:

The subject application has been reviewed and the Field

Office Counsel\'s comments are as follows:

1\. The Sponsor is an eligible private nonprofit entity (**Section
202**) or nonprofit with 501(c)(3) IRS tax exemption (**Section 811**),
no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any
private party and which is not controlled by or under the direction of
persons seeking to derive profit or gain therefrom.

Yes No

Comments:

2\. The Sponsor has the necessary legal authority to sponsor the
project, to assist the Owner and to apply for the capital advance.

Yes No

Comments:

(Technical Processing - Counsel) - continued

Project No.

3\. The Sponsor has an IRS tax exemption ruling, a blanket exemption
with the Sponsor specifically named in the list, [or]{.underline} a copy
of the letter from the national/parent organization to the IRS
requesting that the Sponsor be included under its blanket exemption.
**NOTE: For Section 811 applications, the tax exemption must be under
Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS tax code.**

Yes No If No, the application must be rejected.

Comments:

4\. **Section 202 Only:** The Sponsor is a public body or an
instrumentality of a public body.

Yes No If Yes, the application must be rejected.

Comments:

5\. The Sponsor has submitted legally acceptable evidence of site
control (see paragraph VI(A)(4)(d) of the Section 202 or Section 811
program section of the SuperNOFA.

Yes No N/A (Section 811 site identified)

**Section 202:** If No, the application must be rejected.

**Section 811:** If No, the site must be rejected; not the application.

Comments:

(Technical Processing - Counsel) - continued

Project No.

6\. The site control document contains restrictive covenants or reverter
clauses which are unacceptable to HUD (see paragraph VI(A)(4)(d)(ii) of
the Section 202 or Section 811 program section of the SuperNOFA.

Yes No N/A (Section 811 site identified)

**Section 202:** If Yes, the application must be rejected.

**Section 811:** If Yes, the site must be rejected; not the application.

Comments:

7\. The Sponsor\'s board has adopted a resolution which:

\(a\) Certifies that no officer or board member of the Sponsor, or of
the Owner when formed, has or will be permitted to have any financial
interest in any contract or in any firm or corporation that has a

contract with the Owner in connection with the construction or operation
of the project, procurement of the site or other matters whatsoever.

**NOTE**: This prohibition, as to the Sponsor\'s officers or board, does
not apply to any management, supportive service or developer
(consultant) contracts entered into by the Owner with the Sponsor or its
nonprofit affiliate. (See 891.130(a)(2).)

Yes No

Comments:

(Technical Processing - Counsel) - continued

Project No.

\(b\) Lists all the Sponsor\'s duly qualified and sitting officers and
directors, their titles, and the beginning and ending date for each of
their terms of office.

Yes No

Comments:

**NOTES:** 1) If the answer to any item is checked \"No\", with the
exception of an answer of \"Yes\" to Question 4 for Section 202 only and
Question 5 for 811 only, Counsel will check \"not acceptable\" below and
the application will be rejected. 2) If the evidence of site control is
not acceptable for a Section 811 application, the application shall be
treated as \"site identified\" (Question 5)

RECOMMENDATION: The subject Application is acceptable.

The subject Application must be rejected for the following reason(s):

(Signature of Field Office Counsel) Date

**NOTE:** EXHIBITS 1, 2, and 4(d) WERE REVIEWED TO DETERMINE THE ABOVE
FINDINGS.

SECTION 202/811

TECHNICAL PROCESSING REVIEW AND FINDINGS MEMORANDUM

**[COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (CPD)]{.underline}**

**[RELOCATION REVIEW]{.underline}**

MEMORANDUM FOR: Supervisory Project Manager

FROM: , Director, Community

Planning and Development

SUBJECT: Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum

Sponsor Name:

Project Location:

Project No.:

Section 811 Only: Proj. Type/# of Sites:

\# of Units per Site:

The subject application has been reviewed with regard to displacement
and acquisition and CPD\'s findings are the following:

1.(a) Sponsor has completed the information required by Exhibit 6, Data
on Project Occupancy, Displacement and Real Property Acquisition.

Yes No N/A (811 site

identified)

\(b\) Sponsor has identified persons occupying the property on the date
of submission of the Application (or initial site control, if later).

No. not to be No. to be Displaced Displaced

Households (families

and individuals)

Business and Nonprofit

Organizations

Farms

Totals

(Technical Processing - CPD) continued

Project No.

2.(a) Estimated costs for relocation and real property acquisition, if
applicable, are reasonable.

Yes No

Comments:

\(b\) The source of funding for such costs has been identified.

Yes No

Comments:

\(c\) There is a firm commitment to provide funds for relocation costs
(Section 202 or Section 811 funds or other sources).

Yes No

Comments:

3\. Organization to administer relocation has been identified.

Yes No

Comments:

4\. Certification of compliance with relocation and real property
acquisition requirements has been provided.

Yes No

Comments:

(Technical Processing - CPD) continued

Project No.

**BONUS POINTS (2 POINTS)**

**2.** Will the project be located in an Empowerment Zone or Enterprise
Community, be consistent with the EZ/EC strategic plan, and serve EZ/EC
residents?

Yes No

Is the EZ/EC listed as a high performer on HUD\'s list of high
performing EZs/ECs?

Yes No

If yes to both questions, then the application will receive **two (2)
bonus points**.

Recommended rating:

Comments:

In view of the above, the proposal is acceptable to Community Planning
and Development.

Yes No

If No, identify the conditions for acceptability below:

(Signature of CPD Reviewer) Date

**NOTE:** EXHIBITS 1, 4(d), and 6 WERE REVIEWED TO DETERMINE THE ABOVE
FINDINGS.

ATTACHMENT 12

STANDARD RATING CRITERIA FORM

Section 202

ATTACHMENT 13

STANDARD RATING CRITERIA FORM

Section 811

ATTACHMENT 14

[Draft Letter from the Supervisory Project Manager to the Director of
the Appropriate State or Local Agency Requesting Designation of
Representative to Review Supportive Services Plans of Section 811
Applications]{.underline}

Dear :

The purpose of this letter is to request your assistance, \[once
again\], in reviewing supportive services plans from applications for
funding under the Section 811 Program of Supportive Housing for Persons
with Disabilities. This program was authorized by the National
Affordable Housing Act of 1990 and provides funding in the form of
capital advances to nonprofit organizations (Sponsors) to construct,
rehabilitate or acquire (with or without rehabilitation) housing for
persons with disabilities. The capital advance does not have to be
repaid as long as the housing remains available for very low income
persons with disabilities for at least 40 years. Project rental
assistance funds are also provided to cover the HUD-approved operating
costs of the housing with the exception of the cost of any necessary
supportive services for the residents. Residents are required to pay no
more than 30 percent of their adjusted incomes for rent.

On February 24, 2000, HUD published in the [Federal
Register]{.underline} a Notice of Fund Availability for the Section 811
Program as part of a Super Notice of Funding Availability (SuperNOFA)
for HUD\'s Housing, Community Development and Empowerment Programs . A
copy is enclosed for your information. Applications for funding are due
in HUD Offices no later than 6:00 p.m. on May 18,2000. Nationwide, HUD
has \$108,774,343 in capital advance funds available which will
facilitate the development of 1,505 housing units for persons with
disabilities.

The supportive services plan and the Sponsor\'s description of its
experience in providing housing or related services to the intended
population are key parts of a Section 811 application. HUD recognizes
that housing without necessary supportive services may not be sufficient
to enable many persons with disabilities to live independently in the
community. Since HUD cannot pay for supportive services, it will not
select an applicant for a Section 811 capital advance unless the
provision of supportive services described in the supportive services
plan is well designed to serve the needs of the proposed residents and
there is evidence that any necessary supportive services will be
provided on a consistent, long-term basis to ensure the continued
viability of the housing project. It should be noted, however,

2

that accepting the supportive services that are offered in conjunction
with the housing is not a condition of occupancy.

We \[again\] are requesting your assistance in reviewing the supportive
services plans from Sponsors proposing to serve people with ([insert
disability category]{.underline}) because of your agency\'s knowledge
and expertise in the provision of supportive services to this
population. In order to be approved for funding, Sponsors are required
by law to have a certification from the \"appropriate State or local
agency\" indicating that the provision of the services identified in the
supportive services plan is well designed to meet the special needs of
the proposed residents. Enclosed are a copy of the Certification for
Provision of Supportive Services (Certification) and an evaluation form
designed to assist the reviewer in completing the Certification.

Please note that, in addition to the statutory requirement for a
determination as to whether or not the provision of services is well
designed, we have included space for the reviewer to indicate whether
the proposed project is consistent/inconsistent with State or local
plans and policies governing the development and operation of similar
housing. For example, if the proposed project will be a group home for
four adults with developmental disabilities but the State will only
provide supportive services funding for three persons in a group home,
the reviewer would check the \"Inconsistent\" box. This additional
indication will help assure us that Sponsors who are receiving funding
or referrals through a particular agency, or their projects will be
licensed by that agency, are proposing projects that are sanctioned by
that agency. And, finally, there is space for the reviewer to indicate
whether or not the necessary supportive services will be provided on a
consistent, long-term basis.

HUD will not review the supportive services plan of Sponsor\'s
applications and, consequently, there will be no points assigned to the
plan. Instead, the supportive services plan and the Certification are
threshold requirements which means that if the application does not
include them and, after being notified by the HUD Office, the Sponsor
does not provide the missing information by ([insert deadline for
submitting missing information]{.underline}), the application is
rejected. Furthermore, if the agency completing the Certification
indicates any of the following, the application will be rejected:

1\) the provision of supportive services is **not** well designed to
serve the special needs of the proposed

3

occupants;

2\) the proposed housing is **inconsistent** with State or local plans
and policies governing the development and operation of similar housing
for the proposed occupants; (if the agency will be a major funding or
referral source for or license the proposed project); or

3\) the necessary supportive services will **not** be provided on a
consistent, long-term basis.

Unless we are informed otherwise, we assume that your agency is the
appropriate agency to review the supportive services plans of
applications from Sponsors proposing to develop housing for persons with
([insert disability category]{.underline}) and to complete the
Certification and we will be informing applicants interested in
submitting a Section 811 application for persons with ([insert
disability category]{.underline}) that they are to send one copy of
their application including the supportive services plan to your agency
for review and completion of the Supportive Services Certification.

We are having an orientation workshop for prospective Sponsors ([insert
information on the date, time and place]{.underline}) and would like you
or your representative to attend in order to receive more detailed
information on the Section 811 Program and to be available to help
answer any questions on the supportive services plan. If you or a
representative will be attending, please call this office on ([insert
telephone number]{.underline}) to confirm.

If your agency is not the appropriate agency for Sponsors proposing to
serve [(insert disability category)]{.underline} to send a copy of their
applications for review of the supportive services plan and completion
of the Supportive Services Certification described above, please direct
us to the appropriate agency as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time and attention to this important effort. We look
forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Supervisory Project

Manager

Enclosures

Section 811 - Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities

SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PLAN

EVALUATION FORM

Appropriate State/Local Agency

**Instructions:**

This Evaluation Form may be used for review of the Supportive Services
Plan (Exhibit 4(e) of the Section 811 Application) to facilitate
completion of the Supportive Services Certification (Exhibit 7(l) of the
Section 811 Application) by the designated representative for the
State/Local Agency which provides funding for services, licenses housing
for the population proposed in the Section 811 Application and/or will
provide the majority of referrals for the proposed project.

The completed form should be sent to the appropriate HUD Office so that
it can remain on file with the Sponsor\'s application.

**Section 811 - Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities**

EVALUATION FORM

**Appropriate State/Local Agency**

Sponsor Name/City/ST:

Project Address: Project Number:
[//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////]{.underline}

[Evaluation of the Supportive Services Plan]{.underline}

A. The extent to which the Sponsor has demonstrated that the identified
supportive services will be provided on a consistent, long-term basis.

1\. Did the Sponsor demonstrate that supportive services will be
available on a consistent, long-term basis?

Yes \[ \] No \[ \]

If Yes, briefly describe the evidence that the Sponsor provided and
indicate whether you think it is sufficient to ensure that the services
will be available over a long period of time.

2\. If the project will be a group home(s) and receive State funding for
some or all of the supportive services, what is the maximum number of
persons with disabilities the State will permit (i.e., provide funding
for services on behalf of) per home?

(State/Local Agency - cont\'d) Project No.

B. The quality of the services implementation plan.

1\. Does the supportive services plan have a clear description of each
service, its frequency and location? Briefly describe the services,
their frequency and where provided.

2\. Does the Sponsor have experience in providing (or ensuring the
provision of) the proposed services to the anticipated occupancy and
appear to have a good working knowledge of the potential service needs
in general for the proposed occupants? Explain.

3\. Will there be any residential staff and what will be their
function(s)?

4\. Is the supportive services plan well thought-out?

5\. Did the Sponsor clearly describe how the provision of the proposed
services will be managed? Explain.

(State/Local Agency - cont\'d) Project No.

6\. If the Sponsor is also the service provider, is there sufficient
staff, both in terms of quantity and experience, to ensure the effective
delivery of the proposed services? Briefly describe the number and
qualifications of staff proposed.

7\. If the Sponsor will not be the service provider, what agency(ies)
will provide the services and how will coordination be ensured?

8\. If the Sponsor indicates a particular agency will fund or provide
some or all of the supportive services, is there a letter of intent from
each agency named indicating its willingness to fund or provide the
service(s)?

9\. For those residents who will be taking responsibility for acquiring
their own supportive services, did the Sponsor provide a description of
appropriate services in the community from which the residents can
choose and did the Sponsor get any commitments from outside service
providers that the proposed residents will have access to these
services?

(State/Local Agency - cont\'d) Project No.

10\. Will any supportive services be provided on-site?

Yes \[ \] No \[ \]

If Yes, explain and could they be provided off-site and still benefit
the residents?

11\. Did the Sponsor provide assurances that the proposed residents will
receive supportive services based on their individual needs?

12\. Did the Sponsor include a commitment that accepting supportive
services will not be a condition of occupancy?

RECOMMENDATION: Application is

\[ \] Acceptable

\[ \] Unacceptable

Explain:

Print Name of Reviewer:

Signature: /Date:

Name of Agency:

Address:

Telephone Number:

ATTACHMENT 15

**[DIRECTORY OF CENTERS FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING]{.underline}**

**[FUNDED BY TITLE VII, CHAPTER , PART C FY 1999]{.underline}**

Dan Kessler

Birmingham Independent Living Center

206 13th Street, South

Birmingham, AL 35233

\(205\) 251-2223 x-112, TTY: 251-2223 FAX: 251-0605, e-mail:
dankessler@mindspring.com

Michael Davis

Independent Living Center

5304 B Overlook Road

Mobile, AL 36618

334. 460-0301, TTY: 460-2872 FAX: 460-0302

David Jacobson

Access Alaska, Inc.

3710 Woodland Drive, Suite 900

Anchorage, AK 99517

\(907\) 479-248-7940, TTY: 248-8799, FAX: 248-0639,
e-mail:access@alaska.net

Kate Gundunas

SE Alaska ILC (SAIL)

P.O. Box 35097

Juneau, AK 99803

\(907\) 789-9665, TTY: 789-9665 FAX: (907) 789-9747

Susan Webb

ABIL

1229 East Washington Street

Phoenix, AZ 85034

602-256-2154, TTY: 256-2245, FAX: 254-6407

Jacquie Gates

New Horizons Independent Living Center

8085 East Manley Drive, Suite 1

Prescott Valley, AZ 86314

(520)772-1266, TTY:772-1266, FAX:772-3808, e-mail:nhilc@northlink.com

Ann Myer

DIRECT Center for Independence, Inc

1023 North Tyndall Avenue

Tucson, AZ 85719

\(520\) 624-6452, TTY: 624-6452, FAX: 792-1438, e-mail:
direct@azstarnet.com

Executive Director

Services Maximizing Independent Living

P.O. Box 5869

Yuma, AZ 85364

520. 783-6069 FAX:782-0061

521. 

William Knight

Sources for Community IL

1918 North Birch Ave.

Fayetteville, AR 72703

\(501\) 442-5600, TTY: 442-5600 FAX: 442-5192

Brenda Tweedle

Spa Area IL Services, Inc.

600 Main, Suite O

Hot Springs, AR 71913

(501)624-7710, TTY:624-7710, FAX:624-7510, e-mail:sails@direclynx.net

Rita Byers

Mainstream Living

1818 South University

Little Rock, AR 72204

(501)280-0012, TTY:280-9262, FAX:280-9267

e-mail:mainstream@lr.cleaf.com

Billy Altom

Delta Resource ILC

400 South Main Street, Suite 118

Pine Bluff, AR 71601

\(501\) 535-2222 , TTY: 535-2222 FAX: 534-8191

Pete Galea\'i, Samoa Center for Independent Living

Gov. American Samoa/Dept. H/Srvcs., DVH/IL

Box 4561

Pago Pago, AS 96799

011-684-699-1372, TTY: none, FAX: 684-699-1376

Robert Cummings

Dayle McIntosh Center for the Disabled

150 West Cerritos, Building 4

Anaheim, CA 92805

\(714\) 772-8285, TTY: 772-8366, FAX: 772-8292

Robert Cummings

Dayle McIntosh Center for the Disabled

150 West Cerritos, Building 4

Anaheim, CA 92805

\(714\) 772-8285, TTY: 772-8366, FAX: 772-8292

Susan Miller

Placer Ind. Resource Services

11768 Atwood Road, Suite 29

Auburn, CA 95603

(530)885-6100, TTY: 885-0326, FAX:885-3032, e-mail:pirs@foothill.net

David Bolin

ILC of Kern County

1927 Eye Street

Bakersfield, CA 93301

(661)325-1063, TTY:325-3092, FAX:325-6702,

e-mail:david@ilcofkerncounty.org

Kent Mickelson

Center for Independence of the Disabled

875 O\'Neill Avenue

Belmont, CA 94002

\(415\) 595-0783, TTY:595-0743, FAX:595-0261, e-mail:cidbelmont@aol.com

Kent Mickelson

Center for Independence of the Disabled

355 Geller, #230

Daly City, CA 94015

\(415\) 991-5124, TTY, FAX:, e-mail: cidbelmont@aol.com

Larry L. Watson

Center for Independent Living

2539 Telegraph Avenue

Berkeley, CA 94704

\(510\) 841-4776, TTY: 848-3101, FAX: 841-6168

Jan Garrett

Center for Independent Living

2539 Telegraph Avenue

Berkeley, CA 94704

510. 841-4776, TTY: 848-3101, FAX: 841-6168,

e-mail: Jan Garrett \[jgarrett@cilberkeley.org\]

Jan Garrett

CIL & CRIL (East Oakland Satellite)

2539 Telegraph Avenue

Berkeley, CA 94704

\(510\) 841-4776

Elsa Quezada

Central Coast CIL

234 Capitol Street, Suite A

Salinas, CA 93901

(831)757-2968, TDD:757-2968, FAX:757-5549, e-mail:equezada@cccil.org

Rocky Burks

IL Services of North California

555 Rio Lindo Avenue, Suite B

Chico, CA 95926

\(916\) 893-8527, TTY: 893-8527, FAX: 893-8574

Janet Carmichael

CIL in Fresno (CAPH)

3475 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 101

Fresno, CA 93711

\(209\) 276-6777, TTY: 276-6779, FAX: 276-6778

Janet Carmichael

CIL in Fresno (CAPH)

3475 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 101

Fresno, CA 93711

\(209\) 276-6777, TTY: 276-6779, FAX: 276-6778

Tony Sauer

Foundation of Resources for Equality and Employment

for the Disabled

154 Hughes Road, Suite 1

Grass Valley, CA

\(530\) 272-1732

Al Rivera

Community Rehab Services - ILC

4716 Cesar Chavez Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90022

\(213\) 266-0453, TTY:266-3016, FAX:266-7992, e-mail:crsela@pacbell.net

JoAnne Best

IL Resource of Contra Costa County

3200 Clayton Road

Concord, CA 94519

\(510\) 229-9200, TTY: 229-9200, FAX: 229-1882

Dwight Bateman

Modesto Independent Living Center

221 McHenry Avenue

Modesto, CA 95354

\(209\) 521-7260, TTY: 521-1425, FAX: 521-4763

Lucille Walls

Community Access Center

7223 Magnolia Avenue

Riverside, CA 92504

\(909\) 682-0230, TTY: 682-0232, FAX: 682-5224

Elsa Quezada

Central Coast CIL

234 Capitol Street, Suite A

Salinas, CA 93901

\(408\) 757-2968, TTY: 757-2968, FAX: 757-5549

Bud Sayles

Access Center of San Diego, Inc.

1295 University Avenue, Suite 10

San Diego, CA 92103

\(619\) 293-3500, TTY: 293-7757, FAX: 293-3508

Bud Sayles

Access Center of San Diego, Inc.

1295 University Avenue, Suite 10

San Diego, CA 92103

\(619\) 293-3500, TTY: 293-7757, FAX: 293-3508

Albert G. "Bud" Sayles

Access Center of San Diego, Inc. (Imperial County Sat.)

1295 University Avenue, Suite 10

San Diego, CA 92103

\(619\) 293-3500

Kathy Uhl

IL Resource Center San Francisco

649 Mission St., 3^rd^ Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

\(415\) 543-6222, (Eng) TTY: 543-6698, FAX: 543-6318 543-6768 (Chinese);
543-6743 (Spanish)

Kathy Uhl

IL Resource Center San Francisco

649 Mission St., 3^rd^ Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

\(415\) 543-6222, (Eng) TTY: 543-6698, FAX: 543-6318; 543-6768
(Chinese); 543-6743 (Spanish)

Kathy Uhl

IL Resource Center San Francisco

649 Mission St., 3^rd^ Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

\(415\) 543-6222, (Eng) TTY: 543-6698, FAX: 543-6318; 543-6768
(Chinese); 543-6743 (Spanish)

Josephine Black

IL Resource Center

423 West Victoria

Santa Barbara, CA 93101

\(805\) 963-0595, TTY: 963-0595, FAX: 963-1350

Cheryl Cairns H132A70013

Silicon Valley Independent Living Center

1601 Civic Center Drive, Suite 100

Santa Clara, CA 95050

\(408\) 985-1243, TTY: 985-9243, FAX: 985-0671

Michael Humphrey

Community Resources for Independence

2999 Cleveland Avenue - Suite D

Santa Rosa, CA 95403

\(707\) 528-2745, TTY: 528-2151, FAX: 528-9477

Dwight Bateman

The Mother Lode ILC

83 South Stewart, Suite 305

Sonora, CA 95370

\(209\) 532-0963, TTY: 532-0963, FAX: 532-0963

Mike Humphrey

Community Resources for Independence Ukiah Sat.

1040 N. state St., "E"

Ukiah, CA 95482-3414

(707)463-8875, TTY: 462-4498, FAX: 463-8878

Norma Vescovo

ILC of Southern CA (Service Office)

14354 Haynes

Van Nuys, CA 91401

\(818\) 988-9525, TTY: 988-3533, FAX: 785-0330

Nancy Hildebrand

Center for People with Disabilities

948 North Street, Suite 7

Boulder, CO 80304

\(303\) 442-8662, TTY: 442-8662, FAX: 442-0502

Mike Auberger

Atlantis Community, Inc.

201 South Cherokee Street

Denver, CO 80223-1836

\(303\) 733-9324, TTY: 733-0047, FAX: 733-6211

Executive Director

Disability Center for Independent Living

PO Box 9841

Denver, CO 80209

\(303\) 837-1020, TTY: 837-1020, FAX: 837-0859

Mary Lynn McNutt

Center for Independence

1600 Ute Avenue, Suite 100

Grand Junction, CO 81501

\(970\) 241-0315, TTY: 241-8130, FAX: 245-3341, e-mail: cfi@gj.net

Beth Danielson

Connections for IL

1024 9th Avenue, Suite E

Greeley, CO 80631

\(970\) 352-8682, TTY: 352-8682 , FAX: 353-8058

Robert Zuercher

Sangra De Cristo ILC

804 West Fourth - Suite F

Pueblo, CO 81003

\(719\) 546-1271, TTY: 546-1867 FAX: 542-5456

Eileen Horndt

Independence Northwest, Inc.

1183 New Haven Road, Suite 200

Naugatuck, CT 06770

\(203\) 729-3299, TTY: 729-1281, FAX: 729-2839

Marc Gallucci

GNHDRA/Center Independence Access

One Long Wharf Drive, Suite 225

New Haven, CT 06511

\(203\) 562-3924, TTY: 624-5320, FAX: 624-6302

Carolyn Newcombe

Disabilities Network of Eastern CT

107 Route 32

North Franklin, CT 06254

\(203\) 823-1898, TTY: 823-1898, FAX: 886-2316

Marsha Brown

Independence Unlimited, Inc.

151 New Park Ave., Suite D

Hartford, CT 06106

\(860\) 523-5021, TTY: 523-5603, FAX: 523-5603, e-mail: indunl@aol.com

Anthony LaCava

Disability Resource Center of Fairfield County, Inc.

80 Ferry Blvd.

Stratford, CT 06497

\(203\) 378-6977, TTY: 378-3248, FAX: 375-2748

Executive Director

DC Center Independent Living

1400 Florida Avenue NE, Ste. 3

Washington, DC 20002

\(202\) 388-0033, TTY: 388-0033, FAX: 398-3018

Executive Director

DC Center Independent Living Anacostia Satellite

1400 Florida Avenue NE, Ste. 3

Washington, DC 20002

\(202\) 388-0033, TTY: 388-0033, FAX: 398-3018

Larry Henderson

Independent Resources, Inc.

Two Fox Point Center, 6 Denny Road, Suite 205

Wilmington, DE 19809

\(302\) 765-0191, TTY: none, FAX: 765-0195

Larry D. Henderson

Independent Resources, Inc. (Sussex County Satellite)

Two Fox Point Center, 6 Denny Road, Suite 205

Wilmington, DE 19809

\(302\) 765-0191

Barbara Allard

Space Coast CIL

331 Ramp Road

Cocoa Beach, FL 32931

\(407\) 784-9008, TTY: 784-9008, FAX: 784-3702

Executive Director

SW Florida Coalition for IL, Inc.

3626 Evans Avenue

Fort Myers, FL 33901

(941)277-1447, TTY:277-3964, FAX:277-1647,

e-mail: cilfl@mindspring.com

Robert Tilley

Briarwood CIL

1023 Southeast Fourth Avenue

Gainesville, FL 32601-6908

\(352\) 378-7474, TTY: 376-1237, FAX: 378-5582

Marcia Randall

Opportunity Development, Inc., CIL

2709 Art Museum Drive

Jacksonville, FL 32207

\(904\) 399-8484, TTY:399-8484, FAX: 396-0859

Kelly Green

SFADA, Inc.

1335 NW 14th Street, Suite 200

Miami, FL 33125

\(305\) 325-0901 325-0901, FAX: 547-7355

Kelly Green

South Florida Association for Disability Advocacy, Inc.

d/b/a CIL of South Florida Conch Republic Satellite

1335 NW 14 Street, Suite 200

Miami, FL 33125

\(305\) 325-0901

Frank Cherry

CIL of NW Florida, Inc.

1302 Dunmire Street

Pensacola, FL 32504

850. 484-5444, TTY: (904)484-3900, FAX:435-1542,

e-mail:fra3nan@aol.com

Daniela Szado

Suncoast CIL

1945 Northgate Blvd.

Sarasota, FL 34234

\(941\) 351-9545, TTY: 351-9943, FAX: 351-9875

Michael Cook

Caring & Sharing CIL, Inc.

1130 94th Avenue, North

St Petersburg, FL 33702

\(813\) 577-0065, TTY: 576-5034, FAX: 577-2932

Executive Director

CIL of North Florida

572C Appleyard Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32304

\(904\) 575-9621, TTY: 576-5245, FAX: 575-5740

Karen Dickerhoof

Broward Co. CIL

8857 West McNab Road

Tamarac, FL 33321

\(954\) 722-6400, TTY: 722-6400, FAX: 722-9801

Jim Doyle

Self Reliance, Inc.

12310 North Nebraska Avenue, Suite F

Tampa, FL 33612

\(813\) 975-6560, TTY: 975-6636, FAX: 975-6559

Shelley Gottsagen

Coalition for IL Options

2328 South Congress Avenue, Suite 1-F

West Palm Beach, FL 33406

\(561\) 966-4288, TTY: 641-6538, FAX: 641-6619

Judith Barrett

CIL in Central Florida, Inc.

720 North Denning Drive

Winter Park, FL 32789

\(407\) 623-1070, TTY: 623-1185, FAX: 628-5981

Executive Director

Walton Options for IL, Inc.

P.O. Box 519; 611 15^th^ St.

Augusta, GA 30903

\(706\) 724-6262, TTY: 724-6324, FAX: 724-6729

Tony Boatright

Disability Link

246 Sycamore Street, Suite 100

Decatur, GA 30030

\(404\) 687-8890, TTY: 687-9175, FAX: 687-8298

Pamela Hodge

LIFE, Inc.

17-21 East Travis Street

Savannah, GA 31406

\(912\) 920-2414, TTY: 920-2414, FAX: 920-0007

Jerilyn Leverett

Middle Georgia CIL, dba Disability Connections

170 College St.

Macon, GA 31201

\(912\) 741-1425, TTY, FAX

Mark Obatake

Hawaii Center Independent Living

414 Kuwili Street, Suite 102

Honolulu, HI 96817

808. 522-5400, TTY: 522-5400, FAX: 522-5427,

e-mail: mobatake@diverseabilities.org

Mark Obatake

Hawaii Center Independent Living Western Oahu Sat.

414 Kuwili Street, Suite 102

Honolulu, HI 96817(808) 522-5400, TTY: 522-5400, FAX: 522-5427

Dean Nielson

Living Independently for Everyone (LIFE ) (was EICI)

2110 S. Rollandet Ave.

Idaho Falls, ID 83402

\(208\) 529‑8610 , TTY: none, FAX: 785-9648

Kim McCulley

LINC

2500 Kootenai St.

Boise, ID 83705-2408

\(208\) 336-3335, TTY: 336-3335, FAX: 384-5037

Mark Leeper

Disability Action Center - NW

124 East Third Street

Moscow, ID 83843

\(208\) 883-0523, TTY: 883-0523 , FAX: 883-0524, e-mail: dac@moscow.com

Marca Bristo

Access Living of Metro Chicago

310 South Peoria, Suite 201

Chicago, IL 60607

\(312\) 226-5900, TTY: 226-1687, FAX: 226-2030

Marca Bristo

Access Living (Empowerment Zone Satellite)

310 S. Peoria St., Suite 201

Chicago, IL 60607

(312)226-5900x613

Matt Abrahamson

Soyland Access to IL (SAIL)

2545 Millikin Parkway, Suite 1305

Decatur, IL 62526

217. 876-8888, TTY: 876-8888,

218. 

Matthew Abrahamson

Soyland Access to IL (Shelby & Moultrie Counties Satellites)

2545 Millikin Parkway, Suite 1305

Decatur, IL 65256

\(217\) 876-8888

Catherine Holland

Stone-Hayes CIL

39 North Prairie St.

Galesburg, IL 61401

(309)344-1306, TTY:344-1269, FAX:344-1305,

e-mail:stonehayes@misslink.net

Pam Heavens

Will-Grundy CIL

2415A West Jefferson Street

Joliet, IL 60435

815. 729-0162, TTY: 729-2085, FAX: 729-3697,

e-mail:will.grundy.c.i.l@juno.com

Lori Clark

Lake County CIL

377 N. Seymour Ave.

Mundelein, IL 60060

\(847\) 949-4440, TTY: 949-4440, FAX: 949-4445

Liz Sherwin

Illinois-Iowa ILC

P.O. Box 6156

Rock Island, IL 61204

\(319\) 324-1460, TTY: 324-1460, FAX: 324-1036

Julie Bosma

RAMP

202 Market Street

Rockford, IL 61107

815. 968-7467, TTY:968-7467, FAX:968-7612,

816. e-mail:rampcil@bossnt.com

Julie Bosma

RAMP- extension for Stephenson County

202 Market Street

Rockford, IL 61107

815. 968-7467, TTY:968-7467, FAX:968-7612,

816. e-mail:rampcil@bossnt.com

Albert Tolbert

Southern Indiana Center for Independent Living

3300 W. 16th Street

Bedford, IN 47421

\(812\) 277-9626

David Nelson

League for the Blind & Disabled

5800 Fairfield Avenue, Ste. 210

Fort Wayne, IN 46804

219-745-5491, TTY: 745-5491, FAX: 744-2202,

e-mail: lbdfw@ctlnet.com

Nancy Griffin

Indianapolis Resource CIL

8383 Craig Street, Suite 130

Indianapolis, IN 46250

\(317\) 596-6440, TTY: 596-6440, FAX: 596-6446

Teresa Torres

Everybody Counts

9111 Broadway, Broadfield Center, Suite A

Merrilville, IN 46410

219. 769-5055 or (888) 769-3636 TTY; 756-3323 FAX: 769-5325,

e-mail: ecounts@netnitco.net

Teresa L. Torres

Everybody Counts, Inc. (East Chicago Satellite)

9111 Broadway, Broadfield Center, Suite A

Merrilville, IN 46410

219. 769-5055 or (888) 769-3636 TTY; 756-3323 FAX: 769-5325,

e-mail: ecounts@netnitco.net

Patricia Stewart

ATTIC

P.O. Box 2441

Vincennes, IN 47591

812-886-0575, TTY:886-0575 ATTIC, FAX:886-1128,

e-mail:inattic1@aol.com

Peg Westfall

League of Human Dignity, Inc.

1417 1/2 Broadway

Council Bluffs, IA 51501

712-323-6863, TTY: 323-6863, FAX: 323-6811

Robert Jeppersen

Central Iowa Centerfor Independent Living

1024 Walnut Street

Des Moines, IA 50309

515. 243-1742, TTY: 243-2177, FAX: 243-5385

516. 

Ethel Madison

Evert Conner Rights & Resources CIL

20 East Market Street

Iowa City, IA 52245

\(319\) 338-3870, TTY: 338-3870, FAX: 338-8385

Executive Director

Illinois-Iowa ILC, Iowa Satellite

P.O. Box 6156

Rock Island, IL 61204

\(319\) 324-1460, TTY: 324-1460, FAX: 324-1036

Marilyn Turner

Blackhawk CIL

2401 Falls Avenue, Suite 5

Waterloo, IA 50701

319. 291-7755, TTY: 232-3955, FAX: 292-7781,

e-mail: bhcil@cedarnet.org URL: cedarnet.org

Brian Atwell

LINK, Inc.

2401 East 13th Street

Hays, KS 67601

\(785\) 625-6942, TTY: 625-6942, , FAX: 625-6137

Ann Branden

Independence, Inc.

2001 Haskell Avenue

Lawrence, KS 66046-3249

785. 841-0333, TTY:841-1046, FAX:841-1094,

786. e-mail:indepinc@sunflower.com

Mike Oxford

Topeka IL Resource Center

501 SW Jackson, Ste.100

Topeka, KS 66603

\(785\) 233-4572, TTY: 233-4572, FAX: 233-1561

Sandra Goodwyn

Pathfinders for Independent Living

105 East Mound Street

Harlan, KY 40831

\(606\) 573-5777, TTY: 573-5777, FAX: 573-5777

Jan Day

Center for Accessible Living

981 South 3rd Street, Suite 102

Louisville, KY 40203

502. 589-6620, TTY:589-3980, FAX:589-3980,

e-mail:janday@callou.win.net

Jeanne Abadie

Resources for IL (Satellite Office)

5700 Florida Boulevard - Suite 600

Baton Rouge, LA 70806

\(225\) 216-3844, TTY: 216-3844, FAX: 216-3845

Mitchell Granger

SW LA Independence Center, Inc.

3505 5th Avenue, Suite A-2

Lake Charles, LA 70605

\(318\) 477-7194, TTY:477-7196, FAX:477-7198, e-mail:silc@usunwired.net

Jeanne Abadie

Resources for IL

1555 Poydras Street, Suite 1500

New Orleans, LA 70112

\(504\) 522-1955, TTY: 522-1956, FAX: 522-1954

Helen Moses

New Horizons, Inc.

6670 St. Vincent Avenue

Shreveport, LA 71106

\(318\) 865-1000, TTY: 865-1088, FAX: 865-1094

Executive Director

Maine IL Services

424 Western Avenue

Augusta, ME 04330

\(207\) 622-5434, TTY: 622-5434, , FAX: 622-6947

Steve Tremblay

Alpha One CIL

127 Main Street

South Portland, ME 04106

207. 767-2189, TTY: 767-2189, FAX: 799-8346,

208. e-mail: steventre@aol.com, URL: alpha-one.org

Frank Pinter

Maryland Center For Independent Living

5807 Harford Road

Baltimore, MD 21214

\(410\) 444-1400, TTY: none, FAX: 444-0823, e-mail: mcil@clark.net

Executive Director

Potomac Highlands CIL

708 Fayette St.

Cumberland, MD 21502

\(301\) 784-1774, TTY: ?, FAX: 784-1776

Catherine Raggio H132A40011

Independence Now, Inc.

1400 Spring St., Suite 400

Silver Spring, MD 20910

\(301\) 587-4162, TTY: 587-4162, FAX: 588-3951

Catherine Raggio

Independence Now, Inc. Prince Georges County Sat.

6811 Kenilworth Ave., Suite 504

Riverdale, MD 20737

\(301\) 277-2839, TTY: 587-4162, FAX: 277-4587

James Kruidenier

Stavros CIL, Inc.

691 South East Street

Amherst, MA 01002

\(413\) 256-0473, TTY: 256-0473, FAX: 256-0190

Executive Director

Boston Center for Independent Living

95 Berkeley Street, Suite 206

Boston, MA 02116

\(617\) 338-6665, TTY: 338-6662, FAX: 338-6661

Cheryl Finnerty

Southeast CIL

170 Pleasant Street, 3rd Floor East

Fall River, MA 02721

\(508\) 679-9210, TTY: 679-9210, FAX: 677-2377

Paul Spooner

Metro West CIL

63 Fountain Street, Suite 504

Framingham, MA 01701

508. 875-7853,TTY:875-7853, FAX: 875-8359, e-mail:pspooner@mwcil.org

Bill Henning

CORD

114 Enterprise Road

Hyannis, MA 02601

508. 775-8300, TTY: 775-8300, FAX: 775-7022,

e-mail: cordwin@capecod.net

Charlie Carr

Northeast ILP, Inc.

20 Ballard Road

Lawrence, MA 01843

\(978\) 687-4288, TTY: 687-4288, FAX: 689-4488

Bill Cavanaugh

AD Lib

215 North Street

Pittsfield, MA 01201

\(413\) 442-7047, TTY: 442-7194, FAX: 443-4338

Executive Director

ILC of the North Shore

27 Congress Street, Suite 107

Salem, MA 01970

\(508\) 741-0077, TTY: 744-6546, FAX: 741-1133

Constance Gallant

Independence Associates, Inc.

10 Oak Street - 2^nd^ Floor

Taunton, MA 02780

\(508\) 880-5325, TTY: 880-5325, FAX: 880-6311

Bob Bailey

Center for Living & Working, Inc.

484 Main Street, Suite 345

Worcester, MA 01608

\(508\) 798-0350, TTY: 798-0350, FAX: 798-4015

James Magyar

Ann Arbor CIL

2568 Packard, Georgetown Mall

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

\(313\) 971-0277, TTY: 971-0310, FAX: 971-0826

Jeannie Brooks

Great lakes Center for Independent Living.

4 East Alexandrine, Suite 104

Detroit, MI 48201

\(313\) 832-3371, TTY: 832-3372, FAX: 832-3850

Elizabeth Harvey

Grand Rapids CIL

3600 Camelot Drive, Southeast

Grand Rapids, MI 49546

\(616\) 949-1100, TTY:949-1100, FAX:949-7865, e-mail: contact@grcil.org

Ruth Stegeman

Lakeshore CIL

426 Century Lane

Holland, MI 49423

\(616\) 396-5326. TTY: 396-5326, FAX: 396-3220

Karen Duckworth

Disability Resource Center of SW MI

4026 South Westnedge Ave.

Kalamazoo, MI 49008

\(616\) 345-1516, TTY: 345-1516, FAX: 345-0229

Jan DelValle

Capital Area CIL

3815 West St. Joseph Street, Suite D

Lansing, MI 48917

\(517\) 334-7830, TTY: 334-7828, FAX: 334-7849, e-mail: cacil@cacil.org

Melissa Davert

CIL of Mid-Michigan

1206 James Savage Rd.

Midland, MI 48640

\(517\) 835-4041, TTY: 835-404, FAX: 835-8121

Robert DeVary

Blue Water CIL

310 Water Street

Port Huron, MI 48060

\(810\) 987-9337, TTY: 987-9337, FAX: 987-9548

Richard Sides

Oakland/Macomb CIL

3765 East 15 Mile Road

Sterling Heights, MI 48310

\(801\) 268-4160, TTY: 268-4520, FAX: 268-4720

Jay Johnson

Interstate Resource CIL - MN

318 3^rd^ St., NW

East Grand Forks, MN 56721

\(218\) 773-6100

Steven Tovson

Southwestern CIL

109 South 5^th^ St.

Marshall, MN 55901

\(507\) 532-2221

Pat Mrdjenovich-Hanks

Southeastern MN CIL

1396 NW 7^th^ St.

Rochester, MN 55901

\(507\) 285-1815

David Hancox

Metro CIL

1600 University Ave.

St. Paul, MN 55104

\(651\) 646-8342

Christie Gilliland

Life, Inc.

754 North President Street, Suite 1

Jackson, MS 39202

(601)969-0601, TTY:969-4009, FAX:969-1662, e-mail:lifecen@teclink.net

Rich Blakley

Services for Independent Living

1301 Vandiver Drive, Suite Q

Columbia, MO 65202

\(314\) 874-1646, TTY: 874-4121, FAX: 874-3564

David Robinson

The WHOLE PERSON, Inc.

3100 Main Street, Suite 206

Kansas City, MO 64111

\(816\) 561-0304, TTY: 531-7749, FAX: 753-8163

Max Starkloff

Paraquad

311 North Lindbergh Blvd.

St. Louis, MO 63141

314. 567-1558, TTY: 567-5552, FAX: 567-1559,

URL: paraquad@paraquad.org

Juanita Hagemeier

Disab. Citizens Alliance for Ind.

P.O. Box 675

Viburnum, MO 65566

\(314\) 244-3315, TTY: 244-3315, FAX: 244-5609

Pat Lockwood

LIFTT, Inc.

929 Broadwater Square

Billings, MT 59101

\(406\) 259-5181, TTY: 259-5193, FAX: 259-5259

Jim Meldrum

Montana IL Project

P.O. Box 5415

Helena, MT 59604

\(406\) 442-5755, TTY: 442-5756, FAX: 442-1612

Michael Mayer

Summit Independent Living Center

1900 Brooks Street, Suite 120, Professional Plaza

Missoula, MT 59801

406. 728-1630, TTY: 728-1630, FAX: 728-1632,

e-mail: summitil@montana.com

Tom Osborne

North Central IL Services, Inc.

1120 25th Avenue, Northeast

Black Eagle, MT 59414

\(406\) 452-9834, TTY: 452-9834, FAX: 453-3940

Sid Cook

CIL of Central Nebraska, Inc.

1804 South Eddy

Grand Island, NE 68801

\(308\) 382-9255, TTY: 382-9255, FAX : 384-9231

Executive Director

League of Human Dignity ILC

5513 Center Street

Omaha, NE 68106

\(402\) 558-3411, TTY: 558-3411, FAX : 558-4609

Joe Bohl

Northern Nevada CIL Fallon Office and Elko Satellites

501 Railroad Street, Suite 101

Elko, NV 89803

\(702\) 753-4300, TTY 753-4300, FAX 753-4366

Mary Evilsizer

Southern NV CIL

6039 Eldora Str., F-6

Las Vegas, NV 89146

Telephone:(V/TDD)702-889-4216, FAX: 889-4574, e-mail: sncilnv@aol.com

Joe Bohl

Northern Nevada

CIL, 999 Pyramid Way

Sparks, NV 89431

(775)353-3599, TTY:353-3599, FAX: 353-3588, e-mail: nncil4@aol.com

Mary Evilsizer

Southern NV CIL Moapa Valley Satellite

6039 Eldora Str., F-6

Las Vegas, NV 89146

Telephone:(V/TDD)702-889-4216 FAX: 889-4574, e-mail: sncilnv@aol.com

Ellen Koenig and Larry Robinson

Granite State IL Foundation

P.O. Box 7268

Concord, NH 03301

\(603\) 228-9680, TTY: 228-9680, FAX : 225-3304

Ellen Koenig and Larry Robinson

Granite State IL Foundation Manchester Satellite

P.O. Box 7268

Concord, NH 03301

\(603\) 228-9680, TTY: 228-9680, FAX : 225-3304

Executive Director

GSILF ‑ North Country

PO Box 871

Franconia, NH 03580

\(603\) 823‑5772, TTY 823‑5772, FAX none

Lorraine Culbertson

Camden ILC, Parkade Building

30 North 5^th^ St., Suite 222-3

Camden, NJ 08102

\(609\) 966‑0800, TTY 966‑0830, FAX 966‑0832

Susan Elmer

DIAL, Inc.

66 Mt. Prospect Avenue, Building C-1

Clifton, NJ 07013-1918

\(973\) 470-8090, TTY : 470-2521, FAX : 470-8171

Carol Tucker

Total Living Center, Inc.

P.O. Box 342, 231 Philadelphia Ave.

Egg Harbor City, NJ 08215

\(609\) 965-3734, TTY: 965-5390, FAX : 965-1270

Scott Elliott

Progressive Center for Independent Living, Inc.

831 Parkway Avenue, Unit B-2

Ewing, NJ 08618

\(609\) 530-0006

Eileen Goff

HIP

131 Main Street, Suite 120

Hackensack, NJ 07601

\(201\) 996-9100 , TTY : 996-9424, FAX : 996-9422, e-mail:
ber@hipcil.org

Kathleen Wood

HIP

2815 Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2G

Jersey City, NJ 07306

\(201\) 413‑1200, TTY 413‑0521, FAX 217‑0520, e-mail: hud@hipcil.org

Pam Reid

Resources for Independent Living

1 Hospital Plaza

Riverside, NJ 08075

( 609) 764‑2745 ( 909)‑764‑5573.,TTY 609‑461‑3482.

Executive Director

Southern New Mexico CIL

424 North Downtown Mall, Suite 100

Las Cruces, NM 88001

\(505\) 526-5016, TTY : 526-5016, FAX : 526-1202

Ronald Garcia

New Vistas

1205 Parkway Drive

Santa Fe, NM 87505

\(505\) 471-1001, TTY: 471-1001, FAX : 471-4427

Hagen, Laura, Executive Director

Capital District Center for Independence

855 Central Avenue, Suite 110

Albany, New York 12206-1504

\(518\) 459-6422 (Voice or TDD), (518) 459-7847 (Fax)

Linn, Bobbi, Executive Director

Bronx Independent Living Services

3525 Decatur Avenue

Bronx, New York 10467

\(718\) 515-2800, 515-2803 (TDD); 515-2844 (Fax)

Usiak, Douglas, Executive Director

WNY Independent Project, Inc.

3108 Main Street

Buffalo, New York 14214

\(716\) 836-0822 (Voice or TDD), 835-3967 (F)

Dougherty, Ken, Director

Native American Independent Living Services

3108 Main Street

Buffalo, New York 14214-1384

\(716\) 836-0822 (Voice or TDD) (800) 348-8399

Maier, Peter, Executive Director

Access to Independence and Mobility

271 East First Street

Corning, New York 14830

\(607\) 962-8225 (Voice); 733-7764 (TDD); 937-5125 (Fax)

Executive Director

Glens Falls Independent Living Center, Inc.

71 Glenwood Avenue

Queensbury, New York 12804

\(518\) 792-3537; 792-0505 (TDD), 792-0979 (Fax)

Executive Director

Center for Independence of the Disabled in New York

841 Broadway, Suite 205

New York, New York 10003

\(212\) 674-2300 (Voice or TDD), 254-5953 (Fax)

Horton, Nancy, Co-Director

Action Toward Independence

2927 Route 6

Slate Hill, New York 10973

\(914\) 355-2030 (Voice or TDD), (914) 355-2060 (Fax)

Weider, Tim, Executive Director

Rochester Center for Independent Living, Inc.

758 South Avenue

Rochester, New York 14620

\(716\) 442-6470 (Voice or TDD) ; 271-8558 (Fax)

Weiss, Melissa, Executive Director

Arise, Inc.

1065 James Street, Suite 110

Syracuse, New York 13203

\(315\) 472-3171 (Voice or TDD); 472-9252 (Fax)

Figueroa, Denise, Executive Director

ILC of Hudson County

Troy Atrium, Broadway and Fourth

Troy, New York 12180

\(518\) 274-0701 (Voice or TDD); 274-7944 (Fax)

Danovitz, Burt, Executive Director

Resource Center for Independent Living, Inc.

401-409 Columbia Street, PO Box 210

Utica, New York 13503-0210

\(315\) 797-4642, 797-5837 (TDD), 797-4747 (Fax)

Danovitz, Burt, Executive Director

Resource CIL - Herkimer County Satellite

401-409 Columbia Street, PO Box 210

Utica, New York 13503-0210

\(315\) 797-4642, 797-5837 (TDD), 797-4747 (Fax)

Geiling, Aileen, Executive Director

Northern Regional Center For Independent Living

165 Mechanic Street

Watertown, New York 13601

\(315\) 785-8703 (Voice or TDD); 785-8612 (Fax)

Bravo, Joseph, Executive Director

Westchester Independent Living Center

297 Knollwood Road

White Plains, New York 10607

\(914\) 682-3926; 682-0926 (TDD); 682-8518 (Fax)

Bravo, Joseph, Executive Director

Westchester Independent Living Center (Satellite)

297 Knollwood Road

White Plains, New York 10607

\(914\) 682-3926; 682-0926 (TDD); 682-8518 (Fax)

Billy, James, Executive Director

Harlem Independent Living Center

5-15 West 125th Street

New York, New York 10027

\(212\) 369-2371; 369-6475 (TDD); 369-9283 (Fax)

Julia Sain

Programs for Accessible Living

5701 Executive Center Drive, Suite 320

Charlotte, NC 28212

\(704\) 537-0550, TTY : 537-0550, FAX : 566-0507, URL:
jssain@mindspring.com

Aaron Shabazz

Guilford Advocacy Project

620 South Elm Str., Suite 309

Greensboro, NC 27402

\(336\) 272-0501, TTY: none, FAX : 272-0575

Marty Silverthorne

Disability AWareness Network

609 Country Club Dr., Suite C

Greenville, NC 27834

(252)355-5272

Barbara Davis

Pathways for the Future

525 Mineral Springs Drive, P.O. Box 2114

Sylva, NC 28779

\(828\) 631-1167, TTY:none, FAX: 631-1169, e-mail: pathways@dnet.net

Barbara Davis

Pathways for the Future - CIL of Asheville

525 Mineral Springs Drive, P.O. Box 2114

Sylva, NC 28779

\(828\) 631-1167, TTY: none, FAX: 631-1169, e-mail:
[pathways@dnet.net]{.underline}

Robert Gomez

Dakota CIL

3111 East Broadway Avenue

Bismarch, ND 58501

\(701\) 222-3636, TTY: 222-3636, FAX : 222-0511

Nathan Aalgaard

Freedom RCIL

P.O. Box 8192

Fargo, ND 58109-8192

218. 236-0459, TTY: 236-0459, FAX: 236-0510,

e-mail: freedom@moorheadcity.com

Tari Axness

Independence, Inc.

900 North Broadway, Suite 302

Minot, ND 58703

\(701\) 839-4721, TTY: 839-6561

Jay Johnson

Options Interstate Resource CIL\--Grand Forks Satellite

318 Third Street, Northwest

East Grand Forks, MN 56721

218\) 773-6100, TTY: 773-6100, FAX: 773-7119

Rose Juriga

Tri-County ILC, Inc.

680 East Market Street, Suite 205

Akron, OH 44304

\(216\) 762-0007, TTY : 762-7429, FAX : 762-7416

Lin Laing

The Center for Independent Living Options

632 Vine Street, Suite 601

Cincinnati, OH 45202

\(513\) 241-2600, TTY: 241-7170, FAX: 241-7170

Linda Hildebrand

Services for Independent Living

25100 Euclid Avenue, Suite 105

Cleveland, OH 44117

\(216\) 731-1529, TTY: 731-1529, FAX : 731-3083

Eugene Leber

Access CIL, Inc.

35 South Jefferson

Dayton, OH 45402

\(513\) 341-5202, TTY: 341-5217, FAX : 341-5217

Doris Brennan

Linking Employment Abilities and Potential

1468 West 25^th^ Street

Cleveland, OH 44113

\(216\) 696-2716

Jonnie Fisher

ILC of Northcentral Ohio

1 Marion Avenue, Suite 115C

Mansfield, OH 44903

\(419\) 526‑6770, TTY 526‑6870, FAX 526‑6870

Beverly Rackett

Mid-Ohio Board for IL Environment

2040 Brice Road, Suite 100

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068

\(614\) 864-1199, TTY: 864-2038, FAX : 864-1992

Tim Harrington

Ability Center of Greater Toledo

5605 Monroe

Sylvania, OH 43560

\(419\) 885-5733, TTY: 882-2387, FAX : 882-4813

Gary Donley

Green Country IL Resource Center

4100 SE Adams Road, Suite C-106

Bartlesville, OK 74006

(918)335-1314, TTY:335-1314, FAX: 333-1814, e-mail: GCILRC@AOL.COM

Lew Blockcolski

Sandra Beasley ILC

705 South Oakwood, Suite B-1

Enid, OK 73703

580. 237-8508, TTY: 237-8508, FAX: 233-6403,

e-mail: sbilcenter@pldi.net

Mike Ward

Oklahmans for Independent Living

321 South Third, Suite 2

McAlester, OK 74501

\(918\) 426-6220, TTY: 426-6220, FAX : 426-3245

Executive Director

Progressive Independence, Inc.

121 North Porter

Norman, OK 73071

\(405\) 321-3203, TTY: 321-2942, FAX : 321-7601

Carla Lawson

Ability Resources

110 South Hartford, Suite 115

Tulsa, OK 74120

\(918\) 592-1235, TTY : 592-1235, FAX : 592-5651

Don Stewart

Central Oregon Resources for IL

20436 Clay Pidgeon Court

Bend, OR 97702

\(541\) 388-8103, TTY: 388-8103, FAX : 388-1226

Jan M. Trombley

Handicap Awareness & Support League (HASL)

1252 Redwood Avenue,

Grants Pass, OR 97527

\(541\) 479‑4275, TTY 479‑7261 FAX: 479‑7261

Tina Treasure

SPOKES Unlimited

111 North 7th Street

Klamath Falls, OR 97601

503. 883-7547, TTY: 883-7547, FAX : 883-7547

Tom Ciesielski

Independent Living Resources, Inc. (ILR)

4506 Southeast Belmont

Portland, OR 97215

\(503\) 232-7411, TTY: 232-8404, FAX : 232-7480

Susan Van Scoyoc

CIL of Southcentral PA

3009 Walnut Avenue

Altoona, PA 16601

\(814\) 949-1905, TTY: 949-9009, FAX : 949-1909

Theotis Braddy

CIL of Central PA

415 Fallowfield Road, Suite 101

Camp Hill, PA 17011-4906

717. 731-1900, TTY : 737-1335, FAX : 731-8150,

718. e-mail:cilcp@aol.com **[or]{.underline}** cilcphhs@aol.com\]

Timothy Finegan

Community Resources for Independence

2222 Filmore Avenue

Erie, PA 16506

\(814\) 838-7222, TTY: 838-8115, FAX : 838-8491

Mary (Miggy) Wayne H132A80825

Voices for Independence

3711 West 12th Street

Erie, PA 16505

\(814\) 838-9890

Fern Moskowitz

Liberty Resources, Inc.

1341 North Delaware, Suite 105

Philadelphia, PA 19125

\(215\) 634-2000, TTY : 634-6630, FAX : 634-6628

W.D. Chrisner, III

CIL of Southwestern Pennsylvania

7110 Penn Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15208

\(412\) 371-7700, TTY: 371-6230, FAX : 371-9430

Kathleen Klienmann

Tri-County Partnership for IL

69 East Beau St.

Washington, PA 15301

(724)223-5115, TTY:223-5115, FAX:223-5119, e-mail:kleinman@tripil.com

George Morton

CIL - North Central Penn.

210 Market Street, Suite A

Williamsport, PA 17701

\(570\) 327‑9070‑V; 327‑8610‑Fax; 327‑5254‑TTY

Maria Mercedes LaTorre

Centro de Vida Independiente

Apartado 1681

Hato Rey, PR 00919

\(787\) 753-3109, TTY: 753-1049, FAX : 758-3101

Rose Marie Estevez

Movimento Alcance Vida Independience

P.O. Box 25277

Rio Piedras, PR 00928

\(787\) 758-0573, TTY: 758-0573 , FAX : 758-8844

Leo Canuel

PARI Independent Living Center

500 Prospect Street

Pawtucket, RI 02860

\(401\) 725-1966, TTY: 725-1966, FAX: 725-2104

Lorna Ricci

Ocean State CIL

59 West Shore Road

Warwick, RI 02889

(401)738-1013, TTY: 738-1015, FAX: 738-1083, e-mail: oscil@rida.net

Executive Director

Disability Action Center

3126 Beltline Blvd.

Columbia, SC 29204

\(803\) 779-5121, TTY: 779-0949, FAX: 779-5114

Executive Director

Walton Options for Independent Living, Inc.

P.O. Box 519

Augusta, GA 30903

\(706\) 724-6262, TTY: 724-6324, FAX: 724-6729

Char Crisp

Prairie Freedom CIL

301 South Garfield Avenue, Suite 8

Sioux Falls, SD 57104

\(605\) 367-5630, TTY : 367-5630, FAX: 367-5639

Marla Bull Bear

Tateya Topa Ho

P.O. Box 527

Winner, SD 57580

\(605\) 842-3977, TTY: none, FAX: 842-3983

Executive Director

Tri-State Disability Resource Center

5708 Uptain Rd., Suite 350

Chattanooga, TN 37411-5507

\(423\) 892-4774; TTY: FAX : 892-9866

Susan Stacy

Disability Resource Center

211 Blount Avenue, Suite 508

Knoxville, TN 37920

\(423\) 637-3666, TTY: 637-6796, FAX : 637-5616

Deborah Cunningham

Memphis CIL

163 North Angelus

Memphis, TN 38104

\(901\) 726-6404, TTY: 726-6404, FAX : 726-6521

Janet Kidd

CIL of Middle Tennessee

480 Craighead Street, Suite 200

Nashville, TN 37204

\(615\) 292-5803, TTY: 292-7790, FAX: 292-5803, e-mail: cilmt@edge.net

Melissa Paschal

Panhandle Action CIL

1118 South Taylor St.

Amarillo, TX 79101

\(806\) 374-1400, TTY: 352-8630, FAX: 374-4550

Ronald Rocha

Austin Resource CIL

5555 North Lamar, Suite J-125

Austin, TX 78751

\(512\) 467-0744, TTY: 467-0744, FAX: 467-2417

Nancy Comeaux

SETLIFE, Inc.

780 South Fourth Street

Beaumont, TX 77701

\(409\) 832-2599, TTY:832-2599, FAX: 832-5655

Cheryl Bass

Crockett Resource CIL (Palestine Satellite)

1020 Loop 304 East

Crockett, Texas 75835

\(409\) 544-2811 Fax: (409) 544-7315

Cheryl Bass

Crockett Resource CIL (Main CIL)

1020 Loop 304 East

Crockett, Texas 75835

\(409\) 544-2811 Fax: (409) 544-7315

Charlotte Stewart

REACH of Dallas Resource Center

8625 King George Drive, Suite 210

Dallas, TX 75235

\(214\) 630-4796, TTY: 630-5995, FAX: 630-6390

Charlotte Stewart

REACH of Denton Resource Center

405 South Elm, Suite 202

Denton, TX 76201-6068

\(817\) 383‑1062, TTY: 383‑1062, FAX: 383‑2742

Louis Chew, Acting

VOLAR, CIL

8929 Viscount, Suite 101

El Paso, TX 79925

\(915\) 591-0800, TTY: 591-0800, FAX: 591-3506

Sandra Bookman

Houston CIL

7000 Regency Square Blvd., Suite 160

Houston, TX 77036

\(713\) 974-4621, TTY: 974-4621, FAX: 974-6927

Sandra Bookman

Houston CIL\--Brazoria County Satellite

Angleton Plaza, Suite 1100D E. Mulberry

Angleton, TX 77515

\(409\) 849-8465; (409) 849-7060

Rick Van Hersh

LIFE ILC

3121 34^th^ St.

Lubbock, TX 79401

\(806\) 795-5433, TTY: 749-5438, FAX: 749-2618

David Vander Hee

VAIL

105-C East Expressway 83

McAllen, TX 78577

\(956\) 781-7733, TTY:781-7733, FAX: 781-7735

Jeri Kounce

A.B.L.E. CIL

208 West 23rd

Odessa, TX 79761

\(915\) 580-3439, TTY:580-3439, FAX:580-0280, e-mail:jerik4able@aol.com

Craig Wall

SAILS

1028 South Alamo, Suite 1

San Antonio, TX 78210

\(210\) 281-1878, FAX: 281-1759

Ronald Rocha

Austin Resource CIL

400 West Hopkins, Suite 101

San Marcos, TX 78666

\(512\) 396-5790, TTY:396-5790, FAX: 396-5794

Helen Coburn Roth

OPTIONS for Independence

1095 North Main

Logan, UT 84341

(435)753-5353,TTY:753-5353, FAX:753-5390, e-mail:hroth@optionsind.org

Nancy Bentley

Active Re-Entry

451 South Carbon Avenue

Price, UT 84501

\(801\) 637-4950, TTY: 637-4950, FAX: 637-4952

Debra Mair

Utah ILC, Inc.

3445 South Main Street

Salt Lake City, UT 84115-4453

\(801\) 466-5565, TTY: 466-5565, FAX: 466-2363

Gary Owens

Red Rocks Center for Independent Living

515 West 30^th^ North, Suite A

St. George, UT 84770-4555

435-673-7501; FAX: 673-8808; TTY: NONE

Judy Krum

Vermont CIL (Satellite)

532 Main Street

Bennington, VT 05201

\(802\) 447-0574, TTY: 447-0574, FAX: 442-4052

Debra Lisi-Baker

Vermont CIL

11 East State Street

Montpelier, VT 05602

802. 229-0501, TTY: 229-0501, FAX: 229-0503,

e-mail: vcil@plainfield.bypass.com

Michael Cooper

ENDependence Center of N. VA

3100 Clarendon Blvd.

Arlington, VA 22201

\(703\) 525-3268, TTY: 525-3462 v/tty, FAX : 525-3585

Ralph Shelman

Peninsula CIL

2021 B Cunningham Drive, Suite 2

Hampton, VA 23666

\(804\) 827-0275, TTY: 827-0275, FAX: 827-0655

Steve Johnson

ENDependence Center, Inc.

6320 North Center Drive, Suite 100

Norfolk, VA 23502

\(757\) 461-8007, TTY: 461-7527, FAX: 455-8223

Sandra Wagener

Central Virginia ILC, Inc.

2900 West Broad Street

Richmond, VA 23230

\(804\) 353-6503, TTY:353-6583, FAX: 358-5606

Karen Michalski

Blue Ridge ILC

1502-D Williamson Road, NE

Roanoke, VA 24012

\(540\) 342-1231, TTY:342-1939, FAX: 342-9505

Felicia Brownlow

Virgin Islands Association for IL

PO Box 3305, Charlotte Amalie

St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands 00801

\(304\) 777-4978, FAX:774-8210

Noelle Blazevich

Independent Lifestyle Services

422 North Pine

Ellensburg, WA 98926

\(509\) 962-9620, TTY: 962-9620, FAX: 962-9620

Sarajane Siegfriedt

disAbility Resource Center

607 SE Everett Mall Way, Suite 17

Everett, WA 98208

425. 347-5768, TTY:347-5768, FAX:710-0767,

e-mail: ilsc@richpoor.com website:www.wa-ilsc.org

Jim Lindley

Center for Independence

P.O. Box 1247

Puyallup, WA 98371

\(253\) 845-5187 TTY/FAX: 848-0798

JoAnn Fritsche, WCCD

4649 Sunnyside North, Suite 100

Seattle, WA 98103

(206)545-7055, TTY:461-3766, FAX: 461-4570, e-mail: wccd@premier1.net

Director

WCCD\--King County Satellite

4649 Sunnyside North, Suite 100

Seattle, WA 98103

\(206\) 461-4550, TTY: 461-3766, FAX: 461-4570, e-mail:
wccd@premier1.net

Director

WCCD+Snomish County Satellite

4649 Sunnyside North, Suite 100

Seattle, WA 98103

(206)461-4550, TTY:461-3766, FAX: 461-4570, e-mail: wccd@premier1.net

Linda McClain

Coalition of Responsible Disabled

612 N.Maple St.

Spokane, WA 99201

\(509\) 326-6355, TTY: 326-6355, FAX: 327-2420

Tom Ciesielski

Independent Living Resources, Inc., SW WA Satellite

4506 Southeast Belmont St.

Portland, OR 97215

\(503\) 232-7411, TTY: 232-8404, FAX: 232-7480

Larry Paxton

Appalachian CIL

4710 Chimney Drive, Suite C

Charleston, WV 25302

\(304\) 965-0376, TTY: 965-0376, FAX: 965-0377

Noelle Blazevich

Independent Lifestyle Services

422 North Pine

Ellensburg, WA 98926‑3318

509‑962‑9620 Voice/TDD 1‑800‑240‑5978 V/TDD, Fax: 509‑962‑9630

e-mail: ils@televar.com

Anne Weeks

Mountain State CIL

821 Fourth Avenue

Huntington, WV 25701

\(304\) 525-3324, TTY: 525-3324, FAX: 525-3360

Jan Rieger

Northern West Virginia CIL

1130 Green Bag Road

Morgantown, WV 26505

\(304\) 296-6091, TTY: 291-9066, FAX: 291-9071

Ann Sievert

Access to Independence, Inc.

1310 Mendota Street

Madison, WI 53714

\(608\) 242-8484, TTY: 242-8485, FAX: 242-0383

Karen Hodgson

CIL for Western Wisconsin, Inc.

University Wisconsin - Stout

Menomonie, WI 54751

\(715\) 232-1216, TTY: 232-2150, FAX: 232-5226

Lee Schulz

Independence FIRST

600 West Virginia Street, Suite 300

Milwaukee, WI 53204

414. 291-7520, TTY: 291-7525, FAX: 291-7510,

e-mail: lee@independencefirst.org

Carol Kinney

Wyoming IL Rehabilitation

305 West First Street

Casper, WY 82601

\(307\) 266-6956, TTY: 266-6956, FAX: 266-6957

Carol Fontaine

Western Wyoming CIL

550 Main Street, Suite 2

Lander, WY 82520

\(307\) 332-4889, TTY: 332-4889, FAX: 332-2491, e-mail:wwcfil@rmisp.com