Lately, our Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant has come under the spotlight with her decisions on contracting work for Alameda. She’s been awarding city contracts to her former bosses and colleagues without getting approval from the City Council. She’s able to do so because individual contracts have been less than $75,000. Anything over that requires a Council vote, so these contracts are off the radar.
Westhoff, Cone & Holmstedt, Graphtek, and Rips Consulting are city contract holders because of their relationship with Ms. Gallant. And how did these out-of-towners get city contracts over local Alameda businesses? Because Gallant never put these contracts up for open bidding. Again, transparency is lost.
And of course Ms. Gallant adds more fuel to the fire when any kind of inquiry is directed at her; she goes on the defensive. It looks more suspicious when she acts as if she is being attacked by the councilmembers when questioned over her doings.
On another project it looks like she may be passing on her tricks to her protégé Deputy City Manager Jennifer Ott. The inexperienced DCM might be doing Ms. Gallant’s bidding, such as leading City Planning meetings in place of the Interim City Manager. It’s an ambitious delegation of power, which includes Ms. Ott running meetings with 13 or more corporate lawyers and planners, and making decisions about the biggest land use project Alameda has seen, Alameda Point.
So, Ms. Ott hires Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), her former employer, to evaluate Suncal’s pro forma for Alameda Point. EPS came back with a report that said Suncal grossly underestimated costs for the Alameda Point redevelopment and that Alameda does not have enough reserves for the project. EPS’s report isn’t representative because they took their assumptions from a textbook and not from Alameda, California or any current market data.
It seems open competition is out the door. Whether or not these contracts or findings are just, it’s hard to find the transparency. It looks as if an in with Ms. Gallant or Ms. Ott may come with special privileges. This doesn’t benefit Alameda or the future of Alameda Point.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Campaign Finance Reform...Not Yet
The Alameda City Council last week decided not to adopt the ordinance to enforce a cap at $250 on election contributions to local campaigns at this time. Back in February, the City Council had tasked the Sunshine Task Force to compile a list of community issues pertaining to access to open government.
I watched the fireworks and though there were inferences that incumbents or their friends stood to benefit from capping others’ ability to raise money during this election year, it came across as an honest difference of opinion.
Councilor Gilmore expressed concern in particular about the timing and she had a good point. It was all pretty much an undone deal at any rate since Councilor Matarrese said he had been to a Democratic Club meeting recently on the topic and nobody seemed to even know the Council had it under consideration.
And speaking of Gilmore and fireworks, she did not like the look of Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant’s decision to toss some no-bid work to a bond advisor who used to be her boss. Councilor Tam was not impressed either, and it was shocking to watch the City Manager act as if she were being accused of taking kickbacks. Nobody said anything about kickbacks, but that there was an appearance of a conflict of interest – especially since her old boss and friend was getting more than 75K on the deal. This amount normally needs Council approval.
When back and forth was over, there seemed to be agreement that council would tighten up the leash on this sort of thing going forward. Stay tuned.
I watched the fireworks and though there were inferences that incumbents or their friends stood to benefit from capping others’ ability to raise money during this election year, it came across as an honest difference of opinion.
Councilor Gilmore expressed concern in particular about the timing and she had a good point. It was all pretty much an undone deal at any rate since Councilor Matarrese said he had been to a Democratic Club meeting recently on the topic and nobody seemed to even know the Council had it under consideration.
And speaking of Gilmore and fireworks, she did not like the look of Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant’s decision to toss some no-bid work to a bond advisor who used to be her boss. Councilor Tam was not impressed either, and it was shocking to watch the City Manager act as if she were being accused of taking kickbacks. Nobody said anything about kickbacks, but that there was an appearance of a conflict of interest – especially since her old boss and friend was getting more than 75K on the deal. This amount normally needs Council approval.
When back and forth was over, there seemed to be agreement that council would tighten up the leash on this sort of thing going forward. Stay tuned.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Environmental Sunshine
While the City’s Sunshine Task Force toils under weighty issues like campaign finance reform, I have a little side bit of environmental sunshine I’ve digging for answers on. What-all is really left to us from the Navy in terms of toxics like lead, asbestos, arsenic, VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) depleted uranium even???
Check out this laundry list for a rough idea at least of what’s out there, and where:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Contams&id=0902731
Though this is really a federal issue from the historical perspective, in my excavation I discovered that the big, multi-million dollar study for much of the Naval Air Station is being done right now by the city, and on SunCal’s dime no less, under the scope of what could be done out there and what needs to be cleaned up and how? It’s called an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
But excitement must be tempered by the fact that such work takes more time than SunCal has left with the city under the current ENA (that’s city-speak for Exclusive Negotiations Agreement). Fortunately, this is something the Mayor and Council can readily extend. The question is will they choose to do so, or would they rather just not know, perhaps?
Don’t get me wrong, the developer is not funding the city’s study out of the goodness of their hearts. They sure hope there will be good enough news in that EIR to allow them to move forward under the ENA and do what developers do, build stuff. We’ve blogged before about how these guys probably really aren’t so bad, especially with the local treasury hurting from too many needs and too little cash flow.
I guess this is just one more bit of Sunshine it’d be good to have from SunCal and here’s to hoping the elected down at city hall give ‘em the time for completion of that report.
