Piedmont has been out of compliance with State of California Conflict of Interest laws for decades.

State law, called the Political Reform Act (PRA), requires government entities, including Piedmont, to biannually assess their Conflict of Interest Code for compliance with state laws.  The Piedmont City Council has not updated Piedmont’s Conflict of Interest Code, Policy #24, since 1988.

On Monday, November 17 at their regular meeting, the Piedmont City Council will assess which employees will be required to file personal economic disclosure Form 700  in compliance with State law.  As noted in the staff recommendation, nine staff positions are proposed to be added to the list of individuals required to report. These include Building Official, Planning Director, Parks and Project Manager, Recreation Supervisor, amongst others.

Boards, commissions, committees, and consultants not mentioned in the proposed revised Code.

Although not mentioned in the proposed revised Code, appointed boards, commissions and committees advising or deciding on public expenditures are frequently required to comply with economic disclosure Form 700.

“Assets and income of public officials which may be materially affected by their official actions should be disclosed and in appropriate circumstances the officials should be disqualified from acting in order that conflicts of interest may be avoided.“

Gov. Code section 81002(c)

“No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest.“

Gov. Code Section 87100

“Unpaid members of boards and commissions and consultants to state and local government agencies also may be required to disclose their personal financial interests if they make or participate in making governmental decisions that could affect their private financial interests.

“Disclosure is made on a form called a “statement of economic interests” (Form 700). The form must be filed each year. Filed forms are public documents that must be made available to anyone who requests them.” http://www.fppc.ca.gov/?id=6 

Since 1988, Piedmont has expanded to ten the number of commissions, boards and committees, who may advise or act on expenditures of City funds.  For example, Piedmont has added the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee and the City Council Audit Subcommittee.

While overseeing and controlling millions in retirement funds, the Piedmont Police and Fire Pension Board is not listed in the proposed revised Conflict of Interest Code.

The City Council and the Planning Commission are required to file financial disclosure statements.  The 1988 Policy #24 on Conflicts of Interest Code was not on line or in the staff report.

Consultants

State law also applies to consultants who may have a conflict of interest. In Piedmont, consultants are frequently used for advice on planning, finances, taxation, and public improvement projects; however consultants are not mentioned in the proposed revised Code.

Agency Conflict-of-Interest Code Biennial Notice Requirement

The Political Reform Act requires every government agency to review its conflict-of-interest code biennially to determine if it is accurate or, alternatively, that the code must be amended.

Elements of a Conflict-of-Interest Code

• Incorporation Page
• Designated Positions
• Disclosure Categories

City Agencies

• City Newsletter
• Biennial Notice
• Should You Amend Your Conflict of Interest Code?

Link to the Fair Political Practices Commission website.

Read the Piedmont staff report.

The 1988 Conflict of Interest Code, Policy 24, was not included in the staff information and was not retrievable on line.

The matter will be considered at the Monday, November 17, 2014, Council meeting in City Hall starting at 7:30 p.m.  The meeting will be broadcast on KCOM Channel 27 and live streamed from the City of Piedmont website.

The public may attend the meeting and address the City Council.

The Alameda County Assessor’s Office is behind schedule for mailing property tax statements.

Although the first installment payment of the 2014-2015 property tax is due November 1, 2014, the Alameda County Assessor’s Office announced that the statements will not be mailed until October 31, 2014. Even if property owners receive their bills on November 1, they could only pay on time by credit card or electronic check, both of which carry a “convenience fee.”  The Assessor’s office “convenience fee” for paying by credit card is 2.5% –$1000 on a typical $40,000 bill.

The $3 “convenience fee” for electronic check payment is economical, but don’t forget to add the $3 to the payment due. To learn the amount due look up your parcel here.  Note, however, the online statements contain the statement  “this is not an official bill.”

Since property taxes are arriving late this year, property owners need not rush to pay their bills.  The 10% delinquent payment is not imposed until December 10, 2014, for the first installment of the tax statement.

When long standing zoning restrictions are set aside, will Piedmonters be happy?

The draft Piedmont General Plan Housing Element has been written largely to satisfy the State, while avoiding law suits for noncompliance. 

Under the document, significant control of Piedmont zoning will potentially be removed from voters and placed in the hands of the City Council and the staff Council relies on.

The Planning Commission will meet on Thursday, October 30, 2014, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers to hold a public hearing on the state-mandated Draft Housing Element and consider recommendations to the Piedmont City Council.  The far-reaching draft document, intended to increase housing in Piedmont, has passed muster with State reviewers.

The Draft Housing Element, covering a planning period between 2015 and 2023, is voluminous and requires careful thought and consideration. Surprises are found throughout the document, such as a suggestion to require the City to approve applications within 30 days rather than the State required 60 days.  On some occasions, neighbors have found even 60 days are tight when responding to applications for major new construction next door.

The voter controlled Piedmont City Charter, a mainstay of zoning stability in Piedmont, is challenged in the Draft Housing Element by potential future independent reviewers looking for encumbrance to housing development within the City Charter.

Piedmont has approximately 4,000 residences and 11,000 residents.

Some California cities have balked at the State imposed requirements and delayed implementation or come up with stringent requirements for development to fend off undesired changes.  For example, some cities have required increased setbacks when building second units. In contrast, Piedmont has been less demanding of second unit applications, relaxing requirements, such as off-street parking and set backs.

Piedmont’s 20 year planning consultant, Barry Miller, has built a reputation within the planning community for using second units as a way to meet affordable housing needs.  Piedmont’s planning has been in line with his concepts.

Miller and the planning staff have accommodated the State including inviting officials to view first hand the limited opportunities for increased housing in Piedmont. As a built out city with no ability to expand, development potential is extremely limited in Piedmont.

 Few Piedmonters have reviewed the the Draft Housing Element.

The California State Law requires citizen participation when developing a Housing Element. The Planning Commission was designated by the City Council as the citizen body to review the Draft Housing Element.  At meetings where the draft was discussed there have been few participants. The “Town Hall Style” meeting, was held without public broadcast and recordings and was largely intended to spur on support for second units.

The City Council, circumventing the City Charter, has not placed recent zoning changes on a Piedmont ballot for voter validation and approval per the City Charter. Comprehensive public involvement in zoning changes could be achieved by placing the matters on a Piedmont ballot. The State law allows such an action.  The City has avoided allowing voters to act in fear of zoning change rejection.

Piedmont’s Housing Element is built on more second-units.  

Without taking money out of its own coffers, California, in an effort to increase affordable and low-income housing, passed  legislation requiring cities, even Charter Cities such as Piedmont, to allow second-units in single-family zones.  The Piedmont City Charter states that only the voters of Piedmont can change zoning, designating areas for housing as single-family or multiple family.

Each California city is required to define the conditions for allowing second units within single family zones.  Piedmont has done this.  If an application comes to the Planning Department meeting all conditions for a second unit, then the Planning Department is required to approve the second unit application under a “ministerial act;” neighbors are not notified and the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over the application.

If a second unit application cannot meet ALL criteria for “ministerial” approval, the Planning Commission has the responsibility to consider the matter; neighbors are notified; and all conditions regarding the application are considered, such as safety, variances, privacy, light and air, etc.

As housing in Piedmont changes, the question remains:  Will the implementation measures proposed for the 2015- 2023 time period please Piedmonters?

Some of the proposed policies will reduce public involvement and make it easier for development.  The City Council previously rezoned the Commercial Zone to allow “mixed use,” a combination of commercial use and apartments on the same property.   Despite the City Charter, no attempt was made to place the matter before voters.

Piedmont’s City Attorney opposed the established description of single family and multi-family housing in the Commercial Zone, concluding single family and multi-family housing were synonymous. Yet language approved by voters had defined single family and multi-family zoning as separate and different.  The preemptive action by the Council overstepped City Charter language that requires Piedmont voters to consider zoning changes.

The Draft Housing Element policies presented are often onerous to property owners and possibly punitive to nearby properties.  From fees to variances, Piedmonters will find their city changing.   The future will show if the General Plan Housing Element will be used as a rigid requirement or as a working document meeting current needs and desires of the residents of Piedmont.

The related Initial Study and Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act will be heard at the Planning Commission meeting of November 10, 2014.

Read the Oct. 1, 2014 “Clean” version of the proposed plan here.  Chapters noted below.

• Title/Table of Contents
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Evaluation of the 2007-2014 Housing Element
• Chapter 3: Demographics and Housing Needs
• Chapter 4: Analysis of Housing Capacity
• Chapter 5: Constraints to Housing Production
• Chapter 6: Goals, Policies, and Actions (Clean Version)
• Chapter 7: Five-Year Action Plan

Read comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development  and Piedmont’s responses as incorporated into the Housing Element.

Timeline for final approval of Housing Element:

• October 30, 2014 – Planning Commission Hearing
• December 1, 2014 – City Council Hearing
• January 31, 2015 – Final Housing Element due to State Department of Housing and Community Development

The Planning Commission meeting is on Thursday, October 30, 2014, starting at 5 p.m. It will be televised on KCOM Channel 27 and live streamed on the City website. The meeting is open to the public and interested individuals may address the Planning Commission.

The Director of Planning, Kate Black has requested the following:

Send comments to me at kblack@ci.piedmont.ca.us, * send
them via US mail to Planning Commission, c/o Kate Black, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611, or drop them off at City Hall.

Kate Black, Planning Director, City of Piedmont, 120 Vista Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94611 – 510-420-3063

“To insure full compliance with the Brown Act, we ask that you not reply to all, but reply only to me. Thank you.” *< This statement comes from Kate Black, Director of Planning.

*Editors’ Note: Correspondence sent to the Planning Director needs to specify that it is for ALL Commissioners or Council members to ensure the correspondence is not exempt from the Brown Act or the Public Records Act. 

Citizens with relevant experience are invited to consider serving on BART’s Earthquake Safety Program Citizens’ Oversight Committee. This is a chance to ensure that public money is being spent as intended? The Committee is tasked with verifying that Measure AA bond revenues  are spent appropriately on earthquake safety retrofits. The Application Deadline is November 28, 2014

At 5:30 p.m. on Monday, October 6, 2014, the City Council will interview in a public meeting applicants for the now permanent Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee.  The meeting will be held in the City Hall Conference Room directly opposite the City Hall Council Chambers.

Per City practices, applicant names are not disseminated except when a Public Records Act request is made.  There will be no recording or broadcasts of the meeting.  To be informed, those interested in the appointments to this important City Council advisory body will need to be present during the interview process.

Agenda.

– Piedmont will continue to meet EPA sewer requirements by borrowing from existing City funds and the California State Water Resources Control Board. – 

On Monday, October 6, 2014, the City Council has on their agenda a plan to resume work on Piedmont’s Sanitary Sewer System.

Controversy has surrounded the Sewer Fund in recent years. When incorrect information developed by the City and falsification of requirements of the EPA was revealed, the Sewer Tax was defeated  by voters in 2011.

Further information dismayed some residents when it was learned that Sewer Fund money is used to pay for purposes unrelated to the sewers, including street sweeping even during dry weather.  The City has justified the use of the Sewer Fund as vital to keeping the storm water drains clear.

In May of 2014, the City Council had proposed a ballot measure requiring voter approval of a Real Property Transfer Surcharge Tax for sewer replacement.  However, on June 24, 2014, Alameda County reported an “historic and unanticipated” increase in Piedmont’s Real Property Transfer Tax, making the surcharge unnecessary.  City Administrator Paul Benoit advised the Council to abandon the surcharge in favor of borrowing from the City’s funds.

In June 2014, the positive position of the General Fund with an unaudited ending fund balance of $4,498,390 amounting to reserves of 20.9% of expenditures allowed for an additional $819,000 to be transferred to each of the Facilities Maintenance Fund and Equipment Replacement Fund.

Significant improvement in Piedmont’s financial condition has been attributed to prudent use of City revenues, large increase in Real Property Transfer Tax proceeds, and employee contributions to their retirement benefits.

 The much belabored sewer renovation program will resume.  Internal and external loans will provide the additional funds by borrowing $600,000 from the Facilities Maintenance Fund ($2,111,246) and $200,000 from the Equipment Replacement Fund ($2,861,650) for a total of $800,000.  The City will continue the practice of utilizing loans from the State Water Resources Control Board to augment funding.

