The following letter was provided to PCA:

Mayor Chiang:

Please allow me to raise a couple of points regarding your letter last week (January 24th) published in the Montclarion regarding the Pension Bond proposal.

Whether or not bonds will actually save the City money remains an open question. Of the several municipalities (public entities) who have taken this venture, most, for a variety of reasons, have not done well.

What you suggest regarding the vote count (requiring a two thirds voter approval) is problematic. Although it (2/3) complies with the Constitutional debt limit, altering the measure at this late time (long after the Election Code statutory time limit provisions) is prohibited.  The Code clearly does not allow for any type of alteration or modification to the measure, especially a substantive and material change as you suggest. Clearly, the bond measure is fatally flawed. 

Neither is judicial “validation”  (CCP secs. 860 et seq.) an option.  The City was correct in the first instance (Ordinance No. 711 N.S.) that the City’s charter provision (Section 4.14) requiring an affirmative vote of the electorate precludes an action under the validation statutes. Further, even without the prohibitive charter language, considering the recent court rulings, it cannot be shown that the obligation is one, “required by law” thereby eliminating the validation process.    

D. E. Mix

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

RISK ASSESSMENT POLICY: What comes first fundraising or City agreement on accepting project funding? – 

A key element running through the new policy is the “determination of balance”- checkpoints where project cost estimates developed by city staff are compared with available funding for the project. The first determination is done by staff and if balance is found, staff must seek authorization from City Council to hire a consultant for implementation of the next phases. As complexity and detail are added to the project, multiple determinations of balance between staff and consultant cost estimates are made and if balance is found, Council authorization is requested to move onto the next phase. Council authorization will occur at a public meeting so the public will be aware of project progression. And it is at these checkpoints that the formal risk management analysis of the project and how each risk is proposed to be mitigated or managed is presented to the public. Cost and risk are to be estimated at each checkpoint.

For public/private partnerships, it is not clear how these determinations of balance are to be conducted. For public/private projects, the procedure stipulates: “If donations are anticipated for the project, [the city will] enter into an agreement with the private party proponents that specifies how the donations for the project are to be collected, held, and disbursed for the project development.” That makes senses but do all private donations have to be in hand at the time of the determinations of balance? That has not been the practice – project approval usually preceeds fundraising – so this area of the procedure needs further clarification.

Garrett Keating, Piedmont City Council Member

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

Piedmont League of Women Voters forum statements –

A January 15, 2014 article in the Piedmont Post entitled “City Council candidates provide some answers in League-led forum,” contains two significant errors. The article both misidentified and misquoted me, and in doing so distorted the substance of my response to a question at the forum about fire department staffing levels.

First, I was not a member of the Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC), which completed its work in 2011. I am  a member of the City’s Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee.

The direct quotation attributed to me in the article omitted, without ellipsis, the core of my response: that, following the recommendation of the MTRC to consider service efficiencies in all departments, including fire, the Council had later asked the then-fire chief for his opinion, and that he had responded that he would not recommend reducing fire staffing levels. That opinion by former Chief Tubbs is what I referred to when I said we had a new chief now but nothing had changed significantly.

Piedmont’s high-quality public services are essential to its high quality of life, and I deeply regret any confusion the Post’s misquotation may have caused among voters regarding my position on an essential public service at a time when many ballots are being cast.

I urge Piedmont voters to view the KCOM rebroadcasts or the online video of the candidate forum, which is available on the City of Piedmont website under KCOM/On-Line Video/Other Public Meetings, to hear my complete and unedited response to this and other questions.

Tim Rood, City Council Candidate

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose candidates for public office.  Information on candidates and their campaigns are welcomed.

 

– Financial knowledge and years of experience –

The residents in our fair city have benefited from a long line of dedicated City Council members, including current office holders: John Chiang, Margaret Fujioka, Garrett Keating, Bob McBain and Jeff Wieler.  The range of talent in past and current members have helped steer Piedmont through flush and lean economic periods while maintaining an excellent level of city services.  Not an easy act to pull off.  And while increased revenues from higher home sales and other sources have helped offset rising operating costs – not to mention greater expenditures for personnel, the newly formed City Council along with our TBD City Administrator will face some tough fiscal and planning decisions ahead.

And it’s this fiscal showdown – a showdown municipalities across the country are facing with growing pension obligations matched with increased costs of running a city, aging infrastructures, transportation systems and technology – that I welcome the addition of Tim Rood to our City Council.

Holding dual advanced degrees in Architecture and City Planning from Cal, Rood has successfully managed multidisciplinary consulting teams in numerous cities, tackling just these issues: fiscal responsibility with demands for change and growth.  Integrating new demands for LEED accreditation in green neighborhood design, as well as accommodating more pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and installing greater safety measures in small and large communities, including Oakland, Martinez, San Rafael and Healdsburg, Tim’s experience is all about working with a range of professionals committed to making cities run well for its residents.  Coming off a two-year stint volunteering on our Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee, Tim Rood’s broad experience in civic planning will be a terrific addition to our Council and I urge neighbors to vote for him.

Denise Bostrom, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose candidates for public office. Information on candidates and their campaigns are welcomed.

Resident Rick Schiller recommends contract change:

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

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

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

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

The following letter was sent to the Piedmont Civic Association questioning the cost of additional taxpayer obligations to pay for Piedmont High School Auditorium upgrades.

Dec. 10, 2013

PUSD School Board
c/o Constance Hubbard

re: 12/11/2013 Item 6B Bond Election Presentation

Dear President and Board,

In all likelihood the Board will go forward with a bond measure to be approved by Piedmont Taxpayers to finance improvements to Allen Harvey Theatre (“AHT”). I previously suggested that the Board be mindful of the already very high Piedmont taxpayer burden and keep that burden stable by delaying further bond debt. While my concern for overall taxpayer cost remains, floating a bond that will delay bond payments is undesirable.

Delaying taxpayer burden by the use of Capital Appreciation Bonds (“CABS”) essentially burdens taxpayers with what amounts to a negative amortizing mortgage with an above market interest rate. While CABs make the passage of bonds easier for public agencies, the use of CABs is now being questioned by a number of agencies and knowledgeable taxpayers.

With CABs, the total cost becomes substantially greater as both interest is added to principal and excess interest premiums are necessary to attract investors. If AHT is to be rebuilt through floating a bond measure, taxpayers should know and be willing to pay that cost now and not pass on an increased tax burden down the road for themselves or future residents. The assumption by KNN Public Finances that modest appreciation of home values will continue so modest increases in bond payments will be “net zero” is unrealistic. The recent sharp downturn in the Real Estate market from 2007 to 2012 contradicts KNN’s assumption.

Kindly only consider an approach that lets Piedmont taxpayers understand the real cost now and whether we are willing to pay that cost.

Respectfully,

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

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

The following letter was sent to Mayor John Chiang prior to the December 2, City Council meeting when the Council approved the Mixed Use zoning change for Zone D Commercial.

Item #3 – 2nd Reading of Ordinance 712 N.S. – Amending Chapter 17 Correspondence Received before 4:30 PM on Monday, December 2nd

Dear John,

I read with great alarm that the City Council is considering adopting a policy which will allow the city to bypass current zoning laws by implementing the Conditional Use Permit process to change commercial and single family mixed use zoning to commercial and multi-family use.

While it appears that the proposal at the moment is limited to the Grand Avenue business corridor, I am very concerned that creating a precedence for bypassing the zoning here will provide precedence to take similar action in other areas of the city, especially when it would appear that this recommendation is the result of pressure from state regulators. It would certainly be a terrible thing to allow this process to permit multi-family development in the heart of the city in the commercial area adjacent to City Hall or in any residential neighborhood.

These concerns stem from the cavalier comments attributed to temporary counsel and the new deputy city attorney that changing from single family to multi-family is not a zoning change because “residential is residential.” This is absurd, and one only need look at the neighborhoods bordered by Oakland Avenue, near Plymouth Church, to see how these once lovely neighborhoods have been ruined. If this is truly the attitude of our new city attorneys, the city needs new lawyers, ones who are sensitive to this community and the desires of its citizens.

Further, while permitting the commercial Grand Avenue corridor to become a mixed use of multi- family residential and commercial may ultimately be a positive thing, this is an issue which should be put to the voters. Allowing this to occur under a Condition Use Permit process establishes a dangerous precedent, especially if one is to believe the construction changing from single to multi-family is not a zoning change as “residential is residential.” It is simply not true. It appears that the state is exerting undue pressure on city staff to ignore the law as it exists in this city. Where is the legal precedence to support this position? This is unacceptable. We should be providing support to the staff to stand firmly in support of the zoning that is presently in place.

At the meeting on December 2, 2013, I would ask that city counsel take a moment to review the city charter which provides in pertinent part:

“The City of Piedmont is primarily a residential city, and the City Council shall have power to establish a zoning system within the City as may in its judgement be most beneficial. The Council may classify and reclassify the zones established, but no existing zones shall be reduced or enlarged with respect to size or area, and no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election. No zone shall be reduced or enlarged and no zones reclassified unless a majority of the voters voting upon the same shall vote in favor thereof; provided that any property owner which is zoned for uses other than or in addition to a single family dwelling may be voluntarily rezoned by the owners thereof filing a written document executed by all of the owners thereof under penalty of perjury stating that the only use on such property shall be a single-family dwelling, and such rezoning shall not require a vote of the electors as set forth above. ” City Charter . Emphasis added.

It is clear that any reclassification of the existing zoning must be approved by the City Council and must also be approved by the electorate. The staff’s recommendation of a Conditional UsePermit to circumvent existing zoning is not an acceptable solution, with or without pressure from the state to do so. The council should not yield to this pressure.

Best regards,
Anne Gritzer

Editors’ Note:  The opinions are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  The letter is posted on the City website. 

What is our legacy?

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

Tim Rood

The following is a press release from Tim Rood:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Rood

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