pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-10-07.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2009-10-07 | 2 | Member deHaan was concerned that there would be a shortage of fields or available game-play on the field for Alameda clubs. Dale Lillard, Park and Rec Director, explained that there has not been a shortage of fields, and any shortage experienced was only due to the water rationing mandated by EBMUD to help with the drought, not by any scheduling conflicts. Member Matarrese clarified that this particular field at Alameda Point is not a City-owned field - it still belongs to the Navy and it is not being ceded to another city, it is being leased. He further explained that it is not any different than when the buildings are leased at Alameda point - leasing is not restricted to Alameda only - and if that land was not leased to the Piedmont soccer club, and because Alameda's Parks and Rec department didn't have the funds to maintain the field, it would be a weed field. There was further discussion from the representatives of the Jack London Youth Soccer Sports League, Alameda Soccer Club, and the Piedmont Soccer Club. They answered questions posed by the speakers and the Board, and further expressed their continued support and maintenance of the Alameda Point field for the benefit of all the youth soccer clubs. Item 2-C was motioned for approval by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0 Discussion on Item 2-E: Leslie Little discussed staff's request to augment the existing budget for removal of fire debris of Building 6 by $500,000. She summarized that in late March, Building 6 caught fire. The initial debris removal was done, but asbestos and other contaminated building materials were found, and the remaining concrete tower structures were unstable. We are eligible for a $200,000 grant from DTSC to offset the $500,000. Vice Chair deHaan asked what the overall cost would be when complete; and if we were going to hold Catellus responsible to pay back the cost. Ms. Little stated the amount to be approximately $2 million by completion. She further explained that under their existing DDA, Catellus is responsible for the demolition. There has been discussion between Catellus and the City regarding what their actual obligation for cost is beyond just the regular demolition, which will not be resolved until there is another amendment to their DDA. Ms. Little also stated that the City Attorney's office has looked into whether we could put a lien on the property so that it couldn't transfer without this obligation. There is no way around it, however, as the language of the DDA specifies that we have to deliver the property to them clear of liens or encumbrances. Member Matarrese asked how quickly, after the $500,000 is allocated, will the demolition be completed. Ms. Little stated that it would be done immediately, and that the daily cost of security will cease also. Member Matarrese stated that the Catellus DA clearly says that Catellus is responsible for demolishing this building. Since we demolished it for them, we need to assign this cost to them. Whatever the vehicle is we need to present it to Catellus. Member Gilmore asked what the modification to the ARRA budget is and if there are things we are not going to be able to do because of this $500,000 modification. Ms. Little explained that there is no line item where these funds could be taken from, so staff proposed this would come back to the ARRA in a budget adjustment. The funds would come out of the ARRA's cash balance, rather than what is usually referred to as a fund balance. | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-10-07.pdf |