As mentioned by Doug Biggs, in early October the City sent the Navy a letter discussing recommendations made by the Historic Properties Inspection Report which suggested that the Navy and the ARRA (the City) consider apportioning lease revenues to the maintenance of the historic structures at Alameda Point.
Essentially the City says, ain’t gonna happen. To quote the letter:
In the past year alone, and consistent with the requirements of the Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance (“LIFOC”), the ARRA has spent over $2.3 million on repairs, upgrades, security, guard service, graffiti eradication, board up, roof and utility inspections. Total expenditures for property management at Alameda Point in the past two years has exceeded annual lease income, instead utilizing cash funds that have been saved specifically to prepare for unexpected infrastructure repairs or long term, large capital projects that require dollars to be programmed over several years to accumulate for emergencies… [emphasis added]
So while Louise insists that her
…only intent here is to demonstrate that the city is NOT losing money on the leases right now — that’s it.”
The whole hysterical, OMG, we’re-bleeding-money-at-the-base argument is inaccurate and misleading.
It would appear that even the City acknowledges that for the past two years, at least: (1) the expenditures have exceeded revenues and (2) there has been a need to dip into what would be reserve funds in order to do basic property management at Alameda Point. While they did not write “OMG, we’re bleeding money at the base” at some point, if nothing is done, then OMG, we will be in serious trouble.
The question is, does the City have the money to make a large capital investment in Alameda Point, in the case that some folks get their way and SunCal disappears and no other developer swoops in to take its place?
If folks have a few minutes take a read through the entire letter, the details of the investment that the City has had to put into Alameda Point just to keep it secure is staggering. For example, the cost just replace the windows in one building alone was $1 million. That included removing lead paint, sandblasting, sealing and that spanned 14 months.
But back to Louise’s comment, who then says:
I realize that a complete overhaul of the infrastructure at Alameda Point would be extremely expensive — the thing is, no one is proposing that a complete overhaul would be necessary in an alternative plan, and certainly not me.
I think the point that folks have been trying to make — or at least I have been trying to make — is that even if alternative plans aren’t suggesting a complete overhaul of the infrastructure at Alameda Point, the reality is the infrastructure at Alameda Point isn’t going to last much longer. It’s not an “if the infrastructure will need a complete overhaul” it’s a “when the infrastructure will need a complete overhaul.” And, according to the City’s letter referenced above, there is no money saved for “unexpected infrastructure repairs or long term, large capital projects” because that money is going into the day to day maintenance, because the current expenditures exceed revenues.
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
Lauren,
Thanks for translating the city’s letter. It’s so poorly written, no wonder people disagree over what the city means. On the other hand, no matter what Louise claims, we are committed to maintaining the base infrastructure; just wishing will not make those requirements go away. I keep thinking about one of my mother’s favorite quotes: “If wishes were horses all beggars would ride.”
Comment by Linda Hudson — December 28, 2009 @ 10:38 am
The trend is clear: the substandard infrastructure at AP is failing and in the long term will cost the City of Alameda more money to repair/replace/maintain than it now takes in from lease revenues. And the City is legally responsible for providing the infrastructure at AP, even to support the existing businesses and activities that are there. The existing businesses do not provide sufficient lease income to support rebuilding it, which is an engineering inevitability.
Louise and others suggest that “no one is proposing that a complete overhaul would be necessary in an alternative plan,” but replacing this substandard and failing infrastructure (water, sewer, electrical, etc.) is a budgetary inevitability, even without the higher-density development that could underwrite its cost (and estimates start at $700 million).
My question to Louise and the opponents of Measure B and more intensive forms of redevelopment at AP is this: just how will the City of Alameda pay for these inevitable costs?
The City has no likely sources of funds for this work, and we cannot expect the federal or state funding assistance, even for a VA hospital. I doubt that Louise and others want to pay the taxes or approve the bonds to finance this inevitable project, which dwarfs any bond issues or parcel taxes approved in Alameda thus far by an order of magnitude or two. So what realistic (versus pie-in-the-sky or beggars wishing for horses) funding solutions do they offer for this $700 million requirement?
