Policies of the Maine State Housing Authority as de facto regulations

# MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied (searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions) **This document is from the files of the Office of the Maine Attorney General as transferred to the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library on January 19, 2022** RICHARD S. COHEN ATTORNEY GENERAL 79-130 STEPHEN L. DIAMOND JOHN S. GLEASON JOHN M. R. PATERSON ROBERT J. STOLT DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333 June 27, 1979 Honorable Judy Kany 18 West Street Waterville, Maine 04901 Honorable David Ault Morrison Heights Wayne, Maine 04284 Dear Senator Ault and Representative Kany: You have asked for our opinion on whether certain "policies" adopted by the Maine State Housing Authority ("MSHA") are regulations within the meaning of the Maine Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). The documents to which you refer and about which you seek our opinion are attached hereto as Exhibit A. The definition of "rule" in the APA is set out in 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(9). The definition in its entirety states: "9. Rule "A. 'Rule' means the whole or any part of every regulation, standard, code, statement of policy, or other agency statement of general applicability, including the amendment, suspension or repeal of any prior rule, that is or is intended to be judicially enforceable and implements, interprets or makes specific the law administered by the agency, or describes the procedures or practices of the agency. "B. The term does not include: "(1) Policies or memoranda concerning only the internal management of an agency or the State Government and not judicially enforceable; Page 2 "(2) Advisory rulings issued under sub-chapter III; "(3) Decisions issued in adjudicatory proceedings; or "(4) Any form, instruction or explanatory statement of policy which in itself is not judicially enforceable, and which is intended solely as advice to assist persons in determining, exercising or complying with their legal rights, duties or privileges." The concept encompasses any written document, regardless of whether it is defined as a rule on its face, which regulates the conduct of citizens, defines generally the relationship of the agency to the persons with whom it deals (e.g., rules of procedure for the agency), or establishes other substantive or procedural rights, liabilities or legal standards. Excepted from that definition are internal management policies and material provided to the public to explain the agency's policies or practices. The key provision in the definition, and the one which causes your question to be so complex, is the definitional requirement that a policy be or or intended to be "judicially enforceable" in order to be a "rule." In construing the meaning of the terms "rule" and "judicially enforceable," it should be noted that the Maine APA is in some respects unique. We have found no case law under the federal APA or other states to assist us in interpreting these terms. Nor is there any legislative history to shed any light on these provisions. Our interpretation is, therefore, limited to what we perceive to be the logic and intent of the APA. In the ordinary sense, a rule is usually understood to mean a written standard of conduct expressed either in prohibitory or mandatory language. Such a rule is "judicially enforceable" in the sense that a civil or criminal suit can be brought for its violation or to compel compliance with its requirements. Customarily rules are employed by regulatory agencies exercising the police power of the State. In some instances, however, agencies adopt rules of conduct not for purposes of exercising police power, but in connection with the distribution of government benefits (e.g., rules of eligibility for welfare, food stamps, unemployment compensation, special educational programs, and the like). Nevertheless, the fact that some standards of conduct are related to distribution of government benefits does not make such standards any less rules. Page 3 It is the clear rule of law that government may not act arbitrarily in granting or withholding benefits merely because there is no constitutional entitlement to the benefits. See, e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1969). Once a program of benefits is begun, it must be administered uniformly and according to prescribed standards. It would follow that the standards for distribution of such government benefits are judicially enforceable since the agency is bound by the standards as the rule of law governing the agency's decision-making process and the citizen is bound by the standard as the rule of law governing his/her eligibility. In this case, the State Housing Authority is performing a function akin to that of other agencies distributing government monies. Unlike other government benefit programs, however, the decisions of the Housing Authority are more like investment decisions and less like a program involving distribution of welfare benefits. Clearly the Housing Authority has wide discretion to invest in those projects which it thinks will best meet the public's needs. Nevertheless, we think that where the Housing Authority elects to establish standards on which to base its decisions, the standards thus set may in certain respects constitute rules under the APA. As is the case with welfare rules, the standards which constitute rules under the APA are those which, once adopted, are the rule of law governing the agency's discretion and the eligibility of an applicant. Although they are not police power regulations, such standards clearly make specific and implement the statutory criteria under which the Housing Authority operates. While it might be argued that such standards are merely unenforceable policies and not rules, we think that such an argument is unpersuasive. If a standard establishes clear criteria for conduct, e.g., the criteria to be used in determining whether to finance a particular project, those criteria bind the agency and are, in our judgment, judicially enforceable. Of course, we recognize that it is possible to draft a statement in such a way that it not be construed to be a rule. Thus, for example, the Housing Authority could phrase a policy as an explanatory statement of the general kind of criteria that would be considered in making a judgment to finance a project, making it clear in the policy that the agency reserved the right to consider other unenumerated criteria. If phrased in this manner, such a policy would probably not be judicially enforceable. Page 4 Having discussed the issue generally, we think it necessary to indicate the limits of this opinion. First, the Housing Authority has adopted many operating policies, only two of which we have been asked to review. The opinion expressed herein may not necessarily be applicable to all such policies. Each must be reviewed individually. Second, in addition to the Housing Authority, there are many State agencies involved in the distribution or awarding of government grants, benefits or contracts, the purchasing of real and personal property, and the management of public resources. Whether or not the operating policies or procedures of any other such agencies constitute "rules" cannot be determined without a detailed review of each such agency's function and responsibilities, the statutory authority of the agency and the text of the particular policy. Turning then to the specific documents that you have asked us to review, each requires a detailed analysis to determine whether they are rules subject to the APA or are policies exempt from that definition. ## Consent Resolution "Policy" The first document analyzed, although denominated a "policy," is, we believe, at least in part a "rule" under § 8002(9)(A). From an examination of the text of this policy, it appears quite clear that at least part of the document is more than a mere internal operating guide for the staff. In particular, sections (a), (b) and (c) contain "criteria" that specify circumstances under which the MSHA "will not" allocate housing assistance subsidies. Such express language in this context creates an operative legal standard that governs the decisions of the MSHA under the circumstances specified, and thereby determines the legal status of those entities affected by those sections. The result of the "policy" is to give a limiting interpretation to the statutory requirement of a consent resolution. It implements and makes specific the statutory requirement and is evidently intended to be judicially enforceable. The second part of this policy may, however, be correctly characterized as an internal management guide, since it constitutes a directive to the MSHA staff setting forth for the scope of their authority to participate in the process in question. This policy instructs the staff on the processing of MSHA paperwork and does not delegate decision-making power nor create legal standards. Thus, this portion of the policy is not a rule. Page 5 # Housing: Unit Reservation "Policies" As is the case with the previously analyzed "policy," this document is in part an internal management policy and in part a rule. Parts I and II could be characterized in part as internal management policies since they constitute directives to MSHA staff for informing the public on the MSHA's interest in receiving housing proposals. In essence, they are guidelines to the staff on how to go about soliciting proposals for projects. However, section II(A)(1) establishes a deadline for submission of proposals to the MSHA in response to public notice. From the language of this paragraph, it appears that the deadline establishes a legal standard regulating conduct of those with whom the Authority does business. This paragraph clearly affects the legal rights of those who fail to meet the deadline. To that extent, therefore, that portion of Section II constitutes rules. Parts III-VI are clearly rules since they establish standards for approval or disapproval of applications and therefore implement and interpret the statutes affecting substantive legal rights of affected parties. These parts cannot be characterized, despite the introductory language, as internal management standards. Read as a whole, therefore, this particular set of "policies" are rules, as defined in the APA. # Manner of Promulgation, Amendment or Repeal It is not clear from the fact of the documents the date on which they were adopted; however, it is possible to infer from the dates that appear thereon that these materials were prepared and approved by the MSHA prior to July 1, 1978, the effective date of the APA. If that is the case, those portions of the policies that constitute rules may be ineffective after July 1, 1979, unless repromulgated in accordance with 5 M.R.S.A. § 8057(1), second sentence. Any further modification or repeal of these rules or adoption by MSHA of any other substantive standards regulating conduct or prescribing legal rights or remedies and thus constituting rules must be done in a manner consistent with §§ 8051-8058 of the APA. RICHARD S. COHEN Attorney General RSC/ec Enc. cc: Genevieve K. Gelder EXHIBIT A (2) # MAINE STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY # CONSENT RESOLUTION POLICY The following sets forth the Maine State Housing Authority's current policy for evaluating consent resolutions as adopted by municipal governing bodies and by local housing authorities duly established and organized in accordance with 30 MRSA 4601 and 4602. There is set forth at 30 MRSA 4552 (1) language constituting a "general" consent resolution. This resolution is necessary to enable the Authority to operate in a municipality. Many governing bodies and local housing authorities have adopted "restrictive" consent resolutions which contain, in addition to the necessary statutory language, various limitations upon the operations of the Authority in the municipality. The Authority prefers the "general" consent resolution. However, in considering restrictive consent resolutions, the Authority will apply the following criteria: a.) The Authority will not allocate housing assistance subsidies to housing projects in municipalities where "restrictive" consent resolutions are in effect which specify the housing developer, the housing management entity or the site. Exception. Consent Resolutions which specify sites which are controlled by a local government body shall not be included under this paragraph. b.) The Authority will not allocate housing assistance subsidies to housing projects in municipalities where consent resolutions are in effect which, as determined by the Authority, could jeopardize the security of its mortgage interest or of its obligations for repayment of debt to the bondholders. c.) The Authority will consider on a case by case basis the allocation of subsidies to housing projects in municipalities where "restrictive" consent resolutions are in effect which limit the Authority's operations in ways not prohibited under a.) and b.) above. 5/26/78 # Consent Resolution Policy (continued) Before MSHA gives notice to proceed to a housing project proposal, the following guidelines shall be observed by Authority personnel: a.) Prior to passage of a consent resolution by a governing body and a local housing authority, if any, and prior to the review and selection of a proposal by the Authority, Authority personnel will neither solicit for proposals nor advocate, nor formally review any specific site or housing project proposals for such municipality, nor contact municipal officials and citizens regarding the proposal except to give information respecting the Authority. b.) Exception. Proposals for housing projects to be owned and managed by local housing authorities, or sites proposed for housing which are controlled by a local governing body will be considered differently to the extent that Authority staff may review such a proposal or site prior to passage of consent resolution by either the municipality or the local housing authority, and if a proposal or site is selected by the Authority, may advocate a specific project prior to passage of the consent resolution (s). 5/26/78 (1) # Maine State Housing Authority # Development Division # Housing Unit Reservation Policies The following policies will be in effect immediately for the solicitation of housing development proposals and the evaluation and selection of proposals for housing unit reservation. The intent of these policies is to establish a more equitable selection process within the state, to streamline the administrative process within the Authority, and to create a practical yet flexible approach for the development process. These policies establish a framework for the development of MSHA financed multi-family projects whereby all interested parties will know about and be able to participate in Maine State Housing Authority programs. These policies concern only the internal management of the Authority and are intended solely as instruction to Authority personnel and as information to assist other persons in understanding the Authority's development process. The Authority is emphasizing advertising for proposals as a basis for interested parties to be informed of the Authority's intent to develop within an area or community and to assure that a competitive process will take place. Advertising is not intended to be a selection process in and of itself. The Authority reserves the right to accept or reject any proposal in an area or community designated for housing assistance, whether such proposal was solicited by advertising or otherwise. # I. COMMUNITY CONTACT A. Before any advertisements or announcements of program availability are made within a particular community, Authority personnel will contact that community to determine the "sense" of the community regarding the number and types of units it needs and wants. Community Development Plans and MSHA's programs which could help implement those plans should be stressed. Authority personnel should advise the community that MSHA is considering the community's preference when reserving units for that community in order to assure compatibility with the community's housing goals. # II. SOLICITATION OF PROPOSALS THROUGH ADVERTISING A. After contact is made with the communities, the Authority will advertise for proposals by a general invitation for proposals in statewide newspapers. The advertisement, unless for a specific purpose, will not list communities or the numbers of units, but will request interested parties to contact the Development Division to obtain a developer's packet of instructions. The packet will provide the following information: # Reservation Policies 1. Deadlines. Proposals shall be submitted within 30 days from the date of an advertisement. The Authority should make decisions on all proposals with respect to site/developer acceptability within 60 days from the date of an advertisement. 2. Communities, or a list of communities included in an area. 3. The total number of units available for an area or community, the types of units that the Authority would be willing to consider for an area or community and the mix of new construction and rehabilitation units. Any other special restraints should also be noted. 4. Developer Information Form and Site Evaluation Form. 5. Site Criteria 6. Information on MSHA construction and design standards. 7. Brief explanation of the Section 8 Program and the stage of processing. 8. Rent Schedule 9. Statement on the applicability of all Federal, State and local statutes, regulations and ordinances. 10. Proposal evaluation and selection procedures. 11. Statement regarding the Authority's right to reject proposals not responsive to the invitation and MSHA's right to reject any proposal. ### III. EVALUATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSALS A. Development will pre-screen proposals to determine compatibility and consistency with Authority policies and criteria. Development may immediately reject any proposals which do not comply with the terms of the Authority's advertisement, or which are clearly not feasible in accordance with the Authority's site, development, or underwriting criteria. Such rejected proposals shall be returned to the Developer with an explanatory letter. B. There shall be a formal site review for each proposal which is not rejected under III A. above. The Site Selection Committee will make a formal determination as to site acceptability. The determination will be based upon MSHA and IUD site criteria. C. There shall be a formal Developer review for each proposal which is not rejected under III A. above. Development will make a determination on the acceptability of a Developer and his team (architect, contractor and management agent), based on: # Reservation Policies 1. past experience and performance; 2. financial capability; 3. ability and performance of Development team (architect, contractor and management agent); 4. ability to manage projects presently in operation (the MSHA Management Division will approve the management agent). D. Development shall reject proposals not acceptable under the Site/Developer criteria within 30 days of the submission deadline, and proposals will be returned to the Developer accompanied by an explanatory letter. E. If Items III A., B., C. above are met, Development will make an analysis of proposals based on the following items: 1. town need; 2. compatibility with the local housing plan and preferences; 3. compatibility with MSHA's policy on consent resolutions; 4. all things being equal, family units will be given first priority; 5. other factors considered relevant, including but not limited to any significant legal constraints, relocation problems, and so forth. # IV. SELECTION OF PROPOSALS FOR UNIT RESERVATION A. All proposals submitted to the Authority which are acceptable under Site/Developer criteria and have been analyzed by Development under III E. above, shall be presented to the Executive Committee, together with Development's recommendation for selection. The Executive Committee shall select or reject each proposal based on the relative acceptability of Site and Developer, and on the criteria listed under III E. above. B. Depending on the timeliness of unit allocations from HUD, fallout units, and additional units, Executive Committee decisions should be made within 45 days of the submission deadline. C. Developers whose proposals are selected by the Executive Committee will be given a "notice to proceed with processing" letter. Proposals not selected for unit reservation will be returned to the Developer, along with a letter notifying the Developer that the proposals can be resubmitted to MSHA and filed for future consideration. A written request for submission must accompany the proposal. Any proposal returned to the Developer with such notification must be "acceptable" under MSHA's Site/Developer criteria. Any Developer with an "acceptable" proposal which the Authority believes has little chance of unit reservation within a year should be formally notified of this at the time his proposal is returned to him. Any proposal which the Executive Committee decides should not be given further consideration for unit reservation should be rejected. Rejection must be accompanied by an explanatory letter. All notifications under # Reservation Policies this paragraph should be forwarded to the Developer within 7 days of the Executive Committee approval or rejection. D. NOTE: The Authority will not make unit allocations to any proposals until 1. units are received from HUD, 2. funding is certain (within some limitations such as anticipated bond sale, bonding authorization, etc.), 3. the Authority commits to fund a proposal. # V. NEGOTIATED PROPOSALS A. The Maine State Housing Authority is not limited to advertising for proposals. Negotiated proposals will be considered if the Maine State Housing Authority determines that the situation and proposals so warrant. B. It should be emphasized that negotiated proposals will be reviewed in the context of Authority plans for housing development across the state. Developers should be attentive to areas and communities which have been designated as having priority for housing assistance. In all cases these will be given first consideration for funding. C. Any negotiated proposal will be subject to the same policies and criteria for evaluation and selection as a proposal which is solicited through advertising. D. Negotiated proposals will be considered under the following circumstances: 1. Special types of housing such as group homes, congregate homes, handicapped facilities, etc. 2. Proposals from local government entities, such as local housing authorities, especially when such proposals tie in specifically with other community efforts such as NSA, UDAQ, DC, etc. 3. Special unit allocation from HUD for a specific purpose. 4. Where the Authority deems a certain type of housing or need exists which cannot otherwise be developed efficiently or in a timely manner. An example might be family-rehab., scattered sites, etc. 5. Proposals for sites or buildings with unique or unusual characteristics - such as historical significance, alternate housing, energy conservation, etc. 6. Where the Authority feels a special purpose or new program can be achieved which will enhance the delivery of housing such as in hard-to-reach rural areas. Reservation Policies 7. When the Authority deems that a proposal would serve an immediate production schedule such as inclusion in a bond issue, HUD schedules, reservations of units from HUD, etc. An example would be when there are fall-out units prior to bond sale and the units would not be otherwise funded. 8. Where a project is in jeopardy (such as after funding is committed) and the Authority determines that back-up development is needed immediately. E. When the Authority advertises within an area or community, negotiated proposals may be included for review along with those proposed in response to the advertisements if such proposals meet criteria under III A. and are currently on file within the Authority. F. Negotiated proposals may be submitted at any time. While the Authority personnel should make decisions on the acceptability of any proposal within 60 days of submission, negotiated proposals generally do not require strict deadlines. G. NOTE: See IV D. # VI. MSHA RESERVATION The Authority reserves the right to advertise in an area or community at any time whether or not advertising has taken place previously, or a proposal has been accepted or rejected. NOTICE: All developers who, as of April 6, 1978, have proposals in the Authority files, pending action, will receive a letter explaining the policy on the solicitation of housing development proposals and will be asked to respond in writing if they want their proposals to be considered under these policies. This notification should include announcements of areas or communities in which the Authority intends to advertise in preparation for Summer 1978 bond sale. Developers who have little chance of having their proposals selected for unit reservation by December, 1978 should be notified of such. Developers who fail to respond to this request by 30 days from date of the MSHA letter will have proposals returned to them. Developers who have submitted proposals which are eligible for consideration for the 1978 Summer bond sale and who have agreed to have their proposals considered under these policies must have an Authority determination within the same time frame as proposals solicited through advertising. Procedures for Proposals April 10, 1978 Page 2 (1) Deadlines. Proposals shall be submitted within 30 days from the date of an advertisement. The Authority should make decisions on all proposals with respect to site/developer acceptability within 60 days from the date of an advertisement. (2) Communities, or a list of communities included in an area. (3) The total number of units available for an area or community, the types of units that the Authority would be willing to consider for an area or community and the mix of new construction and rehabilitation units. Any other special restraints should also be noted. (4) Developer Information Form and Site Evaluation Form (5) Site Criteria (6) Information on MSHA construction and design standards (7) Brief explanation of the Section 8 Program and the stages of processing. (8) Rent Schedule (9) Statement on the applicability of all Federal, State and local statutes, regulations and ordinances. (10) Proposal evaluation and selection procedures. (11) Statement regarding the Authority's right to reject proposals not responsive to the invitation and MSHA's right to reject any proposal. ### III. EVALUATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSALS A. Development will pre-screen proposals to determine compatibility and consistency with Authority policies and criteria. Development may immediately reject any proposals which do not comply with the terms of the Authority's advertisement, or which are clearly not feasible in accordance with the Authority's site, development, or underwriting criteria. Such rejected proposals shall be returned to the Developer with an explanatory letter. B. There shall be a formal site review for each proposal which is not rejected under III A. above. The Site Selection Committee will make a formal determination as to site acceptability. The determination will be based upon MSHA and HUD site criteria. C. There shall be a formal Developer review for each proposal which is not rejected under III A. above. Development will make a determination on the acceptability of a Developer and his team (architect, contractor and management agent), based on: Procedures for Proposals April 10, 1978 Page 3 1. past experience and performance 2. financial capability 3. ability and performance of Development team (architect, contractor and management agent) 4. ability to manage projects presently in operation (the MSHA Management Division will approve the management agent). D. Development shall reject proposals not acceptable under the Site/Developer criteria within 30 days of the submission deadline, and proposals will be returned to the Developer accompanied by an explanatory letter. E. If Items III A, B & C above are met, Development will make an analysis of proposals based on the following items: 1. town need 2. compatibility with the local housing plan and preferences. 3. compatibility with MSHA's policy on consent resolutions. 4. all things being equal, family units will be given first priority. 