Loading...
1999-09-01 ARRA PacketThe Regular Meeting of the Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Scheduled For September 1, 1999 Has Been CANCELED AGENDA Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority * * * * * * ** Alameda City Hall Council Chamber, Room 390 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 1. ROLL CALL 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Wednesday, October 6, 1999 Meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. City Hall will open at 5:15 p.m. 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of August 4, 1999 and the special meeting of August 17, 1999. 3. ACTION ITEMS 3 -A. Report and recommendation from the Deputy City Manager to authorize the Executive Director to finalize negotiations and execute an interim lease through the term of the Master Lease with the Alameda Point Collaborative for Buildings 101 and 92, with a change in use for Building 101. 3 -B. Report and recommendation by the Deputy City Manager for approval for fiscal year 1999- 2000 Alameda Point budget. 3 -C. Report and recommendation from the Deputy City Manager to authorize the Executive Director to execute a ten (10) year lease on Building 166 with the joint venture of Nelson Marine and Power Engineering. 3 -D. Report and recommendation from the Deputy City Manager to authorize the Executive Director to approve assignment of Quality Assured Product's sublease for Building 21 to Kitz Corporation of America. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from BRAG. 4 -B. Oral report from the Deputy City Manager (non- discussion items). 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body has jurisdiction, or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda.) ARRA Agenda - October 6, 1999 Page 2 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY 7. ADJOURNMENT This meeting will be simultaneously cablecast on channel 22. The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 3, 1999. Notes: • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary, Lucretia Akil at 864 -3400 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. • Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print. • Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request. APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, August 4, 1999 The meeting convened at 5:40 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. ROLL CALL 1. Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor City of Alameda Sandre Swanson, Vice Chair, Ninth Congressional District for Barbara Lee Mark Friedman, alternate to Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3 Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda Kathleen Ornelas, alternate to Sheila Young, Mayor, City of San Leandro Lynne Fitzsimmons, alternate to Beverly Johnson, Councilmember, City of Alameda Absent: Beverly Johnson, Councilmember, City of Alameda Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Jerry Brown, Mayor, City of Oakland PRESENTATIONS 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of July 7, 1999. 2 -B. Report from the Deputy City Manager recommending approval of funding exchange for Building 7 utility systems upgrades. 2 -C. Report from the Deputy City Manager and approval of letter to Senator Diane Feinstein regarding support for extended Cooperative Agreement funds. Vice -Chair Swanson moved approval of the minutes as presented for July 7, 1999, and the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Alternate Ornelas and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes 7. Noes 0. Alternate Friedman arrived after the vote. ACTION ITEMS 3 -A. Report from the Deputy City Manager reviewing the due diligence report from the Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) and recommending authorization to sublease Hangar 41 for non - museum use and reserve Building 77 for an air museum. -1- The public hearing was opened. Nita Rosen, 1045 Island Drive, Board of Trustees for the Naval Air Museum and the Gift Store Coordinator, stated they have had their gift store opened for three weekends. They borrowed money from three individuals, paid off their bills, have $2,000 worth of merchandise and $700 in the bank. She expressed it can be done easily, with a little work. She noted they passed out a letter to the Board with their new web site for the Alameda Naval Air Museum, created by Morris Thompson. Roy Dickerson, 472 Bartlett Avenue, Hayward, expressed the project is a viable organization, as far as the volunteers and interest in it. It stated that when he flies over the base it is sad because it looks like an empty parking lot and the Naval Air Museum and the Hornet is the spark to make it blossom. Hugh McKay, 211 Sheffield Road, expressed the Naval Air Museum is of historic value and an opportunity for the Board to create something like the Skateboard park. He indicated there are volunteers waiting in the wings to help and volunteer their time. He spoke to Roy Edwards who is willing to volunteer and inspect the museum to show his support for the Naval Air Museum. Roy's son who has been an electrician for 30 years, is willing to contribute his talents and Mr. McKay indicated his own son could contribute time. He stated the as people become more aware of the base and the opportunities it has, more people will volunteer. There are people who are willing to make pledges. Marilyn York and Barbara Baak are willing to donate $20,000 each and once the word gets out, more people will do the same. Franz Steiner, 501 14th Street, Oakland of VBN Architects, made reference to the summary section of the staff report presented by Deputy City Manager Dave Berger. He stated the section that states "...ANAM has accrued a cash reserve of about $8,000 and must fund building upgrade costs of approximately $533,000 (for both buildings)," is not accurate. He indicated there are firm pledges for $230,000. They disagree that the total costs of upgrading a hangar to a hangar is not $533,000 based on their experience with work in adjacent hangars, but closer to $300,000. The other hangars were converted for other uses, not for aircraft. His professional opinion is that all the work for this hangar is not necessary, like it was for the adjacent hangars indicated in Deputy Berger's staff report. Mr. Steiner stated the section of the staff report that states, "Notably lacking is detailed information regarding volunteer commitments and a signed agreement covering the $200,000 pledge," would be made clear by the donors of that pledge for this meeting. Mr. Steiner indicated that it is difficult to make clear who the actual volunteers are, until the building and tasks are identified. They disagree with the staff report section which reads, " The City's Public Works Department estimates the cost of Hangar 41 upgrades for code compliance is approximately $463,000. An additional $70,000 will be needed to upgrade Building 77." They estimate the costs for code compliance upgrades to be $250,000 and the additional upgrades to Building 77, is closer to $50,000. -2- Roy Reuther, 955 Shorepoint, #212, ANAM member, asked the Board the to disapprove staffs recommendation and the approval for the Naval Air Museum. He felt ANAM should be given a chance to get started and prove itself viable. Having the use of the actual building would be critical to gaining the volunteer support and help it needs. The estimated projections of the ANAM group of 20,000 people the first year, 40,000 the second and 60,000 the third year are reasonable. This compares to the Hiller Aviation Museum in San Carlos which had 100,000 people in attendance their first year, 80,000 which paid attendance. The Hornet is doing better than some figures announced, as they are expecting their total attendance around 350,000 total in their first year. The Hornet, the Wildlife Refuge, the Antique Fair which is growing, the forecast Bladium, and another museum for ships, all would add to make this attendance effort viable. Richard Neveln, 1328 Park Street, expressed he was an original volunteer of the Hornet two to four days a week to make it happen, which amounts to 800 volunteer hours of one person for the Hornet. He indicated there are three or four dozen volunteers, from various unions, which would include electrical or plumbing experience. 100 to 250 hours of volunteer labor would translate to $1 1,000 by himself alone. Multiply that by 30 people, you have $250,000 in volunteer efforts, by people who have worked on the Hornet. There are people in the Navy league who also want to participate. The people who served on the U.S. Navy need to be honored with this museum with real aircraft that they worked on, flew and for the citizens of this country and the region, not something for a storage facility for an opera company. Mr. Neveln expressed we need to preserve the aviation heritage that Alameda has and keep this museum until it can prove itself, like the Hornet has with the many special events and the interest of national museum and celebrities. The museum is the direction to go with Hangar 41 and the volunteers will support it. Barbara Baak, P.O. Box 1769, acknowledged the letter that was distributed to the Board from Dave Wilson of the EBCRC, offering regional support to the museum and funding. She expressed this was an example of the kind of support they are building and believed more support would be forthcoming. Ms. Baak noted the Reuse Plan designates Buildings 41 or 77 be set aside for cultural purposes as a museum and states they are to be given a chance to succeed and they would like that opportunity to be extended to them. Promises were made in the Reuse Plan and all the volunteers have worked in good faith to try to meet the requirements of the ARRA and staff. The people at the air station have a great tradition at the Naval Station which helped win World War II and many of their volunteers came out of the depression and they are truly representative of the greatest generation of the 20`h century and Alameda should be very proud to have their stature in the midst for over 30 years invested in Alameda. The promise should be kept as stated in the Reuse Plan and they deserve to develop Hangar 41 and Building 77. Ms. Baak humbly asked for the Board's support. Kurt Bohan, 344 Westline Drive, asked the non -city councilmembers to not defer their vote and think about whether or not if this is good for the community. He stated this was not an issue of land use which has already been decided. The standards of who is picked to move onto the base are unreasonably high if you are in the real estate business. If the museum is -3- voted down because of staff mistakes and bad judgement calls on how many people would pay how much, people will suffer from Alameda, Oakland and San Leandro. He expressed his concern about an article he read relating to the costs. Mr. Bohan asked the Board to vote in the direction of the museum. Marilyn York, ANAM, expressed they have sought to play in the rules and meet the requirements. The staff report is a one -sided version of their efforts and the newspaper article printed Tuesday was a devastating release, which had nothing good to say about the museum's effort. The staff report nor the newspaper article mentioned nothing about the thousands of hours of volunteer labor, the $35,000 donated by the architectural support of Franz Steiner, of VBN Associates, the $30,000 donated to fees permit which are legally required for the project; and there was no mention of the importance of the museum project in saving the naval aviation history of Alameda or the educational goals of young people or citizens of the community. The Alameda Naval Air Museum received unanimous votes in favor of the project from the full ARRA. The museum's request for Building 41 and 77 were included in ARRA's Base Reuse Plan. The vote at that time was to set aside these two buildings for cultural purposes. This represented less than 5% of the buildings on the base in square footage. The Base Reuse Plan states they were to be given a chance to rebuild the museum and a chance to succeed. The staff report is a betrayal of this promise. Congresswoman Barbara Lee and her staff are working to obtain funds for this museum and Dave Wilson of EBCRC offered significant regional support and funding. Ms. York stated that have attempted to meet each requirement as they have negotiated with the ARRA and staff and each time, however the bar has been raised higher, yet they have persevered. The volunteers are poised to carry out this project if they are allowed to do so. She felt it was a betrayal of promises for the City to turn its back on them and turn down long -term cultural value of a museum, in favor of a short-term financial gain by renting the hangar as a warehouse for storage. Ms. York asked the Board to restore the priority of recognizing the great contributions made by the Navy and its employees to more than 50 years in Alameda history. They need both buildings and together they can bring this history alive for future generations. It would be more vibrant tourist attraction of lasting value than to settle for a storage warehouse. Doug Dehan, 1305 Dayton Avenue, expressed that four years ago the complex of Hangar 41 and Building 77 were the center piece of the closure. It was operational and retrofitted in many ways to present itself in a good like. $100,000 has already been put into it, $40,000 of which was cash and numerous hours of pro bono effort. Mr. Dehan indicated the task force has been a separate identity for 2 '/2 months. If staff rents out Hangar 41 for the $400,000, there would be rent rebates which could last for two to three years, which are not tangible dollars that would be seen in the budget. In response to the question of the lack of aircraft to preserve in the museum, Mr. Dehan indicated that when they were with WAM, there was an ample amount of aircraft, however they have to seek aircraft which will be displayed. They will now have to look at other opportunities with the Hornet or other options. He felt that all Alamedans should support these endeavors. -4- Mayor Appezzato asked Mr. Dehan if Western Aerospace was one of the key factors to make this effort successful? Mr. Dehan responded that the Port of Oakland has made a more enticing deal for Western Aerospace to stay in place and therefore, did not want to extend themselves into two positions. Grace Keachie, ANAM, expressed that her understanding is that if they are given Hangar 41, they would have five years to make it work. At the end of five years, if it is unsuccessful, Hangar 41 would be given back. Ms. Keachie indicated that she was surprised that there was some question as to whether or not the $100,000 she is donating is going to happen. She felt insulted and resented there being any question of her commitment to donate the $100,000. She insured the Board that she has that much money and has full intentions of giving it to the Board for the museum. Ms. Keachie indicated that she will not sell all of her stock until she knows that Hangar 41 will be designated for the museum. Many people have worked very hard for the past two years to make this museum a reality. Young people growing up need it and it does not make sense for this building to be filled up as storage space for a grand opera from San Francisco. Stephen Keachie, ANAM, expressed that he and his mother, Grace Keachie, have each pledged $100,000+ and have shown ARRA Facilities Manager, Ed Levine, the paperwork to show that the money does exist. He noted the written pledge that was passed out to the Board, stating emphatically that they will give this pledge, if the ARRA governing body finds merit in the proposal presented to them for Hangar 41, make that lease contingent on the availability and legal pinning down of that money. Mr. and Ms. Keachie are prepared to start the process next Monday morning with the proper legal and financial authorities, if the Board finds that Hangar 41 should be given a chance with the air museum. They were advised by legal advice that they should not sign anything further until their is a firm indication from the Board of what their intentions are. It costs Mr. and Ms. Keachie several thousand dollars to pull this money out of their present investments. The staff reports have invoked the Community Reuse Plan and mentions the word non- viable, which has been taken out of context. Mr. Keachie referenced page 812 of the Community Reuse Plan which states, "Should these uses prove to be non - viable over some period of time....," is completely omitted in this month and last month's staff report. He feels they are to be given site control and given a chance. On page 814 it states, "If the museum does not require all the space it is requesting or if it does not succeed, the ARRA will have the ability to immediate release..." Mr. Keachie noted the Community Reuse Plan was a promise by the City to the Navy and the public to provide certain community benefits, amongst the establishment of a comprehensive naval air museum. This is the Board's opportunity to redeem their promise and compliment their volunteer effort in dollar pledge. The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion. -5- Member Daysog thanked the Keachie's for making the offer of a donation, while their are differences of their approach as to whether or not it is valid. The key issue comes down to one of cost, do we go with the numbers brought forth by Steiner Associates or the City Government's numbers. Volunteers tend to under estimate the costs, while City Hall does not estimate the costs high enough. Member Daysog stated he is satisfied with the report from the Deputy City Manager in following through with questions he had at the previous meeting, if he could evaluate the offer of the $100,000 and if he could look at the financials and the costs. Very important points were brought up regarding the legally binding issue and whether or not the money should be placed in the escrow account sometime during the past 30 days. Vice -Chair Swanson he is concerned with reserving the history, which means a lot to many people and generations that have worked at the base and have dedicated their life to it. The process of military base conversion is not solely based on the community working together, it needs the overall participation of the business community, the citizens of Alameda and participation of the region. There will have to be millions of regional dollars that this base will have to attract and depend on to make this work. The issue of site control is critical for a project like this to succeed. If there is no site control, you cannot convince people to contribute money, resources and it is impossible to secure any federal assistance. The Congressional office is very proud of giving millions of dollars to the base conversion process and the House National Security Committee would love a project like this. Money is not the issue in whether or not this facility can be rehabilitated. Vice -Chair Swanson indicated that upon the Secretary of Defense visit last year, he stated that Alameda was a jewel of defense conversion and indicated they would like to help. Those are promises made. Our position as the ARRA has been let's stick to the plan. The Community Reuse Plan is clear when it states each facility was set aside for cultural