pages: CityCouncil/2012-01-17.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2012-01-17 | 6 | Commissioner Bonta inquired whether a potential bill would allow an extension and EOPS could be amended or whether the City would be tied into what is outlined now. Mr. Ramiza responded that he is not sure; stated he is not optimistic that an extension bill would pass; the legislator is considering extending the February 1st dissolution date to April 15th; the EOPS could be amended if other obligations are found. Commissioner Johnson inquired whether property in the Northern Waterfront Project that is suppose to go to the School District and property at the former Naval Base should be included; further inquired whether the proposed resolution could be adopted tonight and obligations found after tonight's meeting could be added before the end of the month. The Housing Development and Programs Manager responded neither property has enforceable obligations; obligations could be added. Mr. Ramirza stated the City is party to the Mastick Agreement, not the Community Improvement Commission (CIC). The Executive Director stated said property is not Redevelopment Agency related; the termination of redevelopment would not impact the City's contractual obligations. In response to Commissioner Johnson's inquiry, the Housing Development and Programs Manager stated there would be an enforceable obligation if the CIC had an obligation to contribute funding to build a school facility at the Base; the Mastick Settlement Agreement does not deal with a funding obligation: the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency (ARRA) has an obligation to provide land for the School District. Discussed the School District housing funds: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda. Proponent: Jon Spangler, Alameda. Commissioner Tam requested clarification on Ms. Lipow's comments regarding School District funding. The Housing Development and Programs Manager stated the affordable housing fund balance would be swept along with the non-affordable housing fund balance and used pursuant to the law if the urgency legislation that is making its way through the Senate is not approved; the School District fully intends to have affordable housing for district employees; the School District has job classifications that qualify for affordable housing; the classifications might not be filled currently; the money cannot be spent for anything other than affordable housing. The Executive Director inquired whether the money is in a separate account, to which Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community 3 Improvement Commission January 17, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-01-17.pdf |