pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf, 3
This data as json
| body | date | page | text | path |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2006-10-04 | 3 | Page 3 forward in negotiating a lease for these specific areas. Member deHaan expressed his desire that EBRPD continue to be involved in the area and asked how the funding stream would be maintained in the future. Mr. Anderson indicated that possibly a small assessment district would have to be established if the project becomes larger. Member Matarrese stated that he would like a long-term commitment from EBRPD for the area. The consensus among ARRA members and EBRPD was the first priority is extending the Bay Trail from the boat ramp along the beach to the Hornet; if additional funds remain, the other areas will be considered. Member Matarrese motioned that EBRPD make improvements on the Bay Trail from the existing boat ramp as far north as possible, including cleaning up the beach. If additional funds remain, they would be used for the picnic area and former RV parking lot. Staff was directed to negotiate a lease with EBRPD to accomplish this. Member Daysog seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. 3-B. Alameda Point Project Update. Debbie Potter, Acting Alameda Point Project Manager, gave an Alameda Point update presentation to the Board. The presentation included a chronology of the ARRA's negotiations with the Navy and an explanation to the community on how we went from "no cost" to paying $108.5 million for the Navy property. Ms. Potter also discussed the master developer, APCP's, election not to proceed with the project and presented staff's recommendation for an initial next step. Ms Potter summarized the genesis of how we got from a no cost EDC to a 108.5 million dollar purchase price: She explained how the ARRA's PDC and the general plan call for over 3 million square feet of commercial development. In January 2004, however, the Navy sent a letter requesting that we submit a formal amendment to our "no-cost" EDC application to formerly make the case about why we felt like we continued to be eligible for a "no-cost" EDC. The Navy's letter further stated that it could not continue to work with us to negotiate on our early transfer without such an amendment. The letter also said that they were more than happy to negotiate a "for-cost" EDC with the ARRA. Because the Navy would be the ultimate entity to deciding whether or not we were still eligible for the no cost EDC and because they had clearly communicated to us that they felt we were no longer eligible and because legislation was in the works to preclude no cost EDC's in the future, the ARRA made a decision that it would be more effective if we sat down and negotiated with the Navy for a for-cost"conveyance. We started our "New Beginnings" with the Navy in 2004 but the federal government also eliminated no cost economic development in 2004 and none of the bases that are closed as part of the BRAC 5 are going to eligible for a no cost economic development conveyance, most of those properties are going to be disposed of as is where is. So it took us a little over 2 years to negotiate with the Navy to prepare the PDC and to negotiate a land price. And in June of this year we concluded negotiations with the Navy with a draft term sheet that included a $108.5 million dollar purchase price. On September 21st, APCP withdrew from the project, citing the downturn in the residential market and that they could no longer support the $108.5 million line price given the land plan. | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf |