city is contained in the letter from Mr. Ben Levy, Chief Administrative Officer. Upon receipt of your inqury, Mr. Muir has reinforced his understanding of the prohibition against acquiring land with funds from this Act by issuing memorandum to his staff to this effect. Architect Charles J. Rowe's agreement with the City of New Orleans is attached. (See Exhibit C.) "7. Regarding grant #21-2168, for the expansion of services within the Ouachita Area Multi-Parish Prison . . ." This agency requires that interest earned to be returned to the program for reallocation at State level. The administrative point here of course is that construction trade bidding practices in building or real estate practices in buying preclude the practical use of single year and monthly draw-down fiscal procedures in the construction program. As indicated in my September 20 letter to Mr. Still, Reference (b), some sort of “no year funds” or underwriting capability is needed to more efficiently utilize funds and remove questions on disposition of earnings. Part E of the Act under which most of these questions arise is clearly deficient in this respect. (See Exhibit D.) In conclusion I wish to make clear that while Louisiana has experienced administrative problems with LEAA in the past it has also proposed solutions and received remedial relief. I am pleased to report total relief is in sight in the proposed Special Revenue Sharing legislation which this Commission is on record as supporting, (Exhibit E.), and in the management practices being initiated by the current LEAA Administrator, Mr. Jerris Leonard. It is my firm conviction that this program is the best conceived federal program to date of which I have knowledge. It is true that LEAA has made mistakes in administering strong focus on crime control, while restrained by the Constitutional requirement to rely on state and local governments in exercising the police power and faced with the innovative requirements of the novel "block grant". Nonetheless, Louisiana believes these start-up problems are understandable, are being corrected and were made in good faith and the public interest. Criminal justice community recipients, of the more than 2,000 crime control grants in Louisiana clearly support this view. Sincerely, NEIL LAMONT, Executive Director. LOUISIANA COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT Re (a) LEAA discretionary grant No. 70-DF-122-Multiparish prison study; (b) audit No. MAR-DF-71-3. Mr. JOHN HICKEY, Regional Administrator, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice, Dallas, Tex. DEAR MR. HICKEY: We wish to compliment the Region VI Office on its prompt forwarding of the referenced (b) audit to this agency after receipt of program responsibility and the files from Washington LEAA. As you know, we tried to obtain a decision in respect to the referenced (a) grant for well over half a year and a copy of the referenced (b) audit longer than that. For your information, this discretionary grant was stopped at the request of the corrections desk, LEAA, on December 4, 1970 pending federal audit. This audit was accomplished at the beginning of calendar year 1971. From that time until July 21, 1971, the Director of this agency and I repeatedly sought a decision from LEAA in the matter so that the subgrantee could be properly guided. None was forthcoming. By July, the situation had become intolerable. Congressional pressure was mounting and law suit threatened against the state agency. Being unable to receive a decision and in the absence of audit information, we administratively reinstated the program as of July 24, 1971. This is the situation that exists at present. Receipt of the referenced (b) audit on September 23, 1971 casts new light on the program. Had this audit been available to this agency at any time prior to July 24, the program would not have been administratively reinstated. We note the audit was in the hands of Washington LEAA from May 13 onward. It is my judgment that failure to take action in this matter on the part of 65-812 O 72 pt. 2 28 Washington LEAA subsequent to May 13, 1971 is indefensible from either a program or fiscal viewpoint. Any failure of your office to give the SPA a decision in this long delayed matter at once will also be indefensible. Although the state in LEAA discretionary programs has in fact no responsibility for federal actions at local level, I presume to suggest in this particular case you may find it useful to terminate "for the convenience of the government". Sincerely yours, Re Grant No. 71-2141, construction of New Orleans Parish Prison. Mr. NEIL LAMONT, Executive Director, Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Criminal Justice, Capitol Station, Baton Rouge, La. DEAR MR. LAMONT: In connection with the referenced grant I am transmitting herewith the following documents: 1. Request for extension of the grant period to June 30, 1972; 2. Memo to Mr. Robert E. Develle, Director of Finance, to adjust Capital Fund records to reflect application of eligible items only to Federal aid funds; 3. Subgrantee Narrative Progress Report for the period ending August 31, 1971; 4. Subgrantee Fiscal Report for the month ending August 31, 1971. I trust this will satisfy your requirements and do appreciate the excellent cooperation received from you and your staff. Sincerely, BERNARD B. LEVY, Chief Administrative Officer. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, September 24, 1971. Re grant No. 71-2141, construction of New Orleans Parish Prison. Mr. NEIL LAMONT, Executive Director, Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Criminal Justice, Capitol Station, Baton Rouge, La. DEAR MR. LAMONT: Period dates contained in the referenced Grant are February 9, 1971, through June 30, 1971. It is hereby requested the period expiration date be extended to June 30, 1972. Unanticipated delays in execution have necessitated this request. Your cooperation will be most appreciated. Sincerely, BERNARD B. LEVY, Chief Administrative Officer. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM SEPTEMBER 24, 1971. To: Mr. Robert E. Develle, director, department of finance. Please make the necessary transactions to adjust the account to the following balances comply with the Agreement covering the $700,000 of Federal funds Authorized for expenditures: The expenditure of $102,946.22 made to Chas. J. Rowe on August 30, 1971 (Voucher No. 6813), for architectural services; and the encumbrance of $343,034.47 which covers the estimated balance of architectural fees due Chas. J. Rowe for preparation of construction documents (P.O. 2729) are the only items eligible for expenditure at this time from the Federal funds. Future vouchers submitted to you will indicate the source of funds to be charged. For your information eligible items of expenditure from the Federal aid are architectural/engineering fees and construction costs. BERNARD B. LEVY, Chief Administrative Officer. Chas. J. Rowe, Architect for the project is in the planning phase of preparation of construction documents. His estimated completion date is April 1972. Of 26 parcels of land to be acquired in Square 614, site of the main prison facility, 19 sales are completed, 5 agreements to sell have been executed and 2 sales. are being negotiated. Square 613, less Tulane Ave. frontage, site of auxiliary buildings, is to be acquired by the Community Improvement Agency. Acquisition of this property is contingent upon date of approval of the Gravier Improvement Urban Renewal Project. It is anticipated start of acquisition of this property will commence in December 7. Advertisement for bids for demolition and clearance of Square 614 is in progress. Target date for start of clearance and demolition is October 71. Target date for start of construction is June 72. 171 16 |