Mr. ASHLEY. I was just wondering about this: In the situation that Mr. Barrett presents, suppose that elderly husband was on a mortgage but not his wife, and the husband predeceased his wife. Mr. WEAVER. She would inherit it. She would inherit the deferment. Mr. ASHLEY. She would? Mr. WEAVER. Yes. Mr. ASHLEY. But no further than that? Mr. WEAVER. No further than that. Mr. ASHLEY. Thank you. Mr. RAINS. Mr. Widnall? Mr. WIDNALL. What are your figures? Mr. SLAYTON. We had as of June 30, 1963, 106 completed projects. Now, the assessed valuation of the land and improvements in these project areas, prior to redevelopment, was $32.3 million. The assessed land and improvement after redevelopment was $79.1. Now, this, in spite of the fact that there has been a fair amount of decrease, a fair amount of land put to public use or nontaxable use in this area, after we had developed it. If you average that out, on these 106 projects, in taxable returns, the taxes levied per taxable acre on the average, before redeveloment were $1,300, and after redevelopment were $4,300. Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Slayton, is it not true that from 1949 to 1963 we have spent over $1 billion of cash in Government money for urban renewal? Mr. SLAYTON. You mean Mr. WIDNALL. The taxpayers' money, I mean. Mr. SLAYTON. You mean in capital grant payments? Mr. WIDNALL. Yes. Mr. SLAYTON. I cannot remember the exact figure on capital grants that have been discussed. Something like that, yes. Mr. WIDNALL. If I recall correctly, you testified before that there would be an estimated 427-percent tax increase, and I think the figures that you have just shown me represented a 312-percent increase. You have only realized 75 percent of what you had anticipated as far as tax Mr. SLAYTON. I did not quite follow you on that. You mean, the average that we gave you before in terms of what would be the tax increase? That was greater than the experience we have had on completed projects. That is correct. Mr. WIDNALL. So you are falling behind considerably with respect to your projections? Mr. SLAYTON. No, I would not say that at all. Each project has different characteristics. These completed projects happen to be a small sample of the number of projects that are now being undertaken, and so they do not represent an adequate sample. These are generally smaller projects that could be completed rather quickly. They also include a fair amount of land that is now not taxable after redevelopment. Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Chairman, may I submit additional questions on that? Mr. RAINS. Yes, indeed. (The responses to questions submitted to Dr. Weaver by Congressman Widnall follow :) MARCH 11, 1964. Hon. WILLIAM B. WIDNALL, DEAR MR. WIDNALL: This is in reply to your letter of March 2 requesting information and data on a number of matters involving programs administered by the Housing and Home Finance Agency. The information and data requested are set forth in the enclosed statement. Sincerely yours, ROBERT C. WEAVER, Administrator. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CONGRESSMAN WIDNALL First question. "I am now requesting *** the number of public housing units added to those under management for the fiscal years of 1962 and 1963." In fiscal 1962, 24,849, and in fiscal 1963, 26,423 public housing units were added to those already under management. Second question. "I am advised that the public housing residual receipts, are now paying 10 percent or less of the amortization of Federal Government guaranteed public housing bonds. During testimony by the mayors of Boston and Philadelphia, the Housing Subcommittee learned that these cities are using, respectively, 95 and 100 percent of their project income. I believe the subcommittee should have a record showing the amount each of the housing authorities is currently making available for the amortization of its bonds, and what percent these residual receipts represent of the total payment. This list should include all those cities which are using 100 percent of their project income and contributing nothing to the amortization of the bonds they have issued." This material is contained in the attached exhibit A. These data of course relate only to local housing authority operations and do not reflect the local contributions through tax exemption that are required under the statute. As you know, the law provides that if this local contribution through tax exemption is not equal to at least 20 percent of the Federal contribution, the local housing authority must limit its payments in lieu of taxes to an amount that will result in such a 20 percent local contribution. Third question. "The amount of annual payments in lieu of taxes made currently by each local housing authority to its local community." This material is contained in the attached exhibit B. Fourth question. "I have studied with some care the figures presented by Commissioner Slayton regarding the increased valuations of property cleared by urban renewal operations. He appears to be relying largely on estimates of value still to be realized. When he gives figures on actual valuations there are marked differences between them and the previous estimates. We need a much more basic collection of urban renewal experiences. With that in mind, I am asking that you furnish me with a listing for all urban renewal projects for which land disposition had been completed as of June 30, 1963. The figures should show the amount of taxes obtained from the project area before and after urban renewal, the number of years intervening between tax payments, and the amount of Federal grant paid to that point. "For example, the X property paid $1,000 in taxes in 1952 when the property was acquired. From 1952 until 1960, it remained off the tax rolls. Then in 1960, it again was taxable and paid $3,000. During this period, the Federal Government advanced $50,000 in Federal grants. If Federal grants are still to be paid to cover loans made by the local public agency to pay for operations of any sort during this period they should be included along with the amount of the grants. Also, if the project reported any project income from any source during this period, this, too, should be listed." It has been impossible to prepare data on individual projects in the amount of time available. We are, therefore, submitting previously compiled totals for the 185 projects for which land disposition had been completed as of June 30, 1963. It is not feasible to develop information as to the length of time a particular parcel of land in an urban renewal project area has remained off the tax rolls. Not all parcels are acquired at the same time or redeveloped at the same time. Therefore, a record for each parcel would have to be developed. To secure this information with respect to each of the thousands of parcels in the 185 urban renewal projects would consume an enormous amount of manpower and time. Furthermore, the nature of the individual parcels changes as redevelopment goes on, so that before and after comparisons related to any individual parcel or series of parcels become impossible. Of course, information as to the amount of Federal grant paid with respect to a particular urban renewal project cannot be meaningfully related to the time a particular parcel of land in the urban renewal project area first goes back on the tax rolls since the amount of the grant would differ with respect to each parcel considered. With regard to the question of taxes before and after renewal, it should be recognized that limiting the question to projects for which land disposition had been completed, may introduce a bias. This limitation excludes the high-value redevelopment (including that already underway or completed) found in large-size projects because it takes considerably longer to dispose of every parcel in a large-size project than in a small one. This bias was avoided in the URA testimony of November 21, 1963, before the House Subcommittee on Housing, by considering all projects in which redevelopment had been started or completed. The following table lists pertinent information regarding taxable acreage and tax levies before and after renewal for the 185 projects: The tax levy after redevelopment of $27,601,000 is partially actual ($8,621,000) and partially estimated ($18,980,000). Estimates arise when, although land has been disposed of, redevelopment has not been fully assessed as of the tax levy date. For example, if the tax levy date in a particular community is January 1 and redevelopment on a specific disposition parcel was started and completed between January 1 and June 30, 1963, the actual tax levy on the parcel would reflect land value only. Therefore, an estimate of the redevelopment tax levy is necessary. Fifth question. "In the Erieview I project in Cleveland, three buildings were acquired that cost the local public agency more than $1.5 million each with the total running well in excess of $5 million for the three, one of which had a tax valuation of less than one-half million. I would appreciate your furnishing to me for the record a list of all buildings, acquired by urban renewal local public agency operations, costing a million or more and, if possible, the taxes paid the vear prior to acquisition." The Housing Agency does not maintain the continuing record on acquisition prices and taxes necessary to enable us to answer this question within the time available. Housing Agency concurrence is required in setting an approved acquisition price on each parcel. However, since the beginning of the program, approximately 150,000 parcels have been acquired and the records are maintained in the project files in our several regional offices. For any individual project or small group of projects, this information could be assembled quite easily. However, for the program as a whole, it would require considerable manpower and time to go through the records to identify the parcels costing in excess of $1 million and determine the taxes paid on them. Sixth question. "I would appreciate a list by agencies and authorities of the number of employees in the local public agencies and local housing authorities drawing $10.000 or more in salaries or fees with the correct amount for each. Where an employee receives from both sources, or from more than one authority and/or agency, the total amount should be furnished. I am interested in the number of employees drawing in excess of $10.000 with Government approval. If PHA approves, for example, $7,500, and URA, the same, the listing should be $15,000. I do not desire their names, just the position and amounts." The Housing Agency does not maintain the continuing record of local public agency or local housing authority salaries necessary to enable us to answer this question within the time available. The information sought in this question could be obtained only through the detailed review of the budgets of more than 1,500 local housing authorities and 700 local public agencies, a process which would require a tremendous amount of staff time and a period of a month The Housing Agency requires LPA staff salaries to conform with local public practice. This requirement is set forth in the Urban Renewal Manual as follows: Schedules of salary and wage rates established shall be comparable with the compensation practices of other public bodies in the locality, for positions similar in responsibility and required competence. For those positions for which no comparable public positions exist in the locality, comparison shall be made with salaries for similar public positions in adjacent localities of comparable size in the same State or in bordering States. If the LPA is conducting both a Title I program and a low-rent hous ing program, salaries of employees working on both programs shall be established and comparability determined on the basis of total responsibilities carried and duties performed in both programs. Salary levels are reviewed by the Housing Agency at the time project budgets are approved. In addition, the LPA's are required to document the basis on which they establish comparability and their conformance with these requirements is regularly reviewed through periodic checks and audits carried out by the Agency. With respect to wage and salary levels paid by local housing authorities generally, section 16 (2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 requires that wages and salaries prevailing in the locality must be paid to all architects, technical engineers, draftsmen, and technicians employed in the development and to all maintenance laborers and mechanics employed in the administration of a low-rent housing project. In addition, annual contributions contracts contain the following requirement: The local authority shall adopt and comply with a statement of personnel policies comparable with pertinent local public practice. Such statement shall cover job titles and classification, salary and wage rates for employees [other than employees whose salary or wages are determined pursuant to the statutory requirement], weekly hours of work, qualification standards, leave regulations, and payment of expenses of employees in travel status. Local authorities are required to maintain in their files adequate documentation to demonstrate compliance with this contract requirement for comparability. Seventh question: "I would like to have from the Federal Housing Administration a record of those projects under the 221(d) (3) program which are in default or have been covered by some form or modification agreement." The Garden Valley project in Cleveland, Ohio, involves two sections and two project mortgages both of which are in default. The mortgage on the first section (042-55001) covered 88 units and was in the amount of $867,000. The mortgage on the second section (042– 55006) covered 398 units and was in the amount of $3,868,600. A modification agreement has been entered into with respect to the Longwood Housing Association project in Cleveland, Ohio. The mortgage on this project (042-55005) covers 828 units and is in the amount of $8,400,000. A modification agreement has also been entered into with respect to the Girard Terrace East project in Minneapolis, Minn. The mortgage on this project (092-55001) covers 194 units and is in the amount of $2,205,000. EXHIBIT A There are listed below, for the latest periods available, the fixed annual contribution, the amount available to reduce such annual contribution, and the percent of reduction, for each housing authority with fiscal years ending December 31, 1962, through September 30, 1963. The fixed annual contribution is the amount required to amortize the bonds issued by housing authorities and secured by Federal annual contributions under the Housing Act of 1937. The totals for all of the housing authorities listed below are: Fixed annual contribution____. Amount available to reduce annual contribution_. $200, 031, 478 $22, 262, 783 11.1 |