Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Andrew M. Jordan, Inc., DBA A&B Construction, in a Not to Exceed Amount of $31,277,673, for the Alameda Point Reuse Area Infrastructure Replacement Phase 1 and Phase 2, No. P.W. 11-19-55; and Adoption of Resolution Amending the Capital Improvement Program Budget by Increasing Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations in the Alameda Point Backbone Infrastructure Capital Improvement Project (C75000) by $5,790,913 from Available Fund Balance in the Alameda Point/Base Reuse Fund (290) to Construct the Alameda Point Reuse Area Infrastructure Replacement Phase 1 and 2, No. P.W. 11-19-55. (Public Works 31041520)
Is recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute an agreement with interim Jordan, anchoring businesses and construction in an amount not to exceed $31 million. 277,673 for the Army. 2.4 Use area infrastructure replacement phase one and Phase two number p.w 11 1955 An adoption of related budget resolution. Ex Madam Clerk and we are joined again by our public works director Aaron Smith. Welcome back. And the floor is yours. Right? The screen. Okay. So making sure we can get thumbs up. Everybody can see my screen. And see your screen. Excellent. Good evening again, Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of the Council, Aaron Smith, Public Works Director. I'm very excited to be here this evening to present award of a construction contract to build backbone infrastructure in Alameda Point's adaptive reuse area. Council is considering two items this evening award of a $31 million contract to A and B, construction and a budget amendment to appropriate 5.8 million from the base reuse fund to the capital budget. Alameda Point's adaptive reuse area shown here highlighted in yellow, is a historic district. Buildings within the reuse area are planned to be incrementally sold to private property owners on a parcel by parcel basis. Upon receipt of funds from the sale of properties, the city is overseeing the logical implementation of the backbone infrastructure under the Capital Improvement Program. Five buildings have sold to date, shown here in yellow, generating 31 million in revenue governing. The phased implementation of infrastructure in the reuse area is a 2017 agreement. The city has with estimated the city agreed to build out the water system in three phases as shown here. Phases one, two and three. Color coded. The agreement has specific requirements and milestones for the water system, design and installation. Following a building sale in any one of the given phases, since buildings have sold in both Phase one and phase two, the city is obligated and is replacing the Old Navy installed water system in these phases. As this work is advancing ahead of city phase two and the West Midway Project. We are also bringing in Eastbay mud infrastructure from Main Street into the reuse area along that section of West Midway in West Tower shown here in purple. In addition to the water system, the project includes all backbone infrastructure in phase one there, and all backbone infrastructure include sewer storm, joint trench, street lighting, landscaping and complete streets with bike, pedestrian and transit facilities. It also the streets will capture 100% of stormwater runoff and have that treated in the fire retention areas before discharge to the bay. This substantial project was successfully bid and we received four responsive bids. The low bid was A and B or is A and B construction out of Berkeley. Their bid came in and the total $28 million figure is shown here on the slide. When you add it, 10% contingency councils considering award of the construction contract of $31,277,673. To award the contract. We're also seeking a budget amendment to appropriate 5.8 million from the Base Reuse Fund to the capital budget. This will allow not only award of the contracts this evening, but ensure adequate funding for additional soft costs during a two year construction period. The appropriation or the budget amendment tonight can be considered a request to advance building CIL revenue from the sale of Building 92, which is in Phase one. Building 92 was originally going to be sold in 2018, but the Surplus Lands Act delayed the sale and now that requirements in the Surplus Land Act have been met. The building is intended to be sold this summer. The last building evaluation was in 2018 and it was 7.2 million. The following sale of Building 92 that that actual sale amount would be deposited back into the base re-use fund. So I kept my presentation nice and short. I hope I can't see everybody, but I hope we're smiling because this is a really exciting project for me. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions and have a productive conversation. Thank you, Miss Murph. I think we are smiling. That was a great presentation. I love those graphics where you have all the colored arrows showing every which way, where things are. I mean, who knew sewage could be and sewer and water and electrical engineer? Totally. Anyway, before we go to our clarifying questions, we have public speakers on this item. We do not. Okay. Close public comment on this item. Council. Comments. Questions. Motion. Hands up, counselor. Not sweating. I have a couple questions. I'm not sure if you're able to pull back up the map first, only because I don't know how to I don't know what to call it. But this you should schedule phases one, two and three. What is what is the is is being minor? The VA doing the not phase one two and three part of the. Or the beehive. Those are exercising. Only go back. I'm sorry. Councilmember, what area are you. Discussing in. The area is not listed one, two or three up in the beehive and whatnot. I'm just curious. Understood. Yeah. So that's considered part of the development area in the master infrastructure plan. Our community development director, Lisa maxwell, would be able to speak in more detail. I believe that area is called Edge K, but the intent is that it would be sold to a developer and the developer would be bringing in the infrastructure. Okay. And then where the were the top blue, the blue, that section that doesn't have a number under the blue arrow. Yeah. My understanding these are not considered backbone street. So the adaptive reuse area when when these areas are subdivided and sold, the adjacent development would be bringing in frontage improvements. Okay, great. I guess the other question that I, I guess one could ask is the $31 million program we heard earlier that when the city does programs of this size, we take it to the voters if the voters approve this. Not the the project specifically, but the policy around building sale revenue being spent on backbone infrastructure in the adaptive reuse area. If the voters approve that. That's my understanding. I'm going to look to perhaps our city manager's office as well. I know the master infrastructure plan contemplates this approach. Master infrastructure plan was brought to council and approved, and they do contemplate this sort of logical implementation of the backbone infrastructure in the reuse area. I can follow up with you further, Councilmember, just specifically when when that building sale revenue into backbone infrastructure was formally approved? No, I'm sorry. I understand how it's done. My question is, is whether or not there were any votes of the city electorate that approved this project or anything like this project. My my understanding my memory and understanding and involvement is that that it was all council directed. Including that the fiscal neutrality project that our policy that you're discussing. And that's what I would if it would help. Mr. SMITH Were you perhaps harkening back to an earlier discussion this evening? Well, yeah. As I said, we heard earlier that projects of $30 million and even $9 million are are always approved by the voters and that it's not council appropriate to be making decisions. And I'm just trying to understand whether or not this project falls into that. Well, I could see. I think I was busy when they let me call on you. I was going to say. Why don't we let I? Because I think you might be referring to council members this statement. So why don't we hear from council decide what you were, what you said or intended to say? Yeah, I don't see any issue here. The earlier discussion was about the use of general fund money and the choices we make between activities funded by general fund money. In this case, this is basically a pay as you go kind of activity where the proceeds of the sales of a property are being paid to, are being used to pay for the infrastructure that will eventually help this area. Is just two completely separate subjects. The one was about general fund and the cumulative amount of money that you could have had different choices to spend the $37 million. This is a very specific project where it's about the sales and the uses of land proceeds. It's not unusual. I mean, we don't have to go to the voters for the sales of land proceeds at Alameda Point. We haven't done that. So. Thank you. So I just wanted to give Mr. Smith the benefit of some backstory. Kels, we're not quite that to you. Think so? Yeah, I think I have one other comment that I may make later, but I'll just point out that it was it was a council policy that made the sale of these buildings, put the money into a fund that was going to go back and be used to fund this infrastructure. That was that was a council decision. So these aren't special funds like act funds or park funds or whatever else. These were council decisions that that made these large decisions about how to move funds around to address large, significant city costs. And I don't have a problem with it. I just that. Sorry, that's that. My apologies if I wasn't clear. Ms.. Smith, I don't have a problem with that at all. I think it's a very small one. In fact, I've been a very strong proponent for maintaining the Fiscal Neutrality Project program and really making sure that we maintain that commitment to our community, that that that we are fiscally neutral out here. I just I think you can draw the lines wherever you want, but at the end of the day, we don't have a threshold by which we go to the voters for certain things. And I think this is a perfectly good example of how past councils have made policies that have driven decisions that are now being implemented by this council in order to meet long term needs. Thank you. I think it looks great and I will be looking forward to supporting it when there is a motion. Would you like to make that motion? Yeah. I'd be happy to. I will move approval of this. Of this item. Thank you. Grab a second. Will continue our discussion. Councilmember Daza a. Second with continued discussion. Perfect. Would you like to go next on the discussion? Yes. Thank you. This is an exciting project that will move the redevelopment of Alameda. Councilmember Desai made his way to options. Sorry. So the city clerk tried so hard with me, I. I'm supposed to stop now. We need to do that housekeeping vote because it's coming up on 11 p.m.. So we have a couple more items to go. We've got seven C on automated license plate readers. We have seven D on addressing catalytic converter theft and we have what? We have three council referrals. I would entertain a motion to complete this current item or on and the other to seven C and at 70 and the agenda in the meeting. Then we need four votes to do it. So whatever we do, we got to do it between before 11:00 or it becomes a moot point. So anyone want to make a quick motion to hear this item and two more. Sure. Counselor desk. The excitement. You might like to have a second. It's not. Very reassuring. No. Okay. Um hmm. So we just want to say, I would. Make I would make a motion that we just finish this item. It'll be 11:00 when that happens that we hear the rest of our updates and everything else. Just continue the rest of our updates. What updates. Are you? We agree. We have counsel communications and oral communications. Sorry. Well, we don't have any more communications because we finished before 15 minutes was up. So we we have. Okay. So that's a motion then to do finish this item and here council communication, correct? Yes. Okay. Anyone willing to second councilmember Harry Spencer. Thank you. Actually, I thought he was going to second member Desert Motion. And I'm interested in seconding that motion and following what you had suggested, Mayor. Oh, okay. Which was to do those three items. You still need more votes. Isolate for votes. Yeah, well, you never know. You never know. Okay. We've had a motion by Councilmember Desai that's been secured by Councilmember Herr Spencer. I'm. We have a roll call vote, please. Disorientation. I heard Spencer. I knocked. Right. That was the No and Bella no cash high. That motion failed due to two since it required for it. Okay. Then I would ask that we also move those two items that we're not going to get to tonight on the regular agenda to the item six on the next council meeting. As I move. And wait until tomorrow, Harry Spencer had her hand up for. So let me call her then back to you. Kelso Spencer. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to try to at least get through a finish of this one and then do the 75, which is the cameras, and go for it quickly and then tell you what the then that's the motion. Finish this item and do 70 days of your second council release. Okay. Roll call vote on clerk, please. Council Member Dave i. I for spencer. I next. Five. Sorry, I can hear you, but I think that was a no also. Now, I don't know what's going on with my microphone, you know. Okay. Okay. You know, where is Ashcroft? I that. Okay, we revert to revert to plan B. So those two items said then. What did I say? C and D go to item six in the next agenda. Okay. Council member knocks away. All right. I think I was I was going to say, are you looking for emotion? I'll be make that make that emotion for you. Is it emotional? Which is to direction? Yes. You need emotion to put it on that section. Yes. Okay. Yes, I need emotion. Okay. Gebert Herrera, Spencer crossover here. Spencer, you're making the motion. Okay, Catherine, that's what you're seconding, correct? Yes. Okay. 70 and continued items, correct? Correct. Yes, I. See. Okay. And in the order of the same order, I don't want to change your order. Right. But they're going to be like numbers three and four on the section six. So seven, you should follow the when we carry them all over is my point or 7f2 for that matter. All of them would carry out just keeping the same order from the original agenda as well. Mm. Yeah, that actually makes sense I think because that was the order in which they were listed, but they're coming at the top of the agenda so we ought to be able to get through them. Let's see if we can get through the vote to do that. Okay. We have a roll call vote, please. A birdie flag. Hi, Parish. Spencer. Hi. Next fight? Hi, Mila. I may as. I carry. Sci fi advice. All right. Okay. And apologies to any staff for those two items that we didn't get to. But let's continue. Where were we? We were we had measures second. And does anyone any further discussion? Councilmember Harry Spencer. So I'd like a point of order in regards to and I'd like to know can, can I start talking about a prior agenda item and how that vote may be consistent. Or inconsistent with my position. On this item? Because asking the city attorney, city attorney is that what you're asking? Khurshid. If so. Councilmember Without knowing specifics, generally, as long as your conversation relates to this item, the Brown Act gives you latitude. So, for example, you could explain that I'm voting yes on this item because among other things, you've looked at this item from a prior agenda item from a different perspective, and that has helped you to get to. Yes. What about if I said I voted against I voted no on a prior item that dealt with the pension. Councilmember Herrera Spitzer Mr. Shinn was still talking, so I would ask, just let him finish. And then I will be happy to have you answer your next question. Please finish what you were explaining, Mr. Chen. I'm good. I'm good. Thank you very much. My apologies. Okay, so we'll try to talk over each other, okay? Question. Next question. Councilor Gregory Spencer. Thank you. Yes. So I could understand that the city attorney had completed his comments as I appreciate being able to continue mine and unfortunately I was interrupted one more time. But I'd like to be able to continue my comments because earlier we had a council member essentially I'm going to bring up comments from a prior agenda item that have, as far as I can tell, no relevance to this item. But I too voted no for the prior item. And I would like a point of order in regards to may I continue and discuss why I voted no on that item and yet I will be voting yes on this item. Well. I'm city manager of. My question. Well, is it. A question for me. Madam? I'm not sure. It's it's not true. It's a legal question. I you know, I think what we what we do and we we we all work hard at what we do. And sometimes maybe we get a little agitated about things. We we. But at the end of the day, we're doing the people's work. People are watching. People have stayed up until 11:00. They might be interested in how we're going to move the infrastructure on this very important project for our city forward. You you have 9 minutes. We all do for our allocated time and your you know, as long as you stay within the Brown Act and as the city attorney has explained it, you have some latitude. I mean, you have the right to to discuss. So I would imagine he would champion, although he's very always very courteous, but he would let us know when we're veering into Brown Act, the danger zones, wouldn't you? Mr. Shand So. Yeah, it's a matter of mayor and council member. If I may just share one, maybe I can try to be further helpful here now that I'd have a little more specifics from Councilmember Spencer, which is that I think my suggestion is that instead of necessarily explaining and going into detail about what you did at a prior agenda item, you use, whatever your prior experience is to relate to how you might vote in this case. So that would be my suggestion. Is to relate everything to this matter. But you certainly could use prior agenda items to inform your decisions here and to compare and contrast. I hope that's helpful, Councilmember. May I continue? Yes, you may. Thank you, Mayor. So I do appreciate the comment from the city attorney, but I think that's actually a different response to what we had occurred earlier between two council members and I. Two did vote against the 9 million being allocated. But I do think that that's actually in the former agenda item, and I really don't think it's. Appropriate to be. Discussing at this time. So I actually do want to stay within the boundaries of this agenda item and not discuss the 9 million or voting no on a prior agenda item. Because I really don't. Think it is relevant to this item. I think it did stray outside of the Brown Act. And in regards to this item. I think that I want to commend staff. I think that I'm very happy seeing this move forward. I, I do think that there has been multiple. Agreements. From former councils and it's been implemented that the moneys from the projects out of the point will be spent out at the point to support that infrastructure and the building there of and that the balance of the city will not be imposed upon to complete any of the projects out there. And I. There were multiple. Actually, I think that we did have several votes go to the people where council was pretty much given kept trying to figure out how to make progress out of the point. And at least one measure failed out there. So I think council has tried to hear the public and try to figure out how we're going to do this. And I think the policy of fiscal neutrality was in fact a good policy. And I think it's really helped us try to balance the needs of the community at large and really encourage and in some ways force this the staff and the city council members and the developers to to actually do a heavy lift out there. And I don't I don't I want to actually focus on that. This is a really heavy lift that staff is bringing forward. And I don't want to distract it with other agenda items because I. Think this is really good work. So I do really want to commend the staff and. The developers throughout this. Year trying to figure out how we're going to build and develop. The point that we have all found has turned out to be extremely expensive, extremely expensive and really, really hard to do. So I want to thank I think it's Director Smith now for doing this work. I'm looking forward to the project moving along and I think we are making a good attempt to do our best for the people at large. Thanks. Thank you, Councilor Harry Spencer at their comments. Questions. Councilmember Desai. Thanks. Yes, thank you. So, you know, I just want to say, you know, what I like about the project that's in front of us is that. I do think that it's consistent with the vote of the people in the sense that when I got elected to City Council in 1996, my message was that Alameda Point has to pay for itself. So I think in that sense that that message certainly got through. And so I really appreciate that. All joking aside, I think this is a great use. People understand that Alameda point, you know, the money that's generated out there through the land proceeds really have to be funneled back in. There's just there's no need for, you know, having elections on every item out of Alameda Point. So that was kind of a broad statement that I ran on in 1996 successfully. And then ultimately in 2003, I finally created the fiscal neutrality policy for Al Gore. Made a point. And I see everything that's happening here still being aligned with what we talked about and what we decided way back, you know, more than 25 years to 20 years ago plus. So so I'm excited about this project and I think, you know, the things that are just happening around there from not just Blade AM thank God that they were able to hang in there all these years, but also the new kind of outdoor beer at the hall or whatever it is. There's a lot of exciting things going on and I think this is going to be a part of that. And so I certainly appreciate. I appreciate the residents of Alameda hanging in there with us. And I think, you know, these are great days that are going to be coming down even faster than than we think. Thanks a lot. Thanks, Councilmember, they said. I would agree this is a very exciting time. I agree with councilmember herrera spencer. This is a heavy lift. I really commend staff. Public Works director Aaron Smith and all the folks you've worked with. And just there's there's lots of moving parts when you talk about all these different utilities there. There's a lot of different representatives that go in there. And yet when you go out to Alameda Point, it really is pretty impressive with what has developed. I mean, those of us who've been working on it a long time know there's still more to come. But we've come a long way and this is an absolutely essential part of this this development, and to enable it to move forward. And I'll just throw out an enticing little date for your calendar. Is that on Saturday, April 9th, just a few weeks from now, we're going to be doing the ribbon cutting for the waterfront park at Alameda Point. So I've got it scheduled from, well, I guess 1 to 5. But I think the ribbon cutting is somewhere of the beginning of people's lives. Lots of excitement is planned that I'm not a part of planning. But yeah, we'd love to see members of the public and I'm sure it'll be a beautiful day. So anyway, we need a vote to move this item forward. And I think we had the motion and the second, so there's no further discussion and that's in hands up. Now we have a roll call vote, please. It's an invitation. Yes. Sir. Spencer, I. Next slide. Hi. Vella. I may, as I like, carries by writing. All right. That's great news. Thank you so much, staff. And we appreciate all your hard work on this. All right. So with that, we move down the agenda to item because we've already done the city manager's communications. So then we just jump right down to council communications.