Piedmont has been slow to apply for its Measure WW bond funds.

The June 19 meeting of the CIP (Capital Improvement Projects) Review Committee was moved from the City Hall Council Conference Room to the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in the Police Department to accommodate more people. It began with a presentation by Jeff Rasmussen of the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) on the program requirements for Measure WW bond funds.  No video or broadcast of the meeting was produced. 

Piedmont is the only city in the District that has not submitted an application for the funds it is entitled to receive. Since there are strict timing constraints, it is important to move ahead to have construction completed and approved before the end of fund dispersal. Each year applications can only be submitted from February 1 to March 31 in any year. Before the end of the application year, EBRPD will determine eligibility of the project or projects. The completed project construction must be documented, submitted and approved for payment before the last WW funds are paid out by December, 2018.

The numerous required application documents for each project include CEQA clearance of the project and a City Council resolution approving the project applications.

Rather than discussing the many eligible projects under the program, Rasmussen presented some major categories of ineligible projects to save the CIP Review Committee time when considering citizen suggestions for the $575,000 set aside for Piedmont. No more than 20% of a project’s pre-construction cost can be covered by WW funds.

Some Projects Ineligible under the WW fund program include:

• Libraries
• School facilities not associated with a parks and recreation facility (limitations on school use apply)
• Street medians
• Street and highway beautification
• Master Plans
• Movable equipment such as trucks, mowers, etc
• Removable recreational equipment such as soccer goals
• Recreational programming and staffing
• Normal maintenance
• Repairs with a life of less than 25 years
• Classes that are part of a school curriculum
• School sports programs

The EBRPD Board makes the final determination of a project’s eligibility.  Once constructed, the project must be open to the public, maintained and operated only for the purpose for which the grant was awarded.

– Meeting of the Piedmont CIP Committee to learn about WW funds and elect a chair person. –

The City lists the meeting as a “regular meeting” of the Capital Improvement Project Review Committee on June 19, 2014, in the Council Conference Room, 120 Vista Avenue, at 5:30 p.m. The agenda was posted approximately 48 hours prior to the meeting time. The agenda may be viewed here.

“The CIP Review Committee makes recommendations to the city council regarding the expenditure of the capital budget (construction, repair or rehabilitation of city facilities).” City website

The Committee is to be informed by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) on how Piedmont’s entitlement of over $500,000 from the voter approved Measure WW bond funds. The funds had been publicly mentioned as a source of funding for lights at Coaches’ Field and more recently as a way to supplement the costs associated with improving the drainage at Hampton Field’s grassy area regularly damaged during heavy rain. Members of  the community have made other suggestions for the Measure WW funds including improvements to: the Piedmont Pool, the former Sunday School room of the Arts Center for seniors, Coaches’ Field to accommodate another play field, etc.

“Measure WW was approved by 72% of the voters in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in November 2008. The measure extended Measure AA, approved in 1988, to help the Park District meet the increasing demand to preserve open space for recreation and wildlife habitat. In addition, Measure WW made funding available directly to cities and special park districts for high priority community park projects. Locally, Piedmont voters overwhelmingly approved the measure. Piedmont’s allocation of funds totals $507,325. The spending deadline for all projects is December 31, 2018. This means that the project(s) must be completed, billed and paid by that date.”

City Administrator’s Report 

With the Blair Park and Moraga Avenue sports complex brewing for years and the hope by many promoters to use the WW funds to support the complex, no community meetings were held by the Council to discuss the use of WW funds. With  time beginning to run out on the use of the funds, the CIP committee members have been charged with familiarizing themselves with how the funds can be used and coming up with a priority list of projects. Jeff Rasmussen of the East Bay Regional Park District will present information on the Measure WW funds available to Piedmont at the CIP meeting.

The Committee will also elected a chair person.

“The members of the committee represent a cross-section of the community, and it includes members of the Park Commission, Recreation Commission, and the Piedmont Beautification Foundation.”

City Administrator’s Report 

The Committee is composed of three individuals who have been a part of the Piedmont Beautification Foundation and five individuals who have been or are on City Commissions.

PUBLIC MEMBERS APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL (4):  John Cooper, Ryan Gilbert, Bobbe Stehr and Jamie Totsubo

PIEDMONT GARDEN CLUB’S PIEDMONT BEAUTIFICATION FOUNDATION REPRESENTATIVE (1): Michelle Winchester

PARK COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE (1): Sue Herrick

RECREATION COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE (1): Nick Levinson

COUNCIL LIAISON, as observer: Vice Mayor Jeff Wieler, alternate Councilmember Teddy King

STAFF LIAISONS: Chester Nakahara (W) 420-3061 & Mark Feldkamp (W) 420-3064

No broadcast from the conference room is expected.  Space and seating is limited in the meeting room. Those interested should attend the meeting. 

Updated 6/19/2014

– The Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s sunshine law, was strengthened by the June 3, 2014 voter approval of Proposition 42. – 

California voters in an overwhelming victory for open and transparent government approved a Constitutional amendment requiring public meetings and records to be open and available without State reimbursement of costs.

Many public entities, including the City of Piedmont, had regularly submitted claims to the State for reimbursement of costs associated with notifying the public of public meetings.  During the recent deep recession, Governor Jerry Brown suspended the State’s reimbursement of the costs. Piedmont officials agreed to continue compliance with the Brown Act; however, some jurisdictions decided not to comply when funding was terminated.

The voter approval of Proposition 42 by  2,399,314 /61.9% Yes secures and further embeds the Brown Act into the California Constitution while no longer requiring State reimbursement of costs. 

The measure requires all local governments and agencies to comply with the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) and with any subsequent changes to the acts, thus guaranteeing a person’s right to inspect public records and attend public meetings. Proposition 42 also made these laws core government responsibilities, ensuring taxpayers are not paying for items local governments have a duty to provide on their own.

The California Public Records Act (CPRA)  provides that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of state or local agencies that retain those records and that every person has a right to inspect any public record. The act also requires agencies to establish written guidelines for public access to documents and to post these guidelines at their offices.

The California Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) requires local legislative bodies to provide notice of the time and place for holding regular meetings and requires that all meetings of a legislative body be open and public. The act also permits all persons to attend any meeting of the local legislative body, unless a closed session is authorized.

The measure was sponsored in the California Legislature by State Senator Mark Leno (D-11) as Senate Constitutional Amendment 3.

http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_42,_Compliance_of_Local_Agencies_with_Public_Records_(2014)

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/california-voters-check-yes-42

– Public access is limited when some School and City meetings on finances, budgets, zoning, planning, education, and others are held away from cameras and recording devices leaving only hearty individuals viewing important civic matters. –

Citizens, who want to know first hand how and why some civic decisions are formulated, will need to personally go to the many unrecorded, out of the way meetings.  Some are noted below. 

Transparency has been a great interest in Piedmont.

From the undergrounding of utilities, Blair Park development, sewer costs, Alan Harvey Theater design, parcel taxes, and so on, Piedmonters have expressed concern over the lack of access and transparency of underlying pivotal civic decisions.

During a recent Council Budget session, it was noted that hundreds of viewers have gone to the City’s website to view live streamed and prerecorded meetings on their home computers. Home viewers can also watch broadcasted meetings on their televisions via Comcast Channel 27. The City does not know how many home viewers use the service and, according to Comcast, data is not collected. Piedmont’s public broadcasting station, KCOM, generally reruns recorded meetings on Channel 27 and makes them available through the City website. 

Despite the availability of space and broadcasting equipment, meetings are often scheduled where public access is difficult and home viewing is impossible. 

Frequent locations of the less accessible meetings are: Piedmont Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in the Police Department, the Council Conference Room in City Hall and the School District Executive Offices below Millennium High School. These locations do not have broadcast equipment. 

Noted below are some of the City and School meetings that are only available to those present at the meetings, not home viewers.  

Examples of non-broadcasted meetings are:

– Piedmont Unified School District-

Budget Advisory Committee: The committee, under the direction of the School Superintendent and officially designated in the recent parcel tax ballot measure, makes recommendations through the Piedmont Unified School District Superintendent to the School Board on budgets and taxation.  The committee is an amorphous group ranging from teachers, school staff, parents, Board members, community members, and others who attend the publicly announced meetings.  School District staff members present to the committee information on the fiscal condition of the District and educational programs.  A member of the Board of Education is typically present at the Budget Advisory Committee meetings. The meetings are open to the public and are usually held in the School District Executive Offices.  There are no electronic recordings or broadcasts of the meetings.

  Measure A School Support Tax Subcommittee:  The members of the subcommittee are selected from the Budget Advisory Committee attendees.  Three residents are selected for the Subcommittee. The voter approved Measure A parcel tax requires the Subcommittee to review the fiscal condition of the School District and advise the School Board annually on the need and range of the Measure A parcel tax levy having a base of $2,406 per parcel. This year the Subcommittee recommended that the Board levy the maximum tax, a 2% increase on the base.  The Subcommittee provides the School Board with a written report on their recommendations. The Subcommittee meetings are not publicly noticed and are not open to the public. There are no recordings or broadcast of their meetings. 

– City of Piedmont –

Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee:  The committee members are appointed by the City Council and make recommendations to the City Council. Staff presents the fiscal condition of the City and the committee makes wide ranging recommendations to the Council on pensions, bond measures, budgeting, employee compensation, capital expenditures, fund reserves, taxes, and maintenance.  The committee has recently suggested a tax increase for sewers. Meetings are publicly noticed and open to the public. At the City’s recent Brown Act training seminar, the Acting City attorney instructed attendees that the Committee is a Brown Act body requiring notice and minutes. The meetings are generally held in the Police Department Emergency Operations Center (EOC) with no broadcasts or recordings.

City Council Budget Work Sessions:  The City Council annually meets to hear presentations from City staff on the upcoming fiscal year budget. The meetings are publicly announced and open to the public. The meetings are held in the Police Department Emergency Operations Center using a round table format. The sessions are pivotal to budget decisions.  No video recordings or broadcast of the meetings are produced.

Piedmont Planning Commission:  The Planning Commission will hold a “Community Meeting on the Housing Element” in a location known for close quarters and no cameras, the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in the Police Department. The Planning Director and planning consultant announced that an “opportunity” for the community to voice their opinions on Piedmont’s proposed Housing Element was set for June 26 in the EOC.  The Housing Element could be controversial as it presents new regulations regarding increasing second units, adding affordable housing, building apartments on top of commercial buildings, assessing multiple unit zoning, and reducing taxes on affordable units.  There will be no broadcast or recordings of this meeting.

Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Review Committee:  The CIP committee provides advice on how to spend millions of capital dollars.  The City Council appoints five members of the committee.  The other three members are: one, selected by and from the Piedmont Garden Club’s Piedmont Beautification Foundation; one, from the Recreation Commission; and one, from the Park Commission.   Money reserved by the City in the CIP fund has been used for numerous purposes including beautification projects, street and sidewalk improvements, recreational facilities, landscaping, and $2 million for underground utility problems. The meetings are publicly noticed.  An upcoming meeting on how to allocate $500,000 of WW Bond funds is to be held in the Council Conference Room.  There will be no broadcast of the meetings.

City Council Interviews of Applicants for Appointed City Positions, such as Commissions and Committees:  Annually, the City Council makes appointments to fill open positions on commissions and committees.  Although not specifically designated as financial positions, many of the members of the City’s various appointed committees and commissions routinely make recommendations with financial implications.  The sessions are publicly noticed and open to the public. The meetings have been held in the small City Council Conference Room. Public records do not include the names of applicants, and only those applicants who are appointed are publicly announced.  The Council’s interviews are not broadcast or otherwise recorded.

City Seminars on the Brown Act and Rules of Procedure: Two meetings in May to “train” elected and appointed officials on factors governing Piedmont meetings were held.  Notice was not provided of the meetings, and the meetings were not open to the public.   Councilmembers, commissioners, and appointed committee members were invited to the meetings held in the Council Chambers. During one of the meetings, a video was produced by the City and is available here.  No live broadcasts of the meetings were produced.

Meetings that can regularly be viewed by Comcast subscribers on Channel 27 and on home computers via live streaming are: City Council, Park, Planning, and Recreation Commissions, School Board, and from time to time various ad hoc committees.

  To view live and previously broadcast meetings, go to the City website at:

http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/video/

The Piedmont City Council has a full and important agenda at their meeting on Monday, June 2, starting at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue.

Click on items below to read staff reports.

Budget Approval Hearing; 

Staff report on budget.

Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee Report: 

Police Officer Body Cameras:

Use of WW Funds of over $500,000 for parks, senior facility, pool or other recreation purposes

Emergency Tree Removal in Blair Park 

Additional Sewer Tax 

Election Date change to State General Election Date: 

Full agenda 

At the June 2 City Council meeting, the Council is expected to place on the November 2014 ballot a City Charter change to require Piedmont’s General Election to be concurrent with the State’s General Election in November of even number years and also to change School Board reorganization dates.

A question on the proposed Charter language has arisen.

The questionable language was added to facilitate the extension of terms, but possibly could have other implications. The language states:

“They shall hold office for four (4) years or until their successor is sworn into office.”

There is the possibility that an elected candidate, prior to being sworn into office, could not serve because of death, disqualification or withdrawal. The proposed language could extend the term of a termed-out Councilmember until a successor is chosen. If there is more than one termed-out Councilmember, which one would remain on the Council “until a successor is sworn into office?”  

The language “or until their successor is sworn into office” appears to presume there is a designated seat for each elected member of the Council. In Piedmont, individuals on the Council are elected at-large by all voters.  There are no designated seats to be filled “until their successor is sworn into office.”

Current office holders on the Council and School Board will have their terms extended from March to November of their term, an approximate 8 month extension.

The changes are being made to gain greater participation in Piedmont elections, remedy School Board reorganization dates, and reduce the cost of Piedmont elections.

Read the staff report and proposed language. 

The City and School appointed liaisons, two representatives from the City Council and two from the School Board, will confer on issues of joint interest on Wednesday, June 4, 2014, 4:30 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room, 120 Vista Avenue.

The meeting is open to the public, but is not expected to be broadcast or recorded.

Listed on the agenda are:

1. Discussion of Litter Issues in Piedmont Park

2. Review of Crossing Guard Program

3. Discussion of Safety Training Coordination between Schooolmates and PUSD staff

4. Discussion of Joint Efforts to Increase Participation in the City’s Emergency Notification System

5. Discussion of School District Landscaping Needs

6. Discussion of Enforcement of Use Restrictions on School Property

7. Update on Results of the June 2, 2014 Election

8. Schedule of Future Meetings – Agenda Topics

No meeting materials have been made available.

 

New sources of revenue for sanitary sewers are sought despite years of diverting funds away from the Sewer Fund for other City purposes.

At a recent Council meeting, the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) made recommendations to seek new sources of revenue to pay for remaining renovations to the City’s aged sanitary sewer pipes.  The recommendations included:

1. A Sewer Tax surcharge of 20 – 25% for two to three years.

2. A temporary Real Estate Property Transfer Tax surcharge of $2 -$3 per $1000 of sale price

3. A $1.2 to$1.4 million loan from the General Fund to the Sewer Fund

Piedmont property owners have for decades been paying into the Piedmont Sewer Fund via their property tax bills and provided ample funds to cover EPA required renovations and maintenance of the sanitary sewer pipes. However, starting many years ago, much of the Sewer Fund money was diverted to pay for various General Fund activities, such as maintaining the storm water system and street sweeping. The sanitary sewer system is separate from the storm water system. Since the Sewer Fund was used as a revenue source for the storm water system and undefined public works activities, the General Fund was relieved of paying for these and other   standard City services.

The assignment of storm water expenses to the Sewer Fund has had little recognition by those assessing the need for “new taxes” such as increased property taxes, property transfer taxes, or debt instruments including loans. The draw down of funds from the Sewer Fund transferred to the General Fund has been largely unknown to property owners, who now might be asked by the City for more taxes through an upcoming ballot measure.

Piedmonters, in general, have appeared eager to comply with EPA decrees and requirements.   The transfer of Sewer Fund money to the General Fund has raised questions.

When looking at Public Works Department employee positions, significant costs are attributed to the Sewer Fund without backup information to support hours worked or projects completed by certain public works positions.

The City’s reserves have recently grown providing funds to support projected emergencies and general maintenance, while the Sewer Fund continues to have its funds transferred to support the General Fund activities.

Some have stated that transferring money to the General Fund from the Sewer Fund has allowed the City to enhance playfields, parks, and provide more services.

– Budget Hearing June 2 –

Changes to a recommended Budget are rarely made at the Council’s public hearings, as most of the actual work on the Budget has already been done during the Budget Workshop.  These workshops are held away from broadcast systems in the Police Emergency Operations Center and are not available for public viewing. 

The public will have an opportunity to voice opinions on the sewer issue and the entire Budget at the Council’s June 2 Budget Hearing. As required by the City Charter, this is the first of two public hearings.

Staff report on Sewer Fund.

– Extended terms of office or appointed positions? Date to choose Board officers? – 

The date for Piedmont’s election of the School Board and City Council is set by the Piedmont City Charter for the first Tuesday in February of even number years.  The City Council and School Board have been considering ways to increase voter participation and reduce costs associated with Piedmont elections. Changing the date of Piedmont elections requires changing the Charter by approval of a majority of the voters voting on the change.

In November 2012, Piedmont consolidated with the General Election for a City ballot measure. Great savings were achieved, as the cost per registered voter was $1.10. Piedmont’s current stand alone election in February 2014 cost $9.89 per registered voter.

Twelve of Alameda County’s thirteen cities hold their elections at the November General Election of even numbered year.  Piedmont is the only city with a stand alone election.

The Charter also prescribes when the reorganization of the Board’s officers occurs. The current date is out of step with the Board election by months creating a potentially awkward period for the Board.

A report to the Board prepared by Board President Rick Raushenbush and Superintendent Constance Hubbard states in part:

The City Council found that consolidating the City Charter election date for Council members and Board members with the State’s November general election date would provide the greatest cost savings and the most voter participation. Moving the election date to November would require existing Council and Board members to extend their terms to the new November election date rather than the current February election date.

If the Board supports the change of the election date, the Superintendent will work with the City Clerk to submit wording that will delineate reorganization requirements in keeping with Education Code requirements. It will also add flexibility if the Board does not need to have a meeting in July.

Term extensions for an additional period from March to December or appointments to vacancies are also mentioned in the report:

The alternative to extending the terms of current officials is that a Board Member could resign their position and the Board would go through the process outlined in Board Bylaws 9110 (4) which state, “A vacancy on the Board shall be filled by appointment by a majority vote of said Board, with the appointee holding office for the remainder of the unexpired term or until the general municipal election. If a vacancy in the Board continues for thirty days, the vacancy shall be filled by an appointment made by the President of the Board.”

If the appointed person serves more than eighteen months of an unexpired term, such person shall be considered to have served a full term.

Historically, appointments to vacant seats on elected boards or councils provide an advantage to the appointed incumbent at the upcoming election. “Self-perpetuating” is a term that has been used when elected bodies fill a vacancy with their personal choice immediately prior to an upcoming election.

At their Wednesday, May  28 meeting in the Council Chambers, the Board will be asked to give direction to the Superintendent on the following items or provide other alternatives:

(a) Change of date of election for School Board Members to November

(b) Extension of term of current members from March to November

(c) Request change in City Charter to change reorganization requirements for

Read the documents on the election date item pages 3-10 of the Board packet.

Full agenda of May 28 Board meeting.

Former Council Member Garrett Keating comments on the City Council’s May 19 consideration of funding for sewers, maintaining recreational facilities, employee health benefits, the Budget and General Fund Reserves.

Sewers:

Council chose not to go forward with the “no tax”option and will likely choose one of the two tax options at the next Council meeting, June 2.

 The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) had no issues with the no tax option, so it is odd that Council felt there was some risk associated with it.   Other reasons were offered to accelerate the replacement program by adopting a tax rather than draw from the General Fund.  Environmental stewardship?

Sewer emergencies are declining and honestly, those concerned with Bay water quality would do better to contribute to the repair programs of other cities that are far greater polluters than Piedmont.

Maintain recreational facilities?  The biggest recreational need for Piedmont is field space and hours of use, not maintenance, but there are no proposals for that before City Council.

Increased contributions for retiree health benefits? A definite problem for the city.   Staff suggested Council would not address this need until 2021.

The Sewer Fund only needs $1M within the next 3 years, after which it is quite stable and an accelerated replacement program can likely be achieved. Piedmont has historically maintained high reserves, 20% of the General Fund. The current reserve for 2014-2015 is estimated at 21.5% and this would decline to 15% with the $1M loan from the General Fund.

The General Fund dropped $1M between 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 with virtually no impact on city services and $2M was found in city accounts to address undergrounding over-runs. There are more than adequate reserves to address this short-term loan. And Council could lower that need even more when year end transfer tax receipts come in. Transfer tax receipts are headed for $3.4M and Council has budgeted for $2.8. That $0.4 – 0.6 excess could be transferred to the Sewer Fund and offset a loan from the General Fund. That excess will manage to find its way into city balance sheets, no doubt, but Council could help that “15%” by using it to reduce this new tax.

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  Comments are welcomed below.

Prior PCA article.