CC Minutes - 07/23/07 City Council Meeting

Home Browse Search

for a specific project. She stated that the specific project for the loan was acquisition of five properties for the West Broadway Redevelopment Project. She indicated that it was anticipated the loan would be repaid primarily from downtown urban renewal funds and it was also possible that proceeds from the sale of the properties to the developers could be a source of repayment depending on the final details of the agreements between the City and the developers. She said HUD required that the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds be placed as security for the borrowing, but it was not anticipated that those funds would be used because the City’s downtown urban renewal district had sufficient financial capacity to repay it. She noted that the next agenda item would allow the urban renewal district to make the payments on the HUD loan. Councilor Bettman asked if the BEDI grant and HUD Section 108 loan money could be used to address other issues, such as “the crisis… brewing in the Trainsong neighborhood.” Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that the money was area specific and could not be used outside of the downtown district. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Braud explained that the BEDI applica- tion was submitted in May 2005, based on certain criteria. Councilor Bettman interjected that she recalled being told in the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) that there were a lot of options for spending the money. Mr. Braud responded that the application could have been for a number of projects but the direction given was to move forward for the BEDI application within the two urban renewal districts. Councilor Bettman recalled that an action had been taken but she had felt it was premature and would authorize application of the funds “before we have any information of what that does.” Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that she believed Councilor Bettman was referring to the ordinance that set up the HUD Section 108 revenue bonds. Councilor Bettman asked what specific action had tied it to the downtown district. Mr. Braud recounted that the CCIGR directed staff to move forward with the grant application and they submitted a concept of utilizing the grant application for the two downtown urban renewal districts. He underscored that this was the direction staff received. Councilor Bettman asked if Mr. Braud was indicating that staff received direction from the CCIGR to submit the application for downtown. Mr. Braud reiterated that he was “confident” that they had gone before the CCIGR with the concept and had received direction to proceed. Councilor Bettman said she wanted to see documentation. She believed that the CCIGR had been informed that the decisions had not been made as to how the money would be spent. Councilor Bettman noted that one of the people who testified during the Public Forum alleged that there was an issue with the premise on which the application had been based. She did not believe that the application stated that the jobs would be given to individuals with a low income. She said because the 30 percent threshold for poverty had not been reached, the application did not actually qualify. Mr. Braud called this an important clarification. He clarified that traditionally the national objective of the low-income job benefit was that it had to be demonstrated that 51 percent of the jobs generated were filled by people with low or moderate incomes. He said there were some exceptions. He explained that if a census tract met the 30 percent threshold, then all of the jobs created by the project could be presumed to be filled by persons of low or moderate income and therefore it would not be required that everyone’s income be documented in the jobs that were created. Otherwise, he said, the City would have to document that the 51 percent low income MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting