pages: CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-01-05 | 2 | discrepancy is tremendous; the City included $4 million for the Sea Plane Lagoon bulkhead, which is a completely separate budget item. Councilmember L. Tam stated page 16 of the election report has the definition of the City's fiscal neutrality policy; the policy explicitly calls for the use of Tax Increment (TI) funding in the redevelopment area in order to ensure that the new development pays for itself; November 2009 City correspondence confirms fiscal neutrality; there is confusion over the 2% tax cap, which covers the hospital and school taxes; requested that the developer clarify why the cap is in the initiative and its effects on the City's operating budget. Mr. Keliher stated the shortfall that the project has to pick up is about 0.13%; assuming Alameda's ad valorem is 1.1%, 1.23% would ensure all of the fiscal impacts on the City would be taken care of; the cap was put at 2% because the project is underwritten at 1.8%, which is consistent with the business plan; the model only assesses residential, not commercial; SunCal feels that the market will not accept anything above 2%; the fiscal impact analysis done by the City indicated that above 2% is not needed. In response to Councilmember L. Tam's inquiry about the Bayport community facilities district, the Public Works Director stated the [Bayport] Maintenance Assessment District covers public infrastructure and includes costs for emergency services. Councilmember L. Tam inquired whether emergency service costs are for the Fire Department, to which the Public Works Director responded costs are for Police or Fire. Councilmember L. Tam stated ballot arguments reference a $500 million shortfall; inquired how the amount was derived. The Interim City Manager responded staff couldn't answer questions on ballot argument material. Councilmember Gilmore stated public benefits are supposed to be $371 million; adding the $52 million in net exactions and subtracting the $200 million cap leaves a $223 million shortfall if her math is correct. The Interim City Manager stated Councilmember Gilmore's math is correct as it relates to the shortfall on capital. Councilmember L. Tam inquired whether $103 million in soft costs is included. The Interim City Manager responded the amounts shown on the presentation slides are what staff believes to be the present value project costs; stated that she is not clear whether Mr. Keliher is referring to the joint pro forma or another document which is in negotiation; the City's view is the costs are $371 million. The Public Works Director stated staff relied on the language in the ballot measure; Exhibit Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 2 Board of Education January 5, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf |