Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Documentation related to Concord Naval Weapons Station


Documentation related to Concord Naval Weapons Station

More Info
									-----Original Message----From: Morgan, Lynn M [] Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 9:38 To: Drozd, David CIV OASN (I&E) BRAC PMO NE Cc: Charest, Linda R; 'Monroe, Bryant, CIV, WSO-OEA'; 'Jones, David, COL, WSOOEA' Subject: Concord Naval Weapons Station I have reviewed and approved the 3 legally binding agreements for Concord without any changes from the forms submitted as part of Concord's application. Please send a signed Navy "comfort letter" about the LBAs to me as soon as possible. If any of the terms and conditions present a problem for the Navy, please let me know. Since we didn't require any changes to the LBAs, I haven't attached them for your review. If your office doesn't have a copy readily available, I can fax them to you. Thanks, Lynn

Supplemental Information 1. Naval Air Station Brunswick: The Homeless Assistance Trust Account is to be funded based on a per acreage assessment to be assessed directly by the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) on the Transferee. The Navy has not and will not condition its sale or transfer of the property. The Navy will, however, make certain that future transferees are aware of the LRA’s development assessment as part of any due diligence inquiry. Furthermore, the total value of the $686,605 Homeless Trust Account reflects the value of the real property that would have otherwise been available and conveyed to the homeless provider. 2. Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment Concord: There are 3 Legally Binding Agreements (LBAs) for Concord and all 3 LBAs place a condition on the future sale of the property. For example, the Concord Homeless Assistance Fund LBA states "as required by the Navy as a condition of the sale or transfer", the Navy transferee will make payment of $18,500,000 into an interest bearing account. The LBA places this obligation directly on the Navy, not the LRA. In addition, this amount is not in any way related to or based on the value of the available property the homeless would have otherwise received from the Navy. There is no authority for the Navy, nor is there any legal obligation on the Navy, to require or enforce such a condition. 3. Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) El Toro and San Pedro Housing: HUD had approved the LRA’s HAS for MCAS El Toro prior to the LRA’s decision to not prepare another reuse plan following the county vote overturning its previous reuse plan. In the absence of an approved LRA Application including LBAs for San Pedro Housing, HUD recommended the Navy convey certain real property and improvement to two specific homeless service providers. For both installations, the HUD approved homeless service providers requested specific property (land and/or existing improvements) on the installation to meet their needs. The Navy sold both properties via public auction honoring the intent of the HUD approved HAS for MCAS El Toro and HUD’s recommendations for San Pedro Housing. In cooperation and agreement with the HUD approved homeless service providers, each parcel to be conveyed for homeless assistance uses was included in the invitation for bids (IFBs) and designated as “Potentially Excluded Parcels” with a mechanism for the winning bidders to acquire the homeless service providers’ real property interest in their respective parcels, by negotiating alternative consideration acceptable to the homeless service providers. These alternative arrangements between the winning bidder and homeless service providers could only be negotiated following the Government’s Notice of Acceptance of the winning bids and the close of escrow. The IFBs clearly stated

in bold text: “The Government will NOT be a party to any Alternative Agreement and will NOT enforce any of the terms and conditions contained in the Alternative Agreements. The Government will NOT facilitate the development of any Alternative Agreement.” Only upon the receipt of a written release of any claim or interest to the real property and improvements from the homeless service provider for property and improvements that were to be conveyed from the Navy to the homeless service provider, within the aforementioned timeframe, would the Navy convey such property to the winning bidders. Otherwise such property would be conveyed from the Navy to the homeless service provider as was the case for two parcels at MCAS El Toro. The Navy received fair market value for all property not designated for homeless assistance uses in the IFB.

To top