Funding Availability (NOFA) for Fiscal Year 1994 Congregate Housing Services Program

Federal RegisterApr 29, 1994

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

SUMMARY: This Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) announces the

funding of Regional competitions for HUD dollars and a national

competition for dollars allotted to the Farmers Home Administration

(FmHA), which are available for the supportive services component of

the Congregate Housing Services Program (CHSP). A Final Common Rule for

the CHSP is published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, as 7 CFR

part 1944 and 24 CFR part 700. Funding announced in today's document

covers new grants for congregate services for frail elderly persons,

persons with disabilities, and temporarily disabled individuals living

in eligible housing for the elderly. States, Indian tribes, units of

general local government, Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) and Indian

Housing Authorities (IHAs) and local nonprofit housing sponsors, are

eligible applicants. Applications from PHA/IHAs and local non-profit

housing sponsors are limited to the housing they own. States, Indian

tribes and units of general local government may submit one or more

applications on behalf of one or more owners of eligible housing who

may be either local non-profit housing sponsors or for-profit housing

owners.

This document contains information concerning: (a) The purpose of

the NOFA; (b) where to get the application package; (c) deadline for

filing applications; (d) eligibility, available amounts, and selection

criteria; and (e) information on application processing, and the

selection process.

DATES: The deadline date for submission of an application to HUD for

funding under the CHSP is on or before 3 p.m., local time, July 13,

1994, at the appropriate HUD field office.

The deadline date for submission of an application to FmHA for

funding under the CHSP is on or before 3 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time,

July 13, 1994, at FmHA Headquarters.

RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS: HUD will receive applications at the Field

Office for the jurisdiction in which the projects are located.

FmHA will receive applications at the FmHA Headquarters Building in

Washington, DC. Copies will also be received at the FmHA State office

which has jurisdiction over the project.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information concerning

grants under the CHSP, or limited technical assistance by telephone

regarding the preparation of an application for the CHSP, potential

applicants may contact HUD and FmHA as follows:

For questions regarding HUD projects, applicants applying for

Public and/or Indian Housing Projects should contact the Housing

Management Specialist in the Field Office which has jurisdiction for

the projects.

Applicants applying for Section 8, 202, 221(d) or 236 Projects

should call the Loan Servicer in the field office which has

jurisdiction for the projects.

HUD and FmHA Field office addresses and telephone numbers are

listed in Attachment 1 to this NOFA.

Applicants for FmHA projects should contact John Pentecost or Sue

Harris at FmHA Headquarters at 202-720-1606. (This is NOT a toll-free

number.) Hearing impaired individuals may reach FmHA by calling the

central TDD number of (202)-245-0846, HUD by calling (202)-708-9300, or

either agency by calling the TDD number of the Federal Relay Service 1-

800-877-TDDY and requesting a transfer.

Applicants for HUD projects should not contact HUD Headquarters:

such calls will normally be referred to the appropriate HUD Field

Office.

Applicants for FmHA projects should not contact FmHA State or

District Offices; such calls will normally be referred to FmHA

Headquarters.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

The information collection requirements contained in this NOFA have

been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). No

person may be subjected to a penalty for failure to comply with these

information collection requirements until they have been approved and

assigned an OMB control number. The OMB control number, when assigned,

will be announced by separate notice in the Federal Register.

Public reporting burden for the collection of information

requirements contained in this NOFA is estimated to include the time

for reviewing the instructions, searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing

the collection of information. Information on the estimated public

reporting burden is provided under Other Matters. Send comments

regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection

of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Rules Docket Clerk, 451

Seventh Street, SW., room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500; and to the

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for HUD, Washington, DC 20503.

I. Purpose and Substantive Description

A. Authority and Background

(1) Authority

(a) Section 802 of the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable

Housing Act (NAHA) (42 USC 8011) created a new CHSP.

(b) Section 604 and 672 of the Housing and Community Development

Act of 1992 amended the CHSP.

today's Federal Register.

(2) Background

The CHSP was originally authorized and funded as a demonstration

program under the Congregate Housing Services Act of 1978 (1978 Act)

(42 USC 8001). It provided congregate housing and coordinated

supportive services for elderly handicapped or non-elderly handicapped

individuals to allow them to maintain their independence and avoid

costly and unnecessary institutionalization. Congress appropriated

funds for Fiscal Years 1979 through 1982, to remain available until

expended. Since then, Congress has provided funds on an annual basis to

continue funding grantees that previously received assistance. The

demonstration became a permanent program in 1987.

Based upon the experience of the grantees funded under the

demonstration, Congress created a new CHSP as one of the components of

NAHA, which was enacted on November 28, 1990 and amended in 1992. HUD,

in coordination with the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) of the

Department of Agriculture, administers the CHSP under a Common Rule in

accordance with the statute. This Notice announces the availability of

both HUD and FmHA funds for the CHSP and invites applications from both

HUD and FmHA applicants.

The CHSP is a program with two components: A retrofit and

renovation component which has not yet been implemented and a

supportive services component. RETROFITTING AND RENOVATION OF

FACILITIES ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING UNDER THIS NOFA.

Funds are available under the supportive services component for

five-year, renewable, congregate services grants for frail elderly

persons, persons with disabilities, and temporarily disabled

individuals living in eligible housing for the elderly. The program

serves as a means of preventing unnecessary institutionalization and

encouraging deinstitutionalization of those potentially eligible

residents who do not need an institutionalized setting. It also

improves the capacity of management to assess the supportive service

needs of eligible residents, and to either ensure the coordination and

delivery of supportive services from third party providers or provide

the services directly in order to meet the minimum needs of eligible

residents.

HUD and FmHA are interested in using the services funds in the most

cost-efficient manner and with appropriate targeting. Thus, a number of

changes have been made from last year's program to increase efficiency,

target the program more effectively and attempt to make the limited

funds available to more applicants. The major changes are to:

(a) stress the service coordination/case management aspects of the

program by making the service coordinator a clearly mandated function,

whether funded wholly or in part by CHSP, or funded by a third party;

(The more coordinators that are funded, the larger the number of

projects whose residents will ultimately benefit from supportive

services in the community.)

(b) target the available funds to meals and service coordination/

case management and limit funds for additional supportive services, by

capping the amount of funds that an applicant may receive for other

supportive services thus allowing more potential grants; (Thus, an

applicant may receive a maximum of $1,200/person/year in HUD funds for

supportive services other than case management/service coordination and

the mandatory meals program.)

projects more readily are able to plan programs for existing needs and

get them operational in the most effective manner and the shortest

time. Thus, CHSP is offered this year only to projects which are at

least 85 percent occupied as of the date of the CHSP application to

HUD.)

Additionally, HUD and FmHA are clarifying the meals requirement.

While the current requirement that each CHSP provide at least one hot

meal per day in a group setting for some or all of the participants who

are assessed as needing such assistance is not changed, additional

meals can be available for frail elderly or non-elderly disabled

participants who are assessed with a need for them. Such additional

meals can be either hot or cold and may be home delivered.

The CHSP will ensure the long-term provision of supportive services

in a manner which insures the program participant's freedom of choice

and which respects the dignity of the persons served. It will also

provide readily available and efficient services with emphasis on

providing only those services minimally necessary to maintain

independent living, but maintaining a continuum of support for

individual program participants over time.

B. Allocation Amounts

The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban

Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (P.L.

102-389) appropriated $21,000,000 in FY 1993. Approximately $14,500,000

of these funds remained after the FY 1993 competition and the refunding

of the 53 existing grantees for an additional 24 months. Additionally,

the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development,

and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (P.L. 103-124) made

available $25,000,000 for the CHSP, all of which is included in the

NOFA. Together with the carryover funds, $39,500,000 is available for

new grants. In consultation with FmHA, the dollars are allocated as

follows:

--Approximately 20 percent ($7,900,000) of the total funds are

available to applicants with FmHA projects.

--The remainder, approximately 80 percent ($31,600,000) is for

applicants with HUD projects.

1. HUD Projects

Applicants for HUD projects may apply for grants from the available

$31,600,000. The formula for the HUD allocation is stated below:

a. Compute the total number of section 8 New Construction/

substantial rehabilitation elderly, section 202, section 221(d)

elderly, section 236 elderly and PIH/IHA elderly units in each Region

for the nation as a whole.

b. Calculate the proportion of the national total represented by

each Region's share.

c. Divide the available dollars proportionally in accordance with

the Regional share of the elderly housing inventory, as follows:

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

No. of

Region units Dollars Percentage

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

I................................... 102,257 $2,844,000 9

II.................................. 127,124 3,476,000 11

III................................. 135,760 3,792,000 12

IV.................................. 182,684 4,740,000 15

V................................... 273,075 7,268,000 23

VI.................................. 82,319 2,212,000 7

VII................................. 95,605 2,528,000 8

VIII................................ 36,616 948,000 3

IX.................................. 96,958 2,528,000 8

X................................... 42,837 1,264,000 4

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

Total............................. 1,175,235 $31,600,000 100\1\

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

\1\Percentages are rounded to equal 100%.

The funds for the CHSP will be awarded by HUD through 10 Regional

competitions, in which applicants are selected to receive supportive

services grants by HUD. The funding process is further described in

Section II. of this NOFA.

2. FmHA Projects

Applicants for FmHA projects may apply for grants from the

available $7,900,000.

The funds for the CHSP will be awarded by FmHA through a national

competition, in which applicants are selected to receive supportive

services grants by FmHA Headquarters. HUD will fund the grants, and

administer them with FmHA assistance. The funding process is further

described in Section II. of this NOFA.

C. Eligibility

1. General

Applicants must submit applications for HUD projects to HUD field

offices and applications for FmHA projects to FmHA Headquarters and

State offices. Applicants may apply for either HUD and/or FmHA dollars.

Applications may only be submitted to the HUD field office/FmHA State

office which has jurisdiction over the project.

Projects submitted by eligible applicants under this NOFA are

limited to eligible housing for the elderly, as defined below.

2. Eligible Applicants

Eligible applicants are States, Indian Tribes, units of general

local government, PHA/IHAs or local non-profit housing sponsors as

defined in 7 CFR 1944.252 and 24 CFR 700.105. Local non-profit housing

sponsors and PHA/IHAs may only apply on behalf of projects they own.

For-profit owners of eligible housing for the elderly may not apply

directly for CHSP grants; the request must be submitted under an

application by a State, Indian tribe or unit of general local

government (but NOT under an application submitted by a local non-

profit sponsor or a PHA/IHA).

3. Eligible Housing Projects

Eligible projects under this NOFA must be eligible housing for the

elderly as defined in 7 CFR 1944.252 and 24 CFR 700.105, and must be 85

percent occupied as of the date of the application deadline for funding

under this NOFA. For-profit owners of eligible housing for the elderly

may not apply directly for CHSP grants; the request may be submitted

under an application by a State, Indian tribe or unit of general local

government (but NOT under an application submitted by a local non-

profit sponsor or a PHA/IHA).

4. Services Required by the CHSP

Each application must provide documentation that it will provide or

is already providing the following required services.

a. A meals program of at least one hot meal a day, seven days a

week in a group setting for some or all of the participants; and,

b. A service coordinator to provide case management and other

activities as required by section 700.220 and 225 or 1944.257 and 258

of the common rule.

5. Funding Limits

There is a limit on the amount of dollars HUD/FmHA will approve for

supportive services other than case management/ service coordination

and meals. This limit is $1,200 in HUD funds per person per year in FY

1994. (Costs for meals and case management/service coordination are not

capped, but follow normal market considerations for that jurisdiction.)

The proposed amount for case management/service coordination together

with the capped amount for other services and a limited amount make up

the 40 percent that HUD will pay as its share of the grant.

THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF FUNDS WHICH WILL BE GRANTED TO ANY ONE

APPLICANT UNDER THIS NOFA is $2,000,000, subject to Section II.G.(6).

D. Selection Criteria/Ranking Factors

1. General

To provide each applicant a fair and equitable opportunity to

receive FY 1994 funds under the CHSP, HUD and FmHA will use the

selection criteria stated below to rate all eligible applications which

have passed eligibility, threshold and technical review.

2. Selection Criteria

The selection criteria, with a maximum total rating value of 75

points, are as follows:

Selection Criteria

a. Experience or capability of the applicant:

The applicant currently administers an effective, successful

service program for the frail elderly or for persons with disabilities,

or evidences relevant experience or capability to develop and implement

such service programs. The applicant is:

Experienced ________ (10)

Has capability only ________ (5)

Unqualified ________ (0)

b. The degree of adequacy of local service providers,

appropriateness of the targeting of the services and the relationship

of the proposal to the needs and characteristics of the eligible

residents of the projects where the services are to be provided:

Proposed services to be provided by both the applicant and local

social service agencies:

(1) Appropriately address the daily living needs of the residents

presented in the application;

(2) Adequately appear to both provide a core of necessary services

and fill the gap between the existing services and those that are not

available/affordable; and,

(3) Will serve all residents identified as either disabled or frail

(deficient in at least 3 activities of daily living).

Meets all three ________ (15)

Meets 2 of 3 ________ (10)

Meets one ________ (5)

Meets none ________ (0)

c. The schedule for establishment of services following approval of

the application:

The applicant's timetable for implementation of services is

reasonable and credible based upon HUD/FmHA's experience with the

applicant.

Implementation in 6 months or less ________ (5)

From 7 to 12 months ________ (3)

Over 12 months ________ (0)

Plan is not credible as presented ________ (0)

d. The professional qualification of the members of the PAC:

The proposed PAC consists of no less than three individuals, and

includes both social service professionals and at least one qualified

medical or other health professional. PAC members are competent to

appraise the functional abilities of frail elderly individuals and

persons with disabilities in regard to performing activities of daily

living.

Acceptable ________ (5)

Not acceptable ________ (0)

e. The reasonableness and application of fee schedules established

for congregate services:

The applicant proposes reasonable fees which meet prescribed

requirements. The applicant has:

(1) Accurately calculated meal fees according to Exhibit 20, or did

not utilize meal fees as the meals are funded totally from the Older

Americans Act;

(2) Presented flat fees for services other than meals that do not

exceed the cost of each service, or had no other service fee(s); and,

(3) Proposed total fees that do not exceed 20% of a participant's

adjusted income.

Yes, meets all three ________ (10)

Yes, meets one or two ________ (5)

No, fee schedule meets none ______ (0)

f. The adequacy and accuracy of proposed budgets:

The budget conforms to the following conditions:

(1) Service costs are consistent with local market conditions;

(2) Costs of all services correspond directly to the proposed

number of participants;

(3) All costs proposed are eligible;

(4) The limits on administrative costs (10% of program), in-kind

contributions (10% of match), local government proportion of match when

a State is the applicant (10%) and the $1,200 per/person/year limit are

not exceeded; and,

(5) Total participant fees as shown in the first year budget are

equal to or greater than 10% of total program cost.

Conforms to all five ________ (15)

Conforms to at least two ________ (5)

Conforms to one or none ________ (0)

g. The extent to which the applicant proposes funds from other

services in excess of that required:

The applicant proposes matching funds for the first year and for

the next four years in an amount that exceeds the minimum required. The

applicant's match is:

(1) 55% or more of total program cost for the first year and/or one

or more of the next four years ________ (3)

(2) Under 55% of total program cost for the first and other years.

________ (0)

h. The methods of providing for deinstitutionalized older

individuals and persons with disabilities:

The application has a proposed plan to identify and transfer

potential participants from institutions to the project and into the

CHSP.

There is a plan and it is acceptable. Yes ________ (2); No ________

(0)

i. Existing/new services;

The applicant or other third parties currently do not provide

supportive services to frail or disabled residents and the proposed

CHSP services will constitute an entirely new program. ________ (5)

The applicant or other third party provides some supportive

services to eligible residents; the proposed CHSP services will expand

or add to existing services. ________ (0)

j. Housing/Services Assistance for Minorities and Minority Business

Enterprise/Women Business Enterprise (MBE/WBE).

1. Housing/services experience:

Applicant has significant previous experience in serving minorities

(i.e., previous housing/services to minorities was equal to or greater

than the percentage of minorities in the jurisdiction where the

previous housing/service experience occurred AND has direct experience

in serving the client group proposed to be served in the application.

________ (3)

Applicant has previous experience in serving minorities, BUT

previous housing/services to minorities was less than the percentage of

minorities in the jurisdiction where the previous service experience

occurred. ________ (1)

Applicant does not have experience in serving minorities. ________

(0)

2. Minority business enterprise/Women business enterprise

experience (MBE/WBE).

Applicant has substantial prior MBE AND WBE experience (awarded

services or other contracts over $10,000). ________ (2)

Applicant has substantial prior MBE OR WBE experience (awarded

services or other contracts over $10,000). ________ (1)

Applicant does not have significant MBE/WBE experience. ________

(0)

II. Application Process

A. Obtaining Application Packages

CHSP applications can be obtained ONLY from the Multifamily Housing

Clearinghouse at 1-800-955-2232. The Clearinghouse must be called

regardless of whether the potential applicant is considering HUD

projects or FmHA projects. Applications will not be available to

applicants directly from HUD Headquarters or Field offices or from FmHA

Headquarters or State offices.

The application packages will be available from April 29, 1994

through July 13, 1994.

B. Application Requirements

All applications must contain the following information, in such

form and in such detail as HUD/FmHA require in the application package:

Part A: Applicant Information

1. SF-424, ``Request for Federal Assistance.''

General information:

Exhibit 1: Applicant Information

Exhibit 2: Evidence of Eligibility

Exhibit 3: List of Applications Submitted to Other HUD Field/FmHA State

Offices

Exhibit 4: Applicant Experience Statement

Disclosures and certifications:

Exhibit 5: HUD-2880, ``Applicant/Recipient Disclosure/Update Report,''

Exhibit 6: Applicant's Anti-lobbying Certifications (certification for

Grants, Loans, Contracts and Cooperative Agreements and SF-LLL,

``Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,'')

Exhibit 7: Applicant Certifications (SF-424B ``Assurances, Non-

construction Programs'', Drug-Free Workplace Certification and Civil

Rights Certifications)

Exhibit 8: CHSP Blanket certification

Part B: Project Information

General information:

Exhibit 1A: Applicant Identifier

Exhibit 9: Letter of Support from Area Agency on Aging/Agency Serving

the Disabled

Exhibit 10: Project Information

Exhibit 11: Evidence of Eligibility

Exhibit 12: Certification for HUD-Approved Budget and for use of

Residual Receipts (section 202 only)

Exhibit 13: Existing Services Description

Needs of residents and need for supportive services:

Exhibit 14: Profile of Eligible Project Residents

Exhibit 15: Description of the Need for the Supportive Services

Exhibit 16: Deinstitutionalization Plan

Proposed CHSP program:

Exhibit 17: Description of Proposed Services

Exhibit 18: Meals description

Exhibit 19: Implementation Start-up Schedule

Exhibit 20: Participant Fees Calculation Form

Exhibit 21: Budget Forms:

--HUD-91178--``Annual Program Budget, Applicant'',

--HUD-91179--``Summary Budget, Five-Year Projection'', and,

--HUD-91180--``Summary Budget, Applicant.''

Matching funds:

Exhibit 22: Summary Form for Match

Exhibit 23: Match Letters

Exhibit 24: Documentation of Residual Receipts (NOT for use of Public/

Indian Housing Agencies)

Professional assessment committee (PAC):

Exhibit 25: Qualification of PAC members

For applicant's information, the application package contains a

copy of the Joint Common Rule and three Attachments:

--Attachment 1: CHSP Questions and Answers;

--Attachment 2: Discussion of Service Coordinator; and,

--Attachment 3: Instructions for Completing Budget Forms.

C. Packaging of Applications

Applications must be submitted on the basis of ``one application--

one project''. A HUD PHA/IHA project is defined either by number or by

distinct building name; HUD Multifamily and FmHA projects are defined

by a project number and/or a Section 8 contract number. The applicant's

portion of the application submission is ``Part A'' and the project's

portion of the application with project and program information is

``Part B.''

FmHA applicants must submit an original ``Part A and one or more

Part Bs'' to FmHA Headquarters; A copy of each Part A and Part B must

be submitted to the appropriate FmHA State offices.

An applicant submitting one application for one project only must

submit one Part A and one Part B. (For example, the Smalltown Housing

and Redevelopment Authority submits one application for one project

``Pleasant Valley Towers'' to the HUD Omaha Field Office. That

application must contain one Part A and one Part B.)

Applicants submitting applications for multiple projects must

submit a separate application for each project, in each jurisdiction in

which it is submitting applications.

However, for multiple applications from the same applicant in the

same jurisdiction, only one copy of Part A is submitted. Thus, an

applicant submitting three applications in one jurisdiction must submit

one Part A and three Part Bs (e.g., the North Carolina Office on Aging

is submitting three applications for three HUD projects to the HUD

Greensboro office. It submits one Part A to that office, with a Part B

for each of the three separate projects.)

However, if an applicant is submitting applications to more than

one HUD Field office or FmHA State office or to both HUD and FmHA, it

must submit one ``Part A'' and the appropriate number of ``Part Bs'' in

EACH jurisdiction. For example, the Ohio Office of Aging is submitting

two applications for two HUD projects to the Cleveland HUD Office, one

application for one HUD project to the Columbus HUD Office and one FmHA

application to the FmHA Columbus State office. An original Part A must

be submitted to EACH of the three Offices, with two Part Bs to the

Cleveland Office, one Part B to the HUD Columbus office and one Part B

to the FmHA Columbus Office.

Each Part A and each Part B must be in separate folders. Each Part

must be appropriately tabbed and numbered according to the instructions

in the Application Package.

D. Submission of Applications

1. Submission of Applications to HUD

All applicants shall submit an original and THREE copies (a FAX

copy of the application is NOT acceptable) of the CHSP application to

the Director of Housing Management in the HUD Field Office which has

jurisdiction over the project at the address noted in Attachment 1 of

the NOFA by 3 p.m., Local Time, on or before July 13, 1994. In the case

of IHAs, the submission is to the Director of Housing Management in the

HUD Field Office in which is located the Office of Native American

Programs which has jurisdiction over that project. The deadline date is

firm as to date and hour.

In the interest of fairness to all applicants requesting CHSP

funds, HUD will treat as ineligible for consideration any request which

is received after the deadline.

Applicants making requests for CHSP funds should take this practice

into account and make early submission of their materials to avoid any

risk of lost eligibility brought about by unanticipated delivery-

related problems.

Applications received after the date and time stated herein will

not be accepted, and will be returned to the applicant.

Each application package must be identified on the envelope or

wrapper as follows: CHSP FY 1994 Application Package, Due by 3 p.m.,

Eastern Daylight Time July 13, 1994.

Determination whether an application is received in a timely manner

is solely the responsibility of FmHA Headquarters. The decision of that

Office is not subject to appeal.

E. Eligibility Review

HUD Field Office/FmHA State office staff will review all timely

applications for eligibility. Both applicants and projects will be

reviewed to determine that the applicant entity and the project

included in the application, if different, is eligible under the terms

of this NOFA and the common rule to participate in the FY 1994 CHSP.

Applicants must submit a copy of their charter or other evidence of

legal status and of their authority to run a CHSP, or evidence of non-

profit status as a local non-profit housing sponsor, as appropriate.

Applicants that are applying as local non-profit housing sponsors or

PHA/IHAs must ALSO submit proof of ownership of the project submitted

in the application.

Applicants must also submit proof of project eligibility, as shown

by a copy of the regulatory agreement, the HAP contract, or other

document which shows the project's legal identity.

All proofs of eligibility or ownership must be legally signed and

dated on or before the application deadline.

Eligibility will also include determination that the application

was submitted to the appropriate HUD or FmHA office.

Applicants and/or projects which are not eligible or have been

submitted to the incorrect HUD field office/FmHA State office will be

rejected and so notified by the appropriate office at this time.

Applications which pass eligibility review will proceed to threshold/

technical deficiency review. If eligibility material is missing, it

will be treated as a deficiency, subject to sections II.F(4) and III

below.

F. Threshold and Technical Deficiency Review

1. General. HUD Field Offices/FmHA Headquarters staff will review

applications for threshold and technical acceptability concurrently.

2. First, each application will be checked for completeness. Any

application missing three or more exhibits other than certifications

will be rejected by the HUD Field Office/FmHA Headquarters, with the

applicant being notified.

3. Second, the applications will be checked for threshold

eligibility. During this review, an applicant (or project in the case

of an application from a governmental jurisdiction) will be rejected

if:

a. The project is not 85 percent occupied;

b. It has not met the match requirement (i.e., there is a lack of

clear and documented evidence of at least a 50 percent eligible match

for the supportive services from the applicant or project owners, or

from third party providers, for the first year of the five-year grant).

Indicators of clear and documented evidence are:

(i) There is a separate match letter on letterhead of the provider

from each provider of match;

(ii) Match letters show committed dollar levels at least equal to

the dollar level in the first year budget;

(iii) The match items provided are firm commitments not contingent

upon any other action (e.g., state or county legislation, board of

directors or local county legislation/approval); and

(iv) For match other than in-kind, the required certification for

new or expanded services is included.

c. It has not submitted a participant fee-collection plan that

proposes to collect at least 10 percent of the cost of the CHSP (up to

20 percent of adjusted incomes or the cost of providing the services,

whichever is less).

d. The proposal includes a retrofit or renovation component in the

budget subject to section 802(a)(2) of the Act.

e. The meals program does not provide at least one hot meal a day

in a group setting SEVEN days a week, for some or all of the

participants. (The meals program may be an existing program; it may be

funded fully or in part with funds other than the CHSP.)

f. A service coordinator is NOT included as part of the services

program. (The coordinator may be paid fully or in part from funds other

than the CHSP.)

g. There is:

--A pending civil rights suit against the applicant (or project owner,

if different) brought by the Department of Justice;

--An outstanding finding of non-compliance as a result of formal

administrative proceedings under any of the statutes, regulations, or

other requirements listed in the civil rights certification, unless the

applicant is operating under a HUD-approved compliance agreement

designed to correct the area(s) of noncompliance, or, in cases of

noncompliance with state or local statutes, regulations or other

requirements, is operating under a compliance agreement approved by the

appropriate state or local agency designed to correct the area(s) of

non-compliance.

--A charge issued by the Secretary concerned against the applicant (or

project owner, if different) under Section 810(g) of the Fair Housing

Act as implemented by 24 CFR 103.400.

--A pending denial of application processing by HUD or by FmHA under

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, under the Attorney General's

guidelines (28 CFR 50.3), or the HUD Title VI regulations (24 CFR 1.8)

and procedures (HUD Handbook 8040.1), or under Section 504 of the

rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the HUD Section 504 regulations (24 CFR

8.57); or,

--An adjudication adverse to the applicant (or the project owner, if

different) of a civil rights violation in a civil action brought

against it under any of the statutes, regulations or other requirements

listed in the civil rights certification, unless the sponsor is

operating in compliance with a court order designed to correct the

area(s) of noncompliance.

h. There exist serious, unaddressed or outstanding Inspector

General audit findings or HUD Headquarters/Field Office/FmHA State

Office Management monitoring review findings for any of the applicant's

(or project's, if different) ongoing management operations or in

connection with its administration of existing grants;

i. There exist serious, unaddressed or outstanding Inspector

General audit findings or HUD Headquarters/Field Office/FmHA State

Office FH&EO monitoring review findings for any of the applicant's (or

project's, if different) ongoing management operations or in connection

with its administration of existing grants; or,

j. The applicant (or project owner, if different) is involved with

litigation which could seriously jeopardize its ability to administer

the CHSP.

If an applicant (or project within an application) is determined to

be the subject of a rejection on the basis of one or more of the above

criteria, the HUD field office or FmHA Headquarters staff shall reject

the application; the review cannot be completed nor the application

scored.

If the applicant agency is a governmental jurisdiction supporting

one or more projects in multiple applications and the applicant agency

is rejected, all projects submitted by that applicant agency will be

disqualified. However, any individual project may be rejected without

disqualifying the applicant agency, if a different legal entity.

All applicants whose application(s) have been rejected by HUD field

offices or FmHA Headquarters will be notified that they have been

rejected, in writing, at the time the decision to reject is made.

4. Third, applicants will be reviewed for technical completeness

(deficiency review).

During the technical review process, if HUD or FmHA determines that

an application is missing up to two exhibits (other than

certifications), or has certain technical deficiencies, the applicant

will be given 14 calendar days from the date of written notification in

which to correct such deficiencies.

The purpose of this process is to assist an applicant in completing

a fundable proposal, and not to provide an opportunity for an

application to be substantively improved, once it has been submitted.

Curable, technical deficiencies relate to submission of a limited

number of missing items, submission of items that are not necessary for

HUD review under threshold review or selection criteria/ranking

factors, e.g., a missing certification, inadvertent blank spot in

certain forms and certifications or missing signature; substantive

items for which information exists elsewhere in the application showing

that the items have been created (e.g., an annual first year budget

summary is missing, but there are sufficient program budgets to

determine what the annual budget is; or revision of match letters to

include missing data, when the amount of resources is clearly

indicated); or, missing match letters in certain instances (see next

paragraph).

Submission of missing items or correction of technical deficiencies

does not allow additional time to complete, amend or correct the

application to overcome any substantive defects in the original

submission. Thus, missing match letters, or corrected match letters

adding the required certification of new or expanded qualifying

resources must be submitted together with proof that the match was

available to the applicant on or before the application deadline (e.g.,

copy of dated Board resolution approving the allocation of the match

dollars). Also, missing documents dealing with applicant or project

eligibility (e.g., articles of incorporation) must be dated on or

before the application deadline date.

The HUD Field Office or FmHA Headquarters will request documents as

necessary to correct technical deficiencies in any CHSP application. (A

FAX copy of an original document may NOT be submitted to meet any

technical deficiency correction request.) A response to a letter

request from HUD or FmHA to an applicant for correction of technical

deficiencies must be received by the requesting HUD Field Office/FmHA

Headquarters, by 3 p.m., Local Time on the 14th calendar day following

the date on the request letter to the applicant. This means (for

example) that if the deficiency letter to the applicant is dated June

15, 1994, the response must be received by 3 p.m., Local Time, in the

HUD Field Office or FmHA Headquarters on June 29, 1994. Information

provided after 3 p.m. on the fourteenth day of the correction period

will be rejected as non-responsive. In any such situation, the

application, or the appropriate project, will be rejected.

All applicants are encouraged to review the Table of Contents

provided in the application package. The Table of Contents identifies

all technical exhibits needed for application processing. Filling in

the appropriate page number indicates that the exhibit has been

prepared.

5. HUD/FmHA reserves the right to reduce the amount of funding

requested in any application. Examples of reasons to reduce initial

funding requests during HUD Field office/FmHA Headquarters review

include, but are not limited to: (a) activities proposed in any project

are not eligible or not approved by HUD or FmHA; (b) HUD or FmHA

determines that the cost of any particular component of a proposed

program is more than necessary to make the activity feasible; and, (c)

the cost of the grant is reduced to meet the funding limits of Section

I.C(5).

Reductions may take place in the Field offices as part of the

review process.

6. Once threshold and technical reviews have been completed, HUD

Field offices, or the FmHA Headquarters (as appropriate) will score all

selection criteria.

HUD Field offices will send preliminary scores and full reports to

the HUD Regional offices. The Regional offices will: (a) Review all

materials and preliminary ratings for accuracy and conformance to

program policy; (b) make corrections, if necessary; (c) integrate the

Field Office recommendations; (d) do final rating and ranking; and, (e)

select projects.

Within each HUD Regional allocation and the FmHA Headquarters

allocation, applications will be rank-ordered by score.

G. Final Selection

1. General

HUD recognizes that the Regional role stated herein may have to be

modified later in the fiscal year, depending on the reorganization and

the manner in which the transition to the Field organization takes

place. If necessary there will be appropriate notification to the

procedures stated in this Notice.

All eligible applications, other than those noted as rejects, will

be rank-ordered by score in either the FmHA Headquarters or each HUD

Regional Office.

2. Final Reductions in Funding Within Applications

HUD/FmHA reserves the right to additionally reduce the amount of

funding requested in any application at time of selection to reduce the

cost of the grant to meet the funding limits of section I.C(5).

Reductions may also take place after selection and announcement of

award, as part of final negotiations.

3. Ranking of Projects

a. Ranking of FmHA Projects. FmHA Headquarters will select

applicants by rank-order until all CHSP funds allocated have been

exhausted. If there is more than one unfunded application at the next-

highest score (in a tie) and there are insufficient funds to cover

both, funding will be decided subject to section II.F.4, below. Further

selections will be made until any residual funds are insufficient to

fund another FmHA project.

If there is a residual amount after all eligible applications in

rank order are funded, the next application(s) on the list which

contain funding requests above the level of the residual may be skipped

over to reach a fundable project lower down on the list which is within

the level of the residual amount. The first remaining fundable but

unfunded project on the list which is within the residual limit must be

funded, as well as any subsequent projects which are still within any

remaining residual.

If funds remain available after ranking all the approvable FmHA

projects, these funds will be utilized by HUD Headquarters for

reallocation to HUD projects which were approvable but unfunded (see

subsection II.G(3)(b), below). The FmHA Headquarters reserves the right

to reduce any proposed amount of CHSP funds requested.

b. Ranking of HUD projects. HUD will select applicants in rank-

order in each Region until the funds allotted to that Region are

exhausted.

If there is more than one unfunded application at the next-highest

score (in a tie) and there are insufficient funds to cover both,

funding will be decided subject to section II.G.4, below. Further

selections will be made until any residual funds are insufficient to

fund another HUD project.

If there is a residual amount after most eligible applications are

funded in rank order, the next application(s) on the list which contain

funding requests above the level of the residual may be skipped over to

reach a fundable project lower down on the list which is within the

level of the residual amount. The first remaining fundable but unfunded

project on the list which is within the residual limit must be funded,

as well as any subsequent projects which are still within any remaining

residual.

Regions (and FmHA) will return any excess funds to Headquarters.

Headquarters will integrate by score order all approvable but not

funded applications sent in from Regions in which there were too many

projects to fund from within the Regional allocation. Headquarters will

then fund additional projects in rank order from this score ranking

using residual funds, consistent with section II.G(4), below.

If there are insufficient fundable applications, any excess funds

will be made available to approvable but unfunded FmHA applicants.

4. Tie Scores

In the event of a tie score among the last-to-be-considered

applications in either FmHA Headquarters or in a HUD Regional

allocation, the application that scores higher on Selection Criteria

Numbers b, f, g, and i will be selected, if that application is within

the limits of the remaining dollars or can be so modified. If there is

still a tie score among two or more applications, one of the tied

applications will be selected by lottery.

5. Multi-Project Grants

HUD and FmHA reserve the right to aggregate into one grant award

multiple applications from a single applicant in any jurisdiction.

6. Self-Monitoring

HUD and FmHA reserve the right to require self-monitoring of those

applications approved for States, Indian tribes and units of general

local government (NOT PHA/IHAs). In such cases, HUD/FmHA will add an

amount equal to one percent of the total HUD grant approved, for

monitoring costs, under which certain responsibilities will be

delegated to that agency subject to 24 CFR 700.325 or 7 CFR 1944.270.

As this is a HUD or FmHA-directed add-on, it may bring the total award

granted to more than the limit stated in section I.C(5).

7. Excess Funds

In the event that funds still remain after completion of the

selection process, such funds will be allotted to the HUD Headquarters

Reserve Fund, subject to section 700.405 of the Joint Common Rule.

H. Awarding of Grants

Once selections are made, the HUD Field Office, or FmHA

Headquarters, as appropriate, will negotiate the final amount of the

grant with the selected applicant. Once agreement is reached on all

issues, a grant award will be prepared and sent to the HUD or FmHA

applicant for signature. Once the signed grant award is returned to

HUD, it will be executed by an appropriate HUD Official.

If an applicant cannot complete negotiations so that a grant can be

executed before September 30, 1994, and the reserved dollars revert to

the Treasury, the grant award may be canceled.

III. Checklist of Application Submission Requirements

The checklist specifies the required information that must be

submitted as part of an application, and identifies those materials

necessary to pass eligibility and threshold requirements. Other items

including forms and certifications may be corrected during the

technical deficiency correction period, subject to section II.F(4) of

this Notice.

The Checklist is the Table of Contents in the application package;

the check is done by filling in the appropriate application page number

in the blank space.

IV. Other Matters

A. Environmental Impact

A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment

has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50,

which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). The Finding is available for public

inspection between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays in the Office of

the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the General Counsel, Department of

Housing and Urban Development, room 10276, 451 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20410.

B. Family Executive Order

The General Counsel of HUD, as the Designated Official under

Executive Order 12606, The Family, has determined that the policies

contained in this NOFA will have some significant impact on the

maintenance and general well-being of families. The revised CHSP can be

expected to provide supportive services which can prevent or postpone

unnecessary or premature institutionalization, and reduce unnecessary

stress and financial burdens on participants' families by allowing them

to remain in their apartments. Because the impact on family concerns is

wholly beneficial, no further review under the executive order is

considered necessary.

C. Federalism Executive Order

The General Counsel of HUD, as the Designated Official under

section 6(a) of the Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has determined

that the policies contained in this NOFA do not have Federalism

implications, and, thus, are not subject to review under the order.

These guidelines are limited to providing the procedures under which

HUD would make rental assistance available to applicants under a

program designed to provide housing assistance and supportive services

to frail elderly individuals. The program involves intergovernmental

cooperation, but in no manner will involve federal incursion upon local

or state decision making, or the administration of local or state law.

D. Section 102 of the HUD Reform Act--Accountability in the Provision

of HUD Assistance

1. Documentation and Public Access

HUD will ensure that documentation and other information regarding

each application submitted pursuant to this NOFA are sufficient to

indicate the basis upon which assistance was provided or denied. This

material, including any letters of support, will be made available for

public inspection for a five-year period beginning not less than thirty

days after the award for assistance. Material will be made available in

accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and HUD's

implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 15. In addition, HUD will

include the recipients of assistance pursuant to this NOFA in its

quarterly Federal Register notice of all recipients of HUD assistance

awarded on a competitive basis. (See 24 CFR 12.14(a) and 12.16(b) and

the notice published in the Federal Register on January 16, 1992 (57 FR

1942) for further information on these requirements.)

2. Disclosures

HUD will make available to the public for five years all applicant

disclosure reports (Form HUD-2880) submitted in connection with this

NOFA. Update reports (also Form HUD-2880) will be made available along

with the applicants' disclosure reports, but in no case for a period of

less than three years. All reports--both applicant disclosures and

updates--will be made available in accordance with the Freedom of

Information Act (95 U.S.C. 552) and HUD's implementing regulations at

24 CFR part 15. (See 24 CFR, subpart C, and the notice published in the

Federal Register on January 16, 1992 (57 FR 1942) for further

information on disclosure requirements.)

3. Subsidy-Layering Determinations

24 CFR 12.52 requires HUD to certify that the amount of HUD

assistance is not more than necessary to make the assisted activity

feasible after taking into account other government assistance. HUD

will make the decision with respect to each certification available

free of charge, for a three-year period. (See the notice published in

the Federal Register on January 16, 1992 (57 FR 1942) and the

guidelines published in the Federal Register on February 25, 1994 (59

FR 9332) for further information on this certification.) Additional

information about applications, HUD certifications and assistance

adjustments, both before assistance is provided or subsequently, are to

be made under the Freedom of Information Act (24 CFR part 15).

E. Section 103 of the HUD Reform Act--Prohibition of Advance

Disclosures of Funding Decisions

HUD's regulation implementing section 103 of the Reform Act was

published on May 13, 1991 (56 FR 22088) and became effective on June

12, 1991. That regulation, codified as 24 CFR part 4, applies to the

funding competition announced today. The requirements of the rule

continue to apply until the announcement of the selection of successful

applicants. Also, refer to (58 FR 61016), a final rule amending part 4

regarding the regulations of certain conduct by HUD employees and by

applicants for HUD assistance during the selection process for the

award of financial assistance by HUD.

HUD and FmHA employees involved in the review of applications and

in the making of funding decisions are restrained by part 4 from

providing advance information to any person (other than an authorized

employee of HUD or FmHA) concerning funding decisions, or from

otherwise giving any applicant an unfair competitive advantage. Persons

who apply for assistance in this competition should confine their

inquiries to the subject areas permitted under 24 CFR part 4.

Applicants who have questions should contact the HUD Office of

Ethics, (202) 708-3815. (This is not a toll-free number.) The Office of

Ethics can provide information of a general nature to HUD employees, as

well. However, a HUD or FmHA employee who has specific program

questions, such as whether particular subject matter can be discussed

with persons outside the Department, should contact his or her Regional

or Field Office Counsel, or Headquarters Counsel for the program to

which the question pertains.

F. Section 112 of the HUD Reform Act

Section 13 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act

(section 112 of the Reform Act) contains two provisions dealing with

efforts to influence HUD's decisions with respect to financial

assistance. The first imposes disclosure requirements on those who are

typically involved in these efforts--those who pay others to influence

the award of assistance or the taking of a management action by the

Department and those who are paid to provide the influence. The second

restricts the payment of fees to those who are paid to influence the

award of HUD assistance, if the fees are tied to the number of housing

units received or are based on the amount of assistance received, or if

they are contingent upon the receipt of assistance.

Section 13 was implemented by final rule published in the Federal

are involved in any efforts to influence the Department in these ways,

they are urged to read the final rule, particularly the examples

contained in Appendix A of the rule.

Any questions regarding the rule should be directed to: Acting

Director, Office of Ethics, room 2158, Department of Housing and Urban

Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410. Telephone:

(202) 708-3815; TDD: (202) 708-1112. (These are not toll-free numbers.)

Forms necessary for compliance with the rule may be obtained from the

local HUD office.

G. Prohibition Against Lobbying Activities

The use of funds awarded under this NOFA is subject to the

disclosure requirements and prohibitions of section 319 of the

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for

Fiscal Year 1990 (31 U.S.C. 1352) and the implementing regulations at

24 CFR part 87. These authorities prohibit recipients of Federal

contracts, grants, or loans from using appropriated funds for lobbying

the Executive or Legislative Branches of the Federal Government in

connection with a specific contract, grant, or loan. The prohibition

also covers the awarding of contracts, grants, cooperative agreements,

or loans unless the recipient has made an acceptable certification

regarding lobbying. Under 24 CFR part 87 and 7 CFR part 1944, subpart

G, applicants, recipients, and subrecipients of assistance exceeding

$100,000 must certify that no Federal funds have been or will be spent

on lobbying activities in connection with the assistance.

Indian Housing Authorities (IHAs) established by an Indian tribe as

a result of the exercise of the tribe's sovereign power are excluded

from coverage of the Byrd Amendment, but IHAs established under State

law are not excluded from the statute's coverage.

IHAs established by an Indian tribe as a result of the tribe's

sovereign power are excluded from coverage of the Byrd Amendment, but

IHAs established under State law are not excluded from the statute's

coverage.

Required Reporting

A certification is required at the time application for funds is

made that federally appropriated funds are not being or have not been

used in violation of section 319 and the disclosure will be made of

payments for lobbying with other than federally appropriated funds.

Also, there is a standard disclosure form, SF-LLL, ``Disclosure Form to

Report Lobbying'', which must be used to disclose lobbying with other

than federally appropriated funds at the time of application.

Public Reporting Burden

The information collection requirements contained in this NOFA have

been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The Department

has determined that the following provisions contain information

collection requirements.

Revised Congregate Services Housing Program

14 responses are estimated from each respondent.

5.10 hours is the estimated average response time for each

respondent per response.

Total Respondents time is 9,675.

Estimate of cost to the respondents is $15.00 per hour.

Total respondents time @ $15/hour=9675 x $15=$145,125.

Tabulation of Reporting Burden

Revised Congregate Housing Services Program

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

No. of

Information collected No. X responses per = Total X Hours Totalhours

ofrespondents respondent annualresponses perresponse

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

17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5

Initial owner applications.................................... 150 1 150 14 2100

Budget formats................................................ 50 1 50 3 150

Semiannual program reports.................................... 50 1 50 1.5 75

Annual program reports........................................ 50 1 50 3 150

Participant applications to new CHSP.......................... 50 36 1800 4 7200

Summary....................................................... 150 14 avg. 2100 5.10 9675

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

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program title and number

is 14.170, Congregate Housing Services Program.

Authority: Section 802, Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable

Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8012).

Section 604 and 672, Housing and Community Development

Amendments of 1992 (Pub.L. 102-550).

Dated: April 14, 1994.

Nicolas P. Retsinas,

Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

HUD Field Offices

Region I

Boston, Massachusetts Regional Office (Jurisdiction: Massachusetts)

Casimir Kolaski (Acting) Regional Administrator-Regional Housing

Commissioner, HUD--Boston Regional Office, Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.

Federal Building, 10 Causeway Street, Room 375, Boston, Massachusetts

02222-1092, (617) 565-5234, TDD (617) 565-5453

Hartford, Connecticut Office (Jurisdiction: Connecticut)

Robert Donovan (Acting Manager), HUD--Hartford Office, 330 Main

Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06106-1860, (203) 240-4522, TDD (203)

240-4665

Manchester, New Hampshire Office (Jurisdiction: New Hampshire, Maine)

David B. Harrity, Manager, HUD--Manchester Office, Norris Cotton

Federal Building, 275 Chestnut Street, Manchester, New Hampshire 03101-

2487, (603) 666-7681, TDD (603) 666-7518

Providence, Rhode Island Office (Jurisdiction: Rhode Island)

Michael Dziok (Acting Manager), Manager, HUD--Providence Office,

330 John O. Pastore Federal Building and U.S. Post Office--Kennedy

Plaza, Providence, Rhode Island 02903-1785, (401) 528-5351, TDD (401)

528-5364

Region II

New York Regional Office (Jurisdiction: New York)

Burton Bloomberg (Acting), Regional Administrator-Regional Housing

Commissioner, HUD--New York Regional Office, 26 Federal Plaza, New

York, New York 10278-0068, (212) 264-6500, TDD (212) 264-0927

Buffalo, New York Office (Jurisdiction: Western New York)

Joseph B. Lynch, Manager, HUD--Buffalo Office, Layette Court, 5th

Floor, 465 Main Street, Buffalo, New York 14203-1780, (716) 846-5755

Newark, New Jersey Office (Jurisdiction: New Jersey)

Diane J. Johnson (Acting Manager), HUD--Newark Office, Military

Park Building, 60 Park Place, Newark, New Jersey 07102-5504, (201) 877-

1662, TDD (201) 645-6649

Region III

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Regional Office (Jurisdiction: Eastern

Pennsylvania)

Harry W. Staller (Acting), Regional Administrator, HUD--

Philadelphia Regional Office, Liberty Square Building, 105 South 7th

Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-3392, (215) 597-2560 (Ext. 6),

TDD (215) 597-5564

Washington, DC Office (Jurisdiction: District of Columbia Area)

I. Toni Thomas, Manager, HUD--Washington, DC Office, Union Center

Plaza, Phase II, 820 First Street, N.E., Suite 300, Washington, DC

20002-4205, (202) 275-9200, TDD (202) 275-0967

Baltimore, Maryland Office (Jurisdiction: Maryland)

Maxine S. Saunders, Manager, HUD--Baltimore Office, 10 South Howard

Street, 5th Fl., Baltimore, Maryland 21201-2505, (410) (962-2520--Ext.

3474, TDD (410) 962-0106

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Office (Jurisdiction: Western Pennsylvania)

Choice Edwards, Manager, HUD--Pittsburgh Office, Old Post Office

Courthouse Bldg., 700 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1939, (412)

644-6428, TDD (412) 644-5747

Richmond, Virginia Office (Jurisdiction: Virginia)

Mary Ann Wilson, Manager, HUD--Richmond Office, The 3600 Centre,

3600 West Broad Street, P.O. Box 90331, Richmond, Virginia 23230-0331,

(804) 278-4507, TDD (804) 278-4501

Charleston, West Virginia Office (Jurisdiction: West Virginia)

Frederick S. Roncaglione (Acting Manager), HUD--Charleston Office,

405 Capitol Street, Suite 708, Charleston, West Virginia 25301-1795,

(304) 347-7000, TDD (304) 347-5332

Region IV

Atlanta, Georgia Regional Office (Jurisdiction: Georgia)

Raymond A. Harris, Regional Administrator-Regional Housing

Commissioner, HUD--Atlanta Regional Office, Richard B. Russell Federal

Building, 75 Spring Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3388, (404)

331-5136, TDD (404) 730-2654,

Birmingham, Alabama Office (Jurisdiction: Alabama)

Robert E. Lunsford, Manager, HUD--Birmingham Office, 600 Beacon

Parkway West, Suite 300, Birmingham, Alabama 35209-3144, (205) 290-

7617, TDD (205) 790-7624

Louisville, Kentucky Office (Jurisdiction: Kentucky)

Verna V. Van Ness, Manager, HUD--Louisville Office, 601 West

Broadway, Post Office Box 1044, Louisville, Kentucky 40201-1044, (502)

582-5251

Jackson, Mississippi (Jurisdiction: Mississippi)

Sandra Freeman, Manager, HUD--Jackson Office, Dr. A.H. McCoy

Federal Building, 100 W. Capitol Street, Room 910, Jackson, Mississippi

39269-1096, (601) 965-5308, TDD (601) 965-4171

Greensboro, North Carolina (Jurisdiction: North Carolina)

Larry J. Parker, Manager, HUD--Greensboro Office, 2306 W.

