pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf, 2
This data as json
| body | date | page | text | path |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2005-04-19 | 2 | exhausted some time around Sept and October; there are a number of deferred costs, or capital costs, that are expected would be part of the developer's pro forma; and the debt payments that began to come due in 2006. Also included in the presentation was the current ARRA staff load on the existing ARRA budget. Ms. Little continued to discuss some challenges to the ARRA budget. She explained that by 2006 and 7 we will have spent down our fund balance and, by 2008, we won't have enough to balance our budget. She discussed how a large part of the ARRA budget is contributed to municipal services -- about 1/2 of what we take in annually, $10M in revenue. She stated that the presentation is intended to start the conversation about the need to either increase general fund revenue opportunities to tackle some of the costs, or decrease the general fund expenditures out at Alameda Point because we don't have the resources to continue to support them. Ms. Little discussed the current pro forma and its assumptions regarding new public revenues, primarily in property tax pass thru, the sales taxes, property transfer taxes, etc. with the sale of the homes (new development) = revenues coming into the general fund. She concluded the presentation, summarizing that staff is preparing for APCP to move forward in the next two months and that we will need to transition quickly negotiate a disposition and development agreement at 18 months and move into an implementation mode; subsequently, if APCP does not move forward, there are implications regarding dealing with long term costs over time. Ms. Little mentioned a subsequent "phase 2" ARRA Budget workshop. Councilmember de Haan expressed concern with the Navy's inability to fulfill the commitment to the 18 mos. transition period. Stephen Proud addressed his concern by explaining that we are trying to expedite the time line as much as possible, to the extent that the Navy would be able to make the property available to us sooner. He discussed various issues on the timeline that we (ARRA) have to accomplish, specifically the environmental review process. Boardmembers and staff discussed general leasing issues/opportunities at Alameda Point, with Chair Johnson mentioning activities to attract film productions. Member Matarrese expressed concern about the "structural problem" of the ARRA Budget, stating that perhaps we' ve set the system up for failure - and that we may be providing services that we simply cannot afford given our leasing capability. Leslie Little addressed his concern by explaining that once there is a DDA, the actual costs that are being born by the budget now, would have to be reduced significantly, specifically the municipal services. Member Gilmore asked about insurance expenses. Leslie Little explained that the tenants themselves carry liability insurance as part of their lease requirement. Member Daysog initiated discussion about the proposed mitigation where the general fund reduces dependency on the ARRA and absorbs 1.8million dollars in expenses. The municipal services funding resources was discussed. 2 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf |