Laserfiche WebLink
(3) It also seems that the unpublished rules change durln{{ a cycle, with diffarant <br />interpretations and dfrections given by different ~IRCD staff members. <br /> <br />(4) The present system rewards success. A community that gets a CDBG grant in <br />one ~ycle ean use program income in that grant to get points in the "other funds, <br />competition in the next e~cle, despite the fact that they ware required by law to <br />spend the program income for 'CDBG eligible activities only. ~'nes we have quite a <br />few repeat grant communities and quite a few who have failed to get grants in any of <br />the three cyelus. Counties are ~ permli~ed in the award of "other funds" points <br />since they don't have the authority to spend tax dollars on housing p~ngrams. <br />($) It is our belief that the applicant's track record in administering grant funds in <br />the past should be given considaration in the point system. <br /> <br /> While the solution to some of the problems we identified would require <br />administrative changes within NRCD, we would offer the attached Recommended <br />Allocation Method for Distributing CDBG Funds. If this method is us.ed, NRCD staff <br />will need to negotiate with the applicants they wish to fund. in each region, to make <br />the total funds awarded in each region equal the r~'gional allocation. <br /> We would also strongly recommend that since the census .data is being-used in the <br />development of regional allocations it not be used again in the ranking of applications. <br />Data on each ~rolect area rather than community wide data should be used. That <br />would give counties with unincorporated "pockets of poverty" a chance to be funded, <br /> <br /> -3- <br /> <br /> <br />