pages: CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf, 19
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-07-20 | 19 | Clerk's office by 3:00 p.m. the following day; the offer was reviewed over the weekend; nothing in the last, best and final offer changes staff's recommendation; inquired whether Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners want to focus on financial issues. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore responded in the affirmative; stated that she understands the timing but is uncomfortable with not having a chance to review the offer and ask questions; the public has not been able to review and digest the offer. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff requested that the financing plan be attached to the DDA, including the pro forma; the pro forma submitted with the last, best and final offer did not include the financing plan; the financing plan would be due before the close of Phase 1. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether SunCal has made promises to pay without a document showing how payment would be made. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative; stated the pro forma was the same as the pro forma attached to previous staff reports; Section 7.8 contains the financial assurances of the last, best, and final offer; staff wants to have financial assurances up front; SunCal has provided financial assurances that cover the period of time from the execution of the DDA up until the close of Phase 1; staff wants to ensure that SunCal has enough money to get through the project, not just the development period. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired how terms would be written to prevent land banking. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded terms would be written in the DDA; stated scheduled performances would be included in addition to default provisions; fiscal neutrality would be guaranteed; SunCal would provide a guarantee from an entity that has a net worth of $100 million; the guarantee would not be for project implementation; staff wants more than guarantees for fiscal neutrality; staff does not think the financial assurances are sufficient. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired who would the shortfall fall on if the project is fiscally neutral and there are no guarantees for the rest of the project. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the project might not be built; stated nothing guarantees that milestones would be met; scheduled performances Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 7 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 20, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf |