Piedmont Civic Association Commentary on the Decision-making Process

The decision on the Blair Park proposal requires careful consideration by the Council as Piedmont’s fiduciaries. Piedmont residents have been unhappy because of  recent debacles costing almost $3 million of City funds.  To date, the Blair Park and Coaches Field proposals have cost the City over $200,000.  And no stable figures have been produced on the fiscal implications of the project for Piedmont taxpayers.

To satisfy the burden of due diligence and fulfill its “fiduciary responsibility” in considering this consequential proposal, the Council must examine all of the costs and independently assess liability risks in a long term plan.  The Council needs to know the risks and the costs before accepting a project in any form.

Piedmont property owners want to be protected from another risky liability situation as occurred in the Piedmont Hills Underground District bailouts, Crest Road collapse, and Hampton-Sea View litigation.

Piedmont Civic Association Commentary on Undergrounding Reports from the Audit Subcommittee and the League of Women Voters

To date, the efforts of the Audit SubCommittee and the League of Women Voters have emphasized contract administration analysis.  Information and analysis of undergrounding concerns provides a valuable shared knowledge base to the Council and residents in their upcoming efforts to undertake substantial revisions to City undergrounding policy.  It is hoped both the Audit Subcommittee and LWV will continue their much appreciated efforts, providing analysis and recommendations to the Council and the community on:

• The use of public funding to facilitate the creation of  private undergrounding districts
• The loss of 20A public funds
  
• The City’s financial stake in approving Districts
• The potential or perceived impact of a financial stake on the decision-making process
• The magnitude of 20B projects in comparison to City revenues and reserves
  
• Other  undergrounding options:  20C Districts and city-wide undergrounding
  
• Chiang analysis:  Does the City become the  “ultimate insurer” of every 20B undergrounding project?
• Will immediate knowledge and reporting of cost overruns improve the City’s options?
• Shifting cost risk from the City to private districts
• Preventing misunderstandings by Staff and/or Council of the nature of City contracts
  
• The extent and appropriate use of informal meetings, without formal public notice, between homeowners and city staff
• Review of additional aspects of past experience
• Optimum threshold level of support – review, comparison and a specific recommendation
• Grounding the report upon the Piedmont City Charter
  

The use of public funding to facilitate the creation of  private undergrounding districts

Current undergrounding policy prohibits the use of “general funds” for pre-formation expenses.  However, this policy has been interpreted to refer only to the City’s General Fund, and to allow the use of 20A public funds (a separate account containing monies received from PG&E for undergrounding major arterial streets) for the benefit private 20B districts.  Use of these public funds has been authorized as follows:

• $25,000 for Central Piedmont (due to seed money shortage – see p. 15)
• $128,000 for Central Piedmont (to satisfy remaining district debt when it failed to be approved)
• $150,000 for Piedmont Hills
• $150,000 for Hampton Sea-View (p. 5) > Click to read more…

Piedmont Civic Association Editorial:

The Piedmont Swim Club public-private partnership was an efficient and cost-effective model for years.  We bought memberships when our kids were toddlers learning to swim – enjoyed the pool as a family for a number of years – and usually sold the membership when our kids’ interests turned to tennis or soccer.  We counted on a new young family in town to buy our membership, repeating the cycle.  In years past this is the way memberships transferred from one family to another, though a more recent policy has discontinued the practice of allowing families to transfer memberships, replacing them with a non-refundable initial fee.

Recently, however, the specter of our community pool closing hangs over the Piedmont Swim Club (PSC) like the Sword of Damocles.  Piedmont’s long-standing tradition has ground to a halt and memberships languish due to the City’s refusal to offer the stability of a lease longer than three years. Though memberships have always been available for purchase by any family in Piedmont, fewer are willing to participate when their buy-in is more likely to be lost than transferred.  Membership has been declining to the danger point as the City repeatedly denies PSC a long-term lease.

A few residents have urged upon the community a “free community pool”.  Unfortunately, talking about “free” pools is the equivalent of discussing unicorns.  They do not exist.  Every pool costs (lots of) money to operate.  So, sadly, debating whether our community should enjoy a “free” community pool is no more fruitful than hunting for unicorns.  Instead of discussing mythical creatures, we must forthrightly discuss two issues – how pool costs may be minimized and who will pay those costs. > Click to read more…