July 23, 1968
Page 22846
METROPLAN – SECTION 204 OF THE DEMONSTRATION CITIES ACT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, another example of the success of section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act has been brought to my attention. It is the experience of Metroplan, the regional agency for the Little Rock-North Little Rock, Ark., area. Metroplan's executive director, Jason Rouby, has written an article describing section 204's implementation. Entitled "A New Factor in Community Planning and Development," it appeared in the March/April issue of the publication of the Arkansas chapter of the American Institute of Architects. I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows
A NEW FACTOR IN COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
(By Jason Rouby, executive director, Metropolitan Area Planning Commission)
The jargon of planning – urban planning for a metropolitan basis that is – is continually expanding. One of the new terms in the jargon is "Section 204". This refers to Section 204 of the 1966 Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act (Public Law 89-754). It is administered by the Bureau of the Budget.
Three facts are important to the understanding of Section 204 – it's a law of Congress, not a regulation of a federal agency; it's new, and it is a program of the Bureau of the Budget and it applies to many federal departments and agencies.
The language of Section 204 is simple in its meaning: Local applications for federal loans and grants in a wide variety of programs must be submitted to the local metropolitan planning agency for review and comment as to how well the proposed project conforms to local official plans for development.
When applications are submitted by a special purpose unit of government (water commission, airport commission, special improvement district, etc.), the applications must also be reviewed and commented on by the unit of general government (city or county) in which the special purpose unit operates before submission to the federal agency. That's all it says.
It spells out the federal agencies and their programs which are involved, but it just says the local metropolitan planning agency, and in some cases the city or county, shall review and comment on the applications.
In the Little Rock-North Little Rock Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area of Pulaski and Saline Counties, Metroplan has been designated to be the review agency.
Metroplan's reviews and comments will emphasize:
1. Whether the applicant participates in planning for the Metropolitan Area through Metroplan.
2. The extent to which the project is consistent with official plans for the Metropolitan Area.
3. The extent to which the project contributes fulfillment of the Metropolitan Area policies and plans.
4. The relationship between Metroplan's comments and the comments of any other local. unit of government, general or special.
These comments are not binding on the federal agency, they are merely advisory and are intended to help the federal agency determine whether the project is eligible for funding.
Metroplan has adopted guidelines for its own use – and for the use of local officials and their consultants to explain the workings of Section 204, both as a national program and within Metroplan. (Copies are available at Metroplan, 216 Pulaski County Courthouse, without charge.)
Briefly, for each project, Metroplan will require a letter of request for review from the head (county judge, mayor, chairman of commission, etc.) of the applying government; a copy of the application, including maps, legal documents, and other pertinent material required by the federal agency to whom the application is directed, plus comments and recommendations required by law from other agencies.
The filing of certain technical documents, engineering drawings, etc., may be waived by Metroplan after consultation with the staff.
When appropriate the staff will request other local agencies who may be affected by the project to comment on it.
Metroplan encourages consultants, and local officials if necessary, to join in preapplication conferences with the staff so that the actual procedure of writing an application and reviewing it will go rapidly and smoothly.
Often Metroplan can furnish much of the basic data required in most applications, such as population, highway plans, etc.
Reviews can generally be completed and letters written within a week or two, but the guidelines require that the review process be completed within 60 days.
If an unfavorable comment is made after the review, applicants may request a second review by the Executive Committee of Metroplan.
To date, since Section 204 went into effect July 1, 1967, Metroplan has reviewed 13 applications, made favorable comments on 12 and an unfavorable comment on one, for which the plans were later amended.
Section 204 was adopted by the Congress because it was concerned that the planning it was helping to pay for (two-thirds federal, one-third local) was not resulting in development projects, and that some, maybe many, of the projects it was helping to finance were not in accord with the plans that had been adopted.
Section 204 is actually the legislative product of a subcommittee, chaired by Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine, of the Senate Governmental Operations Committee, chaired by Senator John McClellan.
When the 1966 housing act was being written, Senator Muskie, who is also a member of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, lifted the language of the Section from a proposed Intergovernmental Cooperative Act and inserted it into the housing act.
In a recent statement, Senator Muskie emphasized four points regarding Section 204:
First. Section 204 does not set up planning requirements as such, but rather requires a review of proposed projects to determine whether they are consistent with the overall plans of the region.
Second. Section 204 places the emphasis for this overall review at the local level, thus helping to restore more autonomy to the local governments involved.
Third, Section 204 places emphasis on local elected officials who are familiar with local problems and needs.
Finally. No veto power, either at the regional or Federal level, is involved in carrying out the purposes of Section 204.
Section 204 is an effort to make local planning more effective by relating it to future construction and development and to make sure that individual projects are consistent with long-range development.
Section 204 does not take away any authority or responsibility from local officials, either elected or appointed. Planning is still a local function, and plans can still be changed to fit changing conditions, just as they have always been.
But this is a new program, and everybody is affected – local, metropolitan, state and federal – must work out the details of cooperation and coordination of programs; so that Section 204 will be meaningful without being burdensome.
The staff of Metroplan has met with officials of the Arkansas Highway Department, the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Farmers Home Administration, to work out the details of responding to Section 204. These discussions have resulted in harmonious agreements.
Similar agreements will be worked out in time with other affected departments including the Department of the Interior, the Department of Transportation and the Department of Commerce, and their subordinate agencies.
GRANT-IN-AID PROGRAMS COVERED BY PROJECT REVIEW POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
A. Department of Housing and Urban Development:
1. Open space program;
2. Basic water and sewer facilities;
3. Urban mass transportation;
4. Public facility loans;
5. Public works planning;
6. Urban planning assistance;
7. Advance acquisition of land;
8. Model Cities.
B. Department of Interior:
1. Outdoor recreation;
2. Waste treatment facilities;
3. Irrigation and reclamation;
4. River basin pollution control and abatement.
C. Department of Transportation:
1. Highway landscaping and scenic enhancement;
2. Highway development;
3. Airport planning and construction.
D. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare:
1. Hill-Burton hospital and health facilities;
2. Health research facilities;
3. Community mental health facilities and centers;
4. Vocational rehabilitation facilities;
5. Regional medical libraries;
6. Solid waste disposal;
7. Narcotic treatment centers;
8. Library construction.
E. Department of Agriculture:
1. "Greenspan" program;
2. Rural water and waste disposal facilities and planning;
3. Watershed protection and flood prevention;
4. Soil and water conservation loans;
5. Rural renewal and resource conservation and development.
F. Department of Commerce:
1. Public works and economic development facilities;
2. Regional action planning;
3. Economic development planning;
G. Department of Defense:
1. Beach erosion control and flood prevention.
H. Water Resources Council:
1. State and regional water resources planning.