Box 4, Folder 14, Document 104

Box 4, Folder 14, Document 104

MINUTES OF THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FOR URBAN RENEWAL
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ROOM
TRUST COMPANY OF GEORGIA
TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1969

The full Committee meeting of the CACUR was called to order promptly
at 2:30 P. M. by the Chairman, Dr. Noah N. Langdale, Jr. Those attending
from the Executive Committee were: Mr. T.M. Alexander, Sr.; Mr. William’
L. Calloway; Mr. Percy Hearle; Dean Alex B. Lacy, Jr; Dr. Benjamin E. Mays;
Mr. A. B. Padgett; Mr. Richard H. Rich; Mr. Edgar E. Schukraft. Other Com-
mitee members in attendance were: Mr. Fred Burns, Jr.; The Reverend L. M.
Terrill; Mr. William A. Toms; for the Board of Aldermen: Mr. John M. Flanigan;
for the Finance Department of the City of Atlanta: Mr. Charles L. Davis, Director;
Mr. James R. Fountain, Jr.; Mrs, Linda Anderson; Mr. David Harvey; Mr.
Michael T. Troncalli; for the Housing Authority: Mr. Thomas D. Eskew and
Mr. James W. Henley, Jr.; for the West End Urban Renewal Project: Mr. W.
Wilson McClure and Mrs. Barbara J. Ray, an academic intern working for the
Housing Authority; for the Model Cities Program: Mr. Johnny C. Johnson,
Director and Mr. James L. Wright, Physical Planner; the Urban Design Consultant
Mr. Arnall T. ''Pat'' Connell of Georgia Tech; and for the Atlanta Constitution:
Mr. Alex Coffin.



Invitational Notice and Agenda for the meeting are attached to the file copy
of these minutes.

Chairman Langdale opened the meeting by welcoming those present and
introducing Mr. Malcolm D. Jones, the new Executive Director, to the Committee.

First on the program agenda was the announcement by the Chairman of the
meeting of the Executive Committee on June 12, 1969.

The Chairman stated that on June 12th there had been a meeting of the
Executive Committee; that some members were concerned about progress of some
phases of the Urban Renewal Program and wanted to have certain matters taken
up with the Housing Authority and/or other governmental agencies, as appropriate.

The Chairman announced that any recommendations of this nature by members
should be submitted, in writing, to the Executive Director and consolidated for
presentation to the Chairman for action. (He later explained that the names of
those making such recommendations would not be revealed).

The Chairman then announced that the 2nd item on the original agenda (special
Committee Report by Mr. Bob Bivens) had been struck because of unavoidable
absence from the City of Mr. Bivens. However, the Chairman called on Mr. A.B,
Padgett, member of the Committee and Vice-Chairman, CACUR to give a resume of
the Committee's work to-date.

Mr. Padgett reported that the Committee had met and considered a restatement
of purpose of CACUR, overall operational policy, structured reorganization and
revision of the membership list; and that the committee is working on a report
dealing with these matters for submission to the entire membership of CACUR at
an early date. .

Mr. Padgett mentioned briefly some of the thinking of the Committee on
reorganization and possibly recommendation for formation of some sub-committees,
relating to special activities which are being initially considered. (Attached to
file copy of these minutes).

Mr. Padgett stated that the Cornmittee felt there should be no meeting during
July and August of the full membership and that by the September meeting the
Committee would have its full report in final form to submit to the overall Committee.

Mr. Rich pointed out that there appeared to be overlaping responsibilities
and some duplication of effort.

Mr. Padgett concurred and stated that of course there could, and probably
would,be some consolidation; that principal activities pertaining to the overall
Urban Renewal Program had been initially listed so as not to overlook any important
role. ;

The Chairman obtained agreement from the members not to meet in July and
August, but to hold Executive Committee meetings only during those months and
called upon the membership to submit to the Executive Director recommendations
for inclusion in the revised membership list.

Mr. Schukraft stated that he would like to advise on the reorganization of
CACUR. The Chairman suggested that he meet with Mr. Bob Bivens and Mr. A. B.
Padgett privately for this purpose. Mr. Padgett agreed. a4. ra,

Mr. Jim Wright, Physical Planner of Model Cities, was then called upon to
present his proposed Model Cities Urban Design Plan.. He explained his proposal,
in which he was assisted by Professor ''Pat'' Connell of Georgia Tech. The pre-
sentation was essentially a rather intricate and vague proposal for development of
a design plan, rather than presentation of plan itself, which has not yet been |
initiated. (Note: After the meeting Mr. Wright then requested of Dean Lacy endorse-
ment of the proposal by CACUR.)
Mr. Schukraft stated that he was puzzled; that he wants to see action; that
if we are not careful, all the monies will be eaten up in planning and administration
before the action starts. He then inquired about the special buses now being
provided for the Model Cities area which go into West End with nobody riding them?

Mr. Johnny C. Johnson, Director of Model Cities, supplemented the explan-
ation given by Mr. Wright, and explained quite effectively the purpose of the bus
route and the theory of other sociological problems which Model Cities is trying
to solve. ‘

The Chairman stated that as he understands this, the proposal appears to be
one for developing a means for regulating and coordinating services and develop-
ments in the Model Cities area and an appeal for monies with which to provide
these functions; that much of the monies would apparently be provided by supple-
mented funds of the Model Cities Program.

Mr. Charles Davis, Finance Director, was then called upon to rediscuss
his earlier report of April 22nd to the Committee pretaining to the cost and financial
problems of the Urban Renewal Program.

Mr. Davis reviewed the history of the Urban Renewal Program in Atlanta,
starting with the McDaniel Street Project, initiated in 1954, which was declared
unconstitutional, and the necessity to then obtain special enabling legislation to
make Urban Renewal constitutional in Georgia.

He then discussed the initial 3 Urban Renewal Projects adopted in 1955 and
Bond Issues floated with which to pay the City's share (other than the sizable credits
for improvements in kind). He mentioned that the program has now expanded
to 10-12 projects, all of which have been slow to get into execution, usually about
5 years to get off the ground and another 5-10 years to execute.

He then explained the Neighborhood Development Program (NDP) a pay-as-
you-go program in yearly increments (plan 1 year and execute the 2nd year, or
plan and execute the same year); that this necessitates smaller projects and
requires good planning and adequate funding. .

Mr. Davis pointed out that by 1973 the City of Atlanta will require $7,000,000 +
to maintain present service levels of the existing Urban Renewal Projects; that
new source of revenue will be required.

Mr. Davis then turned the presentation over to Mr. Fountain of his office,
who reviewed the financial report of his department, presented initially to
CACUR on April 22nd,portions of which have since been updated and revised. Copy
of Mr. Fountain's report is attached to the file copy of these minutes. Following
are high lights of that report:
For the 8 Urban Renewal Projects in Execution:

Net Project Costs $60,000,000
Local Non-Cash Grants -in-aid 20,000,000
Local Cash and Real Estate Credits 1,000,000

Long delayed closing out of these projects, has cost in interest charges alone
(included in the Net Project costs) $4.5 million or 7 1/2 %.

Cash funds to defray local share costs came from 1957 and 1963 General
Obligation Bond Issue totaling 3.2 million of which currently $2.1 million are
unincumbered.

Of this amount $1.7 is expected to be needed for the Bedford-Pine 1970 NDP
project.

The $20,000,000 local grants-in-aid represent the eligible portion of
$29,000,000 local Capital Improvements. 95.2% of the City's total share is
represented by non-cash contributions.

Problem Areas:
1. Butler Street Project - Middle School costing $2 million has been delay -

ing closing of this project (now scheduled for contract in August 1969).

2. a. Rawson-Washington Project - neighborhood Facilities Building costing
$1,000,000, only $150,000 of which will be an eligible credit.

b. Park costing $240,000, $33,000 of which will be eligible.

3. Rockdale - a. Elementary school to cost $1.5 million
b. Park costing $126,000
c. Two primary schools to cost $1 million each.

"The advent of the Neighborhood Development Program has brought to an
end the period during which the City could pledge an improvement and then wait
until funding became available before completing it. Under the terms of an NDP
agreement, the City must have completed or have under contract all non-cash grants -
in-aid pledged for that particular year or contribute the required amount in cash".

The local share of present NDP projects are funded for 1969 with existing
Public Improvements amounting to $10.6 million (including Georgia Tech II and
Bedford-Pine).

The 1970 NDP in Bedford-Pine, Model Cities, Edgewood and Vine City is
expected to require $2.7 million cash + $2.3 million non-cash, both of which are
funded. However these include very little activity in Edgewood and Vine City.
If critical slum areas such as Plunkett Town and Lightening are included
in the 1970 NDP execution program, these areas will require a direct cash com-
mitment on the part of the City, since no available non-cash credits are currently
planned for these areas. (Note: It is unfortunate that substantial potential credits
for the Techwood and Hunter Street viaducts were permitted to lapse).

The report continues:

"The City's problems in trying to develop a comprehensive Neighborhood
Development Program are basically caused by two factors:

1) The lack of current estimates of the cost to complete the total required
activities in each of the project areas.

The development of this information is presently being discussed by the
Planning Department, the Finance Department, the Atlanta Housing Authority and
Model Cities and hopefully the information can be developed before the end of this

year.

2) The fact that the City of Atlanta is approaching the point where we will no
longer be able to finance our Neighborhood Development Program with non-cash
grants-in-aid without supplementing them with a significant amount of cash.

As an example the estimated cost for completion of the proposed 5-year
NDP activities in the Model Cities area is $91 million. We presently have
approximately $4.1 million in eligible non-cash grants-in-aid with proposed (not
funded) improvements totaling approximately $14 million for the period through
1975. This means that if we are to complete a significant portion of the redevelop-
ment and rehabitation of the Model Citiesareaby the end of 1975 the City will have
had to come forth with between 3 and 4 million dollars a year starting in 1971
either in the form of additional non-cash items such as sewer separations or as
actual cash contributions. This is only the requirement for one NDP area'"',

Possible sources for additional funds include: .

General Funds - already under pressure.

General Obligation Bonds - approved for issue of $4 million annually,
-NDP General Obligation Bond Issue (as a possibility).

New Revenue sources with State approval such as payroll tax or sales tax,
with certain portions ear marked for NDP,


2 ed

The Chairman commented that this indicates we should speed up the closing
out of exsisting projects and that new sources of revenue are needed.

Mr. Calloway put in a plea for additional parks in certain areas of the City.

The Executive Director read the financial statement, which was accepted
(filed).

A preliminary draft budget was presented by the Executive Director. The
Chairman announced the total which he said was quite modest and asked to have
the proposed budget reproduced for distribution at the next meeting.

The Chairman then reminded the members again to submit, in writing, any
suggestions they have for changes or improvements in the Urban Renewal Program,
to the Executive Director for consolidation and consideration at the next general
meeting in September. He stated that the originators of such comments would not

be revealed.
As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Cf.

Malcolm D. Jones
Executive Director

Encls: As stated (with file copy only).

Invitational Notice

Agenda

Draft reorganization

Finance Department report
Preliminary proposal for budget..