FOREWORD The Federal Government is now administering over 40 separate programs of financial aid for urban development, involving some 13 departments and agencies. Increasing national awareness of urbanization's accelerated pace during the past decade and a half is reflected in the fact that more than half of these grants-in-aid, loans, insurance, shared revenue, and direct operation programs were enacted subsequent to 1950. The impact of these Federal programs on our local governments has generated considerable discussion and some controversy at all levels. Little systematic study and attention, however, has been directed to two significant intergovernmental aspects of these programs. First, to what extent do these urban financial aids promote the creation of special districts or otherwise affect the structure of local government? And second, to what extent do they employ performance standards requiring coordination of federally aided projects with local comprehensive development plans and decisionmaking? This information gap has now been filled by a report approved by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, in January 1964, titled "Impact of Federal Urban Development Programs on Local Government Organization and Planning." "To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to provide a systematic survey of requirements for local government organization and planning in all Federal aid programs affecting physical development in urban areas and to assess the extent and nature of interagency coordination of these programs within the Federal Government. The report makes a number of recommendations to both the Federal and State Governments for legislative and administrative action to improve local organization, local planning, and Federal interagency coordination. An appendix describes and evaluates each program in detail and identifies pertinent regulations and official documents to serve as sources of information for further studies. This study complements other reports recently issued by the subcommittee. Our survey, "The Federal System as Seen by State and Local Officials: Result of the Questionnaire Dealing with Intergovernmental Relations," revealed that more than half of the county officials and city managers, and almost half of the mayors, believe that Federal grant-in-aid statutory and administrative requirements hamper the flexibility in the organization of local government. This Advisory Commission report also supplements a "National Survey of Metropolitan Planning," prepared by the U.S. Housing and Home Finance Agency for our subcommittee, which provides a complete tabulation and analysis of the organization and functions of all metropolitan and regional planning agencies with jurisdiction in standard metropolitan statistical areas. Among the major findings of the Commission report are that almost all of the Federal aids are available to special-purpose units of government at the State or local level, as well as cities, counties, and other general governments, and almost half are available to nongovernmental persons or groups. Only four of the programs surveyed (open space, urban renewal, community renewal, and public housing) had the positively stated objective of implementing locally adopted comprehensive plans for urban development. Through one means or another-legislative or administrative, formal or informal-a little more than one-quarter of the surveyed programs provide that aided projects should not be inconsistent with comprehensive plans for urban development, if such plans exist. About one-quarter of the programs operate under formal interagency agreements for sharing review responsibilities for plans or projects, and another quarter have legislatively established working relationships. The Senate Committee on Government Operations has as one of its functions the duty of studying intergovernmental relations and overseeing the work of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. This responsibility has been delegated to the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations. The Commission has made a number of fundamental recommendations for reorientation of many of the Federal urban development programs in order that they may be better administered through effective and responsible State and local recipients coordinated with each other and with local planning and decisionmaking. This publication will provide the basis for further examination by the subcommittee, by the affected Federal agencies concerned, and by others concerned with the impact of Federal programs on urban development. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations. MAY 30, 1964. IMPACT OF FEDERAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS Washington, D.C. 20575 January 1964 A-20 ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS [As of January 24, 1964] FRANK BANE, Chairman DON HUMMEL, Vice Chairman JOHN ANDERSON, Jr., Governor of Kansas NEAL S. BLAISDELL, Mayor, Honolulu, Hawaii HOWARD R. BOWEN, Citizen Member, Grinnell, Iowa ANTHONY J. CELEBREZZE, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare C. DOUGLAS DILLON, Secretary of the Treasury CLAIR DONNEN WIRTH, Supervisor, Plumas County, Calif. FLORENCE P. DWYER (Mrs.), Member of the House of Representatives SAM J. ERVIN, JR., Member of the Senate L. H. FOUNTAIN, Member of the House of Representatives EUGENE J. KEOGH, Member of the House of Representatives KARL E. MUNDT, Member of the Senate EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Member of the Senate ARTHUR NAFTALIN, Mayor, Minneapolis, Minn. GRAHAM S. NEWELL, Member of the State Senate, Montpelier, Vt. JOHN E. POWERS, President, State Senate, Boston, Mass. CARL E. SANDERS, Governor of Georgia ROBERT E. SMYLIE, Governor of Idaho RAYMOND R. TUCKER, Mayor, St. Louis, Mo. ROBERT C. WEAVER, Administrator, Housing and Home Finance Agency PREFACE The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations was established by Public Law 380, passed by the 1st session of the 86th Congress and approved by the President September 24, 1959. Section 2 of the act sets forth the following declaration of purpose and specific responsibilities for the Commission: SEC. 2. Because the complexity of modern life intensifies the need in a Federal form of government for the fullest cooperation and coordination of activities between the levels of government, and because population growth and scientific developments portend an increasingly complex society in future years, it is essential that an appropriate agency be established to give continuing attention to intergovernmental problems. It is intended that the Commission, in the performance of its duties, will (1) bring together representatives of the Federal, State, and local governments for the consideration of common problems; (2) provide a forum for discussing the administration and coordination of Federal grant and other programs requiring intergovernmental cooperation; (3) give critical attention to the conditions and controls involved in the administration of Federal grant programs; (4) make available technical assistance to the executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government in the review of proposed legislation to determine its overall effect on the Federal system; (5) encourage discussion and study at an early stage of emerging public problems that are likely to require intergovernmental cooperation; (6) recommend, within the framework of the Constitution, the most desirable allocation of governmental functions, responsibilities, and revenues among the several levels of government; and (7) recommend methods of coordinating and simplifying tax laws and administrative practices to achieve a more orderly and less competitive fiscal relationship between the levels of government and to reduce the burden of compliance for taxpayers. Pursuant to its statutory responsibilities, the Commission from time to time singles out for study and recommendation particular problems, the amelioration of which in the Commission's view would |