My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/29/1974 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1974
>
10/29/1974 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2007 10:31:48 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 4:16:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
10/29/1974
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> E. Abatement, 362-364 East 13th Avenue- Owned by Joint Ventures, Inc. Recommended <br /> by building department after unsuccessful attempts to achieve complete demolition <br /> by the property owner. <br /> Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to call public hearing Comm - <br /> on the abatement, the Council to view the proper.ty on tour prior 10/9/74 <br /> to the hear.ing date. Motion carried unanimously. Approve <br /> F. Community Development Act - Planning Director explained purpose of the Act with a <br /> slide presentation and noted specific objectives of the Act in providing community <br /> development block grant funds. Copies of the narrative presentation were distributed <br /> to those present and included copies of a letter received by the Mayor from HUD area <br /> office with regard to the potential low level of funds the city of Eugene could expect <br /> under the Act. Also included were copies of graphs by which anticipated funding for <br /> Eugene was explained. Block grants under the new law would be based on allocations <br /> made during the period 1968 through 197?, The major portion of Eugene's allocations <br /> were prior to 1968 (for the central business district renewal'program), leaving a <br /> relatively small allocation during the 1968/1972 period from the neighborhood renewal <br /> project in the Bethel area on which to base community development grants. Mr. Porter <br /> said that about $400,000 definitely would be allocated to Eugene during the first year <br /> of the new program, but that an application for $2.265 million per year would be sub- <br /> mitted, the amount Eugene would have received based on amounts allocated prior to the <br /> base period (1968/1972) . <br /> Mr. Porter said that citizen participation was required in submitting applications <br /> (required annually) and in developing programs for housing assistance, transportation, e' <br /> '. -' <br /> etc. Staff proposal for this required citizen participation was creation of a com- <br /> munity development task force comprising two members each to be appointed by the <br /> City,Council, the Renewal Agency, the Planning Commission, and neighborhood groups, <br /> and one member each to be appointed by the Joint Housing Committee and the Lane Housing <br /> Authority. It was suggested that administration of the program should be through the <br /> eity.Manager's office with planning department as co-ordinator for development of the <br /> first year's application, to be submitted no later than April 15, 1975. A graph was <br /> displayed delineating the procedure and time schedule suggested for work of the task <br /> force to proceed, review process, and how elements of the application would be worked <br /> out simultaneously by various groups to bemvolved. Another chart was shown comparing <br /> the grant amounts the city could be sure of receiving with the amounts the task force <br /> would be working to obtain. <br /> Mayor Anderson commented on the great amount of time spent by staff in contact with <br /> Congressional delegates and working through the National League of Cities in an un- <br /> successful effort to effect a change in the legislation to permit Eugene to receive <br /> its fair share under the "hold harmless" clause. Mrs. Niven noted that although this <br /> Act included housing assistance requirement, funding was from different sources and <br /> not provided under these provisions. Mr. Porter added that a key element of the Act <br /> would be the local level_revie~ of all future subsidized housing units to ensure that e <br /> programs take into account the city's housing assistance plan. <br /> Councilman Murray asked what staffing assistance would be available to the task force. <br /> He was particularly interested:' in.-the -relationship between ERA and planning staffs in <br /> the work. Mr. Porter explained that ERA activities would continue on its present , <br /> , <br /> basis but under different funding. He added that the city's comprehensive planning <br /> staff efforts would be redirected to make sure that work goes forward on the community <br /> development block grant application. That would involve changing the neighborhood <br /> analysis work program now in progress. He hoped the planning office would be designated <br /> to co-ordinate work of the various groups involved in the community development block <br /> grant application. <br /> Councilman Murray wpndered to what degree the neighborhood an~lyses would satisfy , <br /> some of the block grant application requirements. Mr. Porter answered that the hous- <br /> ing dispersal plan, housing inventory, and neighborhood analyses would answer many <br /> of the z'equirements. He anticipated the first year's program to be quite flexible, <br /> recognizing that a detailed renewal process could not be prepared by the April 15 <br /> application deadline. <br /> Howard Bonnett, planning commission chairman, wondered why the proposed task force did <br /> not have representation from the Joint Parks Committee, Lane Transit District, or other <br /> public groups which might be involved in overall community development. Mr. Porter . <br /> \ <br /> answered that representation from the Joint Housing Committee was proposed because it. <br /> was felt the housing assistance plan requirement would be the most difficult to prepare. <br /> With regard to the other agencies mentioned, Mr. Porter said they probably would be <br /> drawn in at some time during the process by the task force itself because of the re- <br /> quirement for citizen participation in preparing any development program. Mrs. Niven <br /> added that any community development program would involve housing as a key element. <br /> She noted that the requirement for review at the local level was included to make sure <br /> that grant funds would not be used for public services which could be funded through <br /> other sources. <br /> 3~,=, 10/29/74 - 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.