Request for Comments and Recommendations on a Revised Methodology To Track the Extent to Which Moving to Work Agencies Continue To Serve Substantially the Same Number of Eligible Families, 92836-92839 [2016-30622]
Download as PDF
92836
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–5976–N–05]
Housing Opportunity Through
Modernization Act of 2016: Solicitation
of Comments on Implementation of
Public Housing Income Limit:
Extension of Comment Period
AGENCY:
Office of the General Counsel,
HUD.
Notice for comment, Extension
of public comment period.
ACTION:
On November 29, 2016, HUD
published a notice in the Federal
Register inviting public comment on the
methodology HUD proposes to use to
implement a new income limit in public
housing. The November 29, 2016, notice
set December 29, 2016, as the comment
due date. In response to recent requests
for additional time to submit public
comments, this notice announces that
HUD is extending the public comment
period for an additional 30-day period
to January 30, 2017.
DATES: Comment Due Date: For the
notice published on November 29, 2016,
(81 FR 85996), the comment due date is
extended to January 30, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit comments regarding
this notice for comment. All
communications must refer to the above
docket number and title. There are two
methods for submitting public
comments.
1. Submission of Comments by Mail.
Comments may be submitted by mail to
the Regulations Division, Office of
General Counsel, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 451
7th Street SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410–0500.
2. Electronic Submission of
Comments. Interested persons may
submit comments electronically through
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly
encourages commenters to submit
comments electronically. Electronic
submission of comments allows the
commenter maximum time to prepare
and submit a comment, ensures timely
receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to
make comments immediately available
to the public. Comments submitted
electronically through the
www.regulations.gov Web site can be
viewed by other commenters and
interested members of the public.
Commenters should follow the
instructions provided on that site to
submit comments electronically.
No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile
(fax) comments are not acceptable.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
Public Inspection of Public
Comments. All properly submitted
comments and communications
submitted to HUD will be available for
public inspection and copying between
8 a.m. and 5 p.m., weekdays, at the
above address. Due to security measures
at the HUD Headquarters building, an
advance appointment to review the
public comments must be scheduled by
calling the Regulations Division at 202–
708–3055 (this is not a toll-free
number). Individuals with speech or
hearing impairments may access this
number via TTY by calling the Federal
Relay Service at 800–877–8339 (this is
a toll-free number). Copies of all
comments submitted are available for
inspection and downloading at
www.regulations.gov.
If
you have any questions, please send an
email to HOTMAquestions@hud.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
November 29, 2016, at 81 FR 85996,
HUD published a notice for comment
seeking the public’s input on a proposed
methodology to implement the public
income limit created by section 103 of
the Housing Opportunity Through
Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA)
(Public Law 114–201, 130 Stat. 782).
That notice set out the proposed
methodology and included specific
requests for comment. In response to
recent requests for additional time to
submit public comments, HUD is
announcing through this notice that it is
extending the public comment period
for an additional 30-day period.
Interested persons should refer to the
November 29, 2016 notice for the list of
topics for which HUD is seeking
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dated: December 15, 2016.
Aaron Santa Anna,
Assistant General Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2016–30627 Filed 12–19–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–5958–N–01]
Request for Comments and
Recommendations on a Revised
Methodology To Track the Extent to
Which Moving to Work Agencies
Continue To Serve Substantially the
Same Number of Eligible Families
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Public and Indian
Housing, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
This Notice solicits comments
and recommendations on developing a
revised methodology to be used to track
the extent to which Public Housing
Agencies (PHAs) in the Moving to Work
(MTW) Demonstration Program are
meeting the statutory requirement in
Section 204 of the Omnibus
Consolidated Rescissions and
Appropriations Act of 1996, (1996 MTW
Statute) to serve substantially the same
number of families had they not
combined their funds under the MTW
Demonstration Program. This statutory
requirement is further reinforced in the
Standard MTW Agreements for all 39
current MTW PHAs.
DATES: Comments Due Date: February
21, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit comments and
recommendations to the Moving to
Work Office, Office of Public and Indian
Housing, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street
SW., Room 4130, Washington, DC
20410–0001 or email at mtw-info@
hud.gov. HUD strongly encourages
commenters to submit comments
electronically. Communications must
refer to the above docket number and
title and should contain the information
specified in the ‘‘Request for Public
Comments’’ section.
No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile
(FAX) comments are not acceptable.
Public Inspection of Public
Comments. A summary of comments
received by HUD will be made available
on HUD’s Web site at: https://
www.hud.gov/mtw.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions concerning this Notice
should be directed to the Moving to
Work Office, Office of Public and Indian
Housing, Department of Housing and
Urban Development at: mtw-info@
hud.gov. Communications must refer to
the above docket number and title.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
The purpose of the MTW
Demonstration Program, as provided in
the 1996 MTW Statute (Pub. L. 104–134;
42 U.S.C. 1437f note), is to give PHAs
and HUD the flexibility to design and
test various approaches for providing
and administering housing assistance
that:
• Reduce cost and achieve greater
cost effectiveness in federal
expenditures;
• give incentives to families with
children where the head of household is
working; is seeking work; or is
preparing for work by participating in
job training, educational programs, or
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
programs that assist people to obtain
employment and become economically
self-sufficient; and
• increase housing choices for eligible
low-income families.
In addition to the ability to request
statutory and regulatory flexibility from
certain public housing and Housing
Choice Voucher (HCV) program rules
under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 1437, et seq, (1937
Act) 1 MTW PHAs combine public
housing operating, public housing
capital, and HCV assistance into a single
agency-wide funding source referred to
as the ‘‘MTW Block Grant.’’ 2
Throughout participation in the MTW
Demonstration Program, MTW PHAs
must continue to meet five statutory
requirements. These five statutory
requirements, also provided in the 1996
MTW Statute, are:
• Statutory Requirement #1: To
ensure at least 75% of families assisted
are very low-income as defined in
Section 3(b)(2) of the 1937 Act;
• Statutory Requirement #2: To
establish a reasonable rent policy that is
designed to encourage employment and
self-sufficiency;
• Statutory Requirement #3: To
continue to assist substantially the same
total number of eligible low-income
families as would have been served had
funds not been combined (herein after,
the ‘‘STS requirement’’);
• Statutory Requirement #4: To
maintain a comparable mix of families
(by family size) as would have been
provided had the funds not been used
under the MTW Demonstration
Program; and
• Statutory Requirement #5: To
ensure housing assisted under the MTW
Demonstration Program meets housing
quality standards established or
approved by the Secretary.
HUD has processes in place to
effectively monitor statutory
requirements numbers 1, 2, 4, and 5. In
2013, HUD published PIH Notice 2013–
02, detailing a process for monitoring
and quantifying compliance with the
STS Requirement, which was
previously verified with only an annual
certification by the MTW PHA. Since
publishing PIH Notice 2013–02, HUD
has determined that its methodology
requires revision in order to more
accurately ensure that an MTW PHA is
serving substantially the same number
1 For more information about the MTW
Demonstration Program and the specific programs
of current MTW PHAs, please refer to the MTW
Web site at: https://www.hud.gov/mtw.
2 Funds awarded under Sections 8(o), 9(d), and
9(e) of the 1937 Act are eligible for inclusion in the
MTW Block Grant, with the exception of funds
provided for specific non-MTW HCV sub-programs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
of families as would have been served
had it not combined its funds under the
MTW Demonstration Program.
PIH Notice 2013–02 currently utilizes
a ratio that compares the number of
families served annually by each MTW
PHA (the numerator) to an
approximation of how many families
the MTW PHA would have served
absent participation in the MTW
Demonstration Program (the
denominator). HUD then analyzes that
ratio, represented as a percentage, and
makes an annual determination of
whether each MTW PHA is meeting the
statutory requirement to serve
substantially the same number of
families. Through this Notice, HUD
seeks to maintain the overall structure
of the methodology described in PIH
Notice 2013–02, but requests public
feedback in revising some of the
variables and how they are calculated in
order to address areas identified as
needing improvement.
Throughout calendar year 2015, HUD
had numerous conversations with the
existing 39 MTW PHAs on potential
changes to improve the tracking of the
STS Requirement. At that time, many
points of agreement between HUD and
the 39 MTW PHAs were reached,
including: Any tracking of the STS
Requirement should be based on a
combined look at public housing and
HCV programs to account for an MTW
PHA’s available fungibility between
these two programs; at a minimum, all
families housed by an MTW PHA with
Section 8 and Section 9 funds should be
counted towards the STS Requirement
in some way; and the statutory language
of ‘‘substantially’’ indicates some
flexibility below the full number of
families to be served.
From these conversations between
HUD and the existing 39 MTW PHAs,
the following areas of feedback were
developed. Specifically, the areas are:
• Connecting the number of families
an MTW PHA must serve to funding
received;
• Addressing the varied subsidy
levels at which MTW PHAs serve
families;
• Accounting for the development of
affordable units with the MTW Block
Grant that are outside of the public
housing and HCV programs;
• Setting reasonable levels and
categories of compliance;
• Adjusting for changes to the
capacity of an MTW PHA to serve
families and unforeseen effects; and
• Ensuring predictability under the
STS Requirement for current and future
MTW PHAs.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
92837
II. Request for Public Comments
HUD requests public comments and
recommendations on how to revise the
methodology to determine compliance
with the STS Requirement in order to
strengthen the areas identified for
improvement. MTW and non-MTW
PHAs, HUD-assisted housing residents,
resident advocacy organizations,
researchers, and HUD stakeholders are
encouraged to submit comments. While
all comments are welcome, HUD
specifically requests comments in the
following areas:
A. Connecting the Number of Families
an MTW PHA Must Serve to Funding
Received
The current methodology contained
in PIH Notice 2013–02 relies on a
historic snapshot of public housing
occupancy and HCV utilization rates in
order to set the number of families an
MTW PHA is obligated to serve (the
denominator of the ratio). In collecting
these figures, issues related to
availability and accuracy of historic data
and anomalies associated with a ‘‘pointin-time’’ approach have arisen.
Subsequent inventory adjustments
affecting the denominator also rely on
historic data, compounding these
concerns. Further, historic public
housing occupancy and HCV utilization
figures do not necessarily correlate to
the funding resources that MTW PHAs
receive today.
Connecting the number of families an
MTW PHA must serve to the MTW
Block Grant funding it receives ensures
equity between MTW PHAs that entered
the MTW Demonstration Program at
differing levels of public housing
occupancy and HCV utilization and
ensures that the data upon which the
STS Requirement methodology relies is
accurate and verifiable by HUD systems.
While the denominator will still be set
as a snapshot at a point in time that is
then adjusted up or down according to
incremental changes in inventory,
connecting the denominator to funding
more directly ties the STS Requirement
to an MTW PHA’s capacity to house
families (regardless of participation in
the MTW Demonstration Program).
(1) HCV Denominator of STS
Requirement Ratio
To connect the number of families an
MTW PHA must serve to the funding it
receives in the HCV program, HUD is
considering starting with a snapshot of
HCV funds received by the MTW PHA
in the first calendar year the revised
methodology is effective (excluding
Administrative Fees and, to the extent
feasible, funds provided for specific
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
92838
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
non-MTW HCV subprograms) and
dividing that figure by the average
agency cost to house a family in the
HCV program.
One way to capture the average
agency cost to house a family in the
HCV program would be to take an
annualized payment standard amount
based on the MTW PHA’s HUDpublished Fair Market Rent 3 and
subtract an annualized average tenant
contribution. This average cost to serve
a family in the HCV program would
need to be calculated and weighted to
account for the different household
sizes in each MTW PHA’s locality.
(a) How should the average agency
cost to house a family in the HCV
program for MTW PHAs be established
to ensure it: Is unaffected by MTW
flexibilities already in place, is
accurately weighted by household size,
and reflects local market costs and
factors?
(b) If payment standards are utilized
in determining the average cost to house
a family in the HCV program for MTW
PHAs, what level of payment standard
should be used? 4
(c) What other factors should HUD
consider in establishing the number of
families an MTW PHA must serve with
HCV funds?
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
(2) Public Housing Denominator of STS
Requirement Ratio
To connect the number of families an
MTW PHA must serve to the funding it
receives in the public housing program,
HUD is considering starting with a
snapshot of public housing operating
funds received by the MTW PHA in the
first calendar year the revised
methodology is effective and dividing
that figure by the average agency cost to
operate a public housing unit.
One way to capture the average
agency cost to operate a public housing
unit would be to approximate the
amount of public housing operating
subsidy the MTW PHA would receive
per unit under regulation for the MTW
PHA’s existing inventory of public
housing units.
HUD seeks suggestions on other
approaches that establish a public
housing denominator that encourages
the use of existing public housing units
and ensures accountability for MTW
PHAs that receive more public housing
3 Fair Market Rents are calculated by HUD
annually and available at: www.huduser.gov/portal/
datasets/fmr.html.
4 Non-MTW PHAs may set payment standards
between 90–110% of HUD-published Fair Market
Rents. For non- MTW PHAs payment standards
outside of this basic range must be approved by
HUD.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
operating subsidy than other MTW and
non-MTW PHAs.5
(a) How should the average agency
cost to operate a public housing unit for
MTW PHAs be established to ensure it:
Is unaffected by MTW flexibilities
already in place, accounts for local
market costs and factors, and ensures
accountability for MTW PHAs that
receive higher levels of public housing
operating subsidy?
(b) What other factors should HUD
consider in establishing the number of
families an MTW PHA must serve with
public housing funds?
(3) If the rent burden of the family
receiving assistance is utilized in
defining Shallow Subsides, should
certain exceptions be made for
households paying minimum rent, zero
income households, and/or households
opting for a unit in an area of
opportunity that is above the standard
affordability threshold? Are there other
households that should be included as
exceptions, therefore receiving a full
credit despite rent burden?
(4) What other factors should HUD
consider in addressing Shallow
Subsidies?
B. Addressing the Varied Subsidy Levels
at Which MTW PHAs Serve Families
The MTW Demonstration Program
allows MTW PHAs to design local
programs that serve eligible families in
unique ways to address local issues and
needs. This may result in an MTW PHA
creating a rental assistance structure
that offers a lower level of subsidy than
would be available to non-MTW PHAs
in the traditional HCV and public
housing programs. For example, an
MTW PHA may lower its share of
housing assistance, increasing the
tenant share, to serve a larger number of
families that do not require a high level
of housing assistance. Such local
programs in the MTW Demonstration
Program are often referred to as
‘‘Shallow Subsidies.’’ In order to
maintain the integrity of the STS
Requirement and avoid allowing
Shallow Subsidies to artificially inflate
the numerator of the ratio, it is
necessary to include families served in
this manner, but also to count them in
a modified way.
HUD is considering approaching
Shallow Subsidies by identifying
families receiving assistance from the
MTW PHA with a rent burden of 50%
or greater and counting those families
with half a credit in the numerator of a
ratio. For example, two households with
a rent burden of 50% or greater would
count as one full family served in the
numerator of the ratio.
(1) How should HUD define and
address Shallow Subsidies in the STS
Requirement methodology?
(2) If the rent burden of the family
receiving assistance is utilized in
defining Shallow Subsidies, what level
of rent burden should be used? How
should the households meeting that
level of rent burden be counted in the
numerator of the STS Requirement
methodology?
C. Accounting for the Development of
Affordable Units With the MTW Block
Grant That Are Outside of the Public
Housing and HCV Programs
The MTW Demonstration Program
allows MTW PHAs to use the MTW
Block Grant to develop affordable
housing units that are outside of the
public housing and HCV programs.
Such development allows for the
creation of important affordable housing
resources, but must be balanced with
the existing and immediate needs of
families waiting for housing assistance.
It is therefore necessary to relate the
amount of the MTW PHA’s MTW Block
Grant investment to the number of
affordable units developed.
One way to accomplish this is to
divide the MTW Block Grant investment
in the development of affordable
housing units outside the public
housing and HCV programs by the HUDpublished Total Development Cost
(TDC).6 This number of units would
then be credited annually in the
numerator of the MTW PHA’s STS
Requirement calculation for the length
of time the units remained affordable.
There would be no effect on the
denominator.
(1) Does the MTW Block Grant
investment amount divided by TDC
approach appropriately capture this
type of MTW flexibility?
(2) Are there other suggestions for
how the development of affordable
housing units outside of the public
housing and HCV programs can be
included in the numerator of the ratio?
5 While
the public housing operating subsidy is
calculated differently for some MTW PHAs, all
MTW PHAs receive public housing capital funds in
accordance with regulation (24 CFR part 905 or its
successor).
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
D. Setting Reasonable Levels and
Categories of Compliance
PIH Notice 2013–02 currently
measures compliance of the STS
Requirement annually based the fiscal
year of the MTW PHA. This annual
6 Total Development Costs are calculated by HUD
annually and available at: https://portal.hud.gov/
hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_
indian_housing/programs/ph/capfund. HUD would
use these and not any locally defined Total
Development Costs, in this analysis.
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
assessment is important in ensuring
ongoing monitoring, but as HUD seeks
to connect the methodology of the STS
Requirement to annual funding received
(which is provided based on a calendar
year), a transition to determinations
being made each calendar year for all
MTW PHAs is necessary.
In making annual determinations, PIH
Notice 2013–02 established levels of
compliance that allow for small or
‘‘nominal’’ dips below 100 percent and
that recognize a variety of scenarios that
may cause an MTW PHA to have lower
percentages in a given year or years.
With a revised methodology to track the
STS Requirement, it is necessary to
reexamine the levels and categories of
compliance.
(1) How should ‘‘Substantially the
Same’’ be interpreted under the 1996
MTW Statute?
(2) Should there be a percentage
below 100% that is considered fully
compliant with the STS Requirement
without further justification by the
MTW PHA? What should this level be
and why?
(3) Should there be a percentage
below 100% that is considered fully
compliant with the STS Requirement
with further justification by the MTW
PHA and approval by HUD? What
should this level be and why? What
justifications should be allowable?
(4) What should be considered ‘‘noncompliance’’ under the STS
Requirement? What enforcement actions
should be taken by HUD and what
opportunities for corrective actions
should be available to MTW PHAs?
E. Adjusting for Changes to the Capacity
of an MTW PHA To Serve Families and
Unforeseen Effects
To determine the number of families
an MTW PHA must serve under the STS
Requirement, HUD envisions annually
aggregating the HCV and public housing
denominators (discussed in Section
II.A(1) and (2) above) and then adjusting
that figure up or down according to
increases or decreases in an MTW
PHA’s capacity to serve families
(incremental changes to the MTW
PHA’s inventory). This approach
addresses standard inventory changes
and is similar to that contained in the
existing PIH Notice 2013–02.
In addition to annual adjustments for
standard inventory changes, there may
also be a need for limited adjustments
to account for unforeseen effects caused
by changes in markets and costs. As the
revised STS methodology will likely
rely on variables that include market
and program costs, an opportunity to
account for significant changes that
occur to those costs after the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
denominator is established may be
necessary. This would be separate from
any of the standard incremental
inventory increases or decreases
contained in PIH Notice 2013–02.
(1) The variables that result in
standard, annual incremental increases
or decreases to an MTW PHA’s capacity
to serve families are listed in PIH Notice
2013–02. Should HUD consider any
changes to this list?
