03/08/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

up tenants of the building. Although taking away the parking space wouldn't bother those using the bus system, he said, it would be an inconvenience for others. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to deny the appeal and uphold staff decision for location of a bus stop at the southeast corner of 16th and Olive. Motion carried - all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Hamel voting no. . F. HCDC Grant Application - Community Development Plan Summary, Program, Budget I-A-4 - . Review of HCDC Recommendations and Approval of 1976-77 Community Development Act Application Council has received official report, summary of projects and copy of application s ubmi tted to HUD. Bob Thomas, Eugene Renewal Agency, said that official Council action would be required at the March 8 Council meeting to meet a March 15 mailing deadline. TWo public hearings are necessary; one of them has been held already, on January 14. Mr. Thomas explained that neighborhood organizations had earlier received information on capital improvements to be financed by the City and roost neighborhoods responded with written proposals for the expenditure of funds. Those proposals were then subsequently reviewed, along with comments of otheF city departIQSnts, and a first d.rC!-_ft was then reviewed in meetings of the Housing and Community Development Commission. John Mills-Erickson, ERA, summarized the application as distributed to Council. The entitlement grant is for $674,000 and the inequities grant is for $336,000, for a total of $1,010,000. Mr. Murray noted that one feature of a second-year application is that it is in large measure an extension of the first-year application. The field has not been reversed, he said, to maximize what everyone recognizes as insufficient funding of the program. - Mr. Haws raised a question about the Active Bethel Citizens proposal being :sl1.ghtly different than the original proposal. Mr. Murray explained that the Active Bethel Citizens had had a misunderstanding as to the total sum and they made a request based on certain percentages for certain areas. The amount . available to them was less than they had anticipated and the Active Bethel Citizens felt the parks allocation (a high priority) might be insufficient. Mr. Murray suggested review of the matter at the HCDC meeting, with a response back to Council by March 8. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to set a public hearing for March 8, and conditionally approve the application pending outcome the hearing. Motion carried unanimoUSly. Comm 3/3/76 Pub Hrng of Councilman Murray noted one minor change in the application - transferring $6,000 from housing rehabilitation to open space and parks in the Bethel area. He said this was the second-year application, which really was an extension of the first- year application, by which the Commission hoped to accomplish many long-standing community goals. The primary effort again was directed toward housing rehabilita- tion with the "lion's share" allocated to areas where needs were greatest, essentially the central city. Second priority was given open space and parks in a number of projects throughout the city. Mr. Murray explained that the public process in completing the application was followed - public hearings, survey of community through neighborhood groups, consideration of data available to the Commission, etc. . ~..../ I~'. 3/8/76 - 6