The Piedmont School Board has approved extending hours for public use of certain school facilities until 9 pm.  Facilities considered include multipurpose rooms. auditoriums, and gymnasiums.

Non-profit groups are allowed under California law to use school facilities.

“The amended Civic Center Act expands the definition of what constitutes direct costs that a school district may charge to include (a) “The share of the costs of supplies, utilities, janitorial services, services of school district employees, and salaries paid to school district employees directly associated with the administration of this section to operate and maintain school facilities or grounds that is proportional to the entity’s use of the school facilities or grounds” and (b) for non-classroom spaces, “The share of the costs for maintenance, repair, restoration, and refurbishment, proportional to the use of the school facilities or grounds by the entity using the school facilities or grounds.'”*

“Actual Costs and Replacement Cost Assumptions For the purposes of assisting the Board in determining a fee schedule that reflects changes allowed under the Civic Center Act, preliminary calculations combining actual costs plus replacement costs for District buildings (gyms, auditoriums, theater, multi-purpose rooms, grass fields, and synthetic fields) will be provided for consideration. Classrooms (per the Civic Center Act), as well as fees for lights, sound systems, pianos, custodial hours, etc. calculations are excluded in determining hourly amounts for actual costs. It should be noted that not all costs (such as utilities) can be tied precisely to an individual site (like the softball field).

The committee that includes Board Members and staff will review the various options for the calculations to be used for the revised schedule.“* Board Report January 27, 2015 

Political and non-profit organizations supporting or opposing candidates for public office and/or ballot measures through contributions are specifically prohibited from using public facilities – state, county, city, special districts and schools.

As of January 1, 2014 legislation approved October 12, 2013, prohibits campaigning nonprofit organizations from using public resources and facilities.   (CA code Sections 54964.5 and 54964.6)

This bill would prohibit a nonprofit organization or an officer, employee, or agent of a nonprofit organization from using, or permitting another to use public resources received from a local agency for campaign activity, as defined, and not authorized by law. This bill would define, among other terms, “public resources” to mean any property or asset owned by a local agency and funds received by a nonprofit organization which have been generated from any activities related to conduit bond financing by those entities subject to specified conduit financing and transparency and accountability provisions, and “nonprofit organization” to mean an entity incorporated under the Nonprofit Corporation Law or a nonprofit organization that qualifies for exempt status under the federal Internal Revenue Code of 1986, except as specified.  (Legislative Counsel’s digest)

Read a news report on usage.

* Revision made 2/2/2015 to reflect new Civic Center Act allowing additional costs to be charged to users of school facilities.

With Superintendent search surveys and forums a plenty, the question remains – What do Piedmonters expect and want from their schools?

Taxpayers, parents, and empty nesters have trusted that Piedmont schools are doing the best they can with significant homeowners taxes in addition to community donations.

Piedmont schools are excellent by most standards, but they can be even better in meeting ever changing educational needs.  Many readers, associates, community members, teachers, students, and parents may not make it to the scheduled forums or even fill out the still available > survey on the Superintendent search.

Various suggestions for future improvements and changes to the Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) have arisen during the search process. Some of these are:

–  Increased transparency in policy decisions –

Rather than after the fact, parents, school employees, and the Piedmont community should be brought into decisions early on through open and free expression of ideas. Censorship of speakers, particularly teachers and students, is not appropriate at public PUSD meetings. (See Student report on the 12/10/14 PUSD meeting.)

–  Broadcast of budget processes on the City’s cable station KCOM and Piedmont website –

The Piedmont School District’s pivotal “Budget Advisory Committee” meets without being recorded or broadcast and is largely away from public view.  To be informed on school budget issues, a person should not have to be physically present at a meeting.  Affordable recording and broadcast methods are available.

–  Focus on teaching rather than buildings –

In recent years, there has been a continuous stream of needed school building improvements.  Increased attention on teaching each student according to their needs should be the priority.   Technology should play a roll in teaching along with increasing students’ technological skills. When there are teacher performance problems, the District should be ready to assist teachers.

–  Improved communication between school and home –

Numerous nearby and distant school districts have adopted internet communication systems that inform students and parents of assignments, test dates, behavior problems, overdue homework, and academic issues on a daily basis.  In Piedmont, teachers are not required to report their homework assignments on line. Individualized student information is not always available for students or parents. Conferences between teachers and parents are often elective rather than a standard.

–  Schools comparisons made on an equal basis –

Some students leave Piedmont schools. What are they looking for in another school? Is Piedmont keeping up? Although Piedmont is a unified school district, comparisons should be made to other high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools on an individual basis.

Paul Benoit, Piedmont’s City Administrator since March of 2014, praises the Mayor and City Council.

The PCA article titled “City Administrator Benoit Brought Change to Piedmont in 2014” did a very nice job of highlighting some of the change and accomplishments that happened in 2014. However, it implied, perhaps more by the headline, that I was responsible for them. Under the “City Manager/ Administrator – Council” form of government it is truly a team that is responsible for progress.

The Brown Act training for staff, elected and appointed officials that we instituted was done at the suggestion and urging of Mayor Fujioka. For my part, I and staff implemented her suggestion. Similarly, it was Margaret, with full Council support, that urged careful drafting and scrutiny of all City contracts. Such care and scrutiny is the right thing to do and is something I take very seriously, but, in the present case, it is an initiative that the Mayor and Council deserve all the credit for. The list goes on.

Council Member Wieler championed the change in Piedmont’s election dates and it was the Mayor and Council, together, who deserve all the credit for devising a creative solution to sewer financing that did not burden or tax Piedmont residents.

A lot was accomplished in the last year. Over my career I have worked with many Mayors and many, many Councils. Given that experience I can say without reservation that Piedmont’s Mayor and Council Members are a strong and talented team and are particularly engaged, informed and creative. Having that kind of talent setting policy and directives, combined with a solid and professional staff, is what has and will continue to move Piedmont forward.

It is always nice to be recognized for good work and, in the case of 2014, credit for that work needs to go to Mayor Margaret Fujioka, Vice Mayor Jeff Wieler, Councilmember Bob McBain, Councilmember Teddy King and Councilmember Tim Rood. With that team in place I am excited for 2015!

Paul Benoit, Piedmont City Administrator

Click here to read prior PCA article.

Ballot measure failure was largely a result of seating loss, unnecessary costs and flawed information and decisions. There are ways for an improved 2016 ballot measure.

Six months ago, Piedmont voters defeated the $13.5 bond measure (Measure H) to rejuvenate the school district’s Alan Harvey Theater, a major disappointment to its ardent supporters. In hindsight, the results might have been different if the school district had been more forthright in its communications and thorough in its planning. There was no lack of public outreach. But information and advice provided to the Board and public by the district’s staff, committees, and consultants all too often was incomplete or misleading, resulting in flawed decisions. Among other items, the Board was persuaded to authorize $360,000 for the preparation of design development drawings without waiting for the outcome of the election, a high-risk decision with marginal benefit.

What began in 2005 as a $5.4 million renovation was changed in 2012 into a $9.8 million theater remodel plus a whole new wing, based on a plan volunteered by designer Mark Becker. A 17-member committee supported the expanded program and declared that “Piedmont High School should be thought of as a performing arts high school”, meaning that performing arts would become the academic focus.

The new wing included a corridor with wheel-chair access to the auditorium, an elaborate instructional classroom, and improved backstage facilities. The balance of the project consisted of remodeling the existing theater. In all of the district communications, there is not a single meeting note, resolution, letter, or ballot measure statement that informed anyone that seating capacity would be reduced from 500 to 320 seats, a loss of 180 seats. This meant three school assemblies instead of two would be required for student body presentations and a smaller audience capacity for theatrical productions.

About 50 good seats were necessarily lost in providing a cross-aisle for wheel-chair access, but over 100 were lost in changing from “continental” (no center aisles) to conventional seating and in moving the control room into the auditorium instead of in a loft above the lobby. Forty-five temporary seats would have been above the orchestra pit with very poor sight lines. A smaller audience capacity would have resulted in loss in rental revenue, which partially offsets the cost of theater management and other operating expenses.

Curiously, the program committee did not mention improvement in acoustics (nor did the ballot measure), but the theater consultant in an appendix suggested adjustable acoustic draperies for the glass windows. The consultant did not, however, recommend the installation of plastic “clouds” in the ceiling as shown in the architect’s illustrations. No concern was expressed for the destruction of architectural symmetry in the auditorium or in the 50% loss in the windows that provide daylight when the curtains are open.

The district implied that the theater could not continue in use if the bond measure failed. Although it is not wheel chair accessible, the theater can legally continue in use as long as the community is willing to tolerate its various deficiencies, many of which are matters of deferred maintenance, such as the leaking roof. If the theater were unsafe, it would have been shut down.

Many voters were concerned about the cost of the project. District staff, aided by consultants, added essential items such as fees and contingencies to the original estimate of $9.8 million ($560 per square foot) and arrived at a total budget of $14.5 million. When the cost of debt service is added, the total project cost came to over $20 million —about $1,200 per square foot. Cost comparisons made with three other school theater “renovation” projects were virtually meaningless because the other theaters had twice the seating capacity and very different scopes of work.

Vila Construction’s construction cost estimate, incidentally, was 15% lower than the architect’s estimate. Had the Vila estimate been used, the bond measure would have been $11.5 million rather than $13.5 million. The “hybrid” bond option chosen by the Board deferred payment on the principal for six years in order to reduce the immediate impact on taxpayers, but added over one million dollars to the debt service.

It would have behooved the district at the outset to establish a project schedule that started construction promptly at the end of a school year, rather than in the middle. This would have allowed two full summer months for site preparation and demolition in good weather with minimum disruption to campus activity. Rental of interim theater and classroom facilities would then have been during one school year rather than portions of two years.

There is no pleasure in calling attention to these missteps. However, the needless loss in time, money and human energy over a two-year period cannot be ignored. The next election in November 2016 gives the district ample time to review its internal procedures and take corrective steps. The district has everything to be gained by thorough planning and full disclosure of issues to a generous, involved, and supportive parent community.

William Blackwell – Piedmont Resident and Retired Architect

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

Arriving in March of 2014 from Astoria, Oregon, Piedmont’s new City Administrator Paul Benoit has put in motion changes to some City procedures, programs, and policies. 

Piedmont’s long forgotten Conflict of Interest Code was updated to include new and well-established staff positions. Additionally, the Police and Fire Pension Board members were added to the list of those covered by the Code.

Elected and appointed officials as well as staff members were presented with a training program on the Brown Act, California’s sunshine law.  Adherence to the Act has been an issue in prior years; yet no program had been presented to inform individuals of their responsibilities such as not acting in private excluding the public and their right to know public business.

City contracts are being more carefully defined and scrutinized. The 2007 contract with a previous City Attorney did not contain a requirement for Errors and Omissions insurance, perhaps a problem when he approved and signed the costly undergrounding contract placing risks on all Piedmont taxpayers rather than property owners in the private project.

Top City employees are now encouraged to attend Council meetings, to provide background information and answer questions about agenda items. 

The Piedmont City Council reached agreement with the Piedmont Center for the Arts for an expanded lease to allow construction of a lift to give disabled users of the Center access to the newly renovated restrooms.

Blair Park has benefited from an expedited safety plan of removing dangerous, diseased Monterey Pines from the park.

Use of the approximate $500,000 in East Bay Regional Park District WW Bonds is on a fast track to assure timely application and use of Piedmont’s entitlement. Hampton Field and surrounds have been designated for safety and cost-saving improvements.

To spare taxpayers additional costs for sanitary sewer improvements, Benoit devised a temporary loan plan utilizing windfall property transfer taxes at essentially no interest to provide needed funds.  An expeditious program to replace poorly functioning pipes is now in place. In 2011 City Hall asked taxpayers for $11 million for the sewer update, later budgeted at a corrected cost of $1 million.

Other policies have changed.  Apartments will be allowed above commercial buildings.  Body cameras will be standard on police officers.  The Bike and Pedestrian Plan was approved.  The Annual Piedmont Turkey Trot will be providing the City of Piedmont Athletic Facilities Preservation Fund with revenue.
Voters approved an election date change to synchronized Piedmont’s election with the State General Election. Public smoking will be further restricted in Piedmont. The revised Housing Element of the General Plan met the State deadline.

Benoit will be faced with new and continuing challenges in 2015.  The law suit over the undergrounding debacle has yet to be resolved.  Prioritizing expenditures and implementing approved programs and policies will be ongoing.

For 35 years, Christine Harbert, known as Chris, has diligently taken minutes for Piedmont.  She has sat through many long Planning Commission and City Council meetings; yet she has never involved her emotions in the decisions and has kept a poker face throughout.  Her minutes are readily acknowledged as superior for careful attention to detail, timeliness, and accuracy.

Taking minutes for other Piedmont committees and commissions, Harbert has provided a reliable record of official proceedings, an invaluable service to Piedmonters.

Although working on a part time basis, Harbert often found her work virtually a full time job.  Harbert in her retirement is sure to find more time for golf and tennis, for she is as skilled an athlete as a minute taker.

Harbert will be missed and difficult to replace.

Read the staff report including the Council proclamation.

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.

At the November 17 City Council meeting, Piedmont came into compliance with State of California conflict of interest laws.  All council members present voted to approve the revised policy.  Although a biannual Council review is required by State law, the Council had not reviewed the City policy since 1988.

After considerable discussion, the Piedmont Police and Fire Pension Board members and the City Engineer were added to the list of those required to provide personal economic disclosure on Form 700.  Vice Mayor Jeff Weiler objected to Council member Tim Rood’s suggestion of requiring Piedmont’s consulting City Engineer to be named on the list, because he felt it was unnecessary and an invasion of privacy. When the votes were cast, Weiler voted aye along with the other approving council members, while noting his objections.

The consulting City Engineer has previously been voluntarily providing his financial disclosure information to the City. The City Engineer is charged with the evaluation and oversight of public works projects including contracts, design and construction.

Newly added to the list was the Piedmont Police and Fire Pension Board, responsible for overseeing distribution of retiree benefits, investment of pension fund assets and post employment benefits investments by Osterweis Capital Management.  The assets are valued at tens of millions of dollars.

A question arose regarding application of economic disclosure requirements for specific appointed committees and commissions who interview and advise on auditors, contractors, consultants, bond underwriters, etc. The Acting City Attorney provided advice that the disclosure was not necessary as those appointed bodies did not make the final decision on selection of providers.  In recent years, it has been the practice of the City Council to approve committee and commission recommendations on various providers.

The City Council and Planning Commission along with certain employees have historically been complying with State economic disclosure laws in filing Form 700.

Financial disclosure is intended to alert the public, legal authorities and Fair Political Practices boards to personal interests that might be affected while appointed or elected officials are performing their official duties (i.e., making governmental decisions). Government Code 87500 identifies elected and appointed officials who are required to file Form 700, the Statement of Economic Interests.

Information disclosed can include:

• Investments in business entities (e.g., stock holdings, owning a business, a partnership)
• Interests in real estate (real property)
• Sources of personal income, including gifts, loans and travel payments
• Positions of management or employment with business entities

The form is required to be filed annually. Filed forms are public documents, available to anyone who requests them.

Read more about Form 700 here.

After the failed private undergrounding utility project costing Piedmont taxpayers over $2 million, the City Council in an attempt to avoid conflicts of interests adopted new policies and procedures for large public works projects.

Legal resolution to determine fault of the costly undergrounding debacle has yet to be resolved despite years of litigation.   Fault is pivoting around the City Council, City employees, contractors, engineers, and legal counsel. The majority of the participating Piedmont employees and City Council members involved in the problematic private utility project are no longer in their positions. There has been no announcement regarding final resolution of the pending litigation.

A subcommittee of the Board of Education and select community members will interview search firms to assist the Board of Education in their selection of a new Superintendent of the Piedmont Unified School District. The public is welcome to attend the  10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Friday, November 21 meeting held in the District Offices at 760 Magnolia Avenue.   This meeting will not be broadcast or recorded.

“While the interview and final selection of a Superintendent will rest with the five Board members, the Board asked to establish a small subcommittee to select which firm to use. The following people will serve on the committee to review and interview the search firms: Paul Benoit, City Administrator; Ray Gadbois, former member of the Board of Education; Katie Korotzer, President of the Associated Parent Clubs of Piedmont; Carol Cramer, Principal of Wildwood Elementary School.”  Board Vice President Sarah Pearson and Board member Doug Ireland will also serve on the committee.

The committee will hear presentations from the following firms:

1. HYA Executive Search

2. Leadership Associates

3. McPherson-Jacobson Executive Recruiting

4. Ray & Associates

5. Proact Search

After all presentations are completed, members of the public may speak to provide feedback to the committee prior to their deliberations.

“Although the subcommittee does not need to conduct the interviews in public, we are choosing to post this as a “Special Board Meeting” to invite the public to listen and give input. There will be time for public comment after all of the firms have presented and before the committee deliberates in private. Later, the chosen search firm will seek input from students, parents, community members and staff in a variety of forums regarding the qualities most valued in a candidate for the Superintendent position. Input from across the community will be essential. At this early stage we were looking for a small group people who represent parents, staff, and community and/or who have had experience working with search firms.”

 CONFIDENTIAL DELIBERATIONS

“The committee will adjourn to deliberate on the selection of the firm for the search process. The Board Vice-President will coordinate the negotiation of a contract with the selected firm for Board ratification on December 10, 2014. It is anticipated that representatives from the firm selected will provide details of the next steps in the search process to begin in January 2015.

It is anticipated that a Superintendent will be selected by the beginning of April 2015.”

Read the staff report.

Meeting agenda.