– Goals, laptops, teacher organization, and Superintendent recruitment –

Piedmont High School student, Elizabeth Sweeney, reports on the December 10 Piedmont School Board Meeting.

On December 10, 2014 Piedmont Unified School District’s (PUSD) Board of Education met in City Hall. The Board consists of five elected members. Generally, the Board meets second and fourth Wednesday of every month at 7:00 pm.

According to PUSD, their mission “is dedicated to developing independent learners who are responsible, competent, and intellectually curious with a strong sense of self and community. Through quality instruction and shared leadership, the District will impart knowledge and promote creative and critical thinking in a safe, nurturing, and challenging environment” (Piedmont Unified School District). The Board attempts to make decisions based on students’ interests. Additionally, the Board is in charge of approving the school budget and employing all personnel.

After Ms. Kashani, the representative of the Association of Piedmont Teachers, updated the Board regarding the elementary school’s new schedule, Claire O’Connor informed the Board of current PHS activities. O’Connor, the vice-president of ASB and Student Representative to the Board, stated that there will be a blood drive on December 18th and that the soccer and basketball seasons have begun. Additionally, O’Connor stated the high school is very behind in the food drive compared to last year. In a follow up interview with O’Connor, she said, “I have to prepare everything I say a couple days in advance so the Board can read over it to make sure I don’t say anything controversial. If I plan to say anything controversial, I have to give them enough time to formulate a response.”

Superintendent Constance Hubbard said that school the following day will still occur, despite the fact that several schools across the bay area closed due to the anticipated storm. A large part of the Superintendent’s job is to prepare the school for possible storms; the storm drains were cleared, and staff was on call. Unique to most school districts, Piedmont does not have students who use public transportation or freeways to get to school, so safely arriving to school was not an issue for most.

The largest topic discussed at the meeting regarded the search process for a new Superintendent. First, the Board ratified the contract with Hazard, Young and Attea & Associates. Bill Levinson and Barbara Young, representatives of the search company, outlined the long and extensive search process in a powerpoint presentation. They are confident and comfortable with their unique process. In their career, they have found 19 successful Superintendents that comply well with the community.

Brent Daniels, Ting Hsu Engelman and Ryan Fletcher spoke about the Secondary Single Plans for Student Achievement after it was approved. Each school, including Piedmont High School, Millennium High School and Piedmont Middle School, had various goals set forth to achieve the districts’ desires. Principle Daniels of Piedmont High School had four main themes he presented. First: teacher and student learning with the integration of technology. Second: social development which emphasized on service learning. Third: Integrated learning with the effective teen. Fourth: Safe learning environment.

Almost all speakers emphasized the importance of connecting the student with the technological world, hence the integration of the Chromebooks, but only two of the four high school classes were given computers.  With this in mind, I asked, “Because you say that technology is so important, why weren’t all grades given Chromebooks?” Randall Booker, the Assistant Superintendent said in an immediate response that this was a learning year to see if the integration of laptops were an effective use of money, considering that it is an expensive experiment. The School District plans to give computers to all grades soon.

Participating in this meeting gave me a deeper understanding on how Piedmont Unified School District is organized. I learned that each member plays a key role in order to implement the students’ needs and desires. I also learned the importance of speaking up in order to get what you and your community want. Without expressing your wants, no change will occur!

 Elizabeth Sweeney

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

– Council approved the Recreation Department request to improve East Wing of Piedmont Center for the Arts and a Grand Avenue Conditional Use Permit. –

– Piedmont High School student Bryan Ford’s report on the January 5, 2015 Piedmont City Council Meeting –

 On Monday, January 5th, 2015, the Piedmont City Council met for the first meeting of the year in the City Hall Council Chambers. The Council meets on the first and third Mondays of every month to discuss issues related to the city. Residents of Piedmont are not only welcome to attend these meetings but encouraged to express their opinion on topics regarding Piedmont.

The following is a report by Piedmont High School student Joe Cumberlich on his observations of the Dec. 1, 2014 Piedmont City Council meeting.

On the night of December 1, 2014, I attended the Piedmont City Council meeting at the Piedmont City Hall on Vista Avenue. These meetings are held every other week throughout the year. Mayor Margaret Fujioka sits in the middle of the council members and leads the debates and motions for actions. In this specific meeting, representatives from the Piedmont Unified School District, and the Turkey Trot thanked the council for cooperation in their respective fundraising efforts.

The first topic that was extensively debated was agenda item number five, the consideration of an amendment to the use agreement with the Piedmont Center for the Arts to facilitate the installation of a disabled lift in the East Wing of the City’s building. This topic was clearly a priority of the City Council because the state requires wheelchair access in all buildings of this type. The issue of the lifts actual installation was the insurance costs brought on by the City, as well as the question of the quality of the lift itself. City Administrator Paul Benoit stressed the importance of the lift, as well as the quality of the lift itself. His points about quality were confirmed by Chester Nakahara the Director of Public Works for the City. The motion to purchase the lift passed and the Council decided to look at insurance at the end of the fiscal year.

Seventh on the agenda was a motion for the consideration of the award of the Linda Beach Field turf replacement project to Fieldturf USA in the amount of $222,204 and authorize the overall construction budget of $265,534. This conversation was obviously a great concern of Vice Mayor Jeffrey Wieler who extensively asked Fieldturf USA representative Andrew Reley about the safety of the materials, and the performance they have as both a playing surface and draining ability. I spoke on this topic because I’m an experienced user of field turf for various sporting events.

The proposed turf is made up of plastic grass and filled in with a mix of cork and sand. This mix is called ‘pure fill’ and is much more expensive than the traditional ‘crushed tire’ fill used at Witter Field. The City’s reasoning for this expense is the potential danger ‘crushed tire’ can have if consumed. Now a person would need to consume several cubic feet of the stuff for a lethal dose. Never the less the parents of small children will be fearful and will complain, making this a worthwhile expense for the City.

USA Fieldturf rep Andrew Reley explained his company’s success with their product, having installed thousands of fields globally. From elementary schools like Beach, to NFL and Pro Soccer fields.  I caught up with him after the meeting.

Me: Why were you at this meeting? What difficulties and problems brought you here?

Andrew: I was here to answer any questions for the City Council on the proposed turf at Beach Field.

Me: What’s the next step for this issue?

Andrew: Going forward we need to meet the needs of the community with prices that meet the budget of the City.

By Joe Cumberlich

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

The following is a Piedmont Unified School District student report on the City Council Meeting of November 17, 2014, written by Julia Ormond.

On Monday the 17th of November, the five city council members took their seats at exactly 7:30 pm and began their meeting with a discussion of the previous meeting’s minutes. As this conversation swiftly carried out, the minutes were approved and a couple more Piedmont citizens filed in to find their seats.

Once everyone was seated, Mayor Fujioka opened the floor for citizens to speak out on issues they felt needed to be heard. The first who stepped up to the podium was a man who introduced himself as Mr. Maggonas. Throughout his couple of minutes on the stand, Mr. Maggonas urged for a better relationship between Piedmont and Oakland, describing how we as a small town depend on Oakland, and thus need stronger ties with the large city. Mayor Fujioka thanked Mr. Maggonas for his contribution while other city council members nodded their heads in agreement.

Next to speak to the room was Claire Wong, a senior at Piedmont High School like myself. She explained a scenario that repeatedly occurrs on her walk home from school involving an unsafe crosswalk, and asked for the city council to consider a stop light on the street. The mayor scribbled some notes onto her paper and thanked Claire for bringing the problem to the council’s attention.

Next was my turn to speak out, and I explained a similar problem to Claire’s. I described the speeding on my street and asked for a stop sign somewhere along the long hill. The city council members encouraged me with smiles, once again taking notes on my ideas and thanking me for sharing when I was finished. The interaction between average citizen and city council member was not an intimidating one; the light atmosphere in the room allowed for an easy communication between the government and its citizens, which I appreciated.

When no other Piedmonters preferred to speak, the city council members moved on to their next topic of conversation, which was the Toys For Tots campaign. The Chief of the Fire Department, gentleman dressed in an official uniform, explained the importance of giving back to those less fortunate than those living in Piedmont. When he finished, a large bin was passed around and each city council member happily placed a fun toy or two into the bin to kick off the drive. A photographer took a couple photos, the city council members joyfully acknowledged the cute toys they each brought in, and the Chief thanked them all for participating.

Next to be invited to talk was a man named Tom Guarino, a PG&E representative traveling to cities of the Bay Area to talk about “Digging Month”. When I spoke to this man before the meeting started, he explained how he loved the job he did. With a smile on his face, Mr. Guarino described how interesting it was to travel to the different cities surrounding the Bay. Even though he was only there to speak to the city council, it was an enjoyable trip for him because he helped the people of each city become more conscientious.

Mr. Guarino’s job was to talk to the government of every city and explain the importance of calling PG&E before digging anywhere on one’s property. He stressed how digging without the knowledge of what’s underneath the surface can affect people throughout a district. A water pipe could be hit, and it could take days to fix the issue. Luckily, he said, Piedmont had not caused any digging problems in the past couple years, an accomplishment not many other towns could claim.

After his presentation to the city council members, Mayor Fujioka signed a document recognizing the requests of PG&E and officially named the month of November “Digging Month”. When I asked Mr. Guarino what he would be doing next, he said he would continue his travels until the end of the month, then return to his regular job of fixing downed power lines and broken water heaters throughout the Bay Area. As he left, he thanked Piedmont as a whole for its eager support.

Continuing the meeting, the city council members discussed an issue about a “conflict interest code” that concerned adding government workers and helpers onto a list that required these men and women to officially file the jobs they do for the city of Piedmont. While discussing the details of this code, Councilmember Rood chimed in with an idea to add the city engineer to that list. Although he did not officially work for the government, the engineer has advised the city of Piedmont consistently on multiple occasions. Luckily, the engineer already volunteers to file these papers when he does work for the government; in Rood’s mind it was a simple next step in the connection between the Piedmont government and the engineer himself.

Councilmember Wieler completely disagreed, arguing that putting the advising engineer, somebody who is part of a private business, on this list would be an invasion of privacy. Rood and Wieler continued to state their opinions, but in the end Rood convinced me when he said that there is nothing to hide between the engineer and the government; since he already files his government actions, why not make it official? I think that even just advising the government is important; it is not unnecessary to ask someone officially file the interactions. When put to vote, all agreed with Rood’s point of view, even Wieler, albeit reluctantly.

Once this discussion came to an end, the council members relaxed more and began discussing interesting things they had done in the past two weeks. Councilmember Rood told how he was interviewed by a few Boy Scouts on their way to gaining more badges. Mayor Fujioka explained her latest neighborhood safety meeting, stressing the importance of fostering a tight-knit and smart group of neighbors. Lastly, Councilmember Wieler advocated for an interesting art exhibition he saw in Oakland. As the lightweight conversation came to an end, the mayor once again thanked everyone who voiced their opinions during the meeting and officially ended the city council meeting with a strike of her gavel.

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

The School Board meets two times every month to discuss matters regarding the Piedmont Unified School District schools. During this meeting, the things discussed by the board included lice and vaccinations almost exclusively.  Board Vice President Sarah Pearson was very passionate and prolific on the topic of lice. In fact, this was the topic of a majority of the meeting. The board discussed how to deal with lice, chiefly in the elementary schools. The way they’ve been doing it since I was that age is having lice checks performed at school, and sending out a few email notifications to parents when a student turns up lice-positive.

Board member Amal Smith asked for clarification on how more notifications would be helpful, which is what Mrs. Pearson suggested, and the response was that awareness was when individual parents could choose to  lice check their own children.

Personally, I disagree with the notion that notifications are what help us keep our children lice-free. However, I do understand the school shifting the responsibility of lice-checking to the parents, especially since it would potentially illicit more thorough checks.

The other topic discussed was also a concern of health: vaccinations. Another member of the audience, District Nurse Joan Edelstein, spoke on both issues. She encouraged people to get their children vaccinated.

I spoke to another member of the audience, Ms. Kashani. She is the President of Piedmont Teacher’s Union, and while no specific difficulties brought her to the meeting, she tries to maintain a good relationship between the union and the board. She wants to keep a close eye on the conversation of the board, since they are the people who ultimately decide whether or not the members of the union get a raise. “It’s purely political,” she says. As she has no particular concerns, there is no next step for her.

I also spoke, although the topic I wanted to address was not on the agenda, and was therefore not discussed at the meeting. The issue was this: I requested that the Wellness Center provide free contraception.

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

The following is an article written by Piedmont High School student observer Minhong Yang. 

On Monday, November 3, 2014, the Piedmont City Council met in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7:30 sharp that evening for its semi-monthly meeting. Acting as the legislative branch of the city government, the council reviewed various proposals on issues that ranged from the street use permit for the annual Turkey Trot Race to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, most of which welcomed the members of the public to participate in the decision making process before the votes were casted by council members.

The major issue discussed at the meeting was the consideration of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (PBMP) as recommended by the Planning Commission. As one of Piedmont’s most comprehensive community based planning projects, PBMP’s goal is to promote safer and more convenient walking and bicycling in the city while paying special attention to the needs of school children. Since the summer of 2013, the City’s planning staffs, particularly Kate Black and Janet Chan, had been preparing this extensive plan based upon inputs received at 9 commission public hearings, 2 special sessions at community workshops, 2 online community surveys, several Piedmont Unified District Board meetings, and a number of other community outreach.

The final draft plan was introduced by Mr. Niko Letunic, the City’s transportation and planning consultant, through a detailed powerpoint presentation. According to Mr. Letunic, PBMP has received a $1.6 million fund from the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Covering a 10-year period, the plan contains a series of projects to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists throughout the city. Those that are the most important and promising physical improvements for improving conditions, such as bikeway network and enhanced street crossings at busy locations, are given high-priority; those that may be implemented if the city obtains additional funding, such as curb ramps and bollard lighting, are given low-priority. Most of these projects target the Civic Center, arterials, and routes to school.

Public testimony for PBMP was received from Sue Herrick, Park Commission Chair, and Nick Levinson, Recreation Commission Chair, who praised the plan for providing an excellent template for clear and consistent safety measures, as well as regulations for both pedestrians and school children with bicycles. They emphasized that the compelling concern is safety, particularly for school areas and major intersections, and voiced strong support for slowing traffic speeds. Tracey Woodruff, a resident of Piedmont, also showed strong support for PBMP, noting specifically how the road diet for Grand Avenue would help to protect school children when they cross this heavily-traveled area. Her opinion was concurred by Margaret Ovenden and Susy Struble, who also noted the need to reduce traffic congestion at school sites and the need to improve pedestrian and bike safety along areas not directly mentioned in PBMP, respectively. Finally, members of the council, including Tim Rood, Jeffrey Wieler and Robert McBain, all complimented the plan, and requested the City to work with the City of Oakland in implementing the Grand Avenue road diet, to pay more attention to sidewalk maintenance, and to work with community organizations in raising more money for improving pedestrian and bicycle pathways within the community. PBMP was then passed unanimously.

I personally support PBMP, mostly for its overall detailed layouts and efforts to improve students’ safety around school areas. In fact, this was the topic that I spoke about during the meeting. I voiced my hope to see street guards at both the middle school and high school to ensure students’ safety as well as to reduce traffic congestion. My concern was well-received by the council members, particularly the mayor, Margaret Fujioka. I was initially a little nervous about speaking in a city council meeting, but afterwards I felt that this experience was not scary but was rather pleasant and refreshing.

In an interview with Ms. Fujioka, she said the council is currently trying to reach out to the community by making announcement during the meetings, regularly putting up posts on the city’s website, and having more articles about city projects on The Piedmont Post in order to encourage more people to participate in the projects that the city is working on. She noted PBMP as an example of great public participation, and expressed her hope to see more of it in the future.

Minhong Yang

A Report on the Special Piedmont Planning Commission Meeting

– by Jordan Wong, a Piedmont Resident and PHS Student

The City of Piedmont Planning Commission met  on Thursday, October 30, 2014, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers for a special session.  This meeting’s purpose was to provide an update on the progress  on the state-mandated Draft Housing Element that all cities in California are required to comply with and submit.The Housing Element document’s purpose is to spell out the housing policies for all California cities from 2015-2022.

The City of Piedmont is small and has no land to further develop for any new housing. With the help of a private consultant, Barry Miller, the Planning Commission is able to include the addition of second units as a way to comply with the Housing Element. Part of the draft process is to allow residents to have the opportunity to provide comments or suggestions. There was no opposition from the Commission or audience about the progress and content of the draft at that meeting.

Barry Miller, a consultant  for  the City of  Piedmont, presented a detailed explanation of the draft and the Commission concurred with his findings and recommendations. Director of Planning, Kate Black, reported that she was happy with the working draft with Barry Miller’s work thus far in finding a way to comply with the State and preserving the landscape of Piedmont. Piedmont resident, Dimitri Magganas, from the audience, commended the Commission for their work on the Housing Element draft and wanted to bring to their attention that there was a lot of unused public space. It is unclear if this comment meant public space could be considered to add more housing or if there was a way to open up some of these public spaces for development.

In an interview with the Director of Planning, Kate Black, she said it was important for the public to be informed about the Housing Element’s progress. The special meeting was an update on the progress of the draft and if the public wanted to make any suggestions on what had been presented, that evening was a good time to do it. The next action of the Planning Commission is to present the Housing Element to the City Council for further action.

The topic I presented was on security cameras and the need for guidelines and/or regulations for their placement and installation. This is an ongoing issue in my neighborhood and I really feel that there is a privacy issue that should be addressed by the Planning Commission.  Director of Planning, Kate Black, acknowledged my concern and said that they will be reviewing and updating the Code soon and will add my request to their agenda. I was a little nervous about speaking in public, but the Commission members were very nice and appeared to pay attention to what I had to say about the security cameras. Personally, I think they were surprised that I was there and had an issue to present.

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

The following is the text of Mr. Wong’s comments to the Planning Commission.

“Hello, my name is Jordan Wong, I am a senior at Piedmont High. This is an item that is not on your agenda this evening. I observed the Planning Commission uses design review for home remodeling and fences. Do you foresee adding design review for home security cameras in the future? There is a proliferation of security cameras on so many homes in Piedmont. I suggest there should be some guidelines for placement. They are not only unattractive but they stick out like a sore thumb which some may find interesting because there is so much input needed for a fence but nothing for a camera.  I bring this up particularly as I feel there is an invasion of privacy in my own backyard. A home for sale behind my house, currently unoccupied, had security cameras installed. One in particular looks down into our backyard. As you can understand, I feel it is an invasion of privacy and I would like a review of security camera placement requirements of either a permit or a design review. Thank you.”

To the Piedmont City Council:                                                                                                                                                          October 20, 2014

Congratulations to the new members of the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC).  Expanding the size of the committee is probably wise given the many long-term financial challenges facing the city. Alternatively, eliminating the explicit addition of members to conduct a biennial review of the municipal parcel tax is not advisable given the important role this volunteer review has served in maintaining citizen support for the tax.

  I have commented before that subsuming the role of the Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC) to the BAFPC is not wise – the committees by definition took different views of city annual and long-term financial needs, to the betterment of city budgeting and fiscal planning.  In fact, it was the 2011 MTRC that recommended the establishment of a committee to look at the long-term financial needs of the city.  By overburdening the BAFPC, the biennial review of city services will likely not be as comprehensive as was undertaken by the MTRC.  The review of city services is especially called for given two recent developments:

            – Recommendations from the 2011 MTRC report:           “The committee recommends that the City undertake a prioritizing of City services and modify the detailed budget presentation designating certain services (costs, etc) as “mission-critical” and other services as not in that category in order to assist future Councils to create a priority of funding.   The City should adopt formal objectives for the appropriate fund balance levels of funds related to capital and equipment replacement and use these levels as guidelines in allocating revenues.”  These two unanimous MTRC recommendations are meant to assist Council with annual budgeting for city services but have not been undertaken.

– Annual property transfer tax receipts: Piedmont has realized unprecedented property transfer tax receipts these past two years. The trend in this revenue source needs to be examined and considered by Council when setting the annual tax rate for city services.

Finally, the role of the BAFPC in reviewing the sufficiency of the Municipal Services Special Tax (Parcel Tax) needs to be clarified.  As the Piedmont City Code indicates, the purpose of the parcel tax is to provide annual municipal service levels that Council considers are necessary:

SECTION 20B.2 AUTHORIZATION TO LEVY SPECIAL MUNICIPAL TAX –

If in any fiscal year commencing on or after July 1, 2013, the City Council shall determine that municipal services, including, but not limited to, police and fire protection, street maintenance, building regulations, library services, recreation, parks maintenance, planning and public works and similar services, are necessary for the public good, welfare and safety, and that the cost of making available such services will exceed the amount of funds generated through other revenue and income of the City for such services, then it may levy a special tax for such fiscal year on each parcel of real property within the City in a manner provided herein. This is a non-ad valorem parcel tax which, pursuant to California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 3, shall be deemed a special tax as defined pursuant to Section 53721 of the California Government Code.

The purpose of the tax is not to meet the “ongoing financial needs of the city” such as unmet pension and retiree health care obligations.   No doubt BAFPC may consider other revenue sources to meet those needs but the parcel tax should not be part of that consideration.  I recommend that you modify the resolution with the following text:

e)            Periodically review and comment on the sufficiency of the Municipal Services Special Tax (Parcel Tax) to address the municipal services levels of City. This charge shall be accomplished not later than eighteen (18) months prior to the expiration of the tax as set forth in Chapter 20B of the City Code.

Garrett Keating, Former City Council Member and Public Safety Committee Member

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