Oakland – In the matter of the current court case pitting Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (OBOT), as plaintiff against defendant City of Oakland (aka OBOT vs Oakland), a small number of publications (most backed by self-proclaimed “progressive” public relations organizations and public officials), most recently Courthouse News (the funding of which is not known), have made the factual error that the City of Oakland did not get involved in OBOT, or have anything to do with coal being identified as the commodity of choice for OBOT, prior to 2015.
This ZENNIEREPORT.com article on OBOT vs Oakland will erase that notion and show that the City of Oakland was the originator of coal as a commodity for OBOT, hired the TIOGA Group to create a rationale for finding another developer other than the Phil Tagami / California Capital Investment Group (CCIG) managed OBOT, and that Mr. Tagami hired Insight Terminal Solutions, then and originally directed by the late John Siegel.
Current OBOT vs Oakland News Advances City Of Oakland Lie About Coal
The City of Oakland, and especially the Oakland City Attorney, came up with the idea that it didn’t know coal was part of the mix of commodities to be transported by the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal. The claim Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker and some Oakland City Councilmembers have made is that the City of Oakland didn’t know coal was part of it until 2015.
Well, this proposal memo, dated December 22, 2011, proves that’s not true. It’s written by Steve Nieman of the Tioga Group, and presents the consulting company’s take on writing a market study for the City of Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency and about the proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal and determining its chances for economic success.
The eventual document was more an evaluation of Phil Tagami to make it seem as if he can’t do the project, according to a City of Oakland source who was involved in OBOT at that point in time, but does not wish to be named.
But the fact that a research paper was commissioned by Oakland proves that the City of Oakland was co-developer of Insight Terminal Solutions Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, and repeatedly reneged on its development agreement responsibilities with respect to Insight Terminal Solutions, and Phil Tagami, and California Capital Investment Group.
Any other media reports that refer to actions in 2018, and “black leaders” in this regard, or present the picture that the City of Oakland got involved in developing the OBOT only after 2015, are completely wrong.
Also, note that the Community and Economic Development Agency representative in contact with Nieman was Pat Cashman. He eventually hired The Tioga group to write the market study. The study specifically refers to the shipping opportunities provided by the coal industry. In other words, Oakland was a direct player in the formation of the plan for what is now the Insight Terminal Solutions Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, where John Siegel was CEO of Insight Terminal Solutions.
Tioga Group Proposal To Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency Dated December 22, 2011
Proposal
Assistance for Oakland CEDA: Break-bulk Opportunity
(draft as of December 22, 2011)The Tioga Group, inc. (Tioga) is pleased to offer this draft proposal to the City of Oakland’s Community and Economic Development Agency (CEDA). Note that it is a draft For CEDA’S review and comment. In this way Tioga expects to be able to match is, proposed work plan and deliverable exact to what it is the will benefit CEDA the most.
BACKGROUND
CEDA has been offered the opportunity to conduct business at the Port of Oakland. The site is Wharf 7 as described in the current report from HDR‘ This wharf is believed to be suitable as a break—bulk Facility, and possibly at roll-on, roll-off facility. Until now the locations has been a break—bulk facility primarily for military, either break-bulk or large vehicles. However, in recent years because of the lack of a usable rail route and connection to the mainline at its prior Wood Street yard, the wharf has been used only for storage and ancillary activities primarily related to the construction of the new eastern half of the San Fi‘ancisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.
The present master plan for development of this area’has been designed by HDR. It calls for Wharf 7 to be retained. Hence, that raises the question: how best can the wharf be utilized? One option is to resurrect a break—bulk service. This has an attraction due to two factors.
First, the master plan For the revitalized site includes providing an active rail service via a dedicated siding served by the planned, new Oakland Gateway Rail Enterprise (OGRE) switching railroad, and thence connecting to the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), but not to the BNSF Railway. The expectation is that this will attract shipments for prior or subsequent movement by rail.
The second is that the site will be surrounded by a new, large logistics complex The prospective tenants at the complex will have rail. access also, and in connection with their business may want rail service to a nearby break—bulk Facility for import and export cargos. The developer of that facility has referenced an “Oakland Bulk Oversized Terminal”. It needs to be determined if that reference is to the Wharf7 Facility; if it is not, it needs to be determined what the reference is to.
Oakland’s Community and Economic Development Agency (CEDA) has a number considerations entering into a commercial venture to provide such service for either intracoastal barge service 01′ international cargo ship service, The first is an assessment of the market for such a service. All other considerations follow; primary among them is the viability of the proposed, new rail switching service contemplated by OGRE.
OBJECTIVE
The objective to be achieved ’by the project proposed herein is an initial assessment of the market for the proposed setvice(s) that might be conducted at Wharf 7.
SCOPE
The scope of the project has three parts. The first is a review of the history of such cargos
moving to / from the West Coast of North America (WCNA); the second is an assessment of the
competitive aspects as posed by nearby, alternative port Facilities; the third is an explanation of attraction, if any, of the availability of inland rail service as compared to alternative ports.Depending on the outcome of this first project, it is easy to envision additional, key considerations. But, those are necessary to investigate only it the market and service prospects are attractive.
APPROACH and QUALIFICATIONS
Tioga has the benefit of creating a very recent (September 201l) review and forecast of most of the possible markets for the San Francisco Bay Area Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) as part 0.!” its update to its Seaport Plan. Also, Tioga has the benefit ofits past projects at a number of nearby ports with which a facility at the Port of Oakland would compete. Finally, Tioga can explain the economics and service considerations facing an importer/exportei’ interested in moving goods via inland rail or truck via the Port of Oakland.
Hence, Tioga’s approach is to provide CEDA a broad, but ‘not necessarily deep, assessment. The goal would be to look for opportunities and fatal flaws. This has the advantage of minimizing CEDA’s required expenditure for this study and sorting through the options for the next phase of a more complete investigation of options that survive this project.
Tioga’s topical expertise is freight transportation. It has completed project for a number of ports and Clients investigating port services, including the Ports of Oakland, Richmond, Redwood City, and Stockton. In the course of these assignments, it has had occasion to better understand the services and interests of the Ports of San Francisco, West Sacramento, Hueneme, and Humboldt Bay. It has completed a multitude of studies of marine terminal operations across the country, provided project reviews For the US Corp of Engineers, compared modal economics across alternate intermodal and ti’ansload routings, surveyed customers as to decision processes [701′ selecting ports and i‘outings, and served many economic development and municipal planning organizations particularly with assistance in understanding the nature of the patronage of freight transportation facilities in a specific. area (including all of California for both local and transiting cargos). ‘
WORK PLAN
Tioga envisions live tasks to accomplish this project,
Task 1 — Kick off meeting
Clarify work plan. Gain common acceptance of work plan. Obtain any appropriate materials that CEDA can access. Investigate other potential sources and/or contacts that are familiar with this subject
Task 2 — Review of cargo volumes and forecasts
Review existing cargo history and forecast as provided to BCDC. Look For history of activities over a break—bulk or 10-10 clock; not just commodity descriptions. Try to ascertain how certain potential target markets (e.g. military, oversized vehicles and equipment, project cargos, etc. are categorized.
Task 3 — Competitive assessment
Ask competitors (other ports) and Oakland based forwarders and about existence of break—bulk facilities and the nature of business being handled at such facilities. Might try to induce cooperation by offering to provide a synopsis of what is learned From ports that are identified as having such target cargos and bi‘eak—bulk activities either in ocean—going ships or barge and both international and domestic cargos.
Compare and discuss potential for l) diversion of existing cargo movements and 2) potential
cargos From new projects and Foreign Trade Zone operators.Task 4 — Discussion of modal economics for import/expert cargos
Explain the critical considerations that determine the likely routing decisions by beneficial cargo owners (BCOs). Try to determine if any of these determining factors provide an opportunity for this facility and why such would be of value to the ECG and/or its forwairclet/agent.
Task 5 — Draft and Final Report
Create a clratt of a final report. Submit it to CEDA for comments, and conduct a meeting with
CEDA to review the dta ft and comments. Based on reviews, createand submit a final report.DELIVERABLE
The deliverable is a report on opportunities that might use Wharf 7 at the Port of Oakland.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
ScheduleTioga can start this project with one week’s notice. An elapsed time of 6—8 weeks is expected depending on timely cooperation from other ports. Tioga will provide a-weekly, Verbal update on project progress.
Staffing — Tioga
Steve Nieman, Principal, will be Tioga’s Project Manager, client liaison, and primary analyst.
Dan Smith, Principal, will also be an analyst primarily on the topics of market size, cargo
forecast, and an evaluation of selected competitive ports and services.Staffing — Client
CEDA’S key personnel will need to be available for a 2—3 hour Kickoff, to provide written
comments on a draft report, and for a 2—3 hour review of the draft reportFees and Expenses
Tioga’s requirements For pro Fessional Fees and expenses will not exceed $l5,000.
Invoice and TermsTioga will invoice monthly with payment in full expected within 30 days of the invoice date.
Expenses will be passed through at costCLOSING
Tioga looks Forward to assisting CEDA with its evaluation of this commercial opportunity
because it is unusual for a city to consider sponsoring, even operating, a Freight transportation facility such as Wharf 7, although to do so is rather common in some ports.CONCURRENCE
For: The Tioga Group, inc. For: City, Community & Economic
Development AgencyBy: Stephen C. Nieman By:
Title: Principal Title:
City Of Oakland Covered Up Tioga Group Report
While there is clear communication and documentation that the City of Oakland did indeed enter into contract with the Tioga Group and the Tioga Group produced a draft report and submitted said report to the City of Oakland, specifically to Pat Cashman on April 22, 2012, sources (who do not wish to be named but have given supporting documentation to this effort) explain that when Mr. Tagami filed a lawsuit against the City of Oakland’s Coal Ban in 2017, Mr. Cashman repeatedly denied the existence of said contract and report between 2012 and 2016.
For example, in an email dated June 30, 2016 to Assistant City Administrator Claudia Cappio from Pat Cashman, Mr. Cashman says, “the City did not enter into the contract with Tioga and no analysis was ever performed.”
Mr. Cashman claims that the contract was not entered into and therefore the analyses by the Tioga group was not performed because CCIG, “would not cooperate with Tioga, without first entering into a Confidentiality Agreement that was unacceptable to Tioga.”
On April 4, 2012 Mr. Nieman of the Tioga group emailed the above referenced signed confidentiality agreement, that Mr. Cashman later claims Tioga had a problem with and therefore was never signed to CCIG’s attorneys.
City of Oakland Withheld Final Tioga Report From Phil Tagami and CCIG Until Fall 2016
Reportedly, despite several requests, the City of Oakland withheld the Tioga report from CCIG from April 2012 when the City first received the draft report from the Tioga group and September 2016. The report was finally given to CCIG by Mr. Doug Cole of the City of Oakland in September 2016, documentation only after CCIG spoke directly with Mr. Steve Nieman of the Tioga group and Mr. Nieman confirmed the reports existence.
In an email dated September 23, 2016, Mr. Nieman forwarded his April 19th, 2012 draft report to Doug Cole at Mr. Tagami’s request because Mr. Nieman did not feel comfortable providing the report to CCIG himself, since the report was completed at the request and under contract with the City of Oakland, where Pat Cashman was project manager. Mr. Cole then forwarded the Tioga report to Mr. Mark McClure of CCIG on September 27, 2016.
Due to the City of Oakland’s repeated denial of the existence of the Tioga Group Report and their continued lack of desire to cooperate with Insight Terminal Solutions / CCIG’s repeated requests to provide documentation and communication regarding the report, on May 5, 2017 CCIG filed a subpoena to produce documents, information, or objects, or to permit inspection of premises in a civil action.
In a deposition of Pat Cashman on August 28, 2017, Cashman affirms the existence of a draft report by the Tioga Group in regards to (the Insight Terminal Solutions / CCIG) OBOT and that a confidentiality agreement was in fact signed by the Tioga Group, despite his email to Ms. Cappio on June 30, 2016 saying that a confidentiality agreement was not signed.
All of this happened as the City of Oakland and the San Francisco Bay Area Media crafted a cover narrative that it was Phil Tagami who was “bringing coal to Oakland”, when it was the City of Oakland itself, in the form of economic development specialists Pat Cashman and Doug Cole, who played lead roles in the formation of idea of shipping coal as a bulk commodity through Oakland, and as far back as 2011.
The Tioga Group Report For City of Oakland
The second paragraph of The Tioga Report presents the City of Oakland’s true intentions and simultaneously indicts much of the media – it points to Oakland, and not CCIG, as the “owner” but not the “operator” of the proposed bulk terminal. Note:
The City of Oakland expects to become the owner, but not the operator, of new facilities that will occupy the space presently owned and operated by the Port of Oakland in the new, West Oakland Gateway development. In particular, the facilities that are the topic of this report are what are presently known as Wharfs 6-1/2 and 7 plus the railroad right of way currently known as the Oakland Terminal Railroad (OTR) spur between Wharfs 6-1/2 and 7 and a) its rail connection with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and b) to/from a proposed new rail yard (not yet named) to be constructed by the Port of Oakland (Port) as part of the site of the former Oakland Army Terminal as recently acquired by the Port.
This paragraph points to what CCIG was supposed to do within the development framework:
As for the portion being developed by the CCIG team, Oakland Global, the two key components that are the topic of this report are the facility at Wharf’s 6-1/2 and 7 to be known as Oakland Bulk and Oversize Terminal (OBOT) and the switching railroad to be known as Oakland Global Rail Enterprise (OGRE). Apparently, CCIG’s business model for both OBOT and ORGE involves hiring management (as either employees or independent contractors) for both enterprises. Apparently it has already selected advisors and/or companies to provide the management of these services e.g. Stone, IRC, HDR, Kinder Morgan, etc. Similarly, apparently CCIG and its advisors have made some inquiries and maybe some commitments to such manager/contractors.
And regarding Kinder Morgan, Phil Tagami personally fired that organization because it backed off its agreement to use the covered rail cars Mr Tagami insisted on for reasons of environmental mitigation. Lay observers in the media, who present the matter of covered rail cars as akin to buying a train set at Walmart, miss the fact that such orders are custom-made for the client. More like a tailored, custom-made suit that’s a “one-off” product for the needs of the buyer. Covered rail cars are in normal use in the coal and commodity industry in America, and the idea that “fires” start in them is completely unfounded.
Finally, Here’s Evidence The Tioga Report Was Written So The City Of Oakland Could Replace Phil Tagami and CCIG
Finally, on page 3, paragraph 3, of The Tioga Report, is where we see the true intentions of the document: to be used as a backer for the City of Oakland to remove Phil Tagami and CCIG and replace the organization with another developer. Since it was Phil who had the idea of building the bulk terminal, the result would have been Oakland essentially stealing the project Phil used to win the City’s own Oakland Army Base Redevelopment Competition, and make it the City’s entity. Instead, what Phil did was fire Kinder Morgan and established a relationship with John Siegel and Insight Terminal Solutions. Here’s the damning paragraph.
For this report, the point is: While Tioga is not privy to all the qualifications of all personnel on the CCIG Team, Tioga does not see anyone with sufficient skill on this topic. What it is that the CCIG Team states that it wants to do may or may not be of value to the customers.