pages: CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-06-24 | 10 | redevelopment funds; inquired whether AUSD might not see any of the money because the money could go to other school districts; further inquired whether the City's redevelopment funds going to the State and the School District's financial issues have no correlation. Mr. Doezema responded that the $4.6 million paid into the ERAF can be spent anywhere in California. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether redevelopment areas pay the same tax, to which Mr. Doezema responded in the affirmative. Commissioner deHaan stated all cities skim off a portion; the revenue is not going into the State's pot. Mr. Doezema stated that he qualifies Commissioner deHaan's comment; the CIC is collecting tax increment generated by the Bayport project; some people would say that the money would not exist if not for the CIC; the CIC funds itself. Commissioner Matarrese stated CIC generated projects keep money local; the State is compelled by the 1970's Serrano vs. Priest decision; the decision was designed so that rich cities would not place poor schools at a disadvantage; the State is compelled to put every California student on a level playing field; the City's redevelopment puts $293,000 into the School District's capital; rich cities that can afford a higher parcel tax have better schools than poor cities. Commissioner Gilmore stated the issue is why the Robles-Wong case is so important; AUSD and other school districts sued California; the State is not living up to the Serrano decision; people say that AUSD has other methods to raise money besides parcel taxes which is not true because the State takes the money; unfortunately, the matter will take years [to correct] because of the how things wind through the legal system. (10-314 CC) Update on Measure P The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City would have lost approximately $1.8 million without Measure P; the City stayed status quo. The Interim City Manager stated approximately $2 million more was picked up in Fiscal Year 2008-2009 than would have been without Measure P. (10-315 CC) Citywide Asset Management Policy The Interim City Manager gave a Power Point presentation; stated the Asset Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Ruse 10 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 24, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf |