CC Minutes - 09/24/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

3. Approval of Changes to HOME Investment Partnership Program--Funded Housing Projects Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Meisner had changes to the minutes, and pulled Item 1. Ms. Nathanson pulled Item 3. Ms. Bettman asked that the reference to "State funds" in paragraph 10 on page 6 of the July 25 minutes be changed to "DLCD [Department of Land Conservation and Development] funds." Ms. Bettman asked that the second sentence in paragraph 5 on page 7 of the August 12 minutes be changed to read: "She commented that in our attempts to balance development and the environment, the environment never wins." Mr. Meisner noted he was incorrectly reflected as present at the July 25 work session in the minutes. Regarding the minutes of the August 22, 2001, work session, Mr. Kelly requested that the next to- last paragraph on page 2 be revised to read (struck text deleted, italicized text added): "Mr. Kelly o~m,,~l'-~,~,~ -,, ~ ~'v ';".~" said it made sense to have. .. "He also asked that the phrase "ballot explanation" be changed to "ballot question" in the motion reflected in paragraph 7 on page 6. Mr. Kelly noted that the reference to Ballot Measure 20-53 on page 10 of the minutes should actually refer to Ballot Measure 20-54. Ms. Taylor determined there were no objections to the suggested corrections. Items 1 and 2 of the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 5:0. Ms. Nathanson determined from Linda Dawson of the Planning and Development Department that the difference between the HOME allocation for the cancelled West 11th Mixed Use Project and the amount transferred to the Aurora Downtown Midrise Project would be returned to the funding pool and available for the next Request for Proposals. Ms. Nathanson further determined that the housing units planned remained at 54. Ms. Nathanson referred to the Sheldon Village Project, and asked if the reduction in units from 85 to 78 meant there would be more open space or if units would be larger. Ms. Dawson clarified that the project sponsors learned that the addition of more open space made the project more competitive for State tax credits. The State process was a highly competitive one. Mr. Kelly added that the project sponsors learned, after the application for tax credits was rejected, one of the factors driving the decision was that the project was too dense. Ms. Nathanson asked if the MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2001 Page 13 Work Session