Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> funds, but he felt that the people involved in the process do not need to be <br />e changed. He felt that the council should be very honest and open in discussing <br /> the possibility of removing the neighborhood focus of the City CD program. <br /> Marlene Lasher, 840 West 21st Avenue, represented Womenspace. She said that <br /> Womenspace had received CD funding in the past for $20,000 to make a down <br /> payment on a shelter house, and $6,000 to rehabilitate the structure. She said <br /> that the group relied on future CD funding to provide services and meet its <br /> on-going commitment to the community. She did not see how their program would <br /> fit into any of the proposed options. She urged the council to consider the <br /> needs of groups such as hers. <br /> Mayor Keller closed the public hearing. <br /> Responding to a question from Ms. Wooten, Ms. Hofmann said that the $700,000 to <br /> which Mr. Lannom had referred represented carryover funds for uncompleted <br /> projects dating back as far as 1976. She said that most of these projects were <br /> located in the West University area and had been postponed until the West <br /> University Refinement Plan is adopted. <br /> Ms. Wooten asked how community-based, non-profit organizations such as the <br /> Southwest Oregon Native American Consortium and Womenspace would fit into the <br /> proposed CD program. Ms. Hofmann responded that such groups had in the past <br /> applied for funds as Individually Funded Activities (IFAs). <br /> Ms. Wooten said that terms used in the option chart needed clarification. She <br /> asked for a definition of administration and for information on what sorts of <br />-' activities were proposed under the headings of Economic Development and Job <br /> Creat ion. Ms. Hofmann responded that staff would be making a presentation to <br /> the subcommittee on administration and what it entails. She said that the <br /> subcommittee had proposed several ideas for economic development, such as a <br /> rehabilitation loan fund for businesses, but that no specifics had been agreed <br /> on. Mr. Obie said that the terms "job creation" and "economic development" <br /> might be interchangeable. <br /> Mr. Lindberg urged councilors to discuss general policies to recommend to the <br /> subcommittee for use in that group's development of a three-year plan. He said <br /> that the three-year plan would be a policy document to guide the one-year <br /> planning cycles and did not need to be specific about dollar allocations. <br /> Mr. Obie discussed the progress of the deliberations of the subcommittee. He <br /> felt that Option 5 represented at least an amalgam of the other options, if not <br /> a consensus of the group. Mr. Obie said that Option 5 maintatns the City's <br /> on-going commitment to rehabilitation and to IFAs and NIPs, while at the same <br /> time addressing the prime problem of the community--unemployment. <br /> Mr. Lindberg agreed that Option 5 was the result of much subcommittee discussion <br /> and compromi se. He said that the options were spelled out in part under the <br /> assumption that the City would stand by its commitment to use CD funds to <br /> implement neighborhood refinement plans. He said that Option 5 was not intended <br /> to redistribute the decision-making involved in use of CD funds, but rather to <br /> maintain the basic formula of allocating one-third of the funds through the NIPs <br /> and two-thirds through decisions made by the Community Development Committee. <br />e <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 9, 1981 Page 3 <br />