5. other factors considered relevant, including but not limited to any significant legal constraints, relocation problems, and so forth. # IV. SELECTION OF PROPOSALS FOR UNIT RESERVATION A. All proposals submitted to the Authority which are acceptable under Site/Developer criteria and have been analyzed by Development under III E. above, shall be presented to the Executive Committee, together with Development's recommendations for selection. The Executive Committee shall select or reject each proposal based on the relative acceptability of Site and Developer, and on the criteria listed under III E. above. B. Depending on the timeliness of unit allocations from HUD, fallout units, and additional units, Executive Committee decisions should be made within 45 days of the submission deadline. C. Developers whose proposals are selected by the Executive Committee will be given a "notice to proceed with processing" letter. Proposals not selected for unit reservation will be returned to the Developer, along with a letter notifying the Developer that the proposals can be resubmitted to MSHA and filed for future consideration. A written request for submission must accompany the proposal. Any proposal returned to the Developer with such notification must be "acceptable" under MSHA's Site/Developer criteria. Any Developer with an "acceptable" proposal which the Authority believes has little chance of unit reservation within a year should be formally notified of this at the time his proposal is returned to him. Any proposal which the Executive Procedures for Proposals April 10, 1978 Page 4 Committee decides should not be given further consideration for unit reservation should be rejected. Rejection must be accompanied by an explanatory letter. All notifications under this paragraph should be forwarded to the Developer within 7 days of the Executive Committee approval or rejection. D. NOTE: The Authority will not make unit allocations to any proposals until 1) units are received from HUD, 2) funding is certain (within some limitations such as anticipated bond sale, bonding authorization, etc.), 3) the Authority commits to fund a proposal. # V. NEGOTIATED PROPOSALS A. The Maine State Housing Authority is not limited to advertising for proposals. Negotiated proposals will be considered if the Maine State Housing Authority determines that the situation and proposals so warrant. B. It should be emphasized that negotiated proposals will be reviewed in the context of Authority plans for housing development across the state. Developers should be attentive to areas and communities which have been designated as having priority for housing assistance. In all cases these will be given first consideration for funding. C. Any negotiated proposal will be subject to the same policies and criteria for evaluation and selection as a proposal which is solicited through advertising. D. Negotiated proposals will be considered under the following circumstances: 1. Special types of housing such as group homes, congregate homes, handicapped facilities, etc. 2. Proposals from local government entities, such as local housing authorities, especially when such proposals tie in specifically with other community efforts such as NSA, UDAQ, CD, etc. 3. Special unit allocation from HUD for a specific purpose. 4. Where the Authority deems a certain type of housing or need exists which cannot otherwise be developed efficiently or in a timely manner. An example might be family-rehab., scattered sites, etc. 5. Proposals for sites or buildings with unique or unusual characteristics - such as historical significance, alternate housing, energy conservation, etc. Procedures for Proposals April 10, 1978 Page 5 6. Where the Authority feels a special purpose or new program can be achieved which will enhance the delivery of housing such as in hard-to-reach rural areas. 7. When the Authority deems that a proposal would serve an immediate production schedule such as inclusion in a bond issue, HUD schedules, reservations of units from HUD, etc. An example would be when there are fall-out units prior to a bond sale and the units would not be otherwise funded. 8. Where a project is in jeopardy (such as after funding is committed) and the Authority determines that back-up development is needed immediately. E. When the Authority advertises within an area or community, negotiated proposals may be included for review along with those proposed in response to the advertisements if such proposals meet criteria under III A and are currently on file within the Authority. F. Negotiated proposals may be submitted at any time. While the Authority personnel should make decisions on the acceptability of any proposal within 60 days of submission, negotiated proposals generally do not require strict deadlines. G. NOTE: See IV D. ### VI. MSHA RESERVATION The Authority reserves the right to advertise in an area or community at any time whether or not advertising has taken place previously, or a proposal has been accepted or rejected. NOTICE: All developers who, as of April 6, 1978, have proposals in the Authority files, pending action, will receive a letter explaining the policy on the solicitation of housing development proposals and will be asked to respond in writing if they want their proposals to be considered under these policies. This notification should include announcements of areas or communities in which the Authority intends to advertise in preparation for Summer 1978 bond sale. Developers who have little chance of having their proposals selected for unit reservation by December, 1978 should be notified of such. Developers who fail to respond to this request by 30 days from date of the MSHA letter will have proposals returned to them. Developers who have submitted proposals which are eligible for consideration for the 1978 Summer bond sale and who have agreed to have their proposals considered under these policies must have an Authority determination within the same time frame as proposals solicited through advertising. CKG/jtm