pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf, 4
This data as json
| body | date | page | text | path |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2006-10-04 | 4 | Page 4 With that negotiation process and chronology behind us, and the withdrawal of our Master Developer, Staff is proposing, as the initial next step, that we test the market through a request for qualifications (RFQ) process with the current term sheet. In the event that we are unable to identify a replacement development then we would work with the Navy on an alternate disposable strategy, most likely a public sale, an approach that the Navy had been taking of late. Chair Johnson asked about the on-going work with the Navy, in the event that a buyer under the current term sheet doesn't come forward. Ms. Potter answered that we will continue to run our leasing program, and the Navy will continue to run it's environmental clean up program. Chair Johnson also asked about the cost of working with the Navy to move forward with alternatives if a replacement developer isn't identified. Ms. Potter explained that the ARRA's budget did consider a scenario where the master developer didn't go forward and staff is funded in the ARRA budget and consultants would probably need far fewer consultants then we've had when we've been in activity negotiations on a term sheet and those kind of things, but we would still need to work with our environmental consultant and our out side counsel, those costs are included in the ARRA's budget. To answer Chair Johnson's question about what types of consultants would we still continue to need, Ms. Potter answered that we would continue to use an environmental consultant because we comment on all of the Navy environmental clean up documents. Chair Johnson asked if we should ask the Navy to pay for the consultants at that point. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, clarified that these are consultants that we use to protect the City's interest when it comes to the work that the Navy's doing on clean up as well as if there gonna be issuing opinions about the tidelands trust, then we need to have our experts weighing in about the tidelands trust and where were believe the legal issues are and those kinds of things. Member Daysog began a discussion regarding the ARRA's no-cost EDC agreement with the United States Navy. He referenced several paragraphs of the Navy's letter to Debbie Potter dated April 7, 2003 regarding the basis for the Navy approval of a no cost EDC. Member Daysog is very concerned about the $108 million purchase price, stating that if APCP couldn't work it through, that it would be difficult to find a replacement master developer. He'd rather see the $108 million go toward public amenities that have been contemplated. The Chair, Boardmembers and Staff discussed, at length, the challenges we faced and the available options we continue to deal with in order to move forward. Member deHaan and Chair Johnson discussed researching a concept that looks at phases in the future to anticipate changes in the market. The Board also expressed their interest in going back to a no-cost EDC (build less residential), but Ms. Potter explained that, according to the Navy, a no-cost EDC was dead, because a project that included less residential was not economically viable. She said, however, that if the ARRA desires, we could continue discussions with the Navy about convincing them that were still eligible for our no cost EDC. She further discussed that the ARRA does have an agreement, an executed MOA with the Navy, but that the Navy is going to require us to submit an amendment to that no cost EDC. | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf |