pages: CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 4 | as a phase gets taken down, with exception of the MARAD lease; stated less and less lease revenue is assumed as the project progresses. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired if the loss is included, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the implied loss is implied and is in the calculation. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired if calculations were run without tax increment, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the negative; stated the focus was on the issues with SunCal; staff wanted to hold as much constant to see the impacts of particular assumptions; an analysis can be done, it just has not been done. In response to Mayor/Chair Johnson's inquiry about impacts, the Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the impact on the bottom line could be pretty significant for the approximately $211 million in total bonds from both the non-housing and the housing tax increment. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether sale listings, as opposed to sold homes, were included when valuation was calculated. Mr. Musbach responded the current information is what EPS and staff could get at the time. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether or not there were enough actual sales to run the calculations. Michael Neeman, EPS, responded staff looked at Bayport sales in comparison to citywide sales to forecast Alameda Point home values; stated EPS staff reviewed the current listings to check if projections are consistent with Alameda Point values to date. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated there is a graph in the market report that shows Bayport listings compared to citywide sales; four units have been sold in the Grand Marina project; square foot costs were reviewed and are consistent with the listing costs for the Bayport project. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired about the financial feasibility implications; stated the results indicate an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of - 12% if public subsidies, property management, adaptive reuse, and commercial program assumptions are not addressed. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the -12% assumption used the recommended EPS and Public Works revenues and costs; the analysis started with the SunCal baseline; then, the assumptions deemed to be more realistic were made; since there was disagreement on some of the assumptions, staff did not want to Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 3 Community Improvement Commission July 7, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |