2012-01-17 Joint CC CIC Minutes
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- -JANUARY 17, 2012- -7:01 P.M.
Acting Mayor/Chair Bonta convened the meeting at 7:21 p.m.
ROLL CALL – Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Johnson,
Tam and Acting Mayor/Chair Bonta – 4.
Absent: Mayor/Chair Gilmore – 1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
MINUTES
(*12-001 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority and CIC Meeting Held on December 6, 2011; and the Joint
City Council and CIC Meeting Held on December 20, 2011. Approved.
Commissioner Tam moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote –
4. [Absent: Chair Gilmore – 1.]
AGENDA ITEM
(12-002 CIC) Resolution No. 12-185, “Adopting an Amended Enforceable Obligation
Payment Schedule Pursuant to Section 34169(g) of the California Health and Safety
Code.” Adopted.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner deHaan stated other cities are going through the same situation.
The Executive Director stated an Alameda County City Manager’s meeting is scheduled
for tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. to discuss steps other cities are taking.
Acting Chair Bonta inquired whether some cities have opted out of being a successor
agency.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager responded Los Angeles is the only
city that she is aware of.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Community
Improvement Commission 1
January 17, 2012
Jerry Ramiza, Burke, Williams and Sorsensen, LLP, stated fifteen cities statewide have
opted out of being a successor agency; Los Angeles is the largest and most note
worthy; the other cities did not have an active redevelopment program.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager noted fifteen out of 400 cities opted
not to be a successor agency.
Mr. Ramiza stated a few more cities have opted out of the housing functions; said cities
did not have cash housing assets available to distribute to the community.
Commissioner Johnson inquired whether a list of obligations would need to be
submitted every six months, to which the Housing Development and Programs Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Ramiza stated third party obligations would be discussed with the Oversight Board;
the Oversight Board would have the ability to allow a successor agency to enter into
new agreements or amend existing agreements.
In response to Commissioner Tam’s inquiry, the Housing Development and Programs
Manager stated the School District receives 40% of the City’s 20% Business and
Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) funds; the School District has yet to spend any
of the money for affordable housing; approximately $4 million has been set aside.
Commissioner Tam stated having the School District engage in a partnership with the
Housing Authority to fulfill the obligation would be preferable; in the past, the City has
discussed how it could help with legislation to provide the School District with some
flexibility so that it does not have to build affordable housing; inquired whether the
School District would lose the funding if the City does not become successor agency.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager responded the Oversight Board
could sweep the money for distribution to tax entities.
The Executive Director stated staff has talked to the School District regarding the issue;
current legislation does not let anyone off the hook for affordable housing obligations;
the School District wants to find a way to access the money but does not want to be a
housing developer.
In response to Commissioner deHaan’s inquiry, the Housing Development and
Programs Manager stated adopting the amended Enforceable Obligation Payment
Schedule (EOPS) by January 31st is recommended.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether everything has been scrubbed and captured,
to which the Housing Development and Programs Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Community
Improvement Commission 2
January 17, 2012
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
Improvement Commission 3
January 17, 2012
the Housing Development and Programs Manager responded the School District
housing fund is in 204.1.
Commissioner Bonta inquired how much is in fund, to which the Housing Development
and Programs Manager responded approximately $4 million.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager stated the funds would go into the
Auditor-Controller’s new Redevelopment Trust Fund if the Oversight Board found that
the obligation would not be enforceable; funds would be distributed in the following
order: 1) pass through agreements; 2) bond obligations; 3) enforceable obligations; and
4) successor agency administrative costs; anything left would be distributed to tax
entities.
Commissioner Tam moved adoption of the resolution with authorization for the
Executive Director to add additional enforceable obligation payments to the schedule
prior to January 31st.
The City Attorney stated the following would be added to Section 1: “The Community
Improvement Commission further delegates authority to the Executive Director to
amend Exhibit A as necessary to add any additional enforceable obligations discovered
subsequent to the effective date of this resolution and to correct any clerical error that
may be necessary”.
In response to Commissioner Bonta’s inquiry, the Executive Director stated January 31st
would not be included in the resolution in case the date changes.
Commissioner Tam moved adoption of the resolution with additional language as
outlined by the City Attorney.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the Executive Director stated the Chief Operating Officer was on a
call with cities that have similar base reuse issues; the cities are working together to get
a seat at the table when changes come down to ensure that the former Naval Air
Station has a separate financing mechanism.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote – 4. [Absent:
Chair Gilmore – 1.]
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(12-029 CC) Consideration of Mayor’s Nominations for Appointment to the Planning
Board.
Acting Mayor Bonta announced Mayor Gilmore’s nominations to the Planning Board are
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Community
Improvement Commission 4
January 17, 2012
John Knox White and Kristoffer Köster.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Acting Mayor/Chair Bonta adjourned the meeting at
7:59 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Community
Improvement Commission 5
January 17, 2012