(2) Should there be future adjustments
of the denominator to account for cost
changes outside the scope of the MTW
Demonstration Program? If so should
such adjustments be elective for each
MTW PHA or applied at fixed points to
all MTW PHAs? If applied at fixed
points, at what intervals should such
adjustments occur? What types and
levels of changes to costs should be
considered in such potential
recalculations?
F. Ensuring Predictability Under the
STS Requirement for Current MTW
PHAs
If a new methodology for tracking the
STS Requirement for current MTW
PHAs is put in place, sufficient
transition and notification of such a
change would be important. With this in
mind:
(1) What, if any, transition time
should be made available to current
MTW PHAs in moving from the existing
methodology in PIH Notice 2013–02 to
the revised methodology?
(2) What testing and provisional data
should be made available to MTW PHAs
in moving from the existing
methodology in PIH Notice 2013–02 to
the revised methodology?
(3) What are other suggestions to
ensure predictability for MTW PHAs
with regard to the STS Requirement?
G. Other Feedback
In addition to the specific areas above,
the Department welcomes any feedback
from the public on improvements that
could be made to improve monitoring of
the STS Requirement.
(1) What are other suggestions to
improve monitoring of the STS
Requirement not covered in other
portions of this Notice?
(2) Should this revised methodology
apply to both current MTW PHAs and
PHAs that will be added to the MTW
Demonstration Program through the
MTW Expansion detailed in the 2016
Consolidated Appropriations Act,
Public Law 114–113, Sec. 239?
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
92839
Dated: December 14, 2016.
Jemine A. Bryon,
General Deputy Assistant, Secretary for Public
and Indian Housing.
[FR Doc. 2016–30622 Filed 12–19–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–5913–N–37]
60-Day Notice of Proposed Information
Collection: HUD Conditional
Commitment/Statement of Appraised
Value
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing
Commissioner, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
HUD is seeking approval from
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for the information collection
described below. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is
requesting comment from all interested
parties on the proposed collection of
information. The purpose of this notice
is to allow for 60 days of public
comment.
SUMMARY:
Comments Due Date: February
21, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit comments regarding
this proposal. Comments should refer to
the proposal by name and/or OMB
Control Number and should be sent to:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management
Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 451 7th Street
SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC
20410–5000; telephone 202–402–3400
(this is not a toll-free number) or email
at Colette.Pollard@hud.gov for a copy of
the proposed forms or other available
information. Persons with hearing or
speech impairments may access this
number through TTY by calling the tollfree Federal Relay Service at (800) 877–
8339.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cheryl Walker, Director, Home
Valuation Policy Division, Department
of Housing and Urban Development,
451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC
20410; email at Cheryl.B.Walker@
hud.gov or telephone 202–708–2121,
x6880. This is not a toll-free number.
Persons with hearing or speech
impairments may access this number
through TTY by calling the toll-free
Federal Relay Service at (800) 877–8339.
Copies of available documents
submitted to OMB may be obtained
from Ms. Pollard.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 92836-92839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30622]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR-5958-N-01]
Request for Comments and Recommendations on a Revised Methodology
To Track the Extent to Which Moving to Work Agencies Continue To Serve
Substantially the Same Number of Eligible Families
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian
Housing, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Notice solicits comments and recommendations on
developing a revised methodology to be used to track the extent to
which Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) in the Moving to Work (MTW)
Demonstration Program are meeting the statutory requirement in Section
204 of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of
1996, (1996 MTW Statute) to serve substantially the same number of
families had they not combined their funds under the MTW Demonstration
Program. This statutory requirement is further reinforced in the
Standard MTW Agreements for all 39 current MTW PHAs.
DATES: Comments Due Date: February 21, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments and
recommendations to the Moving to Work Office, Office of Public and
Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451
Seventh Street SW., Room 4130, Washington, DC 20410-0001 or email at
mtw-info@hud.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments
electronically. Communications must refer to the above docket number
and title and should contain the information specified in the ``Request
for Public Comments'' section.
No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (FAX) comments are not acceptable.
Public Inspection of Public Comments. A summary of comments
received by HUD will be made available on HUD's Web site at: https://www.hud.gov/mtw.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this Notice
should be directed to the Moving to Work Office, Office of Public and
Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development at: mtw-info@hud.gov. Communications must refer to the above docket number and
title.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The purpose of the MTW Demonstration Program, as provided in the
1996 MTW Statute (Pub. L. 104-134; 42 U.S.C. 1437f note), is to give
PHAs and HUD the flexibility to design and test various approaches for
providing and administering housing assistance that:
Reduce cost and achieve greater cost effectiveness in
federal expenditures;
give incentives to families with children where the head
of household is working; is seeking work; or is preparing for work by
participating in job training, educational programs, or
[[Page 92837]]
programs that assist people to obtain employment and become
economically self-sufficient; and
increase housing choices for eligible low-income families.
In addition to the ability to request statutory and regulatory
flexibility from certain public housing and Housing Choice Voucher
(HCV) program rules under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 1437, et seq, (1937 Act) \1\ MTW PHAs combine public housing
operating, public housing capital, and HCV assistance into a single
agency-wide funding source referred to as the ``MTW Block Grant.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For more information about the MTW Demonstration Program and
the specific programs of current MTW PHAs, please refer to the MTW
Web site at: https://www.hud.gov/mtw.
\2\ Funds awarded under Sections 8(o), 9(d), and 9(e) of the
1937 Act are eligible for inclusion in the MTW Block Grant, with the
exception of funds provided for specific non-MTW HCV sub-programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout participation in the MTW Demonstration Program, MTW PHAs
must continue to meet five statutory requirements. These five statutory
requirements, also provided in the 1996 MTW Statute, are:
Statutory Requirement #1: To ensure at least 75% of
families assisted are very low-income as defined in Section 3(b)(2) of
the 1937 Act;
Statutory Requirement #2: To establish a reasonable rent
policy that is designed to encourage employment and self-sufficiency;
Statutory Requirement #3: To continue to assist
substantially the same total number of eligible low-income families as
would have been served had funds not been combined (herein after, the
``STS requirement'');
Statutory Requirement #4: To maintain a comparable mix of
families (by family size) as would have been provided had the funds not
been used under the MTW Demonstration Program; and
Statutory Requirement #5: To ensure housing assisted under
the MTW Demonstration Program meets housing quality standards
established or approved by the Secretary.
HUD has processes in place to effectively monitor statutory
requirements numbers 1, 2, 4, and 5. In 2013, HUD published PIH Notice
2013-02, detailing a process for monitoring and quantifying compliance
with the STS Requirement, which was previously verified with only an
annual certification by the MTW PHA. Since publishing PIH Notice 2013-
02, HUD has determined that its methodology requires revision in order
to more accurately ensure that an MTW PHA is serving substantially the
same number of families as would have been served had it not combined
its funds under the MTW Demonstration Program.
PIH Notice 2013-02 currently utilizes a ratio that compares the
number of families served annually by each MTW PHA (the numerator) to
an approximation of how many families the MTW PHA would have served
absent participation in the MTW Demonstration Program (the
denominator). HUD then analyzes that ratio, represented as a
percentage, and makes an annual determination of whether each MTW PHA
is meeting the statutory requirement to serve substantially the same
number of families. Through this Notice, HUD seeks to maintain the
overall structure of the methodology described in PIH Notice 2013-02,
but requests public feedback in revising some of the variables and how
they are calculated in order to address areas identified as needing
improvement.
Throughout calendar year 2015, HUD had numerous conversations with
the existing 39 MTW PHAs on potential changes to improve the tracking
of the STS Requirement. At that time, many points of agreement between
HUD and the 39 MTW PHAs were reached, including: Any tracking of the
STS Requirement should be based on a combined look at public housing
and HCV programs to account for an MTW PHA's available fungibility
between these two programs; at a minimum, all families housed by an MTW
PHA with Section 8 and Section 9 funds should be counted towards the
STS Requirement in some way; and the statutory language of
``substantially'' indicates some flexibility below the full number of
families to be served.
From these conversations between HUD and the existing 39 MTW PHAs,
the following areas of feedback were developed. Specifically, the areas
are:
Connecting the number of families an MTW PHA must serve to
funding received;
Addressing the varied subsidy levels at which MTW PHAs
serve families;
Accounting for the development of affordable units with
the MTW Block Grant that are outside of the public housing and HCV
programs;
Setting reasonable levels and categories of compliance;
Adjusting for changes to the capacity of an MTW PHA to
serve families and unforeseen effects; and
Ensuring predictability under the STS Requirement for
current and future MTW PHAs.
II. Request for Public Comments
HUD requests public comments and recommendations on how to revise
the methodology to determine compliance with the STS Requirement in
order to strengthen the areas identified for improvement. MTW and non-
MTW PHAs, HUD-assisted housing residents, resident advocacy
organizations, researchers, and HUD stakeholders are encouraged to
submit comments. While all comments are welcome, HUD specifically
requests comments in the following areas:
A. Connecting the Number of Families an MTW PHA Must Serve to Funding
Received
The current methodology contained in PIH Notice 2013-02 relies on a
historic snapshot of public housing occupancy and HCV utilization rates
in order to set the number of families an MTW PHA is obligated to serve
(the denominator of the ratio). In collecting these figures, issues
related to availability and accuracy of historic data and anomalies
associated with a ``point-in-time'' approach have arisen. Subsequent
inventory adjustments affecting the denominator also rely on historic
data, compounding these concerns. Further, historic public housing
occupancy and HCV utilization figures do not necessarily correlate to
the funding resources that MTW PHAs receive today.
Connecting the number of families an MTW PHA must serve to the MTW
Block Grant funding it receives ensures equity between MTW PHAs that
entered the MTW Demonstration Program at differing levels of public
housing occupancy and HCV utilization and ensures that the data upon
which the STS Requirement methodology relies is accurate and verifiable
by HUD systems. While the denominator will still be set as a snapshot
at a point in time that is then adjusted up or down according to
incremental changes in inventory, connecting the denominator to funding
more directly ties the STS Requirement to an MTW PHA's capacity to
house families (regardless of participation in the MTW Demonstration
Program).
(1) HCV Denominator of STS Requirement Ratio
To connect the number of families an MTW PHA must serve to the
funding it receives in the HCV program, HUD is considering starting
with a snapshot of HCV funds received by the MTW PHA in the first
calendar year the revised methodology is effective (excluding
Administrative Fees and, to the extent feasible, funds provided for
specific
[[Page 92838]]
non-MTW HCV subprograms) and dividing that figure by the average agency
cost to house a family in the HCV program.
One way to capture the average agency cost to house a family in the
HCV program would be to take an annualized payment standard amount
based on the MTW PHA's HUD-published Fair Market Rent \3\ and subtract
an annualized average tenant contribution. This average cost to serve a
family in the HCV program would need to be calculated and weighted to
account for the different household sizes in each MTW PHA's locality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Fair Market Rents are calculated by HUD annually and
available at: www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) How should the average agency cost to house a family in the HCV
program for MTW PHAs be established to ensure it: Is unaffected by MTW
flexibilities already in place, is accurately weighted by household
size, and reflects local market costs and factors?
(b) If payment standards are utilized in determining the average
cost to house a family in the HCV program for MTW PHAs, what level of
payment standard should be used? \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Non-MTW PHAs may set payment standards between 90-110% of
HUD-published Fair Market Rents. For non- MTW PHAs payment standards
outside of this basic range must be approved by HUD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) What other factors should HUD consider in establishing the
number of families an MTW PHA must serve with HCV funds?
(2) Public Housing Denominator of STS Requirement Ratio
To connect the number of families an MTW PHA must serve to the
funding it receives in the public housing program, HUD is considering
starting with a snapshot of public housing operating funds received by
the MTW PHA in the first calendar year the revised methodology is
effective and dividing that figure by the average agency cost to
operate a public housing unit.
One way to capture the average agency cost to operate a public
housing unit would be to approximate the amount of public housing
operating subsidy the MTW PHA would receive per unit under regulation
for the MTW PHA's existing inventory of public housing units.
HUD seeks suggestions on other approaches that establish a public
housing denominator that encourages the use of existing public housing
units and ensures accountability for MTW PHAs that receive more public
housing operating subsidy than other MTW and non-MTW PHAs.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ While the public housing operating subsidy is calculated
differently for some MTW PHAs, all MTW PHAs receive public housing
capital funds in accordance with regulation (24 CFR part 905 or its
successor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) How should the average agency cost to operate a public housing
unit for MTW PHAs be established to ensure it: Is unaffected by MTW
flexibilities already in place, accounts for local market costs and
factors, and ensures accountability for MTW PHAs that receive higher
levels of public housing operating subsidy?
(b) What other factors should HUD consider in establishing the
number of families an MTW PHA must serve with public housing funds?
B. Addressing the Varied Subsidy Levels at Which MTW PHAs Serve
Families
The MTW Demonstration Program allows MTW PHAs to design local
programs that serve eligible families in unique ways to address local
issues and needs. This may result in an MTW PHA creating a rental
assistance structure that offers a lower level of subsidy than would be
available to non-MTW PHAs in the traditional HCV and public housing
programs. For example, an MTW PHA may lower its share of housing
assistance, increasing the tenant share, to serve a larger number of
families that do not require a high level of housing assistance. Such
local programs in the MTW Demonstration Program are often referred to
as ``Shallow Subsidies.'' In order to maintain the integrity of the STS
Requirement and avoid allowing Shallow Subsidies to artificially
inflate the numerator of the ratio, it is necessary to include families
served in this manner, but also to count them in a modified way.
HUD is considering approaching Shallow Subsidies by identifying
families receiving assistance from the MTW PHA with a rent burden of
50% or greater and counting those families with half a credit in the
numerator of a ratio. For example, two households with a rent burden of
50% or greater would count as one full family served in the numerator
of the ratio.
(1) How should HUD define and address Shallow Subsidies in the STS
Requirement methodology?
(2) If the rent burden of the family receiving assistance is
utilized in defining Shallow Subsidies, what level of rent burden
should be used? How should the households meeting that level of rent
burden be counted in the numerator of the STS Requirement methodology?
(3) If the rent burden of the family receiving assistance is
utilized in defining Shallow Subsides, should certain exceptions be
made for households paying minimum rent, zero income households, and/or
households opting for a unit in an area of opportunity that is above
the standard affordability threshold? Are there other households that
should be included as exceptions, therefore receiving a full credit
despite rent burden?
(4) What other factors should HUD consider in addressing Shallow
Subsidies?
C. Accounting for the Development of Affordable Units With the MTW
Block Grant That Are Outside of the Public Housing and HCV Programs
The MTW Demonstration Program allows MTW PHAs to use the MTW Block
Grant to develop affordable housing units that are outside of the
public housing and HCV programs. Such development allows for the
creation of important affordable housing resources, but must be
balanced with the existing and immediate needs of families waiting for
housing assistance. It is therefore necessary to relate the amount of
the MTW PHA's MTW Block Grant investment to the number of affordable
units developed.
