In relation to the capacity of existing HOPE VI Revitalization Grantees, how must a PHA document/certify that no outside program manager was used for its existing HOPE VI Revitalization grant?
Section VII(B)(2)(a) instructs applicants (who have received HOPE VI Revitalization grants in the past) that points will be deducted if the applicant has not carried out the certain activities (Supplemental Submissions submitted; CSS Workplan submitted; Program Manager procured; and Master Development Agreement executed) within the timeframes established in the first schedule entered into the HOPE VI Quarterly Report system, regardless of extensions HUD may have approved. The rating factor further explains that HUD will determine this factor based on internal information on existing grants. The PHA would need to state that no program manager was procured and that the PHA served as its own program manager, in accordance with the NOFA under which the PHA was awarded HOPE VI Revitalization grant funding and the respective HOPE VI Revitalization Grant Agreement.
Related Questions
- In relation to the capacity of existing HOPE VI Revitalization Grantees, how must a PHA document/certify that no outside program manager was used for its existing HOPE VI Revitalization grant?
- Current HOPE VI Revitalization Grantees are subject to a threshold and a rating factor that measure their performance on their existing grants. How are these determined?
- Are the page limit requirements different for the FY2009 HOPE VI Revitalization NOFA?
