03/18/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. e e About $136,000 of the West University funding would go for administrative costs. He has difficulty spending half of their money on those types of items with no long-term impact. He does not feel that the people in that area want the money spent that way. He also has a problem with funding for the community center. He would like to hear what the people desire. He does not believe the arguments that have been presented. He is not confident about the soap box concept. He feels the design costs on parks are high and that this is not what the people want. Ms. Miller noted that as the City Council representative to the Community Development Committee, she has noted that the Community Development staff and CDC members share some of Mr. Obie's concerns. They, too, are distressed about the amount of money that goes into administration. However, this is a massive program and there must be some staff. There must be supplies and someone to maintain the records. Not many people can volunteer for 40 hours a week. It is important that the program pay for the administration costs involved in the project rather than having a City department pay for the cost as that would not accurately reflect the true cost. Regarding low-income housing, she said that it is desirable to develop low-income housing in other areas but it does not make sense economically to subsidize it in that manner. She noted that two of the issues addressed in the NIP this year were infilling and higher density. They looked at providing home ownership possibilities while continuing to upgrade without displacing people. It would be desirable for downtown housing to be provided within increased density. She feels that perhaps more funding should be designated for these kinds of projects. Mr. Lindberg said that most people on the advisory group share Mr. Obie's concerns. He feels that if one monitors the comparison between hard- and soft-dollars over the three-year period, the gap becomes less over time. There is no way to determine what the people in the neighborhood want with the exception of going through the neighborhood associations. One possibility of increasing neighborhood participation would be to hire outreach workers and have them locate in a neighborhood center. The ultimate responsibility is with the residents who come before the council and the committee with the projects they desire. The role of the council is not to determine if the project is appropriate but if the projects are legal, if the guidelines have been met, and to see if the projects are community projects with as much reduction in.adminis- trative costs as possible. Mr. Obie noted agreement that administrative expenditures should not be the way to spend these funds. In the Jefferson area, $71,000 of $117,000 were allocated to be spent on administrative costs. He does not feel that that is cost-effective, nor does he feel that that is right. He indicated that he would vote no on the motion. He thinks a larger and larger bureaucratic function has developed and something needs to be done. Mr. Hamel thanked Ms. Lansdowne for appearing to testify and noted that she is the first from the neighborhood who has spoken of dissatisfaction. He personally has been against this program for the past six years and feels there are projects in other neighborhoods that would be more beneficial. He noted that he would vote against the motion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 18, 1981 Page 7