Adoption of Resolution Requiring a Project Stabilization Agreement for Certain Construction Projects. (City Manager) [Continued from January 19, 2021; Public Comment Closed]
Sorry. Lieutenant. I appreciate the quick. The adoption resolution requiring a project stabilization agreement for certain construction projects. All right. Is that you? Assistant City Manager Burton? It is. Good evening, Mayor. As the Ashcraft vice mayor. Bela, members of the city council. I'm Jerry Bowden, your assistant city manager. And I'm here tonight with a recommendation that essentially it's to consider adopting a resolution for a policy that would require the negotiation of a project stabilization agreement for certain types of construction projects in the city of Alameda. Just very quickly, as you all know, we do have we have all been working with project stabilization agreements. These are essentially what usually amount to agreements entered into by project owners or developers with members of the building trade unions. We do have a PowerPoint. I'm not sure how helpful it is. I could just very quickly. Okay, I'm seeing the city head shake now. We're going to work right through. Yeah, I'm actually I'm going to just jump in, Mr. Burton, because I know you're aware of some of the conversations that have been going on today. But I my comment is that when I read this item, I was concerned that we are seeking a policy that would require adoption of this resolution. If we pass this resolution, as is, it requires adoption by applicants. Owners and developers are only focuses on the concerns of the building and construction industry in the in the language in the terms that would be in this project labor agreement. And so what I and also I was concerned when I learned that staff in putting this proposal together didn't actually consult beyond the the building trades construction group. And you know, it's that's a that's a great place to start, but not to finish. My concern is that. I. Think, you know, that I am all about housing. We need to build housing. We need to finish projects. They need to be efficient, economical. It says as much in the staff report, but an effective play has to be more than just an agreement not to strike. It has to address the concerns of all the parties to the agreement. So I did some research and I discovered that in fact there are good examples of just some additional language that I would want added to the proposal that staff has come up with and which I could support. And, and this actually comes from and it was attached as council correspondence in your packet this afternoon. It is a successor project labor agreement to the Mission Bay South Development in San Francisco was known as a very successful construction project. The developer was could tell us it was entered into by the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, the AFL-CIO and affiliated unions. And the major items that I would want to see is the the inclusion of a requirement to to negotiate with women owned business enterprises, minority owned business enterprises, small local business enterprises. And then also that we added section, which is found on pages four and five of the correspondence that was attached. And it is titled Management Rights. And, and it's, you know, it's there the language is there for you to read. But it is just important to recognize the perspective of the owners, the perspective of the developers in getting these projects together. It's a it is a three legged stool that is going to fall if all the the the legs are not stable and strong and so on. Today, I had several conversations with Andrea Cleaver of the Alameda County Building Trades Council. And yes. We are public speakers. We haven't entered comment yet. Okay. I just want to just want to say that this is a direction that I would like to see us head in. So any other questions about Mr. Bowden Springs Park before we launch into public comment and then our deliberation? Councilmember Spencer. I think I saw your hand up first and then de and then not quite. Okay. So I have seen this same resolution attached to a referral by a member of ODY and members hour earlier, and then it was withdrawn. It didn't show up. Right. It sometimes removed from the agenda. And now this is coming forward by the city manager and I'm really not sure what happened there. And so can anyone address what happened to the referral and why do I have a staff member bringing this? And that just seems weird to me. I don't know how and I've actually heard that there have been discussions going on for 18 months and yet as far as I know, council has never approved a referral for staff to be working on this. Mr. Burden or Mr. Levitt, do you want to give the history on this? Sure, I can. I can give part of the history on this. So the city council has had, as part of agreements, as far as development agreements, going back before I was even city manager, where there's been some projects that plays were on development agreements. There's been different points in time where it's been concerning to different parties or to developers. And so a strategy that occurred back in December of 2019, I want to say November, December 2019, was that we should move forward and try to create a a I feel or create a situation where people that are coming in and are looking at city land or city development projects, if there was an expectation of a play or a play that be negotiated, that that would. Have it just in the interest of time. I think Councilmember Spencer is asking, how did this go from being a council referral to a staff item? Was it? Well, that's what I'm explaining. And so in 2019, so this part, this has been being discussed with the Labor Council and being something that we've been looking at as staff, it was planned to come forward in the fall. We were holding out for the new council and I think the referral came forward because it was already in place. So it didn't turn from a referral to this. This was something being worked on by staff and then the referral was asking that it come forward in November or December. I can't remember whether it's November or December. Okay. My next question. Yeah. My next question in the Executive summary, the last sentence is that the applicant owner developer will work with the Building and Trades Council of Alameda County. Can you explain why staff is naming one trade? And member on the mayor has spoken a little bit about this. So can you explain why staff is only name calling out as one building and trees council of Alameda County. For clarification, they are the umbrella organization over all the building trades except the carpenters, which are separate. In Alameda County. So. So. Yeah. So. Okay. So can you explain that the why why this one as opposed to if they wanted to work with them, if the developer wants to work with the union out of a different county or this other one. Right. Or even. Okay. So I wanted to make that. But also in regards to what I'd like to hear from you on that first. So I would. Oh. Vice Mayor, were you wanting to come in? Just that the the Carpenters are also an affiliate of the Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council. It's an affiliated organization with a number of different local sorts. Okay. Okay. But they're not I mean, traditionally they have. And apart. But but the question is then why? Why not when an agreement with other why limits Alameda County. So I would say the perspective from staff was the trades count. Alameda County Trades Council would be the representative of the trades in Alameda County and that's why we were discussing specifically with that Trades Council. Okay. And my next question is, so we have minority owned businesses that are not part of the trades, right. We women owned, minority owned. And how do they fit in? How do the staff recommendation, how do they fit in? Can the developer hire minority owned businesses, not part of the trade there under this? They cannot. Well, I think there's three and three parts to that answering that. One is that there's flexibility in here for the city council. And the city council doesn't believe for some reason that there can be an agreement with a specific development. The Council can. This policy had a lot of latitude where the Council has the option with three votes to not require a play. So that's one. A second is I think we had some provisions, which I think the mayor's proposal is even strengthened that regarding many minority owned businesses. So I think I think there's some language in there to strengthen that. So that's a second part to it. And then the third part is that they would negotiate, but they don't necessarily negotiate the same level for all the trades. They try to do it collectively, but if there are some unique circumstances, other businesses could be be involved. Okay. And this is on. So staff works for the city. So I'm trying to figure out why this is in the city's best interest, why staff think this is so important that they're going to bring this reform, that they're going to bring this forward as opposed to having a council member bring it forward. So I can going back to the initial and part of the slides, we're going to address this. But going back to the initial statement I had. It had to do with the history of plays and how they been connected to the city developments. And so we were trying to create a playing field where the developer would understand what what the expectations are as far as negotiations. And then that there's always an opportunity that the council feels a specific project should be not held to this. The Council can waive this requirement on a specific project if they feel that it cannot be worked out after that negotiation has started. All right. But this also applies to someone leasing property from the city. And if there's a lot of work to be done. Can they they they can't just hire whomever they want. They just can't do the work themselves. If they've received so much over $5,000 credit from the city. I believe it is the property. I believe it's 5 million in construction or seven. It's either seven or eight that they'd have to. Pay 5 million for construction projects. Sorry, Eric, I'll just help this with these numbers. And it's it's seven and a half million if it's a nonprofit entity who's improving leasing city owned property so that we set the thresholds fairly high so that it had to be a substantial amount of work and up to a up to a7a minimum of a seven year lease term as well to make sure that there's going to be a significant investment before this this requirement is triggered. So does the city have any current tenants that would have fallen under this? It's a good question. Well, I'm trying to figure out, I think, something that isn't really relevant, that we don't have any situations or we do, and so we have some character would have changed their ability in the past of how they develop their property or how they make the improvements. I think that there's there's four there's four parts to the to the recommendation. The one is related to improving city owned properties or city owned leases. But there are also affordable housing projects which which would trigger that threshold fairly readily. It's the measure one a excuse me, the yeah, the one a bond for for the county housing that was approved in 2016. The county has a requirement that that labor be involved for when when that bond money does go to an affordable housing project. So those would certainly trigger the requirement with or without this. But it just makes it clear that here in Alameda, that is the expectation. And then for other projects where there might be a city contribution to a project, whether it's land or otherwise, that totals that kind of that kind of value for a developer, it would also trigger the requirement. And when we look at Alameda Point and Site A, that's certainly another example of a project in in recent memory where the requirement did would have triggered and did trigger because we entered into a legislative agreement with development agreement or a disposition and development agreement. So certainly there are examples in recent memory. Greenway Golf, Alameda Point Site A are examples where developers have done that. And then on the the the outside of this agreement and something else where in recent history the city has worked on labor agreements or project stabilization agreements as with our our public construction projects related to CIP. So we have a $1 million trigger there. If there's a contract over $1,000,000, then there is an agreement there as well. So kind of a there is a recent history of PSA play discussions and agreements with the city about with projects and development in the city of Alameda. But that's on a project by project basis. It has been. And that's, I think, what city manager Levitt was was was talking about in terms of adding that certainty or clarity to the process, which is why we thought this would be an opportunity to consider this for the city council. It just it really just clarifies the city council's expectations and the city's expectations with respect to labor agreements. And do you know of other cities in the Bay Area that have this language? There are there are other entities that have tackled this in a more comprehensive way. BART has a similar policy in place with respect to their their projects in other cities. Sorry, my question on cities. Yet there are cities that have done this on a more project by project basis. And I think the trades folks are actually talking with other cities now about this approach, which creates that clarity for developers. Yeah, to expand on what the assistant city manager saying, BART has a more global policy but other cities don't have. It's more on an individual project by project basis. And I think just that I mean, Councilmember Spencer, let me just make make a suggestion. We have four public speakers that have been waiting all evening to speak. And I'm wondering whether we should hear our public speakers at least get through that. And then we can pick this discussion up because presumably finish hearing public speakers come back to the discussion, go as far as we can, and then continue this at the next meeting. But I, I hate to leave public speakers out there waiting. Councilmember Spencer, would you would you allow us to circle. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So, Madam Clerk, if we could have our first public speaker, please. Yes, the first public speaker is Joe Lewis. Good evening, Mr. Lewis. Good evening. My name is Joe Lewis. I am a Bay Area resident and also a member of the Alameda County Taxpayers Association. I am here tonight. Seward's Lou and the. Council to vote against the proposed project stabilization agreement for certain construction projects in the. City. Traditionally, pieces include a variety of provisions that actually discourage many local construction. Firms from bidding. In short. Local workers and. Businesses being. Generally smaller and nonunion may not apply. Also. Various polls of contractors have shown that PSA can deter folks from bidding. For example, the Admiral Sir survey of contractors said 64% of respondents. Said such agreements are a disincentive to bid and 100% said that they increased costs. This is we are living in a critical time when it's not limits. Who can bid, who. Cannot bid and admiral restrictions that we need to do. An example of restrictions that have occurred was last year in the city of Concord, in neighboring Contra Costa County. The metro crew that had a very reasonable approach to redeveloping the naval weapons station. All same of local unions. Delayed and ultimately stalled the said proposal by demanding a project labor agreement. We don't want that similar situation to happen here. Another thing, there are a couple of local cases. Where project labor agreements have increased costs. For example, in the Alameda Unified School District, the historic. Alameda High School Modernization Project, it's had. A contract initially a 45,000,000.5. They had 21 change orders that increased the price of the project to 58 million. The only community college district. In three months. They had their project aim. Academic for buildings is 3.6 million, though they've had that started there. Now they've had eight revisions that increased the price to 6.6 million. We would encourage you, though, if you are going to do a project stabilization agreement. Please have one that includes local. Workers and companies to build quality projects built to last. Thank you. And that's all. Our next speaker is Doug BLOCK. Thank you. Sorry, I was muted. Good evening, Mr. Black. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Doug BLOCK. I live on Bay Farm Island with my family. And I'm proud that our city has a long history of supporting working families and that this resolution is before you this evening. My day job. I'm also with the Teamsters Union. I represent the hard working men and women who pick up our garbage and recycling from a C.I. who deliver the food to our island's grocery stores, your local UPS. Drivers and more. As a member of the city's Economic Recovery Task Force, I joined. With my fellow islanders to ensure. That our economy stays strong and our children have bright futures in front of you. Tonight is a well thought out and. Negotiated agreement, which I believe will help us accomplish these goals. This gives. Us a real opportunity to use our resources to. Put our needs to work and to promote local businesses and deliver projects on time, efficient and well-built. Please support the adoption of this resolution. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. BLOCK. Our next speaker. Jay Garfinkle. Good evening, Mr. Garfinkle. Excuse me. Good evening. I. I understand that the people who do the labor want to make a fair living. I have no problem with that. I've never really understood some of the language that stabilization legislation or agreements. I read me code, but I'm always a little suspicious when. I never understood why government makes these deals that create safe harbors or tip the balance in favor of unions. I know that the building trades organizations donated a considerable amount of money to the Z A Measure Z campaign. I know that they contribute considerable amount of money to the state legislators, such as The Winner and Bonta and several others who have been supportive of them. And so I can understand why politicians would support them. But I don't see that the city. Gets anything out of. Creating these kinds of contracts. And I say, I don't understand them. But I don't see that the city gets anything out of it. I know that the project that was going to be at the Carnegie Building went under because the city enforced some kind of labor agreement. I know that the housing excuse me, the school district did the pay raise for the teachers was so exorbitant because the unions have made two contracts so that teachers are getting a raise while the janitors get raises, too. So I think it would be more responsible for the city to not enter in these protective kinds of agreements that so strongly favored the labor unions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Garfinkle. Our next speaker, Andreas Cleaver. Good evening, Mr. Cleaver. Hello. I hope folks can hear me. Yeah, it's just fine. Okay. I've been jumping on the Internet. My name is Secretary Fried with the Alameda County Building Trades Council. And first of all, I would also like to thank this city and the city council for standing up for working people and the relationship we've had with the building trades, having project labor agreements with the city around the Naval Air Station and also with the school district. And we'd also really appreciate your consideration for what I think is a very innovative policy around the public lands play policy in this policy that is not just a win for working people, that this policy will ensure that they'll be making sustainable wages and getting good benefits and working in safe conditions. This is also a win for for everybody involved. It's actually a win for developers or really leveled the playing field so developers know what's required of them coming in. And if you ask most developers, that is that is most important so that the goalposts don't change in the middle of the game. It also ensures a continuation of a skilled and trained workforce, especially the of housing, to make sure that there are workers that are. There to build. These types of projects. Are the public wins. You're ensuring that there's good, good contractors doing these projects for a good quality. And also there's language to ensure that we're going to have local workforce working on these. And with the amendment that the mayor proposed around minority women owned and small local businesses, we can actually put that language , strong language in our agreements where the city can't because of Prop two nine. So we can do that. Also, the, you know, the city administration and governance wins because instead of coming every time, as every single project's coming, it comes up and having this discussion, every single project where we are putting a policy forward. And as was said earlier, this city council can always reverse that policy on any given project. So you're not locking yourself into this requirement. But it's it's a policy that everybody understands what's expected of them. I will say that I think, you know, the two amendments that I think have been presented by the mayor, we are totally open to, we are always encouraging the use of minority women owned and small local contractors. And we can we can build that into our agreements. And also in terms of management rights language, we're comfortable with that language. I think that is would be similar to I think the mayor raised the Mission Bay Agreement in San Francisco. We always have management rights language in our agreement, so we're definitely open to that. With that, again, thank you. And I also want to thank all the staff that work with us putting this resolution together. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver, and thank you for your time today. And we have one more story here, I'm told. Nicole Goring. Good evening was goring. Good evening, mayor ashcraft and members of the Alameda City Council. Nicole Garing with Associated Builders and Contractors. We have been in the Alameda County community for over 45 years training a skilled and trained workforce. And our apprentices are working in our communities daily. And unfortunately, with what is being presented here, the young men and women of minority veterans are not going to be able to work under these projects, under these types of conditions. They are specifically excluded because we are not part of the the union apprenticeship programs. We offer apprenticeship programs that are of high quality. And we would like to have the opportunity to work on projects in this community. And we believe our our workers are not going to be able to work due to only being able to use the workers out of the union hiring hall. So this definitely is an agreement that is not going to allow the contractors who have been working here on projects that are built to last, they're not no longer going to be able to to do these quality projects for you. The current play that is in place. Has there been any data about that on the citywide projects? Have the projects been coming in under budget? Over budget? What is the data? Where is the explanation on how many people have gone into the trades in regards to the current play? That is actually as far as what I read in the agreement. It looks to me like it's up this month. It's a three year agreement, so I wanted to know what the status is of that and what the status is. Recently we have reached 1159, which is the time that we said this meeting would adjourn. So I'm so sorry to cut you off in mid-sentence, Ms.. Gori, but we have to do that. So with that counted, that's. If council wants to vote to continue this item or you can even maybe extend to just let Nicole and then you could close pending comment and continue it. Perhaps if you wanted to just do that. A vice mayor, a village. Raise your hand. Go up. I was just going to ask if we could extend the meeting for 15 minutes, take you to just hear this item out. I would like to hear the rest of the public comment and then deliberate tonight. This is our last speaker. Okay. That would take a vote of four. Councilmember Knox White has a standing. Assuming that was a motion i will second that I feel it's in the spirit of what we told the community back in December. To go 15 more minutes to hear this last public speaker then do council deliberations if we can finish. Okay. We've had a motion, we've had a second. It will take four votes to continue. I think it would be a nice courtesy to miss scoring because she did have she was within her time with a little over a minute left. Madam took me. We have a roll call vote, please. Councilmember de SAG. No. Knox White. Hi. Spencer. No Villa I. Mayor as the Ashcraft. I. That required four votes. So. Okay. That feels like. I'd like to make another motion. A cancer risk sensor. To allow the speaker to finish your comment and then concludes the meeting. And then close public comment. And I closed the meeting. We had so much more discussion. I don't think so. Yeah, I. All right. There's a motion to continue it just a minute and a half to let Ms.. GREENE complete her comments and then close public comment. And we'll continue this item to as soon as we can to add a second to that. I'll second that. I think it's very simple. Okay. Well, I will. Let's. That gets very nuts. Wait a second. The city attorney has a name? Yes. Madam Mayor, if you wish to continue this item to a future date, you would need to set up for a date and time. Certain or this or this item would at the end of tonight. You're right. Thank you for that. So Councilmember Spencer or OC Councilmember says is the maker of the motion bird counts very ducks why did you want to. My friendly amendment would be that we continue this to the February 6th item at 659. Before the before the regular item. And we finished this out. Would you would you be amenable to that amendment? Councilmember Spencer. Said February 2nd. Or February 2nd, is that it? Sorry. Yes, whatever the next council. It's just a trick question. Yeah. Okay. All right. Is that good? So usually that would suffice. Okay, great. So we've had a motion by Councilmember Spencer Bean, seconded by Councilmember Knox, by me. We have a roll call vote, please. Councilmember de SAG. No. Not quite. I. Spencer. I. Vela. No mayor as the Ashcraft I. That also fails. Okay. I'd like to make a motion to continue this item to the second at 659. Mayor. Madam Vice Mayor. Would you consider the courtesy of letting the scoring finish the minute in some seconds she had left closing public speaker speaking and then doing that. Because I would really like to do public speaking. I feel like there's there's day I. No, because I don't know if there's other people that would like to speak. And I, I feel like we've we basically held this item to the very end. So I don't I