The City Charter calls for the City Council to elect a Mayor and a Vice Mayor. The Former Mayor resigned the position leaving the seat vacant not “absent or disabled.” 

Piedmont currently has two Vice Mayors, Vice Mayor Jeff Wieler, called the acting mayor, and Vice Mayor Bob McBain. Both Wieler and McBain hold the Council elected position of Vice Mayor.

The Council did not rescind Wieler’s election as Vice Mayor prior to electing a second Vice Mayor, McBain, at the July 5, 2016 Council meeting. Two Vice Mayors are not authorized by the City Charter. Additionally, there is no position designated in the Charter as an “Acting Mayor” to fill a vacancy.

The newly coined title of “Acting Mayor” lacks the recognition that “Mayor of Piedmont” presents.

Jeff Wieler should be elected by the Council to be the Mayor of Piedmont with Bob McBain, continuing as the Vice Mayor. 

The vacancy in the Mayor position was created when former Mayor and Council member Margaret Fujioka was elected Alameda County Superior Court Judge in June 2016 and unexpectedly resigned  on June 21, 2016.  Fujioka is not “absent or disabled.” She is no longer on the City Council and has no standing on the Council.  Her former position as Mayor/Council member is vacant not “absent or disabled.”

The Piedmont City Charter states:

SECTION 2.08 MAYOR  Following each general municipal election, the City Council shall elect from among its member officers of the City who shall have the titles of Mayor and Vice-Mayor, each of whom shall serve at the pleasure of the Council. The Mayor shall preside at meetings of the Council, shall be recognized as head of the City government for all ceremonial purposes and by the Governor for the purposes of military law, but shall have no administrative duties. The Vice-Mayor shall act as mayor during the absence or disability of the Mayor. In case of the temporary absence or disability of both the Mayor and Vice-Mayor, the Council shall select one of its members to serve as Mayor Pro Tempore. Emphasis added.

_________________

The draft July 5, 2016 Council minutes state:

Election of Vice Mayor

City Administrator Benoit stated Vice Mayor Wieler had assumed the office of Acting Mayor, leaving the office of Vice Mayor vacant. He recommended the election of a Vice Mayor to ensure continuity in case the Acting Mayor is absent or otherwise unable to perform his duties. Mr. Benoit indicated that the Vice Mayor elected tonight would serve until the certification of the results of the November 8, 2016 General Municipal Election.

Public Testimony was received from: Dimitri Magganas indicated support for Mr. McBain serving as Vice Mayor.   The Council discussed Councilmember McBain’s leadership skills.

Resolution 62-16 RESOLVED, that the City Council City Council elects Robert McBain to serve as Vice Mayor of the City of Piedmont until the results of the November 8, 2016 General Municipal Election are certified. Moved by King, Seconded by Rood Ayes: King, McBain, Rood, Wieler Noes: None

The following letter was sent to the Piedmont Planning Commission re: July 11 Agenda Item 9; City Code Chapter 17 Modifications proposals. 

Honorable Commission,

       The City Charter states “no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election (p. 22).” The staff report recommends allowing in Zone B “for-profit entities because the City may want to allow a community-serving business, such as a local newspaper or beverage stand, to operate out of a City building (p3 of 2016-07-11 Report)”. Currently for-profit entities are not allowed in Zone B in the public zone. As zoning is the critical mandate in controlling land use, I believe a City wide vote is needed to allow this fundamental change to allow for-profit in Zone B.

     I ask for clarification and I ask the Commission to obtain clarification from staff as to what is the threshold and definition of zone reclassification and why the addition of “for-profit” is not reclassification.

     Should a for-profit business be allowed, there are deserving segments of our community that have been identified in the General Plan. The 801 Magnolia building might be ideal for a teen or senior center.  Additionally, a café for the Piedmont Center for the Arts also has wide appeal.

     The term “community-serving business” must also embody that all segments of the community are given equal treatment. The reference in the staff report to “local newspaper” can only be the wholly Piedmont serving local newspaper, the Piedmont Post. While the Post does a proper job of reporting sports and social events, Piedmont Post publishing ethics do not include objective reporting on the passage of taxes, potential taxes and how tax dollars are used. The Piedmont Post has a sharply skewed editorial bias in support of City Hall actions. Those who oppose city taxes are shut out from virtually any space in the Post and/or opposition comments are grossly misreported. The many who opposed the partially taxpayer funded “no taxpayer cost” Blair Park Sports Complex were denied equal access in the Post.

     I suggest removing the recommendation for a “local newspaper” in Zone B. Another option in the interest of transparency is to substitute “Piedmont Post” for “local newspaper” and remove “community-serving business.”

Respectfully,

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Following is a letter sent to the Piedmont Planning Commission regarding a proposal to allow for-profit uses of public properties.  The matter will be considered at the July 11, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.

Staff is recommending that you consider language changes to “Zone B: Public Buildings – Uses and Regulations” of Chapter 17 to allow for-profit businesses in city buildings.

As rationale, staff suggests that these businesses be “community-serving” businesses.  I recommend you direct staff to not adopt such language and if any changes be proposed, that explicit language be added to encourage the location of non-profit organizations into city buildings, specifically the 801 Magnolia Building.

First, the general requirement for Conditional Use Permits that businesses provide services used by city residents has always had little teeth and past Commissions have struggled to define what such businesses are.

Secondly, the examples of such businesses offered by staff, a newspaper and beverage stand,  need not be located in the Civic Center and are already operating within the city limits and Civic Center area.  And most importantly, such for profit businesses would block out the development of important non-profit community services that residents have been calling for for years.

For a discussion of those services, I suggest you read the 2007 General Plan Community Survey to which over 1200 residents responded indicating their preferences for policies and capital improvements in town (http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/whatsnew/gp_survey_report.pdf), specifically Tables 5 and 7.

Two of the highest requested community improvements in that survey are the development of more gathering spaces in the Civic Center area and the development of a teen/senior center.  The 801 Magnolia Building is the best suited of any of our civic buildings for the development of these community services and should be encouraged through Chapter 17 code revisions.

For-profit businesses, while of some utility, will not lead to optimal use of this limited space for all of the community, nor at no cost.  Space in Zone B is quite limited so leave the development of new for-profit businesses to Zone C, which also happens to be in the center of town, just across the street from Zone B, where the community can just as easily avail themselves of these for-profit services.

Garrett Keating, Former member of the Piedmont City Council

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author. 

Should the Council elect both a Mayor and a Vice Mayor to serve until December 2016?

As a result of the resignation of Mayor Margaret Fujioka, effective at 11:59 p.m. on  June 21, 2016, Vice Mayor Jeff Wieler became Acting Mayor, a temporary position. 

City Charter: “SECTION 2.05 VACANCIES; FORFEITURE OF OFFICE; FILLING OF VACANCIES (A) VACANCIES. The office of a Councilmember shall become vacant upon his/her death, resignation, removal from office in any manner authorized by law, or forfeiture of office.”

City Administrator Paul Benoit recommends that the Council elect a new Vice Mayor at the July 5 meeting, to provide for the absence or disability of the Acting Mayor.

Piedmont City Charter states:

“SECTION 2.08 MAYOR Following each general municipal election, the City Council shall elect from among its member officers of the City who shall have the titles of Mayor and Vice-Mayor, each of whom shall serve at the pleasure of the Council. The Mayor shall preside at meetings of the Council, shall be recognized as head of the City government for all ceremonial purposes and by the Governor for the purposes of military law, but shall have no administrative duties. The Vice-Mayor shall act as mayor during the absence or disability of the Mayor. In case of the temporary absence or disability of both the Mayor and Vice-Mayor, the Council shall select one of its members to serve as Mayor Pro Tempore.”

There is no provision in the City Charter for a long-term, five month “Acting Mayor” to fill a vacancy.

The  Charter  refers to an absence. The resignation by Mayor Fujioka creates a vacancy under the Charter not an “absence.”  The word absence is used officially in Council minutes and documents.  For a Vice Mayor to be “acting” the Charter calls for an “absence” not a “vacancy.” 

City Charter states:

“The Vice-Mayor shall act as mayor during the absence or disability of the Mayor. “

The remaining Council members are: Teddy King, Bob McBain, Tim Rood, and Jeff Wieler (Acting Mayor and former Vice Mayor.)  Both the Mayor and Vice Mayor serve at the pleasure of the Council.

The agenda item will be considered at the July 5, 2016 Council meeting that starts at 7:30 p.m. in City Hall.  The meeting will be broadcast live.

Read the Administrator’s recommendation here.

The vacancy on the Council created by Fujioka’s resignation will be filled by the City Council following interviews with candidates on July 19.  (Applications must be delivered to the City Clerk’s Office by 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, July 13, 2016. )

Deadline for applications: May 31st

Want to know more about our City government?

The City Council will hold a Special Meeting to interview candidates for vacancies on City commissions & committees at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 22 in the City Hall Conference Room. It is an open meeting. At the conclusion of the interviews, discussions will take place and appointments may be made to fill the following vacancies:

Ever wonder why one person is appointed and another is not?

 The interviewing of candidates for appointments can prove interesting.  City staff – City Administrator, Public Works Director, Planning Director, or other staff members may participate in the discussions to offer information on the candidates.  Although the applicant names are public information, the City has historically been discrete in not announcing the names of applicants perhaps attempting to not discourage applicants.

Who becomes an applicant?

 This is as varied as the applicants.  Some applicants are asked to apply by a staff member, Council member, commissioner, committee member or friend.  Some applicants self-initiate their applications.  Appointees will volunteer their public service time, as does the appointing body, the City Council.  The commissions and committees have proven to be fertile grounds for advancement to the City Council. The decisions and recommendations made by appointees are essential to our City.

The interviews will not be televised or recorded, but can be observed by all public attendees.  

Read the agenda here.

Lawsuits –

On February 19, Piedmont’s City Clerk announced resolution of the second of two lawsuits arising from the excessive cost overruns of the Piedmont Hills Undergrounding District, and the Hampton-Seaview Undergrounding District.  The City recouped $667,000 from over $2 million of excess costs.  The bottom line is that Piedmont’s taxpayers are stuck covering a $1.3 million debacle.

Now it’s over.  It’s time to move on.  We must accept the penalty and see that such gross mismanagement is never repeated again.   True enough.  But there are consequences from this financial fiasco.  Future proposals for tax increases or bond funding for big projects will have to meet higher standards of review.  And if there is any doubt at all about the veracity of new proposals, or the competence of their sponsors, Piedmont’s citizens will probably reject them.  Once bitten, twice shy.

Bruce Joffe, Piedmont Resident
3-4-16

 Editors’ Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Important volunteer positions are to be filled. 

Planning and Park Commission applicant interviews will take place in an open meeting at 5:30 p.m. Monday, November 2, in the Council Conference Room, City Hall.

A number of individuals have indicated their interest in becoming commissioners, 9 applicants for the one Planning Commission position and 3 applicants for the one Park Commission position.  The public is welcome to attend the meeting and provide input to the interview process.

Although not required, in the past certain individuals have been encouraged to apply by either the staff, Council members or community members.  The selection process is designed to be open, allowing all applicants qualified to vote in Piedmont elections an opportunity to be appointed to commissions or committees by the City Council. Staff members reporting to the commissions are typically present and can provide input during the selection process.

The interviews will not be broadcast or recorded.

“I advise you not to direct the BAFPC to provide a recommendation on the duration of the Municipal Services Special Tax as part of its periodic examination of the tax. The tax has always been used to take the pulse of Piedmont on its level of support for municipal services through additional tax dollars and, as the table in the staff report shows, that support can be variable. A survey of the residents every 4 years in the form of a vote is perfectly acceptable and appropriate to both assess public support and provide sufficient long-term planning, given the high level of support for the tax.  A longer period between such endorsements could direct staff and future Council in directions not supported by residents. And with what appears to be the dissolution of the Municipal Tax Committee and the oversight that committee provided, voters may perceive a longer duration of the tax as a reduction in voter oversight.”

“If you do direct the BAFPC to provide a recommendation on this matter,  also direct the Committee to balance the need for that tax with the annual Real Property Transfer Tax receipts which are at historic levels.  It was the recommendation of the Municipal Tax Committee that transfer tax receipts over $3M be considered “one time” windfalls and not be incorporated into annual budgeting analysis for the City.  The reason is so that the City does not get ahead of itself with spending and benefits that it cannot sustain.  Indeed, one year when I was on City Council, we did not levy the parcel tax because the transfer tax receipts were $3M.  If the Committee is to consider lengthening the duration of the Municipal Parcel Tax, then also have it consider self-correcting measures to maintain City spending at sustainable levels.”

Garrett Keating, Former City Council Member

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.