Dublin Core
Title
Box 3, Folder 6, Document 24
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
Room 645
REGION Il! April 15, 1968
IN REPLY REFER TO:
3CP
Mr. Wayne Moore, Jr.
Coordinator
Metropolitan Atlanta Council
of Local Governments
900 Glenn Building
Atlante, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. Moore:
Subject: Urban Planning Assistance Program
Funding One Areawide Planning Agency
per Metropolitan Area
This office is in receipt of notification from our Washington office that
it is the present departmental policy to support only one areawide agency
per metropolitan area. The reasons why grants should not be made to two
agencies, as is the case in the Atlanta metropolitan area, as set forth
by the Washington office are:
1. Lack of necessity. There is no distinction in the 701 Program
between Organizations of Public Officials and metropolitan planning
commissions with regard to eligible work. Although Section 701(g)
and Planning Agency Letter #50 emphasize coordination of governmental
regulations and services, such studies were eligible before the
enactment of 701(g).
2. Value to the community of a single areawide agency. Having one
ereawide agency responsible for developing and coordinating multi-
jurisdictional plans, programs and policies on all fronts - social,
physical, economic, health, administrative, etc., - is of ultimate
benefit to the community. It reduces confusion on the part of
elected officials and the people as to where this responsibility
rests, and it reduces divisive competition between agencies.
Specific 7Ol-assisted work items can be subcontracted to other
agencies, but the legal responsibility should lie with the central
agency.
3. Conservation of scarce people and dollars. There is a serious
shortage of competent public administrators and high-level professional
people to fill top staff positions on these agencies. HUD should avoid
generating unnecessary additional demand for such personnel. Also,
grant funds are scarce. Again, we should avoid creating unnecessary
additional demand.
hk. Federal policy or coordination in mlti-jurisdictional sreas. The
multiplicity of federal and state assistance programs to urban areas
requires that these programs be coordinated eat the metropolitan or
regional level. President Johnson has called for such coordination,
and the Bureau of the Budget has laid out guidelines in Circular A-80.
it is unlikely that funding two areawide agencies in the same area
through 701 would be in the spirit of these executive proncuncements.
5. Conflicting plans and programs, Dual agencies provide no
mechanism for resolving inconsistent plans and programs which likely
will be developed by each agency. A policy of dual grants opens the
door for serious disputes in the future over the proper role of each
agency.
We heve been advised also not to accept further applications from two areawide
egencies in the same metropolitan area without clearance of such action
with the Washington office.
It is our interpretation of the information et hand and from discussions with
Washington office personnel that the department does not discourage the
ereation of two areawide agencies, but that, in the future, it will receive
and fund applications from only one such agency. We understand that one
areawide agency may file an application for the work program of the second-
agency and contract the work back to it.
in view of the current relationship existing between Metropolitan Atlanta
Council of Local Governments and Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning
Commission, consideration should be given eat an early date as to the future
organizational arrangements for submittal of ae administration of UPA
applications,
We will be pleased to meet with representatives of both agencies as may be
required,
Sincerely yours, J
: i | Th /]
{/ Hs, J
oa hs ity) (fit td
(KS LY [Ut =e dif
x, Frederick smith’
Assistant Regional Administrator
Program Coordination and Services
Division
PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
Room 645
REGION Il! April 15, 1968
IN REPLY REFER TO:
3CP
Mr. Wayne Moore, Jr.
Coordinator
Metropolitan Atlanta Council
of Local Governments
900 Glenn Building
Atlante, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. Moore:
Subject: Urban Planning Assistance Program
Funding One Areawide Planning Agency
per Metropolitan Area
This office is in receipt of notification from our Washington office that
it is the present departmental policy to support only one areawide agency
per metropolitan area. The reasons why grants should not be made to two
agencies, as is the case in the Atlanta metropolitan area, as set forth
by the Washington office are:
1. Lack of necessity. There is no distinction in the 701 Program
between Organizations of Public Officials and metropolitan planning
commissions with regard to eligible work. Although Section 701(g)
and Planning Agency Letter #50 emphasize coordination of governmental
regulations and services, such studies were eligible before the
enactment of 701(g).
2. Value to the community of a single areawide agency. Having one
ereawide agency responsible for developing and coordinating multi-
jurisdictional plans, programs and policies on all fronts - social,
physical, economic, health, administrative, etc., - is of ultimate
benefit to the community. It reduces confusion on the part of
elected officials and the people as to where this responsibility
rests, and it reduces divisive competition between agencies.
Specific 7Ol-assisted work items can be subcontracted to other
agencies, but the legal responsibility should lie with the central
agency.
3. Conservation of scarce people and dollars. There is a serious
shortage of competent public administrators and high-level professional
people to fill top staff positions on these agencies. HUD should avoid
generating unnecessary additional demand for such personnel. Also,
grant funds are scarce. Again, we should avoid creating unnecessary
additional demand.
hk. Federal policy or coordination in mlti-jurisdictional sreas. The
multiplicity of federal and state assistance programs to urban areas
requires that these programs be coordinated eat the metropolitan or
regional level. President Johnson has called for such coordination,
and the Bureau of the Budget has laid out guidelines in Circular A-80.
it is unlikely that funding two areawide agencies in the same area
through 701 would be in the spirit of these executive proncuncements.
5. Conflicting plans and programs, Dual agencies provide no
mechanism for resolving inconsistent plans and programs which likely
will be developed by each agency. A policy of dual grants opens the
door for serious disputes in the future over the proper role of each
agency.
We heve been advised also not to accept further applications from two areawide
egencies in the same metropolitan area without clearance of such action
with the Washington office.
It is our interpretation of the information et hand and from discussions with
Washington office personnel that the department does not discourage the
ereation of two areawide agencies, but that, in the future, it will receive
and fund applications from only one such agency. We understand that one
areawide agency may file an application for the work program of the second-
agency and contract the work back to it.
in view of the current relationship existing between Metropolitan Atlanta
Council of Local Governments and Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning
Commission, consideration should be given eat an early date as to the future
organizational arrangements for submittal of ae administration of UPA
applications,
We will be pleased to meet with representatives of both agencies as may be
required,
Sincerely yours, J
: i | Th /]
{/ Hs, J
oa hs ity) (fit td
(KS LY [Ut =e dif
x, Frederick smith’
Assistant Regional Administrator
Program Coordination and Services
Division
Comments