# ![](media/image1.wmf){width="0.9048611111111111in" height="0.8701388888888889in"}U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WASHINGTON, DC 20410-8000

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HOUSING-

FEDERAL HOUSING COMMISSIONER

Special Attention of:

NOTICE **H 07-04**

All Multifamily Hub Directors

All Multifamily Program Center Directors

All Supervisory Housing Project Managers Issued: June 21, 2007

Expires: June 30, 2008

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Cross Reference:**

Handbook 4571.2 (811) Handbook 4571.3 REV-1 (202)

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Subject: Fiscal Year 2007 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.

[PURPOSE]{.underline}. This Notice transmits for Fiscal Year 2007

-   Changes to Application/Selection Process

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Application Processing Schedule

-   Submission Requirements for Selection Materials

-   Section 202 Allocation Chart

-   Section 811 Allocation Chart

-   Section 811 Workshop Instructions

-   Section 202 Funding Notification

-   Section 811 Funding Notification

-   Applications Processing and Selections Policy

-   Section 202 Minority Business Enterprise Goals

-   Section 811 Minority Business Enterprise Goals

-   Initial Screening for Curable Deficiencies

-   Technical Review Sheets

-   Section 202 Standard Rating Criteria Form

-   Section 811 Standard Rating Criteria Form

This Notice should be used in conjunction with the Final Rule Part 891,
the General Section of the Super Notice of Funding Availability
(SuperNOFA) published in the [Federal Register]{.underline} on January
18, 2007, the technical corrections to the General Section of the
SuperNOFA published in the Federal Register on March 13, 2007, the
Section 202 and 811 program NOFAs published in the [Federal
Register]{.underline} on March 13, 2007, the technical corrections to
the Section 202/811 program NOFAs published in the Federal Register on
May 11, 2007 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.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
i](#u.s.-department-of-housing-and-urban-development)

[I. HIGHLIGHTS OF CHANGES TO THE APPLICATION AND SELECTION PROCESS FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2007 SECTION 202 AND SECTION 811 PROGRAMS.
2](#i.-highlights-of-changes-to-the-application-and-selection-process-for-the-fiscal-year-fy-2007-section-202-and-section-811-programs.)

[A. Submission of Applications. 2](#a.-submission-of-applications.)

[1. Filing of applications. 2](#filing-of-applications.)

[2. Proof of Timely Submission. 2](#proof-of-timely-submission.)

[B. Application Changes 2](#b.-application-changes)

[D. Evidence of Site Control. 2](#d.-evidence-of-site-control.)

[E. Environmental Issues. 2](#e.-environmental-issues.)

[1. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA).
2](#phase-i-environmental-site-assessment-esa.)

[F. Expiration of Funds 2](#f.-expiration-of-funds)

[G. Review for Curable Deficiencies
2](#g.-review-for-curable-deficiencies)

[H. Development Cost Limits. 2](#h.-development-cost-limits.)

[I. Changes Applicable to the Section 202 Program Only.
2](#i.-changes-applicable-to-the-section-202-program-only.)

[J. Changes Applicable to the Section 811 Program Only.
2](#j.-changes-applicable-to-the-section-811-program-only.)

[II. CHANGES PURSUANT TO THE REVISED CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS
RESOLUTION, 2007.
2](#ii.-changes-pursuant-to-the-revised-continuing-appropriations-resolution-2007.)

[III. CHANGES FOR FY 2006 AND EARLIER WHICH ARE STILL IN EFFECT.
2](#iii.-changes-for-fy-2006-and-earlier-which-are-still-in-effect.)

[A. Section 202 and Section 811 Program Changes.
2](#a.-section-202-and-section-811-program-changes.)

[1. DUNS Number. 2](#duns-number.)

[2. Name Check Review*.* 2](#name-check-review.)

[3. Leasehold Term. 2](#leasehold-term.)

[4. Expiration of Funds. 2](#expiration-of-funds.)

[(d) The Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act,
2006, requires HUD to obligate all Section 202 and Section 811 funds
appropriated for FY 2006 by September 30, 2009. Under 31 U.S.C. Section
1551, no funds can be disbursed from this account after September 30,
2014. Under Section 202 and Section 811, obligation of funds occurs for
both capital advances and project rental assistance upon fund
reservation and acceptance. If all funds are not disbursed by HUD and
expended by the project Owner by September 30, 2014, the funds, even
though obligated, will expire and no further disbursements can be made
from this account. Furthermore, all unexpended balances, including any
remaining balance on PRAC contracts will be cancelled as of October 1,
2014.
2](#d-the-department-of-housing-and-urban-development-appropriations-act-2006-requires-hud-to-obligate-all-section-202-and-section-811-funds-appropriated-for-fy-2006-by-september-30-2009.-under-31-u.s.c.-section-1551-no-funds-can-be-disbursed-from-this-account-after-september-30-2014.-under-section-202-and-section-811-obligation-of-funds-occurs-for-both-capital-advances-and-project-rental-assistance-upon-fund-reservation-and-acceptance.-if-all-funds-are-not-disbursed-by-hud-and-expended-by-the-project-owner-by-september-30-2014-the-funds-even-though-obligated-will-expire-and-no-further-disbursements-can-be-made-from-this-account.-furthermore-all-unexpended-balances-including-any-remaining-balance-on-prac-contracts-will-be-cancelled-as-of-october-1-2014.)

[5. Project Development Timeline. 2](#project-development-timeline.)

[6. Forms & Certifications. 2](#forms-certifications.)

[(c) Program Forms and Appendices. Forms and appendices are no longer a
component of the program NOFA, however, each NOFA provides the website
where the required forms and appendices may now be downloaded. To
download the forms for the Section 202 and Section 811 programs, please
visit http://www.Grants.gov or HUD's website at
http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm. It should be noted
that the "fundsavail" website has additional related program documents
that were appendices to prior years NOFAs (e.g., Listing of HUD Offices,
Guide to Choosing an Environmentally Safe Site with Supplemental
Guidance, and format of the SHPO/THPO letter).
2](#c-program-forms-and-appendices.-forms-and-appendices-are-no-longer-a-component-of-the-program-nofa-however-each-nofa-provides-the-website-where-the-required-forms-and-appendices-may-now-be-downloaded.-to-download-the-forms-for-the-section-202-and-section-811-programs-please-visit-httpwww.grants.gov-or-huds-website-at-httpwww.hud.govofficesadmgrantsfundsavail.cfm.-it-should-be-noted-that-the-fundsavail-website-has-additional-related-program-documents-that-were-appendices-to-prior-years-nofas-e.g.-listing-of-hud-offices-guide-to-choosing-an-environmentally-safe-site-with-supplemental-guidance-and-format-of-the-shpothpo-letter.)

[7. Threshold Score. 2](#threshold-score.)

[8. Review and Selection Process. 2](#review-and-selection-process.)

[9. Appeal Process. 2](#appeal-process.)

[10. Development Cost Limits. 2](#development-cost-limits.)

[(b) Accessibility. 2](#b-accessibility.)

[11. Commercial Space. 2](#commercial-space.)

[12. Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Requirements.
2](#environmental-site-assessment-esa-requirements.)

[(d) Asbestos. 2](#d-asbestos.)

[13. Site Related Issues. 2](#site-related-issues.)

[14. Evidence of Need/Demand. 2](#evidence-of-needdemand.)

[15. Elimination of Congressional Notification Letter.
2](#elimination-of-congressional-notification-letter.)

[16. Press Release Information. 2](#press-release-information.)

[17. Applicant Debriefing. 2](#applicant-debriefing.)

[18. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
2](#administrative-and-national-policy-requirements)

[19. Sponsor as Consultant. 2](#sponsor-as-consultant.)

[20. Supportive Services. 2](#supportive-services.)

[21. Historic Preservation. 2](#historic-preservation.)

[22. Waivers 2](#waivers)

[23. Project Size. 2](#project-size.)

[24. Mixed-Finance Projects. 2](#mixed-finance-projects.)

[25. Elimination of the Reference to Mixed-Use Proposals.
2](#elimination-of-the-reference-to-mixed-use-proposals.)

[26. Eligibility of Owner Entity When Later Formed by the Sponsor.
2](#eligibility-of-owner-entity-when-later-formed-by-the-sponsor.)

[27. Electronic Application Retrieval Procedures.
2](#electronic-application-retrieval-procedures.)

[28. Restoration of the District of Columbia Allocation.
2](#restoration-of-the-district-of-columbia-allocation.)

[29. Economic Opportunities for Low and Very Low-Income Persons (Section
3).
2](#economic-opportunities-for-low-and-very-low-income-persons-section-3.)

[30. Project Design Requirements. 2](#project-design-requirements.)

[31. Application Changes. 2](#application-changes.)

[(a) Non-responsive Application. 2](#a-non-responsive-application.)

[32. Changes to Exhibits. 2](#changes-to-exhibits.)

[33. Rating Factors. 2](#rating-factors.)

[(b) Reduction in Points for Time Limit.
2](#b-reduction-in-points-for-time-limit.)

[(c) Clarification on the Removal of Regulatory Barriers to Affordable
Housing.
2](#c-clarification-on-the-removal-of-regulatory-barriers-to-affordable-housing.)

[34. Project Rental Assistance Contract (PRAC) Term.
2](#project-rental-assistance-contract-prac-term.)

[35. Reporting Requirements. 2](#reporting-requirements.)

[(a) Program Outcome Logic Model (form HUD 96010).
2](#a-program-outcome-logic-model-form-hud-96010.)

[(b) Return of Investment Statement.
2](#b-return-of-investment-statement.)

[(c) Race and Ethnic Data Reporting Form (form HUD-27061).
2](#c-race-and-ethnic-data-reporting-form-form-hud-27061.)

[36. Form HUD-2530, Previous Participation Certification.
2](#form-hud-2530-previous-participation-certification.)

[B. Changes Applicable to the Section 202 Program Only.
2](#b.-changes-applicable-to-the-section-202-program-only.)

[1. Allocation Formula. 2](#allocation-formula.)

[2. Licensed Assisted Living Projects.
2](#licensed-assisted-living-projects.)

[3. Application Changes 2](#application-changes)

[4. Scattered Site Projects 2](#scattered-site-projects)

[5. Accessibility Requirements 2](#accessibility-requirements)

[6. Acquisition of Housing With or Without Rehabilitation
2](#acquisition-of-housing-with-or-without-rehabilitation)

[7. Economic and Market Analysis (EMAS) Review.
2](#economic-and-market-analysis-emas-review.)

[8. Metropolitan and Non-metropolitan Allocation.
2](#metropolitan-and-non-metropolitan-allocation.)

[9. Mixed-Finance. 2](#mixed-finance.)

[C. Changes to the Section 811 Program Only.
2](#c.-changes-to-the-section-811-program-only.)

[1. Allocation of Funds. 2](#allocation-of-funds.)

[2. Applicant Eligibility. 2](#applicant-eligibility.)

[3. Application Changes 2](#application-changes-1)

[4. Valuation Review of Market Need/Demand.
2](#valuation-review-of-market-needdemand.)

[(b) Review and Rating of Exhibit 4(a), Evidence of Need.
2](#b-review-and-rating-of-exhibit-4a-evidence-of-need.)

[5. Applications Proposing a Mixed-Finance Project
2](#applications-proposing-a-mixed-finance-project)

[6. Site Related Issues 2](#site-related-issues)

[(h) Scattered-site Applications. 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.
2](#h-scattered-site-applications.-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.)

[(i) Site Identified Applications. Project location must include street
address or block/lot number(s).
2](#i-site-identified-applications.-project-location-must-include-street-address-or-blocklot-numbers.)

[7. Restrictions Removed from Acquisition Projects.
2](#restrictions-removed-from-acquisition-projects.)

[8. Project Size 2](#project-size)

[9. Supportive Services. 2](#supportive-services.-1)

[10. Occupancy Issues. 2](#occupancy-issues.)

[11. Intermediate Care Facilities (ICFs) are no Longer Eligible
2](#intermediate-care-facilities-icfs-are-no-longer-eligible)

[12. Davis-Bacon Act. 2](#davis-bacon-act.)

[13. Lead-Based Paint. 2](#lead-based-paint.)

[14. Accessibility. 2](#accessibility.)

[15. Project Type Name Change. 2](#project-type-name-change.)

[IV. SITES LOCATED IN FLOODPLAINS OR WETLANDS.
2](#iv.-sites-located-in-floodplains-or-wetlands.)

[V. FY 2007 CAPITAL ADVANCE AUTHORITY ASSIGNMENTS
2](#v.-fy-2007-capital-advance-authority-assignments)

[A. Fair Share Factors. 2](#a.-fair-share-factors.)

[1. Section 202 2](#section-202)

[2. Section 811. 2](#section-811.)

[B. Program Fund Assignments. 2](#b.-program-fund-assignments.)

[VI. LOCAL HUD OFFICE ALLOCATIONS 2](#vi.-local-hud-office-allocations)

[A. Allocation of Funds. 2](#a.-allocation-of-funds.)

[1. Section 202. 2](#section-202.)

[2. Section 811. 2](#section-811.-1)

[B. Project Rental Assistance Contract Funds.
2](#b.-project-rental-assistance-contract-funds.)

[C. Local HUD Office Funding Notifications.
2](#c.-local-hud-office-funding-notifications.)

[VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION
2](#vii.-award-administration-information)

[A. Notification to Program Applicants.
2](#a.-notification-to-program-applicants.)

[B. Prior Successful Applicants. 2](#b.-prior-successful-applicants.)

[C. Release of Information on Ratings and Rankings.
2](#c.-release-of-information-on-ratings-and-rankings.)

[VIII. OTHER INFORMATION 2](#viii.-other-information)

[A. Consolidated Plan Certification.
2](#a.-consolidated-plan-certification.)

[B. Workshops 2](#b.-workshops)

[C. Minority Business Enterprise Goals.
2](#c.-minority-business-enterprise-goals.)

[D. Salary Limitation for Consultants.
2](#d.-salary-limitation-for-consultants.)

[IX. DAP. 2](#ix.-dap.)

[A. Instructions for Inputting Information in DAP.
2](#a.-instructions-for-inputting-information-in-dap.)

[1. DAP's Comment Section. 2](#daps-comment-section.)

[2. Print Copy of DAP Application Log.
2](#print-copy-of-dap-application-log.)

[B. DAP Application Log. 2](#b.-dap-application-log.)

[FISCAL YEAR 2007 APPLICATION PROCESSING SCHEDULE
2](#fiscal-year-2007-application-processing-schedule)

[ATTACHMENT 3 2](#attachment-3)

[TOTAL 2](#total)

[Site Acquisition Section 2](#site-acquisition-section)

**Attachments:**

1 Section 811 and Section 202 Application Processing Schedule

2 Submission Requirements for Selection Materials

3 Section 202 Allocation Chart

4 Section 811 Allocation Chart

5 Section 811 Workshop Instructions

6 Section 202 Funding Notification

7 Section 811 Funding Notification

8 Applications Processing and Selections Policy

9 Section 202 Minority Business Enterprise Goals

10 Section 811 Minority Business enterprise Goals

11 Initial Screening for Curable Deficiencies

12 Technical Review Sheets

13 Section 202 Standard Rating Criteria Form

14 Section 811 Standard Rating Criteria Form

15 Draft Letter for Requesting Review of Supportive Services Plan

# I. HIGHLIGHTS OF CHANGES TO THE APPLICATION AND SELECTION PROCESS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2007 SECTION 202 AND SECTION 811 PROGRAMS.

## A. Submission of Applications.

### 1. Filing of applications.

> The application deadline date for the Section 811 program is June 21,
> 2007, and for the Section 202 Program the deadline date is June 15,
> 2007. All applications must be submitted to
> [www.grants.gov/Apply](http://www.grants.gov/Apply) and received and
> validated by Grants.gov no later than **11:59:59 p.m. Eastern time**
> on the application deadline date. Field Offices must encourage
> applicants to submit their applications no later than 48 to 72 hours
> in advance of the application deadline date in order to accommodate
> the validation process, which can take between 24 to 48 hours.
>
> To assist applicants in applying electronically, HUD published its
> "Notice of Opportunity to Register Early and Other Important
> Information for Electronic application Submission via Grants.gov" on
> October 31, 2006. The Early Registration Notice provides step-by-step
> instructions for applicants that register with Grants.gov and renewal
> instructions for those applicants that have previously registered. The
> early registration notice can be found at HUD's website at
> <http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm>. Field Offices
> must encourage applicants to register early as the registration
> process can take two to four weeks to complete. The General Section of
> the SuperNOFA details the requirements for electronic submission as
> well as the instructions for obtaining a waiver of the electronic
> submission requirement.

### 2. Proof of Timely Submission.

a.  [Electronic Submission]{.underline}. Proof of timely submission and
    validation is automatically recorded by Grants.gov. Please refer to
    the General Section of the Super NOFA for further discussion on
    timely receipt requirements and proof of timely submission.

> **(b)** [Paper Application Submission]{.underline}. If a waiver is
> approved to submit a paper application, the waiver letter will provide
> instructions regarding what time the application must be submitted on
> the deadline date, the number of copies of the application to be
> included, and where the application package must be sent. The Sponsor
> should mail their application in sufficient time to ensure that the
> application is received in the appropriate local HUD Office no later
> than the close of business on the deadline date for the local HUD
> Office. Hand delivered applications also should be delivered to the
> local HUD Office by the local HUD Office's close of business on the
> application deadline date. Paper applications received by the local
> HUD Office after the established deadline date and time will be
> considered late and non-responsive to the NOFA. Non-responsive
> applications will not be processed for funding consideration.

## B. Application Changes

**1. Changes to Exhibits.**

> **(a)** Exhibit 3(c). This Exhibit was amended to broaden the
> description of funding sources for the project; such description is no
> longer limited to local government support for the project.
>
> **(b)** Exhibit 3(l)/811 & 3(j)/202. This Exhibit was revised to
> clarify that the exhibit is optional, but to be eligible to receive up
> to 2 points for this policy priority, the applicant must submit this
> information using Form HUD-27300 and include the necessary URL
> references or other documentary evidence.
>
> **(c)** Exhibit 3(m)/811 & 3(k)/202. This Exhibit has been revised to
> clarify that the Section 3 goals for expanding training and employment
> opportunities for low and very low-income (Section 3 persons) as well
> as business concerns are in the area in which the proposed project
> will be located.
>
> **(d)** Exhibit 4(d)(iv)/811 & 4(d)(iv)/202 -- The note has been
> revised to clarify that a certification for this requirement is not
> sufficient. Evidence must be submitted to meet this requirement.
>
> **(e)** Exhibit 4(D)(vii). The language has been revised to clarify
> that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), in accordance with
> the ASTM Standard E1527-05, as amended, using the table of contents
> and report format specified at Appendix X4 thereto and completed or
> updated as specified at Section 4.6 thereto, must be completed and
> submitted with the application. A note has been inserted to inform
> applicants that a Phase I ESA that is not properly updated, does not
> use the format specified at Appendix X4 of ASTM Standard E 1527-05, or
> that is prepared in accordance with an older version of ASTM E 1527,
> the application will be technically rejected.
>
> **(f)** Exhibit 6(b)(iii). This has been revised to include the amount
> of amendment money.
>
> **(g)** Exhibit 7(d)/811. This has been revised to identify all
> persons who were required to move from the site within the past 12
> months.
>
> **(h)** Exhibit 7(d)/202. This has been revised to request that the
> sponsor address the reason for the move as identified in Exhibit 7.
>
> **(i)** Exhibit 7(e)/202 -- The Sponsor must indicate that all persons
> occupying the site have been issued the appropriate required General
> Information Notice and advisory services information upon receipt
> required, either at the time the option to acquire the property is
> executed, or at the time the application is submitted
>
> **(j)** Exhibit 7 is required for all Section 202 applications.
>
> **(k)** Exhibit 8(b) - Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for
> Applicants (SF-424 Supplement). The completed SF-424 Supplement will
> contain information regarding whether or not the applicant is a
> faith-based organization. The Department is required to provide
> information to the White House and Congress from time to time on both
> the number of applications it receives from faith-based organizations
> as well as the number of funding awards it has provided to such
> organizations. Therefore, Program Centers are required to send a copy
> of the SF-424 Supplement from each application it receives to
> Headquarters, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration,
> Attention: 202/811, Room 6142, **by July 23, 2007, for Section 811 and
> Section 202. Please write the related Project Numbers at the top of
> each front page of the SF-424 Supplement before submitting them to
> Headquarters.**
>
> **(l)** Exhibit 8(k)/811 & 8(j)/202. Form HUD 27300, Questionnaire for
> HUD's Initiative on Removal of Regulatory Barriers (optional form),
> has been removed from this Exhibit.

**C. Rating Factor Changes.**

> **1.** Sub-rating Factor 3c.(2)(a) has been revised to clarify that
> the neighborhood's percentage of persons of a particular racial or
> ethnic minority is at least 20 percentage points higher than the
> percentage of that particular racial or ethnic minority in the housing
> market area.
>
> **2**. Sub-rating Factor 3c.(2)(b) has been revised to clarify that
> the neighborhood's total percentage of minority persons is at least 20
> percentage points higher than the total percentage of minorities for
> the housing market area; or".
>
> **3.** Sub-rating Factor 3.l. (Section 3 provision) will be rated by
> FHEO instead of the Project Manager.

## D. Evidence of Site Control.

1.  The NOFA clarifies that a certification is not sufficient and
    evidence must be submitted to meet the requirement of compliance
    with the URA requirement that the seller has been provided in
    writing with the required information regarding a voluntary, arm's
    length purchase transaction.

## E. Environmental Issues.

### 1. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA).

> The Sponsor must undertake and submit a Phase I ESA in accordance with
> ASTM Standard E 1527-05, as amended, using the table of contents and
> report format specified at Appendix X4 thereto and completed or
> updated as specified at Section 4.6 no earlier than 180 days prior to
> the application deadline date in order for the application to be
> considered as an application for site control.

2.  **Clean-up.** The notice has been clarified that the Sponsor must
    pay for the cost of any clean-up and/or remediation with sources
    other than capital advance funds.

3.  **National Environmental Policy Act.**

> Under 24 CFR Part 50. HUD has the responsibility for conducting the
> environmental reviews. HUD will commence the environmental review of
> the project upon receipt of the completed application. However, HUD
> cannot approve any site for which the applicant has site control
> unless it first completes the environmental review and finds that the
> site(s) meets its environmental requirements.

## F. Expiration of Funds 

> The Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, requires HUD
> to obligate all Section 202 and Section 811 funds appropriated for FY
> 2007 by September 30, 2010. Under 31 U.S.C. 1551, no funds can be
> disbursed from this account after September 30, 2015. Under Section
> 202 and Section 811, obligation of funds occurs for both capital
> advances and project rental assistance upon fund reservation and
> acceptance. If all funds are not disbursed by HUD and expended by the
> project Owner by September 30, 2015, the funds, even though obligated,
> will expire and no further disbursements can be made from this
> account. In submitting an application, you need to carefully consider
> whether your proposed project can be completed through final capital
> advance closing no later than September 30, 2015. Furthermore, all
> unexpended balances, including any remaining balance on PRAC
> contracts, will be cancelled as of October 1, 2015. Amounts needed to
> maintain PRAC payments for any remaining term on the affected
> contracts beyond that date will have to be funded from other current
> appropriations.

## 

## G. Review for Curable Deficiencies

**1.** Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance is removed
from the list of application deficiencies that will be considered
curable in a Section 811 and Section 202 application.

**2.** Form HUD 96011, Facsimile Transmittal (Required Only for
Transmittal of Faxes), has been added to the list of application
deficiencies that will be considered curable in a Section 811 and
Section 202 application.

**3.** Form HUD 2994-A, You Are Our Client Grant Applicant Survey
(optional) has been added to the list of application deficiencies that
will be considered curable in a Section 811 and Section 202 application.

## H. Development Cost Limits.

> The Development Cost Limits for elevator and non-elevator structures
> under the Section 202 program and for independent living projects and
> dwelling units in multifamily housing developments, condominium and
> cooperative housing under the Section 811 program have been increased
> to match the Section 221(d)(3) cost limits. HUD Offices will calculate
> FY 2007 Section 202 and Section 811 fund reservations based on
> outstanding program instructions (see Paragraph 3-50 of Handbooks
> 4571.3 REV and 4571.2) using the revised development cost limits and
> high cost factors.

## 

## I. Changes Applicable to the Section 202 Program Only.

> **1. Available Funds.** For FY 2007, \$431.5 million is available for
> capital advances for new units under the Section 202 Supportive
> Housing for the Elderly Program as provided by the Revised Continuing
> Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (Pub. L. 110-5; approved February 15,
> 2007).
>
> **2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements.**
>
> **(a)** **Acquisition and Relocation.**
>
> This section was clarified to provide that the Sponsor must include
> evidence of compliance with this advance notice requirement in Exhibit
> 4(d)(iv) of their application.
>
> **3. The increased Development cost Limits are as follows:**
>
> **(a)** Non-elevator structures:
>
> \$45,507 per family unit without a bedroom
>
> \$52,470 per family unit with 1 bedroom
>
> \$63,279 per family unit with 2 bedrooms
>
> **(b)** For Elevator structures:
>
> \$47,890 per family unit without a bedroom
>
> \$54,897 per family unit with 1 bedroom
>
> \$66,755 per family unit with 2 bedrooms

**4. Rating Factor Changes.**

> **(a)** The maximum score for Rating Factor 1. Capacity of the
> applicant and Relevant Organizational Staff has increased from 23
> points to 25 points.
>
> **(b)** The maximum score for sub-rating factor 1a. has increased from
> 13 points to 15 points.
>
> **(c)** The maximum score for Rating Factor 3, Soundness of Approach,
> has decreased to 45 points from 47 points.
>
> **(d)** The maximum score for sub-rating factor 3c. has decreased from
> 10 points to 8 points.
>
> **(e)** Section V.A.3(c)(2)(a) of Rating Factor 3: Soundness of
> Approach, has been changed to "The neighborhood's percentage of
> persons of a particular racial or ethnic minority is at least 20
> percentage points higher than the percentage of that particular racial
> or ethnic minority in the housing market area.
>
> **(f)** Section V.A.3(c)(2)(b) of Rating Factor 3: Soundness of
> Approach, has been changed to "The neighborhood's total percentage of
> minority persons is at least 20 percentage points higher than the
> total percentage of minorities in the housing market area.

## J. Changes Applicable to the Section 811 Program Only.

> **1. Available Funds.** For FY 2007, \$88.3 million is available for
> capital advances for new units under the Section 811 Program of
> Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities as provided under the
> Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007(Pub. L.110-5;
> approved February 15, 2007).

**2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements.**

> **(a) Acquisition and Relocation.**
>
> This section has been clarified to provide that the Sponsor must
> include evidence of compliance with this advance notice requirement in
> Exhibit 4(d)(iv) of their application and, if the Sponsor had site
> control as an applicant, the Sponsor must identify all persons who
> were required to move from the site within the past 12 months and the
> reason for such a move. The Sponsor will also have to be able to
> demonstrate that all persons occupying the site have been issued the
> appropriate required General Information Notice and advisory services
> information receipt required, either at the time of the execution of
> the option to acquire the property or at the time of application
> submission.
>
> **3. Rating Factor Changes**
>
> **(a)** The maximum score for Rating Factor 1: Capacity of the
> Applicant and Relevant Organizational Staff has been increased from 28
> points to 30 points.
>
> **(b)** The maximum score for sub Rating Factor 1(a.), The scope,
> extent and quality of the sponsors experience in providing housing or
> related services to those proposed to be served by the project and the
> scope of the proposed has been increased from 13 points to 15 points.
>
> **(c)** The maximum score for Rating Factor 3: Soundness of Approach
> has been reduced from 42 points to 40.
>
> **(d)** The maximum score for sub Rating Factor 3(c.), the suitability
> of the site from the standpoints of promoting a greater choice of
> housing opportunities for minorities and persons with disabilities and
> affirmatively furthering fair housing has been reduced from 10 points
> to 8.

4.  **Development Cost Limits**

> The increased Development Cost limits are:
>
> **(a)** Non-elevator structures
>
> \$45,507 per family unit without a bedroom
>
> \$52,470 per family unit with one bedroom
>
> \$63,279 per family unit with two bedrooms
>
> \$80,998 per family unit with three bedrooms
>
> \$90,235 per family unit with four bedrooms
>
> (**b)** Elevator structures
>
> \$47,890 per family unit without a bedroom
>
> \$54,897 per family unit with one bedroom
>
> \$66,755 per family unit with two bedrooms
>
> \$86,358 per family unit with three bedrooms
>
> \$94,795 per family unit with four bedrooms

# II. CHANGES PURSUANT TO THE REVISED CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2007. 

> In accordance with the waiver authority provided in the FY 2007
> Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, the Secretary is
> extending the determination, as made in the Notice, published in 61
> F.R. 3047 and in the FYs 1997 through 2006 Section 202 and Section 811
> NOFAs, to FY 2006, 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 **three-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.**

# III. CHANGES FOR FY 2006 AND EARLIER WHICH ARE STILL IN EFFECT.

## A. Section 202 and Section 811 Program Changes.

### 1. DUNS Number.

> All applicants will need to obtain a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal
> Numbering System (DUNS) number and include it on its Standard Form 424
> (SF-424), Application for Federal Assistance. The General Section of
> the SuperNOFA explains the procedures for obtaining a DUNS number. .

### 2. Name Check Review*.*

> Approvable applicants are subjected to a Name Check Review. Name
> checks are intended to reveal matters that significantly reflect on
> the applicant's management and financial integrity or if any key
> individual has been convicted or is presently facing criminal charges.
> Program Centers must submit a list of all applications that are
> approvable for funding along with the SF-424 from each of these
> applications to Headquarters, the Office of Housing Assistance and
> Grant Administration, Room 6142, Attention Section 202/811, at the
> same time they submit their selection information to the Multifamily
> Hubs. If the name check review reveals significant adverse findings
> that reflect on the business integrity or responsibility of the
> applicant and/or key individual, HUD reserves the right to:
>
> **(a)** deny funding or consider suspension/termination of an award
> immediately for cause;
>
> **(b)** require removal of any key individual from association with
> management of and/or implementation of the award; and
>
> **(c)** make appropriate provisions or revisions with respect to the
> method of payment and/or financial reporting requirements.
> Headquarters will notify the Hubs as soon as the results of the name
> check review process are available should the results affect the
> selection of any applications that are either on the Selection List or
> on the Approvable, but Unfunded List so that appropriate changes can
> be made before the selection materials are sent to Headquarters.

### 3. Leasehold Term.

> The leasehold term is 50 years with renewal provisions for 25 years
> except for sites located on Indian Trust land. The leasehold term for
> sites on Indian Trust land is 50 year with no extension requirement.

### 4. Expiration of Funds.

> **(a)** The FYs 2003, and 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Resolutions
> require all 202/811 FYs 2003 and 2004 funds be disbursed by September
> 30, 2011. The project must be completed through final closing no later
> than September 30, 2011. All unexpended balances, including any
> remaining balance on PRAC contracts will be cancelled as of October 1,
> 2011. Other current appropriations will have to fund any amounts
> needed to maintain PRAC payments for any remaining term on the
> affected contracts beyond September 30, 2011.
>
> **(b)** *Section 202*. The FY 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act
> requires all 202 FY 2005 funds to be obligated by September 30, 2008.
> No funds can be disbursed from the account after September 30, 2013.
> The project must be completed through final closing no later than
> September 30, 2013. All unexpended balances, including any remaining
> balance on PRAC contracts will be cancelled as of October 1, 2013.
> Other current appropriations will have to fund any amounts needed to
> maintain PRAC payments for any remaining term on the affected contract
> beyond September 30, 2013.
>
> **(c)** *Section 811*. The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
> of 2005 requires all 811 FY 2005 funds to be obligated by September
> 30, 2006. No funds can be disbursed from the account after September
> 30, 2011. The project must be completed through final closing no later
> than September 30, 2011. All unexpended balances, including any
> remaining balance on PRAC contracts will be cancelled as of October 1,
> 2011. Other current appropriations will have to fund any amounts
> needed to maintain PRAC payments for any remaining term on the
> affected contract beyond September 30, 2011.

## (d) The Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2006, requires HUD to obligate all Section 202 and Section 811 funds appropriated for FY 2006 by September 30, 2009. Under 31 U.S.C. Section 1551, no funds can be disbursed from this account after September 30, 2014. Under Section 202 and Section 811, obligation of funds occurs for both capital advances and project rental assistance upon fund reservation and acceptance. If all funds are not disbursed by HUD and expended by the project Owner by September 30, 2014, the funds, even though obligated, will expire and no further disbursements can be made from this account. Furthermore, all unexpended balances, including any remaining balance on PRAC contracts will be cancelled as of October 1, 2014.

### 5. Project Development Timeline. 

> In keeping with the Department's Policy Priorities requiring
> applicants to be accountable for their performance and achieving
> results, Sponsors are required to submit under Exhibit 3(h), a project
> development timeline that lists the major development stages for the
> project with the associated dates for completing the stages. Sponsors
> have to identify the development stages to get the projects to initial
> closing and start of construction within the 18-month term of the fund
> reservation period, as well as the full completion of the project
> through final closing. Information from this Exhibit is used to assist
> the Field Office in scoring applications under Rating Factor 5,
> Achieving Results and Program Evaluation.

### 6. Forms & Certifications.

> **(a)** [Elimination of Certain Certifications]{.underline}**.** An
> applicant's signature on Forms HUD-92015 or HUD-92016 is, in effect, a
> certification that the applicant will comply with all program
> requirements.
>
> **(b)** [Submission Form HUD-424B]{.underline}, Applicant Assurances
> and Certifications, is eliminated to conform to the General Section of
> the SuperNOFA.

## (c) Program Forms and Appendices. Forms and appendices are no longer a component of the program NOFA, however, each NOFA provides the website where the required forms and appendices may now be downloaded. To download the forms for the Section 202 and Section 811 programs, please visit [**http://www.Grants.gov**](http://www.Grants.gov/) or HUD's website at [**http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm**](http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm). It should be noted that the "fundsavail" website has additional related program documents that were appendices to prior years NOFAs (e.g., Listing of HUD Offices, Guide to Choosing an Environmentally Safe Site with Supplemental Guidance, and format of the SHPO/THPO letter).

### 7. Threshold Score.

> The minimum score for funding consideration was increased from 70 to
> 75 points beginning in FY 2003 (exclusive of the two bonus points for
> Renewal Community/Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community/Urban Enhanced
> Enterprise Community (RC/EC/EZ) applications).

### 8. Review and Selection Process.

> **(a)** [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 **75** 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 Program Center.
> The Rating/Selection Panels must select in rank order down to the next
> highest rated application that can utilize the remaining funds
> **WITHOUT** skipping over a higher rated application.
>
> 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, or two units if a Section 811 group home, 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]{.underline}, the above processes must be done
    separately for each Program Center\'s metropolitan and
    non-metropolitan allocations. Once this is completed, Program
    Centers may combine their unused metropolitan and non-metropolitan
    funds to select the next highest ranked application in either
    category using the unit reduction policy described above.

-   [Under Section 811]{.underline}, the above process must be done
    first for all applications that are in Category A in each Program
    Center jurisdiction before any applications in Category B can be
    selected.

> After the Program Centers have funded all possible projects based on
> the process above, residual funds from all Program Centers in each
> Multifamily Hub will be combined. These funds will be used to first,
> restore units to projects reduced by Program Centers 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 Program Center unless there are
> insufficient approvable applications in other Program Centers within
> the Multifamily Hub. For the Section 811 program, this process must be
> done first for all applications that are in Category A before any
> applications in Category B can be selected. 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 percent
> 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.
>
> **NOTE: Program Centers and Hub Offices cannot skip over any
> applications in order to fund one based on the funds remaining.**
>
> Section 202 and Section 811 funds remaining after these processes are
> completed will be returned to Headquarters.
>
> The residual funds for each program will be used to restore units to
> projects reduced by Program Centers/Hubs as a result of the
> instructions above and for selecting applications based on Program
> Centers' rankings, beginning with the next highest rated application
> nationwide.
>
> For Section 202 only, priority will be given to those applications for
> projects in non-metropolitan areas, if necessary, to meet the
> statutory requirement pertaining to Section 202 funding in
> non-metropolitan areas.
>
> No more than one application will be selected per Program Center from
> the national residual amount, unless there are insufficient approvable
> applications in other Program Centers. If there are no approvable
> applications in other Program Centers, 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. For Section 811, if
> there are no approvable applications in Category A in other Program
> Centers, then the next highest rated application in Category B in
> another Program Center will be selected.
>
> **(b)** [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.
>
> **(c)** [Initial Screening for Curable Deficiencies]{.underline}. The
> list of exhibits or portions of exhibits that are considered curable
> deficiencies is included in the Section 202 and Section 811 program
> sections of the SuperNOFA.
>
> HUD Offices will complete an initial screening for curable
> deficiencies of all applications received by the application deadline
> date. 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.
>
> **NOTE**: Only those Exhibits that do not affect the rating of the
> application and are missing in their entirety or a portion thereof
> from the application are curable. If an Exhibit is listed as curable
> in the NOFA, but the Exhibit is not missing nor any portion thereof
> (i.e., it is complete and clear with respect to its contents), then
> that Exhibit would not be treated as curable and the Sponsor would not
> be given additional time to correct any deficiencies that may be
> discovered later as a result of the local HUD Office's technical
> review of the Exhibit. However, Field Offices are still permitted to
> seek clarification of information in an Exhibit, if necessary.
>
> **(d)** [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 working days of receipt of the appeal.

-   Field Offices are **not** permitted, **under any circumstances**, to
    talk to or meet with any applicant whose application has been
    technically rejected. The procedure that must be followed for
    applications that are technically rejected is for the applicant to
    receive a technical reject letter outlining the reasons for the
    rejection and affording them an opportunity to appeal the rejection
    without submitting any new information. The appeal process is not an
    opportunity for the applicant to discuss with Field Office staff,
    either on the telephone or in person, why their application should
    not be rejected, as it would undermine the competitive aspect of the
    programs.

-   If an applicant is not satisfied with the Field Office's response to
    their appeal, any further appeal of the Field Office's decision must
    be forwarded to Headquarters, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant
    Administration, for a final determination.

### 9. Appeal Process.

> Applicants have 14 calendar days from the date of HUD's written notice
> to appeal a technical rejection to the local HUD Office. Pursuant to
> the regulations at 24 CFR Part 4, subpart B and the provisions of the
> General Section of the SuperNOFA, HUD will not consider any
> unsolicited information from the applicant. The local HUD Office will
> make a determination on any appeals before making its selection
> recommendations.

### 

### 10. Development Cost Limits.

> **(a)** Language was added to Part IV.E.3, Development Cost Limits to
> state the following: "The capital advance funds awarded projects are
> to be considered the total amount of funds that the Department will
> provide for the development of the project. Amendment funds will only
> be provided in exceptional circumstances (e.g., to cover increased
> costs for construction delays due to litigation or unforeseen
> environmental issues resulting in a change of sites) that are clearly
> beyond the applicant's control. Otherwise, the applicant is
> responsible for any costs over and above the capital advance amount
> provided by the Department as well as any costs associated with any
> excess amenities and design features".

## (b) Accessibility.

> Compliance with HUD's design and cost standards has been clarified to
> include the implementing regulation at 24 CFR Part 8.

### 11. Commercial Space.

> The maximum amount of space allowed for a commercial facility,
> separately, may not exceed 10 percent of the total project cost. It is
> no longer combined with community space for the purpose of determining
> the maximum amount of allowable space.

# 

### 12. Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Requirements.

> **(a)** The NOFA informs and/or reminds applicants that HUD must
> complete the environmental review process before an application can be
> recommended for selection and that, in order to do so, HUD may contact
> the applicant for further environmental information. The NOFA refers
> applicants to HUD's website where they can view HUD Form 4128 and the
> Sample Field Notes Checklist in an effort to get a better idea about
> the type of environmental information HUD needs to complete the
> environmental review (See Section III.C.3.f).
>
> **(b)** [Phase I ESA]{.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 ESA of their proposed site(s) with their
> applications. Section 811 Sponsors submitting applications with
> identified sites (i.e., not under control) are not required to submit
> a Phase I ESA with their applications. However, if they are selected
> for funding, they must complete the Phase I ESA 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 ESA 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. **Since the Phase I ESA must be completed and
> submitted with the application, it is important that the Sponsor start
> the site assessment process as soon after NOFA publication as
> possible.**
>
> If the Sponsor chooses to continue with the original site on which the
> Phase I ESA indicated possible contamination or hazards, then a
> detailed Phase II ESA 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 ESA reveals site
> contamination, the extent of the contamination and a plan for clean-up
> (as identified in the Section 202 and Section 811 NOFAs) 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 placed in Category A for selection
> purposes, the Phase II ESA and the plan for clean-up including the
> contract for remediation (if appropriate) must be received by the
> local HUD Office no later than the date specified in the NOFA which is
> generally 30 days from the application deadline date. HUD will not
> consider a site clean if a contamination problem is to be/has been
> capped or paved over and if there are to be active testing,
> monitoring, flushing wells put in place in relation to contamination
> or suspected contamination. 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 placed in Category B
> for selection purposes and will **NOT** receive any points for Site
> Approvability (Rating Criterion 3(a)) or any points for Site
> Suitability (Criterion 3(c)).
>
> **NOTE: This could be an expensive undertaking. The cost of any
> clean-up and/or remediation must be borne by the sponsor.**
>
> **(c)** Phase II ESA. If the Phase II ESA reveals site contamination,
> the required remediation plan that must be submitted to HUD must
> require that any contamination be eliminated to non site-specific
> Federal, state or local health standards except if the contamination
> remains only in groundwater that is 25 feet below the surface.
> Clean-up of the contamination cannot include capping over of the
> contamination, monitoring wells, or any ongoing active or passive
> remediation after initial closing.

### 

### (d) [Asbestos.]{.underline}

> **(1)** The asbestos reporting requirement has been changed to require
> a comprehensive building asbestos survey, when applicable, rather than
> an asbestos report.
>
> **(2)** The requirement for determining when a Sponsor must conduct a
> comprehensive building asbestos survey has been changed to exclude any
> pre-1978 structures on the site(s) that most recently consisted of
> solely four or fewer units of single-family housing including
> appurtenant structures thereto. Therefore, Sponsors proposing to
> acquire and rehabilitate existing structures built after 1978 or
> structures built before 1978 that most recently consisted of solely
> four or fewer units of single-family housing, including appurtenant
> structures thereto, are required to submit a statement to this effect,
> but are not required to submit a comprehensive asbestos survey.

### 13. Site Related Issues.

> **(a)** [Site Control]{.underline}. The specific forms of site control
> acceptable to the Department have been clarified (see Exhibit 4(d) of
> the Section 202 and Section 811 NOFAs. Particularly, the site option
> must remain in effect at least for six months from the application
> deadline date, must state a firm price binding on the seller, and must
> be renewable at the end of the six-month option period. 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.
>
> Sponsors must also provide evidence (a current 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 item. 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 Approvability from Valuation or for Site
> Suitability from FHEO, and the application will be placed in Category
> B for selection purposes as long as the Sponsor indicates its
> willingness to seek an alternate site. 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. 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.
>
> **(b)** [Suitability of the Site from the Standpoint of]{.underline}
> [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.
> The site will be deemed acceptable if it increases housing choice and
> opportunity by:

-   expanding housing opportunities in non-minority neighborhoods (if
    located in such a neighborhood); or

-   contributing to the revitalization and reinvestment in minority
    neighborhoods, including improvement of the level, quality and
    affordability of services furnished to the minority elderly and
    persons with disabilities.

> Starting in For FY 2003, the term "minority neighborhood (area of
> minority concentration)" has been defined as one where any one of the
> following statistical conditions exist: (1) the neighborhood's
> percentage of persons of a particular racial or ethnic minority is at
> least 20 percentage points higher than the percentage of that
> particular racial or ethnic minority in the housing market area; (2)
> the neighborhood's total percentage of minority persons is at least 20
> percentage points higher than the total percentage of minorities in
> the housing market area; (3) in the case of a metropolitan area, the
> neighborhood's total percentage of minority persons exceeds 50 percent
> of its population. The term "non-minority area" is defined as one in
> which the minority population is lower than 10 percent.
>
> **(c)** [Bonus Points for Location of Site]{.underline}**.** An
> application containing satisfactory evidence of control of an
> approvable site which is located in a federally- designated Renewal
> Community (RC), Empowerment Zone (EZ), Enterprise Community (EC), or
> Urban Enhanced Enterprise Community (EEC) and serves the residents of
> these federally-designated references (collectively referred to as
> "RCs/EZs/Ecs-II"), will be awarded two bonus points. To be eligible to
> receive the two bonus points, the Sponsors must have submitted a
> certification (see Exhibit 8(h) of the application) that the proposed
> project(s):
>
> \(1\) will be located in a federally-designated RC/EZ/EC-II and will
> serve residents of the RC/EZ/EC-II; and
>
> \(2\) is consistent with the strategic plan of the RC/EZ/EC-II. The
> Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) will determine if
> the application is eligible for the bonus points (see CPD\'s Technical
> Processing Review and Findings Memorandum in Attachment 12 of this
> Notice). For a scattered site application with site control, all sites
> must be located in an RC/EZ/EC-II area, be approvable and have
> acceptable evidence of site control, and the Sponsor must have
> submitted the required certification (Exhibit 8(h)) to receive the 2
> bonus points.
>
> A list of the federally-designated RCs/EZs/ECs-II is available at
> HUD's web site at
> http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm. Local HUD
> Offices should also provide information about the local community
> agency for applicants to contact and determine if their proposed
> projects will be located in one of the federally-designated areas
> identified above.
>
> **(d) Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property** **Acquisition
> Act of 1970, as amended, (URA) Site** **Notification Requirement.**
>
> All Section 202 applicants and Section 811 applicants submitting
> applications with site control must include evidence in their
> applications that they have provided the seller with written
> information regarding a voluntary, arm's length purchase transaction.
> If an applicant owns vacant property, even if it was purchased years
> ago, and the property was acquired for purposes of doing a 202 or 811
> project, then the Sponsor must locate the seller and provide the
> required written disclosures. If no 202 or 811 project was planned or
> intended, the written notifications are not required. It may be
> difficult to determine whether a project was planned or intended when
> these properties were acquired. One suggestion is to determine if
> there was an application that may not have been funded that involved
> these properties.
>
> The disclosure notices are not required for acquisitions of real
> property from a Federal agency, State, or State agency when the
> purchaser does not have authority to acquire the property through
> condemnation.
>
> \(1\) [Applicability of Acquisition for Sites under the
> URA]{.underline}. The annual
>
> Section 202 and Section 811 NOFAs have included information to remind
> Sponsors of their exemption from the site acquisition requirements of
> the URA under certain conditions. The site acquisition requirements do
> not apply to the Section 202 and Section 811 Sponsors if, prior to
> entering into a contract of sale or any other method of obtaining site
> control, the Sponsor informs the seller of the real property:

-   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

-   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.

> \(2\) 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 2006 NOFAs must be in compliance
> with the above.
>
> \(3\) Because of the importance of getting this information to
> Sponsors as early as possible in the project planning stages, the
> exemption provisions under the URA's site acquisition requirements are
> now included in Section IV.B. 2.c.(1)(d)(iv) and Section VI.B.2 of the
> Section 202 and Section 811 NOFAs.
>
> \(4\) The implementing instructions regarding site acquisition under
> the URA are contained in Chapter 5 of HUD Handbook 1378, CHG-4, Tenant
> Assistance, Relocation and Real Property Acquisition.
>
> **(e) Evidence of Site Control.**
>
> **(1)** If the site is covered by mortgage under a HUD program, (e.g.,
> a previously funded Section 202 or 811 project or an FHA-insured
> mortgage) the Sponsor must submit evidence of site control as
> described in Exhibit 4 (d)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of the NOFA **AND**
> evidence that consent to release the site from the mortgage has been
> obtained or has been requested from HUD (all required information in
> order for a decision on the request for a partial release of security
> must have been submitted to the local HUD office) and from the
> mortgagee, if other than HUD. Approval to release the site from the
> mortgage must be done before the local HUD Office makes its selection
> recommendations to HUD Headquarters. Refer to Chapter 16 of HUD
> Handbook 4350.1 Rev-1, Multifamily Asset Management and Project
> Servicing, for instructions on submitting requests to the local HUD
> Office for a partial release of security from a mortgage under a HUD
> program.
>
> **(2)** The NOFA clarifies that the Title policy or other similar
> evidence on site must be current. A current Title policy should be one
> that runs to the present Owner who will provide the option agreement
> or contract of sale and who would presumably have obtained a Title
> policy when it acquired the site. The Field Counsel will determine
> what is a reasonable period of time based on their review of the
> information in the submitted Title policy. If there is reason to
> question the Title policy, Field Counsel could request that the
> Multifamily Housing Project Manager ask for a Title Report
> supplementing the policy in a deficiency letter to the Sponsor.

### 14. Evidence of Need/Demand.

> 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, Attention:
> Kevin P. Kane, Office of Policy Development and Research, Room 8224.
>
> **NOTE**: For the Section 811 program only, the Valuation staff, not
> EMAS, is now responsible for determining the need and demand for
> additional units for persons with disabilities and awarding points for
> same under Rating Factor 2.a.

### 15. Elimination of Congressional Notification Letter.

> In an effort to standardize the information that the Office of
> Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (CIR) needs to notify
> Congress of all the funding awards under the SuperNOFA, the
> Congressional Notification Letter that is in the Development
> Application Processing system (DAP) will no longer be used for that
> purpose. Headquarters will be providing CIR with an excel spreadsheet
> with pertinent information such as the Grant Program Name, recipient,
> the street address, city, state and zip code of the project, the total
> award amount and a contact name and phone number. This information
> will be pulled from the data inputted into DAP.
>
> **NOTE**: Although you are not required to submit the Congressional
> Notification Letters for your selected projects to HUD Headquarters,
> HUD Offices are still required to complete the "Project Highlights"
> section of the Congressional Notification Letters in DAP for each
> approvable application. This is required because Headquarters pulls
> the information from the "Project Highlights" section to prepare the
> Press Release for each application selected for funding. By completing
> the "Project Highlights" for each approvable application, this
> information will be already available for any additional approvable
> applications funded by the Hub or Headquarters using residual funds.

### 16. Press Release Information.

> The Project Highlights section of the Congressional Notification
> Letter will be used for the attachment to the Press Release as
> indicated in the preceding paragraph. When completing the Project
> Highlights, please pay particular attention to the following:
>
> **(a)** [Project Description]{.underline}. Describe something unique
> and interesting about the project. The following are good examples of
> project highlights for a Section 202 project and a Section 811
> project:

\(1\) [Section 202]{.underline}

> The funds will be used to construct 100 one-bedroom units for very-low
> income elderly persons and one two-bedroom unit for a resident
> manager. The site for the project is adjacent to an existing senior
> center and the residents will be able to participate in the many
> activities sponsored by the center including a meals program. A public
> bus stop will be located in front of the project so the residents will
> have easy access to shopping and medical facilities. A Service
> Coordinator is being provided on site to help residents, particularly
> frail residents, access services.

\(2\) [Section 811]{.underline}

> The funds will be used to acquire and rehabilitate seven units for
> very low-income persons with physical disabilities. The project
> consists of five one-bedroom and two two-bedroom condominium units
> scattered throughout an existing condominium complex. The location is
> in close proximity to services such as medical, shopping and public
> transportation, etc. This integrated model allows residents to blend
> into the surrounding community yet provides the accessibility features
> and the availability of supportive services that allow them to live as
> independently as possible.
>
> **(b)** [Things to Avoid in Description of Section
> 811Project/Residents]{.underline}**.**
>
> \(1\) The words or phrases that must not be used and their
> replacements are as follows:

-   "handicapped" (except when used to describe accessibility or
    adaptability), "clients", or "patients". Instead, use "person or
    persons with disabilities".

-   "supervision" (or any form of the word), "caretaker", or
    "houseparents" Instead, use "resident manager".

-   "facility". Instead, use "project", "housing" or "independent living
    project", "group home" or "condominium", as the case may be.

-   "low income". Instead, use "very low-income" since residents of
    Section 202 or Section 811 housing must be very low income.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   "confined to a wheelchair". Instead, use "wheelchair user".

-   "services will be provided". Instead, use "services will be
    available".

> \(2\) Do not capitalize the type of project or the type of disability.
>
> **(c)** [Proofread Carefully]{.underline}. Make sure there are no
> typos in the final DAP entry.

### 17. Applicant Debriefing.

> The NOFAs now provide for an applicant debriefing. The request must be
> in writing to the appropriate local HUD Office's Director of
> Multifamily Housing beginning 30 days after the awards are publicly
> announced and lasting at least 120 days after the awards are publicly
> announced. (See General Section of NOFA on applicant debriefing)

### 18. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

> **(a)** [Conducting Business in Accordance with Core Values
> and]{.underline} [Ethical Standards]{.underline}. In the General
> Section of the SuperNOFA, it states that entities subject to 24 CFR
> Parts 84 and 85 must develop and maintain a written code of conduct.
> The Section 202 and Section 811 programs are not subject to 24 CFR
> parts 84 and 85. Instead, Section 202 and Section 811 Sponsors/Owners
> must adhere to the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 891.130.
>
> **(b)** [Ensuring the Participation of Small Businesses,
> Small]{.underline} [Disadvantaged Businesses and Women-Owned
> Businesses]{.underline}. With respect to the Department's priority for
> "Ensuring the Participation of Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged
> Businesses and Women-Owned Businesses in HUD Programs," it was
> clarified that Section 202/811 Sponsors/Owners must comply with
> Executive Order (EO) 12432, Minority Business Enterprise Development
> and EO 11625, Prescribing Additional Arrangements for Developing and
> Coordinating a National Program for Minority Business Enterprise.
>
> **(c) Minority Business Enterprise Goals.**
>
> 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 2006
> 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.
>
> **(d) HUD Reform Act Provisions.**
>
> 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 is also
> reminded that the HUD Reform Act prohibits advance disclosure of
> funding decisions (also see 24 CFR Part 4)

### 19. Sponsor as Consultant.

> 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.

### 20. Supportive Services.

> **(a)** [Supportive Services Plan]{.underline}**.** The Exhibit for
> providing a description of the provision of services and the
> supportive services plan is now Exhibit 5.
>
> **(b)** [Sponsors Cannot Require Residents to Accept Supportive
> Services]{.underline}. Section 202 and Section 811 Sponsors must
> **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.

### 21. Historic Preservation.

> Sponsors are to submit with their applications, a letter from the SHPO
> or the THPO 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/THPO well
> in advance of the application deadline date to ensure a timely
> response from the SHPO/THPO.
>
> The Sponsor must submit the following in its application: (1) a copy
> of the Sponsor\'s letter to the SHPO/THPO requesting their review and
> findings with respect to any historical significance to the proposed
> project along with a statement that the SHPO/THPO failed to respond to
> your letter; OR (2) a copy of the SHPO\'s/THPO's response.
>
> If the SHPO/THPO does not respond to the Sponsor's request or responds
> that it cannot or will not comply with the requirement, 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/THPO, allow time for a response from the
> SHPO/THPO, and then make the appropriate finding, which must be
> received prior to convening the Rating/Selection Panel).

### 22. Waivers

> **(a)** [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.
>
> **(b)** [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. Requests for fund reservation extensions in excess
> of 24 months must be approved in Headquarters.

### 23. Project Size.

> **(a)** [Minimum and Maximum Project Sizes]{.underline}**.**
>
> \(1\) For **Section 202** applications, the minimum project size for
> both metro and non-metro proposals is five units which includes the
> non-revenue manager\'s unit, if applicable. A Sponsor can propose
> scattered sites in its application as long as each site consists of at
> least five 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 200 units in a single Hub for projects in metropolitan and
> non-metropolitan areas is unchanged. No single application may propose
> to develop a project for more than the number of units allocated to a
> local HUD Office (in either the metropolitan or non-metropolitan
> category) or 125 units, whichever is less.
>
> \(2\) For **Section 811** projects, the limits are as follow:

-   [Group home for persons with disabilities - The]{.underline} minimum
    number of residents in a Group Home a Sponsor can apply for is two
    and the maximum number of residents is six. There are no exceptions
    to this requirement. Each resident should occupy a bedroom unless
    another resident choose to share that same bedroom or the resident
    determines he/she needs another person to share his/her bedroom. An
    additional one-bedroom unit can be provided for a resident manager.
    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
    14 **(See Section III.C.3.b.(1)).** An additional one or two bedroom
    unit can be provided for a resident manager. **Exceptions to the
    14-person limit may be requested by the Sponsor if it has control of
    the site (See Section III.C.3.b.(2)).**

## 

### 24. Mixed-Finance Projects.

**(a) Definition of Owner.**

> The definition was revised to indicate that for the purpose of
> supportive housing, mixed-finance Owner means a for-profit limited
> partnership (as opposed to a for-profit limited dividend organization)
> of which a single-purpose private organization (Section 202) or a
> single-purpose organization with a 501(c)(3) tax exemption (Section
> 811) is the sole general partner or is a corporation wholly owned and
> controlled by the single-purpose organization.

**(b) Additional Units Are No Longer Required for a Mixed-Finance
Project.**

> If an applicant wants to develop a mixed-finance project, it no longer
> has to propose the development of additional units over and above the
> Section 202 or Section 811 units, as applicable.
>
> **NOTE**: The term mixed-finance project, as used here and in the
> Section 202 and Section 811 NOFAs, does not include the development of
> Section 202 or Section 811 units using secondary/supplemental
> financing or the development of a mixed-use project in which the
> Section 202 or Section 811 units are mortgaged separately from the
> other uses of the structure.

**(c) Mixed-Finance Project for Additional Units.**

> If the applicant proposes to develop a mixed-finance project by
> developing additional units over and above either the Section 202 or
> Section 811 units, as applicable, it must describe in the application
> its plans and actions taken thus far to create such a mixed-finance
> project and provide any letters and the corresponding response sent to
> outside funding sources.
>
> \(1\) For the FY 2005 and an earlier funding round, if the Sponsor
> proposed and was approved for the development of a mixed-finance
> project for additional units, if the Sponsor should later be unable to
> secure the funding for the additional units or HUD disapproves of the
> proposal for mixed financing for additional units, then the Sponsor
> will not be permitted to proceed with a 202 or 811 project without
> additional units and the fund reservation will be cancelled. This is
> due to the fact that the application during those funding rounds were
> rated based on the number of additional units being proposed, thus
> increasing its competitiveness, and a later change in the proposal to
> exclude the additional units would alter the fairness of the
> competition.
>
> \(2\) [No Capital Advance Amendment Money]{.underline}. No capital
> advance amendment money will be provided to Section 202 or Section 811
> mixed-finance projects for additional units.
>
> \(3\) [Firm Commitment Application Requirements]{.underline}. If a
> Sponsor receives a Section 202 or Section 811 fund reservation to
> develop a mixed-finance proposal for additional units, the Sponsor
> will be required to submit the additional documents outlined in HUD's
> Final Rule on Mixed Financing, which was published in the [Federal
> Register]{.underline} on September 13, 2005 (FR-4725-F-02).
>
> \(4\) [Section 811 Mixed-Finance Applications For Additional
> Units]{.underline}**.** The additional units cannot cause the Section
> 811 project to exceed the project size limit for the type of project
> proposed, unless the applicant requests and receives HUD approval to
> exceed the project size limit if the project will be an independent
> living project or the additional units will house people without a
> disability.
>
> \(5\) [Section 202 Mixed-Finance Applications for Additional
> Units]{.underline}. For Section 202 mixed-finance proposals for
> additional units, the additional units must be for the elderly.
>
> (**d) Mixed Finance.**
>
> **(1)** Proposals to develop mixed-finance projects for additional
> units over and above the Section 202 and Section 811 units, whichever
> applies, are no longer a rating factor for additional points.
>
> **(2) S**ponsors are still required to discuss their plans to develop
> a mixed-finance project for additional units under Exhibit 4(c)(iii)
> if they are planning on developing such projects for additional units.
>
> **(3)** If a Sponsor proposes to develop a mixed-finance project for
> additional units, they are now required to demonstrate their ability
> to proceed with the development of the project without mixed-financing
> for additional units in the event that (i) they are later unable to
> obtain the necessary outside funding; or (ii) HUD disapproves their
> proposal for mixed-finance projects.
>
> **(4)** Exhibit 4 (c)(iii) is now curable since it is no longer a
> rating factor.

### 25. Elimination of the Reference to Mixed-Use Proposals.

> The reference to proposals with a mixed-use purpose was eliminated
> beginning in the FY 2003 NOFA. However, this does not preclude the
> addition of commercial spaces in mixed-finance projects as long as
> long as the space meets the requirements for commercial spaces as
> stated in the 202 and 811 NOFAs. There are other ways that Sponsors
> can combine Section 202 and Section 811 projects with commercial
> spaces. Sponsors may propose to develop the project under a
> condominium structure whereby the Section 202 or Section 811 units
> would be a separate condominium from the commercial space, or develop
> the project under an air-rights structure so that the Section 202 or
> Section 811 capital advance would be used to purchase the air rights
> over the commercial space.
>
> To clarify that commercial facilities may be included in Section 202
> and Section 811 projects, a definition of a commercial facility is
> included in the NOFAs (See Section IV.E.4). Commercial facilities
> cannot be funded with the use of the capital advance or PRAC funds and
> must be for the benefit of the residents. The maximum space for a
> commercial facility and other community space may not exceed 10
> percent of the total project cost, unless it is a project involving
> acquisition or rehabilitation and the additional space was
> incorporated in the existing structure at the time the proposal was
> submitted to HUD. Commercial facilities must comply with the
> accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
> 1990 (ADA) as they are considered public accommodations under Title
> III of the ADA.

### 26. Eligibility of Owner Entity When Later Formed by the Sponsor.

> The American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 (P.L.
> 106-569), approved December 27, 2000, revised the definition of an
> eligible Owner entity to include a for-profit limited partnership with
> a nonprofit entity as the sole general partner. In view of the
> statutory change, an administrative decision was made to permit such
> Owners to participate in the Section 202 and Section 811 programs for
> the purposes of developing a mixed-finance project. Section III.A. of
> the Sections 202 and 811 NOFAs provides the eligibility requirements
> of the Owner entity when it is later formed by the Sponsor.
>
> **(a)** [Under the Section 202 program]{.underline}, the Owner
> corporation may be (1) a single-purpose private nonprofit organization
> that has tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) or Section
> 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, (2) a nonprofit
> consumer cooperative, or (3) for purposes of developing a
> mixed-finance project, a for-profit limited partnership with a
> nonprofit entity as the sole general partner.
>
> **(b)** [Under the Section 811 program]{.underline}, the Owner
> corporation may be (1) a single-purpose nonprofit organization that
> has tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
> Code of 1986, or (2) for purposes of developing a mixed-finance
> project, a for-profit limited partnership with the nonprofit entity as
> the sole general partner.
>
> **NOTE**: The expansion of the eligibility criteria for the Owner
> entity to include a for-profit limited partnership with the nonprofit
> as the sole general partner or a corporation wholly owned and
> controlled by that organization **DOES NOT** apply to Section 202 or
> Section 811 Sponsors or Co-Sponsors. Applicant eligibility for
> purposes of applying for a Section 202 or Section 811 fund reservation
> has not changed (i.e., all Section 202 Sponsors and Co-Sponsors must
> be private nonprofit organizations or nonprofit consumer cooperatives
> and all Section 811 Sponsors and Co-Sponsors must be nonprofit
> organizations with a 501(c)(3) tax exemption from the Internal Revenue
> Service (IRS)).

## 27. Electronic Application Retrieval Procedures.

> The Grant Interface Management System (GIMS) is the interface between
> Grants.gov and HUD that provides an automated method to receive and
> distribute applications electronically. GIMS is available on the HUD
> webpage at, http://gims.hud.gov.
>
> For a detail discussion on using GIMS, please access "The Grants
> Interface Management System (GIMS) User's Guide" on the HUDweb page at
> the following URL: http://hudatwork.hud.gov/po/a/grants/gims/gims.cfm.

#########  {#section-6 .unnumbered}

## 28. Restoration of the District of Columbia Allocation.

> A separate allocation for the Washington, DC Office was restored this
> year. All applicants for projects proposed to be located within the
> jurisdiction of the Washington, DC Office that received permission to
> submit paper applications, will submit their paper applications to the
> Baltimore, Maryland Office for review and processing.

## 

##  29. Economic Opportunities for Low and Very Low-Income Persons (Section 3).

> The Department has included compliance with the Section 3 provision as
> a Departmental Priority Policy. All applicants must comply with
> Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, 12 U.S.C.
> 170u (Economic Opportunities for Low and Very Low-Income Persons) and
> its implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 135. However, to be
> eligible to receive up to two points under Rating Factor 3(l),
> Sponsors must provide a description of their plans to incorporate the
> Section 3 requirements into their proposed project with the goal of
> expanding training and employment opportunities for low and very
> low-income residents as well as business concerns under Exhibit 3(k)
> for Section 202 and Exhibit 3(m) for Section 811.
>
> **(a)** The submission of Exhibit 3(k)/202 and Exhibit 3(m)/(811) is
> optional, but in order to receive up to 2 points under Rating Factor
> 3(l), Sponsors must submit these Exhibits and adequately address their
> plans to provide training and employment opportunities to low and
> very-low income persons residing in the project area as well as
> business concerns.
>
> **(b)** The Office of FHEO is responsible for the review of these
> Exhibits and the assignment of points under Rating Factor 3(l).

## 30. Project Design Requirements.

> The NOFA clarified that the proposed bedroom sizes must not exceed the
> maximum unit size limits as stated in Section 202 Handbook 4571.3 or
> Section 811 Handbook 4571.2, unless, the Sponsor demonstrates a
> willingness and ability to contribute the incremental development cost
> and continuing operating cost associated with the oversize units; or
> the project involves rehabilitation or acquisition and the additional
> design feature was incorporated into the existing structure before
> submission of the application.

## 31. Application Changes.

### (a) Non-responsive Application.

> The definition for non-responsive applications was expanded to include
> additional reasons as listed below to determine whether an application
> will be considered as non-responsive to the NOFA. Applications will
> not be accepted for processing if the Sponsor:
>
> **(1)** submits paper copies of the application if HUD did not approve
> a
>
> waiver of the electronic submission requirements;
>
> **(2)** submits a substantially deficient application (i.e., a
> majority of the
>
> required exhibits, are not submitted with the application,
> particularly,
>
> but not limited to, those exhibits which are not curable). (See
>
> Section IV.B. of the program NOFA.)

(3) requests assistance for an ineligible activity as defined in Section
    IV.E., Funding Restrictions, of the Section 202/811
    [NOFAs]{.underline}; or

(4) is an ineligible applicant (see Section III.A, Eligible Applicants
    of this program NOFA).

### 32. Changes to Exhibits.

> **(a)** Exhibit 2. A note was added to clarify the purpose of HUD's
> review of the Sponsor's organizational documents to determine the
> Sponsor's eligibility to participate in the Section 202/811 programs.
>
> **(b)** Exhibit 3(a). This Exhibit was revised to make it clear that
> Sponsors are required to describe their ability to enlist volunteers
> and raise local funds, if applicable.
>
> **(c)** Exhibit 3(k)/(202) and 3(m)/(811). Although optional, these
> are new Exhibits added for Sponsors to describe their plans, if any,
> to incorporate the Section 3 requirements in the proposed project.
>
> **(d)** Exhibit 4(c)(iii). Sponsor's description of any plans to
> develop a mixed-finance project for additional units, is now a curable
> item.
>
> **(e)** Exhibit 4(d)(ix). Sponsors will submit the letter they sent to
> State/Tribal Historic Officer (SHPO/THPO) requesting a review of their
> applications relative to any historical significance and a statement
> that the SHPO/THPO failed to respond; OR, if a response has been
> received, a copy of the SHPO/THPO letter to the Sponsor. Previously,
> this requirement was covered in two separate Exhibits.
>
> **(f)** Exhibit 6. Sponsors are required to submit a list of all FY
> 2005 and prior year Section 202 and Section 811 capital advance
> projects to which they are a party. Each must be identified by project
> number and local HUD office and include the following information:
>
> \(1\) Whether the project has initially closed and, if so, when;
>
> \(2\) If the project was older than 24 months when it initially closed
> (specify how old) or if older than 24 months now (specify how old) and
> has not initially closed, provide the reasons for the delay in
> closing;

(g) Exhibit 8(a) -- Standard Form 424, Application for Federal
    Assistance.

    1.  Pursuant to E0 12372, if the State Point of Contact (SPOC)
        requires a review of the Sponsor's application, the Sponsor must
        include a copy of the cover letter sent to the SPOC in Exhibit
        8(a). Although the copy of the cover letter is a curable
        deficiency, the letter to the SPOC must reflect a date on or
        before the application deadline date.

> \(2\) In Item 12, Areas Affected by Project, of the SF-424, Sponsors
> are instructed to provide the name of the City, County, and State
> where the project will be located and not the largest political
> entities as indicated on the instructions page of the SF-424.
>
> **(h)** Exhibit 8(b) - Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for
> Applicants (SF-424 Supplement). The completed SF-424 Supplement will
> contain information regarding whether or not the applicant is a
> faith-based organization. The Department is required to provide
> information to the White House and Congress from time to time on both
> the number of applications it receives from faith-based organizations
> as well as the number of funding awards it has provided to such
> organizations. Therefore, Program Centers are required to send a copy
> of the SF-424 Supplement from each application it receives to
> Headquarters, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration,
> Attention: 202/811, Room 6142**. Please write the related Project
> Numbers at the top of each front page of the SF-424 Supplement before
> submitting them to Headquarters.**
>
> **(i)** Exhibit 8(i)/(202) and 8(j)/(811), Program Outcome Logic
> Model, (form HUD-96010). This form was revised to tailor each specific
> program. It incorporates a master list of program needs,
> activities/outputs and outcomes that Sponsors can select from based on
> their planned activities.
>
> **(j)** Although optional, Form HUD-2994, You Are Our Grant Applicant
> Survey, was added to the list of forms under Exhibit 8.

## 33. Rating Factors.

> **(a) Rating Factor Changes.**
>
> **(1)** Under sub-Rating Factor 1(d), a sliding scale (from --3 points
> to --5 points) was developed in order to better determine the
> deduction of points for those Sponsors that received an amendment
> money in connection with a fund reservation approved under either the
> Section 202 Program of Supportive Housing for the Elderly or the
> Section 811 Program of Supportive Housing for Persons with
> Disabilities in FY 2002 or later. The point deduction is as follows:

-   **(-3 points)**. The amount of the amendment money required was
    **[25% or less]{.underline}** of the original capital advance amount
    approved by HUD.

-   **(-4 points)**. The amount of the amendment money required was
    between **[26% and 50%]{.underline}** of the original capital
    advance amount approved by HUD.

-   **(-5 points)**. The amount of the amendment money required was over
    **[50%]{.underline}** of the original capital advance amount
    approved by HUD.

> **Note: HUD will grant exception of point deduction if the delay was
> beyond the sponsor's control**
>
> **(2)** In order to accommodate the Department's policy to allow
> Sponsor's to receive up to 2 points for describing their plans to
> comply with the Economic Opportunities for Low and Very Low-Income
> Persons (Section 3) requirement, a new sub-Rating Factor 3(l), Plans
> to Meet Section 3 Requirement, was added under Rating Factor 3,
> Soundness of Approach.

-   (1 point). Plans to provide opportunities to train and employ low
    and very-low income residents of the project area;

-   (1 point). Plans to award substantial contracts to persons residing
    in the project area.

-   Sub-rating factor 3c was reduced from 10 points to 8 points to
    accommodate the 2 points added under sub-rating factor 3(l) for
    compliance with the Section 3 requirements.

> **(3)** To provide a fair and more reasonable method to award points
> under Rating Factor 4, Leveraging Resources, a sliding scale based on
> the dollar value of any written evidence of firm commitments
> (including financial assistance, donation of land, provision of
> services, etc.) towards the development and operation of the proposed
> project from other funding sources (e.g., private local community and
> government sources) was developed. The designated points for this
> rating factor are to be awarded as follows:

-   0 point if the dollar value totals 5% or less of the capital advance
    amount as determined by HUD;

-   1 point if the total value totals between 6% and %10;

-   2 points if the total value totals between 11% and 15%;

-   3 point if the total value totals between 16% and 20%;

-   4 points if the total value totals between 21% and 25%; and

-   5 points if the total value totals over 25%.

## 

## (b) Reduction in Points for Time Limit.

> Points for Sponsor-caused delays in the project reaching initial
> closing and any corresponding need for amendment money will be
> deducted only for such projects that were funded in FY 2002 and later
> years (See Rating Factor 1.c and d). It was decided that it is unfair
> to continually penalize a Sponsor for such occurrences that happened
> five or more years ago if they have shown an improvement in project
> development in recent years.

## (c) Clarification on the Removal of Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing.

> **(1)** [Awarding of Points]{.underline}. Applicants are eligible to
> receive up to 2 points for responding to the policy priority of
> undertaking activities that will remove barriers to the development of
> affordable housing. Section 202 and Section 811 applicants are to
> describe the extent to which the jurisdiction, in which the project
> will be located, had undertaken successful efforts to remove
> regulatory barriers to affordable housing in Exhibit 3(j) and Exhibit
> 3(l), respectively. To receive up to the 2 points under Rating Factor
> 3(g), Section 202 and Section 811 applicants must submit Form
> HUD-27300, Questionnaire for HUD's Initiative on Removing Regulatory
> Barriers **and** the necessary URL references and or the required
> documentary evidence.
>
> **(2)** [Guidance on Awarding Points on the Removal of Regulatory
> Barriers to Affordable]{.underline} [Housing]{.underline}. Form
> HUD-27300 consists of two parts:

-   **Part A:** Local Jurisdictions, Counties Exercising Land Use and
    Building Regulatory Authority and Other Applicants Applying for
    Projects Located in Such Jurisdictions or Counties. Part A consists
    of 20 questions with two columns for response to each question, a No
    Response and a Yes Response.

-   **Part B**: State Agencies and Departments or Other Applicants
    Applying for Projects Located in Unincorporated Areas or Areas
    Otherwise Not Covered in Part A. Part B consists of 15 questions
    with two columns for response to each question, a No Response and a
    Yes Response.

> For both Parts A and B, a check in column 2 is valid only if, as
> stated in the NOFA, the applicant supplies for each question either a
> reference, URL, or a brief statement, indicating where the backup
> information may be found and a point of contact including a telephone
> number and/or email address. The Department may request the applicant
> to subsequently submit supporting or clarifying documentation. The
> applicant's supply of a reference, URL, or brief statement that
> indicates where backup information may be found is to assist the
> reviewer with any response that the reviewer believes should be
> checked whether for purposes of verification or clarity in
> understanding a response. Where the reference to backup information is
> not helpful to the reviewer, the reviewer may request the applicant to
> submit additional supporting or clarifying documentation.
>
> In addition, a limited number of these questions expressly request the
> applicant to provide brief documentation in the application itself
> (see questions Part A, No. 12 and Part B, Nos. 12, 14 and 15). As with
> any documentation specifically requested by HUD in its NOFAs, this
> information is to be reviewed by the reviewer to ensure that it is
> responsive to the question. If the information is not provided, points
> should not be awarded for the response.

-   Part A -- The applicant will not receive any points if there are
    only 4 or fewer checks in column 2.

-   Part A -- The applicant will get 1 point if there are 5 to 9 valid
    checks in column 2.

-   Part A -- The applicant will get 2 points if there are 10 or more
    valid checks in column 2.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Part B -- The applicant will not receive any points if there are 3
    or fewer checks in column 2.

-   Part B -- The applicant will get 1 point if there are 4 to 7 valid
    checks in column 2.

-   Part B -- The applicant will get 2 points if there are 8 or more
    valid checks in column 2.

## 34. Project Rental Assistance Contract (PRAC) Term.

> The initial term of the PRAC Budget Authority has been reduced from 5
> years to 3 years.

## 35. Reporting Requirements.

> The reporting requirement has been revised as follows:

###  (a) Program Outcome Logic Model (form HUD 96010).

> The Sponsor and the Owner, when formed, are now required to report
> annually, on the results achieved against the output goal(s) and
> outcome(s), which were initially proposed.
>
> The Program Outcome Logic Model (Form HUD-96010) is being required in
> addition to the Project Development Timeline. The Project Development
> Timeline was introduced as an application requirement in FY 2003 for
> two purposes. First, it served as a means for determining whether an
> applicant had a full understanding of the development process for
> Section 202 or Section 811 housing which would be an additional
> indication of the Sponsor's ability to develop the project in a timely
> manner. It also was required as a means for beginning to hold selected
> Sponsors accountable for their performance and for achieving results.
> In an effort to increase the applicant's accountability for their
> performance, all SuperNOFA applicants are required to complete Form
> HUD-96010. Headquarters offered two additional satellite broadcasts on
> the Logic Model; one for HUD staff and one for applicants. Check the
> satellite broadcast schedule on
> <http://ww.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm> to view the
> archived public broadcast and
> http://hudweb.hud.gov/services/webcasts/supernofa03.cfm on the
> <HUD@Work> site to view the staff broadcast.

### (b) Return of Investment Statement.

> Based on information provided in the Logic Model, Sponsors will be
> required to submit to HUD a statement reporting the Return on
> Investment (ROI) as a result of HUD's Section 202 or Section 811
> funding award. HUD will be publishing a separate notice of the ROI
> concept later.

### (c) Race and Ethnic Data Reporting Form (form HUD-27061). 

> HUD no longer requires Sponsors to submit with their application form
> HUD-27061 that provides for the collection and reporting of racial and
> ethnic beneficiary data.

## 36. Form HUD-2530, Previous Participation Certification.

> Form HUD-2530 is no longer required to be submitted with the
> application at the NOFA stage. Thus, Sponsors no longer have to
> receive clearance by HUD regarding their previous participation
> activities before they can be considered for funding. Instead, if
> selected for funding, Sponsors will be required to submit their Form
> HUD-2530 electronically. This requirement must be fully covered during
> the project Planning Conference with Sponsors approved for funding.

## B. Changes Applicable to the Section 202 Program Only.

### 1. Allocation Formula.

> The allocation formula includes one data element from the 2000 Census.
> The data element is the number of a one-person elderly renter
> household (householder age 62 and older) with incomes at or below the
> Section 8 very low-income limit, and with poor housing conditions.

### 2. Licensed Assisted Living Projects.

> Licensed assisted living projects have been added to the list of
> ineligible activities in the Section 202 program NOFA.

### 3. Application Changes

> **(a)** [Non-Responsive Applications]{.underline}. An application will
> be considered non-responsive to the NOFA and will not be accepted for
> processing if the applicant request assistance for housing that they
> currently own or lease that is already occupied by elderly persons.
> Section IV.E., Funding Restrictions, also was revised to include this
> restriction as an ineligible activity. This revision is a
> clarification of policy and not a change.
>
> **NOTE**: The Sponsor may propose to rehabilitate an existing
> currently-owned or leased structure that does not already serve
> elderly persons, except that the refinancing of any federally-funded
> or assisted project or project insured or guaranteed by a federal
> agency is not permissible under the Section 202 NOFA. HUD does not
> consider it appropriate to utilize scarce program resources to
> refinance projects that have already received some form of assistance
> under a federal program. (For example, Section 202 or Section 202/8
> direct loan projects cannot be refinanced with capital advances and
> project rental assistance).
>
> **(b)** Exhibit 4(e)(iv), Description of How Residents will be
> Afforded Opportunities for Employment, was eliminated.

### 

### 4. Scattered Site Projects

> If a project will be a scattered site development, each site must have
> at least five units.

### 5. Accessibility Requirements

> The accessibility requirements for Section 202 projects have been
> clarified with respect to site selection. Sponsors must comply with
> Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and 24 CFR 8.4(b)(5)
> that prohibits the selection of a site or location, which has the
> purpose or effect of excluding persons with disabilities from the
> Federally-assisted activity.

### 6. Acquisition of Housing With or Without Rehabilitation

> The American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 (P.L.
> 106-569) removed the limitation on acquiring structures for Section
> 202 projects solely from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
> (formerly Resolution Trust Corporation) (FDIC/RTC). Therefore, similar
> to the Section 811 program, Sponsors may submit applications proposing
> the acquisition of housing with or without rehabilitation whether or
> not such housing is obtained from the FDIC/RTC.

### 7. Economic and Market Analysis (EMAS) Review. 

> The EMAS rating for sufficient demand was based on the project's unmet
> needs ratio. An application in a market area found to have sufficient
> demand was eligible to receive either 10 or 5 points. If not, the
> project would receive no point. No other point values were allowed.
> The ratio is calculated by dividing the number of units in the
> proposed project by the unmet need in the market area. Units intended
> for occupancy by resident managers are not to be counted. An
> application could receive 10 points if the project has an unmet needs
> ratio of 15 percent or less; 5 points if the unmet needs ratio is
> greater than 15 percent.
>
> Unmet need is defined as the number of very low-income elderly
> one-person renter households age 75 or older with housing conditions,
> as of the 2000 Census, minus the number of project-based subsidized
> rental housing units (HUD, Rural Housing Services (RHS), or applicable
> Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) that are affordable to very
> low-income elderly) provided in the area since 1999.

### 8. Metropolitan and Non-metropolitan Allocation.

> The allocations for metropolitan and non-metropolitan portions of the
> local HUD Office jurisdictions reflect the definitions of metropolitan
> and non-metropolitan areas as of the June 2003 definitions by the
> Office of Management and Budget, and not the 2000 Census as previously
> done.

### 9. Mixed-Finance.

> The Section 202 NOFA clarified that any additional units in a
> mixed-finance proposal must be for the elderly.

## C. Changes to the Section 811 Program Only.

# 

### 1. Allocation of Funds. 

> Beginning in FY 2003 allocation formula is based on the 2000 Census
> and includes one data element: the number of non-institutionalized
> persons age 16 to 64 with a disability.

### 2. Applicant Eligibility. 

> Section 603 of the Housing and Community Development Act of l992 (HCD
> Act of l992) amended Section 811 of the National Affordable Housing
> Act (NAHA) by striking the language \"incorporated private\" and thus
> expanded 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.

### 3. Application Changes

> **(a)** [Non-Responsive Applications]{.underline}. If an applicant
> requested assistance for housing that they currently own or lease that
> has been occupied by people with disabilities for longer than one year
> prior to the application deadline date, that application will be
> considered as non-responsive. Section IV.E., Funding Restrictions,
> also was revised to include this restriction as an ineligible
> activity, along with assisted living facilities and mobile homes
> (previously manufactured housing).
>
> **NOTE**: The Sponsor may propose to rehabilitate an existing
> currently-owned or leased structure (if the structure already serves
> persons with disabilities, it cannot have operated as housing for
> persons with disabilities for longer than one year prior to the
> application deadline date); however, the refinancing of any federally
> funded or assisted project or project insured or guaranteed by a
> federal agency is not permissible under the Section 811 NOFA. HUD does
> not consider it appropriate to utilize scarce program resources to
> refinance projects that have already received some form of assistance
> under a federal program or that have been operating as housing for
> persons with disabilities for longer than one year prior to the
> application deadline date. (For example, Section 202, Section 202/8 or
> Section 202/PAC direct loan projects cannot be refinanced with capital
> advances and project rental assistance.)
>
> **(b)** [Additional Curable Deficiency Items]{.underline}. As a result
> of eliminating the five points for site control, the following parts
> of Exhibit 4 are now curable since they don't affect the rating of the
> application:

-   Exhibit 4(d)(i) Evidence of site control

-   Exhibit 4(d)(ii) Evidence site is free of limitations, restrictions
    or reverters

-   Exhibit 4(d)(iv) Evidence of compliance with the URA site
    notification requirement

-   Exhibit 4(d)(vii) Phase I ESA

-   Exhibit 4(d)(viii) Asbestos Statement or Report

-   Exhibit 4(d)(ix) Letter to the State Historic

-   Preservation Officer/Tribal Historic

-   Preservation Officer (SHPO/THPO) and the Response from SHPO/THPO or
    a statement that they didn't respond

-   Exhibit 4(d)(x) Willingness to seek an alternate site

-   Exhibit 4(d)(xi) Exception to project size limit

-   Exhibit 4(e)(ii) Steps undertaken to identify site

-   Exhibit 4(e)(iv) Status of the sale of the site

-   Exhibit 4(e)(v) Whether the site would involve relocation

> **(c)** [Exhibit 7 of the Application]{.underline}. Exhibit 7, which
> must be completed if the site will involve relocation, does not apply
> to Section 811 applications that are "site identified".
>
> **(d)** In addition to addressing how their project will implement
> practical solutions that will assist residents in achieving
> independent living, educational opportunities and improved living
> conditions in Exhibit 3(g), the Sponsor must also address how it will
> assist residents to achieve economic empowerment.
>
> **(e)** The Supportive Services Plan is a curable deficiency.

### 4. Valuation Review of Market Need/Demand.

> **(a)** In Rating Factor 2, Need/Extent of the Problem, if the
> Valuation staff determines that there is sufficient sustainable
> long-term demand for additional supportive housing for persons with
> disabilities in the area to be served, the project is to be awarded 10
> points. If not, the project is to be awarded 0 points. No other point
> values are allowed.

### (b) Review and Rating of Exhibit 4(a), Evidence of Need.

> The responsibility for determining the need for additional housing for
> persons with disabilities has been transferred from the Economic and
> Market Analysis Staff (EMAS) to the Valuation staff within the
> Multifamily Hubs/Program Centers. Therefore, the Valuation staff will
> be responsible for reviewing Exhibit 4(a) of Section 811 applications
> and assigning the related points (0 or 10 points) under Rating Factor
> 2(a).

### 5. Applications Proposing a Mixed-Finance Project

> Clarification was made to state that only applications with control of
> an approvable site are permitted to request consideration of a
> proposal involving mixed-financing.

### 6. Site Related Issues

> **(a)** Site Control. Applications that are submitted with evidence of
> site control where both the evidence and site(s) are approvable will
> no longer receive five points for site control. Instead, such
> applications that receive at least 75 points before the addition of
> bonus points will be placed in Category A. Applications that are
> submitted with evidence of site control where either the evidence or
> the site is not approvable, as well as applications that come in with
> an identified site(s) or with a mix of sites under control and sites
> identified, that receive at least 75 points before the addition of
> bonus points will be placed in Category B. All applications in
> Category A will be selected before the selection of any applications
> in Category B, both at the Program Center and Multifamily Hub levels.
> This change was necessary for two reasons. First, it was necessary to
> free up some points for the addition of two rating criteria applicable
> to the policy priorities of ending chronic homelessness and removing
> regulatory barriers to affordable housing. Second, with the addition
> of the two policy priorities just mentioned, it would have been more
> difficult for applications to attain the minimum of 75 points
> necessary for selection if we didn't convert to a selection preference
> rather than the point system for meeting the statutory selection
> criterion of "the extent to which the Sponsor has control of the
> site".
>
> **(b)** Site Scoring Issues**.** Applications containing satisfactory
> evidence of control for all proposed sites and all proposed sites are
> approvable by Valuation (a score of one or higher for Criterion 3(a),
> Site Approvability) will be placed in Category A for selection
> purposes as indicated above.
>
> **If the site control is NOT acceptable** in a single site
> application, the application will be placed in Category B for
> selection purposes but is still rated by Valuation (VAL) for Site
> Approvability (Criterion 3(a)) and by the Office of Fair Housing and
> Equal Opportunity (FHEO) for the suitability of the site in promoting
> a greater choice of housing opportunities for persons with
> disabilities, including minorities (Criterion 3(c)).
>
> **If either VAL or FHEO REJECTS the site** in a single site
> application, the application will receive zero points for Criteria
> 3(a) and 3(c). The application will be placed in Category B for
> selection purposes as long as the Sponsor indicated in Exhibit
> 4(d)(xi) 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
> Criteria 3(a) and 3(c), **all** proposed sites must be under
> acceptable control and be approvable.
>
> **(c)** [Review of Sites under Control/Sites 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.
>
> **(d)** [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\".
>
> **(e)** [Specific Street Address Required]{.underline}**.** Sponsors
> must provide the specific street address of the site. For
> site-identified applications, the location must include the street
> address or block or lot number(s). If the Sponsor proposes one or more
> condominium units, the unit number(s) must also be provided. The NOFA
> clarifies that if an application failed to provide the required
> information, that application will be rejected.
>
> **(f)** [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.
>
> **(g)** [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 requirement 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.

### (h) [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.

### (i) [Site Identified Applications]{.underline}. Project location must include street address or block/lot number(s).

### 7. Restrictions Removed from Acquisition Projects. 

> In Section 891.305 of the final rule, the definition of
> \"acquisition\" was revised. The restriction to group homes and
> Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation/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.

### 8. Project Size

> **(a)** [Exceptions to the 14-Person Project Size
> Limit]{.underline}**.** The provision allowing Sponsors to request
> exceptions to the 14-person project size limit for independent living
> projects was added back into the NOFA beginning in FY 2003. Only
> Sponsors who submit an application for an independent living project
> with site control can submit a request to exceed the 14-person project
> size limit. Such requests are submitted as part of Exhibit 4(d)(xii)
> of the Application.
>
> **(b)** [Restriction to Project Size Limits for
> Independent]{.underline} [Living Projects]{.underline}**.** The NOFA
> clarifies that if a Sponsor proposes to place an independent living
> project on the same or an adjacent site already containing housing for
> persons with disabilities, then the total number of persons housed in
> both the existing and proposed project cannot exceed 14.
>
> **(c)** [Project Size Limits]{.underline}**.**
>
> \(1\) Independent Living Project. The project size limit for an
> independent living project is 14 units plus one unit (one- or
> two-bedroom) for a resident manager.
>
> \(2\) Mixed Project Type Applications. It has been clarified that
> applications proposing both a group home and an independent living
> project must request the minimum number of units per project type
> (i.e., two units for a group home and five units for an independent
> living project).
>
> \(3\) Section III.C.3.b.(3). This section was revised to state that
> there would be no exceptions to the maximum project size limit of six
> persons with disabilities in a group home.
>
> **(d)** [Resident Manager's Unit]{.underline}. In an independent
> living project, the Sponsor can designate either a one- or two-bedroom
> unit for a resident manager. In a group home, the size of the resident
> manager's unit is limited to a one-bedroom unit.
>
> **(e)** [Minimum size of Group Home]{.underline}. The minimum size of
> a group home has been reduced to two persons to more closely resemble
> shared housing in a community. A two-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.

### 9. Supportive Services.

> **(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, or
> indicates that the provision of supportive services will not enhance
> independent living success or promote the dignity of the residents,
> 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.
>
> **(c)** An addition has been made to the certification that addresses
> whether the provision of supportive services will enhance independent
> living success and promote the dignity of those who will access the
> proposed project.
>
> **(d)** [Access to Community Services and 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.
>
> **(e)** [Involvement of Centers for Independent
> 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 identify 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.
>
> **(f)** 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 (i.) receive
> supportive services available in the community, (ii.) receive
> supportive services available to them from the Sponsor directly or
> coordinated by the Sponsor, or (iii.) 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 the
> services they will either make available directly or coordinate their
> availability and describe how the coordination will be implemented;
> provide an assurance that any supportive services made available to
> the residents will be based on their individual needs; and, state
> their commitment to make the supportive services available or
> coordinate their availability for the life of the project.
>
> **(g)** [Opportunities for Employment]{.underline}. Sponsors must
> include in their Supportive Services Plans a description of how the
> residents will be afforded opportunities for employment.
>
> **(h)** [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)** [Contact for Agency Providing Independent Living
> 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.

### 10. Occupancy Issues.

> **(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 developmental disability. 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:

-   a description of the population to which occupancy will be limited;

-   an explanation of why it is necessary to limit occupancy;

-   how restricted occupancy will promote the goals of the Section 811
    program;

-   why the needs of the proposed occupants cannot be met in a more
    integrated setting;

-   a description of the Sponsor\'s experience in providing housing
    and/or supportive services to the proposed occupants; and

-   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. Double occupancy bedrooms are only allowed if a
> resident indicates a preference or need to share a bedroom with
> another resident.

### 11. Intermediate Care Facilities (ICFs) are no Longer Eligible

> 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.

### 

### 12. Davis-Bacon Act.

> 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.

> 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 section 891.325 apply to all Section 811 dwelling units except
> as indicated in the aforementioned regulations.

### 14. Accessibility.

> 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.

### 

### 15. Project Type Name Change.

> The term \"independent living facility\" has been changed to
> \"independent living project\" to eliminate the institutional
> connotation associated with the term \"facility.

# IV. SITES LOCATED IN FLOODPLAINS OR WETLANDS.

> 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.

# V. FY 2007 CAPITAL ADVANCE AUTHORITY ASSIGNMENTS

## A. Fair Share Factors.

> 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).

### 1. Section 202

> The FY 2007 formula for allocating Section 202 capital advance funds
> consists of the following data element: The use of the 2000 Census
> data with the following data elements in determining the allocation
> for the Section 202 program: Number of one-person elderly renter
> households (householder age 62 or older) with incomes at or below the
> applicable Section 8 very low-income limit, and with housing
> conditions. Housing conditions are defined as paying more than 30
> percent of income for gross rent, or occupying a unit lacking some or
> all kitchen plumbing facilities, or occupying an overcrowded unit
> (1.01 persons per room or more). The formula focuses the allocation on
> targeting the funds based on the unmet needs of elderly renter
> households who pay excessive rents and who have very low incomes.
>
> A fair share factor is developed for each metropolitan and
> non-metropolitan 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 non-metropolitan
> portion of each jurisdiction is then multiplied by respective total
> remaining capital advance funds available nationwide.
>
> Eighty-five percent of the total capital advance amount is allocated
> to metropolitan areas and 15 percent to non-metropolitan areas. Each
> HUD Office jurisdiction receives sufficient capital advance funds for
> a minimum of 20 units in metropolitan areas and 5 units in
> non-metropolitan areas. The total amount of capital advance funds to
> support these minimum set-asides is subtracted from the respective
> (metropolitan or non-metropolitan) 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 non-metropolitan
> portions of the Multifamily Hub or Program Center jurisdictions
> reflect the most current definitions of metropolitan and
> non-metropolitan areas, as defined by the Office of Management and
> Budget.

### 

### 2. Section 811.

> The FY 2007 formula for allocating Section 811 capital advance funds
> consists of one data element from the 2000 Census - the number of
> non-institutionalized persons age 16 to 64 with a disability.
>
> The fair share factors were developed by taking the number of persons
> age 16 to 64 for each state, or state portion, of each HUD Office
> jurisdiction as a percent of the data element from the 2000, 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. 

> As done in prior years, HUD Headquarters will assign the 202/811
> capital advance and PRAC funds for the FY 2007 applications selected
> for funding by electronic means to the Ft. Worth Accounting Center
> upon completion of the HUD Headquarters' review.

# VI. LOCAL HUD OFFICE ALLOCATIONS

## A. Allocation of Funds.

### 1. 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 2007 Section 202 allocations.
>
> **(a)** Offices are required to establish allocation areas only for
> the respective metropolitan and non-metropolitan 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 non-metropolitan
> areas will compete against each other.
>
> **(b)** There is a minimum proposal size of **5** units and a maximum
> of **200** units for projects in metropolitan and non-metropolitan
> areas. **Offices may NOT establish their own minimum or maximum
> application sizes.**
>
> Where the office allocation in either the metropolitan or
> non-metropolitan 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 non-metropolitan) than permitted in the NOFA (see
> Attachment 1) and must not exceed the maximum number of units per
> application as established herein.

### 2. 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 non-metropolitan funding and the requirement for a formula
> allocation. Accordingly, there will not be any division of funding
> between metropolitan and non-metropolitan 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 2007. To be responsive to
> the NOFA, a Sponsor must request at least five units if proposing to
> develop an independent living project (all five units do not have to
> be on one site) or two 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.

> The Department makes the initial reservation of project rental
> assistance contract funds for Section 202 and Section 811 applications
> selected for funding for three years based on the current operating
> cost standards.

## C. Local HUD Office Funding Notifications.

> 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 7 and 8 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 Attachments 6, 7 and 8 of
> this Notice.

# VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

## A. Notification to Program Applicants.

> Sponsors must be advised that all applications submitted under the FY
> 2007 program must be in conformance with the [Federal
> Register]{.underline} SuperNOFA, Regulations, Handbook and local HUD
> Office Funding Notifications. To this end, FY 2007 applications must
> follow the format provided in the Section 202 or Section 811 NOFA, as
> applicable, which is in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
> 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

## B. Prior Successful Applicants.

> 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; and

-   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.

## C. Release of Information on Ratings and Rankings.

> Release of information regarding selections or non-selections 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 and, for FY
> 2007, in response to a written request from the applicant to the
> Director of Multifamily Housing at least 30 days after the awards are
> publicly announced. 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).

# VIII. OTHER INFORMATION

## A. Consolidated Plan Certification.

> 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 2007. 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 a 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.

## B. Workshops

> 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 2007 program.
>
> It should also be pointed out to potential applicants at the workshop
> that in the Forms Section of the General Section of the SuperNOFA
> there is an optional form for them to fill out with their comments and
> suggestions about the NOFA and the Application which they can include
> as part of their applications or submit separately to HUD
> Headquarters, 451 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20410, Office of
> Departmental Grants Management and Oversight, Room 3156, with a copy
> to the Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Room
> 6142, 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.

## 

## C. Minority Business Enterprise Goals.

> 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 2007
> funding round as set forth in Attachments 10 and 11. (These goals do
> not affect the rating of Section 202 or Section 811 applications.)
> Field Offices are expected to encourage participation by minority
> Sponsors. A minority Sponsor is one in which more than 50 percent of
> the board members are minority based on the following
> codes/categories:

-   2 - Black

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   3 - Hispanic

-   4 - Native American

-   5 - Asian Pacific

-   6 - Asian Indian

## D. Salary Limitation for Consultants. 

> The requirement in the General Section of the SuperNOFA, pertaining to
> salary limitations for consultants, applies to the Section 202 and
> Section 811 programs. In accordance with the General Section of the
> SuperNOFA, Fiscal Year 2007 funds may not be used to pay or to provide
> reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant at more than
> the daily equivalent of the rate paid of the high of the pay band paid
> for level IV of the Executive Schedule, unless specifically authorized
> by law. This requirement is based on the provision contained in the
> Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007.

# IX. DAP.

## A. Instructions for Inputting Information in DAP. 

> Following the processing schedule in Attachment 1 of this Notice, the
> initial input of application information into DAP should be made by
> June 29, 2007, for Section 811 and Section 202. Field Offices are to
> make the final input of information in DAP by July 20, 2007, for
> Section 811 and for Section 202.

### 1. DAP's Comment Section. 

> Use the comment section to input the grant number assigned to the
> application by Grants.gov.

### 2. Print Copy of DAP Application Log.

> **(a)** After logging in all applications received, print a copy of
> the log and write in the related Grant Number below the Project and
> PRAC Numbers for each application.
>
> **(b)** Write in "R" after the Grant Number to indicate that it is a
> resubmitted application.
>
> **(c)** Make sure you account for all of the applications.
>
> **(d)** Mail the printed copies of the DAP Log of Applications
> Received to Headquarters, Attention: Aretha Williams, Director, Grant
> Policy and Management Division, 451 7^th^ Street, SW, Washington, DC
> 20410, Room 6142 by August 10, 2007, for Section 811 and for Section
> 202.

## B. DAP Application Log. 

> A Section 202 Log of Applications Received by Sponsor will be
> available in DAP under the "Reports" tab. After the date to finally
> input application information in DAP, July 20, 2007, Field Offices
> should use the Sponsor log of applications received to determine if
> any Sponsor has applied for more units than allowed under either the
> Section 202 or Section 811 programs. The maximum unit limitation
> includes Co-Sponsors and any of the Sponsor's affiliated entities
> (organizations that are branches or offshoots of a parent
> organization).

-   Under the Section 202 program, a Sponsor or Co-Sponsor may not apply
    for more than 200 units of housing for the elderly in a single Hub
    or more than 10 percent of the total units allocated to all HUD
    offices.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Under the Section 811 program, a Sponsor or Co-Sponsor may not apply
    for more than 70 units of housing or 4 projects (whichever is less)
    for persons with disabilities in a single Hub or more than 10
    percent of the total units allocated to all local HUD offices.

Programmatic questions concerning the FY 2007 Section 202 or Section 811
program and questions concerning DAP may be discussed with the Office of
Housing Assistance and Grant Administration in Headquarters at (202)
708-3000 (this is not a toll-free number).

Questions concerning Section 202 or Section 811 Capital Advance or
Project Rental Assistance Contract Authority should be directed to the
Funding Control Division at (202) 708-2750 (this is not a toll-free
number).

Brian D. Montgomery

Assistant Secretary for Housing --

Federal Housing Commissioner

ATTACHMENT 1

**SECTION 811 and SECTION 202**

### FISCAL YEAR 2007 APPLICATION PROCESSING SCHEDULE

In accordance with the schedule included in the SuperNOFA published in
the [Federal 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 that must be met:

####### 

####### Section 202 Application Deadline June 15, 2007

[Section 811 Application Deadline]{.underline} June 21, 2007

Initial DAP Application Data Input June 29, 2007

Final DAP Application Data Input July 20, 2007

[Submission of the Phase II ESA or the]{.underline}

[Phase II ESA and contract for remediation]{.underline}

[and the approval letter from the Federal,]{.underline}

######## State and/or local agency with jurisdiction

[over the site, **IF** so indicated]{.underline}

###### **Section 202** July 16, 2007

###### **Section 811** July 23, 2007

###### Submission of SF-424 Supplement from 

[Each application received to Headquarters]{.underline} July 23, 2007

Initial Screening for Curable Deficiencies

###### Completed and Deficiency Letters Mailed July 24, 2007

Send Technical Reject Letters to Sponsors

with a copy of each letter plus Technical

Reject Report to Headquarters August 6, 2007

[Program Center Offices submit transmittal]{.underline}

[memoranda, recapitulation sheets, lists]{.underline}

[of initial selections, approvable but]{.underline}

[unfunded applications, and applications]{.underline}

[that scored less than **75** base pts. to Hubs]{.underline}

[and SF-424 from each approvable]{.underline}

[application to Headquarters]{.underline} August 24, 2007

[Hubs submit lists of initial selections,]{.underline}

[approvable but unfunded applications,]{.underline}

[applications that scored less than **75** base]{.underline}

[pts., transmittal memoranda, and]{.underline}

recapitulation sheets to Headquarters August 31, 2007

> Attachment 2

**SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR SELECTION MATERIALS**

# 

# 

**Submission of Selection Materials to Multifamily Hubs and
Headquarters.** It is essential that all selection materials be reviewed
for completeness and accuracy, prepared in accordance with the following
instructions, and forwarded to the Multifamily Hubs and to Headquarters
in strict adherence to the Processing Schedule in Attachments 1 and 2.
The Development Application Processing (DAP) System is to be used in
preparing all Selection Lists and Reports.

**1. [Program Center Submissions to the Multifamily Hubs]{.underline}.**

> Program Centers are to submit the following selection materials to the
> Multifamily Hubs separately for the Section 202 and Section 811
> programs:
>
> **a.** [Transmittal Memorandum]{.underline}. A separate transmittal
> memorandum for each program summarizing the following results of the
> selection process.
>
> \(i\) Number of applications received.
>
> \(ii\) Number of applications selected.
>
> \(iii\) Identification of applications, if any, where the number of
> units was reduced by up to 10 percent and the number of units and
> funds needed to restore the application to its original request.
>
> \(iv\) Amount of unused funds being returned to the Multifamily Hub.
>
> \(v\) For any applications with the same score on the Program Center's
> Approvable but Unfunded List, identify the order in which you would
> like them selected.
>
> \(vi\) Achievement of MBE goals, non-metro achievement for Section
> 202, state comments in response to E.O. 12372, etc.
>
> **b. [Recapitulation Form]{.underline}.** A separate recapitulation
> form for the Program Center for each program.
>
> **c. [Initial Selection List]{.underline}.** For Section 202, a
> separate metro and non-metro initial selection list in rank order must
> be submitted. For 811, a separate Category A and Category B initial
> selection list in rank order must be submitted.
>
> **d. [Approvable but Unfunded List]{.underline}.** For Section 202, a
> separate metro and non-metro approvable but unfunded list in rank
> order must be submitted. For Section 811, a separate Category A and
> Category B approvable but unfunded list in rank order must
>
> be submitted.
>
> **e. [Not Recommended List]{.underline}.** A list of applications in
> rank order for each program that received a score of less than 75 base
> points.
>
> **f. [Technical Reject List and Letters]{.underline}.** A list of
> applications for each program that have been technically rejected and
> a copy of each technical reject letter, along with copies of any
> appeal letters and the Program Centers' responses to the appeal
> letters.
>
> **g. [The Standard Rating Criteria Form]{.underline}** for each
> application.

**2. [Multifamily Hub Submission to Headquarters]{.underline}.** The
Multifamily Hubs are to submit the following selection materials to
Headquarters **separately** for the Section 202 and Section 811
programs.

> **a. [Transmittal Memorandum]{.underline}**. A separate transmittal
> memorandum for each program summarizing the following results of the
> selection process for that program.
>
> \(i\) Number of applications received.
>
> \(ii\) Number of applications selected.
>
> \(iii\) Identification of applications by project number, if any,
> where the number of units was reduced by up to 10 percent and the
> number of units and capital advance and PRAC funds needed to restore
> the application to its original request.
>
> \(iv\) Identification of any approvable but unfunded applications the
> Multifamily Hub funded with residual funds from the Program Centers.
>
> \(v\) Amount of unused funds and units being returned to Headquarters.
>
> \(vi\) For any applications with the same score on the Multifamily
> Hub's Approvable but Unfunded List, identify the order in which you
> would like them selected.
>
> \(vii\) Achievement of MBE goals, non-metro achievement for Section
> 202, state comments received in response to E.O. 12372, etc.
>
> **b. [Multifamily Hub Recapitulation Form]{.underline}.** A separate
> recapitulation form for the Multifamily Hub and each Program Center
> for each program.
>
> **c. [Multifamily Hub Initial Selection List]{.underline}.** For
> Section 202, a separate metro and non-metro initial selection list in
> rank order must be submitted. For 811, a separate Category A and
> Category B initial selection list in rank order must be submitted.
> **If applicable, identify any project that requires units and/or
> capital advance and**
>
> **PRAC funds to be restored.**
>
> **d. [Multifamily Hub Approvable but Unfunded List]{.underline}.** For
> Section 202, a separate metro and non-metro approvable but unfunded
> list in rank order must be submitted. For Section 811, a separate
> Category A and Category B approvable but unfunded list in rank order
> must be submitted.
>
> **e. [Multifamily Hub Not Recommended List]{.underline}.** A list of
> Hub-wide applications in rank order for each program that received a
> score of less than 75 base points.
>
> **f. [Multifamily Hub Technical Reject List and
> Letters]{.underline}.**
>
> A list of applications for each program that have been technically
> rejected and a copy of each technical reject letter. Also, include
> copies of any appeal letters and the Program Centers'/Hubs' responses
> to the appeal letters.
>
> **g. [Program Center Selection Materials]{.underline}.** The following
> selection materials from the Program Centers **exactly** as they were
> submitted to the Hub **before selections were made with residual
> funds**:
>
> \(i\) [Program Center Transmittal Memorandum]{.underline}.
>
> \(ii\) [Program Center Initial Selection List]{.underline} [in rank
> order for each program]{.underline}. For 202, metro and non-metro
> selections must be on separate lists. For 811, a separate Category A
> and Category B initial selection list in rank order must be submitted.

**(3) [Program Center Approvable but Unfunded]{.underline}** **[List in
rank order for each program]{.underline}**. For 202, metro and non-metro
selections must be on separate lists. For 811, a separate Category A and
Category B approvable but unfunded list in rank order must be submitted.

**(4) [Program Center Not Recommended List for]{.underline} [each
program]{.underline}** of applications that scored less than 75 base
points.

**(5) [Technical Reject List and Letters]{.underline}**. A list of
applications for each program that have been technically rejected and a
copy of each technical reject letter, along with any appeal letters and
the Program Centers' responses to the appeal letters.

Do **NOT** send Technical Processing Review and Findings Memoranda or
Standard Rating Criteria Forms to Headquarters.

#  ATTACHMENT 3

  ------------------------------- ------------------ --------------- ---------------------- -------------- ------------ ---------------
  **FY 2007 SECTION 202                                                                                                 
  ALLOCATION BY FIELD OFFICE**                                                                                          

                                                                                                                        

  ** **                           **Metropolitan**                   **Non-Metropolitan**                  **Totals**   

  **Offices**                     **Units**          **Capital       **Units**              **Capital      **Units**    **Capital
                                                     Advance**                              Advance**                   Advance**

                                                                                                                        

                                  **BOSTON HUB**                                                                        

  **BOSTON**                      107                \$14,777,154    5                      \$688,957      112          \$15,466,111

  **HARTFORD**                    56                 \$7,970,321     5                      \$713,661      61           \$8,683,982

  **MANCHESTER**                  36                 \$4,005,849     19                     \$2,044,752    55           \$6,050,601

  **PROVIDENCE**                  36                 \$4,988,499                                           36           \$4,988,499

  **TOTAL................**       235                \$31,741,823    29                     \$3,447,370    264          \$35,189,193

                                                                                                                        

  ** **                           **NEW YORK HUB**                                                                      

  **NEW YORK**                    252                \$35,904,226    5                      \$713,661      257          \$36,617,887

  ** **                                                                                                                  

  ** **                           **BUFFALO HUB**                                                                       

  **BUFFALO**                     73                 \$8,909,520     20                     \$2,475,872    93           \$11,385,392

  ** **                                                                                                                  

  ** **                           **PHILADELPHIA                                                                        
                                  HUB**                                                                                 

  **PHILADELPHIA**                105                \$14,097,914    15                     \$1,963,717    120          \$16,061,630

  **CHARLESTON**                  20                 \$2,130,004     10                     \$1,024,033    30           \$3,154,037

  **NEWARK**                      120                \$17,044,604                                          120          \$17,044,604

  **PITTSBURGH**                  55                 \$6,182,034     12                     \$1,376,023    67           \$7,558,057

  **TOTAL................**       300                \$39,454,555    37                     \$4,363,773    337          \$43,818,328

                                                                                                                        

  ** **                           **BALTIMORE HUB**                                                                     

  **BALTIMORE**                   54                 \$5,980,970     5                      \$551,715      59           \$6,532,685

  **RICHMOND**                    50                 \$5,132,026     12                     \$1,260,724    62           \$6,392,750

  **WASHINGTON**                  52                 \$6,403,632                                           52           \$6,403,632

  **TOTAL....................**   156                \$17,516,628    17                     \$1,812,439    173          \$19,329,067

                                                                                                                        

  ** **                           **GREENSBORO HUB**                                                                    

  **GREENSBORO**                  55                 \$7,164,697     24                     \$3,081,337    79           \$10,246,034

  **COLUMBIA**                    38                 \$4,138,685     11                     \$1,188,664    49           \$5,327,349

  **TOTAL....................**   93                 \$11,303,382    35                     \$4,270,001    128          \$15,573,383

                                                                                                                        

  ** **                           **JACKSONVILLE                                                                        
                                  HUB**                                                                                 

  **JACKSONVILLE**                149                \$14,433,608    10                     \$983,871      159          \$15,417,479

  **BIRMINGHAM**                  42                 \$3,924,098     14                     \$1,321,771    56           \$5,245,869

  **JACKSON**                     20                 \$1,833,560     15                     \$1,354,360    35           \$3,187,920

  **TOTAL...................**    211                \$20,191,266    39                     \$3,660,002    250          \$23,851,268

                                                                                                                        

  ** **                           **ATLANTA HUB**                                                                       

  **ATLANTA**                     57                 \$5,544,601     17                     \$1,639,350    74           \$7,183,951

  **LOUISVILLE**                  37                 \$3,837,544     17                     \$1,744,670    54           \$5,582,214

  **KNOXVILLE**                   20                 \$1,943,354     8                      \$778,828      28           \$2,722,182

  **NASHVILLE**                   38                 \$3,765,207     12                     \$1,201,262    50           \$4,966,469

  **SAN JUAN**                    20                 \$2,437,427     5                      \$609,357      25           \$3,046,784

  **TOTAL...................**    172                \$17,528,133    59                     \$5,973,467    231          \$23,501,600

                                                                                                                        

  ** **                           **CHICAGO HUB**                                                                       

  **CHICAGO**                     124                \$16,651,845    19                     \$2,552,786    143          \$19,204,631

  **INDIANAPOLIS**                59                 \$6,096,281     15                     \$1,604,961    74           \$7,701,242

  **TOTAL...................**    183                \$22,748,126    34                     \$4,157,747    217          \$26,905,873

                                                                                                                        

  ** **                           **COLUMBUS HUB**                                                                      

  **COLUMBUS**                    36                 \$3,657,755     13                     \$1,297,567    49           \$4,955,322

  **CINCINNATI**                  45                 \$4,590,843     5                      \$510,542      50           \$5,101,385

  **CLEVELAND**                   68                 \$7,700,033     12                     \$1,358,297    80           \$9,058,330

  **TOTAL...................**    149                \$15,948,631    30                     \$3,166,406    179          \$19,115,037

                                                                                                                        

  ** **                           **DETROIT HUB**                                                                       

  **DETROIT**                     72                 \$8,526,033     9                      \$1,024,695    81           \$9,550,728

  **GRAND RAPIDS**                40                 \$3,471,521     12                     \$1,079,547    52           \$4,551,068

  **TOTAL...................**    112                \$11,997,554    21                     \$2,104,242    133          \$14,101,796

                                                                                                                        

  ** **                           **MINNEAPOLIS                                                                         
                                  HUB**                                                                                 

  **MINNEAPOLIS**                 54                 \$6,634,004     19                     \$2,308,510    73           \$8,942,514

  **MILWAUKEE**                   62                 \$7,585,608     19                     \$2,345,943    81           \$9,931,551

  **TOTAL...................**    116                \$14,219,612    38                     \$4,654,453    154          \$18,874,065

                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                        

  ** **                           **FT WORTH HUB**                                                                      

  **FT WORTH**                    79                 \$7,192,861     20                     \$1,815,184    99           \$9,008,045

  **HOUSTON**                     53                 \$4,713,363     8                      \$753,322      61           \$5,466,685

  **LITTLE ROCK**                 20                 \$1,767,683     14                     \$1,230,048    34           \$2,997,731

  **NEW ORLEANS**                 44                 \$4,111,108     12                     \$1,114,371    56           \$5,225,479

  **SAN ANTONIO**                 45                 \$3,981,971     9                      \$799,046      54           \$4,781,017

  **TOTAL...................**    241                \$21,766,986    63                     \$5,711,971    304          \$27,478,957

                                                                                                                        

  ** **                           **KANSAS CITY                                                                         
                                  HUB**                                                                                 

  **KANSAS CITY**                 47                 \$5,035,917     17                     \$1,802,135    64           \$6,838,052

  **OKLAHOMA CITY**               35                 \$3,169,210     14                     \$1,262,681    49           \$4,431,891

  **DES MOINES**                  20                 \$1,833,560     17                     \$1,520,159    37           \$3,353,719

  **OMAHA**                       20                 \$2,053,148     12                     \$1,194,837    32           \$3,247,985

  **ST LOUIS**                    40                 \$4,779,064     12                     \$1,448,490    52           \$6,227,554

  **TOTAL...................**    162                \$16,870,899    72                     \$7,228,302    234          \$24,099,201

                                                                                                                        

  ** **                           **DENVER HUB**                                                                        

  **DENVER**                      65                 \$6,914,077     25                     \$2,280,793    90           \$9,194,870

  ** **                                                                                                                  

  ** **                           **SAN FRANCISCO                                                                       
                                  HUB**                                                                                 

  **SAN FRANCISCO**               122                \$16,644,130    9                      \$1,145,500    131          \$17,789,630

  **HONOLULU**                    20                 \$3,952,584     5                      \$988,146      25           \$4,940,730

  **PHOENIX**                     49                 \$4,700,558     8                      \$813,731      57           \$5,514,289

  **SACRAMENTO**                  43                 \$5,944,251     8                      \$1,121,909    51           \$7,066,160

  **TOTAL...................**    234                \$31,241,523    30                     \$4,069,286    264          \$35,310,809

                                                                                                                        

  ** **                           **LOS ANGELES                                                                         
                                  HUB**                                                                                 

  **LOS ANGELES**                 191                \$25,334,365    5                      \$661,509      196          \$25,995,874

  ** **                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                        

  ** **                           **SEATTLE HUB**                                                                       

  **SEATTLE**                     64                 \$8,048,338     11                     \$1,388,476    75           \$9,436,814

  **ANCHORAGE**                   20                 \$3,952,584     5                      \$988,146      25           \$4,940,730

  **PORTLAND**                    48                 \$5,214,272     15                     \$1,602,644    63           \$6,816,916

  **TOTAL...................**    132                \$17,215,194    31                     \$3,979,266    163          \$21,194,460

                                                                                                                        

  **NATIONAL T0TAL...**           3077               \$366,806,500   590                    \$64,730,560   3,667        \$431,537,060
  ------------------------------- ------------------ --------------- ---------------------- -------------- ------------ ---------------

ATTACHMENT 4

  ----------------------------------- ------------ -----------------------
  **FY 2007 SECTION 811 ALLOCATIONS                
  FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR PERSONS               
  WITH DISABILITIES**                              

  OFFICES                             UNITS        CAPITAL ADVANCE

  **BOSTON HUB**                                   

  BOSTON                              17           \$2,296,605

  HARTFORD                            10           \$1,364,220

  MANCHESTER                          10           \$1,075,415

  PROVIDENCE                          10           \$1,342,183

  TOTAL                               47           \$6,078,423

                                                   

  **NEW YORK HUB**                                 

  NEW YORK                            28           \$3,812,372

                                                   

  **BUFFALO HUB**                                  

  BUFFALO                             17           \$1,961,062

                                                   

  **PHILADELPHIA HUB**                             

  CHARLESTON                          10           \$1,034,708

  NEWARK                              19           \$2,576,996

  PHILADELPHIA                        20           \$2,576,410

  PITTSBURGH                          10           \$1,081,931

  TOTAL                               59           \$7,270,045

                                                   

  **BALTIMORE HUB**                                

  BALTIMORE                           10           \$1,073,536

  RICHMOND                            16           \$1,595,661

  WASHINGTON                          10           \$1,201,563

  TOTAL                               36           \$3,870,760

                                                   

  **GREENSBORO HUB**                               

  COLUMBIA                            16           \$1,645,470

  GREENSBORO                          20           \$2,584,393

  TOTAL                               36           \$4,229,863

                                                   

  **ATLANTA HUB**                                  

  ATLANTA                             20           \$1,908,196

  KNOXVILLE                           10           \$947,608

  LOUISVILLE                          16           \$1,592,146

  NASHVILLE                           15           \$1,388,636

  SAN JUAN                            16           \$1,944,381

  TOTAL                               77           \$7,780,967

                                                   

  **JACKSONVILLE HUB**                             

  BIRMINGHAM                          16           \$1,485,461

  JACKSON                             10           \$890,941

  JACKSONVILLE                        31           \$2,894,379

  TOTAL                               57           \$5,270,781

                                                   

  **CHICAGO HUB**                                  

  CHICAGO                             23           \$3,018,814

  INDIANAPOLIS                        17           \$1,698,474

  TOTAL                               40           \$4,717,288

                                                   

  **COLUMBUS HUB**                                 

  CINCINNATI                          10           \$994,831

  CLEVELAND                           16           \$1,739,750

  COLUMBUS                            10           \$982,238

  TOTAL                               36           \$3,716,819

  OFFICES                             UNITS        CAPITAL ADVANCE

  **DETROIT HUB**                                  

  DETROIT                             17           \$1,986,025

  GRAND RAPIDS                        10           \$846,866

  TOTAL                               27           \$2,832,891

                                                   

  **MINNEAPOLIS HUB**                              

  MINNEAPOLIS                         14           \$1,710,717

  MILWAUKEE                           15           \$1,768,524

  TOTAL                               29           \$3,479,241

                                                   

  **FT. WORTH HUB**                                

  FT. WORTH                           25           \$2,105,842

  HOUSTON                             17           \$1,513,059

  LITTLE ROCK                         10           \$859,459

  NEW ORLEANS                         16           \$1,441,667

  SAN ANTONIO                         17           \$1,436,753

  TOTAL                               85           \$7,356,780

                                                   

  **KANSAS CITY HUB**                              

  DES MOINES                          10           \$890,941

  KANSAS CITY                         15           \$1,610,158

  OKLAHOMA CITY                       14           \$1,283,491

  OMAHA                               10           \$1,000,078

  ST LOUIS                            10           \$1,162,735

  TOTAL                               59           \$5,947,403

                                                   

  **DENVER HUB**                                   

  DENVER                              19           \$1,937,395

                                                   

  **SAN FRANCISCO HUB**                            

  SAN FRANCISCO                       24           \$3,170,932

  HONOLULU                            10           \$1,888,920

  PHOENIX                             16           \$1,499,753

  SACRAMENTO                          10           \$1,329,590

  TOTAL                               60           \$7,889,195

                                                   

  **LOS ANGELES HUB**                              

  LOS ANGELES                         36           \$4,608,427

                                                   

  **SEATTLE HUB**                                  

  SEATTLE                             17           \$2,034,377

  ANCHORAGE                           10           \$1,888,920

  PORTLAND                            15           \$1,580,209

  TOTAL                               42           \$5,503,506

                                                   

  **NATIONAL TOTAL**                  **790**      **\$88,263,218**
  ----------------------------------- ------------ -----------------------

> ATTACHMENT 5

**[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 8) 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 Fair Housing
    and Equal Opportunity Division Directors).

    ATTACHMENT 6

    **FUNDING NOTIFICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006**

    **SECTION 202 SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY**

    **CAPITAL ADVANCE PROGRAM**

The Department of Housing and Urban Development will accept applications
from private nonprofit organizations and nonprofit consumer cooperatives
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: \$

NON-METROPOLITAN 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 non-metropolitan).

An application may be obtained by downloading the General Section of the
SuperNOFA and the Section 202 Program NOFA from HUD's homepage at
http://www.grants.gov/applicants/apply_for_grants.jsp or by contacting
the Grants.gov customer support at 1-800-518-GRANTS, by emailing your
questions to Support \@Grants.gov, by contacting the NOFA Information
Center at 1-800-HUD-8929 (TTY: 1-800-HUD-2209) or the HUD Office at
[(HUD Office Address)]{.underline}.

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

THE DEADLINE DATE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS IS June 15, 2007.

\* If your office\'s allocation is less than 125 units, then insert that
number instead of 125.

ATTACHMENT 7

**FUNDING NOTIFICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006**

**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.

An application may be obtained by downloading the General Section of the
SuperNOFA and the Section 811 Program NOFA from HUD's homepage at
http:///www.grants.gov/applicants/apply_for_grants.jsp or by contacting
the Grants.gov customer support at 1-800-518-GRANTS or email at
Support@Grants.gov; or by contacting the NOFA Information Center at
1-800-HUD-8929 (TTY: 1-800-HUD-2209); or the HUD Office at [(HUD Office
Address)]{.underline}.

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

THE DEADLINE DATE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS IS June 21, 2007.

NOTE: The minimum number of persons with disabilities that can reside in
a group home is 2 and the maximum number is 6. There are no exceptions
to the number of disabled persons residing in a group home. An
additional one-bedroom unit can be provided for a resident manager. The
minimum number of units per application for an independent living
project is 5. The maximum number of persons with disabilities that can
be housed in an independent living project on one or adjacent sites is
14. An additional one or two-bedroom unit for a resident manager is
allowed. Condominium units are treated the same as independent living
projects except no additional units are allowed for the resident
manager. NOTE: If the applicant submits an application with site
control, a request can be made to allow up to 24 disabled residents to
be housed in an independent living project or condominium. Approval must
be granted by the Hub.

ATTACHMENT 8

Fiscal Year 2007 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 receive base scores below **75** for the
Section 202 and Section 811 programs are still to be submitted to
Headquarters prior to completion of the selection and announcement
process. See Attachment 3 for specific instructions regarding the
selection materials that must be submitted to Headquarters.

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 previously described.

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

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]{.underline}
[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.
>
> **NOTE:** Sponsors whose applications are found technically
> un-approvable 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.
>
> 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/ Operations Director
> and Hub Director/Program Center Director before technical processing
> can be completed. For projects that require the 8-Step process
> identified in 24 CFR Part 55 (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 Report generated
from DAP and a copy of each technical rejection letter shall be sent to
Headquarters, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration,
Room 6142, Attention: 202/811. See the processing schedule in Attachment
1 for the date they should be submitted to Headquarters. Also, include
copies of any appeal letters with the HUD Offices' responses to the
appeal letters.

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]{.underline}.
>
> a\. [Section 202]{.underline}. All metropolitan applications will
> compete against each other and all non-metropolitan applications will
> compete against each other within each local HUD Office\'s
> jurisdiction.
>
> b\. [Section 811]{.underline}. All applications in Category A
> (applications with legal evidence of an approvable site) will compete
> against each other and all applications in Category B (applications
> with site control where the evidence of site control and/or site is
> not approvable, site-identified applications and scattered-site
> applications with a combination of identified sites and sites under
> control) 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 14 for 202, Attachment 15 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
> non-metropolitan categories. For Section 811, all applications in
> Category A must be selected before the selection of applications in
> Category B.
>
> 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.
>
> **NOTE:** The only exception to this is if the HUD Office can select
> only one application (for Section 202, this means one application per
> metropolitan and non-metropolitan allocation category) and, although
> the units are within the total units allocated to the office the
> capital advance required is more than the capital advance amount
> allocated to the office. In this case, the Hub should fully fund this
> application first with any residual capital advance funds. If the Hub
> should not have sufficient capital advance funds to make the
> application whole, it will be fully funded with residual funds in
> Headquarters. In any event, the Program Center must address the
> situation in its transmittal memorandum to the Hub and the Hub must
> address it in its transmittal memorandum to Headquarters, indicating
> whether it was able to fully fund the application or whether it will
> need to be fully funded at the Headquarters level.
>
> **REMINDER:** **In calculating the capital advance amount, you are to
> use the development cost limits and high cost percentages that are
> currently in effect. However, in applying the high cost percentages,
> you may use a percentage that is higher or lower than that assigned to
> your office if it is needed to provide a capital advance amount that
> is comparable to what it typically costs to develop a 202 or 811
> project in your area.**
>
> 3\. [Minimum Score]{.underline}. Only those applications that receive
> a score of **75** 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 Initial Selection List or the Approvable but Unfunded
> List.**
>
> 4\. [RC/EZ/EC-II Bonus Points]{.underline}. After rating applications,
> those that receive at least **75** base points, have complete
> RC/EZ/EC-II certifications, and acceptable site control of an
> approvable site(s) should be reviewed against HUD\'s list of
> RCs/EZs/ECs-II 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 RC/EZ/EC-II, will be located
> in an RC/EZ/EC-II, and will serve residents of the RC/EZ/EC-II may
> receive the two (2) bonus points.
>
> 5\. [Unit Reduction Policy]{.underline}. After making the initial
> selections, any residual funds may be utilized to fund the next
> highest 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 202/811
> independent living projects of 5 units or less or Section 811 Group
> Homes of 2 units or less may not be reduced. For Section 811, the unit
> reduction policy must be applied to the next highest-ranked
> application in Category A first. For Section 202, the HUD Office may
> combine its unused metropolitan and non-metropolitan 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}.
>
> See Attachment 3 for a description of the selection materials that
> must be submitted to the Multifamily Hub in accordance with the
> processing schedule in Attachment 1.
>
> 8\. [Multifamily Hub\'s Use of Residual Funds]{.underline}. After the
> Program Centers within each Hub have funded all possible projects for
> the Section 202 and Section 811 programs, the residual funds (for
> Section 202, metropolitan and non-metropolitan funds are to be
> combined) will be used in the following manner. First, these funds
> will be used to restore units to projects reduced by Program Centers.
> Then, additional applications within each Multifamily Hub will be
> selected in rank order with no more than one application selected per
> Program Center unless there are insufficient approvable applications
> in other Program Centers 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. For
> Section 811, the residual funds are to be used first to fund Category
> A applications in rank order. Applications may not be skipped over to
> select one based on funds remaining. However, 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 Section 202/811 independent living projects of 5 units or
> less or Section 811 Group Homes of 2 units or less.
>
> 9\. [Headquarters\' Use of Residual Funds]{.underline}. HUD
> Headquarters will use these residual funds first to fund Way Station,
> Incorporated in the jurisdiction of the Baltimore, MD Multifamily
> Program Center, a FY2006 application that was not funded due to an
> administrative error relative to the project size limit. Second, HUD
> Headquarters will use the residual funds to restore units to projects
> that were reduced by HUD Multifamily Program Center or Multifamily Hub
> as a result of the instructions for using their residual funds. Third,
> HUD Headquarters will use these funds for selecting additional
> applications based on HUD Program Centers' rankings, beginning with
> the highest rated application nationwide in Category A. The residual
> funds will be used for the selection of additional applications based
> on a national rank order with no more than one application selected
> per HUD Office from the national residual amount unless there are
> insufficient approvable applications in other HUD Offices. For Section
> 202, all non-metropolitan applications will be funded first to meet
> the statutory requirement pertaining to Section 202 funding in
> non-metropolitan areas. For Section 811, all Category A applications
> will be funded first to meet the statutory requirement that selection
> shall be based on the extent to which the Sponsor has site control.
> Headquarters may skip over a higher rated application in order to use
> as much of the remaining funds as possible.

E. [Submission to Headquarters]{.underline}. See Attachment 3 for a
description of the selection materials that must be submitted to the
Multifamily Hub in accordance with the processing schedules in
Attachments 1 and 2.

ATTACHMENT 9

#### SECTION 202 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) GOALS -- FY 2007

[OFFICES]{.underline} [CAPITAL ADVANCE]{.underline} [UNITS]{.underline}

+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| **BOSTON HUB**                     | \$4,180,006             | 31   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Boston                             | \$1,842,240             | 13   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Hartford                           | \$1,179,553             | 8    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Manchester                         | \$556,368               | 5    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Providence                         | \$601,845               | 4    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| **NEW YORK HUB**                   | \$9,269,884             | 65   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| New York City                      | \$9,269,884             | 65   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| **BUFFALO**                        | \$2,300,292             | 19   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Buffalo                            | \$2,300,292             | 19   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| **PHILADELPHIA HUB**               | \$6,670,269             | 50   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Charleston                         | \$532,501               | 5    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Newark                             | \$3,756,308             | 26   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Pittsburgh                         | \$725,952               | 6    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Philadelphia                       | \$1,655,508             | 12   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| **BALTIMORE HUB**                  | \$2,875,185             | 27   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Baltimore                          | \$1,731,800             | 16   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Richmond                           | \$1,143,385             | 11   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Washington                         |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| **GREENSBORO HUB**                 | \$2,699,619             | 23   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Columbia                           | \$1,091,842             | 15   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Greensboro                         | \$1,607,777             | 9    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| **ATLANTA HUB**                    | \$3,542,729             | 35   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Atlanta                            | \$1,556,394             | 16   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| San Juan                           | \$382,287               | 3    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Louisville                         | \$518,587               | 5    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Knoxville                          | \$485,839               | 5    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Nashville                          | \$599,622               | 6    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| **JACKSONVILLE HUB**               | \$4,035,396             | 42   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Jacksonville                       | \$2,554,002             | 26   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Birmingham                         | \$912,140               | 10   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Jackson                            | \$569,254               | 6    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| **CHICAGO**                        | \$4,162,125             | 32   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Chicago                            | \$3,549,212             | 26   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Indianapolis                       | \$612,913               | 6    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| **COLUMBUS HUB**                   | \$1,924,148             | 18   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Cincinnati                         | \$553,869               | 5    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Cleveland                          | \$928,983               | 8    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Columbus                           | \$441,296               | 4    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| **DETROIT HUB**                    | \$1,910,652             | 18   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Detroit                            | \$1,357,800             | 11   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Grand Rapids                       | \$552,852               | 6    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| **MINNEAPOLIS HUB**                | \$1,242,826             | 10   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Milwaukee                          | \$677,231               | 6    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Minneapolis                        | \$565,595               | 5    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| **FT. WORTH HUB**                  | \$5,183,960             | 57   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Ft. Worth                          | \$1,677,735             | 18   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Houston                            | \$1,099,392             | 12   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Little Rock                        | \$284,353               | 3    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| New Orleans                        | \$1,193,685             | 13   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| San Antonio                        | \$928,795               | 10   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| **KANSAS CITY HUB**                | \$2,721,779             | 27   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Des Moines                         | \$458,390               | 5    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Kansas City                        | \$563,011               | 5    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Oklahoma City                      | \$606,669               | 7    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| St. Louis                          | \$580,421               | 5    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Omaha                              | \$513,287               | 5    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| **DENVER HUB**                     | \$956,503               | 9    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Denver                             | \$956,503               | 9    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| **SAN FRANCISCO HUB**              | \$10,690,924            | 76   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Honolulu (Guam)                    | \$2,406,582             | 12   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Phoenix                            | \$926,273               | 10   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Sacramento                         | \$1,936,314             | 14   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| San Francisco                      | \$5,421,754             | 40   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| **LOS ANGELES HUB**                | \$8,252,561             | 62   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Los Angeles                        | \$8,252,561             | 62   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| **SEATTLE HUB**                    | \$2,716,119             | 19   |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Anchorage                          | \$975,985               | 5    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Portland                           | \$561,982               | 5    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| Seattle                            | \$1,178,152             | 9    |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
|                                    |                         |      |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+
| ## TOTAL                           | \$75,334,975            | 621  |   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------+------+---+

ATTACHMENT 10

#### SECTION 811 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) GOALS -- FY 2007

[OFFICES]{.underline} [CAPITAL ADVANCE]{.underline} [UNITS]{.underline}

  ------------------------------------- ------------------------ --------
  **BOSTON HUB**                        \$1,026,552              8

                                                                 

  Boston                                \$270,189                2

  Hartford                              \$272,844                2

  Manchester                            \$215,083                2

  Providence                            \$268,437                2

                                                                 

  **NEW YORK HUB**                      \$680,781                5

                                                                 

  New York City                         \$680,781                5

                                                                 

  **BUFFALO**                           \$346,070                3

                                                                 

  Buffalo                               \$346,070                3

                                                                 

  **PHILADELPHIA HUB**                  \$1,216,683              10

                                                                 

  Charleston                            \$206,942                2

  Newark                                \$406,894                3

  Pittsburgh                            \$216,386                2

  Philadelphia                          \$386,462                3

                                                                 

  **BALTIMORE HUB**                     \$621,247                6

                                                                 

  Baltimore                             \$322,061                3

  Richmond                              \$299,186                3

  Washington                                                     

                                                                 

  **GREENSBORO HUB**                    \$696,185                6

                                                                 

  Columbia                              \$308,526                3

  Greensboro                            \$387,659                3

                                                                 

  **ATLANTA HUB**                       \$1,198,378              12

                                                                 

  Atlanta                               \$381,639                4

  San Juan                              \$243,048                2

  Louisville                            \$199,018                2

  Knoxville                             \$189,522                2

  Nashville                             \$185,151                2

                                                                 

  **JACKSONVILLE HUB**                  \$826,433                9

                                                                 

  Jacksonville                          \$373,468                4

  Birmingham                            \$185,683                2

  Jackson                               \$267,282                3

                                                                 

  **CHICAGO**                           \$593,579                5

                                                                 

  Chicago                               \$393,758                3

  Indianapolis                          \$199,820                2

                                                                 

  **COLUMBUS HUB**                      \$612,883                6

                                                                 

  Cincinnati                            \$198,966                2

  Cleveland                             \$217,469                2

  Columbus                              \$196,448                2

                                                                 

  **DETROIT HUB**                       \$403,023                4

                                                                 

  Detroit                               \$233,650                2

  Grand Rapids                          \$169,373                2

                                                                 

  **MINNEAPOLIS HUB**                   \$480,191                4

                                                                 

  Milwaukee                             \$235,803                2

  Minneapolis                           \$244,388                2

                                                                 

  **FT. WORTH HUB**                     \$1,215,179              14

                                                                 

  Ft. Worth                             \$336,935                4

  Houston                               \$267,010                3

  Little Rock                           \$171,892                2

  New Orleans                           \$270,313                3

  San Antonio                           \$169,030                2

                                                                 

  **KANSAS CITY HUB**                   \$1,008,794              10

                                                                 

  Des Moines                            \$178,188                2

  Kansas City                           \$214,688                2

  Oklahoma City                         \$183,356                2

  St. Louis                             \$232,547                2

  Omaha                                 \$200,016                2

                                                                 

  **DENVER HUB**                        \$203,936                2

                                                                 

  Denver                                \$203,936                2

                                                                 

  **SAN FRANCISCO HUB**                 \$1,813,633              13

                                                                 

  Honolulu (Guam)                       \$566,676                3

  Phoenix                               \$187,469                2

  Sacramento                            \$398,877                3

  San Francisco                         \$660,611                5

                                                                 

  **LOS ANGELES HUB**                   \$1,024,095              8

                                                                 

  Los Angeles                           \$1,024,095              8

                                                                 

  **SEATTLE HUB**                       \$827,817                6

                                                                 

  Anchorage                             \$377,784                2

  Portland                              \$210,695                2

  Seattle                               \$239,338                2

                                                                 

                                                                 

                                        \$14,795,460             131
  ------------------------------------- ------------------------ --------

ATTACHMENT 11

**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 5(b) to justify its request.

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Project Sponsor:

[Project
Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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 Name:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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 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)]{.underline}

[3(i)(i)]{.underline}

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

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

[3(j)]{.underline}

[3(k)]{.underline} [\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} [\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}
[\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[3(l) (811)]{.underline} [\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}
[\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} [\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[3(m) (811)]{.underline} [\_\_]{.underline}

[4(a)]{.underline} [\_]{.underline}

[4(b)]{.underline}

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

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

[4(c)(iii)]{.underline}

[EXHIBIT NO.]{.underline} [COMPLETE]{.underline}
[INCOMPLETE]{.underline} [MISSING]{.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)(viii)]{.underline}

[4(d)(ix)]{.underline} [\_\_ \_\_]{.underline} [\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}
[\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[5(a) (202)]{.underline}

[5(b) (202)]{.underline}

[5(c) (202)]{.underline}

[5(a) (811)]{.underline}

[5(b)(i) (811)]{.underline}

[5(b)(ii)(A) (811)]{.underline} \_\_\_\_

[5(b)(ii)(B) (811)]{.underline} \_\_\_\_ [\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}
[\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[5(b)(iii) (811)]{.underline}

[5(b)(iv) (811)]{.underline}

[5(c) (811)]{.underline}

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

[5(e) (811)]{.underline}

[5(f) (811)]{.underline}

[5(g)(i) (811)]{.underline}

[5(g)(ii) (811)]{.underline}

[5(g)(iii) (811)]{.underline}

[5(h) (811)]{.underline}

[5(i) (811)]{.underline}

[5(j) (811)]{.underline}

[6(a)]{.underline}

[6(b)(1)]{.underline}

[6(b)(2)]{.underline}

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

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

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

[7(a)]{.underline}

[7(b)]{.underline}

[7(c)]{.underline}

[7(d)]{.underline}

[8(a)]{.underline}

[8(b)]{.underline}

[8(c)]{.underline}

[8(d)]{.underline}

[8(e)]{.underline}

[8(f)]{.underline}

[8(g)]{.underline}

[8(h)]{.underline}

[8(i)]{.underline}

[8(i)(i)]{.underline}

[8(i)(ii)]{.underline}

[8(i)(iii)]{.underline}

[8(i)(iv)]{.underline}

[8(j)]{.underline}

[8(k)]{.underline}

[8(l)]{.underline}

**NOTES:**

1\. **Section 811 Only** - Sponsors must provide **either** evidence of
control of an approvable site (Exhibit 4(d)(i) through (xi) **or**
information on an identified site(s)(Exhibit 4(e). Put N/A in the column
titled, "Complete" for whichever doesn't apply to the application.

2\. For those exhibits or parts of exhibits that apply to one program or
the other, put N/A in the column titled, \"Complete\" for whichever one
doesn't apply.

> 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 parts 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 12

**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 14 (202)
and Attachment 15 (811)). For example, on FHEO\'s Memorandum Format
there is no (a) under Rating Factor 1 because that criterion is rated by
the Project Manager. 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 for 202 and 30
base points for 811. However, on the Project Manager\'s Memorandum
Format, Rating Factor 1 is worth a maximum of 18 points for 202 and 23
points for 811 because the Project Manager does not rate Rating
Criterion 1(b)(i) which is worth 5 points for either 202 or 811 and only
assigns 3 of the 5 points under Rating Criterion 1(b)(2).

3\. **[Applications Submitted by Co-Sponsors]{.underline}**. Each
Co-Sponsor must submit all of the application submission requirements.
In rating a co-sponsored application, the technical discipline will rate
each Co-Sponsor separately and the highest score for the applicable
Rating Criterion will apply.

4\. **[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. If the item is a curable
deficiency, the Project Manager shall telephone the Sponsor and request
the missing information 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.

5\. **[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 whether the
Sponsor\'s request to restrict occupancy has been approved or
disapproved. The memorandum shall be attached to the Project Manager\'s
Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum and include the
following language:

-   **[If Approved]{.underline}**:

> \"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
> (insert applicable category under which the subcategory falls),
> provided the person can benefit from the housing and/or services
> provided.\"

-   **[If Disapproved]{.underline}**:

> "Your request to restrict occupancy to (insert applicable subcategory
> of persons with disabilities) has been disapproved. Therefore, your
> project must serve persons with (insert applicable category(ies) of
> persons with disabilities)."

6\. **[Section 811 Site Control Applications]{.underline}**. An
application with control of a single site will be placed in Category A
for selection purposes **ONLY** if the evidence of site control is
acceptable and the site is approvable by FHEO and Valuation (this
includes the Phase I and Phase II, if necessary, being received
according to the NOFA instructions).

If the site control is **NOT** acceptable for a single site application,
the application may still receive up to 14 points for Site Approvability
(Criterion 3(a)) from Valuation and up to 8 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(c)).

If either VAL or FHEO rejects the site, the application will receive 0
points for Criteria 3(a) and Criterion 3(b). The application will be
placed in Category B for selection purposes and remain in the
competition as long as the Sponsor indicated in Exhibit 4(d)(xi) 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 Criteria 3(a) and 3(b) and to be
placed in Category A for selection purposes.

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

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

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

PROJECT MANAGER \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

A & E \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

VAL \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

EMAS \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

FHEO \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_

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
that 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 Name:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Location:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project No.:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Section 811 Only: Project 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 and any Co-Sponsors have experience in providing housing
or services to the elderly (Section 202) or persons with disabilities
(Section 811).

> Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No\_\_\_\_\_ If No, the application must be rejected.
>
> Note: The application may remain approvable if at least one of the
> Sponsors has the experience and meets all other program requirements
> and the application is otherwise acceptable based on the eligible
> Sponsor(s). The ineligible organization(s) must be removed as a
> Sponsor to the application.

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

Project No.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

Project No.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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.

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

9\. **Section 811 Only:** Did the State/local agency Supportive Services
Certification indicate that the provision of supportive services will
enhance independent living success and promote the dignity of those who
will access the project?

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_ If No, the application must be rejected.

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

Project No.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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, 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.

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

11\. **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.

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

12\. **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 III.C.11 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**: A memorandum to the file indicating whether or not the
approval is granted must be signed by the Supervisory Project Manager
and attached to this Review Sheet.

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

Project No.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

13\. **Section 811 Only:** If the Sponsor of a site control application
for an independent living project 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 24
persons for an independent living project \[not counting the resident
manager's unit\]), ensure that Exhibits 1, 4(a),(b),(c), and (d)(xii)
have been submitted to Headquarters, Office of Housing Assistance and
Grant Administration, room 6142, 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:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**RATING FACTORS**

RATING FACTOR 1 - CAPACITY OF THE APPLICANT AND RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONAL
STAFF (25 POINTS for 202, 30 POINTS for 811)

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. (15 points
> maximum)

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

Project No.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name:\_­­­­\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> **(b)(2)** The scope, extent, and quality of the Sponsor's ties to the
> community at large and to the minority and elderly (202) disability
> (811) communities in particular. (5 points maximum)
>
> The scope, extent, and quality of the Sponsor's ties to the community
> at large and to the elderly (202) or disability (811) community in
> particular. (3 points)

**NOTE:** FHEO will rate the scope, extent and quality of the Sponsor's
ties to the minority community. (2 points)

Recommended rating:

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**(c)** A Section 202 or Section 811 fund reservation the Sponsor
received in FY 2002 or later has been extended beyond 24 months (-3
points), 36 months (-4 points) or 48 months (-5 points) (except if the
delay was beyond the Sponsor's control).

Recommended rating:

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> **(d)** The amount of amendment money required in connection with a
> fund reservation the Sponsor received under either the Section 202
> Program for Supportive Housing for the Elderly or the Section 811
> Program for Persons with Disabilities in FY 2002 or later was 25% or
> less of the original capital advance amount approved by HUD (-3 pts);
> between 26% and 50% (-4 pts);
>
> and over 50% (-5 pts).

Recommended rating:

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

Project No.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> **(e) Section 811 Only:** The Sponsor has experience in developing
> integrated housing and/or the proposed project will be an integrated
> housing model (condominium units scattered within one or more
> buildings or non-contiguous independent living units on scattered
> sites). (5 points if Sponsor has both experience in developing
> integrated housing and the project will be integrated housing, 4
> points if the project will be integrated housing but the Sponsor has
> no experience in developing integrated housing, 2 points if Sponsor
> has experience in developing integrated housing but the project will
> not be integrated housing and 0 points if Sponsor has no experience in
> developing integrated housing and the proposed project will not be
> integrated housing)

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**RATING FACTOR 2 - NEED/EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM (13 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 a connection has been established between the
> project and the community's Consolidated Plan, Analysis of Impediments
> to Fair Housing Choice (AI) or other planning document that analyzes
> fair housing issues and is prepared by a local planning or similar
> organization. This will be 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:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

Project No.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**RATING FACTOR 3 - SOUNDNESS OF APPROACH (45 POINTS FOR 202, 40 POINTS
FOR 811)**

In determining the quality and effectiveness of the proposal, the extent
to which the Sponsor involved the target population (including
minorities) in the development of the application and will involve them
in the development and operation of the project, the extent to
incorporate the provisions of Section 3 through the Sponsor's plans to
expand economic opportunities for low- and very low-income, and the
extent to which the Section 811 Sponsor coordinated its application with
other organizations such as centers for independent living as well as
the relationship between the project, the community\'s needs and
purposes of the program funding, consider:

**(f) Section 811 Only:** The Sponsor\'s board is comprised of persons
with disabilities. (0 or 4 points)

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**(g) Section 811 Only:** The Sponsor\'s involvement of persons with
disabilities (including minority persons with disabilities), in the
development of the application, and its intent to involve persons with
disabilities (including minority persons with disabilities in the
development and operation of the project. (3 points maximum)

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

Project No.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**(g) Section 202 Only:** The extent to which the proposed supportive
services meet the identified needs of the (anticipated) residents and
will be provided on a consistent, long-term basis. (3 points maximum)

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> **(h) Section 811 Only:** The extent to which the Sponsor coordinated
> its application with other organizations (including local independent
> living centers) that will not be directly participating in the
> project, but with which the Sponsor shares common goals and objectives
> and are working toward meeting the objectives in a holistic and
> comprehensive manner. (2 points maximum)

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> **(i) Section 811 Only:** The extent to which the Sponsor consulted
> with Continuum Care organizations in the community in which the
> proposed project will be located and have developed ways in which the
> proposed project will assist persons with disabilities who have been
> experiencing chronic homelessness become more productive members of
> society. (1 point maximum)

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

Project No.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**(i) Section 202 Only:** The Sponsor\'s involvement of elderly persons,
particularly minority elderly persons in the development of the
application, and its intent to involve elderly persons, particularly
minority elderly persons in the development and operation of the
project. (2 points maximum)

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**811**

> **(j)** The extent to which the jurisdiction in which the project will
> be located has undertaken
>
> **202** successful efforts to remove regulatory barriers to affordable
> housing. (2 points maximum **(j)** based on the review of Exhibit 8(k)
> for 202 and 8(l) for 811, Form HUD-27300,
>
> Questionnaire for HUD's Initiative on Removal of Regulatory Barriers
> to Affordable Housing)

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

Project No.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**RATING FACTOR 4 - LEVERAGING RESOURCES (5 POINTS)**

In determining the ability of the Sponsor to secure other funding
sources and community resources that can be combined with HUD\'s program
resources to achieve program purposes, consider (5 points maximum):

> **(a)** The extent to which the Sponsor has secured general support
> and/or written evidence of firm commitments towards the development
> and operation of the proposed project (including financial assistance,
> donation of land, provision of services, etc.) from other funding
> sources (e.g., private local community and government sources) where
> the dollar value totals 5% or less of the capital advance amount as
> determined by HUD. (0 point)
>
> **(b)** The extent to which the Sponsor has secured general support
> and/or written evidence of firm commitments towards the development
> and operation of the proposed project (including financial assistance,
> donation of land, provision of services, etc.) from other funding
> sources (e.g., private local community and government sources) where
> the dollar value totals between 6% and 10% of the capital advance
> amount as determined by HUD. (1 point)
>
> **(c)** The extent to which the Sponsor has secured general support
> and/or written evidence of firm commitments towards the development
> and operation of the proposed project (including financial assistance,
> donation of land, provision of services, etc.) from other funding
> sources (e.g., private local community and government sources) where
> the dollar value totals between 11% and 15% of the capital advance
> amount as determined by HUD. (2 points)
>
> **(d)** The extent to which the Sponsor has secured general support
> and/or written evidence of firm commitments towards the development
> and operation of the proposed project (including financial assistance,
> donation of land, provision of services, etc.) from other funding
> sources (e.g., private local community and government sources) where
> the dollar value totals between 16% and 20% of the capital advance
> amount as determined by HUD. (3 points)
>
> **(e)** The extent to which the Sponsor has secured general support
> and/or written evidence of firm commitments towards the development
> and operation of the proposed project (including financial assistance,
> donation of land, provision of services, etc.) from other funding
> sources (e.g., private local community and government sources) where
> the dollar value totals between 21% and 25% of the capital advance
> amount as determined by HUD. (4 points)
>
> **(f)** The extent to which the Sponsor has secured general support
> and/or written evidence of firm commitments towards the development
> and operation of the proposed project (including financial assistance,
> donation of land, provision of services, etc.) from other funding
> sources (e.g., private local community and government sources) where
> the dollar value totals over 25% of the capital advance amount as
> determined by HUD. (5 points)

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**RATING FACTOR 5 -- ACHIEVING RESULTS AND PROGRAM EVALUATION (12 pts)**

In determining whether the Sponsor has the ability to get the proposed
project to initial closing within 18 months, the extent to which the
project will implement practical solutions that will result in assisting
residents in achieving independent living, educational opportunities,
economic empowerment (811 only), and improved living environments and
how the long-term viability of the project will be sustained over the 40
year capital advance period, consider:

> **(a)** The extent to which the Sponsor's project development timeline
> is indicative of the Sponsor's full understanding of the development
> process and will, therefore, result in the timely development of the
> project. (5 points)

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> (Also use the Logic Model (Form HUD-96010) in Exhibit 8(j) for 202 or
> 8(i) for 811 in rating this criterion.)

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**(b)** The extent to which the Sponsor's past performance evidences
that the proposed project will result in the timely development of the
project. (2 points maximum)

Recommended rating:

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

Project No.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**(c)** The extent to which the project will implement practical
solutions that will result in assisting residents in achieving
independent living, economic empowerment (811 only), educational
opportunities and improved living environments (e.g., activities that
will improve computer access, literacy and employment opportunities (811
only)). (2 points maximum)

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> **(d)** The extent to which the Sponsor demonstrated that the project
> will remain viable as housing with the availability of supportive
> services for the target population for the 40-year capital advance
> period. (3 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 Name:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Location:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project No.:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Section 811 Only: Project 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**

##### RATING FACTOR 3 - SOUNDNESS OF APPROACH 

**(45 POINTS FOR 202, 40 POINTS FOR 811)**

In determining the quality and effectiveness of the proposal, the extent
to which the Sponsor involved the target population (including
minorities) in the development of the application and will involve them
in the development and operation of the project, the extent to
incorporate the provisions of Section 3 through the Sponsor's plans to
expand economic opportunities for low- and very low-income, and the
extent to which the Section 811 Sponsor coordinated its application with
other organizations such as centers for independent living as well as
the relationship between the project, the community\'s needs and
purposes of the program funding, consider:

**(d)** **Section 202 Only:** The extent to which the proposed design
will meet the special physical needs of elderly persons (2 points
maximum)

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Technical Processing - A&E) - continued

Project No. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**(d) Section 811 Only:** The extent to which the proposed design of the
project (exterior and interior) and its placement in the neighborhood
will meet the individual needs of the residents and will facilitate
their integration into the surrounding community and promote their
ability to live as independently as possible. (2 points maximum)

Recommended rating:

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**(e)** **Section 202 Only:** 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. (2 points
maximum)

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**(f)** **Section 202 Only:** 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. (2 points maximum)

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Technical Processing - A&E) - continued

Project No. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**202**

> **(h)** The proposed design incorporates visitability standards
>
> **811** and universal design in the construction or
>
> **(e)** rehabilitation of the project. (1 point maximum)

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**(k)** The extent to which the design and operation of the proposed
housing will promote energy efficiency. (1 point maximum)

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

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Signature of Reviewer Date

SECTION 202/811

TECHNICAL PROCESSING REVIEW AND FINDINGS MEMORANDUM

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

MEMORANDUM FOR: Supervisory Project Manager

FROM: , Appraiser

SUBJECT: Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum

Sponsor Name:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Sponsor Name:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Location:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project No:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Section 811 Only: Project 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) 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 Criterion 3(a) below and remain in Category A for
selection purposes. Otherwise, the application will be placed in
Category B for selection purposes and remain in the competition as long
as the Sponsor indicated in Exhibit 4(d)(xi) 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.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project
Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

2\. **For Section 202 applications** and **Section 811 applications with
site control only:** 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), or is the site
located in the FEMA identified 100-year floodplain, yet the community
has been suspended or does not participate in the Flood Insurance
Program?

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) below and be placed in
Category B for selection purposes provided the Sponsor indicated a
willingness to locate an alternate site.

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

3\. **For Section 202 applications** and **Section 811 applications with
site control only:** the proposed site is located inside the 100-year
floodplain (or, if a critical action, the 500-year floodplain) and/or,
if a new construction project, the proposed site is located in a
wetland.

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

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**NOTE**: All Section 811 proposals are considered to be critical
actions. Contact the Sponsor to determine if a Conditional/ Final Letter
of Map Amendment/Revision has been issued by FEMA that would remove the
site from the 100-year or 500-year floodplain, as appropriate. If not,
or in the case of wetlands, six steps of the 8-step process identified
in 24 CFR Part 55 **must** be completed prior to the convening of the
Rating/ Selection Panel. Also, HUD must pay for the publication of the
early public notice, as required by step 2.:

(Technical Processing - Valuation) - continued

Project No.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project
Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

4\. For **Section 202 applications** and **Section 811 applications with
site control only,** was there either a statement submitted that the
project did not involve a pre-1978 structure on the site or that most
recently consisted of solely four or fewer units of single family
housing including appurtenant structures, or was a comprehensive
building asbestos survey submitted that was a **thorough inspection**
that identified the location and condition of asbestos **throughout**
any structures? In those cases where suspect asbestos was found as part
of this asbestos report, it must either have been assumed to be asbestos
or would have required confirmatory testing.

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) below and be placed in
Category B for selection purposes provided the Sponsor indicated a
willingness to locate an alternate site.

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**NOTE:** A general "asbestos screen" that does not appear to be a
thorough inspection is not acceptable. If the asbestos survey indicates
the presence of asbestos or the presence of asbestos is assumed, and if
the application is approved, you must condition the approval on an
appropriate mix of asbestos abatement for friable asbestos and asbestos
directly affected by rehabilitation or demolition or an Operations and
Maintenance Plan for other asbestos. Asbestos abatement is an allowable
project cost up to the limits imposed by the Capital Advance. The term
"comprehensive building asbestos survey" is a more appropriate term than
the term asbestos report referred to in last year's SUPERNOFA.

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

5.  **For Section 202 applications** and **Section 811 applications with
    site control only.** Was a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
    (ESA) submitted for the entire site that would be covered by the
    capital advance, with an Update, as appropriate, and prepared in
    conformance with ASTM Standard E 1527-05, as amended? A Phase I ESA
    that is not properly updated as specified at Section 4.6 of ASTM E
    1527-05 when completed earlier than older than 180 days before
    application date, does not use the format specified at Appendix X4
    of ASTM Standard E 1527-05, or that is prepared in accordance with
    an older version of ASTM E 1527 will result in technical rejection
    of the application.

> This is not meant to be an exhaustive search. It should be relatively
> obvious if the Phase I ESA does not meet the intent of ASTM E 1527
> based on the required site visit, or if the Phase I says that it is in
> conformance with ASTM E 1527-00 rather than ASTM E 1527-05.

(Technical Processing -- Valuation) - continued

Project No.

[Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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) below and be placed in
Category B for selection purposes provided the Sponsor indicated a
willingness to locate an alternate site.

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

6\. If the answer to question #5 is Yes, based on the Phase I ESA (and
its update, as applicable) and any other evidence deemed appropriate, is
further study recommended?

Yes\_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_ N/A \_\_\_\_\_

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

7\. If the answer to question #6 is Yes, was a Phase II ESA prepared and
received by the appropriate date?

**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) below and be placed in
Category B for selection purposes provided the Sponsor indicated a
willingness to locate an alternate site.

Yes\_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_ N/A \_\_\_\_\_

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Technical Processing -- Valuation) -- continued

Project No.

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

8\. If the answer to question #7 is Yes, did the Phase II ESA and/or any
other evidence deemed appropriate, reveal: onsite contamination; and/or
nearby off-site known or suspected contamination that might be
anticipated to migrate on-site?

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_ N/A \_\_\_\_\_

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

9\. If the answer to question #8 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 received by the appropriate date?

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) below and be placed in
Category B for selection purposes provided the Sponsor indicated a
willingness to locate an alternate site.

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

10\. If the answer to question #9 is yes: (a) other than if the site
meets the **special groundwater exception below**, will the plan for
clean-up eliminate contamination to the extent necessary to meet non
site-specific Federal, State or local health standards; (b) can all
active or passive remediation that is proposed, be completed prior to
initial closing; (c) does the plan not include or allow for engineering
controls such as vertical barrier walls or capping, (d) will any
monitoring or testing wells put in place in relation to known or
suspected contamination be able to be closed out prior to initial
closing?

Yes to all\_\_\_\_\_ No to any\_\_\_\_\_ N/A \_\_\_\_\_

**Section 202:** If No to any, the application must be rejected
**unless** it meets the requirements of the special groundwater
exception note below.

(Technical Processing -- Valuation) - continued

Project No.

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Section 811:** If no, the site must be rejected and the application
shall receive 0 points for Criterion 3(a) below and placed in Category B
for selection purposes provided the Sponsor indicated a willingness to
locate an alternate site **unless** it meets the requirements of the
special groundwater exception note below.

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Special Groundwater Exception**

The proposed project site may be acceptable if **all** of the following
three criteria are met (Check all that apply):

> a\. All known or suspected contamination on the proposed site is
> located, or will be located after remediation, solely within
> groundwater that is or would be located at least 25 feet below the
> surface. \_\_\_\_\_
>
> b\. There is an outright prohibition on the use of groundwater for any
> purposes in the vicinity of the proposed site. \_\_\_\_\_
>
> c\. No active water supply wells will be in existence at the proposed
> site at initial closing. \_\_\_\_\_

Site meets the Special Groundwater Exception:

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_

**NOTE:** If the project is environmentally acceptable you must
condition all remediation to be completed and all monitoring or testing
wells be removed prior to initial closing.

11\. **For Section 202 applications** and **Section 811 applications
with site control only**: the Environmental Assessment has been
completed as set forth in the attached Form HUD-4128 with Sample Field
Notes Checklist, including but not limited to:

> a\. The environmental finding that the project has been deemed
> acceptable.

b\. Signatures of the Appraiser and Supervisory Project
Manager/Operations Director and Hub Director/Program Center Director.

(Technical Processing -- Valuation) -- continued

Project No.

[Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

> c\. Floodplain/wetland Executive Orders compliance through step 6 of
> the 8-step process for projects in floodplains/wetlands.
>
> d\. Historic preservation compliance including: any required
> consultation with the SHPO or, THPO on tribal lands; submission to and
> taken into account any comments received from any Indian Tribes on
> non-tribal lands, or Native Hawaiian Organization when your office
> possesses any knowledge that a site might have a religious or cultural
> significance to them.

Yes No N/A (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) below and be placed in
Category B for selection purposes provided the Sponsor indicated a
willingness to locate an alternate site.

Comments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**NOTES**:

-   As stated in the SuperNOFA, you are authorized to contact the
    applicant in order to obtain information that would help you
    complete the environmental assessment.

-   If you have not received an "opinion" from the SHPO/THPO in response
    to the request made by the applicant, you **must** contact the
    SHPO/THPO and allow 30 days for such response.

-   If the project is deemed environmentally acceptable but with special
    conditions, and if the application is approved, you must condition
    the approval on such conditions.

(Technical Processing -- Valuation) -- continued

Project No.

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

12\. 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. (See Rating Factor 3(b) below for rating associated with
permissive zoning)

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) below and be placed in
Category B for selection purposes provided the Sponsor indicated a
willingness to locate an alternate site.

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

13\. **Section 202 Only:** If proposed, will the congregate dining
facility be financially viable?

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_ N/A \_\_\_\_\_

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**RATING FACTORS**

**RATING FACTOR 2 -- EVIDENCE OF NEED/EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM (13
Points)**

> **(a) [Section 811 Projects Only]{.underline}**: If a determination
> has been made that there is sufficient sustainable long-term demand
> for additional supportive housing for persons with disabilities in the
> area to be served, the project is to be awarded 10 points. If not, the
> project is to be awarded 0 points. Awarding of points between 0 and 10
> points is not permitted.

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Technical Processing -- Valuation) -- continued

Project No.

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##### RATING FACTOR 3 - SOUNDNESS OF APPROACH 

**(45 POINTS FOR 202, 40 POINTS FOR 811)**

In determining the quality and effectiveness of the proposal, the extent
to which the Sponsor involved the target population (including
minorities) in the development of the application and will involve them
in the development and operation of the project, the extent to
incorporate the provisions of Section 3 through the Sponsor's plans to
expand economic opportunities for low- and very low-income, and the
extent to which the Section 811 Sponsor coordinated its application with
other organizations such as centers for independent living as well as
the relationship between the project, the community\'s needs and
purposes of the program funding, consider:

**(a) Site approvability** - 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. (20 points maximum for Section 202, 14
points maximum for Section 811)

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**(b) Permissive Zoning --** One or more of the proposed sites is not
permissively zoned for the intended use. (-1 point)

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Technical Processing -- Valuation) -- continued

Project No.

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

In summary, the subject Section 202 application is:

\_\_\_\_\_ Acceptable \_\_\_\_\_ Not Acceptable

the subject Section 811 site is:

\_\_\_\_\_ Acceptable \_\_\_\_\_ Not Acceptable

If \"Not Acceptable\", the Section 811 application shall be placed in
Category B for selection purposes as long as the Sponsor indicated its
willingness to seek an alternate site (Exhibit 4(d)(x)); otherwise, the
application will be rejected.

Explain:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Signature of Appraiser) Date

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

**NOTE:** EXHIBITS 1, 4(a), 4(c), 4(d) and 5 WERE REVIEWED TO DETERMINE
THE ABOVE FINDINGS.

**SECTION 202 ONLY**

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 Name:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Location:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project No.:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Section 811 Only: Project Type/# of Sites: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\# of Units per Site: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

In determining the need for additional supportive housing for the
elderly, EMAS should take into consideration the Sponsor's evidence of
need; current and anticipated market conditions in assisted housing;
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 in the market area; the current occupancy and waiting
lists in such facilities; and the extent of the pipeline of assisted
housing 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 on existing Federally-assisted housing.

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_

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

(Technical Processing - EMAS) - continued

Project No. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

2\. The proposed location is acceptable and desirable for the target
population 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**

**RATING FACTOR 2 - NEED/EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM (13 POINTS)**

**[Section 202 Projects Only]{.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 one-person renter
households age 75 and older with housing conditions problems, as of the
2000 Census minus the number of project-based subsidized rental housing
units (HUD, RHS, or LIHTC) that are affordable to very low-income
elderly provided in the area since 1999. Units to be occupied by
resident managers are not to be counted. (10 points maximum)

10 points: The project has an unmet needs ratio of 15 percent or less.

5 points: The project has an unmet needs ratio of greater than 15
percent.

Project/Needs Ratio: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Technical Processing - EMAS) - continued

Project No. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Based on the EMAS review, the application is:

\_\_\_\_\_ Acceptable \_\_\_\_\_ Not Acceptable

> Explain:
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Signature of Economist) Date

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

> Where you find there is **not** sufficient sustainable demand for
> additional units, a memorandum of the review must be prepared with the
> data and findings justifying the conclusion. A copy of the memorandum
> must be attached to this Technical Processing Review and Findings
> Memorandum, and a second copy sent to Headquarters:
>
> Attention: Kevin P. Kane,
>
> Economic and Market Analysis Division, REE,
>
> Office of Policy Development and Research,
>
> Room 8224.

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 Name:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Location:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project No.:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Section 811 Only: Project 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(c) under
\"Rating Factors\" below.

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Technical Processing - FHEO) - continued

Project No. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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 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**

**RATING FACTOR 1 - CAPACITY OF THE APPLICANT AND RELEVANT
ORGANIZATIONAL STAFF (25 POINTS FOR 202, 30 POINTS FOR 811)**

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

> **(b)(1)** The scope, extent and quality of the Sponsor\'s experience
> in providing housing or related services to minority persons or
> minority families. (5 points maximum)

**NOTE:** If the Sponsor has no previous housing experience, all
relevant supportive services experience should be examined.

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> **(b)(2)** The scope, extent and quality of the Sponsor's ties to the
> community at large and to the minority and elderly (202) disability
> (811) communities in particular.
>
> (5 points maximum)

The scope, extent, and quality of the Sponsor's ties to the minority
community. (2 points)

**NOTE:** The Project Manager will rate the scope, extent and quality of
the Sponsor's ties to the community at large and to the elderly (202) or
disability (811) community in particular.

> (3 points)

Recommended rating:

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**RATING FACTOR 2 - NEED/EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM (13 points)**

> **(b)** 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.

(Technical Processing - FHEO) - continued

Project No. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

Manager.

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**RATING FACTOR 3 - SOUNDNESS OF APPROACH**

**(45 POINTS FOR 202, 40 POINTS FOR 811)**

In determining the quality and effectiveness of the proposal, the extent
to which the Sponsor involved the target population (including
minorities) in the development of the application and will involve them
in the development and operation of the project, the extent to
incorporate the provisions of Section 3 through the Sponsor's plans to
expand economic opportunities for low- and very low-income, and the
extent to which the Section 811 Sponsor coordinated its application with
other organizations such as centers for independent living as well as
the relationship between the project, the community\'s needs and
purposes of the program funding, consider:

> \(c\) 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** 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). (8 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).

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Technical Processing - FHEO) - continued

Project No. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**202** Did the Sponsor involve minority elderly (202) or

> **(i)** minority persons with disabilities (811) in the
>
> **811** development of the application?
>
> **(g)**

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:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> **Section 811 and Section 202.** The extent to which you have
> described your plans for expanding economic opportunities for low and
> very low-income persons (provisions of Section 3). NOTE: To receive up
> to 2 points, the applicant must have adequately addressed the
> following in Exhibit 3(m) of the application. (1 point if the
> applicant provide opportunities to train and employ low and very
> low-income residents of the project area. And/or 1 point if the
> applicant award substantial contracts to persons residing in the
> project area.

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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 \_\_\_\_\_

(Technical Processing - FHEO) - continued

Project No. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

3\. For projects with relocation indicated, is the information submitted
in Exhibit 7 acceptable?

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_ N/A \_\_\_\_\_

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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), 7
and 8 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 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 entity with a 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.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project
Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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 Exhibit 4(d) of the Section 202 or Section 811 program
section of the SuperNOFA.)

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
will be placed in Category B for selection purposes.

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Technical Processing - Counsel) - continued

Project No.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

6\. Based on a review of a current Title policy or other acceptable
evidence, the site control document contains restrictive covenants or
reverter clauses that are unacceptable to HUD. (See Exhibit 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 and the application
will be placed in Category B for selection purposes.

**NOTE**: A current Title policy should be one that runs to the present
Owner who will provide the option agreement or contract of sale and who
would presumably have obtained a Title policy when it acquired the site.
The Field Counsel is responsible for determining what is a reasonable
period of time based on a review of the information in the Title policy.
If there is reason to question the Title policy, Field Counsel should
request that the Multifamily Housing Project Manager ask for a Title
Report supplementing the policy in a deficiency letter to the Sponsor.

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.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project
Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\(b\) 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,
> Question 5 for Section 811 only and Question 6 for Section 202 and
> Section 811, 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 or the site control
> document contains unacceptable restrictions, the application will be
> placed in Category B for selection purposes. (Questions 5 and 6)

RECOMMENDATION: \_\_\_\_\_ The subject Application is acceptable.

\_\_\_\_\_ The subject Application must be rejected

for the following reason(s):

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Signature of Field Office Counsel) Date

**NOTE:** EXHIBITS 1, 2, 4(d), and 8(f) 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: Project Type/# of Sites: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\# of Units per Site: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

The subject application has been reviewed by CPD with regard to:

-   The acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform
    Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
    1970, as amended

-   Verification that the Certification of Consistency with the
    Consolidated Plan is included and properly executed

-   If applicable and requested, an evaluation to determine the site's
    location in a RC/EZ/EC, whether or not the project is consistent
    with the RC/EZ/EC strategic plan and serves RC/EZ/EC residents, and
    if the Certification of Consistency with the RC/EZ/EC Strategic Plan
    is included and properly executed.

The Regional Relocation Specialist is to complete Items 1-4 and Items
5(a), 5(b), 6(a) and 6(b). The CPD Reviewer will complete Items 5(c) and
6(c).

# 

# Site Acquisition Section 

Question 1 is applicable only to projects that require the acquisition
of a site. If it appears that the applicant already owns the site for
the proposed project, the reviewer should skip question 1.

\_\_\_\_\_\_ Site control not established/not required by program.

**Review to be performed upon approval.**

\_\_\_\_\_\_ Applicant owns site. **Skip question 1.**

\_\_\_\_\_\_ Acquisition requires compliance. **Complete question 1.**

(Technical Processing - CPD) continued

Project No. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

1\. Real Property acquisition / site control (Exhibit 4).

If applicant has site control, did applicant/buyer

provide seller with required voluntary, arm's length

transaction information?

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_ NA \_\_\_\_\_

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

2.(a) Sponsor has completed the information required by Exhibit 7, on
project occupancy, relocation costs, and previous site-occupant moves.

Yes \_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_ N/A \_\_\_\_ (811 site identified)

\(b\) Sponsor has identified all persons (families, individuals,

businesses and nonprofit organizations) by race/minority group, and

status as owners or tenants occupying the property on the date of

submission of the application (or initial site control, if later).

Yes\_\_\_\_\_ No\_\_\_\_ N/A\_\_\_\_ (811 site identified)

Comments:
[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Persons occupying the property include:

No. not to be No. to be

Displaced Displaced

Households (families

and individuals) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Business and Nonprofit

Organizations \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Farms \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Totals \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

3.(a) Estimated costs for relocation and real property

acquisition, if applicable, are reasonable.

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Technical Processing - CPD) continued

Project No. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\(b\) 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:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

[\_\_ \_]{.underline}

\(d\) All persons that have moved from the site within the

the past 12 months and the reason for such move have been

identified.

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

4\. Organization to administer relocation has been identified.

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

5.(a) Certification of Consistency with the Consolidated

Plan (form HUD-2991) has been provided.

Yes \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_\_

\(b\) Name of the official who signed the Certification of

Consistency with the Consolidated Plan (form HUD-2991):

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Technical Processing - CPD) continued

Project No. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\(c\) **TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL CPD REVIEWER.** The person named

in 5(b) above is the authorized certifying official.

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

6\. **BONUS POINTS (2 POINTS)**

\(a\) Certification of Consistency with RC/EZ/EC Strategic

Plan (form HUD-2990) has been provided.

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_

\(b\) Name of the official who signed the Certification of

Consistency with the RC/EZ/EC Strategic Plan (form

HUD-2990):

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\(c\) **TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL CPD REVIEWER.** The person named

in 6(b) above is the authorized certifying official.

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_

**If yes**, then the application will receive **two (2) bonus**

> **bonus points**.

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**NOTE:** EXHIBITS 1, 4, 7, and 8(e), and 8(h) WERE REVIEWED TO
DETERMINE THE ABOVE FINDINGS.

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 Regional Relocation Date**

**Specialist**

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**(Signature of CPD Reviewer) Date**

ATTACHMENT 13

SECTION 202 STANDARD RATING CRITERIA FORM

(FORM HUD-9879-CA)

ATTACHMENT 14

SECTION 811 STANDARD RATING CRITERIA FORM

(FORM HUD-9883-CA)

ATTACHMENT 15

[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.

Nationwide, HUD has 88.3 million in capital advance funds available
which will facilitate the development of 790 housing units for persons
with disabilities.

On March 13, 2007, 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
Discretionary Programs. A copy is enclosed for your information.
Applications for funding must be submitted electronically through
[www.grants.gov/Apply](http://www.grants.gov/Apply), unless a waiver to
submit a paper application is granted.

If a waiver is approved to submit a paper application, the Sponsor must
mail their application in sufficient time to ensure that the application
is received in the appropriate local HUD Office no later than the close
of business on the deadline date for the local HUD Office. Hand
delivered applications also must be delivered to the local HUD Office by
the local HUD Office's close of business on the application deadline
date.

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, 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 copies 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 addressing the housing needs of people with
disabilities. 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. There is also space for the reviewer to indicate whether or
not the necessary supportive services will be provided on a consistent,
long-term basis as well as whether the provision of supportive services
will enhance the independent living success and promote the dignity of
those who will access the proposed project.

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
other criteria requirements which means that if the application does not
include them the Sponsor will be given the opportunity to provide the
missing information by ([insert deadline for submitting missing
information]{.underline}). In the event the information is not submitted
by the deadline date, the application will be 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 individual needs of persons with disabilities the housing is
> expected to serve;

2.  the provision of supportive services will **not** enhance the
    independent living success or promote the dignity of those who will
    access the proposed project;

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

4.  the proposed housing is **inconsistent** with State or local plans
    and policies addressing the housing needs of people with
    disabilities; (if the agency will be a major funding or referral
    source for or license the proposed project).

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 5 of the Section 811 Application) to facilitate completion
of the Supportive Services Certification (Exhibit 8(i) 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**

Project Name: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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.

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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.**

**Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

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.

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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.

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

**(State/Local Agency - cont\'d)**

**Project No. [\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}**

**Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

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.

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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)?

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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?

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

**(State/Local Agency - cont\'d)**

**Project No.**

**Project Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

> 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?

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

> 13\. Will the Sponsor's Supportive Services Plan enhance independent
> living success and promote the dignity of those who will access the
> proposed project.

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

RECOMMENDATION: Application is

\[ \] Acceptable

\[ \] Unacceptable

Explain:

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Print Name of Reviewer:

Signature: Date:

Name of Agency:

Address:

Telephone Number: