Multiple Grant Cities Working Group

Steve Sachs highlighted the Steering Committee's (SC) August 13th meeting.

1. Jim Barnes and Sal Sclafani at HUD HQ are:
   
   Developing a Question and Answer policy guide for grantees who must submit 2003 ConPlans.
   
   Drafting an Income Category Crosswalk to make income definitions more consistent.
   
   Considering an interim rule to cover pilot projects.
   
   
2. Other SC issues: Reviewing ways to eliminate or redefine anti-poverty plans and to bring ConPlan and PHA plans into better alignment.
   
   
   Participants made these main points:
1. Aspen will amend July 24th minutes by adding complete comments made by Susanne Brown of Legal Aid Foundation.
   
   
2. We are still tackling the problem of the ConPlan's purpose. Is it an application for HUD funding or a policy plan? The purpose affects the type and degree of streamlining that is acceptable.
   
   
3. WG will continue assembling recommendations from members about:
   

   	Streamlining ConPlan components.
   	Training for HUD staff and grantees.
   	Developing a pilot project that incorporates or references existing local plans.

In terms of cross-referencing existing local plans in the ConPlan, participants raised these issues.




	The local body approving the ConPlan may or may not be the same body approving cross-referenced plans. Two types of local plans and reports that could create redundancies in ConPlans: existing local reports and plans (such as economic development plans) and reports prepared for HUD (such as EZ or PHA plans).
	Given the diversity of local plans and approval processes, HUD should not mandate a single streamlining procedure for cross-referencing. Grantees develop, incorporate, or cross-reference local plans in different ways--executive summaries, Internet links, cutting and pasting key sections, or new plans.
	Citizen participation varies widely--from little involvement to Internet-based ConPlans and public comments.
	Participants suggested that HUD hold a contest to obtain model ConPlan components.
	Participants were interested in seeing any check lists used by Field Offices to review ConPlans, Annual Plans, and CAPERS.
	Participants also suggested that HUD staff needs training on IDIS.
	We need standard to develop standards for evaluating pilot projects. For example, we could evaluate differences between ConPlan produced under pilot with previous ConPlan from same grantee.
	There should be more information (such as the 2 tables that CDBG Plus WG is currently completing) posted on the ConPlan II Website.