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.

– “California will no longer be the only Western state that does not manage its groundwater,” said Senator Fran Pavley. –

The precise number of wells in Piedmont is not recorded. In most of the City the water table is more than 20 feet below ground level. Piedmont’s 2005 General Plan refers to the existing wells as being used for non-potable water purposes, such as watering lawns and flowerbeds.  Some old wells may have gone dry as the water table dropped.

Will the remaining private wells in Piedmont ultimately come under government monitoring or management following the state government’s new regulatory authority over groundwater use? Up until now well owners have been free to pump as much water as they wished. Last year the State Water Resources Control Board proposed the creation of “sustainable thresholds” of groundwater use. Ten new state regulators will focus on curbing groundwater depletion.

California established surface water rights in 1914. On Tuesday, September 16, Governor Jerry Brown signed historic legislation to strengthen local control and monitoring of groundwater use.  The three bills signed by the Governor – AB 1739 by Assemblymember Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) and Senate Bills 1168 and 1319 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) – create a framework for sustainable, local groundwater management for the first time in California history. Groundwater is a critical element of the state’s water system, making up more than one-third of California’s water supply. The bills establish a definition of sustainable groundwater management and initially focus on groundwater basins consumed by agriculture and industry but lay the predicate for monitoring all groundwater use.

“Ensuring a sustainable supply of groundwater is a critical element of addressing the water challenges facing California,” said Assemblymember Dickinson. “Over drafting our groundwater leads to subsidence and contamination; consequences we cannot afford. With these new laws in effect, California will take important steps to ensure we are protecting our valuable water supply for years to come.”

Groundwater is a critical element of the state’s water system, making up more than one-third of California’s water supply. The bills establish a definition of sustainable groundwater management and require local agencies to adopt management plans for the state’s most important groundwater basins.

The legislation prioritizes groundwater basins that are currently overdrafted and sets a timeline for implementation:

• By 2017, local groundwater management agencies must be identified;
• By 2020, overdrafted groundwater basins must have sustainability plans;
• By 2022, other high and medium priority basins not currently in overdraft must have sustainability plans; and
• By 2040, all high and medium priority groundwater basins must achieve sustainability.

The legislation provides measurable objectives and milestones to reach sustainability and a state role of limited intervention when local agencies are unable or unwilling to adopt sustainable management plans.

On the same day the Governor signed two other groundwater related bills focused on individual communities:

– AB 2453 by Assemblymember Katcho Achadjian (R-San Luis Obispo) – Paso Robles Basin Water District.
– AB 1043 by Assemblymember Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park) – Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006: groundwater contamination.

For full text of the bills, visit: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Governor Brown has called on all Californians to reduce their water use, including private wells, by 20 percent and prevent water waste.  SaveOurWater.com and  Drought.CA.Gov provide information on conservation and the effects of the drought.

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.

Where is the public?

A rare opportunity for Piedmont to use $507,325 appears to be lacking general public input.

Will the City Council at their September 15 meeting open up the consideration process for comprehensive public input?

When Piedmont voters approved the East Bay Regional Park District WW Bond Funds tax measure, there was the promise that funds would be available through 2018 to improve Piedmont recreational facilities, a senior center, or parks.  Time has been slipping away as a result of delays.

With the exception of Livermore, which did not vote on the measure and will not benefit from the funding, Measure WW was approved by 72% of voters in Alameda and Contra Costa counties in November 2008.  To receive the funds requires no matching funds. Annually, every property owner in a participating jurisdiction, such as Piedmont, is required to pay $10 per $100,000 of assessed property value to provide the WW funds.

Piedmont delays in utilizing the funds originated primarily from staff and others intentions to use the money for night lighting at Coaches Field on Moraga Avenue; however, there was never a specific public hearing on the use of WW money for that purpose. There has never been a general public hearing or workshop on how Piedmonters want their $507,325 entitlement in WW money to be used. Some have likened the lack of early public participation in the decision to the controversial, failed Blair Park /Moraga Canyon sports complex proposal.

Unlike the outreach for Piedmont’s Draft Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan, there have been no community meetings or general public outreach to hear from Piedmonters on their preferences. No surveys, no Town Hall meetings, and no public hearings prior to the winnowing down to “five qualifying projects.”

Will Piedmonters be allowed to have a community voice in how to spend the fast approaching deadline for the $507,325 entitlement? 

The task of determining what should be done with the money has largely been delegated by the City Council to their appointed Capital Improvement Program Review Committee (CIP).  This select group of well intentioned members have been meeting to discuss which projects would qualify and have selected five non-prioritized projects.

The CIP meetings have been held in the City Council Conference Room, a small room near the Council Chambers, and at a meeting in the Main Park.  Those who wanted to know what was discussed at the meetings were unable to obtain meeting minutes or view the proceeding from their homes.

Interested residents concerned about Blair Park improvements, long term correction to the dangerously cracked tennis courts at Hampton, and expansion of Coaches Field have been challenged by the decision process.

Mark Feldkamp lends staff support to the CIP meetings.  Suggestions on how to spend CIP money have ranged from curtains in the Community Center to replacing Main Park’s stone walls, daylighting the stream down the center of Dracena Park and drainage issues.  Feldkamp recommended, much to the disappointment of some, that some projects were not advised.  He has encouraged the Park Commission to be present at the September 15 Council meeting to participate in the decision process. 

It is unprecedented for Piedmont to receive $507,325 to spend on unspecified recreation facilities, a senior center, or parks.

Some public frustration is evident from the emails found in the staff report and emails . There are competing interests for sports, beautification, recreation and park improvement. Blair Park’s Council approved plans are not on the list for funding.

The five projects chosen by the CIP committee are listed below.

Partial staff report for September 15 City Council meeting:
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARKS MEASURE WW NON-PRIORTIZED PROJECT LIST

Piedmont Community Hall Plaza and $600,000 to $700,000
Connector Pathway Renovation:
This project would replace the broken and stained aggregate concrete in the Community Hall front plaza area with the existing brick paving spokes left intact. The likely material to be installed in place of the concrete would be a cut stone surfacing mortared on a steel
reinforced concrete slab that would aesthetically tie in with the existing stone pavement improvements located throughout Piedmont Park. Staff would propose to install electricity under the slab and install decorative lighting to the specimen Yulan Magnolia
located in the center of the island. This area is used extensively for parties and large functions that generate much needed revenue for the city. The improvements would also include the installation of several removable decorative metal bollards limiting the vehicular damage caused by cars and trucks that now use the plaza as a turn-around and
drop off zone.
The project would also complete the final phase of the Exedra Master Plan as recommended in prior CIP proposals. This portion of the project combines several prior projects, including the installation of a new swings for older children, new lawn area and seating along the bicentennial wall, new walkways that would replace the existing asphalt roadway, lighting along the walkway leading to the Exedra Plaza, modifications to the overlook area including improvements to better accommodate movies in the park and improvements to the driveway that leads to the amphitheater.

Hampton Park Improvements (Harris Plan) $1,500,000 (construction costs only): [Phased approach not encouraged by staff.]
The Master Plan was approved by the Park & Recreation Commissions and City Council in 2007. City Council approved funding for the completion of the construction documents that are due by November 2014 and possible bid in January 2015. The Landscape Architect has recently submitted the 30% Design Development working drawings.
Public support from the Hampton Park improvements has been strong and staff is exploring possible private funding opportunities. This project could be broken into phases, depending on the budget constraints. Project phases could include the refurbishment of all of the hardscape areas including the tennis, basketball and handball
courts. This in conjunction with the improved drainage in these areas could serve as one phase. Another phase could include all improvements at the baseball field, including all new drainage system, turf, new warning track and site furnishings. The Landscape
Architect is prepared to package the construction drawings and bid documents that would be compatible with the proposed construction budget. A decision will be needed to address what items would be in each of the construction phases.

Dracena Park, New Entrance $300,000 to $350,000
at Park Way and Dracena Avenue:
Develop an in-house master plan for a new entry patio and walkways at the corner of Park Way and Dracena Ave. The construction of the new pedestrian bridge at Dracena Park has brought to the forefront the need for a new pedestrian entrance and gathering spot at this corner of Dracena Park. The existing connector walkways to the new bridge are in need of a complete over-haul. The existing landscaping should be enhanced and an efficient irrigation system installed.

Renovation and Rehabilitation of the Recreation Building $100,000 to $150,000:
The existing structure is very antiquated and a Master Plan is needed to make better use of the existing space. As part of an overall Master Plan, staff proposes to relocate the registration and main offices downstairs to the first floor. This arrangement would be more user-friendly allowing the public to have direct and unimpeded access to
Department staff. The construction would include not only renovated office spaces but also provides improvements to the existing HVAC systems, lighting and internet services. The Recreation Department provides a wide variety of city functions and the working environments should meet these needs, allowing staff to efficiently serve Piedmont residents.

New Play Structure at the Recreation Center $75,000 to $100,000:
The existing play structure is antiquated and is in need of replacement. A new play structure would provide ADA access for all users and would invite and encourage a safe play environment. The design would have areas for all age groups encouraging the children to use their imagination as well as providing physical challenges. This play structure is in a prime central play location that serves numerous groups on a daily basis.

Read the staff report and emails for the September 15 City Council meeting agenda.

The Council meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. in City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont. The use of WW Bond Funds falls well into the agenda of the September 15 meeting. Home observers can tune into Channel 27 or go to the City website on line to view the proceedings.

City Seeks Volunteers for Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee – Deadline: Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Want to participate in important financial decisions impacting all Piedmonters? Want to learn in detail how your tax dollars are expended?  Want to advise the Piedmont City Council on financial matters?  The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) offers a great opportunity.

The following is the City’s press release:

The City of Piedmont is looking for a few talented volunteers for vacancies on the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee. The committee, originally established by the City Council as a temporary body in March 2012, has been made a permanent body with an expanded membership of five regular members and two alternate members.

The charge of the committee is to:

• Review the financial projections prepared for the City’s Annual Budget and provide comment on whether they provide for the long term sustainable financial future of the City. This review shall take place between the preparation of the budget in April and its approval by the City Council in June of each year.

• Review and provide comment on the Mid-Year Budget Reports.

• Provide a financial review of any new program commitments and funding sources in excess of $250,000 in any fiscal year.

• Periodically review and comment on the sufficiency of funding for long term obligations, including the Sewer Fund, Equipment Replacement Fund, Facilities Maintenance Fund and the City’s pension and retiree healthcare costs and funding.

• Periodically examine the need for the Municipal Services Special Tax (Parcel Tax) and recommend whether this tax should be continued, and if so, at what rate.  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.

Applications are due to City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue, on or before the deadline of Tuesday, September 30, 2014. 

Interviews with the City Council for these positions will be scheduled for the evening of Monday, October 6, 2014. No appointments will be made without a Council interview.

Residents with questions are invited to contact the City Clerk’s office at (510) 420-3040.

City Clerk, John O. Tulloch

Waterways and streets have become cleaner.

The following is a press release from StopWaste of which Piedmont is a member.                                                                                                               

Since it began in January, 2013, the reusable bag ordinance has had dramatic results. In Alameda County, overall bag purchases by affected retail stores have declined by 85 percent. The number of shoppers bringing a reusable bag to affected stores, or not using a bag at all, has more than doubled during this time.

The ordinance, adopted in 2012 by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority, also known as StopWaste, went into effect January 1, 2013, and affects 1,300 stores countywide. The ordinance prohibits the distribution of single-use bags at most retailers selling packaged food, and places a $0.10 per bag minimum charge on recycled-content paper or reusable bags. Alameda County is the most populous county in California to have a reusable bag ordinance.

“It’s fantastic to go grocery shopping and see everyone with their reusable bags,” stated Authority Board President Jennifer West. “I think we can all appreciate fewer plastic bags flying around in the street.”

Store owners have noticed the changes first-hand. “People used to ask for two bags, now they don’t even want one,” said Rubin Dhillon, a manager at a Union City 7-Eleven. Conchita Hung of a Valero station in Dublin added, “I’ve been the owner for over 20 years – it’s been a big change. It’s changed people’s habits because they don’t want to pay 10 cents.” Other store owners reported their bag purchases going down between 50 and 90 percent.

The ordinance was influenced by tough new requirements for cities to reduce the amount of trash entering waterways. In 2007, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board declared five waterways in Alameda County – Strawberry Creek and Codornices Creek in Berkeley, Sausal Creek and Damon Slough in Oakland, and San Leandro Creek in San Leandro – so polluted with trash that they violated the federal Clean Water Act.

Despite several years of voluntary efforts to promote reusable bags countywide, plastic bags were still consistently collected in large numbers by volunteers in Alameda County on Coastal Cleanup day.

San Francisco and San Jose have seen similar decreases in plastic and paper bag distribution and cleaner waterways as a result of their bag ordinances.

For futher information contact: Jeff Becerra:

(510) 891-6549; jbecerra@stopwaste.org

 

At their September 8, 2014 meeting addressing short term housing rentals in Piedmont, the Planning Commission took no formal action; however, by consensus all commissioners expressed their opinion that Piedmont should not allow short term housing rentals.  Concern focused on changing the character of the community due to parking problems, noise, and instability in neighborhoods.

Referring to short term rentals, Commissioner Tony Theophilos noted only a downside and no upside.

Planning Director Kate Black expressed concern if second units were used like a hotel rather than meeting affordable housing needs.

Other commissioners were concerned that any revenue from permits, fees, or taxes would not offset the cost of managing such a program.

Former Mayor Patti White made a statement during Public Forum requesting no approval of short term rentals, largely because of inherent safety issues for young children.

The staff will prepare a report describing the various points expressed by the commissioners.

Are you interested in Piedmont School Parcel Taxes and learning A to Z how the Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) expends funds?

An important opportunity is presented by the voter required PUSD School Support Tax Subcommittee of the Budget Advisory Committee (BAC).

The voter approved parcel tax started at $2,406 per parcel and can be increased 2% on a compounded basis each year by the School Board.  The parcel tax is currently $2,454 per year.  The Advisory Subcommittee is based on voter action requiring an annual report to the School Board on the need to levy the parcel tax and any increase for the following year. Three appointments to the subcommittee will be made on the recommendation of the President and Vice President of the Board to the full Board.

None of the meetings of the Budget Advisory Committee or Subcommittee have been publicly broadcast.  In the past, all meetings and deliberations on the parcel tax by the Subcommittee have been held in private and were not open to the public.

Piedmont Unified School District is seeking applicants for seats on its Advisory Subcommittee for the School Support Tax (Measure A) passed by the voters on March 5, 2013. Applicants must be Piedmont property owners subject to the School Support tax and cannot be current PUSD employees or consultants.  Contact the Piedmont Unified School District for an application. 

Applications must be received on or before Friday, October 17, 2014 at 5:00 p.m.

The following was approved at the Board of Education meeting of 4-10-13.

The Subcommittee will operate independently of the BAC and report directly to the Board of Education. The Subcommittee will establish its own meeting schedule and agendas. In addition to the budget information provided to the BAC, the Subcommittee may request additional information relating to the budget or School Support Tax from the Assistant Superintendent for Business Services, who will be the primary point of contact for the Subcommittee.

Charge to the Subcommittee

The Subcommittee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Board of Education to help review and project the financial needs of the PUSD with respect to the levy of the voter approved School Support Tax. The Subcommittee shall conduct an independent examination of the District’s budget and related documents prior to making formal recommendations in its annual report to the Board.

The scope of work for the Subcommittee shall be limited to advice on whether and to what extent to levy the School Support Tax, as set forth below. If the Board wishes to expand the Subcommittee’s charge to consider other items, the Board must do so by majority vote.

As part of the District’s annual budget development process and during the term of the School Support Tax, the Subcommittee shall submit an annual report to the Board of Education showing:

 A high level, comprehensive analysis of the District’s budget, including relevant metrics, historical trends, and comparisons with similar school districts, that provides an analytical basis for the Subcommittee’s recommendations.

 The amount of funds collected and expended from the proceeds of the School Support Tax in the current fiscal year and projected for the next fiscal year, as well as the status of any projects or programs required or authorized to be funded from the proceeds of the School Support Tax, as described in the Full Text of the March 5, 2013 Ballot for Measure A (Exhibit A).

 A recommended levy amount for the School Support Tax, up to the maximum allowable for the subsequent year’s tax. The Subcommittee shall recommend to the Board whether to (1) maintain the existing School Support Tax levy; (2) increase the existing levy up to a maximum of no more than two percent; or (3) decrease the existing levy. The Committee shall explain the basis for its recommendation, including the fiscal impacts of recommended and alternative funding levels on the District’s budget.

Board of Education Responsibility

 Establish the Charter for the Subcommittee no later than May 5, 2013, after two public hearings at Regular School Board meetings.

 Appoint to the Subcommittee, by November of each year, a total of 3 to 5 members representing a variety of stakeholder groups, and with appropriate finance knowledge and experience.

 Appoint at least one Board liaison to the Subcommittee, to serve on an annual basis.

 Revise and/or clarify interpretation of the Charter as necessary at regular meetings of the Board.

Operations of the Subcommittee

 The Subcommittee shall elect officers by majority vote. Offices shall be limited to a Chair and Secretary, who are elected annually at a meeting of the Subcommittee.

– The Chair is responsible for preparing agenda materials, administering meetings, and ensuring that the Subcommittee’s charge and expectations for the annual report are fulfilled by the Subcommittee each year.

– The Secretary is responsible for preparing minutes of the meetings and administering meetings when the Chair is absent.

 Meetings shall be held a minimum of two times per year, but otherwise as the Subcommittee decides

 Recommendations shall be made by majority vote provided, however, that a minority recommendation may be submitted.

 A quorum shall consist of a majority of the full Subcommittee.

 The Subcommittee should coordinate with District administration and staff to secure information and input in ways that are not unduly burdensome.

 The Subcommittee’s annual report to the Board will be submitted at least one month before the Board votes on the School Support Tax levies for the following budget year.

In general, the report would be due in January or February of each year.

Standards of Conduct of Committee and its Members

 Although each Subcommittee member may have differing perspectives on the financial budget information, analysis and recommendations made by the Subcommittee, individual members will conduct themselves in ways that reflect mutual respect for different perspectives, and work collaboratively to develop the Subcommittee’s annual report.

Committee Composition and Length of Service

 Membership: Three to five members, with Board option to expand as needed.

 Term of Service: Two years, except that two of the members first appointed to the Subcommittee should be prepared to serve for three years to allow for staggering of membership terms.

 Removal: Repeated absences, failure to prepare for and participate in meetings, routine failure to attend Budget Advisory Committee meetings, health matters, or professional or personal demands.

 Compensation/Reimbursement: None.

Membership Requirements

 Subcommittee members must be Piedmont property owners and subject to the School Support Tax.

 Current PUSD employees or consultants are not eligible to serve on the Subcommittee.

 Members of the Subcommittee should include representatives from various groups in the community, including parents, senior citizens, taxpayer advocates, and those without students in the schools.

 Subcommittee members shall also be active members of the BAC who have appreciable financial knowledge and experience.

Application Procedure

 Must submit application by facsimile, mail, email or in person to the Office of the Superintendent, 760 Magnolia Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611. Applications will be available at the District Office or from the District website: www.piedmont.k12.ca.us

Selection of the Committee

 The Board will work with the Superintendent’s office to recruit new Subcommittee members and set a reasonable timeframe for filling openings on the Subcommittee.

 The Superintendent or designee will review applications to verify eligibility to serve on the Subcommittee (i.e., homeowner and taxpayer).

 Board President and Vice President will review applications and as needed interview potential candidates for new and open positions on the Subcommittee.

 Nominees will be confirmed by the Board of Education at a Regular Board Meeting.

Additional information:

http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/district-info/parcel-tax-program/

USE OF LAND LINE PHONES NOT POWERED BY PG&E: Think twice before totally eliminating your home land line.  When the electricity is off because of an emergency, earthquake, fire, etc., many of today’s phones will not operate.  If you have a land phone line that operates totally with the power available from the phone service provider, you might be able to continue to make phone calls.

CELL PHONE CALLS: Typically when there is a major emergency, everyone uses their cell phones; however, this causes the service to be overwhelmed rendering most cell phones useless. Additionally, cell towers may be damaged in the emergency.

TEXT MESSAGES: Your cell phone can generally be used to send text messages to others. During the recent earthquake in Napa, text messages continued to flow when cell phone call service failed.

HAVE A PLAN TO CALL SOMEONE OUT OF THE AREA:  Local phone numbers are frequently jammed during an emergency.  If you have a relative or friend residing outside your immediate area or state, you can delegate this person as the point person to call during an emergency.  This person can then relay messages to others.

CITY PAY PHONES:  The City Council at their September 3, 2014, meeting voted to remove pay phones from all Piedmont public facilities with the exception of the Police Department reception area pay phone.  This phone will be available 24 hours 7 days a week.  The staff has found the other phones located throughout the City on public property are rarely or maliciously used costing taxpayers thousands each year to maintain the unneeded phones.