Comment on DOD-2009-OS-0090-DRAFT-0004

With respect to this proposed rule, I offer the following comments: 1. 239.4 (i) USACE needs to explain the process and data behind the automated value model (AVM) in determining the market value of homes. Local property tax assessments and state real estate association statistics can either be used to dispute or correspond to an AVM produced number. Potential beneficiaries who are denied benefits because of an AVM score might be able to produce contrary numbers via other official and valid means. 2. 239.5 (d) With respect to the tax provision, language should be used to confirm whether or not taxes paid on benefits before a potential legislative fix will be re-funded retroactively. In other words, if I pay taxes on my benefit before the legislative fix, can I get a refund from the IRS after the fix is enacted? 3. 239.4 (i) With respect to home pricing, the rule should be clear regarding timeline. Right now, potential beneficiaries are being encouraged to aggressively sell their homes (at fair market value) without definitive confirmation they are eligible for benefits. Only after confirmation, should homeowners attempt to sell their home at a more aggressive pricing rate. 4. 239.4 (i) The rule states that it is the applicant's responsibility to explain marketing efforts detailing how the price was "gradually" lowered until it reached fair market value. The term "gradually" can be interpreted differently between the USACE and the homeowner. There needs to be a definitive description of what "gradually" means to avoid disputes or time consuming appeals. 5. 239.4 (i) Are homeowners to place contingencies on sales contracts pending approval and confirmation by USACE for funds? This would demonstrate a commitment by USACE to distribute funds after/during a sale closing. Otherwise, the potential exists that USACE could back out of providing funds leaving sellers at closing without the HAP benefit.