SPECIAL NOTICE OF APPOINTIVE VACANCIES
The City of Piedmont is looking for talented volunteers for a vacancy on the Park Commission and a vacancy on the Civil Service Commission.
Interested residents may download the > Application for Appointive Vacancy and the > Commission Description of Duties. Applications are due to City Hall on or before the deadline of 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 27, 2016.
No appointments will be made without a Council interview.
All applicants must be available for an interview with the City Council on Monday, October 3, 2016,
Interviews with the City Council for these positions will be scheduled for the evening of Monday, October 3, 2016 at which time appointments will be made.
Appointive vacancies exist due to resignations:
Park Commission 1 Vacancy 0 Incumbents
Civil Service Commission 1 Vacancy 0 Incumbents
All interested citizens must complete and return the application form on or before the posted deadline of 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, September 27, 2016. Postmarks will not be accepted.
Applications are available from the office of John Tulloch, City Clerk, Piedmont City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, by telephone at (510) 420-3040 or by visiting the city’s website at www.ci.piedmont.ca.us.
The Aquatics Master Plan Steering Committee (AMPSC) will meet to discuss the creation of an Aquatics Master Plan. The Steering Committee was established by the City Council on April 18, 2016 to advise and assist the Aquatics Master Plan consultant Harley, Ellis, Devereaux. (On March 21, 2016 the City Council approved a contract in the amount $35,180.)
Three plans were presented on May 24 by the consulting architect. The public is invited to attend the meeting on Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. in the Emergency Operations Center, 403 Highland Avenue.
Read about the establishment of the AMPSC here
Read the contract with consultant Harley, Ellis, Devereaux here
Read about the progress on the Aquatics planning in the June minutes of the Recreation Commission here
Agenda for Monday, August 1, 7:30 p.m. Council meeting includes the following: (Click on each underlined item below to read the staff report.)
City Charter states:
“SECTION 4.13 TEMPORARY LOANS Money may be borrowed in anticipation of the receipts from taxes during any fiscal year, by the issue of notes, certificates of indebtedness or revenue bonds; but the aggregate amount of such loans at any time outstanding shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the receipts from all taxes during the preceding fiscal year; and all such loans shall be paid out of the receipts from taxes for the fiscal year in which they are issued.”
Base Salary: The annual salary for the position of City Administrator shall be Two Hundred Twelve Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Dollars ($212,180.00) effective July 1, 2016. The City Administrator shall be paid at the same intervals and in the same manner as regular City employees. The City shall not at any time during the term of this Agreement reduce the base salary, compensation or other financial benefits of the City Administrator, unless as part of a general City management salary reduction, and then in no greater percentage than the average reduction of all City department heads.
08/01/16 – Approval of the Purchase of a New Vehicle for the Fire Chief
08/01/16 – Appoint Councilmember Levine as Liaison to the Planning Commission
08/01/16 – Consideration of Authorization to Issue an RFP for IT Support Services
The meeting will be broadcast live. If you have questions about this material, call the City Clerk’s office at (510) 420-3040.
Read the full August 1 Council > agenda.
Piedmont Police captured ELISEL JESUS NAVARRO
Hispanic male, 18 years old, 5’10”, 160 lbs., a resident of Hayward for fraudulently using a false identity to rent and steal property from an AirBNB home* on Sharon Avenue in Piedmont.
Press release is below:
DATE: July 25, 2016
On July 23, 2016, at 11:20 a.m., the Piedmont Police Department was notified of a possible fraudulent transaction utilizing AirBNB for a residence in the 0-100 block of Sharon Avenue, Piedmont.
The victim reported a subject, later identified as ELISEL NAVARRO, had used stolen personal identifying information to fraudulently rent out the victim’s residence. The victim provided NAVARRO with access to the residence keys prior to approval from AirBNB. The victim requested police assistance after being notified by AirBNB of reservation denial.
Piedmont Police observed NAVARRO throwing a bag of stolen jewelry out of the victim’s residence window. NAVARRO then attempted to flee upon seeing the police but was captured a short distance away. NAVARRO was found in possession of stolen property from a reported auto burglary that occurred in San Ramon the previous day. NAVARRO was interviewed and told officers he had knowingly purchased the personal identifying information of another person to fraudulently use in his attempt through AirBNB.
NAVARRO was booked for burglary, forgery/fraud, possession of methamphetamine, and resisting arrest.
NAVARRO has prior arrests in Alameda County for residential burglary, auto theft, and drugs.
Anyone with information regarding this case or the suspect are asked to contact Detective Robert Coffey at (510) 420-3010.
*Editors’ Note: The Piedmont Planning Commission recommended to the City Council in 2015 that rentals such as AirBNB not be permitted in Piedmont. The Piedmont City Council scheduled consideration of an ordinance concerning the rentals for September 2015, however, the Council delayed action on the matter, and has yet to adopt an ordinance.
Currently, AirBNB like rentals are not considered compliant with Piedmont ordinances. No announcements have been provided on when further consideration of the matter will be undertaken by the City Council. When consideration is announced, it will be published on this PCA website.
The following letter was sent to the Piedmont Planning Commission re: July 11 Agenda Item 9; City Code Chapter 17 Modifications proposals.
Honorable Commission,
The City Charter states “no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election (p. 22).” The staff report recommends allowing in Zone B “for-profit entities because the City may want to allow a community-serving business, such as a local newspaper or beverage stand, to operate out of a City building (p3 of 2016-07-11 Report)”. Currently for-profit entities are not allowed in Zone B in the public zone. As zoning is the critical mandate in controlling land use, I believe a City wide vote is needed to allow this fundamental change to allow for-profit in Zone B.
I ask for clarification and I ask the Commission to obtain clarification from staff as to what is the threshold and definition of zone reclassification and why the addition of “for-profit” is not reclassification.
Should a for-profit business be allowed, there are deserving segments of our community that have been identified in the General Plan. The 801 Magnolia building might be ideal for a teen or senior center. Additionally, a café for the Piedmont Center for the Arts also has wide appeal.
The term “community-serving business” must also embody that all segments of the community are given equal treatment. The reference in the staff report to “local newspaper” can only be the wholly Piedmont serving local newspaper, the Piedmont Post. While the Post does a proper job of reporting sports and social events, Piedmont Post publishing ethics do not include objective reporting on the passage of taxes, potential taxes and how tax dollars are used. The Piedmont Post has a sharply skewed editorial bias in support of City Hall actions. Those who oppose city taxes are shut out from virtually any space in the Post and/or opposition comments are grossly misreported. The many who opposed the partially taxpayer funded “no taxpayer cost” Blair Park Sports Complex were denied equal access in the Post.
I suggest removing the recommendation for a “local newspaper” in Zone B. Another option in the interest of transparency is to substitute “Piedmont Post” for “local newspaper” and remove “community-serving business.”
Respectfully,
Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Council Asked to Authorize Contract with Ray’s Electric
The Kingston-Linda-Rose Triangle is on the City Council July 5 agenda. The Council will receive a report recommending authorization of a contract with Ray’s Electric for their “base bid of $207,362. ” Three ornamental street lamps will be a feature of the Triangle.
The Capital Improvement Project Review Committee stated in their June 2016 recommendation to the City Council the following:
Linda/Kingston Triangle: $175,000 (As proposed by the CIP Review Committee)
This project was conceived many years ago and began to gain traction with the increased neighborhood involvement in 2013. The execution of this project will benefit the local residents and the City of Piedmont in many ways. It will foster increased safety for pedestrians, help mitigate traffic speed, increase awareness of drivers, remove unnecessary paving, and create an improved gateway into Piedmont. It should be noted that this project is the focus of the Piedmont Beautification Foundation’s spring fundraising efforts, thus promoting another public/private partnership for improvements that benefit the residents of Piedmont.
The Linda-Kingston Neighborhood has pledged $4,610, Piedmont Garden Club has pledged $2,000, and the Piedmont Beautification Foundation (PBF) has pledged a total of $31,305 toward the current estimated construction budget for the Triangle of $283,594.
- CIP Fund: $ 140,650
- Measure B Bike/Ped (Fund #131): $ 65,689
- Gas Tax Fund (Fund #121): $ 39,340
- Private Pledges: $ 37,915
- Total Available Funding $ 283,594
The project provides a pedestrian triangle for pedestrians crossing from the City of Oakland side of the intersection to Piedmont along the southwest side in order to approximate the short pedestrian crossings across Rose and Kingston Avenues on the northeast side of Linda Avenue. It is hoped to also auto traffic. The traffic study by traffic engineer consultant Kittelson & Associates, Inc. “made a stronger justification for the installation of “stops” at each intersection where there currently were none.” Following extensive Piedmont staff coordination with the City of Oakland, Stops were installed in October 2015.
The “current estimated construction budget ” in the staff report does not include the scope of services, leaving it unclear who will provide the masonry work, the landscaping and installation of the irrigation system.
The expense of the staff time devoted thus far and continuing is not included in the project budget presented. For example, extensive staff negotiations with the City of Oakland and the new Parks and Projects Manager developed the Final Landscape Plan and is coordinating “the design of the irrigation system with our consultant…”
Read the staff report here.
Read the Kittelson & Associates, Inc Kingston-Linda-Rose Triangle report here.
On Monday, June 20 starting at 7:30 p.m. in City Hall, the City Council will adopt the FY16-17 Budget, levy the FY 16-17 Municipal Services Tax and Sewer Tax, approve “other Funds Budget” and fees, make year end appropriations, carryforwards, and reclassifications, approve Project Sport closure of southbound Grand Ave on August 13 and other agenda items.
June 20, 2016, Council meeting agenda items can be viewed by clicking on the individual items below:
06/20/16 – Approval of a Renewed Agreement with Alameda County Regarding Collection of Taxes
06/20/16 – Consideration of FY 15-16 Year-End Appropriations, Carryforwards, and Reclassificiations
a. By Resolution, Adopt the FY 16-17 Operating Budget
b. By Resolution, Adopt the FY 16-17 Other Funds Budget
c. By Resolution, Approve the FY 16-17 Schedule of Fees and Charges
d. By Resolution, Confirm the City’s Annual Appropriation (Gann) Limit
06/20/16 – Consideration of a Resolution Levying the FY 16-17 Municipal Services Tax
06/20/16 – Consideration of a Resolution Levying the FY 16-17 Municipal Sewer Tax
The meeting will be broadcast live on Channel 27 and from the City website under online videos.
Read the entire agenda > here.
To send an email to the City Council click below:
jtulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us
Piedmonters, once more, vote to approve a parcel tax to support City services, reserves, and facilities.
Measure F was given support by approximately 70% of Piedmont voters. Measure F insures that the current property tax plus a 30% increase will continue for 4 years starting in 2017.
The Measure F election produced both pro and con activity. Piedmont’s elected officials were vocal about the need to increase reserves, maintain and improve City facilities, while keeping City services at a high level.
Following analysis of the City budget and financial projections, those opposed to the ballot measure took issue with the need for a 30% tax increase to achieve City goals.
Final vote count will not be available for days, if not weeks. Election results will not change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
For the latest Measure F election results, click here
Piedmont Parcel Tax Measure F on the June 7, 2016 Ballot
On the eve of balloting for Measure F, proponents again ignore growing City revenue and make a number of false claims about the opposition.
May 25 Councilman Wieler wrote that opponents’, “Revenue estimates are overblown.”
FALSE. Opponents highlight that the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) has been overly conservative and contradictory within its own report concerning revenue going forward.
At p.10 of the BAFPC Report the Committee uses a 4.3% transfer tax growth rate over 15 years and then at p.29 states a flat $2.8M transfer tax through 2022 with no growth rate. Opponents examined the entire 35 year history of the transfer tax to 2015 and found a 6.45% compound annual increase.
While facility maintenance costs are rising, ever increasing City revenues assure that the 30% tax increase is not needed. Proponents estimate an unrealistic and overly conservative flat transfer tax going forward.
Despite the last five years $3.3M transfer tax average, the committee uses a flat, no growth transfer tax estimate of $2.8M through 2022. This unrealistic view is the questionable justification for the 30% parcel tax increase. Using either the committee’s stated 4.3% transfer tax growth rate or the more robust 6.45% lifetime rate, in 5 years the transfer tax will be minimally $3.5M to $3.8M. The committee only projects $2.8M.
Proponents ignore fundamental macro-economic forces that ensure an escalating revenue stream for the most desirable and expensive City in Alameda County. The Committee projects the 2022 Property tax at $14.8M, a 33% increase from 2016, but the committee does not project the commensurate transfer tax increases.
Proponents ignore the Pension Sidefund payoff in 2020, freeing up $1.3M annually. Substantial additional revenue will be available for facility maintenance. Throughout the Measure F campaign proponents have never addressed nor provided counter information to our examination of the robust quality of revenue going forward.
Wieler continues on May 25: “The current transfer tax is coming in low”.
FALSE. The Feb. 15, 2016 2016 mid-year Fiscal Report shows transfer tax receipts at $1,449,618 which is 53% of the proponents $2.8M projection.
Invariably the spring selling season accelerates sales as is again occurring this year. The just released June 6, 2016 City budget report shows the transfer tax revenues at $2,367,798 July-April. With 83% reporting completed the tax is at 85% of the conservative $2.8M with the two busiest months of May and June yet to be booked. The transfer tax is not “low.”
Tax proponents claim opponents state the City has excessive employee staffing.
FALSE. Opponents have never made this claim. We ask that the 2011 MTRC staffing/service analysis be done so a determination is made.
Tax proponents accuse opponents of stating: “A $120,000 Special Election is needed if Measure F fails”:
FALSE. Opponents have never asked for a special election. Historically, failed parcel tax proposals have been scaled back and placed on the next regular ballot at minimal cost. The November ballot is available.
Both the East Bay Times and East Bay Express note the lack of transparency and recommend a NO vote on Measure F because the City Impartial analysis and Ballot question do not state the 30% increase.
Transparency is missing as are realistic estimates of revenue going forward.
Vote No on Measure F.
Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author. PCA does not support or oppose ballot measures and accepts opinions both pro and con.
Beginning at 7:30 p.m. the City Council will take up its regular agenda in the Council Chambers. Agenda items include: (Click on items to read the reports.)
06/06/16 – Receipt of a Report on the Timeline for the November 8, 2016 Regular Municipal Election
06/06/16 – PUBLIC HEARING Regarding the Proposed Budget and Fee Proposals for FY 16-17 and the Levy of the Municipal Services Tax and Sewer Tax
a. Presentation of Report from the Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee
b. Report on the FY 16-17 Budget Proposal
The public may comment on any agenda item during the meeting or on a non-agenda item during the Public Forum. You may choose to write comments to the Piedmont City Council, c/o City Clerk, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611 or send an email to: > jtulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us. All comments submitted will become part of the public record and may be posted to the City’s website.
The meeting, open to the public, will be broadcast live, and recorded. Go to Cable Channel 27 and the City website under videos to view the meeting.
Read the full agenda here.
Content on the PCA website by Piedmont Civic Association is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Some icons are Copyright © Yusuke Kamiyamane