My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN020690
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CCMIN020690
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:34 AM
Creation date
11/3/1999 10:11:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
69 <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer asked staff how the $100,000 figure for the <br />housing coordinator was arrived at and what the coordinator's <br />functions would be. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bocian replied that the figure was done by survey. The <br />City would develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the position, <br />which would include providing housing assistance to the City and <br />coordinating the development of specific housing projects. It <br />would resemble the staff report attachment from the City of <br />Fremont, but would include utilizing firms, similar to the <br />arrangement the City has with Eden Housing. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes inquired if the $100,000 would come from the Low- <br />Income Housing Fee and what the difference would be between adding <br />additional staff for a period of time to perform that function and <br />hiring a contractor to do the job. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bocian replied that the position could be funded either <br />by the Low-Income Fund or by General Fund monies. Regarding the <br />difference between utilizing a contract service or a staff person, <br />both have advantages and disadvantages. With the pressing need <br />for affordable housing in the community, more immediate results <br />can be achieved by utilizing a contract service; however, there <br />is the problem of office space in City Hall. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes asked the City Attorney at what point in the <br />process would a subsidized housing project go to the voters if it <br />were to be built on the 14 acre corporation site. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that the issue is pending right now before <br />the California Supreme Court. One decision has been issued which <br />was subsequently rescinded for reconsideration. What is <br />consistent is the Constitutional provision that if those units <br />will be low income housing, the matter will have to go to the vote <br />of the people; however, it is difficult to tell when in the <br />process that will occur. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes stated that this will be much more controversial <br />than expected and expressed concern about how much money should be <br />spent before finding out if the citizens will support it or not. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer commented that one of two things could be done: <br />either use existing staff and with Council's direction, get the <br />process together or specifically hire somebody who knows more <br />about it for $100,000 and get more done sooner. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver indicated that the General Plan talks a lot about <br />housing mix and developing the community, and therefore the funds <br />should be taken from the General Fund rather than from the <br />Low-Income Fund. <br /> <br /> -19- <br /> 2-6-90 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.