pages: CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-01-05 | 4 | Board Member Jensen inquired whether a future tax passed could not be assessed if the assessment reaches 2% at a later development phase. Board Member Mooney inquired whether the cap would not apply to the School District because the School District is not named in the initiative. The Interim City Manager responded the initiative is silent on the issue; stated concluding that the School District is excluded is not known; a tax approved by voters after the homes are sold could go above the cap. Board Member McMahon inquired whether the initiative would supercede the 2000 land transfer Agreement between the City and School District; and whether charter schools are included in the School District's enrollment to qualify for State matching funds; stated charter schools are public facilities; adding together the numbers [of School District and charter school students] may have increasing enrollment; inquired what impact school opening times have on traffic models; questioned whether changing the school opening time could help mitigate traffic; further questioned the impact of staggering school start times on the City's gateways. The Public Works Director stated staff could review whether the idea could be modeled. Board Member McMahon stated his questions could all be answered at a later date. The School District Chief Financial Officer stated only students in the District could be claimed for State matching funds. Board Member McMahon stated the District has 10,000 students, including 800 students attending charter schools; inquired whether the State match applies to Alameda residents attending charter schools, to which the School District Chief Financial Officer responded in the affirmative. The Public Works Director stated changing school start times would not change gateway impacts because trips are internal. Board Member McMahon and Councilmember Matarrese provided examples of traffic increasing when school is in session and decreasing when on break. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the $65 million needed for schools is included in the City's shortfall estimates, to which the Interim City Manager responded the $371 million does not include schools. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City has a 25% inclusionary housing requirement; the initiative limits the amount to 15%; inquired whether the difference is included in calculations. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 4 Board of Education January 5, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf |