SENATE BILL

HOUSE BILL

ADMINISTRATION BILL

- (1) Acquisition of property which
is (a) blighted, deteriorated,
undeveloped or inappropriately
developed; (b) appropriate for
conservation or rehabilitation
purposes; (c) needed for historic
preservation, open space, recrea-
tion; (d) to provide public works &
facilities; and (e) other public
purposes; (2) disposition of such
property; (3) clearance or demo-
lition for improvements; (4) com-
munity facilities or site improv-
ments; (5) relocation payments;
(6) code enforcement, interim
assistance or demolition of unsafe
properties; (7) development of fed-
eral surplus real property; (8)
designing & providing interim finan-
cing for public facilities not elig-
ible for grants (eg. schools & libr-
aries); (9) technical or financial
assistance to organizations & groups
participating in community develop-
ment program; (10) rehabilitation
grants and loans; (11) related soc-
ial activities (eg. employment,
health, recreational); (12) admini-
strative costs; (13) incentive
grants to encourage the timely con-
struction of other federal facili-
ties--not to exceed 15% of the fed-
eral share for the facility; and
(14) non-specified local option
activities, not to exceed 10% of
the grant.

(1) Acquisition of property,
basically the same as Senate
language except item (b) is
not specified in House bill;
(2) Public works, facilities,
or site improvements; (3) code
enforcement; (4) clearance,
demolition, removal or rehabil-
itation of building--includes
financing rehabilitation of
privately owned property: (5)
payments to cover loss of rent-
al income when property is being
held for relocation of displacees;
(6) disposition of property; (7)
health, social or similar activ-
ities when Secretary approves;
(8) such other activities assist-
ed under a federal grant-in-aid
program as approved by the Sec-
retary. [This means, according
to the report that a community
could use grant money to pay up
to 90% of the local share of
related federal programs, e.g.
hospitals, airports, libraries,
mass transit, waste disposal
works, law enforcement facili-
ties].

(1) Acquisition of property--
identical to House language; (2)
relocation payments; (3) clear-
ance, demolition, removal &
rehabilitation of property--
including financing private
property rehabilitation; (4)
public works, facilities or site
improvements; (5) code enforce-
ment; (6) disposition of acquired
property; (7) social component,
any activity eligible under
Model Cities.

SENATE

HOUSE

ADMINISTRATION

5.

Authorization of Funds;
Continuity of Funding

6. Type of Grant-
Local Share
Requirements

The bill creates a 3-year,
$8.8 billion fund of obliga-
tional authority with which
the Secretary can contract
to make grants. Authorizes
a liquidation schedule of
the fund--$2.5 billion for
FY '73; $2.9 billion for
FY '74; and $3.4 billion
for FY '75. The "use" of
the authority does not re-
quire approval of the
Appropriations Committee;
the liquidation does. Sets
up a timetable for the Sec-
retary to recommend new
obligational authority after
FY'75. For FY'73 & FY'74,
in addition to the $2.5 bil-
lion & $2.9 billion, there
would be a separate author-
ization & appropriation for
urban renewal to fund amend-
atories. The Section 312
rehab loans program & model
cities would continue with
separate authorizations
and appropriations.

Grant could cover 90% of net
program cost. No language
stating if 10% has to be
cash or can include non-cash
credits. Relocation and
Rehabilitation Grant Activi-
ties would be 100% federal.

Establishes the same type of
fund as Senate at a $7.5 billion
level for 3 years; liquidation
level of $2 billion for FY'73;
$2.5 billion for FY'74 and $3
billion for FY'75. In addition
there is a straight authoriza-
tion of $500 million annually
to fund non-metropolitan area
community development programs.
Unlike the Senate bill, there
would be no transition period
for urban renewal, but model
cities would continue with its
own authorization and appro-
priations.

90-10 except the House report
states the 10% has to be in
cash.

Bill contains an open ended
authorization although the
administration has proposed
a $2 billion annual program
plus another $100 million for
small towns outside of metro-
politan areas. Water & sewer
would continue to be funded
separately. No transition
funding for urban renewal.

Grant would equal allocation
formula no, local share--100%
federal money.

7.

SENATE

HOUSE

ADMINISTRATION

Allocation &
Distribution of Funds

- A. Allocation--75% of the
funds would be used to assist
localities now conducting
community development programs
(on-going programs of two or
more of the eligible activities
contained in programs to be
consolidated); 25% of the funds
would assist (1) communities
not now conducting such a pro-
gram; (2) localities whose
basic grant entitlement (see
below) is insufficient to meet
urgent demands; and (3) commun-
ities in which disasters have
occured.

B. Entitlements--(1) for local-
ities conducting on-going pro-
grams, a "basic grant entitle-
ment" would be computed by ag-
gregating the average assist-
ance received under each pro-
gram to be consolidated, using
the highest three of the past
five years to compute the
average. (2) For other local-
ities a "first year entitlement"
would be established consisting
of the actual community develop-
ment grant received the first
year plus any grants or loans
reveived in the same year under
any program to be consolidated

C. Grants--(1) for communities
with basic grant entitlements,
the first year's grant could
not exceed 115% of the entitle-
ment; second year, 130%; third
year, 145%.
(2) For other
communities, the first year
grant would be based on the

A. Allocation Formula to
Metropolitan Areas--All
obligational authority money
would be allocated to metro-
politan areas (using the 247
Standard Statistical Metro-
politan Areas-SMSA's-as the
definition of metropolitan
areas). This allocation
would be based on a "need"
formula using the criteria
of population, poverty (count-
ed twice) and over crowding
ratios.

B. Distribution Formula
Within Metropolitan Areas--
Funds would be distributed
to the center city of a
metropolitan area, to other
cities above 50,000, or to
a combination of localities
whose population exceeds
50,000 on the basis of a
formula using the same cri-
teria as above. Any remain-
ing allocation could be dis-
tributed to localities below
50,000 or counties located
within the metropolitan areas.

These allocation amounts
would be maximum annual grants
and the amount could be de-
creased if the community's
application did not adequately
reflect national priorities
or its performance under the
program was inadequate.

C. Distribution of Funds to
Non-Metropolitan Areas--
$500 million additional is
authorized annually to fund

A. Allocation of Funds

(1) 80% would be automatically
allocated to SMSA's on the basis
of a "need" formula for distibu-
tion to communities within these
SMSA's.

(2) 20% would be used as a
discretionary fund by the Sec-
retary to fund for example (1)
activities in communities below
50,000, or (2) to "hold-harm-
less" (see below) localities
where the SMSA allocation is
insufficient.

(3) Additional funds are author
ized (approximately $100 million
a year) to assist communities
outside of SMSA's.

ADMINISTRATION

"

D. Hold-harmless--although not
in the bill, the Administration
has said that it will "hold-
harmless' communities with on-
going community development
programs from a loss in funds
where the formula allocation
is less than the yearly average
(using the last five years) of
assistance provided through
urban renewal, neighborhood
facilities, and 312 rehabilita-
tion loans plus the actual last
contract for model cities.
After five years model cities
funds would be dropped from the
hold-harmless calculations.
a community's hold-harmless
level is above its allocation
amount, any federal money
received during a given year
pursuant to an antecedent grant
reservation would be subtracted
from the hold harmless add-on.

If