Comment by Jon Spangler — December 28, 2009 @ 11:07 am
# 1
“…we are committed to maintaining the base infrastructure; just wishing will not make those requirements go away.”
The sad truth is that, by and large, the “infrastructure” on the base cannot be maintained. Before the base was closed, the communication, electrical, water and sewage systems were on the brink of total collapse. And that was with a huge “plant maintenance” system in-place.
In most cases there are no drawings or accurate documentation of upgrades or repair of the original systems. When the base was open, the maintenance system included personal with institutional knowledge of most of these systems, which was passed on from old worker to new worker. This “institutional” knowledge is all gone and what’s left is a hodge-podge of decayed systems.
The idea that this hodge-podge can be “maintained” is outside the scope of reality.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 28, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
If wishes were horses … this could have been us {sigh}…
From today’s SF Chronicle re Treasure Island. The similarities to Alameda Point are eerily familiar with the exception of voting on the Measure A, which is unique to Alameda. Some notable quotes:
“It’s all supported by revenue the project generates,” Cohen said. “That’s why this project is so attractive.”
“The people who say this is the wrong place for something should also know that downtown San Francisco is the wrong place,” said Will Travis, executive director at the Bay Conservation Development Commission {re sea level rise}, which has jurisdiction over part of the project. “The advantage of Treasure Island is you can do the planning for how you will protect the island.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/28/MNNL1B917Q.DTL
Comment by David V. — December 28, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
Just ask those who lease how the phone service is out at the Point. It is left over from the Navy and is in need of constant repair. All of the utilities at NAS Alameda, sorry until the City owns the land I will call it NAS, need to be replaced and no Utility wants to invest until the base has enough usage to receive a return on their investment. The current tenant load does not do that.
Comment by John — December 28, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
“The City acknowledges that City shall credit Developer the sum of all costs associated with constructing, acquiring, and/or installing public infrastructure, including, without limitation, costs of design, engineering, surveying, permits, fees, taxes, bonds, labor, materials, land and construction administration. The right to the foregoing credits or reimbursements shall survive the termination of the Development Agreement.”
Development Agreement in SunCal Ballot Measure.
(Development Agreement 2.11.3a, page 9)
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 28, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
Jon-
I am an opponent of Measure B but not the SunCal plan, at least not totally. I mainly think they need to be subject to our existing processes re historic preservation, which Measure B exempts them from. City Council should have put an alternative measure on the ballot that would be yes/no on the question of an Article XXVI exemption, something I could have voted for if the city attorney was confident it would not cause an overturn of XXVI on the rest of the island. Why are we forced to vote on a development agreement?
Comment by Kevis Brownson — December 28, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
It’s pretty exciting to have an actual document to reference, isn’t it? A new experience for some folks. I have already raised issues that contest Lauren et al’s interpretation of this letter, but never mind, let’s get back to basics.
SunCal’s Measure B is opposed by the following (who have signed the ballot argument against Measure B):
The Mayor and two Councilmembers;
The City Treasurer and City Auditor;
Two school board members;
The Chamber of Commerce;
and other civil leaders.
The city and its taxpayers will be on the hook for hundreds of milions (that’s HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS) of dollars if Measure B passes. The risk of proceeding w/ SunCal’s Measure B vastly outweighs any risk from the status quo.
Of course, SunCal has publicly acknowledged some of these risks and even promised to enter agreements (AFTER the vote) to supposedly minimize them — which like all the other promises means nothing.
The City Attorney has issued an opinion stating that agreements in conflict w/ Measure B will NOT be enforceable, meaning that any and all promises to “fix” Measure B are meaningless.
Memo from City Attorney to City Council Regarding Enforceability of Agreements in Conflict with Alameda Point Initiative, December 17, 2009
Click to access Legal_enforceability_SunCal1.pdf
Comment by Louise — December 28, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
And here are some excerpts:
CONCLUSION
Before the February 2, 2010 election, it will not be possible to enter into any enforceable agreement because no prior environmental review will have been completed;
After the election (and assuming voter-approval), SunCal may amend the Development Agreement if it chooses to do so; However, SunCal will control whether and when it would seek such a amendment and it should not be assumed that any developer would voluntarily relinquish fiscal and other benefits gained from a voter-approved Initiative;
Inconsistent terms in any other negotiated agreement (such as a Disposition and Development Agreement, or “DDA”) may be required to be resolved in favor of the terms in the Development Agreement. Accordingly, although the City and SunCal could negotiate a DDA to mitigate the impacts identified in the Election Reports, SunCal also would have to amend the Development Agreement in order to assure consistency and enforceability a of any such negotiated terms,
Comment by Louise — December 28, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
Here are the Measure B ballot arguments for and against:
http://alamedapointinfo.com/category/topics/ballot-arguments
I believe that the City Council has a joint meeting on w/ the school board — this coming January 5th — to receive reports on Measure B, and the risks to the city and the schools.
PS: I believe that the City Council and the BOE have
Comment by Louise — December 28, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
Louise: what has the city done for the base in the past 15 years?
Answer: next to NOTHING.
Comment by E — December 28, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
#11: What were they supposed to do??
#4: Comment from the SFGate article on Treasure Island:
“ifyouaskme12/28/2009 12:30:33 AM
This project has huge risks for San Francisco taxpayers. Shouldn’t it be on a ballot where taxpayers can vote on it?
Recommend: (397)
Disagree: (36)”
And as for Will Travis — he was the chair of an advisory committee in Berkeley, who pushed to have the committee’s recommendations on downtown development overturned by the City Council. The CC’s final pro-developer vote is now going to the ballot as a referendum, after “an estimated 9,200 people signed petitions to hold a ballot-box referendum on the Downtown Area Plan [CC’s decision], far more than the required 5,528”.
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-08-27/article/33600?headline=Downtown-Plan-Referendum-Qualifies-for-Ballot
I guess we’re lucky here to have some say on development as voters.
Comment by Louise — December 28, 2009 @ 10:51 pm
I had a question regarding the cities obligations with the leases at Alameda Point. If Sun Cal pulls out and the navy actually sells the property is the city still on the hook for the leases and the bills associated with them?
Thanks
Troy
Comment by Troy Staten — December 29, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
#8
I agree with Louise that
The city and its taxpayers will be on the hook for hundreds of milions (that’s HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS) of dollars if Measure B passes. The risk of proceeding w/ SunCal’s Measure B vastly outweighs any risk from the status quo.
With current market conditions, SunCal likely won’t be starting construction at the Point anytime soon – so we will pay little time penalty to step back and find another way forward that poses less financial risk to the City and to Alameda schools should Measure B fail.
Comment by William Smith — December 29, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
Troy:
However the transfer of land is made (conveyance, direct auction, fed-to-fed transfer) the City will always be responsible for providing services to the property (police, fire, general administration).
Comment by Lauren Do — December 30, 2009 @ 7:27 am
Therein lies the point of this thread: Alameda has insufficient revenues to provide those services now because the lease revenues do not cover the cost of repairing and maintaining the decaying infrastructure, much less trying to provide fire and police (The City closed the only fire station at Alameda Point and is having to pay for the clean-up of the FISC fire because Catellus seems to be checking out of Alameda).
The risks to the City are higher if Measure B fails.
Alameda taxpayers will be on the hook for the purchase price, the cost of clean-up, repair and maintenance, providing fire and police — all without revenues from a developer.
Comment by David V. — December 30, 2009 @ 10:21 am
Exactly what revenues is the developer providing to the city?
Comment by David Hart — December 30, 2009 @ 10:36 am
#7:
Kevis,
You posed a reasonable and brief question that goes to the heart of the conflict over SunCal’s proposal and initiative. IMHO, it requires a lengthy and multi-pronged answer.
Our City Councils & mayors have long been gutless re: placing a measure on the ballot to amend Measure A-Charter Section XXVI, including current officials. SunCal waited until the Council again said no and then (out of necessity and a lack of cooperation from city officials terrified of Alameda’s “third rail”) wrote its own measure.
The Development Agreement (DA) was included because many people (myself included) reasoned that Alameda’s voters would never approve a “carte blanche” lifting of density restrictions without knowing what they would end up with in return. I certainly would not vote to lift existing density controls without having a clear idea of what would replace them. And I strongly support SunCal’s dplans for Alameda Point because Peter Calthorpe has developed a flexible, comprehensive, and very “green” plan for revitalizing AP.)
Including Peter Calthorpe’s terrific plan and the DA in the initiative was SunCal’s way of providing a detailed–if flawed–alternate vision to a Measure-A compliant Alameda Point for voters to consider. In fact, the language in the SunCal DA closely resembles previously-approved DAs that the City of Alameda (City Council-CIC-ARRA) agreed to with Catellus (Prologis) and other developers with almost no community opposition. These clauses include the right to “sell off” development rights and parcels, as Lauren and others have pointed out here previously.
Our community does not have the money to redevelop, repair, or rebuild the infrastructure at AP on its own, and most reasonable people have acknowledged the need for outside private-sector funding to remake AP in any fashion, Measure-A-compliant or not. But Alameda Point Community Partners pulled out of its Measure-A-compliant project because they could not make any money on the deal, which is a basic requirement for any developer.
I am deeply disturbed at the mounting evidence I see that appointed and elected City of Alameda officials seem to have a not-so-hidden agenda behind their opposition to SunCal’s initiative and plan, which is for the City to be its own master developer. This is pure folly, IMHO.
Since the City lacks the financial deep pockets, the administrative and political expertise, prior experience, and the political savvy and pull needed to manage such a huge redevelopment project on its own, it has no business trying to be its own master developer. But many at City Hall seem bound and determined to play roulette with our financial futures in this way: this poses at least as much risk to our financial future as any fears that SunCal’s opponents have raised.
SunCal’s higher-density proposal offers the possibility of decent financial returns for both the developer, its financiers, and the City of Alameda (the latter through profit-sharing). Amending the DA and remedying the problematic issues (like historic preservation, financing, the scope of City approvals, etc.)is a highly reasonable and likely means to resolving most–if not all–community concerns about the SunCal initiative, and SunCal is eager to meet Alameda’s needs in this regard. (The selection of a February 2 election date was one way the City Council and staff short-circuited the still-budding and once-promising negotiations between SunCal and City staff on these points.)
We need to look at the realm of the possible and the practical and not get lost daydreaming of pie-in-the-sky plans that have no sound financial underpinning (like the VA or current lease incomes paying for all of AP’s new infrastructure, neither of which which will happen). We have neither the technical expertise or the money to go it alone at AP, with or without the help of the federal government’s smaller agencies (Fish & Wildlife Agency, Veterans Administration). And I fear that the nay-saying pied pipers are luring us into financial ruin with their imaginary post-SunCal “solutions” for Alameda Point.
Comment by Jon Spangler — December 30, 2009 @ 11:59 am
#13:
Troy,
Under the base reuse agreements that Alameda signed with the US Navy in the 1990s, The City of Alameda is obligated to maintain AP’s infrastructure. So we are all still on the hook if SunCal’s initiative is defeated on February 2 and the costs will continue to rise, according to those who really understand the situation out at AP.
Comment by Jon Spangler — December 30, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
#17:
TIF (tax increment financing) revenue results from property values increasing as a result of a developer providing the funds to rebuild the infrastructure. Last I read in Measure B, Suncal agreed to pay the conveyance and redevelopment cost. Didn’t the Navy still wanted $108.5M for the former NAS before conveying it to the City?
Comment by David V. — December 30, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
Are you unaware that the city receives only about 11% of that figure?
Comment by David Hart — December 30, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
And also that it will be almost zero in the early years, doesn’t increase with reassessment and doesn’t come close to covering the cost of governing & maintaining the new areas?
Comment by David Hart — December 30, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
And that the developer isn’t providing those funds, the city is borrowing them through its redevelopment agency?
Comment by David Hart — December 30, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
Much of what has been discussed here has already been answered by the City Manager in her letter of November 18, 2009.
http://alamedapointinfo.com/documents/letter-city-manager-suncal-regarding-ballot-measure-november-18-2009
Click to access 2009-11-18LetterfromCMtoSunCal_0.pdf
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 30, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
#18 Whoaaa there!
