- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
Administration Proposed Reorganization of the Government—USDA Housing Programs to be Merged into HUD; Senate Votes Down Administration’s FY18 Proposed Rescission; RD Announces FY19 Management Fees
BROADCAST EMAIL – Legislative & Regulatory Update
June 22, 2018
1) Administration Proposes Wide Scale Reorganization of the Government—USDA Housing Programs to be Merged into HUD
Yesterday, the Administration unveiled a 132 page report entitled: “Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century. Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations.” Contained in this report are many recommendations that would consolidate, transfer, and substantially change the delivery system of many programs from existing agencies to other government entities. Among the programs to be moved would be Rural Development’s (RD) housing programs, USDA’s business and community facility business rural grants, and HUD’s Community Development Block (CDBG) program. The federal charter of the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) would be eliminated from statute and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be fully privatized.
Under the proposal, RD’s single family and multi-family housing programs would be merged into HUD. USDA’s community facility and rural business loan programs and HUD’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) would be moved to a new section within the Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Economic Growth. The merger of the RD housing programs to HUD is of major concern to CARH. As CARH members may recall, we have heard similar proposals and language in different bills over the past several years from the House Financial Services Committee. These proposals did not have the support to become law, in whole or part.
CARH is very concerned and apprehensive regarding the proposed reorganization. CARH raised similar concerns when Secretary Perdue announced the elimination of the USDA Under Secretary position for RD last year. We believe that most of the changes envisioned in the report would require Congress to pass comprehensive legislation. Any responsible reorganization would need approval from both the House and Senate Appropriations and Authorization Committees, a task that in recent times was only accomplished when the Department of Homeland Security was created after the September 11, 2001, attack on the country.
CARH will continue to communicate with RD, HUD, and the House and Senate Appropriations and Authorization Committees about this proposal and its merits and the concerns it raises. This is an initial proposal in an early form that we expect will go through more analysis and revisions before moving forward. The proposal contains some incongruous language, for example, omitting direct loans and farm labor housing from the RD section. It is unclear if this was an oversight or if somehow those programs would stay at USDA. We will also continue to reach out to fellow stakeholders in the rural housing community.
In the past, this issue has generated tremendous interest among CARH members. Therefore, please email carh@carh.org with any feedback and thoughts. We will also provide updates on any developments and we are, and will be, reviewing these matters with the CARH Board of Directors.
2) Administration’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Proposed Rescission Voted Down by Senate
On another front, we have encouraging news that the rescission package, that would have stripped $40 million from the Section 521 Rental Assistance (RA) program, went down to defeat in the Senate this week. The June 20th vote was 50 to 48 against rescission. CARH will work to get that money used by the agency for existing RA needs across the country. Also, we heard from the RD Administrator, Joel Baxley, at the CARH Annual Meeting this week that approximately 2,700 units of RA will be released to meet servicing needs. Administrator Baxley and National RD Office staff spent significant time with CARH members during the Annual Meeting reviewing a number of issues that we expect to make progress on shortly and we will provide updates as we receive more information.
3) RD Announces Increase in Management Fees for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019
Yesterday, Rural Development (RD) published a Special Procedural Notice (SPN) announcing final management fees for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019. Management fees will vary from state to state because RD has based the increase on HUD’s Operating Cost Adjustment Factor (OCAF) which varies based on location in the country and is applied to each state’s current maximum fee. (View Attachment 3-F, Chapter 3 of HB-2-3560 (page 55-56 in the link) for the chart that provides each state’s management fee adjustment for FY 2019.)
As a reminder of the background on this issue, CARH proposed that OCAF should be the base and that additional add-on fees should also be part of the management fee calculation. The additional add-on fees have not yet been agreed to by RD. Although management fees for FYs 2016-2019 have been based on OCAF, we will continue to advocate for CARH’s entire proposal. We believe that the proposal will provide some certainty and consistency on fees in the future. Further we continue to recommend that a survey be conducted every five years to determine if the OCAF needed some further adjustment.