pages: CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf, 15
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2006-12-05 | 15 | obligation to pay for the predevelopment demolition, backbone Infrastructure, and CEQA mitigation under the existing DDA; the new DDA caps the obligation; the developer is fronting the entire project cost and the CIC is not required to borrow money as outlined in the existing deal. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested an explanation of the profit participation. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated there is a set per lot land price for the Bayport project in addition to a profit participation formula in the existing DDA that states the CIC would share in the upside if the deal turned out to be better than originally contemplated; the project participation is being generated now and is being used to pay for the backbone infrastructure, demolition and other Bayport obligations; the maximum proceeds of $5 million would be pledged to the Alameda Landing project when all of the shortfall loans and predevelopment obligations are paid off; the obligation is identical to the existing deal. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the cash contribution is the property tax increment that is generated from developer improvements. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the proposal is to have funds raised via bond sales versus annual tax increment allocations; the bonds would be secured with the tax increment, not by money tied to the General Fund. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore requested an explanation of the land value. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Catellus is estimating a $60.3 million land value once all improvements are constructed. the land has minimal value now; Catellus needs to invest $103 million in the project to yield the $60.3 million land value; Catellus would complete the property improvements; the land would be contributed to the project in exchange for the property investment; the CIC would not be contributing cash to the project; Catellus would be credited against the investment the land would be put into the deal and would become the improved land; the developer's return would go up in the event that the project results in greater land values; the CIC would share 50/50 if the project is extremely successful and the developer hits an 18% Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 4 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf |