pages: CityCouncil/2011-05-03.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2011-05-03 | 7 | agencies undertake a range of activities that are eligible for CSBG funding. Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the CSBG funding cycle is the same as CDBG, to which the Housing Development and Programs Manager responded that she does not know. Mayor Gilmore stated staff needs to trace where ACAP funding is going now that it is not going to ACAP and see how funding gets parceled out. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether ACAP would be dissolved, to which the Acting City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Johnson stated staff needs to find out whether CSBG funding can come directly to the City once the ACAP Joint Powers Authority dissolves. Councilmember Tam stated poverty and income levels are the issues. Councilmember Johnson stated the City should get some proportionate share. Mayor Gilmore stated mechanisms and funds need to be traced to see how the City can receive some of the funds. The Housing Development and Programs Manager stated that she would report back to Council. Mayor Gilmore stated staff needs to trace funds while ACAP still exists and find out what will happen once ACAP ceases to exist. The Acting City Manager stated staff would discuss the matter. Vice Mayor Bonta stated the SSHRB has been very important in guarding the safety net and ensuring that Council is informed regarding the status of services; the SSHRB brainstorms and thinks about different ways to continue to serve vulnerable people in the community. Mayor Gilmore stated in tough economic times, there is a tendency to look inward but it should be the time to look outward for ways to partner with other cities and organizations. In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Housing Development and Programs Manager stated redevelopment law requires that 15% of all new housing be affordable for low and moderate income people; the State's 15% requirement would go away if redevelopment law goes away; the City has a 15% inclusionary requirement outside redevelopment project areas; the City might not have the affordable housing resources to address the legality of an inclusionary requirement for ownership housing. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 May 3, 2011 | CityCouncil/2011-05-03.pdf |