Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement And Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council passes consent calendar; public raises questions about consultant rates and change-order authority
Summary
Council approved the consent calendar Dec. 16 with several pulled items; Mayor Gonzales recused from one item (5E) citing a possible real-property conflict. Online public comment questioned consultant hourly rates on several consent items and the allowable cumulative change-order authority.
San Leandro City Council approved the consent calendar at its Dec. 16 meeting with several items pulled for separate consideration. Council Member Aguilar moved approval of the consent calendar but asked to remove item 5B; the motion to approve the remaining consent items carried unanimously.
Mayor Juan Gonzales told the council he had a possible real-property interest in one consent item (item 5E) and recused himself; Vice Mayor Fred Simon presided over that item. Item 5E was moved and seconded, and the council approved it with the mayor recorded as recused (vote recorded 6-0 with 1 recusal). The clerk noted the recusal would be recorded in the minutes.
During the public-comment period on the consent calendar, in-person speaker Mike Katzlakabe thanked the council for its initial passage of a seismic retrofit ordinance (first reading) and urged continued unanimous support on second reading. An online commenter identified as Lucas raised questions about scope-of-work attachments and consultant billing rates on items 5B, 5C and 5D and commented briefly on item 5E. Lucas said several principals and staff on the projects were billed at hourly rates above $100 (with some listed above $300 in the attachments) and questioned whether the city had obtained a competitive bid and whether the city was authorizing too-large cumulative change-order authority (attachments cited cumulative change thresholds of 50% to 100% off the original estimate).
Lucas asked: “Are our estimates really so bad that we can write a blank check to double the cost of a project?”—a question addressed to the council as part of the public comment record. Council members did not immediately change item approvals in response to the comment; staff and council indicated routine budgeting and contract oversight would continue through the appropriate departments.
Votes recorded on consent items - Consent calendar (except pulled items): approved unanimously (7-0) with item 5B pulled by Council Member Aguilar. - Item 5E (mayor recused): approved 6-0 with 1 recusal (recorded in minutes).
