pages: CityCouncil/2010-09-25.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-09-25 | 7 | The City Attorney stated the money set aside [for the District] pursuant to the tax sharing agreement could not have been accessed by the Guyton plaintiffs because the amount is for school uses; the City's ability to spend all of the 20% money for housing would increase if the [tax sharing] agreement can be amended so that the School District does not receive part of the 20% funds. President Mooney requested District staff to ensure that the [Guyton Settlement] Agreement referenced by Mr. Smith is not an issue for the School District. The District Legal Counsel stated the District is not a party to the litigation. Mayor Johnson stated the School District had an interest in building affordable housing for teachers in the past; however, it is not practical or possible anymore. Board Member Spencer addressed the agreements being referenced; stated both agreements should have been attached to the staff report for the public; requested the information be provided as soon as possible. Board Member McMahon acknowledged Mr. Howard for his work; stated in addition to the housing fund, the School District has already received $1 million in capital funds as a result of Mr. Howard's pursuit. Board Member Jensen inquired whether the legislation would be a precedent or if other districts have done something similar. The City Attorney responded the legislation is probably unique because the tax sharing agreement is unique; however, there is lots of precedent for getting special legislation to cure unique agency problems. Board Member Jensen inquired whether the District would have received funds if the agreement had not been executed. The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the District would have been a tax sharing entity of the 80% redevelopment money; that she wants language included to make it clear that the State cannot use the funds to subsidize its obligation; statutes need to be referenced. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether redevelopment money that goes to the School reduces the amount that comes from the State, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. The School Board addressed the matter. Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 7 September 25, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-09-25.pdf |