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

# H O U S I N G

**Special Attention of: Notice** H 2001-11 (HUD)

Multifamily Hub Directors;

Program Center Supervisors; **Issued:** 7/02/2001

Supervisory Project Managers **Expires:** 7/31/2002

**Cross References:**

> Handbook 4571.2 (811)
>
> Handbook 457l.3 REV-1 (202)

**Subject:** Fiscal Year 2001 Policy for Capital Advance Authority
Assignments, Instructions and Program Requirements for the Section 202
and Section 811 Capital Advance Programs, Application Processing and
Selection Instructions, and Processing Schedule.

**1. [PURPOSE]{.underline}. This Notice transmits for Fiscal Year
2001:**

A. Changes to Application/Selection Process

B. Application Processing Schedule

C. Allocations for Section 202 (ATT.1)

D. Allocations for Section 811 (ATT.2)

E. Section 811 Workshop Instructions (ATT.3)

F. Section 202 Funding Notification (ATT.4)

G. Section 811 Funding Notification (ATT.5)

H. Applications Processing and Selections Policy (ATT.6)

I. Congressional Notification Memorandum Formats (ATT.7)

J. Section 202 Minority Business Enterprise Goals (ATT.8)

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

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

M. Technical Review Sheets (ATT.11)

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

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

P. Draft Letter to Appropriate State or Local Agency with

Enclosures (ATT.14)

Q.  List of Statewide Independent Living Councils and Local

Centers for Independent Living (ATT.15)

R. Guidance on the Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO)

Review of FHEO-Related Provisions of Section 202 and

Section 811 Applications (ATT.16)

This Notice should be used in conjunction with the Final Rule (Part
891), the Super Notice of Funding Availability (SuperNOFA) published in
the [Federal Register]{.underline} on February 26, 2001, the Technical
Corrections to the SuperNOFA published in the [Federal
Register]{.underline} on May 21, 2001, and Handbook 4571.3 REV-1 -
Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly or Handbook 4571.2 -
Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities, as
appropriate.

**NOTE:** In addition to following the requirements in the Section 202
and/or Section 811 program section of the SuperNOFA, it is essential to
pay particular attention to the General Section of the SuperNOFA which
includes important information regarding the application submission
procedures which have changed since Fiscal Year 2000 and additional
application requirements that are applicable to all programs contained
in the SuperNOFA including the standard forms that must be submitted
with the application.

**2. [CHANGES TO THE FY 2001 SECTION 202 AND SECTION 811
PROGRAMS]{.underline}:**

**A. [Increased Development Cost Limits]{.underline}.** The Development
Cost Limits for elevator and non-elevator structures under the Section
202 program and for Section 811 independent living projects have been
increased to reflect the current trend in costs to develop such
projects. The Development Cost Limits for Section 811 group homes have
also be increased. The high cost factors also have been revised to
correspond to the new development cost limits. HUD Offices will
calculate Fiscal Year 2001 Section 202 and Section 811 fund reservations
based on outstanding program instructions (see Paragraph 3-50 of
Handbooks 4571.3REV and 4571.2) using the revised development cost
limits and high cost factors. The revised development cost limits are
listed in Section IV(C) of the Section 202 and Section 811 NOFAs and
were also published in the [Federal]{.underline} [Register]{.underline}
on January 22, 2001.

**B.** **[Eligibility of Owner Entity When Later Formed by
the]{.underline}** **[Sponsor]{.underline}**. 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 dividend organization 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 or mixed-use project for additional units, i.e., units
in addition to the Section 202 or Section 811 units. Section IX of the
Sections 202 and 811 NOFAs provides the eligibility requirements of the
Owner entity when it is later formed by the Sponsor.

**Under the Section 202 program**, 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) nonprofit consumer cooperative, or (3) for purposes of
developing a mixed-finance/mixed-

> use project for developing additional units over and above the Section
> 202 units, a for-profit limited dividend organization with a nonprofit
> entity as the sole general partner.

**Under the Section 811 program**, 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/mixed use project for developing
additional units over and above the Section 811 units, a for-profit
limited dividend organization 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 dividend organization with the nonprofit
as the sole general partner **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 IRS.

**C. [New Exhibit - Description of Plans to Develop a]{.underline}**
**[Mixed-Finance or Mixed-Use Project]{.underline}**. A new Exhibit
(4)(c)(iii) under Section VI(B) of both Sections 202 and 811 NOFAs and
the Application Kit has been added to require those Sponsors who plan to
develop a mixed-finance or mixed-use project to describe their plans and
the actions they have taken to create a mixed-finance/mixed-use project
by developing additional units with the use of Section 202 or Section
811 capital advance funds in combination with other funding sources.
Sponsors must specify the number of Section 202 or Section 811 units and
the number of additional units from non-Section 202 or non-Section 811
funding sources. Under this Exhibit, Sponsors must also provide copies
of any letters that have been sent seeking outside funding for the
non-Section 202 or non-Section 811 units along with any responses
thereto. The Section 202 and Section 811 Application Forms (Forms
HUD-92015-CA and HUD-92016-CA, respectively) have been revised to
provide space for the Sponsor to show the breakdown between the Section
202/811 units and the additional units. Further, if developing a
mixed-financing/mixed-use project, Sponsors must demonstrate in this
Exhibit their ability to proceed with the development of a Section 202
or Section 811 project that will not involve mixed-financing or a
mixed-use purpose, as proposed in their application, in the event they
are later unable to obtain the necessary outside funding or HUD
disapproves their proposal for mixed-financing or a mixed-use.

Sponsors must be informed that approval of the Section 202 or Section
811 capital advance will not constitute approval of the
mixed-finance/mixed-use proposal. If the Sponsor is approved for a fund
reservation, they will be required to submit, after reservation of
capital advance funds, a detailed proposal outlining how they will fund
both development and operation of the additional units in accordance
with implementing regulations, the Front End Risk Analysis and HUD
instructions that will be issued later. **NOTE:** If the Sponsor submits
a detailed proposal outlining how they will fund both development and
operation of the additional units in its application, the application is
to be submitted to Headquarters for review. Headquarters will review the
proposal to determine if the intended financing structures will result
in feasible projects that would not jeopardize the Section 202 and
Section 811 units. At the completion of the review, Headquarters will
provide comments to your Office for inclusion in the project's
Notification of Selection Letter, if selected. At the time of making the
fund reservation, HUD will determine whether the Sponsor of a
mixed-finance/mixed-use proposal will be permitted to submit such a
proposal at a later time after taking into consideration the strength of
the sponsoring organization and HUD's prior experience with the
Sponsor's other projects, as well as the Sponsor's outline of their
intentions. Only those Sponsors that indicate in their application for a
fund reservation an intention to propose additional units will be
eligible to submit, at a later time, a mixed-finance/mixed-use proposal
for additional units.

**For Section 811 proposals**, the additional units cannot cause the
project to exceed the project size limits for the type of project
proposed unless the Sponsor requests and receives approval to exceed the
project size limit **or** the additional units will house people without
disabilities.

**NOTE**: The term mixed-finance/mixed-use 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.

**D. [Compliance with Section 3 of Housing and Urban]{.underline}**
**[Development Act of 1968, Economic Opportunities for Low and Very Low
Income Persons]{.underline}.** Sponsors have previously been required to
certify with respect to the Section 3 requirements, i.e., a
certification ensuring that training, employment, and other economic
opportunities are, to the greatest extent feasible, directed toward low
and very low income persons, particularly those who are recipients of
government assistance for housing and to business concerns which provide
economic opportunities to low and very low income persons. This year,
the Section 3 certification has been expanded to include additional
provisions. Accordingly, to fully comply with Section 3 of the HUD Act
of 1968 and implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 135, Sponsors

> must now also certify that they will strongly encourage their general
> contractor and subcontractors to participate in local apprenticeship
> programs or training programs registered with or certified by the
> Department of Labor's Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training or
> recognized State Apprenticeship Agency. Information regarding this
> requirement may be found in Sections IV(E)and VI(B)(7)(k)(ii) of the
> Section 202 NOFA and Sections IV(H) and VI(B)(7)(k)(ii) of the Section
> 811 NOFA. The certification form is in Exhibit 7(k) of the Section
> 202/811 Application Kit.

**E. [Applicability of Acquisition of Sites under the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended
(URA).]{.underline}** In past years, as well as this year, the annual
Notices of Fiscal Year Section 202 and Section 811 Policy have included
information to remind Sponsors of their exemption from the site
acquisition requirements of the URA if they have no power of eminent
domain and inform the seller of the land (1) that they have no power of
eminent domain and, therefore, will not acquire the property if
negotiations fail to result in an amicable agreement and (2) of the
estimate of the fair market value of the property. Because of the
importance of getting this information to Sponsors as early as possible
in the project planning stages, beginning this year, the exemption
provisions under the URA's site acquisition requirements are now
included in Section IV(F) of the Section 202 NOFA and Section IV(I) of
the Section 811 NOFA. See Paragraph 16 of this Notice for more detailed
information regarding this requirement.

**F. [Site Control]{.underline}**. The requirements for evidence of site
control have not changed from last year, except with respect to certain
sites owned by the City of New York. According to information received
from the HUD New York Office, litigation has been initiated against the
City of New York which prohibits the City from conveying sites that are
presently designated as community gardens. Therefore, in view of this
litigation and until such time as the litigation is satisfactorily
resolved, sites owned by the City of New York which are designated as
community gardens and the subject of this litigation will not meet the
Section 202 or Section 811 program requirements for site control. Refer
to Section VI(B)(4)(d) of the Section 202 and Section 811 NOFAs.

**G.** **[Section 202 - Acquisition of Housing With or
Without]{.underline}** **[Rehabilitation]{.underline}**. 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.

**H.** **[Section 202 - New Exhibit under Supportive
Services]{.underline}** **[Plan]{.underline}**. A new Exhibit (4)(e)(iv)
under Section VI(B) of the Section 202 NOFA and the Application Kit,
pertaining to the Sponsor's provision of supportive services in the
proposed facility, requires the Sponsor to describe how the residents
will be afforded opportunities for employment. This is consistent with a
similar requirement under the Section 811 program.

**I. [Section 811 - Adjustments to Development Cost Limits for Group
Homes]{.underline}**. Section IV(C)(2)(c) of the Section 811 NOFA
provides for increases in the development cost limits for Section 811
group homes where it can be documented that high land costs limit or
prohibit project feasibility. The NOFA provides an example of acceptable
documentation which includes evidence of at least three land sales which
have actually taken place

> (listed prices for land are not acceptable) within the last two years
> in the area where the project is to be built. For Fiscal Year 2001,
> the average cost of the documented sales must exceed ten percent of
> the development cost limits for the project in order for an increase
> to be considered. This is a change from last Fiscal Year when the
> average cost of the documented sale could not exceed seven percent.

**J. [Section 811 - Maximum Project Size Limit for Group]{.underline}**
**[Homes]{.underline}**. The maximum number of persons with disabilities
that can reside in a group home is six. This is now a mandatory maximum
limit for Section 811 group homes. Therefore, HUD will no longer
consider any requests to exceed this six person limit.

> **K. [Section 811 - Changes in Rating Factors]{.underline}**.

**(1) [Integrated Housing]{.underline}**. The Department is placing
greater emphasis on the development of Section 811 housing in a more
integrated setting. In view of this, the following changes were made to
the applicable Rating Factors:

> **(a) [Experience in Developing Integrated Housing]{.underline}**. Two
> additional points were given to Rating Factor 1(c), "The sponsor has
> experience in developing integrated housing", which brings the total
> points available for this Rating Factor to five instead of the three
> points previously established for this Factor.
>
> **(b) [Integrated Model]{.underline}**. Two additional points were
> given to Rating Factor 3(a)(ii), "Integrated Model", for projects
> which will represent an integrated housing model (e.g., condominium
> units scattered within one or more buildings or non-contiguous
> independent living units on scattered sites). Therefore, for Fiscal
> Year 2001, under Rating Factor 3(a)(ii), "Integrated Model", an
> application may receive five points instead of the three points
> previously established for this Rating Factor.

**(2)** **[Quality of Sponsor's Experience in Providing Housing or
Related Services to Minority Persons or]{.underline}**
**[Families]{.underline}**. Due to the additional points given to
projects in which the Sponsors have demonstrated their experience in
developing integrated housing, an equivalent reduction of points was
made to another Rating Factor. Under Rating Factor 1(b) pertaining to
the quality of the Sponsor's housing and service experience to minority
persons or families, the rating for this Factor was reduced from ten
points to eight.

**(3)** **[Site Suitability Based on Promoting Greater
Choice]{.underline}** **[of Housing Opportunities]{.underline}**. Due to
the additional points given to projects proposing an integrated model,
it was necessary to make an equivalent reduction of points under another
Rating Factor. Accordingly, Rating Factor 3(b), pertaining to the
suitability of the site from the standpoint of promoting greater choice
of housing opportunities for minorities and persons with disability and
affirmatively furthering fair housing, has been reduced from ten points
to eight.

**L.** **[Section 811 - Certifications.]{.underline}** One additional
certification and an addition to an existing certification have been
included in the Fiscal Year 2001 NOFA as indicated below.

**(1) [Exhibit 7(n) of the NOFA, Single Occupancy Bedrooms in Group
Homes]{.underline}**. A certification that if the Sponsor is developing
a group home, all bedrooms will be occupied by one person with a
disability unless that person chooses to share his/her bedroom with
another person with a disability or determines that he/she needs another
person to share his/her bedroom.

**(2) [Exhibit 7(l)(ii) of the NOFA, Supportive Services
Certification]{.underline}**. 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.

**M.** **[Section 811 - Resident Manager's Units]{.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.

**3.** **[CHANGES PURSUANT TO THE APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF
2001]{.underline}:** In accordance with the waiver authority provided in
the FY 2001 Appropriations Act, the Secretary is extending the following
determination made in the Notice, published in 61 F.R. 3047 and in the
FYs 1997 through FY 2000 Section 202 and Section 811 NOFAs, to FY 2001
funding by waiving the statutory and regulatory provisions governing the
amount and term of the Project Rental Assistance Contract (PRAC).

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

**4.** **[FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND EARLIER YEAR CHANGES STILL IN
EFFECT]{.underline}**:

**A. [Initial Screening for Curable Deficiencies]{.underline}.** The
general discussion on initial screening for curable deficiencies, which
is repeated below, was included in Notice 98-29 and a description of the
curable deficiencies was mailed to potential applicants after SuperNOFA
III was published on February 24, 2000. As in FY 2000, the list of
exhibits or portions of exhibits that are considered curable
deficiencies has been included in the FY 2001 Section 202 and Section
811 program sections of the SuperNOFA (see paragraph V(A) of the Section
202 or Section 811 program section of the SuperNOFA, as appropriate).
Three exhibits were added to the Section 202 program NOFA list of
curable deficiency exhibits, Exhibits 4(d)(ii), 4(d)(iii), and 4(d)(vi).
Also, the requirement for the site control document (Exhibit 4(d)(i)) to
have been executed prior to the application deadline date has been
deleted.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

**C.** **[Site Control]{.underline}.** The specific forms of site
control acceptable to the Department have been clarified (see paragraph
VI(B)(4)(d) of the Section 202 or Section 811 program section of the
SuperNOFA, as applicable). One of the clarifications that Sponsors must
pay particular attention to is the site option which must remain in
effect for six months from May 25, 2001, the date on which the
applications are due, and must state a firm price binding on the seller.
The only condition on which the option may be terminated is if the
Sponsor is not awarded a fund reservation. The option must be renewable
at the end of the six months option period.

Sponsors must also provide evidence (a title policy or other acceptable
evidence) that the site is free from any limitations, restrictions, or
reverters which could adversely affect the use of the site for the
proposed project for the 40-year capital advance period (e.g., reversion
to seller if title is transferred). If the title evidence contains
restrictions or covenants, the Sponsor must submit copies of such
covenants or restrictions with the applications. However, if not
submitted, this is a curable deficiency. If the site is subject to any
such limitations, restrictions, or

reverters: 1) for Section 202, the application will be rejected; or 2)
for Section 811, the site will be rejected, the application will not
receive points for site control, for Site Approvability from Valuation
or for Site Suitability from FHEO, and the application will be processed
as \"site identified\" as long as the Sponsor indicated its willingness
to seek an alternate site. 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.

**D.** **[Suitability of the Site from the Standpoint of Promoting a
Greater Choice of Housing Opportunities for Minority Elderly
Persons/Families and Persons with Disabilities, Including
Minorities]{.underline}.** In accordance with the Secretary\'s December
16, 1996, memorandum that requires NOFAs to include a selection factor
addressing affirmatively furthering fair housing, the application
submission requires a narrative description of how the Sponsor will use
the site to affirmatively further fair housing opportunities for
minority elderly person/ 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
(1) expanding housing opportunities in non-minority neighborhoods (if
located in such a neighborhood); or by (2) contributing to the
revitalization of and reinvestment in minority neighborhoods, including
improvement of the level, quality and affordability of services
furnished to the minority elderly and persons with disabilities.

> For FY 2001, the term "minority neighborhood (area of minority
> concentration)" has been defined as one where any one of the following
> statistical conditions exist: (1) the percentage of persons of a
> particular racial or ethnic minority is at least 20 points higher than
> the minority's or combination of minorities' percentage in the housing
> market as a whole; or, (2) the neighborhood's total percentage of
> minority persons is at least 20 points higher than the total
> percentage of minorities for the housing market as a whole; or, (3) in
> the case of a metropolitan area, the neighborhood's total percentage
> of minority persons exceeds 50 percent of its population. The term
> "nonminority area" is defined as one in which the minority population
> is lower than 10 percent.
>
> The Office of FHEO has developed guidelines, which are included as
> Attachment 16 to this Notice, to assist you with the rating of these
> applications.

**E. [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 Empowerment Zone (EZ) or Enterprise
Community (EC), Urban Enhanced Enterprise Communities (EECs) or
Strategic Planning Communities and serves the residents of these
Federally designated references (collectively referred to as "EZs/ECs"),
will be awarded two (2) bonus points. To be eligible to receive the two
bonus points, the Sponsors must have submitted a certification (see
Exhibit 7(j) of the application) that the proposed project(s): (1) will
be located in a Federally designated EZ or EC and will serve residents
of the EZ/EC; and (2) is consistent with the strategic plan of the
EZ/EC. CPD will determine if the application is eligible for the bonus
points (see CPD\'s Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum
in Attachment 11 of this Notice). For a scattered site application with
site control, all sites must be located in an EZ/EC area, be approvable
and have acceptable evidence of site control, and the Sponsor must have
submitted the required certification (Exhibit 7(j)) to receive the two
(2) bonus points.

A list of the Federally designated EZs and ECs is attached to the
General Section of the SuperNOFA, is available from the SuperNOFA
Information Center, is included in the Application Kit as Appendix B,
and is available through the Internet at the following address:
http://www.hud. Local HUD Offices should also provide information about
the local community agency for applicants to contact to determine if
their proposed projects will be located in one of the Federally
designated areas identified above. Please note that the Technical
Correction to the SuperNOFA amended the EZ/EC listing to correctly
identify the Empowerment Zone in Upper Manhattan/Bronx and add the
Strategic Planning Community in Brooklyn.

> **F. [Evidence of Need/Demand]{.underline}.** Where EMAS finds there
> is not sufficient sustainable demand for additional units of the
> number and type of units proposed, without long-term adverse impact on
> the occupancy in existing Federally assisted housing for the elderly
> or persons with disabilities, a detailed report of EMAS's findings
> must be prepared. The report must present the data and findings
> justifying the conclusion. A copy of the report must be attached to
> the Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum, and one copy
> is to be sent to the Headquarters Economic and Market Analysis
> Division, Office of Policy Development and Research, Room 8224.
>
> The maximum number of points available to EMAS for rating the need
> factor is 12. Under Section 202, the 12 points are to be awarded as
> follows:

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

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

6 points if: the number of units proposed is 11 percent or more of the
income eligible unmet need and the market area has received Federally
funded (HUD or RHS) for the elderly between 1990 - 2000, OR

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, to ensure consistency among all HUD programs, it was
necessary to add some additional criteria within the new Rating Factors
as well as corresponding application submission requirements. The new
criteria for the Section 202 and Section 811 programs in FY 1998 and
still in effect in FY 2001 are:

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

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

-   The extent to which the Sponsor developed or plans to develop
    linkages with other activities, programs or projects related to the
    proposed project to coordinate its activities so solutions are
    holistic and comprehensive.

    In addition to these three criteria, for the Section 811 program
    only, the following criterion also applies:

-   The extent to which the proposed design of the project and its
    placement in the neighborhood will facilitate the integration of the
    residents into the surrounding community.

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

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

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

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

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

**L. [Revised Selection Process]{.underline}.** At the conclusion of
technical processing, Rating/Selection Panels must score each Rating
Factor for all applications that successfully complete technical
processing. Applications that receive a score of 60 base points or
higher are then ranked in descending order. The Rating/Selection Panels
then select for funding the highest rated applications ranked in
descending order which most reasonably approximate the number of units
and capital advance funds available to each HUD Office. The
Rating/Selection Panels must select in rank order down to the next
highest rated application that can utilize the remaining funds
**[WITHOUT]{.underline}** skipping over a higher rated application.

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 2 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, the above processes must be done separately for
> each HUD Office\'s metropolitan and nonmetropolitan allocations. Once
> this is completed, HUD Offices may combine their unused metropolitan
> and nonmetropolitan funds to select the next highest ranked
> application in either category using the unit reduction policy
> described above.
>
> After the Offices have funded all possible projects based on the
> process above, residual funds from all HUD Offices in each Multifamily
> Hub will be combined. These funds will be used first to restore units
> to projects reduced by HUD Offices based on the above instructions.
> Second, additional applications within each Multifamily Hub will be
> selected in rank order with no more than one additional application
> selected per HUD Office unless there are insufficient approvable
> applications in other HUD Offices within the Multifamily Hub. This
> process will continue until there are no more approvable applications
> within the Multifamily Hub that can be selected with the remaining
> funds. However, any remaining residual funds may be used to fund the
> next rank-ordered application by reducing the number of units by no
> more than 10% rounded to the nearest whole number, provided the
> reduction will not render the project infeasible. For this purpose,
> HUD will not reduce the number of units in projects of five units or
> less.
>
> **NOTE: Field and Hub Offices cannot skip over any applications in
> order to fund one based on the fund remaining.**
>
> Funds remaining after these processes are completed will be returned
> to Headquarters.
>
> **For Section 202**, HUD Headquarters will first fund the application
> submitted by Mercy Charities Housing California, Cathedral City,
> California, within the HUD Los Angeles Hub jurisdiction. This is a FY
> 2000 Section 202 application which was not funded due to HUD error.
>
> **For Section 811**, HUD Headquarters will first fund United Cerebral
> Palsy of LA and Ventura, in the jurisdiction of the HUD Los Angeles
> Hub, a FY 2000 Section 811 application which was not funded due to HUD
> error.
>
> Then for both Section 202 and Section 811, the residual funds will be
> used to restore units to projects reduced by HUD Offices as a result
> of the instructions above and, third, for selecting applications based
> on field office rankings, beginning with the next highest rated
> application nationwide. No more than one application will be selected
> per HUD Office from the national residual amount, unless there are
> insufficient approvable applications in other HUD Offices. If there
> are no approvable applications in other HUD Offices, the process will
> begin again with the selection of the next highest rated application
> nationwide. This process will continue until all approvable
> applications are selected using the available remaining funds.
> However, for Section 202, 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.

**M. [Application Unit Limit]{.underline}.** A Sponsor or a Co-sponsor
may apply for a maximum of 200 units within a single Hub under the
Section 202 program and a maximum of 70 units or 4 projects (whichever
is less) under the Section 811 program.

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

**O. [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.

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

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

**R. [Environmental Site Assessment]{.underline}.** In conformance with
24 CFR 50.3(i), as revised (effective October 28, 1996), all Section 202
applicants and those Section 811 applicants who have site control are
required to submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of their
proposed site(s) with their applications. The Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment is to be completed in accordance with the American Society
for Testing and Material (ASTM), Standards E 1527-97, as amended, and
must be submitted with the application by the application deadline date.
The Phase I is **NOT** a curable deficiency under the Section 811
program. Section 811 Sponsors submitting applications with identified
sites (i.e., not under control) are not required to submit a Phase I
with their applications. However, if they are selected for funding, they
must complete the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment upon obtaining
site control and prior to submitting their Application for Firm
Commitment.

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

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

If the Sponsor chooses to continue with the original site on which the
Phase I study indicated possible contamination or hazards, then a
detailed Phase II Environmental Site Assessment by an appropriate
professional will have to be undertaken. **NOTE: THE COST OF THE STUDY
MUST BE BORNE BY THE SPONSOR IF THE APPLICATION IS NOT SELECTED**. If
the Phase II Assessment reveals site contamination, the extent of the
contamination and a plan for clean‑up (as identified in Section
VI.(B)(4)(d)(vi) of 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 eligible for 5 points for site
control, the Phase II Assessment and the plan for clean-up including the
contract for remediation (if appropriate) must be submitted to the local
HUD Office no later than **June 25, 2001**. HUD will not consider a site
to be cleaned up or 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 considered a \"site identified\"
application and will **NOT** receive any points for Site Approvability
(Rating Criterion 3(a)(i)), 5 points for Site Control (Criterion
3(a)(iii)) or any points for Site Suitability (Criterion 3(b)).

**NOTE: THIS COULD BE AN EXPENSIVE UNDERTAKING. THE COST OF ANY CLEANUP
AND/OR REMEDIATION MUST BE BORNE BY THE SPONSOR.**

To be considered valid, no more than 6 months can elapse after
completion of the Phase I study. If the Phase I is dated prior to
November 25, 2000, the preparer or other appropriate environmental
professional must update the environmental site assessment. If there
have been no changes since the previous assessment, the preparer must
certify to same.

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

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

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

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

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

**V. [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.

**W. [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.

**X. [Minimum and Maximum Project Sizes]{.underline}.** For **Section
202** applications, the minimum project size for both metro and nonmetro
proposals is five **(5)** units including the nonrevenue manager\'s
unit, if applicable. A Sponsor can propose scattered sites in its
application as long as each site consists of at least 5 units and the
Sponsor has site control for all sites. In such cases, for the rating
criteria pertaining to the need for supportive housing in the area and
the suitability of the site, each site is to be rated separately and
then the scores averaged. The maximum of 125 units for projects in metro
and nonmetro areas is unchanged. For **Section 811** projects, the
limits are as follow:

> [Group home]{.underline} - The minimum number of persons with
> disabilities that can be housed in a group home is two **(2)** and the
> maximum number is six **(6)**, with one person per bedroom unless two
> residents choose to share one bedroom or a resident determines he/she
> needs another person to share his/her bedroom. The corresponding
> development cost limits for the larger group homes have been
> eliminated from the NOFA since, in many States, funding for supportive
> services will not be provided to persons with disabilities living in
> larger housing developments. **Furthermore, exceptions to the 6-person
> limit for group homes will not be considered in Fiscal Year 2001.**
>
> [Independent living project]{.underline} - The minimum number of units
> that can be applied for in one application is five; not necessarily in
> one structure. The maximum number of persons with disabilities that
> can be housed in an independent living project is 18. An additional
> unit can be provided for a resident manager.

**Y. [Secretary\'s Representative]{.underline}.** As in FY 2000, the
Secretary\'s Representative will not participate in the rating of
applications submitted in response to the Fiscal Year 2001 SuperNOFA.
The Project Manager will perform the function that was assigned to the
Secretary\'s Representative in FY 1998 (review of Factor 5).

**Z. [Selection of Projects from Residual Funds]{.underline}.** The
restriction on the size of a project that can be reduced to use residual
funds has been changed from projects of nine (9) units or less to those
of five (5) units or less.

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

> **(1) [Exceptions to Project Size Limits]{.underline}.** Sponsors may
> no longer use "economic feasibility of the project" as a justification
> for requesting an exception to the project size limits. Instead, they
> must justify that the increased number of units/people is warranted by
> the market conditions in the area in which the project is to be
> located. Field Offices will continue to have the authority to approve
> exceptions up to and including 24 units if the project will be an
> independent living project. Any requests for exceptions over this
> limit must be reviewed in Headquarters.

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

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

> **(4) [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.
>
> **(5) [Section 811 - Sponsor's Board Comprised of At Least 51% Persons
> with Disabilities]{.underline}.** Although Sponsors will continue to
> receive 5 points if their Boards are comprised of at least 51% persons
> with disabilities, the composition of the Board no longer has to
> include persons with the same disability or disabilities as those of
> the proposed residents.
>
> **(6) [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 Kit identifies local Centers for Independent Living
> and Statewide Independent Living Councils as examples of organizations
> from which they can obtain letters or support for their projects to
> include in their applications. A listing of Centers for Independent
> Living and Statewide Independent Living Councils is in Attachment 15
> of this Notice.
>
> **(7)** **[Supportive Services]{.underline}.** The requirements for
> the Supportive Services Plan have been streamlined to coincide with
> the philosophy that residents must be given the freedom to choose
> whether they want to 1) receive supportive services available in the
> community, 2) receive supportive services available to them from the
> Sponsor directly or coordinated by the Sponsor, or 3) receive no
> supportive services at all. If the Sponsor will be providing any
> supportive services directly or coordinating the availability of any
> supportive services, they must include a letter in their Supportive
> Services Plan that 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.
>
> **(8)** **[Opportunities for Employment]{.underline}**. Sponsors must
> include in their Supportive Services Plans a description of how the
> residents will be afforded opportunities for employment.

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

> **(a)** **[Mixed Occupancy]{.underline}.** In the application
> submission requirements, the Sponsor is asked to specify whether the
> proposed housing will serve persons with physical disabilities,
> developmental disabilities or chronic mental illness, or any
> combination of the three.
>
> **(b)** **[Restricted Occupancy]{.underline}.** Sponsors may request
> approval to limit occupancy to a subcategory of one of the three main
> disability categories (i.e., physically disabled, developmentally
> disabled, chronically mentally ill). For example, autism is a
> subcategory of developmentally disabled. If requesting approval to
> limit occupancy, Sponsors must submit more detailed information in
> their Supportive Service Plans for HUD to determine whether approval
> is justified. Such information includes: 1) a description of the
> population to which occupancy will be limited, 2) an explanation of
> why it is necessary to limit occupancy, 3) how restricted occupancy
> will promote the goals of the Section 811 program, 4) why the needs of
> the proposed occupants cannot be met in a more integrated setting, 5)
> a description of the Sponsor\'s experience in providing housing and/or
> supportive services to the proposed occupants, and 6) a description of
> how the Sponsor will ensure that the occupants will be integrated into
> the neighborhood and surrounding community. The Project Manager (PM)
> will be responsible for reviewing requests for restricted occupancy
> and the PM Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum has
> been modified accordingly. If the PM determines that approval of
> restricted occupancy is justified, a memorandum to the file shall be
> developed for the signature of the Supervisory Project Manager and
> attached to the PM Technical Processing Review and Findings
> Memorandum. If the Sponsor is selected for funding, the Notification
> of Selection Letter must include the information in the Supervisory
> Project Manager\'s approval memorandum.
>
> **(c) [Single Occupancy Bedrooms in Group Homes]{.underline}.**
> Sponsors proposing to develop a group home may not require residents
> to share a bedroom unless a resident indicates a preference or need to
> share a bedroom with another resident.

**(10) [Intermediate Care Facilities (ICFs) are no Longer
Eligible]{.underline}.** Sponsors may no longer propose the development
of an ICF. Due to the quasi-institutional nature of an ICF which is
contrary to programmatic goals, the Department decided to eliminate its
eligibility for development under the program.

**(11)** **[Tenant-based Assistance]{.underline}.** Twenty-five percent
of the Section 811 appropriations will be used for tenant-based
assistance to be administered through public housing agencies and
nonprofit disability organizations under the \"Mainstream Housing
Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (Mainstream Program)\" which
was also published in the SuperNOFA on February 26, 2001.

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

**(a) [Review ]{.underline}** **[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.

**(b)** **[Rejection of a Site Identified Application]{.underline}.**
If, in the case of a site identified application, the evidence provided
in the site description is not sufficient to lead to the conclusion that
the Sponsor will have site control within six months, the application
will be rejected.

Although identified sites are **NOT** to receive an environmental
review, if the local HUD Office has knowledge about an identified site
that would result in rejection of the site, (e.g., it is located in a
community that is already impacted with assisted housing), the
application is to be rejected on the basis that it is unlikely that the
Sponsor will be able to obtain control of an approvable site within six
months of fund reservation. The reason for treating Sponsors who submit
applications with site control where the site is unacceptable
differently from Sponsors who submit applications with identified sites
where the site is unacceptable, is that the Department can be more
reasonably assured that Sponsors who were able to obtain site control
during the application preparation period will be able to obtain site
control within six months of fund reservation than are Sponsors who were
only able to identify sites during this period. The statute requires
that the Department have \"reasonable assurances that the applicant will
own or have control of an acceptable site for the proposed housing not
later than six months after notification of an award for assistance\".

**(c) [Specific Street Address Required]{.underline}.** Sponsors must
provide the specific street address of the site, even if it is an
identified site.

If the Sponsor proposes one or more condominium units, the unit
number(s) must also be provided.

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

**(e) [Relaxation of Site Location Requirements]{.underline}.** Under
Section 891.320(b) of the final rule for the Section 811 program, the
site and neighborhood standards were revised to provide more flexibility
to the site location requirements for Section 811 housing. The final
rule now indicates that Section 811 housing [should]{.underline}, rather
than [must]{.underline}, be located where other family housing is
located and [should not]{.underline}, rather than [must
not]{.underline}, be located adjacent to or in areas concentrated by:
schools or day-care centers for persons with disabilities, workshops,
medical facilities, or other housing primarily serving persons with
disabilities. Local HUD Offices will make these determinations and must
ensure that, in doing so, the selected site will facilitate the
integration of persons with disabilities into the surrounding community.
The requirements that not more than one group home be located on one
site and two group homes not be next to each other remains in Section
891.320(b), since the prohibitions are statutory.

**(13) [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.

**(14) [Experience with Integrated Housing Developments]{.underline}.**
When describing any rental housing projects sponsored, owned and
operated by the Sponsor as part of the description of its housing and/or
supportive services experience, the Sponsor should include its
experience with integrated housing developments (i.e., condominium units
scattered within one or more buildings or non-contiguous independent
living units on scattered sites).

**(15) [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. A current listing is
in Attachment 15.

**(16) [Restrictions Removed from Acquisition Projects]{.underline}.**
In Section 891.305 of the final rule, the definition of \"acquisition\"
was revised. The restriction to group homes and Resolution Trust
Corporation properties was removed so that any housing type may now be
acquired. The restriction to properties that are at least three years
old was also removed.

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

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

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

If the Supportive Services Certification is missing or incomplete, the
Sponsor must be notified that it is a curable deficiency and be given
the 14-day period to have the appropriate State or local agency complete
the Certification. If the Supportive Services Certification is not
received during the curable deficiency period the application must be
rejected but must still undergo technical processing. If the
Certification comes in during the curable deficiency period and the
appropriate State or local agency did not indicate whether the
Supportive Services Plan is well designed to meet the needs of the
residents, or indicated that it was **not** well designed, 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.

**(18) [Applicant Eligibility]{.underline}.** Section 603 of the Housing
and Community Development Act of l992 (HCD Act of l992) amended Section
811 of the NAHA by striking the language \"incorporated private\" and
thus expanding the definition of private nonprofit organization in
Section 811(k)(6) to include public and unincorporated institutions or
foundations. This amendment also requires such sponsoring organizations
to have received tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Service Code of l986 which effectively limits the
eligibility of public bodies. (Temporary clearance to receive section
501(c)(3) tax-exempt status is not permissible.) The same requirements
apply to the Owner except that the Owner must be incorporated.

**(19) [Davis-Bacon Act]{.underline}.** Davis-Bacon Labor standards
apply to housing containing 12 or more units. A group home is considered
as one unit for this purpose; therefore, the labor standards do not
apply. Independent living projects with 12 or more units **are** covered
by the standards.

**(20) [Lead-Based Paint]{.underline}.** The requirements of the
Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 4821-4846) and
implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 35, and 24 CFR section 891.325
apply to all Section 811 dwelling units except as indicated in the
aforementioned regulations.

**(21) [Exhibit 6 of the Application Kit]{.underline}.** Exhibit 6 which
must be completed if the site will involve relocation does not apply to
Section 811 applications that are \"site identified.\"

**(22)** **[Exceptions to Project Size Limits]{.underline}.** Sponsors
of site control applications for independent living projects requesting
approval to exceed the project size limits must provide the information
required in the application kit and in Section VI(B)(4)(d)(ix) of the
Section 811 NOFA, including documentation (e.g., results of a written or
verbal survey) that people with disabilities similar to those of the
prospective residents of the proposed project(s) have indicated
acceptance of and/or a preference to living in housing with as many
people with disabilities as proposed for the project(s).

Although the elimination of the upper limit for exceptions to project
size limits remains the policy for FY 2001, local HUD Offices will only
have authorization to approve exceptions up to 24 persons for an
independent living project. However, Offices should be extremely
cautious in approving exceptions to project size limits that would
exceed the 18 person limit for an independent living project. Offices
need to ensure that the program goal of integration is not compromised
and should handle each request on a case-by-case basis following the
criteria outlined in the NOFA.

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

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

**If the site control is NOT acceptable** in a single site application,
the application will be treated as \"site identified\" and may still
receive up to 7 points for Site Approvability (Criterion 3(a)(i)) from
Valuation and up to 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(b)).

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

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

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

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

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

**6. [FISCAL YEAR 2001 CAPITAL ADVANCE AUTHORITY
ASSIGNMENTS]{.underline}:**

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

**[Section 202]{.underline}.** The FY 2001 formula for allocating
Section 202 capital advance funds consists of one data element: a
measure of the number of one and two person renter households with
incomes at or below the Department\'s Very-low Income Limit (50 percent
of area median family income, as determined by HUD, with an adjustment
for household size), which have housing deficiencies. The counts of
elderly renter households with housing deficiencies were taken from a
special tabulation of the 1990 Decennial Census. The formula focuses the
allocation on targeting the funds based on the unmet needs of elderly
renter households with housing problems.

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

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

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

**[Section 811]{.underline}.** The FY 2001 formula for allocating
Section 811 capital advance funds consists of two data elements from the
1990 Decennial Census: (1) the number of non-institutionalized persons
age 16 or older with a work disability and a mobility or self-care
limitation; and (2) the number of non-institutionalized persons age 16
or older having a mobility or self-care limitation but having no work
disability.

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

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

**B.** **[Program Fund Assignments]{.underline}.** HUD-185s will be
processed assigning funds to the field offices when all of the
selections for the FY 2001 program are finalized.

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

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

**[Section 202]{.underline}:** 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 2001 Section 202 allocations.

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

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

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

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

In accordance with 24 CFR part 791, the Assistant Secretary has
allocated the amounts available for capital advances for supportive
housing for persons with disabilities for FY 2001. To be responsive to
the NOFA, a Sponsor must request at least five (5) units if proposing to
develop an independent living project (all five (5) units do not have to
be on one site) or two (2) units if proposing to develop a group home.
The Sponsor cannot request more units in a Field Office jurisdiction
than allocated to that Office in the NOFA (see Attachment 2).

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

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

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

**8. [CONSOLIDATED PLAN CERTIFICATION]{.underline}:** Each applicant
must submit a certification by the jurisdiction in which the proposed
project is to be located that the application is consistent with the
jurisdiction\'s HUD-approved Consolidated Plan for FY 2001. The
certification is to be signed by the unit of general local government if
it is required to have, or has, a complete Consolidated Plan. Otherwise,
the certification may be made by the State, or if the project will be
located within the jurisdiction of a unit of general local government
authorized to use an abbreviated strategy, by the unit of general local
government if it is willing to prepare such a plan.

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

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

Particular emphasis should be placed on the new requirements for the FY
2001 program.

It should also be pointed out to potential applicants at the workshop
that the second to the last page of the Application Kit is an optional
form for them to fill out with their comments and suggestions about the
NOFA and the Application Kit which they can include as part of their
applications or submit separately to HUD Headquarters, 451 7th Street,
SW, Washington, DC, 20410, Office of Grants Management and Program
Compliance, Room 2182 with a copy to the Office of Housing Assistance
and Grant Administration, Room 6138, Attention: Section 202/811. Local
HUD Offices are also encouraged to complete this form and return it to
HUD Headquarters at the above address, along with any Sponsor-completed
forms that may have been attached to applications.

**10.** **[SUBMISSIONS TO HEADQUARTERS]{.underline}:** For FY 2001,
application selection information will be reported to Headquarters via
the Development Application Processing System (DAP). Multifamily Hubs
will submit the following hard copies separately for the Section 202 and
Section 811 programs to Headquarters, Office of Housing Assistance and
Grant Administration, room 6138, Attention: Section 202/811 (See
Attachment 6 for more detailed instructions): (1) a transmittal
memorandum summarizing the results of the selection process (e.g.,
number of applications received and number of applications selected,
identification of any selected applications where units and dollars were
reduced by up to 10% and the number of units and funds needed to restore
the application to its original request, identification of any
approvable but unfunded applications the Multifamily Hub funded with
residual funds received from the Program Centers, amount of residual
money being returned to Headquarters, achievement of MBE goals, nonmetro
achievement for Section 202, etc.); (2) a separate completed
recapitulation form for each program by Program Center and by Hub, (3)
an initial selection list in rank order for each Program Center (for
Section 202, metro and nonmetro selections must be on separate lists),
(4) an approvable but unfunded list in rank order for each Program
Center (for Section 202, metro and nonmetro must be on separate lists),
(5) a list of applications in rank order that received a score of less
than 60 base points, (6) A list of applications that have been
technically rejected, (7) A completed Congressional Notification form
for each application on the Initial Selection Lists. (Do **NOT** send
originals or copies to the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental
Relations), (Headquarters will notify HUD Offices of which additional
applications selected with residual funds will need completed
Congressional Notification forms.), and (8) all selection information
(excluding technical processing review and findings memoranda) submitted
by the Multifamily Program Centers to the Multifamily Hub). Headquarters
will notify Offices when to submit the 718s and PADs for the initial
selections to the Office of the Comptroller, Field Accounting Division.
**NOTE: IF ANY PROJECT WAS REDUCED BY UP TO 10 PERCENT SO IT COULD BE
FUNDED FROM RESIDUAL FUNDS, PLEASE IDENTIFY THE PROJECT IN THE
APPLICABLE TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM AND ON THE SELECTION LIST. ALSO,
INCLUDE IN THE MEMORANDUM THE NUMBER OF UNITS REDUCED AND THE AMOUNT OF
CAPITAL ADVANCE AND PRAC FUNDS NEEDED TO RESTORE THE UNITS TO THE
PROJECT.**

**11. [MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE GOALS]{.underline}:** The Department
encourages participation by the Minority Business Enterprise (MBE)
sector in HUD programs and establishes MBE goals each fiscal year.
Therefore, MBE goals (expressed in dollars and units) have been
established for the Section 202 and Section 811 FY 2001 funding round as
set forth in Attachments 8 and 9. (These goals do not affect the rating
of Section 202 or Section 811 applications.) A minority Sponsor is one
in which more than 50 percent of the board members are minority (i.e.,
Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian Pacific, or Asian Indian).
Offices are expected to encourage participation by minority Sponsors.

**12. [NOTIFICATION TO PROGRAM APPLICANTS]{.underline}:** Sponsors must
be advised that all applications submitted under the FY 2001 program
must be in conformance with the [Federal]{.underline}
[Register]{.underline} SuperNOFA, Regulations, Handbook and local HUD
Office Funding Notifications. To this end, FY 2001 applications must
follow the format provided in the Section 202 or Section 811 Application
Kit, as applicable, which is in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-511).

**13. [PROCESSING SCHEDULE]{.underline}:** In accordance with the
schedule included in the SuperNOFA published in the
[Federal]{.underline} [Register]{.underline}, the following processing
schedule has been developed. It is not mandatory that Offices maintain
all dates in this schedule. However, the underscored dates and actions
are specific deadlines which must be met:

[Application Deadline]{.underline} [May 25, 2001]{.underline}

Initial Screening for Curable

Deficiencies Completed and

Deficiency Letters Mailed June 8, 2001

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

[for submission of missing application]{.underline}

[items]{.underline} June 22, 2001

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

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

[remediation and the approval letter]{.underline}

[from the Federal, State and/or local]{.underline}

[agency with jurisdiction over the site,]{.underline}

[**IF** so indicated by the Phase I ESA]{.underline}

[and/or Phase II]{.underline} ESA June 25, 2001

Notification of Technical rejects July 13, 2001

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

[Technical Rejects]{.underline} July 27, 2001

[Program Center Offices submit]{.underline}

[transmittal memoranda,]{.underline}

[recapitulation sheets, lists]{.underline}

[of initial selections, approvable]{.underline}

[but unfunded applications, applications]{.underline}

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

[and Congressional Notification]{.underline}

[Memoranda to Hubs]{.underline} [Aug. 6, 2001]{.underline}

[Hubs submit lists of initial]{.underline}

[selections, approvable but]{.underline}

[unfunded applications,]{.underline}

[applications that scored less]{.underline}

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

[memoranda, recapitulation sheets]{.underline}

[and Congressional Notification]{.underline}

[Memoranda to Headquarters]{.underline}

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

[appropriate location]{.underline} [Aug. 20, 2001]{.underline}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> A\) That it does not have the power of eminent domain and, therefore,
> will not acquire the property if negotiations fail to result in an
> amicable agreement; and
>
> B\) Of its estimate of the fair market value of the property. An
> appraisal is not required; however, the Sponsor\'s files must include
> an explanation, with reasonable evidence, of the basis for the
> estimate.

In those cases, prior to submission of an application for a fund
reservation, where there are existing contracts or options and Sponsors
did not provide the pre-contractual notifications to the sellers, the
Sponsor must provide the notification after-the-fact and give the seller
an opportunity to withdraw from the contract/option. All Section 202 and
Section 811 applications for fund reservations that are filed in
response to the FY 2001 NOFAs must be in compliance with the above.

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

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

\- By-laws;

\- IRS tax exemption ruling

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

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

Programmatic questions concerning the FY 2001 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)
708-2866.

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

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

John C. Weicher, Assistant Secretary for

> Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner

Attachments

ATTACHMENT 1

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

+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
|                 | **   |           | **   |         | **[ |         |
|                 | [MET |           | [NON |         | TOT |         |
|                 | ROPO |           | METR |         | ALS |         |
|                 | LITA |           | O]{. |         | ]{. |         |
|                 | N]{. |           | smal |         | sma |         |
|                 | smal |           | lcap |         | llc |         |
|                 | lcap |           | s}** |         | aps |         |
|                 | s}** |           |      |         | }** |         |
+=================+======+===========+======+=========+=====+=========+
| OFFICES         | U    | CAPITAL   | U    | CAPITAL | **U | **CA    |
|                 | NITS |           | NITS |         | NIT | PITAL** |
|                 |      | ADVANCE   |      | ADVANCE | S** |         |
|                 |      |           |      |         |     | **AD    |
|                 |      |           |      |         |     | VANCE** |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
| **GREENSBORO    |      |           |      |         |     |         |
| HUB**           |      |           |      |         |     |         |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
| COLUMBIA        | 45   | 3,705,147 | 17   | 1,      | 62  | 5,      |
|                 |      |           |      | 360,377 |     | 065,524 |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
| GREENSBORO      | 74   | 7,333,061 | 35   | 3,      | 109 | 10,     |
|                 |      |           |      | 403,815 |     | 736,876 |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
| TOTAL           | 119  | 1         | 52   | 4,      | 171 | 15,     |
|                 |      | 1,038,208 |      | 764,192 |     | 802,400 |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
| **ATLANTA HUB** |      |           |      |         |     |         |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
| ATLANTA         | 74   | 5,681,174 | 33   | 2,      | 107 | 8,      |
|                 |      |           |      | 508,460 |     | 189,634 |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
| KNOXVILLE       | 36   | 2,700,689 | 11   | 804,591 | 47  | 3,      |
|                 |      |           |      |         |     | 505,280 |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
| LOUISVILLE      | 48   | 3,899,316 | 25   | 2,      | 73  | 5,      |
|                 |      |           |      | 075,729 |     | 975,045 |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
| NASHVILLE       | 50   | 3,858,446 | 18   | 1,      | 68  | 5,      |
|                 |      |           |      | 381,920 |     | 240,366 |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
| SAN JUAN        | 39   | 4,088,207 | 14   | 1,      | 53  | 5,      |
|                 |      |           |      | 439,774 |     | 527,981 |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
| TOTAL           | 247  | 2         | 101  | 8,      | 348 | 28,     |
|                 |      | 0,227,832 |      | 210,474 |     | 438,306 |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
| **JACKSONVILLE  |      |           |      |         |     |         |
| HUB**           |      |           |      |         |     |         |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
| BIRMINGHAM      | 57   | 4,335,834 | 22   | 1,      | 79  | 6,      |
|                 |      |           |      | 711,494 |     | 047,328 |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
| JACKSON         | 20   | 1,482,490 | 27   | 2,      | 47  | 3,      |
|                 |      |           |      | 036,523 |     | 519,013 |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
| JACKSONVILLE    | 214  | 1         | 14   | 1,      | 228 | 18,     |
|                 |      | 7,438,863 |      | 143,069 |     | 581,932 |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
| TOTAL           | 291  | 2         | 63   | 4,      | 354 | 28,     |
|                 |      | 3,257,187 |      | 891,086 |     | 148,273 |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
| **CHICAGO HUB** |      |           |      |         |     |         |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
| CHICAGO         | 200  | 2         | 30   | 3,      | 230 | 24,     |
|                 |      | 1,646,892 |      | 255,500 |     | 902,392 |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
| INDIANAPOLIS    | 76   | 6,408,301 | 22   | 1,      | 98  | 8,      |
|                 |      |           |      | 825,288 |     | 233,589 |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+
| TOTAL           | 276  | 2         | 52   | 5,      | 328 | 33,     |
|                 |      | 8,055,193 |      | 080,788 |     | 135,981 |
+-----------------+------+-----------+------+---------+-----+---------+

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 24%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 15%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="3"></th>
<th colspan="5"><strong><span
class="smallcaps">METROPOLITAN</span></strong></th>
<th colspan="6"><strong><span
class="smallcaps">NONMETRO</span></strong></th>
<th colspan="6"><strong><span
class="smallcaps">TOTALS</span></strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th colspan="3">OFFICES</th>
<th colspan="3">UNITS</th>
<th colspan="2"><p>CAPITAL</p>
<p>ADVANCE</p></th>
<th colspan="3">UNITS</th>
<th colspan="3"><p>CAPITAL</p>
<p>ADVANCE</p></th>
<th colspan="3"><strong>UNITS</strong></th>
<th colspan="3"><p><strong>CAPITAL</strong></p>
<p><strong>ADVANCE</strong></p></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><strong>COLUMBUS HUB</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">CINCINNATI</td>
<td colspan="3">61</td>
<td colspan="2">5,043,772</td>
<td colspan="2">5</td>
<td colspan="3">412,908</td>
<td colspan="3">66</td>
<td colspan="3">5,456,680</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">CLEVELAND</td>
<td colspan="3">100</td>
<td colspan="2">9,169,378</td>
<td colspan="2">14</td>
<td colspan="3">1,253,834</td>
<td colspan="3">114</td>
<td colspan="3">10,423,212</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">COLUMBUS</td>
<td colspan="3">46</td>
<td colspan="2">3,792,857</td>
<td colspan="2">16</td>
<td colspan="3">1,327,346</td>
<td colspan="3">62</td>
<td colspan="3">5,120,203</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">TOTAL</td>
<td colspan="3">207</td>
<td colspan="2">18,006,007</td>
<td colspan="2">35</td>
<td colspan="3">2,994,088</td>
<td colspan="3">242</td>
<td colspan="3">21,000,095</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>DETROIT HUB</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>DETROIT</td>
<td colspan="3">105</td>
<td colspan="3">9,994,767</td>
<td colspan="3">5</td>
<td colspan="3">475,093</td>
<td colspan="3">110</td>
<td colspan="3">10,469,860</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>GRAND RAPIDS</td>
<td colspan="3">43</td>
<td colspan="3">3,477,790</td>
<td colspan="3">17</td>
<td colspan="3">1,377,948</td>
<td colspan="3">60</td>
<td colspan="3">4,855,738</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>TOTAL</td>
<td colspan="3">148</td>
<td colspan="3">13,472,557</td>
<td colspan="3">22</td>
<td colspan="3">1,853,041</td>
<td colspan="3">170</td>
<td colspan="3">15,325,598</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>MINNEAPOLIS HUB</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>MINNEAPOLIS</td>
<td colspan="3">71</td>
<td colspan="3">7,103,990</td>
<td colspan="3">26</td>
<td colspan="3">2,610,819</td>
<td colspan="3">97</td>
<td colspan="3">9,714,809</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>MILWAUKEE</td>
<td colspan="3">80</td>
<td colspan="3">7,696,535</td>
<td colspan="3">28</td>
<td colspan="3">2,737,327</td>
<td colspan="3">108</td>
<td colspan="3">10,433,862</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>TOTAL</td>
<td colspan="3">151</td>
<td colspan="3">14,800,525</td>
<td colspan="3">54</td>
<td colspan="3">5,348,146</td>
<td colspan="3">205</td>
<td colspan="3">20,148,671</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>FT. WORTH HUB</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>FT. WORTH</td>
<td colspan="3">97</td>
<td colspan="3">7,341,132</td>
<td colspan="3">29</td>
<td colspan="3">2,188,222</td>
<td colspan="3">126</td>
<td colspan="3">9,529,354</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>HOUSTON</td>
<td colspan="3">63</td>
<td colspan="3">4,744,457</td>
<td colspan="3">11</td>
<td colspan="3">855,642</td>
<td colspan="3">74</td>
<td colspan="3">5,600,099</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>LITTLE ROCK</td>
<td colspan="3">20</td>
<td colspan="3">1,363,095</td>
<td colspan="3">25</td>
<td colspan="3">1,707,312</td>
<td colspan="3">45</td>
<td colspan="3">3,070,407</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>NEW ORLEANS</td>
<td colspan="3">64</td>
<td colspan="3">4,650,855</td>
<td colspan="3">15</td>
<td colspan="3">1,103,113</td>
<td colspan="3">79</td>
<td colspan="3">5,753,968</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>SAN ANTONIO</td>
<td colspan="3">54</td>
<td colspan="3">3,902,085</td>
<td colspan="3">12</td>
<td colspan="3">852,154</td>
<td colspan="3">66</td>
<td colspan="3">4,754,239</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>TOTAL</td>
<td colspan="3">298</td>
<td colspan="3">22,001,624</td>
<td colspan="3">92</td>
<td colspan="3">6,706,443</td>
<td colspan="3">390</td>
<td colspan="3">28,708,067</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 24%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 15%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="2"></th>
<th colspan="6"><strong><span
class="smallcaps">METROPOLITAN</span></strong></th>
<th colspan="6"><strong><span
class="smallcaps">NONMETRO</span></strong></th>
<th colspan="5"><strong><span
class="smallcaps">TOTALS</span></strong></th>
<th colspan="2"></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th colspan="2">OFFICES</th>
<th colspan="3">UNITS</th>
<th colspan="3"><p>CAPITAL</p>
<p>ADVANCE</p></th>
<th colspan="4">UNITS</th>
<th colspan="2"><p>CAPITAL</p>
<p>ADVANCE</p></th>
<th colspan="3"><strong>UNITS</strong></th>
<th colspan="2"><p><strong>CAPITAL</strong></p>
<p><strong>ADVANCE</strong></p></th>
<th colspan="2"></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>KANSAS CITY HUB</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>DES MOINES</td>
<td colspan="3">36</td>
<td colspan="3">2,854,399</td>
<td colspan="4">26</td>
<td colspan="4">2,032,942</td>
<td colspan="3">62</td>
<td colspan="3">4,887,341</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>KANSAS CITY</td>
<td colspan="3">59</td>
<td colspan="3">4,915,374</td>
<td colspan="4">25</td>
<td colspan="4">2,053,794</td>
<td colspan="3">84</td>
<td colspan="3">6,969,168</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>OKLAHOMA CITY</td>
<td colspan="3">43</td>
<td colspan="3">3,114,030</td>
<td colspan="4">20</td>
<td colspan="4">1,444,174</td>
<td colspan="3">63</td>
<td colspan="3">4,558,204</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>OMAHA</td>
<td colspan="3">20</td>
<td colspan="3">1,671,533</td>
<td colspan="4">14</td>
<td colspan="4">1,194,153</td>
<td colspan="3">34</td>
<td colspan="3">2,865,686</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ST LOUIS</td>
<td colspan="3">57</td>
<td colspan="3">5,273,030</td>
<td colspan="4">19</td>
<td colspan="4">1,754,902</td>
<td colspan="3">76</td>
<td colspan="3">7,027,932</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>TOTAL</td>
<td colspan="3">215</td>
<td colspan="3">17,828,366</td>
<td colspan="4">104</td>
<td colspan="4">8,479,965</td>
<td colspan="3">319</td>
<td colspan="3">26,308,331</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>DENVER HUB</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>DENVER</td>
<td colspan="3">76</td>
<td colspan="3">6,588,595</td>
<td colspan="4">36</td>
<td colspan="4">2,866,477</td>
<td colspan="3">112</td>
<td colspan="3">9,455,072</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3"><strong>SAN FRANCISCO HUB</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3">SAN FRANCISCO</td>
<td colspan="3">180</td>
<td colspan="3">20,829,005</td>
<td>11</td>
<td colspan="3">1,235,800</td>
<td colspan="3">191</td>
<td colspan="4">22,064,805</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3">HONOLULU</td>
<td colspan="3">20</td>
<td colspan="3">3,581,856</td>
<td>5</td>
<td colspan="3">895,464</td>
<td colspan="3">25</td>
<td colspan="4">4,477,320</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3">PHOENIX</td>
<td colspan="3">57</td>
<td colspan="3">4,528,660</td>
<td>9</td>
<td colspan="3">745,095</td>
<td colspan="3">66</td>
<td colspan="4">5,273,755</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3">SACRAMENTO</td>
<td colspan="3">57</td>
<td colspan="3">5,852,878</td>
<td>10</td>
<td colspan="3">1,054,428</td>
<td colspan="3">67</td>
<td colspan="4">6,907,306</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3">TOTAL</td>
<td colspan="3">314</td>
<td colspan="3">34,792,399</td>
<td>35</td>
<td colspan="3">3,930,787</td>
<td colspan="3">349</td>
<td colspan="4">38,723,186</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3"><strong>LOS ANGELES HUB</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3">LOS ANGELES</td>
<td colspan="3">322</td>
<td colspan="3">33,369,160</td>
<td>5</td>
<td colspan="3">517,379</td>
<td colspan="3">327</td>
<td colspan="4">33,886,539</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 25%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 15%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 14%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th></th>
<th colspan="4"><strong><span
class="smallcaps">METROPOLITAN</span></strong></th>
<th colspan="5"><strong><span
class="smallcaps">NONMETRO</span></strong></th>
<th colspan="3"><strong><span
class="smallcaps">TOTALS</span></strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th>OFFICES</th>
<th colspan="2">UNITS</th>
<th colspan="2"><p>CAPITAL</p>
<p>ADVANCE</p></th>
<th colspan="3">UNITS</th>
<th colspan="2"><p>CAPITAL</p>
<p>ADVANCE</p></th>
<th colspan="2"><strong>UNITS</strong></th>
<th><p><strong>CAPITAL</strong></p>
<p><strong>ADVANCE</strong></p></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><strong>SEATTLE HUB</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">SEATTLE</td>
<td colspan="2">75</td>
<td colspan="2">7,468,620</td>
<td>15</td>
<td colspan="2">1,548,653</td>
<td colspan="2">90</td>
<td colspan="2">9,017,273</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">ANCHORAGE</td>
<td colspan="2">20</td>
<td colspan="2">3,581,856</td>
<td>5</td>
<td colspan="2">895,464</td>
<td colspan="2">25</td>
<td colspan="2">4,477,320</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">PORTLAND</td>
<td colspan="2">58</td>
<td colspan="2">5,349,500</td>
<td>21</td>
<td colspan="2">1,813,769</td>
<td colspan="2">79</td>
<td colspan="2">7,163,269</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">TOTAL</td>
<td colspan="2">153</td>
<td colspan="2">16,399,976</td>
<td>41</td>
<td colspan="2">4,257,886</td>
<td colspan="2">194</td>
<td colspan="2">20,657,862</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

  ------------------ ------- ------------- ------ ------------ ------- -------------
  NATIONAL TOTAL     4,338   421,528,571   851    74,387,395   5,189   495,915,966

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

ATTACHMENT 2

**Fiscal Year 2001 Allocations for Supportive Housing for Persons with
Disabilities**

**\[Fiscal Year 2001 Section 811 Allocations\]**

## Capital Advance

**[Office Authority Units]{.underline}**

**Boston Hub:**

Boston \$3,089,629 29

Hartford 2,062,628 20

Manchester 1,394,194 17

###  Providence 1,046,056 10

**[Total 7,592,507 76]{.underline}**

**New York Hub:**

###  New York 7,360,216 64

[**Total** **7,360,216** **64**]{.underline}

**Buffalo Hub:**

[Buffalo**\*** 2,408,991 26]{.underline}

**[Total 2,408,991 26]{.underline}**

**Philadelphia Hub:**

Newark 4,142,909 37

Pittsburgh 2,070,017 25

Philadelphia 4,013,262 41

[Charleston 1,524,527 19]{.underline}

####  Total 11,750,715 122 

**Baltimore Hub:**

Baltimore 1,855,055 22

Richmond 1,815,246 24

[D.C. 1,987,627 22]{.underline}

**[Total 5,657,928 68]{.underline}**

**Greensboro Hub:**

Columbia 1,910,484 25

###  Greensboro 3,338,433 35

**[Total 5,248,917 60]{.underline}**

**\*** This amount includes \$740,700 in capital advance authority to
fund the Urban League of Rochester, New York. Since this eight unit
project was not selected in FY 2000 due to HUD error, the application
will be funded from the FY 2001 allocation to the Buffalo Office.

**Atlanta Hub:**

Atlanta 2,528,535 34

San Juan 2,508,799 25

Louisville 1,981,913 25

Knoxville 1,323,818 19

###  Nashville 1,519,414 21

**[Total 9,862,479 124]{.underline}**

**Jacksonville Hub:**

Jacksonville 4,872,033 62

Birmingham 2,106,747 29

[Jackson 1,611,115 23]{.underline}

**[Total 8,589,895 114]{.underline}**

**Chicago Hub:**

Chicago 5,096,887 49

[Indianapolis 2,251,482 28]{.underline}

**[Total 7,348,369 77]{.underline}**

**Columbus Hub:**

Cincinnati 1,487,520 19

Cleveland 2,614,154 30

[Columbus 1,465,702 19]{.underline}

**[Total 5,567,376 68]{.underline}**

**Detroit Hub:**

Detroit 3,126,806 34

[Grand Rapids 1,309,727 17]{.underline}

**[Total 4,436,533 51]{.underline}**

**Minneapolis Hub:**

Milwaukee 2,095,718 23

[Minneapolis 1,957,249 20]{.underline}

**[Total 4,052,967 43]{.underline}**

**Fort Worth Hub:**

Fort Worth 2,767,360 38

Houston 1,887,748 26

Little Rock 1,382,422 21

New Orleans 1,950,850 28

###  San Antonio 1,724,932 25

**[Total 9,713,312 138]{.underline}**

**Kansas City Hub:**

Des Moines 1,353,642 18

Kansas City 1,842,263 24

Omaha 798,806 10

Oklahoma City 1,485,979 22

[St. Louis 1,885,189 21]{.underline}

**[Total 7,365,879 95]{.underline}**

**Denver Hub:**

[Denver 2,162,064 27]{.underline}

**[Total 2,162,064 27]{.underline}**

**San Francisco Hub:**

Honolulu (Guam) 1,711,728 10

Phoenix 1,598,410 21

Sacramento 1,744,998 18

[San Francisco 4,393,483 40]{.underline}

**[Total 9,448,619 89]{.underline}**

**Los Angeles Hub:**

[Los Angeles 7,117,139 72]{.underline}

**[Total 7,117,139 72]{.underline}**

**Seattle Hub:**

Anchorage 1,711,728 10

Portland 1,784,427 21

[Seattle 2,069,651 22]{.underline}

**[Total 5,565,806 53]{.underline}**

####  National Total \$121,249,712 1,367

ATTACHMENT 3

##### SECTION 811 WORKSHOP INSTRUCTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

\- Trade association journals;

\- Associations representing persons with disabilities;

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

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

ATTACHMENT 4

###### FUNDING NOTIFICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

**SECTION 202 SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY**

**CAPITAL ADVANCE PROGRAM**

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

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

METROPOLITAN AREA: \$

NONMETROPOLITAN AREA:

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

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

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

THE DEADLINE DATE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS IS MAY 25, 2001.

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

ATTACHMENT 5

**FUNDING NOTIFICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001**

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

**CAPITAL ADVANCE PROGRAM**

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

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

\$

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

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

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

THE DEADLINE DATE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS IS MAY 25, 2001.

ATTACHMENT 6

Fiscal Year 2001 Policy for Section 202 and Section 811 Applications
Processing and Selections

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

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

Residual funds not used by Multifamily Hubs for each program shall be
identified in the transmittal memorandum to accompany the above lists.
These funds will be recaptured by Headquarters and will be used to
restore units, where possible, to projects that had units reduced in
order to be selected and to fund additional applications based on field
office ratings, beginning with the highest rated application nationwide,
ensuring equity among field offices as described in paragraph 4.L. on
page 17 above.

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

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

**REVISED REVIEW, RATING AND SELECTION PROCEDURES**

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

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

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

**NOTES:**

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

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

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

4\. The Environmental Assessment and Compliance Findings for the Related
Laws Form (Form 4128) must be completed for applications with
satisfactory evidence of site control, all compliance findings made,
including the Finding of No Significant Impact, and properly executed by
the Appraiser and Supervisory Project Manager/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 Log and a copy of
each technical rejection letter shall be sent to Headquarters, Office of
Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, room 6138, Attention:
202/811.

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

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

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

a\. Valuation

b\. Architectural and Engineering

c\. Economic and Market Analysis

d\. Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

e\. Community Planning and Development

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

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

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

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

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

1\. [Descending Order]{.underline}. Applications shall be selected in
descending order which most reasonably approximate the number of units
and capital advance authority allocated to each HUD Office without
skipping over a higher rated application. For Section 202, this process
must be done separately for the metropolitan and nonmetropolitan
categories. For Section 811, the Buffalo Office will first fund the
application submitted by the Urban League of Rochester, New York, a FY
2000 application which was not funded due to HUD error.

2\. [Units and Dollars Control]{.underline}. The selection process is
controlled by the number of units and dollars stated in the NOFA.
Therefore, a HUD Office may not select more units nor approve more funds
than it was allocated. **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 60 base points or above may be considered for selection. (The
base score does not include bonus points.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

b\. A separate completed recapitulation form.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8\. [Multifamily Hub\'s Use of Residual Funds]{.underline}. After the
HUD Offices within each Hub have funded all possible projects for the
Section 202 and Section 811 programs, the residual funds will be
combined within each program (for Section 202, metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan funds are to be combined). These funds will first be
used to restore units to projects reduced by HUD Offices. Then,
additional applications within each Multifamily Hub will be selected in
rank order with no more than one application selected per HUD Office
unless there are insufficient approvable applications in other HUD
Offices within the Multifamily Hub. This process will continue until
there are no more approvable applications within the Multifamily Hub
that can be selected with the remaining funds. 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 projects of 5 units or less.

9\. [Headquarters\' Use of Residual Funds]{.underline}. Headquarters
will use residual funds first to restore units to projects that were
reduced by HUD Offices and/or Multifamily Hubs **(with the exception
that in the Section 202 program, the residual funds will be used first
to fund a FY 2000 application submitted by Mercy Charities Housing
California, Cathedral City, California, and in the Section 811 program,
the residual funds will be used first to fund a FY 2000 application
submitted by United Cerebral Palsy of LA and Ventura, both in the
jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Hub and both which were not funded due
to HUD error).** After the above, residual funds remaining will be used
for the selection of additional applications based on a national rank
order. However, no more than one application will be selected per HUD
Office (excluding the Los Angeles Hub for the 202 and Section 811
programs, already funded) from the national residual amount unless there
are insufficient approvable applications in other HUD Offices. If funds
still remain, additional applications will be selected based on field
office ratings, beginning with the highest rated application nationwide
insuring an equitable distribution among all HUD Offices.

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

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

2\. A separate completed recapitulation form.

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

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

> 5\. A list of applications in rank order that received a score of less
> than 60 base points.
>
> 6\. A list of applications that have been technically rejected.

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT 7

**HUD NOTIFICATION**

# U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, D.C. 20410-8000

**MEMORANDUM FOR:** Assistant Secretary for

> **Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations**

**FROM:**

**HUD OFFICE:**

**ACTION: Section 2O2 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Funding Award:
An assistance program that provides capital advance financing and rental
assistance to private nonprofit sponsors for the development and
operation of supportive housing for the elderly.**

####### PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

**An allocation of funding has been approved to develop housing for the
elderly as follows:**

> **Sponsor Name/Address:**
>
> **Project Name/Number**
>
> **Project Address:**
>
> **Number of Units:**
>
> **Capital Advance Authority:**
>
> **PRAC Contract Authority:**
>
> **PRAC Budget Authority:**
>
> **Total Award (Cap. Adv. + PRAC BA):**
>
> **Project Contact/Phone Number**
>
> **PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS**

######## STATUS

> **All administrative, regulatory and statutory requirements have been
> met.**
>
> **LOCAL HUD OFFICE CONTACT/PHONE NUMBER:**
>
> **CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION:**
>
> **Senator: Senator:**
>
> **Member of Congress/District:**

**SAMPLE** ATTACHMENT 7

###### HUD NOTIFICATION

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

Washington, D.C. 20410-8000

**MEMORANDUM FOR:** Assistant Secretary for

######### Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations

**FROM:** Ellen Connolly, Director, Boston Multifamily Hub

**HUD OFFICE:** Boston

**ACTION:** Section 2O2 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Funding
Award: An assistance program that provides capital advance financing and
rental assistance to private nonprofit sponsors for the development and
operation of supportive housing for the elderly**.**

####### PROJECT DESCRIPTION

An allocation of funding has been approved to develop housing for the
elderly as follows:

> **Sponsor Name/Address: Boston Harbor Elderly Association**

**67 Highland Avenue**

**Boston, MA 01076**

**Project Name/Number Foster Towers**

**023EE117/MA06S011001**

**Project Address: 2000 Newbine Street**

**Boston, MA 01076**

**Number of Units: 126**

#  Capital Advance Authority: \$8,194,700

**PRAC Contract Authority: \$375,000**

**PRAC Budget Authority: \$1,875,000**

> **Total Award (Cap. Adv. + PRAC BA): \$10,069,700**
>
> **Project Contact/Phone Number: Helen Wilson (617) 555-5555**
>
> **PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS**
>
> The funds will be used to construct 125 one-bedroom units for very-low
> income elderly persons and I 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 access services.
>
> **STATUS**
>
> All administrative, regulatory and statutory requirements have been
> met.
>
> **LOCAL HUD OFFICE CONTACT/PHONE NUMBER:** Helen Wilson/(215)555-5555
>
> **CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION:**
>
> **Senator: Edward M. Kennedy Senator John F. Kerry**
>
> **Member of Congress/District: Richard E. Neal/2**

ATTACHMENT 7

**HUD NOTIFICATION**

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

Washington, D.C. 20410-8000

**MEMORANDUM FOR:** Assistant Secretary for

######### Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations

**FROM:**

**HUD OFFICE:**

**ACTION:** Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Funding Award: An assistance program that provides capital advance
financing and project rental assistance to nonprofit sponsors for the
development and operation of supportive housing to enable persons with
disabilities to live as independently as possible in the community.

**PROJECT DESCRIPTION**

An allocation of funding has been approved to develop housing for
persons with disabilities as follows:

> **Sponsor Name/Address:**
>
> **Project Name/Number:**
>
> **Project Address:**
>
> **Number of Units:**
>
> **Capital Advance Authority:**
>
> **PRAC Contract Authority:**
>
> **PRAC Budget Authority:**
>
> **Total Award (Cap. Adv. + PRAC BA):**
>
> **Project Contact/Phone Number:**
>
> **PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS**
>
> **STATUS**
>
> All administrative, regulatory and statutory requirements have been
> met.
>
> **LOCAL HUD OFFICE CONTACTIPHONE NUMBER:**
>
> **CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION:**
>
> Senator: Senator:
>
> Member of Congress/District:

**SAMPLE** ATTACHMENT 7

**HUD NOTIFICATION**

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

Washington, D.C. 20410-8000

**MEMORANDUM FOR:** Assistant Secretary for

> **Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations**

**FROM:** Encamacion C. Loukatos, Director, Philadelphia Multifamily Hub

**HUD OFFICE:** Philadelphia

**ACTION: Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Funding Award:**

> An assistance program that provides capital advance financing and
> project rental assistance to nonprofit sponsors for the development
> and operation of supportive housing to enable persons with
> disabilities to live as independently as possible In the community.

**PROJECT DESCRIPTION**

An allocation of funding has been approved to develop housing for
persons with disabilities as follows:

Sponsor Name/Address: ABC Housing Corporation

2960 Milford Avenue

Philadelphia, PA 19131

Project Name/Number Tenley Gardens

**034HD058/**PA26Q011001

Project Address: 243 South 12th Street

Philadelphia, PA 19999

Number of Units: 18

Capital Advance Authority: \$1,266,800

PRAC Contract Authority: \$66,200

PRAC Budget Authority: \$331,000

Total Award (Cap. Adv. + PRAC BA): \$1,597,800

Project Contact/Phone Number: John Michaels (215) 555-5555

> **PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS**
>
> The funds will be used for the new construction of a fully wheelchair
> accessible apartment complex consisting of 11 one-bedroom units and 7
> two-bedroom units plus community space for persons with physical
> disabilities. This project will contribute to the revitalization of an
> urban renewal area and is in close proximity to medical facilities,
> shopping, entertainment, places of worship and recreational
> activities.
>
> **STATUS**
>
> All administrative, regulatory and statutory requirements have been
> met.
>
> **LOCAL HUD OFFICE CONTACT/PHONE NUMBER:** John Smith/(215)555-5555
>
> **CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION:**
>
> Senator Arlen Specter Senator: Rick Santorum
>
> Member of Congress/District: Chaka Fattah/2

ATTACHMENT 8

###### SECTION 202 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) GOALS

**SECTION 202**

**CAPITAL**

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

**BOSTON HUB**

Boston \$ 1,306,516 12

Hartford 650,496 6

Manchester 421,985 5

Providence 549,721 5

**NEW YORK HUB**

New York City 12,084,356 101

**BUFFALO HUB**

Buffalo 3,326,478 34

**PHILADELPHIA HUB**

Charleston 426,230 5

Newark 4,902,236 42

Pittsburgh 1,669,370 19

Philadelphia 3,481,005 34

**BALTIMORE HUB**

Baltimore 1,370,135 15

Richmond 1,326,823 17

DC 1,290,318 14

**GREENSBORO HUB**

Columbia 1,338,131 16

Greensboro 2,836,299 29

**ATLANTA HUB**

Atlanta 2,163,409 28

San Juan 1,460,295 14

Louisville 1,578,394 19

Knoxville 925,970 12

Nashville 1,384,318 18

ATTACHMENT 8

SECTION 202 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) GOALS

SECTION 202

CAPITAL

[OFFICES ADVANCE UNITS]{.underline}

**JACKSONVILLE HUB**

Jacksonville 4,908,683 60

Birmingham 1,597,488 21

Jackson 929,598 12

**CHICAGO HUB**

Chicago 3,698,412 34

Indianapolis 1,222,822 15

**COLUMBUS HUB**

Cincinnati 810,406 10

Cleveland 1,548,017 17

Columbus 760,434 9

**DETROIT HUB**

Detroit 1,554,945 16

Grand Rapids 721,156 9

**MINNEAPOLIS HUB**

Milwaukee 1,549,599 16

Minneapolis 1,442,808 14

**FT. WORTH HUB**

Ft. Worth 2,470,913 33

Houston 1,452,077 19

Little Rock 796,141 12

New Orleans 1,491,975 20

San Antonio 1,232,750 17

**KANSAS CITY HUB**

Des Moines 394,140 5

Kansas City 661,744 8

ATTACHMENT 8

SECTION 202 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) GOALS

SECTION 202

CAPITAL

[OFFICES ADVANCE UNITS]{.underline}

Oklahoma City 361,762 5

Omaha 421,424 5

St. Louis 667,324 7

**DENVER HUB**

Denver 920,808 11

**SAN FRANCISCO HUB**

Honolulu (Guam) 1,302,658 7

Phoenix 1,534,378 19

Sacramento 2,009,653 19

San Francisco 6,419,665 56

**LOS ANGELES HUB**

Los Angeles 9,859,151 95

**SEATTLE HUB**

Anchorage 895,464 5

Portland 654,014 7

Seattle 823,286 8

**TOTAL** \$99,606,180 1,036

ATTACHMENT 9

SECTION 811 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) GOALS

SECTION 811

CAPITAL

[OFFICES ADVANCE UNITS]{.underline}

**BOSTON HUB**

Boston \$ 319,617 3

Hartford 309,394 3

Manchester 246,035 3

Providence 313,816 3

**NEW YORK HUB**

New York City 839,355 7

**BUFFALO HUB**

Buffalo 274,720 3

**PHILADELPHIA HUB**

Charleston 240,715 3

Newark 472,455 4

Pittsburgh 202,518 2

Philadelphia 392,633 4

**BALTIMORE HUB**

Baltimore 252,962 3

Richmond 177,593 2

DC 271,040 3

**GREENSBORO HUB**

Columbia 248,831 3

Greensboro 434,815 5

**ATLANTA HUB**

Atlanta 329,329 4

San Juan 326,759 3

Louisville 258,134 3

Knoxville 172,421 2

Nashville 197,896 3

ATTACHMENT 9

SECTION 811 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) GOALS

SECTION 811

CAPITAL

[OFFICES ADVANCE UNITS]{.underline}

**JACKSONVILLE HUB**

Jacksonville 634,559 8

Birmingham 274,394 4

Jackson 209,840 3

**CHICAGO HUB**

Chicago 373,221 4

Indianapolis 241,230 3

**COLUMBUS HUB**

Cincinnati 234,872 3

Cleveland 261,415 3

Columbus 231,427 3

**DETROIT HUB**

Detroit 228,962 2

Grand Rapids 231,128 3

**MINNEAPOLIS HUB**

Milwaukee 273,355 3

Minneapolis 293,587 3

**FT. WORTH HUB**

Ft. Worth 353,791 5

Houston 241,338 3

Little Rock 176,735 3

New Orleans 249,405 4

San Antonio 220,523 3

**KANSAS CITY HUB**

Des Moines 225,608 3

Kansas City 230,283 3

ATTACHMENT 9

SECTION 811 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) GOALS

SECTION 811

CAPITAL

[OFFICES ADVANCE UNITS]{.underline}

Oklahoma City 202,633 3

Omaha 239,641 3

St. Louis 269,313 3

**DENVER HUB**

Denver 240,229 3

**SAN FRANCISCO HUB**

Honolulu (Guam) 513,518 3

Phoenix 229,291 3

Sacramento 250,319 3

San Francisco 630,244 6

**LOS ANGELES HUB**

Los Angeles 1,020,951 10

**SEATTLE HUB**

Anchorage 513,518 3

Portland 254,918 3

Seattle 282,225 3

**TOTAL** \$16,113,511 178

ATTACHMENT 10

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

**APPLICATION FOR FUND RESERVATION**

**INITIAL SCREENING FOR CURABLE DEFICIENCIES CHECKLIST FORMAT**

**[Instructions]{.underline}**:

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

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

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

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

Project Sponsor:

Project Location:

Project No.: No. of Units/Residents: [\_\_]{.underline}

[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:

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

Signature of Project Manager Date

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

**Initial Screening for Curable Deficiencies Checklist**

**Project Manager**

Sponsor Name:

Project Location:

Project No.:

The Project Manager must complete an initial screening of each
application to determine if there are any curable deficiencies (See
Section 202 or Section 811 Program Section of the SuperNOFA 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} [\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}
[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

[2(b)]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ [\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

[2(c)]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ [\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}
[\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3(h)(i)]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4(e)(iv) (202)]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[6(b)]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_
[\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[6(c)]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_
[\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[6(d)]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_
[\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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

[7(b)]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_

[7(c)]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_

[7(d)]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_
[\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[7(e)]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_
[\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[7(f)]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_
[\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[7(g)]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_
[\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[7(h)]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_
[\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[7(i)]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_
[\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[7(j)]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_
[\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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

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

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

[7(n) (811)]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_

**NOTES:**

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

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

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

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

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

[Curable Deficiencies Identified]{.underline}

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

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

**OR**

2\. \_\_\_\_\_ The application is complete.

Comments:

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

Signature of Project Manager Date

ATTACHMENT 11

**SECTION 202/811 CAPITAL ADVANCE**

**APPLICATION FOR FUND RESERVATION**

# TECHNICAL PROCESSING REVIEW AND FINDINGS MEMORANDA

# FORMATS

**[Instructions]{.underline}**:

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

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

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

\- identification of substantive comments by the reviewer.

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

2\. The rating criteria on the memoranda formats correspond to the
Rating Factors on the Standard Rating Criteria Form (Attachment 12 (202)
and Attachment 13 (811)). For example, on the Project Manager\'s
Memorandum Format there is no (b) under Rating Factor 1 because that
criterion is rated by FHEO. Furthermore, the points for each overall
factor on the memoranda formats relate to the maximum points the
particular technical discipline can assign to the rating criterion and
may not equal the total points for the corresponding Rating Factor on
the Standard Rating Criteria Form. For example, Rating Factor 1 on the
Standard Rating Criteria Form is worth 25 base points. However, on the
Project Manager\'s Memoranda Format, Rating Factor 1 is worth 15 points
because the Project Manager does not rate Rating Criterion 1(b) which is
worth 10 points for 202 and 8 points for 811.

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

4\. **[Restricted Occupancy]{.underline}**. Under Section 811, if the
Project Manager determines, based on a review of the Sponsor\'s
justification, that the Sponsor\'s request for restricted occupancy
should be approved, it must prepare a memorandum to the file for the
signature of the Supervisory Project Manager indicating 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 which must be inserted in the Notification of
Selection Letter should the Sponsor be selected for funding:

**[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
disability, 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)."

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

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

If the site control is **NOT** acceptable for a single site application,
the application may still receive up to 7 points for Site Approvability
(Criterion 3(a)(i)) from Valuation and up to 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(b)).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FH&EO \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_

COUNSEL \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_

CPD \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

SECTION 202/811

TECHNICAL PROCESSING REVIEW AND FINDINGS MEMORANDUM

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

MEMORANDUM FOR: Supervisory Project Manager

FROM: , Project Manager

SUBJECT: Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum

Sponsor\'s Name:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2\. The Sponsor/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:

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

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

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

6\. Is the Sponsor proposing a mixed-financed or mixed-use project that
will result in additional units over and above the Section 202 or
Section 811 units (whichever applies)?

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_ If yes, did Sponsor describe their

plans or actions to develop such a

proposal? (See Exhibit 4(c)(iii).)

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

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

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

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

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

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

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 4.AA.(9)(b) of the Notice above), did the
Sponsor sufficiently respond to all six requirements to justify an
approval of the request?

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_ (Explain below) N/A \_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

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

**NOTE**: 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. If the Sponsor is selected for
funding, the paragraph in item 4. of the Instructions above must be
included in the Notification of Selection Letter.

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)(ix)
have been submitted to Headquarters, Office of Housing Assistance and
Grant Administration, room 6138, Attn: 202/811. Headquarters will
respond within 5 working days. The response must be attached to this
technical review sheet. If the site is rejected or the exception is not
approved, the application must be processed at the project size limit;
provided in the latter case that the Sponsor indicated its willingness
to have its application processed at the project size limit.

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_ (Explain below) N/A \_\_\_\_\_

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

**RATING FACTORS**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**(c) Section 811 Only:** The Sponsor has experience in developing
integrated housing (condominium units scattered within one or more
buildings or non-contiguous independent living units on scattered
sites). (5 or 0 points)

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

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

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

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

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

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

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

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

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

b.  The extent that information in the community\'s Analysis of
    Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) or other planning document
    that analyzes fair housing issues and is prepared by a local
    planning or similar organization is used by the Sponsor in
    identifying the level of the problem and the urgency in meeting the
    need for the project. (3 points maximum)

**NOTES:** **1)** Applications in which the Sponsor not only uses the AI
to identify the level of the problem and the urgency in meeting the need
for the project but also establishes a connection between the proposed
project and the AI will be given 3 points. Applications in which the
Sponsor uses the AI to identify the level of the problem and the urgency
in meeting the need for the project will receive 1 point. **2)**
Consider FHEO\'s comments in rating this Factor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**(g) Section 202 Only:** The extent to which the Sponsor demonstrated
that the identified supportive services will be provided on a
consistent, long-term basis. (3 points maximum)

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

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

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

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

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

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

In determining the ability of the Sponsor to secure other community
resources which can be combined with HUD\'s program resources to achieve
program purposes, consider: (10 points)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**(a)** The Sponsor\'s involvement of elderly persons, particularly
minority elderly persons (Section 202), persons with disabilities
(including minority persons with disabilities) (Section 811), in the
development of the application, and its intent to involve elderly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In summary, the subject application is acceptable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signature of Project Manager Date

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

SECTION 202/811

TECHNICAL PROCESSING REVIEW AND FINDINGS MEMORANDUM

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

MEMORANDUM FOR: Supervisory Project Manager

FROM: , A&E

SUBJECT: Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum

Sponsor\'s Name:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

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

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

**RATING FACTORS**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - A&E) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - A&E) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signature of Reviewer Date

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

SECTION 202/811

TECHNICAL PROCESSING REVIEW AND FINDINGS MEMORANDUM

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

MEMORANDUM FOR: Supervisory Project Manager

FROM: , Chief Appraiser

SUBJECT: Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum

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

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

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

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

\# of Units per Sites: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Site Control \_\_\_\_\_ **OR** Site Identified \_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - Valuation) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**NOTE**: Contact the Sponsor to determine if a Conditional/Final Letter
of Map Amendment/Revision has been issued by FEMA that would
remove/remove development 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
convening of the Rating/Selection Panel.

3\. For **Section 202 applications** and **Section 811 applications with
site control only**, the Environmental Assessment has been completed
(through step 6 of the 8-step process for projects in
floodplains/wetlands) including signatures of the Appraiser and
Supervisory Project Manager/Operations Director and Hub Director/Program
Center Director, and the proposed project meets Environmental Assessment
requirements, including Compliance Findings (including SHPO historic
findings) set forth in attached Form HUD-4128.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - Valuation) - continued

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

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

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_ N/A \_\_\_\_\_ (811 site identified)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes\_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_ N/A \_\_\_\_\_ (811 site identified)

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

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

If yes, check one of the following:

\_\_\_\_\_ No further study was indicated.

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

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

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

> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

(Technical Processing - Valuation) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8\. If the answer to Question #7 is Yes, do the approval letters appear
to reflect proper governmental approval of the clean-up plan and
remediation contract, and does the clean-up plan and remediation
contract appear adequate to address the contamination and not allow for
the site to be capped or paved over and active testing, monitoring,
flushing wells put in place in relation to contamination or suspected
contamination?

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

(Technical Processing - Valuation) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - Valuation) - continued

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

**RATING FACTOR**

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

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

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

**202 (a)**

Proximity or accessibility of the site to shopping, medical facilities,
transportation, places of worship, recreational facilities, places of
employment and other necessary services to the intended occupants,
adequacy of utilities and

streets and freedom of the site from adverse environmental conditions
**(applies only to site control projects for 811)** and compliance with
the site and neighborhood standards. (15 points maximum for Section 202,
7 points maximum for Section 811)

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

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

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

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

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

**811 Only**

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

Application proposes integrated housing (condominium units scattered
within one or more buildings or non-contiguous independent living units
on scattered sites. (0 or 5 points)

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

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - Valuation) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In summary, the subject Section 202 application is:

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

the subject Section 811 site is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Signature or Appraiser) Date

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

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

SECTION 202/811

TECHNICAL PROCESSING REVIEW AND FINDINGS MEMORANDUM

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

MEMORANDUM FOR: Supervisory Project Manager

FROM: , Economic & Market Analysis

SUBJECT: Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - EMAS) - continued

Project 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.**

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

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

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

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

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

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

**RATING FACTOR**

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - EMAS) - continued

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

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

6 points: The number of units proposed is 11 percent or more of the
income eligible unmet need and the market area has received Federally
funded project based rental assistance (HUD or RHS) for the elderly
between 1990 and 2000; **OR**

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

Project/Needs Ratio: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - EMAS) - continued

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

Based on the EMAS review, the application is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Signature of Economist) Date

**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, Economic and Market
Analysis Division, REE, Office of Policy Development and Research,
Attention: Bruce D. Atkinson, 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 Location:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2\. Sponsor is in compliance with civil rights laws and applicable
regulations, i.e., there is no pending Department of Justice civil
rights lawsuit alleging ongoing pattern or

(Technical Processing - FHEO) - continued

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

> 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.

(Technical Processing - FHEO) - continued

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

**RATING FACTORS**

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

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

**(b)** The scope, extent and quality of the Sponsor\'s experience in
providing housing or related services to minority persons or families
(10 points maximum for Section 202 and 8 points maximum for Section
811).

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

experience, all relevant supportive services experience

should be examined.

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

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

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

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

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

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

**NOTE:** Although FHEO doesn\'t rate this Factor, its comments are to
be considered in the award of points by the Project Manager.

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - FHEO) - continued

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

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

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

a.  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).
    (10 points maximum for Section 202 and eight points maximum for
    Section 811)

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)(i) and Criterion
3(a)(iii).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - FHEO) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following additional findings have been made:

1\. The project addresses a low participation rate and an identified
need for housing for very low income minority elderly persons/families
(**Section 202**) or persons with disabilities, including minorities
(**Section 811**).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - FHEO) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The subject application is acceptable from an FHEO viewpoint.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Signature of FHEO Reviewer) Date

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

SECTION 202/811

TECHNICAL PROCESSING REVIEW AND FINDINGS MEMORANDUM

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

MEMORANDUM FOR: Supervisory Project Manager

FROM: , Field Office Counsel

SUBJECT: Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum

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

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

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

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

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

The subject application has been reviewed and the Field Office
Counsel\'s comments are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - Counsel) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes\_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_ N/A \_\_\_\_\_ (Section 811 site identified)

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - Counsel) - continued

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

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

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_ N/A \_\_\_\_\_ (Section 811 site
identified)

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

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

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

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

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

\(a\) Certifies that no officer or board member of the Sponsor, or of
the Owner when formed, has or will be permitted to have any financial
interest in any contract or in any firm or corporation that has a
contract with the Owner in connection with the construction or operation
of the project, procurement of the site or other matters whatsoever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - Counsel) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**NOTES:** 1) If the answer to any item is checked \"No\", with the
exception of an answer of \"Yes\" to Question 4 for Section 202 only,
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 shall be treated as
\"site identified\" (Questions 5 and 6)

RECOMMENDATION: \_\_\_\_\_ The subject Application is acceptable.

\_\_\_\_\_ The subject Application must be rejected

for the following reason(s):

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

(Signature of Field Office Counsel) Date

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

SECTION 202/811

TECHNICAL PROCESSING REVIEW AND FINDINGS MEMORANDUM

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

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

MEMORANDUM FOR: Supervisory Project Manager

FROM: , Director, Community Planning

and Development

SUBJECT: Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes \_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_ N/A \_\_\_\_ (811 site identified)

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

No, not to be No, to be

Displaced Displaced

Households (families

and individuals) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Business and Nonprofit

Organizations \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Farms \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Totals \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Technical Processing - CPD) continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3\. Organization to administer relocation has been identified.

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

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - CPD) continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**BONUS POINTS (2 POINTS)**

1\. Will the project be located in an Empowerment Zone, Enterprise
Community, Urban Enhanced Enterprise Community, or Strategic Planning
Community, (collectively referred to as EZs/ECs), be consistent with the
EZ/EC strategic plan, and serve EZ/EC residents?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical Processing - CPD) continued

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

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

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

If No, identify the conditions for acceptability below:

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

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

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

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

(Signature of CPD Reviewer) Date

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

ATTACHMENT 12

STANDARD RATING CRITERIA FORM

Section 202

Form HUD-9879-CA

ATTACHMENT 13

STANDARD RATING CRITERIA FORM

Section 811

Form HUD-9883-CA

ATTACHMENT 14

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

Dear :

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

On February 26, 2001, HUD published in the [Federal
Register]{.underline} a Notice of Fund Availability for the Section 811
Program as part of a Super Notice of Funding Availability (SuperNOFA)
for HUD\'s Housing, Community Development and Empowerment Programs and
Housing Voucher Assistance. A copy is enclosed for your information.
Applications for funding are due in HUD Offices no later than 6:00 p.m.
on May 25, 2001. Nationwide, HUD has \$121,249,712 in capital advance
funds available which will facilitate the development of 1,367 housing
units for persons with disabilities.

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

2

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

Please note that, in addition to the statutory requirement for a
determination as to whether or not the provision of services is well
designed, we have included space for the reviewer to indicate whether
the proposed project is consistent/inconsistent with State or local
plans and policies 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. And, this year, we have added space for the reviewer to
indicate 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
threshold requirements which means that if the application does not
include them and, after being notified by the HUD Office, the Sponsor
does not provide the missing information by ([insert deadline for
submitting missing information]{.underline}), the application is
rejected. Furthermore, if the agency completing the Certification
indicates any of the following, the application will be rejected:

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

3

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

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

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

EVALUATION FORM

**Appropriate State/Local Agency**

Sponsor Name/City/ST:

Project Address:

Project Number:

[/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////]{.underline}

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

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

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

Yes \[ \] No \[ \]

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

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

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

B. The quality of the services implementation plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes \[ \] No \[ \]

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

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

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

13\. Will the Sponsor's Supportive Services Plan enhance independent
living success and promote the dignity of those who will access the
proposed project?

RECOMMENDATION: Application is

\[ \] Acceptable

\[ \] Unacceptable

Explain:

Print Name of Reviewer:

Signature: /Date:

Name of Agency:

Address:

Telephone Number:

ATTACHMENT 15

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

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

Dan Kessler

Birmingham Independent Living Center

206 13th Street, South

Birmingham, AL 35233

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

Michael Davis

Independent Living Center

5304 B Overlook Road

Mobile, AL 36618

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

David Jacobson

Access Alaska, Inc.

3710 Woodland Drive, Suite 900

Anchorage, AK 99517

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

Kate Gundunas

SE Alaska ILC (SAIL)

P.O. Box 35097

Juneau, AK 99803

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

Susan Webb

ABIL

1229 East Washington Street

Phoenix, AZ 85034

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

Jacquie Gates

New Horizons Independent Living Center

8085 East Manley Drive, Suite 1

Prescott Valley, AZ 86314

(520)772-1266, TTY:772-1266, FAX:772-3808, e-mail:nhilc@northlink.com

Ann Myer

DIRECT Center for Independence, Inc

1023 North Tyndall Avenue

Tucson, AZ 85719

\(520\) 624-6452, TTY: 624-6452, FAX: 792-1438, e-mail:
direct@azstarnet.com

Executive Director

Services Maximizing Independent Living

P.O. Box 5869

Yuma, AZ 85364

520. 783-6069 FAX:782-0061

William Knight

Sources for Community IL

1918 North Birch Ave.

Fayetteville, AR 72703

\(501\) 442-5600, TTY: 442-5600 FAX: 442-5192

Brenda Tweedle

Spa Area IL Services, Inc.

600 Main, Suite O

Hot Springs, AR 71913

(501)624-7710, TTY:624-7710, FAX:624-7510, e-mail:sails@direclynx.net

Rita Byers

Mainstream Living

1818 South University

Little Rock, AR 72204

(501)280-0012, TTY:280-9262, FAX:280-9267

e-mail:mainstream@lr.cleaf.com

Billy Altom

Delta Resource ILC

400 South Main Street, Suite 118

Pine Bluff, AR 71601

\(501\) 535-2222 , TTY: 535-2222 FAX: 534-8191

Pete Galea\'i, **Samoa Center for Independent Living**

Gov. American Samoa/Dept. H/Srvcs., DVH/IL

Box 4561

Pago Pago, AS 96799

011-684-699-1372, TTY: none, FAX: 684-699-1376

Robert Cummings

Dayle McIntosh Center for the Disabled

150 West Cerritos, Building 4

Anaheim, CA 92805

\(714\) 772-8285, TTY: 772-8366, FAX: 772-8292

Robert Cummings

Dayle McIntosh Center for the Disabled

150 West Cerritos, Building 4

Anaheim, CA 92805

\(714\) 772-8285, TTY: 772-8366, FAX: 772-8292

Susan Miller

Placer Ind. Resource Services

11768 Atwood Road, Suite 29

Auburn, CA 95603

(530)885-6100, TTY: 885-0326, FAX:885-3032, e-mail:pirs@foothill.net

David Bolin

ILC of Kern County

1927 Eye Street

Bakersfield, CA 93301

(661)325-1063, TTY:325-3092, FAX:325-6702,

e-mail:david@ilcofkerncounty.org

Kent Mickelson

Center for Independence of the Disabled

875 O\'Neill Avenue

Belmont, CA 94002

\(415\) 595-0783, TTY:595-0743, FAX:595-0261, e-mail:cidbelmont@aol.com

Kent Mickelson

Center for Independence of the Disabled

355 Geller, #230

Daly City, CA 94015

\(415\) 991-5124, TTY, FAX:, e-mail: cidbelmont@aol.com

Larry L. Watson

Center for Independent Living

2539 Telegraph Avenue

Berkeley, CA 94704

\(510\) 841-4776, TTY: 848-3101, FAX: 841-6168

Jan Garrett

Center for Independent Living

2539 Telegraph Avenue

Berkeley, CA 94704

510. 841-4776, TTY: 848-3101, FAX: 841-6168,

e-mail: Jan Garrett \[jgarrett@cilberkeley.org\]

Jan Garrett

CIL & CRIL (East Oakland Satellite)

2539 Telegraph Avenue

Berkeley, CA 94704

\(510\) 841-4776

Elsa Quezada

Central Coast CIL

234 Capitol Street, Suite A

Salinas, CA 93901

(831)757-2968, TDD:757-2968, FAX:757-5549, e-mail:equezada@cccil.org

Rocky Burks

IL Services of North California

555 Rio Lindo Avenue, Suite B

Chico, CA 95926

\(916\) 893-8527, TTY: 893-8527, FAX: 893-8574

Janet Carmichael

CIL in Fresno (CAPH)

3475 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 101

Fresno, CA 93711

\(209\) 276-6777, TTY: 276-6779, FAX: 276-6778

Janet Carmichael

CIL in Fresno (CAPH)

3475 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 101

Fresno, CA 93711

\(209\) 276-6777, TTY: 276-6779, FAX: 276-6778

Tony Sauer

Foundation of Resources for Equality and Employment

for the Disabled

154 Hughes Road, Suite 1

Grass Valley, CA

\(530\) 272-1732

Al Rivera

Community Rehab Services - ILC

4716 Cesar Chavez Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90022

\(213\) 266-0453, TTY:266-3016, FAX:266-7992, e-mail:crsela@pacbell.net

JoAnne Best

IL Resource of Contra Costa County

3200 Clayton Road

Concord, CA 94519

\(510\) 229-9200, TTY: 229-9200, FAX: 229-1882

Dwight Bateman

Modesto Independent Living Center

221 McHenry Avenue

Modesto, CA 95354

\(209\) 521-7260, TTY: 521-1425, FAX: 521-4763

Lucille Walls

Community Access Center

7223 Magnolia Avenue

Riverside, CA 92504

\(909\) 682-0230, TTY: 682-0232, FAX: 682-5224

Elsa Quezada

Central Coast CIL

234 Capitol Street, Suite A

Salinas, CA 93901

\(408\) 757-2968, TTY: 757-2968, FAX: 757-5549

Bud Sayles

Access Center of San Diego, Inc.

1295 University Avenue, Suite 10

San Diego, CA 92103

\(619\) 293-3500, TTY: 293-7757, FAX: 293-3508

Bud Sayles

Access Center of San Diego, Inc.

1295 University Avenue, Suite 10

San Diego, CA 92103

\(619\) 293-3500, TTY: 293-7757, FAX: 293-3508

Albert G. "Bud" Sayles

Access Center of San Diego, Inc. (Imperial County Sat.)

1295 University Avenue, Suite 10

San Diego, CA 92103

\(619\) 293-3500

Kathy Uhl

IL Resource Center San Francisco

649 Mission St., 3^rd^ Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

\(415\) 543-6222, (Eng) TTY: 543-6698, FAX: 543-6318 543-6768 (Chinese);
543-6743 (Spanish)

Kathy Uhl

IL Resource Center San Francisco

649 Mission St., 3^rd^ Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

\(415\) 543-6222, (Eng) TTY: 543-6698, FAX: 543-6318; 543-6768
(Chinese); 543-6743 (Spanish)

Kathy Uhl

IL Resource Center San Francisco

649 Mission St., 3^rd^ Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

\(415\) 543-6222, (Eng) TTY: 543-6698, FAX: 543-6318; 543-6768
(Chinese); 543-6743 (Spanish)

Josephine Black

IL Resource Center

423 West Victoria

Santa Barbara, CA 93101

\(805\) 963-0595, TTY: 963-0595, FAX: 963-1350

Cheryl Cairns H132A70013

Silicon Valley Independent Living Center

1601 Civic Center Drive, Suite 100

Santa Clara, CA 95050

\(408\) 985-1243, TTY: 985-9243, FAX: 985-0671

Michael Humphrey

Community Resources for Independence

2999 Cleveland Avenue - Suite D

Santa Rosa, CA 95403

\(707\) 528-2745, TTY: 528-2151, FAX: 528-9477

Dwight Bateman

The Mother Lode ILC

83 South Stewart, Suite 305

Sonora, CA 95370

\(209\) 532-0963, TTY: 532-0963, FAX: 532-0963

Mike Humphrey

Community Resources for Independence ? Ukiah Sat.

1040 N. state St., "E"

Ukiah, CA 95482-3414

(707)463-8875, TTY: 462-4498, FAX: 463-8878

Norma Vescovo

ILC of Southern CA (Service Office)

14354 Haynes

Van Nuys, CA 91401

\(818\) 988-9525, TTY: 988-3533, FAX: 785-0330

Nancy Hildebrand

Center for People with Disabilities

948 North Street, Suite 7

Boulder, CO 80304

\(303\) 442-8662, TTY: 442-8662, FAX: 442-0502

Mike Auberger

Atlantis Community, Inc.

201 South Cherokee Street

Denver, CO 80223-1836

\(303\) 733-9324, TTY: 733-0047, FAX: 733-6211

Executive Director

Disability Center for Independent Living

PO Box 9841

Denver, CO 80209

\(303\) 837-1020, TTY: 837-1020, FAX: 837-0859

Mary Lynn McNutt

Center for Independence

1600 Ute Avenue, Suite 100

Grand Junction, CO 81501

\(970\) 241-0315, TTY: 241-8130, FAX: 245-3341, e-mail: cfi@gj.net

Beth Danielson

Connections for IL

1024 9th Avenue, Suite E

Greeley, CO 80631

\(970\) 352-8682, TTY: 352-8682 , FAX: 353-8058

Robert Zuercher

Sangra De Cristo ILC

804 West Fourth - Suite F

Pueblo, CO 81003

\(719\) 546-1271, TTY: 546-1867 FAX: 542-5456

Eileen Horndt

Independence Northwest, Inc.

1183 New Haven Road, Suite 200

Naugatuck, CT 06770

\(203\) 729-3299, TTY: 729-1281, FAX: 729-2839

Marc Gallucci

GNHDRA/Center Independence Access

One Long Wharf Drive, Suite 225

New Haven, CT 06511

\(203\) 562-3924, TTY: 624-5320, FAX: 624-6302

Carolyn Newcombe

Disabilities Network of Eastern CT

107 Route 32

North Franklin, CT 06254

\(203\) 823-1898, TTY: 823-1898, FAX: 886-2316

Marsha Brown

Independence Unlimited, Inc.

151 New Park Ave., Suite D

Hartford, CT 06106

\(860\) 523-5021, TTY: 523-5603, FAX: 523-5603, e-mail: indunl@aol.com

Anthony LaCava

Disability Resource Center of Fairfield County, Inc.

80 Ferry Blvd.

Stratford, CT 06497

\(203\) 378-6977, TTY: 378-3248, FAX: 375-2748

Executive Director

DC Center Independent Living

1400 Florida Avenue NE, Ste. 3

Washington, DC 20002

\(202\) 388-0033, TTY: 388-0033, FAX: 398-3018

Executive Director

DC Center Independent Living ? Anacostia Satellite

1400 Florida Avenue NE, Ste. 3

Washington, DC 20002

\(202\) 388-0033, TTY: 388-0033, FAX: 398-3018

Larry Henderson

Independent Resources, Inc.

Two Fox Point Center, 6 Denny Road, Suite 205

Wilmington, DE 19809

\(302\) 765-0191, TTY: none, FAX: 765-0195

Larry D. Henderson

Independent Resources, Inc. (Sussex County Satellite)

Two Fox Point Center, 6 Denny Road, Suite 205

Wilmington, DE 19809

\(302\) 765-0191

Barbara Allard

Space Coast CIL

331 Ramp Road

Cocoa Beach, FL 32931

\(407\) 784-9008, TTY: 784-9008, FAX: 784-3702

Executive Director

SW Florida Coalition for IL, Inc.

3626 Evans Avenue

Fort Myers, FL 33901

(941)277-1447, TTY:277-3964, FAX:277-1647,

e-mail: cilfl@mindspring.com

Robert Tilley

Briarwood CIL

1023 Southeast Fourth Avenue

Gainesville, FL 32601-6908

\(352\) 378-7474, TTY: 376-1237, FAX: 378-5582

Marcia Randall

Opportunity Development, Inc., CIL

2709 Art Museum Drive

Jacksonville, FL 32207

\(904\) 399-8484, TTY:399-8484, FAX: 396-0859

Kelly Green

SFADA, Inc.

1335 NW 14th Street, Suite 200

Miami, FL 33125

\(305\) 325-0901 325-0901, FAX: 547-7355

Kelly Green

South Florida Association for Disability Advocacy, Inc.

d/b/a CIL of South Florida ? Conch Republic Satellite

1335 NW 14 Street, Suite 200

Miami, FL 33125

\(305\) 325-0901

Frank Cherry

CIL of NW Florida, Inc.

1302 Dunmire Street

Pensacola, FL 32504

850. 484-5444, TTY: (904)484-3900, FAX:435-1542,

e-mail:fra3nan@aol.com

Daniela Szado

Suncoast CIL

1945 Northgate Blvd.

Sarasota, FL 34234

\(941\) 351-9545, TTY: 351-9943, FAX: 351-9875

Michael Cook

Caring & Sharing CIL, Inc.

1130 94th Avenue, North

St Petersburg, FL 33702

\(813\) 577-0065, TTY: 576-5034, FAX: 577-2932

Executive Director

CIL of North Florida

572C Appleyard Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32304

\(904\) 575-9621, TTY: 576-5245, FAX: 575-5740

Karen Dickerhoof

Broward Co. CIL

8857 West McNab Road

Tamarac, FL 33321

\(954\) 722-6400, TTY: 722-6400, FAX: 722-9801

Jim Doyle

Self Reliance, Inc.

12310 North Nebraska Avenue, Suite F

Tampa, FL 33612

\(813\) 975-6560, TTY: 975-6636, FAX: 975-6559

Shelley Gottsagen

Coalition for IL Options

2328 South Congress Avenue, Suite 1-F

West Palm Beach, FL 33406

\(561\) 966-4288, TTY: 641-6538, FAX: 641-6619

Judith Barrett

CIL in Central Florida, Inc.

720 North Denning Drive

Winter Park, FL 32789

\(407\) 623-1070, TTY: 623-1185, FAX: 628-5981

Executive Director

Walton Options for IL, Inc.

P.O. Box 519; 611 15^th^ St.

Augusta, GA 30903

\(706\) 724-6262, TTY: 724-6324, FAX: 724-6729

Tony Boatright

Disability Link

246 Sycamore Street, Suite 100

Decatur, GA 30030

\(404\) 687-8890, TTY: 687-9175, FAX: 687-8298

Pamela Hodge

LIFE, Inc.

17-21 East Travis Street

Savannah, GA 31406

\(912\) 920-2414, TTY: 920-2414, FAX: 920-0007

Jerilyn Leverett

Middle Georgia CIL, dba Disability Connections

170 College St.

Macon, GA 31201

\(912\) 741-1425, TTY, FAX

Mark Obatake

Hawaii Center Independent Living

414 Kuwili Street, Suite 102

Honolulu, HI 96817

808. 522-5400, TTY: 522-5400, FAX: 522-5427,

e-mail: mobatake@diverseabilities.org

Mark Obatake

Hawaii Center Independent Living - Western Oahu Sat.

414 Kuwili Street, Suite 102

Honolulu, HI 96817(808) 522-5400, TTY: 522-5400, FAX: 522-5427

Dean Nielson

Living Independently for Everyone (LIFE ) (was EICI)

2110 S. Rollandet Ave.

Idaho Falls, ID 83402

\(208\) 529‑8610 , TTY: none, FAX: 785-9648

Kim McCulley

LINC

2500 Kootenai St.

Boise, ID 83705-2408

\(208\) 336-3335, TTY: 336-3335, FAX: 384-5037

Mark Leeper

Disability Action Center - NW

124 East Third Street

Moscow, ID 83843

\(208\) 883-0523, TTY: 883-0523 , FAX: 883-0524, e-mail: dac@moscow.com

Marca Bristo

Access Living of Metro Chicago

310 South Peoria, Suite 201

Chicago, IL 60607

\(312\) 226-5900, TTY: 226-1687, FAX: 226-2030

Marca Bristo

Access Living (Empowerment Zone Satellite)

310 S. Peoria St., Suite 201

Chicago, IL 60607

(312)226-5900x613

Matt Abrahamson

Soyland Access to IL (SAIL)

2545 Millikin Parkway, Suite 1305

Decatur, IL 62526

217. 876-8888, TTY: 876-8888,

218. 

Matthew Abrahamson

Soyland Access to IL (Shelby & Moultrie Counties Satellites)

2545 Millikin Parkway, Suite 1305

Decatur, IL 65256

\(217\) 876-8888

Catherine Holland

Stone-Hayes CIL

39 North Prairie St.

Galesburg, IL 61401

(309)344-1306, TTY:344-1269, FAX:344-1305,

e-mail:stonehayes@misslink.net

Pam Heavens

Will-Grundy CIL

2415A West Jefferson Street

Joliet, IL 60435

815. 729-0162, TTY: 729-2085, FAX: 729-3697,

e-mail:will.grundy.c.i.l@juno.com

Lori Clark

Lake County CIL

377 N. Seymour Ave.

Mundelein, IL 60060

\(847\) 949-4440, TTY: 949-4440, FAX: 949-4445

Liz Sherwin

Illinois-Iowa ILC

P.O. Box 6156

Rock Island, IL 61204

\(319\) 324-1460, TTY: 324-1460, FAX: 324-1036

Julie Bosma

RAMP

202 Market Street

Rockford, IL 61107

\(815\) 968-7467, TTY: 968-7467, FAX: 968-7612,
e-mail:rampcil@bossnt.com

Julie Bosma

RAMP- extension for Stephenson County

202 Market Street

Rockford, IL 61107

\(815\) 968-7467, TTY: 968-7467, FAX: 968-7612,
e-mail:rampcil@bossnt.com

Albert Tolbert

Southern Indiana Center for Independent Living

3300 W. 16th Street

Bedford, IN 47421

\(812\) 277-9626

David Nelson

League for the Blind & Disabled

5800 Fairfield Avenue, Ste. 210

Fort Wayne, IN 46804

219-745-5491, TTY: 745-5491, FAX: 744-2202,

e-mail: lbdfw@ctlnet.com

Nancy Griffin

Indianapolis Resource CIL

8383 Craig Street, Suite 130

Indianapolis, IN 46250

\(317\) 596-6440, TTY: 596-6440, FAX: 596-6446

Teresa Torres

Everybody Counts

9111 Broadway, Broadfield Center, Suite A

Merrilville, IN 46410

\(219\) 769-5055 or (888) 769-3636 TTY; 756-3323 FAX: 769-5325,

e-mail: ecounts@netnitco.net

Teresa L. Torres

Everybody Counts, Inc. (East Chicago Satellite)

9111 Broadway, Broadfield Center, Suite A

Merrilville, IN 46410

\(219\) 769-5055 or (888) 769-3636 TTY; 756-3323 FAX: 769-5325,

e-mail: ecounts@netnitco.net

Patricia Stewart

ATTIC

P.O. Box 2441

Vincennes, IN 47591

812-886-0575, TTY:886-0575 ATTIC, FAX:886-1128,

e-mail:inattic1@aol.com

Peg Westfall

League of Human Dignity, Inc.

1417 1/2 Broadway

Council Bluffs, IA 51501

712-323-6863, TTY: 323-6863, FAX: 323-6811

Robert Jeppersen

Central Iowa Center for Independent Living

1024 Walnut Street

Des Moines, IA 50309

515. 243-1742, TTY: 243-2177, FAX: 243-5385

516. 

Ethel Madison

Evert Conner Rights & Resources CIL

20 East Market Street

Iowa City, IA 52245

\(319\) 338-3870, TTY: 338-3870, FAX: 338-8385

Executive Director

Illinois-Iowa ILC, Iowa Satellite

P.O. Box 6156

Rock Island, IL 61204

\(319\) 324-1460, TTY: 324-1460, FAX: 324-1036

Marilyn Turner

Blackhawk CIL

2401 Falls Avenue, Suite 5

Waterloo, IA 50701

319. 291-7755, TTY: 232-3955, FAX: 292-7781,

e-mail: bhcil@cedarnet.org URL: cedarnet.org

Brian Atwell

LINK, Inc.

2401 East 13th Street

Hays, KS 67601

\(785\) 625-6942, TTY: 625-6942, , FAX: 625-6137

Ann Branden

Independence, Inc.

2001 Haskell Avenue

Lawrence, KS 66046-3249

785. 841-0333, TTY:841-1046, FAX:841-1094,

786. e-mail:indepinc@sunflower.com

Mike Oxford

Topeka IL Resource Center

501 SW Jackson, Ste.100

Topeka, KS 66603

\(785\) 233-4572, TTY: 233-4572, FAX: 233-1561

Sandra Goodwyn

Pathfinders for Independent Living

105 East Mound Street

Harlan, KY 40831

\(606\) 573-5777, TTY: 573-5777, FAX: 573-5777

Jan Day

Center for Accessible Living

981 South 3rd Street, Suite 102

Louisville, KY 40203

502. 589-6620, TTY:589-3980, FAX:589-3980,

e-mail:janday@callou.win.net

Jeanne Abadie

Resources for IL (Satellite Office)

5700 Florida Boulevard - Suite 600

Baton Rouge, LA 70806

\(225\) 216-3844, TTY: 216-3844, FAX: 216-3845

Mitchell Granger

SW LA Independence Center, Inc.

3505 5th Avenue, Suite A-2

Lake Charles, LA 70605

\(318\) 477-7194, TTY:477-7196, FAX:477-7198, e-mail:silc@usunwired.net

Jeanne Abadie

Resources for IL

1555 Poydras Street, Suite 1500

New Orleans, LA 70112

\(504\) 522-1955, TTY: 522-1956, FAX: 522-1954

Helen Moses

New Horizons, Inc.

6670 St. Vincent Avenue

Shreveport, LA 71106

\(318\) 865-1000, TTY: 865-1088, FAX: 865-1094

Executive Director

Maine IL Services

424 Western Avenue

Augusta, ME 04330

\(207\) 622-5434, TTY: 622-5434, , FAX: 622-6947

Steve Tremblay

Alpha One CIL

127 Main Street

South Portland, ME 04106

207. 767-2189, TTY: 767-2189, FAX: 799-8346,

208. e-mail: steventre@aol.com, URL: alpha-one.org

Frank Pinter

Maryland Center For Independent Living

5807 Harford Road

Baltimore, MD 21214

\(410\) 444-1400, TTY: none, FAX: 444-0823, e-mail: mcil@clark.net

Executive Director

Potomac Highlands CIL

708 Fayette St.

Cumberland, MD 21502

\(301\) 784-1774, TTY: ?, FAX: 784-1776

Catherine Raggio H132A40011

Independence Now, Inc.

1400 Spring St., Suite 400

Silver Spring, MD 20910

\(301\) 587-4162, TTY: 587-4162, FAX: 588-3951

Catherine Raggio

Independence Now, Inc. ? Prince Georges County Sat.

6811 Kenilworth Ave., Suite 504

Riverdale, MD 20737

\(301\) 277-2839, TTY: 587-4162, FAX: 277-4587

James Kruidenier

Stavros CIL, Inc.

691 South East Street

Amherst, MA 01002

\(413\) 256-0473, TTY: 256-0473, FAX: 256-0190

Executive Director

Boston Center for Independent Living

95 Berkeley Street, Suite 206

Boston, MA 02116

\(617\) 338-6665, TTY: 338-6662, FAX: 338-6661

Cheryl Finnerty

Southeast CIL

170 Pleasant Street, 3rd Floor East

Fall River, MA 02721

\(508\) 679-9210, TTY: 679-9210, FAX: 677-2377

Paul Spooner

Metro West CIL

63 Fountain Street, Suite 504

Framingham, MA 01701

508. 875-7853,TTY:875-7853, FAX: 875-8359, e-mail:pspooner@mwcil.org

Bill Henning

CORD

114 Enterprise Road

Hyannis, MA 02601

508. 775-8300, TTY: 775-8300, FAX: 775-7022,

e-mail: cordwin@capecod.net

Charlie Carr

Northeast ILP, Inc.

20 Ballard Road

Lawrence, MA 01843

\(978\) 687-4288, TTY: 687-4288, FAX: 689-4488

Bill Cavanaugh

AD Lib

215 North Street

Pittsfield, MA 01201

\(413\) 442-7047, TTY: 442-7194, FAX: 443-4338

Executive Director

ILC of the North Shore

27 Congress Street, Suite 107

Salem, MA 01970

\(508\) 741-0077, TTY: 744-6546, FAX: 741-1133

Constance Gallant

Independence Associates, Inc.

10 Oak Street - 2^nd^ Floor

Taunton, MA 02780

\(508\) 880-5325, TTY: 880-5325, FAX: 880-6311

Bob Bailey

Center for Living & Working, Inc.

484 Main Street, Suite 345

Worcester, MA 01608

\(508\) 798-0350, TTY: 798-0350, FAX: 798-4015

James Magyar

Ann Arbor CIL

2568 Packard, Georgetown Mall

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

\(313\) 971-0277, TTY: 971-0310, FAX: 971-0826

Jeannie Brooks

Great lakes Center for Independent Living.

4 East Alexandrine, Suite 104

Detroit, MI 48201

\(313\) 832-3371, TTY: 832-3372, FAX: 832-3850

Elizabeth Harvey

Grand Rapids CIL

3600 Camelot Drive, Southeast

Grand Rapids, MI 49546

\(616\) 949-1100, TTY:949-1100, FAX:949-7865, e-mail: contact@grcil.org

Ruth Stegeman

Lakeshore CIL

426 Century Lane

Holland, MI 49423

\(616\) 396-5326. TTY: 396-5326, FAX: 396-3220

Karen Duckworth

Disability Resource Center of SW MI

4026 South Westnedge Ave.

Kalamazoo, MI 49008

\(616\) 345-1516, TTY: 345-1516, FAX: 345-0229

Jan DelValle

Capital Area CIL

3815 West St. Joseph Street, Suite D

Lansing, MI 48917

\(517\) 334-7830, TTY: 334-7828, FAX: 334-7849, e-mail: cacil@cacil.org

Melissa Davert

CIL of Mid-Michigan

1206 James Savage Rd.

Midland, MI 48640

\(517\) 835-4041, TTY: 835-404, FAX: 835-8121

Robert DeVary

Blue Water CIL

310 Water Street

Port Huron, MI 48060

\(810\) 987-9337, TTY: 987-9337, FAX: 987-9548

Richard Sides

Oakland/Macomb CIL

3765 East 15 Mile Road

Sterling Heights, MI 48310

\(801\) 268-4160, TTY: 268-4520, FAX: 268-4720

Jay Johnson

Interstate Resource CIL - MN

318 3^rd^ St., NW

East Grand Forks, MN 56721

\(218\) 773-6100

Steven Tovson

Southwestern CIL

109 South 5^th^ St.

Marshall, MN 55901

\(507\) 532-2221

Pat Mrdjenovich-Hanks

Southeastern MN CIL

1396 NW 7^th^ St.

Rochester, MN 55901

\(507\) 285-1815

David Hancox

Metro CIL

1600 University Ave.

St. Paul, MN 55104

\(651\) 646-8342

Christie Gilliland

Life, Inc.

754 North President Street, Suite 1

Jackson, MS 39202

(601)969-0601, TTY:969-4009, FAX:969-1662, e-mail:lifecen@teclink.net

Rich Blakley

Services for Independent Living

1301 Vandiver Drive, Suite Q

Columbia, MO 65202

\(314\) 874-1646, TTY: 874-4121, FAX: 874-3564

David Robinson

The WHOLE PERSON, Inc.

3100 Main Street, Suite 206

Kansas City, MO 64111

\(816\) 561-0304, TTY: 531-7749, FAX: 753-8163

Max Starkloff

Paraquad

311 North Lindbergh Blvd.

St. Louis, MO 63141

314. 567-1558, TTY: 567-5552, FAX: 567-1559,

URL: paraquad@paraquad.org

Juanita Hagemeier

Disab. Citizens Alliance for Ind.

P.O. Box 675

Viburnum, MO 65566

\(314\) 244-3315, TTY: 244-3315, FAX: 244-5609

Pat Lockwood

LIFTT, Inc.

929 Broadwater Square

Billings, MT 59101

\(406\) 259-5181, TTY: 259-5193, FAX: 259-5259

Jim Meldrum

Montana IL Project

P.O. Box 5415

Helena, MT 59604

\(406\) 442-5755, TTY: 442-5756, FAX: 442-1612

Michael Mayer

Summit Independent Living Center

1900 Brooks Street, Suite 120, Professional Plaza

Missoula, MT 59801

406. 728-1630, TTY: 728-1630, FAX: 728-1632,

e-mail: summitil@montana.com

Tom Osborne

North Central IL Services, Inc.

1120 25th Avenue, Northeast

Black Eagle, MT 59414

\(406\) 452-9834, TTY: 452-9834, FAX: 453-3940

Sid Cook

CIL of Central Nebraska, Inc.

1804 South Eddy

Grand Island, NE 68801

\(308\) 382-9255, TTY: 382-9255, FAX : 384-9231

Executive Director

League of Human Dignity ILC

5513 Center Street

Omaha, NE 68106

\(402\) 558-3411, TTY: 558-3411, FAX : 558-4609

Joe Bohl

Northern Nevada CIL Fallon Office and Elko Satellites

501 Railroad Street, Suite 101

Elko, NV 89803

\(702\) 753-4300, TTY 753-4300, FAX 753-4366

Mary Evilsizer

Southern NV CIL

6039 Eldora Str., F-6

Las Vegas, NV 89146

Telephone:(V/TDD)702-889-4216, FAX: 889-4574, e-mail: sncilnv@aol.com

Joe Bohl

Northern Nevada

CIL, 999 Pyramid Way

Sparks, NV 89431

(775)353-3599, TTY:353-3599, FAX: 353-3588, e-mail: nncil4@aol.com

Mary Evilsizer

Southern NV CIL Moapa Valley Satellite

6039 Eldora Str., F-6

Las Vegas, NV 89146

Telephone:(V/TDD)702-889-4216 FAX: 889-4574, e-mail: sncilnv@aol.com

Ellen Koenig and Larry Robinson

Granite State IL Foundation

P.O. Box 7268

Concord, NH 03301

\(603\) 228-9680, TTY: 228-9680, FAX : 225-3304

Ellen Koenig and Larry Robinson

Granite State IL Foundation - Manchester Satellite

P.O. Box 7268

Concord, NH 03301

\(603\) 228-9680, TTY: 228-9680, FAX : 225-3304

Executive Director

GSILF ‑ North Country

PO Box 871

Franconia, NH 03580

\(603\) 823‑5772, TTY 823‑5772, FAX none

Lorraine Culbertson

Camden ILC, Parkade Building

30 North 5^th^ St., Suite 222-3

Camden, NJ 08102

\(609\) 966‑0800, TTY 966‑0830, FAX 966‑0832

Susan Elmer

DIAL, Inc.

66 Mt. Prospect Avenue, Building C-1

Clifton, NJ 07013-1918

\(973\) 470-8090, TTY: 470-2521, FAX: 470-8171

Carol Tucker

Total Living Center, Inc.

P.O. Box 342, 231 Philadelphia Ave.

Egg Harbor City, NJ 08215

\(609\) 965-3734, TTY: 965-5390, FAX : 965-1270

Scott Elliott

Progressive Center for Independent Living, Inc.

831 Parkway Avenue, Unit B-2

Ewing, NJ 08618

\(609\) 530-0006

Eileen Goff

HIP

131 Main Street, Suite 120

Hackensack, NJ 07601

\(201\) 996-9100 , TTY : 996-9424, FAX : 996-9422, e-mail:
ber@hipcil.org

Kathleen Wood

HIP

2815 Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2G

Jersey City, NJ 07306

\(201\) 413‑1200, TTY 413‑0521, FAX 217‑0520, e-mail: hud@hipcil.org

Pam Reid

Resources for Independent Living

1 Hospital Plaza

Riverside, NJ 08075

( 609) 764‑2745 ( 909)‑764‑5573.,TTY 609‑461‑3482.

Executive Director

Southern New Mexico CIL

424 North Downtown Mall, Suite 100

Las Cruces, NM 88001

\(505\) 526-5016, TTY : 526-5016, FAX : 526-1202

Ronald Garcia

New Vistas

1205 Parkway Drive

Santa Fe, NM 87505

\(505\) 471-1001, TTY: 471-1001, FAX : 471-4427

Hagen, Laura, Executive Director

Capital District Center for Independence

855 Central Avenue, Suite 110

Albany, New York 12206-1504

\(518\) 459-6422 (Voice or TDD), (518) 459-7847 (Fax)

Linn, Bobbi, Executive Director

Bronx Independent Living Services

3525 Decatur Avenue

Bronx, New York 10467

\(718\) 515-2800, 515-2803 (TDD); 515-2844 (Fax)

Usiak, Douglas, Executive Director

WNY Independent Project, Inc.

3108 Main Street

Buffalo, New York 14214

\(716\) 836-0822 (Voice or TDD), 835-3967 (F)

Dougherty, Ken, Director

Native American Independent Living Services

3108 Main Street

Buffalo, New York 14214-1384

\(716\) 836-0822 (Voice or TDD) (800) 348-8399

Maier, Peter, Executive Director

Access to Independence and Mobility

271 East First Street

Corning, New York 14830

\(607\) 962-8225 (Voice); 733-7764 (TDD); 937-5125 (Fax)

Executive Director

Glens Falls Independent Living Center, Inc.

71 Glenwood Avenue

Queensbury, New York 12804

\(518\) 792-3537; 792-0505 (TDD), 792-0979 (Fax)

Executive Director

Center for Independence of the Disabled in New York

841 Broadway, Suite 205

New York, New York 10003

\(212\) 674-2300 (Voice or TDD), 254-5953 (Fax)

Horton, Nancy, Co-Director

Action Toward Independence

2927 Route 6

Slate Hill, New York 10973

\(914\) 355-2030 (Voice or TDD), (914) 355-2060 (Fax)

Weider, Tim, Executive Director

Rochester Center for Independent Living, Inc.

758 South Avenue

Rochester, New York 14620

\(716\) 442-6470 (Voice or TDD) ; 271-8558 (Fax)

Weiss, Melissa, Executive Director

Arise, Inc.

1065 James Street, Suite 110

Syracuse, New York 13203

\(315\) 472-3171 (Voice or TDD); 472-9252 (Fax)

Figueroa, Denise, Executive Director

ILC of Hudson County

Troy Atrium, Broadway and Fourth

Troy, New York 12180

\(518\) 274-0701 (Voice or TDD); 274-7944 (Fax)

Danovitz, Burt, Executive Director

Resource Center for Independent Living, Inc.

401-409 Columbia Street, PO Box 210

Utica, New York 13503-0210

\(315\) 797-4642, 797-5837 (TDD), 797-4747 (Fax)

Danovitz, Burt, Executive Director

Resource CIL - Herkimer County Satellite

401-409 Columbia Street, PO Box 210

Utica, New York 13503-0210

\(315\) 797-4642, 797-5837 (TDD), 797-4747 (Fax)

Geiling, Aileen, Executive Director

Northern Regional Center For Independent Living

165 Mechanic Street

Watertown, New York 13601

\(315\) 785-8703 (Voice or TDD); 785-8612 (Fax)

Bravo, Joseph, Executive Director

Westchester Independent Living Center

297 Knollwood Road

White Plains, New York 10607

\(914\) 682-3926; 682-0926 (TDD); 682-8518 (Fax)

Bravo, Joseph, Executive Director

Westchester Independent Living Center (Satellite)

297 Knollwood Road

White Plains, New York 10607

\(914\) 682-3926; 682-0926 (TDD); 682-8518 (Fax)

Billy, James, Executive Director

Harlem Independent Living Center

5-15 West 125th Street

New York, New York 10027

\(212\) 369-2371; 369-6475 (TDD); 369-9283 (Fax)

Julia Sain

Programs for Accessible Living

5701 Executive Center Drive, Suite 320

Charlotte, NC 28212

\(704\) 537-0550, TTY : 537-0550, FAX : 566-0507, URL:
jssain@mindspring.com

Aaron Shabazz

Guilford Advocacy Project

620 South Elm Str., Suite 309

Greensboro, NC 27402

\(336\) 272-0501, TTY: none, FAX : 272-0575

Marty Silverthorne

Disability AWareness Network

609 Country Club Dr., Suite C

Greenville, NC 27834

(252)355-5272

Barbara Davis

Pathways for the Future

525 Mineral Springs Drive, P.O. Box 2114

Sylva, NC 28779

\(828\) 631-1167, TTY:none, FAX: 631-1169, e-mail: pathways@dnet.net

Barbara Davis

Pathways for the Future - CIL of Asheville

525 Mineral Springs Drive, P.O. Box 2114

Sylva, NC 28779

\(828\) 631-1167, TTY: none, FAX: 631-1169, e-mail:
[pathways@dnet.net]{.underline}

Robert Gomez

Dakota CIL

3111 East Broadway Avenue

Bismarch, ND 58501

\(701\) 222-3636, TTY: 222-3636, FAX : 222-0511

Nathan Aalgaard

Freedom RCIL

P.O. Box 8192

Fargo, ND 58109-8192

218. 236-0459, TTY: 236-0459, FAX: 236-0510,

e-mail: freedom@moorheadcity.com

Tari Axness

Independence, Inc.

900 North Broadway, Suite 302

Minot, ND 58703

\(701\) 839-4721, TTY: 839-6561

Jay Johnson

Options Interstate Resource CIL\--Grand Forks Satellite

318 Third Street, Northwest

East Grand Forks, MN 56721

218\) 773-6100, TTY: 773-6100, FAX: 773-7119

Rose Juriga

Tri-County ILC, Inc.

680 East Market Street, Suite 205

Akron, OH 44304

\(216\) 762-0007, TTY: 762-7429, FAX: 762-7416

Lin Laing

The Center for Independent Living Options

632 Vine Street, Suite 601

Cincinnati, OH 45202

\(513\) 241-2600, TTY: 241-7170, FAX: 241-7170

Linda Hildebrand

Services for Independent Living

25100 Euclid Avenue, Suite 105

Cleveland, OH 44117

\(216\) 731-1529, TTY: 731-1529, FAX : 731-3083

Eugene Leber

Access CIL, Inc.

35 South Jefferson

Dayton, OH 45402

\(513\) 341-5202, TTY: 341-5217, FAX : 341-5217

Doris Brennan

Linking Employment Abilities and Potential

1468 West 25^th^ Street

Cleveland, OH 44113

\(216\) 696-2716

Jonnie Fisher

ILC of Northcentral Ohio

1 Marion Avenue, Suite 115C

Mansfield, OH 44903

\(419\) 526‑6770, TTY 526‑6870, FAX 526‑6870

Beverly Rackett

Mid-Ohio Board for IL Environment

2040 Brice Road, Suite 100

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068

\(614\) 864-1199, TTY: 864-2038, FAX : 864-1992

Tim Harrington

Ability Center of Greater Toledo

5605 Monroe

Sylvania, OH 43560

\(419\) 885-5733, TTY: 882-2387, FAX : 882-4813

Gary Donley

Green Country IL Resource Center

4100 SE Adams Road, Suite C-106

Bartlesville, OK 74006

(918)335-1314, TTY:335-1314, FAX: 333-1814, e-mail: GCILRC@AOL.COM

Lew Blockcolski

Sandra Beasley ILC

705 South Oakwood, Suite B-1

Enid, OK 73703

580. 237-8508, TTY: 237-8508, FAX: 233-6403,

e-mail: sbilcenter@pldi.net

Mike Ward

Oklahmans for Independent Living

321 South Third, Suite 2

McAlester, OK 74501

\(918\) 426-6220, TTY: 426-6220, FAX : 426-3245

Executive Director

Progressive Independence, Inc.

121 North Porter

Norman, OK 73071

\(405\) 321-3203, TTY: 321-2942, FAX : 321-7601

Carla Lawson

Ability Resources

110 South Hartford, Suite 115

Tulsa, OK 74120

\(918\) 592-1235, TTY : 592-1235, FAX : 592-5651

Don Stewart

Central Oregon Resources for IL

20436 Clay Pidgeon Court

Bend, OR 97702

\(541\) 388-8103, TTY: 388-8103, FAX : 388-1226

Jan M. Trombley

Handicap Awareness & Support League (HASL)

1252 Redwood Avenue,

Grants Pass, OR 97527

\(541\) 479‑4275, TTY 479‑7261 FAX: 479‑7261

Tina Treasure

SPOKES Unlimited

111 North 7th Street

Klamath Falls, OR 97601

503. 883-7547, TTY: 883-7547, FAX : 883-7547

Tom Ciesielski

Independent Living Resources, Inc. (ILR)

4506 Southeast Belmont

Portland, OR 97215

\(503\) 232-7411, TTY: 232-8404, FAX : 232-7480

Susan Van Scoyoc

CIL of Southcentral PA

3009 Walnut Avenue

Altoona, PA 16601

\(814\) 949-1905, TTY: 949-9009, FAX : 949-1909

Theotis Braddy

CIL of Central PA

415 Fallowfield Road, Suite 101

Camp Hill, PA 17011-4906

717. 731-1900, TTY : 737-1335, FAX : 731-8150,

718. e-mail:cilcp@aol.com **[or]{.underline}** cilcphhs@aol.com\]

Timothy Finegan

Community Resources for Independence

2222 Filmore Avenue

Erie, PA 16506

\(814\) 838-7222, TTY: 838-8115, FAX : 838-8491

Mary (Miggy) Wayne H132A80825

Voices for Independence

3711 West 12th Street

Erie, PA 16505

\(814\) 838-9890

Fern Moskowitz

Liberty Resources, Inc.

1341 North Delaware, Suite 105

Philadelphia, PA 19125

\(215\) 634-2000, TTY : 634-6630, FAX : 634-6628

W.D. Chrisner, III

CIL of Southwestern Pennsylvania

7110 Penn Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15208

\(412\) 371-7700, TTY: 371-6230, FAX : 371-9430

Kathleen Klienmann

Tri-County Partnership for IL

69 East Beau St.

Washington, PA 15301

(724)223-5115, TTY:223-5115, FAX:223-5119, e-mail: kleinman@tripil.com

George Morton

CIL - North Central Penn.

210 Market Street, Suite A

Williamsport, PA 17701

\(570\) 327‑9070‑V; 327‑8610‑Fax; 327‑5254‑TTY

Maria Mercedes LaTorre

Centro de Vida Independiente

Apartado 1681

Hato Rey, PR 00919

\(787\) 753-3109, TTY: 753-1049, FAX : 758-3101

Rose Marie Estevez

Movimento Alcance Vida Independience

P.O. Box 25277

Rio Piedras, PR 00928

\(787\) 758-0573, TTY: 758-0573 , FAX : 758-8844

Leo Canuel

PARI Independent Living Center

500 Prospect Street

Pawtucket, RI 02860

\(401\) 725-1966, TTY: 725-1966, FAX: 725-2104

Lorna Ricci

Ocean State CIL

59 West Shore Road

Warwick, RI 02889

(401)738-1013, TTY: 738-1015, FAX: 738-1083, e-mail: oscil@rida.net

Executive Director

Disability Action Center

3126 Beltline Blvd.

Columbia, SC 29204

\(803\) 779-5121, TTY: 779-0949, FAX: 779-5114

Executive Director

Walton Options for Independent Living, Inc.

P.O. Box 519

Augusta, GA 30903

\(706\) 724-6262, TTY: 724-6324, FAX: 724-6729

Char Crisp

Prairie Freedom CIL

301 South Garfield Avenue, Suite 8

Sioux Falls, SD 57104

\(605\) 367-5630, TTY : 367-5630, FAX: 367-5639

Marla Bull Bear

Tateya Topa Ho

P.O. Box 527

Winner, SD 57580

\(605\) 842-3977, TTY: none, FAX: 842-3983

Executive Director

Tri-State Disability Resource Center

5708 Uptain Rd., Suite 350

Chattanooga, TN 37411-5507

\(423\) 892-4774; TTY: FAX : 892-9866

Susan Stacy

Disability Resource Center

211 Blount Avenue, Suite 508

Knoxville, TN 37920

\(423\) 637-3666, TTY: 637-6796, FAX : 637-5616

Deborah Cunningham

Memphis CIL

163 North Angelus

Memphis, TN 38104

\(901\) 726-6404, TTY: 726-6404, FAX : 726-6521

Janet Kidd

CIL of Middle Tennessee

480 Craighead Street, Suite 200

Nashville, TN 37204

\(615\) 292-5803, TTY: 292-7790, FAX: 292-5803, e-mail: cilmt@edge.net

Melissa Paschal

Panhandle Action CIL

1118 South Taylor St.

Amarillo, TX 79101

\(806\) 374-1400, TTY: 352-8630, FAX: 374-4550

Ronald Rocha

Austin Resource CIL

5555 North Lamar, Suite J-125

Austin, TX 78751

\(512\) 467-0744, TTY: 467-0744, FAX: 467-2417

Nancy Comeaux

SETLIFE, Inc.

780 South Fourth Street

Beaumont, TX 77701

\(409\) 832-2599, TTY:832-2599, FAX: 832-5655

Cheryl Bass

Crockett Resource CIL (Palestine Satellite)

1020 Loop 304 East

Crockett, Texas 75835

\(409\) 544-2811 Fax: (409) 544-7315

Cheryl Bass

Crockett Resource CIL (Main CIL)

1020 Loop 304 East

Crockett, Texas 75835

\(409\) 544-2811 Fax: (409) 544-7315

Charlotte Stewart

REACH of Dallas Resource Center

8625 King George Drive, Suite 210

Dallas, TX 75235

\(214\) 630-4796, TTY: 630-5995, FAX: 630-6390

Charlotte Stewart

REACH of Denton Resource Center

405 South Elm, Suite 202

Denton, TX 76201-6068

\(817\) 383‑1062, TTY: 383‑1062, FAX: 383‑2742

Louis Chew, Acting

VOLAR, CIL

8929 Viscount, Suite 101

El Paso, TX 79925

\(915\) 591-0800, TTY: 591-0800, FAX: 591-3506

Sandra Bookman

Houston CIL

7000 Regency Square Blvd., Suite 160

Houston, TX 77036

\(713\) 974-4621, TTY: 974-4621, FAX: 974-6927

Sandra Bookman

Houston CIL\--Brazoria County Satellite

Angleton Plaza, Suite 1100D E. Mulberry

Angleton, TX 77515

\(409\) 849-8465; (409) 849-7060

Rick Van Hersh

LIFE ILC

3121 34^th^ St.

Lubbock, TX 79401

\(806\) 795-5433, TTY: 749-5438, FAX: 749-2618

David Vander Hee

VAIL

105-C East Expressway 83

McAllen, TX 78577

\(956\) 781-7733, TTY:781-7733, FAX: 781-7735

Jeri Kounce

A.B.L.E. CIL

208 West 23rd

Odessa, TX 79761

\(915\) 580-3439, TTY:580-3439, FAX:580-0280, e-mail: jerik4able@aol.com

Craig Wall

SAILS

1028 South Alamo, Suite 1

San Antonio, TX 78210

\(210\) 281-1878, FAX: 281-1759

Ronald Rocha

Austin Resource CIL

400 West Hopkins, Suite 101

San Marcos, TX 78666

\(512\) 396-5790, TTY:396-5790, FAX: 396-5794

Helen Coburn Roth

OPTIONS for Independence

1095 North Main

Logan, UT 84341

(435)753-5353,TTY:753-5353, FAX:753-5390, e-mail: hroth@optionsind.org

Nancy Bentley

Active Re-Entry

451 South Carbon Avenue

Price, UT 84501

\(801\) 637-4950, TTY: 637-4950, FAX: 637-4952

Debra Mair

Utah ILC, Inc.

3445 South Main Street

Salt Lake City, UT 84115-4453

\(801\) 466-5565, TTY: 466-5565, FAX: 466-2363

Gary Owens

Red Rocks Center for Independent Living

515 West 30^th^ North, Suite A

St. George, UT 84770-4555

435-673-7501; FAX: 673-8808; TTY: NONE

Judy Krum

Vermont CIL (Satellite)

532 Main Street

Bennington, VT 05201

\(802\) 447-0574, TTY: 447-0574, FAX: 442-4052

Debra Lisi-Baker

Vermont CIL

11 East State Street

Montpelier, VT 05602

802. 229-0501, TTY: 229-0501, FAX: 229-0503,

e-mail: vcil@plainfield.bypass.com

Michael Cooper

ENDependence Center of N. VA

3100 Clarendon Blvd.

Arlington, VA 22201

\(703\) 525-3268, TTY: 525-3462 v/tty, FAX : 525-3585

Ralph Shelman

Peninsula CIL

2021 B Cunningham Drive, Suite 2

Hampton, VA 23666

\(804\) 827-0275, TTY: 827-0275, FAX: 827-0655

Steve Johnson

ENDependence Center, Inc.

6320 North Center Drive, Suite 100

Norfolk, VA 23502

\(757\) 461-8007, TTY: 461-7527, FAX: 455-8223

Sandra Wagener

Central Virginia ILC, Inc.

2900 West Broad Street

Richmond, VA 23230

\(804\) 353-6503, TTY:353-6583, FAX: 358-5606

Karen Michalski

Blue Ridge ILC

1502-D Williamson Road, NE

Roanoke, VA 24012

\(540\) 342-1231, TTY:342-1939, FAX: 342-9505

Felicia Brownlow

Virgin Islands Association for IL

PO Box 3305, Charlotte Amalie

St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands 00801

\(304\) 777-4978, FAX:774-8210

Noelle Blazevich

Independent Lifestyle Services

422 North Pine

Ellensburg, WA 98926

\(509\) 962-9620, TTY: 962-9620, FAX: 962-9620

Sarajane Siegfriedt

disAbility Resource Center

607 SE Everett Mall Way, Suite 17

Everett, WA 98208

425. 347-5768, TTY:347-5768, FAX:710-0767,

e-mail: ilsc@richpoor.com website: www.wa-ilsc.org

Jim Lindley

Center for Independence

P.O. Box 1247

Puyallup, WA 98371

\(253\) 845-5187 TTY/FAX: 848-0798

JoAnn Fritsche, WCCD

4649 Sunnyside North, Suite 100

Seattle, WA 98103

(206)545-7055, TTY:461-3766, FAX: 461-4570, e-mail: wccd@premier1.net

Director

WCCD\--King County Satellite

4649 Sunnyside North, Suite 100

Seattle, WA 98103

\(206\) 461-4550, TTY: 461-3766, FAX: 461-4570, e-mail:
wccd@premier1.net

Director

WCCD+Snomish County Satellite

4649 Sunnyside North, Suite 100

Seattle, WA 98103

(206)461-4550, TTY:461-3766, FAX: 461-4570, e-mail: wccd@premier1.net

Linda McClain

Coalition of Responsible Disabled

612 N.Maple St.

Spokane, WA 99201

\(509\) 326-6355, TTY: 326-6355, FAX: 327-2420

Tom Ciesielski

Independent Living Resources, Inc., SW WA Satellite

4506 Southeast Belmont St.

Portland, OR 97215

\(503\) 232-7411, TTY: 232-8404, FAX: 232-7480

Larry Paxton

Appalachian CIL

4710 Chimney Drive, Suite C

Charleston, WV 25302

\(304\) 965-0376, TTY: 965-0376, FAX: 965-0377

Noelle Blazevich

Independent Lifestyle Services

422 North Pine

Ellensburg, WA 98926‑3318

509‑962‑9620 Voice/TDD 1‑800‑240‑5978 V/TDD, Fax: 509‑962‑9630

e-mail: ils@televar.com

Anne Weeks

Mountain State CIL

821 Fourth Avenue

Huntington, WV 25701

\(304\) 525-3324, TTY: 525-3324, FAX: 525-3360

Jan Rieger

Northern West Virginia CIL

1130 Green Bag Road

Morgantown, WV 26505

\(304\) 296-6091, TTY: 291-9066, FAX: 291-9071

Ann Sievert

Access to Independence, Inc.

1310 Mendota Street

Madison, WI 53714

\(608\) 242-8484, TTY: 242-8485, FAX: 242-0383

Karen Hodgson

CIL for Western Wisconsin, Inc.

University Wisconsin - Stout

Menomonie, WI 54751

\(715\) 232-1216, TTY: 232-2150, FAX: 232-5226

Lee Schulz

Independence FIRST

600 West Virginia Street, Suite 300

Milwaukee, WI 53204

414. 291-7520, TTY: 291-7525, FAX: 291-7510,

e-mail: lee@independencefirst.org

Carol Kinney

Wyoming IL Rehabilitation

305 West First Street

Casper, WY 82601

\(307\) 266-6956, TTY: 266-6956, FAX: 266-6957

Carol Fontaine

Western Wyoming CIL

550 Main Street, Suite 2

Lander, WY 82520

\(307\) 332-4889, TTY: 332-4889, FAX: 332-2491, e-mail: wwcfil@rmisp.com

ATTACHMENT 16

> **U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development**
>
> Washington, D.C. 20410-2000

JUN 25 2001

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

FOR FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

> MEMORANDUM FOR: ALL FHEO HUB DIRECTORS
>
> ALL FHEO PROGRAM CENTER DIRECTORS
>
> All FHEO SITE DIRECTORS
>
> FROM: Floyd 0. May, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations and
>
> Management, EG
>
> SUBJECT: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) Review of
> FHEO-Related Provisions
>
> of the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly and the Section
> 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities - Notices of
> Funding Availability
>
> **I.** **[Purpose and Backzround.]{.underline}**
>
> This Notice provides guidance to field Fair Housing and Equal
> Opportunity (FHEO) Public Trust Officers (PTOS) on the review and
> evaluation of applications for the FY 2001 Section 202 Supportive
> Housing for the Elderly and Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons
> with Disabilities Programs. It discusses and clarifies FHEO\'s
> responsibilities for both of these programs.
>
> **II.** **[Definitions.]{.underline}**
>
> **A.** **Area of minority concentration.** For the purpose of this
> competition, a neighborhood in which any one of the following
> statistical conditions exists:
>
> 1\. The percentage of persons of a particular racial or ethnic
> minority is at least 20 percentage points higher than that minority\'s
> percentage in the housing market as a whole;
>
> 2\. 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 as a whole; or
>
> 3\. In the case of a metropolitan area, the neighborhood\'s total
> percentage of minority persons exceeds 50 percent of its population.
>
> **B.** **Disability.** According to 24 CFR 891.305, with respect to an
> individual, a disability is a physical or mental impairment that
> substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such
> individual (Section 811 (k)(2)(A-C) of the National Affordable Housing
> Act). The statute says that:
>
> \"A person shall be considered to have a disability if such person is
> determined, pursuant to regulations issued by the Secretary, to have a
> physical, mental or emotional impairment which (A) is expected to be
> of long-continued and indefinite duration, (B) substantially impedes
> his or her ability to live independently, and (C) is of such a nature
> that such ability could be improved by more suitable housing
> conditions.\"
>
> **C.** **Elderly.** A person who is 62 years of age or older.
>
> **D.** **Housing market area.** For the purpose of this competition, a
> housing market area is that geographic region from which it is likely
> that renters/purchasers would be drawn for a given multifamily housing
> project. A housing market area most often corresponds to a
> Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which in most cases consists of
> one or more counties or several adjacent municipalities. To ensure
> consistency, PTOs should check with the Economic and Market Analysis
> staff to make sure that the same market areas are used.
>
> **E.** **Minority.** For the purpose of this program, \"minority\"
> means the basic racial and ethnic categories for Federal statistics
> and administrative reporting, as defined in the Office of Management
> and Budget\'s Statistical and Policy Directive No. 15 (62 FR 58782,
> October 30, 1997).
>
> **F.** **Minority** **persons.** As used throughout this guidance,
> this term refers mainly to elderly minority persons and minority
> persons with disabilities, although the NOFA also refers to minority
> persons generally.
>
> **G.** **Overriding need.** One of two determinations that may be made
> regarding sites that are located within areas of minority
> concentration. The site will meet the overriding need test if:
>
> 1\. The site is an integral part of a local strategy for the
> preservation or restoration of the immediate neighborhood; or
>
> 2\. The site is located in **a** neighborhood experiencing significant
> private investment that is demonstrably changing the economic
> character of the area (a \"revitalizing area").
>
> **H.** **Person with disabilities.** The regulations at 24 CFR 891.305
> define this term as follows:
>
> 1\. A person who has a developmental disability, as defined in Section
> 102(7) of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights
> Act \[42 U.S.C. 6001(5)\], i.e., if he or she has a severe chronic
> disability which:
>
> a\. Is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination
> of mental and physical impairments;
>
> b\. Is manifested before the person attains age twenty-two;
>
> c\. Is likely to continue indefinitely;
>
> d\. Results in substantial functional limitation in three or more of
> the following areas of major life activity:
>
> [1]{.underline} Self-care;
>
> [2]{.underline} Receptive and expressive language;
>
> [3]{.underline} Learning;
>
> [4]{.underline} Mobility;
>
> [5]{.underline} Self-direction;
>
> [6]{.underline} Capacity for independent living; and
>
> [7]{.underline} Economic self-sufficiency;
>
> e\. Reflects the person\'s need for a combination and sequence of
> special, interdisciplinary, or generic care, treatment, or other
> services that are of lifelong or extended duration and are
> individually planned or coordinated.
>
> 2\. A person with a chronic mental illness, i.e., a severe and
> persistent mental or emotional impairment that seriously limits his or
> her ability to live independently, and which impairment could be
> improved by more suitable housing conditions.
>
> 3\. A person infected with the human acquired immunodeficiency virus,
> alcohol or drug addiction, provided they meet the definition of a
> person with a disability, as defined in 42 U.S.C. 8013(k)(2). A person
> whose sole impairment is a diagnosis of HIV-positive or alcoholism or
> drug addiction \[i.e., does not meet the qualifying criteria in
> Section 811 (42 U.S.C. 8013 (k,)(2))\] will not be eligible for
> occupancy in a Section 811 project.
>
> **I. Sufficient and comparable housing opportunities.** This term is
> part of the Department\'s site and neighborhood standards and is one
> of two tests that are applied to determine if a site proposed for an
> area of minority concentration is approved. Under these standards,
> sufficient and comparable housing opportunities for minority elderly
> or persons with disabilities must exist in areas outside of the area
> of minority concentration. The Regulations at 24 891.125(c)(3)
> elaborate on this concept.
>
> **III.** **[Role of FHEO in the Review Process]{.underline}. FHEO
> staff performs the following roles during the review process.**
>
> A. Works with Multifamily Housing Field Office staff to notify the
> following about the Section 202 and Section 811 Notices of Funding
> Availability (NOFA):
>
> 1\. Media which service elderly persons and minorities and persons
> with disabilities;
>
> 2\. All persons and other organizations on Field Office mailing lists;
>
> 3\. Minority and other organizations involved in housing and community
> development within their jurisdictions- and
>
> 4\. Groups with a special interest in housing for the elderly and
> persons with disabilities.
>
> B. Participates in the Field Office\'s Section 202 and Section 811
> workshops and pre-workshops by presenting information to all potential
> sponsors on the civil rights requirements of the program and the
> applications.
>
> C. Participates in the Technical Review Process by evaluating the
> application in accordance with the guidance provided below, as well as
> HUD Notice 01- Fiscal [Year 2001 Policy for Capital Advance Authority
> Assignments, Instructions and Program Requirements for the Section 202
> and Section 811 Capital Advance dated, 2001]{.underline}, which
> contains the Office of Housing\'s instructions for application
> processing and selection requirements for both the Section 202 and
> Section 811 programs.
>
> D. Serves on the Field Office\'s Rating Panel that is convened by the
> Director of Multifamily Housing to review the applications. FHEO
> provides advice and guidance to the panel members regarding those
> applications that will best meet Civil rights and fair housing
> objectives. FHEO\'s role is essential, because FHEO review may impact
> the scores on the applications. Especially when there are far more
> applications than can be funded, FHEO points may help an applicant to
> be funded over an applicant with no FHEO points.
>
> **IV.** **[FHEO Concerns in the NOFAS.]{.underline}**
>
> A. The following FHEO concerns apply to both the Section 202 and
> Section 811 Supportive Housing NOFAS:
>
> 1\. **Factors Rated by FHEO.** FHEO staff rate the following Standard
> Rating Factors:
>
> a\. Rating Factor 1(b), Capacity. (10 points for the Section 202
> Program, 8 points for the Section 811 Program).
>
> b\. Rating Factor 3(b), Soundness of Approach (10 points for the
> Section 202 Program, 8 points for the Section 811 Program),
>
> 2\. **Other Rating Factors.** FHEO reviewers comment on, but do not
> rate the following rating factors:
>
> a\. Rating Factor 2, Need/Extent of the Problem.
>
> b\. Rating Factor 5, Comprehensiveness and Coordination.
>
> 3\. **Change in the Rating Points for the Section 811 Supportive
> Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program.** Because additional
> points are given to projects in which the Sponsors have demonstrated
> their experience in developing integrated housing, an equivalent
> reduction of points was made to (a) Rating Criterion 1(b) pertaining
> to the quality of the Sponsor\'s experience with providing housing
> and/or services to minority persons or families with disabilities, and
> to (b) Rating Criterion 3(b), pertaining to the suitability of the
> site from the standpoint of promoting greater choice of housing
> opportunities for minorities and persons with disabilities and
> affirmatively furthering fair housing. Both of these rating criteria
> have been reduced from 10 points to 8 points under the Section 811
> program.
>
> B. **FHEO reviewers should be aware of the following requirements when
> reviewing applications submitted for the Section 811 Supportive
> Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program:**
>
> 1\. **Section 811 Occupancy.** In the application submission
> requirements, where the applicant is asked to specify whether the
> proposed housing will serve persons with physical, developmental or
> chronic mental disabilities, the phrase \"or any combination of the
> three\" has been added to make it clear that the applicant does not
> have to restrict occupancy to one of the three populations. For
> example, the applicant may serve one or more than one of the three
> populations or may serve a subclass of one of the three populations.
>
> 2\. **Applicants Cannot Require Residents to Accept Supportive
> Services.** Applicants must certify in their applications that they
> will not require residents to accept any supportive services as a
> condition of occupancy. Although the acceptance of services has never
> been a program requirement, the Department has been informed that in
> many cases applicants have required residents to accept services in
> order to live in housing for persons with disabilities developed under
> either the old Section 202 program or the Section 811 program.
> Residents must be free to choose between either accepting supportive
> services offered by the applicant, obtaining supportive services on
> the open market, or choosing to receive no supportive services at all.
>
> **V. [QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS]{.underline}.** The following questions
> and answers address issues pertaining to FHEO\'s role in the review
> process for applications submitted under this NOFA.
>
> **A. THRESHOLD REVIEW ISSUES.**
>
> Q. Do the Threshold Criteria contained in Section II(B) of the General
> Section of the SuperNOFA apply to applications submitted in response
> to the Section 202 and Section 811 program NOFAs?
>
> A. Yes.
>
> Q. What are these threshold criteria?
>
> A. The applicant must be in compliance with civil rights laws and
> regulations and executive orders enumerated in 24 CFR 5.105(a). In
> order to pass the civil fight threshold, an applicant must not have
> any of the following:
>
> 1\. A charge with a systemic violation of the Fair Housing Act by the
> Secretary alleging ongoing discrimination;
>
> 2\. Involvement as the defendant in a Fair Housing Act lawsuit filed
> by the Department of Justice alleging an ongoing pattern or practice
> of discrimination; or
>
> 3\. A letter of noncompliance findings under Title VI of the Civil
> Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or
> Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
>
> If an applicant is found to have any of the above three civil
> rights-related problems, then that applicant is not eligible to apply
> under this SuperNOFA, if the charge, lawsuit or letter of findings has
> not been resolved to the satisfaction of the Department before the
> application deadline. HUD\'s decision regarding whether a charge,
> lawsuit or letter of findings has been satisfactorily resolved will be
> based upon whether appropriate actions have been taken to address
> allegations of ongoing discrimination in the policies or practices
> involved in the charge, lawsuit or letter of findings.
>
> Q. How does the Department determine whether an applicant has passed
> the Civil rights threshold?
>
> A. The FHEO staff in the local HUD Offices must provide the local
> program staff:
>
> 1\. A list of all entities in your respective regions that may have
> Civil rights problems that may implicate the SuperNOFA threshold
> requirements. Program staff will compare this list with the list of
> applicants for funding; and
>
> 2\. Documented information about applicants that may not be on the
> list of potential problem sponsors, but nevertheless may have civil
> rights problems that would implicate the SuperNOFA threshold. FHEO
> then makes the final determination of the applicant\'s eligibility
> under the civil rights threshold requirements stated in the previous
> question.
>
> Q. Does the affirmatively furthering fair housing language of Section
> II(D) of the General Section also apply to applicants for Section 202
> and Section 811 funding?
>
> A. Yes. According to Section II(D) of the General Section of the
> SuperNOFA, all successful applicants have a duty to affirmatively
> further fair housing.
>
> Q. Do applicants for funding under these program NOFAs have to submit
> certifications of compliance with civil rights laws, and do they have
> to certify that they will affirmatively further fair housing? Does the
> Department review these certifications?
>
> A. The answer to both questions is yes. Civil rights certifications
> are included in Exhibit 7(k), Applicant\'s Combined Certifications.
> FHEO reviews the Civil rights certifications stated in the Exhibit to
> determine whether the applicant has complied with civil rights laws in
> the past and has, where applicable, affirmatively furthered fair
> housing. The Department accepts them unless there is documented
> evidence to the contrary.
>
> **B.** **QUESTIONS ON THE RATING FACTORS FOR WHICH FHEO AWARDS
> POINTS.**
>
> **1.** **Rating of Applicant\'s Experience and Ties to the Minority
> Community \[Rating Factor l(b)\]**

Q. Rating Factor I is entitled \"Capacity of the Applicant and Relevant
Organizational Staff.\" Which part of this factor does FHEO review?

> A. FHEO reviews the applicant\'s description of its experience in
> providing housing and/or related support services to minority persons
> or families and its historical ties to the minority community. This
> information is found in Exhibits 3(a), (b) and (e) of the application.
>
> Q. What must the applicant submit as part of its statement of purpose,
> community ties and experience?
>
> A. The Program NOFAs require the applicant to submit as Exhibits 3(b)
> and (d) a description of its ties or historical relationships with the
> community at large and to the minority and elderly (Section 202) or
> disabled (Section 811) communities in particular. It also requires a
> description of.
>
> 1\. Housing and/or supportive services experience, which should
> include any rental housing projects and/or services and facilities
> owned and/or operated by the applicant;
>
> 2\. Experience in serving the elderly, including elderly persons with
> disabilities, and/or families and minorities (Section 202) and persons
> with disabilities and minorities (Section 811);
>
> 3\. Data on the facilities and services provided and the racial/ethnic
> composition of the populations served, if available; and
>
> 4\. Information and testimonials from residents or community leaders
> on the quality of the activities.
>
> These items are included as Exhibit 3(e).
>
> Q. How does FHEO evaluate applicants under this criterion?
>
> A. In determining the applicant\'s ability to develop and operate the
> proposed housing on a long-term basis, FHEO must:
>
> 1\. Consider the scope, extent and quality of the applicant\'s
> experience in providing housing or related services to minority
> persons or families, as well as its ties to the community at large and
> to the minority and elderly/persons with disabilities communities in
> particular;
>
> 2\. Utilize data contained in the Exhibits in the application for an
> overall picture of the applicant\'s previous housing and/or services
> experience; and
>
> 3\. Consider information provided by Multifamily Housing staff in
> connection with the applicant\'s Previous Participation Certificate
> Review (Form HUD-2530).
>
> Q. How does FHEO evaluate the applicant\'s experience in serving
> minorities?
>
> A. In evaluating an applicant\'s experience in serving minorities,
> FHEO considers:
>
> 1\. The variety of services and facilities provided, and the specific
> types of such services and facilities;
>
> 2\. The description of persons, by race and ethnicity, served by the
> activities, including the racial and ethnic composition of both tenant
> and/or client populations, if available;
>
> 3\. Information from residents in the community regarding the quality
> of the activities; and
>
> 4\. The description of its ties to the community.

Q. What if the applicant has no previous experience in providing housing
or related services?

> A. If the applicant has no previous housing experience, it is
> particularly important for FHEO staff to examine all data and all
> relevant experience reported in the application. Nonprofit
> organizations with little or no housing experience should have an
> opportunity (based upon their service experience) to compete
> successfully with larger organizations with significant housing
> experience.
>
> Q. How does FHEO review the applicant\'s ties to the minority
> community?
>
> A. As part of its analysis of applicant experience, FHEO reviews the
> narrative statements in Exhibits 3(b) and (d) to determine the extent
> of the applicant\'s ties to the minority community. FHEO\'s review
> includes any documentation submitted by the applicant, such as letters
> from minority community leaders, heads of organizations, etc. Such
> documentation must contain specific information about the writer\'s
> relationship with the applicants over time. Generic letters of support
> should not be considered as evidence of ties to the community.
>
> Q. On what basis may FHEO award the maximum number of points for the
> previous experience of the applicant?
>
> A. In order to receive the maximum number of points under the Section
> 202 or Section 811 programs, an applicant must have significant
> previous experience in housing and/or serving minorities and have ties
> to the minority community. For the purpose of this competition,
> \"significant previous experience\" means that the applicant:
>
> 1\. Has served a population of minorities through its housing and/or
> services that was equal to or greater than the percentage of
> minorities in the jurisdiction; and/or
>
> 2\. Has implemented specific types of services in the past or has
> shown such services to be actually in place.
>
> Q. On what basis may FHEO award less than the maximum number of
> points?
>
> A. If an applicant\'s submission warrants awarding less than 10 points
> on this criterion, FHEO shall do so based on the following:
>
> Eight points (Section 202) or seven points (Section 811):
>
> Applicant has significant previous experience in housing and/or
> serving minorities, but there is no evidence that the applicant has
> ties to the community.
>
> Six points (Both programs):
>
> Applicant has minimal experience in housing and/or serving minorities,
> and the applicant has ties to the minority community. For the purpose
> of this competition, \"minimal experience" means:
>
> 1\. Previous housing assistance and/or related service to minorities
> was less than the percentage of minorities in the jurisdiction where
> the previous housing and/or related service experience occurred; and
>
> 2\. Applicant has not implemented or proposed specific types of
> services, but has made very general statements about such services.
>
> Four points (Both programs):

Applicant has minimal experience in housing and/or serving minorities
and does not have ties to the minority community.

> Two points (Both programs):
>
> Applicant does not have experience in housing and/or serving
> minorities, but there is evidence that the applicant has ties to the
> minority community.
>
> No points (Both programs):

Applicant has not addressed the issue at all, or has no experience in
housing and/or serving minorities and does not have ties to the minority
community.

> **2.** **[Rating of the Site \[Rating Factor 3(b)\]]{.underline}**

Q. What does the NOFA require HUD to consider regarding the suitability
of the site as a means of promoting a greater choice of housing
opportunities?

> A. In determining the quality and effectiveness of the project, as
> well as the relationship between the project, the community\'s needs
> and the purposes of the program\'s funding, FHEO should consider the
> suitability of the site from the standpoint of promoting a greater
> choice of housing opportunities for minority elderly persons/families
> (Section 202) or minority persons with disabilities (Section 811), and
> affirmatively furthering fair housing. The site will be deemed
> acceptable if it increases housing choice and opportunity by:
>
> 1\. Expanding housing opportunities in non-minority neighborhoods (if
> located in such a neighborhood); or
>
> 2\. Contributing to the revitalization or reinvestment in minority
> neighborhoods, including improvement of the level, quality and
> affordability of services furnished to the minority elderly (Section
> 202) (10 points maximum) or minority persons with disabilities
> (Section 811) (8 points maximum).

Q. What materials must the applicant submit to support a showing of
acceptability under the program\'s Site and Neighborhood Standards at 24
CFR 891.125(b) and (c)?

> A. The NOFA requires the applicant to submit as part of Exhibit 4(d) a
> narrative topographical and demographic description of the suitability
> of the site and area, and how the site will promote greater housing
> opportunities for minority elderly and minority persons with
> disabilities, thereby affirmatively furthering fair housing.

Q. How does HUD review the proposed site for its potential for promoting
greater housing choice and opportunity?

A. In determining whether a site promotes housing choice for minority
elderly and minority persons with disabilities, FHEO reviewers should
consider:

> 1\. The existence of other assisted housing (including Section 202,
> Section 811 and low-income public housing projects) that houses such
> persons; and
>
> 2\. The location(s) of such housing.

Using information contained in Exhibit 4(a), FHEO staff would have
already determined whether a minority-concentrated area has an unmet
need for housing for minority elderly and minority persons with
disabilities. In this instance, FHEO determines whether the proposed
housing and this location address that need.

> Q. The regulations governing the Section 202 and Section 811 programs
> (24 CFR 891) include the Department\'s Site and Neighborhood
> Standards. In a nutshell, what do these standards say?
>
> A. The Department\'s Site and Neighborhood Standards say the
> following:
>
> 1\. New construction may not be located in an area of minority
> concentration or in a racially-mixed area if the project will cause a
> significant increase in the proportion of minority to non-minority
> residents in the area.
>
> 2\. New construction may be located in an area of minority
> concentration if:
>
> \(a\) Sufficient and comparable housing opportunities exist for
> minority elderly or minority persons with disabilities, in the income
> range to be served by the proposed project outside areas of minority
> concentration, or
>
> \(b\) The project is necessary to meet an overriding need which cannot
> be met in the housing market area.

Q. How does FHEO determine the racial and ethnic composition of the area
in which a proposed site is located, and which set of Census data should
be used to make these determinations?

A. The definition of \"Area of Minority Concentration\" stated in this
guidance should be used in determining whether a proposed site is
located in an area of minority concentration. The NOFA states that this
definition applies only to this competition. In addition, to help you in
making your calculations, you should use the data from the 1990 Census
of Population.

> Q. How are these standards to be applied in this competition?
>
> A, In rating sites that are located within areas of minority
> concentration or racially-mixed areas, reviewers shall consider the
> following questions:
>
> 1\. How does the site address the housing needs of minority elderly or
> minority persons with disabilities?
>
> To help you answer this question, note that it was addressed
> previously in Rating Factor 2, and your comments on that factor should
> be blended with your comments on this factor.
>
> 2\. How will the site contribute to overall neighborhood
> revitalization as part of an overall revitalization plan or contribute
> to major private investment going on in the neighborhood?
>
> 3\. How will the site improve the quality of facilities and services
> targeted to minority elderly or persons with disabilities?
>
> 4\. Are there comparable housing opportunities, e.g., other Section or
> Section 811 projects, located outside of the area of minority
> concentration?
>
> Points should be awarded as follows:

Ten points (Section 202 Program) or eight points (Section 811 Program),
if the site meets subcriterion one and any one of the three parts of
subcriterion two:

> 1\. The site is located in a minority/racially-mixed area with a need
> for such housing, and has relatively little other subsidized housing;
> and
>
> 2\. a. The project is to be the first Section 202 or Section 811
> project in the neighborhood and/or is part of ongoing private
> investment in the neighborhood; or part of a neighborhood
> revitalization plan undertaken by the local jurisdiction; or
>
> b\. The project is part of the Consolidated Plan\'s Annual Plan or is
> a tool for addressing impediments identified in the jurisdiction\'s
> Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI); or
>
> c\. There are sufficient and comparable units outside of the
> minority/racially-mixed area that will be available to minority
> elderly or minority persons with disabilities, thus providing housing
> choices for those elderly minority persons or minority persons with
> disabilities who live inside and outside minority communities.

Five points (Section 202 Program), four points (Section 811 Program):

> 1\. The site is located in a minority/racially-mixed area with a need
> for such housing, and
>
> 2\. The project contributes to meeting the overall need for housing
> for minority elderly and minority persons with disabilities; but
>
> 3\. There are no or few comparable housing opportunities located
> outside of minority/racially-mixed areas;
>
> 4\. The project is not part of an overall revitalization plan and is
> not part of an overriding housing need in the community; and;
>
> 5\. The project contributes to an already very heavy concentration of
> assisted housing.
>
> Zero points: The site, although acceptable, does not promote greater
> choice of housing opportunities for minority elderly or minority
> persons with disabilities.

Q. What if a site is located within a non-minority area?

> A. When rating sites are located within non-minority areas or areas
> with few minorities, reviewers shall consider the following questions:
>
> 1\. How does the site address the housing need in the community as a
> whole, as well as in the non-minority area, even though there are
> existing assisted housing units in the non-minority area, including
> Section 202 or Section 811 housing?
>
> 2\. Do both the non-minority area and a minority area adjacent to it
> have assisted housing and an unmet need for housing for minority
> elderly and minority persons with disabilities?
>
> 3\. Will the project offer new housing opportunities for which
> minority elderly or minority persons with disabilities will apply?
>
> Points should be awarded as follows:

Ten points (Section 202 Program), eight points (Section 811 Program):

> 1\. The site addresses the need of the non-minority area and the
> community as a whole, or
>
> 2\. The site creates comparable housing opportunities for which
> minority elderly or minority persons with disabilities who reside
> within areas of minority concentration will apply.

Five points (Section 202 Program), four points (Section 811 Program):

> The site addresses the need of the community as a whole but does not
> offer minority elderly or minority persons with disabilities
> comparable housing opportunities for which they will apply.
>
> Zero points (Both programs): None of the above. The proposal does not
> promote greater choice of housing opportunities for minority elderly,
> nor does it address the need within the non-minority area.
>
> **C. QUESTIONS ON THE RATING FACTORS ON WHICH FHEO DOES NOT ASSIGN A
> RATING.**
>
> Q. What are the civil rights requirements in Rating Factor 2?
>
> A. The NOFA states that \"the Department will review more favorably
> those applications which establish a connection between the proposed
> project and the community\'s AI or other planning document that
> analyzes fair housing issues and is prepared by a local planning or
> similar organization. You must show how the proposed project will
> address an impediment to fair housing choice described in the AI or
> meet a need identified in the other type of planning document.\"
>
> Q. How does FHEO review this criterion?
>
> A. FHEO does not award points in the review of Rating Factor 2, Need.
> However, FHEO does evaluate whether the applicant utilized the
> community\'s AI or other planning document that analyzes Fair Housing
> issues. Such a document, prepared by a local planning or similar
> organization, should identify the level of the problem and the urgency
> in meeting the need for the project.
>
> FHEO should review Exhibit 4(a) of the application and note whether
> the applicant had described how information in the community\'s or
> State\'s Al or other planning documents was used in documenting the
> need for the project. For example, if the application states that (1)
> the jurisdiction\'s Al had identified a concentration of assisted
> housing for the elderly within minority census tracts and
> racially-motivated resistance to the location of assisted housing for
> minority elderly or minority persons with disabilities within
> non-minority areas as impediments to fair housing choice, and (2) if
> the proposed project is to be located within a non-minority area, the
> fact that the project would be located in a non-minority area
> expresses a commitment to affirmatively further fair housing.
>
> Q. What are the civil rights-related considerations in Rating Factor
> 5, Comprehensiveness and Coordination?
>
> A. In FY 2001, applications will receive four (4) base points for
> involving the target population (elderly persons, particularly
> minority elderly persons for Section 202, and persons with
> disabilities, including minority persons with disabilities for Section
> 811), in the development of the application, and intends to involve
> the target population in the operation of the project. They will also
> receive 2 points out of 10 for demonstrating active involvement in, or
> the steps they will take to become actively involved in, the local
> jurisdiction\'s Consolidated Planning process (including the AI).
>
> Although the Project Manager will award the points for this rating
> factor, FHEO should review Exhibits 3(f) and (h) and recommend ratings
> for the above-stated subcriteria of Rating Factor 5. FHEO staff should
> note specific actions either already taken or planned by applicants to
> involve themselves in the Consolidated Planning or AI processes or to
> involve minority elderly or minority persons with disabilities in the
> development and implementation of the project.
>
> Q. What if the applicant proposes relocation activities?
>
> A. With regard to relocation, the Section 202 and Section 811 NOFAs
> require applicants to submit a statement (Exhibit 6) that:

1\. Identifies all persons (families, businesses, individuals and
nonprofit organizations) occupying the property on the date of
submission of the application for a capital advance, by race/minority
group and status as owners or tenants;

> 2\. Indicates the estimated cost of the relocation;
>
> 3\. Identifies the staff organization that will carry out the
> relocation; and

4\. Identifies all persons that have moved from the site over the last
12 months.

> The applicant is also required to certify compliance with the Uniform
> Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act and its
> regulations (49 CFR 24.205) for planning and implementing relocation
> programs and advisory services. These regulations require that, where
> displacement of minority persons is involved, services must include
> steps to ensure that such persons have a reasonable opportunity to
> relocate to decent, safe, and sanitary replacement dwellings that are
> within their financial means, in a full range of neighborhoods,
> including those which are outside areas of minority concentration \[49
> CFR 24.205(c)(2)(ii)(C)\]. The Relocation Plan should also include a
> component for mobility counseling to ensure fair housing choice.
> Section 811 applications that are site-identified are not required to
> submit Exhibit 6 at the Application for Fund Reservation stage.
>
> Q. Who has the overall responsibility for the relocation plan review?
>
> A. The Office of Community Planning and Development has the
> responsibility for this activity. However, FHEO staff should review
> Exhibit 6 to determine whether the applicant has submitted the
> required racial and ethnic data on the persons or businesses to be
> displaced and whether the applicant\'s relocation advisory procedures
> promote a greater choice of housing opportunities for minority persons
> or households as required by the Uniform Relocation Act\'s
> regulations. Comments should be provided to Multifamily Housing.

Please address any questions on this memorandum to Ivy L. Davis,
Director, Office of Programs, (202) 708-2288, ext. 7028, or Parnela D.
Walsh, Director, Program Standards Division, (202) 708-2288, ext. 7017.