[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 24, Volume 4]
[Revised as of April 1, 2003]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 24CFR971.5]

[Page 549-550]
 
                 TITLE 24--HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
 
CHAPTER IX--OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING, 
               DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
 
PART 971--ASSESSMENT OF THE REASONABLE REVITALIZATION POTENTIAL OF CERTAIN PUBLIC HOUSING REQUIRED BY LAW--Table of Contents
 
Sec. 971.5  Long-term viability.

    (a) Reasonable investment. (1) Proposed revitalization costs for 
viability must be reasonable. Such costs must not exceed, and ordinarily 
would be substantially less than, 90 percent of HUD's total development 
cost limit for the units proposed to be revitalized (100 percent of the 
total development cost limit for any ``infill'' new construction subject 
to this regulation). The revitalization cost estimate used in the PHA's 
most recent comprehensive plan for modernization is to be used for this 
purpose, unless a PHA demonstrates or HUD determines that another cost 
estimate is clearly more realistic to ensure viability and to sustain 
the operating costs that are described in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) The overall projected cost of the revitalized development must 
not exceed the Section 8 cost under the method contained in the Appendix 
to this part, even if the cost of revitalization is a lower percentage 
of the TDC than the limits stated in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (3) The source of funding for such a revitalization program must be 
identified and already available. In addition to other resources already 
available to the PHA, a PHA may assume that future formula funds 
provided through the Comprehensive Grant Program are available for this 
purpose, provided that they are sufficient to permit completion of the 
revitalization within the statutory five year time frame. (Comprehensive 
plans must be amended accordingly.)
    (b) Density. Density reduction measures would have to result in a 
public housing community with a density approaching that which prevails 
in the community for similar types of housing (typically family), or a 
lower density. If the development's density already meets this 
description, further reduction in density is not a requirement.
    (c) Income mix. (1) Measures generally will be required to broaden 
the range of resident incomes to include over time a significant mix of 
households with at least one full-time worker (for example, at least 20 
percent with an income at least 30 percent of median area income). 
Measures to achieve a broader range of household incomes must be 
realistic in view of the site's location. Evidence of such realism 
typically would include some mix of incomes of other households located 
in the same census tract or neighborhood, or unique advantages of the 
public housing site.
    (2) For purposes of judging appropriateness of density reduction and 
broader range of income measures, overall size of the public housing 
site and its number of dwelling units will

[[Page 550]]

be considered. The concerns these measures would address generally are 
greater as the site's size and number of dwelling units increase.