**MEETING MINUTES**

**(Issued 8/2/07)**

**Date: July 31, 2007**

**Attendees:**\
Alanda Jackson; Caroline Clayton; Dale Gravett; Eric Brown; Gary Rosen;
James McCreight; Jennifer Lavorel; Joan Pollock; Leroy Ferguson; Maria
Marquez; Reginal Barner; Satinder Munjal; Shawn Sweet; Tara O\'Neill

**RE:** July 31, 2007 Conference Call

**Tentative Dates/Goals:**

-   September 27, 2007: Read-out of group's ideas, suggestions, etc.

-   September 15, 2007: Final report completed and submitted

-   September 13, 2007: Meeting at REAC to work on final report

-   Conference calls each Tuesday at 10:00 AM (Eastern) starting July
    24, 2007

**Action Items:**

-   Review 24 CFR 970 and provide comments/observations/ideas as how to
    improve the process; Part 971, 85.36 and Part 983 (Project Based
    HCV) and will be reviewed at a later date

-   The September 13, 2007 meeting at the REAC will start at 10:00 AM in
    the finance conference room.

**Main Discussion Items:**

-   REAC is interested in having a close-to-final document by September
    15 in order to have HUD HQ take a quick look prior to the final read
    out on September 27. Perhaps some of the suggested changes can be
    made quickly.

-   The focus of the September 13 meeting at the REAC will be the final
    report. The meeting will start at 10:00 A.M. Eastern and will be
    held in the finance conference room.

-   At this time, there are no plans to streamline the two Development
    and Asset Repositioning ("DAR") groups, although the meeting minutes
    of all groups can be accessed on their respective websites.

-   In preparation for the final report, a draft format will be
    developed and distributed before the next meeting. The draft will
    include the following information:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Processes and regulations that have been identified as needing
    change as well as potential solutions. Related statutory issues and
    sub-regulatory materials may also be included.

-   A general comment area to address trends, changes in affordable and
    public housing development, process challenges, et cetera.

### HUD processing of demo/dispo applications:

-   Are there areas in which HUD should be streamlining?

-   More certifications, fewer descriptions would help streamlining.

-   Electronic applications system doesn't work; hard copies still have
    to be sent to the SAC.

-   SAC doesn't ask substantive questions --- they basically just go
    through a checklist. But the narrative requirements are so long that
    the proposals get bogged down. Anything that can be replaced by a
    certification should be. HUD should assure that rules have been
    followed, residents have been notified. HUD shouldn't require such
    an elaborate process.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Language on demolition costs in the TDC, raised during last call, is
    not in the statute but in regs.

-   **Comments on 24 CFR Part 970 begin below.**

**Next Meeting Scheduled:** Tuesday, August 2, 2007 call number: (866)
209-3385 ID: 10240233

### 24 CFR Part 970

+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 97  | No comments                                                    |
| 0.1 |                                                                |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 97  | Statute makes reference to other properties (1437(p)(A)(2)).   |
| 0.3 | Not clear whether demo/dispo statute applies to non--public    |
|     | housing structures located on a public housing site. Applies   |
|     | only if built with public housing funds. Bottom line: PHAs     |
|     | generally should have the right to tear down non--public       |
|     | housing buildings without going through demo/dispo (for        |
|     | example, with a building that is an eyesore and not in use by  |
|     | residents).                                                    |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     | Should there be a timeline for HUD approval? 60 days should be |
|     | plenty if process is adequately streamlined. If application    |
|     | triggers a series of questions, could there be an additional   |
|     | 30 days? Yes.                                                  |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     | Question: Mixed-finance does not have to go through            |
|     | disposition review by SAC, yet HOPE VI grant agreements say    |
|     | they do. Can HUD clarify, provide consistency?                 |
|     |                                                                |
|     | HUD staff: Grant agreements were written before current rule   |
|     | came out. When HUD went to apply the current rule, OGC         |
|     | reminded HUD that a disposition approval is required by        |
|     | statute (Sec. 18). So the grant agreement is actually more     |
|     | accurate than the regs. Streamlined application is posted on   |
|     | the SAC Web site.                                              |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     | Streamlined application is posted on the SAC website.          |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     | Add to #16: "Disposition of property owned by a PHA or its     |
|     | instrumentality and not subject to a Deed of Trust."           |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     | Offering of Buildings to residents is not in the statute;      |
|     | should be clarified.                                           |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 97  | Eligible resident organization and resident council not        |
| 0.5 | defined in statute. Definitions need to be clarified.          |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 97  | \(a\) Suggests a PHA can tear down without HUD approval as     |
| 0.7 | long as the PHA doesn't intend to request HUD funds (similar   |
|     | ambiguity under 970.25).                                       |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     | Are all A(a) 1 through 16 required by statute?                 |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     | (a)(6) Can't HUD accept a certification that the PHA is        |
|     | following their relocation rules rather than require a plan?   |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     | If a PHA demos/dispos without approval, it cannot get HUD      |
|     | funds to pay for demo (also 970.5) This needs to be clarified. |
|     | Does this mean HAs can demo at will if they don't need HUD     |
|     | \$\$\$.                                                        |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     | (a)(14)(1 & 2) description of process re: consultation with    |
|     | local government. Why is that necessary if you're getting a    |
|     | letter from the local elected officials?                       |
|     |                                                                |
|     | HUD wants to be sure any board meetings where official actions |
|     | are taken take place [after]{.underline} getting input.        |
|     |                                                                |
|     | Why not just require the PHA to certify that all actions took  |
|     | place after input was obtained?                                |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     | (a)(17) is excessively vague, too open ended.                  |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     | (b)(1) replace "consider" with "approve"                       |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     | (b)(2) delete unless it's a statutory requirement.             |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 97  | \(c\) Statute uses the term eligible resident organizations    |
| 0.9 | but doesn't define them.                                       |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 970 | (a), (b), and (c) appear to be statutory; (d) has a level of   |
| .11 | detail that appears to be necessary if a demo/dispo approval   |
|     | is challenged in retrospect, for example.                      |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     | Why do we need the level of micro-management detailed by this  |
|     | section? In favor of eliminating whole section.                |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     | (b)(h): how can HUD order a PHA to sell the PHA's property to  |
|     | someone? While HUD may not have a legal obligation to provide  |
|     | operating subsidy, it doesn't own the site.                    |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 970 | Does the statute require this?                                 |
| .13 |                                                                |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     | Why require an environmental review for demolition only? If    |
|     | the building was built during a particular era, there could be |
|     | asbestos tiles or other dangerous substances requiring         |
|     | abatement (that's already taken into account for demo specs,   |
|     | etc.).                                                         |
|     |                                                                |
|     | Maybe concerns specific to demolition should be identified and |
|     | the PHA should simply certify that these have been taken into  |
|     | consideration.                                                 |
|     |                                                                |
|     | Issue is whether environmental review applies to building      |
|     | envelope.                                                      |
|     |                                                                |
|     | HUD staff: Environmental review is required only if intent is  |
|     | to build something after the demo.                             |
|     |                                                                |
|     | Needs clarification in terms of how requirement is being       |
|     | implemented.                                                   |
|     |                                                                |
|     | Agreement that environmental review is a reasonable            |
|     | requirement at point where ready to rebuild.                   |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     | If prior review has covered the project, can't that count as   |
|     | the environmental assessment?                                  |
|     |                                                                |
|     | SHPO/Department of Interior requirements must be considered; a |
|     | lot of public housing is over 50 years old.                    |
|     |                                                                |
|     | Getting environmental assessment done by Local Responsible     |
|     | Entity is political and is hard to get.                        |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 970 | Reference to obsolescence: The form is more specific than the  |
| .15 | regs. A PHA could make progress toward demo following just the |
|     | regs and then realize that the form is more detailed; form     |
|     | material should perhaps be incorporated in the regs.           |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 970 | Easier to have dispo approved by grant managers if project is  |
| .17 | a HOPE VI, but this could raise statutory issues? Would be     |
|     | easier to have dispo approved by Washington is Washington is   |
|     | already reviewing evidentiary and other materials under HOPE   |
|     | VI.                                                            |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 970 | Use of net proceeds is not as clear as HUD's latest            |
| .19 | interpretation, according to the form.                         |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     | Define fair market value in terms of a willing seller and      |
|     | willing buyer who are both informed.                           |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 970 | (c)(1) Add "operating subsidy, property reserves".             |
| .21 |                                                                |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     | (d)(2): Why, this is a guesstimate at best?                    |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 970 | Add: "its operating subsidy, property reserves"                |
| .23 |                                                                |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     | \(a\) Add written: "A PHA may not take any action to demolish  |
|     | or dispose of a public housing development or a portion of a   |
|     | public housing development without obtaining **written** HUD   |
|     | approval under this part."                                     |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 970 | Language talks about not re-renting on turnover while HUD is   |
| .25 | considering application. HUD form seems to ask questions about |
|     | re-rental timing. Form and regs don't seem to match and maybe  |
|     | they should. HUD should clarify.                               |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 970 | No comments                                                    |
| .27 |                                                                |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 970 | No comments                                                    |
| .29 |                                                                |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 970 | We demolished part of a site and had approval outside of HOPE  |
| .31 | VI. We demolished 84 and were allowed to put back 82. The      |
|     | "significantly fewer" requirement is statutory (1437(p) (d)).  |
|     | How do design criteria relate to "significantly fewer"         |
|     | requirement? Unclear.                                          |
|     |                                                                |
|     | What if you're tearing down 50 large-bedroom units and         |
|     | replacing them with 50 smaller-bedroom units? You're reducing  |
|     | density, but with same number of units. So this language is    |
|     | too vague, not helpful.                                        |
|     |                                                                |
|     | Also, the mix of units in the new development may be different |
|     | from the mix of units in the old development.                  |
|     |                                                                |
|     | This could conflict with any congressional action to require   |
|     | one-for-one replacement.                                       |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 970 | No comments                                                    |
| .33 |                                                                |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 970 | No comments                                                    |
| .35 |                                                                |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+