pages: CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-01-05 | 10 | addressed. Mayor Johnson stated the confidential nature of the ENA prohibits the Council from asking some questions it might want to ask; that she is wondering if SunCal has changed the IRR projection. Mr. Keliher responded the documents that went into the business plan are the guidelines for the initiative; the IRR was 22% to 25%, which is always the goal in any similar project; Alameda Point has the advantage of being in a low risk market. Councilmember Gilmore stated SunCal submitted the business plan in December; the City and SunCal also jointly developed a pro forma that went to the Navy. Mr. Keliher stated it [pro forma development] was done at the same time [as the business plan submittal], which was December 19, 2008. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the contents of the business plan helped inform the election reports. The Interim City Manager responded staff tried to analyze the initiative based on its contents; looking at the document in isolation is difficult; the business plan was used as a frame of reference just to gage and validate the analysis of the initiative; staff was very careful not to include parts of the business plan that were not included in the initiative; the business plan was not superimposed because the business plan is not being voted on; the business plan was used to double check and ensure staff understood the initiative contents. The Redevelopment Manager stated staff focused on the initiative contents; the business plan is still under negotiation; the ARRA has never taken action on the business plan; there is no agreement on the business plan or joint pro forma; staff saw the two documents [initiative and business plan] as being very separate and had to analyze only what is in the initiative because the initiative will be legally binding if the voters approve it. Councilmember Gilmore sated the contingency is included in the soft costs; inquired the percentage of the contingency. The Public Works Director responded different contingencies were included based on the level of analysis; stated contingencies are at 10%, 20% and even 25%; estimates were based on details; Harris and Associates, the firm which worked on the Bayport project, concurred that the estimates are reasonable and the contingency percentages are reasonable and some could even be higher; that he polled other Public Works Directors to confirm the estimates and contingencies are in line [with other projects]. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the density bonus would be available for any project built at Alameda Point, to which the Planning Service Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the State [density bonus] law trumps the cap in the initiative. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 10 Board of Education January 5, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf |