CC Minutes - 07/23/07 City Council Meeting

Home Browse Search

Councilor Zelenka asked if the application papers were public documents on which the public could comment. Mr. Braud replied that HUD did not have a public comment process, as that was done on the local level. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Zelenka, Mr. Braud confirmed that any material changes to what was proposed would be brought back to the council. Councilor Zelenka asked Ms. Cutsogeorge to review the steps the City would have to go through. Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that there were four steps: 1) the City would have to amend the urban renewal plan to provide sufficient capacity to undertake the loan amount; 2) the West Broadway Advisory Committee (WBAC) would bring its recommendations to the council on September 19; 3) the City and the Urban Renewal Agency would have to approve supplemental budgets to spend the money; and 4) the Urban Renewal Plan Section 700 required that any project greater than $250,000 would have to be separately approved by the Urban Renewal Board. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Cutsogeorge affirmed that the supplemen- tal budget process would include a required public hearing. Councilor Zelenka asked how many public hearings the WBAC process included. Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that the WBAC was holding two hearings. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Braud stated that as far as staff was concerned, the application was complete; but it would not be known for certain until HUD had received it and reviewed it. Councilor Bettman had surmised that there would be a final application based on what the final development was going to look like. She assumed the final application would be submitted after the final development agreement “materialized.” She declared that a lot of the numbers were “complete and utter projections.” Mr. Braud said if the City ended up doing something different than it proposed to HUD the City would have to go back to HUD to amend the application, which meant that it would have to go back before the council to be amended. He underscored that the trigger in this case was the options on the properties. He stated that the City was trying to “put this tool in place in a timely manner” so that when the City was required potentially to act on some of the properties, the City would have the tool available and approved. Councilor Bettman asserted that staff was using the conceptual development as the justification for the criteria in the federal application. She did not believe the City would create jobs by purchasing the options on the properties. She declared that staff was basing the justification of the criteria on the “ultimate final agreement.” She called this “complete conjecture.” Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to postpone approval of the reso- lution until September when the final application could be reviewed based on the final de- velopment agreement. Councilor Taylor averred that it would make sense to postpone approval of the resolution. Councilor Zelenka stated that his original motion to create the WBAC and extend the process sought to have staff put everything in place so when the City was at the point at which a development agreement could be made with the developers, everything would be in place and ready to move forward. He said at that point, they would decide whether to move forward or not. He stressed that the council could choose not to trigger any of the next steps if it saw fit to do so; there was more opportunity for public input and more opportunity for the council to say no if necessary. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting