Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF SAN LEANDRO <br />CITY COUNCIL SHORELINE - MARINA COMMITTEE <br />July 5, 2011 <br />4:00 p.m. — 5:30 p.m. <br />San Leandro City Hall <br />835 East 14th Street <br />San Leandro, California <br />Sister Cities Gallery Room <br />HIGHLIGHTS <br />Committee Members: Councilmember Prola, Councilmember Souza, Councilmember Starosciak <br />City staff present: Interim City Manager Marshall, Public Works Director Bakaldin, Business <br />Development Manager Battenberg, Community Relations Representative <br />Ornelas, Marina Supervisor Snodgrass, Senior Development Specialist <br />Penaranda <br />Public present: Al Fernandez, Al Frates and Gil Raposo (Shoreline Development Citizens <br />Advisory Committee members), Kathe Frates, Eric Kurhi (Oakland Tribune), <br />Jill Repogle (Patch) <br />Councilmember Prola called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. <br />1. Presentation by Cal -Coast on Aquatic Park vs. Marina Park Financial Feasibility Analysis. <br />Business Development Manager Battenberg introduced Ed Miller and Scott Cooper of Cal- Coast, <br />who were present via teleconference. Both gave the presentation of the financial feasibility <br />analysis that they performed to determine if revenue generated from the proposed land -side <br />development could cover the costs to implement and maintain the Aquatic Park or the Marina Park <br />alternatives for the harbor basin. (see attached powerpoint slides). Based on financial information <br />contained in the Harbor Basin Alternatives Study prepared by ESA, Cal -Coast projected that the <br />Marina Park option would require a $20 million initial capital investment and $11.5 million for <br />dredging over 20 years, which would result in a net cost to the City of $11.13 million over 20 <br />years. The Aquatic Park option, which requires a $13 million initial capital investment, was <br />projected to provide $6.85 million in net revenue to the City over 20 years. <br />Councilmember Starosciak asked if the development could stand alone if only Phase 1 was <br />completed without Phases 2 and 3. Mr. Cooper replied negative; residential and professional office <br />development in Phases 1 and 2 were necessary to generate adequate revenue for the project to <br />sustain itself. Phases 1 and 2 could likely stand alone without Phase 3. <br />Manager Battenberg clarified that TOT (Transient Occupancy Tax) collected at a hotel would <br />typically go to a City's General Fund. She further explained that in order to fund the needed <br />improvements to the harbor basin, the analysis assumes that 100 percent of the TOT in years 1 <br />through 5 and 50 percent of the TOT in years 6 through 10 would be reinvested in the project. In <br />