pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf, 2
This data as json
| body | date | page | text | path |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2006-11-01 | 2 | Page 2 accompanied by a $20,000 non-refundable filing fee. The responses received will be evaluated and brought back to the ARRA should we receive responses with a recommendation to enter into a 45-day negotiation period. There was one speaker slip, Andrew Slifka, long-time Alameda resident and also a representative of the Carpenter's Union in Alameda County, and speaking on behalf of the Construction Building Trades Council of Alameda County. Mr. Slifka addressed concerns and disappointment with the Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) withdrawal from the project since they had a Project Labor Agreement with APCP. He urged the Board to look at the same requirements for any developer that should come forward, because Project Labor agreements bring value to the community, well-paying jobs with benefits, careers and local work opportunities. Member Daysog asked if specific questions regarding the financing of the project were outlined in the RFQ. He commented on the financing/business model associated with revitalizing the Catellus project and how it was distinct from the business model that was employed for the rest of Alameda Point. He also discussed incorporating a different business model. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, responded that developers will be asked who their source of capital is and for a deposit of "earnest money" in the amount or $1 million before a developer is selected. This information will be provided to the Board. Member Daysog asked if the potential developers understood the amount of property open for redevelopment. Ms. Potter responded that the $108 million purchase price is based on Phases 1 and Phases 2, which is essentially everything but the Wildlife Refuge and the area south of Atlantic Ave. and north of the 26-acre park, plus the golf course. David Brandt also clarified that we were careful to let the developers know that the PDC wasn't an entitlement. Member Matarrese asked whether a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) was presented to the bidders as part of the package that APCP (former master developer) put together. Debbie Potter responded that a PLA was not included in the RFQ and that it was not a requirement of the City when the first master developer was selected; but that a PLA was voluntarily agreed to by at least two out of the three finalists during the first master developer selection process. Member Matarrese requested that bidders be notified that a PLA was part of the original agreement and that the City does have a policy on prevailing wage. He was concerned that bidders would try to make their numbers work at the cost of labor. Ms. Potter said that a copy of the previously agreed-to document will be posted on the RFQ FTP site. Member deHaan discussed extending the current month-to-month leasing policy to a year-to- year policy in anticipation that the master developer would start taking down property. David Brandt acknowledged that the current ARRA direction is that all leases over a year come to the ARRA, and that potential tenants are told that redevelopment is imminent so long term leases are not being offered. This is being reevaluated to decide whether to start bringing longer term leases to the ARRA. | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf |