HUD Issues Proposed Rule Defining Homeless

In the April 20th issue of the Federal Register HUD issued a proposed regulation modifying the definition of “homeless” for purposes to the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 (HEARTH Act). Enacted on May 20, 2009, the Hearth Act codified the Continuum of Care planning process and consolidated three of the separate McKinney Act’s homeless assistance programs into a single program and created the Emergency Solutions Grant program (formerly Emergency Shelter Grants) and the Rural Housing Stability program.

 The proposed rule clarifies key terms in the definitions of “homeless individual,” “homeless person,” and “homeless person with disability.” First, the rule clarifies that individuals and families may qualify under four possible categories set forth in HEARTH.

• an individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, or resided in a shelter or a place not fit for human habitation or who is exiting an institution;
• an individual or family who will imminently lose their primary nighttime residence (i.e. subject to a court order to vacate, lacks the resources to continue staying in a hotel or motel, or is no longer being allowed to stay by the owner or renter of housing with whom the individual or family is staying. In such cases the individual or family may be considered homeless up to 14 days prior to being displaced;
• an unaccompanied youth’s or family’s persistent instability and inability to live independently in permanent housing is expected to continue due to a variety of factors, including multiple barriers to employment ( tow or more of the following: lack of a high school or GED, illiteracy, low English proficiency, a history of incarceration, and a history of unstable employment); or
• any individual or family who is fleeing domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, stalking, or other threatening conditions that have taken place in the nighttime residence where the individual or family is staying. An oral statement to this effect must be documented by the individual or an intake worker.

Fore the definition of “homeless individual with a disability” the proposed rule includes persons with AIDS.

HUD is soliciting comments on the content of the proposed rule on or before June 21, 2010. NACCED’s Housing Committee will be preparing comments. The proposed rule may be found at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-8835.pdf

NACCED, Others Express Support for Choice Neighborhoods Initiative

In a May 10th letter to Housing Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) drafted by NACCEC staff five national organizations of local elected officials and affordable housing practitioners offered “… our support for the concept of this important legislation.

“The Initiative builds on and expands the highly successful HOPE VI demolition and replacement of severely distressed public housing program by extending it to the stock of distressed publicly and privately owned HUD-assisted housing in neighborhoods of extreme poverty. We strongly agree with the purposes the initiative to “… transform neighborhoods of extreme poverty into mixed-income neighborhoods of long-term viability by revitalizing severely distressed housing, improving access to economic opportunities, and investing and leveraging investments in well-functioning services, effective schools and education programs, public assets, public transportation, and improved access to jobs.”

“We further support the Initiative’s emphasis “… on concentrating, leveraging, and coordinating federal, state, local and private funding for public transportation, education, housing, energy, health and mental health services, supportive services, public safety, and environmental programs…” To this end the legislation should provide for multi-federal agency planning, coordinating and funding strategies. The Initiative’s proposed limitations that no more than of 15% of the funds may be used for social services and no more than 15% of the funds for non-housing revitalization activities, with a waiver where appropriate, strike us as useful to help ensure that other federal agency funds are leveraged.

“We also support the proposed authorization level of $250 million for FY 2011 and urge that the same level be both authorized and appropriated by Congress for each of the next five years. According to HUD estimates there are approximately 242,000 public housing and 83,000 HUD-assisted multifamily housing units in over 1,000 neighborhoods of high poverty that are candidates for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. Given the greater number of distressed public housing units that are potentially eligible for funding we believe there ought to be a priority of use for public housing.

“We do support as eligible applicants for this funding public housing agencies, local governments, non-profits and for-profit entities. However, where the applicant is not the local government in which the project is located we strongly urge that the legislation make explicit that the applicant has consulted with the local government and that the application is consistent with the locality’s Consolidated Plan. We further believe that public housing agency-local government joint applications for funding should be encouraged.

“We also support the elements of the Transformation Plan, the Selection Criteria, and such Program Requirements as Housing Choice Opportunities for Returning Tenants, Fair Housing, Accessibility Requirements, Affordability Requirements, Cost Limits, Uniform Relocation, Environmental Review, and Grantee Reporting,” the groups said.

The House Financial Services Committee is expected to markup the legislation this month.

Also signing the letter were the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies and the National Community Development Association. NACCED proposed, and NACo adopted a Resolution in support of the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative at the NACo Legislative Conference last March.

Neighborhood Stabilization Program 1 Updates

HUD has asked all NSP1 grantees to submit an electronic version of the boundaries of their areas of greatest need where they are focusing NSP1 funds. HUD needs these maps to track any amendments to the boundaries of grantees’ areas of greatest need and to have clear and up-to-date information in order to evaluate the impact of the NSP program on those areas affected by abandoned and foreclosed properties. It also needs them to provide grantees with property-specific information in their designated areas such as FHA real estate-owned properties listings.

Three forms of submission have been offered by HUD: the NSP Mapping Tool on huduser.org; Google Earth to draw areas and email to HUD; or use existing GIS software and email shapefiles to HUD. HUD set a deadline of May 12 th for the submissions. This far according to HUD officials the response has been strong. HUD is also expected to use the maps for other, unspecified purposes.

HUD to Hold Webinar May 17th on NSP 1 Obligation Requirements

NSP1 grantees are invited to participate in a webinar on Monday, May 17 th at 2 P.M. EDT on ensuring compliance with the program’s obligation requirements. The webinar will focus on the HUD policy guidance released on April 23, 2010, “Guidance on Tracking and Reporting the Use of NSP Funds: Obligations for Specific Activities.” The webinar will allow grantees to ask questions. Access instructions will be forthcoming.

NSP Technical Assistance Question

A NACCED member asked NACCED staff’s help in clarifying an issue that has arisen in the implementation of its NSP1 program. The member has acquired in excess of 100 properties which it is rehabbing and will make available for sale to qualified households. The question is whether it can pay up to 50% of the cash downpayment required of the buyer with NSP funds? The answer is that the grantee can only provide a portion of the downpayment on a property it owns if it first transfers it to a non-profit entity. The reason is that the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, in requiring the buyer to put down 3.5% of the appraised value of the property, states that no portion of that amount may be provided by the seller. The ban on seller financing was intended to prohibit such seller-funded programs as that offer by the Nehemiah organization, which HUD found to be abusive. According to HUD attorneys the seller-funded ban does not explicitly exempt local government downpayment programs.

NSP1 grantees may pay for closing and other costs associated with selling a NSP-funded property that it owns over and above the 3.5% cash requirement. It may also provide up to 50% of the 3.5% of the cash requirement for properties that does not own.

HUD Issues Proposed Rule Defining Homeless

In the April 20th issue of the Federal Register HUD issued a proposed regulation modifying the definition of “homeless” for purposes to the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 (HEARTH Act). Enacted on May 20, 2009, the Hearth Act codified the Continuum of Care planning process and consolidated three of the separate McKinney Act’s homeless assistance programs into a single program and created the Emergency Solutions Grant program (formerly Emergency Shelter Grants) and the Rural Housing Stability program.

 The proposed rule clarifies key terms in the definitions of “homeless individual,” “homeless person,” and “homeless person with disability.” First, the rule clarifies that individuals and families may qualify under four possible categories set forth in HEARTH.

• an individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, or resided in a shelter or a place not fit for human habitation or who is exiting an institution;
• an individual or family who will imminently lose their primary nighttime residence (i.e. subject to a court order to vacate, lacks the resources to continue staying in a hotel or motel, or is no longer being allowed to stay by the owner or renter of housing with whom the individual or family is staying. In such cases the individual or family may be considered homeless up to 14 days prior to being displaced;
• an unaccompanied youth’s or family’s persistent instability and inability to live independently in permanent housing is expected to continue due to a variety of factors, including multiple barriers to employment ( tow or more of the following: lack of a high school or GED, illiteracy, low English proficiency, a history of incarceration, and a history of unstable employment); or
• any individual or family who is fleeing domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, stalking, or other threatening conditions that have taken place in the nighttime residence where the individual or family is staying. An oral statement to this effect must be documented by the individual or an intake worker.

Fore the definition of “homeless individual with a disability” the proposed rule includes persons with AIDS.

HUD is soliciting comments on the content of the proposed rule on or before June 21, 2010. NACCED’s Housing Committee will be preparing comments. The proposed rule may be found at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-8835.pdf

NACCED, Others Express Support for Choice Neighborhoods Initiative

In a May 10th letter to Housing Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) drafted by NACCEC staff five national organizations of local elected officials and affordable housing practitioners offered “… our support for the concept of this important legislation.

“The Initiative builds on and expands the highly successful HOPE VI demolition and replacement of severely distressed public housing program by extending it to the stock of distressed publicly and privately owned HUD-assisted housing in neighborhoods of extreme poverty. We strongly agree with the purposes the initiative to “… transform neighborhoods of extreme poverty into mixed-income neighborhoods of long-term viability by revitalizing severely distressed housing, improving access to economic opportunities, and investing and leveraging investments in well-functioning services, effective schools and education programs, public assets, public transportation, and improved access to jobs.”

“We further support the Initiative’s emphasis “… on concentrating, leveraging, and coordinating federal, state, local and private funding for public transportation, education, housing, energy, health and mental health services, supportive services, public safety, and environmental programs…” To this end the legislation should provide for multi-federal agency planning, coordinating and funding strategies. The Initiative’s proposed limitations that no more than of 15% of the funds may be used for social services and no more than 15% of the funds for non-housing revitalization activities, with a waiver where appropriate, strike us as useful to help ensure that other federal agency funds are leveraged.

“We also support the proposed authorization level of $250 million for FY 2011 and urge that the same level be both authorized and appropriated by Congress for each of the next five years. According to HUD estimates there are approximately 242,000 public housing and 83,000 HUD-assisted multifamily housing units in over 1,000 neighborhoods of high poverty that are candidates for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. Given the greater number of distressed public housing units that are potentially eligible for funding we believe there ought to be a priority of use for public housing.

“We do support as eligible applicants for this funding public housing agencies, local governments, non-profits and for-profit entities. However, where the applicant is not the local government in which the project is located we strongly urge that the legislation make explicit that the applicant has consulted with the local government and that the application is consistent with the locality’s Consolidated Plan. We further believe that public housing agency-local government joint applications for funding should be encouraged.

“We also support the elements of the Transformation Plan, the Selection Criteria, and such Program Requirements as Housing Choice Opportunities for Returning Tenants, Fair Housing, Accessibility Requirements, Affordability Requirements, Cost Limits, Uniform Relocation, Environmental Review, and Grantee Reporting,” the groups said.

The House Financial Services Committee is expected to markup the legislation this month.

Also signing the letter were the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies and the National Community Development Association. NACCED proposed, and NACo adopted a Resolution in support of the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative at the NACo Legislative Conference last March.

Neighborhood Stabilization Program 1 Updates

HUD has asked all NSP1 grantees to submit an electronic version of the boundaries of their areas of greatest need where they are focusing NSP1 funds. HUD needs these maps to track any amendments to the boundaries of grantees’ areas of greatest need and to have clear and up-to-date information in order to evaluate the impact of the NSP program on those areas affected by abandoned and foreclosed properties. It also needs them to provide grantees with property-specific information in their designated areas such as FHA real estate-owned properties listings.

Three forms of submission have been offered by HUD: the NSP Mapping Tool on huduser.org; Google Earth to draw areas and email to HUD; or use existing GIS software and email shapefiles to HUD. HUD set a deadline of May 12 th for the submissions. This far according to HUD officials the response has been strong. HUD is also expected to use the maps for other, unspecified purposes.

HUD to Hold Webinar May 17th on NSP 1 Obligation Requirements

NSP1 grantees are invited to participate in a webinar on Monday, May 17 th at 2 P.M. EDT on ensuring compliance with the program’s obligation requirements. The webinar will focus on the HUD policy guidance released on April 23, 2010, “Guidance on Tracking and Reporting the Use of NSP Funds: Obligations for Specific Activities.” The webinar will allow grantees to ask questions. Access instructions will be forthcoming.

NSP Technical Assistance Question

A NACCED member asked NACCED staff’s help in clarifying an issue that has arisen in the implementation of its NSP1 program. The member has acquired in excess of 100 properties which it is rehabbing and will make available for sale to qualified households. The question is whether it can pay up to 50% of the cash downpayment required of the buyer with NSP funds? The answer is that the grantee can only provide a portion of the downpayment on a property it owns if it first transfers it to a non-profit entity. The reason is that the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, in requiring the buyer to put down 3.5% of the appraised value of the property, states that no portion of that amount may be provided by the seller. The ban on seller financing was intended to prohibit such seller-funded programs as that offer by the Nehemiah organization, which HUD found to be abusive. According to HUD attorneys the seller-funded ban does not explicitly exempt local government downpayment programs.

NSP1 grantees may pay for closing and other costs associated with selling a NSP-funded property that it owns over and above the 3.5% cash requirement. It may also provide up to 50% of the 3.5% of the cash requirement for properties that does not own.