You wrote: “The selection of a February 2 election date was one way the City Council and staff short-circuited the still-budding and once-promising negotiations between SunCal and City staff on these points.”
As I remember it, the Feb.2 date was the only possible logical date possible under the election laws.
SunCal/DE Shaw submitted the signatures,after holding onto them for two or three months.
Then the Registrar of Voters verified them and they were then presented to the city
council.
The election laws state that the election had to be scheduled no sooner than 88 days and no later than 103 days from that date.
The 103 days extended to mid/late February. Piedmont was already slated for an election Feb.2.
Marie Gilmore asked if Alameda could ignore the election laws and schedule this election months later.
Luckily, that’s not the way an open democracy works, and the city council voted to obey the law.
That’s why the election is February 2.
To say anything else is not true.
Comment by RM — December 30, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
All over but the shouting:
URGENT MESSAGE from Mayor Beverly Johnson
Dear Friend,
In today’s tough economy, it is my responsibility to maintain your essential city services and protect you—the Alameda taxpayer—from fiscal waste. That’s why I urge you to vote NO on B in Alameda’s upcoming Special Election.
I’ve carefully studied Measure “B” – the Developer-written plan for Alameda Point. The City Auditor and City Treasurer agree that Measure B could cost you hundreds of dollars per year in tax increases from a shortfall of as much as $500 Million.
Measure B also creates an UNFAIR TAX-SYSTEM by limiting the tax rate that future Alameda Point residents will pay – newcomers will pay less, while we pay more!
Measure B is Bad for Alameda, and bad for you—please vote NO!
Alamedans are seniors who use 9-1-1 and public safety services, Alamedans have families with children who need quality schools, parks and recreation, and Alamedans are small businesses owners struggling in today’s economy. Measure B does NOT guarantee that a single park, fire station or school will get built—don’t be misled!
Measure B hurts our taxpayers and our small businesses. With Sacramento politicians planning to take even more money away from us for the state’s budget crisis — and so many of us on fixed incomes or out of work — we can’t afford a plan as irresponsible and expensive as Measure B.
Join the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, City Auditor Kevin Kearney, City Treasurer Kevin Kennedy, Alameda residents, Assemblyman Sandre Swanson, County Supervisor Alice Lai-Bitker and a majority of the City Council in voting NO on B. Absentee ballots will begin to be mailed January 4th.
Thank you,
Mayor Beverly Johnson
Paid for by No on B – Bad for Alameda, Sponsored by Alameda Labor Council, AFL-CIO and Alameda Building and Construction Trades Council FPPC #1323125
Comment by DLM — December 30, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
can you r-tards please refrain from posting campaign material on the comments here? Paraphrase, quote, whatever, but don’t just post whole things verbatim. Be a little creative guys.
Comment by E — December 31, 2009 @ 1:38 am
So Bevjo says vote no on B because it’s better to save our money for the Sacramento politicians who apparently take precedent over Alameda’s future.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 31, 2009 @ 8:42 am
RM said: “Marie Gilmore asked if Alameda could ignore the election laws and schedule this election months later.”
That is the kind of slanted statement which rankles a fair minded person. If the opinion of one City attorney was a be all, end all opinion, there would be no appeals court system.
Ms. Gilmore is a lawyer, and the question of whether the Charter Amendment aspect to the initiative should take precedent with regard to the election date was the legitimate issue at hand. Even Barbara Kerr agreed with Marie. I think Debra Bowen’s office should have at least been asked for an opinion. I don’t even think her motive was one aimed against the initiative, but was instead to save tax dollars for the special election.
DLM, was post 26 your final shout for the new year? As much as I find comments like #27 to be overly snarky and irritating, hyperbolic political statements are more irritating, especially when one suspects the person to whom they are credited didn’t craft it themselves line by line.
Comment by M.I. — December 31, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
29.
Secretary of State’s duties are administrative, probably Attorney General Moonbeam would be the correct venue for state level legal interpretation.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 31, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
Okay, this is a pointless waste of time. Got it.
Comment by dlm — January 1, 2010 @ 10:57 am