My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD07316
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
FLOOD07316
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 7:11:26 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 2:52:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Basin
Statewide
Title
Community Block Grant Applications Review 1984
Date
3/19/1984
Prepared For
State of Colorado
Prepared By
CWCB
Floodplain - Doc Type
Flood Documentation Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
148
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />The Colorado "Small Cities and Counties" <br />Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program <br /> <br />Impacts of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recove~ Act of 1983 <br /> <br />In 1981, Congress amended the Housing and Community DevelDpment Act of 1974 to <br />allow states to administer the "Small Cities" Community Development Block " <br />Grant (CDBG) Program. <br /> <br />Congress felt that small cities and counties, are, indeed, different from <br />their larger counterparts, the so-called "entitlement" cities and counties, <br />and that states better understand and respond to the needs of their small <br />cities than can the federal government. Con9ress also believed that states <br />would increase technical assistance and reduce the recordkeeping and reporting <br />requirements to enable more small jurisdictions to participate in the CDBG <br />program than when HUD administered it. <br /> <br />With the promise of flexibility to meet area circumstances and of minimal <br />federal control, forty-seven states, including Colorado, elected to administer <br />the CDBG program, and proved Congress right. They designed flexible programs <br />to meet the needs of their small jurisidictions, more small cities and <br />counties applied for and were awarded CDBG grants than under HUD adminis- <br />tration, and more technical assistance was provided on more interrelated <br />development programs than ever before. <br /> <br />In November of 19B3 Congress, fearful that the Administration, especially, and <br />the states were being too flexible in procedural requirements and were not <br />administering the CDBG program according to its principal objective (to <br />benefit low- and moderate-income people), enacted changes through the Housing <br />and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 1983. Put in the CDBG Act were numerous new <br />procedural and reporting, or detailed accountability requirements and the <br />requirement that CDBG funded projects benefit at least 51% low- and moderate- <br />income persons. (Colorado projects have and will benefit over 71%.) As <br />subsequently interpreted by HUD, this amendment virtually erases the <br />flexibil ity and authority of states in administering the "Small Cities" CDBG <br />program <br /> <br />The Act no longer gi ves "maximum feasi bl e deference" to a state's judgment on <br />how they and small jurisdictions can best meet the requirements of the law. <br />It requires that state programs be carried out "in the same manner and to the <br />same extent" under HUD regul ati ons as in the 1 arge citi es under the <br />"entitlement" CDBG program. In other ~/ords, Two Buttes, Mill ikin and t,lancos <br />are to be treated like Boston, Chicago and Denver~ The Act also requires that <br />after 1985 states either must administer the "Small Cities" CDBG program or <br />lose the "Small Cities" funds to other states. This can be viewed as the <br />state being compelled to become an administrative arm of HUn and interest <br />groups in Washington, D.C. <br /> <br />A large amount of the states' concern in dealing with HUD and Congress on <br />these issues stems from the fact that they are at odds, and few of them <br />acknowledge the difference between the role of a state (as provider of <br />one-time grants -- the previous Hun role) and the capacity of small <br />jurisdictions, and the role of the "entitlement" cities (as year-in, year-out <br />grant implementors with significant permanent staffs). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.