Section 505, page 4 line 25. Residents on Boards.

PHADA opposes a federal requirement that HAs must have at least one resident on their Board of Commissioners. Housing authorities are, after all, state-chartered and locally-controlled agencies.

Still, the revised version of H.R. 2 is an improvement compared to the prior bill. It deletes the mandatory election requirement and exempts small HAs (defined as those with less than 300 units) provided they have solicited residents to ascertain whether they are interested in serving on Boards. If the House and Senate insist on some form of resident membership on the Board, PHADA suggests that conferees keep all of the existing exemptions. Additionally, the language defining "small" HAs (on line 25 cited above) should be modified to reflect that such agencies are those with 250 units or less. This makes the provision more consistent with other parts of the bill affecting small HAs.

Section 564, page 239, lines 7-8. Home Rule Flexible Grant.

PHADA remains firmly opposed to this provision and will, as a statement of Board-adopted policy, oppose any bill containing anything more than the Senate's current language on the subject.

Still, we believe the more recent language is an improvement in that it includes time limits and subjects cities to basically the same rules as HAs. Assuming a limited Home Rule demonstration component will be a part of any conference report, we suggest that the language be modified to ensure that standard-performing agencies are afforded the same consultation as high performers. Specifically, the revised bill would require local governments to get the approval of high performers before seeking HUD acceptance of their Home Rule plans. PHADA believes standard performers should be afforded the same consultation. Accordingly, we feel the language in Section 564 should be changed.

Section 507, page 9, lines 13-16. Minimum Rents.

PHADA strongly supports minimum rents for all families. While we understand the need for some hardship exceptions, we believe that the current language prohibiting enforcement when it might result in eviction could render the minimum rent meaningless. Clearly, the incentive to pay the rent will be lost on some residents if they are aware the law cannot be effectively enforced. Accordingly, PHADA recommends the eviction language in Section 507 be deleted.

Section 513, page 50, lines 4-15. Concentrations of poverty.

The Discussion Draft states that HAs cannot unduly concentrate the poor in their projects. PHADA recommends this language be deleted. Among other things, it flies in the face of market forces, resident choice, and site-based waiting lists. While this type of social engineering might be well-intentioned, it will hamstring HAs and conceivably result in fewer affordable housing opportunities for the very poor.

Section 556, page 213. Waivers for Police in Section 8 housing.

PHADA supports the permanent statutory waiver for police residing public housing. We suggest, though, that the language be limited to public housing, not Section 8 assisted housing. The need is not great in the assisted housing program, and might result in less affordable housing for those truly in need.

Section 512, Page 42, (c) on lines 7-12. Work Requirement.

PHADA believes this section is unnecessary because of welfare reform. If conferees insist on its inclusion, we suggest another exemption. Specifically, residents who are exempt from their state's workfare requirements should be exempted from the federal requirement. For example, it would make for more consistency to exempt a single mother who must stay home to care for a disabled child if the mother is exempted under state workfare rules. Under the current version of H.R. 2, that same mother would be exempted from the federal requirement only if the child was under six years old.

Section 510, The Plan.

We suggest several modifications.

1. HUD should be required to implement streamlined planning requirements for small and high-performing HAs. The bill currently gives HUD the option of streamlining (Section 510, page 35, line 21).
2. Due to timing requirements in the plan section, it should be clear that HAs are permitted to alter their fiscal year schedules. Otherwise, many HAs will be adopting plans well before they know the level of funding resources they will receive from the federal government. Without this kind of flexibility, we are concerned that HAs will find themselves in a restrictive box from which they will be unable to extricate themselves (Section 510, page 20, line 5).
3. The language on page 28 of the bill is too narrow. HAs should be allowed to use current resident advisory methods if they conform to existing HUD regulations and statutes. The revised bill would contradict this good public policy and require that HAs first get HUD approval to use other forms of resident consultation. The language requiring HUD's pre-approval should therefore be stricken, in our view.

Public Housing Management Assessment Program (PHMAP).

The bill would add a few new PHMAP requirements. For example, new indicators measuring each HA's self sufficiency programs and the physical quality of their units would be added. PHADA believes this and all other PHMAP-related language should be deleted in order to avoid potential conflicts with pending regulations.

HUD recently issued a major proposed rule that will vastly alter the existing PHMAP. While PHADA has noted some serious flaws in that rule, the association fully supports improving the current evaluation system and is working with HUD and other industry groups to that end. Many of the issues in the bill are addressed in the rule (physical inspections, for example). If the PHMAP language in the bill is enacted, however, it could conflict with regulatory changes and ultimately cause havoc, or at least a lot of confusion, in HA operations.

In addition, we believe the language on pest eradication is unnecessary and should be deleted. Under the statute and regulations, HAs are required to maintain safe and sanitary housing. A new statutory requirement is therefore redundant and unnecessary in our view.

Section 530, page 111, line 14. Local Codes.

PHADA suggests the language specifically reference local "housing" codes for the sake of clarity. There is a potential that some confusion could arise because of differences between "housing" and "building" codes.

Section 572, pages 275-276. The CHAS.

We strongly support the language requiring the locality to address public housing needs in the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. We commend you for including this section.

Section 587, page 299, beginning at line 5. Pets.

PHADA is unalterably opposed to this provision, although the revision is an improvement compared to the earlier bill. It must be noted that many people do not want pets in their buildings for a variety of reasons (noise, safety and sanitary problems, allergies, etc.). Thus, we suggest language that would allow residents to vote in referendum as to whether or not they want pets in their developments. Given Congress's desire to promote resident choice, we are hopeful you will concur and add such a provision to the conference report.

Section 589, page 303, beginning at line 18. Public Housing Drug Elimination Program.

PHADA supports the Senate version, which would not mandate a formula in statute like the House bill. We are concerned H.R. 2 would ultimately result in a dilution of drug elimination funds.

The Senate bill would help avoid this occurrence by giving HUD and the industry more time to develop a workable and equitable system. In our view, any system should not just address "needs," but must also factor in things such as capacity and multi-year continuity.

In addition to this recommendation, we suggest that the conference report delete House language which removes the funding cap in high-density drug trafficking areas. Otherwise, most of the funding will be directed to "high needs" areas, potentially ignoring the needs of other communities that also have serious crime and drug problems.

Section 575, page 281, line 19. Definition of "disabled."

We suggest the word "primarily" be substituted for "solely" in terms of how disabled individuals are defined.

Section 516. Page 60, lines 17 to end, and lines 1-13 on page 61. Small HA modernization needs.

As we have in the past, we strongly recommend that the bill direct HUD to include small HA needs in the modernization block grant formula. This will provide a more predictable and steadier stream of funding to small HAs.

In addition, we recommend that the language on page 60 be deleted. The laudable objective of directing more modernization money to small HAs is better achieved through the change referenced above.

Endless Lease and Take one Take All.

We did not see the repeal of these provisions in the bill. The repeal was in the House-passed version. PHADA strongly supports the repeal and urges conferees to include it.

Section 511, page 39, line 8. Headquarters Reserve Fund.

PHADA opposes Section 511. The bill gives HUD too much leeway to use funds at its discretion, possibly resulting in fewer affordable housing units and a shortfall in operating funds. At a minimum, the total amount of the reserve fund should be reduced to one percent.

Ability to mortgage properties.

The Senate bill allows HAs to mortgage their properties, but we did not see this flexibility in the House revision. PHADA strongly supports this type of flexibility and requests that you include it in the conference report.

Section 538, Page 163, lines 22-23. HOPE VI.

PHADA is opposed to the HOPE VI program and has long advocated that funding for it be folded into the overall modernization allocation (while still allowing HAs to engage in HOPE VI-type revitalization strategies). Barring this, we support the Senate bill, which sunsets the HOPE VI program in 1999. Thereafter, all funding for HOPE VI should be added to modernization.