Action Plan Amendment 27 (Second AP Amendment 10)
Individual Mitigation Measures (IMM) explanation
More than 50 Public Comments were received regarding APA No. 27. The main question or concern raised is why CDBG funds were being used to fund the IMM program versus HMGP funding. The concern is that additional CDBG funds should instead be used to give additional resources to homeowner awardees of the Road Home. Many of the comments also had to do with the state appeals process which is a process developed by the state that does not require HUD approval and is not covered in APA 27.
Question: Why are CDBG funds being used to fund the IMM program versus HMGP which would preserve precious CDBG funds for the Road Home compensation program?
There are several reasons why Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are being utilized as the funding source for the Individual Mitigation Measures (IMM) program. At the outset, the use of CDBG funds is much less stringent than Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) monies which allow for more State autonomy in the amount of freedom in how they might be used and the speed at which the grants are funneled to grant recipients. It is important to note that the original Road Home Action Plan contemplated using CDBG funds for IMMs. This Action Plan was approved by HUD and used as a basis to receive Federal funding. Estimates have been developed that show availability of funding for IMMs given the current universe of applicants expressing interest in both elevation and IMM programs.
Action Plan Amendment 28 (Second AP Amendment 11)
The Louisiana Recovery Authority (LRA) was directed by Act 872 to address three critical issues: the appeals process for homeowners who had exhausted their appeals through ICF and the former state appeals process, the use of the highest appraised value for calculating grant awards under the Road Home program, and the issues of homeowners on properties larger than five acres.
The Act further directed the LRA to publish an action plan amendment seeking approval from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) within 30 days of signature of the Act. SB 755 was made effective as Act 872 on July 9, 2008.
Only one of the three issues- the use of the higher valuation in determining grant awards in the Road Home program- required a formal action plan amendment seeking guidance from HUD. The other two issues require internal actions from the LRA and the Office of Community Development Disaster Recovery Unit (OCD-DRU).
Action Plan Amendment No. 28 was developed in response to Act 872 to address the issues of valuation raised in the legislation. The Action Plan Amendment (APA) was published for public comment on August 8, 2008. The public comment period was extended through August 23, 2008.
More than 50 Public Comments were received regarding APA No. 28. Most of these public comments included the same comments summarized below. Many of the comments had to do with the state appeals process which is a process developed by the state that does not require HUD approval.
Comments Summary
These 2 comments are the most representative of the public comments and concerns. An archive of all responses are posted on the Office of Community Development’s website at http://doa.louisiana.gov/cdbg/drhome.htm.
Public Comment 1:
August 23, 2008
In Re Act 872 To whom it may concern: My name is Frank Silvestri. I am a lif-long resident of New Orleans, an attorney in private practice and co-chair of the Citizens Road Home Action Team, along with Professor Melanie Ehrlich. As such, we have witnessed the evolution and effects of the Road Home Program on thousands of people. Through CHAT surveys and meetings we have communicated information concerning problem areas since late 2006, working with members of the agencies and organizations involved at both te state and federal level. Needed corrections for some semblance of fairness to large numbers of ignored applicants: CHAT supported Act 872, along with our legislative initiatives that did not make it to final passage as desperately needed to restore fairness and consistency to thousands of Road Home applicants who have been the victims of the inconsistent and arbitrary implementation of rules that were intended to help applicants. Instead, in the hands of indifferent contractors coupled with poor oversight, we have seen many of the initiatives and program reforms rendered ineffective or even detrimental both in the awards process and particularly of late on appeal. A fair and consistent appeals process with rules and policies provided, along with an opportunity for everyone who was not provided a fair grant, an opportunity to have their appeal heard by in an independent review is required. The program started with the principle that the lesser of rebuild or pre-storm value would be used to determine grants. Program officials promised citizens that this conservative approach would be tempered with use of the highest appraisal in the applicants file. (CHAT was instrumental in getting the LRA to recognize the acceptance of appraisals from certified Louisiana appraisers was one means of insuring fair psv numbers). We came to learn over time, the contractor began using appraisals that appeared result oriented – that lower numbers were sought, not only by means of using lower appraisal values but other means to reduce grant awards. Our concerns that this problem was systematic and widespread, whether intended or not, was evident, expressed to officials, but to date with little sign that the problems were being addressed. This bill is a start at restoring some measure of help to applicants. highest psv in principle should not pose a problem for HUD or the state. The federal government and state always have recourse if an applicant commits fraud in the process of submitting a false appraisal. By contrast, presuming fraud or the bad faith as inevitable or widespread does a disservice to the citizens of Louisiana. There is no reason to discount the various sources of psvs used to date, including those generated by the contractor, unless the presumption is those were the result of widespread incompetence.. To do so serves no purpose other than to penalize applicants, increase additional steps and delays in the process (which again, benefit none other than the contractor) and will not result in a fair and efficient final disbursement of grants. Act 872 is not enough, but it is a beginning and should be supplemented in any way that the LRA and/or HUD can to contribute to fairer grants for every applicant. CHAT respectfully submits until the issues of correcting the systematic downgrading of grants is addressed, including estimates of damage which are used in lieu of pre-storm value if the estimate is less than 51%, low estimates leading to little or no grant while neighbors with similar size homes got high awards, downgrading to reduce grant awards after applicants were notified of the amount of their grant; applicants who cannot get into appeals because they missed an unfair deadline due to arcane rules on how to appeal, misinformation about who can appeal, or documents lost by ICF; applicants buried in dispute resolution who could not appeal without a completed dispute resolution (ICF was fined for a small fraction of these but there was no discussion of restitution for the applicants); applicants who could not mount a successful appeal because they did not previously have a copy of their RH calculations so that they knew what mistakes they were appealing; applicants who have yet to be informed that higher psv estimates in their grant calculations were discarded and not provided, there is little hope of anything approaching due process or fairness by the state in the grant process. Some applicants have been struggling for months to get documents they are entitled to under LRA policy but which have been denied by the contractor, with the tacit conset of the LRA/OCD preventing access to the records which are essential to a fair appeal., including: the estimate of damage report (CAD), which according to LRA-OCD official policy (posted at the CHAT website, chatushome.com) is supposed to have been sent to applicants automatically if the damage estimate was used for grant calculation instead of pre-storm value. CHAT has repeatedly warned that applicants do not have a fair appeal if ICF, who determined the grant, plays any role in determining the appeal outcome. This practice, to our knowledge, continues today. It must also be noted, at both the federal and state level, that the programs involved in the recovery, including the RHP have miserably failed homeowners with regard to elevation and has compromised the chance of any serious mitigation of damage from future flooding by failing to timely disburse elevation awards, by delaying the disbursements of funds, and finally by telling grant applicants t they had to surrender their appeals to have their elevation award processed. In the context of this bill the federal and state governments should be mindful that CHAT has heard from numerous applicants who won their award months ago but cannot get the funds they agreed to accept and no one can explain why. Add to this applicants who are in limbo with respect to getting any word on their applications which should have been resolved months ago and the question that needs to be asked is how many applicants total have yet to receive any funds, or all that is due, that this program must address and should be of more concern that the needs of the contractor, the state or the federal government merely to get this mess over with and forgotten. CHAT hopes that HUD appreciates the complexity of the issues and does not overlook the fact that lost in the details and questionable numbers presented to date, human lives and family futures are at stake and that the government’s role here must be, and should always have been, helping the people Congress intended to help with relief granted the victims of the storms of 2005. Sincerely Frank A. Silvestri Co-chair Citizens Road Home Action Team 3914 Canal St New Orleans, LA 70119 504.482.3400
Public Comment 2:
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28:
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters etc.).
Instead, LRA should use the Hazard Mitigation Money for that.
State's Response
APA No. 28 was developed to address the request to allow for higher valuations. The issue of the State Appeals process is a state-controlled process. Below is an overview of the developments the state has made to address these concerns. Additionally, issues of Individual Mitigation Measures are addressed in APA No. 27.
From the inception of the Road Home program, applicants who either disagreed with the calculations forming the basis of their grant awards (or eligibility to participate in the program) have always been afforded the right to appeal. Although ICF, the contractor, has and continues to process issues being appealed, ICF has never been the final decision maker on Road Home appeals. Rather, a six (6) member “State Review Panel” was put in place to make recommendations for a final decision from the Disaster Recovery Unit Director in disputed cases where homeowners have exhausted all other remedies first. Therefore, the Road Home program has always had a state review process to consider disputed homeowner issues.
In an effort to enhance and streamline appeals, improvements were made to the overall appellate process. Improvements include the creation of a full time state review team of 6 members (with 3 additional OCD managers overseeing the process) and increased communication with the homeowner to obtain additional information regarding their appeal. In addition, the previous process, which often resulted in the State Review Panel “remanding” cases back to ICF/Road Home, has been changed so that the state team can process files without relying on the contractor for additional information.
However, it should be noted that although the appellate process has been vastly improved, greater substantive rights under the appeal process have not been created. Consequently, the argument that newer Road Home applicants who file appeals are somehow afforded greater rights than early bird applicants is without merit. As such, retroactivity of current Road Home appellate policy would not cause a change in the amount of the grant for early bird applicants.
Action Plan Amendment 29
Only one public comment was received on APA 29. It addressed a concern about the redistribution of funds away from the development of affordable housing.
Public Comment
To take money from communities when low and moderate housing is non existant must not be done. The money must get used for such housing. The community block grant program seems the only way to do such. If the LRA wants to redistribute the money let the LRA start a low income duplex housing project with the money.
State Response
The state agrees that there is a serious need for affordable housing. The state has allocated $1.2 billion in CDBG funds to the development of new and rehabilitated rentals units. A great majority of the projects make available affordable units.
Code enforcement is a critical component of building and repairing lost homes and rental units. The funds reallocated under this program will make available resources to train localities in code enforcement in order to ensure the proper and safe rebuilding and repair of much needed housing.
