Comment Submitted by Gail Hammond, NYS Housing Trust Fund Corporation - Office of Community Renewal

Document ID: HUD-2008-0126-0007
Document Type: Public Submission
Agency: Department Of Housing And Urban Development
Received Date: December 16 2008, at 05:45 PM Eastern Standard Time
Date Posted: December 19 2008, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Start Date: October 17 2008, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Due Date: December 16 2008, at 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
Tracking Number: 807de609
View Document:  View as format xml

View Comment

The current and proposed program income requirements are very burdensome and create inefficiencies for states. Tracking program income for the life of the program income is not an efficient or effective way for states to spend their already limited administrative and financial resources nor is it the best way for HUD to track funds and the accomplishments of CDBG funding. States could spend months and years trying to capture information from grantees that no longer have grants with the state, yet they have program income at a level that narrowly exceeds the threshold. Reporting on program income for an unspecified period of time is a waste of resources. Additionally, a conditional closeout process would prevent states from formally closing out a grant year with HUD. This would be another administrative nightmare for the states as well as HUD. Allowing states the authority to capture all program income or a portion thereof for reallocation to eligible CDBG projects is a more efficient way to track funds and their accomplishments. Program income should be re-granted as a new grant to new or existing grantees. States should have the authority to develop new and innovative programs that best meet the needs of the State and units of local governments. These grants would be tracked and reported in the same manner as any CDBG project. These program income requirements do not support our County’s efforts to conserve and the Federal governments Paperwork Reduction Act. To reiterate, our recommendation is for the states to determine the best way to track and report program income, which may be to recapture all or a portion of program income for reallocation to new projects and or grantees. States should be provided the flexibility to determine the best method to address program income, which could be one of the following: 1. Request all program income be returned to the state, which would be those funds that have exceeded the threshold. 2. Request all income generated from grants returned to the state (funds less than $50,000). 3. Request income generated that exceeds a certain amount (defined by the state) returned to the state.

Related Comments

    View All
Total: 6
Comment Submitted by Gloria Zacharias
Public Submission    Posted: 12/04/2008     ID: HUD-2008-0126-0002

Dec 16,2008 11:59 PM ET
Comment Submitted by Bonnie Ammons, South Carolina Department of Commerce
Public Submission    Posted: 12/19/2008     ID: HUD-2008-0126-0003

Dec 16,2008 11:59 PM ET
Comment Submitted by Veronica Hunter, Department of Economic & Community Development
Public Submission    Posted: 12/19/2008     ID: HUD-2008-0126-0006

Dec 16,2008 11:59 PM ET
Comment Submitted by Gail Hammond, NYS Housing Trust Fund Corporation - Office of Community Renewal
Public Submission    Posted: 12/19/2008     ID: HUD-2008-0126-0007

Dec 16,2008 11:59 PM ET
Comment Submitted by Keith Heaton, State of Utah
Public Submission    Posted: 12/19/2008     ID: HUD-2008-0126-0004

Dec 16,2008 11:59 PM ET