pages: CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-06-24 | 7 | Mr. Doezema responded in the affirmative; stated the money is really going to the State; the $7.4 million represents the different State takes over the last ten years through Fiscal Year 2009-2010 not Fiscal Year 2010-2011; $4.6 was taken in Fiscal Year 2009- 2010; the $7.4 million includes takes for Fiscal Years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004- 2005, 2005-2006; $4.6 million represents almost thirty percent of the City's redevelopment money. Chair Johnson stated the money goes to schools and reduces the State's liability to schools; the schools are no better off. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether schools are any worse off. Mr. Doezema responded in the negative; stated the matter is a budget solution for the State only; continued the presentation. Commissioner Tam inquired whether pass through funds do not occur until tax increment is produced, to which Mr. Doezema responded in the affirmative; continued the presentation. Commissioner deHaan inquired when pass throughs started, to which Mr. Doezema responded fiscal year 2005-2006. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Agreement could have been modified. Mr. Doezema responded the payment requirement is dictated by a statutory formula in California redevelopment law. The Economic Development Director stated the Agreement is not with the West End Community Improvement Project (WECIP), but with BWIP. Mr. Doezema continued the presentation. Chair Johnson inquired whether the 2009-2010 decline is due to reassessments. Mr. Doezema responded the decline represents downward adjustments from assessed home values due to the decline in the market; stated the major factor is that one-time revenues were received in Fiscal Year 2008-2009 that did not happen again in Fiscal Year 2009-2010; continued the presentation. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the fiscal year 2009-2010 Alameda Point Improvement Project (APIP) negative tax increment is accounted for in balancing the budget for the redevelopment area and is not coming from the General Fund. Mr. Doezema responded in the affirmative; stated the negative tax increment was paid Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Ruse 7 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 24, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf |