**CHAPTER 25**

**RELOCATION AND REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION**

25-1 [PURPOSE]{.underline}. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide
guidance for conducting monitoring of relocation assistance and real
property acquisition in Community Planning and Development (CPD)
programs and projects.

25-2 [ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES]{.underline}. This Chapter is to be
used primarily by HUD Regional Relocation Specialists and, to a lesser
degree, by CPD Representatives. Regional Relocation Specialists have
primary responsibility for monitoring HUD program participants for
compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (URA), section 104(d) of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (section 104(d)), and
related relocation program requirements in HUD-assisted housing and
community development programs.

25-3 [APPLICABILITY]{.underline}. Relocation and real property
acquisition in federally- assisted programs and projects are subject to
the requirements of the URA. The displacement of any lower-income person
as a direct result of the demolition of any housing unit or the
conversion of an occupied or vacant occupiable lower- income dwelling
unit to a use other than lower-income housing in connection with a
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program or project \[including
State, Entitlement, HUD-Administered Small Cities, Section 108 Loan
Guarantee, Special Purpose Grants, Economic Development Initiative (EDI
-- competitive), Brownsfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI),
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU)\], Home Investment
Partnership (HOME), or Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) (excluding
insular areas) is also subject to the requirements of section 104(d).

A list of HUD-assisted programs subject to the requirements of the URA
and/or section 104(d) is found in Attachment 1. This guidance on
relocation assistance and real property acquisition monitoring applies
to the list of covered CPD programs and should also be used when
monitoring the list of covered programs administered by the Office of
Housing and the Office of Public and Indian Housing.

25-4 [PREPARING FOR MONITORING]{.underline}. In preparing for a
monitoring review, the HUD reviewer should:

A. [Examine available information]{.underline}. Notes and records of
prior contacts and

monitoring reviews, if any, should be checked to determine whether
particular cases need to be re-examined, whether any follow-up actions
from a prior review need to be reviewed, and to identify problem areas.
The reviewer should check program files, audit reports and other
relevant data sources such as citizen and administrative complaints.

B. [Select the project(s) and program(s) to be reviewed]{.underline}.
The reviewer should take into account the level of program activities
(e.g., acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, conversion, or any
combination of these activities) and the "initiation of negotiations"
date, the milestone in determining a person's eligibility for relocation
assistance (e.g., dates of program approval, contract execution, and
other actions that establish eligibility under the URA, section 104(d)
and HUD program regulations).

C. [Consult with appropriate staff]{.underline}. The reviewer should
consult with CPD and other field staff (Housing, Public and Indian
Housing, FHEO) who have been in the jurisdiction recently or who may
have pertinent observations or suggestions to make. As appropriate, the
reviewer should also consult with program participant staff.

D. [Follow the pre-monitoring procedures described in Chapter 2 of this
Handbook]{.underline}. Shortly before the review, the reviewer should
contact and remind the program participant of the specific dates and
times for meetings to take place.

E. [Complete applicable monitoring exhibits]{.underline}. Exhibits 25-1
and 25-2 should be completed for all reviews, except reviews of
State-administered programs. (For reviews of State-administered
programs, see Paragraph 25-12; use Exhibit 25-8.) Exhibits 25-3, 25-4,
25-5, 25-6 and 25-7 should be used as applicable.

25-5 [SELECTION OF CASE FILES TO BE REVIEWED]{.underline}. The program
or project being reviewed may include a single activity (i.e.,
acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition) or any combination of
activities. Therefore, the caseload may contain acquisition files, as
well as files for persons displaced and/or files for occupants not
displaced. Paragraph 25-5.A outlines the basic criteria for selecting
areas to be reviewed. Paragraphs 25-5.B, 25-5.C and 25-5.D provide
guidance for determining which specific files in an area should comprise
the review sample for the monitored program or project.

The sample must be large enough to be representative of the size and
nature of the workload and should be adjusted to reflect the reviewer\'s
knowledge of program participant performance and the other factors
listed below. Generally, the cases shall be selected at random and cover
the period since the last monitoring review, if applicable, with
particular emphasis on the more recent cases which can be expected to
give the best indication of current performance. If this is an initial
monitoring review for a new program, the reviewer should select a
representative sample of all cases since the beginning of the program.

> A. [Basic Criteria]{.underline}. Factors to be considered in selecting
> cases to be reviewed are:
>
> 1\. Number and type of projects and programs receiving HUD funding and
> the organization of program participant staff. A project or program
> may involve relocation, real property acquisition or both. Those
> functions may not necessarily be managed by the same staff and,
> therefore, coordination is required among the various staff which
> contribute to the relocation and acquisition process.

2.  Date of last monitoring review. Programs or projects least recently
    and/or never reviewed should receive priority.

3.  Size of workload (i.e., number of persons to be displaced, number of
    occupants to remain, number of units to be rehabilitated or
    demolished, and/or number of parcels to be acquired).

4.  Type and complexity of workload (e.g., residential displacement of
    persons receiving housing assistance; acquisition and relocation of
    owner-occupied commercial structures; large commercial and/or
    industrial displacement; temporary moves; displacement of persons
    with reasonable accommodations for disabilities, live-in aides,
    medical equipment, assistance animals).

5.  The experience and training of the program participant\'s staff.
    Activities carried out by new or inexperienced staff should receive
    a priority.

6.  The seriousness of previous monitoring findings that required
    corrective action. As appropriate, specific cases involved in prior
    findings should be reviewed.

7.  CPD risk assessment score for the program participant.

8.  Complaints and appeals filed with the program participant or Field
    Office.

9.  The income levels of persons in the caseload. The formula for
    calculating replacement housing payments may be different for
    low-income persons, and, if applicable, case files for both
    low-income persons and persons that are not low-income should be
    included in the sample.

> B. [Acquisition Sample]{.underline}. Generally, an acquisition sample
> should be based on cases for which settlement has been completed.
> However, if necessary to provide a representative sample of
> acquisition activities, the reviewer may include incomplete
> transactions in which negotiations have been initiated. The sample of
> cases should be representative of the program participant's activities
> (e.g., residential, commercial and industrial).
>
> C. [Displacement Sample]{.underline}. Generally, the displacement
> sample should include completed cases in which payments have been
> made. However, if necessary to provide a representative sample, other
> cases may be included. The sample should provide a basis to determine
> not only whether payments were computed properly and made promptly,
> but also whether displaced persons received the full range of
> relocation payments and services to which they were entitled. Cases in
> which an appeal has been filed or the program participant has
> determined that a person is ineligible for relocation assistance
> should be given a high priority. The sample of cases should include
> tenants and owners, both residential and nonresidential cases, with
> particular emphasis on low-income persons and persons with
> disabilities.
>
> D. [Sample of Occupants Not Displaced]{.underline}. It is important to
> review cases where the occupants were not required to move
> permanently, although the project resulted in acquisition,
> rehabilitation, demolition or conversion. (An occupant that was not
> displaced, may or may not have relocated permanently for reasons
> unrelated to the prior project, or may have moved temporarily.) The
> reviewer must compare pre-project and post-project occupancy and areas
> where complaints have been made or noncompliance is suspected. The
> sample must provide a basis for concluding that the required
> conditions under which persons have been permitted to occupy the
> project, during and after completion, have been met.

25-6 [REVIEWING CASE FILES]{.underline}. The reviewer should thoroughly
examine program participant documentation in the program participant's
records and files for each of the cases in the selected sample and
determine whether the person received the full level of payments and
services to which the person was entitled under the URA, section 104(d)
and applicable program regulations. The reviewer should complete the
applicable monitoring exhibit for each of the cases reviewed. If
feasible, following the case file review, a representative sample of
persons should be interviewed and their housing or business inspected as
described in Paragraph 25-7.

> A. [Case Files on Persons Displaced]{.underline}. The reviewer should
> examine displacement records for compliance with the URA, section
> 104(d) and applicable program regulations and complete Exhibit 25-3 or
> 25-4. For persons displaced, there should be separate case files. The
> reviewer shall determine whether:

1.  The person received a General Information Notice (GIN), which
    provides early written notice of the possible displacement and a
    general description of the relocation payments and advisory services
    for which the person may be eligible, basic eligibility conditions
    and the procedures for obtaining payments, and the person received
    the pertinent HUD information booklet or its equivalent.

2.  The program participant identified the person\'s relocation needs
    and preferences, and, through personal contact, explained the
    person\'s rights and options.

3.  The person received timely written notice of his or her eligibility
    for relocation assistance and, for those displaced from a dwelling,
    notice of the specific comparable replacement dwelling and the
    related cost to be used to establish the upper limit of the
    replacement housing payment.

4.  The program participant provided other services, as appropriate,
    including referrals to other replacement properties. For residential
    displacement, the files should indicate the rent/utility costs or
    sale price of each dwelling, date of availability, and reason(s), if
    any, the person declined the referral.

5.  The 90-day notice and/or vacate notice, if issued, complies with
    applicable policies.

6.  The files contained identification and an address for the actual
    replacement property, the date of relocation and, for residential
    relocation, the rent/utility costs or sale price.

7.  For residential relocation, the replacement dwelling was inspected.
    At a minimum, the replacement dwelling must be decent, safe and
    sanitary. A copy of the replacement dwelling inspection report
    showing the condition of the unit and the date of inspection should
    be reviewed.

8.  Payment computations were accurate. A copy of each approved claim
    form and related documentation should be reviewed.

9.  The person actually received the payment(s) and, if applicable,
    Section 8 Housing Choice voucher assistance or a similar government
    housing subsidy.

10. An appeal or complaint was filed and if the program participant
    responded in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR 24.10(g).

> B. [Case Files on Persons Not Displaced]{.underline}. The reviewer
> should examine the records on occupants not displaced to determine
> compliance with applicable program regulations and complete Exhibit
> 25-5 or 25-6. The reviewer should determine:

1.  Whether the occupant received timely written notice that he or she
    would not be displaced by the project (e.g., Notice of
    Nondisplacement).

2.  For a tenant-occupant of a dwelling:

> \(a\) whether the tenant received a timely offer of an opportunity to
> lease and occupy a suitable, affordable, decent, safe and sanitary
> dwelling in the building/complex upon completion of the project under
> reasonable terms and conditions,
>
> \(b\) whether the tenant received reimbursement of any out-of-pocket
> expenses incurred in connection with any temporary relocation or a
> permanent move to another unit in the building/complex, and
>
> \(c\) whether the duration of any temporary relocation exceeded 1
> year.
>
> 3\. Whether any appeal or complaint was filed and if the program
> participant responded in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR
> 24.10(g).
>
> C. [Acquisition Case Files]{.underline}. The reviewer shall examine
> the acquisition records for compliance with the basic acquisition
> policies of the URA (49 CFR 24.102) and complete Exhibit 25-7. For
> each parcel acquired, the reviewer shall determine whether:

1.  The owner was informed in writing and as soon as feasible about the
    program participant's interest in acquiring the property and his or
    her rights (i.e., a Notice to Owner required by 49 CFR 24.102(b)),
    and whether the owner received a copy of the booklet, "When A Public
    Agency Acquires Your Property," or the equivalent.

2.  The owner was invited to accompany each appraiser on the
    appraiser\'s inspection of the property (unless an appraisal is not
    required pursuant to 49 CFR 24.102(c)(2)). \[49 CFR 24.102(c)(1)\]

3.  The appraisal report(s), including the review appraiser\'s report,
    met the requirements at 49 CFR 24.103 and 49 CFR 24.104.

4.  The owner was provided an appropriate written offer of just
    compensation determined in compliance with 49 CFR 24.102(e) and
    summary statement of the basis for the determination of just
    compensation in a timely manner. (The URA regulations at 49 CFR
    24.102(d) require that the offer of just compensation be no less
    than the appraisal amount, taking into account allowable damages or
    benefits to any remaining property.)

5.  The purchase contract sets forth reasonable terms and conditions for
    the conveyance and whether the file contained copies of recorded
    documents conveying the property.

6.  The closing statement identified all incidental expenses and there
    is evidence that the owner received all of the net proceeds due from
    the sale.

7.  Any appeal or complaint was filed and whether the program
    participant\'s response was in accordance with the requirements of
    49 CFR 24.10(g).

25-7 [INTERVIEWS]{.underline}. Interviews of displaced persons,
occupants permitted to remain in the property, and former property
owners are essential elements of the monitoring process. At least one
interview should be carried out for every three to five case files
reviewed. At a minimum, each review must include at least one interview,
unless compelling circumstances preclude this. If it is not possible to
interview any persons, the reviewer shall explain the circumstances in
the monitoring letter. Interviews are needed to check the accuracy of
the information in the case files and give the reviewer a better
perspective of the program participant\'s performance.

A representative sample of persons whose case files were reviewed,
including residential and nonresidential persons, persons not displaced
and former property owners, should be interviewed. Among the factors to
consider in selecting persons to be interviewed are the following:

> A. Documentation in the case file is not sufficient to permit the
> reviewer to clearly judge whether the person received the full range
> of assistance.
>
> B. Indications that the person may have had difficulty representing
> his or her best interests.
>
> C. Whether an appeal was filed, and the action(s) taken to grant the
> relief requested by the person.
>
> D. Length of time the person's case file remained open.

The interview should be face-to-face, organized and concise. Alternative
formats should be used for the interview to accommodate any persons who
are hearing impaired, and interpretive services should be arranged for
any persons who are limited English proficient. The questions should be
structured to elicit a clear response that clarifies, substantiates or
disproves the information in the case file documentation. The questions
should be tailored to the circumstances.

> Before interviewing a person, the reviewer must provide the person
> with a copy of a HUD-approved \"Privacy Act Statement\" (see
> Attachment 2, Privacy Act Statement) and assure that the person
> understands that the decision to respond to questions is entirely
> voluntary. No penalty will result from a decision to respond or to not
> respond. A copy of the Privacy Act Statement may be retained by the
> person, whether or not the person elects to respond to questions.
> Distribution of the Privacy Act Statement is mandatory. No change may
> be made in the language of a HUD-approved statement without prior
> Headquarters approval.

25-8 [INSPECTIONS OF REPLACEMENT HOUSING]{.underline}. Inspections of
housing

(replacement housing of displaced persons and permanent housing of those
permitted to remain) are also essential in the monitoring process. In
addition to interviews as described in paragraph 25-7 above, at least
one housing inspection should be carried out for every three to five
case files reviewed. If it is not possible to inspect housing, the
reviewer should explain the circumstances in the monitoring letter.

> When inspecting housing units, the reviewer shall consider whether the
> program participant inspected the housing before or after initial
> occupancy; the qualifications of the program participant\'s housing
> inspector; and whether any housing deficiencies were found by such
> inspector.
>
> Housing inspections should include an interior and exterior inspection
> of the replacement dwelling. If it is not possible to make an interior
> inspection, the reviewer shall explain the circumstances in the
> monitoring letter.

If possible, a local housing inspector should accompany the reviewer on
the inspection. If the replacement dwelling is determined not to be
decent, safe and sanitary, the inspector shall be asked for his or her
best judgment as to whether the deficiencies found resulted from
inadequate maintenance by the present occupant(s) or could have existed
at the time the property was initially occupied. Any housing
deficiencies identified during the inspection that present a threat to
the health and/or safety of the occupant which did not result from
inadequate maintenance by the present occupant must be reported
immediately to the program participant and appropriate follow-up actions
taken to correct the deficiency. Where it is found that the displaced
person was initially relocated to a replacement unit that was not
comparable or decent, safe and sanitary, the program participant shall
be required to take steps to correct the deficiencies or relocate the
occupant to other housing that is decent, safe and sanitary.

25-9 [DETERMINATION OF SPECIFIC CASE FINDINGS AND CONCERNS]{.underline}.

> The reviewer should identify program participant accomplishments, as
> well as successful management/implementation/evaluation techniques
> that might be replicated by other CPD program participants (see
> Paragraph 1-5). Findings of noncompliance are defined in Chapter 1 of
> this Handbook (see Paragraph 1-6.C) and classified as either
> correctable or noncorrectable violations (see definitions below). The
> reviewer will monitor compliance with URA and the program participant
> shall take whatever corrective action is necessary to comply with the
> Uniform Act and the URA implementing regulations at 49 CFR Part 24.
> Corrective actions may also be applied in accordance with applicable
> program regulations.
>
> NOTE: When making findings, the reviewer should cite not only the URA
> regulations, but also the appropriate program regulation. See
> Attachment 1 for a list of programs covered by the URA and their
> program-specific relocation citations.
>
> A. [Correctable Violation]{.underline}. A correctable violation is a
> violation for which meaningful remedial action to correct the error is
> possible (e.g., it is not too late to provide appropriate assistance).
> Generally, correctable violations fall into two categories:

1.  [Inadequate Financial Assistance]{.underline}. In any case where a
    person has not received the full amount of the payment(s) to which
    he or she is entitled, the program participant shall be directed to
    pay the difference between the required payment(s) and the actual
    payment(s) made.

2.  [Inadequate Housing]{.underline}. In any case where a person has
    relocated to, or remained in, housing that does not meet the
    regulatory standards because decent, safe and sanitary housing was
    not made available to the person, the program participant shall be
    directed to either assist the person in relocating to decent, safe
    and sanitary housing or take action to ensure the substandard
    condition of the person\'s current housing is corrected through
    rehabilitation or repair of the unit to acceptable housing code
    standards and/or through obtaining reasonable modifications of
    policies in replacement housing (e.g., permitting assistance animals
    as a modification to the owner's pet policy) and larger units to
    accommodate a live-in aide, medical equipment, or service animal.

> B. [Noncorrectable Violation]{.underline}. All findings for which the
> required remedial action would not benefit the affected person in a
> meaningful way (i.e., payments, housing and significant services were
> adequate) are classified as \"noncorrectable violations.\" For
> example, a finding that the displaced person was not provided a
> required notice in a timely manner prior to displacement but relocated
> into comparable (affordable, decent, safe and sanitary) housing and
> received the relocation payments and important services which he or
> she was entitled, would be classified as a noncorrectable violation.
> The program participant shall be advised of all noncorrectable
> violations and instructed to take steps to prevent similar violations
> in the future.
>
> C. [Preparation of Findings]{.underline}. Based on all available
> information, including the examination of the case files, interviews
> with former owners and tenants, the inspection of housing and any
> comments of program participant staff, the reviewer shall enter his or
> her findings, if any, for each case on the applicable monitoring
> exhibit. In those instances where the reviewer does not have
> sufficient information or requires assistance to make a particular
> finding, the reviewer shall initiate action to obtain such information
> or assistance. If unable to obtain sufficient information to clearly
> establish a particular finding, the reviewer shall so indicate on the
> particular Exhibit.
>
> It is important that the reviewer\'s judgment reflect an analysis of
> all available information and that any findings of noncompliance are
> well documented. Statements made by a person interviewed must be
> weighed against the information available in the program
> participant\'s records and the comments of program participant staff.
> Supporting information shall be attached to the monitoring exhibit, as
> appropriate.
>
> Findings related to noncompliance with the URA and/or section 104(d)
> should cite both the applicable regulation (49 CFR Part 24 and 24 CFR
> Part 42, respectively) and the HUD program regulations that make these
> requirements applicable (see Attachment 1).
>
> D. [Concerns]{.underline}. Concerns are defined in Chapter 1 of this
> Handbook (see Paragraph 1-6B). For purposes of this Chapter, an
> example of a concern would be an individual case file for a displaced
> residential occupant that contains a claim form for a replacement
> housing payment which is not properly completed nor signed by a
> program participant official. Failure to correct concerns could result
> in future findings.

25-10 [EXIT CONFERENCE WITH PROGRAM PARTICIPANT STAFF]{.underline}. At
the close of the monitoring, the reviewer shall follow the process
described in Chapter 2, Paragraph 2-7D, of this Handbook and conduct an
exit conference with appropriate representative(s) of the program
participant to explain the preliminary review findings, concerns and
observations and provide the program participant with the opportunity to
respond. This approach should minimize misunderstandings that might
otherwise occur when the program participant receives the follow-up
letter explaining the results of the monitoring. The reviewer shall
explain any violations of statute and/or HUD regulations and needed
corrective actions that must be taken. Specifically, the reviewer should
discuss the following with the program participant:

1.  Number and type of case files reviewed.

2.  Number of dwellings inspected.

3.  Number of persons interviewed.

4.  The number and type of findings made (correctable and noncorrectable
    violations).

5.  Required corrective action.

6.  Deadline(s) for corrective action.

7.  Reviewer concerns and recommendations.

8.  Program participant needs for training and/or technical assistance.

    25-11 [POST MONITORING ACTIONS]{.underline}.

> A. [Monitoring Letters]{.underline}. Monitoring letters covering
> monitoring
>
> conducted by a Regional Relocation Specialist shall follow the
> procedures
>
> outlined in Chapter 2 of this Handbook. Such letters are to be drafted
> by the
>
> Regional Relocation Specialist routed for required concurrences,
> signed by
>
> the CPD Director in the Field Office or his/her designee, and
>
> dispatched within 45 calendar days of the completion of the review.
> Copies
>
> should be provided to the CPD Representative handling the program area
>
> covered or to the appropriate staff in the Office of Housing or the
> Office of
>
> Public and Indian Housing, if applicable.
>
> B. [Regional Relocation Specialist Concurrence]{.underline}. When a
> Regional Relocation
>
> Specialist is part of a team monitoring or, in the case where findings
> are made
>
> independent of the Regional Relocation Specialist, the Regional
> Relocation
>
> Specialist shall concur in any findings and recommendations
> originating from
>
> the CPD Field Office prior to dispatch of the letter.
>
> C. [Corrective Actions/Sanctions]{.underline}. HUD program
> participants certify to
>
> compliance with the URA as a prerequisite to receiving HUD financial
>
> assistance. The URA requirements are incorporated by reference into
> the
>
> regulations of covered programs (see Attachment 1). (HUD Notices of
>
> Funding Availability and grant agreements may also incorporate URA and
>
> other relocation-related requirements by reference.) As with any other
>
> program violation, HUD has the authority to take remedial or
> corrective
>
> actions permitted under the applicable program statute, regulations,
> and/or
>
> grant agreement.
>
> Sanction authority rests with the HUD program office. The Headquarters
>
> program office that is directly impacted by non-compliance with
> relocation
>
> and real property acquisition provisions is to be consulted when Field
> Office
>
> attempts to correct identified deficiencies have not been successful
> and more
>
> progressive sanctions may be needed. The Regional Relocation
> Specialist
>
> plays a consultative role in sanctions only.

25-12 [REVIEW OF STATE-ADMINISTERED PROGRAMS]{.underline}. This
Paragraph 25-12 covers the review of programs where HUD provides
assistance to a State (program participant) and the State distributes
the assistance to third parties (recipients). In these programs, the
Regional Relocation Specialist is required to periodically monitor the
performance of the State to determine whether the program is in
compliance with applicable law and regulations. These programs include
the State Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and
State-administered HOME programs.

A.  [Nature of Review]{.underline}. A monitoring exhibit for reviewing a
    State program is found in Exhibit 25-8. A monitoring review of a
    State program consists of:

> 1\. The review of information available in the HUD Field Office (e.g.,
>
> complaints);

2\. The review of records at the State; and

3\. The on-site review of at least one State recipient, preferably one

> that has been reviewed previously by the State. When an on-site review
> of a recipient is undertaken, State officials must be given the
> opportunity to participate in the review. See Paragraphs 25-4 through
> 25-11 for procedures for conducting a review of a recipient

B.  [Review of State Recordkeeping]{.underline}. State records should
    include evidence demonstrating that copies of the URA and section
    104(d) regulations (49 CFR Part 24 and 24 CFR Part 42, respectively)
    and guideform materials (e.g., information booklets and claim forms)
    were provided to recipients with relocation, real property
    acquisition, or rehabilitation activities, along with the name(s)
    and phone number(s) of the State staff to contact for advice. State
    records should also include:

1\. Evidence that State has obtained a certification from each State
recipient

that it will comply with:

a\. The URA and 49 CFR Part 24; and,

b\. The pertinent section of the applicable program regulations. For the

CDBG and HOME Programs, this includes a certification that the

recipient is following a residential anti-displacement and relocation

assistance plan.

2\. Evidence demonstrating that State approval of a grant or loan
reflected

> consideration of the real property acquisition and displacement, if
> any, for the proposed project and a reasonable estimate of relocation
> costs.
>
> 3\. Evidence demonstrating that State monitoring reviews of recipients
> were
>
> sufficient to determine compliance with applicable laws and
> regulations. This includes evidence that reviews:

a\. Were of appropriate depth and frequency. (All recipients should be

reviewed at least once before closeout.)

b\. Reflected representative samples as to number and type of cases

examined.

c\. Included interviews with displaced persons/former owners and

inspection of replacement housing, as appropriate.

d\. Assessed timeliness and completeness of each required notice (e.g.,

> general information notice, notice of nondisplacement, notice of
>
> eligibility for relocation assistance, 90-day notice and vacate
> notice).

e\. Evaluated recipient\'s determination of occupants\' eligibility for

relocation assistance as \"displaced persons.\"

f\. Determined adequacy of referrals to comparable replacement housing

and suitable business locations and other advisory services.

g\. Determined whether displaced minority persons were provided an

explanation of their Fair Housing Rights and referrals to housing not in

an area of minority concentration.

h\. Determined timeliness and accuracy of relocation payments. The State

records should include a worksheet or copy of the claim form for each

case examined. If payment was limited by the cost of a comparable

replacement dwelling, the review record should identify the location of,

cost of, and the date of referral to such housing.

i\. Determined that any persons who were temporarily relocated received

appropriate compensation in accordance with 49 CFR 24.2(a)(9)(ii)(D).

j\. Examined the process by which the recipient selected appraisers and

determined the acceptability of their appraisals and review appraisals.

k\. Determined that the recipient's acquisition process met applicable
law

> and regulations (e.g., invited owner to accompany appraiser, promptly
>
> offered just compensation for property and paid all incidental
> expenses).

l\. Verified that affected persons received the relocation and
acquisition

payments (e.g., copy of signed settlement statement or cancelled check

and verification through personal interview).

m\. Determined that recipient decisions on appeals/complaints were

acceptable and persons were informed of right to appeal to the State

program participant.

n\. Determined adequacy of the State recipient\'s recordkeeping.

o\. Statement of State policy describing the scope of appeals that
displaced

> persons/property owners may make to the State and evidence of
>
> appropriate State response to appeals/complaints actually filed.

C.  [Frequency of HUD Monitoring Reviews]{.underline}. A State program
    should be monitored based on CPD's risk analysis process (see
    Chapter 2, paragraph 2-3). The size of the State workload, the level
    of compliance found during prior visits and the demonstrated
    capacity of State staff should also be considered. If practical,
    relocation/acquisition monitoring reviews should be coordinated with
    an on-site visit made by the CPD Program Representative. Plans for
    monitoring should be included in the annual monitoring schedule.

D.  [Exit Conference With State]{.underline}. At the close of the
    review, the reviewer shall meet with appropriate State staff,
    explain the review findings and observations, if any, and provide
    the State staff with an opportunity to comment. This approach should
    minimize misunderstandings arising when the State receives the
    monitoring letter explaining the results of the review. Any
    noncompliance with applicable law or regulations, and any corrective
    actions that must be taken to resolve the matter shall be explained.
    The exit conference may also serve as an opportunity for scheduling
    a time to provide training or technical assistance to the State.

E.  [Field Office Follow-up]{.underline}. The reviewer shall draft a
    monitoring follow-up letter to the State reporting the results of
    the monitoring review in accordance with Paragraph 25-11.

25-13 [CHAPTER ATTACHMENTS AND EXHIBITS]{.underline}. This Chapter
contains three Attachments and eight Exhibits.

A. [Attachments]{.underline}.

1\. Attachment 1 is a list of HUD-assisted programs subject to the

requirements of the URA and/or section 104(d).

2\. Attachment 2 is a Privacy Act Statement, which is to be used when

the reviewer interviews displaced persons, occupants permitted to

remain in occupancy, and/or former property owners (see Paragraph

25-7).

3\. Attachment 3 contains Guidelines for HUD Monitoring Review of

Appraisals.

> B. [Exhibits]{.underline}. The Exhibits described below are to be used
> to document the review
>
> of individual cases. These Exhibits are designed to assist the
> reviewer in
>
> carrying out the review and promote consistency in the reviews
> conducted.
>
> The Exhibits should be supplemented with supporting information as
>
> necessary to document findings and to facilitate the preparation of
> the report.

1.  [Exhibit 25-1: Guide for Review of Relocation and Real Property
    Acquisition Policies and Procedures]{.underline}. This Exhibit is to
    be used to review overall program participant compliance with
    policies and procedures.

2.  [Exhibit 25-2: Guide for Review of Relocation and Real Property
    Acquisition Projects]{.underline}. This Exhibit is used to summarize
    the project(s) being monitored.

3.  [Exhibit 25-3: Guide for Review of Relocation of Residential
    Displaced Person -- Individual Case File]{.underline}. This Exhibit
    is to be used to document monitoring review of cases where a
    residential occupant has been displaced.

4.  [Exhibit 25-4: Guide for Review of Relocation of Nonresidential
    Displaced Person -- Individual Case File]{.underline}. This Exhibit
    is to be used to document monitoring review of cases where
    nonresidential occupants have been displaced.

5.  [Exhibit 25-5: Guide for Review of Relocation of Residential
    Occupant Not Displaced -- Individual Case File]{.underline}. This
    Exhibit is to be used to document reviews of cases where a person
    occupies a residential site that has been rehabilitated and/or
    acquired without the intention of or necessity to displace the
    person.

6.  [Exhibit 25-6: Guide for Review of Nonresidential Occupant Not
    Displaced -- Individual Case File]{.underline}. This Exhibit is to
    be used to document reviews of cases where a person occupies a
    nonresidential site that has been rehabilitated and/or acquired
    without the intention of or necessity to displace the person.

7.  [Exhibit 25-7: Guide for Review of Real Property
    Acquisition]{.underline}. This Exhibit covers a single acquisition
    transaction. [NOTE]{.underline}: If the reviewer is not qualified to
    complete information regarding the appraisal review, the reviewer
    should make a general check using the guidelines in Attachment 3 to
    this Chapter, Guidelines for HUD Monitoring Review of Appraisals,
    using Exhibit 25-7. If the review discloses anything which in the
    judgment of the reviewer raises sufficient questions as to warrant
    further review by a HUD staff person more qualified to assess the
    acceptability of the appraisals, the reviewer shall notify his or
    her supervisor.

8.  [Exhibit 25-8: Guide for Review of Relocation and Real Property
    Acquisition Activities of State CDBG Grantees and State HOME
    PJs]{.underline}. This Exhibit is to be used when monitoring a State
    CDBG or State HOME program.