09/29/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

much money for other administrative costs. Ms. Schue asked if 20 percent is allowed by HUD. Ms. Hofmann responded that it is but they pay what is eligible e for public services and whatever is left must also be part of that 20 percent. Ms. Schue asked if there had been difficulties. Ms. Hofmann responded that any potential problems were averted. Ms. Schue noted that there has been a lack of ability to fund projects that are considered important. Mr. Obie stated that he would like to add a sixth item to the list: economic diversification, as it relates to Mr. McCoy's presentation tonight. He would like more public input and would like the public to know that the council is open to their ideas. Ms. Smith stated that the staff recommendation would be for tonight's ideas to be submitted with others at other opportunities for public input. She would suggest supporting a staff recommendation and have staff work with the Community Development Subcommittee and come back October 26, 1981 to the council. She would like a staff response to the ideas presented. Mr. Lindberg stated that the block grant program is aimed at low- and moderate- income people. Many issues are very complex and deserve discussion beyond Community Development Block Grant funding. He would support reincarnation of the community development subcommittee. He would hope the neighborhood groups could be included. He feels that staff should appeal to HUD to examine the budget so they can spend administrative moneys wisely. Eliminating adminis- trative costs in the neighborhood areas would not necessarily be cost-beneficial. Those kinds of programs are flexible and vulnerable, though staff should look at e NIP's and IFA's to develop ways in which to avoid situations where dollars are going into something that will be cut off. There should be a transition method. He agrees there should be simpler and fewer projects. It could be dangerous to end projects when others are needed, such as downtown renewal. Oversimplicity and cost cutting can be foolish. This is a complex problem and he is glad the council will be fully involved. He asked if the deadline of November 9 is too soon or if it could be extended. Ms. Hofmann responded that the deadline was set to give groups time to get their proposals in for the first year. Mr. Lind- 'berg asked if it is possible to overlap deadlines for better integration. Ms. Hofmann responded that this could be discussed at the Community Development meeting. Ms. Miller stated that she is distressed over the extent to which peoples' hard work is being thrown out or modified. Legitimate needs may be ignored such as displacement and crime prevention. Most volunteer groups need staff. She gave an example of the City Council and City staff. The suggestion for making staff more accountable could be a helpful one. The staffing situation bears looking into. This is a Federally funded program with an administration that is hos- tile to handing out money for local programs. Block grant programs and social service programs will likely be cut back even more than they have been. The council will do its best but it may look grim for a few years. Ms. Wooten added that the issues and concerns raised by the council and citizens merit e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 29, 1981 Page 6