pages: CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2012-05-08 | 10 | with infrastructure. In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding debt, the City Manager stated the other way has not worked for sixteen years; the underlying property issues are more important than entitlement risk, but cannot be impacted; entitlement risk is the thing the City can deal with. Mayor Gilmore stated that she agrees entitlement risk is the one thing the City can control, however, she disagrees that the previous projects failed because of entitlement risk; the projects failed in large part because they did not pencil out. The City Manager stated part of the reason the projects did not pencil out is because the City was going through the entitlement process with community interest burdens; the base reuse process Statewide caused people to come up with laundry lists that do not match the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) needs of developers; the City cannot correct said conflict; the proposed plan is a way to address said conflict in a democratic way. * Councilmember Tam left the dais at 9:03 p.m. and returned at 9:05 p.m. * Expressed concern about spending money for a project that does not pencil out, bringing capital to the project, backbone infrastructure and predevelopment costs, and signing a contract: Karen Bey, Alameda. * Councilmember deHaan left the dais and returned at 9:17 p.m. The City Manager noted that the development advisor may do brokerage on the pads, but cannot bid on any of the projects. Councilmember Johnson stated the developer would need capital partners, not the City, requested staff to clarify. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the City would have entitlements and would engage a developer to do construction; the City would not take on any infrastructure risk. Councilmember Johnson noted the City did infrastructure for Catellus Bayport project, but should not be doing so now; stated staff has done a conservative financial analysis; there are long term tenants with short term leases; the plan is well thought out; Fort Ord in Monterey has been done piecemeal and projects have been done in wrong locations. Councilmember deHaan stated that he is conservative; questioned where the City would be if going forward with one pad does not work; stated going forward with multiple Special Meeting Alameda City Council 10 May 8, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf |