Bay Bridge bolt problem keeps soaking up money

The $10 million spent to monitor questionable Bay Bridge bolts this year may be just the beginning. The $10 million spent to monitor questionable Bay Bridge bolts this year may be just the beginning. Photo: Carlos Avila Gonzalez, The Chronicle Photo: Carlos Avila Gonzalez, The Chronicle Image 1 of / 3 Caption Close Bay Bridge bolt problem keeps soaking up money 1 / 3 Back to Gallery

Caltrans will be spending a whopping $10 million this year to keep an eye on those questionable bolts holding together the new $6.4 billion eastern span of the Bay Bridge.

And transportation insiders tell us that $10 million could just be the start.

"We will have to get into the spring to determine if there's enough (money) to do the tests we want to do, but there is always the possibility we will need additional testing," said bridge project spokesman Andrew Gordon.

The bolt problem first surfaced in March when a third of the 96 rods used to secure seismic braces - known as shear keys - to one section of the bridge cracked when they were tightened down.

The problem was traced to the galvanizing process that caused the rods to become overly brittle when they were left standing in rainwater.

It wound up costing about $25 million - more than double the original estimate - to fix the problem and get the bridge opened by Labor Day.

Caltrans is still trying to assess the likelihood that some of the thousands of other high-strength rods and bolts - including more than 400 used to anchor the base of the tower - could be defective and eventually fail as well.

If they are found to be faulty, the cost of repairs will make the money being spent on testing the bridge look like chump change.

"It's long been an obscenely over-budget project," said state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee. "It continues to be discouraging."

Fined: Top San Francisco Public Utilities Commission deputy Juliet Ellis has agreed to pay an unprecedented $8,500 in fines for a conflict of interest in the awarding of a city contract to a nonprofit organization that she chaired.

The fine is part of a proposed settlement awaiting final approval from the state's Fair Political Practices Commission and the San Francisco Ethics Commission.

Ellis has also returned $17,000 in salary to Green for All, the East Bay nonprofit that was given a $200,000, no-bid contract in 2012 to train people for city jobs.

The state commission concluded that "on multiple occasions" in 2011 and 2012, Ellis contacted city staffers, organized meetings and participated in discussions "concerning contracts with Green for All."

The state also found evidence that Ellis was involved in negotiations on a second $50,000 contract for Green for All that the city controller later nixed, saying it "constituted professional services that should have been done through an existing contract."

Green for All was founded by former Obama White House adviser Van Jones to promote job training in energy-related work for disadvantaged minorities.

When Ellis was helping to steer the contract to Green for All, she also was being paid between $10,000 and $100,000 to serve as the nonprofit's board chair, according to economic disclosure statements that don't require more specific figures.

The proposed settlement includes a $5,000 fine from the city Ethics Commission - the first time in memory that the agency has issued a financial penalty against a city employee for a conflict of interest.

Although he acknowledged the conflicts, Ellis' boss, utilities commission General Manager Harlan Kelly, stood by his deputy, noting that her economic disclosure form "transparently listed her monetary stipend from Green for All."

For her part, Ellis is eager to put the matter behind her.

"This has been a truly horrible experience, and I have taken responsibility for the mistake," she said. "I have spent my entire career working in service of disadvantaged communities in the Bay Area. I would never purposefully do anything that would overshadow this commitment."

Soda wars: Having ironed out their differences, San Francisco Supervisors Eric Mar and Scott Wiener are ready to declare war on sugary soft drinks.

Their proposed ballot measure would go beyond Mar's first draft - limited to cans and bottles - to include fountain drinks that are sold by everyone from McDonald's to mom-and-pop restaurants.

It calls for a 2-cent-per-ounce tax, which Wiener says would generate about $31 million annually for city recreation and nutrition programs.

Mar had earlier steered clear of Big Gulps and the like, saying it would be too hard to keep track of sales - not to mention that taxing those drinks would invite big-bucks opposition from the fast-food and restaurant industries.

Wiener, who pushed for the expanded tax, told us that "we worked through it with the treasurer's office, and the controller and the city attorney, and it's quite doable." He says he and Mar have the votes at the board to place the measure on the November ballot.

San Francisco's BMW consulting firm, which beat back a similar tax in Richmond in 2012, has been retained by the American Beverage Association to fight the latest effort.

"They are proposing a tax that isn't going to change anybody's behavior," said BMW consultant Chuck Finnie, "but it's going to raise food and beverages prices and the cost of living in San Francisco for everyone."