|
<br /> C. Petition, Storm se;;e; 'between Sally Way and Marlow Lane fxom Gilham Road to
<br /> NOrwood Street - 64% - Map of the area was shown and the project described. City
<br /> cost would be $30,000, assessed cost $10,000. The di tch was moved from its
<br /> natural location at the request of the developer when Marlow Park Subdivision
<br />e was originally platted. The project was previously before the Council but re-
<br /> jected. Construction now will allow development of a portion of the properties,
<br /> and those benefiting can be assessed. Public Works Department recommended con-
<br /> struction, since it' would be less expensive now before the property is developed.
<br /> Comm
<br /> Mr. Bradshaw Tfr)ved seconded by Mr. Mohr to accept the petition. Motion carried 11/29/72
<br /> ,unanimously. Approve
<br /> D. Report, Ad Hoc Commi ttee on Suggested Changes in Housing Authori ty Board - The
<br /> 'Mayor's Conmdttee on Aging requested Council recommendation to Lane County that
<br /> the number of members of the Lane County Housing Authority Board be changed to
<br /> , seven (now five), that there be at least one woman on the Board, that the number
<br /> of consecutive terms be limited, and c;o..~~ic'le~a~ion ff?r,appoin~ment to th: Board I
<br /> include resource background as well as geographic representation. The Council
<br /> 'referred the request to an ad hoc commi ttee representing the Council, County Com-
<br /> ,missioners, Eugene Joint Housing Committee, Lane County Housing Authority Board,
<br /> and Mayor's Committee on Aging. The Committee after review of the request now
<br /> ,recommends that the Council ask Lane County Commissioners to consider increasing
<br /> . the number of Lane County Housing Authority Board members fxom 5 to 7, thereby
<br /> ~improving resource background while maintaining the needed geographical representa-
<br /> ti on on the Board. The Committee reported that it felt it would not be appropriate
<br />e for the Council to make recommendations to the County wi th regard to indi vidual
<br /> ,membership of the Board or the number of consecutive terms for a Board member.
<br /> Comm
<br /> Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mr. Williams to accept the Committee report. Motion 11/29/72
<br /> ~,carried unanimously. Approve
<br /> -- ~- .... ..- -.--,_. --.-. .".-- -~..._~
<br /> E. Urban Renewal Downtown Project - Councilmen Mohr and Williams distributed to Council
<br /> members copies of a memo in which they asked consideration of questions to be for-
<br /> warded to the Eugene Renewal Agency for reply. Mr. Mohr corrected the $19 million
<br /> figure referred to in the first paragraph of the memo to $29 million. He said that
<br /> figure has now risen to $31 million from an original estimate of $18 million for
<br /> cost of the project. An explanation was requested of the apparent overrun in com-,
<br /> p1etion costs. Other questions asked were what policies the Council might adopt I
<br /> to prevent this apparent overrun, what is the Council's role with respect to
<br /> policy formulation by the ERA, what will be the effect of the defeat of the
<br /> auditorium bond issue on the overall downtown project cost, what is the line of
<br /> 'appeal from ERA decisions, why do citizens now have only appeal to the courts
<br /> rather than through the Council, and when was this authority granted to the ERA~ !
<br /> Mr. Mohr said the Council holds authority of appointment over members of the ERA
<br /> ,yet it is unique in that it is autonomous in its decisions and policy formulation
<br /> ,other than approval of any urban renewal plan. He asked if the auditorium project
<br /> ~is essential to the total project by viture of its being used as a matching-fund
<br />. ,component, whether it would have to be replaced by another equivalent project.
<br /> ,With regard to the decisions and policy formulation, Mr. Mohr wondered why this
<br /> iboardwou1d be different from any other City board or commission. He asked how
<br /> the authority of the ERA was delegated and what the original instrument of delega-
<br /> tion of that authority was.
<br /> l
<br /> ,
<br /> ~
<br /> ,Mr. Williams wondered in view of the arrrJunt of overrun on the downtown project
<br /> ;whether there was anything the Council would want to make the Department of
<br /> 'Housing and Urban Development aware of in the event of similar occurrences in
<br /> other' cities.
<br /> ,
<br /> Councilman Teague expressed his interest in having answers to the questions pre- ,
<br /> ,
<br /> sented. Mayor Anderson suggested directing the questions to the Renewal Agency !
<br /> 'with the possibility they could be discussed a~ a joint meeting between the Agency;
<br /> 'and the Council. i
<br /> ,
<br /> Manager for clarification asked if it was the intent to have a written report
<br /> prior to the discussion. Consensus was that it would be desirable. Mayor
<br /> Anderson noted that the Council established the role of the Agency with respect
<br /> :to policy formulation so that Council records should give answers to that question
<br /> unless it is desired that the Agency reply. Manager said he and David Hunt,
<br /> ;,AgenCy dirdctor, would work together in preparing a report.
<br />." Comm
<br /> Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mr. Williams to forward the questions presented to 12/6/72
<br /> the E~9:~ne, R~a~, Ager:c.'l_f..?!._!!!..sko!},se. ,__Mot_L,?l}E!i_r~€!.~_!:!I!~,nimous1y. -"-.-~.~ - .---....\ Approve
<br />- ... .. . .- .-- -.~. -----, - - . - ~ ~._-~....
<br /> F. jReport, Room Tax Allocation - Copies of the report were previously distributed to
<br /> lCounci1 members. The report was read. A summary of the current financial status,
<br /> ;of the Room Tax Fund shows estimated amount available $l49,947.03. The Committee
<br /> recommends the following allocations:
<br /> l..-......__ ___._ ---.-,.- -- -- . ~
<br /> 3~o 12/11/72 - 7
<br />
|