Check out this laundry list for a rough idea at least of what’s out there, and where:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Contams&id=0902731
Though this is really a federal issue from the historical perspective, in my excavation I discovered that the big, multi-million dollar study for much of the Naval Air Station is being done right now by the city, and on SunCal’s dime no less, under the scope of what could be done out there and what needs to be cleaned up and how? It’s called an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
But excitement must be tempered by the fact that such work takes more time than SunCal has left with the city under the current ENA (that’s city-speak for Exclusive Negotiations Agreement). Fortunately, this is something the Mayor and Council can readily extend. The question is will they choose to do so, or would they rather just not know, perhaps?
Don’t get me wrong, the developer is not funding the city’s study out of the goodness of their hearts. They sure hope there will be good enough news in that EIR to allow them to move forward under the ENA and do what developers do, build stuff. We’ve blogged before about how these guys probably really aren’t so bad, especially with the local treasury hurting from too many needs and too little cash flow.
I guess this is just one more bit of Sunshine it’d be good to have from SunCal and here’s to hoping the elected down at city hall give ‘em the time for completion of that report.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Alameda Getting Eaten by PAC Man?
After June 1 lengthy City Council meeting, little was done to improve the Campaign Finance Reform ordinance. The biggest change seen was the Council’s decision to leave the requirement that states that anyone contracted by the City or in negotiations to contract with the City would be prohibited from making a contribution to any candidate for Alameda public office.
Seems like a great idea and of course it’s not too big of an issue since Alameda is largely contracted out to non-Alameda companies. But they forgot to close one large loophole.
A contractor or a potential contractor with the City wants to give money to a candidate? Sure, send it on through a PAC.
Since the ordinance doesn’t cap a limitation on overall expenditures, it causes independent groups to spend on BEHALF of a candidate instead of direct spending by the candidate. So now, a company can just send money to the PAC who in turn does some sort of service, such as creating info packets or providing staff, in support of the intended candidate.
Tracking funds sent through PAC is doable, but it decreases the ease of access to records. The time spent searching through records of whoever received money would be tedious and discouraging. The ease of transparency is lost through this and creates more frustration.
Where is the reform that we have asked for? I’m tired of these campaign finance issues going unresolved.
Seems like a great idea and of course it’s not too big of an issue since Alameda is largely contracted out to non-Alameda companies. But they forgot to close one large loophole.
A contractor or a potential contractor with the City wants to give money to a candidate? Sure, send it on through a PAC.
Since the ordinance doesn’t cap a limitation on overall expenditures, it causes independent groups to spend on BEHALF of a candidate instead of direct spending by the candidate. So now, a company can just send money to the PAC who in turn does some sort of service, such as creating info packets or providing staff, in support of the intended candidate.
Tracking funds sent through PAC is doable, but it decreases the ease of access to records. The time spent searching through records of whoever received money would be tedious and discouraging. The ease of transparency is lost through this and creates more frustration.
Where is the reform that we have asked for? I’m tired of these campaign finance issues going unresolved.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
SunCal Starting to Look Like a 10 at 2
Last month Alameda city officials admitted that the cash buffer between our local government and bankruptcy is down to 22 days. The prognosis is also not good going forward, since costs will continue to rise and our revenue won’t.
Rather than futile economic finger-pointing, however, what if we got serious about adding to our tax base? Let me see now…
We’d need a major parcel of land, and a whole lot of community input about how to redevelop that land. We’d also need a master plan based on that input which incorporated ways to reduce traffic, preserve open space, protect taxpayers, add workforce housing and bring in more revenue than it costs to serve. And we’d need a new urbanist type developer with massive financial backing and extensive expertise to make it all happen.
Hmmmm. Where we gonna get all this, and in short order no less? Did I hear someone say Alameda Point, and SunCal? What an idea!?!? Why didn’t we think of it sooner!!!
Unfortunately, the train coming down the track behind 3 years of community input to get us to a plan that is Measure A compliant and economically viable is about to be derailed, unless the city council extends the deadline for SunCal under the terms of the current Exclusive Negotiating Agreement. We’ve got these guys on the hook for 3 years of work and millions of dollars in studies. It’s time we cashed in and got them to work turning Tarmac into Tree Lined Streets, Shops, Homes and Offices.
Ding, Ding, Ding!!! Time’s a wasting folks
Rather than futile economic finger-pointing, however, what if we got serious about adding to our tax base? Let me see now…
We’d need a major parcel of land, and a whole lot of community input about how to redevelop that land. We’d also need a master plan based on that input which incorporated ways to reduce traffic, preserve open space, protect taxpayers, add workforce housing and bring in more revenue than it costs to serve. And we’d need a new urbanist type developer with massive financial backing and extensive expertise to make it all happen.
Hmmmm. Where we gonna get all this, and in short order no less? Did I hear someone say Alameda Point, and SunCal? What an idea!?!? Why didn’t we think of it sooner!!!
Unfortunately, the train coming down the track behind 3 years of community input to get us to a plan that is Measure A compliant and economically viable is about to be derailed, unless the city council extends the deadline for SunCal under the terms of the current Exclusive Negotiating Agreement. We’ve got these guys on the hook for 3 years of work and millions of dollars in studies. It’s time we cashed in and got them to work turning Tarmac into Tree Lined Streets, Shops, Homes and Offices.
Ding, Ding, Ding!!! Time’s a wasting folks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
