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-; .......................