NEWS ARCHIVE 3
T.A.S.C.
Trust & Accountability
in San Carlos
The people do not yield their sovereignty to the bodies that serve them. The people insist on remaining informed to retain control over the legislative bodies they have created.
THE BROWN ACT
Here you will find past articles published in TASC. The articles are in chronological order, from the oldest to the most recent. Articles more than a month old will appear with the title, the date of publication, and the first paragraph. You may request the full story of any previously published TASC article by completing the Article Request Form below. Be sure to include the following information when requesting an article: your name, email address (*articles sent by email are as a MS Word document attachment unless other request made), and the title(s) and publication date(s) (listed on the same line as the title) of the article. In particular, this page features articles posted in 2006. For articles older than six months, you will find them on the News Archive 1 and News Archive 2 pages.
On the Navigation Site to the left, in the light blue box, you will find a listing of all of TASC's past articles. Individual links will take you directly to a selected article. For your ease, once you are finished with an article you can click on the Back to Top link and return to the top of this page.
As always, we welcome your input regarding any TASC articles.
Articles beginning 2006:
Led Down The Prime Rose Path
by Clint Miller1/8/06
by Clint Miller1/8/06The Harvey Rose Report, a year and a quarter in the making, has finally been published. In October of 2004 the City issued an RFP seeking a firm that would perform an independent accounting of the costs or savings from the City’s highly controversial contracting practices. The report was deemed necessary because citizens, the Civil Grand Jury and the media all heavily criticized the City’s handling of its contracting policies and the awarding of contracts to former employees.
The length of time that it took to publish this document speaks to its origins. It was supposed to be published in January of 2005. Requested by “Old Guard” members of the City’s leadership in an attempt to clear themselves of criticism it quickly became bogged down in internal politics. This history should be kept firmly in mind by anyone reading this detailed document. It is obvious that the information contained therein underwent repeated revisions to get it into a form palatable to this “Old Guard” faction. This spinning took a year. Nevertheless, the report is still a damning indictment of fiscal decisions made by our past leadership.
The report is, in essence, a salary survey conducted to develop the costs of comparable services for City departments of law, finance, planning, and engineering. Cities comparable to San Carlos were surveyed to determine what they paid employees or contractors for the services for which San Carlos contracts. Also examined is how construction management and inspection services are carried out by the Public Works/Engineering Department. The report contains no variance analysis nor does it address the subject of quality of services provided. There appears to be no correction for salary ranges offered for job classifications based on seniority and experience, though this is a minor oversight. This is not a full audit, as some have said is needed to get to the bottom of the contracting mess.
The most obvious conclusion to be drawn from the report is that Rose should have been hired before we were led down the prime rose path of contracting by our public officials. The report shows that we are paying too much for services in two departments: planning and public works/engineering. Some have even suggested that not only are we paying too much, we are paying too much for inferior services. Examples of inferior service will be given where each City department in question is discussed separately below.
The report also glaringly highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in our local government. For example, in San Carlos some contractors are required to report hours worked to justify invoiced amounts. One contractor, in particular, is not required to keep such records, and could only provide investigators with a guess at the number of hours worked, and this, after the fact. The Grand Jury warned the City in 2004 that its reliance on figures supplied by contractors for the City’s calculations of the cost effectiveness of contracting was improper and an obvious conflict of interest. These are practices that would not be tolerated in the business world, and they are even more out of place where the public’s money is involved.
Further, it is obvious that there is something seriously wrong in oversight responsibilities at a number of levels in City Hall. Our elected and appointed officials were simply ignoring their responsibilities to protect the public’s interests. Why did it take five years to discover that we are paying too much for services in two departments? Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been wasted as a result of these lapses.
The shock of the Enron, Worldcom and other accounting frauds spurred Congress to pass the Sarbanes Oxley legislation which holds executive management financially accountable – no longer to their corporations but to the Securities and Exchange Commission and to the shareholders of a corporation. The analogy to local government is obvious. City officials (executive management) should have alerted the citizens (shareholders) that their money was being wasted. Why was the CC not inquiring more closely into possible improper expenditures of these public funds? They had ample reason to be inquisitive and they certainly cannot claim ignorance of the subject in light of Councilor Grocott’s persistent and focused questioning of the facts and figures that were before all in City government. The hackneyed excuse, almost a mantra for the previous CC that “it fell between the cracks,” is in hindsight taking on the appearance of calculated duplicity.