actually don't want to close public comment if we're going to hear the item. I think I would rather just note who's spoken and if there's going to be more public speakers. Okay. Mr. City Attorney, if we can't come to an agreement on continuing and what happens to this, I want to hear from the city attorney. We'll come back to you, Madam Vice Mayor. If the council cannot continue this item, it's considered no action taken and staff. Would have to bring it back. Okay. Can I. Can I finish? You may. So I'm fine letting Ms.. Goring speak. Provided that when we continue this item, public comment is not closed, which was not clear on the last motion. If we can continue it, keep public comment open. What I heard on the last motion was that we would let her be our last speaker and finish her minute and 30 seconds out. I would just like to make sure that when we continue this to the to the next meeting, that public comment is not, in fact, closed. People won't be able to speak. So can I ask a question? Yes. Second, that just with the clarification, people won't be able to see speak a second time. But if the. New. Correct? I correct. I second the motion. Okay. Discussion. My concern is if we open up to, first of all, five people stayed long enough to speak on this item and we had good representation. If we open it at this again, we are just making our agendas longer and harder to finish. But let's we have let's see. So both has made a motion to allow is going to finish speaking continue to a date certain February six but reopen public comment and I think because we're I have did you second. You did. Okay. All right. May we have a roll call vote, please. And I just want to clarify the it's continuing to February 2nd at 6:59 p.m.. Second, why do I say it's okay? Councilmember de Thug. No. Knox, right. Hi, Spencer. So. Vela. I may or as the Ashcroft. I but that was futile. Okay I so. I'll reconsider on the earlier motion. I just think that what we've done that. Would be lovely that. We've basically filibustered. And I'm I mean, we're now curtailing this. Okay. So you would reconsider the motion that Councilmember Spencer made. Correct? Yes. Okay. All right. So just so that motion, as I recall, was continued to February 2nd here, the balance of miss scoring time and close public speakers. And we'll be back on this at the top of the agenda on February 2nd. Yes. I just want to clarify. I don't believe there's any other speakers waiting to speak tonight, is that correct? She is correct. And yes, I think that's an appropriate motion. Yes. Okay. So we still have the motion. Same second. Yes. Okay. All right, let's try this one more time with Asta. Councilmember Desai. Nope. Next flight? Yes. Spencer. Yes. Vella. Yes. Mayor. As he. Ashcraft. Yes. That carries 4 to 1. We did it. Thank you. Miss Goring, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Why don't you pick up right where you left off? I see. Or am I? Am I? Can you hear me? Yes. Are you? And I'll bet our amazing city clerk knows how much time you have left. Because she knows everything. She has a minute and 20 seconds. I told you. Okay. Thank you for letting me continue. But I am confused as to why I would not be able to speak during public comment on the second, but that can be clarified and answered later. I just wanted to give some examples of what's been going on with project labor agreements in Alameda County and how they have not been inclusive of the entire workforce. A continuance of L.A. academic core buildings. The 61258 project had 29 change orders and the contract was increased from 126 million to 134 million, with an engineer's estimate of 120 million. It looks like the contractor there has got the job is continuing to. Make it longer and and have. Change orders. Alameda Hamlet Hall of justice project was delayed and over budget is this during this time is this going to benefit Alameda taxpayers and the Alameda hard working workers who are now not going to be eligible for these projects? So I just wanted to get some updates on the current situation with the public works. Play at 1 million and want to learn more why we want to expand into the private side, especially in some of these contracts that are really deep within companies use of their work. This scoring your time is now open. Just for clarification. The reason people have spoken tonight do not speak again is that we we have closed the public comment item and we would never have people get to speak twice on the same item. But so with that, we we are a few minutes, 10 minutes past the time that we designated. So I am going to adjourn this meeting and I am going to adjourn this meeting in memory of the Americans in this country, residents of this country who have died of COVID 19 since the beginning of this pandemic. As you may know, there was a memorial this evening at the Capitol. That number is now over 400,000. And so we remember, we mourn, we acknowledge the grief of their family and friends, and we look forward to moving past this dark time. So with that, thank you all for your perseverance, for staying with us. Remember to tune into the inauguration at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. My guests this morning get a little sleep before then and we will see you soon. Take care. Stay safe. Wear your masks whenever you leave your house. There is a more contagious variant of the coronavirus out there. Take care. Thank you. Good night. Meeting is. Adjourned.