The San Jose Mercury News has once again offered a searchable database of California public employee salary and benefit costs in 2012.  Individual public employees are listed by name and title with their salary, overtime, lump sum payouts, taxpayer paid medical/dental/vision plans, taxpayer paid pension plan, taxpayer paid “pickup” of employee contribution to pension plan, taxpayer paid 401k or 403b plans, other non-cash costs of employee.  The final column shows the total cost to taxpayers of that individual employee.

To use the database:

• Choose a county and city, school district or agency
• For large entities, choose the above and a department
• Search an individual public employee within a county, city or agency
• Search employees by gross compensation to learn the highest paid in an entity 

On June 3 the City Council will consider a contract with 3M Company to purchase 39 Automated License Plate Reader cameras for installation at 15 sites in Piedmont. Citizens have expressed varying opinions about the proposal:

Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Councillors:

 

Thank you for so promptly attending to the fundamental issue of placing License Plate Readers at various entrances to Piedmont, which we are very much in support of.

As residents who live very close to the Oakland/Piedmont border, as well as to Scenic avenue (which has seen much crime activity lately) we urge that you consider placing a License Plate reader at the entrance to Piedmont from Blair/Harbord Avenue.

This will act as a major deterrent to criminal elements entering our city through this vital choke point.

Additionally we request that you place a prominent street sign at that point indicating that

” You are now entering Piedmont” so that intruders may be deterred from entering at all.

 

Best Regards

Stavros and Amanda Gougoumis

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear City Council Members:

 

I am sorry to be writing you so late, but I have been travelling a lot and just haven’t had time to sit down and give you my thoughts on this important fiscal and crime issue.

 

I am very concerned that the positive response to License plate readers is a knee jerk response to our crime increases without sufficient study or documentation to determine if they in fact have any positive effect upon crime prevention or arrests. Early on, Chief Goede testified in front of you indicating that in Claremont, CA. they installed readers throughout the city. She gave statistics of 26 and 22 million “hits” over two years (2012 and 2011) with 166 arrests over that period. That is statistically irrelevant. It is 0.000003 arrests per hit. Statistically, there could have been that many arrests with or without the readers in place.  Crime is certainly a concern in town, but we don’t know if we had an unusual number of incidents in a short period or if it is really getting worse.

 

Please don’t make a significant financial mistake and proceed with the readers without more information. Unfortunately, Piedmont has had a record of “ready, fire, aim” which resulted in financial disasters over recent years including undergrounding expenditures and unreimbursed Blair Park costs. Both of those could have been averted with proper oversight, documentation and research.

 

Let’s not let this happen again. I urge you to study this situation more and get better  facts  and  research  before  spending  such  a  significant  amount  of  money.  Just because the City coffers are flush right now is no reason to spend money foolishly. There may be better and more efficient ways to control our crime issues.

 

Very Truly yours, Joseph Hurwich, CPA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Writing in The Piedmont Highlander, Piedmont High School student Kate Bott described the License Plate Readers proposed project as moving Piedmont closer to “the Big Brother scenario George Orwell describes in 1984…” 

~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

I’m emailing to voice my support for installing License Plate Reader Cameras at each entrance and exit point of the city. Please make this part of the record.

Regards,

Mary Peek

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Dear City Council,

          Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are not a crime preventative tool. As Chief Goede stated referring to ALPRs: “Its not a crime prevention tool, its more of an investigative tool on the back end.” At the Public Safety Committee meeting Chief Goede stated there have been no studies showing a correlation between the implementation of ALPRs and a reduction in crime.

         While convicting and sentencing criminals is desirable, criminals are unaware of which cities have a high conviction rate. So the high cost of the ALPRs is simply not justified even as a peripheral conviction tool. The primary function of the ALPRs is evidently to find stolen cars, but no assumption can be made that every criminal entering Piedmont is in a stolen car. And we have yet to be provided with the effectiveness of the single existing mobile ALPR that has been in service. Additionally, a person intent on committing a crime is likely unaware they are about to do it in Piedmont so even if criminals were aware of a high Piedmont conviction rate, they are likely unaware they are in Piedmont.

          “Force multiplier” is the use of digital information to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of Police. A direct means of implementing Police force multiplication is the use of predictive policing programs such as PredPol. Although in the testing phase, PredPol’s initial results have been positive in assigning probabilities of crime in space and time, implementing situational crime prevention and aiding in the most effective use of Police resources. Before our City spends $678,613 plus about $115,000 annually for a civilian ALPR monitor plus the unknown annual maintenance costs plus the thousands annual in connectivity costs plus the installation costs not covered in the 3M contract, the effectiveness of a predictive policing program should be considered.

Police patrolling is the backbone of good police work that stops crime. Criminals seeing officers patrolling is the most effective deterrent available. Can the efficiency of officer placement be enhanced by the use of predictive software? Regardless, Piedmont Police statistics consistently show a high incidence of burglaries and similar crimes committed during weekday daylight hours. Putting another officer on during these hours and in high crime areas would require about 1.66 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Officers; the cost is about $300,000 but would not require the annual $115,000 non-sworn ALPR hire. Adding an additional officer when needed is less expensive than the ALPRs and directly more effective as a crime deterrent. We still do not have a good handle on the ongoing recurring maintenance costs of the ALPRs.

A guaranteed read rate is not specified in the 3M contract. Other companies that provide the ALPRs have such a specification. I ask Council to query the 3M representatives what the guaranteed read rate is of the cameras they are supplying.

We are all alarmed by the increase in crime and we all want to prevent crimes. We need directly preventative tools, not ALPRs.

Respectfully,

Rick Schiller

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

Please add my name to support for license plate cameras & more street lighting on border streets.

Patricia Markovich

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

Too Much Money, Too Few Facts, Too Soon

Before spending more than $1 million, the City should research the effectiveness of license plate readers.

Is there any reliable evidence that license plate readers reduce crime?  If so, what is it?

What are other less expensive alternatives?  How about a cost/benefit analysis of the proposal and other altematives?

How would this unanticipated expenditure affect already-budgeted items?

The March 18 staff report implies that buying readers has been decided and it is just a matter of how fast it can be implemented:  “The ‘tum key’ approach should be given serious consideration from the standpoint of time and efficiency necessary to complete the project.”  (Page 2 of the staff report.)  Staffs outreach to 3M for bids after the Council meeting is more evidence.

Instead of making a decision for the Council by presenting only one altemative, staff should have offered altematives to the Council for public consideration  The staff report does not precisely define the problem or explain how readers work to reduce crime, and it does not present any altematives.  There is no analysis.  The report gives the Council no real choice.  Nor does it support its recommendation  with any data whatsoever about the effectiveness of the single solution proposed.

It looks and feels as if the decision had been made before the Council even started its consideration in public.

The Public Safety Committee should ask staff for (1) deeper and broader analysis of multiple options to reduce crime and for (2) an analysis of the effect of pulling $!million out of the budget for this unforeseen expense–before the Committee reports back to the City Council.

Linda Roodhouse Loper

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~

On January 21, 2013 two Piedmont families were victims of violent “take-over” home invasion robberies by gun point. BULLETS were fired at them! Home invasions, crime and its impact has escalated over the years in Piedmont and especially along our city border-line with Oakland. Over the years “Proactive Patrolling, Police Presence, Response and Chase” along Piedmont’s 24 entry points and high crime Baja neighborhood’s has diminished to unacceptable levels.

Piedmont police…..willingly………..”broke off chase”……… of the home invasion suspects. At the February 12, 2013 public meeting, Chief Rikki Goede admitted:

Piedmont’s Police Department policy is…..NOT TO CHASE CARS OR SUSPECTS.

The City of Piedmont website states: “Patrol is the Backbone of Policing”

There are over 7500 law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. Many of them proudly agree and say the exact same phrase that “patrolling” is the backbone of policing.

How much time can officers devote to patrolling?

Answer: Responding to assigned calls and conducting general surveillances by “patrolling” are the two most time consuming sorts of patrol activities. In most places assigned calls take considerably less than half of officers work time. Patrolling the beat usually takes a higher proportion of time. (Whitaker Study 1982)

On the average, about 5 hours of an officer’s 8-hour shift are spent at the officer’s discretion, while 3 hours are spent on assigned tasks. (US Dept. of Justice-National Institute of Justice)

How many miles should patrol officers drive-per shift?

Answer: There are 1000’s of rural & metro law enforcement agency’s in the United States.

The “miles driven” answer is derived & recognized in several ways. Most large (spread- out) police departments have no minimum or maximum driving expectations (miles) of their patrol car officers. Their patrol officers will be patrolling 100’s of miles. But, the smaller departments (under 20 officers) tend to have unwritten policies and practices related to minimizing or maximizing mileage patrol goals. There are frugal police department’s that mandate their patrol vehicle’s sit idle for 10 minutes of each hour to save on high fuel costs.

Less patrolling miles result in fewer arrests and less impact to the city’s overall budget. But, reading the law enforcement literature, surveys, and studies, the general accepted rule & practice is a metro patrol officer should be “patrolling” 8 miles for each hour worked. If a patrol officer in Piedmont works 10 hours then his/her odometer should register and record 80 more miles on that vehicle. A large segment of patrol officers across the country, routinely clock in, as many as 100-150+ “patrolling” miles per work shift.

(officer’s.com, realpolice.net, policechiefmagazine.org)

How many miles have Piedmont police cars been patrolling?

Answer: Piedmont replaced several of its patrol police cars in 2010. They had been used for 51 months and the average mileage on each car was 45,000 miles. So Piedmont patrol cars had been driven an average of 29 miles per (24 hour) day. In a 24 hour period this is 1.2 miles per hour of patrol function. Human walking speed is about 3+ miles per hour.

Conclusion:

Police officers and Command Staff are compensated quite well in Piedmont considering the small size of the City. The compensation packages include lucrative Pension and Benefits which are unsurpassed in California. Given the cost, the Department should adhere to the  “recognized” standard that “Patrol is the backbone of policing”. The law enforcement patrolling expectations in Piedmont should match the minimum practices in use across the country. Piedmont’s small footprint of 1.658 sq. miles and nonexistent traffic congestion creates a unique situation of straightforward and uncomplicated Police patrol capability.

City Administrator Grote & Chief Goede need to prepare a new “policy” paper and directive as to “Patrolling Practices, Expectations & Recording” of all Piedmont patrol officers.

This new “Patrolling” directive should include and outline these minimum requirements:

1. Patrol officers will log/record odometer readings at the start & end of each day work shift.

2. PPD (Chief Goede) will collect data and prepare/present monthly accounting log and report of the total miles driven by “all” patrol cars, areas driven, responding to calls, etc…….

3. All collected patrol data information will be posted on the City’s website.

License plate readers are a bureaucratic gimmick to give tax-payers a false sense of security. There is no substitution for proper (pro-active) police patrol on the street.

Piedmont should direct & invest its limited resources on proper police patrol procedures and hiring another patrol officer…..for the street.

Thank You,

Neil Teixeira

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Dear City Councilmembers:

In evaluating whether license plate readers are worth the capital and ongoing investment, and recognizing that such investment takes funds away from other worthy projects in the CIty, I request that you consider whether the license plate readers are effective in preventing or deterring crime, and then, secondarily, whether they help catch criminals after a crime has been committed. Question that need to be answered:

(1) I gather that the LPRs can quickly identify whether a recorded license plate is on a “hotsheet” of stolen vehicles. Aremost crimes committed by criminals driving stolen vehicles? (If no, then the utility o fthe LPRs is less for prevention; if yes, finding the stolen vehicle after a crime is less likely to find the criminal).

(2) If crimes are committed by people driving stolen vehicles, how quickly do our surrounding cities get the license numbers of stolen vehicles into the database checked by the LPRs? We read that Oakland’s limited police force is focused on violent crimes. If so, does it take hours or days for a stolen vehicle’s license plates to get in the database?

(3) If crimes are committed in Piedmont by people driving stolen vehicles, how long before they commit a crime does such a person steal a vehicle? Are they stolen the same day that the thief plansto to commit a burglary or robbery in Piedmont? If so, what is the chance that the vehicle’s license plate number will be in the stolen vehicle database?

(4) If a crime is committed in Piedmont, and no stolen cars show up through the LPRs, what use does the PoliceDeptintend to make of the LPR data? Is there a database of former felon’s license plate numbers to see if a former felon drove through town that day? Would the Police Dept have the man power to follow up such leads? What other use could be made of the data to catch the criminal?

(5) What other City projects need funding that will not receive it if the LPRs are funded?

(6) If the funds for the LPR were devoted to hiring another police officer, how many years salary and benefits would be covered by those funds?

I look forward to your deliberations.

Richard W. Raushenbush

Important Council Meeting June 3, 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. 

The City Council will hold the first of two public hearings on the FY 2013-14 Budget at its Monday meeting.  The Council’s Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) has been meeting for weeks,  examining the proposed annual budget, five-year projections, and the City’s overall financial health.  The Committee’s detailed report  with specific recommendations will be presented at the meeting.  

The Budget, along with fee proposals, the levy of the Municipal Services Tax and the Sewer Tax are all part of the Public Hearing. Staff Report.  Budget.

License Plate Readers in Piedmont have made Bay Area news and are supported by a number of Piedmonters.  Increasingly aggressive crimes led Police Chief Rikki Goede to recommend placing cameras at fifteen entrances to Piedmont.  Although controversial to some, the Piedmont Public Safety Committee, CIP Review Committee, and the BAFPC have recommended the City Council approve $678,613 from the CIP fund to cover the cost of the cameras for use in the project.  Staff Report.

Eagle Scout candidate, Cole Becker, has proposed overseeing and fund raising for a footbridge in Dracena Park.  The footbridge will replace a bridge demolished over 50 years ago.   The location connects a path near Park Way to a path used by dog walkers crossing over the path through the redwood canyon.  The Park Commission has recommended approving the footbridge, conditioned upon certain requirements.   Staff Report.

As an outgrowth of BAFPC recommendations, the City Council will discuss an ongoing  plan  to project future needs and to allocate funds for facilities maintenance.

For more information, call the City Clerk’s office at (510) 420-3040.

A 20-page, close-up view of Piedmont’s fiscal health will be presented to the City Council on Monday, June 3, by its Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC).

The five-member committee, made up of Piedmont residents with diverse fiscal expertise, focused its analysis on the City’s financial outlook for the next five years, potential financial risks regarding employee healthcare and retirement costs, the Sewer Fund, and some specific steps the Council can take to save money and reduce risks.

Here are a few of the report’s highlights.

First the good news: “Overall, the City looks to be in improving financial shape,” the report states,  “recovering as expected from the recent recession, and appears able financially to continue to provide exceptional basic public services.  However,” it warns, “there are still risks facing the city in retirement costs as well as sewer replacement and operating costs that need to be addressed.”

City Employee Retirement Costs  

In an effort to reduce “uncontrollable retirement benefit costs,” the Committee recommends: 1) the Council refinance the CalPERS pension side fund and negotiate a lower corresponding cap from City employees; 2) compensate employees in ways that do not contribute to their retirement costs, such as giving bonuses instead of salary increases; 3) continue to bargain for caps and sharing on pension retirement costs with new and current employees; 4) reduce current and retiree healthcare cost coverage to 75% of costs or lower, down from 100%, extend vesting of retiree healthcare benefits to 20 years instead of current 5 years;  and investigate putting more burden on “Tier 1 retirement employees” (current, long-time employees), if possible.

The report notes the importance of controlling these costs in light of the fact that, “The City faces the likelihood of substantial turnover in the next 5-10 years, as 23 employees have over 20 years of service and an additional 28 have over 10 years of service. We estimate that approximately 40 of the City employees are likely to retire over the next 10 years, with a significant portion in the next 5 years.”

Aquatics

The Committee notes that in FY12/13, expenses of the City-owned pool exceeded revenues by $158,000.  Based on the FY13/14 aquatics budget, the Committee projects pool expenses will cost Piedmont taxpayers $200,000 per year in the next 5 years.  The Committee also points out that the School District currently does not pay for pool use, and the private Piedmont Swim Team pays a below-market rate for pool use of about $17,000 per year.  The Committee “recommends that, regardless of the policy with respect to the School District, proper accounting should reflect the capital/operational costs per user which includes the School District usage as a footnote to the budget.”

Sewer Fund

The Committee recommends the City restart phased sewer replacement of the remaining 93,000 feet of Piedmont’s mainline sewer in order to save substantial costs over the currently planned small-scale, emergency repair/replacement strategy. Committee members unanimously recommend obtaining a low-interest State loan to restart the phased rehab and investigate potential funding sources — either through a temporary sewer surcharge measure or borrowing from the City’s General Fund — in order to address the projected temporary shortfall in the Sewer Fund beginning in 2016-17.

The Committee believes that the total cost to the City of a “logically phased rehabilitation program” would be lower than making incremental repairs because of 1) lower cost per lineal foot of larger-scale projects;  2) low interest State loans, currently at 1% interest; 3) lower risk of costs escalating if the rehab is done sooner rather than over decades; and 4) less risk of not meeting EPA regulatory requirements.

Conclusion

The report concludes that the City is in a “relatively strong financial position compared to the recent past.  However, the risks to the city still exist and Council must stay vigilant to find ways to adequately compensate employees in a controllable way and continue to work to improve the stability of the City’s finances.”

BAFPC REPORT

At the May 31, 2013, Piedmont City Council meeting the report from the Budget Advisory and Financial Projections Committee (“BAFPC”), will be considered.   In a letter to the City Council a resident emphasizes parts of the report.

The BAFPC committee has done excellent work as demonstrated in the Report before you.  The financial professionals on the BAFPC did a remarkable job.

I. SEWER FUND

Page 11 references the ongoing transfer of a significant portion of the Sewer Fund to the General Fund: “This transfer has grown in response to regulatory mandates, going from $600k–$700k in years prior to 2006 to $900k for the current fiscal year, about 40% of the sewer revenue. Staff time attributed to the sewer systems is estimated rather than tracked directly.”  Were this $900k not so substantial, the already penciled in November 2014 additional Sewer Tax would be absurd.  Council should implement a time sheet and/or accounting system to replace the current “estimated” system.

Further the Report notes: “Long‐range projections undertaken by this committee and staff found, however, that as debt service is retired, revenues are projected to exceed expenditures beginning in FY23‐24 and the fund balance to turn positive by FY29‐30, even with no additional source of revenue. Thus, the fund balance problem is temporary.” At page 6 the Report notes the large number of Teir I employees retiring in the next 10 years which “should provide a downward trajectory for CalPERS benefit costs.” If Council continues to control compensation packages, the financial picture remains  increasingly positive. Various forces are at play that insure that any decline in the Sewer Fund is temporary and that the General Fund subsidy from the Sewer Fund can likely be reduced. No additional taxes are required of the already heavily taxed Piedmont electorate. Current residents should not have to bear the entire cost of a 100 year system.

The city continues to comply with the EPA directives utilizing $340,000 for sewer projects plus $300,000 additional for emergency repairs. The Report notes emergency repairs costs at $352,000 average annually, well within current revenues. Since the Measure A Sewer Tax failed in Feb. 2012, the total mainline rehabilitation has gone from 60% to 64%.  Regardless of City Hall characterization that only emergency work is being done, the mainline is being replaced/rehabilitated at a rate acceptable to the  EPA. Evidently all work is labeled “emergency” as the most deteriorated parts of the mainline are logically given priority.

II. PENSION SIDE FUND

At p19 the reports states: “If the Side Fund were refinanced, the CalPERS rate would drop for the upcoming year to 28% and thus would be below the sharing cap. As a result, the City would be obligated for Side Fund payments and the employees would not provide any payment towards the CalPERS pension. As a result, 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.” Council should undertake the BAFPC Private Placement recommendation to refinance the Pension SideFund and commensurately renegotiate employee Caps downward . Refinancing the fund so only Tier I employees benefit on top of already lucrative packages makes no sense; refinancing the Pension Side Fund requires downward Pension cap negotiation.

Respectfully,

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

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

Each year Piedmont’s City Council is required to approve a budget by the end of June.  The Piedmont Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) has been busy finalizing their report and recommendations to the City Council.  The committee members are Mary Geong, Steven Hollis, Bill Hosler, Tom Lehrkind, and Tim Rood with Mayor John Chiang serving as City Council Liaison.

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 7:00 p.m., in the Police Department Emergency Operations Center (EOC) at 408 Highland Avenue, the BAFPC will hold their next meeting.  At its previous meetings, the BAFPC has analyzed the Sewer Fund, capital expenditures, retiree benefits, revised financing of the CalPERS side fund, license plate readers, and many other items.  The meetings are not broadcast nor recorded, however the public can attend the meetings and participate.

The City Council will hold their first public hearing on the FY 2013-14 Budget during their regular meeting on June 3 in the Council Chamber.

For more information contact the City’s Finance Director Erick Cheung, CPA echeung@ci.piedmont.ca.us, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611, or Phone: (510)420-3045.

Written comments to the BAFPC may be sent to echeung@ci.piedmont.ca.us or 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.  Written comments to both the BAFPC and the City Council may be sent via City Clerk John Tulloch at jtulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us or mailed to 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611. 

Click here to view the proposed budget.

Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) -Tuesday, May 21

The BAFPC will continue its assessment of  financial direction and strategies for Piedmont’s financial future at its Tuesday meeting, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Police Department, Emergency Operations Center, 403 Highland Avenue, Piedmont.

The Sewer Fund, although currently funded, shows long term deficits to cover replacement of more than 30% of the remaining sanitary sewer pipes.   Additionally, the City draws money from the Sewer Fund to maintain storm drains, which is done by Public Works staff.  Piedmont is in compliance with Federal refurbishing requirements at this time.  Financing to complete all sanitary sewer improvements, while continuing to use funds for storm drains, is under study and will be considered in detail by the BAFPC prior to their recommendation to the City Council.

Refinancing of the CalPERS Side Fund either with low-interest pension obligation bonds or a loan from a private institution is being recommended to the City Council by the BAFPC  in an effort to reduce Piedmont’s current 7% interest payments to CalPERS for the City’s pension obligations.

With the upturn in Piedmont’s revenues, primarily from real estate sales and new valuations, the FY 2013-14 budget looks balanced while allowing funding of long term maintenance needs. The BAFPC examination of 5 year projections will look at current and 5 year revenues and expenses.

Long term retiree pensions and health benefits weigh heavily on the City’s ongoing obligations.  The Committee is expected to recommend a viable course to the City Council.

The BAFPC provides an important part in recommending direction for Piedmont finances.  Broadcasting on KCOM, live streaming via the City website, or recording of the meeting is not available.  The meeting is open to the public.

Regular Agenda

1. Review the Committee’s Sewer Fund Projections

2. Approve the Committee’s recommendation to City Council on refinancing the CalPERS Side Fund

3. Review the Committee’s recommendation on the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget & 5 year projections

4. Discuss Long Term Pension and Retiree Healthcare costs

Members of the BAFPC are: 

Mary Geong, Steven Hollis, Bill Hosler, Tom Lehrkind, Tim Rood

Council Liaison: John Chiang (H) 655-2959

Comments to the BAFPC may be sent via City Clerk John Tulloch at jtulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us

At the City Council 2013-14 Budget Work Session on May 11, information and questions were presented.

During the public forum, Tim Rood asked when Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) was going to repay the City for the $125,000 expenses promised in regard to Blair Park.  He also wanted to know when the City planned to spend its $500,000 portion of the Measure WW Park Bond funds.   And he inquired when the Piedmont Hills Utilities Undergrounding District (PHUUD) Board was going to pay their pledged amount of $1o0,000 to the City.  The City had contracted for the undergrounding project and allowed the risk and unexpected cost of  approximately $2.5 million to fall to all City taxpayers rather than the property owners in the PHUUD benefiting from the project.

City Administrator Geoff Grote, in his overview of the budget, emphasized the generally strong financial condition of the City.  Much of the City’s improved fiscal condition can be attributed to increased property tax revenues, the passage of the City parcel tax measure, and revenues from the property transfer tax.  As properties change hands, the City reaps a benefit of new valuations of property, plus the transfer tax.

The Police Department is proposing a new civilian position to handle administrative and Information Technology (IT) functions.  On June 3, a comprehensive Facilities Maintenance Inventory and Implementation Plan is due and will allow assessment of future needs.

Employee benefits and compensation costs continue to require control and monitoring. The City Sewer Fund, long a source of  funding for the Public Works Department and implementation of federally required improvements related to water quality, is experiencing a decreasing balance.  More information on the fund will be developed to allow the Council to consider further steps to remain in compliance with federal laws.

During the budget review, the Council directed staff to provide the following information:

• Recreation Department — include on a City Council agenda for next October, a report detailing: the impacts of the proposed increases in aquatic fees;  swim lesson revenue; a breakdown of aquatic City Council Budget Work Session related expenses; the cost associated with having the pool open for so many hours/days during the year; and how many lap swimmers utilize the pool on a regular basis.  The Schoolmates program does not pay for itself, consequently consideration will be given to increasing the hourly charge to users.

• Police Department  — consider for next fiscal year (FY 14-15) increasing Animal Control Officer fees for the City of Emeryville.

• Fire Department  — determine the cost effectiveness of modifying the
Department’s apparatus bay doors and driveway in order to increase the number of manufacturers that would be able to supply a fire ladder truck to the City and, as a consequence, generate more and potentially lower bids for fire truck purchase.  The fire house doors are lower than standard thus requiring custom built ladder trucks.

• Public Works Department — provide the number of miles of paved streets in town and how many of these streets were paved over the last 10 years.  Residents have frequently wondered when streets in disrepair would be repaved.

• Administration-– provide: historical data regarding full and parttime employee positions; a list of staffing positions that are currently vacant; cost estimates for: a City “mail-in ballot” process for municipal elections; and consolidating the City’s municipal election with the State’s general election; check with the County Registrar’s office if the City could have both a “mail-in” ballot process along with one polling place within the City.

• Non-Departmental — determine if: the proposed 5% increase in Workers Comp. Insurance premiums is sufficient for FY 13-14; whether the City has the option of being self-insured for Unemployment Insurance; and re-examine if the FY 11/12 figure
of $352,841 for Library is correct (page 2-a under Tab 1)

The Council appointed Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) has held several meetings to examine budget details.   CalPERS side fund, sewer fund, license plate readers, and other issues are being examined.  The BAFPC will make a formal recommendation to the City Council to be considered at the budget public hearings.  The Council’s first hearing is scheduled for June 3 and second June 17, at which time the budget is expected to be approved.

Comments on budget considerations can be sent to the City Council at:

Or email the entire City Council via the City Clerk at: tulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us

Click here to view the proposed budget.

Public Misses Out on Background of Issues –

Public meetings in Piedmont must meet the California Brown Act, known as a “sunshine” law. The City of Piedmont and the Piedmont Unified School District regularly provide required notice and agendas of meetings, and most City Commission, School Board, and City Council meetings can be viewed by the public at home via KCOM or live streaming through the City’s website.  These meetings are informative and important to public policy decisions.

A number of other public meetings, however, are not broadcast, primarily because the City Council Chambers at City Hall is the only public space equipped for KCOM broadcast.  Additionally, for some meetings, there are no minutes taken, audio recordings, or records kept.  Nonetheless, recommendations arising from these meetings often are the foundation of decisions by the City Council and the School Board.

Brown Act qualifying meetings typically not recorded or broadcast are:

City Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee

The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee was formed by the City Council to review and provide comment on five year projections contained in the City’s annual budget proposal, the proposed funding and expenditures from several long term funds, and the proposed mid-year budget adjustments. It also provides a financial review of new programs in excess of $250,000 per year. Click here to read the committee’s charge.

Council Liaison: John Chiang (H) 655-2959

Members: Mary Geong, Steven Hollis, Bill Hosler, Tom Lehrkind, Tim Rood

City CIP (Capital Improvement Projects) Review Committee  –

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

Council Liaison: Robert McBain (H) 547-0597
Staff Liaisons: Chester Nakahara (W) 420-3061 & Mark Feldkamp (W) 420-3064

Members: John Cooper, Ryan Gilbert, Nancy Lehrkind, Jeffrey St. Claire

City Council Budget Work Session –

The City Council meets with the City staff and discusses the staff proposed budget for the coming fiscal year. Summary minutes are approved by the City Council. 

Council: Mayor John Chiang, Vice Mayor Margaret Fujioka, Council members, Garrett Keating, Jeff Weiler, and Bob McBain

School District Budget Advisory Committee –

Under the direction of the Superintendent, a Program/Budget Advisory Committee reviews the financial health of the District’s General Fund budget, shares information with constituent groups, and makes recommendations for Board consideration in the budget development process. Members of the committee include representatives from each school site, employee associations (APT for teachers and CSEA for classified staff), administration, support groups, the community at-large, and the Board of Education. Members serve for one to two years. Those interested in serving on the standing committee should contact the Superintendent’s office.

List of members are not publicly released.

School Support Tax Advisory Subcommittee –

The committee  was required to be established by approval of  the SCHOOL SUPPORT TAX MEASURE A, MARCH 5, 2013 ELECTION.  This is a new committee and therefore has no  broadcast or recorded history.

The Subcommittee is an independent subcommittee of the PUSD Budget Advisory Committee (“BAC”). The BAC serves as a community forum for interested community members to receive up-to-date information about the District’s budget. All stakeholder groups, including the Parent and Support Clubs, Employee Associations (APT, CSEA and APSA), Piedmont Educational Foundation, and the community at large, are invited to participate in the BAC.

Members of the Subcommittee shall be active members of the BAC so that they will have current information and understanding of the District budget. However, the Subcommittee will operate independently of the BAC and report directly to the Board of Education.  In addition to the budget information provided to the BAC, the Subcommittee may request additional information relating to the budget or School Support Tax from the Assistant Superintendent for Business Services, who will be the primary point of contact for the Subcommittee.

The Subcommittee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Board of Education to help review and project the financial needs of the PUSD with respect to the levy of the voter approved School Support Tax. The Subcommittee shall conduct an independent examination of the District’s budget and related documents prior to making formal recommendations in its annual report to the Board.

The scope of work for the Subcommittee shall be limited to advice on whether and to what extent to levy the School Support Tax.

At this time appointments to the Subcommittee have not been made.

Procedures to be followed for Brown Act qualifying City and School meetings include:

Agendas and notices:

Legislative bodies of local agencies covered by the Brown Act must post an agenda for their meetings in a place that is freely accessible to members of the public at least seventy-two hours before the meeting. It also requires the legislative body to mail a copy of the agenda to anyone who has requested notice in writing. (A fee may pertain.)

Documents used during a meeting:

All public participants are entitled to inspect any writing or document distributed to members during a meeting. If a document was prepared by the governmental body itself, you are entitled to inspect it at the time of the meeting. If a document was prepared by someone else, you are entitled to inspect it after the meeting.

Documents distributed to a legislative body:

Distributed documents including emails, letters, memos, staff reports, consultant reports and other written methods are available to the public when requested.