Payments may be cut by the amount not spent in accordance with the title
What the document says“``(4) reduce payments to the participating jurisdiction under this subtitle by an amount equal to the amount of such payments that were not expended by the participating jurisdiction in accordance with this title.''.”
The section amends section 223 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, renaming it to cover program enforcement and penalties for noncompliance, extending it to provisions applicable throughout the affordability period required by section 215(a)(1)(E), and adding a new remedy of reducing payments to a participating jurisdiction by the amount it did not spend in accordance with the title.
What the document actually says“``(4) reduce payments to the participating jurisdiction under this subtitle by an amount equal to the amount of such payments that were not expended by the participating jurisdiction in accordance with this title.''.”
The housing agency may cut what it pays a place. The cut equals the money that place did not spend by the rules.
The older law set out penalties for misusing money. This widens them to any failure to comply. The new remedy is a matching cut.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.