Loading...
1996-01-03 ARRA Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, January 3, 1996 The meeting convened at 5:40 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. I. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Alternate Roberta Brooks for Vice-Chair Sandré Swanson, 9th Congressional District; Vice-Mayor Charles Mannix, City of Alameda; Alternate Jay Leonhardy for Councilmember Henry Chang, Jr., City of Oakland; Councilmember "Lil"Arnerich, City of Alameda (replaced by Alternate Tony Daysog at 6:34 p.m.); Mayor Ellen Corbett, City of San Leandro; Councilmember Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda; Alternate Greg Alves for Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of Alameda; Supervisor Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3 (replaced by Alternate David Brown at 7:25 p.m.); Ex-officio Member Lee Perez, Chair, Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG); Ex-officio Member Gail Greely, Alameda Unified School District. Absent: None. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of November 1, 1995 and December 6, 1995. B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Selection of DRI/McGraw Hill for the Alameda Science and Technology Center Feasibility Study and Authorization for the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute the Contract. C. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Oppose the Request for Federal Transfer of Certain Portions of Alameda Naval Air Station to the Army Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES). Member Chan moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Corbett seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous voice vote - 9. III. ACTION ITEMS Due to the minor nature of item III.G., ARRA Executive Director Kay Miller requested that it be moved to the top of the Action Items agenda. G. Recommendation from the BRAG Modifying Language to Chapter 1.0 ( Introduction) and the Goals and Objectives (Goal B2: Enhance Employment Opportunities and C1: Housing Opportunities). Printed on recycled paper Alternate Alves made a motion to change the wording on Goal C1, Objectives: “Expand housing opportunities to include home ownership by low income households.” Member Chan stated that this had been voted on at the last meeting. However, the minutes for the December meeting did not include a detail of votes taken on individual wording changes. Member Arnerich stated that this issue had already been approved and should not be revisited. Member Mannix stated that this would constitute a dual vote and that the tapes should be checked to clarify the issue. Member Corbett requested that in the future, every vote should be recorded in the minutes. Alternate Alves stated that his recollection was that they had approved “housing opportunities,” and he was asking specifically that they include “home ownership opportunities.” Alternate Brooks stated that the ARRA could avoid a potential conflict with two votes by specifying that the intent is to include opportunities for home ownership for low income households and to put in whatever language was passed at the previous meeting if it reflects that language, and if it does not, to add that language. Chair Appezzato directed ARRA staff to handle it. Alternate Alves withdrew his motion. A motion was made to adopt the BRAG modifying language by Member Mannix and seconded by Member Corbett. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 9. D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Transportation, Open Space and Conservation, and Health and Safety, and Implementation Elements (including Strategy and Financial Analyses, Homeless Assistance Component [with Legally Binding Agreement], and Implementation Action Plan) of the Long-Range Community Reuse Plan. Chair Appezzato asked if there were any speakers to the issue; there were none. Paul Tuttle, Planner, was introduced. A Speaker’s Slip was then submitted by Tony Daysog. Speaker: Mr. Daysog asked for clarification on page 9-26, where it lists property taxes as a revenue source for the Alameda City General Fund. He asked if all of the property taxes and tax increments that come as a result of property taxes, go to the Redevelopment Agency or the ARRA and not to the Alameda General Fund. Chair Appezzato pointed out four areas that addressed this question: (1) the bottom of page 9-15, “If the base is designated as a Redevelopment Project Area, a portion of the increase in property tax revenues . . . will go to the designated redevelopment agency”; (2) page 9-17 “One of the key criteria for determining how the project area will be established will be whether or not the legislative authority will allow the City of Alameda to retain some of the tax increment to pay for ongoing municipal services”; (3) Page 9-24, paragraph 9-5, “All future development, regardless of whether the tenant/property owner is a private entity, a nonprofit organization, or a public agency, should pay a fair share of the costs in a manner consistent with applicable laws . . . ”; and, (4) page 9-4, third paragraph, “. . . all nonprofit entities who will occupy space at the Base have agreed to pay an ongoing public assessment in lieu of property taxes.” Chair Appezzato further stated that the City Council, hopefully, will have the authority to take allocations from the tax increment and apply it to the General Fund. Mr. Daysog then asked a question on the line on page 9-15, “. . . a portion of the increases in property tax revenues. . . .” His 2 question was “Is not the property tax increment really equal to the property taxes in the case of the Base redevelopment?” Chair Appezzato stated that it starts at the base line and the base line is zero on the date you establish; the increment begins after that date. Planner Paul Tuttle then introduced the Transportation element. Member DeWitt asked to vote on the elements separately and Chair Appezzato stated that was the intention. A motion was made by Member DeWitt to endorse the Transportation element of the Reuse Plan. Member Mannix seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous voice vote - 9. Chair Appezzato complimented the staff and consultants on the easy-to-read form and the content of the Plan. He then stated that the present figures indicate that a 3 percent revenue surplus over expenses is very low and 10 percent is a goal that we must strive for. Chair Appezzato pointed out that on page 6(c) of the draft LBA (Legally Binding Agreement), “(1) signing” should have been “(1) signage.” Page 12 and 13, where it specifies notices to the ARRA, the HCD, the Collaborative, etc., he requested the addition of the Alameda City Manager. Member Arnerich advised there is now a street address for the Housing Development Manager on Webster that can be inserted into the LBA on page 13. Paul Tuttle introduced the Open Space and Conservation element, stating that due to the shutdown in Washington, D.C., the exact size of the Wildlife Refuge has not been determined. The element was written without specifying its exact size but, in any case, would be no smaller than 398 acres. Chair Appezzato asked if there were any speakers on this issue. Since there were none, he opened the issue for Commission discussion. Member DeWitt voiced his concern with the amount of land being put into Public Conveyance (47%). He pointed out in the President’s five-points for base reuse, economics was the main area. He further stated that as the plan now stands, the revenue surplus is only 4 percent over expenses and as such, is a risk for the taxpayers. Member DeWitt further stated that this plan, with its large number of public conveyances, does not meet the goal of providing an economic benefit to this City. Therefore, he will oppose any public conveyances unless he is shown they will not be a burden on the taxpayers of the City. Member Arnerich stated that he agreed with Member DeWitt on the amount of acreage being taken at the Naval Air Station and that the Wildlife Refuge should be kept at 398 acres (100 acres more than the Alameda Golf Course) to ensure that while wildlife is protected, the economic benefits are viable to the City. Chair Appezzato reminded the Commission that this has been a two-year process and all of these issues have been addressed. Alternate Brooks reminded the ARRA that there had been an Audubon study that concluded that a Wildlife Refuge would generate revenue for the City. Member Corbett added that it was not proven that the 4 percent profit margin resulted from the amount of property being set aside and that the open space and shoreline in Alameda is an important part of the City’s image. Dena Belzer, a consultant from BAE (Bay Area Economics), stated that the numbers are speculative and based on a 25-year build out. She stated that the Wildlife Refuge was not 3 factored into the 4 percent figure and the remaining property conveyances are subject to in-lieu fees for ongoing public services. A motion was made by Member Mannix to endorse the Open Space & Conservation element of the Reuse Plan. Member Chan seconded the motion and it passed with the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 1 - Member DeWitt. Planner Tuttle introduced the Health and Safety element, including two issues that were being added from the Planning Department: Airport Operations & Safety and Noise. A motion was made by Alternate Leonhardy to endorse the Health and Safety element of the Reuse Plan. Member Mannix seconded the motion and it passed a unanimous voice vote - 9. Planner Tuttle introduced the Implementation element. On the discussion regarding infrastructure financing, Member Chan stated that, at her request, the County Economic Development staff has offered to do a joint workshop with ARRA on all facets of infrastructure financing. This suggestion met with approval. Chair Appezzato endorsed the idea of a special financing workshop before final decisions are made. On page 9-24 and 9-25, Member Chan requested the following addition: “. . . consistent with applicable law, future ARRA policy.” Alternate Alves stated that on page 9-21, it refers to selling single family units to raise funds, yet the single family, 2-bedroom bungalows are being allocated to the Homeless Collaborative. Planner Tuttle said that the section refers to the “Big Whites,” the one-acre sites. Alternate Alves asked if we were committing to the specific units now. Mr. Tuttle pointed out that the specific parcels were approved in the Property Disposal element that was approved previously. Mr. Tuttle added that along with policies that deal with the homeless, this Implementation section included the draft Legally Binding Agreement. Executive Director Miller added that this is a specific requirement for submitting the plan to the Navy and requires approval by HUD as meeting the needs of the homeless. The Chair asked Executive Director Miller if she foresaw agreeable resolution to the last Legally Binding Agreement with the Homeless Collaborative on the BOQ. She responded that the issue concerns a request from Operation Dignity for the BOQ; however, the BOQ is an integral part of the Pan Pacific University PBC. The Enlisted Quarters and individual housing units will not meet their needs and Staff is working with the Homeless Collaborative to explore the options. One option is to start a dialog with HUD (Housing and Urban Development) to help fund an off-site facility to meet their needs. A motion was made by Member DeWitt to endorse the Implementation Strategy element of the Reuse Plan with the addition of Member Chan’s requested three words, “future ARRA policy” to page 9-25. Member Mannix seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous voice vote - 9. Planner Tuttle explained that the Implementation Action Plan segment was a summary of all the other policies from each section. Alternate Daysog suggested enhancing the role of the 4 private sector in meetings with the county, city, and utility sectors. Chair Appezzato stated that the utilities had held several major meetings already. There would also probably be meetings as a follow-on to Member Chan’s suggested workshop. Member Corbett cited page 10-26, item (j), “The marketing of NAS Alameda must occur within the broader context of an economic development strategy for the City of Alameda.” She requested the addition of the words “and the County of Alameda” to the end of the sentence. Member DeWitt concurred. Member DeWitt moved to endorse the Implementation Action Plan element of the Reuse Plan. Member Mannix seconded the motion and it passed the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 1 - Alternate Daysog. Chair Appezzato complimented everyone on a job well done, including the BRAG. Alternate Daysog asked for a point of clarification. He asked if the previous vote was to add the words “and the County of Alameda” or to vote on the entire Implementation Action Plan. The Chair answered that the vote was on the entire Implementation Action Plan and included the three words that Member Corbett requested. Alternate Daysog then changed his vote from No to Aye. The motion passed with a unanimous voice vote - 9. The Chair again complimented the BRAG, citing that the countless hours they had put in had made the ARRA Governing Body’s job much easier. E. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval, in Concept, of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Budget Request to the Office of Economic Adjustment. Executive Director Miller stated that this budget proposal was for about $2 million. She then detailed new budget items. In response to a question from Chair Appezzato on the time line, the Executive Director explained that by the end of January, OEA will respond with their approval or disapproval of these various items. At the January 31 meeting, the Governing Body will be asked to take action on the final budget. She further explained that Staff would be applying for a grant from the State of California for $100,000 to help defray the matching requirement. For a $2 million OEA grant, the City match is 25% or $500,000. This $100,000 would reduce the match to $400,000. Speaker: Neil Patrick Sweeney, a concerned citizen, asked that we declare war on environmental toxic cleanup at NAS Alameda and request funds as soon as possible to contract with several different cleanup companies by parceling the base and having crews work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and pay bonuses for early completion. Tony Daysog, Alternate for Member Arnerich, stated that many in the business community feel that too much of the City’s monetary resources are going into the base conversion to the detriment of the economic development of the remainder of the City of Alameda. He asked 5 that the budget not be voted on but instead, be returned to Staff to prioritize the top three or four budget items for funding. He felt that with the budget crisis deficit at $250,000, the $400,000 asked of the City in match, both in money and in-kind services, was too much. The Executive Director pointed out that the current match was $440,000, a large part of which was in-kind City staff services, including BRAG members’ time. Alternate Daysog indicated that he understood, but in-kind staff services put toward base conversion mean that plans for the other districts of Alameda are set aside. Alternate Brooks stated that it would be a problem not to proceed because it is not possible to return to OEA in six months and request additional funds. She asked what budget items Alternate Daysog thought were unnecessary because she thought every item on the list needed to be done in the next twelve months. Alternate Daysog felt that Staff should determine what should be deleted. Member DeWitt stated that it was essential that we keep working as long as financial support was available from the federal government. Gail Greely, Ex-Officio, AUSD, voiced the school district’s frustration that the school district has applied to OEA for funding but had been repeatedly denied. A motion was made by Member Mannix recommending approval, in concept, of the ARRA budget request to the OEA. Alternate Leonhardy seconded the motion and it passed with the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 1 - Alternate Daysog. F. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the ARRA Direct Staff to Prepare Initial Background Reports Necessary to Initiate the Formation of a Redevelopment Project Area for NAS Alameda and to Prepare Special Legislation Necessary to Establish the Project Area. Executive Director Miller stated that the consultants had recommended the formation of an RPA (Redevelopment Project Area) in the Implementation Strategy. An RPA, with its possibility of tax increment financing as a financing mechanism, is one of the financing tools that every base in the State of California has relied on. She further stated that this request was to endorse taking the first steps to look at the possibility of forming an RPA. She stressed that this does not commit the ARRA to the development of an RPA. Alternate Brown recommended that Staff work with City, County, and School District personnel; the Executive Director advised him that the intent was to do so. Alternate Daysog requested that on page 3, the second bullet of the staff report, “Allow for a portion of tax increment proceeds to be used to pay for essential fire and police services” be changed to add the words “school district.” Chair Appezzato said he could not support that request. Dena Belzer of BAE stated that the school district would be made whole for any loss in revenue. The Executive Director explained that the process of forming an RPA takes from twelve to eighteen months or more and the base needs to be established as early as possible. 6 A motion was made by Member Corbett to direct ARRA staff to take the first steps to prepare the initial background reports and special legislation necessary to establish a Redevelopment Project Area. Member Mannix seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous voice vote - 9. IV. ORAL REPORTS: H. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Updating the ARRA on BRAG Activities. Lee Perez, BRAG Chair, reported that there would be a Public Workshop on January 11, 7:00–9:00 p.m. in the Cafeteria of Historic Alameda High School. He then complimented the eleven Chairpersons of the various BRAG committees, Alice Garvin, and all of the members of the BRAG who have spent a tremendous amount of time and done exemplary work. I. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA on: Executive Director Kay Miller reported that: (1) the Seaport Advisory Committee would be meeting on January 4 and she would be requesting that the Port Priority designation be removed from 220 acres along the Estuary; (2) Captain Christensen will brief the ARRA on the additional military housing request at the March 6 meeting; (3) Current lease negotiations included an offer to UARCO and CARSTAR and staff was awaiting their response; active negotiations were underway with Giannotti; (4) The MARAD (Maritime Administration) ship currently berthed at the NAS pier is being done under an MOU with the Navy and the ARRA does not receive any monies from its berthing. As quickly as the Navy no longer continuing military need for those piers, the ARRA will enter into a lease agreement with the Navy and in turn, with MARAD, to begin generating revenue; (5) A February meeting has not yet been scheduled. A decision will be made at the January 31 meeting whether or not a meeting is needed in February. 7 V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) Neil Patrick Sweeney, a concerned citizen, complimented the ARRA on a job well done. He then commented that a previous proposal that mothballed ships be divided between Alameda NAS, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, and Hunter’s Point had been rejected by the BRAG. He suggested that as a courtesy, Mayor-elect Willie Brown be advised that Mare Island and Hunter’s Point could divide the ships 50-50. Richard Nevelyn, Hornet volunteer, requested that more copies of the entire agenda packet be available at the ARRA meetings and that 10-20 binders be available at the community workshop. Member Corbett reminded all that there are copies available at the local libraries. Chair Appezzato requested that more copies be available. Ann Mitchum, BRAG participant, related a problem she encountered at a BRAG meeting. Chair Appezzato directed Ms. Mitchum to meet with Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin after the meeting to discuss the situation. Bill Smith stated that he wanted to back up Ms. Mitchum in her complaint. He then discussed his support of electric bikes and the need for additional copies of the complete agenda packet at the ARRA meetings. IV. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 7:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Margaret E. Ensley Secretary 8