10/29/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

E. Abatement, 362-364 East 13th Avenue- Owned by Joint Ventures, Inc. Recommended by building department after unsuccessful attempts to achieve complete demolition by the property owner. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to call public hearing Comm - on the abatement, the Council to view the proper.ty on tour prior 10/9/74 to the hear.ing date. Motion carried unanimously. Approve F. Community Development Act - Planning Director explained purpose of the Act with a slide presentation and noted specific objectives of the Act in providing community development block grant funds. Copies of the narrative presentation were distributed to those present and included copies of a letter received by the Mayor from HUD area office with regard to the potential low level of funds the city of Eugene could expect under the Act. Also included were copies of graphs by which anticipated funding for Eugene was explained. Block grants under the new law would be based on allocations made during the period 1968 through 197?, The major portion of Eugene's allocations were prior to 1968 (for the central business district renewal'program), leaving a relatively small allocation during the 1968/1972 period from the neighborhood renewal project in the Bethel area on which to base community development grants. Mr. Porter said that about $400,000 definitely would be allocated to Eugene during the first year of the new program, but that an application for $2.265 million per year would be sub- mitted, the amount Eugene would have received based on amounts allocated prior to the base period (1968/1972) . Mr. Porter said that citizen participation was required in submitting applications (required annually) and in developing programs for housing assistance, transportation, e' '. -' etc. Staff proposal for this required citizen participation was creation of a com- munity development task force comprising two members each to be appointed by the City,Council, the Renewal Agency, the Planning Commission, and neighborhood groups, and one member each to be appointed by the Joint Housing Committee and the Lane Housing Authority. It was suggested that administration of the program should be through the eity.Manager's office with planning department as co-ordinator for development of the first year's application, to be submitted no later than April 15, 1975. A graph was displayed delineating the procedure and time schedule suggested for work of the task force to proceed, review process, and how elements of the application would be worked out simultaneously by various groups to bemvolved. Another chart was shown comparing the grant amounts the city could be sure of receiving with the amounts the task force would be working to obtain. Mayor Anderson commented on the great amount of time spent by staff in contact with Congressional delegates and working through the National League of Cities in an un- successful effort to effect a change in the legislation to permit Eugene to receive its fair share under the "hold harmless" clause. Mrs. Niven noted that although this Act included housing assistance requirement, funding was from different sources and not provided under these provisions. Mr. Porter added that a key element of the Act would be the local level_revie~ of all future subsidized housing units to ensure that e programs take into account the city's housing assistance plan. Councilman Murray asked what staffing assistance would be available to the task force. He was particularly interested:' in.-the -relationship between ERA and planning staffs in the work. Mr. Porter explained that ERA activities would continue on its present , , basis but under different funding. He added that the city's comprehensive planning staff efforts would be redirected to make sure that work goes forward on the community development block grant application. That would involve changing the neighborhood analysis work program now in progress. He hoped the planning office would be designated to co-ordinate work of the various groups involved in the community development block grant application. Councilman Murray wpndered to what degree the neighborhood an~lyses would satisfy , some of the block grant application requirements. Mr. Porter answered that the hous- ing dispersal plan, housing inventory, and neighborhood analyses would answer many of the z'equirements. He anticipated the first year's program to be quite flexible, recognizing that a detailed renewal process could not be prepared by the April 15 application deadline. Howard Bonnett, planning commission chairman, wondered why the proposed task force did not have representation from the Joint Parks Committee, Lane Transit District, or other public groups which might be involved in overall community development. Mr. Porter . \ answered that representation from the Joint Housing Committee was proposed because it. was felt the housing assistance plan requirement would be the most difficult to prepare. With regard to the other agencies mentioned, Mr. Porter said they probably would be drawn in at some time during the process by the task force itself because of the re- quirement for citizen participation in preparing any development program. Mrs. Niven added that any community development program would involve housing as a key element. She noted that the requirement for review at the local level was included to make sure that grant funds would not be used for public services which could be funded through other sources. 3~,=, 10/29/74 - 8