Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

projected that approximately 1,600 jobs would be created. He explained that HUD required that one job be created for every $35,000 spent, which amounted to a total of 280 jobs. Councilor Bettman asked if staff knew what the wages would be for the lower end jobs that would be created. Mr. Braud responded that this was unknown at this point. He noted that there was no criterion related to wage scales in the HUD requirements. Councilor Bettman asked how the public could evaluate the public benefit if the public had no proposal to look at. Mr. Braud responded that the City would have to demonstrate job creation given that it was the national objective of the funds. He stressed that after the funds had been spent, the City would have to demonstrate that the national objective had been met; it was a fundamental requirement of HUD. Councilor Bettman reiterated that the public did not have that information available. In response to another question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Braud stated that the purchase price for the Washburn Building was $1.9 million and for the Centre Court Building it was $2.8 million; this included the “pit.” Councilor Taylor surmised that the Beam proposal was no longer being considered separately. Mr. Braud assured her that there were still two separate MOUs. Councilor Taylor asked how the Scan Design building could be considered as “urban blight.” Mr. Braud explained that an area of determination had been made around the West Broadway development area and no specific element had been attributed to the Scan Design building. Councilor Taylor opined that the process of redevelopment would be “destroying perfectly good businesses doing well.” She asked if there were any sites aside from the two holes that would meet the definition of urban blight. Mr. Braud replied that other conditions that met the definition were that land values exceeded improvement values and building conditions. He noted that the definition of urban blight was complex. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Braud said no public comments had been received since July 6. Councilor Bettman asked what sort of notice of the proposed ordinance had been provided. Mr. Braud responded that the notice had been listed in the Legal Ads section of the newspaper. Councilor Bettman asserted it was “no wonder nobody had seen them.” Councilor Bettman felt there was very little information in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). She asked why there were no findings in the AIS. She said there were federal criteria to meet for the CDBG money, City Council motions, City Council policies, and Urban Renewal District policies but no findings were included for people to review to determine whether the proposal was consistent with them. She believed a strong case could be made that the findings should have been published and followed by a 30-day public comment period. Mr. Braud responded that the application was available for the public to view on the Web site. Councilor Clark thanked the Planning Division staff for its hard work on the proposed downtown redevel- opment project. Councilor Bettman asked how the requirement that the project provide permanent full-time employment for low and moderate income individuals could be substantiated. Mr. Braud explained that the projection for job creation had been based on what the developers submitted to-date and was available as part of the application on the Web site. He underscored that at this point in the process, in that the development had yet MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 3 Work Session