Loading...
2010-01-19 Packetfit Y?i I ��Grl�Rf 4ti'F'k;itl��r�'� CITY OF ALAMEDA CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Assistant City Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the podium and state your name; speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per item 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally 3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during Council meetings AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY JANUARY 19 2010 7:go P.M. [Note: Regular council Meeting convenes at 7:00 pm, city Hall, Council Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street] The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows: 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Changes 3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements 4. Consent Calendar 5. City Manager Communications 6. Regular Agenda Items 7. Oral Communications, Non Agenda (Public Comment) 8. Council Referrals 9. Council Communications (Communications from Council) 10. Adjournment Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a speaker's slip with the Assistant City Clerk if you Irish to address the city council. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1 ROLL CALL City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public 4 -A. Minutes of the special Joint City Council and School Board Meeting held on January 5, 2610 and Special City Council Meetings held on January 6, 2010. (City Clerk) 4 -B. Bills for Ratification. (Finance) 4 -C. Recommendation to solicit Bids and Sell surplus Electrical Equipment. (Alameda Municipal Poorer) 4-D. Adoption of Resolution Ratifying the Public Utility Board's Approval of the Confirmation to the single Member Services Agreement Between Alameda Municipal Pager and the Northern California Pager Agency Regarding the Graeagle Hydroelectric Facility Power Purchase Agreement and Authorize the General Manager of Alameda Municipal Poorer to Execute the Confirmation to the single Member services Agreement. (Alameda Municipal Power) 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from City Manager) 5 -A. State Budget 6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 6 -A. Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $60,280 to AZCO Supply and Authorize a Ten Percent Contingency to Purchase Twenty -five Streetlight Poles as Part of the Woodstock to Webster Street Neighborhood Improvement Project, and Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute the Contract and Related Documents. (Economic Development) 6 -B. Recommendation to Appoint Members of the Sunshine Issue Spotting Task Force. (City Manager) 7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NON AGENDA (Public Comment) Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda 8. COUNCIL. REFERRALS Matters placed on the agenda by a Councilmember may be acted upon or scheduled as a future agenda item 9. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on any Conferences or meetings attended 10. ADJOURNMENT City Council Materials related to an item on the agenda are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office, City Hall, Room 380, during normal business hours Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interprets Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is available 0 Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print 0 Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting UNAPPROVED d ED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING TUESDAY JANUARY 5 -7:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Joint Meeting at 7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Present. Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, L. Tarr and Mayor Johnson; and School Board Members Jensen, McMahon, Spencer, N. Tam and President Mooney 10. Absent: None. AGENDA ITEM 10- Joint Executive Presentation on Alameda Point Development Initiative Process, Contents of Initiative, Chronology of Process, Executive Summary, and Questions and Answers. The Interim City Manager, Planning Services Manager, Redevelopment Manager, Public Works Director, and School Superintendent gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmernber L. Tam stated the goal of the election report is to inform the electorate; inconsistencies should be explained to prevent voter confusion; the City and the developer have to negotiate the cost of public benefits in the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA); the Interim City Manager has indicated public benefits would total $371 million; the initiative includes a $200 million cap; requested that the developer explain the difference in cost. Pat Keliher, SunCal Alameda Point Project Manager, stated a business plan was submitted to the City in December 2008; all the things discussed tonight are consistent with said plan; SunCal does not agree with the analysis; the analysis should have referred back to the business plan in order to truly understand costs; the City's report assumes $48 million for on site roads that are included in the master infrastructure costs in the business plan and are not part of the public benefits; $103 million in transit improvement soft costs are in separate sections in the business plan and are not included in the public benefits; the challenge is the analysis was done by people not privy to those documents [business plan]; the analysis cannot be done in a vacuum. Councilrnernber L. Tarn inquired whether the expectation is that the $200 million cap identified as the. hard cost will cover all public benefits infrastructure identified in the initiative, such as the library, roads and sports facilities. Mr. Keliher responded in the affirmative; stated SunCal wrote a letter saying that they would be willing to lift the cap; SunCal wants to build the benefits; SunCal believes costs Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Board of Education January 5, 2010 will be less than $200 million and estimates the cost to be around $170 million; the discrepancy is tremendous; the City included $4 million for the Sea Plane Lagoon bulkhead, which is a completely separate budget item. Councilmember L. Tam stated page 10 of the election report has the definition of the City's fiscal neutrality policy; the policy explicitly calls for the use of Tax Increment (TI) funding in the redevelopment area in order to ensure that the new development pays for itself; November 2009 City correspondence confirms fiscal neutrality; there is Confusion over the 2% tax cap, which covers the hospital and school taxes; requested that the developer clarify why the cap is in the initiative and its effects on the City's operating budget. Mr. Keliher stated the shortfall that the project has to pick up is about 0.13 assuming Alameda's ad valorem is 1.1 1.23% would ensure all of the fiscal impacts on the City would be taken care of; the cap was put at 2% because the project is underwritten at 1.8 which is consistent with the business plan; the model only assesses residential, not commercial; SunCal feels that the market will not accept anything above 2 the fiscal impact analysis done by the City indicated that above 2% is not needed. In response to Councilmember L. Tam 3 s inquiry about the Bayport community facilities district, the Public Works Director stated the [Bayport] Maintenance Assessment District covers public infrastructure and includes costs for emergency services. Councilmember L. Tam inquired whether emergency service costs are for the Fire Department, to which the Public Works Director responded costs are for Police or Fire. Councilmember L. Tam stated ballot arguments reference a $500 million shortfall; inquired how the amount was derived. The Interim City Manager responded staff cannot answer questions on ballot argument material. Councilmember Gilmore stated public benefits are supposed to be $371 million; adding the $52 million in net exactions and subtracting the $200 million cap leaves a $223 million shortfall if her math is correct. The Interim City Manager stated Councilmember Gilmore's math is correct as it relates to the shortfall on capital. Councilmember L. Tam inquired whether $103 million in soft costs is included. The interim City Manager responded the amounts shown on the presentation slides are what staff believes to be the present value project costs; stated that she is not clear whether Mr. Keliher is referring to the joint pro forma or another document which is in negotiation; the City's view is the costs are $371 million. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 2 Board of Education January 5, 2010 The Public works Director stated staff relied on the language in the ballot measure; Exhibit 4 in Exhibit F of the initiative lists very general public benefits, including on site and off site traffic and transit improvements; Suncal is stating that streets within the development itself should not be included; however, the language does not conclude that [streets within the development are excluded]; subdivision streets, as well as soft costs, are included based on the language in the initiative. Councilmember L. Tam stated the election report refers to the development of a Transportation Demand Management (TDIVI) plan; Inquired how the TDIVI plan that Suncal developed was incorporated in the city's analysis and model. The Public Works Director responded staff used what is in the initiative, which does not include a specific TDIVI program; stated staff worked with consultants to develop a TDIVI program that makes sense for the type of mixed use development proposed; staff could have done modeling if the initiative spelled out the TDIVI program; staff is concerned that the caps may not have sufficient funds for public benefits and on going maintenance of public infrastructure. In response to Mayor Johnson's i n q u i ry regard i ng S u n Ca I's esti mate of the TD M program, the Public works Director stated there is nothing in the initiative. Mayor Johnson stated TDIVI program costs could create a large discrepancy between the City and Suncal. The Interim City Manager stated soft costs are not a made up delta; soft costs include architecture, engineering, contingency and other costs that are not hardscape; capital projects include all costs, not just hardscape. Mayor Johnson stated the public would expect an extensive TDM program, which would be very costly; a lot of resources would have to be dedicated to a TDIVI program to make it work. The Public Works Director stated the initiative lists bus rapid transit that would travel to BART; staff carne up with a per mile cost; identifying costs for cue jump lanes is difficult without knowing the location of lanes. The Interim city Manager stated nearly a dozen other cities were surveyed to check calculations; the City used a methodology that made sense and was not made up. Mayor Johnson Inquired whether the 2% cap would limit existing parcel taxes or prevent new parcel taxes. The I nterim city Manager stated the 2% cap does not indicate ghat portion would fu nd the infrastructure or operational shortfall; the 2% cap includes existing taxes for the hospital, school and sewer that total under 0.2 whether a future parcel tax would go above the 2 0 10 Special Joint Meeting Alameda city council and 3 Board of Education Januarys, 2010 depends on the development phase. Board Member Jensen inquired whether a future tax passed could not be assessed if the assessment reaches 2% at a later development phase. Board Member Mooney inquired whether the cap would not apply to the School District because the School District is not named in the initiative. The Interim city Manager responded the initiative is silent on the issue; stated concluding that the School District is excluded is not known; a tax approved by voters after the homes are sold could go above the cap. Board Member McMahon inquired whether the initiative would supercede the 2000 land transfer Agreement between the city and School District; and whether charter schools are included in the School District's enrollment to qualify for State matching funds; stated charter schools are public facilities; adding together the numbers [of School District and charter school students] may have increasing enrollment; inquired what impact school opening times have on traffic models; questioned whether changing the school opening time could help mitigate traffic; further questioned the impact of staggering school start times on the city's gateways. The Public works Director stated staff could review whether the Idea could be modeled. Board Member McMahon stated his questions could all be answered at a later date. The School District chief Financial officer stated only students in the District can be claimed for State matching funds. Board Member McMahon stated the District has 10,000 students, including 800 students attending charter schools; inquired whether the State match applies to Alameda residents attending charter schools, to which the School District chief Financial Officer responded in the affirmative. The Public Works Director stated changing school start times would not change gateway impacts because trips are internal. Board Member McMahon and Councilmember Matarrese provided examples of traffic increasing when school is in session and decreasing when on break. `Mice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the $05 million needed for schools is included in the City's shortfall estimates, to which the Interim City Manager responded the $371 million does not include schools. Mice Mayor deHaan stated the City has a 25% inclusionary housing requirement; the initiative limits the amount to 15 inquired whether the difference is included in Special Joint Meeting Alameda city Council and 4 Board of Education January 5, 2010 calculations. The Interim City Manager responded the amount is not included; stated that she does not have an estimate for said amount. Vice Mayor del -laan stated his estimate is at least $60 million [for additional require inclusionary housing]; inquired whether escalation is included, to which the Interim city Manager stated the amount is based on present value. Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he would add $160 million more [for escalation]. Councilmember Matarrese stated the $600 million mentioned in the ballot argument is based on three source documents; the first document is from the January 2009 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) meeting; the Board was presented with a figure of $185 million in tax increment; $185 million is in jeopardy due to State takings; in a March 16, 2009 letter, the Navy assigned $108 million as the [land purchase] price; an October 30, 2009 off Agenda Report addressed staff estimates and the $200 million cap; the estimates ran $100 to $175 million [above the cap]; adding up all the amounts totals $462 million; the fee waivers are $52 million, which brings the amount to $112 billion; there is a $1/2 billion hole; that he does not have reason to believe the source documents are not true. In response to School Board Member N. Tam's inquiry about conveyance, the Interim city Manager stated the redevelopment agency is the middleman; the agency would buy the land from the Navy and pass it onto the developer; documents between the City and the Navy require that the City receive the land; the redevelopment agency would pay the property seller [Navy] with money received from the property buyer [developer]; the Navy is interested in receiving $108 million for the property. The Redevelopment Manager stated there are no public proformas; in March, 2009, there was a very general presentation to the ARRA; the only numbers included were illustrative numbers of the fiscal analysis; actual numbers were not presented. The Interim City Manager stated the City and developer would negotiate the purchase price; the city is negotiating the pro forma with SunCal, which includes the land sale price; the amount cannot be discussed because the City is in an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) [with Suncal]. Mayor Johnson requested Suncal representatives to explain how the school would be paid for with the $200 million cap. Mr. Keliher stated the initiative is intended to be the framework for the Alameda Point development concept; all of the details and nuisances would be negotiated in the DDAand School Mitigation Agreements; school locations are very limited; the constraints are the environmental conditions and State lands restrictions; other locations are not State lands Special Joint Meeting Alameda City council and 5 Board of Education January 5, 2010 compatible; the current assumption is that [school mitigation] fees would be paid and that the School District would be able to get matching funds; enrollment will be going up with the development and the School District should be able to get State matching funds; the business plan SunCal submitted did not show a lot of revenue or any revenue at all for the school sites; SunCal does not believe there is a shortfall; SunCal is very committed to having schools on site. Mayor Johnson stated everyone is nervous about relying on receiving money from the State to build the schools after all the State takings from cities and schools. Mr. Keliher questioned whether the assumption is that there will be no redevelopment funds; stated no one knows what the State will do. Board Member Mooney inquired whether the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents include schools. The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated pursuant to case law, payment of school mitigation fees is the mitigation if the jurisdiction has mitigation requirements. Board Member Mooney inquired whether the District has school mitigation fees, the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Board Member Mooney inquired how much are the fees, to which Mr. Keliher responded about $25 million. Board Member Mooney requested an explanation of the School Mitigation Agreement. Amy l= reiIich, SunCal Senior vice President, stated the Development Agreement (DA) only relates to the City and does not relate to or bind the redevelopment agency or School District; the redevelopment agency and School District are independent agencies under State lave and have full authority to enter into any agreement; the redevelopment agency Will not sell the land to SunCal unless the deal makes sense; the initiative is only part of the deal; everything has been done assuming that SunCal would negotiate with the redevelopment agency and the School District; SunCal is assuming it will enter into a School Mitigation Agreement and wants to figure out how to build the school in advance of when it would be required; the 2% cap goes away when the homeowner buys the land; the cap does not bind future homeowners, retail owners or commercial owners; the cap is in place for the term of the development; in order for SunCal to sell the development in the first round, the infrastructure development costs cannot exceed 'the 2 which is the reasonable amount above which people will not expend dollars; the typical School Mitigation Agreement would address: 1) land being dedicated and provided to the School District; 2) infrastructure, which SunCal fully budgeted to provide to the School District; and 3) the $25 million in mitigation fees] that SunCal has estimated, which is less than the most recent school construction costs; SunCal's goal is to resolve the issues. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City council and 6 Board of Education Januarys, 2010 Board Member Jensen inquired whether the initiative provides any protection for the School District. Ms. Freilich responded the initiative, which is a zoning document not a school document, does not address Schools at all other than to say that a school will be built on site; stated the initiative says a school will be built on the site as part of the public benefits. Board Member Jensen inquired where said issue is included in the initiative. Ms. Freilich responded that she was mistaken; stated the initiative includes that a library will be built [as part of the public benefits], not a school. Board Member Jensen inquired whether the initiative includes $25 million for a school. Ms. Freilich responded the $25 million has nothing to do with the initiative; stated based on the School District's current fee structure, the State would require payment of $25 million [in mitigation fees] if all of the development at the site takes place; the State has said the amount is the maximum that a developer can be required to pay as part of the CEQA mitigation and that payment is considered full mitigation; SunCal has indicated that it is willing to: 1) go over and above that [amount] with respect to contributions; 2) enter into a School Mitigation Agreement; and 3) provide infrastructure; the pro forma put in the land for free; Suncal is willing to talk about all of the issues with the School District, but has not had the conversation yet because it [the project] is not far enough along. Board Member Jensen stated the School District would like to do so as well and has tried to do so over the past four or five months; inquired whether the $25 million for schools would be part of the $200 million cap, to which Ms. Freilich responded in the negative. Board Member Jensen stated the public benefits list in Table 8.1 [Exhibit E, page 8 -4] includes a school facility project. Ms. Freilich stated the cap on the public benefits is only in Exhibit F; a school is not listed in the $200 million cap. Board Member Jensen inquired whether the amount [$25 million] is an additional amount [above the $200 million cap], to which Ms. Freilich responded in the affirmative; stated the amount is additional as is the TDM program that is laid out in the document. Board Member Jensen stated the initiative states 14 out of the 21 projects would be funded either partially or entirely by a public assessment that would be a tax, fee or charge imposed only on property owners within the plan area; inquired whether the public assessments would be part of the 2% cap. Ms. Freilich responded these [projects on list] are all in the pro forma and are well under Special Joint Meeting Alameda city council and 7 Board of Education January 5, 2010 the 2% cap even including the impact fees for the school. Board Member Jensen stated the Department of Education requires: 1) that a proposed school site cannot be within 2000 feet of a significant disposal of hazardous waste; and 2} that the sites not be within an area of flood or dam flood inundation unless the cost of mitigating the flood or inundation is reasonable; global warming might impact the site near Encinal High School; inquired whether the site closer to the estuary would be subject to flooding. Mir. Keliher responded the project assumes sea level rise; stated the site adjacent to Encinal High School is not in a flood plane; said site is one of the highest in the development; as for the environmental conditions, SunCal would not be able to develop on the land unless the land is cleaned, conveyed and approved by all regulators; the other site is 1 ,000 feet from the estuary; the site is in a flood plane in the current state; the site has to be mitigated, like other areas, if sea level rise is assumed; environmental problems have not been identified for the area, except for above ground problems that SunCal has to pay to mitigate. Board Member Johnson inquired whether remediation costs are included in the $25 million, to which Mr. Keliher responded the [school] mitigation fee is not used for clean up. The Planning Services Manager stated under state lave, there is not an environmental impact if the developer pays the school impact fee. Board Member Mooney stated the State sets a maximum amount that school districts can charge for school mitigation fees; requested to get an answer back regarding whether the School District is at the maximum. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the cost to [environmentally] mitigate the school site is included in the $200 million cap, to which Mr. Keliher responded in the negative. Board Member Jensen stated campaign literature says the developer will be required to build a new school; inquired whether the statement is true. Mr. Keliher responded SunCal knows new schools need to be built. Board Member spencer inquired whether the initiative process has been used in the City of Alameda before to create a DA, to which the Interim City Manager responded the City Attorney indicated this type of initiative has not been used in the City before. In response to Board Member Spencer's inquiry regarding fiscal neutrality, the Interim City Manager stated the language does not say the developer will guarantee fiscal neutrality; the normal process for cities that have had developer initiatives follows a different sequence; the development project, DA and DDA are negotiated, then, the matter goes to the ballot. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and S Board of Education January 5, 2010 Board Member Spencer inquired whether Alameda has had any DAs that only include a good faith effort [at fiscal neutrality], to which the City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the provision would be inconsistent with the Council resolution that requires fiscal neutrality to be guaranteed. Board Member Spencer inquired whether the City has had any DAs that include a dollar cap on public benefits, to which the Public Works Director responded the DAs he has seen do not. The City Attorney stated said provision is not normally in a DA; said type of provision typically belongs in a DDA. Board Member Spencer inquired whether Alameda has DAs that allow developers to sell obligations and rights without the City's consent, to which the City Attorney responded the City would not typically negotiate such a provision; stated that she does not know of any DA with a provision that loose. Board Member Spencer requested staff to explain why the City does not allow sale without City consent. The City Attorney stated the City needs to know the developer has the capacity to perform entitlements; the City goes through a lengthy negotiation process with the developer it chooses to get entitlements in place; cities want a say over the entity receiving entitlements to ensure the entity has the financial capacity to perform. Board Member Spencer inquired who benefits from the developer being able to sell without the City's consent, to which the City Attorney responded the developer drafted the DA; stated the DA is not a negotiated Agreement and would look to provide developer friendly provisions; the provision is more developer friendly, than City friendly. In response to Board Member Spencer's inquiry about citizens focusing on whether the language protects the City, the Interim City Manager stated said question is a policy issue to be decided by the City Council and School Board. The Interim City Manager stated most DDAs include language restricting and controlling property transfer; the typical language usually says the developer can transfer with the City's approval, which may not be reasonably withheld; some DDAs even preclude the developer from selling for seven to ten years; SunCal is not a vertical developer; SunCal develops master plans and sells them to be constructed by different companies. Mayor Johnson stated the developer's Internal Rate of Return (IRR) was discussed when the City went through the selection process; SunCal's requirement was 25 inquired whether the I RR is still at 25 Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 9 Board of Education January 5, 2010 The Interim City Manager stated the ENA prohibits the contents of the pro forma from being addressed. Mayor Johnson stated the confidential nature of the ENA prohibits the Council from asking some questions it might want to ask; that she is wondering if SunCal has changed the IRR projection. Mr. Keliher responded the documents that went into the business plan are the guidelines for the initiative; the I RR was 22% to 25 which is always the goal in any similar project; Alameda Point has the advantage of being in a low risk market. Councilmember Gilmore stated SunCal submitted the business plan in December; the City and SunCal also jointly developed a pro forma that went to the Navy. Mr. Keliher stated it [pro forma development] was done at the same time [as the business plan submittal] which was December 19, 2008. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the contents of the business plan helped inform the election reports. The Interim City Manager responded staff tried to analyze the initiative based on its contents; looking at the document in isolation is difficult; the business plan was used as a frame of reference just to gage and validate the analysis of the initiative; staff was very careful not to include parts of the business plan that were not included in the initiative; the business plan was not superimposed because the business plan is not being voted on; the business plan was used to double check and ensure staff understood the initiative contents. The Redevelopment Manager stated staff focused on the initiative contents; the business plan is still under negotiation; the ARRA has never taken action on the business plan; there is no agreement on the business plan or joint pro forma; staff saw the two documents [initiative and business plan] as being very separate and had to analyze only what is in the initiative because the initiative will be legally binding if the voters approve it. Councilmember Gilmore sated the contingency is included in the soft costs; inquired the percentage of the contingency. The Public Works Director responded different contingencies were included based on the level of analysis; stated contingencies are at 10 20% and even 25 estimates were based on details; Harris and Associates, the firm which worked on the Bayport project, concurred that the estimates are reasonable and the contingency percentages are reasonable and some could even be higher; that he polled other Public Works Directors to Confirm the estimates and contingencies are in line [with other projects]. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the density bonus would be available for any Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 10 Board of Education January 5, 2010 project built at Alameda Point, to which the Planning Service Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the State [density bonus] law trumps the cap in the initiative. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Tax Increment (TI) financing has to be spent in redevelopment areas; and whetherAlarneda Point is the City's largest redevelopment area. The Interim City Manager responded redevelopment agencies are formed to cure blight; Stated the initiative determines hove TI dollars will be used, which is usually negotiated in the DDA; there are other ways to use TI; the 80% stream could be leveraged for a tax allocation bond; the proceeds of the tax allocation bonds could be used for a variety of things within the project area; 20% of the TI can be used inside and outside of project areas as long as it is spent on affordable housing. Councilmember Gilmore stated the TDM is not spelled out in the initiative; inquired whether there is anything preventing the City from requiring further TDIVI; stated that she is not clear whether or not the TDM is part of the public benefits cap. The Public Works Director responded staff has concluded that the TDM is included in the public benefit cap based in the general definition of on site and off site traffic and transit improvements; stated the concern is that staff does not know what is needed to really mitigate traffic impacts; the TDM hits up against the $200 million cap and the 2% tax cap for operation and maintenance; staff is concerned that the [$200 million] cap might be exceeded when all public benefits are considered; the project also has to cover maintenance in order to meet the council resolution requiring fiscal neutrality. Mr. Keliher stated SunCal's opinion is that it [TDM] is not included in the cap; the project has to pay for it [TDM]; it [TDM] is part of the business plan and a number of different things; TDM is outlined in Section 5.8 of the Specific Plan; there are not a lot of details because that is what CEQA is for; a complete environmental review will be done; Council approved starting the CEQA documents several months ago; SunCal gave $1l4 million towards the effort. Councilmember Gilmore stated various mitigations will be discussed at the end of the CEQA process; inquired whether said mitigations are part of the $200 million cap, to which Mr. Keliher responded in the negative. The Public Works Director stated the public benefit lists on site and off site traffic and transit improvements; that he does not understand how TDM is not included in on site and off site traffic and transit improvements. The Interim City Manager stated Mr. Keliher's definition of what is referenced in the Specific Plan is correct; the Public works Director is also correct; there is an inconsistency; there is language in the initiative that specifically says the TDM will be assessed on the property; therefore, the TDM had to be included in the 2% cap. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Board of Education January 5, 2010 Mr. Keliher stated there are going to be a lot of little gray areas and interpretations that have to be addressed in the DDA: the contingency is 45 25% for design level and another add itiona120% forthe construction co nti ngen cy agg reg ate to 45%, which is pretty high. The Public Works Director stated the amounts depend on the level of detail; a reputable civil engineering firm checked the amounts. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the transfer of rights applies only to vertical development. Mr. Keliher responded SunCal has to create a pattern book or design guideline; stated the community needs to know what SunCal says will be built is what will be built once the land is sold off; the guidelines are overseen and approved by the Planning Board and City Council; the other piece is conveyance documents with the Navy; there are other steps; saying that there would not be City oversight is true to a certain extent; however, the City approves everything that will go on the particular parcels that are going to be sold; there area lot of steps that SunCal has to go through to be able to sell the land; SunCal does not want to have to go through a City process to see if a company wants to buy 20 lots; they [the purchasing Company] will have to go vertical in the way SunCal described it [the project] Board Member N. Tam inquired what is the City's plan to obtain funding to buy the land from the Navy if the initiative fails. The Interim City Manager responded the City and SunCal could come up with an alternative between now and July 2010 if the initiative fails; if not, the Navy will accept payment under a variety of scenarios; the City's negotiations with the Navy are to have continued clean up of the property first; the City would proceed with some solution and would not abdicate responsibility if the initiative fails and SunCal decides to check out; several past scenarios have not worked out; the City keeps following through with plans to develop the site; that she anticipates that the City will continue to do so. Mayor Johnson requested the Interim City Manager and School Superintendent to outline the three largest risks; stated one risk for the School District would be if the initiative passes and the District cannot reach an agreement with the developer. The School Superintendent stated the guarantee of [building] schools and figuring out generation rates are risks; one elementary school does not provide enough seats for 1,300 kids; going through the CBoA phasing is another big issue; currently, nothing is required and legally binding in writing. The Interim City Manager stated everything is about money; the three biggest issues are money, money and money; there is a difference between what the initiative says and ghat it intends; what is says is being voted on; based on her past experience, her first analysis Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 12 Board of Education January 5, 2010 was that transit improvements alone would cost $1/4 billion; the numbers ended up being $227 million; the initiative language pertaining to money is an issue. Board Member Spencer moved approval of continuing the School Board meeting past 10 :30 p.m. Board Member N. Tana seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. Mayor Johnson called a recess at 10: 15 p.m. and reconvened the Special Joint meeting at 10:33 p.m. Proponents (In Favor of Measure B) Joe Mallon, Alameda; Susan Decker, Alameda; Sam Sause, Alameda; Christopher Seiwald, Alameda; Helen Sause, Alameda; Flonora Murphy, Alameda; Barbara Kahn, Alameda; David Walsh, Bladium Sports; Joan Konrad, Alameda; Jon Spanger, Alameda; Doug Linney, Alameda; Michael Krueger, Alameda; and Doug Biggs, Alameda. Opponents: Not in Favor of Measure B Dave Needle, Alameda; Rosemary McNally, Alameda; Irene Dieter; Ashley Jones, Alameda; Janet Davis, Alameda; Mary Fetherolf, Alameda; David Froward, Alameda; G ail deHaan Ala meda; Tony White, Ala meda; Richard Bangert, Alameda; Jim Sweeney, Alameda; Former School Board Member Janet Gibson, Alameda; Jay Ingram; Carole Brandmeyer, Alameda; Corinne Lambden, Alameda; and Gretchen Lipow, Alameda. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, MayorJohnson adjourned the Joint Meeting at 11:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 13 Board of Education January 5, 2010 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CI TE' COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY- JANUARY 6,2010- -6 :00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6 :06 p.m. Roll Call Present: Councilmernbers del -laan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson 6. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (09- )Conference with legal Counsel Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of case: United States of America, et al. v. City of Alameda, et al. 09- Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Existing Liti ation, Legal Counsel briefed the Council on the status of the litigation and Council provided direction; regarding Labor, Council received a briefing from its Labor Negotiators regarding the status of the negotiations. Ad'ournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council January 0, 2010 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CI COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY- JANUARY 6 201 0 -7:01 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:24 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmernbers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tangy and Mayor Johnson 5. Absent= None. AGENDA CHANGES (10- Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to accept the EDC's Subcommittee report [paragraph number 10- 1 would be continued to a future date. PROCLAMATIONS SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY ANNOUNCEMENTS (10_ Proclamation Declaring January as National Blood Donor Month. Mayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to Lisa Eversole, Red Cross Donor Recruitment Account Manager. Ms. Eversole thanked Council for the proclamation; stated Alameda has been very generous in donating blood to the Red Cross. (10- )Presentation by Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) on the I -880 Operational and Safety Improvements at 29th Avenue and 23rd Avenue Overcrossings. The Public Works Director gave a brief introduction. Matt Todd, CMA Project Manager, gave a Pager Point presentation. Garret Gritz, RSF Consulting Project Manager, continued the Power Point presentation. The Supervising Civil Engineer continued the Power Point presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired why a resolution cannot be reached on the matter. The Supervising Civil Engineer responded CalTrans has rigid standards; stated ramps are not meeting standards; space is limited; staff has spent many hours trying to find options and alternatives. Mayor Johnson stated one problem is that ramps are being combined. Special Meeting Alameda City Council January 5, 2010 Mr. Todd stated combining two ramps into one is causing a delay; an auxiliary lane between 23 d Avenue and oak Street overcrossing would meet CalTrans standards; however; State funding needs to be invested right away. Mayor Johnson stated the Fruitvale Bridge is underutilized; diverting traffic from the Fruitvale Bridge is not good for Alameda; encouraged CMA to figure out solutions to the problems. Councilmember Matarrese stated clearances need to be addressed; having a cue going across the bridge is not acceptable; utilization of the Fruitvale Bridge crossing needs to be revisited. Councilmember Gilmore stated sometimes Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) have impacts that cannot be mitigated and a statement of overriding considerations needs to be adopted; inquired what entity would adopt the statement of overriding considerations. Mr. Todd responded an Environmental Assessment Initial Study (EAIS) is being performed, not an BI R; stated CalTrans would be the final signatory. Councilmember Matarrese questioned whether CalTrans could impose things on Alameda unilaterally. Mr. Gritz stated typically, CalTrans does not force things onto local agencies; the issue would need to be revisited if the unmitigated impact would delay the project. Mayor Johnson stated CMA needs to go back and figure something out. Mr. Gritz stated CMA has reviewed a tremendous amount of options; CMA wants to utilize the Fruitvale Bridge rather than impact Park Street; the cue back up along the 23 Avenue /Park Street corridor is attributed to development forecasted to occur in Oakland and Alameda. Mayor Johnson stated the current design makes diverting traffic back to the Fruitvale Bridge from the freeway very difficult; a huge obstacle would be created. Councilmember Matarrese stated cars have already exceeded capacity on 1 -880; something different needs to be considered; that he is not sure the problem has an engineering solution. The Public Works Director stated that staff thought that an agreement was reached with CMA and would be included in the environmental documents, but it was not; the purpose of the presentation is to receive feedback from Council and the community to see if proposed mitigations seers acceptable; staff is concerned that future studies never get built. Special Meeting Alameda City Council January 6, 2010 Vice Mayor deHaan stated the southbound area of the corridor is the most dangerous and is not being addressed; the Miller Sweeney [Fruitvale] Bridge is another concern; sound goes directly into Alameda when a sound gall is put up on the north side of 1 -830 without another one on the other side. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what is the timeframe to spend the $74 million to build the project. Mr. Todd responded the tirnefrarne is tight; stated all corridor projects have to have environmental clearance by April; stated CMA did not submit a project for the southbound corridor. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether CMA has conceptual plans for the area. Mr. Todd responded in the affirmative; stated an analysis was performed from 1 -980 to I- 238; taking care of overpasses covers a large portion of future costs. The Supervising civil Engineer stated staff has asked CMA to look at the southbound auxiliary lane between the 29 Avenue onrarrp and Fruitvale Avenue offramp; moving the column would help add more space to the shoulder. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether or not the northbound portion has an alternative, to which the Supervising civil Engineer responded traffic could go to 12 th Street. Mayor Johnson stated people will not go to 12 th Street. Councilmember Gilmore stated CalTrans does not impose will on local agencies; the project needs to be shovel ready in order not to lose funding; CMA should be encouraged to work with staff on mitigation issues so that Alameda does not become a sticking point. Mayor Johnson stated Alameda has a good relationship with Oakland; the area is in Councilmember De La Fuente's district; Alameda does not want to jeopardize the funding; Alameda and the CMA have to work together to figure out a way to resolve the issue; the project needs to go forward; CMA would risk losing money to the region if the problem is not solved. Councilmember Matarrese stated the problem is trying to squeeze too many cars onto I- 880; the freeway does not have shoulders and never will; reducing the number of cars on 1 -330 is important; the High street northbound onramp is dangerous; projecting today's traffic patterns and habits into 2035 is a big problem. Mr. Todd stated that CMA has a meeting scheduled with City staff for Monday Mayor Johnson stated the region cannot lose the money; the project is important to the Jingletown neighborhood. Special Meeting Alameda City Council January 6, 2010 Councilmember Gilmore stated Council looks forward to seein miti soon. CONSENT CALENDAR Ma Johnson announced that the Resolutions Approvin Amendment to the MOU and Amendin Salar Schedules [para nos. 10- and 1 A l were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Vice Ma deHaan seconded the motion, which carried b unanimous voice vote 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated b an asterisk precedin the para number.] (*10- )Minutes of the Special and Re Cit Council Meetin held on December 15, Approved. (*10- Ratified bills in the amount of $2,712,971.89. *10- )Recommendation to Adopt the Le Pro for 2010. Accepted. (*10- Resolution No. 14409, "In Support of the Local Taxpa Public Safet and Transportation Protection Act of 2010. Adopted. (*10- Resolution No. 14410, "Approvin Revised Memorandum of Understandin Between the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Cit of Alameda for the Period Commencin Januar 1, 2009 and Endin December 18, 2010. Adopted. (10- Resolution No. 1441 "Approvin Amendment to Memorandum of Understandin (MOU) Between the Mana and Confidential Emplo Association (MCEA) and the Cit of Alameda for the Period Commencin Januar 1, 2005, and Endin December 20, 2008, and Extended throu December 12, 2009." Adopted; and (10- A Resolution Emplo Association of Controller." Adopted. No. 14412, "Amendin the Mana and Confidential Salar Schedule b Establishin Salar Ran for the Position The Human Resources Director g ave a brief presentation. Speaker: Bob Haun, MCEA. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions. Vice Ma deHaan seconded the motion, which carried b unanimous voice vote 5. Special Meetin Alameda Cit Council 4 Januar 6, 261 0 *10- ordinance No. 3015 "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 8 -7.8 (Leaving Vehicle on Street in Excess of Seventy -Two Hours); Amending Subsection 8 -7.9 (Heavy Commercial Vehicles); Amending Subsection 8- 7.10 (Overnight Parking of Large Vehicles); and Adding Subsection 8 -7.11 (Recreational Vehicles, Trailers, and Boat Trailers Prohibited) Prohibiting the Parking of Recreational Vehicles and Trailer Coaches on City Streets." Finally passed. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS None. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 10- Public Hearing to Consider the Housing and Community Development Needs for the Community Development Block Grant Annual and Five -Year Plans. The Economic Development Director gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponents: Cynthia Wasko, Social Services Human Relations Board SSHRB) President; Tina Fleeton, Bananas Inc.; and Doug Biggs, SSHRB Member and Alameda Point Collaborative. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Following Ms. Wasko's comments, Councilrnernber Tam inquired whether the SSHRB anticipates changes after the new census. Ms. Wasko responded the map will change; stated the President is talking about changing the funding formula. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether ten percent of the families in the Alameda Unified School District are in a housing transition. Ms. Wasko responded in the affirmative; stated families are either living with relatives, couch surfing, or staying in shelters. Councilrnernber Matarrese inquired whether the housing issue is where people get stuck. Ms. Wasko responded the first step is to provide housing; stated the next step is working on job Stability; families are living in cars. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 5 January 0, 2010 Councilmember 1111 atarrese stated having ten percent of School District families homeless is astounding. Councilmember Gilmore inquired how often Housing Urban Development (HUD) updates income limits, to which the community Development Program Manager responded annually. 10- Recommendation to Accept the Report of the Economic Development Commission's Business Attraction Subcommittee. continued. 10- Recommendation to Approve Directing the Interim city Manager to close the Mif Albright course Effective January 31, 2010 and to Relocate the course to the Front Nine Holes of the South course as a Pilot Program. The Interim city Manager and John Vest, Kemper Sports, gave a brief presentation. In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, Mr. Vest responded play has dropped three percent regionally. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how data is gathered, to which Mr. Vest responded the National Golf Foundation (NGF). In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, Mr. Vest responded that tees would be created off the side of the south course] for nine holes. The Recreation and Park Director stated that Exhibit 2 of the staff report shows rounds are up in opening months over the year before; rounds start to drop off in succeeding months. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the decline in rounds is consistent with other courses. Mr. Vest responded in the affirmative; stated there is a 16% decline from last year. Councilmember Tarn inquired why the water bill went up during the rainy season. Mr. Vest responded a lot of water was needed to rejuvenate the course; stated the overall number reflects an annual picture of water costs; watering is minimal now. Councilmember Tara inquired whether water expenses reflect a separately metered charge, to which Mr. Vest responded the property receives a bill for two months. The Recreation and Park Director stated in 2008, water consumption was $35,000 for the entire year; most of the use is front end loaded; typically, irrigation is shut off somewhere between October or November and stays off until the end of April or May. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 0 January 0, 2010 Councilmember Tam inquired whether the water bill is anticipated to be less, to which Mr. Vest responded in the affirmative. In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding the minimal maintenance cost in closed condition, Mr. Vest stated labor costs would go down; water costs would be approximately $1,500 to $2,000 per month. Councilmember Tam inquired what would be the minimum cost to maintain the property without a golf course; further inquired how the cost would compare against opening the Golf course during the active session. Mr. Vest responded costs would be approximately $1,500 to $2,000 per month if the property were closed; stated reopening the golf course during busy months would have some start up costs. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Kemper management costs are strictly allocation costs, to which Mr. Vest responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether water costs are billed amounts, to which Mr. Vest responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired how having two styles of play on the south course has worked. Mr. Vest responded the situation was tough in the beginning; stated players were not educated; marshals had a hard time getting players in position. Vice Mayor deHaan stated Increasing fees has been discussed; people would still have to walk the whole course. Mr. Vest stated some type of discounted cart fee would be given to those who could not walk the course; accommodating players who just want to play the shorter course on Saturday or Sunday mornings will be impossible sometimes. Mayor Johnson stated the plan is a proposed interim plan; inquired how long the selected plan would be in place. The recreation and Park Director responded three to six months; stated Exhibit 4 takes into consideration loss in rounds. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether $7,500 could be lost. The Recreation and Park Director responded $'15,000 could be lost; stated the profit would be $7,500. Special Meeting Alameda city Council January 6, 2010 Councilmember Matarrese stated the $21,059 loss includes the S19,000 cost allocation for Kemper management and administration; the same people would be managing between February and July 2010; inquired whether the money is not really a loss because people would collect the same salary. Mr. vest responded in the negative; stated Kemper Sports was originally under contract for a 36 -hole complex; the management fee would have to be for a 45 -hole course as well as the people on the property. Councilmember Gilmore stated a certain amount of money would be needed for maintenance if the Mif Albright Course was closed; water costs would be approximately $1 ,500 to $2,000; Exhibit 1 shows a $21,059 loss during the peak period; $30,000 would be needed for the whole year to break even; the Golf Commission has gone around and around regarding raising fees; requested clarification on the issue of raising fees. The Recreation and Park Director stated fees were cut before the first closure in an attempt to increase the number of rounds but it did not work. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether raising fees is not the solution, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired ghat efforts have been made regarding a non profit association. The Recreation and Park Director responded the matter has been explored; stated no one has been identified. Vice Mayor deHaan stated staff was given direction to look into the matter. The Interim City Manager stated the matter was discussed, but Council did not give direction to evaluate a non profit; inquired what year fees were increased, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded September 2008. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Golf Commission has considered raising fees.. Ms. Sullwold responded the Golf Commission determined that Mif Albright Course fees were already at the maximum for the condition of the course. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Ms. Sullwold feels the same way now. Ms. Sullwold responded in the affirmative; stated no capital improvements have been made. Councilmember Gilmore stated cutting costs appears to be the only way to break even. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 8 January E, 2010 Vice Mayor deHaan inquired ghat would make the Golf Course better and ghat would be the cost. Mr. Vest responded that he does not have exact costs; stated six out of the nine greens have to be rebuilt; sand is needed for some of the bunkers; fairways are cracked. Mayor Johnson inquired how the rest of the golf course is doing. Mr. Vest responded rounds and revenues are declining for the Jack Clark Course; stated tournament play helps. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what are the costs for maintaining an inactive park, to which the Recreation and 'ark Director responded $25,000 annually. C onents Not in Favor of Staff Recommendation): Grace Na, Alameda High Girls Golf Team; Samantha Essugerra, Alameda High Girls Golf Team; Glenn Van Winkle, Alameda; Eric Van winkle, Alameda; David Hamilton, Alameda Commuters Committee; Mark Merrigan, Alameda Commuters; Steve Tadd i, Alameda Commuters and Alameda Golf Club; Al Wagner, Alameda Golf Club; Dorothy Moody, Alameda; Bobbie Hoe p mer, Alameda; Connie Wendling, Junior Golf; Norma Arnerich, Junior Golf; Lola Brown, Alameda; Frank Reed, Alameda; Carol Albright Davis, Lincoln; Betsy Gammell, Golf Commission; Joe Williams, Alameda; Svend Svendsen, Alameda; Felice zensius, Alameda; Lester Cabral, Alameda; Robert Sullwold, Alameda; Robert Brown, Alameda; Craig Bevan, Alameda; Alex Stevens, Alameda; Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission; Joe- Van Winkle, Alameda; Chris Van Winkle; Fred Framsted; Ron Salsig, Alameda; Joseph p Watson, Alameda; Tony Corica, Alameda; Bob Blanchard, Alameda; Susan Higbee, Alameda Niners; James Leach, Alameda; Ray Gaul, Alameda; Keith Gleason, Alameda (read letter of Debbie opperud); Bill Schmitz, Golf Commission and Commuters Committee; Former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda; Gary Walters, Alameda; Former Councilmember Hadi Monsef, Alameda; Ed Downing, Alameda Golf Club and Commuters Committee; Cheryl Saxon, Alameda; and Robb Ratto. Following Jane Sullwold's comments, Mayor Johnson called a recess at 10:30 p.m, and reconvened the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Mayor Johnson inquired whether doing nothing at the Golf Course is a viable option. The Interim City Manager responded the Golf Course could continue as is but the question is should it; stated the fund balance will continue to be drawn down; the Golf Course is getting older and tougher; the question is where to get money to invest in improvements; there is no capital; the whole complex requires a draw down; a business decision needs to be made at some point; the only way to make the Golf Course work is not to charge a dime from the General Fund; cost allocations were not raised for the Golf enterprise fund, but that means the General Fund loses a minimum of $275,000 Special Meeting Alameda City Council g January 5, 2010 plus another $200,000 from the Return on Investment (ROI); the General Fund cannot absorb a $475,000 cut without cutting staff or services; one of the courses has a bad sprinkler system and the replacement cost is approximately $1.5 million. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he hears that there is the need for a short course and for eighteen holes for regular players; the Golf Course is a business, not a park; the City will need to bite the cost allocation bullet at some point; the question is how much money will be saved if the Mif Albright Course closes tomorrow through long -term operator selection; that he cannot say whether or not to close the Mif Albright Course because the savings is unknown; the City cannot afford to run forty -five holes because rounds are down; meeting the needs of a short course and regular play on less number of holes is necessary; everything comes down to money. Mayor Johnson stated the choices are to generate more income or cut expenses. (10- Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past midnight. Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether money would be saved if the Mif Albright closed today. The Interim City Manager responded operating expenses would still exist if the Course is kept open during the RFP process; stated the Course would still not pencil out on a positive basis if operating expenses were cut in half; the only way is to take the Kemper management fee out and have the other courses absorb the cost, which defeats the purpose. Councilmember Gilmore inquired ghat is the cost for a round of golf. The Recreation and Park Director responded the original NGF operation Report noted the cost is between $25 and $27. Mayor Johnson inquired ghat percentage of golfers play on a monthly, junior, or senior discount pass. Mr. Vest responded most players have senior monthly passes; stated juniors play in the summertime and afternoons. Vice Mayor deHaan stated numbers should be understood on a monthly basis; $30,000 was spent for renovations to reopen the Course; no effort has been made to explore non profit options; the $450,000 loss [to the General Fund] would be for the entire Golf Complex; questioned why a decision needs to be made tonight if operator selection is a Special Meeting Alameda City Council 10 ,January 6, 2010 month away; stated the community needs to be brought together to figure out how to make things work. Mayor Johnson stated Kemper has been at the Golf course for over a year; inquired what is the assessment of capital needs. Mr. Vest responded the south property has a lot of capital needs, such as irrigation and the pump station; stated 80% of the greens need to be redone; the driving range needs to be re- covered; tree work is needed. Mayor Johnson inquired what was the condition [of the Course] when Kemper took over. Mr. Vest responded the course was rough; stated the greens had bare spots and were diseased; the course has drainage issues; irrigation lines break daily. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Golf course was considered to be in acceptable condition when Kemper took over, to which Mr. Vest responded in the negative. In response to Mayor's Johnson inquiry regarding capital projects, Mr. Vest stated the sprinkler system and pump station are in dire need of repair. Mayor Johnson inquired ghat the costs would be, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded the sprinkler system would be approximately $1.5 million. Mr. Vest stated the pump station would cost approximately $140,000. Vice Mayor deHaan stated said information will be provided at the time of the [operator] selection process. The Interim City Manager stated staff worked very hard to get all reports done for tonight's agenda; going through supplemental information provided by vendors responding to the RFP while preparing for tonight's agenda was not humanly possible because of the short holiday week and extra meeting; hopes are to have a recommendation carne to council the first meeting in February. Vice Mayor del -laan stated the RFP has five different operational configurations; that he does not know ghat the best set up would be; the RFP should have been revisited since little interest was generated; the Golf Course will be closed forever once it is closed and will not be replicated anywhere; every golf course is having problems; the community has prided itself to reach out to every individual sport; moth balling the course as a passive park mould cost $30,000 per year. Mayor Johnson requested clarification on how much the City has made in cuts over the last two years. Special Meeting Alameda City Council January 6, 2010 The Interim City Manager stated that she cut 10% of City staff in her first thirty days; cash funds have gone down by more than $2o million in the last fifteen months; the situation at the Golf Course is a factual reality of what is happening everywhere. Mayor Johnson stated deferred maintenance and capital projects are not included in the golf budget; the Golf Course is rotting away; the Golf Course is going to be so far gone in five years that no one will touch it; long -term financial viability needs to be considered. Councilmember Tam stated that she concurs with Mayor Johnson; the Golf Course is more than just a golf course operation for the City; one of the speakers stated that a nine -hole course does not make money but takes juniors and seniors off the main course; inquired whether liability issues would occur with the south course pilot program. Mr. vest responded in the affirmative; stated liability is always possible. Councilmember Tam inquired whether regulation players want to just use the north course, to which Mr. vest responded regulation players avant options. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what method would be used to handle potential liabilities. Mr. vest responded efforts would be made to position players in a way to ensure that everyone is safe and out of harms way. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what is being done regarding people cheating [on the type of round played]. Mr. vest responded people are caught on a daily basis; stated different programs are being used to address the problem. Councilmember Tam stated that she is persuaded that waiting for a long -term operator to help with an evaluation makes sense; having a discussion in a fuller context is appropriate. Councilmember Tam moved approval of waiting [to decide whether or not to close the Mif Albright Course] for along -term operator to provide a fuller evaluation. Councilmember Gilmore stated the RFP selection is corning to Council in the first meeting in February; inquired how long negotiations would take, to which the Interim City Manager responded go to 120 days, which would be May. Councilmember Gilmore stated an operator would be in place by May; inquired whether the operator would then start the process of figuring out long -term configuration. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 12 January 6, 2010 The Interim City Manager responded staff would provide Council with details of what has been negotiated with the long terra operator at the end of the 9 to 120 days; hypothesizing what will happen to the Mif Albright Course is difficult. Councilmember Matarrese inquired how many RFP's have been received. The Interim City Manager responded five or six firms were present for the pre -bid; stated two firms responded at the time of submittal; of the firms that did not subunit a proposal, one was cutting staff and the other could not borrow any money to invest in capital. Councilmember Matarrese stated the situation sounds like the telecom situation; that he understands there is a. need for a short course; inquired whether a short course is part of the RFP, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated someone is going to have to give something up because the Golf Course has been running at a deficit as long as he has been on the Council; having two 18-hole courses and one 9 -hole course is not possible. Mayor Johnson stated the fund balance was at $5 million two or three years ago; spending $20,000 to $25,000 at this point is reasonable. Councilmember Matarrese stated the City might as well take the hit to the General Fund now because golf revenue will not go to the General Fund in the future; the reality is that the City is only paying to keep the course up and playable. The Interim City Manager stated firms that did not respond to the RFP could not invest capital based upon the condition of the Course and the RFP requirements; investing capital will be harder because the quality of the Course will worsen; the City of Los Angeles had twenty -four courses bundled for an RFP; no responses were received because the courses were run down; privatizing will be too late at some point; having cities operate as in the past is not today's government reality; the General Fund cannot subsidize non General Fund services. Councilmember Gilmore stated approximately $20,000 or less is needed to keep the Mif Albright Course open between now and the end of May; $20,000 is not going to break the City; the bigger point is that something needs to be given up; having a place to nurture children is important. Councilmember Tara restated her motion to approve waiting until the end of May in order to have a fuller discussion with a long -term operator to provide an evaluation of how the Mif Albright Course fits into the long -term plan of two 18-hole courses with the full understanding that there could be up to a potential $20,000 hit that will be derived from the $1.1 million remaining reserve fund. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 13 January 6, 2010 Vice Mayor deHaan requested the motion be amended to include exploring other options to operate the illif Albright Course separately. Councilmember Tarn agreed to the amended motion. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether a timeframe would be established so that everything culminates in May. Councilmember Matarrese and Councilmember Gilmore stated time is running out. Mayor Johnson inquired whether cost allocation would take place if long -term leasing moves forward. The Interim City Manager responded the structure would be different; stated the goal would be to figure out an optimum arrangement because both sides have to profit from the negotiations; the City would be paid a percentage of gross from the vendor to the General Fund. Councilmember Gilmore stated the General Fund would take a hit. Councilmember Matarrese stated the City needs to be prepared for the hit. Mayor Johnson stated people also need to understand that the City would not be paying for capital; maintenance has been deferred for years; systematic methods have never been established for ensuring that capital projects are funded; the Golf Course fund has been depleted for unintended uses. Councilmember Gilmore stated the General Fund pays for public safety, parks, libraries, and tennis court lighting; the hit to the General Fund will not be pretty. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the amended motion. Former Councilmember "Lil" Arnerich stated all operating costs should be known; the operator at the Alameda County Fairgrounds knows the cost for each expenditure; staff needs to contact outside sources for help. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the contract would be for thirty years. The Interim City Manager responded the term is subject to negotiations; stated no one will be Interested unless amortization can be done for over thirty years. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the motion includes looking at a non profit operator and separating out the Mif Albright Course; inquired how the group would be formed. Mayor Johnson stated the motion was not to direct staff to bring back a proposal. Special Meeting 4 Alameda City Council January 6, 2010 Councilmen ber Matarrese stated that he is not clear on the motion; inquired whether Council would wait to make a decision until responses are received and whether the amended motion includes looking at another option, to which Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore stated the timeline would be May. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NON- AGENDA (10- )Gloria Guerra, Alameda, discussed homelessness. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Ms. Guerra has contacted staff regarding the issue. Ms. Guerra responded that she would discuss the matter with the Economic Development Director. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 12:54 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Lara Weisiger City clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 15 January 6, 2010 CITY OF e►: Memorandum To. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Lisa Goldman Deputy City Manager Date: January 14 2010 Fie: List of Warrants for Ratification This is to certify that the claims listed on the attached check register and shown below have been approved by the proper Officials and, in my Opinion, represent fair and just charges against the City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon. Amount 225095 225538 x19827 x19975 EFT 780 EFT 781 EFT 782 EFT 783 EFT 784 EFT 785 EFT 786 EFT 787 Void Checks: 225193 225219 150191 217975 EFT 785 Respectfully submitted, Deputy City Manager Council Warrants 01 /19110 $4 $108,149-57 $94,693.41 8,705-50 $9,583.70 $1 1,953.50 $1 $61 ,228, 82 $77,966.43 956.43 $181,231.00 ($253.03) ($1,439.92) ($15.00) ($165.00) ($61,228.82) $4 BILLS #4-B 1/19/2010 CITY OF AL.AMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From. Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: January 19, 2010 Re: Request City Council Consent to Solicit Bids and Sell surplus Electrical Equipment BACKGROUND Under Article XII, section 12 -3 (A) of the City Charter, the Public Utilities Board (Board) has the authority to sell obsolete or unnecessary personal property, subject to the consent of the City Council (Council), on all sales exceeding $10,000. In addition, City of Alameda ordinance No. 2949, Section 2 -05, Disposition of Property states that the City Finance Director is responsible for the disposal of unclaimed and surplus property. It is expected that the proceeds from the proposed sale will exceed $10 DISCUSSION As part of the circuit cleansing projects, oil- filled electrical equipment repairs and replacements were made in calendar years 2008 and 2009. The equipment removed from service was evaluated for repair and, where possible, recertified and placed in inventory for future use. Electrical equipment deemed unrepairable was drained of oil and tagged as recyclable. In addition to the recyclable equipment identified during the Circuit cleansing projects, Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) has accumulated additional surplus electrical equipment from past projects that generated 14 non standard transformers. Rather than scrap these transformers that are in good condition and defined as "Used and Useful," they will be sold to a third party utility equipment reseller to maximize their value. In an effort to maximize available storage space and to gauge more accurately the performance of spare parts in inventory, it is necessary to periodically identify materials that are obsolete and/or surplus and to dispose of them. The AMP Support Services section and Engineering staff identified and collected all scrapped equipment stored in the AMP Cartwright, Denney, and Central substations. To date, 41 pole -mount and pad -mount transformers, six pole -mount capacitors, and one pole -mount recloser have been identified and tagged as scrap or unrepairable and can be sold. In addition to the recyclable electrical equipment in storage, AM P's Alameda Point 1 2- Kilovolt Backbone City Council Agenda item ##4-C 1 -19010 Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council January 19, 2010 Page 2 of 2 Enhancement capital Infrastructure Project will generate additional recyclable electrical equipment in FYI O. Exhibit A contains a list of surplus electrical equipment. FINANCIAL IMPACT AMP estimates proceeds from the sale of surplus electrical equipment to be approximately $150,000. The funds will be retained by AMP and will be used for ongoing electric system operating expenses. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Under Article X11, Section 12 -3 (A) of City Charter, the Public Utilities Board (Board) has the authority to sell obsolete or unnecessary personal property, subject to the consent of the Council on all sales exceeding ten thousand dollars. RECOMMENDATION Request City council consent to solicit bids and sell surplus electrical equipment. Respectfully submitted, 4 irish Balachandran General Manager CB:TM:tm Exhibit: A. List of Surplus Electrical Equipment City Council Exhibit to Agenda Item ##4 -C L CL d oc)o ©c�oa0oaa oa;,- 00000ooaao0oo°oo °a °°aQ° U) 5 0 r• c n 0 a a 0 L] 00 C (D N o LO C C o 1 M CL CL h C\j LO r (Y3 M �r r r C\1 r CY] d' N OD N CQ r te C�1 CC\1 Q r o N r 0 CL Cr U Cn t o ©C)OOr.no0C) c ©a o U a LO LO LO C) C) C) N C) Q N N d©' L©U C{} 66 L C4 r" T r {}b9 �4 E Cf}EbF} E( ER EE y/ W M .w s� 4 -4 4-.+ 4-1 C CL cnocn cncnWcnU3WW0cn0W La L� tea- X00 M M �0 M00 M0 0) E C C Q3 a) v (D a [ll CU CU W (D 0 a) a) a) CU CU CU IL m Q C.)UUC..)UUUUUU��UUU N� QQQQQ E Qi 000000000> 0 00 OD oa 00 oa ©0 oo as o� Cr a) �NN�tzt�t�t�t© ���NNNNN .d. r r~ r r r• i` a o 0 0 0 0 0 a�ca (y 4va C) 0 C 4 0 N N N C C�V ti OD 06 06 06 06 m rNN E nizt d' Mt d Q(D N N N N N N N N N N cF' as r r r CJ MINOR Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q0- 1 L 'L3 Z3 1 .1 �G ,C .�G G Y o Q CIO L Q (D o N C o o© 0 0 o a 0 LO LO LO LN tQLO OEfJ o N LO o CC] f� 1` o CO L CO C\1 (`'7 =3 c� Q cCS Lp n (13 CU tU 3 Q) CU Q3 a) 0 CU CU E� s_ cll 0 E E E E E E E E Q E E E Q E cn CL o 0 0 0 0❑ C) o E U) N N N N CO V3 N 0 N N( N U) CCU 0 o� a L. Q CD G3 t6 [B -a -0 T3 Z3 Z3 Z3 Z 3 Z3 Z3 z3 v o CZ. Q. CU cll cll Cf3 CU CU 0 a) q3 CU (U w lJ cll .F -+-4 -Q C13 M c E 0 0 0❑❑ 0 Q Q C� 00 0 a 0 E E E E E E E E E� E E E� E r 1r 70 0 1 0 v 0 cv 0 0..�� CL (0 D.. �'o City Council Exhibit to Agenda Item ##4 -C CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: January 19, 2010 Re: Ratify the Public Utility Board's Approval of the Confirmation to the Single Member Services Agreement Between Alameda Municipal Power and the Northern California Power Agency Regarding the Graeagle Hydroelectric Facility Power Purchase Agreement and Authorize the General Manager of Alameda Municipal Power to Execute the Confirmation to the Single Member Service Aareernent BACKGROUND On December 21, 2009, the Public Utilities Board approved the proposed Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) and Henwood Associates Inc. (HAI) and approved the Confirmation to the Single Member Service Agreement (SIVISA) between NCPA and Alameda Municipal Power (AMP). Because the term of the Confirmation to the SMSA is tied to the 20 -year terra of the PPA, the Confirmation must be ratified by the City Council as required by the City Charter, Section 12 -2(A). The PPA provides for the continued delivery of renewable electricity for Alameda over a 20 -year period beginning February 1, 2010 and ending January 31, 2030. DISCUSSION Since February 1992, AMP has been purchasing 50% of the output from the 440 kilowatt (gross) Graeagle hydroelectric facility, located in Graeagle, California, under a PPA between NCPA and HAI. The current PPA terminates on January 31, 2010. Given the pending termination date of the PPA, AMP staff, with support from NCPA, initiated negotiations in June 2009 with HAI for a new 20 -year terra PPA for the Graeagle project, which will replace the terminating PPA in its entirety. AMP has elected to secure 100% of the plant output under this new PPA. At the same time staff negotiated the new PPA, AMP staff also worked with NCPA to develop a Confirmation to AMP's existing SMSA for Special Transactions. AMP originally entered into the SMSA with NCPA on July 5, 2005. The SMSA allows AMP to utilize NCPA's services for projects where AMP is the exclusive participant in a project or transaction. Under this new Confirmation to the SMSA, AMP is obligated to purchase from NCPA all of the capacity, energy, and environmental attributes from the Graeagle hydroelectric project, City Council Report Ike: Agenda Item #4-D 1 Honorable Mayor and January 19, 2010 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3 as well as pay NCPA for the administrative services it provides in support of the new PPA. Historically, the Graeagle project has provided approximately 1.1 gigawatt -hours (GWh) annually of renewable electricity to AMP, which is about 0.25% of AMP's load. As AMP will now be receiving 100% of the output from this project, this should increase to approximately 2.2 GWh, or 0.5% of AMP's load for FY 2010. The key provisions of the PPA between NCPA and HAI are as follows: Ene rgy Price: $88 /MWh. The contract is a "take- and -pay" PPA, meaning that NCPA is obligated to pay HAI only for the amount of energy that is actually delivered. The ener gy price is fixed (i.e., there is no price escalator included in the contract) for the 20 year term of the contract. Contract Term The term of the contract is 20 years, starting on February 1 2010 and ending on January 31, 2030. Key provisions of the Confirmation to the SIMSA are as follows: Contract Term The confirmation is effective when both NCPA and AMP execute the Agreement, and continues for the full term of the PPA. Rates and Charges AMP will pay NCPA for energy, capacity, and environmental attributes at the same rate that NCPA is obligated to pay HAI under the PPA. Alameda will also pay all NCPA administrative service costs incurred in providing services related to the PPA. FINANCIAL IMPACT The funds for this project are budgeted in the Alameda Municipal Power account for NCPA power bills (Account Number 10 0122 55142 555). AMP's annual energy costs from this project are expected to be about $183,000 per year, assuming average annual production of 2 GWh. On a Net Present Value basis, this equates to $2.4 million over the 20 -year term of the contract. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This project will assist in meeting the goals of the City of Alameda's Local Action Plan for Climate Protection, specifically Energy Initiative 1: "Encourage the Alameda Public Utilities Board to require that Alameda Power Telecom maintain and expand its source mix to 100% carbon -free energy." By increasing Its project participation share from 50% to 100% of the Graeagle plant's output for the next 20 years, AMP will be expanding its renewable energy supply portfolio. This recommendation also supports January g, a Honorable Mayor and Page 3 of 3 the Ci g Members of y Cou ncil the following Board approved s trategies: ies: Na• 5 Continue to add value to the Fund transfer and other means. No. 16 Manage community the genera lo ading power supply reliability and cast, while maintaining a to g shod -term and long-term pow pp y lean and demand response, renewable energy resources, and c order of efficiency and de p efficient fossil generation. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW direct or reasonably This activity would not result in a �Y foreseeable indirect change in the therefore not a ro ect for purposes of section 21065 the h s�cal environment and �s the p p y N California Environmental Quality Act. No environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION Ut ilit y rd's Ap of the Ratify the Public Ut�l�ty Boa pp Confirmation to the single Member Between Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) and the Services Agreement (SMSA) Agency regarding the Graeagle Hydroelectric Facility Power Northern Cal Power g y g g Purchase Agreement and A uthorize the General Manager of AMP to Execute the Confirmation to the S M SA. Approved as to funds and account, Robert Orbeta Assistant General Manager Administration Rawaff Exhibit Confirmation far the Provision ion of Power Purchase Services to Alameda Municipal Power Relative to the G raea le Hydro Power Project Pursuant to Single Member g y Services Agreement cc: Public Utilities Board 3n C PA CONFIRMATION FOR THIN, PROVISION Off` POWER PURCHASE SERVICES TO ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL POWER RELATIVE TO THE G A.I ."AGLL HYDRO POWER PROJECT PURSUANT rfO S.INGL,E MEMBER SERVICES AGREEMENT WHEREAS. the Northern California Power .Agency l "NCPA") and City of Alameda for Alameda Municipal Power "Alameda"), have previously entered into a Single Member Services Agreement dated as of July 5, 2006 ("the SMSA"); and WHEREAS, the SMSA provides that NCPA may, in its sole discretion, provide for special services to Alameda consisting. of Member Advisory{ Services, Agency Services, Pooled Subscription Services, and Power Procurement Services (collectively "Services for Power Transactions, Gas Transactions and Financial Transactions (c.ollectively "Transactions and WHEREAS, any such Services are to be subject to the terms and conditions of the SMSA and the agreement of NCPA to provide such Services is .to be .subject to a w Confirmation approved by the NCPA Commission and accepted by the NCPA affected member and WHEREAS, at Alameda's request, NCPA has entered into .a Power Purchase Agreement as the buyer with .l- lenwood Associates, Inc. (HA1) as seller for energy to be produced by a 440 Kilowatt (gross) hydroelectric facility located in Gra eagle, California ("the Facility") in a form approved by Alameda; and WHEREAS, the Power Purchase Agreement, which is effective as of February 1, 201. o through January 31, 2030, provides that HAI will sell to NCPA all capacity, energy, and environmental attributes from the Oraeagle hydroelectric: facility; and WHEREAS, NCPA. and Alameda wish to enter into this Confirmation to the SMSA to provide for the sale by NCPA and the purchase by Alameda of the capacity, energy and environmental attributes that IJAI has agreed to sell to NCPA under the NCPA. lenwood Power Purchase Agreement "Power Procurement Services"); and wHE AS, the Power Procurement Services constitute "Services" under the terns of the SMSA and NCPA is willing to provide such Services pursuant to the SMSA; and WHEREAS, Alameda will be responsible for the cost of such Power Procurement Services pursuant to this Confirmation and the SMSA, NOW, 7'HEREFORE, NCPA and .Alameda approve this Confirmation as follows: 1. This is a Confirmation pursuant to the SMSA, and all terms and conditions of the SMSA shall be applicable to this Confirmation except as otherwise provided herein. City Council Exhibit to Report Re: Agenda Item #4-® 1 -19 -1® 2. This Confirmation shall become effective when both parties have executed it, and shall continue during the term of the Power Purchase A.grernent. All financial obligations including Settlement payment obligations, in curred by either party prior to termination shall be preserved until satisfied. 3. NCPA shall provide the following Services to Alameda under the S SA.: 3.1. Definitions. Capitalized terns not defined in this Confirmation shall have the rneaning ascribed to there in the SMS.A. The f allowing terms when used in this Confirmation shall have the fallowing meanings 3.1.a "Project" means the purchase and sale of power froth the Graeagle hydroelectric faci lity (FERC Proj ect N o. 3 24 7) under the P over .Purchase Agreetn end. 3.1.b. "Power Purchase Agreement'' means .the contract. .between NCPA and l AI effective as of February 1, 2010, entitled "Power Purchase Agreement between the Northern California Power Agency and Henwood Associates, Inc." 3 Pur ose. he purpose of this Confirrnatior is to provide for the sale b y NCPA. and the purchase by Alameda. of the power purchased by:N CPA under the P.o wer Purchase Agreement, to aUtho N.CPA to engage in.activitie.s related to that basic purpose and to specify the rights and obligations of NCPA and of Alameda with respect to the Project. 33. Sale. NCPA will sell to Alameda, acid Alameda will.purchase from CPA, 411 Project capacity, energy, and environmental attributes. Alameda shall. be obligated.to purchase all Project capacity, energy, and environmental at tributes and to pay the rates and charges established by the Power Purchase Agreement. 3.4. Delivery. Deliveries shall be ii -iade at the. interconnection of the Facility with the electrical system of P L nzas- Sierra Electric .C.00peratiye, lac. WSREC) as described in the Power Purchase Agreement. Deliyeries shall be deemed to be imUde during the hours and in the amounts as delivered by HA.1. The energy output from this Facility is not scheduled to NCPA, The Facility is connected to. PSREC's electric distribution .system and deliveries from the Facility offset the load in PSRIC's electric system, -1,5. Rates and C ap' es. The rates and charges that Alameda will :pay NCPA for capacity, energy, and environmental attributes supplied under this Confirmation shall consist of (i) the rates and charges that CPA is obligated 10 pay to H l in accordance with the terns of the Power Purchase. Agreement, and (ii) all NC1 administrative service costs incurred in providing .Services relating to the Power Purchase.Agreement. NPCA's costs for providing Services are established pursuant to the NQPA. Commission approved Power Management Budget Allocation methodology for Power Pool, Resource Management, Contract Management and Power Settl ements for this Pr 01 ect. For purposes of CA.1SO settlement allocations, Alameda's allocated net demand shall reflect its portion of load served by the Craeagle hydroelectric Power Purchase Agreement and shall serve as the billing determinant for allocation of applicable settlement charges pursuant: to SCPA Appendix B, The rates and charges for Services under this Confirmation (including without limitation the obligation for any operating Account deposits or any liability arising from this Confirmation shall be allocated to and paid by Alameda. Such rates and charges shall be allocated to Alameda as if the Power Purchase Agreement relating to the Graeagle Hydroelectric facility were an NCPA Prgj ect. 3.6 Bud et. Prior to the beginning of each NCPA :fiscal year for which no budget has been adopted, the NCPA Commission will adopt a budget for such fiscal yrear including all anticipated charges or costs relating to the Project. The NCPA. Commission inay adopt budgets for more than one fiscal year. NCPA. shall promptly give notice to Alameda of its projected costs. 4. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Confirmation and those of the SMSA, the provisions of this Confirmation shall govern. Dated: NORTI3EI�N CAIJFORNIA POWER AGENCY w........,. its. Dated: ALA MEDA. MUNICIPAL POWER its Syr• ass to Form ATT .w BY CIS'" OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION SIG. RATIFYING THE PUBLIC UTILITY BOARD'S APPROVAL OF THE CONFIRMATION TO THE SINGLE MEMBER SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL POWER AND THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY REGARDING THE GRAEAGLE HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER OF ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL POWER TO EXECUTE THE CONFIRMATION TO THE SINGLE MEMBER SERVICE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, since February 1992, Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) has been purchasing 50% of the renewable energy output from the 440 kilowatt (gross) Graeagle hydroelectric facility, located in Graeagle, California, under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Northern California Power Agency (NCPA and Henwood Associates, Inc. (HAI); and WHEREAS, the contract term of the PPA for the Graeagle project expires as of January 31, 2010; and WHEREAS, in light of the pending termination date of the ..existing .PPA, AMP staff with support from NCPA, initiated negotiations in June 2009 Frith HAI for a new 20 -year terra PPA for the Graeagle project at an increased project participation percentage of 100 and WHEREAS, at the same time staff negotiated the new PPA., staff also corked with NCPA to develop a Confirmation to AMP's existing SMSA for Special Transactions; and WHEREAS, the SMSA, which was originally entered into by AMP and NCPA on July 5, 2006, allows AMP to utilize NCPA.'s services for projects where AMP is the exclusive participant in a project or transaction; and WHEREAS, under the new Confirmation to the SMSA, AMP is obligated to pay NCPA for energy, capacity and environmental attributes from the Graeagle project at the same rate that NCPA is obligated to pay HA[ under the PPA effective February 1, 2010 through January 31, 2030; and WHEREAS, AMP will also pay all NCPA administrative service costs incurred in providing services related to the PPA during the 20 -year terra of the PPA; and WHEREAS, at its December 21, 2009 meeting, the Public Utilities Board approved the Confirmation to AMP's SMSA, recommended that the city council ratify its action as required by City charter section 12 -2(A), and further Resolution #4 -D CC 41.19 -10 recommended that the Cit Council authorize the General Mana of AMP to execute the Conformation to AMP's SMSA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED b the Council of the Cit of Alameda that: 1. The Council ratifies the Public Utilities Board's approval of the Confirmation to AMP's SMSA. 2. The General Mana of Alameda Municipal Power is authorized to execute the a without material chan 1, the undersi hereb certif that the fore Resolution was dul and re adopted and passed b the Council of the Cit of Alameda in a re meetin assembled on the 19th da of Januar 2010, b the followin vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set m hand and affixed the seal of said Cit this 20th da of Januar 2010. Lara Weisi Cit Clerk Cit of Alameda CITY OF ALAII EDA Memorandum To. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: January 19, 2010 Re: Award a Contract in the Amount of $00,280 to AZCO Supply, and Authorize a Ten Percent Contingency, to Purchase 25 Streetlight Poles as Part of the Woodstock to Webster Neighborhood Improvement Project, and Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute the Contract and Related Documents 'i i In 2003, the City Council authorized $217,099 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for the implementation of the Woodstock to Webster Neighborhood Improvement Project. In 2004, 2005, and 2005, the City Council added Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to the program budget. The project includes the purchase and installation of over 70 streetlights, removal of existing cobra head streetlights, and planting of trees throughout the neighborhood. A total of $599,544 in CDBG funds is currently available for implementing the project. DISCUSSION The Economic Development Department is acquiring 25 fiberglass, decorative streetlight poles as part of the Woodstock to Webster Neighborhood Improvement Project. The project includes, but is not limited to, the acquisition and installation of 25 new and replacement streetlight poles with shroud and acornNictorian globes with decorative, cast aluminum lighting fixtures to improve lighting conditions in the area. The Economic Development Department, in conjunction with Alameda Municipal Power (AMP), developed a specification for the streetlight pole with an acorn lighting fixture that reflects the existing character of lighting in the neighborhood and is consistent with the Woodstock to Webster Neighborhood Improvement Plan and AMP's standards. In December, a call for bids was issued and advertised according to Federal CDBG rules and regulations. To solicit the maximum number of bids, a notice of bid was published in the ,Maeda Journal as well as posted on the City's website. The call for bids was mailed directly to all lighting distributors and manufacturers registered on lists maintained. b AMP and u dated b Economic Develo meet st ff a ro r_ t y p y p p to release of bids. City Council Agenda Item ##C .*A 1W19W10 Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council January 19, 2010 Page 2 of 2 Bids were received and opened on December 22, 2009. AZCO Supply is the lowest responsible bidder. The bids include the manufacturing and delivery of 25 fiberglass, decorative streetlight poles with acornNictorian globes with decorative fixtures. FINANCIAL IMPACT This project is funded with CDBG monies and does not impact the city's General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The project's specifications and the call for AMP standards and Federal CDBG rules and businesses owned by women or minorities businesses providing services to the city to Resolution No. 12278. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Bids were prepared in accordance with regulations. The call for Bids encouraged to bid, and all contractors and other hire Alameda residents, pursuant to City This project is subject to compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). The activities proposed are categorically excluded from NEPA. RECOMMENDATION Award a contract in the amount of $00,280 to AZCO Supply, and authorize a ten percent contingency, to purchase 25 streetlight poles as part of the Woodstock to Webster Neighborhood Improvement Project, and authorize the Interim city Manager to execute the contract and related documents. TWIDT:dc Exhibit: Agreement Between AZCO Supply and the city of Alameda CONTRACTOR AGREE SENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of January 2010, by and between CITY OF AT..,AMEDA, a municip corporation (hereinafter referred. to as "City"), and A�C� Supply, Inc., a California corporation, whose address is 2250 Stewart Street, Stockton, CA 95205 (hereinafter called the "Contractor in reference to the following: RECI'TA.ES A. City is a m.uniclpal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted und er the statutes of the State of Cali foi a and the Charter of the City. B City and Contractor desire to enter into an agreement for the acquisition of Twenty -Five 25) Fiberglass .decorative 1.6- -Flute Post Top Streetlights with Shroud and Acorn /Victorian Globes with Decorative, Cast Aluminum. Fixtures and Victorian Finials NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and betvee a. tla e un d.crsigned parties as fo llows: L TERM: The Contractor shall begin work immediately after receiving notice from the City to comnen.ce the work, and shall diligently prosecute the worn{ .to coinpletion. Contractor shall. deliver product in accordance with the Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans entitled Streetlight Photonetrics, Woodstock to Webster Ini.provenent Project Phase 11 within ei g ht to ten (8-1.0) weeks from the date the contract is executed. Terns. sh provide 30 additional days to complete payment process. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERr10R IEI_: Contractor agrees, at its own cost and expense, to funish all. labor, tools, equipment, materials, except as otherwise specified, and to do all. work strictly in accordance with. Specifications, Special .Provisions and Plans, which Specifications, Special. Provisions and Plans for acgiiisition of Twenty Five (25) Fiberglass Decorative 1 6 Flute Post Top Streetlights with_ Shroud and Acorn /Victorian Globes with Decorative, Cast Aluminum Fixtures and Victorian Finials which are hereby referred to and expressly made a part hereof with the sane force a effect as if the sane were fully incorporated liereill. 3. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR CTOR r iii i i i n ii loll iwn. ininn. rrr.. r�r. rnwninnnnmr.rrnr_i.inominnniinn uiniininrrrr `nni�nunninn�irinir_ Contractor shall be eon .for services performed pursuant to this A.greenelt in. the amount and rnanner set forth in Contractor's bid, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. Payment will be made in the sane matmer that claims of a like character are paid by the City, with checks drawn on the treasury of said City. City Council Exhibit to 1 Agenda Item ##C -A IM79 10 Payment will be made by the City in the following manner: On the first play of each month, or more freque if agreed to by C Contractor sha submit a written estimate o the total amount of work done the previous work period. Payment shall be made for 90% of the value of the work. The City shall retain 10% of the value of the work as partial security for the completion of the work by Contractor. Retained amounts shall be paid to Contractor within ninety (9 days of acceptance by the City of the project. Payment shall not be construed as acceptance of defective work. No interest will be paid to Contractor on retained funds. rI "ota.l compensation under this contract shall not exceed 66,308.14 which includes a ten percent (1.0 contingency of 6,025.13. Use of contingency shall. be for items of work outside the original scope and requires prior written authorization by the City. 4. TIME IS OF THE ES S IiNCE AND INCENTIVE CLAUS Contractor and City agree that tine is of the essence regarding the performance of this Agreern -ent. 5. STANDARD OF CARE Contractor agrees to perforin all services hereunder in a n anncr coi-nmens with the prcvai l i ng standards of like professionals i n. th.e San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all serviccs shall be perforn-ied by qualified and experienced. personnel who are not employed by the City nor have arty contractual relationship with City. 6. INDEPENDENT PARTIES City and Contractor intend that the relationship .between thunz created by this Agreement is that of employer in. dependent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the work are u nder the control of Contractor, except to the .extent they are limited by statute rule or regulation, and the express terms of this Agreement. Igo civil service status or lather. right of enipl.oyn�ent will be acquired by virtue of Contractor's services. bone .of the benefits provided by City to its employees, including but not li mited to unemployment insurance, workers' compensation flans, vacation and sick leave are available from City to Contractor, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA. payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer employee re lationship fr on1 any fees due Contractor. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Contractor. 7. IMMIGRA.TION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT LRCA Contractor, assumes any and all. responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of its employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules a7 1d regulations. Contractor shall indemnify and hold City harmless from and. against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of th 'Is provision by Contractor. S. NON-DISCRIMINATION: Consistent with City's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable employer /employee conduct, Contractor agrees that harassment or discrimination directed toward a job applicant, a Cily employee, or :a citizen by Contractor or Contractor's employee on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, marital 2 status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientat will not be tolerated Contractor agr that any and all violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement, Consultant certifies and agrees that it will. not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, r eligion, national. origin, ancestry, sex, age, or condition or physical or mental handicap (as defined in 41 C.F.R. Section 60 -741, et. seq III accordance with requirement of state or federal law. Consultant shall tale affirmative action to ensure that qualified applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, or condition of physical or n -ental handicap in accordance with requirements of state and federal law. Such shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A. Employment upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forums of con B. Se for trailin including interns and apprentices. Consultant agrees to post in coiispicu -ous places in each of ConsLI.ltan :'s facilities prow ding services hereunder, available and open to employees and applicants for employinent, notices setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. Consultant shall, in all. solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of Consultant, state that all qualified applicants will. receive consideration- for cn ploymcn.t without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, or condition, of physical or mental htandicap, in accordance with regu.irenzents of state and .federal law.. Consul -tart shall send to each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding a notice advising the labor union or worl�,ers' representative of Consultant's commitments under this paragraph. Consultant certifies and agrees that it will deal with its subcontractors, bidders, or vendors without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, or condi -tion of physical or mental handicap, in accordance with requirement of state and federal law. In accordance with applicable state and federal law, Consultant shall. allow duly authorized county, state and federal representatives access to its employment records during regular business hours in order to verify compliance with the anti discrimination provisions of this paragraph. Con sultant shall provide such other information and records as such. representatives may require in order to verify compliance with- the anti- discrimiinati.oaa. provisions of this paragrap If the City finds that any of the provisions of this paragraph have been violated, the sane shall constitute a material breach of Agreement upon which City may determine to cancel, terminate, or suspend this Agreement. City reserves the right to determine independently that the anti discrimination provisions of this Agreement have been violated. In addition, a determination by the California Fair Employment Practices Commission or the Federal Equal Employment Oppor tunity Commission that Consultant has violated state and federal anti-di- scrimination laws 3 shall constitute a finding by City that Consultant has violated the anti- discrimination provisions of this Agreennent. The parties agree that in the event Consultant violates any of the anti discrimination provisions of this paragraph, City shall be entitled, at its option, to the suns of $500.00 1)'Ursuant to California Civil Code Section 1671 as liquidated damiLges in lieu of canceling, terminating, or suspending this Agreement. Consultant hereby agrees that it will comply with Section 504 of the rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. Section. 794), all requirements imposed b the applicable regulations (45 C.F,R.), and all guidelines and interpretations issued pursuant thereto, to the end that no qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be excluded .from participation. m, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity of Consultant receiving Federal Financial. Assistance. In addition., Coi .isultant shall comply with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, and Consultant, Engineer, or Architect responsible for any design, construction or alteration shall. certify conipliancc with those Standards. Consultant's attention is directed to laws, including but not limited to A. CIVIL RIGI4TS /EQUAL OPPORTUNITY (1) Civil Rights Act of 1.964. Under Title V11 of the Civil .Rights Act of 964, no person shall, on. the grounds of race, sex, religion, color, or national origin, be excluded fr011 participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under aizy program or activity receiving Federal financial assi.stance. (2) Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1.974. No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected. to discrimination under any program. or activity funded in whole or in part with funds i1 iade available under this title. Section 109 of the Act fur her provides that any prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age under the Age Discrimination .Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101. et seen.) or with respect to an otherwise qualified handicapped individual as provided in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation. Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) shall also apply to any progra or activity funded in whole or in part with funds n lade available pursuant to the Act. B. EMPLOYMENT AND CONTRACTING OPPORTUNITIES Section 3. The work to be performed under this A gree ment is on a project assisted under a program providing direct Federal financial. assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development Department and is subject to the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amcnded, 12 U.S.C. 1701u, Section 3 r eq Lilr es that to the greatest extent feasible, opportunities for training and employ lent be given to lower income residents of the area of the Section 3 covered project, and contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to business concerns which are located in, or owned 111 substantial part by persons residing in the area of the Section 3 covered project. 4 The parties to this Agreement will comply with the provisions of said Section 3 and the regulations issued pursuant thereto by the Secretary of the Housing and Urban Devclopment set forth in 24 Part C.F.R. 135, and all applicable rules and orders of the Department issued thereunder prior to the execution of this Agreement. The parties to this Agreement certify and agree that they are under no contractual or other disability which would. prevent them from complying with these requirements. Consultant will send to each labor organization or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, if any, a notice advising the said Labor organization. or work -ers' representative of its commitments under this Section. 3 clause and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment or training. Consultant will include this Section 3 clause in every subcontract for work in connection with the project and will, at the direction of the applicant for or recipient of Federal financial assistance, tale appropriate action pursuant to the subcontract upon. a finding that the subcontractor is i11. violation of regulations issued by the Secretary of dousing and. Urban Development, 24 C.F.R. Part 135. Consultant will not. subcontract with any subcon- tractor where it has notice or knowledge that the latter has been found in. violation of regulations under 24 C.F.R. part 135 and will not let any subcontract unless the subcontractor has 17irst provided it with a prel.in inary statement of ability to cornply with. the requirements of these regulations. Compliance with the provisions of Section 3, the regulations. set forth. I_I7 244 C.F.R. Part 1.35, and all applicable rules and orders of the Department: iss Lied there€ nder prior to the executiori of the Agr een is a condition of the Federal financial assistance. provided. to the project, binding upon the applicant or recipient, its Consultants and subcontractors, its successors, and. assigns to those sanctions specified by the grant or loan agreement or contract through which Federal assistance is provided, and. to such sanctions as arc specified by 24 C.F.R. :part 1.35. C. PROGRAM ACCESSIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES This Agreement is subject to laws and regulations concerning the ri ghts of otherwise qualified individuals with handicaps for equal participation in, and benefit from federally assisted programs and activities including but not limited to: (1) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) C.F.R. 35). Title IT, Subpart .A. of the Americans with Disabilities .Act of 1990 applies to all publicl funded activities and programs. Consultant shall also comply with the public accommodations requirements of Title III of the A:DA, as applicable, (2) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handica 24 C.F.R. S 1. These regulations, which implement Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as unleaded, and as cited in Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act, apply to all federally assisted. activities and programs and are inlplennented through the regulations at 2.4 C.F.R. 8. 1 (3) Architectural Barrier Act of 1968 Any building or facility, excluding privately owned residential structures, designed, constructed, or altered with federal funds, shall, comply with. the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, 1984 41 C.F.R. 3) and the Handicapped Accessibility Requirements of the State of California Title 24. The Consultant, Engineer or Architect responsible for such design, construction or alteration shall certify compliance witli.. the above standards. (4) In resolving any conflict between the accessibility standards cited in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) above, the more stringent standard shall apply. 9. HOLD HARMLESS Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards, cOMMissions, officials, cons ultants and employees ("Indemnitees") from and ag aj.n.st any and a11. loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees ("Claims"), arising from or in any manner connected to. Contractor's negligent act or omission, whether alleged or actual, regarding performance of services or worlc conducted or performed, pursuant to this Agreement.. If claims are filed against 1ndeninitees, which allege negligence on behalf of the Contractor, Contractor shall have no right of reimbursement against Indenznitees for the costs of defense even if negligence i.s not found on. the past of Contractor. However, Contractor shall not be obligated to indemnify Indenznitees from Claims arising frorn the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of indernn- tees. 10. INSURANCE: On or before the comp iencenient of the terms of this Agreement, Contractor shall furnish City with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in con with. paragraphs I0A, B, C and D. Such certificates, which do not limit Contractor's inderrinificati.on, shall also contain substantially the following statement "Should any of the. above insurance covered by. this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days` advance written. notice to the City of Alameda by certified i mil, "Attention: Risk.. Manager. It is agreed. that Contractor shall maintain ntain n force at all tines during the performance of this Agreement all. appropriate coverage of i nstiraz ce requircd by this A.grcCM.ent with an insurance compariy that is acceptable to City and licensed. to do insurance business in the State of Ca.lifomia. Endorsements naming the City as additional. insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates. A. COVERAGE: C:oiitra,ctor shall. n iaintain the following insur a ec coverage: (1) workers' Coin ergsatioll: Statutory coverage as required by the State of California. Drab ility Commercial general liability coverage in the follow *ng ni'n'ni.un1 limits: Bodily IZury: $1,000,000 each. occurrence $2,000,000 aggregate all other 6 Property Damage: $1,000,000 each occurrence $2,000,000 aggregate If submitted, combincd singlc limit policy with aggregate limits in the- amounts of $2,000,000 will. be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above. Automotive: Comprehensive automobile liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily injury: 1,000,000 each occurrence Property Damage: l .000,000 each occurrence or Combined Single Limit: $2,000,000 each occurrence (4) Pollution Prevention Legal liability required for hazardous materials abatement in the amount of $2,000,000 for each occurrence. B. SUBROGATION WAIVER Contractor agrees that in the event of .Loss due to any of the perils for whiclh. it has agreed to provide coniprehensive general. and autonhotivc liability insurance, Contractor shall look solely to its insurance for recovery. Contractor thereby grants. to City, on behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive gencral and automotive liability. ilasuranec to citlher .Contractor or Cit y with respect to the services of Contractor therein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which Y such iESUrer of sa .d Contractor may acquire against City by virtue of the paym.el -it of any lass under such insurance. C. FAILURE TO SECURE If Contractor at any time during the term. hereof should fall to secure or nhaintain. the foregoing insurance, City shall. be permitted to obtain such insurance in the Co htr actors name .or as an agent of the Contractor and slhall be compensated by the Contractor for tlhe costs of the insurance premiums at tlhe maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid.. D_ ADDITIONAL INSURED City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, and employees shall be nanwd as ash. addIti ooh al Insured. under all insurance coverages, except worker's compensation ooh insur duce, The nanhiing of an additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured. An additional insured named herein. shall not be held liable for any premium, ded. ctible portion .of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured sh-all not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy. 7 E. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE: The insurance limits required by City are not represented as being sufficiciat to protect Contractor. Contractor is advised to consult Contractor's insurance brayer to deterinine adequate coverage for Contractor. 11. This Paragraph. intentionally left blank. 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS: Contractor shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of City. Ajh attempt to do so without said consent shall. be null. and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for phoney by Contractor frorn City under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent. written notice of such. assignment shall be promptly furnished to City by Contractor. The sale, assigiiment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor, or of the interest of any general. partner or joint venture or syndicate nwi ber or cotenant, if Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-- tenancy, wh clh shall result in changing the control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assi g nment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent 50 or nhore of the voting power of the corporation. 13. SUBCONTRACTOR APPROVAL Unless prior written consent from City is obtained, only those people and subcontractors whose nanh.es are listed in Contractor's bid shall be used In the performance of this Agreement. Requests for additional. subcontracting shall. be submitted in wr i.ting, describing the scope of wary to be subcontracted and the name of the proposed subcontractor. Such. request shall set forth the total price or hourly rates used in preparing estimated costs for the Sub contr actor's services. Approval of the subcontractor may, at the option of City, be issued in the fonhi_ of a Work order. In the event that Contractor employs subcontractors, such subcontractors shall be required to furn -I sh proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be requ red to carry general and automobile liability insu -ante in. reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Contractor. In addition, any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be subject to each provision. of this Agreement. 14. PERMITS AND LICENSES Contractor, at its sole expense, shall obtain and ma'ntain during the term of this Agreement, all appropriate perh-ilts, certificates cates and licenses, including a City Business License, which may be required in connection with the performance of services thereunder, 0 IS. REPORTS Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Contractor pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement shall be the exclusive property of City. No report, inforniation nor other data given to or prepared or assembled by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to any individual or organization by Contractor without prior approval by City. Contractor shall, at such time and in such form as City may require, furnish reports conecrnin.g the status of services required under this Agreement. 16. RECORDS Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Contractor shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such. records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly idezzti.fied and. readily accessible. Contractor shall. provide free access to such boobs and records to the representatives of City or As designees at all proper times, and gives Cit the right to exam ne and audit sa me, and to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspcet:i.on of all work-, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be Dept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. IT NOTICES All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the second business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter provided. City at, All notices, demands, requests, or approvals froirn Coiitractor to City shall be addressed to City of Alameda Economic Development Department 950 W. Mall Square, Second Floor Alameda CA 94501 Attention: Dina Tasini Ph: (51.0) 749 -5922/ Fax: (510) 749 -5808 9 All notices, demands, requests, or approvals froin. City to Contractor shall be addressed to Contractor at: AZCO Supply, Inc. 2250 Stewart Street Stockton, CA 95205 Attention. Lauri Rivera Ph. (2 -09) 943 -2452 /Fax (209) 943 --0342 18. RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING This Agree anent is subject to 24 C.F.R. 87 which prohibits the payment of Federal Rinds to any person for influencing or attempting to influence, any publ -Ic offi.cer or employee in connection with the award, making, entering into, extension, continuation, renewal, anlendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or agreement, 19. URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT The Contractor shall avoid creating excess dust when breaking asphalt or concrete and during excavation and grading. If water is used for dust control, coiitract.or shall use as little as necessary, Contractor shall tale all. steps necessary to beep wash water out of the streets, gutters and stoma. drains. 'I_'lic Contractor shall develop and impleni.ent crosion and sediment con trot to prevent pollution of storm drains. Such control includes but is not limited to: A. Use storm drain inlet proteftion devices s LIc h as sand bag barriers, filter fabric fences, block and gravel. filters. (Bloch storm drain inlets prior to tine. start of the rainy season. (October 15), in site cue- watering activities and saw cutting activities; shovel. or vacuum saw -cut slurry and remove frond. the site). B. Cover exposed piles of .soil or construction material with. plastic sheeting. All construction materials must be stored in. containers. C. Sweep and re move all materials from paved surfaces that drama to streets, gutters and storm dramas prior to rain as well as at the end of the each work day. At the completion of the project, the street shall be washed and the wash water shall be collected and disposed of offsite in an appropriate location. D. After breaking old pavement, Contractor shall remove all debris to avoid contact with rainfall or runoff. E. Contractor shall maintain a clean work area by removing trash, litter, and debris at the end of each work Contractor shall also clean up any leaks, drips, and other spills as they occur. The objective is to ensure that the City and County of Alameda County -Wide Clean. Water Program is adequately enforced. These controls should be implemented prior to the start of construction, upgraded as required, maintained during construction phases to provide adequate protection, and removed at the end of construction. H These recommendations are intended to be used in conjunction with the State's Best Management Practices Municipal and Construction Handbooks, local program. guidance materials from municipalities, Section 7.1.01 of the Standard Specifications and any other appropriate documents on storm water duality controls for construction. Failure to comply with. this program will result in the issuance of noncompliance notices, citations, project stop orders or fines. The fine for noncompliance of the above program. is two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) per occurrence per day. The State under the Federal. Clean. Water Act can also impose a fide on the contractor, pursuant to Cal. water Code 13385. 20. TERMINATION MINATION In the event Contractor fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, Contractor shall be deemed in default in. the performance of this Agreement. if such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days after receipt by Contractor from. City of written. notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, City may term li ate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the Contractor written. notice thereof. City shall have the option,, at its sole discretion and without cause, of ter -ninating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days'.prior written notice to Contractor as provided herein. Upon. termination. of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the. other party that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. 21. COMPLIANCES Contractor shall comply with all laws, state or federal and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City. 22. +CONFLICT OF LAW: This Agreement shall be interpreted udder, and enforced by the laws of the State of California excepting any choice of law rules that may direct the application of laws. of another jurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the pat -ties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities liaving jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the successors of those authorities.) Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreenieit shall be filed with the courts of the County of Alan -eda, State of California. 23. ADVERTISEMENT: Contractor shall not post, exhibit, display or allow to be posted, exhibited, displayed any signs, advertising, show bills, lithographs, posters or cards of any bind pertaining to the services performed under this Agreement unless prior written approval has been secured from City to do otherwise. 24. WAIVER R. A waiver by City of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein, shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. 11 25 JNTE CRATED CONTRACT This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties thereto, and a ll prel iminar y negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agrccmc ht or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by Written execut i-on sighed by both City and Contractor. 26. INSERTED PROVISIONS Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into the Agreement shall be dee.na.ed to be enacted herein, and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as though each were included herein. If through mistake or otherwise, any such provision- is not inserted or is not correctly inserted., the Agreement shall be amended to make such insertion on application by either party. 27. CAPTIONS: T he captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the Agrecment and in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this .Agreen-ent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreeni.ent to be executed on. the day and year first above written. AZCO Supply, Inc. A. Califomia Corporation y Title CITY OF A LAMFDA A Municipal. Corporation Ann .Marle Gallaizt Interim City Manager RECOM D R AP- PROVAL: Leslie A. Little Economic Developilhent Director APPROVED AS To FORM: City Attorney 12 Exhibit A jy December 21, 2009 ATTN: Dina Tasini Cit of Alameda Economic Development Department 950 W Mall S Second Floor Alameda, CA 94501 RE: Bid on Specification W2W-120309 Attached is Azco's bid for the above project. We. have exceptions to the bid as follows: 1. AZ and Shakespeare will not pa li dama and c g uarantee a deliver date of 3-31-10. Deliver date is 8-10 weeks after subm approval. 2. Submittals with .Bid: Accordin to Shakespeare, all it r in Section SC-7 are on file with the Cit of.Alameda En Dept. Some testin procedures are not available throu Shakespeare. 3. Shroud sample ma be provided after bid is awarded. If y ou have an q uestions, please feel free to contact me at (209) 943-2452. Sincerel Lauri Rivera AZCO Suppl Inc. V­. i)P9 4 Specification No. W2WI20309 9.1 1 TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA: The undersi declares that lie/she has carefull examined Specifications and. Provisions of the Cit of Alameda, Econoinic Development Department, No, W2W120309for furnishin twen 25 fiberglass decorative: 16- Ta erect Direct Buried Post To Streetli ht Poles and hereb a to sell and deliver to the Cit of Alameda Development Service Department, strictl in accordance with the terms and conditions of said Specification and Provisions, the personal propert Hereinafter described, at the followin price, The Bidder is is trot g q ualified for the "Alameda Bidder's Preference" See Section GC-22 BID OPENING DATE:.Deceniber 22 at 3:01 p.m., BID SUMMARY 18' FIBERGLASS 16 POST TOP STREETLIGHT POLE Unit Q uantit y Price fq 1 Bid Price 25 Each. 18 Foot Fiber Decorative 16-Flute, Tapered, Direct Buried, Post 'Fop Streetli Pole Extended Price 2. Sub Total Base Bid 46b-o.*,� _N� _3015 3. alts 'Tax 8.75%.. r 4. Tmal Bid Price 5. Quantit of Truck Lo-ad,------- 4 6. Deliver SchedIde AO a�- 7. Material or compound proposed to be used on this Streetli Pole.- a. 18' Fiberglass/F 4 ber composite 16-Flute Shaft: b, Fiber composite Decorative Shroud: 44-1;,- C. Cast Aluminum Tenon: d. Mountin Bracket Hardware: 8, Mariti-factured b at its Fiber composite Streetli Pole Plant in e e -JA 14 9. Fiber Streetli Pole Protective Coverin for shipment: Class /00 Material ie5 1 0. Warrant (Please include polic with bid): Years Uj (+tA mo--W(fc 4�L 5, pc e 11) BID SUMMARY A CORN/VICTORIAN DECORATIVE CAST ALUMINUM LIGHTING FIXTURE WIT VI+CTORI.AN FINIAL 0 THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT of THE CITY of ALAMEDA: r fflnderslvned de_c ares that he /see has cai•cfully examined Specifications and Provisions of the City of� Alatiiecla Development Services Department, No. W2W 120309 for furiiishhig twetit -f ve 25 Acorii/Victorian Decot Cast AlumillUlll F ixture vith Victorian r iliial and hereby agrees to sell and deliver to the City of Alameda Develo l client Service D l)artrnent, strictly its accordance with the terms and conditions of said Specification and Provisions, 1 the pet l)ropert)/ hereinafter de at the following price. The Bidder is is not qualified for the "A latueda B i(lder' s F 'reference" (See Section GC -22) BID OPENING DATE: Deccm „b..et 22, at 3 :01 p.m. Quantity F Bid P ricc..,: 20 Each Acid -n /Victorian .Decorative, Cast Aluminum Flxlure VVI:11h Victorian 1'i i.jal 70 Watt lamp acid ballast Bid P rice i..•........•..... 0 E ach Acorns Victorian Decorative, Cast Alttminttm P'iXture with Victorian Finial 100 Watt lamp and ballast 4. 5, 9. i0 11 Specirication No. W2WI20309 Ullit Extended Price Price S1.1b J otal Base Bid. S�...7 Sale, 1'ax 8.75%. 6 pqq i q 7`11 '3 i d P rice s r e r r r a i s e e e Qt:ai-1t1t of Truck Load F DLliVCfi Se,..hedtile t A 1.11 N "ter'al oi coml)ound proposed to be tised oii this Lighting Fixture; a. Acorri /Victorian Decorative, Cast AlutnillUlll Lighting t.: ixtt r�: With Victorian Finia 1 Nema Twist Lock Type Photocell d. Moiniting Hardware: Mw ufa cttired by at its carte 'etori Decor ive, Cast Alttt11hIL1111 I- Jghting l�ixttlt e With Victoriatl. finial Platt in 0 It Acox n /Victmian Decorative, Cast Alu111inUni Lighting r ixtt •e With Victorian Finial Protective Coverizi g for g shipillelit: Class M Warranty Please hicltide policy with ')id). scars -21- The undersigned agrees to execute the contract required in the said Specifications and Provisions and further agrees that in case of failure to execute said contract with the necessary bonds within 5 working days after receiving notice that EDD is recommending bidder for award of contract, the proceeds of the check accompanying his bid shall become the property of the City of Alameda, as agreed. The signature below certifies that the information given on this document is true and correct under penalty of perjury (Section 7028,15 California Busi ss and Professionals Code). r Signature of B i dd Date B idder` s Name. (please print or type) Mme of Business: Business Address: -1 r�� Contractor License No. Expiration Date. Federal ID Employer Number or Social Security Number: Phone Number: q 3 F es..- Fax Number: z vgi E -Mai Address: Incorporated under the laws of the State of: Officers or Partners: Nai ze T— itle..�'�� IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS Address 14�/ I Any erasure or interlineations may invalidate bid. 2. If bidder is:. a) An individual. doing business under his own name, sign his name only. b) An individual using a firm name, sign: Ex am ple, "John Doe, an individual doing business as "Blank Co." c) .A. co-- partnership, sign: Example, "'Blank Co, by John Doe, co-partner" d) A corporation sign: Example, "Blank Co., by John Doe, President" or other officers or agent duly authorized). If by agent, furnish written evidence of authority. 3. If a firm or co- partnership, give the names and addresses of all. individual co -pai ners composing the firm. 4. If a corporation, state legal name of corporation, also names and addresses of president, secretary and treasurer. 5. If corporation is bidder, affix seal of corporation. 6. Write plainly on the envelope "Proposal for Furnishing Jname of product)......" -22_ C nA C TIFI CAT F LIABI LITY INSURANCE ❑P ID KA, DATE (MMIDDNYYY) ROBER37 D1 05 10 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION Brown Brown of N. CA ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE CA License OD04053 HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR 9 Commercial Blvd, Suite 100 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Novato CA 94949 Phone: 415.884 -7400 Fax:415 -884 -7470 INSURED AZCO SuRply, Inc. Marie T ao 2250 Stewart Street #9 Stockton CA 95205 -3�44 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIL INSURER A: vnigard Insurance Company 25747 INSURER B: Star Insurance Company 10823 INSURER C: INSURER D: INSURER E: IITi1►[=I.1r_ -W 9 THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. LTR NSR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER D ATEYMM /D T #VE P DA T E Y M� i/DD YY`) LIMITS GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE 1, 0 0 0, 0 0 0 A X X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CM0 0 2 9 0 07/01/09 0 7/ 01 l 0 -U AMAGE M RE NTED PREMISES (Ea occurence) 100,000 CLAIMS MADE Fx-1 OCCUR MED EXP (Any one person) PERSONAL ADV INJURY $1,000,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE 2, 000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS COMPIOP AGG $2,00 POLICY E PRO- JECT AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT 1, 0 0 0 0 0 0 A x ANY AUTO BA619 5 51 07/01/0 0 7 01 10 (Ea accident) ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY SCHEDULED AUTOS (Per. person) X HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY 1, 0 0 0 0 0 0 X NON -OWNED AUTOS Per accident PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per accident) GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY EA ACCIDENT OTHER THAN EA ACC ANY AUTO AUTO ONLY: AGG EXCESS/UMBRELLA LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE enr.P Pr_nz v e y. OCCU rL nlnnc n .4pnE DEDUCTIBLE RETENTION WORKERS COMPENSATION AND W C STATU- OTH- TORY LIMITS ER B EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY WCMSTR 0 5 012 3 S 0 7/ 01/ 09 0 7 0 1 1 E.L. EACH ACCIDENT 1000000 ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE E.L. DISEASE EA EMPLOYEE $1 000000 OFFICERIMEMBER EXCLUDED? If yes, de Linde SPECIAL PROVISIONS below I E.L. DISE POLIC LIMIT 10 00 0 0 0 OTHER DESCRIPTION OF 0PERATIONS I LOCATIONS f VEHICLES C EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT 1 SPECIAL PROVISIONS City of Alameda, its City Council, beards and commissions, officers, and employees are included as Additional Insured if required by written.contract and per form 152446 0499 attached to the General Liability policy with. respect to the operations of the Named Insured. A ed as to Form ppr CERTIFICATE HOLDER City of Alameda Attn: Susan Fassiotto EDD 950 W. Mall Square, 2nd Fl Alameda CA 94501 CANCELLATION rop ALA.MEDA SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE i]E5�CRIB�ED SOWCIEE ANGELI ORE THE EKP#RATI[N+1 DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL EN ZY AIL T T M OJ YAYS VYRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. AUTbAft R REPRAS501TATIVE ACORD 25 (2001148) ACORD CORPORATION 1988 CITY OF ALAM E DA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the city Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim city Manager Date: January 19, 2010 Re: Appoint Members to the Sunshine Issue Spotting Task Force BACKGROUND At its November 17 meeting, the city council held a second discussion on the formation of a sunshine Community Task Force to review and recommend ways to protect the public's interest in open government. A copy of the June 2 staff report on this matter was provided, including a sample of a lobbyist registration ordinance from the city of Oakland DISCUSSION The original referral on this matter, submitted by Councilrrember Tara, envisioned the formation of a six member body comprised of one member appointed by each Councilmember, plus a representative from the League of women voters who would serve as facilitator and scribe. The task force would meet for a time limited period to review and inventory key issues of concern related to improving the public's access to City information. The referral mentioned the following issues as worthy of further exploration: Extend the noticing requirements for public meetings beyond 72 hours; Provide direction on Public Records Act requests regarding cost and turnaround time; Develop guidelines regarding the minimum radius that must be used when notifying neighbors about land use matters; Expand campaign finance reports disclosure; consider a registry for city lobbyists. During the discussion on November 17, the city council agreed that an "ad hoc" community task force should be formed to engage in "issue spotting focusing on open and transparent government. The ad -hoc task force would meet no more than three times, one meeting of which could be a "town hall -type" meeting. Assuming approval of appointments to this ad hoc committee on January 6, meetings could be scheduled between raid /late- January and March 1, to develop a list of issues to recommend to the City council for further staff analysis. That list would then be submitted to the city City Council Agenda Item ##6 =B Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council January 19, 2010 Page 2of2 Council at the second meeting in March for discussion, prioritization and further staff research. Each Councilrnember has nominated one member to serve on this "ad -hoc" task force. Consistent with past practice, those appointments are now before the City Council for approval. The task force members and their sponsors are; Mayor Johnson: Jeff Mitchell Vice Mayor deHaan: Gretchen Lipow Councilrrember Gilmore: Karin Lucas Councilmember Matarrese: Thomas Charron, MD CouncilmemberTam: John Knox White In addition, the League of Women 'Voters will assign one member to serve on the task force as a facilitator. FINANCIAL IMPACT No additional funds are required for this activity. All work will be done by the City Manager's office using existing management personnel and/or the ad hoc task force members. RECOMMENDATION Appoint m embers to the Sunshine Issue Spotting Task Force. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Goldman Deputy City Manager