[Code of Federal Regulations]

[Title 24, Volume 4]

[Revised as of April 1, 2006]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

[CITE: 24CFR971.5]



[Page 548-549]

 

                 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 549]]



be considered. The concerns these measures would address generally are 

greater as the site's size and number of dwelling units increase.