3
20
57
-
https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/5b78b765e7713dfc94705e4ec807afa1.pdf
b1c49aae1d076384298aae1742e5bb62
Scripto
Transcription
A written representation of a document.
.
March 27, 1969
MEMORANDUM
TO :
r . Cecil A. Alexander , Chairman
Housing Resources Committee ·
At the arch 25 meeting of the ayor with Department Heads
and Agencies re.s ponsible for carrying out Atl nta ' s Su er
Program in the six core areas . I presented the HRC plan d~ted
3-20- 69 , copy of which has been furnished you .
Item 11 , Promotion of Emergency Housing, struck a very
responsive chord ith Ann os s , who has suggested I discuss
the matter further with Al Bos .
It has occurred to me th t perhaps it might be ell for you
to appoint an Ad Boe Committe of about 3 emb rs of the HRC to
look into this propos 1 and to come up 1th a report of findings
nd 1·eoomm ndations ou th matter, t our M y eeting . I sugg st
th t the r port include uch items as:
a.
b.
c.
d for such housing.
Extent - numb r nd bedroo co position of untts.
Whether ne or xisting structures should be
c n ider d
·
(I 1 vor u ing exi tin
Perhap
VA Ho plt 1 48
structures 1th
ould b pr ctical.)
ini um
iteration.
d.
Maxi um period of occup ncy by any on
rh p 3 ontb)
f.
ould ad inist r? (U yb th
lv tion
Ary could do it.)
T nt tiv r nt l to b ch rged and m thod of
p
nt, to.
ln tb1 connect1on
igbt or t
1 t no and bett r ~ ult tro our
ould ssign v rious proj ct of our u
r
11 Ad oc Co itt
to wo~k on, r port
f
t
b
ily
r
to
�r. Cecil A. Alexnder
March 27, 1969
Page 2
Examples from our Summer ~ogram items might include:
3.
i.
6.
8.
9.
10.
11.
ork fo~ rezoning for Browntown Road Turnkey
Project.
Encourage bom ownership.
Encourages aller developments of mix d type
Publio Housing.
Strive for tangible evidence of physic 1
improve ents. in Vine City during 1969.
ork with Model Cities staff in expediting
physic 1 evidence of experimental housing
this ye r.
Push e r ·l y rezoning of entire C.i ty.
Work for elimination of slum pockets through
NDP or by Prlv ~e Enterprise.
From time to time other proj cts such as study of future
housing ue ds; profit ' ble utilization of the Orb n Obs l'V tory
to bests rv n eds of the HRC nd utiliz tion of City own~d
Pl"Operty for PUblic Housing (Such res _s undeveloped portions
of La ewond
rk, th City Prison arm, etc.).would be appropri t
for p-pointment of mall Ad Hoc Co itte s to work on. l believ
th t such ssign nts would dev lop g»od re ults, b welco d by
our C
itte
e bers · nd · ould iv th m feeling of orth hil
p rtloip tion o.d •oco plisb ent.
Siner lyr
al.col I>. Jone ·
Housing Coo~diD tor
J/
C
.
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
/M4er. oye ind.
March 27, 1969
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Cecil A. Alexander, Chairman
Housing Resources Committee-
At the March 25 weeting of the Mayor with Department Heads
and Agencies responsible for carrying out Atlanta's Summer
Program in the six core areas. I presented the HRC plan dated
3-20-69, copy of which has been furnished you.
Item 11, Promotion of Emergency Housing, struck a very
responsive chord with Ann Moses, who has suggested I discuss
the matter further with Al Bows,
It has occurred to me that perhaps it might be well for you
to appoint an Ad Hoc Committee of about 3 members of the HRC to
look into this proposal and to come up with a report of findings
and recommendations on the matter, at our May meeting. I suggest
that the report include such items as;
a. Need for such housing.
b. Extent - number and bedroom composition of units.
c, Whether new or existing structures should be
cans idered
(I favor using existing structures with minimum alterations.
Perhaps VA Hospital 48 would be practical.)
qd. Maximum period of occupancy by any one family
(Perhaps 3 months)
e. Who would administer? (Maybe the Salvation
Army could do it.)
f. Tentative rentals to be charged and method of
payment, etc.
In this connection we might create more interest and get more
assistance and better results from our Committee members if we
would assign various projects of our summer and other programs to
small Ad Hoc Committees to work on, report and follow through.
Mr. Cecil A. Alexander
March 27, 1969
Page 2
Examples from our Summer Program items might include:
3. Work for rezoning for Browntown Road Turnkey
Project.
7. Encourage home ownership.
6. Encourage smaller developments of mixed type
Public Housing.
8. Strive for tangible evidence of physical
improvements in Vine City during 1969.
9. Work with Model Cities staff in expediting
physical evidence of experimental housing
this year.
10. Push early rezoning of entire City.
11. Work for elimination of slum pockets through
NDP or by Private Enterprise.
From time to time other projects such as study of future
housing needs; profitable utilization of the Urban Observatory
to best serve needs of the HRC and utilization of City owned
property for Public Housing (Such areas as undeveloped portions
of Lakewood Park, the City Prison Farm, etc.).would be appropriate
for appointment of small Ad Hoc Committees to work on, I believe
that such assignments would develop gpod results, be welcomed by
our Committee members and would give them a feeling of worthwhile
participation and eccomplishment.
Sincerely,
Malcolm D. Jones
Housing Coordinator
MDJ/mec
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Box 5, Folder 1, Document 45
Box 5
Box 5 Folder 1
Folder topic: Housing Resources Committee | 1969
-
https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/226bad36804eb2b3846d925dea48eaba.pdf
9b6ca9d9587cb6eda7e31aae5478e030
Scripto
Transcription
A written representation of a document.
-~
/
/
l
1 ae y
)
blic Administration
1225 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: (202) 659-916 5
\
March 2 7 , 1969
M~ . Morel and Smi th
Southern Reg iona l Counc i l, I nc.
5 F o r s y t h S t r ee t , ·N .W .
At lanta , Ge org ia
30303
De a r Mr . Smith :
Th is letter is to ap poin t you to the At lanta pane l f ormed by the
Ac ademy to f unct i on wi th res pect to our r e search contr a c t with the U.S. De par t ment of Housing and Urb an Develo pment . Enclosure 11 All_ i s a copy of the
HUD announc ement re garding this project.
Th e c ontra c t c a lls for us to s tudy the criti c al decisi onal and
aqm ini s tra tive asp e cts , prima rily f rom t he lo c al point of view, of .fo ur HUD .iss"Istecfur'ban program s : q turnkey h ousing,2 inner - city open s pace, Sba si c sewer
and wa ter fa cil i ti e s gr ants, and .,Jnon - p r of it s ponsored new housing under Se c tion 22l ( d) (3 ) -- a r ep lac ement f or s tudy of 22l (h ) . These pro grams will be
ana l ysed from point of ori g in to poiµ t of impac t i n six (o r s ev en ) ci ties,
with At lan t a s i rvi ng a s t he pilot study.
· The pro je ct wi l l ti e i n with r e l a ted HUD contracts awarded to t h e
Na ti onal League of Citi e s to evolve a s ystem of urban ob servatories ( in a ddition to Atlanta , f our othe r de signa t e d ob s e rvatory c itie s are among t ho s e
ci ti e s which we have recormnend e d to HUD f or inclusion in our stu dy )' , and to
Rutge rs Univer s ity t o study ways of a chieving a more effe c tive stati r o l e in
urban progran1s.
Dr . Mo r ris W. Co l l ins, Jr., Dir_e ctor of the . Institute of Government,
Univ er si ty of Ge org i a , is c onv eno r of t he Atlanta panel. Other pane lists are
l i ste d on Enc l osure 11 B11 • One or t wo additional members may be appointed.
As knowl e dgeab l e At l ant ans, t he pane l will be a s ked t o o r ient, i nf orm ,
advise, and help di rect t he t hree-man t eam wh ich will be in Atlanta fr om
Ma rch 3 1st t hr ough April 11th . I n ad d i tion to myself, this team is compo se d
of Mes srs. Elias B. Si l v erman and Char le s R. Warren.
There wi l l be two pane l me e t ings, t o e ach of which this l e t ter of
a pp o-intmen t is i s an i nv i t ation . These meet i ng s wi ll be he l d at Georgia Sta t e
Co lleg e on:
,.....---....
Wednesday , q>..gr il 2nd\ from
( luncheon i n 't.1\e- "As"semb l y
Activitie s Bu il ding, wi th
the Fa cul t y Lounge of the
Building); and
,
,
Noon until about 3: 00 P.M.
Room, 2nd F l oor of S tudent
the me e t i ng continuing in
Bu sine s s Administration
�l_
Mr . More land Sm ith
r-~arch 27 · 1969
2
.
Thur s d 2. y, lp
. ril lO _t=l).. from 9 :0 0 A.M. until middle or
l~te 2.fternoon ln the President 1 s Conf erenc e Room,
with luncheon. in t he Assemb ly Room.
At the Ap ril 2nd mee ting , t he panel wi ll be asked to revi ew and
c o:-:-.r.,e;-:t upon our Pilot Research Design (Enclosure uc 11 ) and Tentative Int e rview Sc:-iedule (Enclosure uD 11 ), to su;;ge.st ways in which we might most · produ ctively pro ceed , and in general to gui de our efforts in Atlanta. We have
also developed a Progr~~ Sw-nmarization aµd Status Report on the selected
pro gra.'il.s (Enclosure 11£11 ).
The Apr il 10 th meeting will be devoted to an analysis and interpre. t ati on of our data and to t he f ormulation of findings and conclusions.
An honorari um of $25 per meeting attended will . be provided to you
1
as a member of the Atlanta panel.
A.national pane l h as been app ointed to further guide and evaluate
our eff orts in all selected study citie s. This panel is composed of:
Hr . William G. Colman, Execut:i.ve Director, Advisory Corranission
on Intergovernmental Relations
Mr . Porter W. Homer, County Manager, Dade County, Florida
The Honorable Arthur Nafta lin, Mayo~ of Minneapolis
Professor Ernest C. Reock, Jr., Di re ctor, Bureau of Government
Resear ch, Rutger s University
Pr ofessor Wallace S. Sayre, Eaton Profes sor of Public Administration, Department of Political Science, Columbia .University
Profess o r Carleton F. Sharpe, Visiting Research Professor and
Consultant, University of Hartf6rd
Dr. Gilber t Y. Steiner, Director of Governmental 'Studies, The
Brookings Institution
On behalf of the Ac ademy and the national panel, I wish to express
our appreciation for your willingness to participate in this important .project.
lft/A/
)<.• )/1/ /J,_,, '
SincereI
I
Dominic DelGuidice
Project Director
Encl osures (4)
\
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
Natianell tances PD ks sae ae
National Academy of Public Administration
1225 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
_ Phone: (202) 659-9165
March 27, 1969
Mr. Moreland Smith
Southern Regional Council, Inc.
5 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. Smith:
This letter is to appoint you to the Atlanta panel formed by the
Academy to function with respect to our research contract with the U.S. De-
partment of Housing and Urban Development. Enclosure "A" is a copy of the
HUD announcement regarding this project. :
The contract calls for us to study the critical decisional and
administrative aspects, primarily from the local point of view, of four HUD-
assisced urban programs: y turnkey housing,2inner-city open space,2basic sewer
and water facilities grants, andjnon-profit sponsored new housing under Sec-
tion 221(d)(3)--a replacement for study of 221(h). These programs wiil be
analysed from point of origin to point of impact in six (or seven) cities,
with Atlanta serving as the pilot study.
The project will tie in with related HUD contracts awarded to the
National League of Cities to evolve a system of urban observatories (in addi-
tion to Atlanta, four other designated observatory cities are among those
cities which we have recommended to HUD for inclusion in our study)’, and to
Rutgers University to study ways of achieving a more effective state role in
urban programs.
Dr. Morris W. Collins, Jr., Director of the-Institute of Government,
University of Georgia, is convenor of the Atlanta panel. Other panelists are
listed on Enclosure "B'. One or two additional members may be appointed.
As knowledgeable Atlantans, the panel will be asked to orient, inform,
advise, and hélp direct the three-man team which will be in Atlanta from
March 3lst through April llth. In addition to myself, this team is composed
of Messrs. Elias B. Silverman and Charles R. Warren.
There will be two panel meetings, to each of which this letter of
appointment is is an invitation. These meetings will be held at Georgia State
College on:
Wednesday, Moril ndy Eom Noon until about 3:00 P.M.
(luncheon in thé “Assembly Room, 2nd Floor of Student
Activities Building, with the meeting continuing in
the Faculty Lounge of the Business Administration
Building); and
Mr. Moreland Smith
March 27; 1969 : 9
pT ae : ;
Avril 10th) from 9:00 A.M. until middle or
ate af cernoon “in the President's Conference Room,
with luncheon in the Assembly Room.
w
OQ.
hcg
rn fa
6
At the April 2nd meeting,
the panel will be asked to review and
comment upon our Pilot Research Design (E
n (Enclosure "C") and Tentative Inter-
view Schedule (Enclosure "D"), to suggest ways in which we might most pro-
ductively proceed, and in general to guide our efforts in Atlanta. We have
also developed a Program Summarization and Status Report on the selected
programs (Enclosure nen),
The April 10th meeting will be devoted to an analysis and interpre-
tation of our data and to the formulation of findings and conclusions.
An honorarium of $25 per meeting attended will be provided to eu
as a member of the Atlanta panel.
A national panel has been appointed to further pane and evaluate
our efforts in all selected study cities. This panel is composed of:
Mr. William G. Colman, Executive Director, Advisory Commission
on Intergovernmental Relations
Mr. Porter W. Homer, County Manager, Dade County, Florida
The Honorable Arthur Naftalin, Mayor of Minneapolis
Professor Ernest C. Reock, Jr., Director, Bureau of Government
Research, Rutgers University
Professor Wallace S. Sayre, Eaton Professor of Public Administra-
tion, Department of Political Science, Columbia University
Professor Carleton F. Sharpe, Visiting Research Professor and
Consultant, University of Hartford
Dr. Gilbert Y. Steiner, Director of Governmental Studies, The
Brookings Institution
On behalf of the Academy and the national panel, I wish to express
our appreciation for your willingness to participate in this important project.
‘Dominic DelGuidice
roject Director
Enclosures (4)
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Box 5, Folder 1, Document 46
Box 5
Box 5 Folder 1
Folder topic: Housing Resources Committee | 1969
-
https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/e6d52e4614ffdb4948359b9bc88b537f.pdf
ea8c9f96d11dc8ee804654d0a564c63a
Scripto
Transcription
A written representation of a document.
r-1 n ! :
~
I
.__ _
i
1
!
'
,
I
L .-l
L-1
I
I
Qj
o
I
,.,.
'-.-.,
e,.I
'
1
l l
I
\___
',_;
__,)
!
i
o
l
i ---,
.
.
'
DJ
Ii ' -~r·J ,.,
,,.
I"
....., U
I. '·
Enclosure
---- ~
I
\
·-,
\
\
I
!._./
/
I
~- ___ ,.., . . / /
r~
·.--.
, , I•
.r-,.,. u'--.
..:
r
11
r--'\ n :-~ \-\
I
\;
t '- -·-·
i
1
r
\ ·. ,
! :·\_
· ' j i: ·: \
i_..,.I
~
_
·--,
_....,
\
~
t
'
A11
';
'I I
,\
J
/
r ~ I" n ~~
,,
.;~ ;,.
.
, . \ ; ' ' I . I,
iJ V -
I
I
i
VJ A S H Br-J C - 0 N D • C • 2 0 c!, ·~ 0
II
I
I
1
t
'
HUD-No. 69-0008
Phone (202) 755-6990
FOR RELEASE:
Thursday,
January 2, 19 69
IMPACT OF HUD PROGRAMS
TO BE STUDIED
Improving the effectiveness of major Federal programs is the
aim of a research contract announced today by the U. S. Depart:ment of Housing and Urban Development.
1
T. F. Rogers, Director of HUD' s Office of Urban Technology
and Research, .announced the award of a $100,000 contract to the
American Society for Public Administration. The project will study
· severa l of HUD' s programs in terms of their operation in a number
of se lected cities.
.
I
l
Mr. Rogers noted that "it is on~ of HUD' s prime responsibilities
to insure that states, cities and localities use its assistance programs
to maximu m advantage. The conclusions of this study are expected
to aid both HUD and the cities in improving the results of such Federal
programs as public housing, urban renewal., water and sewer facilitie s,
and open space.
11
The National Academy o f Public Administration, working with its
parent organization, the America n Society for Public Administration,
will establish a national panel and individual city panels to conduct
the study. These panels will develop a pattern describing the activities related to the admini stration o f each program surveyed in a city,
and analyze the principal local c ritica l decisions and actions. The ·
panel members will include member s of the Academy a nd residents of
each city to be surveyed who are knowledgeable in public administration
matters.
- more-
•
I
!I
I
�•
-2- .
HUD- No. 69-0008
.
Among the questions t o be studied will be the local reaction
to the initiation o f a pro gram ; the nature of Federal, State and lo cal
initiative ; how t he problem t o be solved wa s perceived by various
groups within the community ; whether s killed personnel were available
to carry out t he program, and what the performance rate and effectivene ss has been in the light o f local circumstances.
When the individual city studies are completed, the results will
be assessed on a national scale and general conclusions drawn.
Further information can be obtained from George Graham,
Director, National Academy of Public A_d ministration, 1225 Connecticut.
· Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20036 •
.il.
1T
.u.
if
-
I·
V
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
haste ee
a hat cesta lial nal
ate
= Enclosure "A"
ght ee igo’ eetely, pees
toe Soe alg te
‘ I [ —_ 1 1 , 4 < ——s = = —.,
’ ' i | ! . ‘ a | rj . Pip ie df fr 7
Ph at ele, ies } § by a (.
i tis 4 \ = ee Sy Ps bee ay re
i ied ted ae Rear <p, Bp Lay 2
=" Ff oe
bs J
U Ce nh te fo AY PS RACE ee nT
. Nac!
ego Be ai aiauk Eaves |
AR APM AR Mm Mm A | ry m™ Be OE
AWN Dp UROEAN MOEVEL SO
WASHINGTON D.C. 20410
4
HUD-No. 69-0008 : 7 "BOR RELEASE:
Phone (202) 755-6990 . qniescaye |=.
: January 2, 1969
IMPACT OF HUD PROGRAMS
TO BE STUDIED
Improving the effectiveness of major Federal programs is the
aim of a research contract announced today by the ees Depart-
_ ment of Housing and Urban Development.
T. F. Rogers, Director of HUD's Office of Urban Technology
and Research, announced the award of a $100,000 contract to the
American Society for Public Administration. The project will study
several of HUD's programs in terms of their operation in a number
of selected cities,
Mr. Rogers noted that "it is one of HUD's prime responsibilities
to insure that states, cities and localities use its assistance programs
to maximum advantage. The conclusions of this study are expected
to aid both HUD and the cities in improving the results of such Federal
programs as public housing, urban renewal, water and sewer facilities,
and open space,"
The National Academy of Public Administration, working with its
parent organization, the American Society for Public Administration,
will establish a national panel and individual city panels to conduct
the study. These panels will develop a pattern describing the activ-
ities related to the administration of each program surveyed ina city,
and analyze the principal local critical decisions and actions. The.
panel members will include members of the Academy and residents of
each city to be surveyed who are knowledgeable in public administration
matters.
-more=
tee
HUD-No. 69-0008 =-2=-°
Among the questions to be studied will be the local reaction
to the initiation of a program; the nature of Federal, State and local
initiative; how the problem to be solved was perceived by various
groups within the community; whether skilled personnel were available
to carry out the program, and whai the performance rate and effective-
ness has been in the light of local circumstances.
When the individual city studies are completed, the results will
be assessed on a national scale and general conclusions drawn.
Further information can be obtained from George Graham,
Director, National Academy of Public Administration, 1225 Connecticut.
Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20036.
ff
Hf:
_ te
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Box 5, Folder 1, Document 47
Box 5
Box 5 Folder 1
Folder topic: Housing Resources Committee | 1969
-
https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/41b0cb6dc651ba7b63f8895529f49d3a.pdf
1a4470c1e5d2fac2ecd3cf62a76667c0
Scripto
Transcription
A written representation of a document.
Enclosure
11 B11
.ATLANTA PANEU~
Convenor
Dr. }: or:::-is W.H. Collins, Jr.
~irector, Institute of Government
Univers ity of Georgia
Terre ll Hall
Athens, Georgia 30601 ·
1·::!'.' . Cecil A. Alexander
4l Broad St ., N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Hr . Glenn E. Bennett
c;:<ecutive Director
Atlanta Region Metropolitan
?12.nning Comrnission
900 Glenn 5uilding
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Ers . Henri etta Gantry
·757 Lynvalley Road, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30311
Prof . Tobe Johnson
3405 Lynfield Drive, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30311
Dean Alex Lacey
urban Life Center
Georgia · State College· ··
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Hrs. Alexander McPhedran
1365 Clifton Road, N.E.
·Atlanta, Georgia 30307
l'lr. Howard K. Menh inick
Director of Planning and Development
Ke ck ~ Wood, Inc.
3722 Pleasantdale Road
Atlanta, Georgia 30040 ·
½r . Jame s Robinson
Urban East Housing Consultants
900 Peachtree St. , N.:S.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Hr·. Moreland Smith
Southern Regional Counail, Inc.
5 Forsyth St., N.W.
Atlanta, Geo·rgia 30303
Dean Robert E. Steimke
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia 30332
Mr. Herbert L. Wiltsee
D.i rector, Southern Office
Council of State Governments
830 Peachtree St., N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
-;~ One or two additional members may be· appointed.
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
BALANTS
Convenor
TOU
Dr. Morris W.H. Collins, Jr.
Director, Institute of Goverrment
University of Georgia
Terrell Hall
Atnens, Georgia 30601
Mamnar
HBemMOIeTS
Mr. Cecil A. Alexander
li Broad St., NW.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 .
nn E. Bennett
ive Director
anta Region Metropolitan
Planning Commission
900 Glenn Building
Avlanta, Georgia "30303
rH
qQ
Ee @
Mrs. Henrietta Cantry
787 Lynvalley Road, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30311
Prof. Tobe Johnson -
3405 Lynfield Drive, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30311
Dean Alex Lacey
Urban Life Center
Georgia’ State College’
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Enclosure "Bt"
Mrs. Alexander McPhedran
1365 Clifton Road, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30307
Mr. Howard K, Menhinick
Director of Planning and Development
Keck & Wood, Inc.
3722 Pleasantdale Road
Atlanta, Georgia 300)0°
Mr. James Robinson :
Uroan East Housing Consultants
900 Peachtree St., N.5.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Mr. Moreland Snith
Southern Regional Council, Inc.
5 Forsyth St., N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dean Robert E. Steimke
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia 30332
Mr. Herbert L. Wiltsee
Director, Southern Office
Council of State Governments
830 Peachtree St., N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
* One or two additional members may be appointed.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Box 5, Folder 1, Document 48
Box 5
Box 5 Folder 1
Folder topic: Housing Resources Committee | 1969
-
https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/f974808eeaaca46c56dd0062952b3aaa.pdf
940df5f2a6019d878f1b7d68901657e8
Scripto
Transcription
A written representation of a document.
Enclo sure
11 C11
.
PILOT RESEARCH DESIGN FOR HUD PROJECT
I ntr odu ction
Th e Na tiona l Academy of Public Administration is undertaking,
for the Dep artmen t of Housing a nd Urb an Development, a study intended
to uncover' <:,~~E:te
-~~·~!~~ s
uy ban pro gram performanc e .
..:.·-----
and relationships which fa5 il ~
e or h2:n2._er
Th e ob j ec t ive is to identify the critical
.,...______
el ements i n de cision making and action systems by which HUD programs for
lo cal government s ·are put into e f f ect, and to suggest ways of maximizing
t he fa vor a ble and minimizin g the unfavorable elements.
This study is a
r efle ction of t he conc er n of HUD and othe rs with the difficulties of
i~p l ement i ng na tional pr ogr ams which hav e the ir impact at the local level.
Th e link s be twe en ·program ori gin a nd program performance ·have appeared . long
and tortuous.
.
.
Th is study de si gn r epresents o~e approach for the anaiysis of
program perf orman c e fr om the persp e ctive of t h e local level.
will study f our HUD pro grams -
The Aca demy
non -p r of i t sponsored new housin g und er
22l ( d ) (3 ) , turnk ey housing , ba s ic wat er arid sewer· facilities grants , and
inner- city open spac e -
in six or s ev e~ cities.
Th e Approach
Although substa ntiv e que s tions and inf ormati on will vary from
c ity t o city, ther e are certain conceptual items wh i ch must be cons i der ed ·
in ana l yzing t he pr ograms i n e ach of t he cities studied.
The ass ump t ion
�1
- 2 -
..
is chat there are multiple forces and factors which impinge on critica l
decision -making in regard to par ticul ar programs in particular cities.
What we are viewing is the allocation and mob ilization of city and other
resources which a re directed toward definite urban programs.
The reason
why resour ces are more succes s ful ly mobilized in one city as opposed to
another, or in one program as oppose·d to another, leads us to investi gate
these factors.
In brief, t he first assumpti on is that the basic item to be
vi ewed is program performance , and the second assumption is that in
analyzing pr·ogram performance, one must look at the relationships o.f
c ertain fa ctors to program performance.
The multiple fa ctors whi ch impinge on the mobilization of r e sources
f or pro gr am performance may be best viewed by means of an action (or
inaction) sys t em for each program for each c ity .
The action syst em c an
be v iew2d as a process which responds to and , in turn, influences other
factors.
The Ac tion System
In brief, the action pr ocess includes several ' critical points;
( 1) the definition of the issue; ( 2 ) the identific ation and gathering of
resources and the involvement o f the community; (3) development of a
plan of a ction and program administration; ( 4) assignment of management
and operation of programs; ( 5) coordination with other level s of government;
and (6) evaluation of the program and feedback.
�- 3 -
.
This brief statement of the action system can gain added
meaning by now asking questions which relate to each step in the a ction
system .
These questions will reflect t.wo types of phenomena.
The first
type concerns facto~s whi ch are reflective of the intergovernmental nature
of these HUD grant -in - a id programs.
· The second type of questions which are incorporated concern
characteristics of the city which may impinge on the action system for ·
urban program performance. These questions concern the following types
of c ity ch ara cteristics:
(1) jurisdictional adequacy; (2) legal authority;
(3) finan c ial resources; (4) trained manpower ; (5) public concern; (6)
leadership; (7) bureaucratic rivalries; (8) governmental form (including
plural ism and fragmentation); (9) concurrent problems and programs;
(10) demographic chara ct eri stics; and (11) indices of problem areas.
Questions Concerning th e Steps in the Action System
1~
(a)
(b)
( c)
(d)
(e)
I de nti f yin g and defining the issue and problem:
\.Jhat cr itical events led to recognition of the problem?
\.Jho pa rticipated?
How much participation in this step was there on the local/
state/federal level?
What was the nature of the federal, state, and/or l~cal initiati~e ?
\.Jhat wa s the nature of the official interest in and support for the
pro gram in the embryonic pha s e?
( f ) How mu ch involvement was t h ere from the private sector?
(g) · Wha t bearin g did the favorable, apathetic, or unfavorable attitudes
of identifiable segments of the public have upon initiating action?
(h)
Did t h e prese nce or absence of personal leadership affect the
in itiat ion of act{on?
(i)
Wh a t type of technical information and general infonnation wa s
ava ilabl e abou t the problem and programs?
\
�- 4 j
'
I
'
( j)
( l,)
(1 )
From whom wa s it j vailable?
ow avail able?
1fas it clear o:::- obscure?
( ;~1)
( :1)
r:0'\-1 w.::s the problem ;;nd t he pr ogram perceived by the various parties?
Wz.s there any diver gen ce here?
Dici these per c ep t ions cho.n:se during the various stages of the programs? .
\
Was there any divergence?
( o)
(p)
2.
(a)
(b)
( c)
(d)
( e)
(f)
( g)
T~e Iden t ifi ca tion and Gathering of Resour ces and the Involvement
of the Con:munity :
We re interested and qual ifi~d personn~l ·available
to initiate, plan,
,, .
a nd c a ~~y on the a cti on?
Politi c a l or professional a nd technical personnel
were they avaiiable1
In r efe r ence to certain p ro grams, were civic, industrial and commercial
groups available?
A~d othe r pa rts of the community?
How were participants persu a ded as to the rightness of the goals
of particular pr ograms ?
Were other segments of the co!Thuunity opposed to the program ?
How did this affect the mobilization of resoDrces and the eventual
pr ogram ·performance?
(h)
P.ow was a de terminat ion made in re ga rd to the technical requirement s ·
for prepar ing proposals?
(i)
How were attention and interest built up to make the probl~m an
a ction issue?
Who made t h is an issue - private citizens, interested or ganizati ons,
politi ca l parties, publi c officials, local/state/federal of fi cials?
At wha t st age, and how, did the Mayor and other executives and
council become involved?
(j)
(k)
3.
(a)
Developrr.ent of a Plan of Acti on and Program Administrati on:
(c)
How mu ch federal (including regional admini stration of HUD ), state,
or local contribut ion was there in the development of ideas concerning
a pl an of a ction?
Who contributed how much to the decision?
Was i t a single individu a l or a small group within the community?
(d)
How much general public discussion and participation was there?
(e)
How much were interest groups, private sectors , and political parties
resoonsible
for the de. cision?
.
(o)
�1
-
(f)
(;)
( 1)
(i)
(j)
(.()
( 1)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
( ~)
(s)
5 -
1t :1:1 t al tcrn:J.tivc s were c onsidered?
How wJs the choice among alternative poli ci es made?
~as t her e, in fa c t , any real al t ernatives given characteristics of
t he cfry a nd oth er factors?
Wa s the decision viewed the same by all parties to th~ deci si on, or was
it viewed as t he s ame program with different goals and allocating
vari ous rates of benefits to d if ferent groups?
How cl ear was the decision made n ot only within 'the city b~t to other
levels of government?
How diff icult was it to ga cl1cr da t a concerning the program?
1-Jhc1:e ewes th is data c ome from?
How much did the. data inf luence the development of the program
a~d the pro gram administrat ion ?
How wa s it handled ?
Wna t were t he fa ctors i n deciding the significant elements of
discret ion such as ch oice of s i-t e , timing, schedule, and magnitude_
of t he program?
How were these decisions made and over what type of time span were
they made?
Did the c ity government have the techni cal ly qua lified personnel to
proceed?
Was this a limiting factor?
If so, how was it over come, or-was it?
Did the c ity government have the financial resources to support t he
prog:;:am ?
(u) . Did t he c ity have the jurisdictiona l adequacy and the legal authority
to perform t h e program?
(t)
(v)
4.
( a)
(b)
How l ong did it take to formul ate the pr ogram?
AssiQnment of Management and Op eration of Program :
Wha t fa ctors were respon s ible for the decision as to where to place
responsibility for administrat ion and operation of the program?
How was this decis ion made?
(c)
Did the city government hav e the t e chnically qualified p ersonnel to
proc eed?
( d)
How long did it take from program approv al t o first action in project
construction?
P.ow long did it take to full sca le effor t?
What a ccounts for length of time such a s fast or s low start?
( e)
( f)
( g) . Were t h ere especially difficult organiza tional or technical problems?
I
�I
- 6 -
..
(h)
(i)
Did the p rogram kec~ on schedule?
l~a t a cc ounts for dev iation?
(j)
W s t h e effort la r ge or small as rela t ed t o t he size a nd s e r i ou sness
or t he prob l em?
(k)
( l)
Was there continuing offi c ial and public intere s t in .t h~ p r~gram?
Was the c hange o f personne l and elec ted o ff icial s r el e v ant to the.
program?
.
How available were qua l ified pers onne l t h ioughout the program ?
(m)
5.
(a)
(b)
( ,;)
( d)
(c)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(1)
(m)
( n)
(o)
Coordina tion With Other Levels of Governme n t :·
lfuat were identifiable difficulties i n secur i ng s t a t e a nd/or fe d e r a l
appr oval (in the regional o ffice or a t headqu arter s) ?
l&at type of act i on was ini t iated t o s e c ure appr ova l?
Ha s it c hiefly :throu gh admi nistretiv e c hanne ls or was it a t profe ssional levels or politi c al exec utiv e l e v el s? .
Did party offi c ial s get invo l v ed , such as members o f the Sen ate
or House?
How long did it t ake to secure approv a l?
hfha t consideration was given to other r ela t e d programs i n t he pr oce ss
of pro~rarn bu ild ing and approval?
Was revision of the program required b y s t a te or fe d eral off ic ial s?
Was t he need for c oordina t ion perceiv ed?
By whom?
What steps to coordinate wer e taken?
Were the stipulated procedures clear , s i mp l e , dir e ct and f unc tional ,
or were they neutral or dysfunctional?
Did t he procedures change during the life of the pro gram?
What was the nature and effect of the change?
Were dire.ct personal interdep artmenta l and intergovernmental lines
of communication open?
Were they used and how effe c tively?
(p)
When decisions or clearances consume d much time, to what extent was
the time cost .at tributabl e to high volume of paperwork, short~ge, of
qualified personnel, interna l opposition, and/or outside ~ressures,
indecisiveness or unknown c a us es?
( q)
When programs were formulated and appr oved, was there delay in funding?
llliat were the limiting factor s in funding?
What sources were considered?
·cr)
(s)
6.
Evaluating the Program and Feedback:
�,--
7 -
( 3. )
(b )
(c)
(d)
Wa s t h ere adequa te fe edba ck f rom opera ting experience to program
r ev iew and r ev·ision?
(e )
i;na t h a d been the a chiev ements of the program measured by the basic
pr o::,l em a s n ow perceived?
Have the re b e en any bene f icial or detrimental byproducts of the
program?
(f )
(g )
(h)
(i)
(j)
·------
h'cJ.: e 2.ctiv ic ies r outin i ze d ?
We~e pe r f orman c e st an dards devised by wh ich the level of routine
a c tivitie s cou l d be mea s ured?
Ha s a fo r ma l r ep or tin g pr oc ed ure developed?
i~,a t are t he pr i ncipa l jud gments a bout the program by local officials,
st a te offi cia ls, f eder al off icials, and others?
What is t h e priva t e j udgme nt ?
Has opp osition to the pro gram continued, increased, or decreased?
Lookin g ba ck on . the eff ort, would city ' officials undertake it again
in t he s ame way or differently?
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
Enclosure "0"
f
PILOT RESEARCH DESIGN FOR HUD PROJECT
Introduction
The National Academy of Public Administration is undertaking,
for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a study intended
to uncover concrete factors and relationships which facilitate or hinder
= a ee a ee
urban program performance. The objective is to identify the critical
7 2
metas aeensnneene —_—_
elements in decision making and action systems by which HUD programs for
ame
local governments are put into effect, and to suggest ways of maximizing
the favorable and minimizing the unfavorable elements. This study is a
reflection of the concern of HUD and others with the difficulties of
implementing national programs which have their impact at the local level.
The links between program origin and program performance have appashéa done
and tortuous. : |
This study design represents one approach for the analysis of
_ program performance from the perspective of the local level. The Academy
will study four HUD programs — non-profit sponsored new housing under
221(d)(3), turnkey housing, basic water and sewer: facilities grants, and
inner-city open space — in six or seven cities.
The Approach
Although substantive questions and information will vary from
city to city, there are certain conceptual items which must be considered
in analyzing the programs in each of the cities studied. The assumption
is that there are multiple forces and factors which impinge on critical -
decision-making in regard to particular programs in particular cities.
What we are viewing is the allocation and mobilization of city and other
resources which are directed toward definite urban programs. The reason
why resources are more successfully mobilized in one city as opposed to
another, or in one program as opposed to another, leads us to investigate
these factors.
In brief, the first assumption is that the basic item to be
viewed is program performance, and the second assumption is that in
analyzing program performance, one must look at the relationships of
certain factors to program performance.
The multiple factors which impinge on the mobilization of resources
for program performance may be best viewed by means of an action (or
inaction) system for each program for each city. The action system can
be viewed as a process which responds to and, in turn, influences other
factors.
The Action System
In brief, the action process includes several critical points:
(1) tne definition of the issue; (2) the identification and gathering of
resources and the involvement of the community; (3) development of a
plan of action and program administration; (4) assignment of management
and operation of programs; (5) coordination with other levels of government;
and (6) evaluation of the program and feedback.
ee
ct
oO
rh
rr
i
@
This brief statemen ‘action system can gain added
meaning by now asking questions which relate to each step in the action
system. These questions will reflect two types of phenomena. The first
ie)
type concerns factors which are reflective of the intergovernmental nature °
of these HUD grant-in-aid programs.
The second type of questions which are incorporated concern
characteristics of the city which may impinge on the action system for
urban program performance. These questions concern the following types
of city characteristics: (1) jurisdictional adequacy; (2) legal authority;
(3) financial resources; (4) trained manpower; (5) public concern; (6)
leadership; (7) bureaucratic rivalries; (8) governmental form (including
pluralism and fragmentation); (9) concurrent problems and programs;
(10) demographic characteristics; and (11) indices of problem areas.
Questions Concerning the Steps in the Action System
1. Identifying and defining the issue and problem:
(a) What critical events led to recognition of the problem?
(b) Who participated?
(c) How much participation in this step was there on the local/
state/federal level?
(d) What was the nature of the federal, state, and/or local initiative? ©
(e) What was the nature of the official interest in and support for the
program in the embryonic phase?
(£) How much involvement was there from the private sector?
(g) What bearing did the favorable, apathetic, or unfavorable attitudes
of identifiable segments of the public have upon initiating action?
Ch) Did ti
he presence or absence of personal leadership affect the
tion of action? .
(i) What type of technical information and general information was
available about the problem and programs?
\
wee Le LY
ANN Z
hm Lo
oN NN
ed
"a ©
(i)
(3)
(kk)
From whom was it available?
How available?
Was it clear or obscure?
How was the problem and the program, perceived by the various parties?
Was there a divergence here? -
id these perceptions change during the various stages of the programs?
Was there an y divergence? \ :
ation and Gathering of Resources and the Involvement
< the Community:
re interested and qualified personnel available to initiate, plan,
nd carry on the action?
litical: or professional and technical personnel — were they available?
In reference to certain programs, were civic, industrial and commercial
groups available?
And other parts of the community?
of particular programs?
Were other segments of the community opposed to the program?
How did this affect the mobilization of resources and the eventual
program performance? ;
How were participants persuaded as to the rightness of the goals
How was a determination made in regard to the technical requirements
for preparing proposals?
How were attention and interest built up to make the problem an
action issue?
Who made this an issue — private citizens, interested organizations,
political parties, public officials, local/state/federal officials?
At what stage, and how, did the Mayor and other executives and
council become involved?
Development of a Plan of Action and Program Administration:
How much federal (including regional administration of HUD), state,
ox local contribution was there in the development of ideas concerning
a plan of action?
Who contributed how much to the decision?
Was it a single individual or a small group within the community?
How much general public discussion and participation was there?
How much were interest groups, private sectors, and political parties
responsible for the decision?
hh
or NS
of 07
Sw NY te
—
-
(4)
(5)
Ox)
(1)
(m) -
(n)
Co)
Cu)
(v)
cernatives were considered?
the choice among alternative policies made?
, in fact, any real alternatives given characteristics of
y and other factors?
Was the decision: viewed the same by all parties to the decision, or was
it viewed as the same program with different goals and allocating
various rates of benefits to different groups?
How clear was the decision made not only within: the city but to other
ls of government?
How difficult was it to gather data concerning the program?
Where does this data come from?
How much did the data influence the development of the program
and the program administration?
iow was it handled?
What were the factors in deciding the significant elements of
on
discretion such as choice of site, timing, schedule, and magnitude
of the program?
How were these decisions made and over what type of time span were
they made? :
Did the city government have the technically qualified personnel to
proceed? ;
Was this a limiting factor?
If so, how was it overcome, or-:was it?
Did the city government have the financial resources to support the
program?
Did the city have the jurisdictional adequacy and the legal authority
to perform the program?
How long did it take to formulate the program?
Assignment of Management and Operation of Program:
What factors were responsible for the decision as to where to place
responsibility for administration and operation of the program?
How was this decision made?
Did the city government have the technically qualified personnel to
proceed?
How long did it take from program approval to first action in project
construction?
How Long did it take to full scale effort?
What accounts for length of time such as fast or slow start?
Were there especially difficult organizational or technical problems?
NE ~ os
Boog Kh ©
Nee NL ee
Loa.
on
>
~~
C1)
(m)
(n)
(0)
(p)
Did the program keep on schedule
What accounts Zo or deviation?
Was the effort large or small as related to the size and seriousness
of the problem?
Was there continuing official and public interest in the program?
Was the change of personnel and elected officials relevant to the,
program?
How available were qualified personnel throughout the program?
Coordination With Other Levels of Government:
What were identifiable difficulties in securing state and/or federal
approval (in the regional office or at headquarters)?
What type of action was initiated to secure approval?
Was it chiefly through administrative channels or was it at pro-
fessional ievels or political executive levels?
Did party officials get involved, such as members of the Senate
or House?
How long did it take to secure approval?
What consideration was given to other related programs in the process
of program building and approval?
Was revision of the program required by state or federal officials?
Was the need for coordination perceived?
By whom?
What steps to coordinate were taken?
Were the stipulated procedures clear, simple, direct and functional,
or were they neutral or dysfunctional?
Did the procedures change during the life of the program?
What was the nature and effect of the change?
Were direct personal interdepartmental and inter governmental lines
of communication open? i
Were they used and how effectively?
When decisions or clearances consumed much time, to what extent was
the time cost attributable to high volume of paperwork, shortage, of
qualified personnel, internal opposition, and/or outside pressures,
indecisiveness or unknown causes?
meee programs were formulated and approved, was there delay in funding?
What were the limiting factors in funding?
What sources were considered?
Evaluating the Program and Feedback:
7
7
. +
(3)
itinized?
c andards devised by which the level of routine
ies could be measured?
ormal reporting procedure developed?
as t dequate feedback from operating experience to program
review and revision?
ra
@
4 e
fo
What had been’the achievements of the program measured by the basic
problem as now perceived? .
Have there been any beneficial or detrimental byproducts of the
pr ogram?
What are the principal judgments about the program by local officials,
state officials, federal officials, and others?
What is the private judgement?
Has opposition to the program continued, increased, or decreased?
Looking back on.the effort, would city officials undertake it again
in the same way or differently?
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Box 5, Folder 1, Document 49
Box 5
Box 5 Folder 1
Folder topic: Housing Resources Committee | 1969
-
https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/104ccee46820c155d42584a59913963b.pdf
d55d495328abe509ea845fc943bb72cc
Scripto
Transcription
A written representation of a document.
1-1 £ ( -
··,.,,.
--,
CITY HALL
October 31, 1969
ATLANTA, GA. 30303
Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404
IVAN ALLEN , JR., MAYOR
CECIL A. ALEXANDER, Chairman
Housing Resources Comm ittee
MALCOLM D. JONES
Housing Coordinator
Dear Members:
Executive Group, Housing Resources Committee; and
Low-Income Hou?ing Coordinat1ng Group
The November :meeting of the Executive Group of the Housing Resources
Committee and the Low-Income Housing Coordinating Group will be held Thursday,
November 13 at 10: 30 A. M. , in Committee Room 2, Second Floor, City Hall. We
hope that each of you will be able to attend.
We are sorry that limitations of time preclude d completion of the
Agenda at the O ctober 8 meeting. Panel Chairmen who were not given an opportunity
to submit reports at the last meeting are particularly r equested to submit, at the
November 13 meeting, written reports of their Panels' activities and plans through
1969.
Recent efforts of certa~n members of the Georgia General Assembly
for introducing legislation in the forthcoming session of the General Assembly,
to create a Georgia Housing Development Corporation to assist small towns and
rural areas of the State in obtaining suitable standard housing, should be of considerable intere st to the Housing Resources Committee a nd will be discussed at our
November 13 meeting.
We would appreciate suggestions from any members of HRC or the
Coordinating Group of items for inclusion on the Agenda of the monthly meetings.
A return address postal card is enclosed for your convenience in
informing us whether you plan to attend the November 13 meeting.
Sincerely,
Cecil A. Alexander, Chairman
Housing Resourc e s Co1nmittee
CAA /M DJ/mc
Encl:
Return address postal card
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
HW RC-
CITY OF ATLANTA
October 3], 1969 CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303
Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404
IVAN ALLEN, JR., MAYOR
CECIL A. ALEXANDER, Chairman
Housing Resources Committee
MALCOLM D. JONES
Housing Coordinator
Dear Members: Executive Group, Housing Resources Committee; and
Low-Income Housing Coordinating Group
The November meeting of the Executive Group of the Housing Resources
Committee and the Low-Income Housing Coordinating Group will be held Thursday,
November 13 at 10:30 A. M., in Committee Room 2, Second Floor, City Hall. We
hope that each of you will be able to attend,
We are sorry that limitations of time precluded completion of the
Agenda at the October 8 meeting. Panel Chairmen who were not given an opportunity
to submit reports at the last meeting are particularly requested to submit, at the
November 13 meeting, written reports of their Panels' activities and plans through
1969,
Recent efforts of certain members of the Georgia General Assembly
for introducing legislation in the forthcoming session of the General Assembly,
to create a Georgia Housing Development Corporation to assist small towns and
rural areas of the State in obtaining suitable standard housing, should be of consider-
able interest to the Housing Resources Committee and will be discussed at our
November 13 meeting,
We would appreciate suggestions from any members of HRC or the
Coordinating Group of items for inclusion on the Agenda of the monthly meetings.
A return address postal card is enclosed for your convenience in
informing us whether you plan to attend the November 13 meeting.
Sincerely,
ocaHt Cleiien~el CS
Cecil A. Alexander, Chairman
Housing Resources Committee
CAA/MDJ/mc
Encl: Return address postal card
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Box 5, Folder 1, Document 5
Box 5
Box 5 Folder 1
Folder topic: Housing Resources Committee | 1969
-
https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/880aeb1ec6b96ac76cf2e83450b3a2e7.pdf
147e99364fa37e004e97df6f23136568
Scripto
Transcription
A written representation of a document.
I
En closure
11 k) 1_1
Xarc:-. 24, 1069
TE~TATIVE I~TERVIEW SCHEDULE
Atlanta, Georgia
A• . Federal -
HUD Re gion'a l Of f ice
Peachtree - Seventh Building
1.
Regional Adrainistrator.
2.
Assistant Regional Administrators for:
a.
Federal Housing Admini s tr a tion (2210;L3)))
b.
Housing Assistance (Turnkey);
c.
Xetropolitan Deve l opment (Open Space and Water & Sewer).
3 • . Other k ey sta ff a t Regiona l Headquarters.
4 •. FHA Insuring Off ice, 230 Pea chtree Street, Atlanta.
a.
Dire ctor
b.
Key staff
B •. Sta t e
C.
1.
Off ice of the Governor
2.
Sta t e Planning Agency
3.
State Department of Health (Water & Sewer )
4.
Department of Na tural Res our ce s
Bureau of Outdoor Recrea tion (Open Spa ce )
Local - City of Atl anta
l.
Off i ce of the Mayor
a.
Mayor
b.
Assistant to the Mayor
c.
Director of Governmental Liaison
-;
�Tentative Inccrvicw Schedu le
Atlanta, G~o~ 6 ia
.
D.
2.
Member s of City Council
3.
Depar t ment of Public Works (W3ter
Director
4.
Depar t ment of Parks and Re cr ea tion (Open Space)
Director
5.
Redeve lopment or Renewal Agency
Director
6.
City Planning Agency
Director
7.
Citizen 1 s Advisory Committee for Urban Renewal (221(~)(3))'
8.
Atlanta HousingAuthority (Turnkey)
Director
9.
Atlanta Housing Development Corporati~n
Local -
&.
Sewer)
Fu l .ton County , Regional
1.
County Officia ls
2.
~etropolitan Atlanta Coun cil . of Local Governments
900 Gl enn Bui lding, Atlanta
3.
Atlanta Region Metrop olitan Planning Commission ,
900 Gl enn Building, Atlanta
I
E • . Loca.l -
.'
i '
Citizens Groups / Asso ciations
1.
Georgia Municipa l League, 506 Fult on Federal Building, Atlanta
2.
Association. of County Commissioners of Georgia, 205 Forsythe Buildi~g
3.
Model Neighborhood,Inc.
4.
I nter f aith~ Inc.
5.
Wr:eat Street Baptist
6.
Atlant a Chamber of Commer c e, 1301 Commerce Building, Atlanta
7.
Other Busines s/Industrial Gr oups
8.
Housing Tenant Gr oup s
9.
C?mmun i ty Ac.tion Gr oup s
)
)
)
)
)
\
( 3,4,5 are possible Housing Sponsors)
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
Enclosure "Q!!
TENTATIVE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
Atlanta, Georgia
. Federal — HUD Regional Office
Peachtree — Seventh Building
Regional Administrator.
Assistant Regional Administrators for:
Be eederst Housing Administration (221@) (3))')
b. Housing Assistance (Turnkey); ‘
c. Metropolitan Development (Open Space and Water & Sewer).
3.. Other key staff at Regional Headquarters.
4.. FHA Insuring Office, 230 Peachtree bhcee, Atlanta.
ae Director
be. Key staff
State
1. Office of the Governor
2. State Planning Agency
3. tate Department of Health (Water & Sewer)
4. Heparement of Natural Resources
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (Open Space) y
Local - City of Atlanta
1.
Office of the Mayor
ae Mayor
be. Assistant to the Mayor
ce Director of Governmental Liaison
a
at)
ao
wo
te
Tentative Interview Schedul
Atlanta, Georgia
@
2. Members of City Council
tment of Public Works (Water & Sewer)
4. Department of Parks and Recreation (Open Space)
Director
”“
5. Redevelopment or Renewal Agency
Director
6. City Planning Agency
' » Director
7. Citizen's Advisory Committee for Urban Renewal (221 (a) (3)) ‘
8. Atlanta Housing Authority (Turnkey)
Director
9. Atlanta Housing Development Corporation
Local — Fulton County, Regional
1. County Officials
2. Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments
900 Glenn Building, Atlanta
3. Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission.
900 Glenn Building, Atlanta
Local — Citizens Groups/Associations
1. Georgia Municipal League, 506 Fulton Federal Building, Atlanta
2- Association of County Obunilest ohare of Georgia, 205 Forsythe Building
3. Model Neighborhood,Inc. ?
4. Interfaith, Inc. : (632455 are possible Housing Sponsors)
5. Wheat Street Baptist ) |
6. Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, 1301 Commerce Building, tlanta
7. Other Business/Industrial Groups
8. Housing Tenant Groups
9. Community Action Groups
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Box 5, Folder 1, Document 50
Box 5
Box 5 Folder 1
Folder topic: Housing Resources Committee | 1969
-
https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/07fc3d85c9b228a9d26ea4a88e52a9bf.pdf
85e1fa0b344e684d6b5974baf6abc78e
Scripto
Transcription
A written representation of a document.
I
1>
--
March 27, 1969
PROGRAM SUMMARIES AND STATUS
This is designed to s erve as a working document for the
study of HUD programs .
Atta ched are five appendi ces:
Appendix A - Turnkey Hou sing - Program Steps and
~roc essing Procedur~s
Appendix B - Basic Wa ter and Sewer Grants
Program
Steps and Processing Procedures
Appendix C - Open Space - Extracts from HUD Procedure
Handbook
App end ix D. - Non- Profit Sponsored New Housing under
22l(d) ( 3 )
Appendix E - Status of Selected HUD Programs
The first four appendices provide a brief explanation of the
programs and a breakdown of the pr ocessing steps and procedures under
each pr ogram.
Appendix E giv es an indication of the nature and ·Status
of those programs currently u~derway in the city(ies).
..
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
*
aa
a meclosul 2 (=
March 27, 1969
PROGRAM SUMMARIES AND STATUS
This is designed to serve as a working document for the
study of HUD programs.
Attached are five
. Appendix A
Appendix B -
Appendix C -
Appendix D -
Appendix E -
appendices:
Turnkey Housing — Program eens and
Processing ‘Procedures
Basic Water and Sewer Grants — Program
Steps and Processing Procedures
Open Space - Extracts from HUD Procedure
Handbook
Non-Profit Sponsored New oie ne under
(221(4)(3)
Status of Selected HUD Programs
The first four appendices provide a brief explanation of the
programs and a breakdown of
the processing steps and procedures under
each program. Appendix E gives an indication of the nature and status
of those programs currently
underway in the city(ies).
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Box 5, Folder 1, Document 51
Box 5
Box 5 Folder 1
Folder topic: Housing Resources Committee | 1969
-
https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/78381c6b9a915b43bdc16891c1fd04dd.pdf
9799b6906d17547230164e97019d0226
Scripto
Transcription
A written representation of a document.
I
Ma rch 18, · 1969
The Turnkey program was started by HUD on a n experimental -b ·a sis
in January of· 1966 .
Its basic purpose is co permit better utilizat i on of
the means and knowledge of priva t e enterprise in producing public hous~ng .
Under the Turnkey method, a dC!ve loper or builder who ovms a
site or an option , or can obt ain one, may submit, in r e sponse ta an
invit ation from a Local Hou sing Authority (LHA ), a propo s a l to buil d
hous ing . . • for low income f amilies.
If the developer's proposal is a ccep table
to the LHA and HUD, the LHA ·will enter into a Contract
of
c he LHA agrees to purchase the comple t ed development.
This contra ct wi:l
Sale und er which
be ba~ked up by the financial a ssist an ce corru~itmcnt of t he United States
of Americ a , a ct ing through HUD? · to the LHA, and it will enable the dev.::.loper
-c o secur e · cormner cial construc tion financing in hi s usual way .
At the National lev el, responsibility for this progr am is und e r
t:he Assistant Se cr etary f or Renewal and Housing Ass is tance of HUD.·
Program
res p ons i bility is further delegated to the Deputy As sistan t Secret~ry for
Housing Assistanc e , the Head of the Hou~ing Assistance Administrati on.
~~e
Turnkey Program is administered by the Direc tor of t he Production Div isio~ .
.
.
There are three program managers ~ ithin this Div i sion who serve as liaison
of fi cers between the HUD Re gions a nd Headquarters f or this and other public
housing programs administered by HUD.
At t he Local level, ther e are general ly only two participants:
The Local Housing Authority and the privat != dev el op er .
T:-.e LHA 1 s vary in
powers and structure as they are establ istc~ ~~d e ~ the authority of s~ a ~2
encblin3 legislation.
�2
The Tur,1key n echod en c omp asse s only the construct ion phc::se 0f .
a low ren t housing project .
It h a s no dire ct bearing on the initial
appli c a tion mace by a community f a:::- low rer.t housing or -the management
and ope ration of a l ow ren t hou s i ng proje ct.
Th e pro c essing steps outl ined below for a .turnk ey p:.coject follow
t he approval by HUD of ·a LHA 1 s app~i cation for a low rent hou~ing pro gram:
1 . The LHA makes the initial decision to construct proposed low rent
housing by the Turnkey method .
2 . If not alre a dy versed in t he &ppli cation of the Turnkey method ,
the LHA consults with region a l officials, obtains sufficient inform~ti on
on requirements and procedures, a nd decides to proceed by that method .
3.
The LHA ma y request a pre liminary lo a n f rom HUD to cover turnkey
expens e s; if appr oved by HUD , a loan con tract is negotiated bet~een
HUD and t he LHA .
4. Th e LHA i nvites pr op osals from private developers fo r par ticipation
in a Turnk ey p r o ject. Th is mu 3 t be don e by public adver tisemen t
st a ti~g cype of proje ct desired, number o f u nits, and othe r deta ils o f
·t h e p:::-op osed project . The noti c e als o mus t specify the federal
r equirements that must be complied with .
5. ~h e private developer(s) sub~its 3 cop ies of a proposal in response
co t he LHA 1 s solicitation.
6 . The LHA send s tw o co pies of all the proposa ls received to th e
Re g i ona l Hou sing Assistan ce Office (HAO) .
7. Th e LHA and HAO eval u a t e t h e prop o sa ls and c ome to a mutual
a gre ement of the developer to be chosen. This involve s , among other
things, sice evaluations made by th e HAO Realty Officer.
8.
The LHA notifies the developer of his tentative selection by letter.
9.
The LHA contra cts f or tw o independent appraisals of the site.
10. A Fe a si6ility Conference is held in the HAO with the following
partici pan ts : t h e LHA r ep res e n ta tive s , the deve1op er, his architect
and otte r as soci a t e s, and HAO st af f.
·
Thi s conference has three p ri~ary ? Urp o ses:
( 1)
to ne gotiate the pu rc h ase price o: the land;
.
�- 3 -
(2) to discuss proje ct des i gri and HUD requirements;
(3) to s e t d~tcs for :
(.:1) submission and review in the 1-IAO of the preliminary
d ~wings and ot her d~tes required for the Letter
of Intent ;
(b) a :-1egot i a ti cn Conference; .
(c) exe cu tion of the Letter of Intent ;
(d ) ;.;ubmission and review by LE.A and HAO of working drawings
and specifications; and
te) e xe cut ion of Con t ract of Sale.
11 . Af ter the Fe~sibility Conference has been held and an understanding
reached, the developer proc eeds with the preparation of t h e matirial
required for the Negoti~ti on Conferenc e .
12 . The devel oper sub~its his preliminary plans which are reviewed
by the LHA and HAO. The p l ans are dis cussed with the developer and.
his ar chite ct and any n e cessary change s are made • .
13. The prel i minary plans are sub~i tted to two -individual cost
estimators err.p loyed f or this purpose by the· LHA.
14 . The appr oved cos t estima tes are evaluated and considered by t he
LHA and t he HAO.'
15 . The ~egoti a tion Conference i s held in the HAO with t he developer
and his asso c iates , and LHA and HAO staff s part icip a tin g . The p~rp ose
of the confir ence is to ne s otiate a price f or the improvements (the
price of the land is already set tl ed , step 10).
16 . Fol l owing agreement at che Ne gotiat ion Conference, t he 'LHA
prepares a Development Pro gram on Form HUD-5080 and submits an
original and fou r copies to the HAO. The Dev e lopment Program is a
statement of the developer ' s pr oposal and pri c e as agreed upon and
approved at t he Negotiation Confe~ence .
17 . The RAO approves the LHA Development Program and sends an annua l
Contribution Cont ract List to the C~ntral Offi ce for .its appr o~a1; .
18 . The Ce ntral Office a~proves the HAO subrnis~ion authorizing RUD
e;~e cut ion of an Annual Contributions Contract viith the LHA and approval
of :.h e Let t er of Intent between the LHA and the Developer . ·
19. Following the 1-L-\O approva l and LHA is suanc e of the Letter of
l nt2nt, the dev el oper prepares and submits working drawings a~d
specifications to t he LHA.
20. The LHA rev iews and approves the .wo:::-king drawings and subr..its them
to t.::e HAO.
�- 4 ,·.
21 . The HAO reviews the working d= awing~ , ·discusses them with Lh em ,
t h e LHA , and developer, a~d , i f n e ce ssary, schedules a meeting a t
w~ i ch the LHA, the develo~er and hi s associates will be present.
..
22 . Af ter a pprov2l of t he wo= k ing d=awings and specifications, the
LHA s h.:, ll obtaintwo upd2ted cost esr:irnates , review and evalua te
t h em in the same manner as the first e~timates , and submit two copies
with the results of its eva luation to the HAO for review and approval.
23 . On the basis of · t h ei:..: review and evaluation of the approved,
upda ted cost estinates, the L}li\. and EAO agree on a price to be
of f ered to the developer for inclu s ion in the Contract of Sale,
and negotiate that price with the develop er.
24.
Upon agreement as to the price to be included in the Contract
of Sale, the LHA and HAO shall confer and prepare the Contract ·of
Sale, wh ich is theru executed by the developer, the LHA, and HUD .
25. The LHA selects an architect who ' is to perform inspection ser~ices
for the LHA in connection with-the project and executes a contract
with him .
26.
The LHA notif i e s t he general pub l ic by newsp a per advertisement of
the award of the Con tra ct of Sale to . the named developer , including
the price he is to receive and a description of the project .
The Construction of the Turnkey project begins with sale to the
LHA upon completion.
- 27.
I f required, plans for the relocation ofAoccupying the site are
prepared, and relocation assistance payments are made.
During construction of the project, the HAO observes and reviews
t he a ctivit i e s of the LHA and its archite ct to ensure compliance in administration
and in inspection under the pertinent contracts.
The HAO also reviews
cons truction opera tions and visits the site periodically to insure c9mpliant
p e.:- f; ormance.
LHA 1 s are encouraged by HUD to use Urban Renewal project land _for
a Turnkey s i te.
In this case, the Local Public Agency may sell such l and
t o a pr -i va t e dev e loper .
�,-- -
I
.. ....,
- 5 -
lfuere it is economically feasible, the projects should be
.
so design ed that individua l units or groups of units could be sold to
i~dividuals, or to groups under some form of condominium or cooperative
ownership .
I
~=
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
i TAR A OIT ATA ro
VROCASSING PROCEDURES
The Turnkey program was started by KUD on an experimental basis
in January of 1966. Its basic purpose is to permit better utilization of
the means and knowledge of private enterprise in er oductik public housing.
Under the Turnkey method, a developer or builder who owns a
site or an option, or can obtain one, may submit, in response to an
invitation from a Local Housing Authority (LHA), a proposal to build
housing ... for low income families. If the developer's proposal is acceptable
to the LHA and HUD, the LHA will enter into a Contract of Sale under which
the LHA agrees to purchase the completed development. “This contract will
be backed up by the financial assistance commitment of the United States
oz America, acting through HUD, to the LHA, and it will enable the developer
to secure commercial construction financing in his usual way.
At the National level, responsibility for this program is under
the Assistant Secretary for Renewal and Housing Assistance of HUD. Program
responsibility is further delegated to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Housing Assistance, the Head of the Housing Assistance Administration. The
urnkey Program is administered by the Director of the Production Division.
‘There are three program managers within this Division. who serve as liaison
officers between the HUD Regions and Headquarters for this and other public
housing programs adunistered by HUD.
At the Local level, there are generally only two participants:
The Local Housing koeneeity and the private developer. The LHA's vary in
powers and structure:as they are established under the authority of Stace
egislation. \
The Tucnkey method encompasses only. the construction phase of
a low rent housing project. It has no direct bearing on the initial
application mace by.a community for low rent housing or -the management
and operation of a low rent housing project.
rey
The processing steps outlined below for a.turnkey project follow
the approval by HUD of a LHA's application for a low rent housing program:
a1 decision to construct proposed low rent
- If not already versed in the application of the Turnkey method,
the LHA consults with regional officiais, obtains sufficient information
equirements and procedures, and decides to pEecers by that method.
3. The LHA may request a preliminary loan from HUD to cover turnkey
exp 3; if approved by HUD, a loan contract is negotiated between
HUD and the LHA.
4. The LHA invites proposals from private developers for participation
in a ‘Turnkey project. This must be done by public advertisement
stating type of project desired, number of units, and other details of
the proposed project. The notice also must specify the federal
requirements that must be complied with.
"od
5. ‘The private developer(s) submits 3 copies of a proposal in response
to the. LHA's solicitation. ‘ ;
i
6. The LHA sends two copies of all the proposals received to the
Regional Housing Assistance Office (HAO).
7. The LHA and HAO evaluate the proposals and come to a mutual
agreement of the developer to be chosen. This involves, among other
things, site evaluations made by the HAO Realty Officer.
8. The LHA notifies the developer of his tentative selection by letter.
9. The LHA contracts for two independent appeaisets of the site.
10. A Feasibility Conference is held in the HAO with the following
participants: the LHA representatives, the developer, his architect
and other associates, and HAO stafiz.
This conference has three primary purposes:
ony
(
) to negotiate the purchase price of the land;
(2) to discuss project design and HUD requirements;
(3) to set dates for:
(a) submission and review in the HAO of the
drawings and other dates reguired f
of Intent;
(b) a Negotiation Conference;
(ce) execution of the Letter of Intent;
(d) submission and review by LEA and HAO of working drawings
and specifications; and
te) execution of Contract of Sale.
ii. After the Feasibility Conference has been held and an understanding
reached, the developer proceeds with the preparation of the material
required for the Negotiation Conference.
12. The developer submits his preliminary plans which are reviewed
by the LHA and HAO. The plans are discussed with the developer and.
his architect and any necessary changes are made..
13. The preliminary plans are submitted to two -individual cost
estimators employed for this purpose by the LHA.
ro
>
.
r}
5
[ci]
fo
*
"
Hi
2
6
a
oO
°o
Hn
rt
o
o
rt
ty
i
rt
@
uw
e
re evaluated and considered by the
otiation Conference is held in the HAO with the developer
ciates, and LHA and HAO staffs participating. The purpose
rence is to negotiate a price for the improvements (the
land is already settled, step 10).
uw
fo
w
Fh Ww @
@.
o
i
H
0
©
©
rho
ct
rr
©
16. Following agreement at the Negotiation Conference, the LHA
prepares a Development Program on Form HUD-5080 and submits an
original and four copies to the HAO.’ The Development Program is a
statement of the developer's proposal and price as agreed upon and
approved at the Negotiation Conference.
17. The HAO approves the LHA Development Program and sends an annual
Contribution Contract List to the Céntral Office for its approval..-
The Central Offi ce approves the HAO submission authorizing HUD
n Annual Contributions Contract with the LHA and approval
of che Letter of Intent between the LHA and the Developer.
19. Following the HAO approval and LHA issuance of the Letter of
Intent, the developer prepares and submits working drawings and
specifications to the LHA.
20. The LHA reviews and approves the working drawings and submits them
co .
ey a i
ares HAO =
HAO reviews
and develop
e LHA,
aa
ly
a5
ual
wo ich
of th
47 sda
ha
After epee
LHA shall obtain: two
them in the same manner
with the results of
backs
23
\
Base
oe,
lat
sas 2
-@2 rx
ed
nego
Upon agreement as to
ale, the LHA and HAO s
which is then: execu
25.
1
aia
the workin
and,
the developer
the LHA
oe inclusion in the Contract of Sale,
ted by the developer, the LHA,
I>
‘discusses them
schedules a
ciates will be
g dvawin
me
if
and
ng drawings and specifications, the
ce review and eva
ee and submit two copies
HAO for review and approval.
aLuate
eview and evaluation of
d HAO agree on
the approved,
price to be
x
a
an
the developer.
the price to be included in the Contract
hall confer and prepare the Contract ‘of
and HUD.
LHA selects an architect who is to perform inspection services
for the LHA in connection with-the project and executes a contract
with him.
The LHA
award of
price he
otifies the
he Contr
n
th at
Cc acc
upon completion.
is to receive and
general public by newspaper advertisement of
of Sale to the named déveloper, including
description of the project.
The Construction of the Turnkey project begins with sale to the
. *\oiwe
hook residents
If required, plans for the relocation of \occupy ing the site are
repared, and relocation assistance payments are made.
P P
During construction of the project,
the HAO observes and reviews
the activities of the LHA and its architect to ensure compliance in administration
and in inspection under the pertinent contracts.
The HAO also reviews
construction operations and visits the site periodically to insure compliant
performance.
LHA's are encouraged
a Turnkey site. In this case,
to a private developer.
by HUD to use Urban Renewal project land for
the Local Public Agency may sell such land
Where it is economically feasible, the projects should be
so designed that individual units or
individuals, or to groups under some
ownership.
groups of units could be sold to
form of condominium or cooperative
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Box 5, Folder 1, Document 52
Box 5
Box 5 Folder 1
Folder topic: Housing Resources Committee | 1969
-
https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/26bbc0d9ece80683d316ea7fe89c83fa.pdf
b3d67104ba1daf4fcde77ef961e513a6
Scripto
Transcription
A written representation of a document.
I
..;
Mar ch 18, 1969
BASIC Hi\TER .AND SEWER GRANTS
P?.DGR.(:.,~ S'i'~PS Ai'-;D P~OCiSSING PROCSi)U?.ES
11
The purpose of t he Water and Sewer Facilities Grant pr ogram
is to ass ist local public bodies and agencies in constructing adequa te
'
b a sic water and sew2r fa cil ities needed .to promote the efficient and orderly
growth and development of our communities. 11
11
To be eligible f or gra:it assistance under this program, the
appi icant must be a local public body or agency est~blished by the action
of one or more States or entities thereof, with legal authority to p l an,
f inance, construct, mai-ntain and operate the proposed project. 11
11
Grant assistance is available to help finance spec ific projects
for basic water and sewer fa cilities.
Water facilitie~ include works
to store, supply, trea t, purify, or distribute water of sufficient
quality and quantity for domesti c, c ommercial md industrial use.
Sewer
faci lit ies i nclude sanitary sewer -s yster.is for the collection, transmission,
and discharge of liquid wastes; and storm sewer systems for the ·collection,
transmission, and discharge of storm water caus ed by ra infa ll or ground
water runoff. 11
11
The amount of the grant-in-aid may not exceed 50 percent of the
cost of ·constructing the basic parts of the water or sewer facility pr oJect
and of acquiring the l and on which it is located , including site improvements
necessary to make the land usable as a site for the project. 11
11
No grant may be made to assist in constructing a sewer project
unless the Secretary of Health, Edu~ation, and Welfare certifies thijt the
waste carried by the facilJty . is adequatelj treated before being discharged
�- 2 -
.'
into any public wa terway.
The request for certif ication, t6gith er with
,.
releva n t project data , shall be . sent to the DHEW Regiona l office by the
Regional Director upon receipt of an application for assistance in
constructing a sewer project. 11
Program Steps:
1. A Loca l Public Agency (LPAY makes initial inquiry to HUD Rigion~l
.o ff ice. HUD. office mails LPA printed ma terial and four copies of
SF-101~ Pr e liminary Inqu iry Conc erning Federal Assistance for Water
Proje cts, Sewer Pr oj ects and Waste Treatment Plants.
2.
LPA completes and submits SF-101 to HUD Regional Office.
3.
HUD acknowledges receipt of SF-101 by letter to LPA.
4. HUD reviews SF-101 for completen_ess , requests further information
if ne c e ssary, and determines if project is applicable to the HUD
grant program . (This may involve referring SF-101 to EDA, FHA, · or
DHEW for commen t and considerati on. HUD also receives SF-101 forms
from t hese other agencies for action.)
5. After referral and determina tion, HUD notifies LPA of decision
·to process the inquiry under the HUD program .
6. Following a det ermination by the Reg ional Director and his staff
t ha t the pr e liminary inquiry will lead to an acce ptable application,
t he Regional Director invites the prospe ctive applicant to attend a
pre -applicati on conf erenc.e. The conference discussion concluded with
an understanding as to whether an application may be submitted for
consid erati on. In favorable cases, the applicant is furnished with the
applic ation forms and asked to sub~it.
7. Followin g the meetin g, a lett er to the applicant is s ent by t he
Regi onal Director confirming the understandings reached during the
c onference, with particular reference to any actions agreed upon.
8. The LPA submits a fo r mal application for a Basic Water and Sewer
Grant. Af t er receipt of th e appli c a tion, the HUD Regi onal Office
send s the app lic ant a letter acknowledging the application.
9. HUD begins. its review of the applicat ion and sends a request for
certification to the HEW Regi onal Office. This reque s t is accom:;:ianied
by certain mater ia ls, including copies of lette r s of · comment, clearance
or approval fr om local, state, and inter- state agencies having
authority over design and construction of the project. At this same
time, HUD may send notices of the application to other Federal Agencies
as appropriate .
�I_
..
- 3 -
10 . Preliminary review of the application is made by the s t a:"f of
t he Re giona l Offi c e, usua lly in the fo llowing order - Planning
Requirements, Engineering , Financ e , Legal and Program Officer.
..
11 . Up on satisfactory c omple t ion of the preliminary r eview , a project
summary is prepared f or signatur e by the Regional Administrator and
sent to the Community Facilities Divis ion , HUD , Washington, D. C., to
request a fund reservation fo r the pr ojecit.
12. After a fund reservation is made , the Corranunity Facilities
Divis i on arranies for a press release and release date, notification
of interested members of Congress, and notifies the regional of_f ice
of the reservation by teletype. ·
13. Following receipt of the teletype advising of the fund res ervation
and a t the relea se time specified, t he iegional _Director advises the
applicant of such r es ervation of funds.
14. Upon approval of the project and grant, 'the project file is
forwarded to the Lega l Division of the Regional Office for preparati6n
of the Grant Agreement. .
..
o=-'l)~e.
~...-
'::,,~~
.
15. The Grant Agreement is forwarded to the applicantAand return to
the Reg ional Office.
Following the execution of the Grant Agreement, the LPA lets the
c ontra ct f or t he project through competitive bidding .
The LPA must mee t
c erta in other requirement s including submission of material to the HUD
Regional Offi c e during the pre-construction and construction phas~s of the
project.
( Procedures during these phases are contained in section 20-1-1
of the Handbook s taff. )
this section has n ot . been furnished to the Academy
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
os
-U
ao
é
d.
t -
x
U-
s March 16, 1969
yD SAP POE TTA DORA ES TIOe
PROCESSING PROCEDURES
"The purpose of the Water and Sewer Facilities Grant program
is to assist local public bodies and agencies in constructing adequate
\ ;
basic water and sewer facilities needed to promote the efficient and orderly
growth and development of our communities."
"To be eitetiie for grant assistance under this program, the
applicant must be a local public body or agency established by the action |
of one or more States or entities thereof, with legal authority to plan,
finance, construct, maintain and operate the proposed project."
"Grant assistance is available to help finance specific projects
for basic water and sewer facilities. Water facilities include works
to store, supply, treat, purify, or distribute water of sufficient
quality and quantity for donantle: commercial md industrial use. Sewer
facilities include sanitary sewer systems for the collection, transmission,
and discharge of liquid waetar: and storm sewer systems for the ‘collection,
transmission, and discharge of storm water caused by rainfall or ground
water runoff."
The. dmount of the grant-in-aid may not exceed 50 percent of the
cost of ‘constructing the basic parts of the water or sewer facility project
and of acquiring the land on which it is located, including site improvements
necessary to make the land usable as a site for the project."
"No grant may be made to assist in éénsteuctinx a sewer project
unless the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare certifies that the
waste carried by the facility is adequately treated before being discharged
into any public waterway. The request for certification, together with
*
vant
@
“
Gl
"J
roject data, shall be sent to the DHEW Regional office by the
Regional Director upon receipt of an application for assistance in
constructing a sewer project.!!
Program Steps:
-1. A Local Public Agency (LPAY makes initial inquiry to HUD Regional °
Office. HUD office mails LPA printed material and “four copies of
SF-101, Preliminary Inquiry Concerning Federal Assistance for Water
Projects, Sewer Projects and Waste Treatment Plants. ;
2. LPA completes and submits SF-i01 to HUD Regional Office.
3. HUD acknowledges receipt of SF-101 by letter to LPA.
4. HUD reviews SF-101 for completeness, requests further information
if necessary, and determines if project is applicable to the HUD
grant program. (This may involve referring SF-101 to EDA, FHA, or
DHEW for comment and consideration. HUD also receives SF-101 forms
from these other agencies for action.)
5. After referral and determination, HUD notifies LPA of decision
to process the inquiry under the HUD program. ~~:
6. Following a determination by the Regional Director and his staff
that the preliminary inquiry will -lead to an acceptable application,
the Regional Director invites the prospective applicant to attend a
pre-application conference. The conference discussion concluded with
an understanding as to whether an application may be submitted for
consideration. In favorable cases, the applicant is furnished with the
application forms and asked to submit.
7. Following the meeting, a letter to the applicant is sent by the
Regional Director confirming the understandings reached during the
conference, with particular reference to any actions agreed upon.
8. The LPA submits a formal application for a Basic Water and Sewer
Grant. After receipt of the application, the HUD Regional Office
sends the applicant a letter acknowledging the application.
9. HUD begins. its review of the application and sends a request for
certification to the HEW Regional Office. This request is accompanied
by certain materials, including copies of letters of comment, clearance
or approval from local, state, and inter-state agencies having
authority over design and construction of the project. At this same
time, HUD may send notices of the application to other Federal Agencies
as appropriate.
10. reliminary review of the application is made by the
the Regional Office, usually in the following order — Pla
Requirements, Engineering, Finance, Legal and Program Of
1i. Upon satisfactory completion of the preliminary review, a project
summary is prepared for signature by the Regional Administrator and
sent to the Community Facilities Division, HUD, Washington, D. C., to
request a fund reservation for the project.
12. After a fund reservation is made, the Community Facilities
- Division arranges for a press release and release date, notification
of interested members of Congress, and notifies the regional office
of the reservation by teletype.
13. Following receipt of the teletype advising of the fund reservation
and at the release time specified, the Regional Director advises the
applicant of such reservation of funds.
14. Upon approval of the project and grant, the project file is
forwarded to the Legal Division of the Regional Office for preparation
of the Grant Agreement. eee
| for SP
iS. The Grant Agreement is forwarded to the applicanty and return to
the Regional Office. :
Following the execution of the Grant Agreement , the LPA lets the
contract for the project through competitive bidding. The LPA must meet
certain other requirements including submission of material to the HUD
Regional Office during the pre-construction and construction phases of the
project. (Procedures during these phases are contained in section 20-1-1
of the Handbook — this section has not been furnished to the Academy
staff.)
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Box 5, Folder 1, Document 53
Box 5
Box 5 Folder 1
Folder topic: Housing Resources Committee | 1969
-
https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/6662b102eeeacb7944bdc430650ba3c6.pdf
17f016d13796dfa8f523a8d6887fe8d3
Scripto
Transcription
A written representation of a document.
r.
0
I
I
!
..
.il
'l'he Open Spa ce LD...1d Pr0c~1·2.r:·l assis~.::s local r;ove1·r...:-::c:-,ts ~nC:. Stc:.-'ce:s
in purchacinG nnd clevclopine l and in u:c'oan c.re;:;.::; for :p;:;.:c~ , recy22..-~::.0:.--a,
scenic, historic, and co.:1.se::-vo.t ion pu1·posc s. T:'1e o':)jective::~ ot ·c:-.e
progr2..n r..re to prcvcn,c the spread of- ur02.n bliGht, deterio:i:atio:1, a::c!
· sprawl; to encoui-.,:.gc n:ore econo:nic a:-.ci desirable ui':n.n develop:r.e:r.t;
c..nd to meet the open sp3.ce needs of people in the city.
J
.;
'
. \
..
..:
Open Space e;rn.nt.s c2.n cover up to 50 :percent of the cost of
r.cqui:tin.r; lc.r.d. Gr2.nts r,~a.y be r.,ad.e only to public bodies; :pri vat.:::
·or.:~c.nizn:~ions are not elieible. 'l'hc r.12.tchinG f\mds furnished by tile
loco.J. ;;ovcr~7,cnt m8.y co:..e f1·om any non-Federal couree, inclt:.ci.:i.r.3
l)ri vatc :philanthror,y . EO\·Tever, donations of land co.nnot co"C.Y,t to·.-;a:';l
·c:-,e locc.l she.re. A p:coj ect must ·oe based on an open space i;ila.'1 for
t:'1.:: CO;";l!;m.,ity und must . be in confo::r,:ance with s.re2.wic.e co::-,pr2:"2n:::ivc:
ilo.nnin.
; :~or the entire mctro1)olitnn urea. The lD.nd rou:;t be locate:c.
in an urbo.n area. However, there is no :minirr,",.1.m :population li;-;;ita~ic::..
• J
l
'i'he Dc:pe.rvnent :plr..ces high :priority on lar.d ~cquisition ,:ne:-. :.;;
i::wolves U.'1.devclo:p(!d 18.nd, but li;;-iitecl gra:yc-in-o.id assistc.r.ce t0~,2.~
the d.::vcio:pment of pa:/ks and other open space areas is also available.
~n gcner~l, all develop~ent activities i~ ·central cities anu lori_income neighborhoods can be assisted with a i'ull 50 percent gra::it.
'
.
']
'l
j
(
0
1
The Dcparc~ent places hiGh priori"Cy on the develop~ent of land
for open s pace use when it involves clcvelopecl land, and there is no
red~ction on the 50 perc~nt grant level of assistance for such
l)urposcs.
Land for o:pen· sp2.ce mc:.y be ei tncr vacant e.nd. \.mdevclo:p8d or,
whc:."c no vacant land i s available, assistance may be obtained. :~or
pm-chating already developed land, for de~olishing t~e existing
st:ructures on it, and for developing it· for park or recrec:.tio~al
uses. Demolition expenses are an eligible project cost when develo:p~d
land is a cquired.
In order f or a coi':U'ilunity to obt ain an Open S:pac2 grant, it wust
file e.n · appli cation wit h hl.JD . The n:pplica,don. should be b as e d 0:1
loc~l o,cn sp~ce pluns and priorities and official ncti on by the
r2s;ion::.ible loc2.l govermcent body to authorize t he :r:irojcct. Al):pli c c).tions cannot retroactively cover land already a cqu{rcd. Applicatio~s
m.2.y include a m.~--nb~t_.Q""'_g;_i~e..§_~praj_~.c.ts. ?he Dc:p""rt~ent e:::couraGeS
co:rJ:r.unit:res··to- include the acquisition and developr:i.cnt prog:-~:::i :for ~
whole year in a single application. Such action reduces ever-ybocy's
paperwork.
0
i
1-lUD-Wa:;~ . , D. C,
. (
I
j
.
,.s
$
. ,
,,... i.• '-' · . • · .,'.
-!.,<,.>,1i. •.• ,? _l'! .'
~- . ' ·" '.; ·' '-~··"
...
·'
.,.
..:
i:
'·
�As soon a s a n applic a tion i s fil ed , trw. D2pc:.r t~e :i.t will o.c~'..:.o'.-:lcdg.:: it a nd i s st:e a "let te r of co:1:::; c nt " u r.d.:::r wh ich :i:~ is :;,0:::;si".:>le
~or a co::;;;;uni ty to g o a hc3.d and acc;:c.i r e the open s:!_)O.cc lar.d a t its
own risl~ 1 eve n without a:r.,})rovo.l o:r a c;rant 2..:r;:plication. ~'1C "l.:::".:.tc:r
•
'
•
l y a:pprova 1 1 •ou t· r:-~ re 1 y proviccs
•l
. ,
T ""t • -:,
o:~ co:1sc
n..,.,_ II cocs
no~• 1:r.-1p.
-;:,:;av
~vl.l
r.n y :::eir,iburse the a pplicant for e::...-:r.,0ns e s i ncurrC!d after the l c tte::r c:.~
co::.s c:1t is ,a uthorized, if t h e project is approved. A:pplicants w:-,o
find it necessary or desirable to eo ahead on their own, do so er..tircly
at their own risk.
..<.
•. J
.- ,
...~ !
.·i
. . ~ .. ,,
-~
. . :::
·:_.:__ ::·/ ~
.··i
.: ~ 'J
j-~
'I
.\.fter an a1)plicatio11 }-las bee n f'ile d with o~e of t1
e D2~"'~::.2~.-:. 1 s _
Rc.-:;io:1al Offices, HUD will review the application ar..d ::-:akc a c.ecisio~
0:1 wne ther it can be fur.ded 1 in te:r.:r.s of :priorities a,,d cor:.,cting
applications. A funding ar..alysis process is used to eval~ate
syste:natically all applications received. Projects a?proved for
fundinr; then undergo detailed . reviews fo-.: .c o:-.1pliance with all
technical pr.o gram req_uire;:;ients. I:f a p:::-ojec.t cannot be approved_ for
funding, HUD will notify the corr.munity as soon as possible.
·1
I
.·,4
·j·, 0
·iI
.I
·.i
•I
When a e;rant is approved, t·:--ie D.2:part::nent I s Regioc1al Office
pro:.,::_">tly advises tne co;:-. nunity, after wnic:"i a for:.,2.l ?ederal co,.'tract
is issued. Tne contract s pells out the req_uire::-;,ents with w:1icr1 t:°'e
g rant e e must comply in order subs e q_ue ntly to receive the authorized .
.:;rant. Us ually the grantee :;:iust spend tne ~oney wi t:iin 12 .:-.onths;
except'ions are made for cases i n vol vine; cota"t actions.
Z'1 e Fede ral grant will b e :paid a s a r e irJburser:~mt after t :- ~ l and
is actua lly purcha sed or the J?roposed de velop;-r;ent completed. 7nerefore , applica ;its must b e pre:pare d to fi nance acquisition or c. e velo?me;:it entirely on their own prior to re c e ivin~ reir.iburser::ent for tne
Fe dera l share. T..-ie amount of tne O:p0 n Space grant will be basec. on
two p r ofe ss ional l a nd ap}_)r .:.is a ls. T'ne cost of appraisals will be
eligible i terns in grant cor11putation . .
Land acquisition and deve lopment must meet Federal stanc~rds
cove ri ng wage rat e s, non-discrimi nation, :price negotiatior.s, a~d so
f orth . Mo s t of these r equireme nts a r e simlar to those. of otner
Fede r ally assiste d programs.
HUD h a s speciai r eloc a tion r eg_uir e ~e nts to assure tha t a nyone
di s placed by a n Or,.3n Spac e pr oject ha s available g ood alternative
~ousins .
Certain r e loc at ion grant pay;ncnts are mace to the
displ acces. Tne se payments are e ligible for 100 :pe rce nt r e imb urs e ~ent by t he Fed era l Gove r nment in a dd iti o:1 to the a pp r oved grant.
Local c or..rnunit ie s rr.ay b uy t he enti re t i t l e _to land (fee si~? le )
o~ t hey r:.ay a.cq_uire s o:-::e l iriui t e d intc r e s:, i n an oi:,~n. 2.1)3.Ce p:'oject
site . Easements and life · es t ates ~ e eli r; i o l e. T.-:e D~;.:tl:".t::::::r:t
e :ic oura.~es rr,ulti-ole l a nd uses, i ncludi:vr school-0ark co!:'. 0lcxcs .
ii
~·
�I
I
nir- ~·icn.;s developi;;ents > po.r1cs .:..n flood plain pro'!:.cctio;:i zo:'les ,
?n.r:cs :i.n hiGh r.oisc areas near 2.ir:ports J and so forth.
I
i
Ass i stance is not available for t:ic purchase of alrc:ac1y c1evclope:d ·
o::;>en space areas J such as g·olf courses .
.,
•j
1
fuvelop.:-.ent provided for in 3.n o:pc:n space project no:rrzlly is
li;;,i tc.:1 to ~inor construction; l2..nd s c a:.9in~J riluyc;rou~d eq_ui?::-,e:::-.t,
utilities , erad inGJ and si~ilar activities. Major buildinss ,
s,ri,7.;..i ng pools, Golf c ou:tsc s, a--:11)hi thcD. ters and other "r;:aj or c o:-:s tr·..:ction" are not eligible. Dc::velo::;i:::-,ent assistance is available o::D.y
for lo.nos acquired under the :pro 0 ram. Other assistanc e is available
for lands already in J,Uolic ownership through the HUD lirban 3-za·,.r~i:.icatio;:i and L~prove~ent Procram .
ij
.j
i
•
i
j
,!
.l
.:I'
i
·1
I
·· i
.}
i
--~
' ·-1
1
.i
G
~
-i
D~partmental funding :priorities stress " putting o:pen s~ce
-,o
10y wne re the )
>20:ple are. 11 . , It aJ.so stresses meeting ur3:e:1t needs,
espe cially those of low-income neighborh oods and cor.i..1unit ies. Tne
De:partment aiso encourages proj e cts that will have a de:.7.onstrable
ir.-,pact on new urban 13rowth. L~se scale l)rojects far from U:C(?G.n
centers have, in general , little likelihood of being funded .
·l.,
.,
...,
. l
·i
Tne O;,en Sp ace Land P-rograo has alrea0y helped hundreds of
. co;:u";luni ties work toward r.:eeting J>3.rk, recre2..tion and · c onserva.Jci o::1
ne ~ds. The progr am can have sriecial· value in helping cities ~ect
the needs of :people in inner city and low-inco;,1e neighborhoods,
often related to s?ecia l su,.-m:er p rogra:ns to ease tensions. 1-~any
co;r.;-~unit ies have used open spsce dcvelop~ent activities as a source
of local e~ploy;nent and training for neighborhood youth and the
hard-core unemployed. Tne Departruent encourages such progra~£.
•l
--1
1
I
'I
J
·j
-1
'l
i
·1
J
~
Tne Dzpa.rtment also encourages conur,unities to invlove loc~l
n~i zhborhood residents in all phase s of the pla nninz process -locatinz the site, designing the facilities; constructio::1, operation
a::1d maintenance . Citizen :particiJ?3.tion can as.s ure that p r ojects
will r.,ee t neighborhood nee ds and b e a source of pr ide 't o the
com...unity.
-j
.'1
.
i
1
i!
o.
1
l
1
·;
Land acquired with }iUD assis"cance ::mst re;;;ain as op--:;:-i. s:.;iace :..:
pc:c:,e"cui ty. StronG :protections are given by the law on o:pen s:.i2.co2:
.?:·ojcc'cs to discourage intrusions by incorr,}?2-tiblc larid uses .. 1·:.::C?:n
it is in the })Ublic interest to convcr"c · al_l or :part of an o:p,-:m s:pace
project to another use, approval by the Secretary of }fu1) ~ust be
obtained, and the con1uuni ty ffiUs t su~stitute land of e~ual val~e a..~t
quality serving generally the sar.:e :people.
0-utrignt full fee acq_uisition of ol)en space land :i.s r.ot al\-:2.ys
feasiole, ;ior is i-;;. always necessa::-y r~o-;: t he P-uolic ::3ody to o·;:,tai:-1
Oi·::-te:rshj_n of land to rr,3.int2..iri it s o-::-,2 n s-:x'lce cha:r2.cte:r. In
iii
·1
t'
Hli'D•Wo.sh . , D. C.
• ,. , ,
,k
'If
�.,,
,/
.,,
.., ·
·I---..---------~
. . __)
'/
.
I
i
..
!
·I
dcvclo?ir.G urban o..reo.s > cor:;r.iunitics c cm c arry out the or,cr. s1x1ce:
clc:::81:t of tr.c co:npr.:::hcnsi vc plo.n oy yr2se;:,vin~ opc:-i. sp::i.cc > whc.:re:
n e eded> ".:.hrouc;h ti1e use of nu,11ero\.:s ad:::iinistrati vc ar,d lC:.! 0 8.l tool s.
Good zoni:1g practices> subdi visio:1 rc gul atioas that er:courace cl1.:.steri n;3> and re(_luire b ui lders ·of new nci,:},"borhoods to dedicate land fo::p3.rk c,:1d rccrea,tion purposes. .. a11 · can -do much to · assure the ava il6.bilit ~ of open space. . .
l
I
·j
I
.,)
(
1
1
l
'• .I
I:
. !i
i;
I
i!
~ j
Tne D~p.:1rt~ent gives Sf,8cia l attention to proj ects designed to
neet er.-,ere;ency · needs and to ser.ve coordinated programs 'lor i:-cprovi r.3
tne urban envirorur:.ent and thereby the lives of :people . An e;;r.a;;,:ple
would be s:--...a.11 :park development s in 1fodel Cities or other small parks
in built.:·up
·c·ity neiGhbor:noo2fs-:- ·· ··- -· -- .
·1
1
i
~
j
i°nner
·<,l
.'
!: ;.
,.
i':.
ji
f;
,!!:
!!
Con:.11ur,ities should ma},e \lSe of open s}?ac e standards > ei th e:::- by
ad opting sui:rnested national s ta::-ida:-ds or by develo}?ing tneir own .
T.ne standards should help define priorities and set goals to assure an
equality of diverse or-,an space opport unity for all citizens.
.·1J
~
p
[i
!;
! •
..H
.,
j;
l
·1
.: l
.J
·°j Q
JI
O}X:!n Space planning a nd prograr.~ shouid provice for sites >
faci l ities and a ctivities :from the block a:id neighborh ood s cale ) to
city-·.-ride areas > ar,d to regional facilities serving several cour."~ies
or the entire raetropolitan ·area.
.i
•J
Effective open space proGra~s a l so r e~uire intergovcr~J~eital
-coo:-dinatio:-i. between 1)2.rk and recr2ation a.::;enci.e s > s c hool syste:::;:s)
' public util ity co::1.ilissions ) cultural a gencies , water companies) a::id
other public age ncies that own or rr.anage land and facili-tie:s :iaving
o~n s pac e and recreational values .
,'
'j
.l
j
'.j
1
..
,:
~tailed program req_uirer.:~nts a:::-e explained ·in the followi:::g
. pages. Special cases or situations not covered in this guide should .
be brought to the attention of the appropriate Regional Office .
.~
~
l'
-j
-l
]
.. . ..
.',
·.l
.,
.
-··1
l
·j
······
j
. -.'·
, . ...
.
··,
•····
l
,'
l
.j
.]
.l.,
. 1
. ·.~' •'
,
..
f
}
,,; .,:
I
I·
. .:1
.
1
i
I
i
... _:l
l
- I'
,. 0
.. ,
l
'-.
!I
.J
r
.,
·.::j
I
iv
·.:1
• I
't
_i
.- -143.215.248.55Y~·;··.-~,~ '. . -~7 :.':.: ,/::·.~;_,;j'_)'.·;_. ..:·:·.~:·.:':~
"!
HUD-\1'c.,,.h ., D, C,
,·.'":\:7'~~3~:v:~i:,..,:_i-.,. . •_..:~:>.:-•7'.~":-:·..re-'":.'"'"":'c-""".'.,'r-r;""'·~:,"".·:':"".:--~.....,.....-;"":'"--.-......""'.'"'-..,.,._ _ _, . ; . . . ~ - - - - - , - . -f
,:· · .. ..
�•
-r
I
·j
I
l
1
I
·i
!
·j
,· .
0
I
r
CEEClCLIS::' FOR APPLIC ATI01'T FOR GRP.X-:r 'I'O ACQDIRE L ALl) FO:R O?EII- S? ACE ?:.r.:2csz3 '
J
i
Code ::o.
r
I
J
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
OS 101
l-'6:-~ :S:- 6600, !:Pplicc.tion f or C·r2.nt To Acquire
()-;:ic~- S~ace L~d . Incl ude 3 copies of ?oril R-6600
u Binder Ho.land l copy each in Binde::rs No. 2
and 3. -
l,:odi f y :Block F, Conputation of Grant Araount ,
shown in Attachment B.
11
OS 102.
11
as
1-:ap of urban area s hoving locat:'..op. of l and t o be
a cquire d or , i f -pr oposed a cqui sition r el ate s only
to land of local significance , rr..ap of l~ality
sho~'"i::l.g sit es t o be a cquire d. A standard city or
c ounty street or r oad ~ap ~ay be u sed . Include 3
copies of t he map in Binder No.l and l copy each
i.n Binder s No. 2 and 3.
0
OS 103
OS 1 04
State~ent de scribing s~ecific open- space u ses
_proposed f or the l e.nd c overed r.,y ·che a:9pl i c 2.ti6n .
(A phrase such as 11 park and recreationa.1 11 ·is not
a cceptable. ) Show proposed use for each i ndivi dual
site in t:0.e application, indicating whether i t i s a
local or regional use. .Ir any existing struct ure
will be retained on l and a cquired , describe use to
be made of the structure.
Stater::..ent e;...' })laining na"cure , s ou_rce , and a:::ount of
non-Federal :funds available for the a c quis i tion of
land for open - space use , including the date . that
such f\ m.ds will be avail abl e. Expl ain e:ny spe cial
types of ~ortgag~ inst3.l.l.:rr.ent-payme4t purchase, or
other financie.l a.:::-rangeEe~t involving land incl~ded
in the program. If State assistance will be
obtained, indicate the date application f or State
as s istance -was submitted
the present status of
the application. If funds w-i-ll be derived f:-.. om
bonds, indicate the length of t:ilne required
to redeem the bonds. Ii' private or foundation funds
are involved, indicate the soUl"ce, amount, and date
f'unds wil.l be available.
and
4
OSI.:? Gu:.c.e
E:r..hibit A
j:.·
i
"O
Atta.cm.1e:,:rt .,
i.
I
OSI.? Guicie
C=..a-oter. 3
~
i·
r
·
l
OSI.? C--:J.id.c
c::..a:.pter l
I .
!
'
I
t
r:
I
I
t.·
i
t.
~
~ .
OSI.? G-.iic..e
Chapter l
Lette:r Ko. OS-5
Page 9
~·
l
t.
'
,.; '•
,.
.!.
l
i
f. .
!:
i_
,.
i
I .
�- ---.-
-- -
1
'l
i
·J
'l
- J.2 -
I
i
·1
·i
I •
I
II Coc.e l{o.
Item To Be S'J.b::itted ·
I
I
Refer ~o
!
I
I
j
..
i
·i
Ple.nnins D2.ta
. -j
l
OS lll
St2.te~ent indicating that . corr.prehen:;;ive plc.nning for
~:::oan e.::-ea is 1,;..;1derw-;;.y, describinz scope of pianning,
!
identifyir1g agency or inst~e::11:~ali-'cy carrying
I,"'.:.he
planning, and. indicatinz nature and e)-.-tent
J
l
J
loc::u participation and represen-'cation in the
plunning .
i
,,
1
·l
OS 112
i
·i·1
l
Le-tte::r- ~Io . OS-5
Pages
on
4, 5
of
iI
.II
I
I
I .
I
I
State~en-'c des cribin3 open- space acquisition o.nd
Lette::- fio.
develop~ent procram for urba..~ area, includinG (a)
Pages 5,
stand.n.rds and criteria, ( b) listing of :9ropose<i
activities for next 5 to 10 years, (c) cost estimate ,
p:::iority schedule, and fi.1:ar. ci~s proposals , (d)
coo:::dination procedures, e..::id (e) identification of
ugeLcy or agencies· responsible for preparing pro.gr~~ •
. A copy of tne open- space acqui sition Md developwent
progran should be submitted_ as an exhibit .
OS-5
/'
0
I
,;
I
If an intergovernnental agree~e~t is being or will be
used. as the coordinating we c:J.a.:iism fo:::- the open- space
acquisition and develo?~ent progra!:1, include a copy
of the executed or proposed ayeement. If e.n
agree~ent previously submi~ted to ~-'k'A is still
j cu::-rent, reference r:1ay be maci.e to ti:le previous
subnission whi ch includes the agreement.
1
j
l
..J
J
j
1
··1
,
OS
·i
OS ll4
1
113·
1
,i
.
State::::1ent indicating whe::i applicatio:::i was ·revi_ewed
by other agencies , identifying the age::icies, and
s1.:r2arizing their coT.w..1ents •
!
1·
I
I
Letter N.o . OS-5
Page 7
'j
. j
'.j
.1
·-1
Statement describing present and proposed activities . Lette::::- Iro. OS-5 .
of local governing bodies to preserve open-space
Page 6
le.nd in urban area and citing appropriate portions
OSLP Guid.e
of a:n:y to.x provisions or zoning, subdivision, s.nd
Chapter l
other regulations.
1
'l
Le.nd ic ouisitirn.1 Date.
ii
i
OS 121
1
.l
.I
.i
.j
'i
I
i
. , Plat of each site to be acquired or detailed map of
i e a ch taking area covered by t he application. Plat
II ~~oU::.d clearly identify all structures and
i.:::.prov'en.lents. on the l ru:d being acc;._uired, and indicate
a::i..y to be r etained in a.ccor~~ce-with proposed site
I
.i
I
0
plau.
j
1
1
i
l
_ _ _ _ __,,._..,....,-----i143.215.248.55 13:13, 29 December 2017 (EST)77"7143.215.248.55:'""\"",.:....,,.....-~
... , ~-·"
/·:r, •,, ,, , .-• .
"-·Pi
I
W
ll.,
•,
,•
·"·
.,-- , ' "
'•
1r •
'
• •
\
7. 1 ' "
-· ~
- ' ,.,.,......,
, _,....,~-
,.,._.......,.._,_ _ _ _ _ __
�I
I
!
.!
!
!
_,
A3 -
i
1
I
l
l
i .
i
u .
/ ~
I
1
I
Code Ko . I
.,
,j
I tem To Be Sc::o::::i:..t tcd
F~c:fer To
I
' II
I
I
I
I
J
-1
. l
I
I
i ,.,,. pc.~ ial t a~inss ar.::: involv<::d. ) cho•,r vhich areas
t otal }?D.::"Cc:l -w-ill rems.in iu fo::::...cr o,r.1er I s
( co:.i .)
Il)Os s e s s ion . I :t' t akir.;3 nrc c..s :::.re .i nvol V8d and 1 1'.:t:al
' c.e scr i :ptions e.re l e..-::~ · ":.:.,) ces cribe taki ng a rea i n
tens of nuturnl physicc.l pouncaries sue~ a s roads,
r i vers, or similar f e atu:ces.
OS 122.
.I
~
·l
J ;;.
I
II
-..l
~.
I
I
. ·1
i
I f developed laud is t o be acquired, ( a ) detailed
-. plat or photo2r~ph of cac~ s ite to be a cquired, in
sufficient detail to provide a bas is for
det erni n in3 tl:at t he land is 11 dcv elo}_)e d 11 (i.e.,
~ore t han 10 p ercent of t he area includes bu i ldings
or ot h er stn:cture s) and t hat i "c i s located in a
buil t-up po:::-tio~ of the urbw1 are~; and (b) if any
st c.ndar d s tructure will b e ac~uired a.~d de~olishe d,
s t at ement justif yinE i t s a cquis iti on and demoli~ion.
?
Letter No~ OS-5
Pages 3; 15
-i
!
I .
I
~
i .
I
·\
l
los 122
l state~ent indi cating the sr.ount , basis , and source
jof cost of real estat e services.
Lette r Ne. CS- 5 · 1
Pages 8, 12
,.r
I
f
t.
OS 1 23
OS 124
i
OS 125
J
l
. j
Statement indicating the w.1ount , basis , a.~ d source
of estinat e of a cquisition cost of each parc el or
group of parc el s covered by the application.
Letter lfo . OS -5
Page 12
Land Acquis i t ion Policy State~ent
Letter i:fo . OS - 5
Page s 13- 15
OS 126.
.l
.i-!
- 1
If developed l and is to be a cquired, state~ent
indicating e.::n.ount, basis, and source of estimated
cost of demolit ion and re:noval of s"Gructures on t he
la.~d. If applicable 7 include (a) description of
p~oposals for relocating structur0soff sit~ and
costs i.~volved; and (b) copies of bids request ed
or estimates received fro~ demolition contractors.
I
I
Letter No . OS-5
Pase 16
I . .1'
-::
·.a
· ·1
I
I
·1
·-:
I
",l
OS i27
l
\
i
Copies of any optio1c.s or proposed purchz.s e a grea.Zlts.
with respect t o land proposed to be acquired .
i
j
I
I
Letter Ko. OS-5
If historic s i te will be acQuired, statement
Paze 13
describin~ basis for deter..iining that s i te is . of
historical significance and proposals for preserving
site.
t
,.i .
I
-
r~-:...,
r
·!
. .
,· .
I
r·
..
,.
';.'·
r
,_.
I
j
�- A4 .:.
i
.0
'
Item To Ee Submitt2d
! Cod.e:Xo. /
?.e::'er To
I
Reloc2.tio1;. Data
. ·j
<
-i
I
(Submit if applic2.tion covers
'l
a cquisition of prop,ff:!:,y f :co:r, 1,hich
1
.j
site occupants will be dis-placed)
)
,I
OS 131
1 ,
,
2sti;;l~te of nu:-:ber of individuals , f~ilies , and
jous~ness c~nc~rns to oe displaced fro~ p roperty
~o oe , acq_uireu. For individuals and far.:ilies,
incluue breakdown by race.
Lett e:.~ lfo . 0S - 5
Page 10 .
s·t.ate:nent indicating t hs.t adeq_uat e relocation
housing is or will be available, includine basis
for deter.nining adequacy of relocation housing.
Letter Ho. CS - 5
!:l
"r
l
·os 132
J
,_j
i
l'·
I
i
Page 10
.-
'
-i
i·
.1
·1
OS ·133
-~
·]
J
I
·!
I
.,I
.
i
'
·i
I
~
Statement outlining .relocation services to be
Letter No . OS-5
provided, identif ying the asency or orsanization
Pag~ll., 12
to be re sponsible, o.nd describins the q_ualification~
·of the perso:mel and/or agency to perfo::-:n the
1
serviceG. Ii' applicable, incluc e cop i e s of
con"uracts or oi:.ner agreements with local renewal
agency, city relocation staff, or other agency.
'l
l
OS
I
134·
·l
Est i.::ate of total -ar.J.ount of relocation payn:ents
'to ce made , in tabular f orm as sho.m in
OS 135
1
·l
'l
·i·,
l
-1
·1
I
I
I
II
1
i
·,·
1
'I
'
'lI
!
.·.,,
.. •,·>' : ~-~·· ;:.-·-' •,:,: · '..!--:--,.". ::, : ....., ,·.;-_
_
·._: ~-:~~-~~--~-_;:)~_:_/t,:_?=". ~-- :_·..
'I
I
Letter No. OS-5
t he B!I!ou.r:.t , basis , and· source
relocation services , excluding
PageS ll, 12
I r elocatioi:. :payr;ient s, which will be i n cluded in
I computing t he amount of the grant. Ir ·a per capita
figu~e is used, indicate h ow per capita estimate
va.s derived.
bdicating
! Statement
of es~iLated cost of
i
.
I
I
j
·.:· . ·.
'O
,J
I
Letter No . OS-5
Pages 10, 11
Att achment B.
i.j
Attac~en"'i:.
,.
!.
I
l
I
I
I
l
0
l
'i
!-
f-r
,r..
�I
.!
i
l
l.
·I
I
O·
- A5 -
..
_I tem •ro Ee Sub;:iitted
Cod.e Ko.
I
i,
~efe:r ;:ro
.II
I
• I
I
Development D~t a
(Sub~it if a??l i cat i on covers
development of l and)
OS 141,
e-.
seq_.
[Se~ Letter No . OS-6]
.
. .
' :
.,,
~
Let"ce:: ~fo . OS -5
Po.ge
17
.
I
Le gtl De.t u
OS 151
Re solution of applicant authoriz i ng filing of
applic ation.
At tach:r.~:::i.t C
os ·152
Opin~on of couns el a.~d cutheJ t ic ated copies of
all l aws and chart ers r e f e~red t o in the
op in i on not avail able i n printed cowpilation.
Attachment D
OS 153
I f develope d l c.nd i s to be a c~uired and the
applicant is n ot the gov~r~i ng body of t he
l ocality, r es olut ion of l ocal govern inG body
that u;:ideveloped or pr edo~ine.r.tly undeveloped
l cr.d i s not avail able i.~ the locality for the
open - spa ce u se s proposed f or the land t o be
a cquired.
Attacm:.ent C
l
'\
ll
0
.\
1
··1
l
·j
-1
,l
. ..:tI
"J
·I
.,'
·i
I
.·!
·,j
1
!
. ·1
i
J
lI
.\
l
.. ,
.j
(
';
'
l•
i!
0
I
I
!
I
.\
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
art te eth ieee as
cael cimil irietlho
O
: BXORACTS FROM HUD PROCEDURE HANDBOOK
| é » 62:0 |
SUMMARY
The Open Space Land Program assists local governments and States
in purchasing and developing land in urban areas for park, recreation,
scenic, historic, and conservation purposes. The odjectives of the
program are to prevent the spread of-urvan blight, deterioration, and ‘
Sprawl; to encourage more economic and desirable urban development; .
and to meet the open space needs of people in the city. '
Open Space grants cen cover up to 50 percent of the cost oF
acquiring land. Grants may be made only to public bodies; private ‘
‘organizations are not eligible. The matching funds furnished by the
local government mey come From any non-Federal source, including
private philanthropy. However, donations of land cannot count toward
me local share. A project must be based on an open space plan for. :
ne community and must. be in conformance with areawide compren rensive
Siannihe Tor the entire metropolitan area. The land must de iccatec :
in an urban arta. However, there is no mininun population limitation. =
The Department places high vriority on land ecquisition when iv &
involves undeveloped iand, but limited grant-in-aid assistance toward
che development of parks and other open space areas is also evailabie. i
un general, all development activities in central cities and low- i
incowe neighborhoods can be assisted with a full 50 percent grant.
*
artment places high priority on the development of land
Tor open space use wnen it involves ceveloped land, and there is no
ré the 50 percent grant level of assistance for such
purposes.
Land for open space may be either vacant end undeveloped or,
where no vacant land is available, assistance may be obtained for
purchasing already developed land, for demolishing the existing i
structures on it, and for developing it. for park or recreational
uses. Demolition expenses are an eligible project cost when developed
land is acquired.
In order for a community to optain an Open Space grant, it must
Tile an application with Hu The application, should be based on
local open space plans and priorities and official action by the
responsible local government oe to authorize the project. Avplica- i
tions cannot retroactively cover land already acquired. Applications ;
may include a number of sites or projects. The Department encourages
commuli{ties t6 include the acquisition and development program for a f
wnole year in a single application. Such action reduces everybody's i
paperwork. 2 MAS :
i
. ' HUD-Wash., B.S.
eee er erry Aa Sar A ab are Bo ea eT ee ee re ei ae
n application is filed, the. Department will acknow-
@.
e a "letter of consent" under which it is p
ae)
v and iss oSSiDLE
Or a& community to go ahcad and acquire the open space land at its
own risk, even without approval of a grant application. Tne "“Letiver
oF consent" docs not imply approval, but merely provides that UD
i nay reinourse the applicant for exvenses incurred after the Letter of
consent
is authorized, if the project is approved. Applicants wno
Ft
be
a
Ou
p
et
ss
QO
oO
Oo
0
un
ry
te
o
ry
Ou
oO
Ler
pe
KH
oo
o’
kK
oO
ct
o
Cs
oO
®,
rm
@
po
Ou
o
og
ct
a
o
b.
ba
oO
x
oo
~
ou
fe)
n
oO
; a
rs
ck
ate
ry
0
hH
S
After an application nas been Tiled with one of the Department's
Regional Offices, HUD will review the application and make a decision
on wnether it can be funded, in terms of priorities and competing
‘ applications. A Yunding analysis process is used to evaluate
systematically all applications received. Projects approved ror
funding then undergo detailed reviews for compliance with all
sechnical program requirements. If a project cannot be approved for
funding, HUD will notify the community as soon as possible.
am
fd ; When @ grant is approved, the Department's Regional Office
promptly advises the community, after which a formal Federal contract
is issued. The contract spells out the requirements with which the
grantee must comply in order subsequently to receive the authorized .
grant. Usually the grantee must spend the money within 12 months;
exceptions are made for cases involving court actions.
©
hse a
Tne Federal grant will be paid as a reinboursement after the land
; is actually purchased or the proposed development completed. ‘There- :
. Tore, applicants must be prepared to finance acquisition or dévelop=
ment entirely on their own prior to receiving reimbursement Tor the
Federal share. The amount of the Open Space grant will be based on
two proressional land appraisals. The cost of appraisals will be
: eligible items in grant computation.
tad a ada a a BS a et
Land acquisition and development must meet Federal standards
covering wage rates, non-discrimination, price negotiations, and so
forth. Most of these requirements are similar to those, of other —
Federally assisted programs.
HUD has special relocation requirements to assure that anyon
isplaced by an Open Space project has aveilable good alternative
ousins. Certain relocation grant payments are mace to the
isplacees. Tnese payments are eligible for 100 percent reimourse-
ent by the Federal Government in addition to the approved grant.
yY
.
&
(0
or they may acquire some limited inte
site. Easements and life estates are el
encovrazes multivle land uses, i Ging
a a A Sc a ton AK arin Bde tw Edi iicin Tie
H oO
HUD-Wash., D.C.
Sl cet a a de ee
herp detente Pas upetaterttntgdtn of a oat wane
A dines B4
ore Lc ed leak ah nen i Pa pre mea ab here Bs ass
a ak ea dd el
aaa
at
O
On
ho
o
- = *% a ae -
air-rights Cevelopments, parks
xr
*~
parks in high noise areas nea
ce is not available for the purchase of already developed *
open space areas, such as gol courses.
ch
ae]
7
Development provided for in an open space project normally is
limited to minor construction, landscaping, playground equivment,
utilities, grading, and similar activities. Major buildings,
ween Nene
i e
sWinming pools, golf courses, amphitheaters and other "major consvruce
re not eligible. Devel looment assistance is available onl;
tion" 4 %
for lands acquired under the vrogram. Other assistance is available
for lands already in puolic ownership through the HUD Urban seautiri-
cation and Improvement Program. ; .
' Land acquired with HUD assistance must remain as open space in
perpetuity. trong protections are given by the law on open space
projects to discourage intrusions by incompatible land uses. When f :
it is in the pudlic interest to convert’ all or part of an open space - ;
project to another use, approval by the Secretary of HUD must be
obtained, and the community must substitute land of equal value anc
‘quality serving generally the same people.
Devartmental pea priorities stress "pucting open space
money where the people are.". It also stresses meeting urgent necds,
especially those of low-income neighborhoods and communities. ‘Tne 5
Department also encourages projects that will have a demonstrable
impact on new urban growth. Lerge scale projects far from uxsoan
centers have, in general, little likelihood of being funded.
eady helped hundreds of
Tie Oren Space Land Program has alreac
communities work toward meeting park, recreation and: conservavion
necds. The program can have special: value in helping cities mecv
the needs of people in inner city sc low-income neighborhoods,
orten related to special sunmer programs to ease tensions. Many
comounities have used open space development activities as a source
al! e
or local employment and training for neighborhood youth and the
nard-core unemployed. The Department encourages such programs.
The Department also encourages communities to invlove Loc al
nborhood residents in all phases of the planning process --
ing the site, designing the facilities, construction, operation:
maintenance. Citizen participation can assure that projects
will meet neighborhood needs and be a source of pride to the
community.
ae
Cutright full fee acquisition of open space land is not always -
feasivle, nor is it always necessary for the Public Body to obtain -
owmershiv of land to maintain its omen svace charac =
bite
HUD-Wash., D. C.
ce : ’ a a ee 4 —
a le et
eet Te bs Son wes eee et ine vl te art ae Ee le
a aaa hl ee ST ee eae FEL ey a We ee
Se ek ee PY Rca toatl
0
'
ci |
fie 7h
© it
developing urban areas, communities can carry out the open space
clement of the comprehensive plan by preserving open space, where
needed, through the use of numerous administrative and Legal tools.
Good zoning practices, subdivision regulacions tire encourage cluster.
ing, and require builders of new neishborhooés to dedicate land for
park and recreation purposes. -=. all’can do much to assure the avail-
ability of open space... ;
The Department gives special attention to projects ‘designed vO
meet emergency needs and to serve coordinated programs Yor improving
ene urban environment and thereby the lives oF people. An example
would be small park developments in Model Cities or other small parks
in ‘built-up inner city neighborhoods. a
Communities should make use of open space standards, either by ,
adopting suggested national standards or py developing their own.
The standards should help define priorities and set goals to assure an
equality of diverse open space opportunity Tor all citizens.
Open Space planning and programs snould vrovide for sites :
= 2 = ?
-
facilities and activities from the block and neighborhood scale, to
city-wide areas, and to regional facilities serving several counties
‘or the entire metropolitan area.
Effective open space programs also reawire intergovernmental
-coordination between park and recreation agencies, school systems,
ay
ypudlic aotlty commissions, cultural agencies, water companies, and
other public agencies that own or manage land and facilities nan ing
open space and recreational values.
Detailed program Bequivanente are explained in the f
. pages. Special cases or situations not covered in this guide s
be Drought to the attention of the appropriate Regional ofr
: J ; iv
HUD-Wash., D.C.
Ce be ee eee nears
hb
t
i
+
.
1
©
re = ee =
a
ke ete
sinned oe ea ee cate anna to « . * .
foe A a eet teint es nel =
- ee ae ee aes
we Bg ln tae eds
a he ated tent alice Aa Sat anne tv and nen whine dla la daha eee Sia a nei tag tg BS
O
A
At oe acrnnon w ak
%o Letter
>
— nae oo
NO. USTD
CEECKLIS? POR APPLICATION FOR GRANT TO ACQUIRE LARD FOR OPEU-SPACE PURPOSES
Code No.
BoP Fp
ner ez +o
OS 1OL
OS 102
OS 103
104
in Binder No. 1 and 1 copy each in Binders
¥orm H-6600, Application for Grant To Acquire
Cpen-Svace Land. Include 3 copies of Form H-6600
No. 2
and 3..
Modify Block F, "Computation of Grent Amount," as
shown in Attachment 3.
Mep of urban area showing location of land to be
acquired or, if-proposed acquisition relates only
to lend of locel significance, map or locality
showing sites to be acquired. A standard city or
county street or road map may be used. Include 3
copies of the mep in Binder No. 1 and 1 copy each
in Binders No. 2 and 3.
Statement describing specivic open-space uses
proposed ae the lend covered by the application.
{A phrase such as "park end recreational" is not
e
ble s Show proposed use for each individual
‘the application, indicating whether iv is a
local or regional use. If any existing structure
will be retained on lend acquired, describe use to
be made of the structure.
tatement explaining nature, source, and emount of
non-Federal funds aves lable. for the acquisition of
land for open-space use, oe the date.that
such funds will be available. xplain any special
types of mortgage, inst aA ieee ment purchase, or
other financial arrangement involving land included
in the progrem. If State assistance will be
obtained, indicate the date application for State
assistance was submitted and the present status of
the application. Iffunds will be derived from
bonds, indicate the length of time required
to redeem the bonds. If private or foundation funds
are involved, indicate the source, amomt, and dave
| funds will be available.
OSLY Guide :
Cnapver 3
OSL? Guide
Csapter 1
OSLP Guice
Chapter i
Letter No. 05-5
Page 9
a
Samp pre anne, epee
ge npr a ie ya ag ee ay ey pe
Tastee ote
cptneterem pees
|
Heeatias:|
|
|
lth ee, tela 6 2 tet ee at
BE a de SS
eat
pecdctovec cl dha welt Lak ice nae ee td tm eS
Rerer 7
pe wn ae an Se a el te Pt a eT el a ml Se
oS 111
OS 112
OS 113:
OS 214
OS 121
Plenning Dat
Statement indicating that. compre give plenning for
pan area is underway, describi nes of planning,
entifying agency or instrumente ay rrying on
whe planning, and indicating nature ane é extent of
Local participation end representation in the
planning.
Stevement describing open-space acquisition and
development program for urben area, including (e)
standards and criteria, (b) listing of proposed
activities for next 5 to 10 years, (
priority schedule, and financin
coordination procedures, and (e z
agency or agencies ee: ering progren.
A copy of the open-svace acquisition and development
program should be pubmittea as. an exhnibii
If an intergovernnentsal agreement is being or will be
used as the coordinating mechanism for the open-space
SH end development program, include a copy
oF the executed or proposed agreement. If an
agreement previously submitted to EEFA is still =.
| See urven nv, reference may be made to the previous
submission which includes ‘che agreement.
Statement indicating when application was reviewed
by other agencies, identifying the agencies, and
summarizing their comment
Se
tavement describing present and proposed activities |
Lo cal governing bodies to preserve open-space
lend in urban area and citing appropriete portions
oF any tax provisions or zoning, subdivision; snd
other regulations.
! * a *
Lend Acouisition Deve,
x
a of each site to be acquired or detailed map of
ac h taking area Coxe red by Che application. Plat
ould clearly identify all structures and
improvements. on vn “Land being acquired, and indicate
any to be retained in accordance. with proposed site
| plan.
Letter No. 08-5
Letter No. 05-5
Pages 5, 6
Letter No. 05-5
Letter 2 i » 05-5.
Page 6
OSLP Guide
Chepter 1
a
)
O
©
asad cline tas wh
Tn ee ttn ee ete A tt lt bee
Ao heb hihi wt ea dite
'
et ed ad d= De
wah.
aie
)
€
xr
Code No.
|
|
|
0S 121 |i? pertiel takings are involved, show which areas
(con.) lo? totel parcel we aes in Orne owner's
OS
OS
0
122
123
Ley
involved and legal
possessi i? 1g
cescriptions ere lacking, ceser ise taking area in
terms of natural physiccl boundaries such as roads,
ox similar features.
to be acquired, (a) detailed
each site to be acquired, in
& basis for
S "developed" (i.e.,
neludes buildings
located in a
5 and (bd) if any
ead end demolished,
tion and demolition.
developed land is
or photosreph or
sek detail to
+ ing that the
ore 7 a 10 percent of
or other struc cures)
built-up portion of the ur
standard structure will toes ae ac
tatement justifying its acquisi
my
iStatement indicating the emount, basis, and source
or cost of real estave services.
Statement indicating the amcunt, basis, and source
of estimate of acquisition cost of each parcel or
Group of parcels covered by the application.
Land Acquisition Policy Statement
| Copies of any options or proposed purchase agrearaits
vith respect to land proposed to be acquired.
=
Wok ak
iz develope eS land is to be acquired, statenent
indicating paar basis, and source of ae
cost of demolition and removal of structures on the
len If anid oabie include (2) denaniptinn of
proposals for relocating structures orf site, and
costs involved; and (b) copies of bids requested
or estimates received from demolition contractors.
if historic site will be acquired, statement
describing basis for determining that site is.of
historical significance and proposals for preserving
site.
Letter No. 05-5
Pages 3, 15
Let ter Neo. os-5
Pages G, ie
Letter No. 05-5
Page 12
Letter No. 08-5
Pages 13-15
Letter No. 0S-5
Page 16
03-5
a 7
ster No.
Page 13
Sp ne em en ee oe a mee eee pene
oo ee ete
tate fm p RENE eee ea ee ne meen mage Oat
owe eapeeeee
eae e etek
eres ee
“peste te ak ek wll hed ee
cheat ee teh acest at it dee ed lee ie ee delete ete oe
wate sie oS
ot Pes en in ale Sas atic Lager a's
a ae ee ee
eS
tke
‘
F
i
|
0S 131
OS 133
OS 135
= io - mn 2 ee |
Code NO«) Item To Be Submitted
{Submit if eppliceation covers
acquisition of property from which
site occupants will be displaced)
jhousing is or will be available, including basis
timate of number of individuals, families, and
business concerns to be displaced from property
wo be acquired. For individuals and families,
include breakdown by race.
Stavencat indicating thet adequate relocation
Zor determining adequacy of relocetion housing.
Stavement outlining relocation services to be
provided
to be re
of the personnel and/or agency to perform the
services. If applicable, include cooites of
contracts or otner agreements with local renewal
agency, city relocation stati, or other agency.
Estimate of total:smount of relocation payments
to be made, in tabular form as shown in
Attachment Be
Stetement indicating the amount, basis, and’ source
of estimated cost of relocation services, excluding
relocation payments, which will be included in
40
omputing the amount of the grant. If a per capita
figure is used, indicate how per capita estimate
was derived. . : '
Letter No. oS~5
Page 10.
Letter No. 05-5
Page 10
tter No. 08-5
Pagesll, 12
Attachment B
W)
Letter No. 0
Pages10, 1
“3
fe
ster No. OS-5
Pages l1, 12
O
ee
a qeeeetyen es
ope tte ae
anye
a ar cl a an
Se a cram cps Sua hid dl chaning uP TAb eh eaelp a oe i Sater bE ned Ane
BAe Etna ete Se Te
atta ctet ee al bom
antes a ne he eerste he
weeny Tiel
o Be Submitted
Satay
aCLCY Lo
os
OS 151
OS 152
.If developed lend i
Development Data
ee ee
oy
_ (Submit if application covers
» development of land)
mi [See Letter No. 08-6]
Legel Dete
esolution of applicant authorizing filing of
pps ication.
® os
=
Opinion of counsel ant éuthen
all laws and charters referr
rred to in the
opinion nov svedlable in prin
%
a %
ved compilation.:
é
to be acquired and the
ur
applicant is not the governing body of the
locality, resolution oF local governing body
e
that undeveloped or predominantly undeveloped
lend is not available in the locality Tor the
open-space uses prose for the land to be
acquired. :
icated copies of
Le
tver No. OS-5
Page 17
tvachzent C .
~wtachment D
oF
s
B
caneny C
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Box 5, Folder 1, Document 54
Box 5
Box 5 Folder 1
Folder topic: Housing Resources Committee | 1969
-
https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/d3f37852e5d402572037f37ac857ff4b.pdf
bd87aa354d202e1c3872bfcc93b042d0
Scripto
Transcription
A written representation of a document.
Appendi x
11
D11
I
f
NON - PROFI T SPOjSORED NEW HOUSING UNDER 221( d )(3)
Thi s pr ogram was auth or i zed by s e ction· 221(d)(3) of the Housing
Act of 1961 .
I t ·was i ntended t o produc e hou s i ng f or those who are too poor
t o ren t or buy s t andard h ou s ing but n ot p oor enough to be admitted to
publi c h ou s i ng .
The n on - pr ofi t sponsor of a 22 l(d)(3) proj e ct obtains FHA
app r ov al of the pr oj e c t, inc lud i ng a l and a pprais a l and approval of the
build i ng plans .
The FHA agree s to i nsure the construction advance at
100 perc ent of value for n on ~profit asso c ia t i on s .
The sp onsor ob t ain s a commitment fr om t h e Government a l National
Mortgage Asso c ia tion (GNMA ) to pr ovide permanent mort ga ge financing for
the cowpleted pr o ject.
The sponsor pays a one percent fe e to GNMA f or t h is
c ommitment .
The sponsor borrows money from -a pr iva t e financial institution
t o pay f or the constru cti on of the pr oject.
Th e construction loa n is
short- t erm and bears interest at the market rate.
When constr u ction is completed, GNMA pays off t he cons truct ion
loan of t he private lender and issues a mortgage t o the sponsor wi th a
term up to forty years and an interest rate of 3 per c ent.
The s ponsor makes
mortgage paymen ts directly to GNMA .
11
This interest subsidy cuts the costs of mortgage debt service by
appr ox imately 40 percent, and permits rent reduction of about 25 per.cent. 11
�I
- 2 -
.
Pt ogr am Requirements :
Upp er inc ome l i mi t s f or elig i bi l ity are s e t by HUD a n d ~ e pe nd
upon fami l y size and geographi c area .
Us ua lly t he upper limit is set at
t h -2 med i an in c ome leve l of fami l ie s i n t he a r ea .
221 ( d )( 3 ) projects must be l oca t e d in communities which h ave
worka b l e progr ams .
Resu l t s :
"By July, 196 7, FHA ha d given commitments to proceed with a
t ot 1 of 73 , 000 u i t
i n 569 pr oj e ts . 11 33 , 300 or 46 per cent of t he units
were und er the spons orship of limited-dividend cor porat i ons.
Pr oblems :
A.
La ck of t e chni ca l experien c e and kn ow- h ow on p art of
non - pr ofit spons ors .
B.
Comp lexiti e s and bottl ene ck s in proce ss i ng ap plica tion s
by FHA . Pro c e s s ing time to start of construction·
e stimated a t 376 working da ys.
C.
Upper inc ome e li g ibility limit s cl a ime d to be too r estric tiv e .
Adm i nistra t i on :
Most of the progr am administra ti on i s h and l e d by t h e l ocal FHA
Insu r i ng Offi ce.
t h i s pr ogram .
The Re g ion al Off i ces of HUD p l ay a minima l r ole in
At the HUD Na t i onal l e vel, pr ogram res p onsib ility is with t he
As sis tant Se cr etary f or Mor t ga ge Credit, Federa l Hou sing Commissioner.
Re sp on s ibil i ty is fu r t h er de le gated to t h e Assis t ant Commissioner of
~u lti=amily Hou sing of FHA .
�- 3 -
The 221 ( d ) ( 3 ) pr~gram i s curren ::ly b e in g phased o.u t and brou ght .
under sect ion 236 of t he : ous i ng and Ur ban Dev e lopment Act of 1968.
The
. program r ema in s basi ca ll y the same with th e prima ry ~ ifference bein g that
t he permanen t mor t gage is held by t h e pr iva t ~ lender and mort gage subsidy
p~y..1cn t s arc mad e t o t he fi nanci a l i n stitution by the Federal government.
Unde r 221(d)(3), the mortgage is held by GNMA and mortgage payments are
ma de dir e ctly to Gl\1MA .
·'
.
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
Appendix "D"
NON-PROFIT SPONSORED NEW HOUSING UNDER 221(d)(3)
This program was authorized by section’ 22i(d)(3) of the Housing
Act of 1961.
It was intended to produce housing for those who are too poor
to rent or buy standard housing but not poor enough to be admitted to
public housing.
The non-profit sponsor of a 221(d)(3) project obtains FHA
approval of the project,
including a land appraisal and approval of the
uilding plans. The FHA
oC
agrees to insure the construction advance at
100 percent of value for
non-profit associations.
The sponsor obtains a commitment from the Governmental National
Mortgag
e Association (GNMA) to provide permanent mortgage financing for
12 com
pleted project.
The sponsor pays a one percent fee to GNMA for this
commitment.
The sponsor borrows money. from-a private financial institution
to pay for the construction of the project.
The construction loan is
short-term and bears interest at the market rate.
When construction is completed, GNMA pays off the construction
loan of the private lender and issues a mortgage to the sponsor with a
term up to forty years and an interest rate of 3 percent.
The sponsor makes
mortgage payments directly to GNMA.
"This interest subsidy cuts the costs of mortgage debt service by
approximately 40 percent, and permits rent reduction of about 25 percent."
Program Requirements:
Upper income limits for cligibility are set by HUD and depend
upon family size and geographic area. Usually the upper limit is set at
the median income level of families in the area.
221¢d)(3) projects must be located in communities which tive
workable programs.
Results:
"By July, 1967, FHA had given commitments to proceed with a
total of 73,000 units in 569 projects." 33,300 or 46 percent of the units
were under the sponsorship of Limited-dividend corporations.
A. Lack of technical experience and know-how on part of
non-profit sponsors.
B. Complexities and bottlenecks in processing applications
by FHA. Processing time to start of construction’
estimated at 376 working days.
C. Upper income eligibility limits claimed to be too restrictive.
Administration:
Most of the program administration is handled by the local FHA
Insuring Office. The Regional Offices of HUD play a minimal role in
this program. At.the HUD National level, program responsibility is with the
Assistant Secretary for Mortgage Credit, Federal Housing Commissioner.
Responsibility is further delegated to the Assistant Commissioner of
Multifamily Housing of FHA.
The 221(4)(3) program is currently being phased out’ and brought
under section 236 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. The
program remains basically the same with the primary difference being that
the Bpttets atid mortgage is held by the private lender and mortgage subsidy
payments are wade to the financial institution by the Federal government.
Under 221(d)(3), the mortgage is held by GNMA and mortgage payments are
made directly to GNMA.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Box 5, Folder 1, Document 55
Box 5
Box 5 Folder 1
Folder topic: Housing Resources Committee | 1969
-
https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/df3704576b6bacd392ce6b681c83c599.pdf
85bcdb02d97510d4a0079c7b25179e96
Scripto
Transcription
A written representation of a document.
--·-· -· Appendix E
.
STATUS OF SELECTED HUD PROGRAi~ S
Atlanta, Geor gia .
1.
Open Space (702):
13 Projects .
Projects range in size from 8 acres to 159 acres.
5 proj e cts are comp leted.
Open Space (705):
2 Projects
Federal Grants
Disburs ements
Aeer ovals
Approval
date
2.
3.
OSA - 23
2/67
$784,544
OSA
3/68
167,966
24
Ba sic Wa ter and Sewer Grants:
$729,481 .
2 Pro j e cts
ws
0014
Tot al Cos t= $2,689,0 00
Construction Started
ws
0025
Total Cost= $3,407,600
Construction Complete- 09/20/68
Turnkey Housing:
GA - 6 - 19
8 Projects
584 units
·2nd approval
delay due to rezoning
GA - 6 - 20
202 units
under construction
Hollywood Road site
GA - 6 - 21
22 0 units
under construction
Gilbert Road
08/27/68
�r
-
2 -
,.
...
GA
-
6
-
23
324 un its
letter of i n t ent
Wallswood Apartment site.
GA
-
6
-
28
500 units
completion da te e st. on 4/30 /70
4 stages - one 90 percent complete
. GA - 6 - 29
17 5 units
under construction
Prison Creek - Leslie Lane
GA - 6 - 30
800 units
construction document approval stage
East Lake Golf Cour se
GA - 6 - 31
160 un i ts
.development program approved
Annual Contribution Contract
Jone sboro Road and Adk inson Road
4.
Non - Pr of it Sponsored New Hou sing Under 221(d)(3):
P:::-o jec t No.
Name and Spons or
10 Proj ects
Mort gage
Unit:s
Stage of
Construction*
0 61-55001
Wheat Street Gardens
Wheat St . Bapt i s t Chur ch
$2,975,000
280
4
061-5 5007
Al len Temp l e Dev. Inc .,
Allen Temp l e AME Church
$1,419~650
151
4
061 -550 16
Al l en Temple Dev. I nc.,
Sec. 2 . , Allen Temp l e
AME Chur ch ·
$2,372,000
222
4
061-55024
Al l en Temple Dev. Inc.,
Sec. 3 . , Allen Temp l e
AJ.\ffi Church
$2,405,700
208
1
061-55023
Wheat Street Gardens
2, Wheat St. Bap tist Ch.
916,600
8 4.
1
�- 3 ~
t,
Proicct No .
Name and Sponso.r
Hortgage
Units
Stage of
Constru ction*
061-55037
Friendship ' Center
Friendship Bapt ist Church
$2, 535,000
208
1
061-55052
Flipper Temple Homes
Flipper Temple Al'1E Church
'$ 1,712,000
156
0
061-55056
Martin Luther King Village
Ebenezer Baptist Church
$2,975,000 ·
193
o·
06 1-55053
Central Me thodist Home s
Central Me thodist Church
$1,3 70,000
120
0
--J
061-55057
Butler Street YMCA Apts.
Butler Street \.'MCA
Key of· Construction
Status of Pr oj e ct
0
not started
1 - started
2
first units r eady
3
all units ready
4 - final endorsement
$2,484,ooo
216
0
..
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
STATUS OF SELECTED HUD PROGRAMS
Atlanta, Georgia.
1. Open Space (702): 13 Projects
Appendix E
Projects range in size from 8 acres to 159 acres.
5 projects are completed.
Open Space (705): 2 Projects
Approval Federal Grants
- date . Approvals Disbursements
OSA - 23 2/67 $784,544 $729,481
OSA = 24 3/68 167,966
2. Basic Water and Sewer Grants: 2 Projects
WS - 0014 Total Cost = $2,689,000
WS - 0025 Total Cost = $3,407,600
3. Turnkey Housing: 8 Projects
GA - 6 - 19 584 units
‘2nd approval
delay due to rezoning
GA - 6 = 20 202 units
under construction
Hollywood Road site
GA = 6 = 21 220 units
under construction
Gilbert Road
Construction Started - 08/27/68
Construction Complete- 09/20/68
GA -
GA -
“GA =
GA -
GA -
4. Non-Profit
Project No.
061-55001
061-55007
061-55016
061-55024
061-55023
6 - 23 324 units
letter of intent
Wallswood Apartment site
-
han
kek.
6 - 28 500 units
completion date est. on 4/30/70
4 stages — one 90 percent complete
Go =..29 175 units
under construction
Prison Creek - Leslie Lane
6 - 30 800 units
construction document approval stage
East Lake Golf Course
6 - 31 160 units
development program approved
Annual Contribution Contract
Jonesboro Road and Adkinson Road
Sponsored New Housing Under 221(d)(3): 10 Projects
tage of -
Name and Sponsor Mortgage Units Construction*
Wheat Street Gardens $2,975,000 280 4
Wheat St. Baptist Church
Allen Temple Dev. Inc., $1,419,650 151 d,
Allen Temple AME Church
Allen Temple Dev. Inc., ' $2,372,000 age 4
Sec. 2., Allen Temple
AME Church’
Allen Temple Dev. Inc., *° $2,405,700 —-.208 1
Sec. 3., Allen Temple
AME Church
Wheat Street Gardens 916,600 84 . t
#2, Wheat St. Baptist Ch.
Project’ No.
061-55037
061-55052
061-55056
061-55053
061-55057
Name and Sponsor
iendship’ Center
iendship Baptist Church
Pr
z
EF
=
&
==
i
Flipper Temple Homes
Flipper Temple AME Church
Martin Luther King Village
Ebenezer Baptist Church
Central Methodist Homes
Central Methodist Church
Butler Street YMCA Apts.
Butler Street YMCA
Key of Construction.
Status of Project
f-wWhYPrP Oo
1
= not started
- started
first units ready
- all units ready
- final endorsement
Stage of
Mortgage Units Construction*
$2,535,000 208 1
$1,712,000 156 G
$2,975,000 - 193 0.
$1,370,000 125 0
$2,484,000 216 0
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Box 5, Folder 1, Document 56
Box 5
Box 5 Folder 1
Folder topic: Housing Resources Committee | 1969
-
https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/39b2a5590f9b51b784c50a20c6fd77c9.pdf
cf02a5b1a1c3bf781c9bb4a631aa0a94
Scripto
Transcription
A written representation of a document.
October 31, 1969
MEMORANDUM
TO :
Collier Gladin
FROM :
Ivan Allen, Jr.
SUBJECT : Attached Better
Plea e provid me as soon as practical a memorandum report on the
fact surrounding the question rai ed by the attached lett r .
I am particularly interested in the exact nature of the action tak n by
the Zoning Bo rd at its me ting on June 6 and at subsequent meeting on July 11, 1969. Of particular int reet is whether or not public
notice w e given for the ubsequent m eting and if adjoining prop rty
owner were notified. .Also, I would like to know what the current
tatu• of the zoning of this parcel is.
IAJr:em
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
October 31, 1969
MEMORANDUM
TO: Collier Gladin
FROM: Ivan Allen, Jr.
SUBJECT: Attached Better
_ Please provide me as soon as practical a memorandum report on the
facts surrounding the question raised by the attached letter.
Iam particularly interested in the exact nature of the action taken by
the Zoning Board at its meeting on June 6 and at a subsequent meet-
ing on July 11, 1969, Of particular interest is whether or not public
notice was given for the subsequent meeting and if adjoining property
owners were notified. Also, I would like to know what the current
status of the zoning of this parcel is,
IAIr:sm
(a
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Box 5, Folder 1, Document 6
Box 5
Box 5 Folder 1
Folder topic: Housing Resources Committee | 1969
-
https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/4b448eb8038207582daa8f06dafbe568.pdf
9e7cfac3054e3f1f1cff2d9f11215bdb
Scripto
Transcription
A written representation of a document.
December 5 , 1969
MEMORANDUM
To :
Mayor Allen
From:
George Berry
Subject:
$125 Request by Housing Resources Committee
Colonel Jones advises me that the Housing Resources Committee wishes
to invite several guests to their December 18th annw dinner . These
guests consist primarily of the news media and state and f deral
officials . He says that the cost of these invited guests will be approxi ..
mately $ 125 . Will you approve the ·expenditure of this amount from
the Mayor 's Contingent Fund?
GB:ja
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
December 5, 1969
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Allen
From: George Berry
Subject: $125 Request by Housing Resources Committee
Colonel Jones advises me that the Housing Resources Committee wishes
to invite several guests to their December 18th annmal dinner. These
guests consist primarily of the news media and state and federal
officials. He says that the cost of these invited guests will be approxi-
mately $125. Will you approve the expenditure of this amount from
the Mayor's Contingent Fund?
GB;ja
am -
SS “Ce A 2
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Box 5, Folder 1, Document 7
Box 5
Box 5 Folder 1
Folder topic: Housing Resources Committee | 1969
-
https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/262f2728e0b2223d7a7413c53468f1f9.pdf
fbe4fc1bd1c363594cc35b7a8807814c
Scripto
Transcription
A written representation of a document.
MINUTES
£
Housing Resources Committe/1-'
October 8, 1969
. The regular monthly meeting of the Housing Resources Com1nittee was held at
10: 30 A. M., Wedne s day, October 8, 1969, in Committee Room 2, Second Floor, City
Hall.
Invitational notice, Agenda, list of those inv-ited, with attendance of members
and guests indicated, and other related documents are attached to the file copy of
these minutes.
Chairman Alexander opened the meeting by explaining the preparation of, and
filing by the City on September 19, 1969, an application for consideration by HUD for
designation of Atlanta as a prototype housing site City, under 11 0peration Breakthrough 11 ;
that two sites were proposed, i.e., a fragmented site in 3 portions in the Model Cities
area and a 33. 6 acre composite site at the intersection of Carrol and Harvill Roads, N. W . .
It was also explained that Atlanta had been omitted in the initial invitations by
HUD and that a very short time was available in which to prepare and submit the
application, after Atlanta was invited to do so. The Chairman complemented Urban
East, Hou s ing Con s ultant Firm, which assembled the application, and other participants
in preparation of the application, including Model Cities, Housing Authority, Planning
Department, State Planning Bureau, Atlanta Chamber of Commerce and Metropolit an
Planning Com1nission. He also commented on favorable supporting endorsements
submitted by a large number of Agencies, . business firms, religious groups and civic
organizations.
\
Schedule was announced as follows:
July 11, 1969
Briefing Session {original - did not
include Atlanta)
September 19, 1969
Proposals Due
October 3, 1969
HUD will complete preliminary
site evaluation
October 17, 1969
HUD inspection teams will complete
site inspections
November 28, 1969
HUD will announce selection of eight
p r ototype sites
�r
Page Two
January 1, 1970
Sites must be cleared and ready for
developrnent
March 1, 1970
Site improvements will begin
June 1, 1970
First housing units will be shipped
and installed
July 1, 1970
Construct ion and testing period begins.
HUD will control l and through leases,
options to purchase and purchases. HUD
will assume management control of the
demonstration program.
July 1, 1971
Housing units will be sold and occupied.
Mr. Howard Openshaw, Director of Redevelopment of the Housing Authority was
then called upon to present the over all Neighborhood Development Program Proposed
Activities for 1970.
Mr. O penshaw summarized the propos e d overall program as shown in the attached
(Encl. 1) and emphasized the proba ble neces s ity for cut back, as indicated in letter of
S eptember 23, 1969, from Region III of HUD (attache d as part of Encl. 1).
Mr . Opens haw th e n introduced Mr. Robe rt Barnett, Project Manager of the
Vine City NDP project and Mrs. Dorothy Bolden, Vi ce-Chairman of the Vine City PAC
(Project Area Committee ).
Mr. Barnett very ably explained in detail the process used in developing the
plan, through citizen participation (planning with citizens of the area rather than
for them) and coordination with various agencies involved. He showed the current
overall plan as approved by the PAC and the specific area marked out for execution
in 1970. The overall plan includes: a 24- acre park, commercial area, garden type
apartment s (no mor e than 2 story), town houses, singl e-family r es ide nces, and a
community area (including a day care center). The proposed activities for the 1970
target area are shown in enclosure 1.
Mr. Openshaw then introduced Mr. Harry Adley, President of Adley and Associates
and Mr. Fred Kerpel and M r. Lavern Parks, ass ocia t ed with Mr. Adley, C ons ultant s
for the Edgewood NDP a rea. He also introduc e d Mr . Curtis Parrish, Project M a n ager ,
Edgewood NDP.
Mr. Adley made an excellent color slide presentation of the development process
and resulting plans of the Edgewood (formerly known as East Atlanta ) NDP area. See
enclosure 1 for proposed activities for 1970.
In order to conserve time , further dis cussion of proposed activities i n the NDP
areas was concluded.
I
�Page Three
The Chairman then asked Mr. Copen.shaw if there was anything the HRC could
do to assist in preventing the drastic cut back in Atlanta I s anticipated Federal capital
grant funds for 1970 ?; and called upon HRC members for comment. Motion was 1nad
by Mr. Frank Clarke, seconded by Mr. Richard Harvey and after considerable discussion,
was unanimously adopted that a letter be written to the Secretary of HUD, with copy to the
Regional Administrator, pointing out the disastrous effects such a cut back would have
on Atlanta I s current and future NDP activities and urging that every consideration possible
be extended Atlanta in not reducing the Federal capital grant funds. (Copy of letter
to Secretary Romney is attached, Encl. 3 ).
The Chairman then called on reports from Panel Chairmen, starting with Mr.
Frank J. Clarke, Chairman of the Construction and De sign Panel.
Mr. Clarke presented a formal written rel?ort of his Panel, copy attached {Encl.
2), which includes:
1.
His Panel's planned activities for the remainder of 1969;
2.
A proposed letter for Mayo·r Allen to deliver to his successor
recommending continuation of the HRC and the activities of the
Construction and Design Panel;
3.
A report developed in his office by an Urban Corps intern pertaining
to Atlanta's Codes.
Mr . . Clarke recommended that the report on codes be accepted by the HRC and
copies transmitted to the Building Official and Chairman of the Building Committee,
Board of Aldermen. The Chairman asked if there was any objections? As there was
no objection from any member of the HRC, _this will be done.
Courtesy copies of the report on codes had previously been presented to Mr.
W. R. Wofford, Building Official, before presentation of the report to the Housing
Resources Committee.
Mr. "\'vofford, who had previously been invited to the meeting, responded
unfavorably to the report on codes and specifically requested that certain members of
his Department be permitted then to express their views and reactions to portions of
the report which pertain to their special activities. The Chairman consented.
Mr, Wofford then introduced the following members of his Department: Mr. W.
A. Hewes, Senior Administrative Assistant, Mr. Norman Koplon, Structural Engineer,
Mr. Wylie W. Mitchell, Chief Plumbing Inspector, Mr. E. F. (Red) Wise, Chief
Electrical Inspector, Mr. W. H. Goodwin, Assistant Chief Electrical Inspector and
Mr. Romer Pittman, Assistant Chief Plumbing Inspector.
Mr. Koplon, Mr. Mitchell and Mr . Wise presented their views on the report.
They were all hostile and negative in their comments and expressed strong .dissatisfactio n
with the report, insofar as it pertained to their activities .
�Page Four
Mr. Archer Smith, Chairn1an of the L egal Panel, commented tha t he did not
consider the report pertaining to the codes as criticism or condemnation of the
Building D epartment , but r a ther in the nature of an inquiry for clarification to l ayme n.
He a l s o asked Mr. Wofford that since the Atlanta Building Code is b ased on the Natio n al
Building Code, with modifications p e rtaining to Atlanta, if a n index of the changes
applicable to Atlanta only has been prepared, in order to provide quick determination
of the Atlanta changes by builde r s and architects familiar with the National Building
Code, without them h a ving to take hours of reading and comparison between the two,
in order to d ete rmine what a r e the Atlanta changes .? Mr. Wofford replied that such
has not b ee n prepar e d, but that changes can b e determined by comparison between
the two codes.
Mr. Alexander commented that if such a listing was available that it would be
quite a convenience to architects and he presumed likewise to builders.
Since it was past time to adjourn th e meeting, the Chairman announced tha t he
would not call for additional Panel Reports nor complete the re1nainder of th e Agenda.
One item of interest under Other Business {not taken up during the me eting) was
announcement September 30 by the Housing Authority of the offering for bids of the
fir st and thus far only tract of land in th e Model Cities area for redevelopment. The
offering is for a 5. 43 ac re tra ct south of Atlanta Avenue, betwe e n Conna lly and Hill
Streets, S. W. It is being offered on a fixed price basis, with design competition, for
not less than 40, nor more than 50, .units of town houses.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 P. M.
Respectfully submitted,
~
/
. --J,...2'~~
--:,1~.-ee~_ / ,
rJ
M alc olm D. Jo es
Administrative Coordinator for Housing
me
En.els:
1.
2.
3.
Propos e d Neighborhood D evelopm ent Program for 1970
Report by Chairman, Construction and Design P ane l, d ated Sept. 3 0, 19 69
Copy, letter to Secretar y Romney, dated O c t. 8, 1969
•
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
MINUTES Zo
Housing Resources Committe
October 8, 1969
. The regular monthly meeting of the Housing Resources Committee was held at
10:30 A.M., Wednesday, October 8, 1969, in Committee Room 2, Second Floor, City
Hall.
Invitational notice, Agenda, list of those invited, with attendance of members
and guests indicated, and other related documents are attached to the file copy of
these minutes.
Chairman Alexander opened the meeting by explaining the preparation of, and
filing by the City on September 19, 1969, an application for consideration by HUD for
designation of Atlanta as a prototype housing site City, under ''Operation Breakthrough";
that two sites were proposed, i.e,, a fragmented site in 3 portions in the Model Cities
area and a 33,6 acre composite site at the intersection of Carrol and Harvill Roads, N.W.
It was also explained that Atlanta had been omitted in the initial invitations by
HUD and that a very short time was available in which to prepare and submit the
application, after Atlanta was invited to do so, The Chairman complemented Urban
East, Housing Consultant Firm, which assembled the application, and other participants
in preparation of the application, including Model Cities, Housing Authority, Planning
Department, State Planning Bureau, Atlanta Chamber of Commerce and Metropolitan
Planning Commission. He also commented on favorable supporting endorsements
submitted by a large number of Agencies, business firms, religious groups and civic
organizations, ‘
Schedule was announced as follows:
July 11, 1969 Briefing Session (original - did not
include Atlanta)
September 19, 1969 Proposals Due
October 3, 1969 HUD will complete preliminary
site evaluation
October 17, 1969 HUD inspection teams will complete
site inspections
November 28, 1969 HUD will announce selection of eight
prototype sites
Page Two
January 1, 1970 Sites must be cleared and ready for
development
March l, 1970 Site improvements will begin
June 1, 1970 ' First housing units will be shipped
and installed
July 1, 1970 Construction and testing period begins.
HUD will control land through leases,
options to purchase and purchases, HUD
. will assume management control of the
demonstration program.
July 1, 1971 Housing units will be sold and occupied,
Mr. Howard Openshaw, Director of Redevelopment of the Housing Authority was
then called upon to present the overall Neighborhood Development Program Proposed
Activities for 1970.
Mr. Openshaw summarized the proposed overall program as shown in the attached
(Encl, 1) and emphasized the probable necessity for cut back, as indicated in letter of
September 23, 1969, from Region III of HUD (attached as part of Encl. 1).
Mr. Openshaw then introduced Mr. Robert Barnett, Project Manager of the
Vine City NDP project and Mrs. Dorothy Bolden, Vice-Chairman of the Vine City PAC
(Project Area Committee),
Mr. Barnett very ably explained in detail the process used in developing the
plan, through citizen participation (planning with citizens of the area rathet than
for them) and coordination with various agencies involved. He showed the current
‘overall plan as approved by the PAC and the specific area marked out for execution
in 1970. The overall plan includes: a 24-acre park, commercial area, garden type
apartments (no more than 2 story), town houses, single-family residences, anda
community area (including a day care center). The proposed activities for the 1970
target area are shown in enclosure l,
Mr. Openshaw then introduced Mr. Harry Adley, President of Adley and Associates
and Mr. Fred Kerpel and Mr. Lavern Parks, associated with Mr, Adley, Consultants
for the Edgewood NDP area. He also introduced Mr. Curtis Parrish, Project Manager,
Edgewood NDP.
Mr. Adley made an excellent color slide presentation of the development process
and resulting plans of the Edgewood (formerly known as East Atlanta) NDP area, See
enclosure 1 for proposed activities for 1970.
In order to conserve time, further discussion of proposed activities in the NDP
areas was concluded,
Page Three
The Chairman then asked Mr, Copenshaw if there was anything the HRC could
do to assist in preventing the drastic cut back in Atlanta's anticipated Federal capital
grant funds for 1970?; and called upon HRC members for comment, Motion was made
by Mr. Frank Clarke, seconded by Mr. Richard Harvey and after considerable discussion,
was unanimously adopted that a letter be written to the Secretary of HUD, with copy to the
Regional Administrator, pointing out the disastrous effects such a cut back would have
on Atlanta's current and future NDP activities and urging that every consideration possible
be extended Atlanta in not reducing the Federal capital grant funds. (Copy of letter
to Secretary Romney is attached, Encl. 3).
The Chairman then called on reports from Panel Chairmen, starting with Mr.
Frank J. Clarke, Chairman of the Construction and Design Panel.
Mr. Clarke presented a formal written report of his Panel, copy attached (Encl.
2), which includes:
1, His Panel's planned activities for the remainder of 1969;
2. A proposed letter for Mayor Allen to deliver to his successor
recommending continuation of the HRC and the activities of the
Construction and Design Panel;
3. A report developed in his office by an Urban Corps intern pertaining
to Atlanta's Codes,
Mr. Clarke recommended that the report on codes be accepted by the HRC and
copies transmitted to the Building Official and Chairman of the Building Committee,
Board of Aldermen. The Chairman asked if there was any objections? As there was
no objection from any member of the HRC, this will be done,
Courtesy copies of the report on codes had previously been presented to Mr.
W. R. Wofford, Building Official, before presentation of the report to the Housing
Resources Committee,
Mr. Wofford, who had previously been invited to the meeting, responded
unfavorably to the report on codes and specifically requested that certain members of
his Department be permitted then to express their views and reactions to portions of
the report which pertain to their special activities. The Chairman consented,
Mr. Wofford then introduced the following members of his Department: Mr. W.
A. Hewes, Senior Administrative Assistant, Mr. Norman Koplon, Structural Engineer,
Mr. Wylie W. Mitchell, Chief Plumbing Inspector, Mr. E. F. (Red) Wise, Chief
Electrical Inspector, Mr. W. H. Goodwin, Assistant Chief Electrical Inspector and
Mr. Romer Pittman, Assistant Chief Plumbing Inspector,
Mr. Koplon, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Wise presented their views on the report.
They were all hostile and negative in their comments and expressed strong dissatisfaction
with the report, insofar as it pertained to their activities.
Page Four
Mr. Archer Smith, Chairman of the Legal Panel, commented that he did not
consider the report pertaining to the codes as criticism or condemnation of the
Building Department, but rather in the nature of an inquiry for clarification to laymen.
He also asked Mr. Wofford that since the Atlanta Building Code is based on the National
Building Code, with modifications pertaining to Atlanta, if an index of the changes
applicable to Atlanta only has been prepared, in order to provide quick determination
of the Atlanta changes by builders and architects familiar with the National Building
Code, without them having to take hours of reading and comparison between the two,
in order to determine what are the Atlanta changes? Mr. Wofford replied that such
has not been prepared, but that changes can be determined by comparison between
the two codes,
Mr. Alexander commented that if such a listing was available that it would be
quite a convenience to architects and he presumed likewise to builders.
Since it was past time to adjourn the meeting, the Chairman announced that he
would not call for additional Panel Reports nor complete the remainder of the Agenda.
One item of interest under Other Business (not taken up during the meeting) was
announcement September 30 by the Housing Authority of the offering for bids of the
first and thus far only tract of land in the Model Cities area for redevelopment. The
offering is for a 5.43 acre tract south of Atlanta Avenue, between Connally and Hill
Streets, S. W. It is being offered on a fixed price basis, with design competition, for
not less than 40, nor more than 50, units of town houses,
The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 P. M.
Respectfully submitted,
Malcolm D. Johes
Administrative Coordinator for Housing
mc
Encls: 1, Proposed Neighborhood Development Program for 1970
2. Report by Chairman, Construction and Design Panel, dated Sept. 30, 1969
3, Copy, letter to Secretary Romney, dated Oct, 8, 1969
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Box 5, Folder 1, Document 8
Box 5
Box 5 Folder 1
Folder topic: Housing Resources Committee | 1969
-
https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/e124937d3ac3708ce2207c1c9cd46026.pdf
4f7ff86138ec4aa75c2e93ef786222c4
Scripto
Transcription
A written representation of a document.
HOUSI NG RESOURCES COMMIT TEE
Octobe:r• 8j) 1969
Item :
Propo s ed Neighborhood Devel opmen t Pr ogram for 197 0 .
Mr. Howard Openshaw, Direc tor of Redeve lo pment for the Atlan t a Housing Autho ri t y, outlined Atlanta 's propo sed Neighb o rhood De velopment Pr ogram fo r 1970.
The Program c onta ins eight neighb orhood s:
Bedford-Pine
GA. Tech I I
Model Cities
Edgewood
Vine Cit y·
·?H,igh tning
·:}Plunket town
~-OA. State
New Areas
Maps and statistical summary indi c ating the proposed action program in individual areas was dis cussed. In summary, the 1970 ND? Program proposes the
acquisition of 922 parcels of land, relocation of 1 392 families and individuals, demolition of 922 structures, rehabilitation of 830 structures and
disp osition of 116 acres of land.
As a housing resource for families displaced in- the 1970 program, the Housing Authority will complet9 and h ave ready for occupancy 2033 public housing
units and 650 dwelling uni ts for families of low and moderate income.
The gross p r oject cost of the 1970 NDP program is 27.4 million dollars. The
federal capital grant requested is 20.7 million, the local share is 8.5
million, 7.3 Million includes non-cash grants-in-aid to be provided by the
City and 1.2 million in c ash tojbe provided by the Board of Regents . Following HUD approval of addition section 112 c redits of 1.1 million dollars,
the cash required by the Bo ard of Regents will be reduced to $165,880.
On September 23, 1969, the Department of Housing and Urban Develo pment advised the Atlanta Housing Authori ty that $24,000,000 has been established
as the amount available ·fo r the 1970 activity o f the six NeiF,hborhood Development Programg now unde rway in Re gion III. This r eprese nts 45.9% of
the f ederal capit al grant funds available in the Region for 1969.
The Region al office of HUD will allocate the available funds for 197 0 NDP
activi t ies on the basis of each City ' s needs, its record of perfo rmance,
and its ability to postpone some acti viti es until a subsequent year.
Encl. _1
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
HOUSING RESOURCES COMMITTEE
October 8, 1969
Item: Proposed Neighborhood Development Program for 1970.
Mr. Howard Openshaw, Director of Redevelopment for the Atlanta Housing Auth-
ority, outlined Atlanta's proposed Neighborhood Development Program for 1970.
The Program contains eight neighborhoods:
_. Bedford-Pine
GA. Tech Ii
Model Cities
Edgewood
Vine City
*Lightning
#Plunkettown
“GA. State *New Areas
Maps and statistical summary indicating the proposed action program in in-
dividual areas was discussed. In summary, the 1970 NDP Program proposes the
acquisition of 922 parcels of land, relocation of 1392 families and indiv-
iduals, demolition of 922 structures, rehabilitation of 830 structures and
disposition of 116 acres of land.
As a housing resource for families displaced in the 1970 program, the Hous-
ing Authority will complets and have ready for occupancy 2033 public housing
units and 650 dwelling units for families of low and moderate income.
The gross project cost of the 1970 NDP program is 27.l, million dollars. The
federal capital grant requested is 20.7 million, the local share is 8.5
million, 7.3 million includes non-cash grants-in-aid to be provided by the
City and 1.2 million in cash tojbe provided by the Board of Regents. Fol-
lowing HUD approval of addition section 112 credits of 1.1 million dollars,
the cash required by the Board of Regents will be reduced to $165,880.
On September 23, 1969, the Department of Housing and Urban Development ad-
vised the Atlanta Housing Authority that $2,000,000 has been established
as the amount available for the 1970 activity of the six Neighborhood De-
velopment Programs now underway in Region III. This represents 5.9% of
the federal capital grant funds available in the Region for 1969.
The Regional office of HUD will allocats the available funds for 1970 NDP
activities on the basis of each City's needs, its record of performance,
and its ability to postpone some activities until a subsequent year.
Buel, 1
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Box 5, Folder 1, Document 9
Box 5
Box 5 Folder 1
Folder topic: Housing Resources Committee | 1969