Page images
PDF
EPUB

and asking for this market, and farm groups were very interested in modernization and new facilities in New York City. State Department of Markets of the New York Department of Agriculture assisted in the preliminary market studies. So that there was much official interest and sponsorship for inaugurating a new facility in New York City.

Mr. ADDABBO. What was the total Federal contribution to these facilities?

Mr. SMITH. In terms of money expended in erecting these facilities? There are no Federal funds involved.

Mr. ADDABBO. This is all city and private funds? Is there any State contribution, do you know?

Mr. SMITH. There were no State or private funds involved. It is being financed by the city government and administered by the New York City Department of Markets.

Mr. LENNARTSON. In some instances they set up public corporations but this was not the case in the New York project.

Dr. HERRMANN. Mr. Chairman, I have a point on cost as far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned. Taking all of the markets in which we have been involved, not just New York, our people have estimated that the cost to the Department of Agriculture was less than one-half of 1 percent of the total estimated construction cost. This is clear across the board and over a period of years.

Mr. ADDABBO. This would purely be in the planning.

Dr. HERRMANN. That is right.

Mr. SMITH. Technical assistance and planning.

Mr. ADDABBO. New York being one of the if not the largest cities in the country, and I see we are just getting to the program at this time, would this be due to the fact that the city or State had failed to request the service, or the Department had just overlooked the city of New York.

Mr. SMITH. Do you mean in the passage of time before this took place?

Mr. ADDABBO. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. This was largely due to differences of opinion within the environs of the city itself and the merchants involved.

As a matter of fact, my tenure in the Department of Agriculture dates back about 29 years, and this subject was under discussion by the Port Authority of New York City when I first came with the Department.

This is one of the difficulties that are encountered in modernizing food facilities in a terminal market, that there are interests that prompt them to take a position in favor of doing nothing, the matter of real estate values, and property values, are involved, where to locate the new facility in terms of convenience and all.

They all become subject to local argument, differences of opinion, and discussion. And in some instances how to finance the new facility becomes a problem.

There are many obstacles that arise that contribute to delay.

As I indicated in my earlier comment, our work with the New York area has extended over quite a period of time. They have changed their mind several times, as I remember, as to just where the facility should be located and what the facility should include.

TABLE II.-Apportionment by States of funds available for the national school lunch program, fiscal year 1963-Continued

[blocks in formation]

1 Sec. 4 of the National School Lunch Act, as amended by Public Law 87-823, approved Oct. 15, 1962 * provides for apportionment among the States during each fiscal year not less than 75 percent of the funds made available for supplying agricultural commodities and other foods. "State" is defined in the act as any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, or American Samoa. Apportionment among the States shall be made on the basis of two factors: (1) the participation rate for the State and (2) the assistance need rate for the State (exclusive of American Samoa for the 5-fiscal-year periods beginning July 1, 1962, and ending June 30, 1967, when the amount apportioned to American Samoa shall be $25,000 each year). Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of sec. 4, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1962, 34 of any funds available for apportionment among the States shall be apportioned in the manner used prior to such fiscal year, and 1⁄4 of any such funds shall be apportioned in accordance with the foregoing provisions of sec. 4.

Total of funds apportioned in accordance with sec. 4 of the National School Lunch Act, as amended. Division of funds between State agency and private schools is based on the relative number of lunches served in public and nonprofit private schools as provided in sec. 10 of the National School Lunch Act for any State in which the State educational agency by law is not permitted to disburse funds paid to it under the act to nonprofit private schools.

Sec. 7 of the National School Lunch Act provides that, during fiscal year 1963, each State must match $3 for each $1 of the Federal Government's apportionment to the State, except that, in the case of a State in which the per capita income is below that of the United States, the matching ratio required is decreased by the percentage which the State's per capita income is below the per capita income of the United States. The actual amount of funds required for matching is then determined by taking this percentage of the amount of the total Federal apportionment to the State.

NOTE.-Details of apportionment under original formula and revised formula shown in tables SL-1b-63 and SL-1c-63.

PLANNING OF FOOD WHOLESALING MARKETS

Mr. ADDABBO. On page 65 of your notes you state:

"The largest and probably most difficult job ever undertaken by the Department is planning of food wholesaling markets in the metropolitan areas, with the planning in the New York City market, and this has been accomplished." Was this requested by the city or State, the research as far as development of these facilities?

Mr. SMITH. The city officials made the request. The officials of the city government of New York were very active in sponsoring

and asking for this market, and farm groups were very interested in modernization and new facilities in New York City. State Department of Markets of the New York Department of Agriculture assisted in the preliminary market studies. So that there was much official interest and sponsorship for inaugurating a new facility in New York City.

Mr. ADDABBO. What was the total Federal contribution to these facilities?

Mr. SMITH. In terms of money expended in erecting these facilities? There are no Federal funds involved.

Mr. ADDABBO. This is all city and private funds? Is there any State contribution, do you know?

Mr. SMITH. There were no State or private funds involved. It is being financed by the city government and administered by the New York City Department of Markets.

Mr. LENNARTSON. In some instances they set up public corporations but this was not the case in the New York project.

Dr. HERRMANN. Mr. Chairman, I have a point on cost as far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned. Taking all of the markets in which we have been involved, not just New York, our people have estimated that the cost to the Department of Agriculture was less than one-half of 1 percent of the total estimated construction cost. This is clear across the board and over a period of years.

Mr. ADDABBO. This would purely be in the planning.
Dr. HERRMANN. That is right.

Mr. SMITH. Technical assistance and planning.

Mr. ADDABBO. New York being one of the if not the-largest cities in the country, and I see we are just getting to the program at this time, would this be due to the fact that the city or State had failed to request the service, or the Department had just overlooked the city of New York.

Mr. SMITH. Do you mean in the passage of time before this took place?

Mr. ADDABBO. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. This was largely due to differences of opinion within the environs of the city itself and the merchants involved.

As a matter of fact, my tenure in the Department of Agriculture dates back about 29 years, and this subject was under discussion by the Port Authority of New York City when I first came with the Department.

This is one of the difficulties that are encountered in modernizing food facilities in a terminal market, that there are interests that prompt them to take a position in favor of doing nothing, the matter of real estate values, and property values, are involved, where to locate the new facility in terms of convenience and all.

They all become subject to local argument, differences of opinion, and discussion. And in some instances how to finance the new facility becomes a problem.

There are many obstacles that arise that contribute to delay.

As I indicated in my earlier comment, our work with the New York area has extended over quite a period of time. They have changed their mind several times, as I remember, as to just where the facility should be located and what the facility should include.

TABLE II.-Apportionment by States of funds available for the national school lunch program, fiscal year 1963-Continued

[blocks in formation]

1 Sec. 4 of the National School Lunch Act, as amended by Public Law 87-823, approved Oct. 15, 1982 ⋅ provides for apportionment among the States during each fiscal year not less than 75 percent of the funds made available for supplying agricultural commodities and other foods. "State" is defined in the act as any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, or American Samoa. Apportionment among the States shall be made on the basis of two factors: (1) the participation rate for the State and (2) the assistance need rate for the State (exclusive of American Samoa for the 5-fiscal-year periods beginning July 1, 1962, and ending June 30, 1967, when the amount apportioned to American Samoa shall be $25,000 each year). Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of sec. 4, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1962, 34 of any funds available for apportionment among the States shall be apportioned in the manner used prior to such fiscal year, and 4 of any such funds shall be apportioned in accordance with the foregoing provisions of sec. 4.

Total of funds apportioned in accordance with sec. 4 of the National School Lunch Act, as amended. Division of funds between State agency and private schools is based on the relative number of lunches served in public and nonprofit private schools as provided in sec. 10 of the National School Lunch Act for any State in which the State educational agency by law is not permitted to disburse funds paid to it under the act to nonprofit private schools.

Sec. 7 of the National School Lunch Act provides that, during fiscal year 1963, each State must match $3 for each $1 of the Federal Government's apportionment to the State, except that, in the case of a State in which the per capita income is below that of the United States, the matching ratio required is decreased by the percentage which the State's per capita income is below the per capita income of the United States. The actual amount of funds required for matching is then determined by taking this percentage of the amount of the total Federal apportionment to the State.

NOTE.-Details of apportionment under original formula and revised formula shown in tables SL-1b-63 and SL-1c-63.

PLANNING OF FOOD WHOLESALING MARKETS

Mr. ADDABBO. On page 65 of your notes you state:

"The largest and probably most difficult job ever undertaken by the Department is planning of food wholesaling markets in the metropolitan areas, with the planning in the New York City market, and this has been accomplished." Was this requested by the city or State, the research as far as development of these facilities?

Mr. SMITH. The city officials made the request. The officials of the city government of New York were very active in sponsoring

and asking for this market, and farm groups were very interested in modernization and new facilities in New York City. State Department of Markets of the New York Department of Agriculture assisted in the preliminary market studies. So that there was much official interest and sponsorship for inaugurating a new facility in New York City.

Mr. ADDABBO. What was the total Federal contribution to these facilities?

Mr. SMITH. In terms of money expended in erecting these facilities? There are no Federal funds involved.

Mr. ADDABBO. This is all city and private funds? Is there any State contribution, do you know?

Mr. SMITH. There were no State or private funds involved. It is being financed by the city government and administered by the New York City Department of Markets.

Mr. LENNARTSON. In some instances they set up public corporations but this was not the case in the New York project.

Dr. HERRMANN. Mr. Chairman, I have a point on cost as far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned. Taking all of the markets in which we have been involved, not just New York, our people have estimated that the cost to the Department of Agriculture was less than one-half of 1 percent of the total estimated construction cost. This is clear across the board and over a period of years.

Mr. ADDABBO. This would purely be in the planning.

Dr. HERRMANN. That is right.

Mr. SMITH. Technical assistance and planning.

Mr. ADDABBO. New York being one of the-if not the-largest cities in the country, and I see we are just getting to the program at this time, would this be due to the fact that the city or State had failed to request the service, or the Department had just overlooked the city of New York.

Mr. SMITH. Do you mean in the passage of time before this took place?

Mr. ADDABBO. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. This was largely due to differences of opinion within the environs of the city itself and the merchants involved.

As a matter of fact, my tenure in the Department of Agriculture dates back about 29 years, and this subject was under discussion by the Port Authority of New York City when I first came with the Department.

This is one of the difficulties that are encountered in modernizing food facilities in a terminal market, that there are interests that prompt them to take a position in favor of doing nothing, the matter of real estate values, and property values, are involved, where to locate the new facility in terms of convenience and all.

They all become subject to local argument, differences of opinion, and discussion. And in some instances how to finance the new facility becomes a problem.

There are many obstacles that arise that contribute to delay.

As I indicated in my earlier comment, our work with the New York area has extended over quite a period of time. They have changed their mind several times, as I remember, as to just where the facility should be located and what the facility should include.

« PreviousContinue »