5.

6.

7.

Briefly describe an outstanding example of success in your CDBG
program.

Three cited their housing rehabilitation programs.
Three cited the fact of municipalities joining in
cooperative agreements and promoting regional plan-
ning. Other examples appear in the survey.

What program weakness stands out in your CDBG program?
Four cited the time lag in implementation at the
municipal level. Others appear in the survey.

How many municipalities participate in your urban county application?

From 9 to 63 for a total of 199 municipalities.

One

other county not included in this survey has 26 muni-
cipalities participating for a total of 225 in

New Jersey.

URBAN COUNTY SURVEY RESULTS

The following is a summary of results from an informal survey conducted by a Department of Community Affairs representative in December, 1976 among eight urban counties eligible for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program in New Jersey. One county attempted and failed to meet application requirements for an urban county. In all, nine persons were questioned. One urban county participating in the CDBG program was not included in the survey due to the unavailability of a qualified spokesperson when the survey was conducted. Most interviewed were those directly responsible for planning and implementation of the CDBG program. In several instances, in responding to questions, such program personnel pointed out that their views might not be supported by the county's elected officials.

1. Should urban counties be continued as an entitlement

category? Why?

--Yes-6; No-3. Nearly all who said yes stated that without
the urban county mechanism, most member municipalities
would not address their community development needs or the
needs of low and moderate income residents. Typical com-
ments: "Through the urban county process, many towns are
identifying their CD needs for the first time...and they
are beginning to address them." "Where else could many
small towns go to meet their CD needs?" "If small towns
could only apply for discretionary grant projects, the
funds they succeeded in getting would be used up for
parks and community centers."

All who said yes felt that the impetus given to inter-
local cooperation and regional thinking among member muni-
cipalities was truly remarkable and most healthy from the
standpoint of both Community Development and governmental
process. Typical comments: "We've had great success in
getting interlocal cooperation in housing and CD objectives.
We have unanimous municipal involvement in our county."
"Through this program many more of our towns are working
on regional problems." "Urban counties complement city
priorities. Without our program how can a region allow
for the mobility needed to comply with anti-discrimination
and open housing laws?"

Many who said yes stated that urban county entitlement sta-
tus allowed them the flexibility needed to leverage other
federal funds in support of their program over the long
term. One county was able to triple its CD grant through
this means. Entitlement status assured continuity in
program goals and more valid planning and project staging.

Another nearly unanimous reason given by those favoring
continuing the urban county was its relative efficiency
in eliminating administrative staff duplication and con-
flicting or uncoordinated efforts by other municipalities.
This frees up more funds for CD projects.

Some said that without the urban county, certain CD pro-
grams either could not or would not be implemented at
the local level.

Of the three against continuing urban county entitlements,
all three felt the fear of a county role in affairs
viewed as local ensured the failure of urban counties.
One also cited fear of the housing requirements "that
would be imposed by HUD" on the County. One acknowledged
that inadequate county support of the program colored
his views.

2. Should the so called hold harmless cities in your county be phased out of the CDBG program or have their grants reduced to formula amounts as the law now provides? Why?

--Yes-4; No-3; No comment-2. Those in favor of the present
law still felt that HUD should continue funding uncompleted
projects in hold harmless cities at adequate levels until
they are finished. One felt that HUD should treat hold
harmless cities one by one, and fund needed programs where
local capability has been demonstrated. One said that the
long term goal should be to funnel all hold harmless money
through the urban county.

All those who opposed the present law's provisions for
hold harmless cities felt that it was a mistake to reduce
levels of funding where needs and the capability to meet
them had been established. Two felt the needs of hold
harmless cities were beyond the scope of present urban
county capability. One mentioned that since their county's
hold harmless cities already joined in the urban county
application, once HH funds dried up, there would be that
much less for the other cities in the county after the
urban county met the needs of HH cities.

Of the two who would not comment, one said that he was
not familiar with the programs of hold harmless cities.

Lastly, all nine agreed with the U.S. Conference of Mayors' proposal to extend HH levels of funding at 3rd year levels for another year to give the new Administration and Congress time to evaluate the CDBG program.

3. How would you react (favorably or not) to increased stringency by HUD in ensuring CDBG funds go to those of low and moderate incomes?

--Favorably-6; Unfavorably-1; No comment-2. Those favorable
felt there was too much leeway now in spreading funds
around and they would appreciate support from HUD on this
issue. One said he was favorable depending on the degree
to which the issue went. One said while he was favorable,
he was also encouraged that in the three year life of
their county's program, increasingly more of their CDBG
funds are benefitting low and moderate income neighborhoods;
in year 2 of their program, 60% of funds were so allocated;
in year 3 of their program, nearly all of their funds are
so allocated. One was favorable only on condition that the
County had complete control of funds without prior require-
ment of interlocal agreements. It should be noted that
many who were favorable thought that their freeholders would
regret any restraint on their ability to spread CD funds
around "for political purposes."

The one unfavorable said such a move would cause the program to be more ineffective than it is now. This person felt the true objectives of community development are not served by imposing such a requirement.

4. What legislative requirements would you like to see changed so as to improve the CDBG program for urban counties? Why?

--One said that the present legislative requirements were
essential and should be retained as is.

All of the others presented from one to three suggestions.

Two felt that there should be more emphasis given to
using funds for those of low and moderate incomes.

Two said that housing rehabilitation should be supported by complementary CD activities in the immediate area, not just census tract as it is now.

Two said that urban county entitlement should be
eliminated.

Three stated that urban county eligibility requirements need review. Two felt strongly that the requirement for prior cooperative agreements to qualify as an urban county should be eliminated.

Two wanted more TA from HUD.

Other suggestions included:

-Revision of EIS requirements.

-Revise HAP requirement to make it effective
and realistic.

-Give more funds to Title II of the Act.

-Don't require Davis-Bacon Act compliance
regarding labor.

-No more than 30% of rehab areas in CDBG should
be "scattered site."

-CD funds should go primarily to improve housing
stock and otherwise support property values.

5. Briefly describe an outstanding example of success in your CDBG program.

--Three cited their housing rehabilitation programs as
something that simply wouldn't be if it weren't for the
urban county CDBG program. Their funding levels were
$300,000 and $350,000 respectively. The last one ex-
pects a $1 million bank loan commitment leveraged by
their funds.

Three cited the fact that municipalities joined in co-
operative agreements and promoted regional planning as
their outstanding success.

One cited the rehabilitation of a rural slum in Marlboro
that suffered from poor septic tanks and drainage and
was improved with a new septic system, drainage, and road.
Affected 15 families for $53,000.

One cited the identifying of needs and problems never
before faced by constituent towns and their initiating
a large scale urban redevelopment project.

One cited the more efficient use of funds through
"functional transfer" to many municipalities.