Meadowview Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27407, (919) 547-4000, TDD

(919) 547-4010

Caribbean Office (Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico)

Rosa C. Villagonga, Manager, HUD--Caribbean Office, New San Juan

Office Building, 159 Carlos E. Chardon Avenue, San Juan, Puerto Rico

00918-1804, (809) 766-6121

Columbia, South Carolina Office (Jurisdiction: South Carolina)

Ted B. Freeman, Manager, HUD--Columbia Office, Strom Thurmond

Federal Building, 1835-45 Assembly Street, Columbia, South Carolina

29201-2480, (803) 765-5592

Knoxville, Tennessee Office (Jurisdiction: Eastern Tennessee)

Richard B. Barnwell, Manager, HUD--Knoxville Office, John J. Duncan

Federal Bldg., 710 Locust Street SW., Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-2526,

(615) 549-4384, TDD (615) 549-4379

Nashville, Tennessee Office (Jurisdiction: Western Tennessee)

John H. Fisher, Manager, HUD--Nashville Office, 251 Cumberland Bend

Drive, Suite 200, Nashville, Tennessee 37228-1803, (615) 736-5213

Jacksonville, Florida Office (Jurisdiction: Florida)

James T. Chaplin, Manager, HUD--Jacksonville Office, 301 West Bay

Street, Suite 2200, Jacksonville, Florida 32202-5121, (904) 232-2626

Region V

Chicago, Illinois Regional Office (Jurisdiction: Illinois)

Edwin Eisendrath, Regional Administrator-Regional Housing

Commissioner, HUD--Chicago Regional Office, Ralph H. Metcalfe Federal

Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60606, (312)

353-5680

Detroit, Michigan Office (Jurisdiction: Eastern Michigan)

Harry I. Sharrott, Manager, HUD--Detroit Office, Patrick V.

McNamara Federal Building, 477 Michigan Avenue, Detroit, Michigan

48226-2592, (313) 226-7900

Indianapolis, Indiana Office (Jurisdiction: Indiana)

J. Nicholas Shelley, Manager, HUD--Indianapolis Office, 151 North

Delaware Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2526, (317) 226-6303

Grand Rapids, Michigan Office (Jurisdiction: Western Michigan)

Ronald C. Weston, Manager, HUD--Grand Rapids Office, 2922 Fuller

Avenue NE., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505-3499, (616) 456-2100

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota (Jurisdiction: Minnesota)

Thomas Feeney, Manager, HUD--Minneapolis-St. Paul Office, 220

Second Street South, Bridge Place Building, Minneapolis, Minnesota

55401-2195, (612) 370-3000

Cincinnati, Ohio Office (Jurisdiction: Southeast Ohio)

William J. Harris, Manager, HUD--Cincinnati Office, Federal Office

Building, room 9002, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3253,

(513) 684-2884

Cleveland, Ohio Office (Jurisdiction: Northwest Ohio)

George L. Engel, Manager, HUD--Cleveland Office, Renaissance

Building, 1350 Euclid Avenue, 5th Fl., Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1815,

(216) 522-4058

Columbus, Ohio Office (Jurisdiction: Central Ohio)

Robert W. Dolin, Manager, HUD--Columbus Office, 200 North High

Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215-2499, (614) 469-5737

Milwaukee, Wisconsin Office (Jurisdiction: Wisconsin)

Delbert F. Reynolds, Manager, HUD--Milwaukee Office, Henry S. Reuss

Federal Plaza, 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1380, Milwaukee,

Wisconsin 53203-2289, (414) 291-3214

Region VI

Fort Worth, Texas Regional Office (Jurisdiction: North Texas)

Frank L. Davis (Acting), Regional Administrator-Regional Housing

Commissioner, HUD--Fort Worth Regional Office, 1600 Throckmorton, Post

Office Box 2905, Fort Worth, Texas 76113-2905, (817) 885-5401, TDD

(817) 728-5447

Houston, Texas Office (Jurisdiction: East Texas)

George H. Rodriguez (Acting Manager), HUD--Houston Office, Norfolk

Tower, 2211 Norfolk, Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77098-4096, (713) 653-

3274

San Antonio, Texas Office (Jurisdiction: South Texas)

A. Cynthia Leon, Manager, HUD--San Antonio Office, Washington

Square Building, 800 Dolorosa Street, San Antonio, Texas 78207-4563,

(512) 229-6800, TDD (512) 229-6885

Little Rock, Arkansas Office (Jurisdiction: Arkansas)

John Suskie, Manager, HUD--Little Rock Office, TCBY Tower, 425 West

Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3488, (501) 324-5231, TDD

(501) 324-5931

New Orleans, Louisiana Office (Jurisdiction: Louisiana)

Robert J. Vasquez, Manager, HUD--New Orleans Office, Fisk Federal

Building, Suite 3100, 1661 Canal Street, P.O. Box 70288, New Orleans,

Louisiana, 70112-2887, (504) 589-7200

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Office (Jurisdiction: Oklahoma)

Edwin I. Gardner, Manager, HUD--Oklahoma City Office, Alfred P.

Murrah Federal Building, 200 NW. 5th Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

73102-3202, (405) 231-4181, TDD (405) 231-4181

Oklahoma City--Indian Programs Division

(405) 231-4102

Tulsa, Oklahoma--Tulsa Office (Jurisdiction: Oklahoma)

James S. Coglan, Manager, 1516 S. Boston Avenue, Suite 110, Tulsa,

Oklahoma 74119-4032, (918) 581-7434

Region VII

Kansas City, Missouri Regional Office (Jurisdiction: Western Missouri,

Kansas)

William H. Brown, Regional Administrator-Regional Housing

Commissioner, HUD--Kansas City Regional Office, Gateway Tower II, 400

State Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101-2406, (913) 551-5462, TDD (913)

236-3972

Omaha, Nebraska Office (Jurisdiction: Nebraska)

Robert M. Massey, Manager, HUD--Omaha Office, 10909 Mill Valley

Road, Omaha, Nebraska 68154-3955, (402) 942-3100, TDD (402) 221-3703

St. Louis, Missouri Office (Jurisdiction: Eastern Missouri)

Kenneth G. Lange, Manager, HUD--St. Louis Office, 1222 Spruce

Street, Room 3207, St. Louis, Missouri 63103-2836, (314) 539-6583, TDD

(314) 539-6331

Des Moines, Iowa Office (Jurisdiction: Iowa)

William McNarney, Manager, HUD--Des Moines Office, Federal

Building, 210 Walnut Street, Room 239, Des Moines, Iowa 50309-2155,

(515) 284-4512, TDD (515) 284-4728

Region VIII

Denver, Colorado Regional Office (Jurisdiction: Colorado, Utah,

Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota)

Donald J. Dirksen, (Acting), Regional Administrator-Regional

Housing Commissioner, HUD--Denver Regional Office, Executive Tower

Building, 1405 Curtis Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-2349, (303) 844-

4513

Region IX

San Francisco, California Regional Office (Jurisdiction: Western

California)

Art Agnos, Regional Administrator-Regional Housing Commissioner,

HUD--San Francisco Regional Office, Philip Burton Federal Building &

U.S. Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, P.O. Box 36003, San Francisco,

California 94102-3448, (415) 556-4752, TDD (415) 566-8357

Honolulu, Hawaii Office (Jurisdiction: Hawaii)

Gordon Y. Furutani, Manager, HUD--Honolulu Office, 500 Ala Moana

Boulevard, Suite 500, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-4918, (808) 541-1323, TDD

(808) 541-1356

Los Angeles, California Office (Jurisdiction: Southern California)

Charles Ming, Manager, HUD--Los Angeles Office, 1615 W. Olympic

Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90015-3801, (213) 251-7122, TDD

(213) 251-7038

Sacramento, California Office (Jurisdiction: Northeast California)

Anthony A. Randolph, Manager, HUD--Sacramento Office, 777 12th

Street, Suite 200, Post Office Box 1978, Sacramento, California 95814-

1977, (916) 551-1351, TDD (916) 551-1367

Phoenix Office (Jurisdiction: Arizona)

Dwight A. Peterson, Manager, HUD--Phoenix Office, Two Arizona

Center, 400 N. 5th Street, Suite 1600, Post Office Box 13468, Phoenix,

Arizona 85004-2361, (602) 379-4434, TDD (602) 379-4461

Phoenix, Arizona--Indian Programs Office

Two Arizona Center, Suite 1650 Phoenix, Arizona 85004, (602) 379-

4156, TDD Number: (Commercial) (602) 379-4461

Las Vegas, Nevada Office (Jurisdiction: Nevada)

Andrew Robinson, Manager, HUD--Las Vegas Office, 1500 East

Tropicana Avenue, Suite 205, Las Vegas, NV 89119-6516, (702) 388-6500,

TDD Number (702) 388-6245

Region X

Seattle, Washington Office (Jurisdiction: Washington)

Lynn Stowell (Acting), Regional Administrator-Regional Housing

Commissioner, HUD--Seattle Regional Office, Federal Office Building,

909 First Avenue, Suite 200, Seattle, Washington 98104-1000, (206) 220-

5101

Seattle, Washington--Office of Indian Programs

Arcade Plaza Building, 1321 2nd Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101-

2058, (206) 553-0330 TDD Number (Commercial) (206) 553-4351

Portland, Oregon Office (Jurisdiction: Idaho and Oregon)

Richard C. Brinck, Manager, HUD--Portland Office, Cascade Building,

520 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204-1596, (503) 326-2561

Anchorage, Alaska Office (Jurisdiction: Alaska)

Arlene L. Patton, Acting Manager, HUD--Anchorage Office, University

Plaza Building, 949 East 36th Avenue, Suite 401, Anchorage, Alaska

99508-4399, (907) 271-4170

Farmers Home Administration State Offices

Horace R. Horn, Jr., Alabama State Office, Sterling Center, Office

Building, 4121 Carmichael Road, Suite 601, Montgomery, AL 36108-3683,

(205) 279-3400

Ernest W. Brannon, Alaska State Office, 634 South Bailey, Suite 103,

Palmer, AK 99645, (907) 745-2176

Alan Stephens, Arizona State Office, Phoenix Corporate Center, 3003

North Central Avenue, Suite 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012, (602) 280-8700

Michael L. Dunaway, Arkansas State Office, 700 W. Capitol, PO Box 2778,

Little Rock, AR 72203, (501) 324-6281

Michael M. Reyna, California State Office, 194 West Main Street, Suite

F, Woodland, CA 95695-2915, (916) 668-2000

Ruth Rodriguez, Colorado State Office, 655 Parfet St., Room E100,

Lakewood, CO 80215, (303) 236-2801

John S. Walls, Delaware State Office, (includes Maryland), 4611 South

Dupont Highway, PO Box 400, Camden, DE 19934-9998, (302) 697-4300

Jan E. Shadburn, Florida State Office, 4440 NW 25th Place, PO Box

147010, Gainesville, FL 32614-7010, (904) 338-3400

Laura Medows, Georgia State Office, Stephens Federal Building, 355 E.

Hancock Avenue, Athens, GA 30610, (706) 546-2162

Francis Blanco, Hawaii State Office, (includes Western Pacific Areas),

Room 311, Federal Building, 154 Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720,

(808) 933-3000

Loren A. Nelson, Idaho State Office, 3232 Elder Street, Boise, ID

83705, (208) 334-1301

Wallace D. Furrow, Illinois State Office, Illinois Plaza, Suite 103,

1817 South Neil Street, Champaign, IL 61810, (217) 398-5235

John Thompson, Indiana State Office, 5975 Lakeside Boulevard,

Indianapolis, IN 46278, (317) 290-3100

Ellen King Huntoon, Iowa State Office, 873 Federal Building, 210 Walnut

Street, Des Moines, IA 50309, (515) 284-4663

Bill Kirk, Kansas State Office, 1200 SW Executive Drive, PO Box 4653,

Topeka, KA 66604, (913) 271-2700

Thomas G. Fern, Kentucky State Office, Suite 200, 771 Corporate Drive,

Lexington, KY 40503, (606) 224-7300

Austin J. Cormier, Louisiana State Office, 3727 Government Street,

Alexandria, LA 71302, (318) 473-7921

Seth Bradstreet, Maine State Office, 44 Stillwater Avenue, PO Box 405,

Bangor, ME 04402-0405, (207) 990-9160

William H. Bradley, Massachusetts State Office, (includes Connecticut

and Rhode Island), 451 West Street, Amherst, MA 01002, (413) 253-4302

Donald L. Hare, Michigan State Office, 3001 Coolidge Road, Suite 200,

East Lansing, MI 48823, (517) 337-6635

Howard Boatman, Minnesota State Office, 410 Farm Credit Service Bldg.,

375 Jackson Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-1853, (612) 290-3842

George E. Irvin, Sr., Mississippi State Office, Federal Building, Suite

831, 100 W. Capitol St, Jackson, MS 39269, (601) 965-4318

William Shay, Missouri State Office, 601 Business Loop 70 West, Parkade

Center, Suite 235, Columbia, MO 65203, (314) 876-0976

Anthony J. Preite, Montana State Office, 900 Technology Blvd., Unit 1,

Suite B, Bozeman, MT 59715, (406) 585-2580

Stanley E. Foster, Nebraska State Office, 100 Centennial Mall N,

Lincoln, NE 68508, (402) 437-5551

Sara J. Mersereau, Nevada State Office, 1390 South Curry St, Carson

City, NV 89703-5405, (702) 887-1222

Takashi Moriuchi, New Jersey State Office, Tarnsfield Plaza, Suite 22,

790 Woodland Road, Mt. Holly, NJ 08060, (609) 265-3600

Steven Anaya, New Mexico State Office, Federal Building, Room 3414, 517

Gold Avenue, SW, Albuquerque, NM 87102, (505) 766-2462

James Bays, New York State Office, James M. Hanley Federal Building,

Room 871, PO Box 7318, Syracuse, NY 13261-7318, (315) 423-5308

James C. Kearney, North Carolina State Office, 4405 Bland Road, Suite

260, Raleigh, NC 27609, (919) 790-2731

Charles F. Mertens, North Dakota State Office, Federal Building, Room

208, 220 East Rosser, PO Box 1737, Bismarck, ND 58502, (701) 250-4781

Linda K. Page, Ohio State Office, Federal Building, Room 507, 200 North

High Street, Columbus, OH 43215, (614) 469-5608

Charles P. Rainbolt, Oklahoma State Office, 100 USDA, Suite 108,

Stillwater, OH 74074-2654, (405) 624-4250

Scott W. Duff, Oregon State Office, Federal Building, Room 1590, 1220

SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, OR 97204, (503) 326-2731

Cheryl L. Cook, Pennsylvania State Office, One Credit Union Place,

Suite 330, Harrisburg, PA 17110-2996, (717) 782-4476

Ramon Z. Martinez (Acting), Puerto Rico State Office, New San Juan

Office Building, Room 501, 159 Carlos E. Chardon St, Hato Rey, PR

00918-5481, (809) 766-5095

Bernie L. Wright, South Carolina State Office, Strom Thurmond Federal

Building, 1835 Assembly Street, Room 1007, Columbia, SC 29201, (803)

765-5163

Dallas Tonsager, South Dakota State Office, Federal Building, Room 308,

200 Fourth Street, SW, Huron, SD 57350, (605) 353-1430

David Seivers, Tennessee State Office, Suite 300, 3322 West End Ave.,

Nashville, TN 37203-1071, (515) 783-1300

L. George Ellis, Texas State Office, Federal Building, Suite 102, 101

South Main, Temple, TX 76501, (817) 774-1301

James Harvey, Utah State Office, Wallace F. Bennet Federal Building,

125 South State Street, Room 5438, Salt Lake City, UT 84138, (801) 524-

4063

Roberta Harold, Vermont State Office (includes New Hampshire and Virgin

Islands), City Center, 3rd Floor, 89 Main Street, Montpelier, VT 05602,

(802) 828-6002

Lloyd A. Jones, Virginia State Office, Culpepper Building, Suite 238,

1606 Santa Rosa Road, Richmond, VA 23229, (804) 287-1552

George W. Aldaya, Washington State Office, Federal Building, Room 319,

301 Yakima Street, PO Box 2427, Wenatchee, WA 98807, (509) 664-0240

Robert D. Lewis, West Virginia State Office, 75 High Street,

Morgantown, WV 26505-7500, (304) 291-4791

Bryce E. Luchterhand, Wisconsin State Office, 4949 Kirschling Court,

Stevens Point, WI, (715) 345-7600

Derrel Carruth, Wyoming State Office, 100 East B, Federal Building,

Room 1005, PO Box 820, Casper, WY 82602, (307) 261-5271

State Director at Large, M.J. (Mayo) Pena, 101 South Main, Suite 102,

Temple, TX 76501, (817) 774-1301

[FR Doc. 94-9877 Filed 4-28-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-27-P

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.