To the Piedmont City Council:                                                                                                                                                          October 20, 2014

Congratulations to the new members of the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC).  Expanding the size of the committee is probably wise given the many long-term financial challenges facing the city. Alternatively, eliminating the explicit addition of members to conduct a biennial review of the municipal parcel tax is not advisable given the important role this volunteer review has served in maintaining citizen support for the tax.

  I have commented before that subsuming the role of the Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC) to the BAFPC is not wise – the committees by definition took different views of city annual and long-term financial needs, to the betterment of city budgeting and fiscal planning.  In fact, it was the 2011 MTRC that recommended the establishment of a committee to look at the long-term financial needs of the city.  By overburdening the BAFPC, the biennial review of city services will likely not be as comprehensive as was undertaken by the MTRC.  The review of city services is especially called for given two recent developments:

            – Recommendations from the 2011 MTRC report:           “The committee recommends that the City undertake a prioritizing of City services and modify the detailed budget presentation designating certain services (costs, etc) as “mission-critical” and other services as not in that category in order to assist future Councils to create a priority of funding.   The City should adopt formal objectives for the appropriate fund balance levels of funds related to capital and equipment replacement and use these levels as guidelines in allocating revenues.”  These two unanimous MTRC recommendations are meant to assist Council with annual budgeting for city services but have not been undertaken.

– Annual property transfer tax receipts: Piedmont has realized unprecedented property transfer tax receipts these past two years. The trend in this revenue source needs to be examined and considered by Council when setting the annual tax rate for city services.

Finally, the role of the BAFPC in reviewing the sufficiency of the Municipal Services Special Tax (Parcel Tax) needs to be clarified.  As the Piedmont City Code indicates, the purpose of the parcel tax is to provide annual municipal service levels that Council considers are necessary:

SECTION 20B.2 AUTHORIZATION TO LEVY SPECIAL MUNICIPAL TAX –

If in any fiscal year commencing on or after July 1, 2013, the City Council shall determine that municipal services, including, but not limited to, police and fire protection, street maintenance, building regulations, library services, recreation, parks maintenance, planning and public works and similar services, are necessary for the public good, welfare and safety, and that the cost of making available such services will exceed the amount of funds generated through other revenue and income of the City for such services, then it may levy a special tax for such fiscal year on each parcel of real property within the City in a manner provided herein. This is a non-ad valorem parcel tax which, pursuant to California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 3, shall be deemed a special tax as defined pursuant to Section 53721 of the California Government Code.

The purpose of the tax is not to meet the “ongoing financial needs of the city” such as unmet pension and retiree health care obligations.   No doubt BAFPC may consider other revenue sources to meet those needs but the parcel tax should not be part of that consideration.  I recommend that you modify the resolution with the following text:

e)            Periodically review and comment on the sufficiency of the Municipal Services Special Tax (Parcel Tax) to address the municipal services levels of City. This charge shall be accomplished not later than eighteen (18) months prior to the expiration of the tax as set forth in Chapter 20B of the City Code.

Garrett Keating, Former City Council Member and Public Safety Committee Member

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

At their October 20 meeting in City Hall starting at 7:30 p.m., the City Council will modify the charge and membership of the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC); make appointments to the committee; consider the smoking restriction ordinance; and upgrade the salary and job descriptions of the Planning Director and others in the Planning Department.

 Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee

City Administrator Paul Benoit recommends reestablishing the BAFPC, which was recently permanently established by taking the following actions:

1) Modify the membership of the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee to seven regular members and one alternate member; 2) Clarify the role of the alternate member; and 3) Remove the option to appoint additional members for the purpose of studying the Special Municipal Services Tax.

2) Appoint the following residents to the Committee:

Three Year Term: William (Bill) Hosler & Dirk tenGrotenhuis

Two Year Term: Angela Carmel Michael, Shel Schreiberg, & Jennifer Cavanaugh

One Year Term: Karen Sullivan & Christopher Moore; John Chiang (Alternate)

Read the staff report.

Smoking restriction ordinance

The City Council has considered the matter once and the staff has returned with potential language for the ordinance.  Read the staff report.

New job descriptions and increased compensation in the Planning Department

Following an outside consultants’ evaluation of Piedmont’s job descriptions, the Planning Department is identified for revisions in compensation and descriptions. For example, the Planning Director, who currently makes approximately $123,624 will become the Director of Planning and make $135,984 per year.  The position is currently held by an employee hired under Piedmont’s prior retirement plan with a benefit of 3% of the average highest 3 years of compensation times each year worked. Retirement age is 60.  Read the staff report.   Read the budget .

Also at the meeting will be:

10/20/14 – Receipt of the 3rd Quarter Crime Report from the Police Chief

10/20/14- Update on Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Operations Center Evaluation 

 Read the full meeting agenda.  The meeting is open to the public and will be broadcast via Channel 27 KCOM and streamed from the City website.

The following statement was made at the City and School  Liaison Committee meeting of Friday, October 17, 2014.

Thank you to the City Council and School District Liaison Committee members for this opportunity to speak on the topic of the Turkey Trot.

My name is Katie Korotzer. I currently serve as the president of the Associated Parents Clubs of Piedmont, which encompasses 6 parent clubs and 14 school support groups. I’m speaking to you as a representative of the parent volunteer community.  This parent volunteer community carries forth a very long legacy of service to others and financial stewardship of funds raised for our schools.

Since the publication of the FAQ about the Turkey Trot by the superintendent’s office in late September, the parent volunteer community has had many conversations and reactions to the situation we now face. 

As parents of students currently attending PUSD schools we feel that our voice should be considered when arriving at a solution.  We have had friendly conversations with the organizer of last year’s Turkey Trot and hope to continue those conversations in order to reach an agreement that would be acceptable to all stakeholders.

As parents, we recognize that there are pre-existing legal and financial matters that we are not party to and which must be resolved before any agreements can be finalized.

As you all are aware, every year from 2003 to 2013, the Turkey Trot has been organized by a group of people consisting of parents of student athletes along with Cross Country & Track coaches, as a fundraiser for the Piedmont High School Cross Country & Track Teams.  (Refer to Hard Copy documentation: photocopies of race permit applications by Cross Country team for City Street Closures each year for the decade between 2003 & 2013). 

The Cross Country and Track Teams are part of the 14 sports that are offered for boys and girls at PHS.  Most, if not all, of these 14 teams conduct their own annual fundraising drives ranging from simple car washes, to what has over the past decade become a very successful annual Turkey Trot.   Teams raise money to pay for things such as uniforms, equipment and transportation.  All of the 14 sports have parent and coaching representation within Boosters, a parent volunteer run 501c3 organization since 1978.   

One of the questions before us today is regarding “ownership” of the Turkey Trot. Who has the “right” to make decisions about this PHS Cross Country and Track Team fundraiser?

Should it be the group of cross country & track student athletes, current parents and coaches that for the past 10 years have filed for the City Permit, or should it be the newly formed Piedmont Turkey Trot Corporation?

That may be a bigger question than can be answered in today’s meeting. 

Whatever the answer, the parent volunteer community believes that the Turkey Trot is a wonderful event, which brings in a huge group of runners from Piedmont and surrounding areas.  No one knows for sure if these runners are motivated to run because proceeds benefit the student athletes of the PHS Cross Country & Track teams.  But the fact remains that since its inception, the event has been sponsored by PHS Cross Country & Track teams. Without the involvement of these student athletes, their parents and their coaches, the event would not have been occurring and growing as it has for the past decade.

Parent volunteers are therefore in support of the Turkey Trot occurring in 2014, but with the following suggestions for this year’s Street Closure Permit Applicant – the newly formed Piedmont Turkey Trot Corporation.  Parent volunteers have reason to believe that these suggestions will be taken by the Piedmont Turkey Trot Corporation and are looking forward to a friendly, cooperative dialogue within the next few days with the spokesperson of the corporation.

The suggestions for the Turkey Trot Corporation are:

• Parents of current student athletes be included as board members, and that this be an ongoing practice each year.
• An articulated plan be developed for succession of event management to avoid volunteer “burn out” and a sense of “event ownership by any one individual”.
• That the entity responsible for planning the Turkey Trot have on it’s board in advisory capacity: (1) a city representative and (2) a school based representative such as a school board member or district employee, and (3) a PHS cross country or track coach.
• That the organizing entity of the Turkey Trot engage in a yearly committee/board discussion, with minutes taken and available for public review, of how any excess net proceeds after Cross Country and Track team fundraising needs are met, would be used.
• And that prior to City approval of the 2014 Street Closure Permit, the organizing entity comes to an agreement with the City as to how funds are going to be distributed on an annual basis, preferably in keeping with the tradition as stated in Council Agenda Reports of the past three years (2011,2012, 2013): “All proceeds from the fundraiser will go to support the Piedmont High School Cross Country and Track teams”.

Additionally, there have been several suggestions from the parent volunteer community regarding a change to the traditional language of the next sentence in the Council Agenda Reports referred to above, which refers to excess funds and which currently reads: “as well as acquiring exercise equipment to benefit the whole school” to something such as one of the following suggestions which have come from the parent volunteer community and from the newly formed corporation:

• “Student athletes should decide how Excess Funds would be used”

• “Excess funds be distributed equally to all teams”
• “Excess funds go into a Witter Track & Field Replacement Fund”
• “Excess funds go to offset City of Piedmont costs to host the event”
• “Excess funds go to support running in Piedmont, perhaps through the Rec Dept.”
• “ Excess funds go to as-yet unidentified charities; perhaps local food banks because the event occurs on Thanksgiving”

As a parent volunteer group, there is no set consensus on the use of these “excess funds”; yet parent volunteer trust could conceivably be placed in a representative board as described above to discuss these possibilities and make this decision from year to year on behalf of the parent volunteer and student athlete community.

It is now the job of City and School representatives to move forward regarding issuance of the City Street Closure Permit.

These remarks will be shared with the spokesperson of the Turkey Trot corporation today, for inclusion in what parent volunteers believe will be productive and cooperative talks within the next few days, ideally leading to a healthy reconciliation of perceived differences between stakeholders.

Thank you.

Katie Korotzer, President of the Associated Parents Clubs of Piedmont

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

Want to learn more about City/School mutual issues?

The City Council and School Liaison Committee meetings are a great way to find out about matters such as: the No Smoking Ordinance; City and School District Capital Facilities Projects; City and School Agreements; Turkey Trot; and Emergency Preparedness.  The Liaison Committee will meet on:

Friday, October 17, at 8:30 a.m. in the Piedmont Unified School District, Administration Office, 760 Magnolia Avenue.  

The meeting is open to the public.  There will be no broadcast or recording of the meeting.  Interested individuals should be present for full information.

The Committee’s agenda includes:

An opportunity for the public to speak on items not on the agenda. (Total Time allotted = 10 minutes. Speakers may be asked to limit their comments.)

Regular Agenda – The public may speak on any of the following items:

1. Discussion of Emergency Preparedness

2. Discussion of Turkey Trot

3. Discussion of District / City Agreements

4. Discussion of City / District Capital Facilities Projects

5. Discussion of No Smoking Ordinance

1. Discussion of Schedule of Future Meetings – Agenda Topics

Committee Roster:

At 5:30 p.m. on Monday, October 6, 2014, the City Council will interview in a public meeting applicants for the now permanent Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee.  The meeting will be held in the City Hall Conference Room directly opposite the City Hall Council Chambers.

Per City practices, applicant names are not disseminated except when a Public Records Act request is made.  There will be no recording or broadcasts of the meeting.  To be informed, those interested in the appointments to this important City Council advisory body will need to be present during the interview process.

Agenda.

– Piedmont will continue to meet EPA sewer requirements by borrowing from existing City funds and the California State Water Resources Control Board. – 

On Monday, October 6, 2014, the City Council has on their agenda a plan to resume work on Piedmont’s Sanitary Sewer System.

Controversy has surrounded the Sewer Fund in recent years. When incorrect information developed by the City and falsification of requirements of the EPA was revealed, the Sewer Tax was defeated  by voters in 2011.

Further information dismayed some residents when it was learned that Sewer Fund money is used to pay for purposes unrelated to the sewers, including street sweeping even during dry weather.  The City has justified the use of the Sewer Fund as vital to keeping the storm water drains clear.

In May of 2014, the City Council had proposed a ballot measure requiring voter approval of a Real Property Transfer Surcharge Tax for sewer replacement.  However, on June 24, 2014, Alameda County reported an “historic and unanticipated” increase in Piedmont’s Real Property Transfer Tax, making the surcharge unnecessary.  City Administrator Paul Benoit advised the Council to abandon the surcharge in favor of borrowing from the City’s funds.

In June 2014, the positive position of the General Fund with an unaudited ending fund balance of $4,498,390 amounting to reserves of 20.9% of expenditures allowed for an additional $819,000 to be transferred to each of the Facilities Maintenance Fund and Equipment Replacement Fund.

Significant improvement in Piedmont’s financial condition has been attributed to prudent use of City revenues, large increase in Real Property Transfer Tax proceeds, and employee contributions to their retirement benefits.

 The much belabored sewer renovation program will resume.  Internal and external loans will provide the additional funds by borrowing $600,000 from the Facilities Maintenance Fund ($2,111,246) and $200,000 from the Equipment Replacement Fund ($2,861,650) for a total of $800,000.  The City will continue the practice of utilizing loans from the State Water Resources Control Board to augment funding.

The City Council is being asked to approve loans from the City’s funds with the following conditions:

 – Simple interest rate based on the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) rate, not to exceed 1.0%.

– Interest only payments during the replacement of the sewer system. Principal and interest payments would begin approximately FY 2027-28, when Phase VII loan payments begin. Under this schedule the loan is to be retired by FY 2034-35. Council can authorize the loan to be repaid sooner, assuming the Sewer Fund has sufficient funding.

  Read the full staff report.

Specific sewer mains will be replaced.

The second part of moving ahead with sewer work involves the design and implementation of the work.  Previously, the Council adopted a Risk Management Policy to assure that contracted work does not create conflicts of interest between designers, engineers, construction contractors, and project managers.  The contract on the Council agenda has been drafted with that intention. The sewer engineers (Coastland Engineers) appear to be sole sourced.

When the City renovates the sewer mains in an area, property owners are required to replace any faulty laterals (the pipes going from their property to the sewer main.)  The laterals cost thousands based on length and piping complexity.

To see if your property is in the Phase V project click here to view the map.

This Phase V project will encompass work in Sub-Basins W2, W3, G1, H1, H1A and previously identified high-priority pipes throughout the City for a total of approximately 33,000 lineal feet of sanitary sewer pipe replacement.

The agenda item is:  Consideration of the Preparation of 35% Design Documents for the Phase V Sanitary Sewer Project and Authorization to Apply for a State Fund Revolving Fund Loan for the Project  < Staff report

The Council meeting will be held in City Hall, recorded, broadcast and open to the public.  This item is on the 7:30 p.m. agenda.

In his latest account of the WW Park Bond saga, Councilman Jeff Wieler made several misstatements about the process. “Dozens of people” did not participate at the meetings (I attended two), a statement that could be corroborated had minutes been taken or the meetings videotaped.   The total cost for Blair Park is estimated at $900,000, but it is a phased project by design with the Phase 1 cost of $300,00 well under available WW funds of $507,325.  Applying the same logic to Hampton Field ($1.3M total) would make it ineligible.

As liaison to the Capital Improve Projects (CIP) Review Committee, Councilman Wieler could do everyone a service and explain why Blair Park was not considered as a phased project.   A lengthy CEQA process would not be required of Phase I for Blair Park, which is simply a rehabilitation of the natural area  – no change to existing use. A negative declaration is more likely and the CEQA analysis for Blair Field would more than address any impacts for the current park proposal.  The city has in its possession an analysis by LSA that
shows that a crosswalk to Blair Park is feasible and in any event, a crosswalk is not called for in Blair Park Phase I.  A principle FOMC [Friends of Moraga Canyon] argument was to maintain Blair Park as open space with better access – the threat of a lawsuit is a red herring.

The drainage problem at Hampton Field is largely going unaddressed – no drainage improvements to the play field will be made.  The “improved drainage” is actually a 4-foot plantar wall intended to screen a cell tower proposed for the slope above the courts.

“Negativity“ gets raised in lieu of informed discussion. Rather than resort to the ghost of Richard Nixon and Proverbs, Councilman Wieler should listen to Piedmonters.

The number one capital improvement project supported by residents in the 2007 General Plan Survey was improvements to the pool, a project considered not eligible for WW by the CIP Committee (It is eligible – look at the WW project list on the EBRPD website).  Moraga Canyon residents have been asking for decades that Blair Park be improved.  Citizen committees convened to study play field needs in town have consistently determined that access to Blair Park for parking or city operations is needed to expand Coaches Field.

The Recreation and Planning Commissions recommended that alternatives to the failed Blair Field proposal be considered for Blair Park.  Most of all, sports clubs have asked for increased field access, a concern Mr. Wieler claims to share. Yet with all that, WW is being used for routine court maintenance and park beautification instead of as leverage for new open space and recreation in Piedmont.  But as the Bible says:  “They know not, nor do they discern, for he has shut their eyes, so that they cannot see, and their hearts, so that they cannot understand.”  (Isaiah 44).  Ears too, it seems.

Garrett Keating, Former Councilmember

Editors’ Note: The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

No longer under consideration are a senior facility, Piedmont Aquatic Center, Blair Park, expansion of Coaches Field and numerous other projects.  

At the September 15, 2014 City Council meeting, three of the City Council members voted to accept the limited list of 5 projects proposed for use of $507,325 in voter approved WW East Bay Regional Park bond money. This Piedmont entitlement is annually paid for by each property owner in the amount of $10 per $100,000 appraised value.

The Council singled out one project, hardscape and partial drainage control at Hampton Field, specifically for the tennis and basketball courts.  The area has been in need of safety improvements for years.

Various speakers addressed transparency and selection criteria by the Capital Improvement Projects Review Committee (CIP).  Some noted they had been present at the meetings and found them transparent. The meetings were open to the public, however only those present at the meetings had the advantage of knowing how decisions were reached, as there are no recordings of the meetings, minutes, or broadcasts of the proceedings.

The  screening criteria chosen by the CIP Committee was:

 Is the project “shovel ready”?  

Two projects met this criteria. Hampton Field and Blair Park; however, Blair Park improvements were not on the list because it was determined by the Committee to be too controversial.  Construction plans are available for Blair and Hampton.

 Does the project require an extensive CEQA review process?

Both Hampton Field and Blair Park have met CEQA requirements. The projects are not considered a change of use.

 Has the project been fully vetted and likely to be supported by Piedmont residents?

Hampton Field has long been on the list of projects.  Blair Park continues to fester in the community according to committee members and others who want the park to be used for purposes other than the Council approved Phase I Maintenance plan.

 Does the project enhance revenue generation for the City of Piedmont?

Measure WW is being paid for by taxpayers making some question the criteria of commercializing recreation and park projects as a money source.

 Are there possibilities for a public/private partnership that the City has used so successfully in the past?

This criteria appears to apply to all proposals.

 Is it possible to phase the project?

This criteria could apply to most proposals.

Tim Rood was the only Council member to vote against proceeding until further information had been developed.  He disagreed with use of WW funds in a manner designed to produce income as not in keeping with original bond language and wanted the process to be more transparent.

Old wounds continue with Blair Park.  Controversy was used as a reason not to improve the park. 

CIP Chair John Wilson stated that Blair Park was eliminated from the list because of controversy in the community.  This was further emphasized by Vice Mayor Jeff Wieler, who did not want the money spent there, despite prior Council approval of a Phase I Maintenance project.  He noted that according to those opposed to the failed Sports Complex Proposal, there was no safe way to get pedestrians to the park when crossing Moraga Avenue.

Former Councilmember Garrett Keating spoke to the list and noted that Blair Park was not found on the list despite Council approval of a Phase I Maintenance project to improve the park.  He stated controversy was not a specified criteria.  Later in the meeting, Rood described prior Council action including resolution numbers prescribing actions to fund and improve Blair Park.

No public input.

Without benefit of public comment on the elimination of projects, the Council moved ahead to remove projects from the CIP Committee list.

A new entrance to Dracena Park was the first to fall, with comments such as: the public had not been involved; and there was no Master Plan.  This idea had come from staff member Mark Feldkamp.  Next, went renovation of the Recreation Department and adjacent play structure.  Again, there was no Master Plan for the projects and some thought any changes should await improvements suggested for the Aquatic Center/ Piedmont Pool.

Improvements to the Court Yard next to the Community Center was met with ideas of fundraising, rather than using WW funds.

The last project standing was Hampton Field.

All Council members present approved moving ahead with Hampton Field. The thought was to focus on “one signature project” that could be proposed to the East Bay Regional Park District in early 2015 (the next submittal opportunity) for approval, constructed in 2016 or 2017, and receipt of WW funds prior to the entitlement deadline at the end of 2018.

The Hampton tennis courts have been in dangerous disrepair for years and are in need of drainage work to correct design flaws.   This will require retaining wall work, drainage and improved hardscape areas.  A play structure used regularly by the Piedmont Play School was questioned as too expensive and not essential. Regular maintenance of Hampton Field is provided by Cleary Brothers at a cost of approximately $24,000 per year with additional cost incurred during rainy weather when water runs uncontrolled to inappropriate areas.

The softball outfield, known to turn into a marsh during wet weather, is not part of the Hampton Field proposed project. Fundraising may support improvements in the outfield area.

The City has CIP Fund reserves in the amount of approximately $400,000.  This unrestricted source of funding can be used to cover the cost of other projects including maintenance and construction drawings.

There was no mention of opening up the process to a public hearing. Councilmember Bob McBain was absent at the September 15 meeting.

– Current and former councilmembers raise transparency issues – 

Piedmont looks at spending $507, 325 in WW bond funds plus $400,000 in Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) funds on unidentified projects. 

How are the various projects under consideration chosen? Who proposed the various projects? Did the public have an adequate opportunity to add items to the list?  How was the general public informed about how decisions were reached? 

Records of CIP Review Committee meetings and their decision making processes are missing.

Those interested in how government decisions are reached frequently rely on broadcasts, recordings of meetings, and minutes of meetings. This was not possible during the recent Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Review Committee meetings. Interested individuals who could not be physically present found it difficult or impossible to learn which committee members were present, what materials were presented, and how decisions were reached.

The CIP Committee was tasked with determining qualifying projects to use $507,325 of WW bond funds.  The Committee came up with their own criteria resulting in a  list of five projects. Former Councilmember Garrett Keating and current Councilmember Tim Rood noted there was no matrix or transparent record of how the projects were chosen.

– Meetings dealing with money – 

The CIP Committee is not the only City Council appointed committee lacking regular records and minutes of their meetings.  The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee is not broadcast or recorded.

The Piedmont City Charter specifies:

SECTION 6.05  PUBLIC RECORD

Minutes for each of such boards and commissions shall be kept as a record of its proceedings and transactions. Each board or commission shall prescribe its own rules and regulations which shall be consistent with this Charter and with City Council ordinances and resolutions, and copies of which shall be kept on file with the city clerk.

The Public Safety Committee’s meetings are recorded and minutes are prepared.

Former Council Member Garrett Keating finds Committee rejection of proposals inappropriate . 

It was revealed by the chair of the CIP Committee [Capital Improvement Program Review Committee] at the September 15, 2014 Council meeting that the Blair Park proposal was not even evaluated for WW [East Bay Regional Park District Bond Funds worth $507,325] eligibility, because it was considered too controversial.

The charge from the City Council to the CIP Committee was to evaluate the eligibility of staff and public proposals for WW funding, and the Council repeatedly stated that no proposals were to be prejudged. On several occasions, this intention was explicitly stated to Moraga Canyon residents requesting improvements to Blair Park. It is unfortunate that the Committee chose to categorically dismiss the Blair Park proposal, which on paper would seem to be the most appropriate use of WW funds.

Public comments solicited for last night’s meeting were strongly in favor of improvements to Hampton Field, but the only improvements being considered at this time are to the tennis and basketball courts and the play structure.   And under the current design, converting the outfield to artificial turf will not be possible because of insufficient pervious surface.

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont Council Member and Current Member of the Piedmont Public Safety Committee

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  There are no recordings or minutes of the CIP meetings.