pages: SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard/2013-06-27.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard | 2013-06-27 | 2 | Exhibit A MINUTES (Draft until Approved) City of Alameda AT Successor Agency Oversight Board Special Meeting Thursday, June 27, 2013, 6:00 p.m. City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Conference Room 360 1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL Vice Chair Biggs called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m., with the following Board Members present: Vice Chair Biggs; Members McMahon, Ortiz, and Potter. Board Members absent: Chan, Gerhard, and Russo. Board staff in attendance: General Counsel Labadie and Secretary Valeska. Also in attendance were Successor Agency Assistant General Counsel Stephanie Garrabrandt-Sierra and Successor Agency outside counsel Gerald Ramiza. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Action a. Resolution Adopting the Minutes of the April 9, 2013 Annual Meeting The Resolution was continued to the next meeting, as there were only three affirmative votes (Member Ortiz abstained.) 3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (none) 4. NEW BUSINESS a. Update Regarding the Alameda Theater/Parking Garage Property and the Position of the Successor Agency with Regard to the March 2011 Transfer of the Property from the Former Alameda Community Improvement Commission to the City of Alameda: for information only Mr. Ramiza made the presentation regarding the report in the agenda packet. The audit conducted by the State Controller's Office (SCO) lasted one week. The theater and parking garage project was presented as an integrated project: the rents generated from the theater leases are needed to make payments on the HUD 108 loan for the garage. The SCO auditor seemed to agree that the parking garage is a public asset. The HUD 108 loan is a liability associated with the overall project: if there is a clawback by the State, the State could not cherry pick the assets - the liability would have to go with it. Mr. Ramiza stated that he was more concerned about the State Department of Finance (DOF). He would like a message sent to SCO and the DOF that the Successor Agency and City desire to work out an equitable solution. Member Potter stated that if the State determines that the 2011 transfer was not permitted, then the State may order that the properties be transferred back to the | SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard/2013-06-27.pdf |