pages: CityCouncil/2010-09-25.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-09-25 | 5 | Board Member Jensen inquired whether a Senator or Assembly Member would carry the bill. The Interim City Manager responded the bill would have go through the Assembly first; stated having the bill co-sponsored would be nice. Councilmember Matarrese stated four points have been repeated at subcommittee meetings: 1) money provided should not penalize AUSD and result in a State take away of money; 2) the City should not be held liable for moving the money out of the Redevelopment Agency, either from the State taking redevelopment money or the City being expected to replenish the money; 3) the core mission of the School District is not to provide housing, which is a core mission of the City; and 4) the City should provide unencumbered money to the School District; further stated the crisis is kind of a good thing because action is occurring on items that have been discussed for two years. Mayor Johnson stated the solution is fairly complex. Councilmember L. Tam stated the draft resolution states the economic crisis is being faced because the federal government ceased funding when the Naval Air Station (NAS) closed; Congressman Stark has explained that students left when the NAS closed and funding came with the students; inquired how the School District has been restructured to account for losing said students and funding when the NAS closed; further stated the proposal was to have access to the funding earmarked for housing through sale of surplus property when the matter was reviewed two and a half years ago; then, the funds could be used by the School District in any way without penalties; the concept was that the Housing Authority would use the land to meet affordable housing requirements; inquired whether something changed and said option is no longer acceptable. The Interim City Manager responded the City has looked at the idea of creating transactions whereby the City contracts and the School District gets money; stated the problem is it does not "clean" the money; staff has looked at numerous options, including contracting back with the Housing Authority; the money would still be housing dollars; a joint venture, even with a developer, did not pass according to redevelopment attorneys; the proposed legislation is the fastest, easiest solution; the legislature should look favorably on the matter, which is very unique. The Superintendent stated the problem with the [land sale] idea is that the $3 million [housing set aside] belongs to the School District and the property is owned by the School District; the funds should not come to the District through the sale of School District property. Councilmember Tam inquired what about the NAS funding. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 5 September 25, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-09-25.pdf |