An open letter to Carol Schultz and the Uptown Partnership...
August 3, 2009
Dear Carol,
I received a copy of the packet for this month’s Uptown Partnership meeting. It raised a number of alarming questions. I am hoping that you can provide some insight.
1.) This year’s budget seems anomalous when compared to the previous Partnership budgets, at least those that have been made available to the public (from your May 19th e-mail and the city council’s suggestions, I thought all the budgets and plans would be on your website, but there are still only three). This year’s budget allocates over 1 million dollars to contingency funds. The budget submitted to City Council allocated approximately $2.4 million dollars in contingency funds. My understanding of contingency funds is that they are for unplanned, urgent expenses. Can you please provide clarification as to why this year’s budget contains such an unprecedented amount of money in contingency funds?
2.) It would seem that the board met on July 9th, despite the fact that you announced on numerous occasions that the Board would not be meeting in July and the June minutes specifically state that there would be no regularly scheduled July meeting. On the surface this meeting would seem to be in violation of the Brown Act, can you please provide clarification?
3.) It appears that the board is considering how to budget the $1.4 million surplus funds that had been over-budgeted for $500 thousand worth of meters. Given that the Board previously budgeted this $1.4 million dollars in such an unwise fashion, and given the mass confusion over several of the most recent board votes, wouldn’t it be better to leave the money in the reserve, as has been the past practice of the Partnership? I personally attended numerous meetings where I stated many times that this was an inappropriately high expense, but nobody saw fit to change their position. Wouldn’t it be best to wait for the new joint UP/HTC/HBA committee to address how to budget these funds? What will there be for this committee to do if the bulk of the existing $3.3 million dollar reserve will have already been allocated by this year’s budget?
4.) It would seem quite likely given your proposed budget & the Planning & Projects
Committee’s recommendations, that the Partnership will be voting to
budget 1 million dollars for parking involving the Mission Hills / Hillcrest
library. While budgeting for libraries is always nice, in this particular
situation, it seems 
a bit daft. I have a number of questions on this matter.
— I’m sure you are aware that the library is situated in the most western corner of Hillcrest. Some even claim this to be Mission Hills. From the enclosed photos, you can even see Mission Hills’ banners flying all about the library area. Previously, you told me that the AT&T site was too far from the center of Hillcrest. How can the AT&T site be too far, yet the library site is acceptable?
— I can see that you have obtained letters from many Mission Hills stakeholders who like the idea of enhancing the library fund. This does not seem a surprise. Have you also polled people in Hillcrest? Who obtained these letters? They seem to have all been sent right after the Planning & Projects Committee met. Did someone solicit these letters and was it with the knowledge of a majority of the board. Doesn’t Brown Act section 54952.2b, specifically forbid this? Can you please provide clarification?
— Since because of it’s
location, the Mission Hills / Hillcrest library would poorly serve most of
those in Hillcrest, especially the busy businesses in east Hillcrest, and
since there are already approximately 90 spots on city land already available
for parking in this exact area, wouldn’t
it be better to find another site? The available 90 parking spots can be
seen in the photo at the left. It was taken on Sunday, 
August
1, while cars were buzzing around Hillcrest trying in vain to find any kind
of parking. You can see that nearly all of the spots here on city land are
just empty. The Partnership has been talking for years about making arrangements
to secure parking at the Florence School and the fallow library site. It
would seem that this should and could be done for far less than one million
dollars. Also, I have seen in the previous board minutes, notions that the
library parking could provide spots for the employees of the Florence school,
getting those employees off the streets of Hillcrest. With parking already
available for 40 or 50 cars, how many more parking spots do those employees
need?
5.) I understand that some weeks ago, an inquiry was made to the Partnership regarding a curious $340 thousand expense for Multi-bay Parking Meter appearing on the Partnership’s 2003 return. Eventually there was a response that this was really for parking cards. However the parking card expense for the previous and subsequent years was approximately $100 thousand dollars less than this. I’m sure everything is in order, but the explanation seems quite muddled, could you please provide the public with some clarity?
6.) Regarding funny looking numbers, the packet contains revenue and expenses as divided up among the different sections of Uptown. Where can I find documentation on these figures? They don’t look at all right to me. I can’t imagine that much has been spent in Hillcrest, compared to the actual improvements I’ve seen in other areas. For instance, is the money that has been spent in Mission Hills so out of whack (455% of revenue) because the million dollars for the library is included in that? Or has Mission Hills already received a disproportionate sum?
7.) Lastly, may I ask why the on-line “fact-sheet” has not yet been updated? After the forum, I pointed out that while the fact sheet indicates that, "in 2007, the Board realigned its investment strategy away from a central parking garage to more, smaller-scale projects located throughout Uptown.” The example that follows is “rebuilding the Normal Street median”. As you know this project actually appeared in your 2005 plan, and has been ongoing ever since. It would seem that this “fact-sheet” would be especially confusing to the public you serve, can it please be updated to reflect the facts?
I apologize for the lengthy inquiry, but there does seem to be quite a lot of puzzling business at The Partnership. I would appreciate if you could get back to me as promptly as possible. I know that you are very busy with your work, but I do not expect to wait over a month for a reply, as I have been waiting for my questions submitted at your July 2nd public forum. As of today, the public’s questions still remain unaddressed.
Best regards,
Tim Gahagan
What do you think? Let us know!