pages: CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2012-06-06 | 10 | encouraged clean types of industry in the inner harbor area. Councilmember Johnson stated that her preference remains proceeding with Option 1, which has a lot of advantages; other ways have not been successful. Councilmember Tam stated that her preference is Option 2; the master infrastructure plan would minimize fragmentation; a project level EIR is needed, would include housing, is required by the Settlement Agreement and deals with integration; finding residential should not be hard when the market is conducive. In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry about the amount of the existing bond, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the bond was $13 million; the debt is $350,000 per year. Councilmember deHaan stated that he supports Option 1; the entitlement process takes a long time and the City has missed market opportunities; not going forward in a timely manner would not put the City in a good position. Councilmember Johnson stated spending $3 million more is very small for such a large project; inquired about proceeding on a cash basis. The City Manager responded a staff report attachment outlines moving forward without bonding. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated Exhibit 4 shows the fund balance would drop to $2.6 million at the end of Fiscal Year 2012-13 and $1.17 million at the end of Fiscal Year 2013-14; proceeding on a cash basis would draw down on the fund balance. Councilmember Johnson stated the City cannot keep up with deferred maintenance; the Base continues to deteriorate, which will accelerate as time passes; the extra $3 million needs to be spent to try to be ready to go when the economy turns around. Mayor Gilmore stated that she objects to going forward with the bonds; she responds in the opposite to crumbling infrastructure concerns; shovels will not be in the ground for several years; questioned what would happen if telephone or sewer lines have an issue during said time and where the City would come up with funds for repairs. Councilmember Johnson expressed concern about spending money on infrastructure that needs to be replaced. Mayor Gilmore stated existing tenants' lease revenues would be used to pay for the bond, which is why she is in favor of Option 2. Vice Mayor Bonta inquired what the City could lose by waiting to complete the detailed residential entitlements. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 June 6, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf |