Just heard a rumor that the Sequestration would cut CDBG funding by 12%? Anyone have any insight on how CDBG may be affected. Would it be up to HUD to determine how its individual programs get cut?
Just heard a rumor that the Sequestration would cut CDBG funding by 12%? Anyone have any insight on how CDBG may be affected. Would it be up to HUD to determine how its individual programs get cut?
"I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"
I had heard that too but hadn't heard how they will carry it out
So based on the hot new 2010 census data, it looks likely that we will be upgraded to an entitlement community for 2014. Has anyone been through this process?
My primary concern at this point is creating a consolidated plan from scratch. Is it possible to hire a consultant to perform a housing study and write the first CP, then reimburse the City using CDBG administrative funds ex post facto?
I have a friend that did. Your regional HUD will be very hands-on and helpful walking you through the process... it'll also be just about the only time that they are proactively helpful. It is structured as a 2-year ramp-up period for the new entitlement to hire staff and prepare the necessary plans. You'll get at least partial funding those two years for this purpose. As far as procuring services now, that is a conversation you need to have with the HUD Rep for your region assigned to your city. Round Rock, Texas and Williamson County, Texas went through this not long ago and I think they still have people on staff that went through the start-up. I'd suggest contacting them.Originally posted by DrGrant
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Herman Göring at the Nuremburg trials (thoughts on democracy)
It gets worse. Funding levels for FY 2013 have not been established yet. The government is running on a continuing resolution that is set to expire on March 27.
The content contrarian
No feedback? I've long believed it is not as relevant for public-sector community development professionals than those working in land-use planning.
The content contrarian
I don't think it is critical compared to other aspects of planning, but it might depend on the department it is houses in and the types of projects pursued. Also, it depends on how much the CDBG program is integrated into planning projects & programs.
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Herman Göring at the Nuremburg trials (thoughts on democracy)
for me, it's useful as I do planning and community development so yeah, they go together - it factors social planning into the mix which adds to the justice and equity issues in ethics for planners too
It's 2013 and we're still using 2000 Census data to determine eligibility.
"I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"
not to be too FAC-y here but...woo hoo - my oversight committee just took all my recommendations for FY 13 funding!
my creative use of CDBG funds is: I have a person that is establishing a free cancer center for support services - as in massage therapy, nutrition counseling and meditation. It is highly probable she will have clients of low to moderate income but because she's just getting going, we don't know how many - so, we are doing it as a reimbursement with an upset limit with a contingency - so happy to help make this work because persons of low to mod income never get these "additional" services that really can help someone go through their treatments!
They aren't very helpful at explaining requirements for everything. I went there a couple of weeks ago for a program my organization is participating in. They said bring X,Y, and Z, and even gave me a list of what I needed. I said cool. I got the stuff and went back then they gave me two more lists of things that they neglected to mention last time. So I go again, and then they ask for a couple more things. Jeez! They need to get their poop together. They make things such a slow process!
Don't get me started on CDBG...
I started a job about a year ago as Planning & Development Director for a small city. The program had been used as a stop gap funding source for 5 or 10 years without a whole lot of backup information on the projects. Now HUD is asking questions and we have little to no documentation on what was going on. The City is in trouble and there isn't a whole lot I can do about it.
You mean to tell me that your local HUD representative hadn't been down reviewing/auditing your program for that long, providing feedback on action plans, etc.?!? Ours used to visit on-site about every two years and would have us pull a sample of CDBG projects & their associated documentation materials, Davis-Bacon stuff, and so on. Surely there is documentation somewhere, or else your city would have been having conversations about this years ago. Check with your finance department--they often have information that can lead you to the rest of the paper trail. If your documentation is non-existent and you can't prove up any kind of compliance, you might need to start meeting with your finance director for a different reason--to discuss repayment in anticipation of major findings.
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Herman Göring at the Nuremburg trials (thoughts on democracy)
my county HUD dude/geek is on me at least once a week by phone or email, and visits once a month, so yeah - I am sorry you are stuck with a mess!
I too am cleaning up projects pre-me and it's no fun to try to explain slum and blight when no one took any "before" pictures...
HUD and CDBG should be eliminated IMO.
Can you elaborate?
I concur.
"I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"
Being a newbie to this world, tell me why?
I am stuck managing a CDBG grant that someone else in my organization applied for. It's been a cluster because they didn't understand how the grant worked and anything about prevailing wage.
I will never apply for a CDBG grant again unless the prevailing wage requirement is removed or there is some alternative benchmark in its place. My experience with this grant is that it is extremely wasteful, only a few people will benefit financially from it, and it does little or nothing for the community at large.
There's something wrong when I have to pay a "general laborer" $52.42 an hour for something I generally pay $12-$15 an hour for. Not to mention that the "prevailing wage" is about $20/hour higher than what I earn and I have to monitor the project its insane record keeping.
A $90,000 job to make upgrades to an afterschool care facility: replace the main staircase, repairing the floors as needed, removing a dropped ceiling, and resolving the basement flooding issue....will end up costing close to $300,000 due to prevailing wage.
There's something wrong with that.
"He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" Jeremiah 22:16
It is a very well-meaning program that was designed initially with a good thought: replace a bunch of individual federal programs with block grants, giving more local control to recipients. Reality has proven to be anything but, due to the strings that have gotten strung onto it along the way. This is particularly true of the regulations that add signficiantly to the cost for no particular reason, including Davis-Bacon, some aspects of URA and Section 3 in particular. Likewise, the overall regulatory environment for these programs is confusing, particularly when you are doing housing programs.
I won't go so far as to say it should be eliminated, but of all of the domestic programs out there it is one that is perhaps most in need of drastic reform to make it more effective and eliminate waste.
HUD has huge issues administering CDBG, HOME, etc. because it seems that none of the HUD people have ever actually managed the grant locally. They are rarely able to provide answers to questions in a reasonable length of time, even at training sessions with supposed subject matter experts. HUD's intepretation of the various rules is often a moving target changing with the wind, and rules are created/interpretted without meaningful feedback from those that will be implementing. In Washington, they hire jackasses straight out of college, often from the Ivy League. HUD has suddenly taken up interest again in fair housing, yet no one at HUD I've ever talked to has been able to provide substantial assistance to help localities ensure compliance. Even fair housing advocacy groups seems to struggle. In short, HUD is a highly ineffective agency, and I think it has gotten worse under Secretary Donavan (it pains me to say that).
Try doing meaningful disaster recovery with CDBG funds. It's a damn administrative nightmare that causes huge delays.
I'm very supportive of the goals of HUD and the CDBG program, but these agencies and programs as currently structured are failing that mission.
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Herman Göring at the Nuremburg trials (thoughts on democracy)
The waste at HUD, at least with respect to CDBG is unbelievable. That's why I'm so torqued about all of the sequestration bullshit. If somebody would have just said, "hey HUD, look at your organization and find and eliminate waste", grantees probably wouldn't even have to worry about taking yet another reduction in funding. I manage our 1 employee who is actually paid for with CDBG funds. But, I'm on the mailing list of course as is my boss. So HUD, in their infinite wisdom, mails each of us letters, single-sided, unfolded in manila envelops at a cost approaching $2 a piece every time they wish to correspond with us. And we don't have a very large fund amount at all. This year we will be dipping into the General Fund to pay for the CDBG employee because our administratiave cap is lower than the salary and benefits of the employee. If additional cuts are coming in future years, I see my city deciding not to accept the award. The time and effort needed to oversee the sub-recepients is just too much for the little bit of money we get. And don't even get me started on environmental reviews, lack of training by HUD, Davis-Bacon etc.
Our rep is a long time HUD employee and is essentially worthless. 9 out of 10 times when we have a question we wind up contacting the region director for the answer after numerous calls and emails go unanswered. Last year she was out for SIX WEEKS OF VACATION and didn't even bother to leave an out of office reply on her voicemail or email. Unreal.
It's the price of oil, the war of the spoils, where's your bucket for the big bailout? Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, we've got a lot to drink about!.
I think its a good program that has become convoluted due to repeated efforts to end it, mend it, and change it. As a result it the administrative waste goes up and the amount used for projects goes down. I remember when W tried to eliminate it in 2006 the response was a massive crackdown on recipients and our procedures, which made the program less effective because we spent more time on process and documentation.
If the program was "reinvented" and started afresh it would be better. Then 30 years later it needs to be reinvented again. Maybe Jefferson was right.
Won't happen, but great idea. Too many bureaucrats responding to rediculous lawsuits. Wipe the slate clean and start over.
No, not really. Prior to me being here the City, no one took this stuff seriously and if the HUD rep came, they just blew him off.
There is very little of a paper trail and we have less than two weeks to figure everything out or you are exactly right, the City will be making some major repayments. And they will be, because the backup material never existed in the first place. Its a horrible feeling knowing there is not much of anything I can do.
Exactly, just imagine that not only was there no before and after pictures, there was also no application, agreement or anything else. Then, imagine that the money wasn't even spent on an eligible project. ehhh.
Quote
