11/09/1981 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Schue was concerned that the options shown on the chart did not include funds which in the past had been used by the Joint Housing Committee (JHC) for a e landbanking program. She said that such funds had been used very successfully to provide low-income housing. The funds are recycled, and therefore continue to be used in the community. She said that funds for historic preservation also seemed to have been left out of the options. Ms. Schue said that she recognized that job creation and retention was important, but she felt that the housing rehabilitation and low-income housing construction programs had been creating jobs. Mr. Obie said that funds for job maintenance could be used to create a loan fund to help ailing small businesses through the economic slump and could then be recycled in more traditional CD programs when the economy picks up. Ms. Wooten said that she needed more specifics on how CD funds would be used in programs of economic development or job creation. Mr. Obie pointed out that the funds under consideration were for fiscal year 1982-83, and therefore imple- mentation of the proposals was a long way off. Mr. Lindberg asked staff to generate information on the ways in which CD funds have created and maintained jobs in the past, and their impact on economic development. Mr. Lindberg suggested that the council direct the subcommittee to ask the CDC and the neighborhood groups to document the impact on job creation and maintenance of the projects they propose for future funding. Ms. Miller said she felt the council had reached broad agreement that 1) jobs and job creation are a high priority; and 2) housing rehabilitation and preser- e vation are a high priority. She felt that the council just needed to state this rather than reorganizing the whole CD program. Ms. Miller said she understood that the upcoming changes in Federal regulations for the CDBG program would continue the focus on serving low- and moderate-income people. She felt that the council agreed with the need to maintain this focus. Ms. Miller said that there were many forms which the heading "job creation" could take which would not benefit low- or moderate-income people, and that she felt this concern should be addressed. Ms. Schue agreed that the focus of any funds allocated for job development should be targeted at low- and moderate-income people. She felt that the City should maintain its commitment to neighborhoods involved in the NIP process, but that the form of that commitment could perhaps be changed. She wanted to be sure that IFA pilot projects, groups such as Womenspace, and the landbanking program were not excluded in any future funding scheme. She also urged that the program be flexible enough to accommodate the needs of groups such as the Southwest Oregon Native American Consortium. Ms. Smith suggested that the subcommittee pursue Option 5, taking into considera- tion the concerns which had been expressed by the council. She said that she felt administrative costs of the program were a major concern of the council and that efforts should be made to have CD funds go as much as possible into program costs and needs, not into administration.. Ms. Wooten said that the council needed information from the subcommittee and staff on whether there is more impact for the City in funding a few large e projects or a number of smaller ones. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 9, 1981 Page 4