{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-24", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--SEPTEMBER - 24, 2013- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:07 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Mayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(13-418) Rose Sandoval, SEIU 1021, discussed BART employees working conditions\nand urged people to contact the City's BART Board representative.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(13-419) Provide Comments on Possible Project Labor Agreement (PLA) Policy.\nUrged adoption of a PLA: Assemblymember Rob Bonta.\nThe City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nMichael Viaming, Viaming and Associates, gave a Power Point presentation and\naddressed Council questions.\nMayor Gilmore stated Alameda Point is in the forefront; the project will take 20 to 30\nyears; multiple projects will be built over a long period of time; inquired whether Mr.\nViaming would argue for a Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA) instead of a Project\nLabor Agreement (PLA); further inquired whether perhaps 5 or 10 years would be a\nreasonable check in point; noted attracting initial projects might be difficult.\nMr. Viaming responded a PSA makes more sense and is a more cost effective solution\nthan a PLA, which would take considerable time to negotiate; stated a PSA makes more\nsense because of the long term and multiple constructions types that will be done; his\nrecommendation would be a PSA or a policy which would require developers to\nnegotiate with the building trades; the same thing can be accomplished in different\nways; estimating when the check in evaluation should be depends on the amount of\nconstruction; there would be nothing to evaluate if a 5 year timeline were selected and\nnothing happens; the time should be shorter, such as three years, if there is lot of\nconstruction up front; the City should gauge the construction economy and developer\ninterest to select a good timeline.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when a PSA should be negotiated; whether a PLA or\nPSA ever delays the start of a project; and how far in advance discussion should begin.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nSeptember 24, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-24", "page": 2, "text": "Mr. Viaming responded the City would not want to have a hard deadline and have to\nrace to be covered by a project agreement; stated bid specifications have to be done\nright and bidders need to be notified that an agreement exists which has required terms\nand conditions; lead time is needed; encouraged starting as early as possible because\nwhat will happen in negotiations is not known; further stated more time is needed if hard\nelements are being negotiated; not getting an Agreement done in time and running into\na problem is an unacceptable risk; the City may run out of time and not reach an\nAgreement or end up making a concession.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether negotiations should start six months or a\nyear prior to construction in the example of a new bond funded facility.\nMr. Viaming responded other agencies often start in advance of a bond measure vote\nand have the agreements in place; stated six months, or slightly longer, should be\nprovided for negotiations; six months is more than enough time for most agreements,\nunless there is something particularly difficult.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether there is an overlapping common denominator in\nmost PLAs, such as hiring local, minority or women contractors.\nMr. Viaming responded in the affirmative; stated typical provisions include: scope,\nstrike/lock out, referrals, dispute resolution, and safety; said items are typically covered\nat a macro level; then, local matters include start times, daily machinations and\npaydays; the agreement standardizes certain things; social progress provisions are\ngenerally included in more urban Project Agreements and are becoming more typical in\nthe interior Bay Area, but not rural areas.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the City of Berkeley addressed a citywide PLA a year and\na half ago; inquired what is the general trend and whether any other cities are\nconsidering citywide PLAs.\nMr. Viaming responded that he does not know.\nCouncilmember Chen stated an argument against PLAs is the inability for non-union\nworkers and contractors to compete; inquired how to respond to said argument.\nMr. Viaming responded the argument comes up all the time; inability to bid on a \"union\"\nproject is fundamentally not true; stated PLAs for public entities are open to union and\nnon-union; the California Supreme Court in a San Francisco Airport case determined a\ncontractor can decide whether or not to bid on a project; whether union or non-union\nspecific work conditions are required of any bidder; projects are open and available to\nall contractors; provided an example of a bond funded community college project with a\nlarge number of non-union contractors performing work under a Project Agreement; the\nother argument is cost claiming non-union contractors have to add money to bids\nbecause they will have to pay more; reviewed how benefits are structured and\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nSeptember 24, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-24", "page": 3, "text": "associated costs; stated the argument costs are increased is not necessarily true.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Mr. Viaming is recommending more of a hybrid approach; a\nPSA makes sense for something as complex, multifaceted, and long term as Alameda\nPoint; regular Public Works projects would fall under the category of a shorter term PLA;\ninquired what happens when the two types of projects dovetail; stated utilities and\ninfrastructure will be needed at Alameda Point; inquired how the two types work with\nDisposition and Development Agreements (DDAs); stated the City is going to be\nconveying parts of Alameda Point.\nMr. Viaming responded his answer is going to seem a lot like a dodge; stated the issue\nwould probably best be considered by having a discussion with the City Attorney; the\nmechanism and scope depend on a lot of different factors; a number of different\nelements go into in the matrix; that he would suggest deferring until real input is\nprovided regarding the direction in which Council wants to go; next, staff would establish\nthe best model to achieve objectives, which would be used to create the policy\nagreement; then, negotiations could begin; providing an opinion now would be\npremature because he does not know all the elements well enough, and gets the City\ntoo far down the road too fast.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the things in a PSA, such as no strike, no lock out,\njurisdictional dispute resolution process, referral procedures, and having mentorship\nprogram, are all things the City wants and values.\nMr. Viaming stated one option is to come up with a PSA and another option is to put\ntogether a policy which indicates the City is not going to negotiate the Agreement,\ninstead negotiation will be left to the developer; the City policy would include the\nrequired elements and direct developers to negotiate with the building trades; there are\ndifferent ways to accomplish the goal; the City could have a template Agreement and an\naccompanying policy.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether it would be possible to treat Alameda Point as its own\nanimal, because it is being rebuilt from the ground up; stated perhaps some sort of PLA\nthat applies to Alameda Point could be done and some other kind of Agreement could\nbe prepared for the rest of the City's built environment projects, such as replacing sewer\nmains, regular maintenance, or road work; inquired whether having one type of\nAgreement that covers both is better or whether the City could carve out Alameda Point\nand treat it differently.\nMr. Viaming responded the decision is the Council's prerogative; stated the Council\ncould decide to take care of one element first as a separate area; an Agreement could\nrequire that Public Works projects over a certain amount of money would have a PSA\nwith specific elements that must be negotiated by the contractor; the most cost efficient\nway might be to have different approaches; the City probably will need multiple\napproaches.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nSeptember 24, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-24", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated inquired how the City of Berkeley deals with private entities;\nand how Berkeley's citywide policy for public works projects translates in terms of\nrequirements.\nMr. Viaming responded the City of Berkeley set a threshold; stated projects with an\nestimated value over $1 million qualify and require a PLA to be included in bid\ndocuments.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated City leases in building requiring significant rehabilitation\ncould be one potential project category; an example would be Bladium making $2\nmillion in improvements; questioned putting a threshold in place and subjecting an entity\nto a PLA; inquired whether Mr. Viaming has encountered a situation where there is not\nsimply a threshold with regard to the value of the project, but something about the entity\nthat is going to have to implement the PLA.\nMr. Viaming responded that he has dealt with the issue; however, it was not an existing\ntenant doing an improvement; stated the 835 Westfield Project in San Francisco\nrenovated commercial shopping space; a provision in the Agreement required the\ntenant improvement work for a specific period of time to be covered under the\nAgreement and after period of time, the Agreement did not apply; having an existing\ntenant do improvements on a property is difficult; new construction is different; that he\nwould be cautious about imposing a PLA on existing tenants, which might create some\nchallenges; there could be a discussion between the tenant and the building trades.\nProvided input on the standards to include in an agreement: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point\nCollaborative.\nStated entering into an agreement is a partnership: Andreas Cluver, Building Trades\nCouncil of Alameda County.\nStated Alameda has a skilled labor force which looks forward to building Alameda Point:\nJason Bates, IBEW and Alameda resident.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft provided an example of Target taking interest in residents\nwho attended a Housing Authority seminar put on by a retail executive recruiter and\ntrainer, which was a creative example of how the City can help residents acquire jobs in\nAlameda with new businesses; everyone would love to see a jobs/housing balance in\nAlameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Alameda Point cannot just be a real estate project; there\nis some larger meaning in converting a military base into something more peaceful and\npositive, contributing to the wellbeing of residents; the possibility of a PLA is exciting;\none component is learning from the Mandela Center, Oakland Army base, Alameda\nPoint Collaborative or the building trades; the construction trades can help figure out\nways to make economic security tailored specifically to helping homeless families or\nothers in the system, which fulfills a 1995 promise made under the Standards of\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nSeptember 24, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-24", "page": 5, "text": "Reasonableness; stated that he looks forward to seeing said details.\nMayor Gilmore stated Council needs to provide direction to staff; suggested separating\nAlameda Point from the rest of the Island; stated one agreement should cover regular\nmaintenance and projects which come up in the City's regular course of business and\nAlameda Point would be treated as its own animal; recommendations should be\nprovided on how to address existing tenants using their own capital to upgrade and\nexpand businesses; the historic district is challenging in and of itself and may need to\nhave special consideration; social justice aspects should be reviewed; people live at\nAlameda Point and there should be some mechanism to allow them to participate in the\ngreat and wonderful projects that are going to happen around them; the City should be\nmindful of ways to get Alameda Point residents to participate in the upside of whatever\nhappens.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the Mayor; stated the four items in the staff\nreport [project category, project parameters, cost added to the project and impacts on\npublic policy goals] need to be fleshed out; project parameters could be narrowed down;\nBerkeley has a $1 million minimum; leaseholders doing their own improvements and the\nhistoric core could be treated differently; regarding cost added to the project, perhaps\nsome research could be provided regarding projects in the area; public policy goals\ninclude: historic preservation, marine preservation, competitiveness to attract new\ncommercial users and to retain and expand existing companies, local hiring, and social\njustice issues, including apprenticeship opportunities; that she would like to hear some\nspecifics about apprenticeship opportunities, especially with an eye to Alameda Point\nCollaborative residents.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City is actively engaging in discussions about the\nMaster Infrastructure Plan (MIP), the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and the\nphasing and disposition strategy for Alameda Point; Alameda Point has some unique\nissues beyond a garden variety PLA or PSA; starting with Alameda Point might make\nsense; then, regular maintenance projects could be addressed down the line.\nMayor Gilmore stated the staff report project category 1b, \"City Project,\" represents\nmore predictable, maintenance projects done on a schedule; said projects would be\nparked for a while and the City would start with Alameda Point based on the comments\ntonight; requested further information be provided to Council regarding having a\nconstruction dollar amount which would trigger a PLA, which seems really important to\nbuilding trades; more information is needed about whether having a dollar amount be a\ntriggering event is reasonable and what the amount should be; that she is not\nparticularly concerned about project complexity because she assumes anything at\nAlameda Point is going to be fairly complex, involve multiple trades and take over six\nmonths; Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft raised questions about the timeframe because\nprojects could be entitled in early 2014.\nThe City Manager stated the EIR comment period ends October 21st; staff is probably\ngoing to start bringing proposals early November; staff has been talking to the trades for\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nSeptember 24, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-24", "page": 6, "text": "a long time and has discussed, for example, the problem of historic buildings; the\nbuilding's value is pretty much nil; imposing a PLA on a tenant might be a problem if a\nnew roof is needed; there is agreement that all new construction should be subject to a\nPLA; backbone infrastructure should be subject to a PLA; a decision needs to be made\nabout a threshold; Berkeley's is $1 million; the trades would like $250,000; backbone\ninfrastructure and new construction projects are going to reach either threshold; urged\nthat the matter be addressed in the next two or three months since staff would be\nbringing Exclusive Negotiation Agreements (ENAs) to Council pretty soon; stated staff\nwants to be able to address whether or not the project requires a PLA during\nnegotiations.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he suspects the historic district or buildings with\nnegative value would not generate a rent or sale price which would recoup the\ninvestment; however, the possibility of a PLA should not be discounted altogether;\nrequested staff to provide an analysis that includes parameters under which a PLA\nmight or might not work.\nThe City Manager stated staff provided a report a year ago which indicated historic\nbuildings are never going to be worth the amount repairs will cost; a private sector deal\nwill not allow the buildings to be redone; when the buildings are leased, the City gives a\ndollar for dollar rent credit for any tenant repairs; stated that he would provide the report\nto Councilmember Daysog.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he supports moving forward with the two prong\napproach: one PLA specifically for Alameda Point and a second Citywide PLA; the\nwheel should not be reinvented; the City can pick and choose from existing models to\ndetermine what works for Alameda; Berkeley could be the starting point.\nMayor Gilmore clarified that she would prefer to move forward on the Alameda Point\nPLA and park the City projects for a little while; stated the Alameda Point PLA should\nfocus on backbone infrastructure and new construction and the historic district should\nbe carved out; the sticking point is what, if anything, to require of existing tenants.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether Council would like her come back with a policy or try\nto start to negotiate something with the unions.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she wants answers to questions posed in the\nstaff report to allow the Council to craft a policy; stated a sample agreement and\ncategories could be provided when the matter returns.\nMayor Gilmore stated the actual policy should be provided which addresses backbone\ninfrastructure and new construction when the matter is brought back.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City Attorney should work in consultation with the\nbuilding trades council in developing the language.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nSeptember 24, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-24", "page": 7, "text": "The City Manager stated the City Attorney should not be in the position of taking a\nposition if there are items which cannot be agreed upon; the City Attorney should bring\nback a proposed policy and include what the trades want which differs; then, the\nCouncil can decide what to do.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether Council should direct the City Attorney to\nconsult with various stake holder parties, such as trades representatives, contractor\nrepresentatives, or others who would be a party to a PLA, as well as Mr. Viaming.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would also like the Alameda Point Collaborative\nincluded.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(13-420) The City Manager reminded everyone to attend the Joint City Council and\nPlanning Board meeting tomorrow night.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(13-421) Councilmember Tam announced that all Councilmembers attended all or a\nportion of the League of California Cities conference last week; discussed the sessions\nshe attended.\nThe City Manager noted the City's bond rating increased.\nCouncilmember Tam continued her review of the sessions.\nCouncilmembers Chen and Daysog discussed the sessions they attended.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:26 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nSeptember 24, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-24.pdf"}