The City Council is being asked to approve loans from the City’s funds with the following conditions:

 – Simple interest rate based on the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) rate, not to exceed 1.0%.

– Interest only payments during the replacement of the sewer system. Principal and interest payments would begin approximately FY 2027-28, when Phase VII loan payments begin. Under this schedule the loan is to be retired by FY 2034-35. Council can authorize the loan to be repaid sooner, assuming the Sewer Fund has sufficient funding.

  Read the full staff report.

Specific sewer mains will be replaced.

The second part of moving ahead with sewer work involves the design and implementation of the work.  Previously, the Council adopted a Risk Management Policy to assure that contracted work does not create conflicts of interest between designers, engineers, construction contractors, and project managers.  The contract on the Council agenda has been drafted with that intention. The sewer engineers (Coastland Engineers) appear to be sole sourced.

When the City renovates the sewer mains in an area, property owners are required to replace any faulty laterals (the pipes going from their property to the sewer main.)  The laterals cost thousands based on length and piping complexity.

To see if your property is in the Phase V project click here to view the map.

This Phase V project will encompass work in Sub-Basins W2, W3, G1, H1, H1A and previously identified high-priority pipes throughout the City for a total of approximately 33,000 lineal feet of sanitary sewer pipe replacement.

The agenda item is:  Consideration of the Preparation of 35% Design Documents for the Phase V Sanitary Sewer Project and Authorization to Apply for a State Fund Revolving Fund Loan for the Project  < Staff report

The Council meeting will be held in City Hall, recorded, broadcast and open to the public.  This item is on the 7:30 p.m. agenda.

On October 6 the City Council will consider transferring funds into the Sewer Fund to move forward with completing the mainline sewer rehabilitation. This is a significant first in Piedmont, to have funds transferred into the Sewer Fund rather than taken out. The Sewer Fund has essentially operated as a City slush fund.

In 2011, City Hall asked for an additional $11 Million dollars from taxpayers which would have added an additional 50% tax burden on top of an already expensive sewer tax. That 2011 tax failed, and earlier this year staff estimated only $1 Million was needed to complete the previously stated $11M compliance and construction work.

Piedmont has always maintained compliance with all EPA and Water Resources Quality Board legal requirements. A fair question is why $11 Million was needed 3 years ago, and is now down to $1M? Fortuitously, a real estate transfer tax windfall of an additional $1M, and other cost cuts, means no additional taxpayer money is needed to complete the mainline sewer system. Most of the Council also recognized when rescinding Mr. Wieler’s transfer tax plan earlier this year that taxpayers want more accountability of where their tax dollars will go, and an efficient use of their funds.

During the very troubled Piedmont Hill Underground Utility District debacle, with taxpayers paying in excess of two million dollars for private benefit, the Crest Road utility trench collapsed on Oct. 13 2009. The trench would not have existed but for the private benefit undergrounding project. Staff recommended on Nov. 16 2009 that $296,000 be taken from the Sewer Fund for repairs; the sewer fund is a publicly funded source. Council agreed. Staff stated a month after the collapse that installation of trench dams was the necessary repair. On Oct. 14 2009, the City Engineer directed that the trench be filled with low-pressure concrete; by Nov. 16 this was largely completed. The installation of the trench dams, standard construction practice on a steep slope and missing in the original construction, would have required that hundreds of cubic yards of the freshly poured cement be excavated. No trench dams were ever installed and the $296,000 was paid by general tax revenue and not taken from the private undergrounding district’s contingency funds.

Perhaps just a coincidence, but at the time the 2011 sewer tax failed the Blair Park project was pulled. The actual expenses for that project were never fully disclosed and I question how the sewer fund would have been further used had the additional tax passed. I speculate that the overflowing sewer fund may have been a source of funding for the new 25 home sewer line and 24 inch EBMUD transmission line relocation.

The current temporary transfer into the Sewer Fund makes sense; it is essentially a near zero interest loan. Hopefully, when the sewer rehabilitation is completed, the same spirit as now prevails in City Hall will remain and the sewer tax enacted in 2000 will be eliminated. Other prudent accounting practices have recently been undertaken with a closer look at the $900,000 automatically appropriated annually from the Sewer Fund and moved into the General Fund.

Moving ahead now with Phase V of the sewer rehabilitation is smart. Finally under Mayor Fujioka’s forward looking leadership and coupled with the transparent professionalism of City Administrator Benoit, we are taking financially prudent proactive measures.

Rich Schiller, Piedmont Resident

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

– Current and former councilmembers raise transparency issues – 

Piedmont looks at spending $507, 325 in WW bond funds plus $400,000 in Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) funds on unidentified projects. 

How are the various projects under consideration chosen? Who proposed the various projects? Did the public have an adequate opportunity to add items to the list?  How was the general public informed about how decisions were reached? 

Records of CIP Review Committee meetings and their decision making processes are missing.

Those interested in how government decisions are reached frequently rely on broadcasts, recordings of meetings, and minutes of meetings. This was not possible during the recent Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Review Committee meetings. Interested individuals who could not be physically present found it difficult or impossible to learn which committee members were present, what materials were presented, and how decisions were reached.

The CIP Committee was tasked with determining qualifying projects to use $507,325 of WW bond funds.  The Committee came up with their own criteria resulting in a  list of five projects. Former Councilmember Garrett Keating and current Councilmember Tim Rood noted there was no matrix or transparent record of how the projects were chosen.

– Meetings dealing with money – 

The CIP Committee is not the only City Council appointed committee lacking regular records and minutes of their meetings.  The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee is not broadcast or recorded.

The Piedmont City Charter specifies:

SECTION 6.05  PUBLIC RECORD

Minutes for each of such boards and commissions shall be kept as a record of its proceedings and transactions. Each board or commission shall prescribe its own rules and regulations which shall be consistent with this Charter and with City Council ordinances and resolutions, and copies of which shall be kept on file with the city clerk.

The Public Safety Committee’s meetings are recorded and minutes are prepared.

City Seeks Volunteers for Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee – Deadline: Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Want to participate in important financial decisions impacting all Piedmonters? Want to learn in detail how your tax dollars are expended?  Want to advise the Piedmont City Council on financial matters?  The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) offers a great opportunity.

The following is the City’s press release:

The City of Piedmont is looking for a few talented volunteers for vacancies on the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee. The committee, originally established by the City Council as a temporary body in March 2012, has been made a permanent body with an expanded membership of five regular members and two alternate members.

The charge of the committee is to:

• Review the financial projections prepared for the City’s Annual Budget and provide comment on whether they provide for the long term sustainable financial future of the City. This review shall take place between the preparation of the budget in April and its approval by the City Council in June of each year.

• Review and provide comment on the Mid-Year Budget Reports.

• Provide a financial review of any new program commitments and funding sources in excess of $250,000 in any fiscal year.

• Periodically review and comment on the sufficiency of funding for long term obligations, including the Sewer Fund, Equipment Replacement Fund, Facilities Maintenance Fund and the City’s pension and retiree healthcare costs and funding.

• Periodically examine the need for the Municipal Services Special Tax (Parcel Tax) and recommend whether this tax should be continued, and if so, at what rate.  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.

Applications are due to City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue, on or before the deadline of Tuesday, September 30, 2014. 

Interviews with the City Council for these positions will be scheduled for the evening of Monday, October 6, 2014. No appointments will be made without a Council interview.

Residents with questions are invited to contact the City Clerk’s office at (510) 420-3040.

City Clerk, John O. Tulloch

At 7:30 p.m. July 7, 2014, the Council will designate Mayor Margaret Fujioka as Voting Delegate and Vice Mayor Jeff Wieler as Alternate for the League of California Cities 2014 Annual Conference.

The League of California Cities 2014 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 3-5 in Los Angeles. An important part of the conference is the Annual Business Meeting. During this meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy. Policies can include positions on everything from land use to retiree benefits.  Information on items to be considered is not available at this time.

It has been a long tradition for Piedmont to send a voting representative to the Conference where study sessions and various speakers discuss current civic issues.

The appropriation amount covering the cost of participation at the Conference was not provided.

The July 7 City Council meeting is open to the public and will also be broadcast.