pages: CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf, 21
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2007-12-04 | 21 | increment would be parceled off; Merged Improvement Areas would be paid back first with tax increment from other areas; requested clarification on the matter and whether Alameda Point would be affected. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Alameda Point is in the Alameda Point Improvement Project (APIP) redevelopment area and would not be affected the Merged Area is the West End Community Improvement Project (WECIP) and Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) ; the Merged Area Bonds were issued in 2003 and were an existing condition when the DDA was approved with Catellus in 2006; the bond was sized and assumed a zero tax increment from Alameda Landing because the property is not on the tax roll; all of the tax increment in the entire project area is pledged to the repayment of the debt; typically underwriters have a debt to loan value ratio when debt is issued technically, the Alameda Landing tax increment is already pledged to the repayment of the existing obligation; the Bond was sized when there was no tax increment at Alameda Landing; the project area should have no trouble making the bond payment without Alameda Landing tax increment eventually, property taxes will be on the rolls for Alameda Landing. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam stated that some of the proposed Development Agreement (DA) amendments spread the cost and shift some of the liabilities; the staff report notes that the City's financial obligations do not increase but overall project costs increase and references just the acquisition of the property; inquired whether that is the only additional cost. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded there is a one time cost for fencing the wharf and acquisition of the property insurance; stated the 115kV obligation would not be triggered until the DA is amended to remove the project obligation; the process is sequential. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan requested elaboration on the utility assessment district; inquired whether an assessment for the wharf is required. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded a Municipal Utility District is anticipated which would pay for maintenance and operations of the public open spaces such as the wharf; the undergrounding district would be just like the Rule 20A Undergrounding District where there is an assessment. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 7 and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission December 4, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf |