FY 13 RD Budget and Appropriations

Information on HUD’s FY13 budget and appropriations is available here.

HOUSE AND SENATE OFFER DIFFERENT FUNDING RESOLUTIONS FOR REMAINDER OF FY13

March 12, 2013 – On March 6 the House of Representatives passed H.R. 933, a Continuing Resolution to fund the federal government for the remainder of FY13 (through September 30, 2013). The bill keeps FY12 funding levels and the 5% sequester in place, and adds a 0.098% across the board cut. Thus each rural housing program would receive 94.902% of its FY12 funding.

The Senate Appropriations Committee released its version of a CR. The bill has not yet been considered by the full Senate. It specifies funding levels for the rural housing programs, some of which are not the same as FY12 levels; keeps the 5% sequester in place; and adds a 2.513% across the board cut for USDA programs. That means each program would receive 92.487% of the amount shown in the table below.

The guarantee programs – Section 502 guaranteed for homeowners and Section 538 for rental housing – are not impacted by these cuts because they are funded by fees charged to program participants. They could, however, be affected by other changes such as staffing reductions.

[tdborder][/tdborder]

USDA Rural Devel. Program
(dollars in millions)

FY12 Final Approp.

FY13 Admin. Budget

FY13 House CR (H.R. 933) a

FY13 Senate Proposed CR b

502 Single Fam. Direct
(Self-Help Setaside)
(Teacher Setaside)

$900

$652.8
(141)
(67)

$900
0
0

$900
(5)
0

502 Single Family Guar.

24,000

24,000

24,000

24,000

504 VLI Repair Loans

10

28

10

28

504 VLI Repair Grants

29.5

28.2

29.5

c

515 Rental Hsg. Direct

64.5

0

64.5

31.3

514 Farm Labor Hsg.

20.8

26

20.8

d

516 Farm Labor Hsg.

7.1

8.9

7.1

d

521 Rental Assistance
(Preservation RA)
(New Constr. 515 RA)
(New Constr. 514/516 RA)

904.7
0
(1.5)
(2.5)

907.1
0
0
(3)

904.7
0
(1.5)
(2.5)

907.1
0
0
(3)

523 Self-Help TA

30

10

30

30

533 Hsg. Prsrv. Grants

3.6

0

3.6

c

538 Rental Hsg. Guar.

130

150

130

150

Rental Prsrv. Demo. (MPR)

2

34.4

2

17.8

Rental Prsrv. Revlg. Lns.

0

0

0

0

542 Rural Hsg. Vouchers

11

12.6

11

10

Rural Cmnty. Dev’t Init.

3.6

8

3.6

6.1

a. Does not include 5% sequester or 0.098% across the board cut.
b. Does not include 5% sequester or 2.513% across the board cut.
c. Total for Section 504 grants and Section 533 grants is $33.1 million, the same as in FY12.
d. Total budget authority for Section 514 loans and Section 516 grants is $16.5 million, compared to FY12 budget authority of $14.2 million.

SEQUESTRATION OCCURS

March 1, 2013 – Since no deal was reached to change or delay sequestration, it begins taking effect today. The effects may not be dramatic or immediately noticeable.

USDA AND HUD ESTIMATE SEQUESTRATION IMPACTS

HAC News item, February 20, 2013 – In a letter to Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack stated that if funding for the remainder of FY13 is cut on March 1, USDA will need to eliminate Rental Assistance for 10,000 households, not only making their homes unaffordable but also reducing funds available to owners for maintenance and mortgage payments. HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan testified before the committee on February 14, detailing numerous potential program cuts at HUD.

SERIES OF FEDERAL FUNDING DECISION POINTS LOOMS

HAC News item, February 6, 2013March 1: Automatic, across-the-board spending cuts in discretionary domestic programs (5.1%) and defense will occur unless Congress acts to avert them. March date unknown: The Administration will release its FY14 budget proposal. March 27: The continuing resolution that has provided FY13 funding ends and the government will shut down unless Congress takes action. April 15: Legislators’ salaries will begin to be escrowed as required by the debt ceiling increase bill signed into law by President Obama on February 4, unless/until Congress passes a concurrent budget resolution for FY14. A budget resolution is not binding, so the appropriations committees can begin considering FY14 funding bills without it. May 18/August date unknown: The debt ceiling is suspended through May 18 and then it increases by a formula that is expected to enable the federal government to continue meeting its debts until sometime in August.

OMB TELLS AGENCIES TO PLAN FOR SEQUESTER, CBPP REPORTS SMALLER CUTS

HAC News item, January 24, 2013 – A memo from the Office of Management and Budget advises federal agencies to intensify planning for possible sequestration, but not to take action yet. Unless Congress changes the law, federal funding will be cut on March 1. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculates that because of changes made in the tax deal (described below) the cut for non-defense discretionary programs including housing will be 5.1% rather than the previously expected 8.2%.

TAX DEAL DELAYS SEQUESTRATION

HAC News item, January 10, 2013 – The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, the deal reached by the Administration and Congress to avoid the “fiscal cliff,” delays until March 1 the 8.2% across-the-board spending cuts that would have been effective January 1, while lowering the caps for FY13 discretionary spending. It also extends for one year a 9% credit floor for Low Income Housing Tax Credit deals and extends the New Markets Tax Credit for 2012 and 2013. In February and March Congress will be faced with decisions about sequestration, the U.S. debt ceiling, and the continuing resolution for FY13 funding that expires on March 27.

CONTINUING RESOLUTION TO FUND GOVERNMENT FOR SIX MONTHS

HAC News item, September 26, 2012 – Both the House and Senate passed H.J. Res. 117, keeping housing programs and almost all others at FY12 funding levels through March 27, 2013. President Obama is expected to sign it.

SEQUESTER REMAINS IN PLACE

HAC News item, September 26, 2012 – Before adjourning Congress did not change the “sequestration” – cuts in federal funds – required in January, although a variety of bills have been introduced. The Administration’s sequestration report to Congress indicates how each agency will implement the requirement to cut 8.2% of nondefense discretionary funding, including housing programs. USDA and HUD will cut each housing program account by 8.2%. (Some program accounts encompass one program while others include several.)

CONGRESS BACK IN SESSION, CR INTRODUCED

Excerpt from HAC News item, September 12, 2012 – A continuing resolution to fund federal programs for the first six months of FY13, starting October 1, is scheduled for votes in the House September 13 and in the Senate next week. H. J. Res. 117 would give most programs, including housing, increases in subsidy (budget authority) needed to remain at FY12 program levels.

ADMINISTRATION’S SEQUESTRATION REPORT DELAYED, CBO PREDICTS RECESSION

HAC News item, September 12, 2012 – White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters the Administration needed more time to prepare the report to Congress required by the Sequestration Transparency Act, due on September 6, so the estimates on the impact of Budget Control Act funding cuts will be released later this week. Separately, An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022, by the Congressional Budget Office, projects that policy changes scheduled for January 2013, including sequestration, “will lead to economic conditions in 2013 that will probably be considered a recession.”

LEADERS AGREE ON CONTINUING RESOLUTION, CONGRESS RECESSES

HAC News item, August 8, 2012 – In late July Republicans and Democrats in Congress, along with the White House, announced they will develop a continuing resolution to fund the government for the first six months of FY13, starting October 1, 2012. Most programs will remain at FY12 funding levels. Congress has recessed until September 10, so the CR will be considered in September.

AG SPENDING BILL UP NEXT

Excerpt from HAC News item, July 11, 2012– Following a July 4 recess at home, the House may take up 2013 appropriations for USDA soon. There will be a continuing resolution to begin FY13 on October 1, 2012. Final budget decisions for 2013 will come in a post-election session, or in the new Congress next year.

STATUS NOTE

July 2, 2012 – Versions of USDA’s FY13 appropriations bill have been approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees (see details below), but the bill has not yet been considered by either the full House or the full Senate. Congress has adjourned until July 9. It is not clear when either body may take up its USDA spending bill after that.

HOUSE BILL TELLS USDA TO PLAN RURAL HOUSING SPENDING IN ADVANCE

Update and correction, June 20, 2012 – The full House Appropriations Committee passed the USDA spending bill on June 19, with only one change in the dollar amounts approved by the subcommittee. The subcommittee had provided $886.6 million for Section 521 Rental Assistance (not $866.6, as HAC reported originally), and the full committee adopted an amendment by Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) adding another $1.5 million for RA.

The draft House committee report instructs USDA to develop a plan for rental housing:

The Committee recognizes that a change in focus in the management of the multifamily housing portfolio may be necessary. However, the Committee is concerned about the dramatic shifts in the proposed program funding levels over the past two fiscal years and directs the Department to develop and present to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate a definitive plan to address rural rental housing needs.

The Senate Appropriations Committee report included even stronger language regarding rental housing:

The Committee is concerned that the Department’s vision for its role in supporting affordable rural rental housing is out of focus. Section 515 direct loans were the centerpiece of the fiscal year 2012 President’s budget, while the fiscal year 2013 request eliminates that program. The revitalization pilot was eliminated in the fiscal year 2012 request. However, the fiscal year 2013 request increases the revitalization pilot by 361 percent, and includes substantial funding for vouchers even with large unobligated balances. Proposed legislation is promised to permanently authorize the revitalization program, but no description of the proposed program is offered.

The Committee directs the Secretary, conclusively, to determine and articulate an effective long-term strategy to address rural rental housing needs. The Committee continues to fund each of the rural rental housing program tools and provides increased flexibility to transfer funds. Finally, the Committee directs the Secretary to submit the proposed revitalization legislation as soon as possible.

June 6, 2012 – The House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee passed its FY13 spending bill unanimously, with no changes to the housing numbers reported below.

June 5, 2012 – The House Appropriations Committee released a draft USDA FY13 spending bill, which will be reviewed by the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee on June 6. The House draft would provide lower amounts than the Senate’s bill for almost all rural housing programs. It allocates slightly more to the Section 515 rural rental housing program than the Senate bill, although the House’s $31.3 million is less than half of the $64.5 million Section 515 received in FY12.

The loan guarantee programs – Section 502 for owner-occupied housing and Section 538 for rental units – are at the same levels in the House and Senate bills. These programs charge fees that make them self-supporting.

The House bill contains new language in every provision relating to housing programs and in some, but not all, provisions relating to other Rural Development programs: “Not later than 15 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate a detailed spending plan by program, project, and activity for the funds made available under this heading.”

Details are provided in the table below.

USDA Rural Devel. Program
(dollars in millions)

FY11 Approp.a

FY12 Final Approp.

FY13 Admin. Budget

FY13 Sen. Bill (S. 2375)

FY13 House Committee Print

502 Single Fam. Direct
(Self-Help Setaside)
(Teacher Setaside)

$1,121

$900

$652.8
(141)
(67)

$900
(5)
0

$652.8
0
0

502 Single Family Guar.

24,000

24,000

24,000

24,000

24,000

504 VLI Repair Loans

23.4

10

28

28

10

504 VLI Repair Grants

34

29.5

28.2

b

c

515 Rental Hsg. Direct

69.5

64.5

0

28.4

31.3

514 Farm Labor Hsg.

25.7

20.8

26

26

d

516 Farm Labor Hsg.

9.8

7.1

8.9

8.9

d

521 Rental Assistance
(Preservation RA)
(New Constr. 515 RA)
(New Constr. 514/516 RA)

955.6
0
(2.03)
(3)

904.7
0
(1.5)
(2.5)

907.1
0
0
(3)

907.1
0
0
(3)

886.6f
0
(1.5)
(2.5)

523 Self-Help TA

37

30

10

30

15

533 Hsg. Prsrv. Grants

10

3.6

0

b

c

538 Rental Hsg. Guar.

30.9

130

150

150

150

Rental Prsrv. Demo. (MPR)

15

2

34.4

16.8

2

Rental Prsrv. Revlg. Lns.

1

0

0

0

0

542 Rural Hsg. Vouchers

14

11

12.6

11

10.8

Rural Cmnty. Dev’t Init.

5

3.6

8

6.1

3.5 e

a. Figures shown do not include 0.2% across the board reduction.
b. Total for Section 504 grants and Section 533 grants is $33.1 million.
c. Total for Section 504 grants and Section 533 grants is $17 million.
d. Total budget authority for Section 514 loans and Section 516 grants is $13.8 million, compared to the Senate bill’s total of $17.5 million.
e. Of the $3.549 million total for RCDI, $3.302 million is directed to community facilities grants to tribal colleges.
f. HAC originally reported the House subcommittee’s level for Rental Assistance was $866.6 million, but the correct figure is $886.6 million.

SENATE COMMITTEE REJECTS ADMINISTRATION BUDGET FOR RURAL HOUSING PROGRAMS

Updated, May 1, 2012 – On April 26 the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a spending bill for USDA programs, including rural housing programs, for Fiscal Year 2013 (beginning October 1, 2012).

The Senate bill also includes language that extends for one year eligibility for rural housing programs for all communities currently in the program. Background on this issue is available here.

FY13 ADMINISTRATION BUDGET REQUEST

February 13, 2012 – The USDA rural housing programs portion of the Obama Administration’s budget for fiscal year 2013 differs in several ways from last year’s budget proposal and from the final appropriations adopted for FY12. Details are provided in the table below.

The Section 502 mortgage guarantee program continues to be emphasized as the primary single-family vehicle; fees charged to borrowers mean the program does not cost the government anything. The Section 502 direct mortgage lending request of $652 million is considerably higher than last year’s $211.4 proposal, but lower than the $900 million appropriated for FY12. For the first time, the Administration requests setasides of Section 502 direct loans for borrowers participating in the Section 523 self-help housing program and for teachers.

Section 523 self-help technical assistance funds for local organizations that sponsor self-help “sweat equity” programs would drop from the $30 million appropriated level to $10 million – but $10 million is higher than the 0 requested in the FY12 budget.

The budget’s figures for Section 504 repair loans and grants for very low-income homeowners are far higher, at $28 million and $28.2 million respectively, than the FY12 budget request, and the loan amount is almost triple the $10 million FY12 funding level.

The Administration makes significant changes in its multifamily housing approach this year. Fees have been authorized for Section 538 guaranteed multifamily loans, making that program self-supporting, so the FY13 budget requests a $150 million lending level. The Section 515 direct loan program is zeroed out, with preservation and rehabilitation funding provided through $34.4 million in the Multifamily Housing Preservation and Revitalization (MPR) program. No Rental Assistance is set aside for preservation activities, although USDA has the authority to establish such a setaside on its own.

The budget proposes slight increases from FY12 levels for Section 514/516 farmworker housing loans and grants, as well as a setaside of Section 521 Rental Assistance.

The $907 million requested for Section 521 RA is intended to renew expiring contracts, thus maintaining rent subsidies for tenants who currently have them.

As it did last year, the Administration proposes to increase the Rural Community Development Initiative to $8 million for intermediary organizations to support regional economic development strategies. Congress declined to adopt this Regional Innovation Initiative in the FY12 appropriations law.

Discuss or comment on the budget on HAC’s rural housing listserv or on Twitter (use hashtag #ruralhousing)
Register now for HAC’s webinar on the rural housing budget, to be held Tuesday, February 21, 2:00-3:00 eastern time.

USDA Rural Devel. Program
(dollars in millions)

FY11 Approp.a

FY12 Admin.
Budget

FY12 Final Approp.

FY13 Admin. Budget

502 Single Fam. Direct
(Self-Help Setaside)
(Teacher Setaside)

$1,121

$211.4

$900

$652.8
(141)
(67)

502 Single Family Guar.

24,000

24,000

24,000

24,000

504 VLI Repair Loans

23.4

0

10

28

504 VLI Repair Grants

34

11.5

29.5

28.2

515 Rental Hsg. Direct

69.5

95.2

64.5

0

514 Farm Labor Hsg.

25.7b

27

20.8

26

516 Farm Labor Hsg.

9.8b

9.8

7.1

8.9

521 Rental Assistance
(Preservation RA)
(New Constr. 515 RA)
(New Constr. 514/516 RA)

955.6
0
(2.03)
(3)

906.7
0
(3)
(3)

904.7
0
(1.5)
(2.5)

907.1
0
0
(3)

523 Self-Help TA

37

0

30

10

533 Hsg. Prsrv. Grants

10

0

3.6

0

538 Rental Hsg. Guar.

30.9

0

130

150

Rental Prsrv. Demo. (MPR)

15

0

2

34.4

Rental Prsrv. Revlg. Lns.

1

0

0

0

542 Rural Hsg. Vouchers

14

16

11

12.6

Rural Cmnty. Dev’t Init.

5

8.4

3.6

8

a. Figures shown do not include 0.2% across the board reduction.
b. Figures shown for Section 514 and 516 farm labor housing are the amounts offered in the FY11 NOFA.

Posted: February 13, 2012
Last updated: June 20, 2012

HAC Comments to HUD on the Proposed Changes to the HOME Rule

In response to HUD’s proposed changes to the HOME regulations HAC has prepared a draft set of observations and comments to those particular suggestions which we feel will have the most significant impact on rural communities and the organizations that serve them. This list is not exhaustive by any means, but we hope you find it useful in helping you think through how the proposed regulations changes will impact your work and community. If it is helpful, here is the link to the official HUD proposed rule presentation and summary, https://www.hometa.info/.

Please share your thoughts with us. Please be brief, and we will try to reflect them in our official response letter to HUD. We are looking for a quick turnaround; please submit your comments to Dan Stern, dan@ruralhome.org by COB, Wednesday, February 8th or comment on HAC’s LinkedIn page or on Twitter #HOMERules. We will post our final letter on our website. We look forward to your input.

Select observations and comments:

1. CHDO Capacity Requirements (Section 92.2)

The proposed regulation requires CHDOs to demonstrate internal capacity to develop proposed projects with virtually no external assistance. This is concerning for all CHDOs, but most particularly rural organizations, where internal capacity is frequently limited to one staff person and new hires where the required ‘demonstrated development experience’ may be impossible. The rule explicitly prohibits the use of consultants and volunteer labor to demonstrate capacity.

2. CHDOs Sponsored by Governmental Entities (Section 92.2)

The proposed regulation restricts the control of a CHDO by a governmental entity. A number of CHDOs were created by: local housing authorities (LHAs), council of governments (CoGs), regional planning commissions (RPCs), and tribal entities (TDHEs) which are frequently incorporated as governmental entities. Permitting LHAs, COGs, RPCs, and TDHEs to spin off CHDO arms are beneficial to all parties as long as the governmental entity is unrelated to the PJ and has separation from political influence. The ability to use shared staff, shared office space, and participation on the board has proven beneficial to the creation of strong CHDOs. Disallowing these relationships can have direct impacts on these CHDOs’ capacity to survive without the in-kind support.

3. Reduced Timeline for Income Determination (Section 92.203)

“A minimum examination period of 3 months should be sufficient to accurately reflect the income eligibility of applicants for HOME units”. This could potentially have an impact on low-income persons with seasonal or inconsistent income.

Message From HAC

Dear Rural Development Stakeholder:

The Housing Assistance Council (HAC) seeks your feedback on HUD’s proposed regulation changes for the HOME Program, particularly on how they may impact rural communities, otherwise considered non-entitlement jurisdictions. We have shared our draft observations and comments with several stakeholders and want to share it with you. We want to make sure your voices are being heard at this important opportunity to comment on HUD’s proposed changes. While many of the comments we are sharing speak to issues that impact both metro and rural communities we want to ensure that we are highlighting the potential results that these changes will have on non-metropolitan areas. Please share your thoughts….please be brief…. and we will review them for possible inclusion in our official letter to HUD responding to their proposed regulations changes. We are looking for a quick turnaround; please submit your comments to Dan Stern, dan@ruralhome.org by COB, Wednesday, February 8th or comment on HAC’s LinkedIn page or on Twitter #HOMERules. We will post our final letter on our website.

Also, the link to HUD’s summary and presentation on the proposed HOME regulation changes is https://www.hometa.info/.

We look forward to your input.

Sincerely,

Jeff Mosley
Director, Training and Technical Assistance Division

4. Development Timeline Condensed ((Section 92.205)

The proposed regulation reduces the PJs time to commit funds from 2 years to 1 year and the time for organizations to develop from 5 years to 4 years. The regulation allows the PJ to request a 12 month extension to complete pending approval by HUD officials. Failure to meet the timeline requirement will require the PJ to repay HOME funds invested in the project. For rural projects, where the need to assemble an array of affordable financing and grant resources and arrange the timing of these commitments is often difficult and time consuming, the proposed timeframes may have a substantial negative impact.

5. Inspection Fees (Section 92.214)

While HUD is prohibiting organizations from charging fees to homebuyers and tenants, it will begin permitting PJs to charge inspection fees for annual compliance monitoring visits. The proposed regulation provided does not give guidance on cost reasonableness of the fees.

6. Prohibition to Charging Fees to Homebuyers (Section 92.214)

Under the proposed rule organizations would not be permitted to charge fees to the family for HOME homeownership assistance it provides. In addition, the PJs would be required to determine that the fees and other amounts charged to the family by the lender for the first mortgage financing are reasonable, based upon industry practice in the area, and ensuring that the family is not being charged fees for a HOME-funded activity. HUD should clarify that, while it requires homebuyers receiving HOME assistance to receive pre-purchase counseling, organizations can or cannot include Housing Counseling an ineligible project cost under the HOME program; many organizations charge a nominal fee on the HUD-1 to cover a portion of expenses. A question is whether organizations that serve as approved, or certified loan packagers, for conventional, governmental or other nonprofit agencies can charge packaging or brokerage fees if HOME assistance is part of the construction or homebuyer financing.

7. Leasing Up Rental Properties/Troubled Rental Projects (Section 92.252, 210)

Rental units which have not been leased within 3-6 months will be required to report to HUD marketing plans. If efforts to market the unit are unsuccessful and a unit is not occupied by an initial tenant after 18 months, HUD would require repayment of HOME funds invested in the units but the project owner must maintain compliance and affordability throughout the original performance period.

8. Tenant and Homebuyer Preferences (Section 92.253)

The proposed rule limits permits PJs to limit the beneficiaries or give preferences to a particular segment of the low-income population only if described in the action plan and it doesn’t violate fair housing. Limiting beneficiaries or giving preferences to such professions as police officers, teachers, or artists are eligible. Employees of the PJ are not eligible for preferences.

Additionally, a project may have a limitation or preference for people with disabilities who need services offered at a project only if:

· it is limited to households with disabilities that significantly interfere with their ability to obtain and maintain housing;

· the households will not be able to maintain themselves in housing without appropriate supportive services; and,

· the needed services cannot be provided in a non-segregated setting.

However the regulation enforces the current practice to allow a HOME projects to restrict program beneficiaries when the project includes leveraged funds from categorically excluded programs, such as 202, 811 and HOPWA.

9. Initial Purchase Price Limit (Section 92.254)

HUD has proposed language for non-metro communities, exempting them from the 95 percent of area median purchase price standard for newly constructed homes, allowing states to aggregate sales data from at least two contiguously connected counties with similar attributes to use as the alternative benchmark. First, HUD should consider allowing states to either adopt this as a standard, use the 95 percentile of the U.S. median purchase price for new construction in non-metro areas, or other options that would ensure the eligibility of newly constructed homes. States would have to publish the standard they choose in their Action Plans. Second, HUD and the states should address how the purchase price limits would apply to homeowner rehab sales. How does the proposed purchase price limit impact developers’ ability to acquire/rehab and sell existing stock in low-value markets? The standard should, just as with new construction, allow for maximum flexibility to generate sales for income eligible and credit-worthy families.

10. Fee Simple Absolute Titles (Section 92.300)

To qualify as a CHDO for a HOME-funded project as an owner or sponsor the nonprofit must own the property under Fee Simple Absolute title. Staff is concerned that such a narrow definition may impede or prohibit CHDO development on Native American Lands or in existing CLTs.

11. Profit/Nonprofit Partnerships in LIHTC Deals (Section 92.300)

The proposed rule states that for a project to qualify for CHDO funds, the CHDO must be the sole general partner. It will result in a significant change in participation of many CHDOs, particularly those that are rural, in the LIHTC program. The resulting partnerships, in particular, with equity and other capital/development partners may not be beneficial to CHDOs seeking fees, capacity or other upside to its participation beyond the delivery of affordable rental housing.

This list is not exhaustive and any statements that are inaccurate are unintentional; please refer to the official HUD proposed HOME regulations for complete documentation. If there is a topic that we did not highlight that you think is critical please make sure to submit your comment. Comments may also include topics that you think should be included in the proposed HOME regulations that currently are not proposed or discussed.

Thank you for your interest and assistance in helping HAC ensure that HUD receives thorough feedback on how the proposed Rule changes impacts the communities we serve.

Download a PDF of this Announcement

Posted: February 3, 2012

USDA to Close 43 RD Offices as Part of New "Blueprint for Stronger Service"

On January 9, 2012, USDA unveiled a Blueprint for Stronger Service that includes closing 43 Rural Development (RD) field offices in 17 states. A total of 259 USDA agency offices, facilities, and labs will be closed nationwide.

A USDA fact sheet summarizes the Blueprint’s impacts on RD, and lists the 43 counties that will lose RD offices:

  1. Alabama: Houston County
  2. Arizona: Mohave County
  3. Arkansas: Izard, Faulkner, Hot Spring, White, and Sevier Counties
  4. Delaware: Kent and Sussex Counties
  5. Hawaii: 1)(Kosrae, Chuuk, and Yap), and 2) Hawaii County
  6. Indiana: Monroe, Tippecanoe, LaPorte, and Marshall Counties
  7. Louisiana: Livingston County
  8. Maryland: Calvert, Garrett, and Worcester Counties
  9. Mississippi: DeSoto County
  10. Missouri: Jasper, Jefferson, Cape Girardeau, and Cole Counties
  11. North Carolina: Burke, Chowan, and Caswell Counties
  12. Oklahoma: Pushmataha and Pittsburg Counties
  13. Pennsylvania: Juniata County
  14. South Carolina: Richland and Sumter Counties
  15. Tennessee: Anderson, Bedford, Bledsoe, Cannon, Carter, Cocke, Humphreys, Sevier, and Trousdale Counties
  16. Virginia: Essex County
  17. Wyoming: Park County

“In some cases, offices are no longer staffed or have a very small staff of one or two people,” USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack explains in a blog post. “Many are within 20 miles of other USDA offices. In other cases, technology improvements, advanced service centers, and broadband service have reduced some need for brick and mortar facilities.”

In 1980, the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) had “46 state offices, 264 district offices, and 1,904 county offices plus the National office in Washington, D.C.”1 By March 1998, after FmHA staff had been combined with business and utilities staff in a major reorganization, Rural Development had only 815 county offices.2 USDA’s Blueprint states that after the additional 43 offices are closed, “more than 450 RD offices remain.” It is not clear whether these 450 include state offices.

Secretary Vilsack’s blog post asserts that the Blueprint’s “end result is a plan that will create optimal use of USDA’s employees, better results for USDA customers, and greater efficiencies for American taxpayers.”

 

 Notes

1. A Brief History of Farmers Home Administration. USDA, Farmers Home Administration. Washington: Government Printing Office, January 1990.

2. USDA: Status of Closing and Consolidating County Offices. Washington: General Accounting Office (GAO/T-RCED-98-250), July 29, 1998, Table 1.

 

Posted: January 10, 2012

"Pinky" Clifford Speaks Out on Housing Conditions on Pine Ridge Reservation

In a radio story titled “Generations of Housing Red Tape,” a family returns to the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota only to experience difficulty finding a decent place to live. American Public Media’s Marketplace reporters chronicle the Hawk family and highlight the ongoing housing challenges on the reservation. HAC Partner, Emma “Pinky” Clifford, Director of the Oglala Sioux Tribe Partnership for Housing, shares her insights and experiences working to meet housing needs in this high need region.

To hear the story and see pictures of the Pine Ridge Reservation, visit

https://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/economy-40/generations-housing-red-tape

 

 

Posted: December 2, 2011

Email down

HAC Is experiencing email difficulties

Due to unforeseen outside influences HAC’s email system is down in all of its offices. If you need to reach someone immediately please phone them. We working to correct this problem. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Information about contacting HAC staff is available here.

_______________________

Posted: June18, 2012

If you have problems accessing any of the material on this page, contact Dan Stern, 202-842-8600 ext. 137.

Amendment Would Slash Rural Development Funding

AMENDMENT WOULD SLASH RURAL DEVELOPMENT FUNDING

The National Rural Housing Coalition has organized a sign on letter opposing the Coburn Amendment, which may come up in the Senate next week and would cut USDA Rural Development funds for 2012 by $1 billion. This cut would amount to 40% of RD programs and would be across all the agency’s functions. The Coalition’s letter has more information and is at the following link — https://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5172/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8587The sign on deadline is Friday, October 28.


Posted: October 26, 2011

RSH Grant Announcement

Rural Senior Housing Fund Application

The Housing Assistance Council (HAC) is pleased to announce a new grant program, the Rural Senior Housing (RSH) Fund. Eligible affordable housing organizations can apply for RSH grants to support activities that will build, preserve, or advocate for housing for low-income seniors (62 and older) living in rural areas. This new program is made possible through the generous support of The Atlantic Philanthropies.

The Applications period closed December 15. Please look for another application period in fall 2012. Sign up as a stakeholder to received program announcements and updates.

If you have any questions about the application or the RSH FUND, please contact Janice Clark, 202.842.8600 x 131 or email Janice@ruralhome.org.

Visit HAC’s Rural Senior Housing Initiative Page for updates from the program.

NALCAB Now Accepting Applications for Asset Building Grants

With generous support from Sam’s Club, the Open Society Foundation and the Northwest Area Foundation, NALCAB is providing subgrants ranging from $5,000-$20,000 to organizations meeting requirements outlined in the request for proposal (RFP) – https://cts.vresp.com/c/?NALCAB/c66a00974c/43478e6510/96625b35bc.

Grants are for a 12 month period beginning on or about November 1, 2011. With a single application, organizations may apply for funding from one or more of the three pools of funds that are available, based on their specific eligibility requirement.

Eligible groups are asset building nonprofit organizations located in the Northwest, Midwest, Southeast, and organizations providing entrepreneurship and small business development throughout the nation. Specific geographic or program priority is detailed in the RFP.

NALCAB seeks organizations that are building capacity in one or more of the following areas:

  • Real estate development for low-income people and communities including affordable housing and community facilities
  • Micro/Small Business Development
  • Providing family wealth building products andservices (including financial education)

The objective of these sub-grants is to strengthen the organizational capacity of participating entities to measurably advance existing asset building projects. In addition to grant funding, NALCAB will provide grantees with technical assistance in program/ project development and with leveraging other sources of funding for the identified project or program.Applications should be received no later than midnight PST on October 7, 2011 and may be submitted via email to Carol Rodriguez, Senior Program Manager at crodriguez@nalcab.org or U.S Postal Service.

USDA Rural Housing Programs for Seniors

Fiscal year 2012 funding is seriously threatened for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) housing programs that maintain or create affordable housing options for elders in rural areas. Programs of other agencies – for example, the Section 202 program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), weatherization programs, and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit – are also relevant in rural America. Several of them, including HUD’s 202 program and key USDA programs, have already seen steep budget cuts, drastically reducing their effectiveness in serving rural seniors. Congress should continue to fund these important programs at least at their 2011 levels.

Section 515 rental housing. This program has been the mainstay of USDA’s efforts to serve the poorest of the rural poor, including extremely low-income rural seniors, since 1963. The Section 515 program provides mortgage loans to develop rental housing for low-income households and is often used in conjunction with Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The program has proven extremely successful at providing decent, affordable housing for the lowest income rural seniors. Nearly 60 percent of Section 515 residents are elderly or have disabilities. Their average annual income is about $11,000. They have few other housing options.

Funding for Section 515 has been cut drastically over the past 17 years, sharply reducing production. The USDA appropriations bill passed by the House before the deficit reduction deal, H.R. 2112, would reduce program funding still further, from $69.5 million in FY11 to $58.6 million in FY12. The very low-income tenants served by Section 515 should not bear the burden of reductions in government spending: the program should remain at its FY11 funding level.

Rental housing preservation. The majority of rental units produced using USDA’s Section 515 rental program and Section 514/516 farmworker housing program are more than 20 years old. They need repairs and updates to preserve the taxpayers’ investments. To assist preservation efforts, several years ago Congress created the Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization (MPR) program and the Preservation Revolving Loan Fund (PRLF).

The very popular MPR program uses a range of financing tools to help owners afford to improve their USDA-funded rental properties. Most often, it enables USDA to defer owners’ payments of mortgage principal. The Preservation Revolving Loan Fund, as its name suggests, provides loans to owners or purchasers for preservation of USDA rental properties.

Both the President’s budget for FY12 and H.R. 2112 would eliminate all funding for MPR and the PRLF. The budget – although not H.R. 2112 – would add some Section 515 funding to be used for preservation, but Section 515 funds are not as flexible as MPR’s. For example, under Section 515 USDA cannot defer principal payments. Both preservation programs should be funded at FY11 levels: $15 million for MPR and $1 million for PRLF.

Rental Assistance. USDA’s Section 521 Rental Assistance (RA) program helps tenants whose incomes are so low they cannot afford the rent in a Section 515 or 514/516 property. Rental Assistance is available only to tenants in USDA-financed properties and is an essential part of providing decent, affordable homes for the very lowest income rural Americans.

Both the Administration’s budget and H.R. 2112 would reduce Rental Assistance funding. The budget’s congressional justification assumes that more than 300 properties will leave USDA’s multifamily portfolio in 2012 because of irresponsible owners or prepayments. This would be a very significant increase over past years; in FY10, for example, the mortgages on 86 properties were prepaid, and the highest number prepaid in any year was 152 in 2004.

Given the average 27 units per property in the portfolio, and the fact that 60 percent of USDA’s tenants are elderly or disabled, it is estimated that over 8,100 tenant households – more than 4,800 of them elderly or disabled – would lose their homes and their Rental Assistance if USDA’s calculation is correct. It is hard to believe that these tenants will find other affordable housing. HUD’s recently released Worst Case Needs Report estimated there are already 7.1 million renter households with serious housing needs not receiving assistance. With such a large number already unable to find decent, affordable housing or to obtain assistance, there is no reason to believe that displaced USDA tenants would fare any better.

Section 504 repair grants and loans. With these small loans and grants from USDA, many very poor elderly recipients for the first time in their lives can have an indoor toilet, a sound roof, or a modern furnace. Maximum amounts are $7,500 for grants (for very low-income elderly only) and $20,000 for loans (for very low-income homeowners regardless of age). This is hardly an extravagant program. In 2010 its funding was $32 million for grants and $34 million for loans (which are repaid).

The budget and H.R. 2112 would eliminate Section 504 loans entirely. The budget would cut Section 504 grant funding significantly, although H.R. 2112 would maintain funding at the FY11 level. Like other USDA housing programs, the Section 504 programs should be funded at their FY11 levels, $30 million for grants and $23.4 million for loans.


Published September 2, 2011

Proposal to Move RHS to HUD

Trevino repeats opposition to proposal

At a September 13, 2011 hearing before the House Agriculture Committee’s Rural Development subcommittee, rural housing administrator Tammye Trevino was asked about the proposal to move USDA’s Rural Housing Service to HUD. She made clear that the move was not proposed by the Administration and that the Administration opposed it.

Second Hearing held on proposal to move RHS to HUD

On September 8, 2011 the House Financial Services Committee’s housing subcommittee held its second hearing on the draft bill that would move USDA’s Rural Housing Service (RHS) to HUD. The bill, which would also make changes to the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and Ginnie Mae, has not yet been introduced.

At the first hearing on May 25, 2011 Peter Carey testified for HAC, Self-Help Enterprises, and the National Rural Housing Coalition, opposing the move. The other witnesses at that hearing represented a variety of nonprofit and for-profit entities, most of them interested in FHA issues. The September 8 hearing featured agency representatives. Trevino Trevino, RHS Administrator, was one of the witnesses, along with Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Carol Galante from HUD/FHA, and Theodore Tozer from Ginnie Mae.

Both Tammye Trevino and Carol Galante testified against the move to HUD. Tammye described RHS’s knowledge of rural issues and its field network of rural offices. She pointed out that RHS, HUD, and other agencies are already working together to “align” their rental programs by using common forms, accepting each other’s inspections, and the like, and she mentioned that a similar effort for homeownership programs is now getting started. Tozer and Isakson focused their testimony on different issues, not mentioning RHS at all.

A number of committee and subcommittee members came in for at least part of the hearing. Subcommittee chair Judy Biggert (R-IL) asked Trevino about RHS’s institutional knowledge. Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX) thanked Trevino for her work to improve rural housing, but did not ask her any questions. The rest of the members asked questions of the other witnesses on other topics, such as how big FHA’s role in the mortgage market should be, whether Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be phased out, and how to help struggling homeowners.

Posted: September 9, 2011
Last updated: September 13, 2011