OCTOBER 24 (legislative day, October 22), 1963 Mr. DIRKSEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency A BILL To make certain expenditures in connection with the Peoria, Illinois, "Medical Center" project eligible as local grants-inaid toward that project. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That, notwithstanding the provisions of section 112 (b) of 4 the Housing Act of 1949, expenditures made by Saint 5 Francis Hospital, Peoria, Illinois, for the purchase of two 6 parcels of land on or about June 25 and July 28, 1956, 7 for a price of not more than $82,980, shall if otherwise 8 eligible be counted as local grants-in-aid to the Peoria “Medi9 cal Center" urban renewal project (Illinois R-61) in accord 10 with the remaining provisions of title I of that Act. Department oF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of October 25, 1963, for a report on S. 2253, a bill to make certain expenditures in connection with the Peoria, Ill., medical center project eligible as local grants-in-aid toward that project. The bill would provide that specified expenditures made in 1956 in connection with the Peoria medical center urban renewal project "shall if otherwise eligible be counted as local grants-in-aid" toward that project in accordance with the provisions of title I of the Housing Act of 1949. S. 2253 would not appear to have any significant implications for State or community health facility planning, or for other activities or programs for which this Department has responsibilities. We, therefore, take no position as to the desirability of the proposed legislation. We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely, WILBUR J. COHEN, Assistant Secretary. HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY, Subject: S. 2253, 88th Congress (Senator Dirksen). Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your October 25 request for the views of this Agency on S. 2253, a bill to make certain expenditures in connection with the Peoria, Ill., medical center project eligible as local grants-in-aid toward that project. The expenditures referred to in the bill were made by the St. Francis Hospital of Peoria for the purchase of two parcels of land for about $83,000 on June 25 and July 28, 1956. These expenditures were rejected by the Urban Renewal Administration as local grants-in-aid toward the Peoria medical center urban renewal project because the loan and grant contract for that project was not approved within the time limit specified in section 112(b) of the Housing Act of 1949. The relevant portion of that section specifies that expenditures by an educational institution are to be deemed eligible as a local grant-in-aid for a project qualifying for urban renewal assistance under section 112, if made "not more than 7 years prior to the authorization by the Administrator of a contract for a loan or capital grant for such project." The loan and grant contract for the medical center project was in fact approved on September 30, 1963-2 months and 2 days, and 3 months and 5 days, respectively-beyond this 7-year deadline. If the 7-year period presently set forth in the urban renewal statute is to be generally applicable, we know of no basis for recommending an exception in the case of this project. The reason that the deadline was not met was not due to any delay in the URA processing of the loan and grant application. The application was received by the URA regional office only on June 30, 1963, 5 days before the expiration date of the 7-year period. It would have been impossible for the application to have been processed in this short time. Not only must there be an extensive review of such applications by the URA but they must also be returned to the local public agency for further local approval before resubmission in final form. To grant the requested exception would, in effect, set a precedent for extending the 7-year deadline back from receipt of a loan-and-grant application rather than from its approval. There appears to be no justification for any such extension of the time period between expenditures by educational institutions or hospitals and the approval of section 112 projects. The 7-year period already provided for these projects is to be contrasted with the 3-year period ordinarily applicable in determining grant-in-aid eligibility, under section 110 (d) of the Housing Act of 1949. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours, ROBERT C. WEAVER, Administrator. 88TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION S. 2468 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES JANUARY 27, 1964 Mr. SPARKMAN (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency A BILL To help provide adequate dwelling accommodations for more families who have low or moderate incomes, who are elderly. or who are subjected to the special problems of displacement from their homes by Government action; to promote orderly community development and growth; and to extend and amend laws relating to housing, urban renewal, and community facilities. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That this Act may be cited as the "Housing and Community 4 Development Act of 1964". 6 BUSINESSES SEC. 101. (a) Title I of the Housing Act of 1949 is 7 amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 8 section: 9 10 "RELOCATION SEC. 114. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision 11 of this title, an urban renewal project may include the mak12 ing of payments as prescribed in this section to displaced 13 families, individuals, business concerns and nonprofit orga14 nizations; and any contract for financial assistance under this 15 title shall provide that the capital grant otherwise payable 16 for the project shall be increased by an amount equal to such 17 payments and that no part of the amount of such payments 18 shall be required to be contributed as part of the local grant19 in-aid. As used in this section, 'displaced' refers to dis20 placement from an urban renewal area made necessary by 21 (i) the acquisition of real property by a local public agency or by any other public body, (ii) code enforcement activi23 ties undertaken in connection with an urban renewal proj 22 24 ect, or (iii) a program of voluntary rehabilitation of build 3 1 ings or other improvements in accordance with an urban 2 renewal plan. 3 "(b) A local public agency may pay the following to 4 any displaced business concern or nonprofit organization: "(1) its reasonable and necessary moving expenses and any actual direct losses of property except goodwill or profit (which are incurred on and after August 7, 1956, and for which reimbursement or compensation is not otherwise made): Provided, That such payments shall not exceed $3,000 (or if greater, the total certified actual moving expenses); and "(2) additional amounts of (i) $1,000 upon displacement of a private business concern, and (ii) $1,500 if such concern has not been reestablished within one year following displacement and has not received any relocation payment under clause (1) of this subsection: Provided, That payments may be made under this clause (2) only to a business concern with average annual earnings of less than $10,000 per year and which (i) was doing business in a location in the urban renewal area on the date of local approval of the urban renewal plan, (ii) is displaced on or after January 27, 1964, and (iii) is not part of an enterprise having establishments outside the urban renewal area. |