HUD Announces Changes to the Definitions of “Foreclosed” and “Abandoned” for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Last Friday the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released two Notices affecting the Neighborhood Stabilization Programs 1 and 2. Specifically, HUD is changing how it defines “foreclosed” and “abandoned” to include properties in mortgage default and uninhabitable homes with lingering housing code violations.
The original definition of foreclosed made eligible only those properties where the foreclosure process had been completed. Grantees had complained to HUD that this definition was overly restrictive and preventing addressing those homes which were in poor condition and where the foreclosure process was lingering. Properties will now be eligible for NSP assistance when any of the following conditions apply: the mortgage on a property is at least 60 days delinquent and the owner has been notified; the property owner is 90 days or more delinquent on tax payments to the jurisdiction; foreclosure proceeds have been initiated or completed under state or local law; or foreclosure proceedings have been completed and title has been transferred to an intermediary aggregator or servicer that is not an NSP grantee, subrecipient, developer or end user.
Under the Notice HUD has abandoned the definition or “abandoned” from the current requirement that that the property had been foreclosed on and vacant for at least 90 days to now include homes where no mortgage or tax payments have been made on the property for at least 90 days or a code enforcement inspection has determined that the property is not inhabitable and the owner has taken no corrective action within 90 days of notification of the deficiencies.
The first Notice (attached), Docket No. 5321-N-03, which applies to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program 1, is retroactive to the date of the submission by grantees to HUD of a Substantial Amendment and Action Plan, and it becomes effective on the date of the Notice’s publication in the Federal Register, probably Thursday of this week.
The second Notice (attached), Docket No. FR – 5321-N-04, applies the changes in definition to the NSP 2 program. NSP 2 grantees may apply these revised definitions as of the effective date of their grant agreements.
The expanding definitions come in response to concerns express by grantees that the pervious, narrower definitions were hampering program implementation. Grantees are faced with a September 30 th requirement to have all NSP 1 funds obligated. HUD has been working diligently with grantees it has identified as potentially having difficulty in meeting this deadline.
Assistant Secretary Marquez Announces FY 2010 CPD Formula Allocations; Urges Consideration for Returning Veterans in Shaping Programs, and Reporting of Performance Measures
In announcing FY 2010 allocations last week for the Community Development Block Grant, HOME, Emergency Shelter Grants and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, HUD Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and development Mercedes Marquez made two requests: “... First, the Department urges grantees to consider the needs or returning veterans and their families in the design and administration of these formula grant programs. Our fellow Americans have served our nation on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan and countless other places around the globe. Many veterans are returning to our communities with wounds and injuries that may make it difficult for them to find housing or support themselves and /or their families. I ask that you consider their sacrifice and ensure that these men and women receive every appropriate consideration in the use of these funds at the local level.
Second, it is important that HUD have complete performance measurement data for its formula grant programs to report to Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and the public at large. Grantees must report outcome indicators for all open activities in the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS) to assess their performance toward achieving their objectives and outcomes in their Consolidate Annual Performance and Evaluation Report...”
House Democrats Pushing nearly $100 Billion for Creation of Public Sector Jobs Bill
House Democrats, led by Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) have introduced H.R. 4812, the “Local Jobs for America Act of 2010.” The bill, which currently has 105 cosponsors, would provide $75 billion over two years ($37.5 billion per year) to states and units of local government to save or create jobs using a variant of the Community Development Block Grant formula. Seventy percent of the funds would be allocated to entitlement cities and urban counties, 25% on the basis of population, 25% on poverty, and 50%on unemployment, and 30% to the states on the basis of the same formula. Of the states’ share 50% must be made available to units of local government in non-entitlement areas and 50% to community based organizations to provide by contract services not customarily provided by a unit of local government in the area. The program would be administered by the Department of Labor.
Grantees could use five percent of their funds for administrative purposes, and there would be no local match. Each grantee could use up to 50% of its funding to retain employees that might otherwise lose their jobs because of budget shortfalls. Grantees may use the remaining funding to hire new employees or rehire those previously terminated There is no requirement to retain employees once the funding runs out. Employees would have to be hired on a full-time basis with benefits under existing labor contract or agreements. There is no cap on a per-employee cost; however no more than 20% of the funds can be used for management employees.
The bill also provides $23 billion to help states support an estimated 250,000 education jobs, $1.18 billion to hire 5,500 law enforcement officers, $500 million to hire and retain fire fighters and $500 million for 50,000 additional on-the-job training positions to help private business expand employment.
House leaders are expected when they return from the Passover/Easter recess to decide how to handle the bill. It is possible there will be no markup in the Committee and the bill taken directly to the floor. No comparable legislation has been introduced in the Senate. While House passage is likely the legislation would face an uphill battle for passage in the Senate where 60 votes would be needed for its consideration and passage.
Legislative Update (Taken from the Online NACCED Alert dated May 21, 2007)
House, Senate Approve FY 2008 Congressional Budget Resolution By votes of 214-209 and 52-40 respectively, the House and Senate gave final approval to S. Con. Res 21, the $2.9 trillion FY 2008 congressional budget resolution. The resolution is important because it sets an overall ceiling on domestic discretionary spending that must be abided by when Congress considers the 12 annual appropriations bills.
The resolution, which does not require President Bush's signature, sets a domestic discretionary ceiling of $452.3 billion, $1.7 billion below the House version and $5.2 billion above what was assumed in the Senate version. This is a $13.5 billion, or 3.1 percent increase over the FY 2007 level. This will allow for increases in some domestic programs. In the explanation accompanying the resolution, it states: "The conference agreement provides funding for continued investments in and additional resources for community development and homeland security, including community development block grants, interoperable communications equipment grants, and emergency management performance grant programs." This should be good news for NACCED members hoping for an increase in CDBG formula funding. Whether this wish is realized depends on the share of the discretionary funding ceiling that is allocated to the House and Senate Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Subcommittees. In an effort to influence the outcome, NACCED and other national associations of elected and appointed state and local government officials secured the signatures of a bipartisan group of 62 senators on a letter to Senate Subcommittee chair Patty Murray (D-WA) and ranking republican Christopher Bond (MO), urging them to increase CDBG formula grants to $4.1 billion. There will be fierce competition within the appropriations subcommittee as the Bush Administration budget under-funds the Section 8 programs and the public housing capital program, zeroes out the HOPE VI demolition and replacement of severely distressed public housing program, and recommends one half of the funding needed for Amtrak. The House Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee is expected to mark up its version of the HUD spending bill in June. Its Senate counterpart is expected to mark up its version in July.
The budget resolution assumes the extension of middle class tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, but only if they are paid for from a projected surplus in 2012. It also assumes a one-year patch to prevent the Alternative Minimum Tax from affecting additional taxpayers, and it increases the federal debt limit by $850 billion to $9.8 trillion. Passage of the budget resolution was a test of whether democrats could govern. Congress failed to pass a budget resolution in three of the last five years.
House Begins Debate on GSE Reform Bill Last Thursday the House began consideration of H.R 1427, the "Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007." The bill would create a new, independent regulator for the Government-Sponsored Enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks, to provide closer oversight of these financial institutions. Under the bill the regulator would have the ability to impose a cap on the size of the GSEs' portfolios. However, an amendment adopted during debate only allows the regulator to impose such a cap for safety and soundness reasons and not because of a perceived systemic risk. Many, including former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, have argued that the size of Fannie and Freddie's portfolios is a threat to the economy and should be shrunk. Others, including NACo and NACCED, have pointed out that Fannie and Freddie cannot be asked to do more for affordable housing without the ability to spread their risk.
House Financial Services ranking republican Spencer Bachus (AL) introduced another amendment to delete the bill's affordable housing fund; it was defeated by a vote 269-149. The fund, estimated to total approximately $525 million for each of the next five years, would provide assistance to very low- and extremely low-income families. For the first year it would be allocated to Louisiana and Mississippi for hurricane recovery and thereafter to states based on a formula to be developed by HUD. NACo, NACCED and others have argued that the GSEs themselves should administer the fund so that they can leverage their other investments. House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) stated during the committee's mark up of the bill that he intended to consider legislation later this session creating a national housing trust fund, and that he intended to fold the GSE affordable housing fund into it with an allocation system comparable to the HOME program.
When the House resumes consideration of the bill tomorrow, an amendment is expected to be offered to replace the affordable housing fund with Section 8 vouchers. Another amendment pending will be a proposal to redistribute affordable housing fund grants in the first year by reducing the amount allocated to Louisiana to 70% and Mississippi to 20% and giving 10% to Texas.
About NACCED
National Association for County Community and Economic Development (NACCED) is a nonprofit national organization composed of county government agencies that administer community development, economic development, and affordable housing programs. NACCED was created as an affiliate of the National Association of Counties (NACo) in 1978 to assist in developing the technical capacity of county agencies in administering these programs. NACCED also serves as a voice within NACo to articulate the needs, concerns, and interests of these agencies.
We are still waiting for the Office of Community Planning and Development to release the FY 2010 allocations for CDBG and HOME. They are expected in the next day or so. Once released NACCED will circulate to the membership.
CDBG-R PROGRAM UPDATE (From Steve Johnson, Director, Entitlement Communities Division, Office of Block Grant Assistance):
SPECIAL RECOVERY ACT REPORTING EDITION
FederalReporting.gov: The Next Quarterly Reporting Period Draws Near!
Reporting will cover the period January 1 –March 31, 2010. Section 1512 of the Recovery Act requires that all recipients, sub recipients and contractors of Recovery Act funding report on a number of data elements, such as jobs and dollars spent. Timetable references to sub recipient reporting refer to situations where the grantee (prime recipient) has delegated direct reporting responsibility in FederalReporting.gov to sub recipients. Where a grantee is handling all FederalReporting data entry itself, the grantee is to review and verify the information provided to them by their sub recipients prior to data entry. Grantees also need to enter or update their environmental review information in RAMPS.
Expected Timetable: (Dates subject to change by OMB)
April 1-10
Grantees and sub recipients report in FederalReporting.gov
April 10
Deadline to report Environmental data into RAMPS for this quarter (Grantees’ ability to enter data in RAMPS is ongoing)
April 11–12
Grantees review data submitted by sub recipients; grantees and sub recipients revise data; HUD has ‘view only’ access to data
April 13-30
HUD data review and comment period for data entered by grantees and sub recipients
April 15
HUD submits quarterly report on the status of funded activities to Council on Environmental Quality, using RAMPS data as of April 10
April 30
Reporting Period Ends
May 1
Recovery Act Transparency Board posts as-reported data to Recovery.gov
May 3-June 15
System re-opens to make error corrections to reports that were created from January 1-April 10. HUD comments on grantee reports; grantees review sub recipients’ reports; prime recipients and sub recipients correct reports
Deadlines are as of midnight Pacific Time
Minimizing Reporting Errors in FederalReporting.gov:
Thanks to the dedicated efforts of HUD grantees and field office staff, the CDBG-R program achieved a 98.8% successful reporting rate in January. Thank you! However, we still have room for improvement when it comes to the accuracy of the data being reported. Among the most common – and easily avoidable – errors are:
Submitting duplicate reports (or failing to deactivate an erroneous report upon submitting a corrected report)
Entering an Invalid Award Type (incorrectly reporting as a contractor rather than as a grantee)
Entering an Invalid Award ID, (entering something other than your grant number, or mistyping the grant number, e.g. entering ‘001’ instead of ‘0001’)
Entering an Invalid Award Amount, (e.g. the ‘Amount Received’ does not match the amount of your CDBG-R grant)
Entering an Award Date other than the one on your Grant Agreement
Entering an incorrect DUNS number
Entering the wrong Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number, Treasury Accounting Symbol (TAS) number, or Awarding Agency Code number
An Excel file, “Grantee Specific Data for CDBG-R” is attached to this message. (This is the same spreadsheet sent to field offices via CDBG Program Update #57 in December.) HUD has developed this spreadsheet with pre-populated standard data elements for all grantees, to assist grantees in reporting the correct information, and to reduce the frequency of errors.
• Before submitting their April report, grantees should ensure that the information on this spreadsheet is correct, and should compare this information with what the grantee reported in their January report.
• Blank data cells on this spreadsheet represent situations in which grantee data was missing at the time the spreadsheet was prepared in December. Grantees should verify that this information is now correctly entered in their report. If a grantee already entered the missing data for their January report, nothing further needs to be done.
• If a grantee feels its data is in error, contact the FederalReporting.gov help desk or HUD's Recovery reporting help desk for assistance in changing information.
Correcting Errors in FederalReporting.gov :
Grantees should keep the following pointers in mind as they prepare their April reports.
There is now a ‘Copy Forward’ feature that allows grantees to use the previous quarter’s report to populate the next report. Instructions on how to use this feature can be found on FederalReporting at:
If a grantee is using the ‘copy forward’ feature of FederalReporting.gov, any data elements that a grantee incorrectly entered in January will be copied as is into the April report. Grantees will need to manually correct the inaccurate elements in their April report before submitting it.
If a grantee accidentally de-activates its “correct” report instead of de-activating an incorrect or duplicate report, the grantee should immediately contact HUD’s Recovery Act Reporting help desk. A grantee cannot recover a de-activated report on its own.
There is now a post-reporting-deadline ‘Quality Assurance Period’. All January reports were “unlocked” from February 2- March 15 for grantees and federal agencies to perform Quality Assurance (QA) checks and error corrections. The same process will be available during May-June 2010.
During the Agency review period and again during the Quality Assurance Period, HUD may enter review comments on grantee reports. Some comments may note an erroneous entry that the grantee needs to fix; other comments may concern data flagged as possibly inaccurate. Grantees should check FederalReporting.gov for any HUD error messages during these periods. If you have received an error message comment, please post an appropriate response comment, either verifying that the information is correct as entered or acknowledging that the erroneous entry will be corrected. Be sure to make the corrections promptly!
Grantees cannot de-activate a duplicate report during the Quality Assurance Period. After the April 11-12 grantee data review period ends, only OMB can de-activate duplicate reports. Please contact the HUD Recovery Reporting call center should you need a report de-activated after April 12.
There is no way to correct a report that has been inaccurately submitted with the Award Type of ‘Contractor’ instead of ‘Grantee’. Because the reporting requirements for grantees and contractors are fundamentally different, the only thing a grantee can do is to make sure they report as a Grantee the next time.
Before hitting the ‘submit’ button, make sure that the report is not showing up as a ‘draft’ report! The system will generate a “successfully submitted” message, but a draft report will not actually be sent to HUD. Hitting the ‘submit’ button does not trigger any data review/error checking function in FederalReporting.gov.
Similarly, hitting the ‘submit’ button for a report that contains incorrect data (like a wrong grant number or wrong Awarding Agency Code) will generate a “successfully submitted” message, but the inaccurate data may prevent the report from being sent to HUD, or HUD may not be able to identify which grantee the report belongs to.
Jobs reporting:
On March 18, HUD issued a revised Jobs Calculator as an optional aid to grantees in computing and reporting on jobs created/retained with Recovery Act funding. This new calculator is consistent with OMB’s December 18, 2009 revised job counting guidance and approved by OMB. The current version is attached, and will shortly be posted to the HUD.gov/recovery webpage. Grantees should NOT use previous versions of the job calculator, as they do not comply with the current OMB jobs guidance.
In reviewing grantees’ January reports, HUD particularly focused on grantees whose reported jobs numbers suggest significant undercounting or over counting, grants that are more than 50% expended but reported 0 jobs, and reports with missing or insufficiently-detailed narratives regarding job creation/retention. HUD submitted review comments on about 15% of grantees’ CDBG-R January reports, requesting that grantees verify or correct their reported information. Based on the numbers they reported, it appears some grantees used the outdated June 22, 2009 OMB job counting guidance to compute their jobs data, not the newer guidance.
All grantees should make sure they follow OMB's December 18, 2009 job reporting guidance memo, M-10-08. This is available on the FederalReporting.gov site, and on OMB’s website at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-08.pdf. Instructions for grantees begin with part 2 on page 10. This memorandum makes several notable changes from the June 22, 2009 Recovery Act job counting guidance:
Grantees now report on jobs created or retained for that quarter only, based on all hours worked during that quarter. Jobs reporting is no longer cumulative over the life of the grant. The instructions for computing jobs on a quarterly basis have been simplified and clarified.
The guidance provides definitions of jobs considered to be created or retained. A job is to be counted as created or retained only if the wages or salaries are either paid for or will be reimbursed with Recovery Act funding.
Where an activity is funded by multiple funding sources, the job creation/retention figures funding are to be prorated based on the proportion of the activity funded with Recovery Act funds.
The FederalReporting.gov job counting methodology is significantly different from the computation of jobs to demonstrate CDBG Low/Mod Jobs national objective compliance. The number of jobs reported as created/retained in FederalReporting.gov may bear no relationship to the number of jobs reported in IDIS for national objectives purposes. For example, if a grantee makes an economic development loan to a business to purchase machinery for an expansion, the resulting new jobs would not be countable in FederalReporting.gov, because the CDBG-R funds were used to purchase machinery, not to pay employee salaries. On the other hand, grantee or sub recipient staff whose salary is being paid for with CDBG-R administrative funds may be counted as a Recovery Act-assisted job in FederalReporting.gov.
Grantees may wish to re-view HUD's January 6 webcast on CDBG-R recipient reporting, which includes a discussion of the revised job counting methodology. The webcast is available at: http://www.hud.gov/webcasts/archives/recoveryact.cfm
‘Buy American’ Exception Granted by DoE:
CPD Notice 09-05, concerning implementation of the Buy American requirements for CDBG Recovery Act funds, indicates that if another Federal agency grants a Buy American exception under Section 1605(b) for a project, HUD will permit the HUD grantee to apply that exception for the remainder of HUD-assisted work in that project. On February 11, the U.S. Department of Energy granted a waiver of the Buy American requirements for certain LED traffic lights and fluorescent lighting fixtures. Pursuant to CPD-09-05, CDBG-R grantees may apply this DoE determination to applicable CDBG-R activities as well. The Department of Energy determination is attached as a PDF file.
Expiring Central Contractor Registrations (CCR):
Grantees may be unaware that their CCR registrations expire and must be renewed. Several CDBG-R grantees were unable to submit their January reports because their registration had expired. Grantees must maintain current registration at CCR to receive federal grant funding and to report on Recovery Act funds in FederalReporting.gov. HUD’s Office of Departmental Grants Management Oversight has compiled a list of all HUD grantees whose Central Contractor Registrations will expire on or before April 11, 2010. (A list of the 89 affected CDBG-R grantees is attached.) ODGMO staff sent the following reminder e-mail to those grantees, providing instructions on how to renew or update a grantee’s registration records:
HUD’s records show that the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) for __(grantee name)__, DUNS __(number)__ expired or will expire _(date)_. You must maintain current, active registration at CCR in order to receive federal grant funding and to submit required reports to FederalReporting.gov regarding funds received under the Recovery Act.
Please go to https://www.bpn.gov/ccr/default.aspx and update the registration for __(grantee name)__. If all information contained in the CCR record is still valid and accurate, you may simply select “Renew.” If any information has changed please update it, then submit. Please update or renew as soon as possible and no later than next week to ensure there will be no disruption to your grant payments or your ability to report.
If you are unable or unsure how to update your record, you can print out the CCR user guide or contact the Federal Service Desk between 8am and 8pm Eastern Time at 866-606-8220 or 334-206-7828. If after consulting these resources you still have difficulty, please call HUD’s Office of Departmental Grants Management and Oversight at 202-402-3964. Another resource available to you from HUD is your regular grant officer or program contact in your local HUD office.
HUD Regional Place-Based Meetings on Recovery Act funding:
HUD Deputy Secretary Ron Sims is undertaking a series of regional video conferences with HUD field offices and Headquarters program offices to examine grantees’ progress in implementing all HUD Recovery Act funding. These meetings highlight grantee success stories as well as obstacles that grantees face in their efforts to implement Recovery Act-funded activities. Four regional conferences have already been held. Deputy Secretary Sims will meet with HUD offices in HUD Regions I, III and IX in April, and with regions V, VII and VIII in May. Grantees – particularly those who appear to be “behind the curve” in expending funds –can expect inquiries from their HUD Field Offices requesting implementation status updates. Grantees should be prepared to explain when funds will be under contract, when drawdowns will begin, when activities will be completed, what problems have caused delays, when accomplishments will be reported, etc. However, grantees and field offices should also identify success stories that can be shared as model practices for other communities.
Status of CDBG-R Expenditures:
Attached is a report showing the expenditure status of all CDBG-R grantees as of March 15, 2010. This Excel spreadsheet contains tables showing all grantees by field office; aggregate data by state and HUD region; and ranking all grantees by drawdown ratio. Nationally, 14.8% of CDBG-R funds have been drawn down; nationally, 76.6% of CDBG-R money has been funded to specific activities in IDIS. 116 grantees have drawn down at least 90% of their funds, including 64 grantees that have drawn down 100% of their funds. On the other hand, almost 1/3 of all grantees have drawn down nothing. 150 grantees have not even associated any of their CDBG-R funds to specific activities in IDIS. While funding activities in IDIS is not technically required until a grantee wants to draw funds down, HUD encourages grantees to fund activities in IDIS as soon as practicable.
HUD strongly encourages grantees to make regular draw downs of CDBG-R funds. Given the great scrutiny placed on Recovery Act expenditure performance plus the serious budget shortfalls many local governments face, it does not make sense for a grantee to ‘front end’ expenditures with local funds and reimburse themselves with only quarterly, semi-annually or yearly IDIS draw downs.
CDBG-R Accomplishments Reported To Date:
As more CDBG-R activities get underway, grantees are beginning to report projected and actual accomplishment data in IDIS. Nationally, grantees project that:
13,669 housing units will receive housing rehabilitation assistance
487 new housing units will be constructed with CDBG-R assistance
2,284 businesses will receive economic development assistance
Over 2.3 million persons will benefit from public facilities activities
Over 9.9 million persons will benefit from public services activities
682 units of housing rehabilitation are reported in IDIS as completed; accomplishment data for other types of activities is still spotty. Grantees can expect increasing attention to be paid to their Recovery Act accomplishments, by HUD, Congress, federal oversight agencies and the public. For some activities, no benefits can be reported until the entire activity is completed. However, whenever partial/incremental accomplishments can be reported, HUD strongly encourages grantees to frequently update their accomplishment data in IDIS (instead of waiting until activity completion). Housing rehabilitation, economic development and certain public service activities are particularly amenable to more frequent updating of accomplishment data.
For additional help:
HUD’s Recovery Act Reporting Call Center, 1-800-998-9999, is available to answer a wide variety of CDBG-R reporting questions. The call center is available 8:30am to 5:30pm EDT, Monday to Friday, with expanded hours April 1-10. You may also e-mail the help center at
. HUD has posted a variety of resources about reporting on the HUD Recovery Act website: http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/RECOVERY/Reporting . This site also provides links to other resources, such as the CCR registration website and the Dun & Bradstreet registration website.
NACCED Compiles Information for General Accountability Office on Urban County CDBG Allocation Methods, Impact of Citizen Participation
In preparation for a March 16 th meeting with staff from the General Accountability Office, NACCEC staff surveyed the membership for answers to several questions being asked as part of a study for the Chair of the Hose Housing Subcommittee. NACCEDC Executive Director, John Murphy, and National Community Development Association Executive Director, Cardell Cooper, met with GAO officials to discuss answers to the questions. A summary of the he NACCED responses is set forth below. The complete responses are attached.
Findings/Conclusions for NACCED Survey on GAO CDBG Questions
NACCED members, i.e. the Nation’s urban counties, take very seriously the need for wise stewardship of CDBG funds as evidenced by their answers to GAO’s questions.
Question One – Key Factors that Determine how an Urban County Decides to Use and Distribute CDBG Funds?
They have well-thought out methods for allocating funds
Community need, particularly for low-and moderate-income areas and priorities (county and municipal) are key
Heavy Reliance on the Consolidated Plan
Some use the statute’s formula allocation factors in distributing funds to cooperating jurisdictions – giving back to communities what they bring to the county’s funding level through their demographics
Others use Request for Proposals and points/ranking systems
Competition for the county’s CDBG is very keen – more request than can be funded
Most counties have an advisory committee to make recommendations on what to fund and how much
Final decisions on what’s funded rests with the county’ governing body
Counties typically retain some portion of their funds for countywide projects/programs
Geographic distribution of funds is often a priority
Track record/competence of those funded including timeliness of expenditures is a strong factor in who’s funded
County staff is heavily involved in staffing the process
Question 2 – Use of Subrecipients v. Government Agencies, both County and Municipal
County agencies often compete for funds just like communities and non-profit organizations
Who performs an activity depends on who’s good at it, e.g. infrastructure (usually government) v. public/social services (usually a non-profit)
Cooperating jurisdictions may also use their city departments for activities or make sub-grants to non-profits
Some counties fund available networks of service providers to create efficiencies and help them maintain the presence in the community
Question 3 – Impact of Citizen Participation on the Process?
Citizen participation/public hearing process is very important in most urban counties to determine need and help establish funding priorities
Cooperating cities as well as urban counties hold public hearings to solicit citizen input
Some urban counties report that the CP process rarely influences funding decisions
Most say CP helps inform County governing bodies in their deliberations
CP process informs both the Consolidated Plan as well as the Annual Action processes
Citizen advisory bodies are often used to conduct the CP process
Question 4 – Making Public the Rankings, including those Not Funded?
A number of urban counties said no they did not rank or make public the results of who was not funded
Most urban counties use rankings and make them public. Rankings are done by county staff usually in consultation with a citizens advisory committee
Some county staff discourage “unfundable” – e.g. ineligible, low-ranking/non-priority applications
County staff usually let unfunded applicants know why they weren’t funded and offer to provide technical assistance to help them be more competitive in the future
NACCED, NCDA Comment on Proposed NOFA on Sustainable Communities Integrated Planning Grant Program
At the request of HUD’s Office of Sustainability NACCEDC and NCDA provided comments on the proposed Notice of Funds Availability. The request posed a series of questions upon which HUD wanted feedback before releasing the NOFA in mid-April. The NOFA will provide $100 million for integrated, regional planning grants that Congress appropriated for FY 2010.
The text of the letter follows:
March 12, 2010
Office of Sustainable Communities
Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7 th Street, SW, Room 10180
Washington, DC 20410
Re: Docket No. FR-5396-N-01
Dear Sir/Madam:
On behalf of the National Community Development Association (NCDA) and the National Association for County Community and Economic Development (NACCED) we are pleased to submit the following comments on the Advanced Notice for HUD’s Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Program. NCDA is a non-profit national association composed mainly of the city government practitioners that administer HUD’s Community Development Block Grant, HOME, and ESG formula grant programs. NACCED represents mainly county government practitioners that administer these same programs. Thus, the associations have a keen interest in the Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Program.
1. Maximum Funding Levels
• Reduce the size of the small metropolitan or rural area population to a maximum
of 199,999 and reduce the grant amount to $500,000. This will allow for
sufficient funding of small metropolitan planning grants, while providing the
opportunity for more applicants to be served by the program NCDA and NACCED support reservation of 25% of the funds for allocation to small metropolitan areas (under 499,999).
• Create a new category for medium metropolitan areas with a population of 200,000 to 499,999 with a maximum grant amount of $2 million.
• Maintain the population threshold of 500,000 for large metropolitan areas, but reduce the maximum grant amount to $4 million.
We further support the expectation that at least 20% of the overall costs of the planning effort funded by the grant will come from non-federal sources and particularly support the eligibility of in-kind contributions. We further support the set-aside of $2 million in program funds to provide technical assistance to successful applicants.
Funding should only be provided to those regions that have a demonstrated positive climate for implementation, primarily the experience, political will and expected resources to execute the plan. Furthermore, the program needs to give consideration to what geographic areas are considered regions. Some large cities and counties constitute their own regions. Large cities and counties that can demonstrate they have large-scale sustainability projects and plans contained within their borders should be permitted to apply for the Category 2 and Category 3 grants alone.
2. Category 1: Regional Plans for Sustainable Development
What specific types of eligible activities would support this effort and which parties should be part of the regional planning process?
Eligible activities should include those indicated in the advance NOFA along with administrative costs of local staff and consultants involved in the grant. Local government agencies responsible for affordable housing development, community development, planning, economic development, transportation development, infrastructure development, and environmental planning within the region should all be involved in the planning process; however, there should not be a requirement for a minimum number of participants in the planning process.
What elements should be part of the plan, such as a region-wide vision and statement of goals, long term development and infrastructure investment map, implementation strategy and/or funding plan?
All of these items should be included in the plan as well as data analysis, urban design and outreach efforts to achieve broad consensus among groups, citizens, and decision- makers for a single vision/scenario and to have the plan once finalized adopted by all appropriate governmental bodies.
How can citizens best participate, such as through a requirement for participation in a minimum number of public meetings to ensure broad regional consensus?
Public participation should occur at meetings around the region, once a draft plan has been created. However, it is not the number of meetings held but rather the mechanism utilized to solicit meaningful input that should be the measure here.
Should regional plans for sustainable development be expected to harmonize and be consistent with HUD, DOT, and EPA-required plans and, if so, how? Should regional plans for sustainable development show a linkage to local formula-based programs supported by HUD, DOT, and EPA; and, if so, to what extent should such linkage be required?
The Sustainable Communities Planning Grant does not provide a significant amount of funding and will need to be leveraged with other resources. Therefore it should be consistent with local formula-based programs like those covered by the Consolidated Plan. HUD, EPA, and DOT programs should be targeted at, and coordinated with, projects and initiatives that were begun or enhanced as a result of the planning grant. For example, HUD’s Choice Neighborhood Initiative, Catalytic Competitive Grants and rental housing initiatives fit perfectly into this regional approach.
3. Category 2: Detailed Execution Plans and Programs
What specific types of activities should be eligible for funding in this category?
All of the implementation activities listed within this category are the appropriate activities to focus upon: inter-jurisdiction affordable and fair housing strategies, regional transportation investment programs, corridor transit-oriented development plans, sector or area plans, land banking and acquisition strategies, revenue sharing strategies, economic development strategies, plans to improve access to community amenities, and other specific activities that help insure that the goals of the regional vision are implemented. We believe that the amount of contributed resources to support, expand, and enhance the development of implementation strategies should be rewarded in application scoring.
4. Category 3: Implementation Incentives
Ways in which the Program can reward and further incent further action by cutting edge regions?
Applicants that have adopted a Regional Sustainable Development Plan and appropriate implementation programs could usefully be pre-certified for other HUD, DOT, and EPA discretionary programs such as the Catalytic Competitive Grant program, once that program is authorized/funded by Congress. This Program funding should be that which leverages other funding to help ensure that scalable projects are brought to completion. A catalytic project is one that, but for the funding from this and other programs, would not become a reality.
4. Entities Eligible for Funding
Should certain entities be required partners in multi-jurisdictional regions?
In order to be consistent with, and build on, the plans required of HUD (e.g. consolidated plan), DOT, and EPA programs those entities responsible for creating these program plans should be required participants in developing the Regional Sustainable Development Plan and its implementation strategy.
What units of government should be allowed to serve as a lead agency for funding purposes?
Local governments and the agencies they choose for implementation, such as their housing and community development agencies, and redevelopment agencies.
What should demonstrate commitment on the part of each member organization, and whether there should be a minimum number of member organizations?
HUD should develop a capacity threshold to demonstrate that the requisite experience, resources, and infrastructure exists to implement the grant. For example, applicants that can demonstrate that they have successfully re-zoned land or financed transit-oriented development should demonstrate capacity. There should not be a requirement for a minimum number of applicants.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our views.
Sincerely,
National Community Development Association
National Association for County Community and Economic Development
