The PCA posed a series of ten questions to candidates for the Piedmont City Council in the upcoming election on February 7.  Following are School Board candidates’ entire responses to question #7:

Should the City continue to be involved in private neighborhood undergrounding districts if City funds will be used or placed at risk?    What percentage would be your preferred threshold level of support for approving a future private undergrounding district?  Would you advocate replenishing  the $450,000 in 20 A funds not reimbursed by recent private undergrounding projects?

Margaret Fujioka, City Council Candidate, response:

I made the motion that was adopted by the Council to impose a moratorium on all private undergrounding projects indefinitely.  The City Council as a body will consider how to move forward.  It would be premature to decide this important issue without the benefit of public input, a comprehensive staff report, and the input of my fellow Council Members.  I look forward to hearing all viewpoints before making a decision.

Robert McBain, City Council Candidate, response:

The City needs a comprehensive program on undergrounding that properly identifies and quantifies risks. There is presently a moratorium on undergrounding projects and I expect that the council will maintain that
moratorium until significant risk management issues are resolved.  City general funds should not be used to support undergrounding.  I recommend that the City continue to collect 20A funds so, at some point, the council may consider undergrounding projects given established risk management policies.

Tim Rood, City Council Candidate, response:

Should the City continue to be involved in private neighborhood undergrounding districts
if City funds will be used or placed at risk?  No, public funds should not be put at risk for private benefits such as neighborhood utility undergrounding.   Private undergrounding districts impose major costs on homeowners, including those who vote against the measure, so a high threshold of 70% approval is appropriate. For neighborhoods where support for undergrounding is unanimous, the 20 C process is available. Would you advocate replenishing  the $450,000 in 20 A funds not reimbursed by recent privateundergrounding projects? Yes, these 20 A funds were ratepayer funds set aside for utility undergrounding on major evacuation routes such as Oakland and Moraga Avenues. The Council should not have allowed them to be put at risk for the benefit of private beautification projects,so it would be appropriate to replenish them from the General Fund. 

Leave a Comment