Loading...
1999-10-06 Special ARRA JT CC MinutesAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Wednesday, October 6, 1999 The meeting convened at 6:05 pm with Chair Appezzato presiding. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There were no speakers on this item. ROLL CALL AGENDA ITEM 3 -A 1. Recommendation to approve Memorandum of Understanding by and among Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda, the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, the City of Alameda, the County of Alameda and Point Collaborative for disposition of 125 Barracks Units and 97 Family Housing Units at Alameda Point. Discussion Member Daysog expressed today is a day that was a long time in the making and represents the spirit of compromise and real community building. This effort is not just for the Collaborative, but for the community as a whole so that there is a creative community together. Member Daysog indicated this is what public service is about for him, by joining his fellow colleagues and Councilmembers and crafting solutions for helping people in communities who are in need. This is a fruit of all of our efforts and above all, patience. There are not many opportunities to do something like this and the Board has been prudent in its decision making of this effort thus far. It is great to see that not only are homes being built at Alameda Point for the middle class, but we are expanding our opportunities for families in need, which is something to be proud of. Member Daysog stated that after all units have been accounted for, there are some units left over and there will continue to be policy discussions as to what to do with those units. Some of the issues being raised in the City Proper, regarding the need for work force housing, provides us an opportunity to look at what we can do there so we are servicing a wide gamut of people in need. From very, very -low income, to low - income to moderate - income and to middle - class. Member Daysog expressed his appreciation for being part of this process and looks forward to voting. 1 Mayor Appezzato indicated the Board received a letter from Congresswoman Barbara Lee expressing her support in what they are doing. Both Sandre Swanson and Roberta Brooks could not make it and they have been with the Board since 1993. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the recommendation. Motion was seconded by Alternate Member Friedman. Motion passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 19; Nayes - 4. Abstentions - 0. Discussion Alternate Member Leonhardy asked the Assistant City Attorney, Terri Highsmith if it was her understanding that upon the demolition of the existing 39 East Housing units, the City and the CIC have an absolute obligation to fund and the Housing Authority has an absolute obligation to construct the 39 units, provided the Collaborative has complied with their fund raising obligations? Attorney Highsmith responded yes, that is correct. Alternate Member Leonhardy asked what are the fallback locations for the replacement housing in the event of the demolition of those 39 housing units? Attorney Highsmith responded in the event that the early demolition option for the City is exercised, the two sites where the units may be located are either at the primary site, which will require some environmental remediation prior to its ability to be used; or the secondary site, which does not require environmental remediation. If the early demolition option is exercised and the primary site is not available by June 30, 2003, then the secondary site would be used. Alternate Member Leonhardy asked if there was no environmental remediation at the secondary site? Attorney Highsmith responded that is correct. There are not any that we are aware of. Alternate Member Leonhardy asked if the Housing Authority would begin construction by July 1, 2003 or upon the obligation of the Collaborative contribution, whichever is later? Attorney Highsmith responded yes, that is correct. Member Kerr stated there are two purposes that the City wanted about the MOU: one was to eliminate the demand for the 125 barracks units from the Homeless Collaborative and to pay them some money for them. The second was to move the Homeless Collaborative out of East Housing so that all of East Housing could be redeveloped in conjunction with the residential area of FISC. This contract runs for 59 years and the City's property tax will go up significantly. Some of the payments are coming out of the Alameda Point 20% set aside fund, which will be used to pay the infrastructure fees, which would noiuially be used to pay for affordable housing. 2 A good of example of what the 20% could be used for is Independence Plaza, which is what was used to pay for this structure. Regarding the 39 units, there would be $2 million from the Catellus' land sales, which is money that would come to the City to be reinvested in redeveloping the base. The $2.7 million would be for inclusionary fees. Inclusionary fees are normally used for home ownership opportunities for people in Alameda. There is a great demand for workforce housing in the City. The demolition of East Housing has been voiced by advocates of workforce housing. To make this swap we are spending an awful lot of money, which would normally provide for future workforce housing. Member Johnson expressed this (MOU) is as a result of a series of negotiations which the City, ARRA and other entities have been involved with. It was at the request that changes be made to serve our goals and the people of the collaborative, better than the original plan. This puts in place what we authorized staff to go forward on. We benefit, the Homeless Collaborative benefits, new housing will be built and it serves the interest of many people. Member Johnson stated she intends to support the plan. Member Daysog stated that in terms of the whole conundrum of workforce housing in the City of Alameda, is that we are talking about a population who are in need of affordable housing, but whose incomes are a little above of what we want to constitute low income and even moderate income. There are few available workforce funds that help these families. When we are talking about workforce housing, we are not talking about low income or moderate income in California or by HUD. Even if we wanted to use the low income 20% set aside income at Alameda Point which Member Kerr spoke about, there would be still some degree of difficulty in targeting workforce housing, which will require a completely different set of solutions. The 20% set aside is required by law for a redevelopment area to set aside of the property tax increment for affordable housing. The special circumstances involving Alameda Point according to AB3129, making the set aside dollar 20% for homeless families, qualifies as what is understood for low or very low income families. We are meeting the requirements narrowly defined by law and broadly defined by what the communities want. In terms of workforce housing, there are different solutions which will have to be looked at. Member Kerr voiced there are school teachers that fall into the low - income category because there are some school teachers who make only $31,000 a year. Almost all of the moderate - income people are people with jobs, who are not able to make enough to be under that moderate income. Moderate income is not people who are in poverty, but need some help in their housing needs. Moderate inclusionary fees will have an impact on our ability to provide housing for our workforce. Mayor Appezzato stated that maybe the City can take an action to accommodate the moderate income and we will look forward to doing that in the future. Member DeWitt referenced the portion of the MOU, which agreed to pay for public service fees. Organizations that were supported by HUD grants have paid public fees. Public services are used to pay for police, fire, sewer pipes and whatever else is needed to make an area grow. 3 Member DeWitt expressed his congratulations to the negotiators who were able to get a publicly supported organization to take from some of their money, to help pay for police and fire services in the area. It may not be the amount of needs just as property taxes does not pay for all the schools, but at least it shows the public they are willing to help pay their way through. Member DeWitt thanked the Homeless Collaborative for paying for some of these services and the taxpayers will be very satisfied with this. Mayor Appezzato indicated the Board and staff has been working on this since 1993. When base closure was announced, it was known that it was federal law and in 1994 this City took the lead in the federal law, the Community Assistance Act, which brought us the Homeless Collaborative, being able to deal with one group. The BRAG and Housing Sub - committee was created at this time. The BRAG, the ARRA and the City Council have come a long way together, getting to this point. A lot of the credit should go to Senator Feinstein's office for taking the lead on this. Hopefully it would be a success story that we can all be proud of. ROLL CALL VOTE City Council: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson - Aye; Mayor Appezzato - Aye; Councilmember Kerr - Nay. Ayes - 4; Nayes -1. Abstentions - 0. Alameda Reuse and Redevelonment Authority: Members Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson - Aye; Chair Appezzato -Aye; Alternate Members Leonhardy, Ornelas and Friedman - Aye; Member Kerr - No. Ayes - 7; Nayes -1. Abstentions - 0. Community Improvement Commission: Commissioners Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson - Aye; Mayor Appezzato - Aye; Commissioners Member Kerr - Nay. Ayes - 4; Nayes -1. Abstentions - 0. Housing Authority Board of Commissioners: Commissioners Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson - Aye; Mayor Appezzato - Aye; Commissioners Kerr - Nay. Ayes - 4; Nayes -1. Abstentions - 0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Respectfully, Lu retia Akil ARRA Secretary 4