PORT OF OAKLAND€¦ · 1.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of California Government

J. CHRISTOPHER LYTLEExecutive Director

DANNY WANPort Attorney

ARNEL ATIENZAPort Auditor

JOHN T. BETTERTONSecretary of the Board

PORT OF OAKLANDBOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS530 Water Street 1 Oakland, California 94607(510) 627-1696(w)1(510) 839-5104(f)1TDD/TTY 711

E-Mail: [email protected]: www.portofoakland.com

AGENDA

ALAN S. YEEPresident

CESTRA BUTNERFirst Vice-President

EARL HAMLINSecond Vice-President

MICHAEL COLBRUNOCommissioner

JAMES W. HEADCommissioner

BRYAN R. PARKERCommissioner

VICTOR UNOCommissioner

Regular Meeting of the Board of Port Commissioners

October 23, 2014 – 1:00 p.m.

Board Room – 2nd Floor

ROLL CALL

Commissioner Colbruno, Commissioner Head, Commissioner Parker, Commissioner Uno, 2nd Vice-President Hamlin, 1st Vice President Butner and President Yee.

1. CLOSED SESSION

Closed Session discussions and materials may not be disclosed to a person not entitled to receive it, unless the Board authorizes disclosure of that confidential information.

1.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 54956.9): 2 Matters

1.2 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS – (Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.8)

Property: One Market Street, Oakland, CA (Howard Terminal)Negotiating Parties: Oakland Waterfront Ballpark and Port of OaklandAgency Negotiator: Pamela Kershaw, Director of Commercial Real EstateUnder Negotiation: Price and Terms of Tenancy

Property: Oakland Army BaseNegotiating Parties: Prologis, LP; CCIG Oakland Global, LLC; Oakland Global Rail

Enterprises, LLC and Port of OaklandAgency Negotiator: John Driscoll, Director of MaritimeUnder Negotiation: Price and Terms of Tenancy

AGENDA

1

2

Property: Berths 55-56 and Berths 57-59 Marine TerminalsNegotiating Parties: SSAT (Oakland) LLC and Port of OaklandAgency Negotiator: John Driscoll, Director of MaritimeUnder Negotiation: Price and Terms of Tenancy

Property: Berths 25-26 (Port of Oakland)Negotiating Parties: Ports America Outer Harbor Terminal, LLC and Port of

OaklandAgency Negotiator: John Driscoll, Director of MaritimeUnder Negotiation: Price and Terms of Tenancy

1.3 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS – (Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6).

Employee Organizations:

International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21 (IFPTE-Local 21); Services Employees International Union, Local 1021 (SEIU-Local 1021); Western Council of Engineers (WCE); and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW-Local 1245)

Unrepresented Employees:

Unit H and M

1.4 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – (Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957)

Title: Executive Director

ROLL CALL/OPEN SESSION (Approximately 3:30 p.m.)

Commissioner Colbruno, Commissioner Head, Commissioner Parker, Commissioner Uno, 2nd Vice-President Hamlin, 1st Vice President Butner and President Yee.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

The Port Attorney or Board Secretary will report on any final actions taken in Closed Session.

2. CONSENT ITEMS

Action by the Board under “Consent Items” means that all matters listed below have been summarized and will be adopted by one motion and appropriate vote. Consent Items may be removed for further discussion by the Board at the request of any member of the Board.

2.1 Resolution: Delegation of Authority to the Executive Director to Execute a Local Resource Adequacy Capacity Transaction Agreement (Engineering/Utilities)

2.2 Ordinance: Building Permit Application: Piedmont Hawthorne (Landmark) Aviation,

AGENDA

2

3

Interior improvements for sub-tenant (Visa) at Hangar 9, 7683 Earhart Road(Engineering)

2.3 Ordinance: Building Permit Application: Crown Castle, Modifications to equipment at cell site, 100 Burma Road (Engineering)

2.4 Ordinance: Building Permit Application: Piedmont Hawthorne Aviation, LLC dba Landmark Aviation, Interior tenant improvements to the approximately 2000 square foot space leased to CALSTAR, 9351Earhart Road, (L-142) (Engineering)

2.5 Resolution: Approval to Reimburse the City of Oakland for General Services and Lake Merritt Trust Services Rendered in Fiscal Year 2013-14. (Finance & Admin)

2.6 Ordinance: Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Space/Use Permit –Public Pay Telephone Concession with Jaroth Inc., d/b/a Pacific Telemanagement Services (Aviation)

2.7 Ordinance 4307: 2nd Reading of An Ordinance Finding And Determining That It Is In The Best Interest Of The Port Of Oakland To Approve The Extension Of Delegation Of Authority To Fix And Determine Requested Rate Changes For The Marina Berths Encumbered By A Department Of Boating And Waterways Loan (“DBW”) To The Executive Director Until August 2029.

2.8 Report: Report of Appointments, Separations and Leaves of Absence for FY 2014-15, 1st Quarter (July 1, 2014 – September 30, 2014) (Finance & Admin)

3. MAJOR PROJECTS

This segment of the meeting is reserved for action and discussions regarding the status of Major Projects and issues of special importance.

3.1 Report: Bart Connector Major Project Update (Aviation)

4. BUDGET & FINANCE

This segment of the meeting is reserved for action or discussion regarding the status of Budget and Finance issues.

5. STRATEGY & POLICY

This segment of the meeting is reserved for action or discussion on Strategy and Policy Issues.

5.1 Report: Review proposed provisions of a new purchasing ordinance to replace existing Port Ordinance 1606, delegating to the Executive Director certain contracting authority, establishing competitive bidding and proposal procedures and setting certain contract requirements for purchase of goods and services. (Finance/Admin & Port Attorney)

5.2 Report: Proposed Revisions and Update to the Port’s Standard Contract Provisions for Public Works Projects (Engineering)

AGENDA

3

4

5.3 Report: Informational Report on Oracle ERP System (Finance & Admin)

5.4 Resolution: Rescission of Port Resolution No. 01020 and Corresponding Administrative Policy 425 (regarding Unit H salary administration) (Finance & Admin)

6. REMAINING ACTION ITEMS

Remaining Action Items are items not previously addressed in this Agenda that may require staff presentation and/or discussion and information prior to action by the Board.

6.1 Resolution: Authorization to Award Security Services Contract for Middle Harbor Shoreline Park (MHSP) (Maritime)

6.2 Resolution: Authorization to Negotiate and Execute Certain Amendments to Agreements and Related Documents with SSA Terminals, LLC and its Affiliates for the Berths 55-56 and Berths 57-59 Marine Terminals Related to Compensation, Term, and Certain Equipment (Maritime)

6.3 Resolution: Approval of a Letter Agreement with the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Providing for an Airport Badged Employee Discount Fare Program (Aviation)

6.4 Resolution: Capital Budget Authorization to Procure Equipment for Use by Aviation and Maritime Departments; Designation of Existing Equipment as Inadequate, Obsolete or Worn-Out and Approval to Sell, Donate, or Dispose of Such Property(Aviation/Maritime)

7. UPDATES/ANNOUNCEMENTS

The President, Members of the Board and the Executive Director will report on noteworthy events occurring since the last Board Meeting.

8. SCHEDULING

This segment of the meeting is reserved for scheduling items for future Agendas and/or scheduling Special Meetings

OPEN FORUM

The Board will receive public comment on non-agenda items during this time. Please fill out a speaker card and present it to the Secretary of the Board.

ADJOURNMENT

The next Regular Meeting of the Board will be held on November 13, 2014.

AGENDA

4

5

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

To Speak on an Agenda Item

You may speak on any item appearing on the Agenda. Please fill out a Speaker’s Card and give it to the Board Secretary before the start of the meeting or immediately after conclusion of Closed Session. Cards received after the start of the meeting will be treated as a single request to speak in Open Forum. All speakers will be allotted a minimum of one minute.

To Receive Agendas & Related Materials

Should you have questions or concerns regarding this Agenda, or wish to review any of the Agenda Related Materials, please contact the Board Secretary, John Betterton, at:(510) 627-1696, or visit our web page at: www.portofoakland.com

To receive Port Agendas and Agenda Related Materials by email, please email your request to: [email protected]

Disability Related Modifications

Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the meeting, may submit a written request, electronic request, or telephone request [via the California Relay Service (telephone) for the hearing impaired at (800) 735-2922], to the Secretary of the Board no later than five working days prior to the scheduled meeting date.

John Betterton, Secretary of the Board530 Water Street, Oakland, CA 94607

[email protected](510) 627-1696

Language & Interpretive Services

As a grantee of federal aid grant funds from the US Department of Transportation, the Port is responsible for ensuring equal access to its programs, services, and benefits. To request bilingual interpreters or materials in alternate formats, please contact the Assistant Secretary of the Board no later than five working days prior to the scheduled meeting date.

Daria Edgerly, Assistant Secretary of the Board530 Water Street, Oakland, CA [email protected](510) 627-1337

Scented Products

Please refrain from wearing scented products to this meeting so attendees who experience chemical sensitivities may attend.

AGENDA

5

6

Commissioner’s Statement of Intention

We are a governing Board whose authority lies with the entirety of the Board.

We govern in accordance with our fiduciary duty to the Port of Oakland.

We conduct ourselves with clarity and transparency, grounded in the principles of integrity, trust and respect.

We reach our decisions through candid, open and deliberative debate and hold both staff and ourselves accountable for implementing them.

AGENDA

6

CONSENT ITEMS

Action by the Board under “Consent Items” means that all matters listed below have been summarized, and are considered to be perfunctory in nature, and will be adopted by one motion and appropriate vote. Consent Items may be removed for further discussion by the Board at the request of any member of the Board.

CONSENT ITEMS Tab 2

7

AGENDA REPORT

TITLE Delegation of Authority to the Executive Director to Execute a Local Resource Adequacy Capacity Transaction Agreement

AMOUNT $655,800 (Calendar Years 2015-2017)

REVENUECAPITAL EXPENDITURE

OPERATING EXPENSE

NON-OPERATING EXPENSE

PARTIES INVOLVED City of Santa Clara DBA Silicon Valley Power, Santa Clara, CA, John Roukema, Utility Director

SUBMITTED BY Chris Chan, Director of Engineering

APPROVED BY J. Christopher Lytle, Executive Director

REQUESTED ACTION RESOLUTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As a municipal utility, the Port of Oakland (Port) is required to procure a prescribed amount of local electricity generating capability by the California Independent Systems Operator (CAISO). This agenda report requests that the Board delegate authority to the Executive Director to enter into one or more transactions to procure the local electricity generating capability for the calendar years 2015- 2017 prescribed by the CAISO for a total amount not to exceed $655,800.

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS APPLIESDOES NOT

APPLY

MARITIME AVIATION PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT (MAPLA) X

LIVING WAGE REGULATIONS X

GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY X

OWNER-CONTROLLED INSURANCE PROGRAM (OCIP) X

CONSENT ITEMS Tab 2.1

8

BACKGROUND

As a Municipal Utility, the Port of Oakland (Port) purchases electricity from the wholesale electricity market to supply its own operational needs and to resell such electricity to Port tenants at the Oakland International Airport (OIA), portions of the Harbor Area, and the Oakland Army Base (OAB).

In the aftermath of the 2001 Energy Crisis, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) adopted new energy reliability regulations that, for the Port, are being implemented by the California Independent Systems Operator (CAISO). On an annual basis, the CAISO reviews the prior year’s electric demand from all load serving entities(LSE) and publishes a study of resources and capacity requirements. Following the study’s publication, LSEs, including the Port, must make a filing to the CAISO to demonstrate that it has secured the prescribed amount of local electricity generating capability (capacity). For the Port, the amount of capacity ranges from 4,000 Kilo-watts (KW) to 7,000 KW per year depending on the peak demand from the prior year. Each LSE must demonstrate that it has sufficient local generation facilities itself or has acquired the capacity rights from generation facilities that have capacity in excess of their capacity needs. The purpose is to ensure CAISO that there will be enough electric generation capability within California to reliably serve the LSE’s load in the event of another energy crisis. This is called Local Resource Adequacy Capacity (LRACapacity).

Since 2008, the Port has been meeting its LRA Capacity requirement by purchasing capacity from the City of Santa Clara, through its electric utility Silicon Valley Power. The Port proposes to execute a new 12-month LRA Capacity transaction agreement for the upcoming Calendar Year 2015 and receive authority to execute future transactions for calendar year 2016 and 2017.

ANALYSIS

For calendar year 2015, the Port’s LRA Capacity requirement is 5,500 Kilowatt (KW). The City of Santa Clara has again offered to assign the Port a portion of its excess capacity rights to help the Port meet its capacity requirement at a price of $2.30/KW per month, for a total cost of approximately $151,800.

The Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), a California joint power agency ofwhich the Port is a member, also established a capacity pool program. The NCPA Commission set the price for the LRA Capacity for the capacity pool program participants at $2.30/kw per month, the same rate as SVP’s offer to the Port. However, Port staff recommends purchasing capacity from SVP instead of participating in the NCPA’s capacity pool program because it will reduce the Port’s financial risk exposure.


9

If the Port fails to secure the required LRA Capacity, the Port would be exposed to the volatility of the real-time market costs and the risk of penalties imposed by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) for failing to meet its LRA Capacity requirement. Further, the Port would be viewed negatively for not meeting the energy reliability regulations.

Port staff is negotiating the details of the agreement with the City of Santa Clara, which will be very similar to prior years’ agreements, and recommends that the Board authorize the Executive Director to execute the Local Resource Adequacy Capacity Transaction agreement between the City of Santa Clara and the Port of Oakland at a price of $2.30/KW per month for calendar year 2015.

In addition to the purchase of capacity rights from SVP for Calendar Year 2015, staff recommends delegating authority to the Executive Director or his or her designee to execute future capacity purchase agreements on an annual basis for Calendar Years 2016 and 2017 within the total dollar amount recommended by this Agenda Report. For 2016 and 2017, due to the increasing use of shore power, the Port anticipates that it may purchase up to 7,000 KW of capacity at an estimated total cost of $252,000 per year if the price of the capacity falls within the $2-$3/KW per month range. LRA Capacity prices have been fairly stable since the LRA Capacity market was established in 2008 and staff does not foresee any factors that may cause price volatility over the next 3 years. Although the Port is currently negotiating with SVP for the calendar year 2015 capacity purchase, the Port may contract with parties other than SVP to purchase capacity rights for Calendar Years 2016 and 2017, depending on the most economically feasible available options.

Staff recommends the Board delegate authority the Executive Director to execute LRA Capacity purchase agreements with SVP or other counterparties to meet the LRA Capacity requirements for calendar year 2015, 2016 and 2017 for a total amount not to exceed $655,800.

BUDGET & STAFFING

Local Resource Adequacy Capacity for Calendar Year 2015 costing approximately $151,800 is included in the Port’s FY 2015 adopted budget. Cost for calendar year 2016 and 2017 will be budgeted during the Port’s budget process. Local Resource Adequacy Capacity costs are recovered through the Port’s electricity rates and charges for the portion of electricity that is sold to tenants. The remainder is charged to the Port use account.

There are no staffing impacts associated with this action.


10

MARITIME AVIATION PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT (MAPLA)

The matters addressed under this action are not within the scope of the Port of Oakland Maritime and Aviation Project Labor Agreement (MAPLA) and the provisions of the MAPLA do not apply to this action.

STRATEGIC PLAN

The action described herein would help the Port achieve the following goals and objectives in the Port’s Strategic Plan(http://www.portofoakland.com/pdf/about/strategicPlan2011-2015.pdf).

ß Goal A: Objective 4: Pursue strategic partnerships at all levels: local, regional, national and international.

LIVING WAGE

Living wage requirements, in accordance with the Port’s Rules and Regulations for the Implementation and Enforcement of the Port of Oakland Living Wage Requirements, do not apply because the contract is not a covered service contract, but a contract for goods, commodities, supplies or equipment with incidental service provisions.

ENVIRONMENTAL

The proposal to delegate authority to the Executive Director to execute capacity purchase agreements for calendar years 2015, 2016 and 2017 was reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Port CEQA Guidelines. The general rule in Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states that CEQA applies only to activities that have a potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed action will result in a physical change in the environment, and therefore it is not subject to CEQA and no further environmental review is required.

GENERAL PLAN

This action does not change the use of any existing facility, make alterations to an existing facility, or create a new facility; therefore, a General Plan conformity determination pursuant to Section 727 of the City of Oakland Charter is not required.


11

OWNER-CONTROLLED INSURANCE PROGRAM (OCIP)PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE PROGRAM (PLIP)

The Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) and Professional Liability Insurance Program (PLIP) do not apply to the matters addressed by this Agenda Report

OPTIONS

1. Adopt a resolution delegating authority to the Executive Director to execute LRA Capacity purchase agreements with SVP or other counterparties to meet the LRA Capacity requirements for calendar year 2015, 2016 and 2017 for a total not to exceed amount of $655,800. This is the recommended option.

2. Adopt a resolution authorizing the Executive Director to execute the Local Resource Adequacy Capacity Transaction Agreement between the City of Santa Clara and the Port of Oakland, for an amount not to exceed $151,800 for Calendar Year 2015. This option would require staff to request Board approval each year for Calendar Year 2016 and 2017.

3. Take No Action: If the Port fails to secure capacity rights and fails to demonstrate its compliance with LRA Capacity, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) may purchase capacity and assign those costs and penalties to the Port. Further, the Port would be viewed negatively for not meeting the energy reliability regulations.

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt a resolution delegating authority to the Executive Director to execute LRA Capacity purchase agreements with SVP or other counterparties to meet the LRA Capacity requirements for calendar year 2015, 2016 and 2017 for a total not to exceed amount of $655,800.


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23

BOARD MTG. DATE: 10/23/14

AGENDA REPORT

TITLE Approval to Reimburse the City of Oakland for General Services and Lake Merritt Trust Services Rendered in Fiscal Year 2013-14.

AMOUNT $2,198,046

REVENUE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OPERATING

EXPENSE NON-OPERATING EXPENSE

PARTIES INVOLVED City of Oakland, Oakland, CA

SUBMITTED BY Sara Lee, Chief Financial Officer



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This action would authorize the transfer of $2,198,046 of Port funds to the City of Oakland for services related to general police, fire and street maintenance, as well as services associated with Lake Merritt.

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS APPLIES DOES NOT

APPLY

MARITIME AVIATION PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT (MAPLA) x

LIVING WAGE REGULATIONS x

GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY x

OWNER-CONTROLLED INSURANCE PROGRAM (OCIP) x

1


24


BACKGROUND

The City of Oakland (City) incurs annual costs to (a) provide certain services to the Port and (b) maintain Lake Merritt, which is State tidelands trust property managed by the City. Services provided to the Port are referred to as “General Services” and include items such as police, fire, and street maintenance. Services associated with Lake Merritt are referred to as “Lake Merritt Trust Services” and include items such as recreation services, grounds maintenance, security, and lighting.

Payments for these services are governed by the 1993 Eleventh Supplemental (General Services) and Twelfth Supplemental (Lake Merritt Tidelands) Agreements to the 1983 Memorandum of Understanding between the Port and the City. In accordance with these agreements, City bills the Port for the lesser of costs incurred or a calculated cost cap. In addition, approval of the Board of Port Commissioners (Board) is needed to transfer moneys in the Port Revenue Fund (“Port funds”) to the City General Fund for General Services and Lake Merritt Trust Services.

The City has billed the Port a total of $2,198,046 for General Services and Lake Merritt Trust Services in fiscal year (FY) 2013-14.

ANALYSIS

The use of Port funds is restricted in several ways:

• Port funds are tidelands trust funds and, as such, may be used only for trust-consistent purposes.

• Section 717(3) of the Charter of the City of Oakland (Charter) sets forth nine purposes, in order of priority, for which Port funds may be used. The transfer of funds to the City General Fund is the last (ninth) priority and may occur only if the Board determines that the other eight purposes are adequately addressed. The nine purposes, in order of priority, are summarized as follows:

1. Payment of debt service that is due and payable on general obligation bonds of the City issued for Port purposes;

2. Payment of debt service that is due or becoming due on Port-issued debt, including related payments (e.g., reserve fund payments);

3. Payment of all costs of maintenance and operation of the Port’s facilities;

4. Payment to defray the expenses of pension or retirement plans;

5. Investments in Port facilities (capital projects);

2


25


6. Establishment of reserve or other funds to ensure the payment of debt associated with purpose (1);

7. Establishment of reserve or other funds to ensure payment of debt associated with purpose (2);

8. Establishment of other reserve funds; and

9. Transfers to the City General Fund, to the extent Port funds are not needed for purposes one through eight.

BUDGET & STAFFING

The proposed action does not have any budget or staffing impact.


The matters contained in this Agenda Report do not fall within the scope of the Port of Oakland Maritime and Aviation Project Labor Agreement (MAPLA) and the provisions of the MAPLA do not apply.

STRATEGIC PLAN

The action described herein would help the Port achieve the following goals and objectives in the Port’s Strategic Plan

• Goal D: Improve the Port’s financial position by minimizing expenditures and focusing on core services. The municipal services described above are more efficiently provided by the City.

• Goal G: Sustain healthy communities through leading edge environmental stewardship. Port payments contribute to the maintenance of public open space at Lake Merritt.

LIVING WAGE

Living wage requirements, in accordance with the Port’s Rules and Regulations for the Implementation and Enforcement of the Port of Oakland Living Wage Requirements, do not apply to this agreement because the City of Oakland is a government agency.

3


26


ENVIRONMENTAL

The proposal to authorize the transfer of Port funds to reimburse the City for services to maintain Lake Merritt and to provide other municipal services was reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Port CEQA Guidelines. CEQA only requires analysis of activities that are defined as a "project". The creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment is not a project pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, reimbursement of the City for services already provided is a funding action and is not a project under CEQA.

GENERAL PLAN


OWNER-CONTROLLED INSURANCE PROGRAM (OCIP) PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE PROGRAM (PLIP)

This action is not subject to the Port’s Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) or Professional Liability Insurance Program (PLIP) as it is not a capital improvement construction project or design project supporting such construction.

OPTIONS

1. Determine that $2,198,046 exists in the Port Revenue Fund and is not needed for any of the first through eighth purposes set forth in Section 717(3) of the Charter, and direct Port staff to transfer said amount from the Port Revenue Fund to the City General Fund pursuant to the ninth purpose for reimbursement of General Services and Lake Merritt Trust Services for FY 2013-14.

2. Determine that such amount cannot be paid pursuant to the ninth purpose set forth in Section 717(3) of the Charter at this time, and direct Port staff to notify City staff that reimbursement of $2,198,046 for General Services and Lake Merritt Trust Services for FY 2013-14 cannot be made at this time.

4


27


RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the Board:

Adopt a resolution determining that $2,198,046 exists in the Port Revenue Fund and is not needed for any of the first through eighth purposes set forth in Section 717(3) of the Charter, and direct Port staff to transfer said amount from the Port Revenue Fund to the City General Fund pursuant to the ninth purpose for reimbursement of General Services and Lake Merritt Trust Services for FY 2013-14.

5


28


29


30


1

AGENDA REPORT

TITLE Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Space/Use Permit –Public Pay Telephone Concession with Jaroth Inc., d/b/a Pacific Telemanagement Services (Aviation)

AMOUNT $1,660 Estimated Revenue ($275 per month)


OPERATING EXPENSE


PARTIES INVOLVED Jaroth, Inc, d/b/a PTS, San Ramon, CaliforniaMike Rossi, Chief Operating Officer

SUBMITTED BY Deborah Ale Flint, Director of Aviation


REQUESTED ACTION ORDINANCE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This action would authorize the Executive Director to execute Amendment No.1 to Space/Use Permit – Public Pay Telephone Concession (the “Amendment”) with Jaroth, Inc., d/b/a Pacific Telemanagement Services (“PTS”) which would provide for a six month extension, through April 30, 2015, of the Space/Use Permit – Public Pay Telephone Concession (the “SUP”) for public pay telephone concession privileges at Oakland International Airport (“OAK”).


APPLY






31


2

BACKGROUND

At its meeting of October 21, 2008, by Ordinance No. 4070, the Board authorized the SUP with Paracom, Inc., a Washington based company, to operate a public pay telephone concession (“Pay Phone Concession”) at OAK. In addition to providing pay telephones, the permitted use also authorized Paracom to provide pay email services.

At its meeting of, July 21, 2011, by Resolution No. 11-84, the SUP was assigned to San Ramon based Jaroth, Inc., doing business as PTS. The SUP expires on October 31, 2014. Rent is 26% of gross receipts with no minimum annual guaranty.

Annual revenue to the Port from the Pay Phone Concession is shown below.

Calendar Year Revenue

2009 $15,247

2010 $10,381

2011 $6,751

2012 $4,169

2013 $3,239

2014 (8 months) $1,672

ANALYSIS

As cell phones have become ubiquitous the public pay phone business is in declineand, consistent with that industry’s trend, revenue to the Port from its Pay Phone Concession is falling each year. Over the last five years revenue from this concession has declined over 83% and staff anticipates revenue for the calendar year 2014 to be approximately $2,500.

The four parties expressing interest in the OAK Pay Phone Concession since the last Request for Proposals (“RFP”) in 2008 are now either out of the pay phone business or indicated they would not respond to a new RFP. The incumbent, PTS, expressed limited interest in continuing to operate the Pay Phone Concession at OAK. Nationally, airports


32


3

have significantly reduced pay phone equipment and, increasingly, the airport sponsor must pay the vendor to provide phones. A current trend is for airports to provide free local calls via airport courtesy phones and some airports are simply choosing to not provide any public phone services.

A national airport pay phone survey conducted in 2013 generated responses from twelve medium hub or larger airports. Six of these airports now offer free local calls through their courtesy phones and six still offer public pay phones, however, three of the airports with pay phones plan on eliminating them in the future.

The Amendment will extend the SUP through April 30, 2015. Staff is currently analyzingthe options available for continuing to offer public phone services at OAK and will return to the Board for further action if warranted.

BUDGET & STAFFING

There is no budget or staffing impact to the Port by extending the SUP as the $276.75 monthly revenue was anticipated in the FY2014-2015 budget.



STRATEGIC PLAN


ß Goal B: Objective 5: Enhance customer services (i.e., market intelligence, technical knowledge, strategic advice and problem solving).

ß Goal C: Objective 2: Conduct comprehensive communication and outreach to stakeholders and strategic partners to improve workforce and small business opportunities.


33


4

LIVING WAGE

Living wage requirements, in accordance with the Port’s Rules and Regulations for the Implementation and Enforcement of the Port of Oakland Living Wage Requirements (the “Living Wage Regulations”), do not apply to this agreement as the tenant does not employ 21 or more employees working on Port-related work. However, the tenant will be required to certify that should living wage obligations become applicable, the tenant shall comply with the Living Wage Regulations.

ENVIRONMENTAL

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378(2) states that “Project” means the whole of an action that has a potential for resulting in either direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The general rule in Section 15061(b)(3) of the Guidelines additionally states that CEQA applies only to activities that have a potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that an extension to the Space use Permit with PTS for public pay telephone concession services at OAK may have a significant effect on the environment, the action is not a “Project” under CEQA, and is not subject to CEQA under the General Rule Exclusion. No further review of this action under CEQA is required.

GENERAL PLAN





34


5

OPTIONS

1. Adopt an Ordinance authorizing the Executive Director to execute Amendment No.1 to Space/Use Permit – Public Pay Telephone Concession with Jaroth, Inc., d/b/a Pacific Telemanagement Services (“PTS”) which would provide for a six month extension of the Space/Use Permit – Public Pay Telephone Concession for public pay telephone concession privileges at Oakland International Airport by six months, through April 30, 2015. This is the recommended action;

2. Do not approve an Ordinance authorizing the Executive Director to execute Amendment No.1 to Space/Use Permit – Public Pay Telephone Concession with Jaroth, Inc., d/b/a Pacific Telemanagement Services (“PTS”) which would provide for a six month extension of the Space/Use Permit – Public Pay Telephone Concession for public pay telephone concession privileges at Oakland International Airport by six months, through April 30, 2015, which would require the Port to terminate the Space/Use Permit – Public Pay Telephone Concessionand would leave OAK with no public telephone service; or,

3. Do not approve Amendment No. 1 to Space/Use Permit – Public Pay Telephone Concession, but recommend different terms and conditions for modifying the Space/Use Permit- Public Pay Telephone Concession.

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt an ordinance authorizing execution by the Executive Director of the proposed Amendment No.1 to Space/Use Permit – Public Pay Telephone Concession with PTS to extend the SUP by six months, through April 30, 2015, subject to the form being approved by the Port Attorney.


35


36


37

307142-v2

PORT ORDINANCE NO. 4307

ORDINANCE FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PORT OF OAKLAND TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO FIX AND DETERMINE REQUESTED RATE CHANGES FOR THE MARINA BERTHS ENCUMBERED BY A DEPARTMENT OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS LOAN (“DBW”) TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR UNTIL AUGUST 2029.

WHEREAS, the Board of Port Commissioners (“Board”) has reviewed and evaluated the Agenda Report Item 2.2 dated October 9, 2014, (“Agenda Report”) and related agenda materials, has received the expert testimony of Port of Oakland (“Port”) staff, and has provided opportunities for and taken public comment; and

WHEREAS, on April 30, 2004 the ownership and operation of the Port’s recreational Marinas was transferred to Oakland Marinas, LP pursuant to a 50 year Lease and Operating Agreement. Portions of the marina improvements transferred as a part of the Lease were constructed with a loan the Port obtained from the Department of Boating and Waterways in February 1994. Pursuant to the Lease terms and the obligations of the DBW loan, the Lessee is require to fix and proscribe fees and charges in connection with the use of the Marinas subject to approval by the Port; and

WHEREAS, the authority to approve any requested changes in Marina Rates and Charges was delegated to the Executive Director of the Port for an initial period of the Lease term. This delegation has expired, requiring that any future changes to Marina Rates and charges be approved by the Board unless the current delegation of this authority to the Executive Director is extended; and

WHEREAS, that in acting upon this matter, the Board has exercised its independent judgment based on substantial evidence in the record and adopts and relies upon the facts, data, analysis, and findings set forth in the Agenda Report, and in related agenda materials and in testimony received; now therefore

BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Port Commissioners of the City of Oakland as follows:

SECTION 1. Based upon the information contained in the Agenda Report, and testimony received, the Board finds that:

A. It is in the best interest of the Port to authorize the extension of the delegation of the authority to approve requested changes in the Rates and Charges for the Marinas encumbered by the DBW loan to the Executive Director of the Port until August 2029.


38

307142-v2

B. It is in the best interest of the Port to authorize the Executive Director or his designee to approve and execute such other agreements and additional documents as may be necessary to consummate the transaction contemplated, subject to approval by the Port Attorney as to form and legality.

SECTION 2. The Board hereby approves the following:

A. The extension of the delegation of the authority to approve requested changes in the Rates and Charges for the Marinas encumbered by the DBW loan to the Executive Director of the Port until August 2029.

B. The authorization of the Executive Director or his designee to approve and execute such other agreements and additional documents as may be necessary to consummate the transaction contemplated, subject to approval by the Port Attorney as to form and legality.

SECTION 3. In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3) states that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Continuing to delegate authority to the Executive Director to fix and determine requested changes in the Rates and Changes is not a project under CEQA, and no environmental review is required.

SECTION 4. This ordinance is not evidence of and does not create or constitute (a) a contract, or the grant of any right, entitlement or property interest, or (b) any obligation or liability on the part of the Board or any officer or employee of the Board. This ordinance approves and authorizes the execution of an agreement(s) in accordance with the terms of this ordinance. Unless and until a separate written agreement(s) is duly executed on behalf of the Board as authorized by this ordinance, is signed and approved as to form and legality by the Port Attorney, and is delivered to other contracting party, there shall be no valid or effective agreement(s).

SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective immediatelyupon adoption by the Board.

The Board of Port Commissioners, Oakland, California, October 9, 2014. Passed to print for one day by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Butner, Colbruno, Hamlin, Head, and President Yee – 5. Excused: Commissioners Parker and Uno - 2. Noes: 0.

John T. BettertonSecretary of the Board


39

INFORMATIONAL REPORT(This Item is for information only and no action is

requested or required of the Board of Port Commissioners.)

TITLE: Report of Appointments, Separations and Leaves of Absence for FY 2014-15 1st Quarter (July 1, 2014 – September 30, 2014)

BOARD MEETING DATE: October 23, 2014

SUBMITTED BY: Sara Lee, Chief Financial Officer

APPROVED BY: Chris Lytle, Executive Director

SUMMARY

The attached reports of all appointments, separations, and leaves of absence are for the quarter ending September 30, 2014.

As of September 30, 2014, the FTE count is 453. The approved budgeted FTE count for FY 2014-15 is 497. There are a total of 44 vacancies.

Attachment


40

Quarterly Report of Appointments, Separations and Leaves of AbsenceFY 2014-15 1st Quarter (July 1, 2014 – September 30, 2014)

Appointments (New Hires)

HIRE DATE NAME UNIT POSITION JOB TITLEMONTHLY SALARY

CHANGE REASON

1 7/7/14 Lee, Peter CPort Associate Engineer (Civil Work) – Limited Duration Appointment $ 10,706 Reinstatement

2 7/28/14 Boucher, Christopher H Director of Human Resources $ 14,583 New Hire

3 8/4/14 Franzese, Pia LSenior Maritime Projects Administrator $ 9,457 New Hire

4 9/30/14 Zampa, Michael H Director of Communications $ 14,333 New Hire


41

Quarterly Report of Appointments, Separations and Leaves of AbsenceFY 2014-15 1stQuarter (July 1, 2014 - September 30, 2014)

Separations

SEPARATION DATE NAME UNIT POSITION JOB TITLE MONTHLY SALARY

SEPARATION REASON

1 7/3/2014 Carter, Diane B Custodian $5,487 Resignation

2 7/4/2014 McClain, Reven BPort Senior Equipment Mechanic $9,654 Retirement

3 8/1/2014 Santos, Noel FSenior Equipment Systems Engineer $11,061 Retirement

4 8/22/2014 Edgar, Verdester B Custodian $5,246 Separated

5 8/29/2014 Del Signore, Lino K Manager, Financial Planning $12,085 Probationary Release

6 8/29/2014Murphy Jr.,Thurman B Custodian $5,487 Retirement

7 8/30/2014 Dominiquez, Jaimen B Semiskilled Laborer $6,945 Retirement


42

Leaves of Absence

NAME UNITBEGIN DATE

END DATE CHANGE REASON SCHEDULED RETURN ACTUAL RETURN

1 Employee # 384339 F 5/22/2014 Present Administrative leave with pay

2 Employee # 400899 B 6/20/2014 Present Leave without pay

3 Employee # 209148 B 8/3/2014 9/16/2014 Suspension 9/17/2014

4 Employee # 400036 B 8/30/2014 9/28/2014 Suspension 9/29/2014


43

MAJOR PROJECTS

This segment of the meeting is reserved for action and discussions regarding the status of Major Projects and issues of special importance.

MAJOR PROJECTS Tab 3

44

BOARD MTG. DATE: October 23, 2014

1

MAJOR PROJECT UPDATE

TITLE BART CONNECTOR

The BART-Oakland Airport Connector (“BART Connector”) will provide a direct and convenient people mover connection to the Airport via BART’s regional rail transit system. This update provides a brief project description, including a construction schedule, status of project funding, strategic plan goals and objectives associated with the project, and current issues.

PURPOSE AND NEED OF UPDATE (SEE MAP AND PHOTOS BELOW)

Staff provides the Board of Port Commissioners with updates on the BART Connector project approximately quarterly (to coincide with quarterly BART reports) or whensignificant project milestones are achieved or proposed project agreement amendmentsare under consideration. This update also reflects Port participation on the Joint Administrative Committee (“JAC”) for the BART Connector Project Stabilization Agreement (“PSA”) which promotes equitable community access to employment and business opportunities and is consistent with the Port’s FY 2012 strategic plan initiative to provide leadership as an engaged partner on the BART Connector project. The previous Major Project Update for the BART Connector project was provided to the Board on July 24, 2014.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

The BART Connector is a Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (“DBOM”) project to implement an automated people mover that will replace the current AirBART bus system. The selected operating system is a cable-powered driverless transit vehicle that runs along an exclusive guideway. Vehicles will stop at the Airport, at BART’s Coliseum Station (where fares will be collected), and at an intermediate Maintenance and Storage Facility (“MSF”) stop. The MSF stop located off-Airport property near Doolittle Drive is listed in BART Connector project documents as a potential third station but initially would not be active as a station. The cable-drive system will be powered from the MSF. The Design-Build portion of the DBOM award went to Flatiron/Parsons Joint Venture, which includes Turner Construction who oversees construction of the Airport Station. The Operate-Maintain portion of the award went to Doppelmayr Cable Car (”DCC”). The Connector is approximately 3.2 miles long, of which a 1.1-mile segment is located onAirport property.

MAJOR PROJECTS Tab 3.1

45


2

SCHEDULE (ESTIMATED)

The construction schedule for the project is regularly updated. The schedule remains similar to the one presented last quarter, with BART still anticipating project completion and revenue service in Fall 2014, most likely in early December 2014. BART has identified the date ranges for major phases of the project, as shown below:

∑ Nov. 1, 2010: Notice to Proceed issued∑ Nov. 2010 - Feb. 2012: Design of System Facilities∑ Dec. 2010 - Apr. 2012: Utility Relocations

o Feb. 2011 - Apr. 2012: Oakland International Airport Station and Doolittle (on-Airport)

∑ Mar. 2011 – Sept. 2014: Construction of the BART Connectoro June 2011 - Dec. 2011: Pile driving (on-Airport)o Aug. 2011 - Feb. 2014: Airport guideway structures (on-Airport)o Sept. 2011 - August 2014: Oakland International Airport Station

(on-Airport)o June 2012 - Feb. 2013: Doolittle Tunnel (on- and off-Airport)o Dec. 2013 - Dec. 2014: System Testing (on- and off-Airport)

∑ Fall 2014: Revenue service anticipated to begin.

BUDGET INFORMATION

The total cost to the Port for the BART Connector is established in the Development Agreement between the Port and BART at an amount not to exceed $45.4 million. Prior to the project starting construction, the Port paid BART $1.5 million for planning, design, and pre-construction activities.

The remaining estimated project cost to the Port is $43.9 million, of which $27.2 million has been paid as of September 30, 2014, including $1 million that was credited to the Port for reimbursement of Port staff and services costs. Project costs incurred are allocated in the Port’s Capital Needs Assessment (“CNA”) as shown in the table below:

PROJECTActual Prior to

FY 2015Anticipated

FY 2015Anticipated FY 2016-17 Total

BART Connector

$27.2 million $8.0 million (Capital Budget)

$10.2 million $45.4 million

In January 2012, the Port received approval from the FAA to use Passenger Facility Charge (“PFC”) to pay its share of the BART Connector project construction costs, including payments to BART and reimbursement of Port costs. The Port reimburses itself and pays BART monthly based on available PFCs.


46


3

STRATEGIC PLAN

As stated in the Strategic Plan adopted by the Board on October 5, 2010, the Port mission is to “deliver the highest value to our customers and community through sustainable stewardship and growth of our assets …” The BART Connector project will help the Port achieve the following Strategic Plan goals and objectives:

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

AREAS GOAL OBJECTIVEHOW BART CONNECTOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTS

Sustainable Economic and Business Development

Goal B: Maintain And Aggressively Grow Core Businesses

5. Enhance customer services (i.e., market intelligence, technical knowledge, strategic advice and problem solving).

The BART Connector improves the speed, reliability, and quality of service for customers using regional rail to access the airport.

Goal C: Promote Equitable Community Access to Employment and Business Opportunities

1. Comply with all federal, State, local and Port workforce mandates.

The Port-BART Development Agreement requires that BART establish a Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA) as part of the project that promotes local hiring and jobs.

2. Conduct comprehensive communication and outreach to stakeholders and strategic partners to improve workforce and small business opportunities.3. Integrate workforce mandates into all Port agreements, policies and processes at the front end.

Goal D: Improve the Port’s Financial Position

3. Maximize return on investments (ROI).

Port payments compriseapproximately 10% of the BART Connector cost, significantly lessproportionally than other airports have paid for people mover connections to regional rail systems.

Stewardship and Accountability

Goal F:Aggressively Obtain Maximum Amount Of External Grant And Government Funding And Regulatory Relief

2. Partner with other agencies to create joint grant strategies.

BART Connector has local, State and federal funding.


47


4

STATUS & ISSUES

Following are status updates for several BART Connector project areas of interest, including:

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

Current Construction Activity and AccessConstruction of the guideway columns and “bent cap” support structures within the Parking Bowl and near Neil Armstrong Way is complete. The area between outbound Airport Drive and the Metropolitan Links golf course includes completed at-grade trestle section support structures and U-Wall section near Doolittle Drive. Construction of the tunnel roof section across Doolittle Drive was completed in February 2013.

At the Oakland International Airport Station site, substructure, foundation and outer shell are complete and the roof has been installed. Construction of above-ground portions of the station, including the canopies, are scheduled to be complete in October 2014. Remaining elements to be addressed on airport property include accommodating vehicular access for BART maintenance staff and completion of parking striping near the Oakland International Airport Station.

The construction site for the Oakland International Airport Station was established withK-rail and green screened fencing using an access route through the Parking Bowl tominimize the interaction between construction-related traffic and the revenue parking operation. With construction activities effectively concluded and the project focusing on system testing, the parking lot entrances may return to their pre-construction configuration. BART and the Port reconcile the total number of parking spaces used per day (space-days) for construction to ensure adherence to Port-BART Development Agreement terms. The parking space-days total used for the project through September2014 is approximately 306,000.

BART Station NamesOn September 12, 2013, the BART Board acted on station names to be implemented once the new service starts. The ‘Coliseum/Oakland Airport’ Station will be renamed the ‘Coliseum Station’ and the new station located at the airport will be the ‘Oakland International Airport Station’ included in the BART system. The project has also been renamed from the ‘Oakland Airport Connector’ to the ‘Oakland Airport Extension.’

PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

Joint Administrative CommitteeConsistent with the terms of the Development and Use agreements between BART and the Port, BART has initiated workforce efforts consistent with a Project Stabilization Agreement (“PSA”) for the project modeled on the Port’s Maritime and Aviation Project Labor Agreement (“MAPLA”). A 5-member Joint Administrative Committee (“JAC”) that administers the PSA has been formed comprised of ‘Agency’, ‘Contractor’ and ‘Labor’ representatives. JAC members oversee Local Hire program provisions and review labor disputes and grievances in an effort to resolve issues prior to sending to an arbitrator.


48


5

JAC meetings during the past quarter have focused on the establishment of protocol for administering funds collected under Article 9.6 of the PSA through the BART Controller Treasurers Office that will be disbursed in synergy with funds contributed by the Port Social Justice Trust Committee. To support placement and retention of local residents in the construction trades, the Cypress Mandela Training Center was awarded the OAC Local Hire Grant based on its strong track record in the placement of program graduates into construction apprenticeship training programs.

The Project continues to meet or exceed most Local Hire Impact Area goals; Project Area apprentice labor continues to be close to but short of the project goal.

AMENDMENTS TO THE PORT-BART AGREEMENTS

Amendment #1 to address changes to an on-Airport wetland (i.e., DR-07) due to the alignment of the BART Connector was executed on August 29, 2011. Following are additional Amendments to the Port-BART Agreements that were approved during the January 18, 2011 and July 21, 2011 Port Board Meetings:

Changes to the Alignment, Addition of Station Canopy and Increase in Parking AllotmentAmendment #2 would revise the Project Footprint to accommodate the preferred Oakland International Airport Station location, as well as the on-Airport guideway alignment at two on-Airport locations at (1) the ‘jug-handle’ section of Neil Armstrong Way near an overhead roadway sign structure and (2) a ‘U-wall’ section to be constructed near the Doolittle Drive tunnel.

At the ‘jug-handle’ section, the guideway alignment provided by BART shiftsapproximately 62 feet within the parking bowl before it returns to the original alignment. Refinement of the guideway alignment at the ‘jug-handle’ also requires a right-of-way widening to accommodate ‘straddle-bent’ structure columns on either side of Neil Armstrong Way. At the ‘U-wall section, the guideway alignment shifts toward Airport Drive and is widened near the tunnel at Doolittle Drive to accommodate a sump pit.

To accommodate simultaneous construction of the Oakland International Airport Station and guideway columns in the Parking Bowl, the maximum number of parking spaces that the contractor would be allowed to take out of service for construction-relatedactivities was temporarily increased from 300 spaces to 500 spaces for a period not to exceed 150 days.

To provide weather protection for pedestrians walking between the Oakland International Airport Station and the Terminal Crosswalk, BART would construct canopies at the Station Plaza area that they would own and maintain. As of the date of this report, BARThas installed the escalator and elevator canopies at the Airport Station. A final draft of Amendment #2 is being evaluated by BART and the Port.

FUTURE SYSTEM FARES

The regular fare for the existing AirBART bus service between the Coliseum BART Station and OAK is $3 per ride. A discounted fare of $2 per ride is available to Port employees and tenant employees at the Airport; a $1 per ride fare is available to senior


49


6

citizens, children, and disabled passengers. The regular fare for AirBART was established prior to 1985 at $2 per ride and was increased in 2007 to the current fare range.

On June 12, 2014, the BART Board of Directors established the passenger fare for the new service between the Coliseum BART station and the Oakland International Airport station at $6 per ride. This is the maximum allowable fare without conducting another Title VI analysis of a fare increase.

The Port has worked with BART staff to establish a process for employees who hold active Airport badges to receive a discounted fare. The discount would be available to Airport-badged employees who purchase a discount card from BART; the proposed fare for employees who participate in the program would match the existing AirBART bus fare of $2 per ride. An Agenda Report specific to the Airport Badged Employee Discount Fare Program has been prepared that includes more program details.

SYSTEM MARKETING PLAN

BART Community Relations staff continues to work to synchronize the pre-opening program and Marketing Plan for the BART Connector. BART and Port staff have coordinated placement of banner advertisements on the new pedestrian structure at the Coliseum BART station above San Leandro Boulevard, on the face of the Oakland International Airport station, as well as on the construction site fence at the Wheelhouse facing traffic on the 98th Avenue approach to the Airport, that announce the new service to OAK. Media events are planned to showcase progress and publicize the system.

The primary objective of the BART2OAK Service Marketing Plan is to generate enough system revenue to meet system payment schedule requirements. The Plan, prepared by BART and shared with Port staff, includes an analysis of competing modes, an overview of the resident and visitor markets and synergy opportunities for BART working with Oakland International Airport marketing.

Port staff shared planned Airport marketing venues with BART staff and compiled a list of potential actions to advertise the new service. These marketing actions, which must occur in conjunction with other airport specific campaigns, include: development of a joint logo for OAK and BART; use of the shared logo on planned local, national and international advertising; postings on social media channels; and airport advertising in outdoor venues. Port staff has estimated a potential advertising value of up to $700,000 for the marketing actions as the air service cooperative program evolves over the year; however, there is no Port obligation to provide system advertising for BART. Port staff have highlighted the system improvements in its business development presentations with air carriers and other business partners.

In addition to the possible marketing actions listed above, BART is producing banners that announce the new service on the existing system guideway and stations to potential riders prior to start of service.


50


7

MAP AND PHOTOS

Figure 1. BART Connector Guideway Alignment – Hegenberger Road to Airport


51


8

Figure 2. BART Connector Train — Transit System Vehicle Interior

Figure 3. BART Connector Train at Station during System Testing Phase


52


9

Figure 4. BART Connector Elevated Guideway – Train Above I-880

ATTACHMENTS

BART Staff Update Report for BART Connector Project


53

BART to Oakland Intl Airport

Quarterly Project Report

Port Commission

October 23, 2014


54

Agenda

BART to Oakland International Airport 2

1. Project Progress

2. Budget Review

3. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

4. Local Hiring

5. Questions & Answers


55

Construction Progress


• Stations

• System Testing

• Safety Certifications preparation

• Safety Orientation & Training


56

OAK Airport




57



Coliseum

Station


58

System Testing Progress



59

Look Ahead

Activity Start Estimated Finish

Station(s) Construction September 2011 October 2014

Vehicle Fabrication & Delivery December 2012

Ropeway Commissioning April 2014

Start Pinched Loop Testing July 2014

System Demonstration October 2014 November 2014

Revenue Service -


Start of BART to OAK Service

Complete

Complete

October 2014

December 2014

Fall 2014


60

8

Project Budget Review

Description

Budget at Award

(Nov 1, 2010) Invoiced to Date

Estimated Cost to

Complete Forecast at Completion

FEIR, PE & Pre Utility relocations 20.1 20.1 0.0

ROW 12.1 12.2 0.4

Insurance 9.9

BART Contract Oversight 37.1

DB Construction Contract 361.0

Contract Changes **2.9

Construction Contingency 33.0 0.0

Finance Expense 8.0 0.4

Subtotal 484.1 **$2.88M Inflationary Price Adjustment approved by the Board prior to NTP

13.7 2.3 16.0

6.1 6.5

19.4 19.4

10.2 0.2

35.8 2.3

351.6 9.4

40.1 444.3 484.1

(Jul 31, 2014)

20.1

12.6

10.4

38.1

361.0 97%

-1.2M

+1.2M

BART to Oakland International Airport


61

Disadvantaged Business

Enterprise (DBE) Utilization

CATEGORY OF WORK

DBE

COMMITMENT

ACTUAL PAID % PAID

CATEGORY I:

Design and Professional Services

$7,633,000

CATEGORY II:

Construction and Trucking

$31,169,000

TOTAL DBE Commitment and

Participation

$38,802,000


Flatiron/Parsons JV - DBE Payment Summary Source: DBE Payment Reports through 8/15/14

117%

14 DBEs Paid

$8,961,959

$37,476,749 120% 35 DBEs Paid

$46,438,708 120% 49 DBEs Paid


62

Local Hiring Program


Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA) Goals

PSA Goal

(% of Total

Labor

Hours)

Contractor

Performance

11/02/10 - 8/30/14

All Labor = 707,829.15 Hours

Local Area Residents - BART Counties

+ San Mateo 50%

Project Local Impact Area - City of Oakland 25%

Apprentice Labor (% of total labor hours) 20%

Local Area Residents 100%

Project Local Impact Area - City of Oakland 50%

Flatiron / Parsons JV – Labor Report Source: Elation System – Certified Payroll Reports through 8/30/14

89.6%

70.7%

27.0%

19.3%

58.8%

1843

1113

321

Number

of on-site

Workers

194 Project Area Residents


63

Questions and Answers


Want more information visit:

http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/oac

Contact Information:

[email protected]

Office @ 675 Hegenberger Suite 300

Office 510 394-6173


64

http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/oac

mailto:[email protected]

BUDGET & FINANCE

This segment of the meeting is reserved for action or discussion regarding the status of Budget and Finance issues.

BUDGET & FINANCE Tab 4

65

STRATEGY & POLICY

This segment of the meeting is reserved for action or discussion on Strategy and Policy Issues.

STRATEGY & POLICY Tab 5

66


1

AGENDA REPORT

TITLE REVIEW PROPOSED PROVISIONS OF A NEW PURCHASING

ORDINANCE TO REPLACE EXISTING PORT ORDINANCE 1606, DELEGATING TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CERTAIN

CONTRACTING AUTHORITY, ESTABLISHING COMPETITIVE

BIDDING AND PROPOSAL PROCEDURES AND SETTING CERTAIN

CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF GOODS AND

SERVICES.

AMOUNT $NN

REVENUE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE

OPERATING EXPENSE NON-OPERATING

EXPENSE

PARTIES INVOLVED Not Applicable

SUBMITTED BY Sara Lee, Chief Financial Officer Danny Wan, Port Attorney APPROVED BY J. Christopher Lytle, Executive Director

REQUESTED ACTION INFORMATIONAL/DIRECTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Report summarizes the operative provisions of a new purchasing ordinance that delegates to the Executive Director certain contracting authority, establishing competitive bidding and proposal procedures and setting certain contract requirements for purchasing of goods and services. Staff seeks Board comments and anticipates proposing the ordinance for adoption by Board during November and December.


APPLY





307289

STRATEGY & POLICY Tab 5.1

67


2

BACKGROUND

Under the Oakland City Charter, the Board has the duty and authority to “purchase materials and supplies” and to “let all work by contract, or order it done by any labor, as the Board may determine”. In the Board’s Bylaw and Administrative Rules, the Board delegated to the Executive Director certain “authority to make purchases of material, supplies and services . . . and to let contracts pursuant to and subject to the limitations of Port Ordinance 1606 . . .”. Therefore, Ordinance 1606 has been the Board’s legislation prescribing the Executive Director’s authority (and the Port Attorney’s authority for legal services) to make purchases of materials and services and the limitations and procedural requirements (including requirements for competitive bidding and proposals) for the exercise of that authority.

Ordinance 1606 was first adopted on September 26. 1969 and has been amended innumerable times to reflect the changing policies of the Board. While the amendments have updated certain provisions of Ordinance 1606 to reflect today’s priorities and realities, certain other provisions have become outdated and sometimes internally conflicting. Given the staleness and complex nature of Ordinance 1606, the Board requested that Staff take a comprehensive look at the existing Port Ordinance 1606, and propose a comprehensive redraft the Port’s purchasing and contracting regulations.

This Report outlines the operative provisions of a proposed new purchasing ordinance that would entirely replace Ordinance 1606 and all its amendments. At this time, staff is soliciting Board feedback and comments on these proposed provisions. Staff proposes to incorporate the Board’s feedback into a proposed Ordinance that will be agendized for a Board meeting in November.

Concurrently with the presentation of this Report, staff will also outline proposed changes to the Port’s “Standard Contract Provisions” applying to the Port’s construction contracts that are subject to competitive bidding (“RedBook”). Additionally, since both the Purchasing Ordinance and the Redbook require compliance with the Port’s Nondiscrimination and Small Local Business Utilization policy, the Social Responsibility division will present the results of community engagement regarding local and small business utilization, including potential areas for policy modification.

307289


68


3

ANALYSIS

The proposed purchasing ordinance will include the following operative provisions:

1) Requirement for Board Approval of Contracts and The Executive Director’s Authority to Enter into Contracts: The Board must approve by resolution or ordinance all contracts (and all extensions or amendments of contracts) for goods and services except where:

a) the aggregated contract amount is $250,000 or less in which case the Executive Director is delegated the authority to approve the contract, or

b) there is an emergency, in which case the Executive Director may execute a contract for the purpose of the immediate preservation of public property or the public peace, health or safety subject to the Board’s subsequent ratification.

The Port Attorney is delegated the same contracting authority for legal service contracts as the Executive Director has for all other contracts.

The Board should note that the $250,000 contracting authority for the Executive Director (and Port Attorney for legal services) is on the high end of those provided for chief executives of peer agencies.

2) Competitive Bid Requirement for Contracts Other Than Professional Services: Contracts for supplies, public works and general services (except for professional services) in amounts exceeding the “bid limit” established by the Oakland City Council must be awarded pursuant to competitive procurement through a bid procedure. Currently, the City Council’s “bid limit” is set at $50,000. The Port must advertise invitations to bid in a newspaper of general circulation 10 calendar days before the deadline for submission of bids. A contract must be awarded to the lowest “responsible” and “responsive” bidder.

a) A “responsive” bidder is a bidder who submitted a bid on time and who is able to satisfy the requirements outlined in the bid documents, including bid security, bonding and insurance requirements.

b) A “responsible” bidder is a bidder who can demonstrate the attributes of trustworthiness, quality, fitness, capacity and experience to satisfactorily perform the contract.

3) Request for Qualification/Proposal Process for Professional Services Contracts: Contracts for professional services contracts in amounts exceeding $250,000 must be awarded pursuant to competitive procurement through a request for qualifications

307289


69


4

or proposal (“RFP”) procedure. The Port will either advertise the contract opportunity or will solicit proposals from a relevant pool of prospective proposers, depending on the complexity, value and timeline as well as other relevant factors of the contract.

a) “Professional services” is defined as services that are of an advisory nature or that are so technical or complex in nature that such services must be performed by persons possessing unique or special training, education or skills. Examples of professional services include services provided by architects, engineers, attorneys or legal experts, information technology consultants, leasing or real estate professionals, recruiters, government relations specialists, security consultants, management or operations consultants.

b) A professional services contract would be awarded based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for the types of services to be performed, at fair and reasonable prices to the Port, but shall also take into account compliance with applicable Port purchasing policies, including but not limited to living wage and non-discrimination and small local business utilization policies as well as applicable state, federal or other regulatory agency requirements. The Executive Director may evaluate said competence, qualifications and compliance based on criteria or factors set forth in the RFP as he or she deems reasonable.

4) Exceptions to the Requirement for Competitive Procurement: In certain circumstances, the Board may waive bidding or RFP requirements for the award of contracts based on the Board’s finding that it is in the public interest to waive such requirements. Additionally, there are categories of contracts for which competition is not feasible or where competition would not yield the public benefit typically accrued from such a procedure. The proposed ordinance provides the following circumstances where competitive procurement would not be required or where the Board (or the Executive Director) can waive competition.

a) Waiver: The Board (or Executive Director for contracts within his contracting authority) may waive bidding or RFP procedures for a specific contract by making a finding that any of the following conditions exist:

i) the contract involves professional services;

ii) a particular supply or service is available from only one source, because it is either proprietary or that supply or service must match an existing condition, system or equipment at the Port;

iii) calling for bids on a competitive basis is impracticable, unavailing or impossible;

iv) it is in the best interests of the Port to waive formal competitive procurement procedures.

307289


70


5

v) an alternative competitive procurement procedure is in the best interest of the Port considering the complexity, value and timeline as well as other factors of the contract.

b) Emergencies: In the case of an emergency as determined and declared by the Executive Director in writing to the Board, the Executive Director would be authorized to repair or replace a Port facility, take any directly related and immediate action required by that emergency and procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes, without giving notice for bids to let contracts or follow the formal competitive procurement procedures. The Executive Director’s action would be subject to ratification by the Board.

c) Additional exceptions to competitive procurement: The proposed ordinance also excepts the following categories of purchasing from the bid and RFP procedures:

i) Placements of insurance coverage.

ii) Purchases of books, newspapers, magazine subscriptions, periodicals, trade journals, and similar type subscriptions.

iii) Placement of advertisements.

iv) Contract with supplier awarded contract for the same supplies or services by another public agency, as long as the contractor was selected through a published competitive process of that agency.

v) Installation, maintenance of repair of any finished products, materials or equipment as a service performed by the manufacturer or supplier of the same product, materials or equipment.

vi) Performance of public works by the Port with its own employees.

5) Other Procurement Requirements:

a) Prevailing Wage: All contractors of public works of the Port shall comply with state law requirements for payment of prevailing wage.

b) Unauthorized purchases: Any purchase contract entered into without complying with the purchase ordinance or other published procedures shall not bind the Port.

c) Informal competitive procedures: All purchases not required to comply with the competitive procurement procedures in the proposed Ordinance still would be required to follow certain informal competition pursuant to administrative procedures established by the Executive Director.

d) Contract work temporary and exempt from civil service: Individuals or organizations engaged by contract must work for the Port only on a temporary basis and for the limited duration of the contract, not be in permanent places of employment and are exempt from civil service. The Board, by specific action, may provide permanent places of employment for individuals or organizations

307289


71


6

engaged by contract for services and may except such individuals or organization from civil service pursuant if the Board finds that:

(1) the service provided is of a professional, scientific or technical and temporary nature, or.

(2) by two-thirds of members of the Board, the performance of general services by contract, regardless of nature or term, is in the public interest because of economy or better performance; and

(3) the contract shall not result in the loss of employment or salary by any person having permanent status in the competitive service.

e) Conflict of interest: No Board member, officer, employee or consultant of the Port may approve, execute or participate in making a contract in which he or she is financially interested.

f) Multiple prime bids or prime proposals: No person, firm, entity, or corporation would be allowed to make or file or be interested in more than one prime bid or prime proposal for the same supplies, services or both.

g) Sufficiency of funds: Prior to the execution of any contract and the procurement of any supplies and services, the Executive Director must verify that funds have been budgeted and appropriated for in the applicable fiscal year operating or capital budget for the payment of the contract or purchase.

6) Protests: A bidder or proposer who contends that the Port’s planned award of the

contract does not comply with the Purchasing Ordinance must comply with protest procedures.

a) The protesting party must submit a written protest to the Secretary of the Board no later than three (3) business days following notice and publication of the successful bidder or proposer. In addition, the protesting party must provide a copy of the protest to all other bidders/proposers and any other party who requested notice. The written protest is required to state the reasons for the protest and refer to specific sections of the solicitation documents.

b) The Executive Director is delegated the power and authority to consider and resolve all bid and proposal protests. The Executive Director may designate a Hearing Officer to investigate, review and make a protest determination. Hearings may be held at the discretion of the Hearing Officer or the Hearing Officer may make a determination based on the documents submitted. The determination of the Hearing Officer is final.

7) Non Discrimination Policy: Both the Purchasing Ordinance and the Port’s Standard Contract Provisions (“Redbook”) require compliance with the Port’s Nondiscrimination and Small Local Business Policy. While the Port has achieved moderate success with

307289


72


7

the implementation of this policy since 1997, the Board requested that the Social Responsibility staff review the policy, seek community input and determine if the policy could be updated and revised. In August of 2014, Social Responsibility and Engineering staff conducted four community engagement sessions. During the meetings, the Port provided an overview of the current policy, discussed the direction of the policy changes and solicited comments and questions to clarify which aspects of the policy had been successful and what areas still needed to be addressed. The comments coalesced around the following issues: (1) difficulty for new firms to gain experience in Port specific work and (2) need to expand the policy to goods and general services. The Director of Social Responsibility will further discuss and outline the community feedback and discuss the implications for policy enhancements.

BUDGET & STAFFING




STRATEGIC PLAN

The action described herein would help the Port achieve the following goals and objectives in the Port’s Strategic Plan (http://www.portofoakland.com/pdf/about/strategicPlan2011-2015.pdf).

Goal C: Objective 1: Comply with all federal, State, local and Port workforce mandates.

Goal C: Objective 2: Conduct comprehensive communication and outreach to stakeholders and strategic partners to improve workforce and small business opportunities.

Goal C: Objective 3: Integrate workforce mandates into all Port agreements, policies and processes at the front end.

307289


73

http://www.portofoakland.com/pdf/about/strategicPlan2011-2015.pdf


307289

8

LIVING WAGE

Living wage requirements, in accordance with the Port’s Rules and Regulations for the Implementation and Enforcement of the Port of Oakland Living Wage Requirements (the “Living Wage Regulations”), do not apply because the requested action is not an agreement, contract, lease, or request to provide financial assistance within the meaning of the Living Wage Regulations.

GENERAL PLAN



The Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) and Professional Liability Insurance Program (PLIP) do not apply to the matters addressed by this Agenda Report as it does not involve capital improvement construction or design projects.


74


1

INFORMATIONAL REPORT(This Item is for information only and no action is

requested or required of the Board of Port Commissioners.)

TITLE: Proposed Revisions and Update to the Port’s Standard Contract Provisionsfor Public Works Projects

BOARD MEETING DATE: October 23, 2014

SUBMITTED BY: Chris Chan, Director of Engineering

APPROVED BY: J. Christopher Lytle, Executive Director

SUMMARY

This Informational Report provides a summary of Port of Oakland Standard Contract Provisions for Public Works Contracts and the effort to update these provisions. The Port Staff commonly refer to the Standard Contract Provisions as the “Redbook”. Staff anticipates submitting the revised Redbook to the Board for approval in November 2014.

FACTUAL BACKGROUNDS:

When the Port awards a public works contract to the bidder, both the Port and the contractor assume a wide spectrum of obligations to one another, ranging from identifying industry standards to setting forth rules for payment. This spectrum of obligations is embodied in a document referred to as the “Project Manual”. The Project Manual has two parts: (1) the Standard Contract Provisions applicable to every project and (2) the technical specifications tailored for each project.

Previously, Port staff included all of the standard contract documents in each Project Manual. This included over 200 pages of general contract provisions, insurance manuals and Port policy documents that apply to all projects. Re-issuing the same standard documents for each project needlessly consumed staff time and paper. In addition, potential bidders spent time reviewing standard documents to assure themselves that the requirements did not differ from previous projects.

The Board approved the first edition of the Standard Contract Provisions manual on October 19, 2004. The Standard Contract Provisions manual was adopted with the goal of improving the efficiency of the Port’s public works project delivery process by eliminating the need for Port Staff to include hundreds of pages of standard boilerplate documents in each individual Project Manual. Bundling these contract requirements into a stand-alone manual made the Port’s bidding process more efficient.

The Standard Contract Provisions manual includes the General Conditions, the Non-Discrimination and Small Local Business Utilization Policy, the Maritime and Aviation


75


2

Project Labor Agreement (MAPLA), the Owner-Controlled Insurance Program Manual, the Construction Safety Standards Manual, and other documents that are common to all public works contracts.

The 2nd and current edition of the Standard Contract Provisions manual was approved by the Board on November 17, 2009. Over time, some of the efficiency gains have eroded as extensive revisions have been made to some of the boilerplate documents. Consequently, additional staff time is now required to incorporate revised standard documents back into the individual Project Manuals. Issuance of a new edition of the Standard Contract Provisions manual will allow Staff to recoup the lost efficiency gains. Below is a list of highlights for the newest edition of the Redbook:

∑ Expanding the Redbook to include the Division 1 specifications, which includes standard and streamlined contractor modification procedures, scheduling specifications and regulatory requirements

∑ Clarifying the contract closeout process by revising the applicable specification and simplifying the forms needed to finalize a project

∑ Incorporating the new Owner Controlled Insurance Program and Construction Safety Standards Manual

The current Standard Contract Provisions Manual and the Division 1 Specifications were subject to a cross-divisional review that included review by the Engineering Department, the Port Attorney’s Office, the Social Responsibility Division and the Maritime and Aviation Divisions. As a result of this review, referenced standards, definitions, and construction management provisions were updated to better reflect the Port’s current practices and industry standards.

The revised Division 1 specifications were also provided to the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of California as well as to a few of our local contractors for their input. Recommended revisions from AGC were received and reviewed by Port Staff. Several of the recommendations were approved for inclusion in the Division 1 Specifications. The local contractors from which Staff requested input did not recommend any additional modifications.

The update of the Standard Contract Provisions, including the proposed incorporation of the Division 1 Specification, was presented and received positively at the recent outreach events organized by the Social Responsibility Division to obtain input from the contracting community on the proposed revisions to the Port’s Non-Discrimination Small Local Business Utilization Policy.

The Division 1 specifications were also incorporated into a recent Port internal Construction Management training for the Port’s Resident Engineers (REs). This training provided an opportunity to inform the REs about the proposed revisions and to obtain feedback that will be used to further refine the requirements and procedures outlined in the Division 1 specifications.


76


3

CONCLUSION:

This report is for information only and no action is requested or required of the Board of Port Commissioners. When the final updates are completed, staff intends to submit for Board approval a new edition of the Standard Contract Provisions manual containing the documents discussed in this report. Staff anticipates submitting the revised Standard Provisions to the Board for approval in November 2014.


77

Update on Oracle ERP

Board of Port Commissioners MeetingOctober 23, 2014


78

Current Oracle ERP State

ß The core system is complete and now in operational status; the system is handling the Port’s day-to-day business transactions

ß Certain components of the original vision remain to be programmed/deliveredÿ Some components of the original vision will not be implemented, as

they are not relevant to Port business or cost-effective taking into account the limited Port benefit derived

ß Analytical capabilities are limited and efficiencies in utilizing the system (and the power of technology) can be improved

ß IT Steering Group has formed to prioritize Port IT needs

2


79

Oracle System

PropertyManager

¸ Tenant Billing:Aviation¸ Tenant Billing: CRE¸ Lease Management

Limited implementation

− Tenant Billing: Maritime (in development)

Business Intelligence

− Financial Analytics− Procurement & Spend

Analytics− HR Analytics− Project Analytics

Policy Automation

− Policy Automation− Policy Modeler

3

Enterprise Asset Management

¸ Work Orders¸ Maintenance Request¸ Asset Management


− Fleet Management

¸ Implemented− Option Purchased, but Not Yet Programmed/Implemented

ProjectManagement

¸ Project Accounting¸ Project Management


− Project Portfolio Analysis

Financials

¸ General Ledger¸ Accounts Payable¸ Accounts Receivable¸ Grant Administration


− iReceivables− iExpense Reporting

Human CapitalManagement

¸ Employee Data¸ Payroll¸ Payroll Tax Processing¸ Advance Benefits¸ Time and Labor¸ HR Self-Service− Absence Management− Learning Management− Performance Mgmt

Procurement¸ Purchasing¸ Supplier Management


− Insurance Requirements− Contract Management− iProcurement− iSupplier Portal− Strategic Sourcing− Services Procurement− Inventory Management


80

Recent Accomplishments

ß Completed Aviation Tenant Revenue

ß Mitigated HP-3000 risk until fully retired

ß Improved information security

ß Implemented compliance changes related to California Public Employee Pension Reform Act and Department of Transportation

4


81

Scheduled for Completion in FY2015

ß Complete Maritime Tenant Revenue transition

ß Complete Utility Billing System integration

ß Enable “audit trail” for payroll related functions –currently testing

ß Complete compliance changes related to Affordable Care Act and Other Post Employment Benefits

ß Retire dependency on HP-3000

5


82

Information TechnologyFY 2015 Budget

6

ERP - Steady State Other IT Total ERP %

Personnel Services $1,458,610 $1,476,718 $2,935,328 49.7%

Professional Consulting Services 346,000 326,500 672,500 51.4%

System Hosting and Licenses 414,700 782,350 1,197,050 34.6%

Equipment, Hardware, Other 3,650 105,530 109,180 3.3%

Total $2,222,960 $2,691,098 $4,914,058 45.2%


83


1

AGENDA REPORT

TITLE Rescission of Port Resolution No. 01020 and Corresponding Administrative Policy 425 (regarding Unit H salary administration)

AMOUNT N/A

REVENUE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE

OPERATING EXPENSE NON-OPERATING

EXPENSE

PARTIES INVOLVED N/A

N/A

SUBMITTED BY Sara Lee, Chief Financial Officer



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Port staff recommends that the Board of Port Commissioners (“Board”) rescind Port Resolution No. 01020 and Administrative Policy 425 – “Salary Administration and Executive Performance Program for Employees in Unit H” (“AP 425”). Resolution No. 01020 established AP 425 which addresses the salary administration and executive performance program for senior management employees (“Unit H employees”; See Attachment A). Under Article IX Section (2) and Article XII, Section (5)(a) of the current Board By-Laws and Administrative Rules (“By-Laws”), the Executive Director has the authority to prescribe and fix the duties and compensation of employees that he/she appoints, which includes all senior management personnel (or Unit H employees). In addition, under Article XI, Section 12 of the Bylaws, the Executive Director has the authority to create and revise administrative policies based on organizational need. In this case, the recommended action will provide the Executive Director with the flexibility necessary to authorize an administrative policy pursuant to his authority under the Bylaws to provide an equitable and fair compensation plan for Unit H employees, commensurate with the Port’s fiscal capabilities and organization-wide objectives, and with the Port’s recruitment and retention needs. This administrative policy would not apply to Unit H employees that report directly to the Board.


84


2


APPLY





BACKGROUND

On January 9, 2001, the Board adopted Port Resolution No. 01020, which established AP 425. AP 425 established a method and basis for annual salary increases, including performance premiums for Unit H employees. AP 425 identifies a Unit H employee’s eligibility for annual increases based upon the employee’s performance appraisal and the employee’s attainment of Port-wide performance goals. The annual increases identified in AP 425 are subject to annual budget approval.

ANALYSIS

AP 425 has not been updated or modernized since 2001. Upon the Board’s rescission of Port Resolution No. 01020 and AP 425, the Executive Director proposes to create a new administrative policy regarding annual compensation adjustments for Unit H employees; this administrative policy would not apply to Unit H employees that report directly to the Board. Although Board action is not required for the Executive Director to authorize a new or revised administrative policy, a draft copy of such administrative policy is provided for informational purposes as Attachment B. The administrative policy is intended to be fair, equitable and consistent with compensation policies established by other comparable agencies. Importantly, the new AP will provide the Executive Director with the flexibility to address the Port’s present senior staffing needs and to do so by considering the Port’s financial sustainability, general performance goals, salary adjustments provided to represented Port employees, market competition, internal compaction, recruitment and retention and internal equity. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Board rescind Resolution No. 01020 and AP 425 to allow the Executive Director to authorize a new administrative policy for Unit H employee compensation that provides the Port with the tools necessary to compensate and retain its senior management team. (See Attachment B.)

BUDGET & STAFFING



85


3



STRATEGIC PLAN

The action described herein would help the Port achieve the following goals and objectives in the Port’s Strategic Plan:

Goal H: Develop And Maintain a High Performing Workforce.

Goal I: Align the Port’s Workforce, Organizational Structure and Personnel Management Practices for Optimal Performance of the Port.

LIVING WAGE

Living wage requirements, in accordance with the Port’s Rules and Regulations for the Implementation and Enforcement of the Port of Oakland Living Wage Requirements (the “Living Wage Regulations”), do not apply because the requested action is not an agreement, contract, lease, or request to provide financial assistance within the meaning of the Living Wage Regulations.

ENVIRONMENTAL

The proposal to rescind a Port Resolution and policy concerning the salary administration and executive performance program for employees in Unit H was reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Port CEQA Guidelines. General policy and procedure making is not a project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(3) and 15378(b)(2), so no environmental review is required.

GENERAL PLAN



86


4


The Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) and Professional Liability Insurance Program (PLIP) do not apply to the matters addressed by this Agenda Report as they are not capital improvement construction or design projects.

OPTIONS

1. Rescind Port Resolution No. 01020 and AP 425 concerning the salary administration and executive performance program for Unit H employees.

2. Do not rescind Port Resolution No. 01020 and AP 425 concerning the salary administration and executive performance program for Unit H employee

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Board of Port Commissioners rescind Port Resolution No. 01020 and AP 425 concerning the salary administration and executive performance program for Unit H employees.


87


5

Attachment A: Unit H Employees

Director of Aviation

Director of Maritime

Director of Commercial Real Estate

Chief Financial Officer

Director of Engineering

Director of Environmental Programs and Planning

Director of Social Responsibility

Chief Technology Officer

Director of Human Resources

Director of Communications

Principal Assistant to the Executive Director

Reports to the Board

Executive Director

Port Attorney

Chief Audit Officer

Secretary of the Board


88


6

Attachment B:

PORT OF OAKLAND

Administrative Manual Policies and Procedures

ANNUAL COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES IN UNIT H

SECTION: Human Resources POLICY NUMBER:

INITIAL DATE PREPARED: LAST DATE REVISED:

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of this policy is to set forth the process by which annual adjustments to the

base salary of positions in Unit H and other related benefits will be considered. This policy

does not apply to positions in Unit H that report directly to the Board of Port

Commissioners.

II. INTRODUCTION

The Port of Oakland relies on its executive level and senior management employees to

provide leadership as a team to Port employees, consistent with the values required of a

well‐run, high‐performing organization committed to public service. The leadership team

should provide sound business and ethical judgment and meet performance expectations

regarding the goals and strategic objectives set forth by the Executive Director and the

Board of Port Commissioners. In recognition of these standards, the Port intends to

sustain an equitable and fair compensation plan for its executive and senior management

staff commensurate with the Port’s fiscal capabilities, applicable employee policies and

procedures, and organization‐wide compensation objectives.

III. PROCEDURES

Following the conclusion of the bargaining process with the Port’s represented bargaining

units and annually during the course of any collective bargaining agreement, the Executive

Director shall review the salary levels for non‐Board appointed positions in Unit H and if

warranted, determine salary adjustments.

In reviewing salaries and developing salary adjustments, the Executive Director will

consider the following:


89


7

1. Port Financial Sustainability. The Executive Director will review the Port’s

budget and financial position to ensure that any proposed salary adjustments or

benefits will not compromise the Port’s fiscal integrity, goals or strategic

objectives.

2. General Performance. The Executive Director will consider the general

performance by Unit H employees in terms of competency, expectations and

values of the team in meeting goals and objectives.

3. Salary adjustments provided to Port employees through the collective

bargaining process. The Executive Director will consider salary adjustments

provided to the employees of the Port for purposes of maintaining internal

equity across the organization.

4. Market Competition. Periodically, the Port will survey identified peer agencies

to determine the relative standing of Unit H positions relative to substantially

equivalent positions in the surveyed agencies. The surveys will provide the data

to allow the Port to conduct an in‐depth analysis of each comparable position to

ensure that the duties, complexity and scope of responsibility are substantially

equivalent to the Port position. This may result in salary adjustments to

individual positions within Unit H for recruitment or retention purposes,

separate from an annual salary adjustment.

5. Internal Compaction. Periodically, the Port will review the salary differential

between Unit H positions and their highest paid direct reports to ensure that an

adequate difference exists.

6. Internal Equity. Periodically, the salary relationships of Unit H positions will be

reviewed relative to each other. In making this assessment, the Port will

consider such factors as complexity and scope of responsibilities, licensure,

certification and specialized skills and knowledge.

7. Other Benefits. From time to time, benefits (leave, health and related benefits)

will be reviewed for consistency with those provided to other employees

following the collective bargaining process.


90


91

REMAINING ACTION ITEMS

Remaining Action Items are items not previously addressed in this Agenda that may require staff presentation and/or discussion and information prior to action by the Board.

REMAINING ACTION ITEMS Tab 6

92


AGENDA REPORT

TITLE Authorization to Award Security Services Contract for Middle Harbor Shoreline Park (MHSP)

AMOUNT $200,000 annually(Not to Exceed $600,000 over 3 years)


OPERATING EXPENSE


PARTIES INVOLVED ABC Security Services, Inc., Oakland, CaliforniaAna Chretien, President and CEO

SUBMITTED BY John C. Driscoll, Maritime Director



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The current contract for security services for MHSP will expire on December 27, 2014. In August 2014, Port staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to continue providing security services at MHSP. Based on the proposals received, Port staff has identifiedABC Security Services, Inc. (ABC) as the top ranking proposer and seeks the Board’s authorization to enter into a 1-year contract with ABC for the period December 27, 2014 through December 27, 2015, with two, 1-year options to renew the contract by written approval of the Executive Director.


APPLY

MARITIME AVIATION PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT (MAPLA) x


GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY x


REMAINING ACTION ITEMS Tab 6.1

93


BACKGROUND

The Port constructed MHSP as part of the Vision 2000 Program (which included the development of new marine terminals, a rail yard, and support areas), that was completed in the early 2000s. The construction and maintenance of MHSP is an on-going condition of the permit issued to the Port by the San Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC) for the Vision 2000 Program. MHSP incorporates a smaller park called Port View Park, which was pre-existing. All MHSP references herein include Port View Park as depicted in Attachment A.

MHSP security services are critical to the maintenance of service and public access to the shoreline and to helping ensure the safety of park visitors. Security services for the MHSP include recording daily activity, attending bi-monthly meetings with Port staff, coordinating with the Oakland Police Department as needed, and responding to security or safety events. Maritime staff oversees this contract.

In Summer 2013, Staff issued a RFP for a new security contract for the MHSP because the then-current contract was going to expire on December 27, 2013. For various reasons, the Executive Director elected not to exercise his authority to execute a contract with a new service provider, and the contract with ABC was extended through December 27, 2014, to ensure on-going security while a new RFP process was undertaken.

Maritime staff re-issued a RFP for MHSP unarmed security services on August 5, 2014.The revised RFP was different from the RFP issued in August 2013 in two ways:

1. Pre-screen proposals on the basis of minimum qualifications. The pre-screening for minimum qualifications was applied on a pass/fail basis.

2. Revisions to RFP & proposal content. The RFP evaluation process, scope ofwork and required proposal content was revised as outlined in the table below.

2013 RFP 2014 RFPMinimum Qualifications (Pass/Fail)

Confirm State of California PPO License upon contract signing

Submit State PPO License Certificate with proposal

Proof of guard(s) license was confirmed no later than 30 days after signing of contract.

Submit proof of guard(s) license with proposal

Proposal Review Against Evaluation Criteria (100 points)Allowed proposer to propose total number of guards per shift, which made comparison of cost more challenging

Scope is set at 3 guards per 24-hour period, or 1 guard per shift


94


2013 RFP 2014 RFPGeneral request about company experience and personnel

Requested information about company’s policies or practices around local hiring, working with workforce development entities, training programs, etc.

No financial statements required Financial statements, or equivalent, are requested from top-ranked proposer prior to award of the contract

Cost was 45% of total points awarded Cost was 30% California Labor Code Section 2810 as part of contract execution

California Labor Code Section 2810 Work Sheet required as part of the proposal

Additionally, the California Labor Code Section 2810 applied to the new RFP. Section 2810 prohibits agencies and companies from entering into security guard and other specified types of contracts where such contracts do not adequately provide for the contractor to pay its employees. The Port required all proposers to submit all of the information required by Section 2810 as part of the proposal package. Port staff also requested a cost proposal breakdown of the hourly billing rate to the Port (i.e. guard rate, health benefits, uniforms, training, admin, etc.).

ANALYSIS

The Port’s Purchasing staff sent RFP solicitation notifications to 30 companies and 9 local Chamber of Commerce branches. The Port’s SRD staff sent 22 solicitation notifications to related businesses in the Port’s Certified Business database. Seventy-one companies downloaded the RFP and/or the addendum from the Port’s website. Sixteen proposals were received by the proposal due date of September 5, 2014. Of the 16 proposals received, 6 were disqualified for failure to submit proof of guard cards, one of the two minimum qualifications. The remaining 10 proposals were evaluated by a panel of Port staff, including representatives from the Maritime, Aviation, Finance, and Social Responsibility (SRD) Divisions for qualifications and completeness according tothe following six evaluation criteria:

Evaluation Criteria

1. References, Resources and Key Personnel 15%

2. Knowledge and Experience 15%

3. Plan and Approach 20%

4. Cost/Financial Impact 30%

5. Non Discrimination Small/Local Business Utilization Policy 15%

6. Port Policy Requirements and Required Forms 5%


95


Cost was evaluated in two ways: (1) a formulaic approach based on relative rankings to the lowest cost proposal and (2) a more subjective review of the quality of the cost proposals given the breakdown of costs requested in the RFP. The points awarded to each of these approaches were 25 and 5, respectively, for a total of 30 points per the table above.

Ranking of Proposers Who Met Minimum Qualifications

Company Rank

ABC Security Services, Inc. 1

Cypress Private Security 2

Security Management Group International 3

ANI Private Security & Patrol, Inc. 4

U.S. Security Associates 5

American Guard Services, Inc. 6

Hylton Private Security 7

Troy Security International 8

Genesis Protective Services, LLC 9

Security Against Crime 10

Disqualified Proposals on Basis of Minimum Qualifications

Admiral Overton Security Services Inc.

BlackTalon Enterprises, Inc. World Private Security

Core Security Solutions Universal Protection Service

ABC Security Services, Inc. (ABC) received the highest ranking. Staff performed reference checks for ABC, which did not did not raise any concerns. ABC is a certified Oakland business and the current incumbent for security services at MHSP. As such, they have spent significant time and resources becoming familiar with the MHSP operations and infrastructure. Staff is recommending a 1-year contract with two, 1-year options to extend the contract by written approval of the Executive Director based on the mutual agreement of both parties. The 1-year extensions allow both parties the opportunity to review performance, address any concerns that may arise, and provide the Port flexibility.


96


BUDGET & STAFFING

The FY 2014-15 operating budget includes $200,000 for MHSP security services. ABC’s annual cost proposal of $179,054 is within budget. However, Staff is requesting authorization for $200,000 because additional needs (e.g., special events) sometimes require additional security services to be provided under the contract, and because the contract provides for price escalation after the first year. The funding source is Port cash.

For comparison, the current contract for MHSP security services is approximately $240,000 per year. Therefore, the recently completed RFP process and the proposed new contract with ABC represent an approximate 25% savings.

The proposed action will have no impact on staffing.


This contract is for professional services that do not include construction testing and inspection and the provisions of the Port of Oakland Maritime and Aviation Project Labor Agreement (MAPLA) do not apply to this work.

STRATEGIC PLAN


Goal G: Objective 4: Continue to provide quality public access and open space at a financially-sustainable level.

LIVING WAGE

Living wage requirements, in accordance with the Port’s Rules and Regulations for the Implementation and Enforcement of the Port of Oakland Living Wage Requirements (the “Living Wage Regulations”), apply to this agreement as the service provider employs 21 or more employees working on Port-related work, the service provider is principally providing services related to maritime or aviation business, the service provider is not per se exempt under the Living Wage Regulations, and the contract value is greater than $50,000.


97


Currently, ABC employs 21 or more employees working on Port-related work becausethey also hold a contract with the Port for security services at the Airport. Regardless, ABC’s proposal provides for payment of the current living wage rates.

ENVIRONMENTAL

The proposal to award a contract to ABC to provide security services at MHSP was reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Port CEQA Guidelines. The general rule in Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states that CEQA applies only to activities that have a potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that awarding a security contract will result in a physical change in the environment, and therefore this action is not subject to CEQA and no further environmental review is required.

GENERAL PLAN

This project is for professional services and will not directly include any alteration of property. Development projects that result from these professional services will be subject to separate findings of conformity with the City of Oakland General Plan in accordance with Section 727 of the Charter.



OPTIONS

1. Authorize the Executive Director to execute a professional services agreement with ABC for MHSP security services for a period of 1-year with two, 1-year options to extend agreement, in an amount not to exceed $600,000 over three years. This is the recommended option.

2. Do not authorize the Executive Director to execute a Professional Services Agreement with ABC and direct staff to undertake another competitive solicitation process.


98


RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the Executive Director to execute a professional services agreement with ABC Security Services, Inc. for unarmed security services at Middle Harbor Shoreline Park, commencing December 27, 2014, for a term of one year with up to two, one-year extensions, in an amount of approximately $200,000 per year or a total amount not to exceed $600,000 over a three-year period; and

2. Authorize the Executive Director to resolve all bid protests in accordance with the Port Ordinance No. 1606.


99


ATTACHMENT A

Map of MHSP


100


101


102


AGENDA REPORT

TITLE Authorization to Negotiate and Execute Certain Amendments to Agreements and Related Documents with SSA Terminals, LLC and its Affiliates for the Berths 55-56 and Berths 57-59 Marine Terminals Related to Compensation, Term, and Certain Equipment

AMOUNT Up to $800,000 revenue loss in FY15 and FY16Up to $13.2 million capital expenditure


OPERATING EXPENSE


PARTIES INVOLVED SSA Terminals, LLC & its Affiliates

SUBMITTED BY John C. Driscoll, Maritime Director


REQUESTED ACTION Resolution and Ordinance

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In July 2013, SSA Terminals (Oakland), LLC (SSA) and the Port entered into variouslease and lease-related agreements that resulted in, among other things, SSA operating the Berths 55-56 (“Former TTI Terminal”) and Berths 57-59 (“Former OICT”) marine terminals as one, 271-acre terminal (“Current OICT”) – refer to Attachment A. The combined operation has presented some challenges to SSA. Additionally, given the current high market demand for vendors that are capable of raising gantry cranes, SSA has expressed concern over the crane raising provisions of the existing agreements.

Staff believes that continued operation of the combined terminal is beneficial to the Port’s long-term goals and financial success. Therefore, staff has worked to address concerns raised by SSA, and the parties have reached tentative agreement on modifications to the existing lease agreements for each terminal to address SSA’s concerns, while protecting the Port’s business and financial interests. Staff is proposing the following key modifications:


103


∑ A combined minimum annual guarantee (MAG) and associated revised rates for both terminals;

∑ Revised options to extend the term of the lease for only the Former TTI Terminal; and

∑ Revised crane raising provisions and reimbursement for only the Former OICT

The proposed modifications could result in up to $800,000 of revenue loss to the Port, based on current cargo activity levels, in exchange for an 18-month extension of the Former TTI Terminal lease. The proposed amendments will also result in slightly more and earlier Port expenditure of funds for capital equipment (cranes) than anticipated. At the same time, the amendments will provide SSA with greater flexibility to achieve more efficient and profitable operations, which helps stabilize and grow Port activity, andmitigate future risk of revenue loss to the Port.


APPLY





BACKGROUND

SSA and the Port entered into a Settlement Agreement on July 18, 2013, which, among other things, resulted in the two parties entering into Non-Exclusive Preferential Assignment Agreements (herein referred to as leases)1 or amendments thereto for theFormer TTI Terminal and Former OICT Terminal. In particular:

∑ SSA agreed to assume the operations and financial responsibility for the Former TTI Terminal. SSA assumed the Former TTI Terminal through June 30, 2016, but the lease provides for one option to extend through June 30, 2022. Minimum rent paid to the Port for the Former TTI Terminal is approximately $22 million per year.

∑ As part of assuming the Former TTI Terminal, SSA combined the operations of that terminal with those of its own adjacent terminal, the Former OICT. Today, OICT comprises both the Former TTI Terminal and the Former OICT and is operated by SSA as one facility (“Current OICT”) of approximately 271 acres. However, the Current OICT remains governed by two separate leases (one for the Former TTI

1 A Non-Exclusive Preferential Assignment Agreement is a form of lease.


104


Terminal and one for the Former OICT), which are similar but not identical. Refer to Attachment A.

∑ As part of the Settlement Agreement, SSA entered into an amendment to the leasefor the Former OICT, which sets forth provisions for crane raising. The amendment states that SSA is responsible to raise cranes at the Former OICT. The Port reimburses SSA’s actual raising costs in the form of a lump sum payment or one-time rent credit for a maximum of one crane per year upon completion of the work, and then the Port recovers its costs over time through the remaining life of the lease.

The combined operation at the Current OICT has presented some challenges to SSA. Some of those challenges arise from vessel size, shore power connections, yard operation flows, as well as the effects of having two different compensation structures for one facility. The actions proposed in this Agenda Report will help to mitigate some of the problems created by two compensation structures. Also, given constraints on the availability of vendors specializing in raising gantry cranes, SSA has expressed concern over current lease provisions.

ANALYSIS

Staff believes that continued operation of a 271-acre terminal in the Middle Harbor portion of the Port’s Maritime Area is beneficial to the Port’s long-term goals and financial success. Therefore, staff has worked to address concerns raised by SSA about inefficiencies and challenges of the Current OICT operation. The Port and SSA have reached tentative agreement on modifications to the leases to address SSA’s concerns while protecting the Port’s business and financial interests, as outlined below.

1. Combined Minimum Annual Guarantee (MAG)The MAG payments due to the Port for both the TTI Terminal and the Former OICT are based on loaded (full) TEU activity per acre (activity MAG) multiplied by a per TEU rate. The activity MAGs and MAG payments under each lease are different. SSA has requested a combined activity MAG, which requires a new per-TEU rate for activity that is both below and above the MAG.

This change would be effective retroactive to January 1, 2014, and is estimated to result in approximately $800,000 of revenue loss to the Port through Fiscal Year (FY) 2016compared to current revenue estimates, based on the current allocation of cargo across berths at the Current OICT. However, that revenue loss would be fully mitigated (i.e., paid to the Port) if SSA does not exercise its option to extend the Former TTI Terminal lease (see Item 2 below and Budget section).


105


2. Options to Extend Former TTI Terminal LeaseThe Former TTI Terminal lease expires June 30, 2016; SSA has one option to extend through June 30, 2022, and must notice the Port by June 30, 2015 in order to exercise this option.

SSA has requested two options instead of one. The Port proposes that the first option be for the period July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017, and that the second option be for the period January 1, 2018 through June 30, 2022. In each case, SSA would have to provide notice to the Port of its intent to exercise the option at least 12 monthsin advance of lease expiration, consistent with the current leases.

If SSA does not exercise its first option, then SSA will pay the Port rent owed under theFormer TTI Terminal and Former OICT leases through the year-end reconciliation process, based on actual cargo activity at the berths. This reconciliation would fully mitigate the estimated revenue loss (see Item 1). If, on the other hand, SSA doesexercise the first option, the amended compensation terms (Items 1) would remain in effect through the extended term. The same is true if SSA exercises its second option through June 30, 2022.

3. Crane RaisingSSA has indicated that raising the container cranes currently at Berths 57-59 is critical to maintaining and enhancing competitive terminal operations, and that given the market demand to raise cranes at many ports, it is very difficult to schedule the equipment/vendors to perform the work. Furthermore, cost savings can be achieved if multiple cranes are raised at once.

Therefore, staff proposes to eliminate the restriction on the number of cranes that SSA can be reimbursed in any one year, and instead, specify that the terms of a negotiated crane raising program be documented separately. Having said this, the Port and SSA have agreed to the following crane raising program in the near future:

∑ SSA will raise four cranes.∑ Port will reimburse SSA for lesser of “estimated raising cost” plus 10% or “actual

raising cost.” The estimated raising cost has been agreed to be $3 million per crane.∑ Port will reimburse two cranes in year 1, and one crane each year thereafter. Based

on SSA’s current work schedule, this means the Port would pay up to $6.6 million in calendar year 2016, and $3.3 million in each of calendar years 2017 and 2018.

∑ SSA will reimburse the Port over time, as provided for in the existing lease.


106


4. Other Proposed ChangesThe Port and SSA have agreed to the following other changes that are beneficial or neutral to the Port:

∑ Combine the IPI MAGs and reconcile the IPI incentive refund provisions so that, for example, double refunds are not allowed.

∑ MAG payments to the Port each month would be based on the higher non-IPI Guarantee rate, and the Port would credit SSAT at year-end reconciliation if the IPI Guarantee were met. This is opposite of current process and is desirable since SSAhas rarely met the IPI guarantee since the leases were executed in the early 2000s.2

∑ All compensation terms are subject to escalation as allowed by the leases. Any reversion to prior terms if SSA does not exercise its options to extend the TTI Terminal lease would be inclusive of escalators that would have affected such rates.

∑ Miscellaneous other adjustments to align provisions affected by the afore-listed modifications.

BenefitsStaff believes that the proposed changes to the Former TTI Terminal and Former OICT leases provide benefits to both the Port and SSA without significant financial impact to the Port. Highlights of these benefits include:

∑ Provides SSA with greater flexibility to achieve more efficient and profitable operations, which helps stabilize and grow Port activity;

∑ Helps incentivize SSA to extend the Former TTI lease, which mitigates future revenue risk to the Port in 2016/2017;

∑ Revenue neutrality if SSA does not exercise its first option to extend the TTI Terminal lease through December 2017; and

∑ Incremental financial and administrative benefits from being paid at the higher non-IPI guarantee rates up-front.

BUDGET & STAFFING

Impacts of Changes to MAG and RatesThe proposed changes to the MAG and rates are expected to result in approximately$800,000 million revenue loss through FY16, compared to current lease terms. This loss will be temporary if SSA does not exercise its option to extend the Former TTI lease through December 31, 2017. If SSA exercises its option, the loss will be realized, but the Port will have secured revenue from the Former TTI Terminal for an additional 18 months (i.e., December 31, 2017 vs. June 30, 2016).

2 IPI means interior-point-intermodal


107


Impacts of Changes to Crane Raising ProvisionsStaff budgeted $11.6 million for raising cranes in the FY15 through FY19 Capital Needs Assessment (CNA). However, staff notes this estimate was subject to future negotiation between SSA and the Port per the lease terms. The proposed changes would raise this cost to $13.2 million and alter the timing (earlier) of payments by and to the Port. However, the cost is now set, which provides the Port with certainty.

The proposed changes will not impact staffing.


Authorization to enter into lease agreements is an action that does not fall within the scope of the Port of Oakland Maritime and Aviation Project Labor Agreement (MAPLA) and the provisions of the MAPLA do not apply. However, if future tenant construction work under these agreements exceeds the thresholds required for coverage under the MAPLA, the provisions of the MAPLA will apply if/when Port Permits are requested for said future construction work.

STRATEGIC PLAN


ß Goal B: Objective 1: Retain existing customers and tenants.

ß Goal B: Objective 3: Price Port services to provide a highly competitive value.

ß Goal B: Objective 5: Enhance customer services (i.e., market intelligence, technical knowledge, strategic advice and problem solving).

LIVING WAGE

Living wage requirements, in accordance with the Port’s Rules and Regulations for the Implementation and Enforcement of the Port of Oakland Living Wage Requirements (the “Living Wage Regulations”), apply to this agreement as the tenant employs 21 or more employees working on Port-related work and the tenancy agreement is greater than $50,000.


108


ENVIRONMENTAL

The authorization to negotiate and execute certain amendments to agreements and related documents with SSA Terminals, LLC and its affiliates for the Berths 55-56 and Berths 57-59 marine terminals was reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Port CEQA Guidelines, and it been determined to be categorically exempt. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(p), exempts renewals, extensions or amendments to leases or license and concession agreements where the premises or licensed activity was previously leased or licensed to the same or another person, and involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing.

Portions of the lease premises are under the oversight of the several regulatory agencies, including Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (Regulatory Order 0000035) due to diesel fuel in shallow groundwater, remaining from a former use as a locomotive refueling facility. A deed restriction on that portion of the site prohibits certain land uses and activities, such as groundwater extraction and excavation or soil disturbance without further regulatory review and approval of a soil management plan. Continued use of the deed-restricted portion of the site for marine terminal purposes is not subject to CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA applies only to activities that have a potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that extending and amending the existing lease for the same uses on that portion of the site will result in a physical change in the environment, and therefore this action is not subject to CEQA.

Furthermore, the raising of existing terminal container cranes has also been reviewed in accordance with CEQA, and Section 15301 (Class 1) categorically exempts minor alterations to existing mechanical equipment with negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing.

Therefore, no additional environmental review is required at this time.

GENERAL PLAN

This project will not directly include any alteration of property. Development projects that result from the proposed actions will be subject to separate findings of conformity with the City of Oakland General Plan in accordance with Section 727 of the Charter.


109



The proposed action is not subject to the Port’s Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) or Professional Liability Insurance Program (PLIP) as it is not a capital improvement construction project or design project supporting such construction.

OPTIONS

1. Authorize the Executive Director to execute amendments to the current agreements with SSA to allow for the revisions outlined herein regarding compensation, term, and equipment modifications. This is the recommended option.

2. Do not authorize the Executive Director to execute such amendments. This option is viable, but does not provide the benefits outlined in the Analysis section including the potential extension of the Former TTI Terminal lease for an additional 18 months.

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt a resolution authorizing the Executive Director to negotiate and executeamendments to the current existing agreements and other related documents with SSATerminals, LLC and/or its affiliates for the use and occupancy of the Berths 55-56 and Berths 57-59 marine terminals relating to compensation, term, and certain equipment at those terminals, in accordance with this Agenda Report.


110


ATTACHMENT A

Location of Current OICT Terminal

Berths 55-56 and Berths 57-59


111


112


113


114


115


1

AGENDA REPORT

TITLE Approval of a Letter Agreement with the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Providing for an Airport Badged Employee Discount Fare Program (Aviation)

AMOUNT No Monetary Consideration


OPERATING EXPENSE


PARTIES INVOLVED Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Oakland, CAGrace Crunican, General Manager

SUBMITTED BY Deborah Ale Flint, Director of Aviation



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This action would adopt a resolution to approve the terms and conditions, and ratify the Executive Director’s execution of, the Letter Agreement with BART providing for anAirport Badged Employee Discount Program (the “Discount Program”) for airport badged employees who utilize the BART-Oakland Airport Connector.


APPLY

MARITIME AVIATION PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT (MAPLA) P

LIVING WAGE REGULATIONS P

GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY P

OWNER-CONTROLLED INSURANCE PROGRAM (OCIP) P


116


2

BACKGROUND

The BART-Oakland Airport Connector (“BART Connector”) will provide a direct and convenient people mover connection to Oakland International Airport (“OAK”) via BART’s regional rail transit system. The BART Connector will be operated by BART and revenue service is expected to begin in late 2014 or early 2015. The BART Connectorwill replace the current AirBART bus system, a fixed route bus service between the Coliseum BART station and OAK, operated by the Port of Oakland (“Port”) under a partnership agreement with BART.

The regular fare for the existing AirBART bus service is $3.00 per ride. A discounted fare of $2.00 per ride is available to OAK employees*, who account for approximately 35,000 annual Air BART trips. Prior to 1985 the regular AirBART fare was established at $2.00 per ride and was increased in 2007 to the current $3.00 fare. In order to establish the BART Connector fare, BART conducted a survey of three possible per-ride fare increases associated with a Title VI outreach effort: (a) a $5.00 fare; (b) a $6.00 fare; and, (c) a $4.00 fare increasing to $6.00 over time. On June 12, 2014, the BART Board of Directors established the BART Connector fare at $6.00 per ride. This is the maximum allowable fare without conducting another Title VI analysis of a fare increase. Absent of an agreement to establish the Discount Program, OAK employees will be required to pay the full $6.00 per ride fare.

ANALYSIS

AirBART will cease operations when the BART Connector begins service. Air BART is operated by the Port whereas the BART Connector will be operated by BART. An agreement is needed with BART if an OAK employee discount fare is to be maintained when the BART Connector begins service. Port staff has worked with BART staff to establish a process for OAK employees who hold an active OAK badge to receive a discounted fare. The proposed BART Connector fare for OAK employees would match the existing AirBART OAK employee fare of $2.00 per ride. On July 24, 2014, the BART Board of Directors authorized BART’s General Manager to execute the Letter Agreement that would establish the Discount Program.

BART would be responsible for issuing the fare media (a BART-only smart card similar to a Clipper Card); setting the activation and processing fee (initially $20.00) for the fare media; encoding the fare media; and modifying BART fare gates to charge Discount Program participants the discounted $2.00 fare. Additionally, when Discount Program

* There are approximately 6,000 employees working at OAK, including Port staff and employees of airlines, concessionaires, service providers, etc., who could avail themselves of this new BART Connector. Currently, approximately 100 OAK employees per day use the AirBART bus service.


117


3

participants add value to the fare media, BART’s High Value Discount of 6.25% will be applied for fares system-wide.

The Port would be responsible for verifying the status of individuals applying to participate in the Discount Program as current OAK badged employees and would provide BART with photographic images of those applicants, which will be placed on the fare media. The Port would also be responsible for verifying that individuals who were previously verified as OAK badged employees, and to whom BART issued the Discount Program’s fare media, remain current OAK badged employees.

The Port and BART will each bear its own cost associated with the Discount Program implementation and operation as described above. The Port’s responsibilities will be handled by existing Aviation Security staff and will not result in any additional cost to the Port.

BUDGET & STAFFING




STRATEGIC PLAN


ß Goal G: Objective 5: Develop effective relationships with regulatory and resource agencies.

LIVING WAGE

Living wage requirements, in accordance with the Port’s Rules and Regulations for the Implementation and Enforcement of the Port of Oakland Living Wage Requirements (the “Living Wage Regulations”), do not apply to this agreement because BART is a government agency.


118


4

ENVIRONMENTAL

The action proposed in this Agenda Report has been determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

GENERAL PLAN



The Owner Controlled Insurance Program (“OCIP”) and Professional Liability Insurance Program (PLIP) does not apply to the matter addressed by this Agenda Report as it isnot a capital improvement construction or design project.

OPTIONS

1. Approve the terms and conditions of the Letter Agreement as outlined above, and ratify its execution, thereby permitting an OAK badged employee discount fare to be maintained when the BART Connector begins service. This is the recommended action.

2. Do not approve the terms and conditions of the Letter Agreement as outlined above which will result in OAK badged employees paying full fare ($6.00 per ride) to ride the BART Connector.

3. Do not ratify execution of and reject the proposed Letter Agreement as outlined above but recommend different terms and conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Board adopt a resolution (i) approving the terms and conditions of the above-described Letter Agreement, and (ii) ratifying the Executive Director’s execution of that Letter Agreement, all subject to the Port Attorney's review and approval as to form and legality.

\\10.1.7.107\HOME\pcaruso\My Documents\BART\AR-BART Connector Employee Discount BJM (10-23-14).doc


119


120


121


1

AGENDA REPORT

TITLE Capital Budget Authorization to Procure Equipment for Use by Aviation and Maritime Departments; Designation of Existing Equipment as Inadequate, Obsolete or Worn-Out and Approval to Sell, Donate, or Dispose of Such Property

AMOUNT Up to $1,667,008


OPERATING EXPENSE


PARTIES INVOLVED To Be Determined

SUBMITTED BY Deborah Ale Flint, Director of AviationJohn C. Driscoll, Director of Maritime



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This agenda report seeks capital budget authorization to procure equipment for use by the Aviation and Maritime Divisions; and, designation of existing equipment as inadequate, obsolete or worn-out and authorization to sell, donate, or dispose of such property. Aviation and Maritime staff identified new and replacement equipment included in this report as necessary toconduct ongoing operations at the Maritime area (seaport) and the Oakland International Airport (Airport), or to enhance customer service. Regarding obsolete, inadequate, or worn-out equipment, there would be no financial advantage for the Port to keep it in reserve. The continued handling and storage cost of this property exceeds the estimated value of the property. Per Port Ordinance 1606, as amended, upon the Board’s approval, the Executive Director shall have the authority to dispose of the property through a variety of means, including sale, donation, or destruction.


APPLY






122


2

BACKGROUND

In March 2014, Aviation and Maritime staff from various operating departments identified new or replacement capital equipment that was anticipated would be needed during the next fiscal year. The equipment requested by the operating departments and their estimated costs werecompiled and included in the FY 2015 Capital Needs Assessment (CNA). Staff request capital equipment for operating departments to (1) address immediate needs with new technology or (2) replace older equipment that has reached the end of its useful life. Below is a brief description of the various pieces of equipment needed, their purposes (when applicable) and their estimated costs. Also, an itemized list of the property to dispose of, including the property’s asset tag number (if available), proposed disposition method, and estimated value, is included as Attachment A to this Agenda Report.

ANALYSIS

Most of the Aviation items compiled for the FY2015 CNA are included in this request. One Maritime item is included. Items that did not meet minimum cost criteria to qualify as Capital Equipment were removed. Costs estimated for the remaining items are based on received quotes where available. Per Port Ordinance 1606, as amended, and the Port’s administrative policies, Aviation staff will obtain three competitive price quotes for all equipment exceeding $10,000, or conduct a formal competitive bid process (through the Purchasing Department) for equipment that exceeds $50,000, or utilize the State of California contract pricing if applicable, to procure the needed equipment. Estimates received to date are for budgetary purposes and in some cases do not include taxes and shipping charges. All estimated costs listed in this Agenda Report may change, as final prices will be determined through competitive processes, with the issuance of Purchase Orders to selected suppliers. Individual prices for equipment may vary; the total will not exceed the requested budgeted amount of $1,667,008.

Aviation Capital Equipment

Two (2) Full-Size Extended Cab 4x4 Trucks (cost: $90,000)

Two new full size 4x4 trucks are needed to replace existing trucks that are at the end of their useful lives and are now functionally obsolete. The vehicles are used daily by Airport Operations staff to perform a variety of field inspections that include but are not limited to the runway, taxiway and the surrounding aircraft movement areas. To meet operational and functional demands, as well as comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety regulations, Airport Operations staff must have resources and equipment in good working order. The existing vehicles are over 10 years old and have on average 500,000 effective miles on each vehicle, and the costs to maintain them are starting to surpass their monetary value. The


123


3

effective miles are based on motor pool estimates for these vehicles that spend significant time at idle during airfield inspections and monitoring.

Handheld Radio System (cost: $30,000)Replacement of existing communications equipment is necessary to enable Airside Operations staff to connect with other Airport team members while at remote airfield and terminal locations.This budget includes addition of a base station, which will allow specialists in the Airport Operations Center to tie multiple frequencies together to allow cross-platform communication and monitoring.

Foreign Object Debris (FOD) Pull-Behind Sweeper (cost $15,000)Airside Operations staff patrol and inspect the Airport Operations Area (AOA) ramp throughout the day. Airport tenants in Terminal 2 currently use a pull-behind sweeper to clean some ramp areas and remove FOD. Aviation Facilities also needs this equipment to clean and remove FOD from all remaining AOA areas in the most cost efficient manner. This new equipment will be used to maintain compliance with FAA Part 139 Airport Certification.

Case Tractor / Mower Combo (cost: $150,000)The existing tractor requires replacement, as it is 17 years old and has over 7,000 hours of service time. The existing bat-wing mower is 16 years old and is incompatible with the tractor, which overstresses the tractor. This equipment is essential to maintain our vegetated airfield areas adjacent to our runways and taxiways in compliance with FAA Part 139 requirements. Replacement equipment with new compatible equipment would enable compliance with FAA Part 139 mandates..

Self-Propelled Pavement Cutter / Router (cost: $12,000)The existing router is 20 years old and the lack of a clutch in the current model leads to inconsistent cuts. New replacement equipment with a clutch is needed and will be safer to use. Routing is necessary for proper pavement maintenance management to extend the life of pavement.

Pressure Washer (cost: $11,500)Pressure washers are frequently used equipment at the airport. The current equipment no longer heats the water adequately to clean effectively, resulting in the need to rent supplemental equipment at $4,000/month. A new replacement washer would eliminate need to rent equipment.

Retroreflectometer (cost: $21,000)This new calibrated instrument measures the reflectivity of pavement markings and assists in proper installation of airfield markings. Use of this instrument enables the most objective and


124


4

verifiable way to determine the loss of glass beads (used to make markings reflective to light at night) due to plane landings, sweeping, rubber removal and other uses of the runways and taxiways. The Airfield Marking Handbook has recommended measuring paint reflectivity as a “best practice.”

Painter Van (cost: $30,000)Airport equipment X643 is the only cargo van available for painting staff and requires replacement. There were previously two vans but one was eliminated due to reduction of fleet size. The remaining van is the only vehicle that painting staff has to transport environmentally sensitive paint and materials. The cargo area is enclosed and is well-suited for painting functions. No other van in entire Port of Oakland fleet is so equipped to accommodate this task.For a 1997 model, it has low mileage (appx. 40,000), however, the equipment is subject to very harsh conditions. Both the interior and exterior are exposed to corrosive materials. Such exposure has resulted in premature rusting of the body structure. The roof and windshield areas are faulty and allow moisture to enter the cabin area. Such encroachments promote mold and mildew. Moisture in the cargo area mixes with paint products and creates excess chemical waste product. Efforts to remedy or repair the equipment are not cost-effective for a vehicle of this age.

Centerline Paint Striper (cost: $85,900)A new single-operator unit that has a larger capacity paint and glass bead tanks would replace a two-person striper. It accommodates up to five paint guns to support markings up to three-feet wide with minimal set-up and recalibration to allow for more efficient placement of runway markings. The existing paint striper is beyond its useful life.

90 kVa Point-of-Use for Gate Boxes (cost: $43,000)Aircraft parked at gate positions 20, 26-32, 9, and 9A utilize ground power supplied via 90 kVa point-of-use ground power units. Experience has shown these existing units may become inoperative and may not be repairable in a timely manner. The airport has lead times for replacement units of 26 weeks. This new replacement 90kVa gate box will be held as inventory to reduce the time to return ground power service to the gate. A new Point-of-Use Gate Box would greatly improve the Airport’s readiness and tenant customer service. Given the long lead-time for gate boxes, a new unit is needed to allow for seamless business continuity.

X-Ray Machine (cost: $135,000 for two)Two new x-ray machines are needed for concession inspections to mitigate potential for insider threats and reduce the amount of manual screening currently conducted. OAK would deploy the equipment at the two concession checkpoints staffed by security contract guard services.

Cyberlock / Cyberkey (cost: $250,000)Airport-wide deployment of new electronic door and perimeter security access program is needed to be able to control access throughout the Airport and to know who has entered and


125


5

exited through the doors. This security system replaces physical keys that can be lost or stolen; Cyberkeys are encrypted for additional security. Locks cannot be picked as they are electronic. The Cyberlock system allows for increased flexibility when assigning specific Airport area access rights to specific individuals.

Computer Based Training Module (cost: $85,000)A new Security awareness computer-based training module is necessary based on recent threat vulnerability assessments (TVA) at the Airport. The new module will supplement the existing SIDA training to include new pin codes, renumbering of taxiway information, and imbed current airfield and security awareness conditions.

Switching Hardware for Security Network (cost: $175,000 for twenty)The security network will require replacement switching hardware in order to make the systemmore redundant and able to support power over Ethernet for IP cameras. Aviation IT estimates the need to purchase 20 Cisco switches and associated installation equipment. The existing infrastructure is ageing; original switches were installed in 2005 and are in need of replacement to be able to accommodate additional cameras and security card readers.

M101 Switching Hardware Upgrade (cost: $110,000)The network switching hardware in M101 is at full capacity and will need to be replaced to be fully compatible and to support faster speeds, and Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP). All switches for M102 and M103 have been replaced, but the M101 building is in need of replacement to achieve necessary network redundancy.

Ambassador Parking Booth (cost: $15,000)Install a new “ambassador” booth along the 5th curb walkway at the BART Station pedestrian plaza to serve Terminal 1. There is an existing ambassador booth near Terminal 2. Parking ambassadors assist parking customers and provide enhanced services such as security lane express passes and daily newspapers to premium customers.

Maritime Capital Equipment

One (1) Aerial Bucket Truck (cost: $230,000)

An aerial bucket truck is needed to replace an existing truck that is at the end of its useful life and is functionally obsolete. To meet operational and functional demands, staff must have resources readily available to respond to any electrical situation in a timely manner. Over the years, daily loads have stressed the existing bucket, articulating arm, and the truck body to a point where a new truck is needed. The new truck will be upgraded from a medium to heavy duty truck to meet the anticipated demands.

Fleet Management


126


6

Port staff notes that the requested purchase is part of an overall fleet management plan aimed to evaluate the Port’s fleet and recommend approaches to ensure on-going support of Port operations while managing cost. The average age of the Port fleet is approximately 10 years old. The equipment ranges from model years 2000 to 2008. The Port has not been able to make any major fleet purchases/replacements within the last five years given financial constraints. The Port’s transportation stock used by staff includes 237 vehicles:

Type Quantity

Aviation Light and Medium Trucks 90

Aviation Heavy Trucks 17

Aviation Vans 7

Aviation Sedans 16

Maritime Sedans and Light Trucks 29

Maritime Medium Trucks 29

Maritime Heavy Trucks 6

Maritime Vans 8

Engineering / Commercial Real Estate 35

Total 237

Staff recommends that a vehicle should be replaced once it can no longer be maintained to a usable condition or once its useful life cannot be extended through modification and that vehicle remains critical for Port operations. The overall approach to fleet management, including replacement of existing vehicles, is one that balances safety, reliability, financial, and labor efficiency. Staff rates equipment based on a scale from 1-7, 7 being best. Any equipment rated less than 4 is considered for replacement. Currently, the majority of the Port fleet is at a rating of 4. The four vehicles proposed for replacement in this Agenda Report have a rating of 2.

BUDGET & STAFFING

The CNA for FY 2014-2015 includes $2,001,000 for capital equipment as a Pipeline line item, broken down as follows:

∑ $1,771,000 for Aviation capital equipment


127


7

∑ $230,000 for Maritime capital equipment

Staff is requesting authorization of up to $1,667,008 to purchase the capital equipment outlined in this Report. The equipment would be procured with Port cash.

Below are estimated costs for the subject capital equipment:


128


8

ITEM ITEM COST QUANTITY COSTAerial Bucket Truck $230,000 1 $ 230,000Full-Size Extended Cab 4x4 Truck $45,000 2 $ 90,000Airside Handheld Radio System $30,000 1 $ 30,000 FOD Pull-behind Sweeper $15,000 1 $ 15,000 Case Tractor / Mower Combo $150,000 1 $ 150,000 Self-Propelled Pavement Cutter / Router $12,000 1 $ 12,000 Pressure Washer $11,500 1 $ 11,500 Retroreflectometer $21,000 1 $ 21,000 Painter Van $30,000 1 $ 30,000Centerline Paint Striper $85,900 1 $ 85,900 90 kVa Point-of-Use for Gate Boxes $43,000 1 $ 43,000 X-Ray Machine $67,500 2 $ 135,000 Cyberlock System $250,000 1 $ 250,000 Computer Based Trainer Module $85,000 1 $ 85,000 Switching Hardware for Network Security $8,750 20 $ 175,000 M101 Switching Hardware Upgrade $110,000 1 $ 110,000 Ambassador Parking Booth $15,000 1 $ 15,000

Aviation Subtotal $1,258,400Maritime Subtotal $ 230,000Combined Subtotal $1,488,400

Contingency * $ 178,608

Budget Request Amount $1,667,008

* Approximately 12% of subtotal, to account for some taxes and shipping and fees not included in the estimates. In addition, depending on when the purchase is actually made, some prices may change as these are only preliminary estimates based on informal quotes.

The proposed capital equipment will have no impact on current and future Port staffing.


The provisions of the Port of Oakland Maritime and Aviation Project Labor Agreement (MAPLA) do not apply to this recommended procurement of equipment.

STRATEGIC PLAN

This project would help the Port achieve the following goals and objectives:


129


9

Strategic Priority Areas Goal Objective How and when Implemented?

Stewardship and Accountability

Goal E: Improve the processes for evaluating and managing capital expenditures for long-term management of Port property and infrastructure.

5. Prepare plans for long-term use, development and management of Port property and infrastructure.

Purchase of replacement equipment that is more efficient and reflects the current needs of the work load will sustain Port’s property and infrastructure in the future.

Port Workforce and Operations

Goal H: Develop and maintain a high performing workforce.

3. Continue to elevate health and safety of the Port workforce.

By replacing obsolete equipment, Port staff will be more productive and a higher standard of safety will be promoted.

LIVING WAGE

Living wage requirements, in accordance with the Port’s Rules and Regulations for the Implementation and Enforcement of the Port of Oakland Living Wage Requirements, do not apply because the contract is not a covered service contract, but a contract for goods, commodities, supplies or equipment with incidental service provisions. However, the contractors will be required to certify that should living wage obligations become applicable, the contractors shall comply with all of its obligations.

ENVIRONMENTAL

CEQA: The proposed procurement and disposal of equipment was reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Port staff has determined this effort to be categorically exempt from the CEQA Guidelines pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 (d), Existing Facilities, which exempts restoration or rehabilitation of deteriorated or damaged structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment to meet current standards of public health and safety.

GENERAL PLAN



130


10



OPTIONS

The following options are offered for the Board’s consideration.

Option 1: Authorize budget of up to $1,667,008 to procure capital equipment for use by various Aviation and Maritime Departments (including Aviation Security, Aviation Facilities, IT, Airport Business, Landside Operations and Airside Operations, and Harbor Facilities); and designate the old equipment as inadequate, obsolete or worn-out, and authorize the Executive Director to dispose of the property through a variety of means, including sale, donation, or destruction.

Option 2: Do not authorize budget for procurement of the proposed capital equipment. Port staff may be delayed or prevented from meeting operating demands. Some older equipment in need of replacement could fail to the detriment of safety and operations at the airport and seaport.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Board approve Option 1:

(a) Authorize budget of up to $1,667,008 to procure capital equipment for use by various Aviation and Maritime Departments;

(b) Designate the old equipment as inadequate, obsolete or worn-out, and authorize the Executive Director to dispose of the property through a variety of means, including sale, donation, or destruction;

(c) Authorize the Executive Director to purchase the equipment described in this Agenda Report in accordance with Port Ordinance 1606, as amended.


131


11

Attachment A

Disposition of Existing Equipment

ITEM REASON FOR DISPOSAL

MAKE MODEL/# DISPOSITION METHOD

EST. VALUE

Aerial Bucket Truck (2001)Asset # XZ60

Damaged/Obsolete

Ford F-550 Auction/Dispose/Donate

$4,500

4x4 Truck (2004)Asset # XY94

Obsolete GMC C1500 Auction/Dispose/Donate

$1,500

4x4 Truck (2004)Asset # XY95

Obsolete GMC C1500 Auction/Dispose/Donate

$1,500

Airside Handheld Radio System (Est. Qty.30)

Obsolete Motorola HT750 Auction/Dispose $3,750

Case Tractor / Mower Combo Obsolete Case Unk. Donate/Dispose $10,000Self-Propelled Pavement Cutter / Router

Obsolete Craftco Unk. Donate/Dispose $2,000

Pressure Washer Broken Northstar Unk. Donate/Dispose $200Painter Van Broken Dodge Van, X643 Donate/Dispose $500Centerline Paint Striper Broken Unk. Unk. Donate/Dispose $0Carpet Cleaning Machines Not Needed Unk. Unk. Donate/Dispose $0Switching Hardware for Network Security (Qty.10)

ObsoleteCisco 2600 24

port switchAuction/Dispose $500

M101 Switching Hardware Upgrade (Qty.5)

ObsoleteCisco 2600 24

port switchAuction/Dispose $250

GT Handheld Radio System(Qty. 27)

ObsoleteKenwood Unk. Auction/Dispose $2,000

TOTAL EST. VALUE $26,700


132


133


134


135


136

UPDATES & ANNOUNCEMENTS

The President, Members of the Board and the Executive Director will report on noteworthy events occurring since the last Board Meeting.

UPDATES & ANNOUNCEMENTS Tab 7

137

SCHEDULING

This segment of the meeting is reserved for scheduling items for future Agendas and/or scheduling Special Meetings.

SCHEDULING Tab 8

138