Contracting Issues

Over the last four years, San Carlos has received a great deal of criticism regarding its contracting practices, both from its own citizens, and from the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury. Although the City has responded to the Grand Jury's 2004 Report with a few Municipal Code changes, those changes have not been adequate in addressing the shortfalls.

For example, the Municipal Code was changed to prevent department heads who are contractors from bidding on work, if they participated in preparing the bid documents. Almost immediately, the City found a way around the provision by simply awarding work without bids, without a contract.

Left unchanged in the Municipal Code was section 3.12.260, Paragraph A. This section of the code seems to have been written to purposefully allow "sweet heart deals" with certain firms. It is because of this clause that Mokhtari Engineering, for example, has a contract with San Carlos to provide City Engineer/Public Works Director services, yet has never been expected to submit a proposal in the context of competing proposals.

In its 2004 report, the Civil Grand Jury cited the "20 Factor Test" the IRS uses to determine whether or not an individual is an employee or a contractor. One factor is that the contract have a specified term for specified work. The contract we have with Mokhtari Engineering was last reviewed and signed on September 16, 2002. Every City employee has an annual review; it is poor policy to allow contractors to carry on indefinitely without the same measure of scrutiny as employees and in possible violation of the IRS.

These problems with contracting need addressing. With a new City Manager on board, and a new Council after the election, I will take the lead to finally address these shortfalls as has not been done over the past four years.

South County Fire

Over the past eighteen months, I have had discussions with South County Fire Board members from Belmont, Fire Chief Lowden, our own interim City Manager, the firefighters, and their union representatives. From these discussions, I have gleaned some understanding of the issues which have led to the pending break up of South County Fire. I also can see some of the difficulties which lie ahead in order to finalize the dissolution, if it is to occur.

We are obviously going forward with the process of reviewing proposals from other agencies with which we may contract for fire protection and paramedic services. That's fine, but I believe that once we have narrowed the field to one or two, we should seriously consider the proposal(s) against the option of continuing our relationship with Belmont and South County Fire.

Long term, I see us looking at an expanded South County Fire for fire protection and paramedic services, a department that incorporates three or four cities. The mix would likely include Belmont. If that is the case, why suffer a break up between the two cities now?

Additionally, we have seen the corrosive effect of talks as they are now without consideration of retaining the department. Morale appears low and we are suffering staffing shortfalls; firefighters have left because they see no glimmer of hope for keeping South County Fire intact.

My belief is that with new leadership in both cities, on the management side and the political side, there is the opportunity to keep our shared fire department intact, providing us with safety and security as it has for the last twenty-five years.