purposes. A lease should be given, they should have access to this facility and be given a chance to succeed or fail based on the merit of the project. Our commitment is to make sure we do all we can as we have done in the past to help secure the funds to make this work. Alternate Fitzsimmons stated their should be a timeline that this does not keep going on and on. Member Kerr asked staff of Item #3 on the $1.1 million of basewide infrastructure costs, on whether or not this is a one time assessment, and if this would be advertised over a period over a period of many years? Deputy Berger responded that was correct. There was not an implication that the up -front payment was collected in the business plan. Member Kerr asked if the type of flooring in Hangar 41 would continue to be concrete? ARRA Construction Manager, Celia Karian responded that the flooring they are referring to are the damages to the conditions of the flooring in place. The floor has come up, there -6- are coatings, holes and patching needs to be done. It is patching of flooring, not putting in a new floor. Member Kerr asked is it a concrete floor? Celia Karian responded yes. Member Kerr asked aside from the bathrooms, would there be any partitions? Celia Karian responded the partitions would be in the bathrooms, the exit passage ways, which are all of the corridor systems. Member Kerr asked what corridor systems would there be? Celia Karian responded there are doorways and passageways that must be in the building in order to get people into the building and to meet life safety codes to get people out. Member Kerr indicated this is a big wide open space hangar and is there any reason that when people come to in through a door, they would not be entering into this big open space? Celia Karian responded that the way the building is configured is that it has a two -story flank which is where there are offices and the hangar area, and you enter the building through those two -story ends. Deputy City Manager responded that there is a perception that this building can continue to function as it did as a hangar, however, the occupancy under the building codes would convert to a different use. It would become a facility for people, a museum. The building was evaluated, as all buildings are evaluated at the base, for what the use and occupancy will be based on the new use, not the old building. Celia Karian was trying to explain that in our estimate there are certain elements that need to be added to comply with the code as it relates to the life safety, because it is not going to be an old hangar. Although there is open space where the aircraft would be displayed, it has to comply with the states code for the people, the volunteers, employees and visitors. There is a difference in philosophy from what the group thinks would need to be spent, versus what City staff thinks needs to be spent on life safety under the new museum use. Member Kerr indicated she is not questioning all the things on the list, however she is surprised about the new flooring, corridors for entrance and egress. Based on the plans she has been told about, they are going to enter directly into the open space. Celia Karian responded that the plans she has seen do not have entries through the hangar doors. There has been a change in what the plans have been since the last time they had seen them. Since the project has been down scope, they have not seen any additional plans. The hangar doors from an operational point of view are difficult to have as an entry -7- door. They are huge 30 ft. high by many feet wide heavy doors, that have to be cranked open. Celia stated the plans she had seen have indicated entries on both sides, not through the hangar doors. Member Kerr asked Franz Steiner, VBN Architects to respond to Celia Karian's comments about the hangar entrance. Franz Steiner, VBN Architects, stated that the code does not require any specific type of flooring for a required exit. Celia commented on vinyl tile that is coming up on the floor over an area that is designated to be an exit in one of the earlier plans, which can be easily taken up and removed. It does not have to be replaced with anything because the concrete floor is fine. The other issues of cutting doors into the hangar doors is something that has been verified with the state office of Historic Preservation as being acceptable in concept and meeting all requirements of the Secretary of Interior guidelines for historic preservation, although they have not seen a specific drawing yet. Member Kerr stated there is a second story in Hangar 41 which is going to be made inaccessible, it will not be used. Is this correct? Mr. Franz Steiner indicated that is correct. The Fire Marshal will require that be locked off so that no access can be accomplished. It requires putting some locks and gates on it. Celia Karian stated they have remodeled many hangars, and what they have found is that you estimate what you can identify and you do not see what is entailed in any particular thing. The consequences of this, is that the costs begin increasing significantly. The numbers presented to the Board by staff are based on very similar projects, one being a hangar the identical size of Hangar 41. Member Kerr asked what is the identical hangar being used as? Celia Karian responded for manufacturing. The numbers from this hangar have to do with the code compliance aspect of it. Staff has tried to compare it to the scope of work that the museum group has identified. Celia stated they are currently working on Hangar 23 which is a much smaller hangar, about 64,000 sq. ft., and that project is very close in terms of scope to this one. The numbers presented by staff are very close to Hangar 41. Mayor Appezzato stated to Celia that they do have history for some of the basis of their current hangar upgrades. Celia Karian responded yes they do. The estimates have to do with the actual experiences staff has had and they have tried to modify it to the scope of work that the museum group is planning to do, which is certificate of occupancy, barricading or closing off the office and shop areas, and putting in those life safety improvements. -8- Member Al DeWitt stated there are two problems to deal with: the museum and paying the bills at Alameda Point. The Authority has to maintain the base and all the buildings have to be used in order to that. Member DeWitt stated he asked the City Manager to be more diligent in leasing the buildings out and getting some money back in. The Navy has cut the amount of money they were donating to the Caretaker fees, down to a very minimal amount. The City will have to go out and borrow money to pay the police, fire and other maintenance and operation fees at Alameda Point, around $6 million. There is a definite need for financing to keep the base going. The base has also had a reoccurrence of vandalism which means there has to be some foini of security there. Member DeWitt stated this is one of the motivating forces to keep as much money coming in as possible. Regarding the museum, Building 77 will not be much of a museum by itself. In order for Building 77 to be any kind of a viable project, it needs Hangar 41 with lots of airplanes in it. Based on the business plan and the amount of money needed from the staff report, the museum barely meets the financial obligations that are required. Based on the $200,000 that is going to be donated, the museum would have an opportunity to get off the ground and prove itself. They should be given a chance to do it, only because of the $200,000 that is being donated. If it does not work, the Keachie's know they are going to lose their money and with that kind of faith, it is hard for him to not give the group a chance. They should be given a probationary period to see if they can make the museum work. Mayor Appezzato stated the project at its conception was admirable. He stated he thought about this for long time and cannot change his mind that he will not support this going forward. It is time to make a decision and if the commission decides to go forward, he will support them and if they decide not to, Mayor Appezzato indicated that is how he intends to vote. We already have the Western Aerospace, the Meyers House, the Hornet and Alameda museum. If the motion is to go forward, there should be some parameters. Mayor Appezzato indicated if the majority of the commission decides to go forward, he will support them and do everything he can to make it work, however he will not be amongst those to vote for it. Member Daysog recommended a motion be made to accept staff's recommendation. Motion was not seconded. Member DeWitt recommended an alternate motion to allow the museum board to continue to operate, be provided a lease, provided they fulfill the requirements that are necessary in the financial areas and they meet the minimum requirements that are outlined in the business plan within one year. Discussion. Member Kerr stated that the motion should include allowing them to start the work. Mayor Appezzato indicated the group should have at least six months to prove itself viable. -9- Vice -Chair Swanson stated that the group be granted a lease for one year as soon as possible, so they can have site control. The group should be required to give a progress report after six months. Member DeWitt amended his first motion and recommended a motion to allow the museum group be given a one year lease to go forward with a six month review. Motion was seconded by Vice -Chair Swanson. Ayes - 6; Noes - 2. Roll call vote: Vice Chair Swanson, Member Kerr, Member DeWitt, Alternate Member Fitzsimmons, Alternate Member Friedman, Alternate Member Ornelas voted yes; Member Daysog and Chair Appezzato voted no. 3 -B. Receive BRAG report and recommendation to approve the formation of a BRAG Tourism Task Force Committee. BRAG Chair Lee Perez indicated they had nothing to add to the report and hoped the Board act favorably on it. Richard Neveln, 1328 Park Street, expressed he was elated that the museum is apart of what is going to bring the tourism task force to work. Tourism is what is going to rejuvenate the entire region as Alameda and other communities around the San Francisco and East Bay, taps into the $6 billion a year tourist industry that virtually belongs to San Francisco. With public transit and increased tourism, both will help to pay for that transit which benefits the region and those who live in Alameda. Mr. Neveln expressed he supports the BRAG Tourism Task Force whole heartedly. Kurt Bohan, 344 Westline Drive, stated that since at least 50% of the tourist attraction has been approved for about one year, he is happy and encouraged that the tourism committed be created which the BRAG recommended. For to long, there has been no direction at Alameda Point. The development plan is so broad, there is no plan as the people say. The committee for tourism can give a direction of focus, which has not happened for four years. It is a good opportunity, especially with the air museum Hornet. The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion. Member DeWitt motioned recommendation of approval that a BRAG Tourism Task Force be established. Motion was seconded by Alternate Member Friedman. Ayes - 7; Noes - 0. Alternate Member Ornelas left prior to the vote. 3 -C. Receive BRAG recommendation to appoint BRAG representative to the Planning Board's Inner Harbor Interim Leasing Policy Guidelines Committee. BRAG Chair Lee Perez, stated they took this action on the BRAG as a result of a recommendation made, they make this recommendation to the ARRA Board to have a representative from the BRAG. There are other direct representatives from City Board's - 10 - and Commissions and they are merely asking that in this area the BRAG be able to have a representative on the joint board. Chair Appezzato stated that he supports their position. The BRAG has been valuable to the community, bringing us to where we are they deserve to have a representative on this committee. Member Kerr asked Chair Perez is the Planning Board Representative a member of the BRAG? BRAG Chair Lee Perez responded yes he is a member of the BRAG as a representative of the Planning Board. The action that has been taken by the Planning Board is that the representative that they have selected on the BRAG, now represents the BRAG back on the Planning Board and they have not been able to clarify that point. Their position before that action was taken, is that they would have a BRAG member sit on the Inner Harbor Board in the same fashion. Initially a Inner Harbor Board member was sitting on the BRAG, not necessarily one who represents the two positions, back and forth. Councilmember DeWitt motioned recommendation to approve a BRAG representative to the Planning Board's Inner Harbor Interim Leasing Policy Guidelines Committee. Motion was seconded by Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson. Ayes - 4; Noes -1. Councilmember Daysog and Alternate Friedman left prior to the vote. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from the BRAG. BRAG Chair Lee Perez, indicated there will be another community meeting sponsored by the Catellus Group, next Tuesday at 6:00 PM. BRAG Member Malcolm Mooney is at Summit Hospital and not expected to return home. BRAG Member Ken Hansen had a heart attack and had a quadruple by -pass and is at home recovering. Bother members have contributed tremendously to the success of the BRAG. Chair Appezzato asked BRAG Chair Lee Perez to extend our best to both members. 4 -B. Oral report from the Deputy City Manager (non- discussion items). Deputy City Manager David Berger indicated they are on track in structuring the proposed financing which Council gave them direction to do back in mid -May. This will be coming to the ARRA Board and the Council who will take an action on this item on August 17th, 1999. This will allow us to move forward and fill the void when the Caretaker money presumably dries up. There has been some limited success with the Navy on Caretaker renewal, but the dollars are still short of what is needed, even to match current year level through conveyance, which they are projecting early next year. Vice -Chair Swanson said they would like to discuss with the Navy and the Department of Defense on the Caretaker issue for additional money. Deputy Berger responded to Vice -Chair Swanson that they know he is there to help, although they are not to the point where they need intervention. Deputy Berger indicated they are going to EFA West to meet with the Commander. Mayor Appezzato stated since they have the authority to sign the letter to Senator Feinstein, they should do it and send one to Senator Barbara Boxer and Congresswoman Barbara Lee. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) None. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY Vice -Chair Swanson invited the Council for the announcement of Bank of America and the East Bay Commission $1.5 million revolving loan fund that will help smaller businesses at the base. Bank of America is contributing $650,000 to this effort and they are trying to get other institutions interested in what is going on at the base. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respect L 4, cretia Akil ARRA Secretary APPROVED NUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT, COMMUNITY IMPROVMENT COMMISON AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Tuesday, August 17, 1999 The meeting convened at 7:47 pm with Chair Appezzato presiding. ROLL CALL 1. Present: 2-11 Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda Sandre Swanson, Vice Chair, Ninth Congressional District for Barbara Lee Mark Friedman, alternate to Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3 Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda Beverly Johnson, Councilmember, City of Alameda Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda Absent: Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Jerry Brown, Mayor, City of Oakland Kathleen Ornelas, alternate to Shelia Young, Mayor, City of San Leandro 2. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM Richard Neveln, 1328 Park Street, expressed it is important to have adequate funds to build projects and provide good planning for the formal Naval Air Station. Starting off with this bond is a good first step in financing and something worthwhile for the ARRA to do. People all over the region are taking notice of the good things that are happening at Alameda Point. 3. ACTION ITEMS 3 -A. Report and recommendation from the Deputy City Manager to adopt a Resolution Approving an assignment agreement and approved related documents and officials actions by and between ARRA and the City of Alameda in connection with the issuance by the Alameda Public Financing Authority of its revenue bonds to finance the acquisition, construction, installation and equipping of various capital improvements to Alameda Point (the former Alameda Naval Air Station) and to finance the acquisition, construction, installation and equipping of various capital improvements for the City of Alameda and approving related documents and official actions. Deputy City Manger David Berger stated on May 12, 1999, staff presented to the Council a financing plan for the implementation of the Alameda Point project in the early years, following 1 cessation of Caretaker payments from the Navy which is scheduled to end on September 30, 1999. This plan was presented to Council by the financing teams of Evensen Dodge and Gardner and Associates. Council was given four alternatives and selected one which they wanted staff to proceed with. Deputy Berger indicated at that meeting, staff could get credit enhancement, which is a lease - backed revenue bond and they have an offer from Union Bank of California, backed by the Teachers' Retirement System of California, for a letter of credit, along with a AAA rating on this bond issue. The minimum bond proceeds would be $6 million, as was stated in the report. Chair Appezzato asked the City Finance Director, Zenda James, if she supports this action. Zenda James stated that she was part of the financing team that put this plan together. She indicated that the report given to the Board was signed by both she and Deputy Berger. Member Kerr asked Deputy Berger if the ARRA vote is simply to approve the assignment of rents to enable the financing, not to approve the financing itself? Deputy Berger responded that was correct. The Board is signing the lease revenues to the financing authority through the City Council. Member Kerr asked is this an assignment of revenues. Deputy Berger responded yes, this is the action that is in front of the ARRA this evening. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) None. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY Member Daysog stated there are a certain amount of dollars needed to pay for services at the base and with the Cooperative Agreement sunsetting, there needs to be a way to generate the dollars. We can produce bonds that pay for some of the infrastructure on the base and in turn the ARRA, from that revenue, would pay for infrastructure. As ARRA money comes to pay for capital things for historical Alameda, the service dollars that go to the base are replenished. Member Daysog clarified that when we speak of Alameda, we are talking about the service operating budget and capital budget. Henry Gardner of Gardner, Underwood and Bacon, voiced to the Board that what they are doing by this transaction is providing funding for two primary purposes: maintain the current operations at the base and finance the early capital projects at the base. In order to make that happen, two other entities have been brought into the process. One is the City of Alameda which the bond will be funding a portion of their capital projects, which is the reason the Public Financing Authority is involved and they will be the issuer. This will allow staff to continue 2 with the development activities at the base, necessary capital projects, makes no reliance of any kind on the general fund and protects the City's funds. Member Daysog stated the City now has a limited budget for services and now the City is going to being paying for services on the base. Henry Gardner reiterated to Member Daysog that the City of Alameda is spending no money for this purpose. The City's general fund is in no way involved in the financing of anything at Alameda Point. However, the City has to be involved in this financing, in order to achieve the purpose of the bond. Member Daysog asked Mr. Gardner about police funding. Henry Gardner responded that this funding will allow for funding of those positions. It will allow staff to maintain the police and fire services that are currently on the base. Member Daysog asked Mr. Gardner will the City be able to maintain the level of services on historic Alameda, since they will now be covering a greater part of Alameda, resulting in loss of time for historic Alameda. Will the dollars from the ARRA free up historic Alameda into the capital side and will it also replenish the lost dollars? Henry Gardner stated this financing does not rely on general fund support in any way and does not obligate the City in any way for this financing. Member Johnson asked Mr. Gardner can they say they are not putting the general fund at risk. Henry Gardner stated that they are not putting the general fund at risk. The general fund is not in any way obligated for this financing. Chair Appezzato stated they have three choices: they can do nothing for Alameda Point; tell the Navy they do not want they property and can do what they want with it; or they can continue to move forward and believe they are going to be successful in developing Alameda Point and repay the bonds with the success they achieve at the base, without impact to the general fund. Alternate Member Friedman motioned recommendation of staff's report for financing of Alameda Point. Motioned was seconded by Member Daysog. Motion passed unanimously. Discussion. Member DeWitt stated part of the problem we are facing is that the Navy has decided to cut the money for Caretaker funds they had been giving to us. The City is hopeful that someday soon the Navy will turn the base over to them or either allow the base to be transferred to the City at no cost. If they do that soon, that will help in these type of transactions. Member DeWitt stated he knows the federal government is working on legislation that will transfer bases to the various 3 communities, possibly at no cost. Chair Appezzato stated if the base were conveyed to the City tomorrow at no cost, they would still have to do what they are doing, regardless if the Navy is paying certain fees. There have been letters sent to congressional representatives for support for continuance of cooperative funds. There is legislation sponsored by the President and Secretary of Defense to pass the property on at no -cost to the City of Alameda. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. espectfu,,ly submitted, etia Akil ARRA Secretary 4 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum September 29, 1999 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager SUBJ: Report from recommendation from the Deputy City Manager to authorize the Executive Director to finalize negotiations and execute an interim lease with the Alameda Point Collaborative for Building 101, with the proposed change in use and Building 92. Background: As required by the federal Base Closure and Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994, the ARRA worked with Alameda County Housing and Community Development and a group of homeless services providers, identified as the Alameda County Homeless Providers Base Conversion Collaborative now called the Alameda Point Collaborative (Homeless Collaborative), to determine a fair share of housing and commercial space at NAS Alameda to accommodate the homeless. This accommodation of the homeless was reflected in the Community Reuse Plan which was unanimously approved by the ARRA board in January 1996 and subsequently approved by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD, again, as required by federal law). In allocating the buildings to the Collaborative, staff had already determined which buildings would be desirable for interim and future uses. The buildings allocated for warehouse space for the collaborative were those slated for demolition including Building 101. The reasonable usage of facilities for and by the homeless was negotiated by representatives designated by the ARRA and the Homeless Collaborative and summarized in a document called the Standards of Reasonableness (SOR). The SOR were adopted by the ARRA Governing Body on May 3, 1995 and included firm numbers of available family housing units, barrack units, and buildings for economic development use, as well as, job creation and financing goals. The SOR summary of the buildings and opportunities for determined uses (opportunity) is included in Attachment 1. Under the original accommodation, the Collaborative used one opportunity for a special purpose use for Building 91. The request was for 30,000 sq. ft. to be used by the Practical Recovery Training Program Inc. (PRTC, Inc.). The facility will be used for training and employment of 25 formerly homeless individuals in the production of " EcoPanel" honeycomb core housing panels. Building 92 was identified to be used by the Alameda County Food Bank. Although Building 92 is 89,000 sq. ft., it satisfied the Collaborative request for 100,000 sq. ft. for the Food Bank. The Food Bank warehouse project is a collaborative effort of five agencies and is designed to link agencies that have a similar focus or share identical functions. Examples of the program include warehousing, transportation, food distribution, disaster response and volunteer opportunities. Building 101 was to serves as the Multi service Center (MSC) for the Collaborative. The MSC would complement the services offered by the six homeless providers managing transitional and permanent housing at Alameda Point. An integrated team of providers located in the MSC would provide services for the formerly homeless residents of Alameda Point. In addition to the service delivery area in the building, 50,000 sq. ft. was to serve as warehouse and storage area for Collaborative members. Honorable Members of the September 29, 1999 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3 Finally, the proposed new uses for Buildings 92 and 101 results in the permanent release of entitlement to Building 91. Staff intends to either lease the building or demolish it to provide additional parking for an adjoining building (Building 8), for which a commercial user has expressed interest. The new plan gives staff flexibility in planning and an interim opportunity to generate revenue through leasing. Fiscal Impact: The Alameda Point Collaborative will provide protection and maintenance for Buildings 101 and 92 as their base rent. They will also pay the Common Services charge of 2.4 cents per month per square foot of building space and 0.027 cents per month per square foot of land area. Having these programs lease the property shifts the burden from the City of Alameda cooperative services agreement budget to these agencies for the maintenance of the property. Since the Food Bank has chosen to not locate at Alameda Point, the ARRA will receive the ability to lease or demolish Building 91. Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA governing body authorize the Executive Director to finalize negotiations and execute the proposed lease with the Alameda Point Collaborative for Building 101, with the proposed change of use, and Building 92 upon submission of a letter from the Collaborative confirming their position that the new accommodation satisfies the Standards of Reasonableness and does not create any additional entitlements. Respectfully submitted, David A. Berger Deputy City Manager By: Nanette : anks Administrative Management Analyst NB/la Attachment: Original and Proposed New Uses for Buildings 91, 92, and 101 H: \STAFF- RE.PTS\ 101 92NE W. WPD 0J) 0 Level of Accommodation 00 New Proposal Permanently Relinquish Space 1 Opportunity - Special Purpose Industry 59,000 sq. ft. Warehouse 1 Opportunity - Institutional Use Comm mity Use 25,000 sq. ft. Office /Classroom 1 Opportunity - Institutional Use 1 Opportunity - Special Purpose Industry Community Use 25,000 sq. ft. Office /Classroom 59,000 sq. ft. Warehouse /General Purpose Industrial Original Accommodation 1 Opportunity - Special Purpose Industry 30,000 sq. ft. 100,000 sq. ft. Warehouse /General Purpose Industrial 1 Opportunity - Institutional Use 25,000 sq. ft. Office /Classroom 50,000 sq. ft. Warehouse /General Purpose Industrial 1 Opportunity - Institutional Use 1 Opportunity - Special Purpose Industry 25,000 sq. ft. Office /Classroom 150,000 sq. ft. Warehouse /General Purpose Industrial ao 0 .— -0 ... 0 14 Building 91 (56,000 sq. ft.) Building 92 (89,000 sq. ft.) Building 101 (75,000 sq. ft.) Total Barrack allocation will be amended by the Memorandum of Understanding with the Alameda Point Collaborative Attachment 2 Alameda County Homeless Base Conversion Collaborative September 23, 1999 James M. Flint, Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 950 West Mall Square, Room 173 Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Mr. Flint: Subject: Revision in Accommodation for Buildings 91, 92, and 101 I am writing on the behalf of the Alameda Point Collaborative to request a change in the homeless accommodation at Alameda Point in Buildings 91, 92, and 101. In the Community Reuse Plan, the Collaborative originally received Buildings 91, 92, and 101. The Buildings were to house the Collaborative's umbrella organization, as well as the supportive services, warehouse and manufacturing activity allowed under the Standards of Reasonableness, and recognized in the adoption of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan. The Alameda Point Collaborative proposes to revise the Multi- Service Center (Building 101) into a Community Center. The original Multi- Service Center included in the accommodation in the adopted Reuse Plan envisions organizations working together to establish a facility that would enhance the ability of the entire Collaborative to coordinate job training and placement activities, economic development activities, health services and social services. In addition, the Multi - Service Center included several warehouse uses, including the storage of household furniture and food supplies. The refined vision of the Community Center includes general community -wide activities in addition and in combination with the social service, health services and economic development activities for formerly homeless residents at Alameda Point. In addition to the services noted, the community -wide activities envisioned include food services, educational activities including Headstart and adult classes; theater and performances; art classes and shows; and a multi - cultural center. Under the revised vision, the warehouse uses would now be consolidated into Building 92, a warehouse building across the street from the community center that originally was allocated to the Collaborative solely for the Alameda County Community Food Bank. Alameda Point Collaborative to ARRA Page 2 September, 23, 1999 At this time, the Collaborative requests that the accommodation be revised to eliminate Building 91, and allow the Collaborative to use Building 92 in its entirety for multiple manufacturing and warehouse uses, and use Building 101 in its entirety for the Community Center. With the exceptions of Buildings 613 and 607 and the four acres identified the Reuse Plan, this change fully satisfies the Collaborative's non - housing accommodation or entitlement. This is inclusive of the Alameda County Community Food Bank's accommodation, and the the revised accommodation will not be increased or decreased based upon the future disposition of the Food Bank. Under this proposal, the long term lease (Legally Binding Agreement) for Building 92 would be with the Alameda Point Collaborative and the LBA for Building 101 would also be with the APC. The APC would in turn sublease space consistent with the uses in the proposal we have described above. The revenues generated from subleasing will be used to pay for operating and maintenance costs of the building, including Common Area Maintenance (CAM) fees. The refined vision enhances the integration of services and provides an activity center in the civic core of Alameda Point. The Collaborative believes that the revised proposal reflects the changed circumstances since the Reuse Plan was adopted and is a benefit to the ARRA, the APC and the community at large. Sincerely, (1214W-1 -1 Elaine deColigny, Chair erson, Steering Committee Alameda County Base Conversion Homeless Collaborative City of Al nieda California August 12, 1999 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 950 West Mall Square Alameda Ca, 94501 -7752 Dear Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority: It has come to my attention that the American Red Cross is considering moving one of their Disaster Field Supply Centers here to Alameda Point. I have been informed there are only a dozen of these centers nationwide. Supplies stored are those necessary to shelter and care for people after a disaster. One of local government's primary responsibilities after a disaster is to provide for the sheltering of citizens in need. When the Kobe earthquake struck Japan, a delegation from the Bay Area happened to be in a nearby city and experienced first hand the response and recovery phases in emergency management. What they brought home from that experience was the need to take a revised look at predicting shelter and care needs for their communities. Emergency managers for the fourteen cities in the Alameda County operational area have been asked to submit a list of potential shelter sites. The purpose is to raise the threshold from past - predicted sheltering needs. The next step would be to address supplying and equipping these shelters in a timely fashion. Proximity and damaged roads after a major earthquake could delay receiving these supplies. The potential of having this center located within our city limits would directly benefit not only the citizens of Alameda, but of the other surrounding communities. We are all aware of the very real threat the Hayward Fault poses. The D.F.S.C. center being located here would virtually eliminate any delays in the procurement of needed supplies. As the city's disaster preparedness officer, I am hopeful that this space and the space they have requested for the American Red Cross Bay Area East Bay supply center will; be granted. Sincerely1 .,.. awrence M. Picinich, Captain Disaster Preparedness Officer Alameda Fire Department Headquarters 1300 Park Street 94501 510.748 4601 _C eda Toace 13eya ens Burnham E. Matthews Chief of Police August 25, 1999 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Autho 950 West Mall Square Alameda, CA 94501 -7752 Dear Members ofthe ARRA: The American Red Cross is requesting warehouse space in Building #92 at Alameda Point as part of the conveyance to the Alameda County Homeless Base Conversion Collaborative. The use of this space will be to house a National American Red Cross Disaster Field Supply Center (DFSC) and a East Bay supply center for the American Red Cross Bay Area. I have been made aware that there are only about a dozen DFSC's in the United States and the one at Alameda Point will hold more than $1,000,000 in disaster supplies, such as cots and blankets, to be used in the event of a major disaster. The American Red Cross Bay Area space will be used to store disaster preparedness and response supplies and will also be set up to receive, store and distribute large in -kind donations. In the event of a major disaster, having immediate access to the resources that will be available at these Red Cross supply centers will allow us to concentrate on other public health and safety issues, knowing that the basic human needs of Alamedans are being e I encourage the ARRA to look upon this request being made by the American Red Cross as an opportunity for Alameda to move significantly closer to being prepared for any disaster which may occur, natural or otherwise. Sincerely, Burnham E. Chief of Police atthews 1 555 Oak Street = Alameda, California 94501 Non- emergency (510) 748 -4508 Fax (510) 523 -5322 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum September 28, 1999 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manage/ SUBJ: Report and recommendation by the Deputy City Manager for approval of FY 1999- 2000 Alameda Point budget Background: On May 12, 1999, the Alameda City Council accepted a proposed financing plan for maintenance and operations at Alameda Point in anticipation of discontinued support from the Navy scheduled for October 1, 1999. At a special meeting of the ARRA Governing Body on June 15, 1999, the ARRA passed a resolution that continued the appropriation for an interim period of July 1 through September 30, 1999 until a complete financing plan for Alameda Point could be developed. During the three month time period, the City Finance Director requested submission of budgets from the operating departments currently providing services through the Cooperative Agreement. The Finance Director and Alameda Point Administration staff met with the individual departments to finalize the activities to be funded through the bond issuance. On August 17, 1999, the ARRA, City Council and the Alameda Public Financing Authority authorized a bond issuance not to exceed $10,000,000 for citywide and Alameda Point capital improvements. The issuance of the bond will enable funds budgeted for city capital improvements to be freed up for operations and maintenance at Alameda Point. Attachment 1 shows the funded city projects that bond proceeds will now fund. The City is still pursuing an extension of Cooperative Agreement funds at the 1998 -1999 level. The request is expected to fund base operations and maintenance until Alameda Point is conveyed, which is expected to occur in the first quarter of 2000. Discussion: The following budget is a result of the actions taken by the various city governing bodies. In the financing plan proposed to the City Council in May, staff recommended approximately $1 million in "No Impact" cuts to accompany a bond financing plan. These cuts represent elimination of vacant positions, changes in providing grant matching fund policies, elimination of fees paid to the Navy and various one -time expenditures (See Attachment 2). In addition, the Financing plan included delaying as many Alameda Point capital improvement projects as necessary until revenues generated from Alameda Point could sufficiently cover these expenses. The water system represents the largest, initial capital investment for Alameda Point. These improvements are necessary to meet state health and safety standards prior to turning the system over to EBMUD. Attachment 3 details the list of Alameda Point capital projects to be funded through the bond issuance. Expenditures of bond proceeds for construction on water and other infrastructure improvements will not occur until after the EDC agreement has been approved by the ARRA and Navy by December 1999. However, it may be necessary to incur some costs related to preliminary planning and design. Honorable Members of the September 28, 1999 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 Fiscal Impact: The sources of revenue include the fund balance from ARRA lease revenues, OEA and EDA grants with matching funds from tenants, final quarter of the Cooperative Agreement funds, ARRA lease revenues and bond proceeds. Total revenue is $16,171,577 see Attachment 4. The proposed budget continues service levels provided through the Cooperative Agreement and by the ARRA along with several capital improvement projects. The total expenditure of funds is $15,900,157 leaving an unappropriated fund balance of $271, 420, again see Attachment 4. The following is the proposed budget: Alameda Point Administration and Operating Functions $4,246,866 This includes funding for contractual services for port operation, housing and building maintenance, FISC interim leasing maintenance /operations, insurance, and personnel and contractual. The administrative services formerly provided by the Cooperative Agreement are included in this item. Law Enforcement $488,358 This continues the current level of service by the Alameda Police Department. Fire Prevention $1,198,478 This continues the level of fire prevention service currently provided by the Alameda Fire Department. Building Maintenance $935, 000 These funds include personnel and contractual services and costs associated with maintenance to all city leased and occupied buildings at Alameda Point. In addition, provides maintenance to vacant buildings (boarding windows, vandalism), includes equipment maintenance and repair, pest control services, and general maintenance for Alameda Point. Roads and Grounds $642,840 This includes personnel and contractual services, contractual grounds keeping services, street, street light, and sidewalk repair. Electric Power $1,000,000 This includes costs for Alameda Power and Telecommunications (AP &T) service to all city buildings, street lights and transformers that must be maintained in vacant buildings. AP &T and Alameda Point staff are currently developing strategies to reduce these costs. Water $334, 000 This includes personnel and contractual services, water service to Alameda Point and repairs performed by EBMUD associated with the maintenance agreement. Sanitary Sewers $441,285 This includes personnel and contractual services, outside structural and grounds repairs, manhole replacements and continues the level service provided by the Cooperative Agreement. Storm Water $250, 000 This includes personnel and contractual services, equipment maintenance and rental, manhole replacements and continues the level of service provided by the Cooperative Agreement. Honorable Members of the September 28, 1999 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3 Telecommunications $160,000 This includes contractual services related to testing, repair and upgrades to the existing telecommunications system. Much of this work is done to accommodate the high -tech needs of tenants locating to Alameda Point. Alameda Point Capital Improvement Projects $3,071,473 This includes the projects outlined in Attachment 3. The projects are related largely to the water system health and safety upgrades and improvements to the sanitary sewers and electrical system. EDA Capital Improvement Projects $3,131,857 This includes personnel and contractual services and expenditures related to building upgrades included in the two EDA grant awards from 1997 and 1998. In the second year, tenants will be required to provide matching funds for buildings in which they have a lease interest. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority approve the FY 1999- 2000 Alameda Point budget. Respectfully submitted, David A. Berger Deputy City Manager By: Nanette anks Administrative Management Analyst DAB/NB /LA: Attachment Attachment 1 CITYWIDE PROJECTS FOR THE ALAMEDA POINT FINANCING General Plan Update $ 750,000 Resurface Pathways $ 100,000 Alameda Point - Swimming Pool Design $ 20,000 Streets and Sidewalks $ 210,000 Resurface Tennis Courts $ 91,800 Holiday Decoration $ 10,000 Street Light Conversion $ 55,000 Street Tree Planting $ 50,000 Median Landscaping $ 50,000 $ 1,336,800 Construction Improvement Tax Street Trees $ 300,000 City Buildings $ 323,000 Veterans Court Seawall repair $ 80,000 Jackson Park $ 223,900 Upgrade Park Buildings $ 55,000 Landscaper Improvements - Westend Entryway $ 115,000 $ 1,096,900 $ 2,433,700 0 C/) U) cD CT) 0 C CJ) 0) 64 Upgrades essential for City /Navy occupied buildings. Are now complete c o -o eL a) = 0 .t5 -0 ..e as a) a) (0 0 _a o c E as a) E (1) a) _ 0 "5 (0 a) c as 0) 0- a) ; a) Ira E c E a) _ 0) 0) 5 cf. > CO CT 0.) 2 E = E (1.) Ca0) as E a) cc5 E c CL (l) 0 0 s— 0 0 o a) a) _ a) u) ca (00) a) -2 a) ca a) CL 0 -a .43 g .0 U) C CU.). al T C') al (0 b- z0 0) a) 0) 00 u; S as *(7) as 0 ...o cL, o (7) E c = a) 2 C.> ..0 ..-.0 E o) c ca 'Ffi 2 c a) ....; 5 w, 8, . _ > w o_ a) -b-. a) o rts E a) E o > 'it; --°2 •c >, 0 as ai Va •••• a c as = a) CD C2- 0 0 a. E > E 2 In; "ri o -E" CL CO 10 0 0 CO 3 CO c ...V) E.) w al a) 2 0 El2 a) -2 1— iii a) a LL9 61) 0 CD 0 C> CD 0 0 0 C> 1----.7 OD- 69- 64 EF> 0 CD CD CD 0 CD CD C> CD CD CO L6 - CO fa.). 69. 64. Annex 4 Electrical Repairs Annex 4 Pest Control Annex 4 Building Renovations ice a week during lunch hour and 0 0 CD (0 CD CD CD 0) 0 L6 L6 CIC CC CO CO a- v..... LO CD CO E 64 64 64 CD 0 CD CD CD 0 CC r---- 10 Cs./ 64 63. Annex 8 Pump Repairs Eliminate EDA Match Funds ARRA vacant positions - Recept. No longer needed when Cooperative Agreement is discontinued. CD LO 0 CO 0 Is.---... Ci v-- 0 C \ I NY 64 69- E as 0 1- (/) Eliminate CAM fees — J 0 1— 1— 0 City of Alameda Inter -depai talent Memorandum September 28, 1999 (Revised No. 2) To: Zenda James Finance Director From: Matt Naclerio Public Works Director Attachment 3 Re: Alameda Point - CIP Program Bond Financing 1999 -2000 Below is the table of proposed projects for FY 99 -00 for AP Bond Financed Projects. We have included $2.2M in City -wide "swapped" projects. I have adjusted the AP water projects to include the EDA Grant totals ($1.8 million of which $1.2 is for water and $.6 million is bldg upgrades) less $100,000 set aside for ACET. PROJECT NAME AP BOND 99/00 1st qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr OTHER $$ Storm Drain Improvements Seaplane LagoonFlSC Upgrade SDC25 $164,000 (staff and Consultant design only) $24,000 $40,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 (defer to FY 00- 01) Outfall H Upgrade SD- S -24 $123,300 $43,300 $80,000 Sanitary Sewer Estuary Crossing $1,100,000 $500,000 $600,000 $1,400,000 (Sewer Fees) Water Improvements Leased Buildings Water Service $1,415,300 $707,650 $707,650 $606,500 (EDA Match) Buildings Pending Leases Water Service $745,300 $372,650 $372,650 $319,400 (EDA Match) Leasable Buildings Water Service $420,000 $210,000 $210,000 $180,000 (EDA Match) Disconnect DFPS $14,000 $14,000 Alameda Point CIP program - Bond Financing September 28, 1999 Page 2 Install backflow Preventers $56,760 $26,760 $30,000 Install Fire Service Meters $145,200 $65,200 $80,000 Cut n Cap Elevated Tanks $40,000 $40,000 Dismantle Elevated Tanks $120,000 $120,000 Hydrant Upgrades $208,515 $50,000 $58,515 Pier Water Meter $56,700 $56,700 Housing Area Master Meter $74,400 $74,400 Electrical Electrical - Street Light Upgrades $125,000 $75,000 $50,000 Electrical - Pier Upgrades $175,000 $75,000 $100,000 Roadways Tinker ROW $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $ 1,100,000 (defer to FY 00- 01) Subtotal: Alameda Point Projects $5,083,475 $24,000 $2,520,660 $2,438,815 $4,605,900 Subtotal: City -Wide Projects $2,200,000 $200,000 $800,000 $1,200,000 $0 TOTAL $7,283,475 $224,000 $3,320,660 $3,638,815 $4,605,900 cc: David Berger Nanette Banks C:\ OFFICE \W P WIN\W PDOCS \CHERI\APCIPPGM. W PD Attachment 4 IALAMEDA POINT BUDGET - FISCAL 1999 -00 IR EVENUES 1 Carry Over: Leases Grants: Operating Capital Tenant Match Sub Total Cooperative Agreement 3 months - July /Sep99 $ 132,601 1,200,000 1,581,857 350,000 Lease Revenues - Current Year Debt Financing Citywide $ 2,182,720 Alameda Point 3,071,473 BUDGET Operations $ 1,595,547 Administration Law Enforcement Fire Prevention Building Maintenance Roads And Grounds Electric Power 3,264,458 Water Sanitary Sewers Storm Drains Telephone /Cable $ 1,225,000 $ 4,832,379 Capital - Debt Financed Sanitary Sewers Water Electric 5,254,193 Capital - Grant/Others Grant Grant Tenant Match FUND BALANCE $ 4,246,866 488,358 1,198,478 935,000 642,840 1,000,000 334,000 441,285 250,000 160,000 $ 9,696,827 $ 397,443 2,358,030 316,000 $ 3,071,473 $ 1,200,000 1,581,857 350,000 $ 3,131,857 $ 15,900,157 $ 271,420 Grand Total Revenues $ 16,171,577 Grand Total Budget & Fund Balance $ 16,171,577 Alaptzj8 /30/99 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum September 28, 1999 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager SUBJ: Report and recommendation from the Deputy City Manager to authorize the Executive Director to execute a ten (10) year lease on Building 166 with the joint venture of Nelson Marine and Power Engineering Background: The joint venture of Nelson Marine and Power Engineering (NMPE) wishes to enter into a ten -year lease on Building 166 and adjoining property. The ARRA will retain the right to terminate this sublease after year five in order to redevelop the property. Since the term of this lease exceeds seven (7) years, the ARRA Governing Body must authorize the Executive Director to execute the lease. Discussion: Building 166 has a leasable area of approximately 55,000 square feet and is located just east of Piers 1 and 2 in Alameda Point's Inner Harbor area. The building will be used by Nelson Marine for boat sale and service and as office headquarters for Power Engineering, a marine contracting company. The gross rental revenue from Building 166 during the first five years of the lease term will be $1,005,000. After year five, the rental rate will adjust to 90% of the then fair market value and increase at the Consumer Price Index (CPI) through year ten. The gross revenue from this sublease over the ten -year term will be approximately $2.5 million. The two companies will employ about 90 people. As indicated above, the sublease may be terminated at the sole and absolute discretion of the ARRA following year five of the sublease term, should the ARRA wish to redevelop the property underlying these buildings. The sublease's term and rental structure are consistent with the Alameda Point Business Plan requirements for reuse and redevelopment of the building and surrounding site. Fiscal Impact: The cost of the building shell improvements needed to bring Building 166 into code compliance is approximately $150,000. NMPE will front the cost of these improvements and be paid back by ARRA, at no interest, through rent rebates during the first five years of the lease term. This reimbursement will reduce ARRA's net revenue to about $855,000 during the first five years of the lease term. The City will derive additional revenue from the sales tax generated from boat sales by Nelson Marine. Nelson's projections call for gross sales of $8 -10 million by the fifth year of their lease. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority September 28, 1999 Page 2 Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA Governing Body authorize the Executive Director to execute a ten (10) year lease on Building 166 with the joint venture of Nelson Marine and Power Engineering. Respectfully submitted, Davi . 1 erger Manager By: Ed Levine Facilities Manager DAB /EL/LA: Attachment OAKLAND INNER HARBOR •w i 76 14 20° 21 22 > '? 24 K K K K d 11 E SEAPLANE LAGOON ) 5 Pier 0 LEGEND r ova SIGNED LEASES ilLda.∎Ar a Pier 3 AIAMEDA POINT INNER HARBOR Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum September 24, 1999 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager SUBJ: Report and recommendation from the Deputy City Manager to authorize the Executive Director to approve assignment of Quality Assured Product's sublease for Building 21 to Kitz Corporation of America Background: In June 1997, Quality Assured Products (QAP) entered into a five (5) year sublease on Building 21 with a five (5) year option to extend. QAP is now finalizing negotiations for sale of their company to the Kitz Corporation of America. As a condition of the sale, QAP will need to assign their sublease to Kitz. Since the time remaining left on QAP's sublease is over seven (7) years, the ARRA Governing Board must authorize the Executive Director to approve the assignment. Discussion: Like QAP, Kitz Corporation of America's primary business is manufacturing industrial valves. Kitz Corporation of America is a Texas based company, wholly -owned by Kitz Corporation of Japan. Kitz' audited financial statement for 1998 shows total stockholder equity of approximately $42 million. Based on this financial statement and discussions with Kitz' senior executives, the company appears to be stable and financially sound. Fiscal Impact: There will be no fiscal impact from this assignment. The terms and conditions of the sublease will remain unchanged. Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA Governing Body authorize the Executive Director to approve assignment of QAP's sublease for Building 21 to Kitz Corporation of America. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority September 24, 1999 Page 2 Respectfully submitted, David • . - ger De anager By: Ed Levine Facilities Manager DAB/EL /LA Correspondence / Miscellaneous ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY LEASING STATUS REPORT - October 1999 1 2 3 4 57 6 Signed Leases & Licenses Term long term long term long term long term Building # 7 Pier 3 Near Bldg.530 258 25 22 Building Sq. Ft. 15,550 12,430 18,000 66,opo ACET (Environmental Tech. Incubator) LAC Hornet Foundation Alameda Point Storage (Mini Storage) Alameda Unified School District Altamont Tech. (Tech. Testing) Audio Video Technical Services long term long term 7 Antiques by the Bay (Collectibles Faire) long term tarmac & 405 4,880 8 Bay Ship & Yacht (Ship Repair) long term Bldg 2 FISC 2,700 Big Whites (Housing Units) 9 long term Various 10 Bobac (Warehouse) long term Bldg 2 FISC 11 Bureau of Electricity (Storage Yard) long term at FISC 12 CALSTART (Electric Vehicle Incubator) long term 20 66,600 CALSTART (Test Track) 13 long term 14 Cellular One (Cell Site) long term - 1,400 15 City Garage Carstar (Vehicle Incubator) long term 24 26,927 16 City of Alameda (Dog Run Park) long term 17 City of Alameda (Ferry Terminal Parking) long term 18 City of Alameda (Gym & Pool) long term 76 &134 58,450 19 City of Alameda (O'Club) long term 60 29,550 20 City of Alameda (Police Dept.) long term 494 2,850 21 City of Alameda (Public Works) long term 397 17,000 22 23 City of Alameda (Soccer Field) City of Alameda (Tennis Courts) long term ________ long term 24 Container Storage (Cans) long term 42,000 25 CyberTran International (Test Track) short term 26 Delphi Productions (Exhibit Displays) long term 39 110,000 27 Delphi Productions (Exhibit Displays) long term 117 32,000 28 Dignity Housing (Homeless Coll.) long term 809,etc. 4,400 29 Door Christian Fellowship Church long term 564 8,600 30 Dunavant of Califomia (Storage) long term Bldg.2 FISC 170,000 31 Emerg. Svcs. Network (Homeless Coll.) long term 613 4,600 32 Forem Metal Manufacturing long term 114 20,000 33 Forty Plus (Career Counseling) long term 90 4,500 34 Fribel Internet. (Concrete Statuary) long term 98 8,507 35 General Svcs. Admin. (Gov't.) long term 169 86,300 36 Home Auto Repair long term 459 11,500 37 IWA Engineers (Steel Fabrication) long term 47,177 38 Jim Bustos Plumbing long term 113 13,115 39 Manex Entertainment long term 612 4,000 40 Manex Entertainment long term 13 34,540 41 Maritime Administration long term Piers 1,2,3, 42 Maritime Administration long term 168 117,419 43 Marine Sanitation I t 611 1,000 44 Navigator Systems (Fumiture Mfg.) • long term 14 31,400 45 Nelson's Marine/Power Engr. (Boat Svcs.) - long term 166 47,434 46 Nelson's Marine (Boat Storage) long term 167 & piers 55,450 47 Nelson's Marine (Boat Svcs.) long term 66 28,542 48 Operation Dignity (Homeless) long term 816,etc. 49 Pacific Fine Food, Inc. (Food Preparation) long term 42 3,000 50 Piedmont Soccer Fdn. 1 year soccer field 51 Port Distribution Warehouse long term 117 22,000 52 Puglia Engr. (Ship Repair) long term 67 14,000 53 Quality Assured Products (valve Mfgr.) long term 21 66,000 54 Richard Miller Photography long term 621 5,770 55 San Leandro Women's Shelter long term 531,etc. 28,080 56 Simmba Systems (Records Storage) long term 9 92,817 57 Tower Aviation long term 530 82,250 58 Trident 3M Services (Port Mgmt.) _ long term 15 16,603 59 United Indian Nations (Homeless Coll.) long term CPO units 2,400 60 Water, Caldwell Assoc. (Consultant) long term 115 2,200 61 West Coast Seaworks (Ship Repair) long term 43 10,500 62 Woodmasters (Cabinetry) long term 44 • 5,100 Xebra Motors (Electric Vehicles) 63 1 year 25 18,000 NO. OF PROPERTIES CURRENTLY OCCUPIED 63 OCCUPIED BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE 1,573,541 CURRENT EMPLOYMENT 1,570 PROJECTED FUTURE EMPLOYMENT 2,015 109.xls Alameda Point Collaborative Community Center "The Center shall endeavor to educate, enrich, expand, empower, and enliven all who use it " In serving the above goals, the Collaborative will create a Center that acts as neighborhood "heart" for Alameda Point, drawing together the residents, employees, and visitors from the "Point" and the surrounding region. In designing the Center, the Collaborative will also consider the context of the site, a place where the land and ocean, man -made and natural, past and future meet and mingle. Below are a list of the types of spaces that the Center could house and some of the potential activities/programs for those spaces. Support Service Counseling (Mental Health, Substance Abuse) Case Management Primary Health Care Transportation Housing Assistance Child Care General Office Alameda Point Collaborative Alameda Red Cross Emergency Services Network Multi - Cultural Center Teen Center Exhibition Local Artists Center Students and Programs Museum/Professional Shows Recreation After- School Programs Teens Adults Classroom Pre - School Education Program General Adult Education Classes Art C)asses/Workshops Local Community Group Meetings Library Program Job Training Vocational Training Culinary Academy Cafe/Restaurant Catering Business Performance Theatre Dance Music New Media Conventions/Retreats IMO