Docstoc

AGENDA

Document Sample
AGENDA Powered By Docstoc
					 OMAR BENJAMIN
 Executive Director
                                    PORT OF OAKLAND                                              VICTOR UNO
                                                                                                     President
                                    BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS                          MARGARET GORDON
 DOUGLAS WARING                      530 Water Street • Oakland, California 94607          First Vice-President
 Deputy Executive Director
                                                                                    ANTHONY A. BATARSE, JR.
                                             Telephone: (510) 627-1100
                                                                                                Commissioner
 JOE WONG                                    Facsimile: (510) 451-5914
 Deputy Executive Director                       TDD/TTY – Dial 711                       PAMELA CALLOWAY
                                                                                               Commissioner
                                          E-Mail: board(@bortoakland.com                         JAMES HEAD
 DAVID L. ALEXANDER                       Website: www.portofoakland.com
 Port Attorney                                                                                   Commissioner
                                                                                          KENNETH KATZOFF
JOHN T. BETTERTON
Secretary of the Board
                                                 AGENDA                                        Commissioner
                                                                                              MARK McCLURE
                                                                                                Commissioner



                             Regular Meeting of the Aviation Committee
                               Monday, January 26, 200. 9 — 4:30 p.m.
                                           Board Room
ROLL CALL

            Commissioner McClure, Chair
            First Vice-President Gordon
            Commissioner James Head

CLOSED SESSION

    1.      Conference With Real Property Negotiator. Government Code Section 54956.8.

                                         Property: #1 Airport Drive, South Airport
                               Negotiating Parties: Port of Oakland, Bay Area Rapid Transit
                               Agency Negotiator: Steve Grossman, Director of Aviation
                               Under Negotiation: Terms and Conditions of the Development
                                                    Agreement

            Conference With Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation.
            Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9:
            (2 Matters)

DIRECTOR OF AVIATION'S REPORT

ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION

  2.       Airport Taxi and Off-Airport Parking Program (reference- Item # 4)

  3.        Pavement Program (reference – Items # 11-13)
                                                                                 January 26, 2009


February 3rd Board Items.

   4.     Approval of Amending and Restating Port Ordinance 3549 (Airport Rules and
          Regulations) including amending and restating Port Ordinance 3542 (Taxicab
          Operations) and Ordinance 3648 (All Other Ground Transportation Operations) to
          Increase Certain Ground Transportation Fees (including off-Airport parking fees), and
          to amend certain other provisions.

   5.     Approval of License and Concession Agreement with KaiserAir, Inc. for aircraft storage
          and maintenance for a one-year term .with a monthly rental of $18,344.52 (8991
          Earhart Road, North Airport).

   6.     First Reading of Ordinance Approving the Terms and Conditions and Authorizing the
          Execution of an Airline Operating Agreement with Allegiant Air, LLC at Oakland
          International Airport With an Anticipated Monthly Revenue of $5,000
          (#1 Airport Drive, South Airport).

   7.     Ratification of a Stipulation between Skybus Airlines, Inc. and the Port to Terminate
          Certain Agreements with the Port and for Skybus Airlines, Inc. to Pay the Port
          $42,773.42 in Past Costs and Rejection Damages (#1 Airport Drive, South Airport).

   8.     Submittal of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Application #14 to the Federal Aviation
          Administration (FAA) in the amount of $293,000,000.

   9.     Ratification of Submittal of Applications to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in
          the Amount of $1,843,521.

   10.    Ratification of Addenda; and Authorization to Reject All Bids, Dispense with Standard
          Bidding Procedures, and Negotiate a Contract for Furnishing Maintenance and Service
          of Access Control and Alarm Monitoring System (ACAMS) and Video Surveillance
          System (VSS) for the Period Commencing January 1, 2009 and Ending June 30, 2009,
          2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013, for the Estimated Annual Amount of $350,000.

   11.    Approval of First Supplemental Agreement with HNTB Corporation to Provide As-
          Needed Engineering Design Services for Pavement Analysis and Improvement
          Projects at the Oakland International Airport, in an Amount Disclosed to the Board of
          Port Commissioners.'

  12.     Approval of First Supplemental Agreement with Wood Rodgers, Inc., to Provide As-
          Needed Engineering Design Services for Pavement Analysis and Improvement
          Projects at the Oakland International Airport, in the Amount of $400,000.




1 The Engineering Division has informed the Board of its estimate for the consulting work.
It is not disclosed here in the best interest of the public and the negotiating process.

                                                -2-
                                                                                      January 26, 2009


  13. Approval of First Supplemental Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., to
        Provide As-Needed Engineering Design Services for Pavement Analysis and
        Improvement Projects at the Oakland International Airport, in the Amount of $500,000.

OPEN FORUM

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

ADJOURNMENT

         The next regular meeting will be held on Monday, February 23, at 4:30 p.m.



                                        Public Participation

This meeting is wheelchair accessible. To request materials in alternative formats, or to request an
ASL interpreter or assistive listening device, please call the Board Secretary, John Betterton, at 510-
627-1696 or TDD/TTY- Dial 711 at least three working days before the meeting. Please refrain from
wearing scented products to this meeting so attendees who experience chemical sensitivities may
attend.

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. All speakers will be allotted a minimum of two
minutes.

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
boarda,portoakland.com
      m

      „o.




0
cn
E
co
8
0.1
                                                                           BOARD MTG. DATE: 3/3/09



                                              AGENDA REPORT
         TITLE:                   Approval of Amending and Restating Port Ordinance 3549 (Airport Rules
                                  and Regulations) including amending and restating Port Ordinance 3542
                                  (Taxicab Operations) and Ordinance 3648 (All Other Ground
                                  Transportation Operations) to Increase Certain Ground Transportation
                                  Fees (including off-Airport parking fees), and to amend certain other
                                  provisions.

         AMOUNT:	                 $300,000 additional revenue in FY 2010

         PARTIES INVOLVED:

                         Corporate Name                                    Location
                         All Airport Users                                 Various
                         Ground Transportation Providers, including
                         Off-Airport Parking Lot Courtesy Vehicles
                         Hotel/Motel Courtesy. Vehicles
                         Door-To-Door On-Demand Vehicles
                         Door-To-Door Reservation Vehicles
                         Limousines
                         Rental Car Courtesy Vehicles
                         Scheduled or Charter Operator Vehicles
                         Taxicabs


         TYPE OF ACTION:	                           Ordinance

         SUBMITTED BY:	                             Steven Grossman, Director of Aviation

         COMMITTEE ASSIGNED:	                       Aviation

         SCHEDULED FOR COMMITTEE: January 26, 2009

         APPROVED BY:	                              Omar Benjamin, Executive Director


         SUMMARY

        This action proposes amending and restating Port Ordinance 3549, comprehensive rules and
        regulations for the use of Oakland International Airport (the "Airport"). Port Ordinance 3549 was last
        amended in October 1999. Staff finds that it is prudent to review and update rules and regulations
        from time to time as a good business practice.




       rules and regs draft NB 011309
BOST_806030.1
BOST_940747.1
                                                                                 BOARD MTG. DATE: 3/3/09


          In a thorough review of the rules and regulations, staff made adjustments to language and deleted
          non-relevant practices. Key changes to the Rules and Regulations being proposed include the
          following areas:

         Section 2.4 - Security Requirements
         Section 2.9 – Modification to Rules and Regulations
         Section 6.7 - Airport-Wide Directives
         Section 9. - Religious, Charitable, and Political Activities, (including sections on leafleting, picketing,
         and soliciting)
         Section 8, including Schedules A and B – Commercial Ground Transportation and Taxi fees and
         operations.

         This action also proposes eliminating Port Ordinances 3542 and 3576 (Taxicab Operations) and Port
         Ordinance 3648 (All Other Ground Transportation Operators except Taxicabs) by incorporating such
         Ordinances within the Rules and Regulations, as amended and restated. Staff is also proposing an
         increase in the current access fee for certain commercial vehicle ground transportation providers,
         including an increase in the percentage of gross revenues charged to Off- Airport Parking Operators.
         Finally, staff is proposing to implement an "Open Taxicab System and issue Airport Taxicab Permits
         to all interested holders of a City of Oakland taxi medallion and institute a rotating operational
         schedule for taxi operators.

         Factual Background

         As stated above, it has been a number of years since the Airport's Rules and Regulations were last
         amended. The Airport facilities have greatly changed with the expansion of Terminal 2 and the
         Airport roadways. Additionally, the aviation environment has greatly changed since the events of
         September 11, 2001 and the creation of the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA"). A
         wholesale review and revision of the Rules and Regulations was necessary to ensure that the Airport
         is best positioned for safety, security, and customer service, as well as to recover the allocable costs
         of providing transportation facilities. The Aviation Senior Staff as well as the Port Attorney's office
         collaborated on the review.

         A full clean copy of the Rules and Regulations containing all of the proposed changes is attached to
         this Agenda Report. In addition, a marked copy showing all of the proposed changes can be
         obtained from the Assistant Director of Aviation. [List whomever you want to hold the marked copy.]
         Below are some key subject areas that have been updated.

         Section 2.4 Security Requirements
         This section has been changed to reflect the fact that security requirements at the Airport are likely
         to change from time to time due to the changing nature of threats at the Airport. Thus it requires
         Airport users to comply with Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and TSA rules, regulations,
         and security directives. It also provides the Port with the authority to amend the TSA-approved
         Airport Security Program from time to time as required by DHS and the TSA. It also provides that
         each person using the Airport is subject to and shall strictly comply with all applicable laws,
         regulations and security directives related to security. It also restates the requirement that all Airport
         users must comply with posted signs and barricades.

         Section 2.9 Modification of Rules and Regulations
         This section authorizes the Director of Aviation to modify any provision of the Rules and Regulations
         upon the advice and recommendation of the Port Attorney that such modification is required by
         applicable laws. Any such modification must be promptly presented to the Board for ratification.

       rules and regs draft NB 011309	     2
BOST_940747.1
                                                                                BOARD MTG. DATE: 3/3/09


          Section 6.7 Airport-Wide Directives
          This section is new to the Rules and Regulations and provides the Director or his designee with the
          authority to issue Airport-wide standards and procedures as needed from time to time. These are
          typically operational procedural items related to safety, emergency procedures, or items of short
          duration.

         Section 9 Religious, Charitable, or Political Activities
         This section affirms through an administrative record (attached) that the Airport is not a public forum,
         and that only certain areas of the Airport can provide a reasonable opportunity for leafleting,
         picketing, and solicitation without impeding the intended use of the Airport as a secure part of the
         National Air Transportation System or preventing the safe and efficient flow of pedestrian traffic and
         travel related activities throughout the Airport complex. In recognition of the importance of the
         public's ability to exercise freedom of expression where it is not incompatible with the use of Airport
         facilities, the Rules and Regulations provide specific designated areas for the exercise of these
         activities, as well as rules of conduct. As set forth in the attached administrative record, the areas
         available for the exercise of free expression have been significantly increased in both number and
         size. The Rules and Regulations also provide a process by which to register and receive a permit to
         conduct such activities at the Airport. In addition, the provisions of this section relating to newsracks
         have been amended to reflect recent court decisions in this area and to permit the Airport to recover
         the allocable cost associated with provision of Terminal space for newsracks, plus a reasonable
         profit.

         Staff recommends that the Board make the findings set forth below.

         Proposed Findings Regarding Rules and Regulations Concerning Free Expression Activities
         at Oakland International Airport

         The Board has considered proposed modifications to the Ordinance adopting Rules and Regulations
         regarding freedom of expression activities at the Airport, including leafleting, solicitation on behalf of
         not-for-profit entities, picketing, and the operation of newsracks. Staff has presented to the Board
         relevant information and analysis including but not limited to the recommendation of the Aviation
         Committee, the facts and data, and the information and analysis submitted by Port staff. Staff
         recommends that the Board make the following findings based on the record before the Board, its
         knowledge of the operation of the Airport and general information with respect to other airports:

              (1) The primary purpose of the Airport is providing for safe, secure and efficient movement of
                  passengers and cargo in national and international air transportation. Consistent with
                  currently applicable judicial decisions, the Airport was not designed as and is not intended to
                  be a public forum for freedom of expression purposes.
              (2) Nevertheless, free expression is an important activity, and the Board wishes to provide
                  sufficient and appropriate locations at the Airport to permit the public to undertake such
                  activities, provided that such activities are undertaken in manner that is consistent with the
                  primary purpose of the Airport.
              (3) The Board therefore desires to implement rules and regulations that impose reasonable
                  restrictions on the time, place and manner in which free expression activities may be
                  undertaken at the Airport by appropriately balancing the primary purpose of the Airport and the
                  public's desire to utilize Airport facilities for freedom of expression activities.
              (4) The majority of the Terminal Complex is not suitable for free expression activities because
                  such space is leased to third parties, subject to security restrictions, required for air travel or
                  cargo operations or related functions, or such activities cannot be undertaken in a manner that

       rules and regs draft NB 011309	      3
BOST_940747.1
                                                                                BOARD MTG. DATE: 3/3/09


                   does not unreasonably affect the safe, secure and efficient movement of passengers and
                   cargo at the Airport.
               (5) Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the creation of the Transportation
                   Security Administration, security measures have significantly impacted the flow of passenger
                   traffic at the Airport and required that large portions of the Airport be made inaccessible to the
                   general public not engaged in air travel. The Airport, including the parking lots, the Terminal
                   Complex, and other public areas, is a security sensitive environment and the security and
                   safety of Airport customers, employees, and tenants while in the Terminal complex, on the
                   curbsides, in the parking lots, or anywhere on Airport property, is of paramount concern.
              (6) Terrorist activities have occurred at the curbs and in the non-secure areas of airports around
                  the world, and it is therefore necessary to impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place
                  and manner in which freedom of expression activities may be undertaken at the Airport in
                  order to address legitimate security concerns.
              (7) Areas at the Airport within which freedom of expression activities have been permitted have
                  been limited in number and size due to the historic congestion of the Terminal Complex. Due
                  to expansion of the Terminal Complex and to the recent downturn in passenger traffic,
                  congestion is not currently a significant problem at the Airport. However, based upon
                  management's expectations, it is reasonably foreseeable that the Airport will again begin
                  experiencing periods of congestion. Therefore, it is appropriate to increase both the number
                  and size of the locations within which freedom of expression activities at the Airport will be
                  permitted rather than eliminating all restrictions on the areas within which such activities will be
                  permitted. The proposed number and locations for such activities set forth in the Rules and
                  Regulations presented to the Board are reasonable and adequate to promote freedom of
                  expression, while preserving the ability of the Airport to serve the traveling public.
              (8) Airport passengers have a need to proceed quickly and freely from their automobiles or other
                  ground transportation to the ticket counters or baggage check-in to their departing aircraft, and
                  from their arriving aircraft to their baggage and/or to their ground transportation. With regard
                  to those activities, time is of the essence.
              (9) The Port has taken other steps to provide for the free flow of pedestrian traffic in the Airport
                  and to facilitate speedy and efficient traffic flow for passengers utilizing the Airport for air
                  transportation purposes. For example, the Airport has constructed moving walkways and
                  connecting bridges between the Terminal Buildings in the Terminal Complex and maintains
                  escalators for transportation of passengers to and from the enplaning gates.
              (10)Construction work is on-going at the Airport and within the Terminal Complex, including within
                  areas open to the general public, and the Port anticipates that this construction work will
                  continue for the next several years. Unregulated freedom of expression activities would
                  impede and cause unreasonable hazards during the construction activities that are in progress
                 and that are anticipated at the Airport.
              (11)For individuals who park their vehicles in any of the Airport's paid or permit parking lots,
                 customer, employee, and tenant safety and security while in any of these parking lots is
                 important both during daylight and during periods when it is dark. Once out of their vehicle,
                 pedestrians must be careful and observant of other vehicles that may be moving around them
                 as they walk through the lots enroute to , the Terminal Complex, or towards a bus shelter.
                 Because of this, it is extremely important for pedestrians as well as vehicle operators not to be
                 distracted by persons or situations in the parking lots or adjacent areas that may impact their
                 safety or that may delay or distract them while walking or driving through the parking lots.
                 Therefore, it is reasonable to restrict freedom of expression activities to certain identified
                 locations within the Airport's parking areas.

       rules and regs draft NB 011309 	     4
BOST_940747.1
                                                                              BOARD MTG. DATE: 3/3/09


              (12)Passengers are susceptible to fraud or unfair treatment by solicitors because of their being
                 unable, due to time constraints, to study requests for donations, or because of language or
                 cultural differences. Foreign passengers sometimes believe they are required to make
                 donations merely because they are asked. Regulation of the manner in which solicitation may
                 take place at the Airport is therefore appropriate and necessary.
              (13)The restrictions on the exercise of religious, charitable, political, and Commercial activities
                 contained in Article 9 to the Airport's Rules and Regulations, as presented at this meeting, are
                 reasonable in time, place and manner, and are necessary to preserve the health, security and
                 safety of the passengers and employees using Airport facilities, to avoid visual blight and
                 clutter, to avoid disruption of the activities and operation of the Airport, to promote the safety
                 and security of passengers and patrons, and to maintain and enhance the efficient operation
                 of the Airport by maximizing passenger and pedestrian traffic flow and avoiding congestion, in
                 keeping with the primary purpose of the Airport and consistent with its design and intended
                 function as a facility for air travel.
              (14)In response to a series of decisions resulting from federal constitutional cases relating to
                 newsracks at the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, it is appropriate to amend
                 the provisions in the Rules and Regulations to reflect the recent decisions of the United States
                 Court of Appeals concerning airport operators' ability to regulate the assignment and operation
                 of newsracks under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
              (15)In light of the need to develop alternate sources of revenue to support the Port's operations,
                 and in light of the recent downturn in passenger traffic at the Airport and resultant loss of
                 revenues, it is appropriate to amend the provisions of the Rules and Regulations regarding
                 newsracks to permit the Port to recover the allocable costs associated with providing the
                 newsracks and the space that such newsracks occupy in the Terminal Complex, as well as a
                 reasonable profit.

         Section 8, including Schedules A and B - Commercial Ground Transportation and Taxi fees
         and operations
         Pursuant to Port Ordinances 3542 and Ordinance 3648, as amended, the Port currently requires all
         commercial ground transportation operators (including Taxicab Operators) to obtain a permit to
         operate at the Airport and abide by established rules and regulations.

         Port Ordinance 3648, as amended by Ordinances 3842 and 3923, which regulate the operations and
         the fee structure of Limousines, Door-to-Door Shuttles, Scheduled and Charter buses, Off-Airport
         Rental Car Shuttles, Hotel Courtesy Shuttles, and Off-Airport Parking Lot Shuttles, were adopted in
         July 2001, May 2005 and August 2006, respectively. The 2005 amendment established a 1 percent
         of gross receipts fee (with an increase to 2% in 2006) for Off-Airport Parking Operators, a vehicle trip
         fee increase from $2.00 to $2.50 for all ground transportation providers except Off-Airport Rental Car
         Operators, and an annual permit fee increase (from $300 to $500 per company). The 2006
         amendment defined a new category of ground transportation providers, "Exempt Qualified Operators,"
         which is comprised of qualified operators that do not operate courtesy vehicles and make 120 or
         fewer trips per year, and established a $300 per year per company fee for Exempt Qualified
         Operators.
         All ground transportation operators except Off-Airport Rental Car Operators are currently charged
         the vehicle trip fee and the annual permit fee except for Exempt Qualified Operators, who pay a flat
         fee of $300, which is proposed to increase to $360 due to the proposed increase in trip fees.

         Port Ordinance 3542, which regulates the operations and fee structure of Taxicab Operators at the
         Airport, was adopted on October 5, 1999. Taxicab Operators are charged an annual permit fee of

       rules and regs draft NB 011309	     5
BOST_940747.1
                                                                                   BOARD MTG. DATE: 3/3/09


          $300 per taxi medallion, plus a vehicle per trip fee of $2.50. A total of 119 Airport Taxi Permits is
          currently authorized, and these permits were last distributed in November of 2000.

          Proposed revisions to the regulations governing the Ground Transportation at the Airport are noted
          below.

              A. A revision of the definition of Alternative Fuel Vehicles, which was originally defined as
                 Vehicles powered by compressed natural gas ("CNG"), is proposed to include vehicles
                 powered by propane, ethanol, methanol, gasoline (when used in hybrid electric vehicles only),
                 "hybrid" and "bi-fuel" vehicles, in addition to CNG.


              B. The following summarizes the changes to the penalties associated with violation of ground
                 transportation related rules:

                            Level One Violations, such as operating without an airport permit or charging a fee in
                            excess of the fares permitted, shall result in suspension of the Airport Permit for up to
                            thirty (30) Working Days, suspension of the offending Driver for up to sixty (60)
                            calendar days, a fine against the offending Driver of up to $500 and an Permit Holder
                            fine of up to $500. In addition, a provision has been added that permits the Landside
                            Operations Manager to impose financial penalties of up to $500 and suspensions of
                            operations of up to 5 working days on a Permit Holder, and penalties of up to $250 and
                            suspensions of up to 5 calendar days on Drivers, for each Level One Violation, in each
                            case, if they elect to waive in writing their right to a hearing.

                            Level Two Violations, such as failing to pay fees due to the Port or failing to remove a
                            suspended employee from the roster of Drivers, shall result in suspension of the Airport
                            Permit and/or Driver for, in many cases, an indefinite period until the violation is
                            remedied, and a fine against the offending Driver of up to $500 and a Permit. Holder
                            fine of up to $500.
                            Level Three Violations are the most serious, such as violations that cause
                            unreasonable risk of injury, or the unauthorized sale or distribution of Airport Permits,
                            and may result in cancellation of the Airport Permit or termination of the offending
                            Driver's privilege to operate at, the Airport, and a fine against the offending Driver of up
                            to $500 and a Permit Holder fine of up to $500.
              C. The amendment also proposes revisions to per-trip fees for all ground transportation
                 providers (including taxicabs), but excluding . Off-Airport Rental Car Operators. The
                 recommended trip fee increases are to allow the Port to recover the cost of providing and
                 operating the Airport roadways and other facilities, such as holding lots and curbs, used
                 directly by the commercial ground transportation operators. Access fees are currently
                 charged to Off-Airport Parking Operators and Off-Airport Rental Car Operators. Access fees
                 reflect the benefits that the Off-Airport parking and rental car operators receive from the
                 presence and facilities of the entire Airport and from their access to the traveling public.
                 These types of fees are typically applied to operators that derive almost all (if not all) of their
                 business from the Airport but that do not provide substantial benefits to the Airport because
                 these services are already provided by the Airport (e.g., Airport-operated parking facilities or
                 Airport rental car tenant concessionaires). Access fees are charged at many U.S. airports.

                  The revision includes a proposed increase in the gross-receipts access fee for Off-Airport
                  Parking Lot Operators from 2% to 3% on July 1, 2009, an additional one percent increase to
                  4% on July 1, 2010, and an additional one percent increase to 5% on July 1, 2011. Staff
       rules and regs draft NB 011309	        6
BOST_940747.1
                                                                               BOARD MTG. DATE: 3/3/09


                   recommends the concurrent increase in the trip fee for Off-Airport Parking Lot Operators
                   from $2.50 to $3.00, which is the same increase recommended for all other ground
                   transportation operators. The proposed revisions also delegate to the Director the right to
                   change or modify the per trip fee to not less than $3.00 and not more than $4.00, or re-
                   impose the dwell time fee of $.50 per minute up to a maximum of $50 per trip, on not less
                   than 30 days notice to all Permit Holders, provided that such change is ratified promptly by
                   the Board. Preliminary discussions were held with the Off-Airport Parking Lot Operators on
                   September 26, 2008 to discuss upcoming fee increases. Subsequent notice and discussions
                   including the specific proposed fee increases were also held. (See Appendix A for a
                   summary of meetings held.) A trip fee increase of an additional $0.50 (from $2.50 to $3.00)
                   is proposed for all classes of operators required to pay per-trip fees (see Table A-2).

         Oakland Airport Taxicab Operations

         The Taxi Regulations currently authorize a maximum of 119 Airport Taxicab Permits, whereas the City
         of Oakland has issued a total of 304 Taxicab medallions. Airport Taxicab Permits were last issued in
         November 2000. Taxicab Operators, who held permits in 2000, were able to retain them and have
         continued to do so, provided they pay the annual permit fee and comply with the Taxicab Regulations.
         The Taxicab Operators holding an Airport Taxicab Permit have exclusively enjoyed the economic
         benefit provided by airport travelers through long-distance fares and high volume traffic.

         During the timeframe of October 2008 through December 2008, the Aviation Staff consulted
         extensively with stakeholders, including City staff, taxicab company owners, representatives and
         operators, with respect to the development of the following alternatives. The alternatives resulted
         from this collaborative approach with stakeholders.

                  Alternative One - Open Taxicab System
                  An "Open Taxicab System" would allow each City of Oakland taxicab medallion holder the
                  option to obtain an Airport Taxicab Permit. Under the proposed Open Taxicab System, all City
                  taxicab medallion holders would have the option to operate at the Airport, provided that they
                  follow the permitting process and abide by the Airport Rules and Regulations. Airport Taxicab
                  Permits would be effective for one year, require payment of an annual permit fee, plus
                  payment by the permit holder of a $3.00 per trip fee. The expected benefits of the Open
                  Taxicab System are expected to include a larger availability of taxicabs to meet customer
                  demand during the busy peak periods. If the Open Taxicab System is adopted, staff is
                  proposing to implement a rotation schedule for taxicabs serving the Airport, as there is not
                  currently enough activity to support 304 taxicabs, and the Airport does not have the facilities to
                  stage that many taxicabs in between operations. This rotation would allow approximately 1/3
                  of the permitted taxicabs to operate at the Airport each day. This proposal would also assure
                  that there would be sufficient taxicabs available for City of Oakland service needs. The Open
                  Taxicab System would be implemented immediately, by allowing all City taxicab medallion
                  holders not already holding an Airport Taxicab Permit to apply for a permit and commence
                  operation at the Airport.

                  Alternative Two – Lottery Process
                  A "Lottery Process" would provide the means for fairly distributing and regularly redistributing a
                  limited number of Airport Taxicab Permits to qualified City of Oakland Taxi Operators. The
                  Lottery Process would be straightforward and simple. Each medallion would equal one lottery
                  entry (thus, an operator with one medallion will get 1 entry, an operator who holds 20
                  medallions will get 20 entries, etc.). A lottery process for the distribution of Airport Taxicab
                  Permits would be conducted every three years or when there were 10 or more permits
       rules and regs draft NB 011309	     7
BOST_940747.1
                                                                                BOARD MTG. DATE: 3/3/09


                   available. There are currently 119 Airport permits, though staff believes that 120 permits is the
                   appropriate permit level. Under the Lottery Process, there would be a public drawing where
                   the 120 permits would be awarded as each ticket is pulled. Lottery dates and details would
                   be provided in writing in advance to all City taxicab medallion holders. the Lottery System
                   would create the opportunity for all City taxicab medallion holders to obtain an Airport Taxicab
                   Permit, including those who currently have a permit and those who do not. This program would
                   provide a periodic, consistent approach to renewing permits. Use of a random drawing lottery
                   to distribute a limited number of Airport Taxicab Permits periodically is an equitable, unbiased
                   process for all participants. All taxicab operators holding a City medallion, regardless of size,
                   would have an opportunity to obtain an Airport Taxicab Permit.


                   Recommendation for Taxicab Permit System
                   Staff is recommending the "Open Taxicab System" over the "Lottery Process" because it
                   provides a current opportunity for all taxicabs holding a City medallion to operate and have
                   equal access at Oakland International Airport. All City of Oakland Taxicabs with current
                   medallions would be able to obtain an Airport Taxicab Permit if desired. If the Lottery Process
                   is chosen, only the 120 selected taxicabs would be able to obtain an Airport Taxicab Permit.
                   Although the economic downturn has impacted the Airport, taxicab operators holding an
                   Airport Taxicab Permit may still enjoy long-distance fares, albeit at a smaller volume. The
                   "Open Taxicab System" will allow all City taxicabs to share in the economic benefits provided
                   by the Airport and still maintain sufficient service in the City through implementation of a
                   rotation schedule at the Airport.

                   The Open Taxicab System provides the fairest and least discretionary means of providing
                   qualified and interested taxicab operators with the opportunity to obtain an Airport Taxicab
                   Permit. Additionally, there is potential revenue of $91,200 ($300 per vehicle @ 304 taxicabs) in
                   taxicab permit fees which is an increase from $36,000 ($300 per vehicle @ 120 taxicabs). A
                   disadvantage is that there could be an increase in behavior problems in the taxicab holding lot
                   and at the terminal taxi stand during slow customer demand time periods.

                   A disadvantage of the Lottery Process is that it is probable that not all City taxi companies will
                   receive an Airport Taxicab Permit, including some current permit holders. Larger companies
                   may not end up with a percentage of Airport taxicab Permits equal to their total percentage of
                   City taxi medallions, though statistically they would be favored to receive more such
                   opportunities to obtain an Airport taxicab Permit.

                   Finally, Aviation Staff met staff met with City of Oakland staff, and the city's staff concurred
                   with the recommendation of adopting the Open Taxicab System.

         Commercial Ground Transportation Fees Charged at Other Airports
         Under federal grant assurances, the Port of Oakland is obligated to establish a fee and rental
         structure designed to make the Airport as self-sustaining as possible under the circumstances at the
         Airport. Since the last fee increases, the Port has completed construction of the roadways and
         curbside improvements, and has continued to incur operating costs associated with security and the
         operation of the curbsides. Airport operators charge commercial ground transportation operators a
         variety of fees including fees charged per month, per vehicle-trip, or as a percentage of gross
         revenues (using gross revenues as an indication of the amount of their airport-related business).
         Typically, commercial ground transportation operators are required to pay one or a combination of
         the following fees:

       rules and regs draft NB 011309 	      8
BOST_940747.1
                                                                                BOARD MTG. DATE: 3/3/09


              •   Monthly or annual permit fees - Most airport operators require that commercial ground
                  transportation operators pay monthly or annual fees that are charged per vehicle or per
                  company. At some airports, all operators pay exactly the same fee, while at other airports
                  commercial ground transportation operators pay fees that vary according to the type of
                  business or transportation service (e.g. hotel/motel, rental car, limousine, or parking lot) or the
                  size of their business. The Port currently charges taxicabs $300 per vehicle for each permit;
                  and all other ground transportation vehicle operators, other than Exempt Qualified Operators,
                  are charged $500 per company for permits.

              •   Cost-recovery – Many airports require that the commercial ground transportation operators
                  pay fees that allow the airport operator to recover the costs of providing and operating the
                  roadways and other facilities used directly by these commercial ground transportation
                  operators. Often these cost-recovery fees are calculated according to the number of vehicle
                  trips the operators make on the airport and are thus referred to as per-trip fees. The amount of
                  the per-trip fees can vary by type of ground transportation service, vehicle size, or other
                  measure. The Port currently charges all ground transportation providers, including taxicabs
                  (except Off-Airport Rental Car Operators who pay a percentage of gross receipts), a $2.50
                  per-trip fee.

              •   Market access fees – Many airport operators charge fees that reflect the benefits the
                  commercial ground transportation operators receive from the presence of the entire airport and
                  from their access to the traveling public. It is generally recognized that such fees reflect the
                  operators' "use" of the entire airport. Airport operators usually calculate access fees using a
                  percent of airport related gross revenues. Gross revenues are a commonly accepted measure
                  of the amount of airport-related business and thus the benefits that an operator receives from
                  the presence of the entire airport, i.e. a means of measuring a company's "use" of the entire
                  airport.

                  Like most other U.S. airports, the Port requires that On-Airport and Off-Airport Rental Car
                  Operators and Off-Airport Parking Lot Operators pay a market access fee calculated as a
                  percentage of their gross revenues for the privilege of access to the passengers and other
                  patrons using the Airport, as well as other fees and charges if they lease space on the Airport.

              •   Other fees - Airport operators charge a variety of other commercial vehicle fees, sometimes
                  based on vehicle size. At several airports, commercial vehicle operators are charged an
                  overtime charge (or dwell-time fee) if a vehicle remains at the curbside area in excess of a
                  specified time limit. The Port has authorized a dwell time fee of $0.50 for each minute or
                  portion of a minute in excess of thirty (30) minutes. Since September 11, 2001, this fee has
                  not been charged, as no vehicles have been allowed to dwell at the curbside due to security
                  concerns. However, if regulations change and congestion at the curbside again becomes a
                  problem, the proposed revisions delegate to the Airport Director the power to reinstitute the
                  dwell time fee.

         The commercial vehicle fees charged at the Airport are compared to those fees charged at other Bay
         Area airports and other comparable airports in Table A-2.

         ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED FEE INCREASES

         Given the Airport's need to be self-sustaining and the on-going cost increases incurred by the Port,
         the Port has been reviewing the current commercial ground transportation fee structure to determine
         whether the fee structure should be modified. During FY 2007, $2.6 million of ground transportation
       rules and regs draft NB 011309	      9
BOST_940747.1
                                                                              BOARD MTG. DATE: 3/3/09


         revenues was budgeted while actual revenues were $1.7 million. The fiscal year 2009 ground
         transportation revenue budget is $1.8 million. If the proposed fees are implemented, revenue is
         forecast to increase to $2.2 million in fiscal year 2010, which would recover a portion of the FY 2007
         shortfall. In 2005, the Aviation Committee requested that after several years of experience with the
         new rate structure, staff review the revenue results and recommend further adjustments as needed.
         As requested by the Aviation Committee, staff has reviewed the overall fee structure and analyzed
         potential fee increases. Also, as part of this process, meetings with the commercial vehicle
         operators were conducted in October, November and December of 2008. Key discussion items from
         these meetings are summarized in Appendix A.

         Cost Recovery Analysis
         The 2005 cost recovery analysis has been reviewed by staff in light of current facts and
         circumstances at the Airport, and staff believes that the cost recovery analysis continues to be a
         reasonable basis for continuing and revising, in certain instances, the current fee structure. The cost
         recovery analysis identifies the costs incurred by the Port for the capital, operating, maintenance and
         other costs of the Airport roadways and curbsides areas used directly by ground transportation
         operators.

         Airport costs. Expense data for facilities and services directly and indirectly benefiting ground
         transportation operators was obtained from the Port's Fiscal Year 2009 Operating Budget, CIP and
         asset data base.

         Operating and capital cost data associated with the Ground Access Cost Center – including Airport
         roadways, terminal curbsides and permit parking lots – were provided by the Airport Business
         Department and Port Finance Division. These costs are specifically associated with the:

              •   Provision of ground transportation . (roadway/curbside/permit parking) facility operations,
                  security and maintenance; and	            •
              •   Depreciation of the construction cost of roadway and curb front projects benefiting the
                  commercial and private vehicles using the Airport. The annual cost shown in Table 1 below is
                  the proportion allocated to commercial ground transportation, based on the split between
                  Private/non-chargeable vehicles and commercial vehicles, which was determined to be 16%
                  commercial vehicles through vehicle surveys. If future survey data results in a revision to this
                  allocation, based on changed facts at that time, that could affect the fees proposed in this
                  Agenda Report, and staff would return to the Board with recommendations concerning
                  revisions to the proposed ground transportation fees.

         As shown on Table 1, the total estimated annual cost allocable to commercial ground transportation
         in FY 2009 is approximately $3,246,699.

         Based on an estimated 466,935 annual commercial vehicle trips (see Appendix D), without including
         Off-Airport Rental Car, the estimated per-trip fee to recover those annual costs would be about
         $6.95. Therefore, the proposed per-trip fees fall well within a reasonable cost recovery range.




       rules and regs draft NB 011309	     10
BOST_940747.1
                                                                                    BOARD MTG. DATE: 3/3/09


                                                               Table 1
                                              Airport Roadways: Total Annual Expense


             Item Category	                                   Amount
               1	     Curbside Operations	                     $ 1,537,621
               2	     Landside Operations Expense	                893,040
               3	     Repair & Maintenance	                       135,622
               4	     Security (ABC, ACSO)	                       459,851
               5	     Allocated Port OH Expense 	                  57,044
               6	     Amortized Annual Capital Cost 	             163,520
                      TOTAL ANNUAL COST	                       $ 3,246,699


                      Notes
                      1. Shuttleport curbside/dispatching services (source: FY 2009 budget)
                      2. Landside Operations staff/supplies/G&A (Source: FY 2009 budget)
                      3. Proportional allocation of Facilities Maintenance expense (Source: FY 2009 budget)
                      4. Proportional allocation of Security expense (Source: FY 2009 budget-AS32)
                      5. Proportional allocation of Port overhead for Airport roadways (Source: Port Finance)
                      6. Proportional depreciation cost of Roadway-Curb project capital cost (Source: Port Finance)

         Alternative Commercial Vehicle Fee Schedules
         Since spring of 2004, several alternative commercial vehicle fee charges and combinations of
         charges have been reviewed and analyzed. These alternatives include a combination of fee
         increases including permit, cost recovery, and access fees. As described previously, cost recovery
         fees are established to allow the airport operator to recover the cost of providing and operating the
         roadways and other facilities used directly by the commercial ground transportation operators.




       rules and regs draft NB 011309	         11
BOST_940747.1
                                                                                          BOARD MTG. DATE: 3/3/09



         Table 2	           Comparison of Commercial Vehicle Fee Proposed Actions

              Proposed Action            Estimated Fee Revenue          Advantages                        Disadvantages
         Off-Airport Gross                                       • User fee precedent set      • Off-Airport parking operators
         Percentage Fee Increase             FY 2010 @ 3%          by other airports             historically objected to a fee that
                                               $625,415          • Subject to audit as is        requires audits.
         Charge off-Airport parking                                currently done              • Fee increase may be passed on
         operators an additional             FY 2011 @ 4%                                        to customers.
         access fee of 3% gross for            $833,886                                        • Increased cost of business at the
         of FY 2010, 4% gross in                                                                 Airport during a declining
         FY 2011, 5% gross in FY                                                                 economy
                                             FY 2012 @ 5%
         2012 and thereafter.
                                              $1,042,358
         Permit fees remain at
         $500 per company.
         Taxicab & Limousine '                                   •   Increased revenue will    •   Fee Increase may be passed on
         Trip Fee Increase                      FY 2010              off-set expenses              to customers.
                                                                     associated with           •   Increased cost of business at the
                                               $ 837196
                                                    ,
                                                                     roadway investment            Airport during a declining
         Increase	 Taxicab trip fee
                                                                     and operations                economy
         from $2.50 per trip to                 FY 2011
         $3.00 per trip for FY 2010
                                               $ 837,196
         and thereafter.
         Permit fees remain at
         $300 per Taxi vehicle and              FY 2012
         $500 per Limo company.                $ 837,196

         All Other Ground                                        • Trip fee rate               •   Fee increase may be passed on
         Transportation                        FY 2010             adjustment will off-set         to customers.
         Operators Trip Fee                    $668,710            expenses associated         •   Increased cost of business at the
         Increase (except                                          with roadway                    Airport during a declining
         taxicabs and limousine                                    investment and                  economy.
         operators)                            FY 2011             operations.
                                               $668,710

         Increase Door-to-door,                FY 2012
         Hotel, Charter, Scheduled             $668,710
         operators trip fee from
         $2.50 per trip to $3.00 per
         trip for FY 2010 and
         thereafter. Permit fees
         remain at $500 per
         company.
         No Action.                                              •   Does not require any      • Does not generate additional
                                                                     fee changes to existing     revenue to cover Port's capital
                                                                     Port Ordinances.            and operating expenses.
                                                                                               • Does not meet budget
                                                                                                 expectations.
                                                                                               • Does not appropriately charge
                                                                                                 the operators for the benefits
                                                                                                 that they receive.




       rules and regs draft NB 011309	           12
BOST_940747.1
                                                                              BOARD MTG. DATE: 3/3/09




         PROPOSED FEES

         Justification of increased fees.
         Staff recommends a fee schedule that increases the percentage ,of gross receipts for Off-Airport
         Parking Operators, reflecting the benefits that these operators receive from the Airport, and increases
         cost recovery per-trip fees for all commercial vehicle operators, other than Off-Airport Rental Car (who
         already pay a percentage of gross receipts).

         An access fee for Off-Airport Parking Operators of 2% was implemented in July 2006. This access
         fee reflects the business benefits that these operators receive, from the Airport (above and beyond just
         use of the roadways and curbsides) because most, if not all, of their business is derived from the
         Airport, and the proposed fee falls within the accepted range of access fees charged at other airports
         in the United States. Staff has confirmed that the results of the study of ground access fees
         conducted for the Airport in 2005 continues to be relevant in that 14 of the subject airports in the
         United States continue to charge fees to off-airport parking operators based upon a percentage of
         gross revenues ranging from two and one half percent (2.5%) to ten percent (10%).' Nine of the
         airports charge fees of 8% or greater. Two of the airports charged both a per trip fee and an access
         fee. Therefore, the proposed increases in the percentage of gross receipts charged to Off-Airport
         Parking Operators are reasonable privilege fees.

         Proposed approach: (1) the access fee for the Off-Airport Parking Operators would be increased to 3
         percent of gross revenues on July 1, 2009, to 4 percent of gross revenues on July 1, 2010, and to 5
         percent of gross revenues on July 1, 2011, and (2) the vehicle trip fees would be increased to $3.00
         per trip. A cost recovery analysis was prepared in order to allocate the FY 2008 costs of ground
         transportation facilities and services to, the ground transportation providers. This analysis, which is
         described in more detail above, justified that a $3.00 per trip fee is actually less than what is required
         to cover the actual costs allocated to ground transportation operations. The following summarizes
         the proposed fee increases:

              1. Permit Fees. No increase in the annual permit fee for any ground transportation (including
                 taxicab) providers who access the Airport, other than an increase in the fee charged to Exempt
                 Facility Operators from $300 to $360.

              2. Per-Trip Fees. Trip Fees are intended to allow the Port to recover both operating and capital
                 costs. Based on a cost recovery analysis of Port capital and operating costs of facilities and
                 services used directly by the commercial vehicle operators, as well as AVI trip counts
                 supplemented with vehicular traffic counts (collected in summer of 2006 and June of 2007), a
                 $3.00 trip fee is justifiable as it only partially off-sets actual costs.

              3. Access Fee. Assess an increased access fee of 3% of gross revenues of Off-Airport Parking
                 Operators in FY 2010, beginning on July 1, 2009, 4% of gross revenues beginning July 1,
                 2010, and a 5% of gross revenues beginning July 1, 2011.

         The capital costs associated with the ground transportation operations are $30.9 million, of which
         approximately $5.3 million in trip fee revenue was collected between FY 2006 and 2008). However,
         operating costs allocated to the ground transportation activities in the Port adopted budget for FY
         2009 are over $3 million. These costs include ground transportation staff, allocation of law
         enforcement and security services, and ground transportation contractual services (curbside and
         taxicab dispatching).

       rules and regs draft NB 011309 	   13
BOST_940747.1
                                                                                BOARD MTG. DATE: 3/3/09



         PROPOSED FINDINGS CONCERNING MODIFICATIONS TO FEES
         In 2005, the Aviation Committee considered the previous modifications to the fees charged to
         commercial ground transportation providers at the Airport, under Port Ordinance 3648. The Board
         has considered relevant information and analysis including but .not limited to the recommendation of
         the Aviation Committee, the facts and data submitted and the information and analysis provided by
         the Port's consultant, Leigh Fisher Associates, in 2005. Relevant past and current findings that staff
         recommends the Board adopt are presented below:
              1. Under federal airport grant assurances, the Port is obligated to establish a fee and rental
                 structure designed to make the Airport as self-sustaining as possible under the circumstances
                 at the Airport.
              2. The Airport is operated by the Port, as a political subdivision of the City of Oakland ("the City"),
                 in its proprietary and regulatory capacities. The Port incurs expenses for operating,
                 maintaining and expanding the Airport. These expenses include, for example, the costs of
                 passenger services, passenger security, and the operation, maintenance and expansion of
                 Airport runways, terminals, roads and related facilities and services. The Port is authorized
                 under the City Charter and California law to exact fees to recover the cost of the Airport and its
                 services.
              3. Because the Airport receives no general tax dollars from the community, the Port must seek to
                 raise revenues from fees, contracts, licenses, permits, and leases issued by the Port to both
                 aeronautical and non-aeronautical users of the Airport.
              4. Commercial vehicle ground transportation operators provide buses, shuttles, vans, taxis,
                 limousines and other ground transportation to their customers by accessing the Airport via
                 private roads and curbsides maintained by the Port. Imposition of fees for ground
                 transportation operations at the Airport helps the Port recover the costs of providing the
                 facilities used by ground transportation providers and helps preserve and enhance revenues
                 needed for Airport development, maintenance, and operations. Enactment of reasonable fees
                 also helps to promote the safe and efficient use of limited Airport facilities, including alleviation
                 of congestion on Airport roadways and terminal curbsides.
              5. The Port fees make no distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce.
              6. The Port establishes fees consistent with federal requirements, as set forth by the U.S.
                 Supreme Court in Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority District v. Delta Airlines, Inc., and
                 subsequent cases, which require that fees: (1) be based on a fair approximation of use or
                 privilege of use of airport facilities (not just use of roadways on which vehicles traverse, but, as
                 explained in subsequent federal court decisions, use of the entire airport that generates the
                 pool of customers for the commercial service provider), (2) not be excessive in relation to the
                 governmental benefit conferred on the user, and (3) not discriminate against interstate
                 commerce.
              7. The proposed amendments to Ordinances 3542, 3648, and 3842 increase the per-trip vehicle
                 fee imposed upon all commercial ground operators (other than Off-Airport Rental Car and
                 Parking Operators) in the amount of $.50 from $2.50 per trip to $3.00 per trip on July 1, 2009.
                 It is anticipated that this per-trip fee will be re-evaluated and reassessed periodically. Under
                 the proposed modification, beginning July 1, 2009, the Port will increase the access fee to all
                 Off-Airport Parking Operators to 3% of the gross revenues of such companies. In fiscal year
                 2011, this fee will be increased to 4% of the Off-Airport Parking Operators' gross revenues and
                 then to 5% in fiscal year 2012. The proposed amendments to Ordinance No. 3648 and 3542
                 do not include changes to any other existing fees.


       rules and regs draft NB 011309	      14
BOST_940747.1
                                                                               BOARD MTG. DATE: 3/3/09


              8. As to the affected commercial ground transportation operators, the resulting per trip fees are
                 reasonable in relation to, and do not exceed, the cost of providing and operating the roadways
                 and other facilities directly used by such operators and the remaining Airport facilities indirectly
                 used by such operators in accessing the pool of customers generated by the Airport. Such
                 proposed fees also are reasonable in relation to the use of the Airport by the ground
                 transportation operators and the overall commercial benefit they derive from the presence of
                 the Airport. The per trip fees are not levied for general revenue purposes.
              9. Commercial ground transportation operators benefit, to varying degrees, from the operation
                 and development of the Airport as a whole, as the flow of air travelers that use the Airport
                 creates a pool of potential customers for such businesses. In setting fees, the Port has
                 considered the benefit conferred on commercial ground transportation operators due to the
                 development, operation, maintenance, and expansion of the entire Airport, their use of Airport
                 facilities, and the direct and indirect impact on Airport revenues of imposing such fees.
              10. The Port has considered that charging a fee based upon the number of trips that the vehicles
                  operated by commercial ground transportation operators make to the terminal area curbside is
                  a reasonable method of correlating the fee to the use or privilege of use of the Airport. The
                  Port may review the implementation of the fee structure in the future to determine if further
                  refinements are appropriate to adjust the amount of the per-trip fee based upon the size and
                  passenger volume of the vehicles used by the commercial ground transportation providers, in
                  order to further refine the correlation of the amount of the fee to the use or privilege of use of
                  the Airport, without exceeding the benefit conferred.
              11. The Port has considered that the vast majority, if not all, of the customers of the Off-Airport
                  Parking Operators are derived from the Airport and that virtually the entire business of the Off-
                  Airport Parking Operators depend upon the development, operation and maintenance of the
                  entire Airport. The costs for operation, maintenance and expansion of the Airport as a whole,
                  should be defrayed in part by fees paid by Off-Airport Parking Operators, particularly because
                  Off-Airport Parking Operators derive this substantial revenue and benefit from voluntary
                  business activities on Airport property.
              12. The Port has considered that charging an increased access fee to Off-Airport Parking
                  Operators based upon a greater percentage of their gross revenues, which attaches primarily
                  to income generated by Airport users, is a reasonable method of further correlating the off-
                  Airport parking operators' fees to their use of the Airport as measured by the volume of
                  business that they derive from the existence of the Airport.
              13. Staff has confirmed that the findings in the 2005 study are relevant in that 14 of the subject
                  airports in the United States continue to charge fees to off-airport parking operators based
                  upon a percentage of gross revenues ranging from two and one half percent (2.5%) to ten
                  percent (10%). Nine of the airports charge fees of 8% or greater. Two airports charge both a
                  per trip fee and an access fee. The proposed fees therefore fall within this accepted range,
                  and are reasonable in relation to the overall commercial benefit that the off-Airport operators
                  derive from the presence of the Airport. Two other airports charge a vehicle per-trip fee in
                  addition to the gross revenue access fee. See Appendix F.
              14. The proposed fees to be imposed on Off-Airport parking operators will help preserve Airport
                  revenues derived from On-Airport parking facilities.

         BUDGET & FINANCIAL IMPACT

         As summarized above, the proposed fee increases result in an increase in revenues. The No Action
         alternative is estimated to result in the same amount of revenue in FY 2008, which is approximately


       rules and regs draft NB 011309 	     15
BOST_940747.1
                                                                                BOARD MTG. DATE: 3/3/09


         $1.7 million annually, and slightly less than the Port's 2009 adopted budget of $1.8 million. FY 2008
         actual revenues were $900,000 less than adopted in the budget.

         The proposed per-trip fee of $3.00 is supported by cost recovery analysis based on the costs that
         the Port has incurred in operating and maintaining the Airport based investments for normal
         operating costs for facilities and services used by commercial ground transportation providers. In
         addition, some of these costs were funded with proceeds of Port Revenue Bonds, which must be
         repaid.

         For the purpose of this analysis, the FY 2008 number of vehicle-trips was held constant for the future
         years. Current market conditions and volatility in the AVI system data makes forecasting higher or
         lower activity too speculative. However, trips may actually increase or decrease depending on future
         operating conditions (e.g., airport activity, location of facilities, increases in frequency and service,
         more efficient routing or schedule, size of vehicles used), which could affect the volume of trips. If
         the actual number of trips is substantially more or less than the number forecasted, staff may in the
         future propose further adjustments to the fees proposed in this revision.

         It should also be noted that the ability to collect fees on a per-trip basis is dependent on a fully
         functioning and reliable AVI System.

         STAFFING IMPACT

         Staff presently collects per-trip fees from all of the commercial ground transportation operators
         except Off-Airport Rental Car Operators, who pay a percentage of gross receipts. Although taxicabs
         and door-to-door on-demand operators use pre-paid vouchers, the majority of the remaining per-trip
         fees will be collected using an Automated Vehicle Identification (AVI) system. This system serves to
         automatically record vehicle trips and prepare monthly reports that can be used for invoicing
         purposes.

         Since system hardware replacement in August 2007, the AVI system performance has somewhat
         improved. In general, problems with the AVI system persisted throughout the year with equipment
         interference generated from unknown sources. Data inconsistencies are still under investigation. In
         the future, because it is essential that the data be supportable and defensible, certain improvements
         are recommended in order to update and improve the existing system, including:

              •   In the next 1 to 2 years, it is expected that the Port will need to completely replace the existing
                  AVI equipment with a new state-of-the-art system, which could cost as much as $1.5 million.

              •   Remote computer access was granted to Durasys and XCI to help provide immediate
                  troubleshooting as problems arise with the AVI system. These companies have managed to
                  improve the AVI capabilities through remote computer access.

         Over the next few months, the Port will allocate more staff time to monitor the Airport's AVI system to
         assure the proper accounting of vehicle trips and billings, as well as to confirm the near and long-
         term system upgrades required. Additionally, the Port currently charges and collects fees on the
         basis of gross revenues for Off-Airport Parking Operators and Off-Airport Rental Car Operators.
         Collecting an increased percentage of gross fees from Off-Airport Parking Operators is not expected
         to require increased staffing. Administration of the Rules and Regulations by Airport employees is a
         normal part of business operations; therefore these changes should have no effect on current
         staffing.


       rules and regs draft NB 011309	      16
BOST_940747.1
                                                                              BOARD MTG. DATE: 3/3/09


         SUSTAINABILITY

         The Rules and Regulations are a mechanism to ensure that the Port's standards and ordinances
         involving sustainability are enforced. For example, the Taxicab and Ground Transportation Vehicle
         section will require each permit holder (a qualified operator to which one or more Airport Permits
         have been issued) operating more than one (1) Ground Transportation Vehicle at the Airport to have
         no less than 50% of all their ground transportation vehicles for which Airport Permits have been
         issued (or if an odd number, 50% of one less than the number of such Ground Transportation
         Vehicles) to be Alternative Fuel Vehicles (powered by natural gas, propane, ethanol, methanol,
         hydrogen, electricity, fuel cells, or advanced technologies that do not rely solely on gasoline or diesel
         fuel, or hybrids that are powered by a combination of two or more alternate fuels). In addition, the
         Airport Rules and Regulations will require, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, each
         Aircraft Operator to abide by and comply with all Airport Directives relating to noise and to operation
         of Aircraft in such a manner as to avoid impacts of Aircraft noise on sensitive environments
         surrounding the Airport.

         ENVIRONMENTAL

         CEQA Determination
         Amendment of Port Ordinances 3549, 3542 and 3648 is exempt from the requirements of California
         Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
         CEQA does not apply to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor
         alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical
         features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead
         agency's determination.

         The amendment of Port Ordinances 3549, 3542 and 3648 is also exempt from CEQA requirements
         pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080(b)(8) and the CEQA Guidelines Section
         15273(a)(4). CEQA does not apply to the establishment, modification, structuring, re-structuring, or
         approval of rates, tolls, fares, and other charges by public agencies which the public agency finds
         are for the purpose of meeting operating expenses or obtaining funds for capital projects necessary
         to maintain service within existing service areas. The ordinances are also exempt pursuant to CEQA
         Guidelines Section 15061(b) (3), which exempts a project from CEQA when it can be seen with
         certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed activity may have a significant effect on the
         environment.

         Environmental Compliance
         This Ordinance will not disturb or impact soil, groundwater or water quality. The Ordinance will
         require all persons to comply with all environmental matters as listed in the Airport Rules and
         Regulations.

         Mitigation
         This ordinance will not have any significant impacts to the environment therefore no mitigation
         measures are required.

         Related Plans and Policies
         This project does not require mitigation measures; therefore there are no related or adopted plans
         for this project.




       rules and regs draft NB 011309 	   17
BOST_940747.1
                                                                              BOARD MTG. DATE: 3/3/09


         MARITIME AND AVIATION PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT (MAPLA)

         The work performed under this resolution is 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
         work.

         OWNER CONTROLLED INSURANCE PROGRAM (OCIP)

         Not applicable.

         GENERAL PLAN

         This action does not meet the definition of "project" under the City of Oakland General Plan, and no
         conformity determination is required.

         LIVING WAGE

         Neither the Port's Living Wage Ordinance (Port Ordinance No. 3666) nor the living wage
         requirements set forth in Section 728 of the Charter of the City of Oakland apply to this action
         because the action requested is not for a "Port Contract" as defined by the Port Ordinance No. 3666
         and Charter 728.

         OPTIONS

         1. Adopt the Proposed Findings Concerning Free Expression Activities and Concerning Modifications
            to Fees set forth above, and accept the proposed ordinance provision changes for Port Ordinance
            3549, including the inclusion of the substance of Ordinances 3542 and 3648 and amendment of
            the Regulations applicable to ground transportation and taxicabs.

         2. Approve increases to ground transportation fees and charges, including an increase to the access
            fee due from Off-Airport Parking Operators from 2% to 3% of gross revenues in FY 2010, 4% in
            FY 2011 and 5% in FY 2012. Approve a $0.50 increase in trip fees from $2.50 to $3.00 for all
            ground transportation operators except . Off-Airport Rental Car Operators, effective July 1, 2009.
            Increase the annual permit fee for Exempt Facility Operators from $300 to $360, effective July 1,
            2009. Effective July 1, 2009, limit the delegated authority of the Director to change or modify the
            per trip fees to not less than $3.00 and not more than $4.00 per trip, and to re-impose dwell time
            fees.

         3. Approve the "Open Taxicab System" effective immediately to provide all City of Oakland Taxicabs
            with the opportunity to obtain an Airport Taxicab Permit.

         4. Approve the "Lottery Process" effective January 1, 2010, to allocate 120 Airport Taxicab Permits
            by granting one lottery chance to each holder of a City taxicab medallion and conducting a
            drawing every three years.

         5. Adopt the fee revisions set forth in Option 2 above, but defer the rate increases to a future date,
            thus reducing the income to the Port which would offset expenses associated with the parking and
            ground transportation cost center.

         6. Redirect staff to alter the proposed fee increases or rules and regulations therein.

       rules and regs draft NB 011309	    18
BOST_940747.1
                                                                            BOARD MTG. DATE: 3/3/09


         7. Do not accept the proposed modifications.

          RECOMMENDATION.

          It is recommended that the Board take the actions described in Options 1, 2 and 3 above.




       rules and regs draft NB 011309 	   19
BOST_940747.1
                          TABLE A-1 2008

         GROUND TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PROVIDERS


               GROUND TRANSPORTATION CATEGORY                  NO. OF COMPANIES   NO. OF VEHICLES
1   Hotel Courtesy Shuttle Operators                                    18               41
2   Scheduled Service Operators                                         2                54
3   Off-Airport Parking Courtesy Shuttle Operators                      6                67
4   Charter / Reservation Shuttles                                     57               460
5   Limousine Operators                                                150              1004
6   Door-to-Door Shuttles (Shared Ride Operators)                      47                120
7   On/Off-Airport Rental Car Courtesy Shuttle Operators                3                28
                                   TOTAL                              283               1774




                                 Agenda_4 Attachments 011409
                                                             Table A-2	                  2007-2008
                          Comparison of Current Commercial Ground Transportation Fees at Bay Area Airports

                             2008 Current Fees For        2009 Proposed Rates
   Class of Operator         Oakland International        Oakland International          San Francisco             Norman Y. Mineta San
                                    Airport                     Airport               International Airport      Jose International Airport
 On-Airport Rental Car                                                                                          8.0% of gross plus $200 per
                                  10% of gross          Remains at 10% of gross             10% gross
   Courtesy Vehicle                                                                                             month
 Off-Airport Rental Car
                                  9% of gross            Remains at 9% of gross
   Courtesy Vehicle
                                                          Gross receipts of 3%
                                                        FY10, 4% in FY11, 5% in
       -Airpo	 rt
    Off-Airport Parking                                                             No gross percent charge
                          2.0% gross plus $2.50 per      FY12, and $3.00 trip fee                               8.0% gross plus $0.75 per
     Courtesy Vehicle                                                                 $2.25 - $6.00 per trip
                          trip plus $500 annual permit plus $500 annual permit                                  trip plus $200 annual permit
                          fee per company                           fee                                         fee per company
                          $2.50 per trip plus $500     $3.00 per trip plus $500   $2.25 - $6.00 per trip plus   $0.75 per trip plus $200
   Hotel/Motel Courtesy
                          annual permit fee per        annual permit fee per      $25 annual permit fee per     annual permit fee per
         Vehicle
                          company                      company                    company                       company

                            $2.50 per trip (pre-paid   $3.00 per trip plus $500                                 $1.50 per trip plus $200
On.
  -	
On-Demand Door-to - door                                                                  $2.25 p trip
                                                                                          $2	   per
                            vouchers) plus $500 annual annual permit fee per                                    annual permit fee per
                            permit fee per company     company                                                  company
                            $2.50 per trip plus $500   $3.00 per trip plus $500                                 $1.50 per trip plus $200
 Charter Vehicles And
                            annual permit fee per      annual permit fee per              $2.25 per trip        annual permit fee per
Reservation	 Door	-to- door
                            company                    company                                                  company
                            $2.50 per trip plus $500   $3.00 per trip plus $500
        Limousines          annual permit fee per      annual permit fee per              $2.75 per trip
                            company                    company                                                  $1.50 per trip
                            $2.50 per trip plus $500   $3.00 per trip plus $500                                 $1.50 per trip plus $200
     ScheduledService       annual permit fee per      annual permit fee per              $2.25 per trip        annual permit fee per
                            company                    company                                                  company

                                                        $3.00 per trip in 2009 plus
                           $2.50 per trip (pre-paid
         Taxicabs                                       $300 annual permit fee per        $4.00 per trip
                           vouchers) plus $300 annual                                                           $1.50 per trip plus $240
                                                                  vehicle
                           permit fee per vehicle                                                               monthly fee per vehicle
     Qualified Exempt       $300 flat fee per company    $360 flat fee per company
      Operator Fee            with 120 trips per year      with 120 trips per year
1) Ground Transportation Service Providers Operating No More Than 120 Trips Per Year Currently Pay $300 Flat Fee (Qualifed Exempt Operator Fee)
2) Proposed fee increases are scheduled beginning on July, 1 2009, for FY2010
3) On July 1, 2008, City of Oakland Implemented New Taxicab Fare Structure That Allows Airport Trip Fees to Be Passed On To Airport Customers
                                     APPENDIX A

            COMMENTS FROM GROUND TRANSPORTATION MEETINGS


OVERVIEW OF GROUND TRANSPORTATION MEETINGS

Meetings were held with all ground transportation providers to operational issues, the 50%
alternative fuel vehicle requirement, Port Ordinance modifications and the proposed trip fee
increase. The current option presented to each group of operators was to increase the trip
fees from $2.50 to $3.00 in 2009. A summary of the comments provided by the ground
transportation operators at these meetings follows.


        Ground Transportation Meeting for Door-to-Door (Shared Ride)
        Shuttle Operators, Charter Operators, Scheduled Service
        Operators
1 st Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2008	                   Meeting Time: 10:30 a.m.

Operational Issues

    >   Large charter bus operators asked about area to stage vehicles (40 foot buses for
        thirty to sixty minutes) due to short curb capacity.

Proposed Fee Increase

No comments.

2 nd Meeting Date: Monday, October 27,	                  Meeting Time: 3:00 p.m.

No attendees for this meeting.


        Ground Transportation Meeting for Limousine Operators
1 St Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2008	                   Meeting Time: 1:30 p.m.

Operational Issues

   >    Limousine operators wanted to see the Limo application package uniform to other
        Bay Area airports, asked for a temporary permit process that allows operators to pick
        up large groups as needed, asked about discounted parking and more up front
        parking in the hourly lot.

Proposed Fee Increase

   >    Limousine Companies suggested a fee increase of $0.25 from $2.50 to $2.75 for
        2009 and 2010 from $2.75 to $3.00.




                                          Page 1 of 7
                                     APPENDIX A

            COMMENTS FROM GROUND TRANSPORTATION MEETINGS



2st Meeting Date: Monday, October 27, 2008	              Meeting Time: 1:30 p.m.

Operational Issues

   > Asked about discounted parking and more up front parking in the hourly lot.
   > Limo operators wanted to know if FastTrack is operational in the public paid hourly
     lot.

Proposed Fee Increase

   >   Limousine Companies suggested a fee increase of $0.25 from $2.50 to $2.75 for
       2009 and 2010 from $2.75 to $3.00.


       Ground Transportation Meeting for Hotel Courtesy Shuttle
       Operators
1 st Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2008	                   Meeting Time: 11:30 a.m.

Operational Issues

   >   No comments.

Proposed Fee Increase

   â Hotel Operator requested that the proposed increase take place next year or when
      economy improves because of a significant decline in their revenue.
   > Hotel Operator noted that Oakland Airport already charges highest fees in the Bay
      Area.
   > Hotel Operator asked if Oakland Airport knew what fees other airports charge.

2st Meeting Date: Monday, October 27, 2008	              Meeting Time: 2:30 p.m.

Operational Issues

   >   What is the definition for Alternative Fuel? This could be a major impact to operators
       along with the $.50 cents increase and CNG Enforcement.
   >   Operator noted problems getting credit with Clear Energy / Voyager because the
       company will not accept American Express which the Operator uses exclusively.

Proposed Fee Increase

   >   Hotel Operator requested that the proposed increase take place next year or when
       economy improves because of a significant decline in their revenue. Hotel Operator
       noted that Oakland Airport already charges highest fees in the Bay Area. ($500
       annual permit and $2.50 vehicle trip fees) as noted in Table A-2.
   >   Hilton – San Jose trip fees are $.75 cents. Port increase during economic times is


                                        Page 2 of 7
                                    APPENDIX A

           COMMENTS FROM GROUND TRANSPORTATION MEETINGS

       difficult. Oakland has the highest fees in the Bay Area.



       Ground Transportation Meeting for Off-Airport Parking Lot
       Courtesy Shuttle Operators
Meeting Date: September 26, 2008	                   Meeting Time: 2:45 p.m.

Operational Issues

   â The operators requested more curb space, a shuttle stop adjacent to both Terminals,
      requested more curbside enforcement due to AC Transit and other large charter
      buses impeding their operation.
   > Park N Travel mentioned that Sonoma Airport Express, Evan's Airporter and other
      Charter vehicles along with AC Transit buses, park in the off-airport parking lot
      curbside area.
   > Airpark said that limited curb space and congested curb is unsafe for their customers
      because shuttles must double park to unload and pickup customers. Operator said
      that their drivers are required to loop because their company policy prohibits their
      drivers from double parking.
   > Courtesy shuttles must do multiple loops (re-circulate) due to curbside congestion
      and the inability of their courtesy shuttles to wait on the curb for customers.
      Requested waiving of vehicle trip charges for vehicle recirculation.
   > AVI equipment covers the recirculation lane which charges for each loop instead of
      one vehicle trip to the airport.
   > The meters were moved to charge for each loop, the Port did not charge for looping
      prior to the readers being relocated, has the policy always been for looping and
      were the Operators/Companies informed that they would be charged for each loop?
   > The AVI Readers were relocated are we going to move them back
   > Park N Fly mentioned that the curbside is too small and that there was initially two
      courtesy shuttle stops for off-airport parking lot operators on the third curb. Park N
      Fly was concerned about their shuttle operators being issued citations for stopping
      too long.
   â ACE Parking was also concerned about their shuttles waiting on the curb to pick-up
      customers and wanted to know if their shuttles could wait for about 5 minutes on the
      curb.
   > Airpark, Park N Fly, Fasttrack wanted to eliminate multiple loop charges due to the
      lack of curbside space and the inability of their courtesy shuttles to wait on the curb
      for customers. Companies stated that other airports do not charge additional loop
      fees and wanted to know if we could make some changes so that they would not be
      charged each time they loop.
   > Park N Fly asked for a temporary staging area on the airport so that their courtesy
      shuttles don't have to loop.
   â Port agreed to meet with parking operators at the curbside for suggestions about the
      operation.


Proposed Fee Increase


                                      Page 3 of 7
                                  APPENDIX A

            COMMENTS FROM GROUND TRANSPORTATION MEETINGS


A 7% Gross Receipts fee increase was proposed for 2009 – 2010 and an 8% Gross
Receipts fee increase was proposed for FY 2010 – 2011.

   â The operators proposed a 0.5% Gross receipts fee increase in 2010 and another
     0.5% percent in 2011 or when the economy improves.
   â The operators said that increasing rates during poor economic times will put them
     out of business.
   â The proposed elimination of the vehicle trip fees was received well.
   â Park N Fly said their PAX traffic is down 26%, they are paying 18.5% parking tax to
     the City of Oakland, timing of increase is not good, minimum wage increase, fuel
     cost, and that there are too many expenses.
   â Airpark said their market is down 30%, it's a bad time to increase fees, increasing
     the gross receipts percent is unfair. Airpark said that increasing fees could result in
     layoffs to reduce costs, resulting in poor customer service, and/or put them out of
     business.
   â Airpark said the business got bad after JetBlue and Southwest Airlines went to San
     Francisco Airport. Park N Fly asked if the Port was doing something to bring more
     airlines to the airport.
   â Airpark confirmed that his company was aware that Oakland has consistently and
     aggressively pursued airline business.

   â Ace Parking said that a 1% fee increase is too high given current the state of the
     economy.
   â Airpark stated that it's tough to give up more revenue, prefers a 0.5% increase
     through 2010 with another 0.5% increase in 2011 or 2012.
   â Why propose a 5% increase when the AVI has not been working properly?, are there
     guidelines that outline a history of increases, timing to implement a 5% increase is
     not good.
   â Can we come back and further discuss increases or offer a different proposal, can
     we propose 2-5% instead of 2-7%, we come up with a number the Operators can
     ease into a fee increase
   â Park N Fly asked is the increase across the board and if the fee increase was
     already approved.
   â The off-airport parking lot operators asked if another meeting would be held prior or
     if they could make a counter proposal.
   â Fasttrack said that his company needs a break on the fees and need some relief.
   â Park N Fly acknowledged that they are in business because of the Airport, and that
     increasing the fees would not put them out of business, just voiced concern as to
     why increase now, when the economy is struggling!

Meeting Date: October 24, 2008	                    Meeting Time: 1:35 p.m.


Operational Issues

   â Courtesy shuttles must do multiple loops (re-circulate) due to curbside congestion
     and the inability of their courtesy shuttles to wait on the curb for customers.
     Requested no vehicle trip charges for vehicle recirculation.
   â AVI equipment covers the recirculation lane which charges for each loop instead of


                                     Page 4 of 7
                                   APPENDIX A

           COMMENTS FROM GROUND TRANSPORTATION MEETINGS
     one vehicle trip to the airport.
   â Operators asked if hybrids counted as part of the 50% CNG alternative fuel vehicle
     requirement
   > Companies have had issues with CNG vehicles, hybrids are expensive (approx.
     $100,000) and there is no way to comply by 2009. It would take months to have
     vehicles delivered.
   > The meters were moved to charge for each loop, the Port did not charge for looping
     prior to the readers being relocated, has the policy always been for looping and
     were the Operators/Companies informed that they would be charged for each loop?
   > The AVI Readers were relocated are we going to move them back

Proposed Fee Increase

A 7% Gross Receipts fee increase was proposed for 2009 – 2010 and an 8% Gross
Receipts fee increase was proposed for FY 2010 – 2011.

   > Without monitoring trip fees congestion at the curb will be an issue if trip fees are
     eliminated.
   > Why propose a 5% increase when the AVI has not been working properly? Are there
     guidelines that outline a history of increases, timing to implement a 5% increase is
     not good.
   â Can we come back and further discuss increases or offer a different proposal, can
     we propose 2-5% instead of 2-7%, we come up with a number the Operators can
     ease into a fee increase
   > The AVI Readers were relocated are we going to move them back
   > The meters were moved to charge for each loop. The Port did not charge for looping
     prior to the readers being relocated. Has the policy always been for looping?
     Looping is the Issues. Why weren't the Operators/Companies informed that they
     would be charged for each loop?

       Ground Transportation Meeting — Wednesday, November 5, 2008
       at 2:30 p.m. for Taxicab Operators
Operational Issues

Proposed Taxicab Lottery

   â Having a lottery would put them out of business. Permits are for life as long as they
     are not breaking the rules. Nothing in the Ordinance states the Port can take the
     permits. Most of them are owner/operators who have been working more than 15
     years.
   > License all City of Oakland taxicabs to come to the airport on a schedule instead of
     lottery of Airport Taxi permits, give operators a month, more time to talk to an advisor
     of Attorney.
   â There should be a grandfather clause for the current taxicab drivers of the Airport to
     keep their airport permits. Suggests that the Port add city cabs to the shifts
     (inclusion) and not take the existing permits away which would create actionable
     problems. Found out about this lottery yesterday (short notice), this is not very
     reasonable. Recommends that this gets pushed back 2 days or a month to discuss



                                      Page 5 of 7
                                     APPENDIX A

           COMMENTS FROM GROUND TRANSPORTATION MEETINGS

       with his consultants and/or attorneys. Wanted to know who initiated this lottery
       program – to take away the permits from them. Need the name of the person
       responsible for this lottery idea. Would like to attend all Port meetings that pertain to
       this issue.

   D Attorney was present who represented 26 Cab Companies, unable to get a copy
      of the draft Ordinance from the Port's website, unable to get copy from Port Legal,
      draft copy of Port Ordinance not readily accessible – Draft copy of Port Ordinance
      was not available on web-site for Public viewing at time of meeting but taxicab
      operators were provided with draft copy by Port – Landside Operations staff. After
      reading the Ordinance, his understanding was the renewal was the option of the
      Owner (based on the Ordinance).
   > The Operators have incurred debt from purchasing new vehicles, and CNG vehicles
   > Proposal to issue an additional 15 Airport permits from City, or give all City taxicabs
      an Airport permit and put them on a Block Schedule of A-B-C.
   > Barbara Killey (Assistant to City of Oakland Administrator) Thank you to Mr.
      Patilla. Accolades his time spent gathering information and reviewing several
      possibilities of the taxicab lottery prior to drafting the Ordinance. Said she
      understands how difficult it is to make a life change in a couple of months.
      Expressed anxiety about initiating a lottery so soon and concern that the airport may
      not get the quality of cars or service they have now. Recommended delay of process
      for a couple of months and a lottery process with a 5-year permit instead of a 3-year
      permit. Disagreed with granting all City Taxicab operators Airport permits as
      suggested by several other taxicab operators because service would hurt Oakland
      citizens that need taxi service. She said that taxicabs who are issued airport
      permits in the lottery, should be eliminated from the next lottery.
   > Alternative fuel vehicles (CNG) vehicles are expensive (owner paid $43,000) and
      required at the Airport and cost, won't be recovered if lottery is held for Airport
      permits.
   > Proposes that each taxicab company in the City receive 1 Airport permit, or issue 10
      or more additional Airport taxi permits because City cabs (29-30 taxicab operators)
      have been waiting for years to get an airport permit. SFO allows all cabs to operate
      and SJC assigns taxicabs to a 3-shift schedule. Taxicab operators can work in City
      on day off from Airport.
   > The economy is a mess, if system is working, why change it. Give everyone time
      approximately 1 year to have the lottery. Is there enough business to have a lottery?
   > Having a lottery would change a lifestyle he cannot go back to. This would create a
      hardship on his family. Give a 5yr notice prior to holding a lottery so that operators
      can recoup some of the losses.
   > 4 years ago the Port held a lottery because more taxicabs were needed. More are
      not needed now, leave things the way it is.
   â Friendly and Veterans Cab Company representatives requested more time

Proposed Fee Increase

No discussion. City (Oakland Municipal Code) allows taxicabs to pass vehicle trip fee to
customers.

       Ground Transportation Meeting — Friday, November 14, 2008 at


                                       Page 6 of 7
                                 APPENDIX A

          COMMENTS FROM GROUND TRANSPORTATION MEETINGS

      2:30 p.m. for Taxicab Operators
Operational Issues

Proposed Taxicab Lottery

   â EXPRESS CAB, 7-8 years ago applied for Airport Permit. 10 years of waiting. 29 or
     30 cabs have not benefited from operating at the airport. Can independent cabs be
     given priority in the operation at the airport?
   â PARKWAY/PREMIER 39 , Open airport to everyone (A.B.0 process). 200 drivers
     divide 3 days and all cabs cover streets and airport. Port makes money with
     application, vouchers. Cabs drivers are going to SFO.
   â DABS TAXI – DOROTHY, 20 years of frustration – Political. Applied and never
     considered. Lottery is supposed to be fair. If you look at percentage of larger
     company-it's still not fair. Change the percentage in the # of medallions for larger
     company.
   â QUEEN SHIBA CAB, Each company gets 1 permit or go to A.B.0 schedule.
   â LUXOR CAB-86, Issuing 120 permits. Issue 1 permit to each company (total 65),
     then lottery the remainder permits remainder of medallions.
   â YELLOW 29, Owner/Operator to have opportunity to work at airport. Put city cabs
     into lottery. Should not have a monopoly for taxis. Angry at city.
   â INTERNATIONAL CAB - KOMAL , Even/odd day for all cabs
   â Vehicle coming into airport will be CNG Vehicle. If permits are given for 1-2 years
     and they purchase CNG Vehicle will not re-coup cost.

      Ground Transportation Meeting — Wednesday, December 3, 2008
      at 11:30 a.m. for Taxicab Operators
Operational Issues

Proposed Taxicab Lottery

   â GATEWAY, In agreement with proposal to add the existing 30 non airport taxi airport
     permits. Opposed to a Lottery.
   â BLACKSILVER, Operator commended the Port for early notification in regards to
     future plans. Operator would like to see the new operators go through the
     Ambassador Program for customer service training. (Always add at the source).
   â MOUNTAIN, If a company does not exercise the right to a permit does the permit go
     away? Thank the Port on behalf of the entire group for taking their comments into
     consideration prior to making a final decision which could have had a direct impact
     on most of them.
   â ROYAL CAB, Bring City of Oakland into the airport. Majority agrees.

   Alternate Work Days

   â Various Operators would like the Block Schedule implemented, w ould like the
     Block Schedule with 150 (100/50), Operator would like the odd/even schedule with
     75 operators per shift.




                                    Page 7 of 7
                 Appendix B 2007 - 2008
              Ground Transportation Providers


     HOTEL COURTESY SHUTTLE OPERATORS

                             COMPANY NAME
1    BEST WESTERN INN
2    CLASSIC SHUTTLE SERVICE *
3    COURTYARD BY MARRIOT
4    CROWN PLAZA OAKLAND
 5   EXECUTIVE INN - OAKLAND
6    FAIRFILED INN & SUITES
 7   HILTON GARDEN INN - SDLG
 8   HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS
 9   LA QUINTA - HAYWARD
10   DAYS INN - OAKLAND
11   MARRIOTT COURTYARD -EMERYVILLE
12   OAKLAND AIRPORT HILTON
13   PARK PLAZA HOTEL
14   ECONO LODGE INN & SUITES
15   HAMPTON INN & SUITES - ALAMEDA
16   HOLIDAY INN HOTEL SUITES
17   RICHMOND GROUP CORP
18   SAN LEANDRO MARINA INN
     *Classic Shuttle services 3 Hotels



         SCHEDULED SERVICE OPERATORS

                             COMPANY NAME
  EVAN'S AIRPORTER
2 SONOMA CO. AIRPORT EXPRESS


     OFF-AIRPORT PARKING LOT OPERATORS

                             COMPANY NAME
1    ACE PARKING / QUICK PARK
2    AIRPARK / DOUGLASS PARKING
3    PARK N FLY
4    PARK N TRAVEL
5    PCA / FASTTRAK
6    PROPARK / EXPRESSO




                             Page 3 of 12
              Appendix B 2007 - 2008
           Ground Transportation Providers


     CHARTERS / RESERVATION (SHARED RIDE)

                        COMPANY NAME
 1   lA BEST AIRPORT SHUTTLE
 2   Al AMERICAN SHUTTLE
 3   ABC SHUTTLE SERVICE
 4   AIRLINE COACH SERVICES
 5   AJ CALIFORNIA MINI BUS
 6   BAGADIONG TOUR-TRAVEL
 7   BAY CITY AUTO AUCTION
 8   BAYPORTER EXPRESS
 9   CALIFORNIA WINE TOURS
10   CLASSIC AIRPORT SHUTTLE
11   COACH 21
12   COACH USA	                        •
13   COMPASS TRANSPORTATION
14   CUSTOMER COACHWAYS, INC.
15   DELTA AIRPORT SHUTTLE
16   EARLY BIRD SHUTTLE
17   EAST BAY CONNECTION, INC.
18   EAST BAY SHUTTLE
19   EASTSHORE CHARTER LINES
20   EMERYVILLE SHIPPING COMPANY
21   FAIRFIELD AIRPORTER
22   GENERAL AIRPORT SHUTTLE
23   GOLDEN GATE AUTO AUCTION
24   LEISURE LIVING AND TRANSPORTATION
25   LORRIE'S & TOUR, INC.
26   MARIN AIRPORTER
27   MARIN COUNTY AIRPORT EXPRESS
28   MARIN DOOR TO DOOR
29   MARIN SHUTTLE, INC.
30   MERCURY TOURS
31   MTR WESTERN
32   OAKLAND AIRPORTER
33   PACIFIC COACH BUS SERVICE
34   PROFESSIONAL AIR SHUTTLE SERVICE
35   QUAKE CITY SHUTTLE, INC
36   QUALITY AIRPORT SERVICE
37   REAL AIRPORT SHUTTLE
38   RELIABLE TOURS
39   RITZY AIRPORT SHUTTLE
40   ROYAL COACH TOURS
41   S & S TOURS USA
42   SAN FRANCISCO SHIPPING
43   SHAW TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT
44   SHUTTLE CALIFORNIA
45   SKYLINE COACH INC.
46   SOUTH AND EAST BAY AIRPORTER
47   STOCKTON AIRPORTER
48   STORER TRANSPORTATION SERVICE
49   SUPER SHUTTLE
50   THUNDERSTAR STAGES
51   TOWER TOURS, LLC
52   TRACY AIRPORT SHUTTLE
53   UNITED EXPRESS AIRPORT SHUTTLE
54   VALLEJO AIRPORTER
55   VIP AIRPORT SHUTTLE
56   WELCOME TRANSPORT GROUP
57   WESTERN EAGLE SHUTTLE




                     Page 4 of 12
             Appendix B 2007 - 2008
          Ground Transportation Providers


             LIMOUSINE OPERATORS

                       COMPANY NAME
 1   42ND STREET LIMO
 2   A LIMO AIRPORT SERVICE
 3   A & D LIMOUSINE SERVICE
 4   A BETTER LIMO SERVICE, LLC
 5   A GRAND LIMO SERVICE
 6   A.K. LIMOUSINE
 7   A-1 AIRPORT LIMO
 8   ABC CHAUFFEURED LIMOUSINE
 9   ACE LIMOUSINE & SEDAN SERVICE
10   ADENA AIRPORT ACCESS
11   ADRIATIC SEDAN AND LIMO
12   AFFAIRS N ELEGANCE
13   AIRPORT ACCESS SEDAN
14   AIRPORT COMMUTER LIMO & SEDAN SERVICE
15   ALABORD LIMOUSINE
16   ALADDIN LIMO
17   ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION
18   ALEJANDRO SEDAN SERVICE
19   ALOHA TRANSPORTATION
20   ALWAYS TRANSPORTATION
21   AMBASSADOR AIRPORT SERVICE
22   AN EXTRA LIMO, CORP.
23   ANDIAMO LIVERY MANAGEMENT, LLC
24   ANGEL LIMOUSINE SERVICE
25   APEX TRANSPORTATION
26   AS DIRECTED TRANSPORTATION
27   ASSOCIATED LIMOUSINE
28   ATLAS STAR TRANSPORTATION
29   ATS LIMO & SEDAN SERVICE
30   AVALON LIMO
31   AVALON TRANSPORTATION
32   BALI LIMOUSINE
33   BAUERS LIMOUSINE SERVICES, INC.
34   BAY AREA A-1 LIMO
35   BAY AREA AIRPORT LOCAL
36   BAY CITI LIMO
V    BAYVIEW LIMO
38   BC LIMOUSINE
39   BEST OF THE BEST LIMOUSINE SERVICE
40   BIZMAX LIMO
41   BLACK CARS TRANSPORTATION
42   BLACK DIAMOND LIMOUSINE
43   BLACK TIE LIMOUSINE
44   BLUE BAY LIMO
45   BOSS LIMOUSINES, LLC
46   BOSTON COACH NORTHERN CA CORP
47   BOW TIE LIMOUSINE
48   BUTTERFLY LIMOUSINE SERVICE
49   C & C LIMOUSINE
50   CALIFORNIA PACIFIC LIMOUSINE
51   CALYPSO LIMOUSINE SERVICE
52   CAREY LIMO SF, INC.
53   CHECK IN LIMO AND SEDAN
54   CITY SKYLINE LIMO & SEDAN SERVICE




                    Page 5 of 12
              Appendix B 2007 - 2008
           Ground Transportation Providers


              LIMOUSINE OPERATORS

                        COMPANY NAME
 55   CLS TRANSPORTATION
 56   DAILY LIMO AND SEDAN
 57   DASH LIMOUSINE
 58   DAVE EL SAN FRANCISCO
 59   DAVIS LIMOUSINE, LLC
 60   DELUXE LIMOUSINE SERVICE
 61   DIAMOND LIFE LIMOUSINE SERVICE
 62   DIAMOND LIMOUSINE
 63   DIPLOMAT LIMOUSINE
 64   DIVA LIMOUSINE, LTD
 65   DON'S LIMOUSINE
 66   DOWNING TRANSPORTATION
 67   DPM TRANSPORTATION
 68   DRIVEME TRANSPORTATION
 69   DUGWAY ENTERPRISES
 70   EAGLE TOWN CAR
 71   EAGLE TRANSPORTATION
 72   EAST BAY TRANSPORTATION
 73   ECOLIMO, LLC
 74   EL PASEO LIMOUSINE
 75   ELITE LIMO, INC.
 76   ELITE LIMOUSINE SERVICE
 77   ELITE LIMOUSINES
 78   ELITE SEDAN & LIMOUSINE
 79   EMPIRE CHAUFFEUR SERVICE, LTD
 80   EXCEL SEDAN & LIMO
 81   EXECUTIVE CAR SVC
 82   EXECUTIVE CHOICE LIMO
 83   EXECUTIVE LIMOUSINE
 84   EXECUTIVE LIMOUSINE SERVICE
 85   EXECUTIVE LIVERY SVC
 86   EXECUTIVE SEDAN
 87   EXPRESS LIMO AND SEDAN
 88   FINESSE LIMOUSINE SERVICE
 89   FIVE STAR TRANSPORT AND LIMOUSINE
 90   FOR BIG THINGS LIMOUSINES
 91   FORTUNE LIMOUSINE SERVICE
 92   FRED'S EXECUTIVE LIMO SERVICE
 93   FREMONT LIMOUSINE
 94   FRISCO LIMO
95    GATE LIMO
 96   GATEWAY LIMO
97    GODFATHER'S LIMOUSINE SERVICE
98    GOLD TOWN LIMOUSINE & SEDAN SERVICE
99    GOLDEN RIDE LIMOUSINE
100   GREEN CARPET LIMOUSINE
101   HAFTU TRANSPORTATION
102   HOBO LIMOUSINE
103   HOST LIMOUSINE SERVICES
104   J D LIMOUSINE
105   JET CAR LIMO
106   JOY - RIDE LIMO
107   JULIO'S LIMOUSINE SERVICE
108   L D SEDAN SVC




                     Page 6 of 12
              Appendix B 2007 - 2008
           Ground Transportation Providers


              LIMOUSINE OPERATORS

                        COMPANY NAME
109   LADY L'S LIMO
110   LIMA LIMO SVC
111   LIMO FIESTA
112   LIMO ONE
113   LIMO SERVICES, INC.
114   LIMOUSINE OF BAY AREA
115   LIMOUSINE SVC
116   M D M LIMOUSINE AND SEDAN SERVICE
117   MASTEN LIMO
118   MOSCONE LIMONSINE
119   MUSIC EXPRESS SAN FRANCISCO
120   PACIFIC LIMOUSINE
121   PACIFICA LIMOUSINE CORPORATION
122   PARADISE LIMO SEDAN
123   PAULO HENRIQUE ROSSETTO LIMO SERVICE
124   PLANETTRAN, LLC
125   PREMIER LIMO
126   PRESTIGE LIMOUSINE, INC.
127   PURE LUXURY LIMOUSINE SERVICE, INC.
128   QUICK LIMO
129   QUICKSILVER TOWNCAR
130   R & W TRANSPORTATION MATRIX
131   RELUX SEDAN AND LIMOUSINE
132   RESPECT LIMOUSINE
133   ROCK AND ROLL LIMO
134   RTC CHAUFFEUR
135   SAN FRANCISCO MARRIOT
136   SCOTT LIMOUSINE
137   SEVEN - 24 LIMOUSINE SERVICE
138   SIGNATURE LIMO
139   SILK NATIONWIDE CHAUFFOUROD LIMOUSINE SERVICE
140   SKYLARK LIMOUSINE
141   STRAWBERRY LIMOUSINE, INC.
142   SUPER CITY LIMO
143   TOKYO LIMOUSINE SERVICE
144   UNIVERSAL LIMO
145   V ASSIST, INC.
146   VICTORIA SEDAN & LIMOUSINE SERVICE
147   VIP LIMOUSINE
148   VIRGIN LIMOUSINE
149   YOUR LIMO HAS ARRIVED
150   Z LIMO 4 U




                     Page 7 of 12
               Appendix B 2007 - 2008
            Ground Transportation Providers


     DOOR-TO-DOOR (SHARED RIDE) OPERATORS

                        COMPANY NAME
 1    A-1 EXPRESS SHUTTLE
 2    ACROPOLIS AIRPORT SHUTTLE
 3    AIR TRANSIT SHUTTLE LLC
 4    ALICIA'S SHUTTLE
 5    AMERICA SHUTTLE EXPRESS
 6    ANGEL EXPRESS
 7    APOLLO SHUTTLE SERVICE
 8    ATLAS EXPRESS
 9    AVON AIRPORTER SHUTTLE
10    B.A.B.E.S. AIRPORTER
11    BAY AIRPORTER EXPRESS
12    BAY AREA CONNECTION
13    BAY AREA SHUTTLE
14    BAY TRANSIT SHUTTLE
15    BEST WAY SHUTTLE
16    BRIDGE AIRPORTER EXPRESS
17    CALIFORNIA AIRPORTER INC.
18    CITY EXPRESS SHUTTLE
19    CITY WIDE SHUTTLE
20    COMFORT EXPRESS SHUTTLE
21    EAST BAY AIRPORTER
22    EAST BAY TRANSPORTATION
23    EZ RIDE EXPRESS
24    FLYING EAGLE SHUTTLE
25    HORIZON AIRPORTER
26    INTERNATIONAL SHUTTLE
27    LION AIRPORT SHUTTLE
28    LUCKY SHUTTLE SERVICE
29    LUXOR SHUTTLE
30    ON TIME AIRPORT SHUTTLE
31    PYRAMID AIRPORTER
32    ROYAL SHUTTLE
33    SAFETY EXPRESS SHUTTLE
34    SHUTTLE PRO
35    SILICON VALLEY AIRPORTER
36    SILVERLINE AIRPORTER
37    SUPERPORTER EXPRESS
38    TAKE ME HOME EXPRESS
39    THE SHUTTLE
40    TRAVELERS SHUTTLE EXPRESS
41    TRI CITY AIRPORTER
42    TRI VALLEY AIRPORTER
43    UNITED AIRPORTER EXPRESS
44    US AIRPORTER & LIMO SERVICE
45    US EXPRESS SHUTTLE
46    USA SHUTTLE SERVICE
47    WEST COAST SHUTTLE




                      Page 8 of 12
                                                                               APPENDIX C
                                                        Ground Transportation Revenue Actual and Projected Revenues FY 2005 - 2011
       Gross-Revenue / Trip Fees / Permit Fees            FY05-06      FY06-07       FY07-08       FY08-09     FY09-10      FY10-11              FY11-12              Total
                                                          Actual       Actual         Actual      Projected   Projected    Projected            Projected
RP14   Off-Airport Parking Gross Receipts                  $221,625      $462,729      $425,861     $416,943     $625,415     $833,866           $1,042,358          $4,028,798
RP21   Trip/Permit Fees -Limousine & Cab                   $838,142      $828,509      $717,780     $712,780    $837,196      $837,196             $837,196          $4,771,601
RP25   Trip/Permit Fees- Off-Airport Parking Shuttles      $722,263      $554,875      $319,368     $319,368    $382,641      $382,641             $382,641          $2,681,155
RP26   Trip/Permit Fees-Hotel Courtesy Shuttle             $201,890      $154,864       $73,640      $73,640      $86,567      $86,567              $86,567            $677,167
RP27   Trip/Permit Fees-Ground Transportation              $379,225      $338,145      $229,250     $229,250     $264,500     $264,500             $264,500          $1,704,870
       Subtotal                                          $2,363,143    $2,339,122    $1,765,898   $1,751,980   $2,196,319  $2,404,770            $2,613,262         $13,863,590

       The data in the chart below is used for the cost recovery analysis

                     Trip/Permit Fees                     FY05-06       FY06-07       FY07-08        FY08-09        FY09-10       FY10-11        FY11-12              Total
                                                           Actual       Actual         Actual       Projected      Projected     Projected      Projected
RP21   Limousine & Cab                                     $838,142       $828,509      $717,780      $712,780       $837,196      $837,196        $837,196          $4,771,601
RP25   Off-AP Parking Shuttles                             $722,263       $554,875      $319,368      $319,368       $382,641      $382,641        $382,641          $2,681,155
RP26   Hotel Courtesy Shuttle                              $201,890       $154,864       $73,640       $73,640        $86,567       $86,567         $86,567            $677,167
RP27   Ground Transportation                               $379,225       $338,145      $229,250      $229,250       $264,500      $264,500        $264,500          $1,704,870
       Subtotal                                          $2,141,519     $1,876,393    $1,340,037    $1,335,037     $1,570,904    $1,570,904      $1,570,904          $9,834,792

 1)    Budget FY 07-08 revenue projected $2,632,352 (source Finance) while Actual FY 07-08 revenue was $1,765,898.
 2)    Budget FY 08-09 revenue projected $1,844,359 (source Finance) while Ground Transportation projection
 3)    FY 08-09 revenue for July 08 - Dec 08 trip fees is at $2.50 and gross receipts at 2%, revenue for Jun 09 trip fees of $3.00 and gross
       receipts at 3%.
 4)    FY 08-09, FY 09-10, and FY 10-11, FY11-12 revenue is a projection based on FY 07-08 gross revenue and trip activity.
 5)    Trip fees (RP21-RP27) are estimated by subtracting annual permit fee costs of $300 per vehicle for taxicabs, $300 per company for qualified operator
       and $500 per company for all other operators.
 6)    Lower Limousine Trips - due to "Exempt Qualified Operator Status" per Port Ordinance 3923 ratified August 2006, where Limos making less than
       120 annual trips pay a $300 flat fee per company which covers (120 trips @ $2.50) instead of the $500 and have no additional trip fees.
 7)    The amended ordinance will reflect a new annual fee of $360 per company for the "Exempt Qualified Operator" due to the $3.00 per trip increase.
 8)    The Roadways and Civil Sitework project total budget was $90 milllion-M, $40.1 M allocated to parking lot and related faciliities, $19.2 M funded by PFCs,
       $14.2M is non-PFC funded. Of $90M, $16.5M roadways and $14.2M curb/canopies leaves $30.7 million eligible for cost recovery.
 9)    Per Aviation Planning and Finance - Capital Cost of $30.7M for the roadways and curbsides have an asset life of 30-years.
 10)   Amortized Capital Cost will be approximately $1,022,000 per year as provided by Finance.
 11)   The remaining capital to recover from the $30.7M will not include off-airport gross receipts and is $25,342,052 	         (Sum of FY05-08 is $5,357,948)




       Agenda_4 Attachments 011409
                                                                                    APPENDIX D
                                Ground Transportation Permit & Trip Fees Analysis
FY 07-08
                                                           Permit Fees                                                        Per Trip Fees
                                                                                    Total annual
      Ground Transportation     Number of    Number of     Fee per        Fee per    permit fees                    Annual trips     Total per-trip
      Providers                 companies     vehicles     vehicle       company      collected     Trip fee         FY 07-08       fees collected      Total fees
      Taxicabs                     N/A          119         $300            N/A        $35,700       $2.50
      Limousines                   40                        N/A           $300        $12,000       $2.50
      Limousines                   120                       N/A           $500        $60,000       $2.50
RP21	 Subtototal Limo & Cabs                                                          $107,700       $2.50               244,032         $610,080           $717,780
RP25 Off-AP Parking Shuttles         6           67          N/A          $500          $3,000       $2.50               126,547         $316,368           $319,368
RP26 Hotel Courtesy Shuttle         17          40           N/A          $500          $8,500       $2.50                26,056          $65,140            $73,640
RP27 Ground Transportation          97          619          N/A          $500        $48,500        $2.50                72,300         $180,750           $229,250

       Total                                                                         $167,700                            468,935       $1,172,338         $1,340,038

FY 08-09
                                                           Permit Fees                                                        Per Trip Fees
                                                                                    Total annual                                      Estimated
      Ground Transportation     Number of    Number of     Fee per        Fee per    permit fees                    Annual trips    Total per-trip	   Estimated Total
      Providers                 companies     vehicles     vehicle       company      collected    Trip fee a)      FY 07-08 c)         fees	              fees
      Taxicabs                     N/A          119         $300            N/A        $35,700           $2.50
      Limousines                   40                        N/A           $300        $12,000           $2.50
      Limousines                   110                       N/A           $500        $55,000           $2.50
RP21 Subtototal Limo & Cabs                                                           $102,700           $2.50           244,032         $610,080           $712,780
RP25 Off-AP Parking Shuttles         6           67          N/A          $500          $3,000           $2.50 b)        126,547         $316,368           $319,368
RP26 Hotel Courtesy Shuttle         18          41           N/A          $500          $9,000           $2.50            25,856          $64,640            $73,640
RP27 Ground Transportation          106         634          N/A          $500         $53,000           $2.50            70,500         $176,250           $229,250

       Total                                                                         $167,700                            466,935       $1,167,338         $1,335,038

FY 09-10
                                                           Permit Fees                                                        Per Trip Fees
                                                                                    Total annual                                      Estimated
      Ground Transportation     Number of    Number of     Fee per        Fee per    permit fees                    Annual trips    Total per-trip Estimated Total
      Providers                 companies     vehicles     vehicle       company      collected     Trip fee         FY 07-08           fees	            fees
      Taxicabs                     N/A          119         $300            N/A       $35,700        $3.00
      Limousines                   40                        N/A           $360        $14,400       $3.00
      Limousines                   110                       N/A           $500        $55,000       $3.00
RP21 Subtototal Limo & Cabs                                                           $105,100       $3.00               244,032         $732,096           $837,196
RP25 Off-AP Parking Shuttles         6          67           N/A           $500         $3,000       $3.00               126,547         $379,642           $382,642
RP26 Hotel Courtesy Shuttle          18         47           N/A           $500         $9,000       $3.00                25,856,         $77,568            $86,568
RP27 Ground Transportation          106         634          N/A           $500        $53,000       $3.00                70,500         $211,500           $264,500

       Total	                                                                                 $170,100                   466,935       $1,400,806         $1,570,906
  a)   Trip fee of $2.50 will increase to $3.00 effective July 1, 2009
  b)   Trip fee of $3.00 will be implemented for all Parking Lot Operators effective July 1, 2009
  c)   Annual Trips FY 07-08 is based on FY 07-08 revenues and Number of companies and vehicles from 2008.
  d)   FY 08-10 Number of Companies and Vehicles are based on 2008 data.
  e)   FY 07-08 permit and trip fee calculations for are based on 2007 vehicle permit levels.
                                                   APPENDIX E

                  OAKLAND AIRPORT AND CITY OF OAKLAND TAXICAB DATA

Table 1 has the current number of Airport issued taxicab permits

                    TABLE 1
       Current Airport Taxicab Companies             # Of Companies      Taxi %    Airport Cabs
Friendly Cab / Yellow Cab / Metro Yellow                     3            41 %          49
Veterans                                                     1            19%           23
Various Companies                                           34            40%           47
                     Totals                                 38           100%           119

Table 2 has the current number of City issued taxicab medallions

                     TABLE 2
      City of Oakland Taxicab Medallions               Companies         Cabs #       City %
Friendly Cab - Metro Yellow - Yellow Cab                   3              174        57.24%
Veterans                                                   1              43          14.14%
International / Quick – 6 cabs each co.                    2               12         3.95%
Golden/Traveller - 5 cabs each co.                         2               10         3.29%
Blue Sky - 3 cabs                                          1                3         0.99%
ABC/DeSoto/Royal/ VIP/Regent/Waterfront 2                  6               12         3.95%
Various (1 vehicle fleet)                                 50               50         16.45%
                      Totals                              65              304        100.00%

Total number of City Medallions is 315, but 11 are currently inactive. City will re-issue
these Medallions through an RFP Process
                                                APPENDIX F

    U.S. AIRPORTS WITH OFF-AIRPORT PARKING LOT OPERATORS MARKET ACCESS FEES
                       Evaluation of Off-Airport Parking Lot Access Fee
                                 Oakland International Airport

                                          2008 SURVEY

                                                       Originating
                       Airport                       passengers (a)         Access fee (b)
 1 Kansas City International                           5,832,659               10%
 2 Raleigh-Durham International                        5,026,226               10%
 3 Bob Hope (Burbank)                                  2,600,000               10% (c)
 4 Port Columbus International                         7,719,340               10%
 5 Norman Mineta San Jose International                5,325,718                8% (c)
 6 Memphis International                               3,049,644               10% (d)
 7 Norfolk International                               1,853,620                8% (e)
 8 Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International             11,589,902               8% (0
 9 Portland International                              7,300,000                7%
10 Orlando International                               18,176,780              10% (g)	 •
11 Austin -Bergstrom International                     4,473,001          no % rent (h)
12 Bradley International (Hartford)                    3,500,000                4%
13 Albuquerque International Sunport                   3,346,025                2%
14 Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International          2,448,000             2:50%


   Source: Information provided by Ground Transportation individuals of their corresponding Airport

   (a) Enplaned Passengers from Domestic and International flights for 2007
   (b) Off-airport parking lot access fee calculated and charged as a percentage of gross revenues
       derived from airport business
   (c) Per-trip fee charged in addition
   (d) Plus dwell fee of $2.50 over 15 minutes
   (e) Currently no operators, if there were would charge 8%
   (t) 4% for first $20K gross revenue and 8% for anything above $20K
   (g) Plus commercial lane fee of $.70 for 1st 10min for class 1 vehicles
   (h) Currently 2 operators. $.15/# of daily occupied space. 1 operator is charged roadway fee of.
       $77K annually. Increased permit fee of $400/vehicle/year. Airport formally charged 4% of gross
       receipts
       Off-Airport Parking Operator Gross-Revenue fee survey completed November 2008.
     m




rn
01
                                                            BOARD MTG. DATE: 02/03/09


                                     AGENDA REPORT

TITLE: Ratification of License and Concession Agreement with KaiserAir, Inc. at
       a Monthly Rental of $18,344.52 (Port Building L-310-East), 8991 Earhart
       Road, North Airport)

AMOUNT:	          $18,344.52 Per Month

PARTIES INVOLVED:

            Corporate Name/Principal                        Location
            KaiserAir, Inc.                                 Oakland, CA
            Ronald J. Guerra, President                     Oakland, CA
            James Strickland, Chief Financial Officer       Oakland, CA

TYPE OF ACTION:	                      Resolution

SUBMITTED BY:	                        Steven Grossman, Director of Aviation

COMMITTEE ASSIGNED: 	                 Aviation

SCHEDULED FOR COMMITTEE: January 26, 2009

APPROVED BY:	                         Omar Benjamin, Executive Director

This action would ratify a one-year License and Concession Agreement (L&C) with KaiserAir,
Inc. (KaiserAir) for aircraft storage and maintenance. KaiserAir and the Director of Aviation
executed the L&C pursuant to Section 8(f) of the Board of Port Commissioners By-Laws and
Administrative Rules (the "Board's By-Laws").

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
KaiserAir has been a North Field tenant for over 25 years where it functions as a Fixed Base
Operator (FBO) via occupancy of approximately 990,965sq of hangar, office, shop, storage,
parking and apron space under several agreements with the Port. KaiserAir uses its premises
for a complete range of FBO aircraft services including maintenance, fueling, flight planning
and charter operations. The North Airport's FY2009 revenue forecast indicates that KaiserAir
will pay approximately $2,030,113.00 in rent and fuel flowage fees.

Section 8(f) of the Board's By-Laws authorizes the Executive Director or his designee to enter
into rental agreements subject to subsequent ratification by the Board within 90 days of the .
execution of the agreement. If the Board declines to ratify the rental agreement, the
agreement terminates 120 days after the execution date of the agreement.

ANALYSIS
KaiserAir is requesting an additional 27,091sf of office, shop, hangar, apron and unpaved land
for aircraft storage and maintenance functions in Port Building L-310 (East) which was
vacated by Pegasus Aviation, Inc. on November 30, 2008. Thus, KaiserAir proposes to enter
                                                               BOARD MTG. DATE: 02/03/09


into the Port's standard one-year License and Concession Agreement for the purpose of FBO
customer service on the North Airport under the following key business terms and conditions,
which are consistent with the one-year agreements entered into between the Port and other
tenants on the North Airport:


Premises: Approximately 27,091 total square feet (2,520sf of office, 12,648sf of hangar,
           2,058sf of shop, 8,250sf of apron and 1,615sf of unpaved land) located in and
           adjacent to Port Building L-310 (East), North Airport.

Use:          Aircraft storage and maintenance.

Term:         One year; subject to 30-day termination by either party.

Rental:       Office       = $ 4,193.95            ( 2,520sf @ $1.6643/sf/mo)
              Apron              1,026.24          ( 8,250sf @ 0.1244/sf/mo)
              Hangar            11,418.69          (12,648sf @ 0.9028/sf/mo)
              Shop               1,593.14          ( 2,058sf @ 0.7741/sf/mo)
              Unpaved Land         112.50          ( 1,615sf @ 0.0697/sf/mo)
              Total Rent   = $ 18,344.52            per month

              Subject to annual increases via the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose consumer
              price index (CPI); Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers

Performance
Deposit:	   $55,034.00, subject to be increased at the same time and at the same
            percentage increase as the monthly rent.

Capital Contribution And Maintenance Responsibilities:
             The Port shall have no capital contribution obligation; exterior walls and roof are
              the Port's only maintenance responsibilities.

Not moving forward with approval of KaiserAir's License and Concession Agreement would
result in the termination of the License and Concession Agreement and diminish KaiserAir's
ability to provide adequate services to its current and prospective FBO customers as well as
render a loss of revenue to the Port.

BUDGET & FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed action would reflect a minimal net increase in rent of $227.64 over the revenue
budget for FY 08-09, that is, new revenue from KaiserAir effective December 1, 2008 offset by
lost budgeted revenue from Pegasus' vacating the same premises beginning November 30,
2008.

STAFFING IMPACT
There will be no change in Port staffing as a result of entering into this agreement.



                                               2
                                                               BOARD MTG. DATE: 02/03/09


SUSTAINABILITY
There are no obvious environmental opportunities involved in this project.

ENVIRONMENTAL
The proposed agreement is categorically exempt from requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the Port CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(p),
which 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.

MARITIME AND AVIATION PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT (MAPLA)
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.

OWNER CONTROLLED INSURANCE PROGRAM (OCIP)
Owner Controlled Insurance Program does not apply to this agreement.

GENERAL PLAN
This action does not meet the definition of "project" under the City of Oakland General Plan and
no conformity determination is required.

LIVING WAGE
Based upon a review of the terms of the agreement and information provided by the tenant, it
appears that the living wage requirements set forth in Section 728 of the Charter of the City of
Oakland apply to this agreement because the contract is for a value greater than $50,000, as
calculated under Section 728, and the tenant employs more than 20 employees working on Port-
related work. Port Ordinance No. 3666, as amended, does not apply (tenancy agreements are not
subject to Port Ordinance No. 3666).

OPTIONS

       1. Ratify the License and Concession Agreement as outlined above, thereby permitting
          KaiserAir, Inc. to provide services to its current and prospective clients and which would
          result in the Port generating $18,344.52 per month of revenue;

       2. Reject the License and Concession Agreement with KaiserAir, Inc., which would result in
         termination of the agreement, would not generate $18,344.52 per month of revenue to
         the Port and would deny KaiserAir, Inc. use of the additional premises needed to service
          its clients or,

       3. Reject and terminate the License and Concession Agreement with KaiserAir, Inc. but
         recommend different terms and conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Board pass a resolution ratifying the above-described License and
Concession Agreement with KaiserAir, Inc.


                                                3
	




                                                                                                 BOARD MTG. DATE: 02/03/09



    Board of Port Commissioners                                     Ratification of License and Concession
           Calendar Item                                            Agreement with KaiserAir, Inc. at a Monthly Rental
                                                                    of $18,344.52 (Port Building L-310 (East), 8991
                                                                    Earhart Road, North Airport)




                                               OAKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
                                                       NORTH AIRPORT




                                                                                      KaiserAir, Inc.
                                                                                   . , BOUNEikliV OP ,'
                                                                                       ASSIG.NrEW*REA.:
                                                                      /Approx. 27,091sf
                                                                   j	i              7.:—.---)—..----,-;;;;LI

                 - "'''' -- : \ ---11-.. ti,	 al	 ; IL-L—:::::-.
                                                     '\-------:—.1     ..-	    .....,.........-Weg- : 5.----
                                                                                                      ..._
                                      " '''.......---3.1.1:'1.-:                     ...,-----:	
                                                                               L. 23..1 T-1	               .-....--
                                                                                                            Imv
                                                 .                                                                     '
                          --,4°-s-.	
                                                        -..,	
                                                                6
                                                                              JI         \-.4-1,_-__L.J..J. 	X	    L
                            --......=,1._ 50
                         %L 505.1,	
                   . . .--
                 ....-=_-.3 -
                    _- _-
                           eRhta                                                                                  L '1!
                             ).l'''	                                    tiN
                               -.




         Airport Properties                                                                             Oakland
                                                                                                  International Airport
                                                                                                      North Airport
                                                                                                    Map Not to Scale




                                                                    4
CD
rn
                                                                  BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09



                                    AGENDA REPORT
TITLE:	                 First Reading of Ordinance Approving the Terms and Conditions and
                        Authorizing the Execution of an Airline Operating Agreement with
                        Allegiant Air, LLC at Oakland International Airport With an Anticipated
                        Monthly Revenue of $5,000 (#1 Airport Drive, South Airport)

AMOUNT:	                $5,000 Per Month

PARTIES INVOLVED:

                        Corporate Name/Principal                             Location
                        Allegiant Air, LLC                                   Las Vegas, NV
                         Maurice J. Gallagher, Jr., President & CEO
                         Andrew C. Levy, CFO

TYPE OF ACTION:	                            Ordinance

SUBMITTED BY:	                              Steven Grossman, Director of Aviation

COMMITTEE ASSIGNED:	                        Aviation

SCHEDULED FOR COMMITTEE: January 26, 2009

APPROVED BY:	                               Omar Benjamin, Executive Director

This action would approve the terms and conditions of the Port's standardized Airline
Operating Agreement with Allegiant Air, LLC (Allegiant Air). This action would also
authorize the Executive Director to execute the agreement.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2000, staff and representatives of the major carriers serving the Airport negotiated the
final terms and conditions of a new standardized Airline Operating Agreement. All regularly
scheduled passenger and cargo airlines operating at the Airport have entered into an
Airline Operating Agreement. All airlines subject to this agreement pay fees to the Airport
pursuant to the Rates & Charges ordinance.

ANALYSIS
Allegiant Air has been authorized to provide scheduled airline service between Oakland
and Bellingham, Washington. Allegiant Air will operate from United Airlines' ticket counters.
In addition, Allegiant Air will be utilizing common Airport facilities including holdrooms,
loading bridges and baggage claim. Allegiant Air will provide service as follows:

     •    Aircraft type: MD-83
     •    Initial schedule and frequency: Monday and Friday, arrival at 5:05pm, departure at
          5:45pm
     •    Initial destination: Bellingham, Washington
Allegiant Air 020309	                              1
                                                              BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09



BUDGET & FINANCIAL IMPACT
Based on Allegiant Air's flight schedule, anticipated passenger load factors, forecasted
landing weights and FY09 Rates & Charges, anticipated revenue to the Port should
average $5,000 per month (landing fees and facilities charges). This revenue replaces
budgeted revenues anticipated from airlines which have recently stopped operations at
OAK. Port Finance has completed a credit screening of Allegiant Air and concurs with a
performance deposit of $30,000.

STAFFING IMPACT
There will be no change in Port staffing as a result of entering into this agreement.

SUSTAINABILITY
There are no obvious environmental opportunities involved in entering into the agreement.

ENVIRONMENTAL

CEQA Determination
This project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines pursuant to Section 15301, Existing
Facilities. CEQA does not apply to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing,
licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical
equipment or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond
that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination.

In addition, this project has been determined to be categorically exempt from CEQA
Guidelines pursuant to Section 15300.4 and Port CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (p)
(Existing Facilities). Subsection (p) categorically exempts the execution of 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.

Mitigation
No construction activities will occur. This project will not have any significant impacts to the
environment; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

Related Plans and Policies
This project does not require mitigation measures; therefore, there are no related or
adopted plans for this project.

Environmental Compliance
Allegiant Air will provide scheduled airline service at the Airport. Activities may involve
handling of waste, chemicals and/or hazardous materials. Allegiant Air will properly store,
handle, and/or dispose of materials as required by local, state, and federal regulations.

This project will not disturb soil or groundwater.

Allegiant Air 020309	                           2
                                                               BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09


MARITIME AND AVIATION PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT (MAPLA)
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.

OWNER CONTROLLED INSURANCE PROGRAM (OCIP)
Owner Controlled Insurance Program does not apply to this agreement.

GENERAL PLAN
This action does not meet the definition of "project' under the City of Oakland General
Plan, and no conformity determination is required.

LIVING WAGE
Based upon a review of the terms of the agreement and information provided by the tenant,
it appears that living wage requirements do not apply (tenancy agreements are not subject
to Port Ordinance No. 3666; Section 728 of the Charter does not apply to tenants that
employ fewer than 21 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 all of its obligations.

OPTIONS
The Federal Aviation Administration's Grant Assurances, Section 22, Economic
Discrimination, provide in part that "(each airport operator) will make the airport available as
an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types,
kinds and classes of aeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities
offering services to the public at the airport." Allegiant Air is an FAA-certified air carrier and
its proposed air service can be accommodated at the Airport. It is prudent for the Board to
authorize execution of the Airline Operating Agreement.

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board give first reading to an ordinance approving the terms
and conditions of the Airline Operating Agreement with Allegiant Air, LLC and authorize the
execution of the agreement, subject to the Port Attorney's review and approval as to form
of the agreement.




Allegiant Air 020309	                           3
0)

CD

rn
01
                                                                        BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09



                                           AGENDA REPORT
TITLE:                        Ratification of a Stipulation between Skybus Airlines, Inc. and the Port to
                              Terminate Certain Agreements with the Port and for Skybus Airlines, Inc.
                              to Pay the Port $42,773.42 in Past Costs and Rejection Damages
                              (#1 Airport Drive, South Airport)

AMOUNT:	                      $42,773.42

PARTIES INVOLVED:

                Corporate Name/Principal                                         Location
                Skybus Airlines, Inc.                                            Columbus, Ohio
                  Bill Diffenderffer, Chairman, CEO & President
                  Dennis Carvill, VP Airports — Ground Operations

TYPE OF ACTION:	                                  Resolution
SUBMITTED BY:	                                    Steven Grossman, Director of Aviation
COMMITTEE ASSIGNED:	                             Aviation

SCHEDULED FOR COMMITTEE: January 26, 2009

APPROVED BY:	                                     Omar Benjamin, Executive Director

This action would ratify the Executive Director's execution of a Stipulation between
Skybus Airlines, Inc. ("Skybus") and the Port of Oakland covering Skybus' rejection
through bankruptcy proceedings of certain agreements at Oakland International Airport
and the payment by Skybus to the Port of $42,773.42 in rental, rejection claims, and other
charges. This amount represents the Port's total claim against Skybus.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Skybus commenced service at the Airport in June 2007 with daily flights to its Columbus,
Ohio hub. Skybus had entered into an Airline Operating Agreement (AOA) that covered its
operations on the airfield and within the common areas of the terminal. In addition, Skybus
had executed an Annex "A" Space/Use Permit (SUP) which covered its use of spaces
within the terminal building. For these two agreements, the Port is holding cash totaling
$190,000 which satisfies the required security deposits.

On April 5, 2008, Skybus declared bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code and announced it would immediately cease its operations. Skybus' last flight
departed Oakland on April 5th.




                          	
Skybus-(02-03-09) FINAL                                  1
                                                            BOARD MTG. DATE: 02/03/09



 Under its agreements, Skybus owes the Port the following:

     + Various charges incurred prior to the April 5, 2008 bankruptcy filing totaling
       $17,905.17 which includes space rentals, landing fees, secondary gate use,
       baggage, ID badging, utilities and late fees (the "Pre-Petition Claim");

     + Additional charges incurred from the date of filing (April 5, 2008) through the date
       Skybus fully vacated the Airport (May 31, 2008) totaling $14,923.21 which includes
       space rentals and late fees (the Post-Petition Claim");

     + Damages totaling $8,076.00 resulting from Skybus' termination of the AOA and the
       SUP, covering the rental charges for the thirty-day period from June 1, 2008 through
       June 30, 2008 (the "Rejection Claim"); and,

     + Removal and repair costs totaling $1,869.04 incurred by Aviation Facilities
       associated with Skybus' abandonment in place of its two free-standing self-service
       check-in units in the Terminal 1 ticketing lobby (the "Administrative Claim").

ANALYSIS

With the assistance of outside bankruptcy counsel, the Port and Skybus have negotiated
the Stipulation which:

     1. Allowed the Port to apply a portion of the cash deposit to clear the:

              n $17,905.17 Pre-Petition Claim;

              n $14,923.21 Post-Petition Claim;

              n $8,076.00 Rejection Claim; and,

              n $1,869.04 Administrative Claim.

    2. Authorized the Port to return to Skybus the remaining $147,226.58 of the security
       deposits ($190,000.00 - $17,905.17 - $14,923.21 - $8,076.00 - $1,869.04).

Outside counsel, the Port Attorney's Office, Port Finance and Aviation determined that
entering into the Stipulation would be the most expeditious and economical way of
resolving Skybus' bankruptcy and immediately collecting the $42,773.42 owed to the Port
by Skybus.




Skybus-(02-03-09) FINAL	                          2
                                                            BOARD MTG. DATE: 02/03/09


BUDGET & FINANCIAL IMPACT

Skybus filed for bankruptcy while staff was developing the FY08-09 Budget, so no
revenues from Skybus' Operation at the Airport have been budgeted for that Fiscal Year.
The FY07-08 Budget anticipated that Skybus would continue to operate at the Airport and
occupy its spaces on an on-going basis. Since the total amount of the Pre-Petition Claim,
the Post-Petition Claim plus the Rejection Claim covers projected rental through
June 2008, there was no revenue shortfall in the rental accounts for FY07-08. However,
there was a deficit of approximately $45,000 ($15,000 per month for the balance of April
and all of May and June) for unearned landing fees, secondary jetway charges, and
utilities.

STAFFING IMPACT

There is no staffing impact as a result of entering into the Stipulation.

SUSTAINABILITY

There are no obvious opportunities to enhance sustainability associated with this action.

Environmental

CEQA Determination
This project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines pursuant to Section 15300.4 and Port CEQA
Guidelines Section 15301 (p) (Existing Facilities). Subsection (p) categorically exempts the
execution of 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.

Environmental Compliance
Skybus will no longer be providing passenger services at OAK. Therefore there will not be
any handling of hazardous materials, waste or any other pollutants associated with Skybus
operations.

Mitigation
No construction activities will occur as part of this termination. This project will not have
any significant impacts to the environment; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

Related Plans and Policies
This project does not require mitigation measures; therefore, there are no related or
adopted plans for this project.




Skybus-(02-03-09) FINAL	                        3
                                                           BOARD MTG. DATE: 02/03/09


MARITIME AND AVIATION PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT (MAPLA)

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.

OWNER CONTROLLED INSURANCE PROGRAM (OCIP)

Owner Controlled Insurance Program does not apply to these agreements.

GENERAL PLAN

Pursuant to Section 727 of the City of Oakland Charter, this project has been determined to
conform to the policies for the transportation designation of the Oakland General Plan.

LIVING WAGE

Neither the Port's Living Wage Ordinance (Port Ordinance No. 3666) nor the living wage
requirements set forth in Section 728 of the Charter of the City of Oakland apply to this
Section because the action requested is not for a "Port Contract" as defined by the Port
Ordinance No. 3666 and Charter 728.

OPTIONS

     1. Ratify the Executive Director's execution of the Stipulation with Skybus Airlines, Inc.
        as outlined above.

    2. Direct staff to (i) advise the Bankruptcy Court that ratification of the Stipulation was
       not obtained, (ii) ascertain the implications of such action, and (iii) negotiate new
       settlement terms with Skybus. This is not recommended as the Port's deadline to
       object to Skybus' rejection of the AOA and the SUP has already passed.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Board ratify the Executive Director's execution of the Stipulation
with Skybus Airlines, Inc. which will result in (i) Skybus immediately paying to the Port
$42,773.42 representing the total of the Pre-Petition Claim ($17,905.17), the Post-Petition
Claim ($14,923.21), the Rejection Claim ($8,076.00), plus the Administrative Claim
($1,869.04), and (ii) rejection of all agreements between the Port and Skybus. The Port
Attorney has approved the Stipulation as to form and legality.




Skybus-(02-03-09) FINAL	                       4
     rn



0
co
rn
                                                            BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/03/09



                                AGENDA REPORT
         	
TITLE:              Submittal of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Application #14 to the
                    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the amount of $293,000,000
AMOUNT:	           $293,000,000

PARTIES INVOLVED:

                    Corporate Name/Principal                Location
                    Federal Aviation Administration         Burlingame, CA


TYPE OF ACTION:	                        Resolution
SUBMITTED BY:	                          Steven Grossman, Director of Aviation
COMMITTEE ASSIGNED:	                   Aviation
SCHEDULED FOR COMMITTEE: January 26, 2009

APPROVED BY:	                          Omar Benjamin, Executive Director

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Oakland International Airport (the Airport) has participated in the federal. Passenger Facility
Charge Program since 1992. The program allows airports to impose a service fee on all
revenue passengers to help fund facility improvements and upgrades. The current amount
of this fee is $4.50 per revenue passenger. The Airport has filed 13 separate applications
during this period with a total approved collection and use authority of approximately $368
million dollars. PFC 13 covered 90% of the Terminal 2 expansion and 30% of the
roadways projects. Nearly all of the project work in this application is now complete.

The estimated expiration date for this current collection authority is March 1. 2010. This
date is estimated based on passenger enplanement forecasts and the assumption there
will be no increase in the collection amount. Airports Council International (ACI), the airport
trade organization, has been lobbying congress to increase the PFC level to the $6 — 7.50
range.

The Board will need to approve each individual future project. Inclusion of projects in this
PFC application does not obligate the Airport to complete them. An approved collection
and use authority for a specific project allows the Airport to draw on these federally
administered funds at such time as they are initiated by the Airport. In the past, there have
been examples of projects that were approved for PFC collection but were never initiated
due to changing needs at the Airport.
                                                                                           BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/03/09


ANALYSIS

Aviation Planning and Development staff has been working with the FAA to ensure that
PFC funds are properly aligned with the capital needs of the Airport. In order to keep our
federal funding sources current and focused on the present needs of the Airport, periodic
applications and amendments are submitted to the FAA in order to ensure adequate
funding levels.

PFC 14 is the next application in our ongoing participation in the PFC Program. Table 1
lists the ten projects proposed for collection and use authority


                                                               TABLE 1

                                                          Estimated      Estimated PFC                      TOTAL PFC
Project Description                                      Project Cost        Funds       Interest             Funds             Timing
Terminal 1 Rehabilitation and Retrofit	                 $ 218,884,000	 $	 200,118,000	 $ 11,110,000	       $ 211,228,000 Current/Future
Passenger Boarding Bridges	                                17,423,000	       17,391,000	    836,000	          18,227,000 Current/Future/Past
ADA Access Improvements and Programs	                      20,794,000	       20,559,000	  1,149,000	          21,708,000 Current/Future
M-130 Roof Replacement	                                      3,370,000	       3,370,000	    202,000	           3,572,000 Future
Perimeter Airfield Dike Seismic Enhancement Project 	        5,000,000	       5,000,000	    300,000	           5,300,000 Future
Runway 11/29 Light Collar Replacement 	                        250,000	         247,000	     10,000	             257,000 Past
Airport Security Enhancements	                              3,040,000	        3,040,000	    184,000	           3,224,000 Future/Past
ATP Local Share Projects	                                 108,611,000	       23,074,000	  1,363,000	          24,437,000 Current/Future
PFC Administration Cost - Port of Oakland 	                    757,000 	        757,000	    230,713	             988,000 Administration
Owner Controlled Insurance Reimbursement (OCIP)             4,600,000	        4,278,000	                       4,278,000 Past

TOTAL                                                   $ 382,729,000	   $	   277,834,000	 $ 15,385,000	   $ 293,219,000



The ten projects listed above represent three different categories of PFC collection and use
authority. The first category is current or future projects that are either planned or are in
design. The second category consists of projects that are complete and represent
reimbursement for past expenses. .Past projects total approximately $23 Million dollars.
The last category are projects that will reimburse the Port for the administrative staff costs
in applying for, managing, and tracking PFC funds.

BUDGET & FINANCIAL IMPACT

As noted, the proposed PFC Application 14 would result in approximately $293 million in
additional collection and use authority and extend the PFC collection period by
approximately eleven years (assuming current reduced forecast activity levels and no
increase in the per passenger PFC amount). This additional authority will offset costs that
would otherwise be included in Airline rates and charges, thereby helping the Airport
maintain a competitive rate structure. The FAA does not require any matching grant or
local money to expend PFC funds. Airlines collect the PFC directly from passengers and
remit the proceeds, less a $0.11 administrative charge, directly to the Port. The Port keeps
these funds in a restricted account that can only be drawn down for approved PFC project
costs. PFC restricted accounts are not considered part of the Port cash reserves or assets,
nor are the balances included in any debt service coverage ratio.

                                                                     2
                                                          BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/03/09


As shown in Table 1, a number of the proposed projects in this application represent past
expenses. In total, these past expenses represent approximately $23 Million in
reimbursable project costs. The Port will be able to draw down these funds once the new
application is approved from the restricted PFC account. In the past, the Port has used its
own financing capacity to carry the bulk of project costs that would ultimately be paid with
PFC's. With this new application, the Port will both be reimbursed for past project costs
and will have the ability to draw down PFC funds to cover short-term financing costs for
future projects. The application includes over $15M in finance costs to cover Port expense
in carrying commercial paper and other short-term financing. The net effect of these
reimbursements for past projects and current finance costs will be an increase in available
Port cash for other uses.

STAFFING IMPACT

This project will be managed by existing Port Aviation Planning and Development staff.
Therefore, there are no anticipated staffing impacts associated with this proposed Board
action. Since this application includes partial reimbursement for Port staff administration
costs, it will have the net effect of reducing Port personnel costs.

SUSTAINABILITY

The sustainability opportunities already incorporated into the projects to be funded by this
application would be unaffected by the proposed Board action.

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 all of the individual projects funded with PFC's have
already undergone individual environmental review, 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.

MARITIME AND AVIATION PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT (MAPLA)

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

OWNER CONTROLLED INSURANCE PROGRAM (OCIP)

This action is not subject to OCIP.




                                             3
                                                             BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/03/09


GENERAL PLAN

This action is administrative and will not directly include any alteration of property.

LIVING WAGE

The living wage requirements set forth in Section 728 of the Charter of the City of Oakland
and Port Ordinance Number 3666, as amended, do not apply.

OPTIONS

The following two options are provided for the Board's consideration. Option 2 is
recommended.

Option 1: Do not authorize staff to submit PFC Application #14. This would result in a PFC
collection lapse beginning approximately in March, 2010. The Port would then have the
option of using other Port cash to cover the cost of major capital improvements at the
Airport. The Port would need to borrow funds for a longer period and cover interest costs
until the projects were approved in a PFC application. A more likely scenario would see the
cancellation of major infrastructure rehabilitation and improvement projects. In addition, the
Airport would not be able to draw down approximately $23 Million in past project costs.

Option 2: Authorize staff to submit PFC Application #14 to the FAA on behalf of Oakland
International Airport.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Board authorize the Executive Director to submit a new
application to the FAA for PFC Application #14.




                                                4
rn

cfl
                                                            BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09



                                 AGENDA REPORT
TITLE:	           Ratification of Submittal of Applications to the Federal Aviation
                   Administration (FAA) in the Amount of $1,843,521

AMOUNT:	          $1,843,521

PARTIES INVOLVED:

                   Corporate Name                              Location
                   Federal Aviation Administration             Burlingame, CA
                    Robin K. Hunt
                    Manager, Airports District Office

TYPE OF ACTION:	                Resolution

SUBMITTED BY:	                  Steve Grossman, Director of Aviation

COMMITTEE ASSIGNED: Aviation

HEARD BY COMMITTEE: January 26, 2008

APPROVED BY:	                   Omar Benjamin, Executive Director

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) was established by the Airport and Airway
Improvement Act of 1982, and amended by the Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity
Expansion Act of 1987. Under this program, which is administered by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), grants are made to public agencies and, in some cases, private owners
or entities, for the planning and development of public-use airports. The FAA provides two
funding sources to support the AIP: 1) entitlement funds; and, 2) discretionary funds.
Entitlement funds are allocated annually based on the number of enplaning passengers and air
cargo traffic units per airport; discretionary funds are made available above and beyond the
entitlement funding levels for certain projects that the FAA regards as high priority in nature,
principally involving improvements to airfield capacity and safety.

The FAA notified the Port that approximately $1.8 million in entitlement funds were available
under the AIP for federal FY 2009 (10/1/08 – 09/30/09), Part A. It is anticipated that the Port
will apply for the remaining funding when FY 2009, Part B grant becomes available.

On January 16, 2009, Port staff submitted an application for $1.8 million in requested federal
funds for the East Apron, Phase 3 (EAP3) Improvements and Overlay of Taxilane Sierra and
West Ramp Area, South Field, OIA project.

Projects utilizing these Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant funds will be subject to the
Port of Oakland's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program. As projects are
                                                1
                                                                               FY09-AIPGrantApp-020309
                                                             BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09


scheduled to be procured, Engineering will notify the Social Responsibility Division (SRD) of
the impending schedule and work together to incorporate the DBE program requirements into
the procurement process. Individual projects will be assigned a DBE goal by SRD in
concurrence with meeting the Port's overall annual DBE goal. SRD will work with the
Engineering Division to devise appropriate outreach efforts to maximize DBE participation.

ANALYSIS

In order to ensure that a grant offer can be executed by February 24, 2009, the grant
application was submitted by Port staff to the FAA on January 16, 2009.

East Apron, Phase 3, South Field, OIA

The total estimated cost of the East Apron, Phase 3 (EAP3) Improvements and Overlay of
Taxilane Sierra and West Ramp Area project is $14.4 million. On the application, the Port
requested $1.8 million in entitlement funds (FY 2009, Part A) to fund a portion of this project,
and it is anticipated that additional funding will be requested for FY 2009, Part B.

The following shows the total proposed funding under this grant:



                                                 Estimated Total
                   Project                        Project Cost         FAA Share             Port Share



   East Apron, Phase 3, South Field, OIA          $14,400,000      $1,843,521 (Part A)        $444,010
                                                                   $9,761,439 (Part B)       $2,351,030



   Total                                          $14,400,000         $11,604,960            $2,795,040



BUDGET & FINANCIAL IMPACT

The proposed project will be programmed in the CIP when AIP funding becomes available.
Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) will be used to fund the local share of approximately $2.8
million.

STAFFING IMPACT

There will be no impact on current Port staff.




                                                                              FY09-AIPGrantApp-020309
                                                              BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09



SUSTAINABILITY

There is no applicable sustainability provisions related to the submission of the grant
application. However, when the project is presented to the Board for review, appropriate
construction sustainability provision would be included.

ENVIRONMENTAL

CEQA Determination

This project involves rehabilitating airfield 'pavement at OAK. This project is categorically
exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 (d), which addresses
repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities,
mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination.

This project is also exempt under section 15302 (c). CEQA does not apply to the replacement
or reconstruction of existing utility systems and/or facilities involving negligible or no expansion
of capacity.

Environmental Compliance

Construction activities and disposal of any hazardous or universal waste will be in accordance
with local, state and federal regulations. As stated in the Sustainability Section, any excess
clean material generated from the paving activities will be transported and disposed of at the
MMP site.

Mitigation

This project will not have any significant impacts to the environment therefore no mitigation
measures are required.

Related Plans and Policies

This project does not require mitigation measures; therefore there are no related or adopted
plans for this project.

MARITIME AND AVIATION PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT (MAPLA)

This Agenda Report seeks approval to apply for FAA grants. Such approval 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 to this action. Later, when each
project has been designed and comes to the Board for award of a construction contract,
MAPLA's applicability to that project will be determined.


                                                 3
                                                                                FY09-AIPGrantApp-020309
                                                            BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09



OWNER CONTROLLED INSURANCE PROGRAM (OCIP)

For the purpose of this agenda, OCIP does not apply.

GENERAL PLAN

This action does not meet the definition of "project" under the City of Oakland General Plan,
and no conformity determination is required.
LIVING WAGE

Based upon a review of the terms of the agreement and information provided by the tenant, it
appears that neither the Port's Living Wage Ordinance (Port Ordinance No. 3666) nor living
wage requirements set forth in Section 728 of the Charter of the City of Oakland, apply at this
time because the FAA is not a "business" as defined by Port Ordinance No. 3666 or Section
728,

OPTIONS

       1.     Ratify and approve the submittal of the grant application to the FAA.

      2.     Take no action. The Port could choose not to apply for the grant. The Port will
             forfeit receipt any AIP funds from the FAA for fiscal year 2009. The project would.
             be required to maintain aircraft operations and would then need to be funded
             through Port cash or PFC.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Board ratify the submittal of the grant application in the amount of
$1,843,521 to the Federal Aviation Administration for the East Apron, Phase 3 project.




                                               4
                                                                              FY09-AIPGrantApp-020309
     m




Co



0)
01
                                                        BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09



                             AGENDA REPORT
TITLE:           Ratification of Addenda; and Authorization to Reject All Bids, Dispense
                 with Standard Bidding Procedures and Negotiate a Contract for
                 Furnishing Maintenance and Service of Access•ntrol and Alarm
                 Monitoring. System (ACAMS) and Video Surveilla	          stem (VSS) for
                 the Period Commencing January 1, 2009 and 	           g June 30, 2009,
                 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013, for the Estim 	               ual Amount of
                 $350,000.

AMOUNT:          $350,000 (Estimated Annual Amount)

PARTIES INVOLVED:


                 Ingersoll Rand Security Techn•-as-nton, CA
                    Darren Blankenship, Presiden
                 Niscayah, Inc.	                      Creek, CA
                     Craig Frazier, Vice President
                 Siemens Building Technologies, Inc.
                    Chris Lofaso, Dis	       eager

TYPE OF ACTION:

SUBMITTED BY:                       Tho                 , Acting Director of Engineering

COMMITTEE ASSIGNED:                 Aviatio

SCHEDULED FOR CO                    January 2	   009

APPROVED BY:                        Omar Benjamin, Executive Director




Three (3 	   	   ere received	      opened on December 23, 2008, for Furnishing
Mainte'
      	             rvice of Access Control and Alarm Monitoring System (ACAMS)
and	                  e System (VSS) for the Period Commencing January 1, 2009
an	                     09, 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013, Oakland International Airport,
Oakl	                   following bids were received:




                                                                                    217420.v4
                                                                                  BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09



      BIDDERS                   LOCATION                LIABE*           LBABE*    SBE*       VSBE*    TOTAL BID PRICE

Ingersoll Rand Security      Pleasanton, CA                                ..                               $322,330.10
Technologies
Niscayah, Inc.               Walnut Creek, CA                              ...                            **$330,933.92
                                                                                                            $130793443
Siemens Building             Hayward, CA                                   ***                            **$463,214.03
Technologies, Inc                                                                                           $163,213.15
                                                                                           /N
 * LIABE = Local Impact Area Business Enterprise, LBABE = Local Business Area Business    'rprise,
    Enterprise, VSBE = Very Small Business Enterprise
 ** Bid corrected in accordance with Document 00200, Instruction to Bidders.
 ***Bidder not certified as LBABE at the time of bid.


 A copy of the bid canvass is on file.

 On August 5, 2008, the Board of Port of Co                                              oard) approved the Project
 Manual for this project to advertise for bids, an                                       the authority to award the
 contract to the Executive Director, provided that if t                                   responsible responsive bid
 exceeds the estimated budget amount of $300,000 per y                                      would return to the Board
 for award or authorization to reject all bids and perform                                   through another Board-
 approved method.

 The work of this annual contrac                                                    al, of performing preventative
 maintenance, testing, troubleshootin                                              replacing, as necessary, and
 maintaining an on-site spare parts inve                                     Access Control and Alarm Monitoring
 Systems (ACAMS) and the Video Surveil                                   ystem (VSS), including the Closed Circuit
 Television (CCTV) Monit•' System at th                                  land International Airport (01A). The work
 includes both hardwar- are for the                                        ms, and associated door electric locking
 hardware.



 Addenda No.1 and No.                            issued by the Chief Engineer to extend the bid date and
 update the list of spare p                        be maintained and the list of devices to be inspected
 included	      Project Manua



                          ed to submit a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) with their bid that
 was	     po ve to a equirements" identified in the Request for Qualifications included in
 the bid	                addition to demonstrating that they had the necessary financial and
 human an	             resources to perform the security system maintenance work, Bidders
 were required •emonstrate they had a minimum level of experience working with similar
 systems and that they hold the appropriate contractor license and have certifications from
 the various manufacturers necessary to supply, install and service the security equipment
 at the Oakland Airport.


                                                                   2
                                                                                                               217420.v4
                                                               BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09


Based on the Port's review of the SOQs submitted with the bids, none of the bidders was
deemed responsive.

The complexity of the Airport security systems that necessitates specially-trained personnel
certified by various manufacturers to maintain the systems poses a • allenge to contract
procurement based solely on low bids. Therefore, staff believes th- 	      in the best interest
of the Port to reject all bids, to dispense with standard bidding	       ures, and negotiate
with one or more of the original bidders to award this contract b 	         ith Ingersoll Rand
Security Technologies, then Niscayah, Inc., and lastly Sieme 	                  hnologies, Inc.
A negotiated process would ensure that there is a clear un erstan	                 he contract
requirements.

Additionally, staff requests authorization to negoti           re-bid the project on the open
market if negotiations with the current bidders fail.

Given staffs recommendation to reject the b'                       ubcontractors and the SRD
analysis are not provided.

The Project Manual for this contract will include provisio 	          ing the Port to renew the
contract in one-year increments throu h June 30, 2013. Ren 	           of the contract shall only
occur if agreed to in writing by both he	      utive Director of the Port and the Contractor.
Should both parties agree to renew•rovisions of the Project Manual shall
remain valid and shall apply, and the 	                        the bid sheet will be adjusted in
proportion to the Construction Cost Ind	                     ing News Record (San Francisco
Area).

BUDGET & FINANCIA	              CT

The contract is bid                  n estimated bid item quantities for furnishing labor for on-
call repairs of s                            the 01A. Therefore, the actual quantities and
accordingly, the a                             on actual need.

The budget for the total	         estimated at $350,000 per year. However, the first term of
this potential four and one-h=	        contract is approximately six 'months, with an estimated
expend	            180,000 for th-'x-month duration. The annual cost may vary, but in no
case	                 ombined expenditures exceed $1,575,000 for the maximum four and
on	                     his contract, unless subsequently approved by the Board.

                         ice costs totaling approximately $180,000 during FY 08-09 are
                          Budget FY 08-09. Future funding of approximately $350,000/year
                        respective budget years.



The work of this contract will have no impact on the Port staffing needs.



                                                3
                                                                                           217420.v4
                                                               BOARD MTG. DATE 2/3/09


SUSTAINABILITY

The work of this contract is subject to the Port's Sustainability Policy implemented in
November 2000. In particular, the work of this contract is subject to the Port of Oakland
Construction and Demolition Debris Waste Reduction and R: ling Requirement
Ordinance, and the Project Manual requires the Contractor t••arate salvageable
construction material and debris for reuse and sale.

ENVIRONMENTAL

CEQA Determination

The project entails maintaining the existing security         ms at the Airport. It involves no
expansion of use beyond the existing. This projec                etermined to be categorically
exempt for the requirements of the California                       uality Act (CEQA) and the
Port CEQA Guidelines pursuant to Section 153                       ). CEQA does not apply to
the restoration or rehabilitation of deteriorated              aged structures, facilities, or
mechanical equipment to meet current standards of pu              th and safety.

Environmental Compliance

This project will not generate or han                     or contaminated materials.

Mitigation

This project will not have any significant im        to the environment therefore no mitigation
measures are required.

Related Plans an

This project does                               measures; therefore there are no related or
adopted plans for this

                               RO CT LABOR AGREEMENT (MAPLA)

                      for "major maintenance" within the meaning of the Port of Oakland
                         Project Labor Agreement (MAPLA) and is not part of the Port's
                        rogram (CIP). The provisions of the MAPLA do not apply to this


OWNER	                   D INSURANCE PROGRAM

The Owner Co rolled Insurance Program (OCIP) will not apply to this contract. The
Contractor will be required to provide insurance in accordance with the coverage limits
specified in the Contract Documents.


                                                 4
                                                                                         217420.v4
                                                            BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09


GENERAL PLAN

The project is limited to minor maintenance work at existing facilities that conform to the
provisions of the Oakland General Plan, and will not change the existing use(s) of any
facility(s).

LIVING WAGE

Based upon a review of the information provided by the Co                    rs that neither
the Port's Living Wage Ordinance (Port Ordinance No.	           66)              ving wage
requirements set forth in Section 728 of the Charter of the City of Oakla          y to this
proposed action because the contract will be a cons      tion contract covere•a local,
state or federal prevailing wage statute and will no       service contract" as defined by
Port Ordinance No. 3666 and Charter Section              Ho ever, the Contractor will be
required to certify that should living wage obli                applicable, the Contractor
shall comply with all its obligations.

OPTIONS

1. Reject the bids and hire addition    Port staff and purch specialized equipment to
   perform all maintenance and to              This action is not recommended due to the
   cost to fund necessary full-tim                   d on work at peak needs and the
   standby costs when the need for                        it work does not exist.

2. Reject the bids and perform the n               maintenance and repair with purchase
   orders or individual construction contra      This action is not recommended due to the
   added inefficiencie	         delays, over       costs, and unnecessary distribution of
   Security Sensitiv	              (SSI) mate      for executed smaller individual contracts
   on a case-by-c

3. Reject the bi                           dard bidding procedures, and authorize the
   Executive Directo          otiate an• execute a contract for the above work for the
   reasons stated above           the recommended option.



                      t the Board:

                        1 and No. 2;



3. Find it to b-' in the best interest of the Port to dispense with standard bidding
   procedures;




                                             5
                                                                                      217420.v4
                                                              BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09


4. Authorize the Executive Director to negotiate and execute a contract for this work
    based on the receipt of informal proposals from one or more of the original bidders,
    beginning with Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies, then Niscayah, Inc., and lastly
   Siemens Building Technologies, Inc., or to negotiate and execute a contract on the
   open market if the negotiations with the original bidders fail;

5. Delegate the authority to resolve bid protests, if any, to the E	   e Director; and

6. Return all bid securities to the respective bidders.




                                                6
                                                                                         217420.v4
      m




cf)


rn
	


                                                                                  BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09 ,



                                             AGENDA REPORT
    TITLE:                  Approval of First Supplemental Agreement with HNTB Corporation to
                            Provide As-Needed Engineering Design Services f. Pavement Analysis
                            and Improvement Projects at the Oakland Inte atonal Airport, in an
                            Amount Disclosed to the Board of Port Commis

    AMOUNT:                 Disclosed to the Board of Port Commission

    PARTIES INVOLVED:

                             Corporate Name/Principal
                             HNTB Corporation
                              Steve Whitaker, Vice Preside

    TYPE OF ACTION:                                      Resolutio

    SUBMITTED BY:                                                                       cting Director of Engineering

    COMMITTEE ASSIGNED:                                 Aviation

    SCHEDULED FOR COMMITTEE:                             Janua           2009

    APPROVED BY:                                                           in,	    ecutive Director


    FACTUAL BACKGROU

    On December 4, 20                            of Port Corn issioners (Board) approved the creation of
    a list of pre-qualifi                       consisting of 11 design teams for pavement analysis and
    improvement pro                                        ational Airport (OAK) for a period not to exceed
    5 years (Resolution                                  ration was one of the listed design teams.

    On May 6, 2008, the Boa•rized the preparation and execution of agreements with
    the 11 f	      subject to a	         urn compensation of $850,000 over a 5-year period
    corn	               6, 2008 throug May 6, 2013 (Resolutions 08092- 08102). The intent of
    hav	                   agreements is to be able to respond quickly to FAA-funded and other
                              The May 6, 2008 agenda report also stated that projects involving
    d- ,ign -s greater tha $850,000 require additional Board approval.

    On Dec	             , the Board gave approval to negotiate and execute additional Option
    Work With Turner Construction Company in conjunction with the Renovation and
    Rehabilitation	 'erminal 1. One of the projects listed under the work plan for Turner

      The Engineering Division has informed the Board of its estimate for the cost of these services. It is not disclosed here
    in the best interest of the public and the competitive process. Actual amounts will be available after all the contract
    agreement has been obtained.

                                                                I
                                                                                                                      217421 v1
                                                             BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09


Construction Company was for Preconstruction and Design-Build Services for a new
Terminal 1 mechanical building. The new Terminal 1 mechanical building will replace
Building M-104, which currently serves as the Terminal 1 mechanical building but requires
extensive renovation in order to meet current code, mitigate life safety issues, replace
outdated infrastructure, and improve life cycle costs.

ANALYSIS

Prior to engaging Turner Construction Company, it is necessa 	           to advance the
design process of the Terminal 1 mechanical building Suffici 	                develop a
schematic design. This will include determining the facility location, perform•tanning
and existing condition analysis and programming. In addition, the schemat 	       n will
also develop a switchover methodology between the 	       'sting Terminal 1	      anical
building functions and those of the new Terminal 1 me	    al building.

Staff has selected HNTB Corporation to develop t 	                     ign for the new Terminal
1 mechanical building from the list of the 11 de 	                   r pavement analysis and
improvement projects at . OAK based on 1) their pr-Involvement in developing a
project definition manual for a new third terminal ("Termin	         hich included a combined
mechanical building to support both Terminal A and repla 	               antiquated Terminal 1
mechanical building, and 2) their imm late availability from 	         d list of the 11 design
teams. Although the Terminal A pro	                  t on hold in May 2008 due to the global
economic downturn and resultant drop 	                       Oakland International Airport, the
work performed as of May 2008 associ-     	                      -d mechanical building will be
of significant value and time savings in d- 	                 ematic design of the Terminal 1
mechanical building.

Staff believes that it is in        interest of th-•lic to utilize HNTB Corporation for this
project because of bett              and perform ► ce given said prior work as well as their
experience on simil                  jects at other major airports including Los Angeles
International.

The schematic design w	           been organized into 5 tasks as follows:

Task 1 - Project Coordination a•lementation
Task 2 -	         ation, Existing 'onditions Analysis and Site Planning
Task 3	               and Programming
Tas	                    ing Design Evaluation/Criteria and Switchover Methodology
Ta	                      ng Schematic Design and Schematic Cost Estimate

                             orporation will complete phases 1 through 5 of the schematic
                           ately 6 months.

Staff will issue a to hnical service order to commence tasks 1 through 3. The total cost of
the schematic design work will be contingent upon the results of tasks 1 through 3, but it is
anticipated that it could exceed the Board approved contract maximum compensation of

                                               2
                                                                                        217421 v1
                                                              BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3109


$850,000. Consequently, in accordance with the May 6, 2008 Board approval, staff is
requesting an increase to the maximum compensation currently approved by the Board, in
an amount disclosed to the Board.1

BUDGET & FINANCIAL IMPACT

Sufficient funds to cover this work are contained in the Aviation
Program for FY 2008-09 under CIP element A2.01100.05.

STAFFING IMPACT

The work contemplated under this Agenda Report would not affect existing s               vels.

SUSTAINABILITY

Port staff and consultants attempt to prepare tec ►                 -nd reports in electronic
format (e.g., PDF), saving paper, ink, electricity (a•rinting and copying), and
trees. The T1 Renovation and Retrofit Program inclu•analysis of life-cycle costs and
will incorporate green building principles and practices. 	       ticipated that there will be
significant opportunities for implementing energy-efficient 	         es with respect to the
design of the T1 mechanical building. These measures will inc	         euse of demolition and
construction materials, use of material	       -cycled content, ins allation of high-efficiency
equipment for the physical plant, and	                  ssioning for all systems.

ENVIRONMENTAL

CEQA Determination

The Port is required to c             environment pact analysis pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality                  as part of all of its project development, approval and
entitlement process                        nt to provide a schematic design and engineering
services for replac                               al building is within the scope of the Airport
Development Program                             nvironmental Impact Report (EIR) for the ADP
was certified and adopte             Board on December 16, 1997, through Board Resolution
No. 97376. This EIR cover                des and expansion of T1 and evaluated subsequent
Board app          of the design         specifications of each associated improvement and
approv                 ent contracts and building permits. The Port prepared a supplemental
EIR i                     nd supplemental EIR in 2003. The Board re-certified the 1997 EIR,
as                          1999 SEIR through Resolution No. 99623, and re-approved the
AD                            -certified the 1997 EIR, as supplemented by the 2003 SEIR
through                      3345, and again re-approved certain components of the ADP.
Therefore,                  on to prepare and execute an agreement with HNTB Corporation
noted above              bove-mentioned services has already been adequately evaluated
under CEQA. W          the design of the new mechanical building is complete, the Port will
determine if additional CEQA analysis will be required.


                                               3
                                                                                          217421 v1
                                                              BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09


Environmental Compliance

This project involves engineering design services only; it will not involve any construction
activities.

Mitigation

This project will not have any significant impacts to the environm en	     efore no mitigation
                                                                           \
measures are required.

Related Plans and Policies

This project does not require mitigation measures; 	           -fore there are no	       ted or
adopted plans for this project.

MARITIME AND AVIATION PROJECT LABOR A

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

OWNER CONTROLLED INSURANC

This project will be insured by the Port's

GENERAL PLAN

This project is for profe           services an	         not directly include any alteration of
property. Development                  t result from	   se professional services will be subject
to separate findings o                ith the City of Oakland General Plan in accordance with
Section 727 of the

LIVING WAGE

Based upon a review of the erm of the agreement and information provided by the
contractor	     ars that the II	   wage requirements set forth in Section 728 of the
Charter	           f Oakland and Port Ordinance Number 3666, as amended, do not
apply	                tractor employs fewer than the 21 employees working on Port-
rel.	                   overage.



1.	    Procee with t e work under the currently approved agreement and wait until the
       initial pha of the schematic design work are completed to determine if an
       increase to the maximum compensation is required. This option is not recommended
       since it will introduce a delay between the initial phases of schematic design and the
       subsequent phases as staff seeks the necessary further Board approval.
                                               4
                                                                                         217421 v1
                                                           BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09



2. Direct staff to initiate a Request for Qualifications and interview process for the
      schematic design for the new Terminal 1 mechanical building. This option would
      require Port staff to undertake an extensive consultant selection process and cost
      valuable time, while likely duplicating some of the concept development work
      already completed by HNTB Corporation. This option is not reco 	   ended.

3. Approve the First Supplemental Agreement with HNTB Cor                 on to provide As-
      Needed Engineering Design Services for Pavement A                     d Improvement
      Projects at the Oakland International Airport. This is the               option.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Board find that 1) the pro        services contemplated under
the agreement with HNTB are of a professional, tec         and specialized nature that are
temporary in nature; and 2) it is in the best inter                 to utilize HNTB for this
project because of better economy and perfor                      cribed herein. It is also
recommended that the Board approve the First                   tal Agreement with HNTB
Corporation to provide As-Needed Engineering Design             for Pavement Analysis and
Improvement Projects at the Oakland International Airport,          mount disclosed to the
Board. 1




                                             5
                                                                                      217421 v1
                                                 Feb 3, 2009




  PORT OF OAKLAND
Ti\ENG\CURRENT\BOARDLETTERMAP\106930b1.dwg
                                             6
                                                        BOARD MTG. DATE: 5/6/08


                           AGENDA REPORT                                 Item.:

TITLE:         Authorization to Prepare and Execute Agreements with Design Teams
               for On-Call Engineering Design Services for Pavement Analysis and
               Improvement Projects at the Oakland International Airport, for a Period
               Not to Exceed Five Years, Commencing May X2008 and Ending
               May 6, 2013, in the Amount of $9,350,000

AMOUNT:	        $9,350,000 ($850,000 for each of 11 Teams)

PARTIES INVOLVED:

                CorpOráte-Nairine/PripCipAl
                D.MJM Harris/AECOM	                                 CA
                  Michael G. Gasparro –Vice P
                HNTB Corporation
                  Steve Whitaker– Vice P
                Kennedy/Jenks Consultant
                  Kerwin C. Allen – Vi
                Kimley-Horn and Asso                       Oakland, CA
                   E. Vincent Ho igan                   er
                MACTEC Engin           and     Iting, Inc. Oakland, CA
                   Dharme Rath                 al Engineer
                Mead and                                    anta Rosa, CA.
                   Jon                        ent


                 ra
                                        – Vice Pre
                               ational/CCS
                                   Vice Presid
                 RS Co	     atio
                             anedgian –
                            ers, Inc.
                          rd K. Wood

                                   Res

                                   Jerry Serven 1, Director of Engineering

               SIGNED:             Aviation

           FOR COMMITTEE: May 5, 2008

APPRO D BY:	                       Omar Benjamin, Executive Director




                                                                                  7714.9N2
                                                               OARD MTG. DATE: 5/06/08



FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In order for the Port to provide timely project turn-around to its tenants and to supplement
the Port's expertise and present resources, the Port solicited Statements of Qualifications
(SOQs) from engineering consulting firms for As-Needed Engineering Services for
Pavement Analysis and Design Projects at the Oakland International A irport. As a result of
the evaluations, staff recommended that a list of consultants be e-- alified to provide
as-needed engineering design services for upcoming airport im rov • e• projects. On
December 4, 2007, the Board of Port Commissioners (Board),	         its - • ti	    No. 07292,
approved the creation of said list of pre-qualified consultants con ti 	     11 de gn teams
for a period not to exceed five years (see attached). The I of c 	       a	  inc uses:

    DMJ a-ft-MECO
2. HNTB Corporation
3. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.
4. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
5. MACTEC Engineering and Consultants
6. Mead and Hunt, Inc.
7. Stantec Consulting, Inc.
8. TranSystems Corporation
9. T.Y. LIN International/CCS
10. URS Corporation
11. Wood Rodgers, Inc.

ANALYSIS

The original intention             tur	     h Beard fo                            re and execute
agreements with the                    as Jjects aros                              years requiring
their expertise and                                 	
                                            ever, co' It                         negotiations and
subsequent Bo                      take several month to                     ificantly delaying the
Port's ability to                     sign work	   • •n                     sources are identified
or the decisiO                   ve orward with                       i   especially critical when
securing f

Rece                to deral Aviat 0 Adm ,                      FAA) grant funding allocation
pro                re that grant funds be llo ated ba       on the actual bid amounts in lieu of
esti               uction cost. Conseque fly; the           between the date that the Port is
                      cific amount of funding	   avail e and the date that a corresponding
                  b- identified, designed and bid in order to secure FAA funding has been
                   eased. Consequently, it's critical that the Port have the ability to quickly
            eeded design resources in order to be able to respond quickly to FAA-funded
              e-sensitive projects. Therefore, staff believes it is in the Port's best interest to
pre	     and execute agreements with the 11 consultants on the following previously
appro	    list of pre-qualified design teams to provide on-call engineering design services
for pavement analysis and improvement projects at the Oakland International Airport.


                                                2
                                                                                             77449N2
                                                                               &if 161,	•.•   •	     __




  On September 17, 2007, the RFQ was advertised in the Oakland Tribune and
  nationally published Engineering News Record (ENR) magazine. Also, on Septem
  2007, the Port posted an electronic copy of its RFQ on its website. On October
  the Port conducted a pre-proposal meeting to provide information relating to
  insurance requirements, the federal Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (D
  and to answer questions regarding the RFQ and the selection process. Tw        t firms
  attended the meeting.

  On October 18, 2007, SOQs were received from 14 engineering cons

  A panel comprised of Port staff, consisting of representatives                                                         and
  Engineering Divisions, reviewed the 14 proposals and determi ed th                                              ost highly
  qualified teams should be considered for analysis and design    ure A                                   port i rovement
  projects: The proposals : 'Were. evaluated based on                 am                                  s qualifications,
  responsiveness to the requirements of the RFQ, relevan         e en                                      the quality and
  experience of key project personnel, as well as                                                         cal and project
  management abilities.

  The Port does not anticipate more than 11 proj                                              ultant support over the
  next five years. Additionally, there i&ino,sp                                               at this time, to further
  compare one firm's suitability over anothes                                              s specialized knowledge.
  For example, one firm or team may .posse                                           o expertise and experience in
  hydrant fuel systems or pavement concr ion                                         pertise in these areas may be
  essential and/or provide value for                                              ct, but not for other projects.
  Accordingly, it was decided to di                                          erviews and oral presentations and
  recommend that the 11 most qualifi                                            on the list of consultants eligible for
  future Airport pavement analysis

  As a result of the above eva	                           roces        ff recommends that the following consultant
  teams be pre-qualified for e                                        Airport pavement improvement projects.
                                                             ,
 TEAM                                      R
                                               64-k   	                                            LOCATION                   DBE

 DMJM Harris/AECOM                           rime	       agement, Civil, Electrical, Mechanical)   Oakland, CA                No
   AGS                                       eotechnical                                           Oakland, CA                Yes
   Pond and Comp- y                        Fu- ng Systems                                          Norcross, GA               No
   Roy D. MOQue	  : ‘ssoc.                 - r v . ment Design                                     Sterling, VA               Yes


 HNTB Corporation                         'rime (Management, Civil, Fuel Systems)                  Oakland, CA               No
   YEI Ens •--rs                          Electrical, Telecom & Security Systems                   Oakland, CA               Yes
     MaCr.	         E oodman              Mechanical Engineering,                                  Oakland, CA               No
     AG                                   Geotechnical Engineering                                 Oakland, CA               Yes
     Touc' .	              - _ ng         Pavement Design                                          Ventura, CA               Yes
      e a	 :	 .	      :-.	 •	   -.        Cost Estimating                                          San Francisco, CA         No

  e	 n	 y/J	     s . o	    '-nts	 Inc.     Prime (Management, Civil, Pavement Design)              Oakland, CA               No
     •	 •u	 Con ultiig                     Fuel Systems                                            Blue Springs, MO          No
     •	 . ion	    to	 Consulting           Transportation Planning                                 Berkeley, CA              No
     o'n•-r	 .•'n- - ring                  Airfield Lighting                                       Reno, NV                  No
N D.n Todd Associates	                   1 Estimating, Scheduling                                  Oakland, CA               No
  ,– --     Os                                                                                                               ''-
                         	                                            	                                          	
          ph r-Gregory                    Environmental Mitigation                                 Oakland, CA               No
                                                                  3
                                                                                                                       16,4509.v1
                                                                                BOARD MTG. DATE: 5/06/08



                        TEAM                                         ROLE                                LOCATION              DBE
DMJM Harris/AECOM                       Prime (Management, Civil, Electrical, Mechanical)              Oakland, CA                 No
   AGS                                  Geotechnical                                                   Oakland, CA                 Yes
   Pond and Company                     Fueling Systems                                            .	 Norcross, GA                 No •
   Roy D. McQueen & Associates          Pavement Design                                               .Sterling, VA                Yes
HNTB Corporation                        Prime (Management, Civil, Fuel Systems)                        Oakland, CA                 No
  YEI Engineers                         Electrical, Telecom and Security Systems                A      Oakland, CA                 Yes
   MaCraken & Woodman                   Mechanical Engineering                                  \ n Aland, CA                      No
  AGS                                   Geotechnical Engineering                                     Llak .•d, CA                  Yes
  Touchdown Engineering                 Pavement Design                                                    11,ra, , '              Yes
   Leland Saylor Associates             Cost Estimating                                                 an Francis +1 CA           No
Kenriedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.        Prime (Management, Civil, Pavement De '                          aklan	 ,-                 No
  Argus Consulting                      Fuel Systems                                                          prings, MO           No*
  Aviation System Consulting            Transportation Planning                                        B-	       , CA              No
  Dinter Engineering                    Airfield Lighting                                              Reno, NV                    No
   Don Todd Associates                  Estimating, Scheduling                                           akland, CA                No
  Geolabs                               Geotechnical                                                   Oakland, CA                 No
  Lamphier-Gregory                      Environmental Mitigation                                       Oakland, CA                 No
  Lewis Engineering                     Agency Coordination                                      .	 Piedmont, CA                   Yes
  Nichols Engineering                   Pavement Testing                                               Richmond, CA                No
  TransSolutions .                      Airfield Activity Modell	 .                                    Fort Worth, TX              Yes
  YEI Engineers'                        Electrical                                                     Oakland, 'CA                Yes
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.        Prime (Manage lent,	        • Design, Pa+ :me • Design)        Oakland, CA                 No
  Dan Johnson Consulting                PCC PaVement A aly                                         ,	 Pierre, SD	 -                No
  Roy D. McQueen & Associates ,       , AC Pave	 nt Eval	 tio	          An.	 sis                       Sterling, VA                Yes
  Ninyo and Moore                       Geotec ► ica •                                                 Oakland, CA                 No
  YEI Engineers                         Utility D •	ig                                       ii        Oakland, C                  Yes
  PLS Surve s                           S	                                                             Oakland, CA                 No.
MACTEC Engineering and                     rime (	 -4	    m	 ,	        - t Design, Fuel Syste         Oakland, CA                  No
Consulting, Inc.
  YEI Engineers                             -ct • •I,	       e Mo	 ment Guidance Co                  Oakland, CA               Yes
  Cordoba Corporation 	            ,,,.. n •viiona	
                                              l          iv!,	  „1.,t and Si•na•e, Structural
                                                                   	                                   : land, CA              Yes
Mead and Hunt, Inc.                                     •	 z 	 Civil, Paveme •                              Rosa, CA           No
  Kleinfelder                                                 aterial Testing                        Oa land, CA               No
  A	 lied Pavement Technolo.              , , -	 -	         sis & Non-Des	        P Te	    g       ► Urbana, IL                No
Stantec Consulting, Inc.               Pri •e (Management, Civil, Pave	 :	           : ign           Oakland, CA               No
  Geolabs                              t. -ote	 •	 ica/                                              Oakland, CA               No
  Sandis                               Bra	 , 4 e                                                    Oakland, CA               No
  F.W. Associates                      tlectrical                                                    Oakland, CA               Yes
  Pond and Co                          -ueling Systems	                                 •            Atlanta, GA               No
  The Burns	 •                           MGS, Securit	 Sy	 -                                         Phoenix, AZ               No
  Rutherlo                             Structural                                                    San Francisco, CA         No
  SJ E                                 Cost Estimatin                                                Oakland, CA               No
  Kea                                  Community Outr •                                              Oakland, CA               No
TranSyste                              Prime (Managemen ,	              ' '	       Design)           Oakland, CA               No
                                       Geotechnical                                                  Oakland, CA               No
          •                            Survey                                                        Oakland, CA               No
      E                                Fuel Systems                                                 Tampa, FL                  Yes
            En                         Electrical/Mechanical                                        Oakland, CA                Yes
T.	     LI	    to•al/CCS               Prime (Mgmt., Civil, Lighting, Striping, Fuel Systems)       Oakland, CA                No
      Ge•.bs                           Geotechnical, Pavement-Design                                Oakland, CA                No
      Moffatt	 Ni . ol Engineers       Structural, Sanitary Sewers                                  Oakland, CA                No
      TEECOM	 esign Group              Telecommunications and Security Systems                       Oakland, CA               Yes
      YEI Engineers .                  Electrical                                                    Oakland, CA               Yes
      SJ Engineers                     Mechanical                                                    Oakland                 i No

                                                                 3
                                                                                                                       177449.v9
                                                       LASVHnir   ows	         __




Placing these firms on a pre-qualified list to perform engineering services as projects arise
will avoid the significant cost and time required to solicit and evaluate proposals f 	  ach
project. Additionally, establishing a list of 11 pre-qualified firms provides the Po
ability to quickly and effectively respond to project delivery requirements, with th
derived from having an extensive and varied resource of expertise on han
matched to the specific requirements of each project.

The list approved by the Board of pre-qualified consultant firms will be
During the next five years, each time a pavement improvement proje
consultant support services, staff will return to the Board to request
execute an agreement with one of the firms on said approved list.

Due to the anticipated use of federal funds, the Port's Non-d                           mall/Local
Business Utilization Policy, including preference points,                    ply to the selection
process or to any future agreements executed based o                           ation process and
supported by federal funds. However, should a no                                project arise, the
Port's Non-Discrimination and Small/Local Business                           will apply arid said
policy requirements shall be negotiated as part of t                     proved by the Board.

As a condition of award of a contract to p                    ng services for an upcoming
project, the Consultants are required                           he regulations relative to
non-discrimination in federally-assisted                     United States Department of
Transportation Title 49, Code of Fed                        art 2, including Disadvantaged
Business Enterprises requirements, d



The cost associated with any                       I services agreement executed with a firm
on the subject list of cons                     ed in the relevant construction projects in the
Capital Improvement Pro                       P project budget will be reviewed for adequacy
of funds prior to staff r                  d to request approval.to prepare and execute an
agreement with one                      list of consultants.

STAFFING IMPA

Current sta	                   e affected by this Board action.

SUSTA Bill

               ific projects that will be supported by these consultant services will
                    here to the Port's Sustainability Program requirements, such as
                p ocessing cement concrete and asphalt concrete waste from pavement
               or use in other Port projects.




                                            5
                                                                                        • !E-45C9.v1
                                                            BOARD MTG. DATE: 5/06/08


ENVIRONMENTAL

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3) ("the
general rule") states that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for
causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the activity .may have a significant effect on the environment, the
activity is not subject to CEQA. Approving professional servic	                agreements with
consultants for on-call engineering services is not a project un	                 EQA, and no
environmental review is required for this action.

When projects are identified that require using these en        •
determine whether further environmental review is require
may be brought to the Board for approval of CEQA finding

MARITIME AND AVIATION PROJECT LABOR AGR

This contract is for professional services th                           nstruction testing and
inspection, and the provisions of the Port of                           Aviation Project Labor
Agreement (MAPLA) do not apply to this work.

OWNER CONTROLLED INSURANCE P

As the project and scope are f                               ital Improvement Program, the
applicable OCIP coverages and prov

GENERAL PLAN

This project is . for profes                     not directly include a ,	
                                                              .	                or development
of property: Develop                          salt from •	 e	     profession      rvices will be
subject to separate fin            confo itY 'With t	            g	 Oakl .	    General Plan in
accordance with                    e Charter.

LIVING WAGE

                                  terms of                      information provided by the
                                e living w                     t forth in Section 728 of the
                     y of Oakland and Po                   um.er 3666, as amended, do not
                     e contractor employs                   21 employees working on Port-
                        for coverage.




                                                                                          1774-49.v2
                                                     BOARD MTG. DATt:          III 4+1U I




2. Approve the list of consultant teams to provide as-needed engineering design services
    for pavement analysis and improvement projects at the Oakland International Airo• for
    a period not to exceed five years commencing December 18, 2007 an* oc at-
    December 17, 2012. This option will eliminate significant costs and time
    with soliciting and evaluating proposals for each project. This is the r 	 mme
    option.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Board approve the following list of con                 vide
as-needed engineering design services for pavement analysis and  i              jects at
the Oakland International Airport, for a period not to exce d fiv             mmencing
December 18, 2007 and ending December 17, 2012:

1. DMJM Harris/AECOM
2. HNTB Corporation
3. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.
4. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
5. MACTEG Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
6. ' Mead and Hunt, Inc.
7. Stantec Consulting, Inc.
8. TranSystems. Corporation
9. T.Y. LIN International/CCS
10. URS. Corporation
11. Wood Rodgers, Inc.




                                                                                   '.54509.v1
                                                                       May 6, 2008
                                                                       Item No.: A-7 (11)
                                                                       CHA /jev




                     BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS
                           CITY OF OAKLAND


                                RESOLUTION NO. 08102


          RESOLUTION FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A PROPOSED
          HNTB CORPORATION AT A MAXIMUM COMPENSATION OF
          CONSULTING SERVICES CONSTITUTES. PROFESSIONAL
          SPECIALIZED SERVICES THAT ARE TEMPORARY
          STANDARD BIDDING PROCEDURES AND AUTHOR
          AGREEMENT.



            RESOLVED that based upon the info                        in Board Agenda
     Report Item No. A-7, dated May 6, 2008               th-•enda Report"), the
    .Board of Port Commissioners (herein the             hereby nds and determines
     that the proposed agreement with HNTB                  for on-call engineering
     design services for pavement analysi                     rojects at the Oakland
•    International--- Airport for a -period                  e-t51 . years commencing
     May 6, 2008 and Ending May 6, 2013 wil                  agreement for obtaining
     professional, technical and spec zed                    are temporary in nature
     and that it is in the best inte
     HNTB CORPORATION without standard

          FURTHER RESOLVED tha                      y appro          authorizes the
    execution for and on be                      of said a            pon terms and
    conditions consistent                        Report. and prov        that HNTB
    CORPORATION shall                           such se ces, inclu         costs of
    miscellaneous reimbu                                    ensation tha   shall not
    exceed $850,000; and

          FURTHER                       resolutio is of and does not
    create or cons                     act, or                   ight, entitlement
    or property in                 any obligation              on the part of the.
    Board or a                    oyee of t                  olution approves and
    authoriz                         agree                 with the terms of this
    resolut                      it a sep                 ement is duly executed
    on beha              Board as authori             resolution, is signed and
    appr             form and legality by             orney, and is delivered to
    other               party, there shall           id or effective agreement.




               ar meeting held on May 6, 2008

     Passed
         	     the following vote:

     Ayes: Commissioners Ayers-Johnson, Gordon, Katzoff, McClure,
            Scates, and Uno – 6
     Excused: President Batarse – 1

                                                                                   179884
                                                                 BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09



                                AGENDA REPORT
         	
TITLE:               Approval of First Supplemental Agreement with Wood Rodgers, Inc., to
                     Provide As-Needed Engineering Design Services for Pavement Analysis
                     and Improvement Projects at the Oakland Internation. Airport, in the
                     Amount of $400,000

AMOUNT:	             $400,000

PARTIES INVOLVED:

                     Corporate Name/Principal
                     Wood Rodgers, Inc.
                       Richard K. Wood, President

TYPE OF ACTION:                           Resolution

SUBMITTED BY:                             Thomas LaBasc               Director of Engineering

COMMITTEE ASSIGNED:                       Aviation

SCHEDULED FOR COMMITTEE:                             26, 2009

APPROVED BY:                              O ar	       *annin,	    utive Director


FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Port is continuously                airfield pav nts at Oakland International Airport
(OAK) utilizing grant fu                under the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's)
Airport Improvement                            ecent aircraft apron reconstruction projects
completed at OAK in                               rojects, Phases 1 and 2, which replaced
approximately 1.3 millio             feet o !sting pavement with new Portland Cement
Concrete (PCC) apron pave              d asphalt concrete pavement adjacent to the terminal
buildings and Taxiway T, and a            oncrete pavement overlays of Taxiways W, V and
portions of B

The Po                      vement Management System (PMS) to develop and prioritize
pave                          nd to generate budget estimates for maintenance and
rehabili                      rent PMS data indicate that pavement in the area west of
Terminal                      t Condition Index (PCI) varying between 22 and 49, which
corresponds                      to "Fair" rating. It is predicted that in 3 years, the PCI will
further deteriora          redicted PCI between 6 and 34, which corresponds to a "Failed"
and "Poor" rating.




                                                                                        217695 v1
                                                             BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09


The project area contemplated for rehabilitation at this time is approximately 1.6 million
square feet and encompasses Taxilane S, portions of the "stadium" Remain Overnight
Apron, United Parcel Service cargo area, the airside ramp for Buildings M-110 and M-112,
and other tug and luggage makeup ramp areas.

On December 4, 2007, the Board of Port Commissioners (Board) appr           d the creation of
a list of pre-qualified consultants consisting of eleven design teams       vement analysis
and improvement projects at the OAK for a period not to exc                 ears (Resolution
07292). Wood Rodgers, Inc., was one of the listed design teams

On May 6, 2008, the Board authorized the preparation and exec tion of           nts with
the eleven firms subject to a maximum compensation of $850,000 over a             eriod,
commencing May 6, 2008 through May 6, 2013 (Resolu       08092- 08102). Th tent of
having the executed agreements is to be able to resp    ickly to FAA-funded and other
time-sensitive projects. The May 6, 2008 agenda r           ted that projects involving
design fees greater than $850,000 will require add             royal.

ANALYSIS

The FAA has requested that the Port be in receipt of bids •efor May 2009 in order to
facilitate their federal budgeting proc      Port staff reviewe he list of pre-qualified
consultants, conducted interviews,             -d Wood Rodgers, Inc., as the design
consultant for this project. Based on r                  cts at other airports, staff believes
that it is in the best interest of the publi       Wood 'edgers, Inc. for this project for
reasons of both better economy and perfo            a - icipates that Wood Rodgers will
complete the design of the airfield pavemen       ement project on or about April 2009.

The cost of the design             s been neg at $815,500 and Technical Service
Orders have been issu                 nce the war Since the negotiated cost of the design
work is approaching                  roved contract maximum compensation of $850,000 in
accordance with t                              royal, staff is requesting an increase to the
maximum compensa                              y the Board.

Staff is recommending an            of $400,000, a portion of which would be to account for
potential changes to the proj          pe and the remainder to provide some available
contracti	          for future proj



                            this work are contained in the Aviation Capital Improvement
                           nder CIP Element A2.00310.99.



The work contemplated under this Agenda Report would not affect existing staffing levels.


                                              2
                                                                                      217695 v1
                                                               BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09


SUSTAINABILITY

Port staff and consultants attempt to prepare technical memos and reports in electronic
format (e.g., PDF), saving paper, ink, electricity (associated with printing and copying), and
trees. It is anticipated that there will be opportunities for implementing energy efficient
measures with respect to the design of the project. These me res will include
demolition materials reuse, and use of materials with recycled co en In addition, any
excess clean material (i.e. asphalt/concrete waste) generated from a p aving activities will
be transported and disposed of at the Materials Management Pr	                  P) Site located
in the North Field of OAK, to be reused for future projects.

ENVIRONMENTAL

CEQA Determination

This project involves rehabilitating airfield pavem 	                   s project is categorically
exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuan 	                        301 (d), which addresses
repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing 	              private structures, facilities,
mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involv	              ligible or no expansion of
use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's det-	            n.

This project is also exempt under                    302 (c). CEQA does not apply to the
replacement or reconstruction of exist'                    and/or facilities involving negligible
or no expansion of capacity.

Environmental Compliance

Construction activities a•osal of any	       rdous or universal waste will be in
accordance with local,	      federal reg	   ions. As stated in the Sustainability
Section, any excess	         generated from the paving activities will be transported
and disposed of at

Mitigation

This project will not have any            nt impacts to the environment therefore no mitigation
measure	             ired.



                           quire mitigation measures; therefore there are no related or
                           ect.

MARITIME A	            TION PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT MAPLA

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.
                                                 3
                                                                                           217695 v1
                                                              BOARD'MTG. DATE: 2/3/09


OWNER CONTROLLED INSURANCE PROGRAM (OCIP)

This project will be insured by the Port's Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP).

GENERAL PLAN

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

LIVING WAGE

Based upon a review of the terms of the agreeme                  information provided by the
contractor, it appears that the living wage require           set forth in Section 728 of the
Charter of the City of Oakland and Port Ordinan                       6, as amended, do not
apply because the contractor employs fewer th                        loyees working on Port-
related work required for coverage.

OPTIONS

1.   Proceed with the work under th 	         rently approved agr ment and wait until an
     increase to the maximum comp	                  -quired due to a change in the project
     scope. This option is not recom	                      d introduce a delay in design as
     staff seeks the necessary Board ap

2.   Direct staff to initiate a Request for Qu         ns and interview process for the design
     of the subject airfield pavement rehabi           project. This option would ignore the
     intent of having th            xecuted As-	       ed Engineering Design Services for
     pavement Analysi                 vement Proj	      agreements in place and require Port
     staff to underta                  e consultant selection process, costing valuable time.
     This option is

     Approve the Firs              en a eement with Wood Rodgers, Inc. to provide
     As-Needed Enginee             sign Services for Pavement Analysis and Improvement
     Projects at the Oakland          Iona! Airport. This is the recommended option.



It is                    he Board find that 1) the proposed services contemplated under
the                         Rodgers, Inc., are of a professional, technical and specialized
nature                     in nature; and 2) it is in the best interest of the public to utilize
Wood Ro                   this project because of better economy and performance, as
described her          also recommended that the Board approve the First Supplemental
Agreement with      d Rodgers, Inc., to provide As-Needed Engineering Design Services
for Pavement Analysis and Improvement Projects at the Oakland International Airport in the
amount of $400,000.

                                               4
                                                                                        217695 v1
                                                 Feb 3, 2009




  PORT OF OAKLAND
TI\ENG\CURRENT\BOARDLETTERMAP\106930b1,dwg
                                             5
                                                             BOARD MTG. DATE: 5/6/08


                                                               	
                             AGENDA REPORT                                    Item.: -

TITLE: Authorization to Prepare and Execute Agreements with Design Teams
              for On-Call Engineering Design Services for Pavement Analysis and
              Improvement Projects at the Oakland International Airport, for a Period
              Not to Exceed Five Years, Commencing May 	          2008 and Ending
              May 6, 2013, in the Amount of $9,350,000

AMOUNT:	         $9,350,000 ($850,000 for each of 11 Teams

PARTIES INVOLVED:

                'Corporate Name/Principal,
                 DMJM Harris/AECOM                                            d, CA
                     Michael G. Gasparro –Vice P
                 HNTB Corporation                                       akland, CA
                     Steve Whitaker– Vice P
                 Kennedy/Jenks Consultan                               Oakland, CA
                     Kerwin C. Allen – Vi
                 Kimley-Horn and Asso                                 Oakland, CA
                     E. Vincent Ho igan                        er
                 MACTEC Engin                        Iting, I nc.      Oakland, CA
                     Dharme Rath                     al Engineer
                 Mead and                                               anta Rosa, CA.
                     Jon J.                        ent
                 Stantec                                                   and, CA
                                              sident
                 Tra
                                           Vice Pre
                                 ational/CCS                               land, CA
                                    Vice Presid
                              atio                                      an Francisco, CA
                               anedgian –
                              ers, Inc.                                Oakland, CA
                            rd K. Wood

                                     Res

                                     Jerry Serven   1   Director of Engineering

                SIGNED:              Aviation

             FOR COMMITTEE:          May 5, 2008

APPRO D BY:	            eccel        Omar Benjamin, Executive Director



                                                                                         7744.9.v2
                                                              BOARD TGF DATE 5106/08


FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In order for the Port to provide timely project turn-around to its tenants and to supplement
the Port's expertise and present. resources, the Port solicited Statements of Qualifications
(SOQs) from engineering consulting firms for As-Needed Engineering Services for
Pavement Analysis and Design Projects at the Oakland International A 'mot As a result of
the evaluations, staff recommended that a list of consultants be alified to provide
as-needed engineering design services for upcoming airport im•projects. On
December 4, 2007, the Board of Port Commissioners (Board), 	                       No. 07292,
approved the creation of said list of pre-qualified consultants co	                 gn teams
for a period not to exceed five years (see attached). The I of c 	           inc u es:


2. HNTB Corporation
3. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.
4. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
5. MACTEC Engineering and Consultants
6. Mead and Hunt, Inc.
7. Stantec Consulting, Inc.
8. TranSystems Corporation
9. T.Y. LIN International/CCS
10. URS Corporation
11. Wood Rodgers, Inc.

ANALYSIS

The original intention                          Board for approval to         re and execute
agreements with the                          jetty , arose ng. the next        years requiring
their expertise and                         ever, co                        negotiations and
subsequent Bo                      take several month                    ificantly delaying the
Port's ability to                     sign work                         sources are identified
or the decisib                   ye onward with                    is especially critical when
securing f

Rece                to dere] Avian o                            FAA) grant funding allocation
pro                re that grant funds be llo               on the actual . bid amounts in lieu of
esti               uction cost. Conseque                    between the date that the Port is
                       cific amount of funding            e and the date that , a. corresponding
                      identified, designed and bid in order to secure FAA funding has been
                   eased. Consequently, it's critical that the Port have the ability to quickly
            eeded design resources in order to be able to respond quickly FAA-funded
              e-sensitive projects. Therefore, staff believes it is in the Port's best interest to
pre	     and execute agreements with the 11 consultants on the ' following previously
appro	    list of pre-qualified design teams to provide on-call engineering design services
for pavement analysis and improvement projects•at the Oakland International Airport.


                                                2
                                                                                           1 77449.v2
                                                                             BOARD MTG. DATE: 5/06/08



                    TEAM                                       ROLE                              LOCATION              DBE
DMJM Harris/AECOM                  Prime (Management, Civil, Electrical, Mechanical)          Oakland, CA              No
  AGS                              Geotechnical                                               Oakland, CA              Yes
  Pond and Company                 Fueling Systems                                            Norcross, GA             No •
  Roy D. McQueen & Associates      Pavement Design                                            Sterling, VA             Yes
HNTB Corporation                   Prime (Management, Civil,.Fuel Systems))                   Oakland, CA              No
  YEI Engineers                    Electrical, Telecom and Security Systems                   Oakland, CA              Yes
  MaCraken & Woodman               Mechanical Engineering                                     6,kland, CA              No
  AGS                              Geotechnical Engineering                                   flak .•d, CA             Yes
  Touchdown Engineering            Pavement Design                                              - it„ra, . '           Yes
  Leland Saylor Associates         Cost Estimating                                              an Francis c CA        No
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.    Prime (Management, Civil, Pavement De                      9 aklane	 . 1            No
  Argus Consulting                 Fuel Systems                                               :lu-	 prings, MO         No
  Aviation System Consulting       Transportation Planning                                    B-	 el: , CA             No
  Dinter Engineering               Airfield Lighting                                          Reno, NV                 No
  Don Todd Associates              Estimating, Scheduling                                     lakland, CA              No
  Geolabs                          Geotechnical                                               Oakland, CA              No
  Lamphier-Gregory                 Environmental Mitigation                                   Oakland, CA              No
  Lewis Engineering                Agency Coordination                                        Piedmont, CA             Yes
  Nichols Engineering              Pavement Testing                                           Richmond, CA             No
  TransSolutions                   Airfield Activity Modell         ‘                         Fort Worth, TX           Yes
  YEI Engineers                    Electrical                                                 Oakland, 'CA             Yes .
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.   Prime (Manage	 ent,	         esign, Pa 't-	 Design)        Oakland, CA              No
  Dan Johnson Consulting           PCC Pavement A	 lye	                                     - Pierre, SD               No
  Roy D. McQueen & Associates      AC Pave	 -nt Eval	 do	        An	 sis                      Sterling, VA             Yes
  Ninyo and Moore                  Geotec                                                     Oakland, CA              No
  YEI Engineers                    Utility D                                                  Oakland, CA              Yes
  PLS Surveys                      S                                                          Oakland, CA              No
MACTEC Engineering and                         •a•t Design, Fuel Syste                        Oakland, CA              No
Consulting, Inc.
  YEI Engineers                       ct	                        ment Guidance Co             Oakland, CA               Yes
  Cordoba Corporation                      ona	         tr a a• and Signage, Structural       •: land, CA               Yes
Mead and Hunt, Inc.                         (Mang•, Civil, Paveme	 . b -sign)                 .	     Rosa, CA           No
  Kleinfelder                                             terial Testing                      Oa land, CA               No
  As 'lied Pavement Technolo•                       .	 sis & Non-Des	         Te- ng          Urbana, IL                No
Stantec Consulting, Inc.                ,e (Management, Civil, Pave 	 :	 6: ign               Oakland, CA               No
  Geolabs                          e -	         cal                                           Oakland, CA ,             No
  Sandis                            ra	 ..e                                                   Oakland, CA               No
  F.W. Associates                   lectrical                                                 Oakland, CA ,            Yes
  Pond and Co '                     ueling Systems                                            Atlanta, GA              No
  The Burns c                       MGS, Securit Sy                                           Phoenix, AZ              No
  Fiutherfo	 .: t. eke -           Structural                                                 San Francisco, CA        No
      SJ E	   nee                  Cost Estimatin                                             Oakland, CA              No
      Kea•ecti.•                   Community Outr                                             Oakland, CA              No
TranSyste .	        . •o .         Prime (Management,	          •	 i	     t Design)           Oakland, CA              No
      ;•                           Geotechnical                                               Oakland, CA              No
                                   Survey                                                     Oakland, CA              No
      E                            Fuel Systems                                               Tampa, FL                Yes
       . En•                       Electrical/Mechanical                                      Oakland, CA              Yes
T.	     1.1`	 to •	     al/CCS     Prime (Mgmt., Civil, Lighting, Striping, Fuel Systems)     Oakland, CA              No
      Ges .bs                      Geotechnical, Pavement-Design                              Oakland, CA              No
      Moffatt : NI	 of Engineers   Structural, Sanitary Sewers                                Oakland, CA              No
      TEECOM Ilesign Group         Telecommunications and Security Systems                    Oakland, CA              Yes
      YEI Engineers                Electrical                                                 Oakland, CA              Yes
      SJ Engineers                 Mechanical                                               , Oakland	               j No

                                                         3
                                                                                                              1 774-49.v2
                                                                BOARD MTG. DATE: 5/06/08


ENVIRONMENTAL

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3) ("the
general rule") states that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for
causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the activity 'may have a significant effect on the environment, the
activity is not subject to CEQA. Approving professional servic 	                agreements with
consultants for on-call engineering services is not a project un	                 EQA, and no
environmental review    is required for this action.

When projects are identified that require using these e
determine whether further environmental review is require
may be brought to the Board for approval of CEQA finding

MARITIME AND AVIATION PROJECT LABOR AG

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

OWNER CONTROLLED INSURANCE P

As the project and scope are f
applicable OCIP coverages and prov

GENERAL PLAN

This project is-for profes          lc	             not directly include a        or development
of property. Develop                is -th	   , suit _ from	        profession     rvices will be
subject to separate fin            con	     itY 'With t	               Oakl      General Plan in
accordance with                    e Charter.

LIVING WAGE

                                terms of                         information provided by the
                              e living w                        t forth in Section 728 of the
                   y of Oakland and Po                      um•er 3666, as amended, do not
                   e contractor employs                      21 employees working on Port-
                      for coverage.




                                               5
                                                                                           177449.v2
                                                     BOARD MTG. DATE: 12/4/07


                               AGENDA REPORT
TITLE:        Approval of List of Consultant Teams to Provide As-Needed En          nn
              Design Services for Pavement Analysis and Improvement
              Oakland International Airport, for a Period Not to Exc
              Commencing December 18, 2007 and Ending D
              (No Amount Involved)

AMOUNT:	      (No Amount Involved)

PARTIES INVOLVED:

              Corporate Name/Principal.
              DMJM Harris/AECOM
                 Michael G. Gasparro – Vice Presid
              HNTB Corporation                                         A
                 Steve Whitaker – Vice Presiden
              Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc
                 Kerwin C. Allen – Vice Pres
              Kimley-Horn and Associates,
                  E. Vincent Hourigan –
              MACTEC Engineering an                         Oakland, CA
                  Dharme Rathnaya
              Mead and Hunt, Inc.                           Santa Rosa, CA
                  Jon J. Fauche
              Stantec Consult                               Oakland, CA
                    Eric Niel on
              TranSystem                                    Oakland, CA
                  Mari • 12'
                      	
              T.Y. LI    n                                  Oakland, CA
                                        sident
                                                            San Francisco, CA

                                                            Oakland, CA


                                  Resolution

                                       Serventi, Director of Engineering

                                 Aviation ,

                OMMITTEE: December 3, 2007

                                 Omar Benjamin, Executive Director




                                                                                a 54502.v'
  On September 17, 2007, the RFQ was advertised in the Oakland Tribune and
  nationally published Engineering News Record (ENR) magazine. Also, on Septem
  2007, the Port posted an electronic copy of its RFQ on its website. On October
  the Port conducted a pre-proposal meeting to provide information relating to
  insurance requirements, the federal Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (D       rog
  and to answer questions regarding the RFQ and the selection process. Tw          t firms
  attended the meeting.

   On October 18, 2007, SOQs were received from 14 engineering cons

  A panel comprised of Port staff, consisting of representatives                   n and
  Engineering Divisions, reviewed the 14 proposals and determi ed th           ost highly
  qualified teams shouldbe, considered for analysis and design • ure
                                             l
                                                                                rovement
  projects:' ' The ' i rOPO Sa S- :Were-.. evaluated based 9.n
                             . : p       .       .                   am's qualifications,
                                                                                .



  responsiveness to the requirements of the RFQ, relenian ,ex e en       the quality and
  experience of key project personnel, as well as                       cal and project
  management abilities.

  The Port does not anticipate more than 11 proj                                                        ultant support over the
  next five years.. Additionally, there isf,no,:sp                                                      at this time, to further
  compare one firm's suitability over another's                                                      s specialized knowledge.
  For example, one firm or team Maypbsse                                                       o expertise and experience in
  hydrant fuel systems or pavement cond*                                                       pertise in these areas may be
  essential and/or provide value for                                                        ct, but not for other projects.
  Accordingly, it was decided to di                                                    erviews and oral presentations and
  recommend that the 11 most qualifi                                                      on the list of consultants eligible for
  future Airport pavement analysis

  As a result of the above eva u	                                   roces        ff recommends that the following consultant
  teams be pre-qualified for ego                                                Airport pavement improvement projects.

  TEAM                                                    61...)                                             LOCATION                        DBE


 DMJM   Harris/AECOM                                  °nme	      agement, Civil, Electrical, Mechanical)     Oakland, CA	      .            No
     AGS                                               eotechnical	                                      •   Oakland, CA                    Yes
     Pond and Comp. y                                 Fu. ng Systems                                         Norcross, GA                   No
     Roy D. McQue	               SSOC,                  V ment Design                                        Sterling, VA                   Yes

 HNTB Corporation                                    'rime (Management, Civil, Fuel Systems)                 Oakland, CA                   No
   YEI En.'•--rs                                     Electrical, Telecom & Security Systems                  Oakland, CA                   Yes
     MaCr.	        ► oodman                          Mechanical Engineering ,                                Oakland, CA                   No
     AG                                              Geotechnical Engineering                                Oakland, CA                   Yes
     Touc' L.	-:ng                                   Pavement Design                                         Ventura, CA                   Yes
      e a	 :	 .	 •	 .i.-	 a	 --                      Cost Estimating                                         San Francisco, CA             No

  e	 n	 y/J	     s - o	  '.nts, Inc.                 Prime (Management, Civil, Pavement Design)              Oakland, CA                  No
     •	 ow	 Con ulti 1g                              Fuel Systems                                            Blue Springs, MO             No
     •	 . ion	    to	 Consulting                     Transportation Planning                                 Berkeley, CA	          .     No
     •	 n•-r	 ••in-- ing                             Airfield Lighting                                       Reno, NV                     No
N D2 n Todd Associates                               Estimating, Scheduling                                  Oakland, CA                  No •
 ,, /,	   1-,_	                                      f-, _ -1- -,_ . -1                                                                   1. n __	   I


                         	                                                      	                                          	
          ph r-Gregory                               Environmental Mitigation                                Oakland, CA                  No
                                                                            3
                                                                                                                                   1 64 509.v   1
                                                       BOARD MTG, DA 1 gm:          I G./ 'IF/ t1




Placing these firms on a pre-qualified list to perform engineering services as projects arise
will avoid the significant cost and time required to solicit and evaluate proposals f	   ach
project. Additionally, establishing a list of 11 pre-qualified firms provides the Po
ability to quickly and effectively respond to project delivery requirements, with th
derived from having an extensive and varied resource of expertise on han
matched to the specific requirements of each project.

The list approved by the Board of pre-qualified consultant firms will be
During the next five years, each time a pavement improvement proje
consultant support services, staff will return to the Board to request
execute an agreement with one of the firms on said approved list.

Due to the anticipated use of federal funds, the Port's Non-d        inatio mall/Local
Business Utilization Policy, including preference points,                ply to the selection
process or to any future agreements executed based o                       ation process and
supported by federal funds. However, should a no                            project arise, the
Port's Non-Discrimination and Small/Local Business                       will apply and said
policy requirements shall be negotiated as part of t                 proved by the Board.

As a condition of award of a contract to                      ng services for an upcoming
project, the Consultants are required                           he regulations relative to
non-discrimination in federally-assisted                     United States Department of
Transportation Title 49, Code of Fed                        art 2, including Disadvantaged
Business Enterprises requirements, d

BUDGET & FINANCIAL IMPACT

The cost associated with any                      I services agreement executed with a firm
on the subject list of cons                    ed in the relevant construction projects in the
Capital Improvement Pro                       P project budget will be reviewed for adequacy
of funds prior to staff r                  d to request approval to prepare and execute an
agreement with one                      list of consultants.



Current sta                    e affected by this Board action.

SUSTA

                    projects that will be supported by these consultant services will
                    here to the . Port's Sustainability Program requirements, such as
                p ocessing cement concrete and asphalt concrete waste from pavement
                or use in other Port projects.




                                            5
                                                                                            645C9.v1
                                                     BOARD MTG. AT it: -14/4/u



2. Approve the list of consultant teams to provide as-needed engineering design services
    for pavement analysis and improvement projects at the Oakland International Airo• for
    a period not to exceed five years commencing December 18, 2007 an' 	             • ng
    December 17, 2012. This option will eliminate significant costs and time	    oc at d
    with soliciting and evaluating proposals for each project. This is the r
    option.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Board approve the following list of con 	    •••vide
as-needed engineering design services for pavement analysis and i••ects at
the Oakland International Airport, for a period not to exce d fiv	   commencing
December 18, 2007 and ending December 17, 2012:

1.  DMJM Harris/AECOM
2.  HNTB Corporation
3.  Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.
4.  Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
5.  MACTEC, Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
6.  Mead and Hunt, Inc.
7.  Stantec Consulting, Inc.
8.  TranSystems Corporation
9.  T.Y. LIN International/CCS
10. URS Corporation
11. Wood Rodgers, Inc.




                                          7
                                                                                  '.64509y1
                                                                  May 6, 2008
                                                                  Item No.: A-7 (6)
                                                                  CHA /jev


                 BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS
                       CITY OF OAKLAND


                             RESOLUTION NO. 08097


      RESOLUTION FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A PROPOSE
      WOOD RODGERS, INC. AT A MAXIMUM COMPENSATION 0
      CONSULTING SERVICES CONSTITUTES PROFESSION
      SPECIALIZED SERVICES THAT ARE TEMPORARY
      STANDARD BIDDING PROCEDURES AND AUTHO
      AGREEMENT.



       RESOLVED that based upon the inf                fined in Board Agenda
Report Item No. A-7; dated May 6, 200                      enda Report"), the
Board of Port Commissioners (herein the                   Inds and determines
that the proposed agreement with WOO RODGERS,        for •on-call engineering
design services for pavement analys                  projects at the Oakland
International Airport for-.a -period                ve (5) years -commencing •
May 6, 2008 and Ending May 6, 20 3 wi            an agreement for obtaining
professional, technical and sp- ized       es hat are temporary' in nature'
and that it is in the best int            ort to secur such services from
WOOD RODGERS, INC. without s and           nd be it

        FURTHER RESOLVED th                    eby appr           authorizes the
  execution for and on b                    d of said             upon terms and
  conditions consisten                        Report and prov         that WOOD
  RODGERS, INC. sha                      for such     vices, incl     g costs of
, miscellaneous reimb                  at a maximum      ensatio that shall not
  exceed $850,000; and b

      FURTHER                     s resoluti                      of and does not
create or con                    tract, or                ny right, entitlement
or propert                      any obligati                 on . the part of the
Board or                     loyee of                   r solution approves and
authori                       an agre                  e with the terms of this
resol                    until a se                     cement is duly executed
on eha              Board as author                 resolution, is signed and
app              form and legality by              torney, and is delivered to
other               party, there shall            lid or effective agreement.




           ar meeting held on May 6, 2008

Pas      y the following vote:

Ayes: Commissioners Ayers-Johnson, Gordon, Katzoff, McClure,
      Scates, and Uno – 6
Excused: President Batarse
                                                                              179884
0

rn
                                                            BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09


                               AGENDA REPORT

TITLE:            Approval of First Supplemental Agreement wi                Kimley-Horn and
                  Associates, Inc., to Provide As-Needed Engineer            esign Services for
                  Pavement Analysis and Improvement Pr                       at the Oakland
                  International Airport, in the Amount of $500,0

AMOUNT:	          $500,000

PARTIES INVOLVED:

                   Corporate Name/Principal
                   Kimley-Horn and Associates,
                     Charles Spinks, Vice Presi

TYPE OF ACTION:

SUBMITTED BY:                                                       Director of Engineering

COMMITTEE ASSIGNED:

SCHEDULED FOR COMMITTEE:

APPROVED BY:                                              ecutive Director


FACTUAL BACKGR

Stormwater drain                  and International Airport (OAK) is critical with respect to
the operational r                            away from the runways, taxiways, aprons, and
other operating are                       systems of conveyances. These conveyances
include, but are not lim         ipes, culverts, open vegetated channels, detention ponds,
and pump house stations.

Portio             urrent storm ater drainage infrastructure are outdated and require
exc                  ce, minor improvements, and in some locations, major renovations to
r                      ding and to prevent future drainage issues. It is also important for
ai                      r near runways and taxiways is not allowed to pond due to the risk
of bi                   ngly, Port staff has implemented a project entitled the Stormwater
Manage                  ent Implementation Plan to better understand the current state of
the stormw           age systems, and plan for any necessary improvements in order to
ensure their co     ed use into the future.

The Stormwater Management Improvement Implementation Plan for OAK will include the
development of a stormwater prioritization protocol to evaluate each asset for rehabilitation
or replacement at OAK. The evaluation will entail review of existing facilities, records

                                                                                       217694 v1
                                                              BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09


search, mapping, hydraulic and hydrologic modeling, and report preparation. This
evaluation will provide conceptual plans (preliminary design) for stormwater infrastructure
improvements to be included in future Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) grant-funded projects at OAK. In addition, the implementation
plan will present recommended maintenance plans and stormwater best management
practices.

On December 4, 2007, the Board of Port Commissioners (Board)                 ed the creation of
a list of pre-qualified consultants consisting of 11 design teams              nt analysis and
improvement projects at the OAK for a period not to exceed                         tion 07292).
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., was one of the listed design tea s.

On May 6, 2008, the Board authorized the preparation            execution of agree ts.with
the 11 firms subject to a maximum compensation                  50,000 over a 5-year period
commencing May 6, 2008 through . May 6, 2013 (Re                    092-08102). The intent of
having the executed agreements is to be able to                       o FAA-funded and other
time-sensitive projects. The May 6, 2008 Agenda                    ated that projects involving
design fees greater than $850,000 require additional B            royal.

ANALYSIS

Port staff reviewed the list of pre-qua             tants, conducted interviews and selected
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.,                              ng consultant for this project.
Kimley-Horn and Associates has comp                               ater infrastructure projects' at
several airports across the country. Port                 s it will benefit from Kimley-Horn
and Associates' expertise and experience.             dition, the Kimley-Horn and Associates
team possess specialized hydrologic and by            c modeling skills necessary to complete
the stormwater drainage	            cture project.      ordingly, based on their recent similar
project experience at o	              and their sp alized skills, staff believes it to be in the
best interest of the                   Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., for this project for •
reasons of econom                                Staff anticipates Kimley-Horn and Associates
will complete the stor                          provement plan on or about September 2009.

The cost of the engineering	          been negotiated at $617,127 and a Technical Service
Order has been issued to co	           the work. Since the negotiated cost of the work is
approac	           Board-approve•contract maximum compensation of $850,000 in
accord	                ay 6, 2008 Board approval, staff is requesting an increase to the
maxi	                    currently approved by the Board.

Staff                      n increase of $500,000 in order to provide some available
contract'                  he development of construction drawings should FAA or other
federal fun               available at short notice to provide improvement to the highest
priority project.




                                               2
                                                                                         217694 v1
                                                              BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09


BUDGET & FINANCIAL IMPACT

Sufficient funds to cover this work are contained in the Aviation Capital Improvement
Program for FY 2008-09 under CIP Element AA.00560.99.

STAFFING IMPACT

The work contemplated under this Agenda Report would not affect 	           g staffing levels.

SUSTAINABILITY

Port staff and consultants attempt to prepare technical memos and repo ctronic
format (e.g., PDF), saving paper, ink, electricity (associat- • with printing and co•), and
trees. It is anticipated that there will be opportunities fo implementing energy efficient
measures with respect to the design of the improv e s. These measures will include
demolition materials reuse, use of materials wit re cled o ent, and high efficiency
pumping systems.

ENVIRONMENTAL

CEQA Determination

This project is categorically exempt fr                  ents of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA                             15306, Information Collection.
CEQA does not . apply to basic colle                            perimental management and
resource evaluation activities for informati           ng, or as part of a study, which do not
result in a serious or major disturbance to th       ronment.

Additional CEQA analys•rformed prio         the start of any project that results from
the findings from the	     frastructure I plementation Plan.

Environmental Com

This project will not gener         ndle any hazardous or contaminated materials.

Mitigation

                         e any significant impacts to the environment therefore no mitigation




This project	          require mitigation measures; therefore there are no related or
adopted plans for s project.




                                                 3
                                                                                        217694 v1
                                                              BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09


MARITIME AND AVIATION PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT (MAPLA)

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.

OWNER CONTROLLED INSURANCE PROGRAM (OCIP)

This project will be insured by the Port's Owner Controlled Insura

GENERAL PLAN

This project is for professional services and will not 	       ectly include any a	       ion of
property. Development projects that result from these 	          sional services will be subject
to separate findings of conformity with the City of Oa	         eneral Plan in accordance with
Section 727 of the Charter.

LIVING WAGE

Based upon a review of the terms of the agreement a 	            ation provided by the
contractor, it appears that the living wage requirements se ort in Section 728 of the
Charter of the City of Oakland and P	    • rdinance Number 3::6, as amended, do not
apply because the contractor emplo 	               the 21 employees working on Port-
related work required for coverage.

OPTIONS

1.	    Proceed with the work under the cur 	    approved agreement and wait until an
       increase to the ma	     ompensation	      uired, should federal funding be made
       available and t	         ooses to ch ge the project scope to include the
       development	                documents for improvements. This option is not
       recommend	                         uce a delay in design as staff seeks the
       necessary fu

2.     Proceed with the w	         -r the currently approved agreement. If federal funding is
       made available for imp	           ts, the Port could utilize other design professionals to
       co	      the constructio	        cuments. However, this approach is likely to take
                       lete, taking into account the time that would be needed for other
                        nals to gain a familiarity with the work completed to date, which
                          al funding at risk if there are tight schedule constraints associated
                        as there sometimes are. Thus, this option is not recommended.

3.                         tiate a Request for Qualifications and interview process for
       devel•e stormwater infrastructure improvement plan and any associated
       improve projects. This option would ignore the intent of having the 11
       executed A -Needed Engineering Design Services for Pavement Analysis and
       Improvement Projects agreements in place and require Port staff to undertake an
       extensive consultant selection process, costing valuable time, which could put the
       federal funding at risk. This option. is not recommended.
                                               4
                                                                                         217694 v1
                                                              BOARD MTG. DATE: 2/3/09



4. Approve the first supplemental agreement with Kimley-Horn. and Associates, Inc., to
      provide As-Needed Engineering Design Services for Pavement Analysis and
      Improvement Projects at the Oakland International Airport, in the amount of
      $500,000. This is the recommended option.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Board find that 1) the proposed se                  emplated under
the agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., are of a                     echnical and
specialized nature that are temporary in nature; and 2) it is in the •est int        he public
to utilize Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., for this project, because of better         y and
performance, as described herein. It is also recommend- that the Board appro             e first
supplemental agreement with Kimley-Horn and Ass                 , Inc., to provide-As-Needed
Engineering Design Services for Pavement Analy                      rovement Projects at the
Oakland International Airport, in the amount of $50




                                               5
                                                                                        217694 v1
                                                  Feb 3, 2009




  PORT OF OAKLAND
T:\ENG\CURRENT\BOARDLETTERMAP \1069301oLdwg

                                              6
                                                      BOARD MTG. DATE: 5/6/08


                                                        	              Item:
                           AGENDA REPORT
TITLE:         Authorization to Prepare and Execute Agreements with Design Teams
               for On-Call Engineering Design Services for Pavement Analysis and
               Improvement Projects at the Oakland International Airport, for a Period
               Not to Exceed Five Years, Commencing May 2008 and Ending
               May 6, 2013, in the Amount of $9,350,000

AMOUNT:	       $9,350,000 ($850,000 for each of 11 Teams

PARTIES INVOLVED:

               'Corporate -Name/PtinCipä	                       Locationn -
                DMJM Harris/AECOM	                                        CA
                   Michael G. Gasparro –Vice P
                HNTB Corporation
                   Steve Whitaker– Vice P
                Kennedy/Jenks Consultan
                   Kerwin C. Allen – Vi
                Kimley-Horn and Asso
                   E. Vincent Ho igan                    er
                MACTEC Engin            and     Iting, Inc.
                   Dharme Rath                  al Engineer
                Mead and
                   Jon J.                      ent
                Stantec

                Tra
                                           Vice Pre
                                 ational/CCS
                           s	       Vice Presid
                              atio
                               anedgian –
                              ers, Inc.
                          rd K. Wood

                                   Res

                  /".              Jerry Serven Director of Engineering

               SIGNED:             Aviation

           FOR COMMITTEE:          May 5, 2008

APPRO D BY:	            eysfel     Omar Benjamin, Executive Director



                                           1
                                                                                 77449N2
                                                              BOARD MTG. DATE: 5/06/08


FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In order for the Port to provide timely project turn-around to its tenants and to supplement
the Port's expertise and present resources, the Port solicited Statements of Qualifications
(SOQs) from engineering consulting firms for As-Needed Engineering Services for
Pavement Analysis and Design Projects at the Oakland International A irport. As a result of
the evaluations, staff recommended that a list of consultants be e- • alified to provide
as-needed engineering design services for upcoming airport imerov . e projects. On
December 4, 2007, the Board of Port Commissioners (Board), 	        its - • ti.• No.. 07292,
approved the creation of said list of pre-qualified consultants con . ti 	    . 11 de .sgn teams
for a period not to exceed five years (see attached). The I of c	          a	    Inc uses:
                                                              ,,,::
            gritrg
2. HNTB Corporation
3. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.
4. Kirnley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
5. MACTEC Engineering and Consultants
6. Mead and Hunt, Inc.
7. Stantec Consulting, Inc.
8. TranSystems Corporation
9. T.Y. LIN I.nternationai/CCS
10. U RS Corporation
11. Wood Rodgers, Inc.

ANALYSIS

The original intention                          Board for approval to        re and execute
agreements with the                          jects aros ng the next           years requiring
their expertise and.                        ever, co                       negotiations and
subsequent Bo                      take several month                   ificantly delaying the
Port's ability to pr                  sign work                        sources are identified
or the decisib IS                    onward with                  is especially critical when
securing f:	     a fu

Rece     c an •'-s to deral Aviat 0                              FAA) grant funding allocation
pro du s -q re that grant funds be llo                       on the actual . bid amounts in lieu of
esti                uction cost. Conseque tly, he            between the date that the Port is
                 -spe cific amount of funding	    avail-0 e and the date that a corresponding
.rojec.	u          b- identified, designed and bid in order to secure FAA funding has been
                    eased. Consequently, it's critical that the Port have the ability to quickly
        a eeded design resources in order to be able to respond quickly to . FAN-funded
..; • oth ti ► e-sensitive projects. Therefore, staff believes it is in the port's best interest to
                                                              ,
pre  s.  and execute agreements with the 11 consultnts on the followi
                                                              ng previously
appro -II list of pre-qualified design teams to provide on-call engineering design services
for pavement analysis and improvement projects at the Oakland International Airport.


                                                2
                                                                                            -:77449.v2
                                                                                      BOARD MTG. DATE: 5/06/08



                    TEAM                                             ROLE	                                 LOCATION          DBE

DMJM Harris/AECOM                        Prime (Management, Civil, Electrical, Mechanical)	            Oakland, CA            No
 AGS                                     Geotechnical	                                                 Oakland, CA            Yes
  Pond and Company                       Fueling Systems	                                              Norcross, GA           No •
  Ro D McQueen & Associates              Pavement Desi g n	                                            Sterlin•, VA           Yes.
HNTB Corporation                         Prime (Management, Civil, Fuel Systems) 	                     Oakland, CA             •
 YEI Engineers                           Electrical, Telecom .and Security Systems	                , Oakland, CA               -

  AGS                                    Geotechnical Engineering
  Touchdown Engineering                  Pavement Design. .
  Leland Saylor Associates               Cost Estimating	                           an Francis . CA
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.          Prime (Management, Civil, Pavement De ":	 ^aklan•, .                                     •
  Argun Consulting                       Fuel Systems	                                   prings, MO                               •
  Aviation System Consulting             Transportation Planning	                  B-	 - : , CA
  Dinter Engineering                     Airfield Lighting	                        Reno, NV                                       •
  Don Todd Associates                    Estimating, Scheduling	                   $akland, CA                                    •
  Geolabs                                Geotechnical	                             Oakland, CA                                    •
  Lamphier-Gregory                       Environmental Mitigation     ‘Oakland, CA                                                •
  Lewis Engineering                      Agency Coordination	                      Piedmont, CA
  Nichols Engineering                    Pavement Testing	                         Richmond, CA                                   •
  TransSolutions                         Airfield Activity Modell .	               Fort Worth, TX
  YEI Engineers
Kimley-Horn and Associates, lnc.         Prime (Manage g ent,
  Dan Johnson Consulting                 PCC Pavement A • .lye'	                                       Pierre, SD                 •
  Roy D. McQueen & Associates            AC Pave	 -nt Eval : do	        ' An.	 sin	                    Sterling, VA
  Ninyo and Moore                        Geotec ► ica
  YEI Engineers                          Utility D	 ig
                                                                                              41
MACTEC Engineering and                              	
                                          rime (	 :•.•-m: ,	         .	 - t Design, Fuel Syste	        Oakland, CA            No
Consulting, Inc.
  YEI Engineer                              ct .	 I,	      e Mo	 ment Guidance Co	                Oakland, CA                 Yes
  Cordoba Cordoration
Mead and Hunt, Inc.
                                   A	p im	 lona.	
                                   i
                                                        ivi ,	
                                                         •t	
                                                                '	 and Si•na e, Structural	
                                                             ► , Civil, Paveme •	      sign)	
                                                                                                      land, CA
                                                                                                         Rosa, CA
                                                                                                                              Yes
                                                                                                                              No
  Kleinfelder                               o ec	            terial TestingOa land, CA          ,                             No
  A	 lied Pavement Technolo              Pialtu,.....A sis & Non-Des	                             Urbana, IL                  No
Stantec Consulting, Inc.                 Pn •	 (Management, Civil, Pave	 .	          : i n	       Oakland, CA                 No
  Geolabs                                   ote •	 cal	                                           Oakland, CA                 No
  Sandis                                 Arai	 de	                                                Oakland, CA                 No
  F,W. Associates                         lectrical	                                              Oakland, CA                 Yes
  Pond and Co •                             eling Systems	                                        Atlanta, GA                 No
  The Burns c • d                         MGS, Securit	 Sy	                                       Phoenix, AZ                 No
  Rutherfo 4	 e eke -                    Structural	                                              San Francisco, CA           No
  SJ E	 'nee                             Cost Estimatin•Oakland, CA                                                           No
  Kea	        ect • 4                    Community Outr	                                          Oakland, CA                 No
TranSyste	       • do :	 •               Prime (Managemen	                        t Design)       Oakland, CA                 No
    -	 -t                                Geotechnical                                             Oakland, CA                 No
          •                              Survey                                                   Oakland, CA                 No
      E                                  Fuel Systems                                             Tampa, FL                   Yes
          En•                            Electrical/Mechanical                                    Oakland, CA                 Yes
T.	       `	 to •	     'al/CCS           Prime (Mgmt., Civil, Lighting, Striping, Fuel Systems)   Oakland, CA                 No
      Ge•.                               Geotechnical, Pavement-Design                            Oakland, CA                 No
      Moffatt	      of Engineers         Structural, Sanitary Sewers                              Oakland, CA                 No
      TEECOM resign Group                Telecommunications and Security Systems                  Oakland, CA                 Yes
      YEI Engineers                      Electrical                                               Oakland, CA                 Yes
      SJ Engineers                       Mechanical                                               Oakland                   j No

                                                                 3
                                                                                                                      1 77449N2
                                                               BOARD MTG. DATE: 5/06/08


    ENVIRONMENTAL

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3) ("the
general rule") states that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for
causing a. significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the activity 'may have a significant effect on the environment, the
activity is not subject to CEQA. Approving professional servic	                 agreements with
consultants for on-call engineering services is not a project un	                 EQA, and no
environmental review is required for this action.

When projects are identified that require using . these en
determine whether further environmental review is require
may be brought to the Board for approval of CEQA finding

MARITIME AND AVIATION PROJECT LABOR AG

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

OWNER CONTROLLED INSURANCE                               CIP)

As the project and scope are f                           C-. ital Improvement Program, the
applicable OCIP coverages and prov

GENERAL PLAN

This project is-for profes                       not directly include a     or development
of property. Develop                ts. -th	  suit from	      - profession    rvices will be
subject to separate fin            con o ity "with t	              Oakl. • General Plan in
accordance with                    e Charter.

LIVING WAGE

Based                            terms of                      nd information provided by the
contra                         e living w                          forth in Section 728 of the
Cha                y of Oakland and Po                        m er 3666, as amended, do not
app                e' contractor employs                      21 employees working on Port-
r                      for coverage.




                                              5
                                                                                         177449.v2
                                                        BOARD MTG. DATE: 12/4/07

                          AGENDA REPORT
              Approval of List of Consultant Teams to Provide As-Needed En
              Design Services for Pavement Analysis and improvement	       cts at t
              Oakland International Airport, for a Period Not to Exc Ye
              Commencing December 18, 2007 and Ending D
              (No Amount Involved)

AMOUNT:	      (No Amount Involved)

PARTIES INVOLVED:

              Corporate Name/Principal
              DMJM Harris/AECOM
                 Michael G. Gasparro – Vice Presid
              HNTB Corporation
                 Steve Whitaker – Vice Presiden
              Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc	                     land, CA
                 Kerwin C. Allen – Vice Pres
              Kimley-Horn and Associates,                     Oakland, CA
                 E. Vincent Hourigan –
              MACTEC Engineering an                           Oakland, CA
                 Dharme Rathnaya                       n er
              Mead and Hunt, Inc.                             Santa Rosa, CA
                 Jon J. Fauche
              Stantec Consu                                   Oakland, CA
                   Eric Nie
                                                              Oakland, CA
                                            resident
                                                              Oakland, CA

                                                              San Francisco, CA

                                                              Oakland, CA


TYPE OF Ar	                      Resolution

SUBMIT D	                              Serventi, Director of Engineering

                    D:	          Aviation

                OMMITTEE: December 3, 2007

                                 Omar Benjamin, Executive Director




                                                                                  • E-45Gc.v•
 On September 17, 2007, the RFQ was advertised in the Oakland Tribune and in the
 nationally published Engineering News Record (ENR) magazine. Also, on Septem	          17,
 2007, the Port posted an electronic copy of its RFQ on its website. On October	         7
 the Port conducted a pre-proposal meeting to provide information , relating to
 insurance requirements, the federal Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (D        Prog
 and to answer questions regarding the RFQ and the selection process. Tw             firms
 attended the meeting.

 On October 18, 2007, SOQs were received from 14 engineering cons

A panel comprised of Port staff, consisting of representatives                                      4111..,,n and
Engineering Divisions, reviewed the 14 proposals and determi ed th                                          ost highly
qualified teams shoulctbe, considered for analysis and design  u re                                  port i rovement
projedt:= ' , The ' proposals were evaluated: bbased on                                              s qualifications,
responsiveness to the requirements of the RFQ, releVán                                                the quality and
experience of key project personnel, as well as                                                      cal and project
management abilities.

The Port does not anticipate more than 11 proj                                              ultant support over the
next five years. Additionally, there is,,no-::sp                                            at this time, to further
compare one firm's suitability over anothers                                             s specialized knowledge.
For example, one firm or team may.posse                                            o expertise and experience in
hydrant fuel systems or pavement cond. ion                                         pertise in these areas may be
essential and/or provide value for                                                  but not for other projects.
Accordingly, it was decided to di                                          erviews and oral presentations and
recommend that the 11 most qualifi                                          d on the list of consultants eligible for
future Airport pavement analysis

As a result of the above eva                          roces           ff recommends that the following consultant
teams be pre-qualified for                                           Airport pavement improvement projects.

TEAM	                                  .     °IL.)	         -                                     LOCATION                            DBE

DMJM Harris/AECOM                          mime	 	   agement, Civil, Electrical ., Mechanical)   Oakland, CA	              .         No
  AGS                                        eotechnical•                                        Oakland, CA                         Yes
  Pond and Comp. y                         Fu: ng Systems                                        Norcross, GA                        No
  Roy D. McQue	  : 'ssoc.                  "r	 ment Design                                       Sterling, VA                        Yes

HNTB Corporation                           "rime (Management, Civil, Fuel Systems)               Oakland, CA                          No	 .
  YEI En.... - -rs                         Electrical, Telecom & Security Systems                Oakland, CA                          Yes
  MaCr.	         V oodman                  Mechanical Engineering.                               Oakland, CA                          No
  AG                                       Geotechnical Engineering                              Oakland, CA                          Yes
  Touc' .	               -r. 'ng           Pavement Design                                       Ventura, CA                          Yes
   e a	 6	 .	      '. -	 .	    '..         Cost Estimating.                                      San Francisco, CA                  - No

 e	 n- .y/J- •	 s • o	   '-nts, Inc.       Prime (Management, Civil, Pavement Design)	 .         Oakland, CA                        No
         u	 Con ult ,g                     Fuel Systems                                          Blue Springs, MO                   No
    •	 i	 ion	 •	 to	 Consulting	 .        Transportation Planning                               Berkeley, CA                       No
    •in•-r	     in— ring                   Airfield Lighting                                     Reno, NV                           No
                                                                                                 r\-1.1---1	   n   A                Al.-
                                                        	                                                              	
                                           Geotechnical                                          Oakland, CA	                       No
                                                                    	
                                           Environmental Mitigation                              Oakland, CA                        No
                                                                 3
                                                                                                                               164509.v1
	
                                                              BOARD MTG. DA         I it: 14/4tIlf 1




    Placing these firms on a pre-qualified list to perform engineering services as projects arise
    will avoid the significant cost and time required to solicit and evaluate proposals f•	  ach
    project. Additionally, establishing a list of 11 pre-qualified firms provides the Po        e
    ability to quickly and effectively respond to project delivery requirements, with th
    derived from having an extensive and varied resource of expertise on han
    matched to the specific requirements of each project.

    The list approved by the Board of pre-qualified consultant firms will be      ali•	     fi	 -
    During the next five years, each time a pavement improvement proje               • e	      sin    ing
    consultant support services, staff will return to the Board to request                           and
    execute an agreement with one of the firms on said approved list.

    Due to the anticipated use of federal funds, the Port's Non-d           inatio	     nd • mall/Local
    Business Utilization Policy, including preference points,                   ply to the selection
    process or to any future agreements executed based o                            ation process and
    supported by federal funds. However, should a no                                project arise, the
    Port's Non-Discrimination and Small/Local Business                       is will apply and said
    policy requirements shall be negotiated as part of t                    proved by the Board.

    As a condition of award of a contract to p                       ng services for an upcoming
    project, the Consultants are required                              he regulations relative to
    non-discrimination in federally-assisted                        United States Department of
    Transportation Title 49, Code of .Fed                          art 2, including Disadvantaged
    Business Enterprises requirements, d

    BUDGET & FINANCIAL IMPACT

    The cost associated with any                         I services agreement executed with a firm
    on the subject list of cons                       ed in the relevant construction projects in the
    Capital Improvement Pro                          P project budget will be reviewed for adequacy
    of funds prior to staff r                     d to request approval to prepare and execute an
    agreement with one                         list of consultants.

    STAFFING IMPA

    Current sta                       e affected by this Board action.

    SUSTA         BILL

    U                    ific projects that will be supported by these consultant services will
                              here to the Port's Sustainability Program requirements, such as
                          p ocessing cement concrete and asphalt concrete waste from pavement
                         or use in other Port projects.




                                                    5
                                                     BOARD PAN	      LJA.       dc—i --rt   NJ




2. Approve the list of consultant teams to provide as-needed engineering design services
    for pavement analysis and improvement projects at the Oakland International Airo• for
    a period not to exceed five years commencing December 18, 2007 an._ng
    December 17; 2012. This option will eliminate significant costs and time 	
                                               n                                 oca.t
    with soliciting and evaluating proposals for each project. This is the r•mme
    option.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Board approve the following list of con                 vide
as-needed engineering design services for pavement analysis and i               jects at
the Oakland International Airport, for a period not to exce d fly             mmencing
December 18, 2007 and ending December 17, 2012:

1.    DMJM Harris/AECOM
2.    HNTB Corporation
3.    Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.
4.    Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
5.    MACTEC,Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
6.    Mead and Hunt, Inc.
7.    Stantec Consulting, Inc.
8.    TranSystems Corporation
9.    T.Y. LIN International/CCS
10.   URS Corporation
11.   Wood Rodgers, Inc.




                                          7
                                                                                    '.54509.v1
                                                                  May 6, 2008
                                                                  Item No.: A-7 (4)
                                                                  CHA /jev


                 BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS
                       CITY OF OAKLAND


                           RESOLUTION NO. 08095


     RESOLUTION FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A PROPOSE
     KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. AT A MAXIMUM C
     $850,000 FOR CONSULTING SERVICES CONSTI
     TECHNICAL AND SPECIALIZED SERVICES THAT ARE
     WAIVING STANDARD BIDDING PROCEDURES AND AU
     AGREEMENT'.



       RESOLVED that based upon the inf                   ned in Board Agenda
Report Item No. A-7, dated May 6, 20               th enda Report"), the
Board of Port Commissioners (herein the Boa       hereby finds and determines
that the proposed agreement with KI I -HORN         OCIATES, INC. for on-call
engineering design services for pav         lysis improvement projects at
the Oakland International Airport fo             of to exceed" fiveyears
commencing May 6, 2008 and End •g Ma               11 constitute an agreement
for obtaining professional,                   specialized services that are
temporary in nature and that it             st interest • the Port to secure
such services fromKIMLEY-H                   , INC. with	     standard bidding;
and be it

      FURTHER RESOLVED                                            uthorizes the
execution for and on                                                n terms and
conditions consist,e                                  oviding tha MLEY-HORN
AND ASSOCIATES,                                         ch ser ces, including
costs of miscell                                                  pensation that
shall not exce

                                                           ence of and does not
create or                    contract,                      y right, entitlement
or prope                       any ob                bility on the part of the
Board                      mployee o                     resolution approves and
autho	           -xecu    of an agre             rda • ce with the terms of this
res	             less and until a se                agreement is duly executed
                                                    resolution, is signed and
                   rm and legality by t          tto•ney, and is delivered to
                    party, there shall be       valid or effective agreement.



            ar meeting held on May 6, 2008



Ayes: Commissioners Ayers-Johnson, Gordon, Katzoff, McClure,
      Scates, and Uno – 6
Excused: President Batarse –1
                                                                              179889

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:26
posted:8/14/2011
language:Italian
pages:119