|
The questions were prepared by the LWV Piedmont and asked of all candidates for this office.
See below for questions on
Utilities Undergrounding Project,
Role of Citizen Commissions,
Blair Park Sports Center,
Piedmont’s Balanced Budget
Click on a name for candidate information. See also more information about this contest.
 |
1. Discuss the current process of utilities undergrounding project development in Piedmont and how to make it more effective.
|
Answer from John Chiang:
The City of Piedmont has documented the process of forming a private undergrounding utility district so I will not repeat it here.
The Piedmont Hills Undergrounding Utility District $1 million cost overrun has got to be one of the worst nightmares or challenging issues the City Council has faced in a very long time. There was no right answer and the Council had to decide on the least bad alternative. The Council made the unanimous decision that we needed to complete the project to mitigate the damages, among other reasons, and to seek recovery from the engineers whom the City relied upon.
The Audit Committee of the City Council will be conducting a post-mortem and recommendations will be made as to how to structure private undergrounding utility districts in the future so that the total cost, including cost overruns, of the project will be borne by the homeowners in the private undergrounding utility district and not by the City.
Answer from Nancy "Sunny" Bostrom:
Revisiting project issues, plans and budget projections for project completion is essential. Cost overruns, if and as they occur, must ultimately be born by each District's property owners contracting for the undergrounding, not inequitably from the General Fund of the City. Resolution of this critical issue is not in hand and mutual consensus must emerge. Also: Some litigation is underway, and further comment is not appropriate. Other issues going forward include, at Council level, a mentality to avoid potential problems in the first place, coupled with improved executive oversight and action on executive management-level information, with improved Project Management and contract understanding and the use of the common project management language. The objective is to facilitate an equitable, community-wide solution, effective planning, communication and project execution. The core issues are Scope, Schedule, Budget and Deliverables, as in ANY project. Better project management (in this city where Bechtel families have flourished!) seems obvious in hindsight, and should be the norm going forward.
Answer from Jeff Wieler:
Obviously the Piedmont Hills undergrounding fiasco could have been adverted if the City had known the subsurface geology before accepting bids. If utility undergrounding is ever done again, preliminary geotech work is essential. Second, proponents money should remain "at risk" until the project is completed. In the case of Piedmont Hills, this would have meant an additional $286,000 in reserve.
I expect that the Council Audit Committee's report on the Piedmont Hills project will provide additional insight and will identify areas for improvement.
Answer from Julie Watters:
The City needs to revisit the entire under-grounding issue. If we are to continue the current policy of only supporting assessment districts that are privately funded, we should devise methods to ensure that the City never again has to contribute taxpayers' money to a district. In order to do that, we should have an outside audit to determine what exactly went wrong with the Piedmont Hills Under-grounding District. We should have a community wide discussion about the Council policy change that reduced the under-grounding vote requirement from 60 to 50 percent. In addition, we will be spending at least $200,000 in legal fees on the Hampton SeaView Under-grounding District lawsuit. We should have further discussion to determine the best approach given what we now know. This cannot happen again on any city contracted project.
Answer from Garrett Keating:
Undergrounding of utilities in Piedmont can be undertaken as either a public or private project. Public undergrounding is accomplished with funds from a PG&E surcharge and the city accumulates these funds for years until sufficient funds are available for a small public project. More common is the private undergrounding of neighborhood utilities undertaken when 70% of a proposed district sign a petition to obtain cost estimates and conduct a neighborhood vote. A majority vote of the district binds all the properties in a district to pay the assessment, which can range from $25,000 to $50,000 per household. Historically, these votes have achieved majorities of over 70% but recent districts have fallen below 60%, partly due to rising construction costs. Council needs to develop clearer guidelines for what is an acceptable level of majority support. Also, recent districts were aggregated into larger districts in an effort to reduce construction costs however this may be a factor in the dilution of neighborhood support. Council needs to limit the size of districts to achieve high levels of neighborhood support.
It is established city policy that General Funds not be used to pay for undergrounding. Piedmont does facilitate private undergrounding through the management of project bidding and construction by city staff. In providing this service to the districts, the city should not assume any responsibility for cost over runs, bond payments or legal liability for these private projects. Recent management of the Piedmont Hills Undergrounding District has identified deficiencies in the contracts and oversight of these projects that can expose the city to liability and those deficiencies need to be corrected. Regarding cost over runs, there needs to be a mechanism to prevent the city from having to use public funds to complete a private project. The most efficient way to do this would be to factor an appropriate contingency into the initial cost estimates for the project. As to the city's liability, stronger language releasing the city from liability is needed in its agreements with the private undergrounding districts.
|
2. What role do you think the citizen commissions should play in the city government decision-making process?
|
Answer from Garrett Keating:
Piedmont thrives on volunteerism, from our city government to our schools and sports. Our standing Commissions provide valuable service to the city both in the expertise that members bring to the commissions as well as public forums for obtaining public input and reaching compromises. I think our Commission must remain advisory as actual decision-making must reside in an elected body such as City Council.
One of my campaign themes is to plan for our city's future and I think citizen commissions play a valuable role here. I would like to see a greater role for special commissions in city government. There is a wealth of talented people in town who could provide expert guidance on many issues facing Piedmont. In addition, these commissions would provide more opportunity for public comment but more importantly, facilitate consensus building among residents. I advocated for such a commission in the development of the Civic Center Master Plan but city staff opposed this idea as too cumbersome. In hindsight, I think a Commission would have provided needed peer review of the consultant's design as well as established a mechanism for taking the Master Plan to the next level of public discourse. The Brown Act requires that meetings of commissions be public but I would support facilitating a role for these commissions with special meeting times and minimal staff oversight. Ultimately, the recommendation of these commissions would be brought to Council for further public scrutiny.
Answer from Nancy "Sunny" Bostrom:
Open and transparent communication tapping the broad expertise and knowledge of Piedmont citizens is essential. Citizen commissions have and should continue to play a vital and critical role in research, the shaping of stakeholder involvement, crystallization of issues, and in forging consensus on policy options, so that consensus for timely, prudent positive action can emerge. These summaries and recommendations, presented to City Council, should thus facilitate the best, most sound and prudent executive decisions by the City Council.
Answer from Julie Watters:
Our City charter is clear: we have citizen commissions to ensure that all voices and opinions are not only heard but seriously considered. Commission members are appointed based on their qualifications for the commissions on which they serve. Piedmont has a proud history of using the expertise of its citizens to examine and make recommendations on civic issues. We should honor that tradition.
Answer from John Chiang:
The existing city "Commissions" (Planning, Park, Recreation, Civil Service) play a very important role today in their advisory capacity to the City Council, and only the Planning Commission has quasi-judicial powers that have been delegated to them. The City Council relies upon the expertise and recommendations of the respective Commissions. However, the ultimate decision rests with the City Council. For Planning Commission decisions, there are procedures in place for the City Council to modify or overturn a decision or recommendation.
The City also has review and advisory "Committees" (e.g., CIP Review, Municipal Tax Review) whom make recommendations to the City Council for their consideration and decision.
The existing standing Commissions and Committees are operating effectively. The Council can choose to establish limited life special purpose citizen committees or task forces (e.g., Environmental Task Force) to address specific issues in the community.
Commission and Committee members are appointed by the City Council and the City Council always reserves the right and does make the final decision, after getting input from the Commissions or Committees and the public.
Answer from Jeff Wieler:
Citizen commissions already play a key role, with many delegated powers and responsibilities. The Council should, and does, give great deference to commission recommendations and decisions.
However, commissions are appointed by, and subordinate to the Council. Commission actions should always be subject to Council review and, where appropriate, reversal. We elect Council members to make decisions; the Council cannot relinquish that responsibility.
|
3. The Blair Park Sports Center is a controversial project that is under consideration by the City Council. Please address the decision making process, including public input, regarding Blair Park.
|
Answer from Jeff Wieler:
In a small, built-out city like Piedmont, almost any land use project is likely to be controversial. The Blair Park proposal has far to go before decisions can be made. The Environmental Impact Report has to be completed, and the EIR is very likely to necessitate project modifications. Second, outside funding has to be found, because the City can't possibly afford a project of this magnitude.
There already has been considerable public input to the decision-making process to the EIR consultants and the Council. Before this project moves forward, the Parks, Planning, and Recreation Commissions each will need to consider the proposal, followed by extensive public input to the Council.
However, provided EIR issues can be resolved, and provided that non-City funding can be found, I support the concept of a sports field or fields in Blair Park. The need is clear.
Answer from Julie Watters:
Lack of process is a grave problem of good governance. Lacking was review by the Planning and Parks Commissions to provide their expertise and recommendations. Lacking was any official cost estimate for the project. This vetting should have been done BEFORE embarking on an expensive EIR requiring untold hours of staff time and resources. The lack of public input is evidenced by the fact that the project approved to proceed to the EIR stage is exactly the same as the project the proponents originally submitted to council.
Answer from Garrett Keating:
The Blair Park proposal has been brought forward by a group of residents who want to assist the city in developing additional field space, a goal I agree with. As designed, the plan requires extensive infrastructure to accommodate fields at Blair Park, which is the undeveloped piece of city property bordering Moraga Avenue across from Coaches Field. The Blair Park proposal is part of a larger project proposed for Moraga Canyon which includes the installation of artificial turf and field lighting at Coaches Field. The EIR currently being conducted for the Moraga Canyon project will provide valuable information on the impacts of this proposal on traffic on Moraga Avenue and on the neighborhoods around the canyon.
Once the EIR is completed, I support convening a commission to evaluate the multiple options available for meeting the field space needs of the city. In addition to examining the feasibility of these different options, the commission must evaluate the annual operation/maintenance costs of these field options. There are several field options for the city to consider. A city-sponsored commission previously recommended moving the Corporation Yard across to Blair Park and developing more field capacity in its place. Local colleges are soliciting proposals for the development of leased fields on their campuses. Local communities have developed a Joint Powers Agreement to develop the new fields on Route 80 at Gilman Avenue and are seeking new partners. Oakland-based soccer clubs have expressed interest in developing new fields and the potential for new fields in these communities needs to be considered.
Our goal should be to find the most cost-effective field option that meets the needs of our community. I am the parent of three children playing sports and I know first-hand the limited practice time and travel burden our current field capacity places on families. Piedmont provides its residents with great public amenities - top-notch schools, beautiful parks and streets, a community pool - and will support new field capacity if it designed for our beautiful town and is cost-effective. Piedmont's current fiscal condition cannot support building a field at this time so the city should take the time now to review all options and engage the community in this decision.
Answer from John Chiang:
The City of Piedmont thrives on public/private partnerships (e.g., Coaches Field, Dracena Park) which I encourage and support. There is no question that there will be a decline in the availability of sports fields for our youth in the coming years, especially when we lose the current availability of the Alameda sports fields.
The Blair Park proposal has been brought forth by a group of residents who have donated a significant amount of their time and financial resources to assist our City in developing additional sports fields, a noble cause and effort which I applaud.
There is much work that is needed before any decision is made by the City Council, foremost being the Environmental Impact Study and Report (EIR). Any judgment is pre-mature before the completion of the EIR study. The public has been given opportunities to comment before the City Council and on the draft preliminary EIR scoping report and public scoping review sessions have been held with much community input and comments from attendees.
Once the EIR Report is completed, there will be many more opportunities for public input as it's reviewed by the Planning, Park, and Recreation Commissions.
Answer from Nancy "Sunny" Bostrom:
Maximum, continuing public input on ALL issues is essential to assure that fact-based consensus emerges, and that the overall Piedmont community interest is best served by any resulting project. We must assuring proper stewardship and balance regarding use of our overall land (including the Moraga Canyon gem) and financial assets. At Issue: Is the presently-proposed project the BEST project, at the BEST, ENVIRONMENTALLY-SOUND LOCATION,, at the RIGHT financial moment? I conclude the case for this has not yet been convincingly made, and more community involvement is essential before the BEST decision can be made.
|
4. Piedmont faces serious challenges to its budget with reductions in revenues and continual increases in expenses. Discuss possible cost containment and revenue accrual measures that would keep the budget balanced in the years to come.
|
Answer from John Chiang:
Piedmont has not been exempt from the country's worst economic downturn or crises since the depression. We have experienced declining revenues and increasing expenses. The unanticipated legal fees and construction cost overruns related to private undergrounding utility districts unfortunately has reduced the City's reserves (as noted above in response to another question, the City has instituted legal actions to seek recovery on the cost overruns). Putting aside these unanticipated costs, the City has nearly a balanced budget (overtime of public safety personnel due to absences has not helped).
The Council was wise in setting aside reserves during the good times in the past few years to cover unanticipated expenses or declining revenues. Approximately 70% of the City's revenue sources are property related and about 75% of the City's expenses are personnel related. The residents of Piedmont are accustomed to the great services that they receive today.
Given the City's heavy reliance on property related revenues, we have to continue to look for additional grant and revenue sources (although this could be a challenge given the State of California's financial condition), avoid tax increases, and ways to reduce expenses. There is only so much we can do in reducing expenses given the high level of personal expenses (75% of the City's budget), without considering furloughs and potentially increasing employee contributions to benefit plans, or reducing city services, which is the last thing I would advocate.
We also need to do long range strategic planning.
Answer from Jeff Wieler:
Piedmont's budget would be in rough balance, were it not for unanticipated one-time legal and construction costs from undergrounding. We're also fortunate that previous Councils were fiscally prudent and built a hefty General Fund reserve, in addition to reducing taxes when possible. Finally, recent police and fire contracts allowed suspending pay increases if transfer tax revenues declined below $1.8 million.
Assuming continued fiscal responsibility -- which I pledge to work for -- we can maintain current service levels and maintain infrastructure without needing tax increases or "revenue enhancements." However, until the economic situation improves, we need to defer significant enhancements like the 801 Magnolia rebuild and the swim facility upgrade.
Answer from Nancy "Sunny" Bostrom:
Fiscal policy and budget plans must always evolve and be adjusted to meet economic reality in difficult and changing financial times. I favor a zero-based, highly-transparent review of City finances and budget projections. One outcome of this effort should be Council consensus on a Five-Year Plan, with short-term (One Year Plan) focus on the adjustments and compromises that presently seem essential. Specifics must follow improved public understanding of the present financial conditions and projected plans, and options therefore. emphasis should be be on improved maintenance and life-extension of existing facilities and equipment, rather than incurring capiytal costs for replacement. Avoidance of cutback to our valued and experienced staff should be avoided if at all possible. Budget Plans can always be changed due to new or worsening necessities, and contingency plans can and should be crafted.
Answer from Garrett Keating:
Unlike most East Bay communities, Piedmont, with its small commercial sector, derives its revenues almost exclusively from property taxes. These revenue sources have been fairly consistent over the past decade, with the property tax revenues rising annually from 5 to 8%. Additionally, the real estate transfer tax collected when a home is sold is a significant source of revenue but it is subject to severe fluctuation. During my 4 years on Council, the highest and lowest annual transfer taxes on record were collected. Property tax revenue growth is expected to slow as housing prices and sales in Piedmont remain flat, while our expenses will increase. We face a fiscal challenge in Piedmont.
The City needs to proactively keep the budget balanced. To address the current decline in revenues, the City Council adopted a trigger mechanism whereby salary increases for public safety staff will not take effect unless annual transfer tax revenue exceeds $1.8M. We should expand this provision and apply it to all city staff pay increases. The City Council also suspended most capital improvements projects (e.g. City Hall basement repair, upgrades to Hampton Field) - this policy should be continued. We must also reconsider the large equipment replacement expenditures that are planned for the next two years. Finally, staffing levels should be adjusted to reflect the City's actual business operating requirements. The growth in staffing over the past four years has been driven by increased home remodel activity, complicated undergrounding projects and Centennial activities + let's consider what Piedmont's needs will be for the next four year and staff appropriately. On January 19, the City Council will consider a mid-year budget report. The report will provide a timely assessment of the city's fiscal position and I expect the City Council to actively consider prudent plans and spending controls necessary to balance our budget.
Answer from Julie Watters:
Piedmont has an annual budget of $20 million for 3800 homes + one of the highest expenditures per household in California. According to the City Administrator's report, as early as 2007 (with still healthy revenues); if we add any new projects, we must reduce services or increase taxes. We need long-term financial planning + a five year plan. We need the Municipal Tax Committee to meet annually, not every four years. We need to replenish our reserves to at least meet the minimum recommended in our charter. We need to reallocate the CIP budget. We need to properly accrue for CalPers liabilities. Litigation costs are eating further into our reserves -- we cannot afford to make any more mistakes.
Responses to questions asked of each candidate
are reproduced as submitted to the League.
Candidates' statements are presented as submitted.
Word limits for answers are 400 words for all 4 questions.
Direct references to opponents are not permitted.
The order of the candidates is random and changes daily. Candidates who did not respond are not listed on this page.
|
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
