Loading...
H-3 Urban RenewalURBAN RENEWAL ABENCY 21'7-A WEST ASH 829-044'1 p. r-1. SOX '12D2 RICHARD L. WORTH Executive Director SALINA, KANSAS 6'74D1 May 13, 1974 HAROLD EAG[ETON CHARLES STARK MRS. JOHN RIDDLE MrL Norris Olson City Manager 300 W. Ash Salina, Kansas 67401 Dear Norris: Please be advised that I visited wkth Harold Bernsten in Kansas City on Thursday, May 9th. He stated that NDP's such as ours would be funded for a six (6) month period. He gave me a copy of the attached memorandum which was provided to their office. Our present NDP expires in June 1974. He asked that we submit a letter over the signature of the Mayor, if the City Commission desires to continue this program. The Urban Renewal Commission does not feel that additional real estate should be acquired, however, we feel that various site improvements can be undertaken during the six (6) month period. These site improvements could be a benefit to the entire project area. ~We would appreciate your asking the City Commission for their consideration of this matter as soon as 'possible. The only action to be taken at this time by the City Commission is preparation of a letter expressing their desire for a continuance of the program as mentioned in the final paragraph of the first page of the memorandum. A new application will. not be required, however, we will revise the existing application. Yours very truly, Richard L. Worth Executive Director RLW:ba encl. REGION VII Room 300 Federal Office Building 911 Watnt~t Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT KANSAS CITY AREA OFFICE TWO GATEWAY CENTER, 4TH, AND STATE KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 May 14, 1974 IN REPLY REFER TO: 7 · 1PM: lm Honorable William M. Usher Mayor of Salina, Kansas City Hall Salina, Kansas 674_01 Dear Mayor Usher: Subject: h-DP Financing for Fiscal Year 1974 We have enclosed herewith this Department's most recent policy statement regarding mamag~ment of the Urban Renewal - Neighborhood Development Program thrOU~oh and beyond the end of this £iscal year. We have transmitted similar information to the Director of the Urban Renewal Program in )~our community. Continuation of the program will, in each commumity, require the concurrence o£ the chief executive and the governing body. To the end that local renewal efforts co~m_*orm to your priorities, mhd those of yotLr governing body, we suggest that you meet immediately with your Urban Renewal Director, the Board of the renewal agency, and such other local officials as you feel would be appropriate and necessar7 to make the decisions which the document contemplates. You may be assakred that the staff of this office ip available to meet with you and other local officials to assist in this effo~t. Please appreciate that the funds being discussed ~st either be z:eserved or allocated prior to July 1, 1974, and it will be critical that these decisions be made as rapidly as possible. / Sin~rely, ~ ~ . ~ l:~ogram ~.Lanag~r HL~O--g6 (4--?2) PI~J~VIOUS E;PlTION I'-~AY BE USED Memo'randum U.S. DEPARTMENT OF tIOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO ALL L~CUTiW'E DIP~ECTORS OF DATE: ~,.L~y 13, 1974 IN REPLY REFER TO: -~.['~}AG~.~LV{T SEC2102~, }~210~.~ CITY PJIIL% OFFICE.. FOR FISCAL ~'~ 1974 Attached is idemorandum from our Central Office v~ich sets the f~ndi~.~ policies to be followed in funding .... ' - a~ozgrn~ents This office will advise each receioient city the ~-momnt of fu~ds available for their n~o.~sm'as soon as possible. We recommend each city review the local ootions available and advise this office, in letter or other doc~menta%ion from the chief executive official of the city, if they desire to have the present prog=~am extended mud will be ~abmitti~L~an application /'or additional f~mds. TO : ATTN: SUBJECT: ALL IqEGIONAL ADMD~ISTRATORS Assistant Regional Administrators for CD Assistant t{egionalAdministrators for CPA~ All Area Office Directors David O. Meeker, Jr., Management-of the Title I Urban t/enewal in Fiscal Year 1974 ~ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING' AND URBAN DEVh'LOP.MENT ~ REPLY REFER Office of Commu'/gi-ty-]Planning-"'and ~,e~v_elopment :- Fun'd For ~On-going NDP's On April 18, 1974, Secretary James'T. Lynn announce.d that additional funding would be made available during Fl" 1974 for Neighborhood D'evelopment Progrm~ns, - and other Title I Urban Renewal needs,, in order to provide adequate transition .funding between June 30, 1974, and an anticipated startup date of. new con~.munity development legistatiori on January 1~ 1975. Legislation incorporating that time schedule has already made substantial progress in the Congress. ]VIyrnemorancmm of December 10, 1973, on this subyec~ outlined certain manage- ment priorities and funding criteria for %he distribution of urban renewal funds during Fiscal Year 1974. Due to the assurnptions about legislative proposals pending at the U~e, that memorandum did not cover refunding of on-going Heighborhood Development Programs (NI)P) for which contracts were authorized in the last half of FY '73. As these assmr~ptions have now changed, the follov¢ing material spells out the process and procedures for NDI° transition funding. LOCAL, OPTIONS AVAIL,ABLE In determining the process for providing funds for continuing NDP's we have considered the time available to June S0, 1974, and the NDP cities' needs for transition funding. HUD will extend until January 1, 1975, the budget period for all NDP's for which the chief executive and governing body of the locality desire continuance of the program, AllNDP's will be provided with sufficient funds to contmu ~ activities unt'il January 1, 1975 On-goinL~ ~DP's wilt not have to continue under tlte restrictions of my December 10, 1973, memo ,Dr prior memos limiting NDP activities. The technique of re.-;erving funds, using tIUt) t,~orm 695, can be used where necessary to accommodate the timing of appropriate reviews which are a prerequisite to allocation of fuads. 2 LEVELS OF NDP ACTIVITY UNDER I,OCAL Oi~TION The choic'e of NDP activities can affect the timing of availability of funds where' statutory requirements, such as environmental, reviews, are involved. This should be made clear to all city- officials w]here additional funding for on-going NDP's are involved; The following three levels of activity should be utilized in determining the applicability of these review requirem, ents: 1. The.pro.~ram continuity level: This would encompass full funding of previously approved NDP activities for which insufficient funds were provided in the existing annual contract, plus covering cost overruns encountered in the pro,ram year. Administrative, relocation and interest costs, (see definitions below) may be provided for the extended budget period to January 1, 1975. The e~oanded ~ransition level: This would include the funding for activities mentioned above (progran~ continuity level) as well as the following: (a) Administration (including planning eligible ~DP activities in I-iUD recognized NDP areas, property managernent~ land disposition, relocation, etc. ); (b) (d) (e) Land acquisition related to rounding out or completion of prior acquisition, to complete parcels for HUD assisted housing projects which,are expected to be approved in ivy '74 or to complete a disposition package for which a Land Disposition Agreement (LDA) will be executed prior to January 1~ 1975~ and which have received "catch-up" or initial NEPA review prior to execution of the LDA; Site improvements (related to Item 2 above or to support previously approved concentrated neighborhood prese, rvation and rehabilitation); Relocation (fully funding all projects for their existing workloads); Interest (pursuant to prior surveys, to keep private market financin.,~ into t ~.~;cal Year 1.) ~o). 3. The .expanded .ore,ram level: This would include all of the above plus any of the following: (a) ]Expansion of the existing NDP area ~ (b) Addition of a new I~Dt) area (such additions will only be perrnitted when the criteria in attac,hment 13 can be satisfied). (c) Site improvements or land acquisition not rJ. eeting the criteria for the "expanded transition level" above. PROCEDURAL ST~PS . ..~ ,- - 1. Advise each ~-DP city that its program may be ,xiended to January 1975~ if the community is interested in continuing the NDP. extension n~ay be done by letter from ~he Area Office and requires no enviromrnenta.1 clearance or Workable Program re-certification. Such ..... ' ' . ex~en=~.ons should be granted promptly upon reques~ £rom the LPA and the locality's chief executive. Cities with on-going NDP's should be advised %hat I-IUD has informally earmarked a rnaxiraum dollar m-nount for the july 1, 1974 - January 1, NDP period. This amount should be calculated as 40~0 of each city's NDP hold-harmless figxire (hold harmless lists to be provided[ by Central Office), except that v;here inordinate carryover reflects the incapaci~yof the city to use effectively funds [o be assigned by this method, the g~nount alloca.~.cd may be less. __~otify the Office of Field SupDort~ CP]): of the ea~Tnarks to be._g~iven each city. Five days after -receipt of this advice in ihe Central Office: .you may advise the cities of the amounts earn~arked for their on-ffoin~ iWDP activity. \Vhere, in t!~e judgrnent of the Area Office~ thc t~rget fig?are should be r,~duced as sug[tested above, the unused funds may be distributed to other NDP's within the Region. 1975 NEPA, Historic Preservation, \Vorkable Program: The apPlication should be given all required st:~tutory.reviewSo A National Environmental Policy Act (NE]PA) review is necessary if activities exceed those specified above for the progran~ continuity level. In cases where a city chooses to conduct an expanded program level o~, an expanded transition pro~ram level as outlined above, nn(l urban renewal plan chan~.~cs are involved, a s.pecial cnvironme~tal 4 clearance or full ]~]nvirommental Impact pursuant to HUD Handbook 1390.1' Statement ~nay be required ! If any NDP work program affects a prop.erty or properties listed on, or nominated to, the National lqegister Of Historic' Places, the requirements of section 105 of the National ttistoric Preservation Act_of 19S6 must be met. i i. In some cases, applications for program, continuity levels of funding will involve projects which have been undergoing catchup environ- mental reviews pursuant to my November 27 instructions. While allocation or reservation of FY '74 funds to guch projects may t~ke place as required and appropriate, the completion of envirommental reviews should be diligently pursued and completed, if possible, prior to June 30 or as soon thereafter as staff lirr~itations permit. d. ' ]Pinally, for those cities selecting the ~expanded program level option a current certified Workable Program must be in effect prior to I-IUD execution of on allocation order. Allocation or 1Reservation of Funds: Upon approval of the application, the city would be tendered a funding amendatory of its already extended NDP contract for the express purpose of con~pleting the program 'level selected. The FY '74 funds allocated for this arr:endatory would not be charged a..~ainst the city's hold harn~.less or entitlement funds under successor legislation anticipated to commence January 1,. 1975. In some instances,-NEPA review or other requirements may preclude the signing of tlUD ])'orm 687 Allocation Order by June 30, 1974. In such cases, use of }IUD Form 695, (marked in boxes 4 and 5 as illustrated in Attachment~), will be sufficient. Interest Costs: l~'unds previously assigned for interest for ND}~'s must be used for 1N'DP's. In determining the funding level for specific NDP's eachNDP should receive funds frozn the interest amount previously assigned for t%*DP, plus their pro-rata share of funds from the assig~nent accompanyin~ this memorandum. Funds from the interest amount should "be computed based on current land inventory value as discussed in Attach- ment C of my December 10, 1972 ~nemorandu~,. tn order to minimize interest costs, interim grant payments up to 1007~ of earned grant are pe~issible for NDP's which are extended to January !, 1975. A ffrant requisition, snppor[ed by an interim Certificate of Fir~ancial Settlcn~cnt, should he submitted for process'm,~, in conjunction with project financing'._ d ocun~ en ts. l°roeeeds from the requisition will be used to reduce project indebtedness and/or to provide funds'for project e~penditures during the extended period via the tr~nsfe'r-of-funds procedure. 6. Funds escrowed: ~DP's with unassigned/ escrowed funds from prior . . conversions of conventional renewal projects shall be treated in the following way: (a) The escrow funds, and not the regular assigned funds, shall be used to meet the 40% of l~old harmless level if they are sufficient to do so. Such cities shall receive no new funds except in cases vchere the escrow is fully used and the 40,% level is not reached; (b) If there is remaining escrow after providing for the 40% level, all or part of this may be assigned to the city for either the NDP or any other on-going Urban renewal activity to the ° extent that the funds can be effectively used in the transition period; (c) If the remaining escroxv funds cannot be used effectively by the city, please notify me through the Office of Field Support and we will · advise as to the disposition of the escro~v. -Available escrow amounts have been taken into account in the assignn~ent of funds to the Regions. P1ROJ~CT COMPLETIONS AND FINANCIAL SETTLEA,'IENTS I-IUD emphasis on completion of co~e enforcement projec~s~ renewal projects and IqlDP's may be relaxed where the city's onl~f code enforcement project, renewal project, or NDP area is involved. In such instances, the local interest in ~aintaip~ng a capacity [o carry on such' community development pro~rmns should be re-appraised, and additional activities 'starting of the ne~7 community devlelopmen/ legislation. % . . Assistant Secretary [ ~ 1. }To application sh~ll be accepte& For a new }[DP area'unless activities have been co~91e-Led o~ will be completed as off ~/~0/~ city, end the fill audit for the completed ~eas h~s been c~ie~ 2. ~ cases where ~P activity ~s been comp!ere4 o~ will be co,lored EDP the city ~shes to ~nt~. its st~'f ~d progrs~ cont~t;F by the addition of new activities in new areas, including plarm_ing, please get in touch with the Office of Field Support, CPD for fturther instructions. Any new }~P areas in wb_ich ~n2- level of activity other thegn plan- ' ning only is proposed will require at least a special envirom~mental clearance, if not a full Enviro~nental Impact Statement puraus_ut to HUD Haudbook 1390.1. certified Workable Program shall be in effect prior to iss~uance of an allocation order authorizing ar4v~P contract incorpoz:ating 'amy new area. ~... The'concurrence of general local purpose government, evidenced by. a letter from the mayor amd a resolution of the governing body shall accompamy arff I[DP application contaSming 'o '~ ~ . pr posal,~ for new areas U. $. DEPARTMENT OF HOJ$1NG AND URBA,'I DEV~LGPM~NT URBAN RE.NE.~AL PROGRAM PROJECT. RESERVATION OF CAPITAL GRANT FUNDS ('Under Title I of the Housing Act of 19'~g, as amended) Existing Reservation Increase (+) or Decrease ¢-) ( ) l~oJ oct Reservation TYPE OF' APPLICATION ~ Flrst projec; resulting from General Nelghborhood ~ene~al Plan No. ATTA CtIMENT~A LOCALI[¥ 2, PROJECT CAPITAL a~;44T ~ 2/3 BASIS 3/4 I~tSIS: ]Limited costs [_--] 50,000 or less ~-J In Redevelopment Area more th~n 50,06,0 HUD-6~$ (I 0-57) ~, TVPE OF ACTIO;4  O RIGINAL H EV ISiC~ (Explain ir~ B/oc~ 5) ~ ~-qINATION O~ I~03ECT [] APPLICATION FOR LO.~'q AND G~ZN-F--PART I, FINAL PHCU ECT [] NDP amended funding agreeme It Transition Funding FY '74 [~ NOT ~3FLICAn~L. E [---J SU~JECT TO FOLLO',~'ING IDT.N'TIFI~ S?ECtAL LIMITATIC~S: [] Nonresidential exception under Sec. ]10(c) ~ Nonresidential exception under Sec. !13--area .- redevelopnent project ~ Sec. ll0(c)(1)(iv) fund ll~lta[lon--alr rights project 6. ,~.PP[ICA~tLITY OF ~'~ECI;& LiHITATIO3kS 7. EX'rF~RT OF P.E}t/.,-qlLITATION The project to ~hlch this Reservation action pertains EFFECT O,'~ SEC, llOfc) .t.i!h'I~{?.,( .qECUI25~f=~'T FOR FROJFLTS INVOLVING PR!~LgliLy R~q.~I LITATION ~. A~ou~t of otlrstgndiR~ reservation annltcah~ ~equSre~ent .. b. Net change by thls Reservation action C. Total j¢ ~-~ DOES ,[--] DOES NOT .involve pri=arlly rehabllltatlen 8- PREVALIDAT!ON BY OFFICE OF FINANCIAL SYSTEMS AND SERVICES Capltal grant contract abthorlty is available. ~--~Upoo approval, $ -- to be charged against increase over State limitation under Section 106(e). 9. tPPPOYAL ~.uthorl~ed O£llclal, Oftice of l"$nn'ncl,~l 7he t'.eservatlon action Jori!cared above Is hereby approve,l. SECRETARY OF HOU,%ING AND URBAN D,'~%F.[,O~.,.k,~T By iq- ;"t-; .......................