One way to accomplish this is to divide the MTW Block Grant
investment in the development of affordable housing units outside the
public housing and HCV programs by the HUD-published Total Development
Cost (TDC).\6\ This number of units would then be credited annually in
the numerator of the MTW PHA's STS Requirement calculation for the
length of time the units remained affordable. There would be no effect
on the denominator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Total Development Costs are calculated by HUD annually and
available at: https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/capfund. HUD would
use these and not any locally defined Total Development Costs, in
this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Does the MTW Block Grant investment amount divided by TDC
approach appropriately capture this type of MTW flexibility?
(2) Are there other suggestions for how the development of
affordable housing units outside of the public housing and HCV programs
can be included in the numerator of the ratio?
D. Setting Reasonable Levels and Categories of Compliance
PIH Notice 2013-02 currently measures compliance of the STS
Requirement annually based the fiscal year of the MTW PHA. This annual
[[Page 92839]]
assessment is important in ensuring ongoing monitoring, but as HUD
seeks to connect the methodology of the STS Requirement to annual
funding received (which is provided based on a calendar year), a
transition to determinations being made each calendar year for all MTW
PHAs is necessary.
In making annual determinations, PIH Notice 2013-02 established
levels of compliance that allow for small or ``nominal'' dips below 100
percent and that recognize a variety of scenarios that may cause an MTW
PHA to have lower percentages in a given year or years. With a revised
methodology to track the STS Requirement, it is necessary to reexamine
the levels and categories of compliance.
(1) How should ``Substantially the Same'' be interpreted under the
1996 MTW Statute?
(2) Should there be a percentage below 100% that is considered
fully compliant with the STS Requirement without further justification
by the MTW PHA? What should this level be and why?
(3) Should there be a percentage below 100% that is considered
fully compliant with the STS Requirement with further justification by
the MTW PHA and approval by HUD? What should this level be and why?
What justifications should be allowable?
(4) What should be considered ``non-compliance'' under the STS
Requirement? What enforcement actions should be taken by HUD and what
opportunities for corrective actions should be available to MTW PHAs?
E. Adjusting for Changes to the Capacity of an MTW PHA To Serve
Families and Unforeseen Effects
To determine the number of families an MTW PHA must serve under the
STS Requirement, HUD envisions annually aggregating the HCV and public
housing denominators (discussed in Section II.A(1) and (2) above) and
then adjusting that figure up or down according to increases or
decreases in an MTW PHA's capacity to serve families (incremental
changes to the MTW PHA's inventory). This approach addresses standard
inventory changes and is similar to that contained in the existing PIH
Notice 2013-02.
In addition to annual adjustments for standard inventory changes,
there may also be a need for limited adjustments to account for
unforeseen effects caused by changes in markets and costs. As the
revised STS methodology will likely rely on variables that include
market and program costs, an opportunity to account for significant
changes that occur to those costs after the denominator is established
may be necessary. This would be separate from any of the standard
incremental inventory increases or decreases contained in PIH Notice
2013-02.
(1) The variables that result in standard, annual incremental
increases or decreases to an MTW PHA's capacity to serve families are
listed in PIH Notice 2013-02. Should HUD consider any changes to this
list?
(2) Should there be future adjustments of the denominator to
account for cost changes outside the scope of the MTW Demonstration
Program? If so should such adjustments be elective for each MTW PHA or
applied at fixed points to all MTW PHAs? If applied at fixed points, at
what intervals should such adjustments occur? What types and levels of
changes to costs should be considered in such potential recalculations?
F. Ensuring Predictability Under the STS Requirement for Current MTW
PHAs
If a new methodology for tracking the STS Requirement for current
MTW PHAs is put in place, sufficient transition and notification of
such a change would be important. With this in mind:
(1) What, if any, transition time should be made available to
current MTW PHAs in moving from the existing methodology in PIH Notice
2013-02 to the revised methodology?
(2) What testing and provisional data should be made available to
MTW PHAs in moving from the existing methodology in PIH Notice 2013-02
to the revised methodology?
(3) What are other suggestions to ensure predictability for MTW
PHAs with regard to the STS Requirement?
G. Other Feedback
In addition to the specific areas above, the Department welcomes
any feedback from the public on improvements that could be made to
improve monitoring of the STS Requirement.
(1) What are other suggestions to improve monitoring of the STS
Requirement not covered in other portions of this Notice?
(2) Should this revised methodology apply to both current MTW PHAs
and PHAs that will be added to the MTW Demonstration Program through
the MTW Expansion detailed in the 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act,
Public Law 114-113, Sec. 239?
Dated: December 14, 2016.
Jemine A. Bryon,
General Deputy Assistant, Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
[FR Doc. 2016-30622 Filed 12-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P