.MzQ1NQ.MzQ1NQ

CERTIFICATION OF MODEL CITY RELEVANCE A series of interdepartmental and interagency agreements have been initiated as a key segment of the Mode l Cities effort over the past year. The objective of these agreem.ents has been strengthening both federal and local capabilities to coordinate federally assisted programs that affect Model Neighborhoods. In recognition of th,e fragmentation often resulting from disconnected projects operating in the same neighborhood, an effort has been made to provide both the chief executive of Model Cities and representatives of the federal Cabinet Secretaries with the authority to review all programs proposed for operation in a Model Neighborhood and comment on those programs' relevance to the comprehensive plan of the Model City. Guidelines Federal local projects affecting Model Neighborhoods fall into two broad categories: (a) projects developed primarily as a part of the Model Neighborhood demonstration, and {b) projects with wider community application. A. . Model Nei g hborhood Proj e cts This category includes all projects involving funds reserved for Model Neighborhood demonstration and all HEW federallocal projects in which more than 50% of the project's benefit can be attributed to the Model Neighborhood residents. l. The R e gional Director will recommend for a ppr oval only thos e projects that the city has certified to be satisfacto r ily linked to the city's comprehensive Model City prog r am. These projects may be integral components of the demonstration or other ttc t iviti cs re l e v a n t t o arid s uppor tiv e of th e p r ogr a m , . ,. . ·,:: ·, : �2, Prior to final obligation of HEW funds, project applications that meet the above definition will include such certification, signed by the CDA Director and the HEW Regional Director (-s-e-e-attached·-format}. Staff of the Task Force on Interagency Funding will review these certifications and bring any discrepancies to the attention of the Task Force. 3. Since application and review procedures vary from program to program, it is the direct responsibility of the funding agency to assure timely certification bf the CDA and concurrence by the Regional Director. '.fhe existing Regional Resources Committee should be the appropriate channel for review by agencies with the Regional Director I s staff . . 4. Continuation applications and significant project modifications will include CDA certification and Regional Director concurrence, 5. CDA certification is understood in e very case to include consultation with th e local chi e f e x ecutive, whether mayor or city manager, and is expected to reflect that chief executive I s local authority to coordinate federally funded projects in the Model Neighborhoods . 6. Wher e c e rtification by the CDA has been refused or has not been receiv e d within 60 days by the city agency or community organi z ation proposing a project for the Model Neighborhood, that ag e ncy or organization ... : �has the formal opportunity to :appeal the decision (or the inaction) of the CDA directly to the local chief executive and the Regional Director. Such a formal appeal would be received simultaneously by the local chief executive and the Regiona l Director. It is the responsibility of the Regional Director to discuss the project with the local chief executive and to reach final d e cision, in concert with DHEW agency recommendations, on funding the project at is sue. B. City-Wide Projects (on-going and new projects) The policies and process outlined above and ·in-the-a:tt,rched inte-r-depa-rtm.cu.taL.a-gr·eement also will apply to city-wide . projects with the followin g exceptions: (a) If the Director of the City D emonstration Agency will not certify that that portion of the proposed project affecting the Mod e l Neighborhood is adequately linked to the comprehensive programs, and (b) If th e appli cant agency and t he CDA cannot negoti a te a satisfactory resolution, a n d (c) · If the Mayor's offi c e fails to negotiate a satisfactory r esolution, The the Regional Dir ector , wo rking w ith HEW regional agency representatives , should s eek to conc i liate local difference s . If an impasse still exists at the time that a funding decision m u st be made, the funding agenc y m u s t commun icate its form a l roco111n1<i11d a lion. s l o lite Rcii,iona l Di l'l1 ,; u 111111 tJ 111 l1 1 d 1 lli t1 l tP~l.r11 1n I .l )l 1' ot": t o 1.· , 1:uct.uJ' H 1=t ppl'tlvtd i l=l 11111 1,t c: 0 111 ; 111• t< 1 tl HJ c:x l e 11t th ,.4t tlds ac tlon affec t s the Moc.lol C ities Progi· arn, �---.... Regional Directors will assure that CDA I s are aware of and under stand this procedures, and that t:ie Regional Resource Committee is used to disseminate these procedures to all regional agency representatives. Copy to: Assistant Secretaries A~ency Heads Regional Directors Regional Resources Committee Urban Coordinating Committee Task Force on Interagency Funding �