| The following are PHADA's official comments on the proposed rule for Consortia of Public Housing Agencies and Joint Ventures. The proposed rule was published in the September 14, 1999 Federal Register. Refer to the October 18 edition of the Advocate for an overview of the proposed rule. |
November 1999
The Public Housing Authorities Directors Association (PHADA), representing 1,700 PHAs nationwide, appreciates the opportunity to comment on the referenced proposed rule for PHA Consortia.
The proposed rule appears to be a straightforward rendition of the statutory provisions, allowing for flexibility in the formation of the consortia or joint ventures. The association appreciates the lack of complicating conditions in the proposed rule.
The one exception PHADA would note here, regards the programs excluded (project based Section 8 under the May, 1999 RFP and the "Mark to Market" program). While it may be necessary to exclude these programs under the old rules, there should be no need to exclude them under any new rulemaking. Any consortium made up of public agencies should be treated corporately as a public agency itself.
On the question of reporting, the rule provides for the consortium to make reports on behalf of the member PHAs, and asks for comments on whether all reports should be combined. With no explanation or examples of what is meant by "all reports," the question is difficult to answer. Regardless, PHADA believes the reporting requirements should be met in whatever way seems best for the consortium and its individual members, so long as the Department gets the data it needs.
The proposed rule requires a stipulation in the consortium agreement regarding the terms for a member PHA to withdraw from the consortium, but there is no provision (or prohibition) for a new PHA to join the consortium after its establishment. PHADA believes it would be useful to add language addressing this possibility.
The statute and the proposed rule assume a level of experience or sophistication which may not be universal among the PHAs. Particularly for smaller PHAs, which the Department wishes to encourage, it would be most useful to prepare some form of policy guide or "how to" that would direct the energies of the potential members in a productive way.
Consortia have been developed around specific projects or programs, as well as ongoing entities for the purpose of economies of scale in personnel, purchasing, maintenance, etc. At a minimum, the association recommends a Q&A format which the Department has used successfully in other rulemaking, and a representative set of examples with different sizes of PHAs and different sets of consortia objectives that have successfully used the strategy.
Thank you for your consideration of PHADA's comments.
