Jun 29 2013

Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization in Negotiations with City

When will the City be reimbursed for expenditures? – 
Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) has been negotiating with the City for payment of expenses related to PRFO’s Blair Park playfield development proposal. In response to an inquiry,* the City Administrator instructed staff to provide the meeting dates and participants.

Dear Mr. Rood,

The City of Piedmont received your request dated June 19, 2013 on June 20, 2013, requesting, “…the dates, locations and attendees of any meetings between PRFO representatives and City of Piedmont staff or consultants since May 7, 2012.”

Although your request refers to the California Public Records Act, it does not appear to describe an “identifiable record or records” as required by Government Code Section 6253(b). Nonetheless, with that said, Mr. Grote asked me to relay to you that the following meetings took place between representatives of PRFO and the City to discuss the issue of the outstanding funds due from PRFO.

January 31, 2013 – John Chiang, Geoffrey Grote, Eric Havian, Steven Ellis, Mark Menke

April 11, 2013 – John Chiang, Robert McBain, Geoffrey Grote, Eric Havian, Mark Menke

June 17, 2013 – Margaret Fujioka, Geoffrey Grote, Eric Havian, Mark Menke


John O. Tulloch
City Clerk / IS Manager
City of Piedmont 
120 Vista Avenue
Piedmont, California 94611
Phone: (510) 420-3040
Fax: (510) 653-8272

The Reimbursement and Indemnification Agreement between the City and PRFO to reimburse the City states “…legal and consultant costs directly or indirectly incurred by City in connection with review and processing of the Proposed Project, including legal defense costs.”

 PRFO and the City withdrew approval of the project after litigation by Friends of Moraga Canyon (FMOC) began and Oakland expressed displeasure with the project potentially causing environmental impacts to Oakland.

As PRFO promoted the project at public meetings, in documents, and with signage stating “Accept the gift”, it was anticipated by most that the project would not be an expense to the City.  With negotiations occurring, as indicated in the above letter, and possibly considered in closed Council sessions, it is unknown when the City will receive the estimated remaining reimbursement due.  

*  The letter is addressed to Tim Rood, a member of the Piedmont Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee.

Piedmonter news coverage.

2 Responses to “Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization in Negotiations with City”

  1. I note that a majority of the Council (Mayor Chiang, Vice Mayor Fujioka, and Council Member McBain) has been involved, individually, in the three private-meeting negotiation sessions held with PRFO over the past year.

  2. If I understand the situation, Mr. Grote and PRFO negotiated an agreement in secret (the Indemnification Agreement), which the City kept secret for a while, and then over the next 4 months the City incurred costs pursuant to the agreement, which the PRFO secretly informed the City it no longer wanted to pay, so even though the City had repeatedly told its residents that the project was a gift, but it secretly decided to not bill the PRFO, and now the City and its council members are secretly meeting to secretly negotiate a new secret deal to give away public funds. Wow, when did the City get an exemption from the open governance requirements?

Leave a Comment