City Attorney:
Most small municipalities contract for their legal services and the City does in fact save significantly by contracting for this position. The quality of the service that the City has received is unacceptable. The City Attorney made the contracting schemes possible by finding ways around statutes that forbid conflict of interest in the dealings of public officials. The City’s reply to the 2004 Civil Grand Jury report on contracting was an embarrassment to the City because it refused to acknowledge the problem let alone correct it. These same warped ethics were used to dishonestly reply to the 2005 Grand Jury’s second letter on the same subject. If this law firm’s services are to be retained, the City needs the City Attorney to understand that the spirit of the law must be respected. Weaseling around the spirit of the law may be admirable in a lawyerly sense but in the public’s mind it is unacceptable.
Finance Director:
This position is filled on a part-time basis and therefore it is advantageous to the City to continue the arrangement according to Rose. Is it truly advantageous? Other cities surveyed all had full time Directors of Finance. The rather tenuous argument made by Rose is that we would, therefore, also have to hire a full time person. Why couldn’t a worker be hired to fill this part-time position and have duties in another department for full employment status? Is there a rule that says a worker must be fully employed in a single department? Brian Moura was previously employed by the City in a dual capacity: he was both the Director of Finance and Human Resources Director before becoming Assistant City Manager.
Then there is the appalling matter of hundreds of thousands of dollars misspent on contracting in two City departments. Is it not the job of the Finance Director to track fiscal matters and advise on over expenditures? Could his status as a contractor with a vested interest in not rocking the contracting boat have something to do with his silence? Public money was paid to contractors who were acting as public officials but who ignored their duty to watch out for the public’s interests. Is this not conflict of interest? This conflict also occurred in other departments and at other levels of City government and is unacceptable.
Planning:
Rose is quite clear that the Planning Department is costing the City far too much money. With a minor adjustment to staffing the City could save $55, 699 per year…multiply this by the eight years that this contract has been in effect and we are talking serious money. All of the contracted positions but one is more expensive than in-house employees. The same full-time verses half-time argument for keeping the contractors in place is put forward. Split responsibilities for workers are possible here as it was in Finance. This is a department that needs major revamping…especially in light of the two million dollar structural deficit that the City must resolve. Getting rid of contractors versus employee furloughs is a no-brainer. Isn’t staffing flexibility one of the main arguments for contracting?
Public Works/City Engineer:
The City could save $12,421 per year by hiring an employee as opposed to contracting this position. This contract has been in effect for four years.
There are a number of discrepancies about this contracted position that are puzzling. When this arrangement was first challenged by the public in 2002 financial data given in defense of the contract, according to data in the Rose Report, was simply not truthful. We were told that the position was part-time and therefore money was saved because the City was billed only for hours worked. Rose states that the contractor is paid a monthly retainer and is not required to report hours worked. We were told that the large raise the contractor got over his salary as an employee was based on the value of his benefits package, quoted at 40% of salary. Data given by Rose shows that the value of the full benefit package is 24.8% of salary.
Construction management contracts were what first brought the contracting controversy to the public’s attention. The City has always maintained that it saved significant amounts because the industry standard for this work was from 8 to 12% of construction costs. The City never failed to trot out the horror story of the 18% paid by the City on the Grade Separation project along the railroad corridor. Of course, the City always failed to mention the special circumstances that lead to these extra costs. The contractor worked on an hourly basis that was about 6% below the average 10% the City cited as its benchmark for savings. Rose reports that the surveyed cities do not use the 10% figure; an hourly rate is the standard. Yes, we saved money on construction management with the contractor but not what the City claimed to the public, the Grand Jury and the media. Is the cost of credibility and erosion of the public trust worth these reduced savings? Would the City have had to commission the Rose Report if it had been honest about these dealings in the first place?
There have been criticisms of the quality of work done by this department. The tenants on Laurel Street in the White Oaks area might have an opinion on how effective this former employee-turned-contractor has been with regard to the control of winter run-off. Did the El Camino, south of San Carlos Ave., undergo two excavations for the median work because the existence of a coaxial cable was not properly accounted for? Sloppy work on Laurel Street and flooding on Industrial Boulevard have not gone unnoticed. Questions of quality, the new salary and benefits figures, the murky accounting for SCOOT and the discrepancies in accounting for savings on construction management costs cut to the heart of all that is wrong with the contracting practices in San Carlos.
Conclusion:
How the new CC and City Manager deal with the implications of the Rose Report will determine how City Hall is viewed by a jaded and cynical public embarrassed by past policies. Now that the “Old Guard” and their out-sized egos are no longer in the picture, a change in policy is possible. Contracting needs a thorough examination by the CC. Perhaps there are aspects of contracting that would actually be beneficial to the City if properly conducted. These parts should be identified and saved but any hint of conflict of interest or other improprieties have no place in local government. Finally, if there is to be contracting in our City, contractors must be required to respond to publicly advertised RFPs and the competition must be fair, open and honest. San Carlos has suffered enough from the unethical contracting of the passed five years.
[The entire 80-plus page Rose Report will soon be available on the TASC website. In the meantime, if you are interested in reading the report, feel free to contact us with that request and we will forward you a copy, or you can find a hardcopy of the report in the library. It is somewhat repetitious but there is a 4-page Executive Summary that gives a good overview of the findings and recommendations provided as part of the Introduction. The report is quite detailed and the footnotes contain very revealing details about the workings of the individual contracts.]
Wheeler Dealer
Director of Finance Richard Averett has submitted his resignation effective July 1. His departure was announced three days before the Rose Report was released. He would have been heavily involved in providing financial records for the preparation of the report and it is suspected he would therefore be quite familiar with its content before it became public.
And yet another reason to wonder at our planning and development process...
The following is an article submitted by a concerned San Carlos resident. We've heard of a number of similar instances of late, where building and growth is given apparent preference, the proof of such being an application of the Code that is far from consistent and by the book. Though in each individual case (as with this instance or with the Devonshire Canyon situation) a smaller portion of the community is specifically affected, when this inequity happens, we all suffer since it means that we no longer have a standard in which we can feel confident, we no longer have an equitably and uniformly applied process.
If you're tired of this type of "business as usual" and if you have the time this evening, you might think about attending the meeting and making your voice heard. [Follow this link to a 1/16/2006 San Mateo County Times article on this subject.]
Two new homes are being proposed to replace one home at 640 Wellington. These homes will be 640 and 650 Wellington. Each is over twice the size of the average homes in our neighborhood: eight thousand square feet of housing will replace the current 1900 square foot home.
This is the petition signed by 33 neighbors and submitted on Nov. 21, 2005 to the EDCC:
"The undersigned are petitioning San Carlos Planning to NOT approve the construction of two new homes of over 4000 square feet each to replace the single-family home that previously existed at 640 Wellington. The neighborhood charm depends on the abundance of gardens and compact single-family houses. As the San Carlos Planning Commission's own report states our homes average 1985 square feet. However you are recommending for approval for this site two homes that are 2,285 square feet larger than the average home or 116% larger than the average home. This development will be an eye sore and a detriment to the community and is four times more house than was previously there.
We understand that because these 4000 square foot houses have only one kitchen they are considered a single-family residence, which means there has been no solar report and no environmental impact report. We also understand that due to this definition of single-family, despite the sizes of these homes, there will be only two-car garages. We do not want a development of this size and proportion in the neighborhood. Our street cannot sustain more cars and certainly cannot sustain more traffic."
At the EDCC meeting of November 21, we turned in three letters, the above petition, and several neighbors spoke against the project. Unfortunately and much to my surprise, the committee "recycled" all of our letters and our petition immediately after the meeting - that is they threw them out. We spoke about potential problems during construction and the size of these homes compared to the neighborhood.
This is an excerpt from the letter that I submitted at that meeting:
"...these proposed houses are not appropriate for this neighborhood. Both houses are more than twice as large as the average house. Although each house has only a two-car garage, these are four-bedroom homes with a "media room with attached bath" that easily could be used as fifth bedroom. We are not asking for the abandonment of the project, only that the houses fit the scale of the neighborhood. This neighborhood cannot absorb any more cars parked on the street. Most of my neighbors were not informed about the project and those that were, were advised only about one rather than the two monster homes. I have had a chance to speak with a few of them and have a petition signed by more than 30 neighbors asking that this project be reconsidered and scaled to fit the neighborhood.
When I expressed my concerns to Mr. Ismail, he suggested that I move to Woodside. Mr. Ismail contends that these buildings will increase the value of our property. The size of buildings does not by their nature increase the value of adjacent property; it is the quality of the building, the attractiveness of a neighborhood, the interest rates and the demand that increase value.
In a city that has almost perfect weather and during a time when oil and gas prices make conservation an imperative, the need to build oversized homes seems at best short-sighted and at worse negligent. The motto of San Carlos is "the city of good living" and I respectfully request that this commission live up to that motto. ...."
We learned the following at the meeting:
1. Neither the builder nor the owner (father and son) has any intention to live in these properties. These are strictly spec houses.
2. The 640-property is 9% over threshold and the 650-property is 38% over threshold. Threshold is the square footage of property in relationship to the square footage of the lot.
3. In order to accommodate the potential number of cars that such large houses might require, there is a good deal of cement in the front yard to provide additional off street parking over and beyond the two-car garages.
4. Although they will probably recommend that there is a construction plan for managing traffic and disposal, there is no plan put into place until after approval so we as neighbors would have no input into that plan.
The EDCC sent the developers back with the following recommendations (taken from an email exchange with San Carlos City Assistant Planner):
"The EDCC does look at neighborhood compatibility and does take neighborhood concern into account when making a decision, which is why they continued the project in order for the property owner to 1) reduce the square footage, 2) revise the colors and materials for the exterior, and 3) revise the landscaping plan, including the retaining walls, to reflect a more natural appearance and soften the elevation/facade. Hopefully, changes that are made will be more compatible with what is existing in the area in terms of colors, materials, landscaping, etc."
In response, the builders are submitting a plan that reduces their home sizes by 300 and 400 square feet. They and the city of San Carlos have decided that the 1000 square feet underground do not need to be considered as they do not need design review since they are underground. The builder went door-to-door gathering signatures for his "3000" square foot houses -- same magical approach to housing sizes.
The same process will be followed with their new proposals. That is, only the neighbors within 150' will be notified leading many neighbors to believe that only one oversized home is being built rather than two. If the project is approved at this Tuesday's meeting (Jan. 17) of the EDCC, it will cost $1200 to contest and this must be done within ten days. This protest would ask that the planning commission take a look at the project. If we were somehow dissatisfied with the planning commission it would take another $1200 to ask the city council to look at the approved project. It is also probably a useless process as there is apparently a great deal of flexibility in the regulations.
There is a striking difference between San Carlos and our adjacent cities. In Redwood City all new or 2nd story additions are required to notify adjacent properties with copies of the plan which are signed or a certified letter written letting the planning commission know that the neighbor has seen the plan. In this letter the neighbors state their concerns. The planning commission then takes in the concerns of the neighbors considering such things as the context of neighborhood, The neighbors have seven days to appeal from the time they state they have seen the plans. It costs only $100 to appeal directly to the city council!
In Belmont, new housing and second story additions must notify adjacent neighbors to 300 feet, they run a notification in the newspaper, and the applicant posts a sign for a meeting at the site to discuss the plans. The public meeting is directly with the planning commission. An appeal is $50 and an appeal to city council is $650.
This is a far cry from a situation where notification is by letter and only 150 feet from the new house (not the old one) is notified, no public notification and it costs $1200 to get it to the planning commission and another $1200 to get it to city council! I want to emphasize again that the notification process leads most neighbors to believe that only one large house is being built to replace the one small house that is there.
Codes are minimum sets and have nothing to do with neighborhood characteristics. Meeting code is like getting D's in school and calling it passing -- especially when codes and regulations are arbitrarily applied.
I invite anyone interested to attend the EDCC meeting this Tuesday (5:30) and perhaps encourage the city to build homes that preserve some of our quality of life.
The Harvey Rose report reflecting on the City's contracting practices is finally out -- and it is quite illuminating.
Richard Averitt has announced his resignation.
Read an article sumitted by a San Carlos resident with respect to the proposed building of two homes on Wellington.
