Loading...
2006-09-05 Special CIC MinutesMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- -SEPTEMBER 5, 2006- -7:27 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:50 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson – 5. Absent: None. MINUTES (06-050) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting held on July 26, 2006; the Special Joint City Council, ARRA, CIC and HABOC Meeting held on August 2, 2006; and the Special CIC Meeting held on August 24, 2006. Approved. Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote – 5. AGENDA ITEMS (06-051) Recommendation to consider Appeal of Determination that applicants are not eligible to purchase a below market rate home at Bayport. The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether income is verified immediately when applications are submitted, to which the Development Services Manager responded income is verified at a later time. The Development Services Director continued the presentation. Commissioner Gilmore inquired how many income tax years are verified. The Development Services Director responded that Alameda Development Corporation (ADC) did the preliminary background work; stated ADC received three years of income tax information prior to 2005; 2005 income tax information was not available; ADC received incomplete information because only pay stubs were received; income tax information was not received showing all income sources for the entire household; ADC found outside employment from the Peralta Community College District; only the primary employment source was Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission September 5, 2006 1 provided. Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the disputed overtime is from the primary job, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Daysog stated that both the Rutledge and CIC figures show approximately $2,900 for the Peralta College salary; inquired whether the $2,900 is the actual dollar amount. The Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated W-2’s have not been received from the Peralta Community College District; $2,900 is an estimate. Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the $2,900 estimate is for actual teaching time, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. In response to Commissioner Daysog’s inquiry regarding the income threshold for a family of four, the Housing Development Manager stated the income threshold is $83,800. Chair Johnson inquired whether other information was incomplete in the application package. The Housing Development Manager responded ADC believed sufficient information was available to determine that the Rutledge’s income was over the threshold; the Rutledge’s only provided information regarding the addition of the fifth household member when the City inquired whether the Rutledge’s wished to submit additional information; Peralta Community College District pay stubs, 2005 income tax returns, and W-2’s would be requested if the determination process were starting now. Commissioner Matarrese inquired why the Social Security Administration overtime communication occurred. The Development Services Director responded the Rutledge’s wanted to dispense with any overtime in order to qualify; stated the City requested a letter from the Social Security Administration stating that no overtime would occur; a strong letter was not received; the City determined that overtime could occur. Commissioner deHaan inquired why an evaluation was not made for the first group of applicants, and whether applicants were aware that an evaluation would not be made initially. The Development Services Director responded all applicants are Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission September 5, 2006 2 evaluated; ADC sends a letter stating what is needed from the applicants, such as W-2’s checking account information, etc. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether an applicant’s status is checked and re-evaluated at the end of the process, to which the Development Services Director responded the bank would re-evaluate the status. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the entire process could take six months. The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative; stated the process includes workshops. Commissioner deHaan stated an applicant’s status could change within six months; inquired whether applicants are informed that wages should include overtime. The Development Services Director responded the application requests gross earnings; stated overtime is a calculation of gross earnings. Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting. Proponents (In favor of appeal): M. Daniele Adams, Social Security Administration; Isha Brown, Alameda; Jesusita Rutledge, Appellant; Duane Rutledge, Appellant; Hannah Israel, Appellant’s dependant; and Jon Spangler, Alameda. Opponents (Not in favor of appeal): Belinda Racklin, Alameda Development Corporation. There being no further speakers, Chair Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Chair Johnson stated that she appreciates all speaker comments; the Rutledge’s acted in good faith throughout the application process; rules need to be followed; rules become arbitrary without consistency; overtime rules are applied in court every day; the Rutledge’s were given an opportunity to have the employer [Social Security Administration] provide information stating that overtime would not be allowed; said information was not received. Commissioner Daysog concurred with Chair Johnson; stated the income methodology was fair; ADC’s and City staff’s job is to find information; the Rutledge’s income exceeds the maximum threshold for a family of four; the City needs to be fair to other families going through the process; urged the Rutledge’s to stick with the Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission September 5, 2006 3 City throughout the next building phases. Commissioner Gilmore stated applicants are required to provide information on any status change, which includes a change in the family size; the Social Security Administration letter was not as clear as the testimony tonight; she would have no problem dismissing the $4,000 in overtime if a person in authority provided a letter stating that no overtime would be allowed; the Peralta College income is more problematic; documentation would need to be provided from the College. Commissioner deHaan stated past trends indicate that Mr. Rutledge would teach this year; the evaluation period is important to keep in mind; he is not happy with the prior procedure; the application clearly indicates what the income should include. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether qualification was based on the 2006 income. The Development Services Director responded verification was to be provided to the ADC by December; twelve-month income was then projected. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether a twelve-month window was projected from the time of the application. The Development Services Director responded in the negative; earnings are projected forward twelve months after the application is complete and an earning pattern is reviewed. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether January 2006 to December 2006 income was used for evaluation purposes. The Development Services Director responded income was to cover March 2006 to March 2007. Commissioner Matarrese stated income projection should be tighter since it is now September; an accurate income could be projected if the Social Security Administration certified that no overtime would occur and the Peralta Community College District certified that Mr. Rutledge is on sabbatical; figures could be reviewed to see if the income falls within the window. Commissioner Daysog stated 300 affordable homes would be built at Alameda Point west of Main Street; the precedent should be to work with a process that is fair. Commissioner Gilmore stated documented changes are important; a Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission September 5, 2006 4 paper trail is needed for the file. Commissioner Daysog stated the Rutledge’s had ample time to provide documentation. Chair Johnson stated the Rutledge’s could continue to find ways to change circumstances in order to qualify. The Development Services Director stated the policy would need to be changed if applicants were allowed to change working status to become eligible. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether another home selection would occur, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner deHaan inquired when validation would be initiated for the next draw. The Development Services Director responded as soon as the placement is complete for the current homes. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the application process allows applicants to provide evidence of a change in status during the evaluation period, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Matarrese stated individuals have no control over furloughs and overtime cuts; the current process is valid and allows people to appeal; verification is missing from the Social Security Administration and Peralta Community College District. Commissioner Gilmore stated the overtime calculation was used to disqualify the Rutledge’s; now opportunities are not available to make half of the excess income. Commissioner Daysog stated the Rutledge’s would be eligible for the next housing program because the application would be different based upon adding a fifth person to the household. Chair Johnson stated allowing individuals to continually change information on the application is unfair to other applicants; applicants could tailor information to meet the qualifications. The Development Services Director stated the Rutledge’s income was reviewed for a five-member family and the income was still slightly above the threshold. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission September 5, 2006 5 Legal Counsel stated the overtime issue is relevant and the testimony is very good for the record; the past standard allowed a written letter from someone in authority stating there would be no overtime; an applicant taking a sabbatical has never been accepted in order to disallow income; she is not sure whether a sabbatical would resolve the issue. Chair Johnson stated taking a sabbatical would be a voluntary act. Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the snapshot covers the period from March 2006 to March 2007, to which the Development Services Director responded the snapshot covers a projection moving forward to March 2007. Commissioner Gilmore stated January 2006 through March 2006 was used to project the Peralta College income. Chair Johnson clarified that January 2006 through March 2006 was used to project the Peralta College income from March 2006 to March 2007; inquired whether fall and winter Peralta College income was not assumed. The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative; stated Mr. Rutledge would be obligated to advise the City if he were going to teach. Commissioner Daysog stated Mr. Rutledge had every expectation to teach if enough students enrolled; reasonable assumptions were made from the best available information. Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation. Chair Johnson seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner deHaan inquired when the evaluation period for the next phase of houses would take place, to which the Development Services Director responded the evaluation is going on now. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Rutledge’s could be placed in the next evaluation process. Chair Johnson responded other applicants have been disqualified and have not been put back into the process. On the call for the question, THE MOTION FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioner Daysog and Chair Johnson – 2. Noes: Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, and Matarrese – 3. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission September 5, 2006 6 Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of allowing the Rutledge’s to attempt to provide documentation regarding Social Security employment status and to have staff perform an evaluation based upon projected income from March 2006 to March 2007 to determine whether or not the Rutledge’s fit into the income category for a five-person household. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the Social Security Administration income would be frozen if there were no more overtime. Commissioner Gilmore responded the income would be for overtime earned up until September 30, 2006; overtime would be zero from October 1 though March if the [Social Security Administration] letter were submitted. Chair Johnson inquired what happens if a letter is not received, to which Commissioner Gilmore responded the Rutledge’s would not qualify. Commissioner deHaan requested a caveat be added to the motion requesting documentation on the added dependent; inquired whether the documentation is on record and validated. The Housing Development Manager responded the dependent has been accepted. Commissioner deHaan stated that he wants the dependent validated and the Social Security [letter regarding overtime] validated by the [Social Security] Finance Director. Commissioner Gilmore suggested that the requirement be that the letter comes from someone in authority. Mayor Johnson suggested that the language state “the appropriate person” and staff could get the information from said appropriate person. Legal Counsel stated real information is being requested; Peralta College income needs to be counted for the fall and into 2007; staff does not have said information. Chair Johnson requested that the motion include that the Rutledge’s provide all necessary documentation to provide staff with actual information. Commissioner deHaan requested a caveat be added into the motion Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission September 5, 2006 7 that all pay increases be projected also. The Development Services Director requested a timeframe for the applicant to submit the information. Chair Johnson stated three weeks is a generous amount of time. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion. The Executive Director requested clarification about the request for verification of the dependent; stated staff accepted the dependent as a family member. Chair Johnson stated whatever is acceptable to the Internal Revenue Service. The Development Services Director stated that the fifth member does not have to be a dependent and only has to be part of the family unit. Commissioner Matarrese restated the motion is that the Rutledge’s are required to provide a letter from the appropriate authority at the Social Security Office stating that there would be no overtime from October 1, 2006 through the end of March 2007; that all reportable income from Peralta College and any other source be factored in; and all documentation needs to be submitted by September 30, 2006. Commissioner Gilmore stated Commissioner deHaan requested that motion include salary increases be projected forward if trainee status changes and there is an increase. Commissioner deHaan requested that the motion be modified to require the Social Security Administration to provide its overtime policy and [overtime] percentage projection. Chair Johnson stated there needs to be a statement that there is or is not [overtime] income. Commissioner Matarrese stated the motion includes receiving a letter indicating that there would be no overtime. The Executive Director clarified that the process was to resolve the appeal, not to set a precedent for future evaluations. Commissioner Matarrese stated a process is not being established; information is being gathered to adjudicate the appeal. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission September 5, 2006 8 Commissioner Daysog stated the Rutledge’s were given ample time to make the best and strongest case possible and failed to do so; the CIC is opening a can of worms; other applicants could get letters from non-decision makers; encouraged Commissioners to reconsider and approve the staff recommendation. Commissioner Gilmore stated the appeal would be denied if the Rutledge’s do not provide documentation from a person in authority at the Social Security Administration. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson – 4. Noes: Commissioner Daysog – 1. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 10:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission September 5, 2006 9