Dec 4 2018

12-4-18

Dear City Administrator, City Council, and Public Works Director,

While street sweeping is conducted by a Public Works Department professional driving a very expensive street sweeping machine, our city’s street sweeping program is run like an amateur volunteer activity.  Effective street sweeping requires that the machine sweeps up fallen leaves in the gutters, otherwise those leaves wash down into our storm drains and clog them.  Yet, cars routinely park on streets scheduled for sweeping, so the machine just sweeps around them, missing most of the gutter leaves.  Why do cars remain on streets during sweeping days?

The answer is because clearing the streets depends upon an intensive and frustrating volunteer effort.  Local residents have to find out and remember when their street is scheduled for sweeping (there is no fixed day or time).  Then, volunteer residents have to tie or tape floppy cardboard “no parking” signs to trees or poles in front of their houses.  Then, they have to call the Public Works Department to report and register that they have mounted the temporary signs.  Oh, and the report must be made four days before the scheduled street sweeping day.  Then, on street sweeping day, the volunteer has to check to see if any cars are parked where the signs were posted, and if so, call the Piedmont Police to report a violation.  Then, this is the frustrating part, they have to wait to see if a cop will come out to ticket the violating parker.  Sometimes a parker has moved his car before a cop comes out.  Often, someone will park in the empty space after the cop has left, causing the volunteer to call the Police Department again to request street sweeping enforcement.

Whew!  It has taken a lot of time just to describe the process.  Most of our neighbors don’t have time to actually go through this process.  My wife, Karen, followed the city protocol – to the letter – because a lot of leaves have been accumulating.  She even raked the leaves away from the gutter into the street to help the machine collect them.  In spite of her efforts, four cars parked on the street, ignoring the signs she posted.  This is not the way to run a professional city service, and, the lack of adequate sweeping costs our city extra expense to clean out clogged storm drains.

The solution is not rocket science; it just requires looking at what most other cities do.

(1)    Establish a regular schedule for sweeping each street.

(2)   Post permanent signs saying “No Parking” on those specific dates and times.

(3)   Deploy police to enforce the regularly scheduled “no parking” rules.

This is how Oakland conducts its street sweeping parking restrictions on Linda, Kingston, and other nearby streets in that city.

My wife and I are not going to continue performing this tedious volunteer work to aid the city’s street sweeping.  Many of our neighbors don’t do so either, because they are not home during sweeping times or because it is too much of a burden.  It is long past time for Piedmont to run its street sweeping operation professionally.

Taxpayers paid a lot of money for the street sweeping machine, and that money is wasted if the machine can’t clean the gutters because cars are parked on sweeping days.

Sincerely,

Bruce Joffe, Piedmont Resident

Nov 28 2018

November 19, 2018 City Council Meeting

On November 19, 2018, I attended the Piedmont City Council meeting in the Piedmont City Council Chambers, which meet on the first and third Monday of each month at 7:30 p.m. After the Public Forum, Mayor Mcbain led a moment of silence for the victims of the California fires, and was followed up with an update by Piedmont’s Fire Chief. At the time of the meeting, 75 were confirmed dead with over 1000 missing. Next came, the introduction of a new employee, and the council members’ donations for the Toys for Tots drive.

First on the regular agenda was the Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes for 10/15/18, which was passed very quickly. This then led into the second item on the agenda, the Approval of Agreements Related to the Repair of Cavendish Lane.

Cavendish Lane is owned and maintained by the City of Oakland, but serves four homes located within Piedmont. Around February 2017, a road failure resulted in the loss of access to vehicles to the homes located in Piedmont, with none of the Oakland homes being negatively affected.

Piedmont, with the permission of Oakland, paid for a temporary fix of the road, which was finished in early April of 2017. Although this temporary repair made access to the Piedmont homes with personal vehicles possible, this section of the road is still weight sensitive, and does not make the entry of delivery trucks, or moving vans possible.

Oakland has expressed no interest in making permanent repairs, so together Piedmont and Oakland are working on an agreement that would allow Piedmont to take on the repairs of this road, and force Oakland to reimburse Piedmont for the cost of the project. Oakland would use the money gained from a lawsuit to reimburse Piedmont. The estimations for this repair are between $400,000 and $600,000.

As part of the Alameda Transportation Committee, Vice Mayor Teddy King expressed her positive feelings towards this issue, as both Piedmont and Oakland are working hard to reach a deal. A woman with both her senior parents then expressed gratitude towards the council for their efforts in helping her parents once again gain easy access to their vehicles.

Next on the agenda was the Consideration of the Rejection of All Proposals for the Corporation Yard Solar Photovoltaic System Project. The City of Piedmont received two proposals for the installation of a solar photovoltaic system on the roof of the rear storage building at the Corporation Yard. Albion Power Company’s offer was $118,631, while Sunlogic, Inc., dba Solar Technologies’ offer was $70,012. Vice Mayor Teddy Gray King spoke on this issue, as one of her areas of expertise is environmental sustainability. Solar Technologies later submitted an updated proposal with a 15% discount on the original.

The new proposal is for $59,510, and has a payback period of nearly 11 years. In the span of 25 years this would wind up saving Piedmont a total of around $169,000. However, roofing material was not stated in the quote, and could wind up costing another $60,000.

The next two items on the agenda were the Consideration of FY 2017-18 Year-End Appropriations and Carry forwards and the Consideration of FY 2017-18 Year End Fund Transfers. Both of these passed very quickly, and with little question.

Next was the Consideration of the Issuance of Bid Documents for the Recreation Center Tennis Court Resurfacing Project and Direction to Staff Regarding Fundraising. The tennis courts in Piedmont receive high use from kids, adults, and members of the Piedmont High School tennis teams. Not only were there to be renovations to the tennis courts, but also the renaming of the Recreation Department tennis courts to be named after Coach Corey Reich. PHS tennis coaches and PFRO members both gave their support to this idea.

I also stood up and spoke and gave my support to the idea of fixing the courts while also renaming them after Coach Corey Reich, as I know many people who use these courts, and the inspirational story of Corey Reich.

The Rec. Dept. courts are to receive new nets and posts, are to be resurfaced, new fencing will be installed, with also the installation of a new drainage system. PFRO and tennis community will need to raise money in order for this to happen though.

After the meeting was over, I interviewed Council Member Jen Cavanaugh. When asked what steps she would take to improve the community she said that “there are a lot of facilities that require maintenance, and a ton of investment that’s required, and the tennis courts are only a small piece of that.” She later went on to say “I was not lying when I said I would write a check, because we need everyone on board, including tennis players, private citizens, and people who love outdoor recreation alike to get behind these things. After the tennis courts, we have probably six other recreation and park facility projects that we are trying to bring to the community, and need to get funding for it.”

by Nick Parker, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors’ note:  Cavendish Lane is located immediately south of Trestle Glen Road. It and its right-of-way are located within, owned, and maintained by the City of Oakland. The cul-de-sac is located at the extreme west end of the street and serves four homes located within the city of Piedmont. The only access to these four Piedmont homes is via  Cavendish Lane.

Nov 27 2018

Public Safety Committee  Meeting – This meeting is not recorded or broadcast.  The public is welcome to attend. 

Thursday, November 29, 2018

5:30 p.m.

City Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA

Agenda

Public Forum      This is an opportunity for members of the audience to speak on an item not on the agenda.  The 10 minute period will be divided evenly between those wishing to address the Committee.

Regular Agenda – 

  1. Introduction of New Committee Member
  2. Update on Get Ready, Piedmont Guides and Checklist
  3. Update on School Liaison Activities and Campus Safety Preparedness  – This may include discussion of hiring a Police Officer for the School District.
  4. Update on Crime Prevention/Community Outreach – This is likely a discussion of the expenditure of over $500,000 in COPS funding to be used by the City of Piedmont. 
  5. Update on Neighborhood Meetings
  6. Update on Public Safety Camera Subcommittee

Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Public Safety Committee are available for public inspection in the Police Department during normal business hours.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (510) 420-3040.  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 November 26, 2018.

Nov 15 2018

Street paving, tennis courts, budget actions –  

November 19, 2018 – the Piedmont City Council staff reports are linked below.

11/19/18 – Approval of Agreements Related to the Repair of Cavendish Lane. 

“Cavendish Lane is a street which extends west from Park Boulevard and is located immediately south of Trestle Glen Road. It is approximately 1/10th of a mile in length, ending in a cul-de-sac. Cavendish Lane and its right-of-way are located within, owned, and maintained by the City of Oakland. The cul-de-sac is located at the extreme west end of the street and serves four homes located within the city of Piedmont. The only access to these four Piedmont homes is via Cavendish Lane.”

a. Reimbursement and Indemnification Agreement with the City of Oakland

b. Agreement with Coastland Civil Engineers for Project Specific Engineering

11/19/18 – Consideration of the Rejection of All Proposals for the Corporation Yard Solar Photovoltaic System Project 

11/19/18 – Consideration of FY 2017-18 Year-End Appropriations and Carryforwards      Street paving

 11/19/18 – Consideration of FY 2017-18 Year End Fund Transfers 

“In FY 2017-18, conservative budgeting combined with favorable revenue trends resulted in net income of approximately $3.5 million in the General Fund. Specific revenue categories that exceeded budget and accounted for the majority of net revenue include real property transfer tax (+ $1,045 K); secured property tax (+ $484 K); supplemental property tax (+294 K); mutual aid revenue for wildfire assistance (+$480 K); and recreation revenue (+ $232 K).”

11/19/18 – Consideration of the Issuance of Bid Documents for the Recreation Center Tennis Court Resurfacing Project and Direction to Staff Regarding Fundraising 

The November 19, 2018 Agenda can be read HERE.

Nov 13 2018

Call for more community input – 

     Superintendent Randy Booker will present the idea of a School Resource Officer to the School Board at their meeting this Wednesday, November 14, 2018, 7:00 p.m., City Hall.  I would like to hear more community engagement on this topic. I think it would be good to make sure that the members of our community are aware of the various security measures being proposed — including perimeter fencing around the middle school and high school, and new surveillance cameras around town.
    The current focus on security measures is troubling to me, reminding me of a culture of fear that has developed at a national level. I sent this letter to the School Board prior to their last meeting. Please feel free to reprint.
    Thank you,
     Elizabeth Shook
~~~~~~~~~
To Superintendent Randy Booker and the PUSD School Board: 
     My husband and I are strongly against perimeter fencing and a school safety officer at Piedmont Middle School or Piedmont High School.
     With the recent threat incident at PMS, we understand that emotions are running high. However, perimeter fencing and a school safety officer would have made NO DIFFERENCE in this recent threat.
     We agree that the safety of our students is our primary concern. We believe this is a mental health issue, not a criminal issue.
     Adding a school safety officer at either PMS or PHS is a major over-reaction. The presence of police on campus has not been shown to limit or protect from past school shootings. At our secondary schools, we already have the Piedmont police department located within two blocks. Our school is located in a quiet, safe suburban neighborhood. An officer on campus would actually heighten student anxiety and tension.
     If we have the budget, we should spend the funds on additional counseling staff who can work with students with unfortunate family, social, or mental health situations. This will do more to deter future tragedy than a school safety officer.
     We call on the Superintendent and the School Board to let emotions settle, and then survey the community on this issue. Where could the money be better spent? What do the students want? What about teachers?
     We believe that our families need: 1) Clear and transparent communication from the administration about school threats – and school policies. 2) Students and families need to be taught the best response to dangerous scenarios. 3) Zero tolerance for students who make threats or bring weapons to school.
      Here are some articles about School Safety Officers that make good points:
      Putting more cops in schools won’t make schools safer, and it will …
       New York Set to Revise Role of School Safety Agents
      I am also against perimeter fencing. I feel it can actually trap students in a dangerous situation and impede evacuations.  In reality, fencing will not deter actual bad guys.
        PHS Students considered the fencing when it was first proposed in this 2016 editorial:
“Fencing the campus entirely would cost an estimated $300,000 — far more than any college education — even before implementing monitoring systems that could actually keep dangerous individuals off the property.
       “Frankly, a fence alone will not be effective in deterring an active shooter, the fear of which has been a key motivation behind the push for revamping the district’s safety measures. In the wake of tragedies like Sandy Hook, this desire to proactively increase safety is understandable, but the decision to build a fence would be reactive and incomplete. Instead of actually improving our safety, we would be cultivating the mere illusion of security, a incremental measure not worth the significant cost.”
      Thank you for your consideration.
       Regards,
       Elizabeth Shook and Denis Fung, Piedmont Residents and Piedmont School District Parents
Nov 12 2018

Potential agreement between the City Council and the School Board –

An introductory discussion of adding a police resource officer into the Piedmont Unified School District will be considered on Wednesday, November 14, 2018 during the 7:oo p.m. Board of Education meeting held in City Hall.  The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable Channel 27 and via the City website.

To view the report go to item VII and click on the Superintendent’s report > https://agendaonline.net/public/Meeting.aspx?AgencyID=1241&MeetingID=67947&AgencyTypeID=1&IsArchived=False

Nov 12 2018

2017-18 City Revenue exceeded annual budget by $3.5 million.

The Piedmont Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee met on November 7, 2018 to consider Piedmont financial matters and consider recommendations to the City Council.

Handouts were provided to the Committee at their meeting.

The following is an abbreviated Power Point Presentation prepared by the Director of Finance and provided on November 7, 2018, to the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee.  The presentation is printed below for readers interested in Piedmont’s financial condition in a limited form allowed on the PCA website.  Charts are excluded.  To view the original document inquire with the Piedmont City Clerk at 510/420-3040.

2017-18 Fiscal Year Report Actual vs. Budget

FY 2017-18 Highlights

•Revenue exceeded annual budget by $3.5 million

Major variances include:

• Transfer tax exceeded annual budget by $1.0 million.

  • Home sales up 4% over last year (132 vs 127)
  • Average Sales Price increased 7% to $2.3 million

• Property taxes exceeded annual budget by $0.8 million:

  • Secured property tax +$484 K
  • Supplemental property tax +$294 K

• Mutual Aid \ Strike Team revenue was $0.5 million as we participated in battling seasons severe wildfires.

• Recreation revenue up $0.2 million due to increased contract program offerings

Transfer Tax – Recent History

Property Tax – History / FY 18-19 Budget

Note: In the Ten Year Plan, we use the 10 year average growth rate of 4.4%

FY 2017-18 Highlights

Major variances include (continued):

• The following categories also contributed to the revenue gain:

  • Business Licenses + $138 K
  • Building Permits + $132 K
  • Motor Vehicle License Fee + $129 K
  • Interest
  • Ambulance Fees
  • Utility Users Tax
  • Community and Veterans

Hall Rental + $ 50 K

+ $ 90 K + $ 71 K + $ 61 K

•Overall, expenditures were under budget by ~$16,000

• All operating departments were under budget with the exception of Fire.

The drivers of the overage in fire were:

• Higher overtime costs, offset by lower regular salaries and retirement costs, which resulted in a budget overage of $235 K.

• This overage is more than offset by the $480 K received for our assistance in battling state’s wildfire’s.

• Premiums for workers compensation and liability insurance were $152 higher than budget.

•In summary, General Fund operating net revenue (revenue less expenses) exceeded budget by $3.5 million.

Update on CalPERS Pension

Components of our pension cost

• Our pension costs consist of the following:

• Normal cost = the present value of the future benefits to be received that is “earned” in the current year of service.

• Actuary’s calculate this based on a series of assumptions, including:

• Demographic: Years of service, salary at time of retirement, retirement ag age of death

• Financial: CalPERS portfolio earnings (discount rate)
• Expressed as a % of payroll and paid in monthly installments.

• Unfunded Actuarial Liability (UAL) = Excess of actuarial accrued liability over value of the pension fund assets.

• Caused by lower than expected investment returns, changes in demogra other assumption changes (lowering assumed discount rate).

  • Amortized over 20-30 years.
  • Expressed as a $ amount and paid annually.

Employees eligible for retirement:
Safety Tier 1 – 11 eligible, 2 retiring in 2018-19 Misc Tier 1 – 7 eligible, 2 retiring in 2018-19

Payoff of Unfunded Liability is included in our long range plan.

City of Piedmont Pension Tiers – Statistics

Funded CalPERS

City of Piedmont UAL Layers – Safety Tier

• Purpose of the slide is to show what comprises the UAL (Unfunded Accrued Liability), and what affects each year.

• Note – The payoff of the UAL is included in our long term plan.

What is Happening at CalPERS?

• CalPERS’ Portfolio – Annual Earnings is Forecast for next 20 yrs = of 6.6%

• Anticipating Negative Cash Flow for another 9-10 years (due to increasing number of retiree’s).

• Began cutting discount rate. First year affected is 2018-19.

• Policy regarding Amortization on Unfunded Liability to change in 2021.

CalPERS – Recent Changes Change in discount rate from 7.50%:

Rate • 6/30/16 valuation
• 6/30/17 valuation
• 6/30/18 valuation

Initial Full 7.375% 18/19 7.25% 19/20 22/23 23/24 24/25 7.00% 20/21

Risk Mitigation Strategy
• Move to more conservative investments over time • Lower discount rate in concert
• Likely get to 6.0% over 20+ years per Bartel.

Amortization Changes

• Beginning with UAL layers established on or after June 30, 2019 (which affects payments beginning in FY 2021-22) the following changes will be made:

• Amortization of Investment Gain\Loss and Demographic changes will b shortened from 30 to 20 years.

• Eliminate all “Ramp Up and Ramp Down” except for the ramp up on Investment Gain\Loss. This will reduce the amount of “negative amort which will lower interest paid.

• Good news is total interest paid will decrease, but payments wi————-

How will these changes affect the City ?

• Last year, engaged Bartel and Associates to estimate these future co

• Projections assumed discount rate will decline from 7.375% in 2018-19 to 7. 2020-21 per CalPERS policy. And a further decrease to 6.0% over the next 20

• Will need to refresh Bartel’s assumptions to include recent amortization changes.

• ROI for FY ending 6/30/17 was 11.2 %

• However our Unfunded liability increased slightly due primarily to the chang discount rate.

• FY ending 6/30/18 ROI was 8.4 %

• Both our Normal cost and our UAL payments will increase significant steadily over the next 15 years

Effect on General Fund

• The City began addressing the issue earlier this year:

• In May we opened a Section 115 Irrevocable Trust account with the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) with a contribution of $2.0 million.

• Projections indicate total expenditures (which includes planned capital transfer exceed revenues in 2023 through 2030. In these years the City may draw from PARS account to ensure a balanced budget.

• In order to not allow the General Fund reserve to drop below 18% of expenditures will need an additional $0.75 million contribution this year, as noted at our previous meeting.

Review of Proposed 2017-18 Year End General Fund Transfers

Year End General Fund Transfers • Recap of variance to budget (000’s):

Year End General Fund Transfers

• We recommend allocation as follows:

• $2.5 million to the Facilities Maintenance Fund.
• $0.75 million to the Pension Rate stabilization fund (PARS)

Equipment Replacement Fund

• At June 30, 2018, the Equipment Replacement fund balance was —- million.

• Based on a review of estimated equipment needs for the next 1 years, and planned annual transfers into the fund, no additional funding is currently needed.

Status of Trust Funds – OPEB and Legacy Police & Fire Pension Fund

• Police & Fire Fund
• Twelve remaining beneficiaries (5 primary, 7 survivor). • Annual benefit payments currently ~$225,000.
As of 6/30/18, the plan is OVER funded by ~10.5 million

• OPEB Fund

• Currently OPEB is UNDER funded by ~$13.7 million…however,

• Retiree benefits has been reduced to the PEMCHA minimum for all hirees May 1, 2018.

• Will realize a significant cash savings when these employees retire. Cur the average annual cost for a retiree is ~$10,000 compared to ~$1,600 the PEMCHA minimum.

Status of Trust Funds – OPEB and Legacy Police & Fire Pension Fund

• Due to the small number of retiree’s remaining in the Police and fund, coupled with the changes made to the OPEB fund:

• We are projecting the overage in the Police & Fire fund will grow and o the under funded OPEB trust in approximately 12 years. Around 2030.

Increased funding of OPEB is not recommended at this time. Employee contribute an estimated $100,000 to the fund through payroll deduction FY 2018-19.

Facilities Maintenance Fund

• The maintenance and improvement of city facilities has necessarily been a high priority for the City Council

• Staff completed a review of all City facilities in March of this year report detailed the following through FY 2021-22:

• Annual Operations: Annual recurring expenses required to maintain City facilities, including regular such as janitorial, alarm, pest control, heating systems, fire safety, and annual inspections.

• Annual Maintenance & Repairs: Cost of maintaining, repairing, or replacing various miscellaneous it of the City’s facilities that are malfunctioning, broken, or otherwise have reached their serviceable life.

• Consultant Services: Professional consulting services involving investigation, analysis, and recommendation which form the basis of the project’s next steps. Also included in this category are expenses related t project management services on an as-needed basis since the breath of the projects exceeds Staff capabilities.

• Deferred Maintenance Projects: Planned and prioritized major construction projects of a specific na undertaken to replace, achieve compliance, and/or modernize existing facilities that have been prev deferred.

(a) Assumes the $800,000 bequest from the estate of Anne Kroeger received in FY 2015-16 will be used for Recreation Center upgrades.

Assume 3% annual growth after FY 22-23

Cash Flow Forecast and Investment Results

Cash Flow Forecast

• Prepared a four year cash flow forecast to determine if we invest idle cash.

• Cash flow is very choppy.

• Heavily dependent on property tax receipts

• Flow will allow us to invest approximately $6 – $7 million longer term (up to three years) fixed income securities

Multi-Bank Securities

•Opened account with Multi-Bank Securities •Specializes in fixed income securities •Dedicated account representative
•Easy to use investment platform

• Platform has the ability to assure CD’s purchased do not exceed the maximum insurable by the FDIC ($250,000 pe institution)

Investment Strategy

• In the past, the City invested all Idle cash in LAIF (Local Agency Investment Fund).

• Began investing idle cash with MBS Securities in April.

• In process of building three year CD ladder

• CD’s are currently the best yielding fixed income security allowable under our investment policy, and its fully insured.

Investment Strategy
• Portfolio @ 10/31/18 (000’s):

• Current LAIF Yield is 2.16%. • Was 1.35% back in January

• CD ladder will increase interest earned (as compared to LAIF) in FY 2018-19 by approximately $35,000

Transfer Tax Update Year to Date – October 31

Transfer Tax Update

YTD receipts fairly consistent with past 4 years

  • Average seasonality indicates annual transfer tax to be in the $3.0 – $3.2 million range

Transfer Tax Update

• Receipt pattern tends to be choppy the first six months, but fairly consistent the remainder of the year

• Average seasonality indicates annual transfer tax to be in the $3.0 – $3.2 million range

Questions ? Contact City Clerk at 510/420-3040. 

Handout_GF_Pension_LTP

 

Nov 5 2018

Funding in the amount of $548,333 is coming from the State of California in a program termed “Citizens’ Option” to Piedmont’s Police Department.

There have been no noticed meetings regarding a “Citizens’ Option” public hearing to learn from Piedmonters how they want the $548,333 to be used. It was on the November 5th City Council agenda.

The staff report states in part:

In FY 2018/19, the Piedmont Police Department expects to receive $140,000 from the COPS grant into the SLESA. In addition, funds in the amount of $408,333 are being carried forward from prior years resulting in total funds available of $548,333. Such funds will need to be spent or encumbered by June 20, 2019. 

FISCAL IMPACT:  The funds must be spent or encumbered by June 30, 2019. There are no matching requirements for this grant, and no direct impact on City resources for the fiscal years associated with the action in this staff report. This plan may be adjusted in the future and by no means represents Council approval for non-routine, large-scale procurements such as the license plate readers. Future purchases will be made in accordance with the City’s adopted procurement policies and, prior to any such purchase, staff will provide Council with a full report and detailed request of any proposed procurements that exist within the spending plan.

City Administrator Benoit’s Recommendation at the November 5 Council meeting:

Adopt a resolution accepting the 2018/19 California Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) grant in the amount of $140,000 as allocated in the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) for the Piedmont Police Department and approve the spending plan to purchase items supporting frontline law enforcement services. 

Read the full staff report including the spending plan by clicking below.

http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/2018-11-05/FY18-19COPS.pdf

For more information on COPS grants go to > https://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payrments_cops.html

Nov 5 2018

Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee Wednesday, November 7, 2018

6:00 p.m.

Emergency Operations Center, 403 Highland Avenue Piedmont, CA

This meeting will not be broadcast or recorded. The public is welcome to attend this public meeting.

There will be an opportunity for members of the audience to speak on an item not on the agenda. The 10 minute period will be divided evenly between those wishing to address the Committee.

  1. Review of FY 2017-18 General Fund Revenue and Expenditures: Actual vs Budget
  2. Update on CalPERS Pension Liability
  3. Review of Long Term Pension and General Fund Projections
  4. Review of Proposed FY 2017-18 Year End General Fund Transfers and Consideration of a Recommendation to the City Council
  5. Review of Cash Flow Forecast and Investment Results (Non-Trust Funds)

Announcements, old business and consideration of future agenda items

Adjourn –

“The materials for the meeting will be provided to the members of the committee and the public at the meeting.” City of Piedmont

NOTICE: Materials used for the meeting: Actual vs. Budget, CalPERS pension liability, Cash Flow, Investments, etc. will not be distributed to the Committee members until they are present at the meeting.  Meeting attendees can receive the information at the meeting. No distribution of agenda materials will be made until the time of the meeting. 

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.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (510) 420-3040. 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]

Note: Members of the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee are not required per City Council policy to file Conflicts of Interests Statements.

Nov 4 2018

The following Letter to the Editor of The Piedmont Post was sent to the Post, but was not published in the Post.  It is published here for PCA readers.

VOTE NO on CC – Unacceptable City Charter changes.

CC  – the “hire, but can’t fire” proposal –  would unacceptably change Piedmont’s successful government by prohibiting the City Council from acting to retain or terminate their chosen Department Heads – Fire Chief, Police Chief, Finance Director, Recreation Director, etc. 

Piedmonters should not enact this law. It promises problems found in other cities where councils have lost their authority and ability to act.  A new government layer will separate Piedmonters from Council authority. 

Only one person, the unelected City Administrator, would be allowed by Charter to evaluate, direct, retain and terminate Council-hired  key employees -Police, Fire, Finance, Recreation, etc.  

Piedmont’s current Charter works and is coveted by others. 

With 22 years in elected office – Mayor, Council Member, Planning Commissioner, AC Transit President and Director, I have reviewed the Charter proposals and found proposals not in the best interest of keeping Piedmont a great place to live. 

The Charter merits updating, but NOT as proposed by Measure CC.  

Keep Piedmont’s Council strong. Await appropriate Charter change proposals.

VOTE NO on CC at the end of your ballot. 

Alice Creason,

Former: Piedmont Mayor, Council Member, Planning Commissioner, AC Transit President, Director, Piedmont Beautification Foundation Trustee