Resident Rick Schiller recommends contract change:

While I value an informed electorate, John Chiang is a strong advocate for Measure A and no one spoke in opposition. If no one is available to speak then the LWV should have had no speakers on this.

A critical issue of the Sidefund Refinance was not discussed last night. According to the BAFP June 3 Report, if the SideFund is refinanced “without a contract change in the mechanics of the cap, the refinancing of the Side Fund would save the employees substantial money but actually cost the City more money (p19). ”

Taxpayers should have been told that by passing the bond refinance, unless Council acts on negotiating down the Pension sharing caps, taxpayers will be voting to pay more for employee pensions.

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

Cost overruns, unidentified risks, legal and engineering oversight are addressed in the finally adopted Risk Assessment Policy.

Following Piedmont’s unplanned expenditure of well over 3 million tax payer dollars, a result of the  failed Blair Park/Moraga Canyon sports complex project and faulty private underground utility project, residents and groups such as the Piedmont League of Voters (LWV) were concerned and offered suggestions on how to protect Piedmont from future unplanned financial impacts.  The City Council finally unanimously approved a Risk Assessment Policy.

Risk problems centered on the lack of step-by-step monitoring and reporting of risks and costs.  The new policy lays out actions to alert the Council, the public and the staff when capital projects costing over $300,000 are considered, approved and implemented. Public knowledge early in project development was specifically requested by the LWV and others.

The policy is intended to provide a thorough review of projects prior to expending large amounts of City time and money on projects without public knowledge and involvement.

Rob Hendrickson, a construction law attorney and civil engineer who served on the LWV’s Task Force on Civic Governance, repeated the monthly accounting recommendation presented in April, 2013 by then LWV President Julie McDonald.  He urged that as a project was being implemented a monthly accounting should be presented to the Council to assure staff was monitoring the project and the public was aware of problems.  This request was echoed by High School student Julie Adams, who felt this was common in business and should be a part of the policy.

Tim Rood, candidate for City Council, agreed with the accountability measures noted in the LWV communication.

Acting City Attorney Michelle Kenyon cautioned against including specific timelines for the City Administrator, such as monthly reporting, as this could result in further risk if the timeline was not met. Council member  Jeff Wieler stated the responsibility for compliance rested with the City Administrator as part of the job description and non-compliance would be dealt with through personnel evaluations and ultimately through the  Council election process.

Public Works Director Chester Nakahara who was responsible for drafting and redrafting the much belabored policy responded to concerns. Numerous “and/or” clauses in the policy language were at issue as to when and what would be presented to the public and Council during the conceptual and implementation phase of a project.  Nakahara pointed out that the requirement that the City Attorney and City Engineers review projects would be an expense for the City.

Excerpts from the City Charter:

The City Administrator, “Shall keep the Council fully advised as to the financial condition and future needs of the City…”

The City Attorney is to “Represent and advise the Council and all City officers in all matters of law pertaining to their offices;” “Approve the form of all contracts made by and all bonds given to the City, endorsing approval thereon in writing;” “All contracts shall be drawn under the supervision of the city attorney.”

The City Engineer description states, “There shall be a city engineer who shall have supervision over all matters of an engineering character as required by State law, or as assigned by the City Council.”

Council member Garrett Keating supported contract review by the City Attorney to protect the City from risks on public and private projects.

Review by the City Engineer is intended to make certain all projects are properly engineered and contracts are appropriately specified.

Consultants employed to oversee or advise on projects would be an additional cost of any project.

City Administrator Geoff Grote, who is retiring within weeks, stated that the policy would not prevent all future problems, while acknowledging the policy would be helpful and could be modified as needed in the future.

Mayor John Chiang was repeatedly thanked for bringing the policy to the Council for approval prior to his February retirement from the Council.

Click for the staff report and communications.

Click for draft minutes to view changes approved by the Council.

– The City Council will consider a range of issues during their Monday, October 21, meeting. –

In an atypically detailed description,  the Closed Session segment of the meeting’s agenda includes two subjects. The first item, U.S. v. City of Alameda, et al, was previously discussed in closed session by the City Council on June 21, 2010, September 7, 2010, January18, 2011, and July 1, 2013. The second closed session item is labor negotiations with Janae Novotny representing the City in bargaining with SEIU Local 1021, Childcare, Professional/Technical, Confidential, Mid Management (Police Captain, City Planner, Parks & Project Manager, Building Official).

The regular agenda begins at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue. The meeting includes:

– Update on Alameda County Waste Management Authority’s Household Hazardous
Waste Service Fee options and possible direction on the City’s position on said options

– Update on the City’s participation in the Mandatory Recycling Ordinance approved by the
Alameda County Waste Management Authority

– Update on the Pool operations

– The City Council considers mosquito abatement, City Administrator search, new Police management position, bonds to pay off the CalPERS side fund, February 4, 2014 City election, and ballot arguments regarding the bond measure. – 

The Monday, October 7 , City Council meeting will start at 7:30 pm in the City Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue.

Regular Agenda:

– Oral presentation on Alameda County Mosquito Abatement

– Hearing on the criteria (education, experience, etc) for a new City Administrator.  The staff report includes advertised compensation for the new City Administrator including pension, health and welfare, etc.

You are invited to attend this meeting to express your thoughts on the experience, education, and qualities desired in the new City Administrator. The Council also encourages those who cannot attend the meeting to submit comments via email or in writing.

You may send email to jtulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us or via U.S. Mail to the Piedmont City Council, c/o City Clerk, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.

– Police Support Services Manager employment resolution –  This is a new position in the Police Department to assist in administrative matters as recommended by the Police Chief.

– Second reading of an Ordinance authorizing the issuance of bonds – Report describes the ballot measure to pay off the CalPERS side fund, a pension obligation.

– Resolution calling for the February 4, 2014 City election, the shared costs to be charged to candidates for City Council and School Board and the City CalPERS side fund bond measure

Nomination papers for prospective candidates for this election will be available from the City Clerk beginning October 14, 2013 and must be returned no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 8, 2013, unless an eligible incumbent fails to file, in which case the deadline is extended to November 12, 2013.

There are 3 seats up for election on the City Council and 2 seats on the Board of Education.

– Direct argument and rebuttal argument for the CalPERS refinance bond measure for the February 4 ballot

– The Consent Agenda at the beginning of the meeting includes escheatment of $2,588.16 in unclaimed funds and approval of November 28 street closures for the annual Turkey Trot fundraiser.

See the entire agenda.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The public is welcome to attend the meeting in the Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue. This meeting will be televised live on KCOM-TV, Channel 27, the City’s government TV station and will be available through streaming video on the City’s web site www.ci.piedmont.ca.us.

– Blair Park proposal divided the City and resulted in misuse of City and private funds. – 

At the September 16^th Piedmont City Council meeting, the Council decided in closed session that the City would “absorb” any amounts still owed it by Piedmont Recreation Facilities Organization (PRFO).  Lost in the forgiveness of PRFO’s debt to the City is the full financial cost of the failed attempt to put a football size soccer field in Blair Park. Mark Bichsel, former City Finance Director, prepared several schedules summarizing expenditures made by the City of Piedmont from the inception of project costs on October 2, 2008 through December 31, 2012. In this period the City expended $838,689. Much of this was reimbursed by PRFO, by my calculations over $500,000.

Friends of Moraga Canyon (FOMC) spent over $70,000 in its opposition to the project and in addition received a $15,000 settlement to pay outstanding legal fees. I am not privy to what costs PRFO paid on its own behalf, but it is safe to say that collectively the City of Piedmont, PRFO and FOMC spent close to $1,000,000 in pursuit of the Blair Park project. This does not even count the financial costs of untold hours spent by City staff on this ill-advised project.

I believe the Blair Park proposal resulted in an appalling misuse of City and private funds. My plea is for the Council to take seriously the need to: 1) establish and follow risk management policies, as recommended by the Piedmont League of Women Voters; 2) listen to and acknowledge competing interests; 3) perhaps most importantly, work out resolutions to controversial issues that bring the community together rather than divide. Only then will the City Council represent the best interests of the entire town.

Al Peters, Former Piedmont Mayor

September 23, 2013

Have you ever looked for a letter or comment in the press without finding it?

Readers often post comments at the end of our articles.  To learn Piedmonters’ thoughts on any news article or opinion essay, return to an article during the following weeks or years after publication and scroll to their end.  Readers can also use the search function on our site to go back to prior news articles for the history of policies and projects and read opinion pieces.  For example, to read the comments on the City Council settlement with Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO), scroll to the end of the PRFO Settlement article where comments are located.  Comments on all prior articles can be accessed through our search tab found on the left side of the home page using the steps as noted.

 1.   Go to SEARCH on the left side of the PCA home page

2.   Enter the desired subject in the search space, for example, PRFO, Schools, etc.  All articles on the subject will present.

3.   Scroll down the page, click on the headline of desired articles.

4.   Scroll to the end of the article to read COMMENTS on the article.

With an election coming, a change in City Administrator, educational policies, and financial issues making current news, the Piedmont Civic Association (PCA) provides a forum for comments, opinions, and articles. Our goal is an informed citizenry. PCA civic news is disbursed and stored on the internet unencumbered by space limitations faced by commercial businesses.

PCA does not support or oppose candidates for public office nor take positions on ballot measures.  All comments and opinions reflect the opinions of their authors and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

 Everyone is encouraged to submit information or comments to:

editors@piedmontcivic.org.

Since January, the City Council has been in negotiations with Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) to receive payment of the outstanding reimbursement obligation in connection with PRFO’s proposed Blair Park sports complex. 

The press release states in part:

In the settlement agreement, PRFO has agreed to let the City retain the $95,000 balance in a separate $125,000 Indemnification Guarantee fund, after a $30,000 settlement negotiated by PRFO attorneys in defending the City in the lawsuit filed by Friends of Moraga Canyon challenging the proposed project. The $95,000, coupled with the initial deposit of $118,000, brings the total to $213,000 paid by PRFO towards the City’s stated total incurred costs of $326,533, leaving a balance of $113,533 to be absorbed by the City.

Click to read the entire settlement agreement and press release.

– Budget Advisory Committee Member Tim Rood Announces Candidacy for Piedmont City Council – There are now three candidates running for three Council seats in the February 2014 Municipal Election. 

Tim Rood

The following is a press release from Tim Rood:

Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) member Tim Rood has announced his candidacy for Piedmont City Council in the February 4, 2014 election. Rood has been endorsed by all of his colleagues on the BAFPC: Chair Bill Hosler, Mary Geong, Steve Hollis and Tom Lehrkind. The BAFPC was established by the Council in 2012 to assist the Council with recommendations on financial planning, forecasting and budgeting. Rood and the other BAFPC members were appointed for a three-year term.

“Tim is very knowledgeable of the City’s budget and overall financial position and the fiscal issues facing the council,” said BAFPC Chair Bill Hosler. “As a committee member, he’s demonstrated his openmindedness, his analytical approach, and his commitment to responsibly maintaining our high-quality City services and facilities.”

BAFPC member Steve Hollis agreed. “Working closely with Tim on the Budget Advisory & Financial  Planning Committee over the past two years, I’ve been impressed by his grasp of fiscal issues, his collaborative approach, and his commitment to saving taxpayer dollars while keeping Piedmont a great place to live. Tim will bring an informed and fresh perspective to our Council’s deliberations,” said Hollis, who, like Hosler, served on the 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC).

“I’m honored to have been endorsed by all of my Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee colleagues,” Rood stated. “Piedmont is such a wonderful place to live thanks in large part to the dedication and effort of our citizens. It’s been a privilege to represent Piedmonters on the BAFPC for the past two years, collaborating to explore ways to save the City money and address future liabilities, while responsibly maintaining our civic assets. As a Council member, I will bring my in-depth knowledge of City finances, as well as my professional experience as a city planner, consulting to dozens of municipalities and leading community outreach processes to find consensus on difficult issues. I look forward to working with the incoming City Administrator and other staff to implement the BAFPC’s money-saving recommendations, including refinancing the pension side fund, restarting the phased rehabilitation of the City’s sanitary sewers, and addressing the projected deficit in the sewer fund.”

A daily bicycle commuter, Rood has been an enthusiastic advocate for the City’s recent bicycle/pedestrian master plan. He established and leads the Green Transportation interest group as a co-chair of Piedmont Connect, a local volunteer environmental organization. For the past two years, Piedmont Connect has sponsored an “Energizer Station” at Ace Hardware as part of Bike to Work Day in Piedmont, in which Mayor Chiang, Council Members Garrett Keating and Margaret Fujioka and Rood have all participated.

Rood’s campaign steering committee includes Council member Garrett Keating; former mayor Al Peters, a member of the Task Force on Civic Governance appointed by the League of Women Voters of Piedmont; former Council member Walter Schey; former Planning Commissioner Melanie Robertson; MTRC members Michael Rancer and Eric Lindquist; Kathleen Quenneville, also a member of the ask Force on Civic Governance; and a diverse group of current and former parents of Piedmont schoolchildren, including former parents Diane Allen, Denise Bostrom, and Hingman Chan; PMS and PHS parents Bill and Tina Bocheff; Beach and PMS parent Jim Mitchell, and Wildwood parent Judy Richardson.

In addition to the BAFPC members and his campaign committee, Rood’s other endorsers include School Board President Rick Raushenbush, Recreation Commission Chair Nick Levinson, former mayor Nancy McEnroe, and Capital Improvement Program Committee member Ryan Gilbert, who was also a member of the 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee.

Tim Rood has been a Piedmont resident since 2002 and has been an active local volunteer throughout that time. He and his wife Muffy have two children who attended Wildwood from kindergarten and are now at Piedmont Middle School and Piedmont High School. His community service includes six years on the board of the Piedmont Swim Club, serving as a precinct captain in the 2013 school parcel tax campaign, and volunteering with the League of Women Voters of Piedmont to register voters at the Piedmont Harvest Festival. He also volunteers as treasurer of Human Impact Partners, an Oakland-based 501(c) 3 non-profit organization.

A certified city planner and licensed architect, Rood has led multi-disciplinary consulting teams and public outreach processes for numerous cities, including Oakland, Martinez, San Rafael and Healdsburg, and holds a LEED accreditation in green neighborhood design. He holds a bachelor’s degree cum laude from Columbia University and masters’ degrees in architecture and city planning from U.C. Berkeley. Rood is a partner in an award-winning urban design and planning firm, Community Design + Architecture (CD+A), which specializes in the design and implementation of walkable, bicycle-friendly streets and communities. The San Francisco Better Streets Plan developed by CD+A has won multiple awards.

Tim Rood welcomes any questions or thoughts on City government and can be reached at (510) 239-7663 or by email at Tim@Rood4Piedmont.com.

Tim Rood

Editors’ Note: The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose candidates for public office.  The comments are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  Information about candidates and their campaigns is welcomed.

Letter to the Piedmont City Council,

I was distressed to read in the Piedmont Post a front page story which discussed the long standing PRFO payment dispute and stated that the Post apparently agreed with some unidentified person who had “correctly pointed out” that the PRFO should not be expected to reimburse the City for the City’s outside legal and technical experts’ costs which allegedly “duplicated” similar efforts already provided by the PRFO.

Never mind that there is no such restriction in the Indemnification Agreement which was negotiated and entered into in secret, even more troubling is the notion that the Post apparently believes that the City should have just accepted what the project proponents asserted and should not have done their own due diligence.  In other words, government for sale to project supporters?  Approving a hotly contested project is a governmental function, and not something that can or should be sold to the highest bidder.

Regardless of whether Councilman McBain believes that 3000 residents wanted the Park, that doesn’t give the Council the right to abrogate its fiduciary obligation to all of the City’s citizens – yes, that’s right, Councilman McBain, even those who don’t agree with you – to independently perform whatever analysis was needed to be done to independently allow the Council to come to the conclusion that the Council was being called upon to make regarding the approval of the project and its EIR.

We know from the construction documents (eg, City/PRFO lease) that were prepared by the project proponents that they contained serious oversights (illegal under contractor’s licensing law, no bond required by PRFO (as opposed to Webcor) so the City was financially exposed, etc).

On what possible basis can anyone argue that the City should not have performed its own independent analysis which was required to discharge its governmental functions, including basically gutting the City’s own General Plan through exceptions for this project.

I am hoping that the Council does not buy into the Post’s apparent “editorial” position that the City should have just accepted everything that the project proponents said, and should forget about the prominent campaign slogan that the park was a gift.  A gift to who?  To the project proponents?  Certainly not to the City under present circumstances, as the Council is apparently unwilling to enforce the agreement it entered into, and now according to the Post is apparently contemplating compromising its responsibilities to all of its citizens to act impartially and independently when discharging its duties.

Rob Hendrickson, Piedmont Resident

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

Following the Labor Day holiday, the City Council will hold its first September meeting on Tuesday.  In closed session they will meeting with labor negotiators and also confer with legal counsel concerning anticipated initiation of litigation.

The public session will begin at 7:30pm with two items on the agenda: recruitment of a City Administrator and resolutions to be presented at the annual League of California Cities meeting.  The public is welcome to attend in the Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue.