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

**Housing**

Special Attention of:

#  NOTICE 04-16

# All Multifamily Hub Directors 

# All Multifamily Program Center Directors 

# All Supervisory Housing Project Managers

**Issued: August 19, 2004**

**Expires: August 31, 2005**

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

#  Cross Reference: 

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

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

Subject: Fiscal Year 2004 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

> A. Changes to Application/Selection Process

B.  Application Processing Schedule (ATT. 1)

C.  Submission Requirements for Selection Materials (ATT. 2)

D.  Section 202 Allocation Chart (ATT.3)

E.  Section 811 Allocation Chart (ATT.4)

F.  Section 811 Workshop Instructions (ATT.5)

G.  Section 202 Funding Notification (ATT.6)

H.  Section 811 Funding Notification (ATT.7)

I.  Applications Processing and Selections Policy (ATT.8)

J.  Section 202 Minority Business Enterprise Goals (ATT.9)

K.  Section 811 Minority Business enterprise Goals (ATT. 10)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
L.  Initial Screening for Curable Deficiencies (ATT.11)

M.  Technical Review Sheets (ATT. 12)

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 May 14, 2004, and the technical
correction published in the [Federal Register]{.underline} on June 22,
2004, 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.

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

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

Previous editions obsolete Form HUD-21-B (3/80)

**2. [CHANGES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2004 SECTION 202
AND]{.underline}**

**[SECTION 811 PROGRAMS]{.underline}:**

A.  **[Reformatted Program Sections and General Section of the
    SuperNOFA]{.underline}.**

> All Program Sections and the General Section of the SuperNOFA have
> been reformatted according to the Office of Management and Budget
> (OMB) specifications in an effort to ensure consistency in funding
> notifications across the federal government. Therefore, it is
> essential to read the Section 202 and Section 811 program sections of
> the SuperNOFA as well as the General Section thoroughly to become
> familiar with the reformatted material and the information that has
> changed since FY 2003. In addition, the program NOFAs contain
> information that has not changed, but that has never been included in
> either NOFA before (e.g., information on the Agreement Letter and what
> is expected after selection for a fund reservation).

B.  **[Submission of Applications]{.underline}.**

> **(1) [Filing of Applications]{.underline}**. **Hand-delivered**
> applications will be accepted if they are **received** in your office
> **by** **4:00 p.m. local time on July 22, 2004**. If there is no one
> available in your office to accept the application or if the courier
> service is not allowed to enter the building to deliver the package
> for security or other reasons, then the package will be deemed
> undeliverable and not accepted. The General Section advises
> applicants, if this should occur, to take the application to the
> nearest post office so that it can be postmarked no later than
> midnight on July 22, 2004.
>
> The strong encouragement to applicants to mail their applications
> using the United States Postal Service (USPS) has been removed from
> the General Section. If applications are mailed via the **USPS**, they
> must be **postmarked no later than midnight on** **July 22, 2004,**
> and received in the appropriate HUD field office within 15 days of the
> application deadline date.
>
> No specific courier service is specified for delivery to HUD field
> offices, however, applications delivered by a **courier service** must
> be **received by** your office by **4:00 p.m. local time on July 22,
> 2004**.

**(2)** **[Proof of Timely Submission]{.underline}**.

(a) **[USPS]{.underline}**. If the postal service does not normally
    postmark large packages, the proof of timely submission shall be
    receipt within 15 days at the designated HUD Office and, upon
    request by a HUD official, proof of mailing using USPS Form 3817,
    Certificate of Mailing or a receipt from the Post Office which
    contains the post office name, location, date and time of mailing.

(b) **[Other Delivery Service]{.underline}**. Timely submission of

> applications sent by a delivery service other than the USPS is a
> delivery receipt indicating the application was delivered to a carrier
> service at least 24 hours prior to the application deadline date and,
> through no fault of the applicant, delivery could not be made on or
> before the application deadline date. Couriers turned away from a HUD
> Office due to security reasons will not be considered as meeting the
> requirement of "through no fault of the applicant".

**C. [No Separate Application Kit]{.underline}.** There is no separate

> application kit this year. In previous years, the applications were
> never available immediately upon publication of the SuperNOFA.
> Customers complained that sometimes it took an extremely long time to
> receive the application kit which impeded the development of their
> application. Therefore, everything needed to submit a Section 202 or
> Section 811 application this year is in the SuperNOFA. The forms that
> are required for all programs are in the General Section of the
> SuperNOFA and all of the exhibits required as part of either the
> Section 202 or Section 811 application are described in the applicable
> program NOFA which also contains the additional forms that are
> required for the particular program. Applicants may obtain an
> application by accessing the HUD homepage on the Internet at
> <http://www.hud.gov/grants/index.cfm> and downloading the General
> Section of the SuperNOFA and the applicable Program Section. Although
> all the necessary forms are in the General Section and applicable
> Program NOFA, they may be downloaded individually as well. Applicants
> may also request copies of the Application from the NOFA Information
> Center by calling toll-free 1-800-HUD-8929 (the TTY number is
> 1-800-HUD-2209) or by contacting the appropriate HUD Office. An
> applicant that contacts the NOFA Information Center requesting either
> a Section 202 or Section 811 application will receive the General
> Section of the SuperNOFA, the Section 202 and Section 811 program
> NOFAs and all of the required forms as one package. Field Offices will
> also receive a supply of these application packages. We feel this
> process is more customer oriented and will result in greater customer
> satisfaction with the application process.
>
> **D. [DUNS Number]{.underline}.** All applicants will need to obtain a
> Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and
> include it on its Standard Form 424 (SF-424), Application for Federal
> Assistance. The General Section of the SuperNOFA explains the
> procedures for obtaining a DUNS number. The DUNS number and the SF-424
> are curable deficiencies. If the DUNS number is not included on the
> SF-424 and is not provided during the deficiency period, the
> application cannot be selected.
>
> **E. [Name Check Review]{.underline}.** Recommended applicants will be
> subject to a Name Check Review. This is in addition to the previous
> participation clearance process as described in paragraph 16 below.
> Program Centers must submit a list of all applications that are
> approvable for funding along with the SF-424 from each of these
> applications to Headquarters, the Office of Housing Assistance and
> Grant Administration, Room 6138, Attention 202/811, at the same time
> they submit their selection information to the Multifamily Hubs. If
> the name check review reveals significant adverse findings that
> reflect on the business integrity or responsibility of the applicant
> and/or key individual, HUD reserves the right to: (1) deny funding or
> consider suspension/termination of an award immediately for cause; (2)
> require removal of any key individual from association with management
> of and/or implementation of the award; and (3) make appropriate
> provisions or revisions with respect to the method of payment and/or
> financial reporting requirements. Headquarters will notify the Hubs as
> soon as the results of the name check review process are available
> should the results affect the selection of any applications that are
> either on the Selection List or on the Approvable, but Unfunded List
> so that appropriate changes can be made before the selection materials
> are sent to Headquarters.

**F. [Increased Development Cost Limits]{.underline}.** The Development

> Cost Limits for elevator and non-elevator structures under the Section
> 202 program and for independent living projects under the Section 811
> program have been increased to match the Section 221(d)(3) cost limits
> which were published in the [Federal Register]{.underline} on November
> 18, 2003, and became effective on January 1, 2004. These cost limits,
> including the cost limits for Section 811 group homes which were also
> increased, reflect the current trend in costs to develop such
> projects. The high cost factors also have been revised to correspond
> to the new development cost limits. HUD Offices will calculate FY 2004
> 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.

**G. [Additional Units Are No Longer Required for a Mixed-Finance
Project]{.underline}.** If an applicant wants to develop a mixed-finance
project, it no longer has to propose the development of additional units
over and above the Section 202 or Section 811 units, as applicable.

**NOTE**: The term mixed-finance project, as used here and in the
Section 202 and Section 811 NOFAs, does not include the development of
Section 202 or Section 811 units using secondary/supplemental financing
or the development of a mixed-use project in which the Section 202 or
Section 811 units are mortgaged separately from the other uses of the
structure.

> **H. [Mixed-Finance Project For Additional Units]{.underline}.** If
> the applicant proposes to develop a mixed-finance project by
> developing additional units over and above either the Section 202 or
> Section 811 units, as applicable, it must describe in Exhibit 4
> (c)(iii) of the application its plans and actions that it has taken
> thus far to create such a mixed-finance project and provide any
> letters it has sent to, and responses it has received from, outside
> funding sources. If the
>
> Sponsor's application is selected as a non-mixed-
>
> finance application or as a mixed-finance application
>
> without additional units, the Sponsor cannot decide at
>
> a later date to do a mixed-finance application for
>
> additional units.
>
> **(1) [Rating for Factor 4(c)]{.underline}.** If additional units are
> proposed, the application will receive up to two points for Rating
> Factor 4(c), the extent of the applicant's plans to develop a
> mixed-finance project for additional units over and above the Section
> 202 or Section 811 units, as applicable. If the proposed project will
> involve mixed-financing for additional units in which the non-Section
> 202 or non-Section 811 units represent 30 percent or less of the
> Section 202 or Section 811 units, the application will receive one
> point for Rating Factor 4(c)(i), **or**, if they represent more than
> 30 percent of the Section 202 or Section 811 units, the application
> will receive two points for Rating Factor 4(c)(ii). If the application
> does not propose mixed-financing for additional units, it will not
> receive a score for Rating Factor 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(ii).
>
> **(2) [Potential Cancellation of Fund Reservation]{.underline}.** If
> for any reason, the Sponsor is unable to develop a mixed-finance
> project for additional units, the Section 202 or Section 811 fund
> reservation, as applicable, will be cancelled. This is due to the fact
> that the application received a rating based on the number of
> additional units being proposed, thus increasing its competitiveness,
> and a later change in the proposal to exclude the additional units
> would alter the fairness of the competition.
>
> **(3) [No Capital Advance Amendment Money]{.underline}.** No capital
> advance amendment money will be provided to Section 202 or Section 811
> mixed-finance projects for additional units.
>
> **(4) [Firm Commitment Application Requirements]{.underline}.** If a
> Sponsor receives a Section 202 or Section 811 fund reservation for a
> mixed-finance application in which it proposed additional units, it
> will be required to submit the additional documents outlined in HUD's
> mixed-financing interim rule which was published in the [Federal
> Register]{.underline} on December 1, 2003.

(5) **[Section 811 Mixed-Finance Applications For]{.underline}**

> **[Additional Units]{.underline}.** The additional units cannot cause
> the Section 811 project to exceed the project size limit for the type
> of project proposed, unless the applicant requests and receives HUD
> approval to exceed the project size limit if the project will be an
> independent living project or the additional units will house people
> without a disability.

# 

#  I. [Environmental Changes]{.underline}. 

# 

# (1) For all Section 202 and Section 811 applications with evidence of site control, an asbestos report is required if an existing structure built before 1978 is on the site even if the structure on the 

#  site will be demolished. The report must be based on a thorough inspection of the structure(s) and identify the location and condition of any asbestos. Should an application be approved for funding where the asbestos report either indicates or assumes that asbestos is present, HUD will condition the approval on an appropriate mix of asbestos abatement and an asbestos Operations and Maintenance Plan. If there is no pre-1978 structure on the site, the applicant must provide a statement to that effect. Both the asbestos report and statement are separate from the Phase I this year and are curable deficiency items.

# This year the NOFA informs and/or reminds applicants that HUD must complete the environmental review process before an application can be recommended for selection and that, in order to do so, HUD may contact the applicant for further environmental information. The NOFA refers applicants to HUD's website where they can view HUD Form 4128 and the Sample Field Notes Checklist so they can get a better idea about the type of environmental information HUD needs to complete the environmental review.

# (3) If the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) reveals site contamination, the required remediation plan that must be submitted to HUD must require that any contamination be eliminated to non site-specific Federal, state or local health standards except if the contamination remains only in groundwater that is 25 feet below the surface. Clean-up of the contamination cannot include capping over of the contamination, monitoring wells, or any ongoing active or passive remediation after initial closing. 

#  

> **J. [Time Limit for Reduction in Points Due to Delay
> in]{.underline}** **[Reaching Initial Closing/Need for Amendment
> Funds]{.underline}.** Points for Sponsor-caused delays in the project
> reaching initial closing and any corresponding need for amendment
> money will be deducted only for such projects that were funded in FY
> 1999 and later years. It was decided that is unfair to continually
> penalize a Sponsor for such occurrences that happened five or more
> years ago if they have shown an improvement in project development in
> recent years.
>
> **K. [Removal of Regulatory Barriers to Affordable
> Housing]{.underline}.** All applicants applying for funding under the
> FY 2004 SuperNOFA will receive up to 2 points for responding to the
> policy priority of undertaking activities that will remove barriers to
> the development of affordable housing. In Exhibit 3(j) and Exhibit
> 3(l), respectively, Section 202 and Section 811 applicants must
> describe the extent to which the jurisdiction in which the project
> will be located has undertaken successful efforts in removing
> regulatory barriers to affordable housing. In order to receive up to 2
> points under Rating Factor 3, Section 202 and Section 811 applicants
> must submit the optional Form HUD-27300, Questionnaire for HUD's
> Initiative on Removing Regulatory Barriers. Although this form is not
> required, it is not curable since it affects the rating of the
> application. However, if the applicant does not submit this form, it
> will **not** cause the application to be rejected. On the other hand,
> failure to complete the narrative in Exhibit 3(j) for 811 or 3(l) for
> 202 will cause the application to be rejected.
>
> **L. [Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property]{.underline}**
> **[Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended, (URA) Site]{.underline}**
> **[Notification Requirement]{.underline}.** All Section 202 applicants
> and Section 811 applicants submitting applications with site control
> must include evidence in their applications that they have provided
> the seller with written information regarding a voluntary, arm's
> length purchase transaction. If an applicant owns vacant property,
> even if it was purchased years ago, and the property was acquired for
> purposes of doing a 202 or 811 project, then the Sponsor must locate
> the seller and provide the required written disclosures. If no 202 or
> 811 project was planned or intended, the written notifications are not
> required. It may be difficult to determine whether a project was
> planned or intended when these properties were acquired. One
> suggestion is to determine if there was an application that may not
> have been funded that involved these properties.

The disclosure notices are not required for

acquisitions of real property from a Federal agency,

State, or State agency when the purchaser does not have

authority to acquire the property through condemnation.

> **M. [Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for
> Applicants]{.underline}** **[(SF-424 Supplement)]{.underline}.** The
> completed SF-424 Supplement will contain information regarding whether
> or not the applicant is a faith-based organization. The Department is
> required to provide information to the White House and Congress from
> time to time on both the number of applications it receives from
> faith-based organizations as well as the number of funding awards it
> has provided to such organizations. Therefore, Program Centers are
> required to send a copy of the SF-424 Supplement from each application
> it receives to Headquarters, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant
> Administration, Attention: 202/811, Room 6134, by **July 29, 2004**.

N.  **[Program Outcome Logic Model(Form HUD-96010)]{.underline}.** This
    year, the Program Outcome Logic Model (Form HUD-96010) is being
    required in addition to the Project Development Timeline. The
    Project Development Timeline was introduced as an application
    requirement in FY 2003 for two purposes. First, it served as a means
    for determining whether an applicant had a full understanding of the
    development process for Section 202 or Section 811 housing which
    would be an additional indication of the Sponsor's ability to
    develop the project in a timely manner. It also was required as a
    means for beginning to hold selected Sponsors accountable for their
    performance and for achieving results. In an effort to increase the
    applicant's accountability for their performance, all FY 2004
    SuperNOFA applicants will be required to complete Form HUD-96010.
    Headquarters offered two additional satellite broadcasts on the
    Logic Model; one for HUD staff and one for applicants. Check the
    satellite broadcast schedule on
    <http://ww.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm> to view the
    archived public broadcast and
    <http://hudweb.hud.gov/po/a/grants/odgmotrng.htm> on the <HUD@Work>
    site to view the staff broadcast.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
O.  **[Leasehold Term]{.underline}.** The leasehold term is 50 years
    with renewable provisions for 25 years.

> **P. [Commercial Space]{.underline}.** The maximum amount of space
> allowed for a commercial facility, on its own, may not exceed 10
> percent of the total project cost. It is no longer combined with
> community space for the purpose of determining the maximum amount of
> allowable space.
>
> **Q. [Eligibility of Housing Already Serving the Elderly
> or]{.underline}**
>
> **[Persons with Disabilities]{.underline}.** Due to the scarcity of
> Section 202 and Section 811 program resources compared with the need
> for housing that can be developed through these programs, applicants
> may not request funding for housing that is currently owned or leased
> by the applicant **and** already serving the elderly, in the case of
> applications for Section 202, and housing already serving persons with
> disabilities, in the case of applications for Section 811.
>
> **R. [Scoring Changes Applicable to Both Section 202
> and]{.underline}** **[Section 811]{.underline}.**
>
> **(1) [Rating Factor 3, Soundness of Approach]{.underline}.** As
> described in paragraph K. above, applicants will receive a maximum of
> two points on their efforts to remove regulatory barriers to the
> development of affordable housing in the community in which the
> project will be located. Section 202 applicants will receive a rating
> for Rating Factor 3(k) and Section 811 applicants will receive a
> rating for Rating Factor 3(j).
>
> **(2) [Rating Factor 4, Leveraging Resources]{.underline}.** One point
> each was removed from Rating Factors 4(a) and 4(b) so that up to two
> points could be assigned to a new Rating Factor, 4(c), which is the
> extent of the Sponsor's plans to develop a mixed-finance project for
> additional units over and above the Section 202 or Section 811 units
> as described in paragraph H. above. An application will receive two
> points for Rating Factor 4(c)(i) if the additional units represent
> more than 30 percent of the number of Section 202 or Section 811
> units, one point for Rating Factor 4(c)(ii) if they will represent 30
> percent or less of the Section 202 or Section 811 units or zero points
> for both Rating Factors if the project will not be a mixed-finance
> project for additional units.
>
> **S. [Elimination of Congressional Notification Letter]{.underline}.**
> In an effort to standardize the information that the Office of
> Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (CIR) needs to notify
> Congress of all the funding awards under the SuperNOFA, the
> Congressional Notification Letter that is in the Development
> Application Processing system (DAP) will no longer be used for that
> purpose. Headquarters will be providing CIR with an excel spreadsheet
> with pertinent information such as the Grant Program Name, recipient,
> the street address, city, state and zip code of the project, the total
> award amount and a contact name and phone number. This information
> will be pulled from the data that you input into DAP. Although all the
> information must be accurate, it is essential that the zip code of the
> project not have any mistakes because that is what they will use to
> determine which Congressional District the project is in and,
> consequently, which Member of Congress to notify. However, because it
> is used for the information that will be in the press release, you are
> still required to input the information in the project highlights
> section of the Congressional Notification for each application that is
> on either the Initial Selection List or Approvable but Unfunded List,
> but you do not have to submit a hard copy of the Congressional
> Notification to Headquarters.
>
> **T. [Press Release Information]{.underline}.**
>
> When completing the Project Highlights section of the Congressional
> Notification form that will be used for the attachment to the Press
> Release as indicated in the preceding paragraph, please pay particular
> attention to the following:
>
> **(1) [Project Description]{.underline}.** Describe something unique
> and interesting about the project. The following are good examples of
> project highlights for a Section 202 project and a Section 811
> project:

a.  **[Section 202]{.underline}.**

> The funds will be used to construct 124 one-bedroom units for very-low
> income elderly persons and one two-bedroom unit for a resident
> manager. The site for the project is adjacent to an existing senior
> center and the residents will be able to participate in the many
> activities sponsored by the center including a meals program. A public
> bus stop will be located in front of the project so the residents will
> have easy access to shopping and medical facilities. A Service
> Coordinator is being provided on site to help residents assess
> services.

b.  **[Section 811]{.underline}.**

> The funds will be used to acquire and rehabilitate seven units for
> very low-income persons with physical disabilities. The project
> consists of five one-bedroom and two two-bedroom condominium units
> scattered throughout an existing condominium complex. The location is
> in close proximity to services such as medical, shopping and public
> transportation, etc. This integrated model allows residents to blend
> into the surrounding community yet provides the accessibility features
> and the availability of supportive services that allow them to live as
> independently as possible.
>
> **(2) [Things to Avoid in Description of Section 811]{.underline}**
>
> **[Project/Residents]{.underline}.**

a.  The words or phrases that must not be used and their replacements
    are as follows:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
i.  "handicapped" (except when used to describe accessibility or
    adaptability), "clients", or "patients"

> Instead, use "person or persons with disabilities".

**ii**. "supervision" (or any form of the word), "caretaker", or
"houseparents"

> Instead, use "resident manager".

**iii.** "facility"

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

**iv.** "low income"

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

v.  "confined to a wheelchair"

> Instead, use "wheelchair user".

**vi.** "services will be provided"

> Instead, use "services will be
>
> available".
>
> **b.** Do not capitalize the type of project or the type of
> disability.
>
> **(3) [Proofread Carefully]{.underline}.** Make sure there are no
> typos in the final DAP entry.
>
> **U. [Technically Rejected Applications]{.underline}.** Field Offices
> are **not** permitted, **under any circumstances**, to talk to or meet
> with any applicant whose application has been technically rejected.
> The procedure that must be followed for applications that are
> technically rejected is for the applicant to receive a technical
> reject letter outlining the reasons for the rejection and affording
> them an opportunity to appeal the rejection without submitting any new
> information. The appeal process is not an opportunity for the
> applicant to discuss with Field Office staff, either on the telephone
> or in person, why their application should not be rejected, as it
> would undermine the competitive aspect of the programs. Any further
> appeal of the Field Office's decision must be forwarded to
> Headquarters, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration,
> for final determination.

**V. [Exhibit 8(i), Form HUD-2990, Certification of]{.underline}**

**[Consistency with the RC/EZ/EC Strategic Plan]{.underline}**.

Strategic Planning Communities have been deleted from

the listing.

**W. [Changes Applicable to the Section 202 Program Only]{.underline}.**

# 

# [Allocation Formula]{.underline}. The allocation formula uses 2000 Census Data that includes one data element. The data element is the number of one-person elderly renter households (householder age 62 and older) with incomes at or below the applicable Section 8 very low-income limit, and with housing conditions.

# [Licensed Assisted Living Projects]{.underline}. Licensed assisted living projects have been added to the list of ineligible activities in the Section 202 program NOFA. 

> **(3) [Economic and Market Analysis (EMAS) Review]{.underline}.** The
> EMAS rating for sufficient demand will once again be based on the
> project's unmet needs ratio. An application in a market area found to
> have sufficient demand may receive either 12 or 6 points. No other
> point values are allowed. The ratio is calculated by dividing the
> number of units in the proposed project by the unmet need in the
> market area. Units intended for occupancy by resident managers are not
> to be counted. An application is to receive 12 points if the project
> has an unmet needs ratio of 15 percent or less; 6 points if the unmet
> needs ratio is greater than 15 percent. Unmet need is defined as the
> number of very low-income elderly one-person renter households age 75
> or older with housing condition problems, as of the 2000 Census minus
> the number of project-based subsidized rental housing units (HUD,
> Rural Housing Service (RHS), or Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
> that are affordable to very low-income elderly) provided in the area
> since 1999.
>
> **(4) [Changes to Rating Factor 3]{.underline}.** The rating criterion
> for site approvability has been increased from 15 points to 20 points.
> As a result of this increase as well as the addition of a rating
> criterion for the policy priority of removing regulatory barriers to
> affordable housing as mentioned above, all other rating criteria
> within Factor 3 have been reduced by one point with the following
> exceptions: The rating criteria dealing with permissive zoning, the
> suitability of the site for promoting a greater choice of housing
> opportunities for minority elderly persons/ families, etc. and the
> design incorporating visitability and universal design have not been
> reduced and the extent to which the proposed design will meet the
> physical needs of the elderly has been reduced by two points.
>
> **X. [Changes to the Section 811 Program Only]{.underline}.**

# [Site Control]{.underline}. Applications that are submitted with evidence of site control where both the evidence and site(s) are approvable will no longer receive five points site control. Instead, such applications that receive at least 75 points before the addition of bonus points will be placed in Category A. Applications that are submitted with evidence of site control where either the evidence or the site is not approvable, as well as applications that come in with an identified site(s) or with a mix of sites under control and sites identified, that receive at least 75 points before the addition of bonus points will be placed in Category B. All applications in Category A will be selected before the selection of any applications in Category B, both at the Program Center and Multifamily Hub levels. This change was necessary for two reasons. First, it was necessary to free up some points for the addition of two rating criteria applicable to the policy priorities of ending chronic homelessness and removing regulatory barriers to affordable housing. Second, with the addition of the two policy priorities just mentioned, it would have been more difficult for applications to attain the minimum of 75 points necessary for selection if we didn't convert to a selection preference rather than the point system for meeting the statutory selection criterion of "the extent to which the Sponsor has control of the site".

> **(2) [Site Scoring Issues]{.underline}.** Applications containing
> satisfactory evidence of control for all proposed sites and all
> proposed sites are approvable by Valuation (a score of one or higher
> for Criterion 3(a), Site Approvability) will be placed in Category A
> for selection purposes as indicated above.
>
> **If the site control is NOT acceptable** in a single site
> application, the application will be placed in Category B for
> selection purposes but is still rated by Valuation (VAL) for Site
> Approvability (Criterion 3(a)) and by the Office of Fair Housing and
> Equal Opportunity (FHEO) for the suitability of the site in promoting
> a greater choice of housing opportunities for persons with
> disabilities, including minorities (Criterion 3(c)).
>
> **If either VAL or FHEO REJECTS the site** in a single site
> application, the application will receive zero points for Criteria
> 3(a) and 3(c). The application will be placed in Category B for
> selection purposes as long as the Sponsor indicated in Exhibit
> 4(d)(xi) that it is willing to seek an alternate site. Otherwise, the
> application will be rejected.

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

#  [Changes to Rating Factor 3]{.underline}. The rating criterion for site approvability has been increased from 10 points to 14 points. A rating criterion worth one point has been added to accommodate the policy priority of ending chronic homelessness within 10 years. As mentioned above, the five points for site control have been eliminated.

(1) **[Additional Curable Deficiency Items]{.underline}.** As a result
    of eliminating the five points for site control, the following parts
    of Exhibit 4 are now curable since they don't affect the rating of
    the application:

> Exhibit 4(d)(i) Evidence of site control
>
> Exhibit 4(d)(ii) Evidence site is free of
>
> limitations, restrictions or reverters
>
> Exhibit 4(d)(iv) Evidence of compliance with the
>
> URA site notification requirement
>
> Exhibit 4(d)(vii) Phase I ESA
>
> Exhibit 4(d)(viii) Asbestos Statement or Report
>
> Exhibit 4(d)(ix) Letter to the State Historic
>
> Preservation Officer/Tribal Historic
>
> Preservation Officer (SHPO/THPO)
>
> Exhibit 4(d)(x) Response from SHPO/THPO or
>
> statement that they didn't respond
>
> Exhibit 4(e)(ii) Steps undertaken to identify site
>
> Exhibit 4(e)(iv) Status of the sale of the site
>
> Exhibit 4(e)(v) Whether the site would involve
>
> relocation

**3.** **[CHANGES PURSUANT TO THE CONSOLIDATED
APPROPRIATIONS]{.underline} [RESOLUTIONS, 2004]{.underline}:** In
accordance with the waiver authority provided in the FY 2004
Consolidated Appropriations Resolutions, the Secretary is extending the
following determination made in the Notice, published in 61 F.R. 3047
and in the FYs 1997 through 2002 Section 202 and Section 811 NOFAs, to
FY 2004 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. [CHANGES FOR THE FY 2003 AND EARLIER SECTION 202 AND
SECTION]{.underline}** **[811 PROGRAMS WHICH ARE STILL IN
EFFECT]{.underline}:**

> **A. [Threshold Score]{.underline}**. The minimum score for funding
>
> consideration was increased from 70 to 75 points beginning in FY 2003
> (exclusive of the two bonus points for Renewal Community/Empowerment
> Zone/Enterprise Community/Urban Enhanced Enterprise Community
> (RC/EC/EZ) applications).
>
> **B. [Form HUD-2530, Previous Participation
> Certification]{.underline}.** Sponsors must now receive clearance by
> HUD regarding their previous participation activities before they can
> be considered for funding. Beginning in FY 2003, Sponsors must submit
> form HUD-2530, Previous Participation Certification, under Exhibit
> 8(j) of the 202 and/or 811 applications. HUD staff will complete the
> previous participation clearance process in accordance with the
> Previous Participation Handbook 4065.1 REV-1 and the instructions
> contained in paragraph 16 of this Notice. Form HUD-2530 is a curable
> deficiency item. See paragraph 16 for further discussion.

C.  **[Elimination of the Reference to Mixed-Use
    Proposals]{.underline}.** The reference to proposals with a
    mixed-use purpose was eliminated beginning in the FY 2003 NOFA.
    However, this does not preclude the addition of commercial spaces in
    mixed-finance projects as long as the space meets the requirements
    for commercial spaces as stated in the 202 and 811 NOFAs. There are
    other ways that Sponsors can combine Section 202 and Section 811
    projects with commercial spaces. Sponsors may propose to develop the
    project under a condominium structure whereby the Section 202 or
    Section 811 units would be a separate condominium from the
    commercial space, or develop the project under an air-rights
    structure so that the Section 202 or Section 811 capital advance
    would be used to purchase the air rights over the commercial space.

> **D. [Commercial Facilities]{.underline}.** To clarify that commercial
> facilities may be included in Section 202 and Section 811 projects, a
> definition of a commercial facility is included in the NOFAs.
> Commercial facilities cannot be funded with the use of the capital
> advance or PRAC funds and must be for the benefit of the residents.
> The maximum space for a commercial facility and other community space
> may not exceed 10 percent of the total project cost **(this part has
> changed for FY 2004 -- see paragraph 2.P. above),** unless it is a
> project involving acquisition or rehabilitation and the additional
> space was incorporated in the existing structure at the time the
> proposal was submitted to HUD. Commercial facilities must comply with
> the accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act
> of 1990 (ADA) as they are considered public accommodations under Title
> III of the ADA.
>
> **E. [Supplemental Guidance to Guidebook entitled "Choosing an
> Environmentally Safe Site]{.underline}."** Additional environmental
> information on the protection and conservation of natural resources,
> such as the protection of endangered and threatened species, and
> manmade hazards is included as Appendix C to the NOFA.
>
> **F. [Sample State/Tribal Historic Preservation Office]{.underline}
> [Letter]{.underline}.** Appendix B to the NOFA includes a sample
> letter that Sponsors may use to submit to the SHPO/THPO to attempt to
> initiate consultation with the SHPO/THPO and to request their review
> of the proposed project. Sponsors may, however, continue to develop
> and use their own letters to request the SHPO/THPO review of their
> projects.
>
> **G. [Supportive Services Plan]{.underline}.** The Exhibit for
> providing a description of the provision of services and the
> supportive services plan is now Exhibit 5. It was previously a part of
> Exhibit 4.
>
> **H. [Form HUD-50071, Certification of Payments to
> Influence]{.underline}** **[Federal Transactions]{.underline}.** The
> submission of Form HUD-50071 is no longer required. Form HUD-424B,
> Applicant Assurances and Certifications, provides the information
> previously contained in Form HUD-50071. Therefore, by signing the Form
> HUD-424B, Sponsors are, in fact, certifying to compliance with the
> requirements regarding payments to influence federal transactions.
> Sponsors are still required to submit SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying
> Activities, if necessary, to report such activities.
>
> **I. [Project Development Timeline]{.underline}.** In keeping with the
> Department's Policy Priorities for FYs 2003 and 2004 for requiring
> applicants to be accountable for their performance and achieving
> results, Sponsors are now required to submit under Exhibit 3(h), a
> project development timeline that lists the major development stages
> for the project with the associated dates for completing the stages.
> Sponsors have to identify the development stages to get the projects
> to initial closing and start of construction within the 18-month term
> of the fund reservation period as well as the full completion of the
> project, through final closing. Information from this Exhibit is used
> to assist the Field Office in scoring applications under Rating Factor
> 5, which has been renamed "Achieving Results and Program Evaluation."
> The previous optional Exhibit asking the Sponsor to describe its plan
> for getting the project to initial closing and start of construction
> within 18 months of the fund reservations (previously Exhibit
> 4(c)(iv)) has been eliminated.
>
> **J. [Expiration of Funds]{.underline}.** The FYs 2003 and 2004
> Consolidated Appropriations Resolutions require all 202/811 FYs 2003
> and 2004 funds to be obligated by September 30, 2006. No funds can be
> disbursed from the account after September 30, 2011. The project must
> be completed through final closing no later than September 30, 2011.
> All unexpended balances, including any remaining balance on PRAC
> contracts will be cancelled as of October 1, 2011. Other current
> appropriations will have to fund any amounts needed to maintain PRAC
> payments for any remaining term on the affected contract beyond
>
> September 30, 2011.
>
> The FY 2002 Appropriations Act requires all 202/811 FY 2002 funds to
> be obligated by September 30, 2004. No funds can be disbursed from the
> account after September 30, 2009. The project must be completed
> through final closing no later than September 30, 2009. All unexpended
> balances, including any remaining balance on PRAC contracts will be
> cancelled as of October 1, 2009. Other current appropriations will
> have to fund any amounts needed to maintain PRAC payments for any
> remaining term on the affected contract beyond September 30, 2009.
>
> **K.** **[New York City-Owned Sites]{.underline}**. The provision in
> the FY 2002 NOFAs stating that New York City-owned sites that are
> designated as community gardens **and** involved in litigation will
> not meet the site control requirements for that year's competition has
> been eliminated. Since the litigation regarding such sites in New York
> has been resolved, there no longer is a need to place a restriction on
> these sites.

L.  **[Visitability Standards and Universal Design]{.underline}.** In
    accordance with the Departmental Policy Priority for incorporating
    visitability standards and universal design in the project design,
    Sponsors have to address as part of Exhibit 4(c) whether the
    building design will incorporate visitability standards and
    universal design.

> **M. [Energy Star Labeled Products and Appliances]{.underline}.**
> Sponsors are asked to identify, if applicable, any plans to
> incorporate energy efficient features in the operation of the project
> through the use of Energy Star labeled products and appliances. This
> information is submitted under Exhibit 4(c)(ii).

**N.** [**Exhibit 6, Listing of 202/811 Applications Submitted to**
**Other HUD Offices**]{.underline}. This Exhibit was expanded to require
Sponsors to (a) identify their **FY 2003** **and** **earlier** funded
projects by project number and Field Office, (b) indicate whether or not
the fund reservations are older than **24 months** and if amendment
funds were or will be needed for the projects, and (c) indicate those
projects which have not been finally closed.

> **O. [Scoring Changes Affecting Both 202 and 811
> Programs]{.underline}.**
>
> **(1) [Rating Factor 1, Capacity of the Applicant and]{.underline}**
> **[Relevant Organizational Staff]{.underline}**.
>
> **a.** Field Offices are no longer assigning one point to
> organizations that are defined as grassroots organizations.
>
> **b.** The points for the scope, extent and quality of the Sponsor's
> experience in providing housing or related services to the intended
> residents has been increased from 14 to 15 points for Section 202
> projects and from 11 to 15 points for Section 811 projects.

c.  The scope, extent and quality of the

> Sponsor's experience in providing housing or
>
> related services to minority persons or
>
> families and the Sponsor's ties to the
>
> community at large and to the minority and
>
> elderly (202) or disabled (811) communities
>
> in particular have been divided into two
>
> rating factors of 5 points each. The
>
> overall experience in serving minorities is
>
> now a separate rating factor from the
>
> Sponsor's ties to the community at large and
>
> to the minority and elderly (202) or
>
> disabled (811) communities in particular.
>
> FHEO will rate the Sponsor's experience in
>
> serving minorities and the Sponsor's ties to
>
> the minority community. The Project Manager
>
> will rate the Sponsor's ties to the
>
> community at large and to the elderly (202)
>
> or disabled (811) community in particular.
>
> **d.** The number of points that HUD will deduct from this rating
> factor due to Sponsor delays in reaching initial closing has been
> revised to provide for a maximum deduction of up to 4 points based on
> the length of the delay (except if the delay is beyond the Sponsor's
> control). **Also see paragraph 2.J. under Changes for the FY 2004
> Section 202 and Section 811 Programs for an additional change for this
> rating factor.** Two points will be deducted for delays beyond 24
> months of the fund reservation, three points if beyond 36 months, and
> four points if beyond 48 months. Additionally, if amendment money was
> required as a result of the delay for a 202 or 811 project that was
> extended beyond **24 months** (except if the delay was beyond the
> Sponsor's control), one point will be deducted from Rating Factor 1.
> **Also see paragraph 2.J. under Changes for the FY 2004 Section 202
> and Section 811 Programs for an additional change for this rating
> factor.** This is a change from FY 2002, when one point was deducted
> if the 202 or 811 project required amendment funds, and 2 points were
> deducted if the project was extended beyond 36 months.
>
> Examples of delays beyond the Sponsor's control include, but are not
> limited to, initial closing delays: (1) directly attributable to HUD;
> (2) directly attributable to third party opposition, including
> litigation, and (3) due to a disaster, as declared by the President of
> the United States.

**(2) [Rating Factor 3, Soundness of Approach]{.underline}**.

> **a.** The application will receive one point if the proposed design
> incorporates visitability standards and universal design in the
> construction or rehabilitation of the project.
>
> **b.** The rating criteria regarding the Sponsor's involvement of
> elderly persons, including minority elderly persons (202), and the
> involvement of persons with disabilities, including minority persons
> with disabilities (811) in the development of the application and
> their intent to involve them in the development and operation of the
> project has been moved from Rating Factor 5 and included under Rating
> Factor 3.
>
> **c.** Field Offices are no longer required to deduct one point if the
> Sponsor fails to include a plan for getting the project to initial
> closing and start of construction within 18 months. This Exhibit has
> been replaced with the Exhibit requiring a project development
> timeline, which is addressed under Rating Factor 5.
>
> **d.** One point will be deducted from Rating Factor 3(b) for proposed
> sites that are not currently zoned for the intended use.
>
> **(3) [Rating Factor 4, Leveraging Resources]{.underline}**. This
> rating factor has been reduced from 10 to 5 points.
>
> **(4) [Rating Factor 5, renamed Achieving Results and Program
> Evaluation]{.underline}.**
>
> **a.** Applications may receive up to five points for the extent to
> which the Sponsor's project development timeline is indicative of the
> Sponsor's full understanding of the development process.
>
> **b.** The rating criterion pertaining to the extent to which the
> Sponsor has demonstrated that the project will remain viable as
> housing for the intended residents for a 40-year period has been
> increased from two to three points.
>
> **c.** Applications are no longer rated with respect to the Sponsor's
> involvement in the community's planning process.
>
> **P. [Elimination of Certain Certifications]{.underline}.** An
> applicant's signature on Forms HUD-92015 or HUD-92016 is, in effect, a
> certification that the applicant will comply with all program
> requirements. Therefore, the following certifications have been
> eliminated:
>
> \(1\) Sponsor's Combined Certifications;
>
> \(2\) Lead-Based Paint Certification (811 only); and

\(3\) Certification for Single Room Occupancy in Section 811 Group
Homes.

> **Q. [Exhibits Involving Third Party]{.underline}.** The provision has
> been eliminated that permitted the Sponsor to cure a deficiency that
> involved the non-submission of the Evidence of Permissive Zoning for
> Section 202, Form HUD-2991, Certification of Consistency with the
> Consolidated Plan for Section 202 and Section 811, and the Supportive
> Services Certification for Section 811 if the Sponsor was not notified
> of the deficiency during the curable deficiency period and it could
> provide documentation that it had requested the information from the
> third party at least 45 days prior to the application deadline date.
>
> The provision has been eliminated because the Sponsor must be afforded
> the opportunity to cure any item that is curable that is not
> discovered during the curable deficiency period. Additionally, the
> evidence of permissive zoning is no longer a curable item.
>
> **R. [Applicant Debriefing]{.underline}**. The NOFAs now provide for
> an

applicant debriefing. The request must be in writing to the Director of
Multifamily Housing beginning 30 days after the awards are publicly
announced and lasting at least 120 days after the awards are publicly
announced.

> **S. [Exhibit 8(i) (Certification of Consistency with the]{.underline}
> [RC/EZ/EC Strategic Plan) Is Optional]{.underline}.** It has been
> clarified that Exhibit 8(h), Certification of Consistency with the
> RC/EZ/EC Strategic Plan is not required to be in the application
> unless the site is located in an RC/EZ/EC.
>
> **T.** **[Definition of Owner for the Purpose of Developing
> a]{.underline}** **[Mixed-Finance Project]{.underline}**. The
> definition was revised to indicate that an eligible owner entity would
> include a for-profit limited partnership (as opposed to a for- profit
> limited dividend organization) with a nonprofit as the sole general
> partner to be consistent with the statutory change of a 202/811 Owner.
>
> **U. [Conducting Business in Accordance with Core Values
> and]{.underline} [Ethical Standards]{.underline}**. In the General
> Section of the SuperNOFA, it states that entities subject to 24 CFR
> Parts 84 and 85 must develop and maintain a written code of conduct.
> The Section 202 and Section 811 programs are **not** subject to 24 CFR
> parts 84 and 85. Instead, Section 202 and Section 811 Sponsors/Owners
> must adhere to the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 891.130.
>
> **V. [Ensuring the Participation of Small Businesses,
> Small]{.underline} [Disadvantaged Businesses and Women-Owned
> Businesses]{.underline}.**
>
> With respect to the Department's priority for "Ensuring the
> Participation of Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses and
> Women-Owned Businesses in HUD Programs", it was clarified that Section
> 202/811 Sponsors/Owners must comply with Executive Order (EO) 12432,
> Minority Business Enterprise Development and EO 11625, Prescribing
> Additional Arrangements for Developing and Coordinating a National
> Program for Minority Business Enterprise.
>
> **W. [Application Changes]{.underline}.** The following changes have
> been made to the Application:
>
> **(1)** Exhibit 3(b), Description of Communities, has been expanded to
> require the Sponsor to describe specific geographic areas that they
> have served;

**(2)** Exhibit 3(g) has been revised to require a

> description of the practical solutions the Sponsor will implement to
> enable the residents to achieve independent living and educational
> opportunities, and how the project will be an improved living
> environment for the resident when compared to their previous
> residence;
>
> **(3)** Exhibit 3(i) was added to require Sponsors to describe how the
> project will remain viable as housing with supportive services for the
> target population for 40 years; and
>
> **(4)** Due to the misinterpretation of the term "delineated," Exhibit
> 4(d)(vi), Map of Site Location, Racial Composition of Neighborhood and
> Areas of Racial Composition was revised to indicate that the map must
> show the location of the site, the racial composition of the
> neighborhood and any areas of racial concentration. Also, Sponsors are
> advised that they must use data from the 2000 Census of Population as
> the basis for determining the racial composition of the neighborhood
> and areas of minority concentration. This data can be found on the
> U.S. Bureau of the Census' website at
> <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/>
>
> BasicFactsServlet.

#  X. [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 partnership with a nonprofit entity as the sole general partner. In view of the statutory change, an administrative decision was made to permit such Owners to participate in the Section 202 and Section 811 programs for the purposes of developing a mixed-finance project. Section VIII.A. 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) a nonprofit consumer cooperative, or (3) for purposes
of developing a mixed-finance project, a for-profit limited partnership
with a nonprofit entity as the sole general partner.

**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 project, a for-profit limited
partnership with the nonprofit entity as the sole general partner.

**NOTE**: The expansion of the eligibility criteria for the Owner entity
to include a for-profit limited partnership with the nonprofit as the
sole general partner **DOES NOT** apply to Section 202 or Section 811
Sponsors or Co-Sponsors. Applicant eligibility for purposes of applying
for a Section 202 or Section 811 fund reservation has not changed (i.e.,
all Section 202 Sponsors and Co-Sponsors must be private nonprofit
organizations or nonprofit consumer cooperatives and all Section 811
Sponsors and Co-Sponsors must be nonprofit organizations with a
501(c)(3) tax exemption from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)).

**Y. [Applicability of Acquisition of Sites under the
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 in FY 2001, the exemption
provisions under the URA's site acquisition requirements are now
included in Section IV(L) of the Section 202 NOFA and Section IV(M) of
the Section 811 NOFA. See Paragraph 14 of this Notice for more detailed
information regarding this requirement.

**Z. [Initial Screening for Curable Deficiencies]{.underline}.** As in
FYs 2002 and 2003, the list of exhibits or portions of exhibits that are
considered curable deficiencies has been included in the FY 2004 Section
202 and Section 811 program sections of the SuperNOFA.

HUD Offices will complete an initial screening for curable deficiencies
of all applications received by the application deadline date. Curable
deficiencies

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

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

**BB.** **[Site Control]{.underline}.** The specific forms of site
control acceptable to the Department have been clarified (see Exhibit
4(d) of the Section 202 and Section 811 application requirements. One of
the clarifications that Sponsors must pay particular attention to is
that the site option must remain in effect at least for six months from
the application deadline date, must state a firm price binding on the
seller, and must be renewable at the end of the six-month option period.
The only condition on which the option may be terminated is if the
Sponsor is not awarded a fund reservation. The option must be renewable
at the end of the six months option period.

Sponsors must also provide evidence (a title policy or other acceptable
evidence) that the site is free from any limitations, restrictions, or
reverters which could adversely affect the use of the site for the
proposed project for the 40-year capital advance period (e.g., reversion
to seller if title is transferred). If the title evidence contains
restrictions or covenants, the Sponsor must submit copies of such
covenants or restrictions with the applications. However, if not
submitted, this is a curable deficiency item. If the site is subject to
any such limitations, restrictions, or reverters: (1) for Section 202,
the application will be rejected; or (2) for Section 811, the site will
be rejected, the application will not receive points for Site
Approvability from Valuation or for Site Suitability from FHEO, and the
application will be placed in Category B for selection purposes as long
as the Sponsor 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.

**CC.** **[Suitability of the Site from the Standpoint of]{.underline}**

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

To determine the acceptability of the site and to rate the application,
FHEO will review the narrative submitted by the Sponsor. The site will
be deemed acceptable if it increases housing choice and opportunity by
(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 FYs 2003 and 2004, 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; (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 "non- minority area" is defined as one in which the minority
population is lower than 10 percent.

**DD. [Bonus Points for Location of Site]{.underline}.** An application
containing satisfactory evidence of control of an approvable site which
is located in a federally- designated Renewal Community (RC),
Empowerment Zone (EZ), Enterprise Community (EC), or Urban Enhanced
Enterprise Community (EEC) and serves the residents of these
federally-designated references (collectively referred to as
"RCs/EZs/ECs"), will be awarded two bonus points. To be eligible to
receive the two bonus points, the Sponsors must have submitted a
certification (see Exhibit 8(i) of the application) that the proposed
project(s): (1) will be located in a federally-designated RC/EZ/EC and
will serve residents of the RC/EZ/EC; and (2) is consistent with the
strategic plan of the RC/EZ/EC. The Office of Community Planning and
Development (CPD) will determine if the application is eligible for the
bonus points (see CPD\'s Technical Processing Review and Findings
Memorandum in Attachment 12 of this Notice). For a scattered site
application with site control, all sites must be located in an RC/EZ/EC
area, be approvable and have acceptable evidence of site control, and
the Sponsor must have submitted the required certification (Exhibit
8(i)) to receive the 2 bonus points.

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

> **EE. [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 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 (811) in
> the area to be served. If not, the application is to be awarded zero
> points. Under Section 202, for FY 2004, the EMAS review will go back
> to the policy of rating sufficient demand based on the project's unmet
> needs ratio. See paragraph 2.U.(3) for further information.

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

**GG. [Application Receipt Form]{.underline}.** The Application package
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.

**HH. [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 **75** base points or
higher are then ranked in descending order. The Rating/Selection Panels
then select for funding the highest rated applications ranked in
descending order which most reasonably approximate the number of units
**and** capital advance funds available to each 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** skipping over a higher rated application.

> After making the initial selections, any residual funds may be used to
> fund the next rank-ordered application by reducing the units by no
> more than 10 percent rounded to the nearest whole number; provided the
> reduction will not render the project infeasible. Projects of five
> units or less, or two units if a Section 811 group home, may not be
> reduced. An example of a project becoming infeasible by a unit
> reduction is a project that will be rehabilitated (for Section 811
> this applies only if the Sponsor has site control), where the project
> will not be able to sustain fewer units than those requested.
> Acceptance by a Sponsor of a project where the units have been reduced
> means acceptance of the reduced number of units.
>
> Under Section 202, the above processes must be done separately for
> each HUD Office\'s metropolitan and non-metropolitan allocations. Once
> this is completed, HUD Offices may combine their unused metropolitan
> and non-metropolitan funds to select the next highest ranked
> application in either category using the unit reduction policy
> described above.
>
> Under Section 811, the above process must be done first for all
> applications that are in Category A in each HUD Office jurisdiction
> before any applications in Category B can be selected. **See Paragraph
> 2.V.(1) above as this is a change for FY 2004**.
>
> 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 must be done first for all applications that are in Category A
> in each Multifamily Hub jurisdiction before any applications in
> Category B can be selected. **See Paragraph 2.V.(1) above as this is a
> change for FY 2004**. This process will continue until there are no
> more approvable applications within the Multifamily Hub that can be
> selected with the remaining funds. However, any remaining residual
> funds may be used to fund the next rank-ordered application by
> reducing the number of units by no more than 10 percent rounded to the
> nearest whole number, provided the reduction will not render the
> project infeasible. For this purpose, HUD will not reduce the number
> of units in projects of five units or less.
>
> **NOTE: Field and Hub Offices cannot skip over any applications in
> order to fund one based on the funds remaining.**

Section 202 and Section 811 funds remaining after these processes are
completed will be returned to Headquarters.

The residual funds for each program will be used to restore units to
projects reduced by HUD Offices as a result of the instructions above
and for selecting applications based on field office rankings, beginning
with the next highest rated application nationwide. For Section 811, all
approvable applications in Category A will be selected before any
applications in Category B. **See Paragraph 2.V.(1) above as this is a
change for FY 2004**. 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.

**II. [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.

**JJ. [Ineligible Activities]{.underline}.** The NOFAs include a list of

activities that are ineligible for funding through either the Section
202 or Section 811 programs.

**KK. [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.

**LL**. **[Sponsors Cannot Require Residents to Accept
Supportive]{.underline}**

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

program.

**MM**. **[Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)]{.underline}.** In
conformance

> with 24 CFR 50.3(i), as revised (effective October 28, 1996), all
> Section 202 applicants and those Section 811 applicants who have site
> control are required to submit a Phase I ESA their proposed site(s)
> with their applications. The Phase I ESA 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. Section 811 Sponsors
> submitting applications with identified sites (i.e., not under
> control) are not required to submit a Phase I ESA with their
> applications. However, if they are selected for funding, they must
> complete the Phase I ESA upon obtaining site control and prior to
> submitting their Application for Firm Commitment.
>
> **NOTE:** [The Transaction Screen Process is no longer]{.underline}
>
> [accepted as an application submission requirement]{.underline}.
>
> If the Phase I ESA indicates the possible presence of contamination
> and/or hazards, further study must be undertaken. At this point, the
> Sponsor must decide whether to continue with this site or choose
> another site. Should the Sponsor choose another site, the
>
> same environmental site assessment procedure identified above must be
> followed for that site. **Since the Phase I ESA must be completed and
> submitted with the application, it is important that the Sponsor start
> the site assessment process as soon after NOFA publication as
> possible. 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 ESA indicated possible contamination or hazards, then a
> detailed Phase II ESA by an appropriate professional will have to be
> undertaken. **NOTE: THE COST OF THE STUDY MUST BE BORNE BY THE SPONSOR
> IF THE APPLICATION IS NOT SELECTED**. If the Phase II ESA reveals site
> contamination, the extent of the contamination and a plan for clean-up
> (as identified in the Section 202 and Section 811 NOFAs) of the site
> must be submitted to the local HUD Office. The plan for clean-up must
> include a contract for remediation of the problem(s) and an approval
> letter from the applicable federal, state, and/or local agency with
> jurisdiction over the site. For Section 202 applications to be
> considered for review and Section 811 applications with evidence of
> control of an approvable site to be placed in Category A for selection
> purposes, the Phase II ESA and the plan for clean-up including the
> contract for remediation (if appropriate) must be submitted to the
> local HUD Office no later than the date specified in the NOFA which is
> generally 30 days from the application deadline date. HUD will not
> consider a site 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
> placed in Category B for selection purposes and will **NOT** receive
> any points for Site Approvability (Rating Criterion 3(a)) or any
> points for Site Suitability (Criterion 3(c)).
>
> **NOTE: THIS COULD BE AN EXPENSIVE UNDERTAKING. THE COST OF ANY
> CLEANUP AND/OR REMEDIATION MUST BE BORNE**
>
> **BY THE SPONSOR.**
>
> To be considered valid, no more than six months can elapse after
> completion of the Phase I ESA. If the Phase I ESA is dated prior to
> **January 7, 2004**, 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.

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

The Sponsor must submit the following in its application: (1) a copy of
the Sponsor\'s letter to the SHPO/THPO requesting the required letter;
and (2) a copy of the SHPO\'s/THPO's response, if available.

If the SHPO/THPO does not respond to the Sponsor's request or responds
that it cannot or will not comply with the requirement, the HUD Office
must process the application in accordance with the standard
environmental review procedures in place prior to the NOFA publication
(i.e., file with the SHPO/THPO, allow time for a response from the
SHPO/THPO, and then make the appropriate finding, which must be received
prior to convening the Rating/Selection Panel).

**OO.** **[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.

**PP. [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.

**QQ. [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.

**RR. [Minimum and Maximum Project Sizes]{.underline}.** For **Section
202**

> applications, the minimum project size for both metro and non-metro
> proposals is five units including the non-revenue manager\'s unit, if
> applicable. A Sponsor can propose scattered sites in its application
> as long as each site consists of at least five units and the Sponsor
> has site control for all sites. In such cases, for the rating criteria
> pertaining to the need for supportive housing in the area and the
> suitability of the site, each site is to be rated separately and then
> the scores averaged. The maximum of 125 units for projects in
> metropolitan and non-metropolitan 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 and the maximum
> number is six, 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. An additional one-bedroom unit can be
> provided for a resident manager. The corresponding development cost
> limits for the larger group homes have been eliminated from the NOFA
> since, in many states, funding for supportive services will not be
> provided to persons with disabilities living in larger housing
> developments. **Furthermore, exceptions to the six-person limit for
> group homes will not be considered in FY 2004.**
>
> **[Independent living project]{.underline}** - The minimum number of
> units that can be applied for in one application is five; not
> necessarily in one structure. The maximum number of persons with
> disabilities that can be housed in an independent living project is
> 14. An additional one or two bedroom unit can be provided for a
> resident manager. **Exceptions to the 14-person limit may be requested
> by the Sponsor if it has control of the site.**

**SS. [Secretary\'s Representative]{.underline}.** Since FY 1999, the
Secretary\'s Representative has not participated in the rating of
applications.

**TT. [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 units or less to those of
five units or less.

> **UU. [Rehabilitation of Sponsor-Owned or Leased]{.underline}
> [Properties]{.underline}.** If the Sponsor-owned or leased property
> has been federally funded or assisted, or insured or guaranteed by a
> federal agency and will involve refinancing, it is not permissible
> under the Section 202 and Section 811 NOFAs. For example, Section 202
> or Section 202/8 projects cannot be refinanced with capital advances
> and project rental assistance.

#  

#  VV. [Changes Applicable to the Section 202 Program Only]{.underline}. 

**(1) [Rating Factor 5]{.underline}**. The rating criterion (which
provided 2 points) regarding the extent to which the Sponsor coordinates
its application with other organizations not directly participating in
the project has been eliminated.

> **(2) [Scattered Site Project]{.underline}.** If a project will be a
> scattered site development, each site must have at least five units.
>
> **(3) [Accessibility Requirements]{.underline}.** The accessibility
> requirements for Section 202 projects have been clarified with respect
> to site selection. Sponsors must comply with Section 504 of the
> Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and 24 CFR 8.4(b)(5) which prohibits the
> selection of a site or location which has the purpose or effect of
> excluding persons with disabilities from the Federally-assisted
> activity.

**(4) [Exhibit 4(d)(iii), Evidence of Permissive Zoning]{.underline}**
is not curable.

> **(5) [Application Change]{.underline}**. Exhibit 4(e)(iv),
> Description of How Residents will be Afforded Opportunities for
> Employment, was eliminated.

## 

**(6)** **[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.

## 

## WW. [Changes Applicable to the Section 811 Program Only]{.underline}.

(1) **[Exceptions to the 14-Person Project Size Limit]{.underline}.**
    The provision allowing Sponsors to request exceptions to the
    14-person project size limit for independent living projects was
    added back into the NOFA beginning in FY 2003. Only Sponsors who
    submit an application for an independent living project with site
    control can submit a request to exceed the 14-person project size
    limit. Such requests are submitted as part of Exhibit 4(d)(xii) of
    the Application.

(2) **[Restriction to Project Size Limits for Independent]{.underline}
    [Living Projects]{.underline}.** The NOFA clarifies that if a
    Sponsor proposes to place an independent living project on the same
    or an adjacent site already containing housing for persons with
    disabilities, then the total number of persons housed in both the
    existing and proposed project cannot exceed 14.

**(3)** **[Group Homes]{.underline}**. The maximum bedroom size for a
resident manager that is permitted to be included in a group home for
persons with disabilities is now limited to a one-bedroom unit.

> **(4) [Allocation of Section 811 Funds]{.underline}**. Beginning in FY
>
> 2003 allocation formula is based on the 2000 Census and includes one
> data element: the number of non-institutionalized persons age 16 to 64
> with a disability.

**(5)** **[Scoring Changes]{.underline}**.

**a. [Rating Factor 1, Capacity of the Applicant]{.underline} [and
Relevant Organizational Staff]{.underline}**. This rating factor has
been increased from 25 to 30 points. This increase is due to (1) the
increase from 11 to 15 points for the scope, extent, and quality of the
Sponsor's experience in providing housing or related services for the
intended residents, (2) the increase from 8 to a combined 10 points for
the scope, extent and quality of the Sponsor's experience in providing
housing and related services to minorities and the scope, extent and
quality of the Sponsor's ties to the community, and (3) the elimination
of one point pertaining to grassroots organizations. Also, the two
rating criteria relative to integrated housing (i.e., experience in
developing integrated housing and/or whether or not the project will be
an integrated housing model) have been combined into one criterion worth
up to five points depending upon whether the Sponsor has experience
and/or the project qualifies as integrated housing.

**b. [Rating Factor 3, Soundness of Approach]{.underline}**. This rating
factor has been increased from 38 to 40 points. The criteria regarding
whether or not the site promotes greater choice for minorities has been
increased from 8 to 10 points. The rating criteria relative to the
involvement of persons with disabilities in the development of the
application and the Sponsor's coordination efforts with other
organizations have been shifted from Rating Factor 5 to Rating Factor 3.
Also, the two rating criteria pertaining to the extent to which the
project design will meet the needs of the intended residents and the
extent to which the project's placement in the neighborhood will
facilitate the integration of the residents in the community have been
combined.

**c. [Rating Factor 5, renamed Achieving Results]{.underline}** [**and**
**Program Evaluation**]{.underline}. The two rating criteria with
respect to the project implementing practical solutions and providing
activities to improve computer access, literacy and employment
opportunities have been combined for a total maximum of 2 points.

> **(6) [Project Size Limits]{.underline}.**
>
> **a. [Independent Living Project]{.underline}.** The project size
> limit for an independent living project is 14 units plus one unit
> (one- or two-bedroom) for a resident manager.
>
> **b. [Mixed Project Type Applications]{.underline}**. It has been
> clarified that applications proposing both a group home and an
> independent living project must request the minimum number of units
> per project type (i.e., two units for a group home and five units for
> an independent living project).
>
> **(7) [The Supportive Services Plan]{.underline}** is a curable
> deficiency.

**(8) [Applications Proposing a Mixed-Finance Project]{.underline}**. It
has been clarified that only applications with control of an approvable
site are permitted to request consideration of a proposal involving
mixed-financing.

> **(9) [Change to Application]{.underline}.** In addition to addressing
> how their project will implement practical solutions that will assist
> residents in achieving independent living, educational opportunities
> and improved living conditions in Exhibit 3(g), the Sponsor must also
> address how it will assist residents to achieve economic empowerment.

**(10) [Adjustments to Development Cost Limits for Group]{.underline}**
**[Homes]{.underline}**. Section IV(E)(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 FY 2004, the average cost of the documented sales must exceed 10
percent of the development cost limits for the project in order for an
increase to be considered.

**(11)** **[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.

> **(12)** **[Resident Manager's Unit]{.underline}**. In an independent
> living project, the Sponsor can designate either a one- or two-bedroom
> unit for a resident manager. In a group home, the size of the resident
> manager's unit is limited to a one-bedroom unit.

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

**(14)** **[Reduction in Number of Units that Can be
Applied]{.underline}** **[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.

> **(15)** **[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.
>
> **(16) [Sponsor's Board Comprised of At Least 51
> percent]{.underline}** **[Persons with Disabilities]{.underline}.**
> Although Sponsors will continue to receive 5 points if their Boards
> are comprised of at least 51 percent 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.
>
> **(17)** **[Involvement of Centers for Independent
> Living]{.underline}.** In order to encourage Sponsors to work with
> their local Center for Independent Living they are required to
> indicate in their applications the extent to which they involved their
> local Center for Independent Living in the development of their
> applications. In addition, the NOFA and Application identify local
> Centers for Independent Living and Statewide Independent Living
> Councils as examples of organizations from which they can obtain
> letters or support for their projects to include in their
> applications.

(18) **[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.

(19) **[Opportunities for Employment]{.underline}**. Sponsors must
     include in their Supportive Services Plans a description of how the
     residents will be afforded opportunities for employment.

(20) **[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 developmental disability. If requesting approval to
> limit occupancy, Sponsors must submit more detailed information in
> their Supportive Service Plans for HUD to determine whether approval
> is justified. Such information includes: (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. Double occupancy bedrooms are only allowed if a
> resident indicates a preference or need to share a bedroom with
> another resident.
>
> **(21) [Intermediate Care Facilities (ICFs) are no
> Longer]{.underline}**
>
> **[Eligible]{.underline}.** Sponsors may no longer propose the
> development of an ICF. Due to the quasi- institutional nature of an
> ICF which is contrary to programmatic goals, the Department decided to
> eliminate its eligibility for development under the program.

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

> **a.** **[Review of Sites under Control/Sites
> Identified]{.underline}.** Sites under control and sites identified
> will be evaluated using the same review factors. However, applications
> with
>
> sites identified will have to specifically include information on how
> the site will promote greater housing opportunities for persons with
> disabilities, including minorities, affirmatively further fair housing
> and any other information on the suitability of the site for persons
> with disabilities.
>
> **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]{.underline} [not]{.underline}, be located adjacent to or
> in areas concentrated by schools or day-care centers for persons with
> disabilities, workshops, medical facilities, or other
>
> housing primarily serving persons with
>
> disabilities. Local HUD Offices will make
>
> these determinations and must ensure that, in doing so, the selected
> site will facilitate the integration of persons with disabilities into
> the surrounding community. The requirements that not more than one
> group home be located on one site and two group homes not be next to
> each other remains in Section 891.320(b), since the prohibitions are
> statutory.
>
> **(23) [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.
>
> **(24) [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.
>
> **(25) [Contact for Agency Providing Independent Living]{.underline}**
>
> **[Services]{.underline}.** The State Independent Living Council and
> the local Center for Independent Living must be included on the list
> of State and local agency contacts provided to Sponsors for submission
> of the Supportive Services Plan of their applications.

**(26) [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 Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation/Resolution Trust Corporation properties was
removed so that any housing type may now be acquired. The restriction to
properties that are at least three years old was also removed.

**(27)** **[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.
>
> **(28) [Applicant Eligibility]{.underline}.** Section 603 of the
>
> Housing and Community Development Act of l992
>
> (HCD Act of l992) amended Section 811 of the
>
> National Affordable Housing Act (NAHA) by
>
> striking the language \"incorporated private\" and thus expanded the
> definition of private nonprofit organization in Section 811(k)(6) to
> include public and unincorporated institutions or foundations. This
> amendment also requires such sponsoring organizations to have received
> tax- exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
> Service Code of l986, which effectively limits the eligibility of
> public bodies. (Temporary clearance to receive section 501(c)(3)
> tax-exempt status is not permissible.) The same requirements apply to
> the Owner except that the Owner must be incorporated.
>
> **(29) [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.
>
> **(30) [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.

(31) **[Exhibit 7 of the Application]{.underline}.** Exhibit 7 which
     must be completed if the site will involve relocation does not
     apply to Section 811 applications that are \"site identified.\"

(32) **[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.

> **(33) [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 2004 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 2004 formula for allocating
Section 202 capital advance funds consists of the following data
element: the number of one-person elderly renter households (householder
age 62 and older) with incomes at or below the applicable Section 8 very
low-income limit, and with housing conditions. The data elements were
taken from the 2000 Census. The formula focuses the allocation on
targeting the funds based on the unmet needs of elderly renter
households who pay excessive rents and who have very low incomes.

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

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

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

**[Section 811]{.underline}.** The FY 2004 formula for allocating
Section 811 capital advance funds consists of one data element from the
2000 Census: the number of non-institutionalized persons age 16 to 64
with a disability.

The fair share factors were developed by taking the number of persons
age 16 to 64 for each state, or state portion, of each HUD Office
jurisdiction as a percent of the data element from the 2000, as
described above, for the total United States. The resulting percentage
for each local HUD Office is then adjusted to reflect the relative cost
of providing housing among the local HUD Office jurisdictions. The
adjusted needs percentage for each local HUD Office jurisdiction is then
multiplied by the total amount of capital advance funds available
nationwide.

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

**B.** **[Program Fund Assignments]{.underline}.** Form HUD-185s will be
processed assigning funds to the field offices when all of the
selections for the FY 2004 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 2004 Section 202 allocations.

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

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

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

**[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 non-metropolitan funding and the
requirement for a formula allocation. Accordingly, there will not be any
division of funding between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. We
will, however, continue funding the program on a formula basis.

In accordance with 24 CFR part 791, the Assistant Secretary has
allocated the amounts available for capital advances for supportive
housing for persons with disabilities for FY 2004. To be responsive to
the NOFA, a Sponsor must request at least five units if proposing to
develop an independent living project (all five units do not have to be
on one site) or two units if proposing to develop a group home. The
Sponsor cannot request more units in a Field Office jurisdiction than
allocated to that office in the NOFA (see Attachment 2).

**B. [Project Rental Assistance Contract Funds]{.underline}.** The
Department reserves project rental assistance contract funds for five
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 2004. 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
2004 program.

It should also be pointed out to potential applicants at the workshop
that in the Forms Section of the General Section of the SuperNOFA there
is an optional form for them to fill out with their comments and
suggestions about the NOFA and the Application which they can include as
part of their applications or submit separately to HUD Headquarters, 451
7th Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20410, Office of Departmental Grants
Management and Oversight, Room 3156, with a copy to the Office of
Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Room 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. [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 2004 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.

**11. [NOTIFICATION TO PROGRAM APPLICANTS]{.underline}:** Sponsors must
be advised that all applications submitted under the FY 2004 program
must be in conformance with the [Federal Register]{.underline}
SuperNOFA, Regulations, Handbook and local HUD Office Funding
Notifications. To this end, FY 2004 applications must follow the format
provided in the Section 202 or Section 811 NOFA, as applicable, which is
in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-511).

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

Release of information regarding selections or non-selections is
prohibited until after funding announcements are made. Local HUD Offices
may not release selection letters until authorized to do so by
Headquarters. It is the policy of the Department to operate an open
selection system. Release of rating and ranking information to Section
202 and Section 811 applicants or their authorized representatives is
permitted, but only after the release of selection letters and, for FY
2004, in response to a written request from the applicant to the
Director of Multifamily Housing at least 30 days after the awards are
publicly announced. If standard rating criteria forms or technical
processing review and findings memoranda are requested, they may also be
released. However, the name of the reviewer must be deleted from the
copy released to the applicant.

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

**13. [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)

**14.** **[UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND REAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION]{.underline}** **[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 1378.0 CHG-4, 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:

> \- That it does not have the power of eminent domain and, therefore,
> will not acquire the property if negotiations fail to result in an
> amicable agreement; and

\- Of its estimate of the fair market value of the property. An
appraisal is not required; however, the Sponsor\'s files must include an
explanation, with reasonable evidence, of the basis for the estimate.

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. **Also see
paragraph 2.L. above regarding the URA site notification requirements.**
All Section 202 and Section 811 applications for fund reservations that
are filed in response to the FY 2004 NOFAs must be in compliance with
the above.

**15. [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; and

\- IRS tax exemption ruling.

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

**16. [Review of Form HUD-2530, Previous Participation
Certification]{.underline}.** It is the Department's policy that
participants in its housing programs be responsible individuals and
organizations who will honor their legal, financial, fair housing and
contractual obligations. Therefore, to ensure that only those
organizations that have a record of satisfactory performance under HUD's
housing programs are eligible for funding consideration, beginning in FY
2003, we are requiring Sponsors to submit Form HUD-2530 (under Exhibit
8(j)) with their 202/811 Applications for a Fund Reservation. Form
HUD-2530 must be submitted for the Sponsor and all of the Officers and
Directors of the Board of the Sponsor. HUD Field Offices will review the
Form HUD-2530 form in accordance with outstanding instructions contained
in HUD Handbook 4065.1REV-1, Previous Participation Handbook. In
accordance with paragraph 2-8 of the Previous Participation Handbook, it
is acceptable for the HUD Field Office to maintain a Master List of the
Sponsor's activities. If such is the case, Sponsors may indicate on
Schedule A of the HUD-2530 form that a Master List is on file with the
applicable HUD Field Office. The Master List must be current. If your
Master List does not reflect up-to-date information of the activities of
the Sponsor and its Officers and Directors, Sponsors must submit the
updated information with the Form HUD-2530. If the Sponsor refers to a
Master List, then the Master List must be on file in the HUD Field
Office in which the Sponsor submits its Section 202 and/or Section 811
Application. Form HUD-2530 is required to be submitted with all 202/811
Applications for a Fund Reservation whether or not a Master List is on
file with the HUD Field Office. If the Form HUD-2530 is incomplete, the
Sponsor must be sent a curable deficiency letter indicating the
incomplete items.

> The Field Office must determine if the entities and participants on
> the Form HUD-2530 disclose risk indicators or if risk indicators are
> present in the Active Partner Performance System (APPS). If risk
> indicators are present, the Field Office has latitude to clear the
> risk indicators locally. If that cannot be done, the Form HUD-2530 is
> referred to the Policy and Participation Division in HUD Headquarters.
> That office will determine if the risk indicators are sufficient to
> preclude further participation. Details of the participation process
> may be found in Handbook 4065.1 and at 24 CFR Part 200, Subpart H.
>
> Where the Field Office determines risk indicators do not exist either
> from disclosures on Schedule A or in APPS, then the participant should
> be deemed acceptable to HUD as a participant per standard policy.
>
> The following information should be stressed to applicants that attend
> the field office workshop to assist them in completing the Form
> HUD-2530.
>
> **A.** The Form HUD-2530 must be fully complete with no blank lines or
> spaces. If a Sponsor cannot provide a specific data element, then a
> full explanation must be provided.
>
> **(1)** In the loan or contract amount the Sponsor should place the
> estimated capital advance amount they are seeking.
>
> **(2)** All named Officers and Directors of the Sponsor must disclose
> a Social Security Number (SSN) or IRS Employer Identification Number
> (EIN); there are no exceptions.
>
> **(3)** Schedule A to Form HUD-2530 must show all properties where a
> participant has or had any affiliation (owner, agent, board member,
> etc). If some persons do not have ready access to current property
> inspection and financial data due to the type of participation in a
> property (e.g., a minority limited partner, the party no longer has an
> affiliation with the property, etc) a clear explanation of why the
> item is missing must be provided. The Sponsor may also refer the Field
> Office to a Master List as described above.

(2) All required signatures (no older than four months) must be affixed
    and all extra certifications or disclosures must be attached. For
    example, in most cases, all listed participants must sign the Form
    HUD-2530. In some instances however, it is acceptable to have a
    single person sign for all other listed principals when ALL of the
    principals have the exact same previous participation. In that case,
    a separate certification is attached to the application, which
    explains why only one person is signing and is signed by all
    parties. Another example is in the event that a principal is a
    publicly traded company. In this case, the handbook allows a
    modified Form HUD-2530 which will be for the publicly traded entity.
    The Form HUD-2530 is signed by one or more of the officers and
    directors (if only one party signs for the entity, then the Sponsor
    must provide documentation that the signer has the appropriate
    authority). The entities previous participation will be disclosed in
    its entirety along with the names and SSNs for the immediately
    responsible officers (e.g., Chairman CEO, Secretary, CFO, etc). The
    Sponsor must also attach a full copy of the most recently published
    annual report, which shows the officers and directors of record.

> **B.** Approval to participate does not mean that any part of the
> application for funding is acceptable nor does it mean that the
> application will eventually receive funding. Further, the absence of
> risk indicators does not mean any particular entity or person has the
> skills and abilities required to own or operate subsidized housing.
>
> **C**. If participants change during the application process or after
> approval, then all new persons and entities must apply for
> participation approval.

**17. [Salary Limitation for Consultants]{.underline}.** The requirement
in the General Section of the SuperNOFA, pertaining to salary
limitations for consultants, applies to the Section 202 and Section 811
programs. In accordance with this section of the General Section of the
SuperNOFA, Fiscal Year 2003 funds may not be used to pay or to provide
reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant at more than the
daily equivalent of the rate paid for level IV of the Executive
Schedule, unless specifically authorized by law. This requirement is
based on the provision contained in Title IV-General Provisions of the
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for Fiscal Year 2004. Additional
instructions regarding this requirement will be addressed in the
Agreement Letters for the 202/811 Sponsors selected for funding this
fiscal year.

Programmatic questions concerning the FY 2004 Section 202 or Section 811
program and questions concerning DAP may be discussed with the Office of
Housing Assistance and Grant Administration in Headquarters at (202)
708-3000 (this is not a toll-free number).

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

John C. Weicher

Assistant Secretary for Housing --

Federal Housing Commissioner

Attachments

ATTACHMENT 1

### FISCAL YEAR 2004 APPLICATION PROCESSING SCHEDULE

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

[Application Deadline]{.underline} [July 22, 2004]{.underline}

Initial DAP Application Data Input July 28, 2004

Final DAP Application Data Input August 5, 2004

Initial Screening for Curable Deficiencies

Completed and Deficiency Letters Mailed July 28, 2004

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

[Application received to Headquarters]{.underline} [July 29,
2004]{.underline}

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

[of missing application items]{.underline} [August 11, 2004]{.underline}

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

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

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

[State and/or local agency with jurisdiction]{.underline}

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

[Phase I ESA and/or Phase II ESA]{.underline} [August 23,
2004]{.underline}

Send Technical Reject Letters to Sponsors

with a copy of each letter plus Technical

Reject Report to Headquarters August 16, 2004

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

[Rejects]{.underline} [August 30, 2004]{.underline}

[Program Center Offices submit transmittal]{.underline}

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

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

[unfunded applications, and applications]{.underline}

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

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

[application to Headquarters]{.underline} [September 9,
2004]{.underline}

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

[approvable but unfunded applications,]{.underline}

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

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

[recapitulation sheets to Headquarters]{.underline} [September 15,
2004]{.underline}

###  

### 

ATTACHMENT 2

### SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR SELECTION MATERIALS

# 

# 

# [Submission of Selection Materials to Multifamily Hubs and]{.underline}

# [Headquarters]{.underline}. Due to the later than usual publication date for

# the FY 2004 SuperNOFA and resulting delay in the application 

# deadline date, as well as the addition of the Name Check 

# Review Process, it is essential that all selection materials 

# be reviewed for completeness and accuracy, prepared in 

# accordance with the following instructions, and forwarded to 

# the Multifamily Hubs and to Headquarters in strict adherence 

# to the Processing Schedule in Attachment 1. The Development 

Application Processing (DAP) System is to be used in preparing all
Selection Lists and Reports.

#  

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

#  Program Centers are to submit the following selection materials to the Multifamily Hubs separately for the Section 202 and Section 811 programs:

#  

#  a. [Transmittal Memorandum]{.underline}. A separate transmittal

#  memorandum for each program summarizing the following results of the selection process. 

**(1)** Number of applications received.

**(2)** Number of applications selected.

**(3)** Identification of applications, if any, where the number of
units was reduced by up to 10 percent and the number of units and funds
needed to restore the application to its original request.

**(4)** Amount of unused funds being returned

to the Multifamily Hub.

**(5)** For any applications with the same score on the

Program Center's Approvable but Unfunded List,

identify the order in which you would like them

selected.

**(6)** Achievement of MBE goals, non-metro achievement

for Section 202, state comments in response to

E.O. 12372, etc.

**b. [Recapitulation Form]{.underline}.** A separate recapitulation form

for the Program Center for each program.

**c. [Initial Selection List]{.underline}.** For Section 202, a separate

metro and non-metro initial selection list in rank

order must be submitted. For 811, a separate

Category A and Category B initial selection list in

rank order must be submitted.

**d. [Approvable but Unfunded List]{.underline}.** For Section 202, a

separate metro and non-metro approvable but unfunded

list in rank order must be submitted. For Section

811, a separate Category A and Category B approvable

but unfunded list in rank order must be submitted.

> **e. [Not Recommended List]{.underline}.** A list of applications in
>
> rank order for each program that received a score of
>
> less than 75 base points.

**f. [Technical Reject List and Letters]{.underline}.** A list of
applications for each program that have been technically rejected and a
copy of each technical reject letter.

**g. [The Standard Rating Criteria Form]{.underline}** for each
application.

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

**a. [Transmittal Memorandum]{.underline}**. A separate transmittal
memorandum for each program summarizing the following

results of the selection process for that program.

**(1)** Number of applications received.

**(2)** Number of applications selected.

**(3)** Identification of applications by project number, if any, where
the number of units was reduced by up to 10 percent and the number of
units and capital advance and PRAC funds needed to restore the
application to its original request.

**(4)** Identification of any approvable but unfunded applications the
Multifamily Hub funded with residual funds from the Program Centers.

**(5)** Amount of unused funds and units being returned

to Headquarters.

**(6)** For any applications with the same score on the

Multifamily Hub's Approvable but Unfunded List,

identify the order in which you would like

them selected.

**(7)** Achievement of MBE goals, non-metro achievement

for Section 202, state comments

received in response to E.O. 12372, etc.

**b. [Multifamily Hub Recapitulation Form]{.underline}.** A separate

recapitulation form for the Multifamily Hub for each

program.

**c. [Multifamily Hub Initial Selection List]{.underline}.** For Section

202, a separate metro and non-metro initial selection

list in rank order must be submitted. For 811, a

separate Category A and Category B initial selection

list in rank order must be submitted. **If applicable,**

**identify any project that requires units and/or capital**

**advance and PRAC funds to be restored.**

**d. [Multifamily Hub Approvable but Unfunded List]{.underline}.** For

Section 202, a separate metro and non-metro approvable

but unfunded list in rank order must be submitted. For

Section 811, a separate Category A and Category B

approvable but unfunded list in rank order must be

submitted.

> **e. [Multifamily Hub Not Recommended List]{.underline}.** A list of
>
> applications in rank order for each program that
>
> received a score of less than 75 base points.
>
> **f. [Multifamily Hub Technical Reject List and
> Letters]{.underline}.**
>
> A list of applications for each program that have
>
> been technically rejected and a copy of each
>
> technical reject letter.
>
> **g. [Program Center Selection Materials]{.underline}.** The following
>
> selection materials from the Program Centers **exactly**
>
> as they were submitted to the Hub **before selections**
>
> **were made with residual funds**:

**(1) [Program Center Transmittal Memorandum]{.underline}.**

**(2) [Program Center Initial Selection List]{.underline}** **[in
rank]{.underline}**

**[order for each program]{.underline}**. For 202, metro and non-

metro selections must be on separate lists. For

811, a separate Category A and Category B

initial selection list in rank order must be

submitted.

**(3) [Program Center Approvable but Unfunded]{.underline}** **[List
in]{.underline} [rank order for each program]{.underline}**. For 202,
metro and

non-metro selections must be on separate lists.

For 811, a separate Category A and Category B

approvable but unfunded list in rank order must

be submitted.

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

**(5) [Technical Reject List and Letters]{.underline}**. A list of

> applications for each program that have been
>
> technically rejected and a copy of each
>
> technical reject letter.

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

ATTACHMENT 3

  ----------------- ------------------ -------------- -------------- ------------- ------------ --------------
  **FY 2004 SECTION                                                                             
  202 ALLOCATIONS                                                                               
  BY FIELD OFFICE**                                                                             

                    **METROPOLITAN**                  **NONMETRO**                 **TOTALS**   

                                                                                                

  OFFICES           UNITS              CAPITAL        UNITS          CAPITAL       UNITS        CAPITAL
                                       ADVANCE                       ADVANCE                    ADVANCE

  **BOSTON HUB**                                                                                 

  BOSTON            163                \$17,050,065   10             \$996,102     173          \$18,046,167

  HARTFORD          83                 8,787,604      5              531,452       88           9,319,056

  MANCHESTER        42                 3,540,080      33             2,772,517     75           6,312,597

  PROVIDENCE        46                 4,784,554      5              523,675       51           5,308,229

  TOTAL             334                \$34,162,303   53             \$4,823,746   387          \$38,986,049

                                                                                                

  **NEW YORK HUB**                                                                               

  NEW YORK          378                \$47,017,426   5              \$622,188     383          \$47,639,614

  TOTAL             378                \$47,017,426   5              \$622,188     383          \$47,639,614

                                                                                                

  **BUFFALO HUB**                                                                                

  BUFFALO           115                \$10,904,648   24             \$2,299,775   139          \$13,204,423

  TOTAL             115                \$10,904,648   24             \$2,299,775   139          \$13,204,423

                                                                                                

  **PHILADELPHIA                                                                                 
  HUB**                                                                                         

  CHARLESTON        20                 \$1,648,798    14             \$1,183,689   34           \$2,832,487

  NEWARK            189                20,673,105                                  189          20,673,105

  PHILADELPHIA      163                16,777,940     20             2,057,867     183          18,835,807

  PITTSBURGH        80                 6,912,749      17             1,459,439     97           8,372,188

  TOTAL             452                \$46,012,592   51             \$4,700,995   503          \$50,713,587

                                                                                                

  **BALTIMORE HUB**                                                                              

  BALTIMORE         76                 \$6,491,148    10             \$894,379     86           \$7,385,527

  RICHMOND          67                 5,149,652      22             1,698,573     89           6,848,225

  WASHINGTON        74                 6,794,588                                   74           6,794,588

  TOTAL             217                \$18,435,388   32             \$2,592,952   249          \$21,028,340

                                                                                                

  **GREENSBORO                                                                                   
  HUB**                                                                                         

  COLUMBIA          48                 \$3,994,495    17             \$1,377,926   65           \$5,372,421

  GREENSBORO        79                 7,621,677      36             3,477,810     115          11,099,487

  TOTAL             127                \$11,616,172   53             \$4,855,736   180          \$16,471,908

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

  ----------------- ------------------ -------------- -------------- ------------- ------------ --------------
  ** **             **METROPOLITAN**                  **NONMETRO**                 **TOTALS**   

                                                                                                

  OFFICES           UNITS              CAPITAL        UNITS          CAPITAL       UNITS        CAPITAL
                                       ADVANCE                       ADVANCE                    ADVANCE

  **ATLANTA HUB**                                                                                

  ATLANTA           75                 \$5,660,125    33             \$2,465,635   108          \$8,125,760

  KNOXVILLE         38                 2,715,047      12             838,241       50           3,553,288

  LOUISVILLE        47                 3,805,447      27             2,169,558     74           5,975,005

  NASHVILLE         52                 3,781,443      18             1,305,436     70           5,086,879

  SAN JUAN          39                 3,450,946      5              438,124       44           3,889,070

  TOTAL             251                \$19,413,008   95             \$7,216,994   346          \$26,630,002

                                                                                                 

  **JACKSONVILLE                                                                                 
  HUB**                                                                                         

  BIRMINGHAM        57                 \$4,108,623    20             \$1,478,820   77           \$5,587,443

  JACKSON           20                 1,389,553      22             1,525,276     42           2,914,829

  JACKSONVILLE      246                17,889,694     15             1,121,146     261          19,010,840

  TOTAL             323                \$23,387,870   57             \$4,125,242   380          \$27,513,112

                                                                                                 

  **CHICAGO HUB**                                                                                

  CHICAGO           192                \$20,348,902   30             \$3,172,318   222          \$23,521,220

  INDIANAPOLIS      83                 6,796,262      25             2,056,114     108          8,852,376

  TOTAL             275                \$27,145,164   55             \$5,228,432   330          \$32,373,596

                                                                                                 

  **COLUMBUS HUB**                                                                               

  CINCINNATI        62                 \$4,889,099    5              \$396,645     67           \$5,285,744

  CLEVELAND         104                9,160,566      14             1,236,884     118          10,397,450

  COLUMBUS          47                 3,691,620      18             1,403,205     65           5,094,825

  TOTAL             213                \$17,741,285   37             \$3,036,734   250          \$20,778,019

  **DETROIT HUB**                                                                                

  DETROIT           109                \$10,139,333   5              \$464,049     114          \$10,603,382

  GRAND RAPIDS      49                 3,855,945      18             1,389,164     67           5,245,109

  TOTAL             158                \$13,995,278   23             \$1,853,213   181          \$15,848,491

                                                                                                 

  **MINNEAPOLIS                                                                                  
  HUB**                                                                                         

  MINNEAPOLIS       76                 \$7,449,689    28             \$2,778,551   104          \$10,228,240

  MILWAUKEE         88                 8,300,477      31             2,970,092     119          11,270,569

  TOTAL             164                \$15,750,166   59             \$5,748,643   223          \$21,498,809

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

  ------------------ ------------------ ------------------- -------------- ------------------ ------------ -------------------
  ** **              **METROPOLITAN**                       **NONMETRO**                      **TOTALS**   

                                                                                                           

  OFFICES            UNITS              CAPITAL ADVANCE     UNITS          CAPITAL ADVANCE    UNITS        CAPITAL ADVANCE

  **FT. WORTH HUB**                                                                                         

  FT. WORTH          120                \$8,525,371         30             \$2,118,983        150          \$10,644,354

  HOUSTON            75                 5,259,711           11             786,599            86           6,046,310

  LITTLE ROCK        37                 2,439,143           22             1,450,933          59           3,890,076

  NEW ORLEANS        64                 4,490,972           15             1,061,878          79           5,552,850

  SAN ANTONIO        62                 4,180,197           13             858,658            75           5,038,855

  TOTAL              358                \$24,895,394        91             \$6,277,051        449          \$31,172,445

                                                                                                           

  **KANSAS CITY                                                                                             
  HUB**                                                                                                    

  DES MOINES         37                 \$2,743,793         26             \$1,943,370        63           \$4,687,163

  KANSAS CITY        63                 5,101,194           27             2,091,770          90           7,192,964

  OKLAHOMA CITY      45                 3,157,857           19             1,349,120          64           4,506,977

  OMAHA              20                 1,596,949           16             1,294,061          36           2,891,010

  ST LOUIS           52                 4,850,866           18             1,699,215          70           6,550,081

  TOTAL              217                \$17,450,659        106            \$8,377,536        323          \$25,828,195

                                                                                                           

  **DENVER HUB**                                                                                            

  DENVER             93                 \$8,075,133         39             \$2,893,063        132          \$10,968,196

  TOTAL              93                 \$8,075,133         39             \$2,893,063        132          \$10,968,196

                                                                                                           

  **SAN FRANCISCO                                                                                           
  HUB**                                                                                                    

  SAN FRANCISCO      179                \$20,921,616        13             \$1,411,137        192          \$22,332,753

  HONOLULU           20                 3,733,128           5              933,282            25           4,666,410

  PHOENIX            69                 5,259,165           10             775,132            79           6,034,297

  SACRAMENTO         60                 6,082,365           10             1,067,733          70           7,150,098

  TOTAL              328                \$35,996,274        38             \$4,187,284        366          \$40,183,558

                                                                                                           

  **LOS ANGELES                                                                                             
  HUB**                                                                                                    

  LOS ANGELES        306                \$30,829,365        5              \$502,935          311          \$31,332,300

  TOTAL              306                \$30,829,365        5              \$502,935          311          \$31,332,300

                                                                                                           

  **SEATTLE HUB**                                                                                           

  SEATTLE            90                 \$8,832,953         19             \$1,861,291        109          \$10,694,244

  ANCHORAGE          20                 3,733,128           5              933,282            25           4,666,410

  PORTLAND           62                 5,495,007           25             2,137,476          87           7,632,483

  TOTAL              172                \$18,061,088        49             \$4,932,049        221          \$22,993,137

                                                                                                           

  **NATIONAL TOTAL** **4,481**          **\$420,889,213**   **872**        **\$74,274,568**   **5,353**    **\$495,163,781**

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

ATTACHMENT 4

  ---------------- ------- -------------- --- ---------------- ------- -------------
  **FY 2004                                                            
  SECTION 811                                                          
  ALLOCATIONS FOR                                                      
  SUPPORTIVE                                                           
  HOUSING FOR                                                          
  PERSONS WITH                                                         
  DISABILITIES**                                                       

  OFFICES          UNITS   CAPITAL            OFFICES          UNITS   CAPITAL
                           ADVANCE                                     ADVANCE

  **BOSTON HUB**                              **ATLANTA HUB**           

  BOSTON           28      \$2,890,683        ATLANTA          36      \$2,630,342

  HARTFORD         19      1,964,406          KNOXVILLE        18      1,245,797

  MANCHESTER       19      1,533,503          LOUISVILLE       25      1,978,833

  PROVIDENCE       10      1,016,910          NASHVILLE        22      1,546,717

  TOTAL            76      \$7,405,502        SAN JUAN         26      2,242,625

                                              TOTAL            127     \$9,644,314

  **NEW YORK HUB**                            **JACKSONVILLE            
                                              HUB**                    

  NEW YORK         51      \$6,078,584        BIRMINGHAM       26      \$1,829,333

  TOTAL            51      \$6,078,584        JACKSON          21      1,407,174

                                              JACKSONVILLE     62      4,409,117

  **BUFFALO HUB**                             TOTAL            109     \$7,645,624

  BUFFALO          27      \$2,456,869                                  

  TOTAL            27      \$2,456,869        **CHICAGO HUB**           

                                              CHICAGO          43      \$4,464,533

  **PHILADELPHIA                              INDIANAPOLIS     28      2,200,380
  HUB**                                                                

  CHARLESTON       17      \$1,337,954        TOTAL            71      \$6,664,913

  NEWARK           33      3,498,110                                    

  PHILADELPHIA     35      3,462,979          **COLUMBUS HUB**          

  PITTSBURGH       20      1,711,276          CINCINNATI       17      \$1,284,419

  TOTAL            105     \$10,010,319       CLEVELAND        25      2,150,861

                                              COLUMBUS         19      1,460,353

  **BALTIMORE                                 TOTAL            61      \$4,895,633
  HUB**                                                                

  BALTIMORE        20      \$1,690,704        **DETROIT HUB**           

  RICHMOND         26      1,930,701          DETROIT          28      \$2,541,189

  WASHINGTON       20      1,823,754          GRAND RAPIDS     20      1,523,369

  TOTAL            66      \$5,445,159        TOTAL            48      \$4,064,558

                                                                        

  **GREENSBORO                                **MINNEAPOLIS             
  HUB**                                       HUB**                    

  COLUMBIA         24      \$1,934,983        MINNEAPOLIS      21      \$1,998,690

  GREENSBORO       37      3,447,578          MILWAUKEE        23      2,076,056

  TOTAL            61      \$5,382,561        TOTAL            44      \$4,074,746

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

  --------------- ------- ------------- --- ------------------ ----------- -------------------
  OFFICES         UNITS   CAPITAL           OFFICES            UNITS       CAPITAL ADVANCE
                          ADVANCE                                          

  **FT. WORTH                               **SAN FRANCISCO                 
  HUB**                                     HUB**                          

  FT. WORTH       48      \$3,150,378       SAN FRANCISCO      44          \$4,849,879

  HOUSTON         29      1,968,238         HONOLULU           10          1,784,052

  LITTLE ROCK     20      1,310,464         PHOENIX            25          1,878,257

  NEW ORLEANS     25      1,739,185         SACRAMENTO         20          2,033,514

  SAN ANTONIO     28      1,791,635         TOTAL              99          \$10,545,702

  TOTAL           150     \$9,959,900                                      

                                            **LOS ANGELES                   
                                            HUB**                          

  **KANSAS CITY                             LOS ANGELES        76          \$7,415,595
  HUB**                                                                    

  DES MOINES      17      \$1,208,698       TOTAL              76          \$7,415,595

  KANSAS CITY     24      1,842,676                                        

  OKLAHOMA CITY   22      1,459,921         **SEATTLE HUB**                 

  OMAHA           10      777,054           SEATTLE            27          \$2,557,226

  ST LOUIS        19      1,699,696         ANCHORAGE          10          1,784,052

  TOTAL           92      \$6,988,045       PORTLAND           23          1,927,871

                                            TOTAL              60          \$6,269,149

  **DENVER HUB**                                                            

  DENVER          34      \$2,728,992       **NATIONAL TOTAL** **1,357**   **\$117,676,165**

  TOTAL           34      \$2,728,992                                      

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

ATTACHMENT 5

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

The local HUD Office will send a copy of the Funding Notification and
information regarding the date, time and place of the workshop
(Attachment 7) 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 6

**FUNDING NOTIFICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004**

**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 non-metropolitan).

An application may be obtained by downloading the General Section of the
SuperNOFA and the Section 202 Program NOFA from HUD's homepage at
<http://www.hud.gov/grants/index.cfm>; or by contacting the NOFA
Information Center at 1-800-HUD-8929 (TTY: 1-800-HUD-2209); or the HUD
Office at [(HUD Office Address)]{.underline} .

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

THE DEADLINE DATE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS IS July 22, 2004.

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

that number instead of 125.

> ATTACHMENT 7

**FUNDING NOTIFICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004**

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

**CAPITAL ADVANCE PROGRAM**

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

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

\$

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

An application may be obtained by downloading the General Section of the
SuperNOFA and the Section 811 Program NOFA from HUD's homepage at
<http://www.hud.gov/grants/index.cfm>; or by contacting the NOFA
Information Center at 1-800-HUD-8929 (TTY: 1-800-HUD-2209); or the HUD
Office at [(HUD Office Address)]{.underline} .

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

THE DEADLINE DATE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS IS July 22, 2004.

ATTACHMENT 8

**Fiscal Year 2004 Policy for Section 202 and Section 811 Applications
Processing and Selections**

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

Separate selection lists, lists of unfunded but approvable applications
and lists of applications that receive base scores below **75** for the
Section 202 and Section 811 programs are still to be submitted to
Headquarters prior to completion of the selection and announcement
process. See Attachment 2 for specific instructions regarding the
selection materials that must be submitted to Headquarters.

Residual funds not used by Multifamily Hubs for each program shall be
identified in the transmittal memorandum to accompany the above lists.
These funds will be recaptured by Headquarters and will be used to
restore units, where possible, to projects that had units reduced in
order to be selected and to fund additional applications based on field
office ratings, beginning with the highest rated application nationwide,
ensuring equity among field offices as described in paragraph 4.HH. on
page 28 above.

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]{.underline}
[Rating/Selection Panel]{.underline}.

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

**NOTE:** Sponsors whose applications are found technically 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.

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

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

4\. The Environmental Assessment and Compliance Findings for the Related
Laws Form (Form 4128) must be completed for applications with
satisfactory evidence of site control, all compliance findings made,
including the Finding of No Significant Impact, and properly executed by
the Appraiser and Supervisory Project Manager/ Operations Director and
Hub Director/Program Center Director before technical processing can be
completed. For projects that require the 8-Step process identified in 24
CFR Part 55 (Floodplains/ Wetlands), the Form 4128 should indicate that
Steps 1 through 6 have been completed, documentation attached. Also, if
the application does not include a letter from the SHPO indicating that
the site has no historic significance, and does not impact on a site or
area of historic significance, the applicable determination under
Historic Preservation procedures must be made and documented by HUD
Office staff. After completion of technical processing, the Form 4128
must be executed by the Supervisory Project Manager and attached to the
Valuation Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum.

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

B. [Notification of Technical Rejection]{.underline}. Upon completion of
technical processing, a copy of the Technical Reject Report generated
from DAP and a copy of each technical rejection letter shall be sent to
Headquarters, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration,
room 6138, Attention: 202/811. See the processing schedule in Attachment
1 for the date they should be submitted to Headquarters.

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

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

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

a\. Valuation

b\. Architectural and Engineering

c\. Economic and Market Analysis

d\. Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

e\. Community Planning and Development

3\. [Area of Competition]{.underline}.

a\. [Section 202]{.underline}. All metropolitan applications will
compete against each other and all non-metropolitan applications will
compete against each other within each local HUD Office\'s jurisdiction.

b\. [Section 811]{.underline}. All applications in Category A
(applications with legal evidence of an approvable site) will compete
against each other and all applications in Category B (applications with
site control where the evidence of site control and/or site is not
approvable, site-identified applications and scattered-site applications
with a combination of identified sites and sites under control) will
compete against each other within each local HUD Office's jurisdiction.

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

5\. [Recommended Scores]{.underline}. Based on the findings from the
Technical Processing Review and Findings Memoranda, the Project Manager
will complete the appropriate Standard Rating Criteria Form (Attachment
13 for 202, Attachment 14 for 811), to be used by the Rating/Selection
Panel in assigning final ratings to all approvable applications.

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

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

1\. [Descending Order]{.underline}. Applications shall be selected in
descending order which most reasonably approximate the number of units
and capital advance authority allocated to each HUD Office without
skipping over a higher rated application. For Section 202, this process
must be done separately for the metropolitan and non-metropolitan
categories. For Section 811, all applications in Category A must be
selected before the selection of applications in Category B.

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

**NOTE:** The only exception to this is if the HUD Office can select
only one application and, although the units are within the total units
allocated to the office the capital advance required is more than the
capital advance amount allocated to the office. In this case, the Hub
should fully fund this application first with any residual capital
advance funds. If the Hub should not have sufficient capital advance
funds to make the application whole, it will be fully funded with
residual funds in Headquarters. In any event, the Program Center must
address the situation in its transmittal memorandum to the Hub and the
Hub must address it in its transmittal memorandum to Headquarters,
indicating whether it was able to fully fund the application or whether
it will need to be fully funded at the Headquarters level.

**REMINDER:** **In calculating the capital advance amount, you are to
use the development cost limits and high cost percentages that are
currently in effect. However, in applying the high cost percentages, you
may use a percentage that is higher or lower than that assigned to your
office if it is needed to provide a capital advance amount that is
comparable to what it typically costs to develop a 202 or 811 project in
your area.**

3\. [Minimum Score]{.underline}. Only those applications that receive a
score of **75** base points or above may be considered for selection.
(The base score does not include bonus points.)

**NOTE: In no case may applications with technical deficiencies (e.g.,
ineligible Sponsor, missing or unsatisfactory Supportive Services
Certification (Section 811), be considered by HUD Office panels, or
included on the Initial Selection List or the Approvable but Unfunded
List.**

4\. [RC/EZ/EC Bonus Points]{.underline}. After rating applications,
those that receive at least **75** base points, have complete RC/EZ/EC
certifications, and acceptable site control of an approvable site(s)
should be reviewed against HUD\'s list of RCs/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 RC/EZ/EC, will be located in an RC/EZ/EC, and will serve
residents of the RC/EZ/EC may receive the two (2) bonus points.

5\. [Unit Reduction Policy]{.underline}. After making the initial
selections, any residual funds may be utilized to fund the next highest
rank-ordered application by reducing the units by no more than 10
percent rounded to the nearest whole number; provided the reduction will
not render the project infeasible. Applications proposing 5 units or
less may not be reduced. For Section 811, the unit reduction policy must
be applied to the next highest-ranked application in Category A first.
For Section 202, the HUD Office may combine its unused metropolitan and
non-metropolitan funds in order to select the next ranked application in
either category, using the unit reduction policy, if necessary.

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

7\. [Program Center\'s Submission to the Multifamily Hub]{.underline}.

See Attachment 2 for a description of the selection

materials that must be submitted to the Multifamily Hub

in accordance with the processing schedule in

Attachment 1.

8\. [Multifamily Hub\'s Use of Residual Funds]{.underline}. After the
Program Centers within each Hub have funded all possible projects for
the Section 202 and Section 811 programs, the residual funds (for
Section 202, metropolitan and non-metropolitan funds are to be combined)
will be used in the following manner. First, these funds will be used to
restore units to projects reduced by Program Centers. Then, additional
applications within each Multifamily Hub will be selected in rank order
with no more than one application selected per Program Center unless
there are insufficient approvable applications in other Program Centers
within the Multifamily Hub. This process will continue until there are
no more approvable applications within the Multifamily Hub that can be
selected with the remaining funds. For Section 811, the residual funds
are to be used first to fund Category A applications in rank order.
Applications may not be skipped over to select one based on funds
remaining. However, if necessary, any remaining residual funds may be
used to fund the next rank-ordered application by reducing the number of
units by no more than 10 percent, rounded to the nearest whole number,
provided the reduction will not render the project infeasible. HUD will
not reduce the number of units in 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. Next, residual funds
will be used for the selection of additional applications based on a
national rank order with no more than one application selected per HUD
Office from the national residual amount unless there are insufficient
approvable applications in other HUD Offices. For Section 202, all
non-metropolitan applications will be funded first to meet the statutory
requirement pertaining to Section 202 funding in non-metropolitan areas.
For Section 811, all Category A applications will be funded first to
meet the statutory requirement that selection shall be based on the
extent to which the Sponsor has site control. Headquarters may skip over
a higher rated application in order to use as much of the remaining
funds as possible.

E. [Submission to Headquarters]{.underline}. See Attachment 2 for a

description of the selection materials that must be

submitted to the Multifamily Hub in accordance with the

processing schedule in Attachment 1.

ATTACHMENT 9

SECTION 202 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) GOALS

SECTION 202

CAPITAL [OFFICES ADVANCE UNITS]{.underline}

**BOSTON HUB**

Boston \$ 2,191,598 21

Hartford 1,343,488 13

Manchester 420,840 5

Providence 520,415 5

**NEW YORK HUB**

New York City 11,981,671 96

**BUFFALO HUB**

Buffalo 3,320,998 35

**PHILADELPHIA HUB**

Charleston 416,542 5

Newark 4,438,134 41

Pittsburgh 957,714 11

Philadelphia 2,154,672 21

**BALTIMORE HUB**

Baltimore 2,083,186 24

Richmond 1,486,284 19

DC 3,683,947 40

**GREENSBORO HUB**

Columbia 1,380,664 17

Greensboro 2,426,338 25

**ATLANTA HUB**

Atlanta 2,221,946 30

San Juan 594,189 7

Louisville 463,466 6

Knoxville 551,239 8

Nashville 789,152 11

SECTION 202 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) GOALS

SECTION 202

CAPITAL [OFFICES ADVANCE UNITS]{.underline}

**JACKSONVILLE HUB**

Jacksonville 3,276,937 45

Birmingham 1,265,188 17

Jackson 881,545 13

**CHICAGO HUB**

Chicago 4,883,710 46

Indianapolis 866,990 11

**COLUMBUS HUB**

Cincinnati 621,214 8

Cleveland 1,221,975 14

Columbus 598,776 8

**DETROIT HUB**

Detroit 1,644,954 18

Grand Rapids 813,699 10

**MINNEAPOLIS HUB**

Milwaukee 980,196 10

Minneapolis 849,476 9

**FT. WORTH HUB**

Ft. Worth 2,418,586 34

Houston 1,373,829 20

Little Rock 609,582 9

New Orleans 1,570,606 22

San Antonio 1,144,917 17

SECTION 202 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) GOALS

SECTION 202

CAPITAL [OFFICES ADVANCE UNITS]{.underline}

**KANSAS CITY HUB**

Des Moines 371,997 5

Kansas City 783,370 10

Oklahoma City 352,108 5

Omaha 401,529 5

St. Louis 774,939 8

**DENVER HUB**

Denver 1,478,114 18

**SAN FRANCISCO HUB**

Honolulu (Guam) 2,767,725 15

Phoenix 1,158,342 15

Sacramento 2,268,878 22

San Francisco 7,086,657 61

**LOS ANGELES HUB**

Los Angeles 9,942,405 99

**SEATTLE HUB**

Anchorage 933,282 5

Portland 801,336 9

Seattle 1,524,985 16

**TOTAL \$99,094,330 1,044**

ATTACHMENT 10

SECTION 811 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) GOALS

SECTION 811

CAPITAL [OFFICES ADVANCE UNITS]{.underline}

**BOSTON HUB**

Boston 309,716 3

Hartford 310,169 3

Manchester 242,133 3

Providence 305,073 3

**NEW YORK HUB**

New York City 755,727 6

**BUFFALO HUB**

Buffalo 305,453 3

**PHILADELPHIA HUB**

Charleston 236,109 3

Newark 371,229 4

Pittsburgh 171,128 2

Philadelphia 296,826 3

**BALTIMORE HUB**

Baltimore 253,606 3

Richmond 207,134 3

DC 273,563 3

**GREENSBORO HUB**

Columbia 245,815 3

Greensboro 372,543 4

**ATLANTA HUB**

Atlanta 355,546 5

San Juan 169,375 2

Louisville 158,306 2

Knoxville 138,422 2

Nashville 118,613 2

SECTION 811 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) GOALS

SECTION 811

CAPITAL [OFFICES ADVANCE UNITS]{.underline}

**JACKSONVILLE HUB**

Jacksonville 375,692 5

Birmingham 204,761 3

Jackson 210,374 3

**CHICAGO HUB**

Chicago 458,226 4

Indianapolis 235,755 3

**COLUMBUS HUB**

Cincinnati 226,662 3

Cleveland 258,103 3

Columbus 230,582 3

**DETROIT HUB**

Detroit 194,877 2

Grand Rapids 228,505 3

**MINNEAPOLIS HUB**

Milwaukee 270,790 3

Minneapolis 285,527 3

**FT. WORTH HUB**

Ft. Worth 353,849 5

Houston 221,072 3

Little Rock 101,511 2

New Orleans 243,170 3

San Antonio 201,236 3

**KANSAS CITY HUB**

Des Moines 213,300 3

Kansas City 230,335 3

Oklahoma City 199,080 3

Omaha 233,115 3

St. Louis 268,373 3

SECTION 811 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) GOALS

SECTION 811

CAPITAL [OFFICES ADVANCE UNITS]{.underline}

**DENVER HUB**

Denver 240,793 3

**SAN FRANCISCO HUB**

Honolulu (Guam) 535,216 3

Phoenix 178,229 2

Sacramento 318,977 3

San Francisco 760,753 7

**LOS ANGELES HUB**

Los Angeles 1,163,211 12

**SEATTLE HUB**

Anchorage 535,215 3

Portland 251,461 3

Seattle 284,136 3

**TOTAL** **\$15,309,372** **170**

ATTACHMENT 11

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

**APPLICATION FOR FUND RESERVATION**

**INITIAL SCREENING FOR CURABLE DEFICIENCIES CHECKLIST FORMAT**

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

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

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

3\. **(Section 811 Only)** If the Sponsor checks box 9b. of Form
HUD-92016-CA indicating that it is requesting approval to restrict
occupancy of the proposed project to a subcategory of persons with
disabilities within one of the three main categories (i.e., physically
disabled, developmentally disabled, chronically mentally ill) the
Project Manager must ensure that the Sponsor has submitted the required
information in Exhibit 5(b) to justify its request.

Project Sponsor:

Project Location:

Project No.: No. of Units/Residents:

[INITIAL SCREENING SUMMARY]{.underline}

Date Received for Screening:

Date Screening Completed:

\_\_\_\_\_ Application is complete.

OR

\_\_\_\_\_ Application is incomplete.

Date of curable deficiency letter (attach copy):

Date of response to curable deficiency letter:

Date Application Placed into Technical Processing:

Signature of Project Manager Date

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

**Initial Screening for Curable Deficiencies Checklist**

**Project Manager**

Sponsor Name:

Project Location:

Project No.:

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

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

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

[2(a)]{.underline}

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

[2(c)]{.underline}

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

[3(a)]{.underline}

[3(b)]{.underline}

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

[3(d)]{.underline}

[3(e)]{.underline}

[3(f)]{.underline}

[3(g)]{.underline}

[3(h)]{.underline}

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

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

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

[3(j)]{.underline}

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

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

[4(a)]{.underline}

[4(b)]{.underline}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[6(a)]{.underline}

[6(b)]{.underline}

[6(c)]{.underline}

[6(d)]{.underline}

[7(a)]{.underline}

[7(b)]{.underline}

[7(c)]{.underline}

[7(d)]{.underline}

[8(a)]{.underline}

[8(b)]{.underline}

[8(c)]{.underline}

[8(d)]{.underline}

[8(e)]{.underline}

[8(f)]{.underline}

[8(g)]{.underline}

[8(h)]{.underline}

[8(i)]{.underline}

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

[8(j)]{.underline}

[8(k) (202)]{.underline}

[8(k) (811)]{.underline}

[8(l) (202)]{.underline}

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

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

**NOTES:**

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

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

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

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

[Curable Deficiencies Identified]{.underline}

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

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

**OR**

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

Comments:

Signature of Project Manager Date

ATTACHMENT 12

**SECTION 202/811 CAPITAL ADVANCE**

**APPLICATION FOR FUND RESERVATION**

**TECHNICAL PROCESSING REVIEW AND FINDINGS MEMORANDA**

### FORMATS

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

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

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

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

\- identification of substantive comments by the reviewer.

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

2\. The rating criteria on the memoranda formats correspond to the
Rating Factors on the Standard Rating Criteria Form (Attachment 13 (202)
and Attachment 14 (811)). For example, on FHEO\'s Memorandum Format
there is no (a) under Rating Factor 1 because that criterion is rated by
the Project Manager. Furthermore, the points for each overall factor on
the memoranda formats relate to the maximum points the particular
technical discipline can assign to the rating criterion and may not
equal the total points for the corresponding Rating Factor on the
Standard Rating Criteria Form. For example, Rating Factor 1 on the
Standard Rating Criteria Form is worth 25 base points for 202 and 30
base points for 811. However, on the Project Manager\'s Memorandum
Format, Rating Factor 1 is worth a maximum of 20 points for 202 and 25
points for 811 because the Project Manager does not rate Rating
Criterion 1(b)(i) which is worth 5 points for either 202 or 811.

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

4\. **[Missing Information]{.underline}.** If the reviewing discipline
discovers that an exhibit or part of an exhibit is missing which was not
identified during initial screening for curable deficiencies, the
Project Manager must be notified immediately. If the item is a curable
deficiency, the Project Manager shall telephone the Sponsor and request
the missing information to be submitted within 14 calendar days from the
date of the telephone call. The Project Manager shall also request this
information on the same day by certified mail. Any other missing
information shall be listed in a technical reject letter to the Sponsor.

5\. **[Restricted Occupancy]{.underline}**. Under Section 811, if the
Project Manager determines, based on a review of the Sponsor\'s
justification, that the Sponsor\'s request for restricted occupancy
should be approved, it must prepare a memorandum to the file for the
signature of the Supervisory Project Manager indicating whether the
Sponsor\'s request to restrict occupancy has been approved or
disapproved. The memorandum shall be attached to the Project Manager\'s
Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum and include the
following language which must be inserted in the Agreement 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
(insert applicable category under which the subcategory falls), provided
the person can benefit from the housing and/or services provided.\"

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

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

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

If the site control is **NOT** acceptable for a single site application,
the application may still receive up to 14 points for Site Approvability
(Criterion 3(a)) from Valuation and up to 10 points from FHEO for the
suitability of the site in promoting a greater choice of housing
opportunities for persons with disabilities, including minorities
(Criterion 3(c)).

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

**NOTE:** For a scattered site application, site control must be
acceptable for all sites and all sites must be approvable for the
application to receive points for Criteria 3(a) and 3(b) and to be
placed in Category A for selection purposes.

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

[Reviewing Office]{.underline} [Recommendation]{.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
that causes the rejection to be overturned, the application is then
rated, ranked and submitted to the Rating/Selection Panel for
consideration. If the Sponsor does not appeal the rejection or does
appeal but the rejection is not overturned, the application remains a
\"technical reject\", receives a final score of 0 and is not to be
considered by the Rating/ Selection Panel.

SECTION 202/811

TECHNICAL PROCESSING REVIEW AND FINDINGS MEMORANDUM

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

MEMORANDUM FOR: Supervisory Project Manager

FROM: , Project Manager

SUBJECT: Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum

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

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

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

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

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

6\. **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:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

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

7\. **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:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

8\. **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:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

9\. **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:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

10\. **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?

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

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

> 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:** If the Sponsor requested approval to limit
occupancy to a subcategory of one of the three main categories of
disability (see paragraph 4.WW.(20)(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 5. of the Instructions above must be
included in the Agreement Letter.

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

**NOTE**: If the request requires Headquarters review (exceeds 24
persons for an independent living project \[not counting the resident
manager's unit\]), ensure that Exhibits 1, 4(a),(b),(c), and (d)(xii)
have been submitted to Headquarters, Office of Housing Assistance and
Grant Administration, room 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:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

13\. The Sponsor has received 2530 clearance.

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

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

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

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

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

**RATING FACTORS**

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

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

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

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

Comments:

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

**(b)(ii)** The scope, extent, and quality of the Sponsor's ties

to the community at large and to the minority and

elderly (202) disability (811) communities in

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

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

particular. (5 points maximum)

The scope, extent, and quality of the Sponsor's ties to the community at
large and to the elderly (202) or disability (811) community in
particular. (3 points)

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

(2 points)

Recommended rating:

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

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

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

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

**(c)** A Section 202 or Section 811 fund reservation the Sponsor
received in FY 1999 or after has been extended beyond 24 months (-2
points), 36 months (-3 points) or 48 months (-4 points) (except if the
delay was beyond the Sponsor's control).

Recommended rating:

Comments:

(d) Amendment money was required as a result of the delay in (c) above
    (except if the delay was beyond the Sponsor's control). (-1 point)

Recommended rating:

> Comments:

(e) **Section 811 Only:** The Sponsor has experience in developing
    integrated housing and/or the proposed project will be integrated
    housing (condominium units scattered within one or more buildings or
    non-contiguous independent living units on scattered sites). (5
    points if Sponsor has both experience in developing integrated
    housing and the project will be integrated housing, 4 points if the
    project will be integrated housing but the

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

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

> Sponsor has no experience in developing integrated housing, 2 points
> if Sponsor has experience in developing integrated housing but the
> project will not be integrated housing and 0 points if Sponsor has no
> experience in developing integrated housing and the proposed project
> will not be integrated housing)

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

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

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

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

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

**RATING FACTOR 2 - NEED/EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM (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:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**(g) Section 202 Only:** The extent to which the proposed supportive
services meet the identified needs of the (anticipated) residents. (2
points maximum)

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

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

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

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

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

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> **(h) Section 202 Only:** The extent to which the Sponsor demonstrated
> that the identified supportive services will be provided on a
> consistent, long-term basis.
>
> (2 points maximum)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1 point maximum)

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

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

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

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

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

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**811**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In determining the ability of the Sponsor to secure other community
resources that can be combined with HUD\'s program

resources to achieve program purposes, consider:

**(a)** The extent of local government support (including financial
assistance, donation of land, provision of services, etc.) for the
project. (1 point 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. (2 points maximum)

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

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

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

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

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

**(c)(i)** The proposed project involves mixed-financing for additional
units in which the non-Section 202 or non- Section 811 units represent
30 percent or less of the Section 202 or Section 811 units in the
project. (1 point maximum)

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ N/A
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

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

**-OR-**

**(c)(ii)** The proposed project involves mixed-financing for additional
units in which the non-Section 202 or non- Section 811 units represent
over 30 percent of the Section 202 or Section 811 units in the project.
(2 points maximum)

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ N/A
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

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

**RATING FACTOR 5 -- ACHIEVING RESULTS AND PROGRAM EVALUATION (10
POINTS)**

In determining whether the Sponsor has the ability to get the proposed
project to initial closing within 18 months, the extent to which the
project will implement practical solutions that will result in assisting
residents in achieving independent living, educational opportunities,
economic empowerment (811 only), and improved living environments and

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

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

how the long-term viability of the project will be sustained over the 40
year capital advance period, consider:

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

Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ (Also use the Logic
Model (Form HUD-96010) in Exhibit 8(k) for 202 or 8(l) for 811 in rating
this criterion.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3 points maximum)

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

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

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

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

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

Technical Processing - Project Manager) - continued

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

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**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - A&E) - continued

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

**(e)** **Section 202 Only:** The extent to which the proposed size and
unit mix of the housing will enable the Sponsor to manage and operate
the housing efficiently and ensure that the provision of supportive
services will be accomplished in an economical fashion. (2 points
maximum)

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

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

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

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

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

**(f)** **Section 202 Only:** The extent to which the proposed design of
the housing will accommodate the provision of supportive services that
are expected to be needed, initially and over the useful life of the
housing, by the category or categories of elderly persons the housing is
intended to serve. (2 points maximum)

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

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

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

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

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

**(d) Section 811 Only:** The extent to which the proposed

design of the project (exterior and interior) and its placement in the
neighborhood will meet the individual needs of the residents and will
facilitate their integration into the surrounding community and promote
their ability to live as

independently as possible. (2 points maximum)

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

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - A&E) - continued

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

**202**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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), and 5 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: , 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) below. However, if the Sponsor submits a scattered site
application, the site control documentation must be acceptable for all
sites and all sites must be approvable in order for the application to
receive points for Criterion 3(a) below and remain in Category A for
selection purposes. Otherwise, the application will be placed in
Category B for selection purposes and remain in the competition as long
as the Sponsor indicated in Exhibit 4(d)(xi) that it is willing to
locate an alternate site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - Valuation) - continued

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

2\. **For Section 202 applications** and **Section 811 applications with
site control only:** is the site located in a floodway, Coastal High
Hazard Area, and/or within the designated Coastal Barrier Resources
System (Coastal Barrier Resources Act, as amended)?

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

identified)

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

**Section 811:** If Yes, the site must be rejected and the application
shall receive 0 points for Criterion 3(a) below and be placed in
Category B for selection purposes provided the Sponsor indicated a
willingness to locate an alternate site.

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

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

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

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

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

process.

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

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

(Technical Processing - Valuation) - continued

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

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

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

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

**Section 811:** If No, the site must be rejected and the application
shall receive 0 points for Criterion 3(a) below and be placed in
Category B for selection purposes provided the Sponsor indicated a
willingness to locate an alternate site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5\. **For Section 202 applications** and **Section 811 applications with
site control only,** was a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
submitted, with an Update, as appropriate, and prepared in conformance
with ASTM 1527-00, as amended?

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

identified)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Section 811:** If No, the site must be rejected and the application
shall receive 0 points for Criterion 3(a) below and be placed in
Category B for selection purposes provided the Sponsor indicated a
willingness to locate an alternate site.

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

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - Valuation) - continued

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

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

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

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

9\. If the answer to question #8 is Yes, was the extent of contamination
and an acceptable plan for clean-up, including a contract for
remediation and an approval letter from the applicable Federal, State
and/or local agency submitted by the appropriate date?

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

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

**Section 811:** If No, the site must be rejected and the application
shall receive 0 points for Criterion 3(a) below and be placed in
Category B for selection purposes provided the Sponsor indicated a
willingness to locate an alternate site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Section 811:** If No, the site must be rejected and the application
shall receive 0 points for Criterion 3(a) below and be placed in
Category B for selection purposes provided the Sponsor indicated a
willingness to locate an alternate

(Technical Processing - Valuation) - continued

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

site **unless** it meets the requirements of the special groundwater
exception note below.

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

**Special Groundwater Exception**

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

a\. All known or suspected contamination on the

proposed site is located, or will be located

after remediation, solely within groundwater

that is or would be located at least 25 feet

below the surface. \_\_\_\_\_

b\. There is an outright prohibition on the use of

groundwater for any purposes in the vicinity of

the proposed site. \_\_\_\_\_

c\. No active water supply wells will be in existence

at the proposed site at initial closing. \_\_\_\_\_

Site meets the Special Groundwater Exception:

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

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

11\. **For Section 202 applications** and **Section 811 applications
with site control only**: the Environmental Assessment has been
completed (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 historic
preservation findings made by the SHPO/THPO) set forth in attached Form
HUD-4128 with Sample Field Notes Checklist.

Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_ N/A \_\_\_\_\_ (811 -- site

identified)

(Technical Processing - Valuation) - continued

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

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

**Section 811:** If No, the site must be rejected and the application
shall receive 0 points for Criterion 3(a) below and be placed in
Category B for selection purposes provided the Sponsor indicated a
willingness to locate an alternate site.

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

**NOTES**:

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

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

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

12\. The proposed construction or rehabilitation is permissible under
applicable zoning ordinances or regulations, or a statement was included
indicating the proposed action required to make the proposed project
permissible and the basis for belief that the proposed action would be
completed successfully before the submission of the firm commitment
application. (See Rating Factor 3(b) below for rating associated with
permissive zoning.)

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

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

**Section 811:** If No, the site must be rejected and the application
shall receive 0 points for Criterion 3(a) below and be placed in
Category B for selection purposes provided the Sponsor indicated a
willingness to locate an alternate site.

(Technical Processing - Valuation) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

13\. **Section 202 Only:** If proposed, will the congregate dining

facility be financially viable?

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

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

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

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

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

**RATING FACTOR**

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

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

**(a) Site approvability** - Proximity or accessibility of the site to
shopping, medical facilities, transportation, places of worship,
recreational facilities, places of employment and other necessary
services to the intended occupants, adequacy of utilities and streets
and freedom of the site from adverse environmental conditions **(applies
only to site control projects for 811)** and compliance with the site
and neighborhood standards. (20 points maximum for Section 202, 14
points maximum for Section 811)

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

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - Valuation) - continued

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

**(b) Permissive Zoning --** One or more of the proposed

sites is not permissively zoned for the intended

use. (-1 point)

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 placed in Category B for selection purposes as

long as the Sponsor indicated its willingness to seek

an alternate site (Exhibit 4(d)(xi)); otherwise, the

application will be rejected.

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

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

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

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

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

(Signature of Appraiser) Date

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

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

SECTION 202/811

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
persons with disabilities), EMAS should take into consideration the
Sponsor's evidence of need; current and anticipated market conditions in
assisted housing (elderly or persons with disabilities); 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 persons with disabilities) 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
persons with disabilities) under construction and for which fund
reservations have been issued.

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

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

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

(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 persons with disabilities (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**

**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 one-person renter households age 75 and older with

housing conditions problems, as of the 2000 Census minus the

number of project-based subsidized rental housing units (HUD,

RHS, or LIHTC) that are affordable to very low-income elderly

provided in the area since 1999. Units to be occupied by

resident managers are not to be counted. (12 points maximum)

12 points: The project has an unmet needs ratio of 15 percent or less.

6 points: The project has an unmet needs ratio of greater than 15
percent.

Project/Needs Ratio: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - EMAS) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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(c) under
\"Rating Factors\" below.

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

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

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

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

2\. Sponsor is in compliance with civil rights laws and applicable
regulations, i.e., there is no pending Department of Justice civil
rights lawsuit alleging ongoing pattern or practice

of discrimination; or outstanding letter of noncompliance findings under
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 involving systemic discrimination, or
Secretarial charge alleging

(Technical Processing - FHEO) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

compliance with civil rights laws, regulation, Executive Orders, and
equal opportunity requirements.

**NOTE**: FHEO shall accept the Certifications unless there is
documented evidence to the contrary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

**RATING FACTORS**

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

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

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

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

experience, all relevant supportive services

(Technical Processing - FHEO) - continued

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

experience should be examined.

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

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

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

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

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

**(b)(ii)** The scope, extent and quality of the Sponsor's ties

to the community at large and to the minority and

elderly (202) disability (811) communities in

particular. (5 points maximum)

The scope, extent, and quality of the Sponsor's ties to the minority
community. (2 points)

**NOTE:** The Project Manager will rate the scope, extent and quality of
the Sponsor's ties to the community at large and to the elderly (202) or
disability (811) community in particular.

Recommended Rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

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

**RATING FACTOR 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. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

c.  The suitability of the site from the standpoints of promoting a
    greater choice of housing opportunities for minority elderly
    persons/families (**Section 202**) or persons with disabilities,
    including minorities (**Section 811**) and affirmatively furthering
    fair housing. The site will be deemed acceptable if it increases
    housing choice and opportunity by (a) expanding housing
    opportunities in non-minority neighborhoods (if located in such a
    neighborhood); **OR** contributing to the revitalization of and
    reinvestment in minority neighborhoods, including improvement of the
    level, quality and affordability of services furnished to the
    minority elderly (202) or minority persons with disabilities (811).
    (10 points maximum)

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

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

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

> the application will also receive 0
>
> points for Criterion 3(a).

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

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

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

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

**202** Did the Sponsor involve minority elderly (202) or

**(j)** minority persons with disabilities (811) in the

**811** development of the application?

**(g)**

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

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

(Technical Processing - FHEO) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3\. For projects with relocation indicated, is the information submitted
in Exhibit 7 acceptable?

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

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - FHEO) - continued

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

The subject application is acceptable from an FHEO viewpoint.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Signature of FHEO Reviewer) Date

**NOTE:** EXHIBITS 1, 3(a), 3(b), 3(d), 3(e), 3(f), 3(h), 4(a), 4(d), 7
and 8 WERE REVIEWED TO DETERMINE THE ABOVE FINDINGS.

SECTION 202/811

TECHNICAL PROCESSING REVIEW AND FINDINGS MEMORANDUM

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

MEMORANDUM FOR: Supervisory Project Manager

FROM: , Field Office Counsel

SUBJECT: Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum

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

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

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

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

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

The subject application has been reviewed and the Field Office
Counsel\'s comments are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Technical Processing - Counsel) - continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Section 811:** If No, the site must be rejected and the application
will be placed in Category B for selection purposes.

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

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

(Technical Processing - Counsel) - continued

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

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

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

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

**Section 811:** If Yes, the site must be rejected and the application
will be placed in Category B for selection purposes.

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 will be placed in
Category B for selection purposes. (Questions 5 and 6)

RECOMMENDATION: \_\_\_\_\_ The subject Application is acceptable.

\_\_\_\_\_ The subject Application must be rejected

for the following reason(s):

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

(Signature of Field Office Counsel) Date

**NOTE:** EXHIBITS 1, 2, 4(d), and 8(f) WERE REVIEWED TO DETERMINE THE
ABOVE FINDINGS.

SECTION 202/811

TECHNICAL PROCESSING REVIEW AND FINDINGS MEMORANDUM

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

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

MEMORANDUM FOR: Supervisory Project Manager

FROM: , Director, Community Planning

and Development

SUBJECT: Technical Processing Review and Findings Memorandum

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

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

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

Section 811 Only: 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 7, on
project occupancy, relocation costs, and previous site-occupant moves.

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

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

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

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

3\. Organization to administer relocation has been identified.

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

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

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

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

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

> 4\. Certification of Consistency with the Consolidated Plan (form
> HUD-2991) has been provided and is signed by the authorized certifying
> official.

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

(Technical Processing - CPD) continued

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

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

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

5.(a)**BONUS POINTS (2 POINTS)**

Will the project be located in a federally designated

Empowerment Zone, Enterprise Community, Urban Enhanced

Enterprise Community, or Renewal Community, (collectively referred to as
RCs/EZs/ECs), be consistent with the RC/EZ/EC strategic plan, and serve
RC/EZ/EC residents?

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

(b)Certification of Consistency with RC/EZ/EC

> Strategic Plan (form HUD-2990) has been provided
>
> and is signed by authorized certifying official.

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

> **If yes to (a) and (b)**, then the application will receive **two (2)
> bonus points**.
>
> Recommended rating: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

6\. Real Property acquisition / site control (Exhibit 4).

If applicant has site control, did applicant/buyer

provide seller with required voluntary, arm's length

transaction information?

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

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

(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), 7, and 8(h) WERE REVIEWED TO DETERMINE THE

ABOVE FINDINGS.