Click on picture to view video.

The following is a letter from a Piedmont resident.

 At the September 4 City Council Open Forum, Councilman McBain cut off Aaron Salloway’s remarks concerning City financial matters which included comments specific to the City retaining an outside negotiator and advisor for all future employee negotiations. Mr. McBain declared  such discussion was not City business and was merely election posturing. Mr. McBain wished to stop any further comments from Mr. Salloway. City Attorney Tom Curry disagreed and opined that Aaron’s remarks related to City business and can be allowed. Evidently Councilman McBain wishes to curtail our First Amendment rights, alter the long history of open forum in Piedmont and stop residents from addressing the Council as to how their taxpayer money is spent.

At the same Open Forum Ryan Gilbert stated that the City has provided false information on the proponent ballot rebuttal argument. The offending statement is the closing remark of the proponent rebuttal, that the City Council has unanimously endorsed the Measure Y parcel tax. This is a misstatement as the Council passed no resolution in that regard and has not unanimously endorsed the Parcel Tax. The error was then publicly acknowledged by City Administrator Grote, Mayor Chiang and the rebuttal’s author, Councilman Wieler. Asked directly by Mr. Gilbert,  Mr. Grote stated the City will take no action to correct the ballot and declared that residents could go to Court to correct the matter.

The City has placed the burden and the responsibility of correction of the City generated rebuttal misstatement on the voters. The sanctity of the ballot box is fundamental to our Democratic system, yet the City will take no action to remove false information which it created. The City should obtain a writ to remove the offending language from the ballot. Short of that the City can notify voters by a city wide mailer. To do otherwise indicates that City Hall will provide false information to voters and will take no action to remove the misstatement.

Rick Schiller

September 5, 2012

Editors’ Note:  All Council agendas include: “Public Forum – This is an opportunity for members of the audience to speak on an item not on the agenda. The 10 minute period will be divided evenly between those wishing to address the Council.” See the September 4 meeting draft minutes page 1.

The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

Piedmont is faced with uncontrolled liabilities –

The 5 majority members of the Municipal Tax Review Committee are to be thanked for presenting some unpleasant, yet hugely important, information concerning the financial situation of our lovely Piedmont.  Here are some of the surprising … and scary… facts which I was previously not aware of, and I suspect many of the other readers also may not be aware:

1)        Piedmont has a $40 million un-funded employee benefit liability; which is about $10,000 for every Piedmont household, or looking at it another way, is $400,000 for every full time position within the Piedmont city government.  (Note: this is an un-funded liability!)

2)        The Piedmont city employee fringe benefit costs are now nearly 60% of their employee salary, and this has grown from 33% in 2004.  (This is huge growth; especially in these difficult times.)

3)        The dollar difference between the current 60% fringe benefit costs as a percent of the employee’s salary costs versus the 2004 amount of 33% equates to about $1.9 million dollars per year.

4)        The Parcel Tax, if passed, will generate revenue of about $1.6 million dollars, which is similar to the $1.9 million amount being paid annually which is in excess to the amount being spent in 2004.

5)        To tie things together, it is clear the Parcel Tax revenue of $1.6 M is needed to pay for the yearly excess fringe benefit of $1.9 M.

Based on all the above, it seems clear to me that we should not be passing the City Parcel Tax (Municipal Services Tax).  Further, that the Piedmont City Council should implement actions to bring Piedmont’s employee fringe benefits down to an affordable level, and do so while maintaining the quality and quantity of our existing services.

David Schmidt, Piedmont Resident

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

I have read the arguments for and against the extension of the parcel tax, and was struck by the seeming contradiction between some of the City’s recent actions and the arguments in favor of renewing the parcel tax. > Click to read more…

Argument by Parcel Tax Opponents Misrepresented –

Title: PIEDMONT POST QUESTIONABLE REPORTING
Letter submitted to the Piedmont Post and Piedmont Civic Association:

Dear Editor:

Journalism 101 teaches that reporter’s opinions belong in the Op Ed section of a newspaper and that news articles should be factual.

Case in point:  the August 29th issue lead article (“Parcel Tax Arguments and rebuttals argue its necessity”) by Paisley Strellis contains this statement:  “In reading them one significant difference of opinions becomes clear:  those in favor of the tax believe it is essential to Piedmont maintaining its current level of services.  Those opposed to the tax believe it is not essential.”  Ms. Strellis interjected her personal opinion into what was supposed to be a news article.

Her claim is an opinion and not objective reporting.  I read the Parcel Tax ballot argument (buried on page 34 of a 36-page newspaper) and found nothing in the opposition’s arguments that support the statement that they “believe it (maintaining current level of services) is not essential.”  The No on Y proponents’ key position is this:  “The Council has so far ignored the most serious recommendations presented.  Ill-advised spending continues on its upward trend …. We are not opposed in principle to parcel taxes.  If the Council takes needed actions to control costs, we will support one for essential purposes in the future.”  Please show me and rest of your readers how those statements can be judged to be saying that the No on Y proponents do not believe it essential to maintain a current level of services.

The last paragraph of Ms. Strellis’ article states”  “While those opposed to the tax claim that the city has done little to curtail expenses, several members of the City Council asserted at their July 2 meeting that the city has made significant progress in reigning in finances.”  The factual silence after that was deafening!

There have been two letters to The Post (mine was one) requesting that the City Council inform the public of their “Plan B” in the event that Measure Y does not pass. An informed citizenry needs facts in order to make an intelligent voting decision.  The silence on any Plan B (certainly the City Council has discussed something along that line — hasn’t it?) is also deafening.

The voters and citizens of Piedmont deserve more transparency in city government.  When may we expect it?

Thank you,

Jim McCrea

A majority of 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee Members Speak Out –

Representing the majority of the 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC), we note the proposed Memorandum of Understanding with the Piedmont Police Officers Association (item #2 on tonight’s agenda) and a related resolution for the police captains (item #3). Our report to the Council nearly a year ago concluded that it was essential for the city to cap its expenses for employee benefit costs at the then-current level of $5.1 million annually. Since then, additional expenses in 2011-12 and the 2012-13 budget adopted by the Council have increased benefit costs by more than $600,000 or about 12%. We have heard commitments from the city administration and individual Council members that the contracts now under negotiation would address the problem of out-of-control budgets.

> Click to read more…

Council Member Keating Highlights Change to New Athletic Fund Plan.  This matter will be discussed tonight, Monday July 16.  –

The Athletic Facilities Replacement Fund on Monday’s agenda has changed significantly from that initially proposed in October, 2011. The principal change is that the $25 fee will apply only to participants in sports activities administered through the Piedmont Recreation Department. Members of the private sports organizations will not be charged the fee when using city facilities – Linda Beach Field, Coaches Field, Hampton Field and the Swimming Pool. Based on this revision, annual revenues of the fund are projected to decline from $145,000 per year to $68,000 per year.

Garrett Keating, Piedmont City Council Member

PCA LINKS:  PCA Article and City Staff Report

Opportunities Abound for Greater Community Use of KCOM

A year and a half ago, I wrote an opinion piece for the Piedmont Civic Association (PCA) about the viability of KCOM, Piedmont’s community television station; could it and should it be revived to its former relevance:  http://www.piedmontcivic.org/2011/02/09/opinion-should-kcom-be-revived/  

Briefly, the piece outlined the origin of KCOM, which began in 1984 when Piedmont had two cable stations: a government station and an educational station.   The Chief of Police managed the government station, which included supplying city news and safety updates, and a teacher in the High School managed the Piedmont Unified School District’s station, which included filming sports, student generated programs and performances.  After a few years, the School District station closed, because it took too much additional time for one teacher to supply content for a TV channel AND teach.  Likewise, the city’s station was turned over to a professional film producer and volunteer, Polly Rich.  Polly not only anointed ‘KCOM’ its acronym (the ‘com’ is for community), but she got the station up and running with a Board to oversee the station’s mission and yearly goals including fund-raising drives, and built an energetic volunteer base to produce local content.  After awhile, Polly found that she too was putting in 40+ hour weeks and requested a stipend.  Piedmont’s new City Administrator, Geoff Grote, appointed city employee, Marietta Blessent, to then oversee the station.  > Click to read more…

New Vision for Piedmont’s Blair Park-

Recently, there have been many suggestions for Blair Park in the local media. Some credible and some ridiculous. If one thing is for sure, it is time for a “New Vision” to emerge for Piedmont’s Blair Park. This should be a plan that is modest in scope, has a cost that is appropriate in the context of Piedmont City budget priorities, and involves extensive public participation through a transparent process.

Any new plan should consider the current status of Blair Park.  The considerations for a development plan can be summarized as follows:

Arterial Robustness and Safety

Moraga Avenue is a critical traffic artery, but has vulnerabilities, particularly under stressed circumstances. Any development should at least maintain the arterial aspect of the avenue, and more desirably, enhance it.

Moraga Avenue in its present condition has safety issues related to uphill bicycle traffic and the use of the few parking spaces that exist. An improvement in both these safety areas is desirable, and the need for such improvements, by themselves, provides motivation for limited development solutions.

Moraga Avenue is also dangerous for any pedestrian attempting a crossing. Development plans should not have any effect that specifically encourages pedestrians to cross the street.

Aesthetic

Blair Park is inherently beautiful, but has been neglected and is being used as a dumping site. Intelligent and forward-looking attention to maintenance basics is already needed. Blair Park is also considered a gateway to Piedmont. Attention to aesthetics and related issues such as tree health go hand-in-hand with consideration of development options. Any development plans should have a natural open space character and contribute to a parkway style aesthetic.

Public Accessibility and Use

As it is now, Blair Park is nominally accessible and is used to a very limited extent. It would generally be in the interest of the community to improve safe accessibility. With appropriate and carefully planned development, Blair Park can easily absorb a modest increase in use.

Environmental and Topographical

Blair Park enjoys and provides a rich environment for native vegetation – plant community and the appropriate wildlife habitat that should be preserved and restored to a rich level of ecological diversity. The ecologically rich, elongated, and meandering site is suitable for incorporating many diverse elements as the community members may decide under the guidelines of “Bay Friendly Landscaping Principles” that embody community values for health and safety, wildlife, and the environment.

Development by the Community

The developmental direction of Blair Park needs to be community-based. Any development needs to be attentive to real world budgetary constraints, and can be staged over a period of time. There is an opportunity for private-public partnerships, but development is fundamentally a Piedmont City project, and should be run in a transparent manner, with abundant opportunity for the community to contribute to the planning.

As resources become scarce in the urban environment, the inhabitants of the land need to learn and practice new ways of stewarding the land. Blair Park gives us in Piedmont an opportunity to venture on a path where, unified, we can create a project that exemplifies this new way of thinking about our environment, and fosters a real sense of community.

Piedmont has an opportunity to develop Blair Park in a way that accords with an emerging vision of public space, with community feedback. We therefore invite community engagement regarding the tenets of a mission underlying a development plan for Blair Park, defining the structural foundational elements for such a plan, and broadly seek community ideas and participation on development of features and amenities within the Park.

Let us hear from the Community at large, the Garden Clubs, Piedmont Connect, and the wider School Community, and regional stakeholders. Please give your opinion, your ideas and your suggestions. You can write to Piedmont Civic Association at editors@piedmontcivic.org or e-mail your comments to blairpark2012@gmail.com

Sinan Sabuncuoglu

Piedmont Resident

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

Piedmont resident Michael Henn comments on generous retirement  for Piedmont and Pleasant Hill Police Chiefs- 

I have simply cut and pasted a letter from the CC Times [Contra Costa Times] today [June 21, 2012] about Pleasant Hill’s Police Chief retiring and that city’s need to select a new one. I doubt that I could have said it any better than this letter’s author whom I do not know. To reflect Piedmont’s situation, wherever it says Pete Dunbar, put in John Hunt, and you can substitute Idaho for Colorado and you would have it fit rather well. I note that the Piedmont Post failed to give Mr. Hunt’s age, only that he had worked as a police officer for 25 years. So if, say, he started at 25, after college, he would be 50.

Editors Note: Mr. Henn refers to a June 21 letter by Bill Fraser of Lafayette to the Contra Costa Times (excerpts below) in which he notes a comment by Pleasant Hill Police Chief Pete Dunbar regarding Dunbar’s forthcoming retirement.

“Not to pick on Dunbar, who was cited as having done ‘an outstanding job,’ but for a 51-year-old man to state that ‘it doesn’t make sense to keep working’ with base compensation of $193,000 tells us everything that is wrong with the current system.

“Pleasant Hill needs a new police chief, who will also look to retire a few years down the road when eligibility for a full pension arrives.

“It would be interesting to know how many police chiefs are being paid in retirement by various towns around our broader community. Our system in the public sector is not sustainable.  Recent votes in Wisconsin, San Jose and San Diego show that the public is starting to understand.”

(Editors’ Note: The letter above is excerpted to respect the Contra Costa Times’ copyright.  Read the complete letter.)

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

In his last two “Piedmontage” columns in the Piedmont Post, Councilmember Jeff Wieler argues that the City has solved the problem of employee benefit costs and that City finances are in good shape.  He criticizes those who see the issue otherwise as “glass half-empty” types.  Sadly, Jeff is ignoring some critical facts:

•       The new City budget is up by $389,000, and 94% of that growth is due to increases in the cost of employee benefits.  Overall, benefit costs are up by 6%, but 12% for the police.  Benefits are at an all-time 26% of the total City budget.  Every $100 of salary is accompanied by almost $60 of benefits.

•       The recent report by the City’s Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee estimates that the unfunded liability for employee future benefits is about $40 million, which is twice the City’s annual budget.  This comes to about $400,000 for every current City employee, an amount that would shatter Jeff’s metaphorical glass.  Or about $10,000 for every household in town.

Jeff asserts that the City did not go to the current high benefits until 2008.  In reality, the City committed to them in 2003 and proposed to double the parcel tax in 2004 to cover the costs.  That doubling [of the parcel tax] was turned down by voters, but the benefit commitments went ahead anyway.

Jeff also asserts that critics of excessive benefits want City employees to work for nothing, which is absolute nonsense.  But given that Piedmont’s benefits are among the richest in the state, it is not unreasonable to expect employees to cover future cost increases.

Jeff’s point is that the City has done all it can to control benefits and we need to renew the parcel tax to keep the City budget healthy.  Then, predictably, he asserts that failure of the parcel tax vote will cost the City its 3-minute ambulance response time.  I’m not arguing against the parcel tax, but it has nothing to do with the 3-minute response – that is entirely a function of City geography, boundaries and the location of the fire station.

But one could conclude that if the City truly controlled its benefit costs, it might be able to reduce the parcel tax.  That’s a glass half-full I could drink to.

Michael Rancer
Chair
2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee

 

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