https://form.jotform.com/232666508370055

Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee

Tuesday, May 9, 2023 6:00 p.m.

Police Emergency Operations Center, 403 Highland Avenue, Piedmont

A broadcast of the meeting will not take place. Minutes are not kept of the meetings.  The public can attend the meeting and, if desired, may make visual and audio recordings of the meeting. 

No meeting materials, such as the Budget and Financial Plan, were publicly distributed with the meeting announcement. Materials should be publicly available at the meeting.

Regular Agenda

1. Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Financial Update

2. Review Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget and Consideration of FY 2023-2024 Budget Report

3. Review Long Range Financial Plan

4. Review of Public Safety Dispatch Staffing

Announcements, old business and consideration of future agenda items .

Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee are available for public inspection in the Finance Department during normal business hours.

QUESTIONS  CONTACT:

Michael Szczech
Finance Director
City of Piedmont
(510) 420-3045

Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email the City Clerk at cityclerk@piedmont.ca.gov or call (510) 420- 3040 who will make their best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the City procedure for resolving reasonable accommodation requests. Information about reasonable accommodations is available on the City website at https://piedmont.ca.gov. Notification at least two business days preceding the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II]

In accordance with G.C. Sec. 54954.2(a) this notice and agenda were posted on the City Hall bulletin board and also in the Piedmont Police Department on Friday May 5, 2023. 

“Piedmont has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.”

Piedmont Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee report

Some highlights from the April Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee  (BAFPC) meeting:

Four Year Capital Improvement Program: 

Estimates to replace/renovate Essential Services facilities, City hall basement and Recreation Building:     $16, 450,000. – 52,585,425.

STAFF INCREASES:

Proposed FY23-24 will include a part-time Facilities Project Manager:            $100,000/year

Increase in Planning Department Part-time staff:                                           $180,400

Increase in Planning Department Supplemental and Consulting service:       $519,000

Consulting for Moraga Canyon Specific Plan:                                                  $700,000

2 new dispatch positions Police Department:       $282,000, 5-year cost = $1, 518,000

TAX INCREASES:

2 new dispatchers would require a 11% increase in the parcel tax.

TAX REVENUE:

Property taxes receipts were 8% above the previous year (well above expected) and the real property transfer tax for 20222/23 was projected to come in at $4.7M, almost $1M above estimates.

For more details email Finance Director Michael Szczech, mszczech@piedmont.ca.gov.

In year’s past, City Council would have the assistance of two citizen committees to assist in reviewing these spending and tax increases.   The Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC) would meet every two years prior to the parcel tax being put on the ballot for renewal. The MTRC held public meetings and met with all department heads to review service levels and department needs.

The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC ) has replaced the MTRC but is not conducting the comprehensive review of city departments the prior committee once did. With the addition of the Measure UU assessments, the likely increase in the parcel tax, and a possible new bond for essential service buildings, the BAFPC should revisit its 2018 study of taxes in comparable cities to assess the long-term impact of these new tax adoptions on Piedmont.  That study found Piedmont’s tax levels acceptable based on comparison with Hillsborough.

The other committee was the Capital Improvement Projects Committee (CIP) which reviewed staff and citizen proposals for capital improvement projects.  With Piedmont’s conservative budgeting, there’s always a surplus in city revenues at the end of the year and CIP annually met to review proposals for capital projects from staff but also from residents.  Residents filled out a form and presented to the committee. The Indian Road, Ronada/Ramona and Kingston traffic islands all were initiated through the CIP process.  CIP seems to have been disbanded after COVID – the committee is no longer listed among the city’s commission and committees.  In my experience, the CIP provided a good reality check to staff proposals.  For example, in response to a question from a BAFPC committee member, staff said the primary criteria for CIP is safety and that is true.  This year’s top CIP project is the Piedmont Park – Guilford stairs at the cost of $388,000.  That project was initiated by a fall on the stairs and what could have been addressed with a handrail has morphed into a major beautification project.  Has this project diverted funding from other safety projects like Park Way and Highland where a pedestrian was hit by a car? A CIP committee asking these questions earlier in project development would provide significant cost savings.

The opening line of the first BAFPC report was: “Piedmont has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.”  That was speaking to the payroll and benefits obligations of the city at the time.  Piedmont is receiving record tax revenue and should reconvene the CIP and MTRC committees so it doesn’t slip back into a spending problem.

Garrett Keating, Former Member of the Piedmont City Council

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

 On Tuesday May 9, The Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) will meet again at 6:00 pm in the EOC (Emergency Operations Center  of the Piedmont Police Department at Highland and Vista Avenues.)

The important BAFPC meetings, unlike Piedmont Commission meetings, are not broadcast or video recorded by the City. Minutes are not kept of the Committee meetings, although required by the City Charter.  The public may attend and participate in the meetings with a right to obtain all materials distributed to the Committee members. The public has a right to make audio and video recordings of the meetings.

City Council makes appointments to Commissions & Committees from a talented pool of 37 applicants.

The Piedmont City Council made 22 appointments to fill vacancies for City Commissions, Committees, and appointed volunteer positions at a special meeting on April 4, 2023.

In a testament to the spirit of volunteerism embedded in this community, 37 residents applied to serve on City of Piedmont bodies during this year’s recruitment. Applicants spanned all ages and stages of life, ranging from 5th generation Piedmonters to those who arrived less than two years ago. During interviews with the City Council on April 4th, prospective Commissioners were united in their passion for service and love for the city they’ve made home. With only 5 minutes to make their case, they spoke movingly of their appreciation for Piedmont’s “small town” feel, how much they value the outstanding services they receive, and their desire to give back. The nearly three hours of interviews painted a positive and hopeful picture of Piedmont’s future, with a deep and talented pool of residents eager to use their skills.

Click below to read the names of the appointees:

2023-04-13 Commission and Committee Appointments

The revised Draft Housing Element appears to respond reasonably to nearly all the concerns and suggestions expressed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).  Responses to HCD’s following concern should, however, be improved.

“…a large portion of the lower‐income RHNA is isolated in three remote areas on the boundaries of the City yet a significant portion of the moderate and above moderate RHNA is located throughout the City. The element should evaluate these patterns and based on the outcomes of this analysis, consider identifying additional sites and add or modify programs to promote housing mobility throughout the City (Not limited to the RHNA)”

I believe Piedmont’s defense of the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan process should be stronger.  The revised Element should make clearer that the process will produce a plan for an entirely new neighborhood of 132 housing units, 60 of which will be affordable to low-income families.  This new neighborhood will be socio-economically, and likely racially, more diverse than Piedmont as we now know it. It will have its own physical, social, and political identity shaped by policies agreed among Piedmonters in compliance with State requirements.  It will be a place where residents benefit from good design, good schools, good public services, and good intentions to build an integrated neighborhood.  It can, in short, be everything that HCD and Piedmonters hope to achieve through the general plan process. It must, of necessity, be at the periphery of the community because no other location in Piedmont presents an opportunity to build an entire neighborhood of 132 mixed-cost housing units.As I and others have previously noted, the only threat to realizing this desirable objective arises from the possibility that the neighborhood will, by plan, be internally segregated.  The threat arises, ironically, from good intentions. The Council added Blair Park to the Specific Plan area to make possible the rearranging of existing Canyon uses including the city corporation yard. 

Given previously studied and documented safety hazards to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians accessing Blair Park, moving the corporation yard there (where the original Blair Park plan of the early 20th century assigned it), would allow more space on the safer side of Moraga to realize a socio-economically and physically integrated community.  Including Blair in the plan, however, has led some Piedmonters to suggest assigning all 60 low-income units there. 

As has been argued before the Council and elsewhere, this scheme would physically, functionally, and socially isolate residents and put them at risk of accidental trauma.  Presuming, however, that good land-use planning and decent policy prevail, no residential uses would be allowed in Blair Park and a new, safe, neighborhood of 132 homes, including 60 for low-income families will grow around an enhanced Coaches Field.

HCD’s concern that the revised Element shows no low-income units in central Piedmont appears reasonable given that city staff, city-paid consultants, and a Council-appointed Housing Committee all recommended that the Council locate at least some low-income units there. 

Council’s attempt to explain its decision to exclude low-income families from central Piedmont has been muddled at best, leaving observers (apparently including HCD) to infer that organized resident resistance to low-income housing drove the choice. 

I urge the Council to correct this inference by further revising the Housing Element to include the following strategy.  Keep the current assignment to Grand Avenue of low-income units (other than the 60 intended for Moraga Canyon) in the Element as the “default option.” But, as recommended by the Piedmont Racial Equity Campaign (i.e., PREC), also begin a Central Piedmont Specific Plan process to identify possible locations for at least some of these units.  The spirit and intent of the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan process should, in other words, apply to central Piedmont. 

As the Moraga Canyon process specifically calls out possible use of public lands and rights-of-way as sites for low-income housing, so should a Central Piedmont Specific Plan.  Highland Way, for example, serves essentially as a parking lot.  Structures equal to or lower in height and massing to the adjacent church and office building could be built there without denying access to the church or businesses.  The Central Piedmont Specific Plan could also coordinate with the Moraga Canyon Plan to ensure that the city has locations for all essential public functions.  Indeed, the Piedmont Unified School District could also participate in the planning to ensure its needs for physical space are met as well.

Ralph Catalano, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

The City’s planning staff will bring the updated Housing Element to the City Council for adoption at their regular meeting on Tuesday, Monday, March 20^th.

Since receiving comments on the City’s draft Housing Element from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on February 16^th, staff and consultants have been working to address the issues raised by State reviewers – primarily adding clarity, elaboration, and definitive scheduling for a number of the proposed programs.

The revised Housing Element is a 630 page document available here.

The document was published by 9am on Friday, March 17^th as part of the agenda packet for the March 20^th Council meeting. Changes from the previously published draft Housing Element are shown in track changes.

For example, on page 329 under

Emergency Shelters/Low Barrier Navigation Centers

the lines of red text with slash through are cut and replaced with adjacent blue text.

AGENDA:  March 20, 2023 Meeting:

https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/City%20Council/Agenda/council-current-agenda.pdf?v=QH2wsa4Z2&v=QH2wsa4Z

The annual call for city volunteers to serve on Piedmont commissions and committees is open until the deadline of March 29.

All residents have to do is fill out a simple form and sit for a brief interview with City Council ( City Volunteer Information). In particular are there any real estate gurus or prognosticators out there who are willing to serve on the Budget and Financial Planning Committee (two vacancies)? This influential committee conducts long-range projections of city revenues that form the basis for tax increases and bond initiatives and these projections consistently come up short by several millions of dollars due to spiky home prices and property taxes.

One committee residents cannot apply for is, for lack of a better name, the Climate Action
Committee. Rather than solicit volunteers, Council decided to have the City Administrator
select this committee to seek experts in energy technology/efficiency and residential
retrofitting to assist the city in developing a building electrification strategy. The two key words
in that charge are “residential” and “electrification”. As the city’s Climate Action Plan (CAP)
noted in 2018:

“Piedmont is a built-out city, which means energy efficiency gains will largely need to come
from upgrades to existing buildings. While California’s building code is moving towards zero-net
energy (ZNE) for new residential construction, this will only apply to the few Piedmont homes
either constructed on the City’s remaining empty lots or as a result of the demolition and
rebuilding of existing homes. … The combination of the age of Piedmont homes, their size, and
the low rates of new home construction mean Piedmont will have to aggressively pursue
energy efficiency upgrades for existing homes to meet its climate goals. The following
measures address building energy consumption through a strategy of first disclosing
information, then reducing electricity and natural gas consumption, and ultimately, fuel-
switching from natural gas to electricity.”

And where is Piedmont on meeting its climate goals? The goals are defined as reduction in
metric tons of CO2 since 2005 and as the figure below shows, Piedmont is making little or no
progress. The slight declines from 2018 to 2020 basically track the decrease in home heating
which has gone up in the ensuing years. The 2021 GHG inventory will be telling as that year had
the highest number of home heating days over the past decade. And for 2023, turning out to
be another cold year, the number of home heating days is 16% ahead of 2021. On top of that,
the State has lowered the GHG reduction targets to 50% by 2030 (24.5 Metric ton CO2 for
piedmont) and to ZERO by 2050. So try as Piedmont might, Sacramento has moved the targets
but doing so follows the science.

This state of affairs is why staff came forward this month with a proposal to establish a
committee to develop a building electrification strategy (several Bay area cities have already
done so). To underscore the City’s commitment to meeting its GHG reduction goals, the City
Administrator cited two recent achievements: the hiring of a full-time sustainability coordinator
and the building of an all-electric pool. On the first point the City Administrator is correct.
Alyssa Dykman, Sustainability Program Manager, has an advanced degree in
sustainability/environmental management, has made incredible gains in city sustainability
programs during her short tenure and is an excellent communicator – sign up to receive her
program newsletter: Sustainability Newsletter. The all-electric pool, while a great symbol for
the future, has little impact on reducing the City’s GHG, less than 1%. An all-electric pool will
save substantial operating costs over its lifetime.

The City Administrator should also have mentioned a third achievement – the adoption of the
Reach codes. First, they won an award! Reach codes are local building code requirements that
go beyond the California Building Code (CBC) to achieve higher levels of energy efficiency and
GHG reduction – cities can “reach” beyond the CBC – and Piedmont was one of the first cities to
develop these codes for home remodels, the bulk of construction in town. Secondly, the Reach
codes dovetail with the symbolism of the pool – home rebuilds/remodels need to be all-electric
if the City is going to meet its GHG targets. Reach codes only apply to building permits above
$50,000, which is why staff’s idea of a building electrification strategy for the whole city is
forward-thinking.

Some on Council critiqued how the Reach codes were brought forward, suggesting they were
done so stealthily by advocates who didn’t do sufficient community outreach. The Reach Codes
held multiple public meetings and hearings at City commissions, were discussed extensively on
local forums, and were vetted with the California Energy Commission. What staff and advocates for the Reach codes didn’t have was Zoom, a full-time City Communications Director and a
$750,000 consultant as other recent city initiatives have. With these new communication tools
now at the City’s disposal, no doubt a building electrification strategy will be well publicized and
vigorously discussed. But there’s no need to re-invent the wheel here – community surveys
have consistently shown that 66% of Piedmont support electrification. What is needed are
elected leaders who will back up community sentiment and the past proclamations of City
Council and get moving on implementing substantive change that will reduce Piedmont’s GHG.

Those interested in serving on a Climate Action committee should contact Alyssa Dykman, Sustainability Program Manager at sustainability@piedmont.ca.gov.

Garrett Keating, Former City Council Member

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

 Application deadline 5pm on Wednesday, March 29th

The City of Piedmont is now accepting applications to fill upcoming vacancies on several Commissions and Committees. Applications can be completed online and are due by 5:00 p.m., March 29, 2023. Mandatory in-person interviews will be held the evening of Tuesday, April 4th.

Serving on a Commission or Committee helps keep Piedmont moving forward. Piedmont is a city of volunteers of residents who serve on one of the City’s 13 volunteer Commissions, Boards, and Committees. The Piedmont residents entrusted to serve on these bodies act as the City’s eyes and ears, listening to community input, identifying and studying percolating issues, and making recommendations to the City Council for action. Many of the programs that Piedmonters enjoy today were initiated and/or first reviewed by Commissions, including pickleball at City courts, Heritage Trees, annual Planning Commission design awards, and the Map Your Neighborhood program.

Apply Online by March 29th

To apply, submit an online application by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 29th. When applying, you’ll be asked to provide contact and basic background information (education, occupation), select which body or bodies you would like to apply to serve on, then provide brief written answers to three questions:

• What experience do you have related to this appointment?

• Why are you seeking this appointment?

• What will you bring to this Commission or Committee?

The application also asks whether you have previously attended or watched a meeting of the body you’re applying to serve on. Archived meeting videos are available streaming on the City’s website.

Interviews on Tuesday, April 4th

To be considered for appointment, applicants must attend an in-person interview at City offices in the evening of Tuesday, April 4th. Interviews will be conducted by the City Council and will last roughly 5 minutes each. The interview schedule will be provided to applicants on Friday, March 31st.

Applicants needed for vacancies on seven bodies

This year, there are vacancies to fill on seven Commissions and Committees, as well as two additional appointed volunteer positions. For most bodies, members are appointed to 3-year terms, with a limit of two consecutive terms.

Commission/Committee Duties and additional information provided in link below:

2023-03-06 City Seeking Volunteers to Serve on Commissions and Committees

Piedmonter and Architect Donald Chandler has offered several recommendations to the City in a series of 3 prepared statements:

1/17/2023 – Agenda Item #10 –
Consideration of an RFP for the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan

I would like to recommend an addition to the Scope of Work of the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan –
namely to add new Police and Fire Departments and related buildings to the list of activities which
should be included in the Project Area. Assuming that we don’t have a comprehensive Master Plan or a
complete evaluation of the structural integrity of our Essential Services Buildings – and these are two big assumptions but if you will bear with me on that – wouldn’t it be prudent to include these two Essential Services in the RFP Scope of Work in the event that the Master Planning process may identify Moraga Canyon as the best location for these activities.?

Moraga Canyon may turn out to be the most accessible site in the case of a major emergency like a wildfire or an earthquake. I don’t know the answer to that issue, but a comprehensive Master Plan would explore that option in addition to, of course, other sites including the City Center with all its pedestrian and vehicular traffic issues. It would also balance out the issues of routine vs major emergency response times and other City requirements during a major emergency.

My personal opinion is that we may very soon have too many activities in our small City Center – with
the added traffic from the new Community Pool, continued discussions about new housing units per the Housing Element and the large number of parking spaces devoted to City and School employees. If that is a finding of the Master Plan exercise, then it may be best to relocate some of the City Center
functions. Isn’t it a good idea to have a placeholder in the Specific Plan for some of those functions?

Regarding the priorities of use in the Specific Plan, there is some mention that housing is of the highest priority in order to satisfy the Housing Element submittal. That housing is for future residents, and I do not in any way discount or diminish their importance to the City – but how can we know the priorities for Moraga Canyon – the one last major parcel in Piedmont – without a Master Plan that examines all the City’s needs – and the needs of all it’s residents – current and future?
Thank you, Council Members and Staff for your consideration of this proposal.
Donald Chandler AIA

____________________________________

2/6/2023  Open Forum – Piedmont City Council Meeting

I would like to expand on some of the issues which I raised in my call to you on January 17th. As you may recall, I discussed the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan and the need for a City Master Plan and the urgency that I feel to develop a plan to improve the Essential Services Buildings which are of course an integral part of the Master Plan.

In researching past City Council minutes, I found references on April 20th and July 6 th of 2020 indicating some urgency to proceed with further studies of the ESB ‘s structural and operational capacities. The April 20 th minutes contained an extensive discussion including comments from the Police Chief and Fire Chief about the deficiencies in their departments. The Fire Chief had an comprehensive list of deficiencies or inadequacies, one of which was, and I’m quoting here “seismic features such that an earthquake would cause significant structural damage to the Fire Station.” In the same meeting, City Staff stated that, quote “ high quality public safety services are a core function of the city .“  I think we can all agree with that statement.

Studies were undertaken and then In the July 6th meeting, Staff reported that Glass Architects had
developed a cost estimate of $33-51 million for the potential combined Essential Services Building. At
the same meeting there was extensive discussion about funding both the Community Pool and the ESB’s and, for reasons you all know much better than I, the result of that meeting was to proceed only with the Pool Bond Measure on the November 2020 ballot.

We all recognize the impact of the COVID emergency on all City and other activities, but we also know
that there was some urgency up until mid-2020 to investigate and proceed further with what we can call the ESB project. Two and one-half years have passed. If we all agree with that earlier statement that “ high quality public safety services are a core function of the city”, then one must ask the question: How does the City reestablish that URGENCY exhibited in 2020 to move the ESB and Master Plan processes forward?

I submit these observations and questions for your consideration.
Thank you very much for your time and for your service to the City

Donald Chandler AIA, Piedmont Resident

____________________

2/21/2023 – Open Forum – Piedmont City Council Meeting

I appreciate the comments in the Council Meeting of February 7, that reinforced the need to
renew the process of investigation and determination of the proper solution for upgrading the
Essential Services Buildings (ESB) and their inclusion in a revised Piedmont Master Plan. The
very preliminary costs for that project, as included in various City meeting notes, ranged from
$33 million to well over $ 80 million. That range of estimates is understandable, given the
general scope of work completed at the time – almost 3 years ago.

With a project of that scope in our near future, one must ask the question – do we want to
replicate the project management model used on the Community Pool on the ESB project or
for that matter any project moving forward?

The management process on the Pool resulted in, 1) a major scope change/redesign before
construction bids were even solicited, 2) then when bid, only two bids were received and both were
over the City’s budget , 3) a rebid process 4) in the rebid, all bidders except 1 were over budget. And
even the low bid could not meet the City’s budget if not for the generosity and understanding of PRFO
and many Piedmont residents and their contributions. The Pool design process was, unfortunately, not
uncommon and generally follows this pattern: Design – Estimate – Over budget – Redesign – Re-
estimate, Over budget, etc., etc. Basically, the weakness of this process is that it is iterative and it tends
not to be collaborative.

Let’s look at an alternative process. It is one where the design team, the project management team and
the estimating team all have equal weight and input into the project from the very early stages. It is
critical that design and estimating teams must go forward simultaneously if this process is to be
successful in reducing the design time ( saving money ) and meeting an established budget. This
management model is not new. It is a model used by many major corporations and also municipalities
which have a significant building programs. The goals of this process are to reduce design time and fees and minimizing those iterative design exercises experienced on the Community Pool.

What is key is that it is a top-down process – it must be initiated and empowered by the Client/Owner if it is to be successful.

I realize this is a very abbreviated description of a complex process, but I do hope the Council will give
some consideration to revising the City’s project management system going forward.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration of this proposal.

(Notes for a phone call to the Open Forum – Piedmont City Council Meeting of 2/21/2023 –

Donald Chandler AIA )