–  Landscape plan to improve neglected park –  

Councilman Robert McBain made comments at the August 19th City Council meeting that were quoted in the POST (8/21/13) that I believe need to be addressed.  Friends of Moraga Canyon (FOMC) settled its lawsuit against the City of Piedmont by accepting $30,000 for the reimbursement of legal fees.  FOMC asked that $15,000 of the $30,000 settlement be deposited in a separate account with the City of Piedmont expressly for the purpose of retaining a landscape designer to create a plan to improve Blair Park.

$30,000 was transferred from the City’s Legal Indemnity Fund to pay this obligation.  Piedmont Recreation Facilities Organization (PRFO) established this fund as a vehicle to fulfill its written promise to cover any and all legal liabilities incurred by the City in connection with the Blair Park project. (To date, PRFO still owes the City approximately $220,000.)

FOMC raised and paid over $70,000 to cover its legal and other expenses.  The settlement directed $15,000 to FOMC’s attorneys to pay off the remaining balance still owed.  This left $15,000 in settlement funds that could have been used to repay some of its major supporters.  Instead, FOMC decided to have these funds placed in a City account expressly for the purpose of hiring a landscape designer to create a plan for the maintenance and improvement of Blair Park. Unlike all other well-cared for Piedmont parks, Blair Park has been ignored and neglected, especially during the four years of the sports field controversy, and a plan to enhance the park’s natural setting and amenities is sorely needed.

Al Peters, Former Piedmont Mayor

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

Very low income housing units top the list –

At the Council meeting on August 5, the Council approved an agreement with Barry J. Miller in the amount of $34,780 for preparation of an update to the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan.  The planning costs for compliance with the state law continue to rise.  State laws require all cities to update their General Plan Housing Element every 7 years. Piedmont’s element needs to be updated in 2014.

Allocation of housing is based on State and regional determination of projected needs. This process is ongoing as population growth in the State and out-of-state migration results in increasing numbers of California residents. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) apportions specific new housing and jobs requirements for each city and county within its nine county Bay Area jurisdiction. 

Piedmont has struggled to meet ABAG’s requirements in the past because of the lack of available sites for new businesses and housing. As a fully built-out city with no opportunity to expand borders or annex properties, the City faces a dilemma every time the housing needs are allocated. Piedmont has argued against the allocation by demonstrating the problems associated with providing the housing units, specifically pointing to the City’s Charter, limited land area, costs, and zoning restrictions.  After a protracted process of negotiations and revised drafts, Piedmont achieved State certification of its Housing Element in 2011. (Read consultant Miller’s recitation of the months of rejections and revisions.) The Housing Element is the only part of a city’s general plan that is subject to State certification.

The Piedmont staff report states:

“As the Council is aware, one of the goals of the Housing Element is to define how the City has planned for its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) – the amount of new housing units the City must show the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) it can accommodate.

Under the existing Housing Element, the City was required to accommodate 40 new units, but the new RHNA allocation for the 2015-2022 Housing Element is 60 new units broken down by income category as follows:

Very Low Income  –  24 units
0-50%*
Low Income –  14 units
51-80%*
Moderate Income – 15 units
81-120%*
Above Moderate Income –  7 units
120%+*

*The income levels are expressed as percentages of Alameda County median income”

As a primarily single family residential city, Piedmont has long attempted to maintain its character through zoning and planning. Piedmont has addressed prior allocations through encouraging second units and infill of vacant lots.  New second units in Piedmont have frequently avoided parking requirements by agreeing to provide the units to very low income individuals for a ten year period.  A question has been raised about what happens to Piedmont meeting low income housing needs when the original ten-year period for the units has elapsed. Voter approval of zoning changes would be necessary to significantly increase Piedmont housing units.

To some, increased population is beneficial and indicates the desirability of the State’s strong economy. Advocates of infill and densification hope open space will be spared if people are housed in existing urban areas.

Opponents of infill and densification have described the imposition of housing unit allocations in urban areas as “the Manhattanization of California” changing the character of cities.

Compliance with State laws require a General Plan Housing Element that includes how a city will provide for the increases in housing units.   As of January 1, 2008, an amendment to the State Housing Element Law, mandates that cities strengthen provisions to respond to the housing needs of the homeless by identifying a zone or zones where emergency shelters are a permitted use without a conditional use permit.

For now, there is no penalty for not providing the prescribed number of units.  Piedmont currently has an approved Housing Element meeting all State requirements.  

Read the staff report.

Scrutiny of Piedmont finances leads to consideration of bonds to pay off CalPERS “Side Fund” pension obligation. 

After Detroit’s fiscal crisis, Time magazine and the Wall Street Journal mention Oakland, Philadelphia and Chicago as cities facing large fiscal challenges.  The cover of the August 5 issue of Time asks, “Is Your City Next?” The lead article warns:

“Though nearly everyone agrees that Detroit is in particularly bad shape, many of its underlying issues — crushing debt and unfunded and unsustainable retiree benefits — are not unique. And those legacy costs are at the heart of what many experts believe is a coming municipal-finance crisis in the U.S. …Battles are already under way to decide if bankruptcy will let Detroit escape its pension commitments and turn away creditors. Promises, it must be said, will be broken; the questions now are which ones and how badly.”

According to the July 21 Wall Street Journal article, “After Detroit, Who’s Next?“:

“Take Oakland, which is Detroit’s doppelganger on the West Coast. The run-down Bay Area city, which has the highest crime rate in California, recently laid off more than 100 police to fund retirement benefits and pension-obligation bonds. Murders and robberies shot up by nearly 25% last year. To avert steeper cuts, the city borrowed an additional $210 million to finance pensions.”

Some months ago, the Piedmont Recreation Department staff recommended use of the East Wing of the Arts Center as a childcare facility.  After protest by community members and the Arts Center, the City Council directed staff to meet with the Arts Center leaders to determine how the City and Center could resolve issues surrounding the use of the East Wing. Negotiations broke down when the City’s requirements for expensive changes and new costs exceeded the Center’s abilities.

Piedmont citizens have voiced concern that the Recreation Department lacks sufficient programs for adults. The senior activity program proposed by the Art Center was a twice weekly mid-day activity.

During a public meeting, residents testified that after raising families and residing in Piedmont for decades, many miss seeing familiar faces and friends on a regular basis.  The potential for using the room at the Center for activities such as travel programs, board games, computers, literature, book reviews, exercise, arts, and leisure was welcomed by seniors and adults.

Piedmonters have questioned, “Why isn’t there a place for seniors to gather on a regular basis in Piedmont?”  “With all of the activities planned for children by the City, adults who have long supported Piedmont through taxes and donations, should be given  greater consideration.” Others have mentioned that there are already childcare facilities established by the City, while there is no on-going facility for adults to gather.

Further public consideration of the Arts Center East Wing use has yet to be scheduled on a Council agenda.

Re:  Blair Park City-PRFO Negotiations and Brown Act

Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members:

“It’s time to assure city residents that council members will stop acting on their own to advance their personal agendas, bolster their pet projects or benefit their political backers.”
 (Oakland Tribune Editorial, Friday, July 19, 2013)

             We suspect, after review of public records and past practices, another Piedmont City Council majority’s violation of the heart of the Brown Act.  “A majority of the members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting authorized by this chapter, use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.” (Gov. Code Sec. 54952.2(b)(1))

 The Council majority met at least 3 times with PRFO.  Council members discussed, coordinated and then negotiated.  The only possible closed sessions were without subject matter information to the public or required Brown Act notice.  But for information pried loose by Tim Rood, the public has been locked in the dark about the PRFO $200,000+ bad debt.

         The City-PRFO agreement requires PRFO to pay City project costs and an $118,000 security deposit, and authorized termination of City participation if the deposit ceased covering City costs.  Ineptly or intentionally, City leadership spent beyond the deposit without requiring its replenishment and then inexcusably has sat on the arrearage for over a year.

 City leadership has taken pains to avoid admitting negotiations occurred, pretending the meetings were merely “constituents … discussing issues with their elected officials” (Grote’s July 5 letter to Tim Rood).

 Call it pork, or call it ham, City emails show both negotiations and most elements of a Gov. Sec. 54952.2(b)(1) violation:  discussion of negotiating strategy among Council members and the City Administrator; involvement of PRFO’s President Menke, PRFO’s General Council Havian and Ellis, PRFO’s Chair-Fund Raising Committee; City Council subject matter jurisdiction — PRFO’s bad debt.

It is highly unusual for a public agency’s majority to be negotiating, especially without its lawyer when the other party’s (PRFO’s) lawyer is always present.  This raises a strong potential for Brown Act violations.  Were the negotiations for a public relations campaign to cover an already-made Council majority decision for non-payment?

 Shrouded in darkness, the negotiating Council majority’s support of the City-PRFO partnership and marching banner –“Say Yes to the Gift! No Taypayer cost!”– has become a civic monument to deception and poor planning.  It has cost taxpayers many $100,000s and become one of most divisive events in Piedmont history.

 Before the 2012 sewer surtax election we confronted the Council with uncontroverted City records: a 3-member Council majority (Barbieri, Chiang and Weiler), in violation of Sec. 54952(b)(1), and with the City Administrator as intermediary, privately prepared and approved rebuttal ballot arguments to the surtax opposition. We suspect an illegal pattern and practice by a Council majority, now with a different majority, but with the same City Administrator intermediary.

               City leadership replaced open government with back-room dealing and, when challenged, has responded with calculated obfuscation.  Taxpayers risk even greater financial loss from more of this bad behavior.  Replace this all too-cute tap dance around the Brown Act with a demand for immediate payment of PRFO’s bad debt and, if necessary, pursuit of legal collection.

Very Truly Yours,

Thomas D. Clark

Rick Schiller

Piedmont residents

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

Piedmont has an ongoing Smoke testing program to test for and detect infiltration and inflows (I/I) in your Personal Sewer Lateral (“PSL”). An inflow is water entering your PSL by an illegal connection that was formerly legal by decades old construction methods. The most common would be a cross-connection from your roof gutters. This can literally add hundreds if not thousands of gallons of water in the rainy season from a single home.

An infiltration is a crack or offset in your PSL. A PSL is often buried at up to six feet down and the amount of water let in by a crack can be negligible, literally a miniscule fraction as compared to an illegal inflow connection. The smoke testing will detect all I/Is and be reported to the City for correction.

Virtually all clay pipe PSL have some displacement and will fail the test even if no cross connection is present. EBMUD Manager of Wastewater Environmental Services Ben Horenstein stated that a clay system is better entirely replaced than repaired. Many steel PSL’s may have a displaced hub and this will require repair or replacement. The displacement inflows are negligible compared to an illegal cross-connection, yet the homeowner will have to bear the cost of entire replacement, normally starting at $5,000.

EBMUD has recently dramatically increased its rates; they do not intend to increase the capacity of their treatment plants. The reason our PSL’s are being tested is the result of a 2011 and 2012 Stipulated Orders (“SO”); the primary focus of these SOs is to stop the EBMUD treatment plants from becoming overwhelmed and discharging waste water into the Bay. Certainly, illegal inflows should be stopped, but I question the wisdom of forcing a complete PSL replacement on the many older homes that contribute negligible and inconsequential amounts to the overflow.

Of the seven public agencies affected by the Stipulated Orders, Piedmont is at 65% of mainline sewer replacement and second only to Emeryville at 70%. Piedmont is far ahead of the other cities in terms of mainline replacement. Berkeley has made significant progress and has a bit over a third of their mainline sewer replaced. Emeryville is an anomaly as their system is even older than Piedmont’s and their farsighted vision of attracting Big Box retail required properly working infrastructure. There is no resident sewer parcel tax in Emeryville.

Piedmonters have one of the highest sewer taxes (and the very highest school tax) and City Hall has attempted dramatic and questionable increases of the sewer tax. $900,000 of out $2.1M sewer tax revenue is transferred to General Funds annually with no time sheet system in place for the $900,000 transfer. Other costs taken from the Sewer Fund include storm drain work and, in some instances, the cost of repairing private party expenses as in the PHUUD Undergrounding Crest Road collapse. Eventually, that $275,000 was replaced by other taxpayer money from the General Fund; I would characterize this as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Those at City Hall who lament that Piedmont is no longer in the lead in improving the environment miss the total picture, or do not care to see it. Our mainline replacement is far ahead of other cities and close behind Emeryville (with no sewer parcel tax). Piedmonters are replacing PSLs at a higher rate than other cities as a higher percentage of Piedmont residents can afford this “luxury.” We continue to take the lead in the complex issue of keeping the Bay and environment clean.

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

July 21, 2013

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

Three meetings were held at City Hall with Council members, the City Administrator and leaders of Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) to “discuss the remaining money issues.”  Correspondence by email between the negotiating parties was provided to a citizen in response to a Public Record Act (PRA) request. The question under discussion that led to the PRA request, is whether this series of meetings discussed city business and did it amount to a serial meeting and thus, require public notice under the Brown Act.

Eric Havian, PRFO leader to Mayor John Chiang and City Administrator Geoff Grote on December 12, 2012:

John and Geoff,

Now that the lawsuit has been resolved, PRFO would like to have a meeting with you to discuss the remaining money issues.  Do you have some time in early January when we could meet?

Eric R. Havian

Mayor John Chiang to Eric Havian, PRFO leader on December 13, 2012:

Hi Eric,

Thanks for your message. Let’s try to schedule something the week of the 14th of January.  I know Geoff will be on vacation and will be busy the week of January 7th.  That will also give us time to gather up to date information for our discussion.  If you have some suggested dates that will work, let me know.  Late afternoons work best for me and I suspect for you too.

Have a great holiday season!

John

John Y. Chiang

The meeting occurred at City Hall on January 31, 2013.  It was attended by Mayor John Chiang, City Administrator Geoffrey Grote, with PRFO leaders Eric Havian, Steven Ellis, and Mark Menke.

City Administrator Geoff Grote to Eric Havian, PRFO leader on March 20, 2013:

Eric,

The Mayor would like to continue the conversation on costs for the Blair Park Project and would like to know if you, Mark, and Steve are available to meet anytime the first two weeks in April? John is out of town on April 4th; but will try and make any other dates work.  We were thinking that meeting late in the day seemed to work; 4 or 4:30 or 5 PM.

Thanks, Geoff

The second negotiating meeting occurred at City Hall on April 11, 2013.  It was attended by Mayor John Chiang, Council member Robert McBain, City Administrator Geoffrey Grote, with PRFO leaders Eric Havian, and Mark Menke. The third negotiating meeting occurred at City Hall on June 17, 2013.  It was attended by Council member Margaret Fujioka, City Administrator Geoffrey Grote, with PRFO leaders Eric Havian, and Mark Menke.

Dear Mr. Rood,

 

The City of Piedmont is in receipt of your public Records Requested dated July 1, 2013 requesting, “…all records, emails and communications related to the negotiations with PRFO that took place on Jan. 31, 2013; April 11, 2013; and June 17, 2013, including all records, emails and communications prepared in preparation for these negotiation meetings.”

 

The City of Piedmont is pleased to provide the following records in response to your request:

• Email string from Steven Ellis to Eric Havian and Geoff Grote dated January 22, 2013
• Email string from Geoff Grote to Rosie Navarro dated January 23, 2013
• Email string from Robert McBain to Geoffrey Grote dated March 1, 2013
• Email from Robert McBain to Geoffrey Grote dated March 4, 2013
• Email string from John Chiang to Geoffrey Grote dated March 20, 2013
• Email string from Steve Ellis to Geoffrey Grote, et al, dated March 21, 2013
• Email string from Geoffrey Grote to John Chiang dated March 21, 2013
• Email string from Robert McBain to Geoffrey Grote dated March 21, 2013
• Email string from John Chiang to Geoffrey Grote dated March 22, 2013
• Email string from Eric Havian to John Chiang, et al., dated March 22, 2013
• Email string from Mark Menke to John Chiang, et al., dated March 22, 2013
• Email string from Robert McBain to Geoffrey Grote, dated March 22, 2013
• Moraga Canyon Sports Fields Professional Costs – dated December 31, 2012
• Burke Williams Sorensen, Friends of Moraga Canyon vs. City of Piedmont – undated

I believe this fulfills the records request you filed with the City of Piedmont. 

The City provided the following letter to PCA, in answer to Tim Rood’s letter concerning meetings of various Councilmembers on the subject of the unpaid Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) balance in connection with their Blair Park sports project.  (see previous correspondence)

July 5, 2013

Dear Mr.Rood:

The City of Piedmont is in receipt of your letter, dated July1, 2013, alleging that members of the City Council violated the Ralph M. Brown Act by meeting with representatives of the Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (“PRFO”). Tim, I fear that you have misconstrued the Brown Act in such a way as to imply that the Act prohibits constituents from discussing issues with their elected officials.

Specifically, your letter states your belief that ”the participation of a majority of the members of the City Council in one or more of the negotiation sessions with PRFO constituted a serial meeting of the City Council that was not properly noticed under the Brown Act.”

The residents of Piedmont have a basic right to meet with their elected officials.  This right is in fact so important that Government Code §54952.2(c)(1) specifically exempts contacts or communications between a member of a legislative body and “any other person “from the requirements of the Act.   The mere fact that a member of the public ultimately meets with a majority of the members of a legislative body in separate meetings does not in and of itself mean that a “meeting” has occurred within the meaning and regulatory reach of the Brown Act.  A meeting, serial or otherwise, occurs only where a quorum of Council has discussed, deliberated or taken action (§54952.2(b)(l)), none of which took place in the meetings between PRFO and the Councilmembers.

 

For years, the City of Piedmont has endeavored to meet and exceed the requirements of the Brown Act and provide ample public notice to residents. However, the Act has not previously been interpreted to prohibit members of the public from discussing issues with their elected officials. Indeed, Piedmonters opposed to PRFO’s proposed project have also met with Councilmembers and they were fully within their rights to do so.

 

Sincerely,

Geoffrey Grote, City Administrator

City of Piedmont

According to the agenda, the Civil Service Commission has not met since September 21, 2011. At the July 3 meeting, the Commissioners, will elect a Chair for 2013-2014.

The main item on the agenda is consideration of a job description for the recently authorized position of  Supports Services Manager in the Police Department.  This position was requested by Police Chief Rikki Goede to relieve sworn officers of some paper work and allow them to spend more time in the field.

The Civil Service Commission deals with personnel issues including classification and serves as the hearing board in disputes between the city and employees. This commission meets as required.

The commissioners are:  Carolyn Collins, Jonathan Good, Lisa Lawson, Matthew Lifschiz and Kathleen Winters.

Council Liaison: Margaret Fujioka (H) 463-7821
Staff Liaison: Erick Cheung (W) 420-3045

The public is welcome to attend and participate in the meeting starting at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue.