pages: CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf, 22
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-01-19 | 22 | 48 trades within Alameda County. Councilmember Spencer stated there are women and minority-owned businesses which are not part of the trades; inquired how the women and minority-owned businesses fit in. The City Manager responded there is flexibility in the matter for Council; stated should Council not believe there can be an agreement with a specific development, the policy has latitude for the option not to require a PLA by a vote of three Councilmembers; staff has provided provisions regarding minority-owned businesses, which is strengthened by the Mayor's proposal; staff can negotiate, but do not negotiate at the same level for all trades; collective negotiation is attempted; however, in certain circumstances, other businesses can be involved. Councilmember Spencer stated that she is trying to figure out why the proposal is in the City's best interest; inquired the reason for staff bringing the matter forward versus a Councilmember. The City Manager responded due to the history of PLA's in connection with City developments; stated staff has worked to create a playing field where developers would know the expectations for negotiations; the matter provides Council discretion on specific projects; Council may waive the requirement for specific projects if deemed necessary. In response to Councilmember Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant City Manager stated the limit is $5 million in construction or $7.5 million for a non-profit entity that is improving leased City- owned property; the threshold has been set high allowing for a substantial amount of work; there is also a limit of up to a minimum seven year lease term to ensure significant invest is made prior to the requirement being triggered. Councilmember Spencer inquired whether the City currently has tenants which fall under the proposed category and whether the proposed matter is relevant. The Assistant City Manager responded there are four parts to the recommendation; stated one is related to improving City-owned properties or leases; however, there are also affordable housing projects, which would trigger the threshold fairly quickly under the Measure 1A bond; noted the County has a requirement that labor be involved when bond money goes towards affordable housing projects; the requirement will be triggered with or without this resolution; the resolution clarifies the expectation for Alameda; other projects can trigger the requirement as well; Alameda Point and Site A are examples of projects which trigger the requirement; outlined previous projects requiring a PSA/PLA. Councilmember Spencer inquired whether the requirement has been on a project-by-project basis, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the recommendation adds clarity to the process and sets expectations. Councilmember Spencer inquired whether other cities in the area have the same requirement. The Assistant City Manager responded other entities have tackled the requirement in a more comprehensive manner; stated Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) has a similar policy in place. The City Manager stated BART has a more global policy; other cities have a more individual project-by-project basis. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 19, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf |