On June 24, at a Special Meeting, the Council will consider a process for reviewing the candidates for the position of new Recreation Director.  Fifty timely applications were submitted.  To narrow the candidates, the recruiting firm of Peckham and McKenney will conduct preliminary interviews with 10 – 15 leading candidates followed by an internet based screening.

Paul Benoit, City Administrator recommends next steps:

“First, I will engage a small number of individuals (up to five) – likely comprised of representatives from the Recreation Commission, Department Heads, and an outside recreation professional, to assist in narrowing the field presented by Peckham and McKenney. That narrowed field of finalists would be limited to the most qualified candidates, as determined by breadth of experience, education, recommendations and background checks. Those individuals, ideally not more than six, would then be vetted through a formal interview process.

Prior to interviews by the full Council, I would anticipate having two interview panels – one comprised of Department Heads and one comprised of a mix of Community members (Recreation Commission member(s), citizen(s)-at-large) and a recreation professional(s). In addition, I would conduct “one-on-one” interviews with each finalist. Through that process, I would anticipate having consensus on the top two or three candidates who would then be interviewed by the Council, which will select the new Recreation Director.”

The meeting will be broadcast on KCOM Channel 27 and via the City’s website.

Read the full City Administrator’s Report here.

– The Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s sunshine law, was strengthened by the June 3, 2014 voter approval of Proposition 42. – 

California voters in an overwhelming victory for open and transparent government approved a Constitutional amendment requiring public meetings and records to be open and available without State reimbursement of costs.

Many public entities, including the City of Piedmont, had regularly submitted claims to the State for reimbursement of costs associated with notifying the public of public meetings.  During the recent deep recession, Governor Jerry Brown suspended the State’s reimbursement of the costs. Piedmont officials agreed to continue compliance with the Brown Act; however, some jurisdictions decided not to comply when funding was terminated.

The voter approval of Proposition 42 by  2,399,314 /61.9% Yes secures and further embeds the Brown Act into the California Constitution while no longer requiring State reimbursement of costs. 

The measure requires all local governments and agencies to comply with the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) and with any subsequent changes to the acts, thus guaranteeing a person’s right to inspect public records and attend public meetings. Proposition 42 also made these laws core government responsibilities, ensuring taxpayers are not paying for items local governments have a duty to provide on their own.

The California Public Records Act (CPRA)  provides that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of state or local agencies that retain those records and that every person has a right to inspect any public record. The act also requires agencies to establish written guidelines for public access to documents and to post these guidelines at their offices.

The California Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) requires local legislative bodies to provide notice of the time and place for holding regular meetings and requires that all meetings of a legislative body be open and public. The act also permits all persons to attend any meeting of the local legislative body, unless a closed session is authorized.

The measure was sponsored in the California Legislature by State Senator Mark Leno (D-11) as Senate Constitutional Amendment 3.

http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_42,_Compliance_of_Local_Agencies_with_Public_Records_(2014)

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/california-voters-check-yes-42

Citizens Can Now See One of the City’s Brown Act Training Sessions –

The Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, has produced contentious points of view in Piedmont. To better inform elected and appointed individuals, the City scheduled two training sessions this past May 15 and May 22 for members of our City Council, commissions and committees to educate them about the Brown Act. Meeting attendance was limited to invitees. The meetings were conducted by Acting City Attorney Michelle Kenyon and her associate, Donald M. Davis, both of Burke, Williams & Sorenson, LLP.

The May 15 meeting was video taped by the City and is now available to Piedmonters.  Seen in the video are answers to questions and exchanges by participants. 

Watch the May 15 Piedmont Training Workshop here.

The City indicates these seminars qualified as an exception to the Brown Act public noticing requirements according to California Government Code 54952,2(c)(2).

“Nothing in this section shall impose the requirements of this chapter upon any of the following:

The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative body at a conference or similar gathering open to the public that involves a discussion of issues of general interest to the public or to public agencies of the type represented by the legislative body, provided that a majority of the members do not discuss among themselves, other than as part of the scheduled program, business of a specified nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the local agency. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to allow members of the public free admission to a conference or similar gathering at which the organizers have required other participants or registrants to pay fees or charges as a condition of attendance. 54952,2(c)(2)”

At the June 2 City Council meeting, the Council is expected to place on the November 2014 ballot a City Charter change to require Piedmont’s General Election to be concurrent with the State’s General Election in November of even number years and also to change School Board reorganization dates.

A question on the proposed Charter language has arisen.

The questionable language was added to facilitate the extension of terms, but possibly could have other implications. The language states:

“They shall hold office for four (4) years or until their successor is sworn into office.”

There is the possibility that an elected candidate, prior to being sworn into office, could not serve because of death, disqualification or withdrawal. The proposed language could extend the term of a termed-out Councilmember until a successor is chosen. If there is more than one termed-out Councilmember, which one would remain on the Council “until a successor is sworn into office?”  

The language “or until their successor is sworn into office” appears to presume there is a designated seat for each elected member of the Council. In Piedmont, individuals on the Council are elected at-large by all voters.  There are no designated seats to be filled “until their successor is sworn into office.”

Current office holders on the Council and School Board will have their terms extended from March to November of their term, an approximate 8 month extension.

The changes are being made to gain greater participation in Piedmont elections, remedy School Board reorganization dates, and reduce the cost of Piedmont elections.

Read the staff report and proposed language. 

An annual Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) fee of $9.55  per residential unit was approved on a 12-3 vote with 2 absences by the 17 member Alameda County Waste Management Authority (WMA) Board. The fee will be placed on Alameda County property tax statements.

Prior fees generated from solid waste going to county landfills have been significantly reduced as waste has been diverted by recycling. A new source of income was sought by the Authority to maintain and improve the  hazardous waste disposal program in the county.

Did the Piedmont City Council take a position on the HHW fee or direct its representative how to vote on the fee?

July 15, 2013, Council minutes indicate that Planning Technician Feeley reported on HHW fee options being developed by Stopwaste.org staff. In the March 17, 2014 minutes Councilmember Rood announced that Stopwaste.org will receive the protest votes against the $9.55 annual HHW fee and the Board would vote on whether or not to impose the surcharge. April 7, 2014 minutes –Councilmember Rood announced that Stopwaste.org continued consideration of the $9.55 HHW fee to the April 23 meeting. Council action was not found in Council minutes.

Questions had been raised regarding the legal right of the Authority to place a fee on property tax statements without gaining voter approval.  Approximately 50,000 individuals protested the fee.

“Critics contend the proposed fee is unnecessary, and so is the agency trying to collect it.”

Voting against the fee were Don Biddle of the Dublin City Council, Dave Sadoff of the Castro Valley Sanitary District and Jerry Pentin of the Pleasanton City Council. Piedmont’s representative on the Authority, Councilmember Tim Rood, voted to approve the fee.

Laython Landis, a long time WMA Board member representing the Oro Loma Sanitary District, has watched the Authority grow to a $24 million operation with 42 employees. Landis stated the entire Waste Management Authority, also known as StopWaste.org, is inefficient and should be dismantled.

Read reports on the fee and StopWaste.

Alameda County Waste Management Authority News Release:

Expanded hours for drop-off facilities and public events will increase collection of hazardous materials for Alameda County residents.

OAKLAND – At its May 28th meeting, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority Board adopted a new household hazardous waste fee of $9.55 per year per residential unit. The fee goes into effect July 1, 2014 and will be collected via the property tax roll.

Revenue from the fee will be used to support the countywide household hazardous waste program, which provides safe, legal, environmentally sound collection and disposal services for residential household hazardous waste such as paint, solvents and pesticides. The fee will support expanded services to all residents in Alameda County, including additional and regular drop-off hours and mobile collection events held throughout the county.

“The decision to move forward with a new fee was a challenging one for our Board and Agency, and some members of the public as well,” said Alameda County Waste Management Authority (dba StopWaste) Board Vice-President Jennifer West. “But the consequences of not adopting it and improper disposal of hazardous wastes were too great.” Authority Executive Director Gary Wolff added, “Owners of residences will benefit from the expanded services this fee will provide by keeping hazardous waste where it belongs. Improper disposal not only harms people and the environment, but could result in future sewer or garbage rate increases larger than the fee due to illegal disposal into sewers or garbage or recycling containers.”

The HHW collection program is currently paid for through a per-ton fee on municipal solid waste disposed in landfills. However, the fee has not changed since 2000 and the program would have been cut back dramatically without the additional funding.

Read an additional report on the fee.

New Information on Havens Provided.

As an employee of the Piedmont Unified School District familiar with the rebuilding of Havens Elementary School, it was with great interest that I read the comments of E Boyer, who wrote the following as part of an opinion piece in The Piedmont Post (“Just Kidding…But Seriously – The Jackass Category”) dated May 21, 2014:

“With Havens, we were all told, an epic collapse crushing all of the children inside was surely just ahead.”

Infact, the Division of the State Architect (DSA), the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC), and the State Allocation Board (SAB) all concurred in 2013 that the most appropriate word to describe the collapse hazard posed by two kindergarten wings (that actually housed over fifty percent of the Havens student population) was, in fact, catastrophic. Not “epic.” Not “shenanigans.” Not “fear mongering.” Not “a slow and painful death ‘neath the rubble of the collapsed one-story, wood framed building as it came down in apocalyptic fury!” (to quote E Boyer’s blog). No, the word they all agreed upon to describe the collapse hazard at Havens was “catastrophic.” Furthermore, the SAB identified these very same wings as an example of the “Most Vulnerable Category 2 Building…determined by the department to pose an unacceptable risk of injury to its occupants in the event of a seismic event.”

The SAB was definitive in its corroboration of engineering reports calculating “the building’s structural system [as] greatly overstressed and likely to fail.” The risk of injury associated with the Havens wings, according to every agency involved with public school construction in the State of California, was deemed to be unacceptable. Not just an unacceptable risk of injury for children, but an unacceptable risk for everyone: children, teachers, staff, parents, volunteers, visitors, and satirists.

But wait, there’s more. The kindergarten wings at Havens were designed by a prominent architecture firm in the 1950’s, and were replicated many times over throughout California. In other words, these same hazardous buildings exist today in other school districts. Prior to 2012 (two years after Havens was rebuilt), the Division of the State Architect refused to publicly acknowledge the tension rod-bracing system found in these type of buildings is insufficient to withstand a significant earthquake. What changed DSA’s mind? Piedmonters.

Two years after Havens was rebuilt, Piedmonters testified in statewide hearings before Senator Ellen Corbett to address lax oversight of seismic inspections, safety certifications, and restrictive funding rules. Two years after Havens was rebuilt, Piedmonters worked with Senator Loni Hancock to assist other school districts in breaking through draconian restrictions defining seismic vulnerability, amending Proposition 1D as originally written into law in 2006.

My purpose in sharing this is twofold: first, that no matter how inconvenient the truth, the removal of students, teachers, and staff (and the subsequent demolition of the Havens wings) was essential to the safety of its occupants; second, to offer thanks to so many in this community for their willingness to think (and act) beyond the borders of Piedmont.

Through the efforts of Piedmont residents in their roles as school board members, architects, structural engineers, financial advisors, construction law attorneys, accountants, designers, builders, Citizens’ Oversight Committee members, and community activists, there have been profound changes at the State level in assessing and addressing seismic safety in public schools.

If working with conscientious Piedmont residents for the betterment of all children in California (you can add SB1404 and “Educate Our State” to the list of Piedmonter-led initiatives – just to name two) is what defines being a jackass, I am all for it. Call me a jackass. Seriously. I’m not just kidding.

Michael Brady, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services for the Piedmont Unified School District

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

The City has enough money to pay for sewers.

I listened with interest to the Piedmont City Council’s discussion on financing future sewer projects at its May 19^th meeting.  In response to the Council’s request for community input, I have the following comments:

The Council should explain why voters were asked to pass an $11 million tax for sewer repairs a little over two years ago, and after that measure failed, are now considering a $1.2 million tax measure to complete the very same work.  This is a significant issue and needs to be addressed, particularly if the Council chooses to place a tax on the November ballot.

The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee’s recommendation is that the Sewer Fund needs a one-time infusion of cash of at least $1,000,000 over the next 3 years to maintain a prudent Sewer Fund balance.  The Fund would then have the seed money to proceed with replacing all the remaining substandard sewer lines during the next 20 years.  In my judgment, the Council should fund this request out of current general fund revenues. Instead, the Council is considering seeking passage of a tax measure which would increase most homeowners’ property taxes from $120 to $150 a year for 3 years or by adding a surcharge to the already steep real estate transfer tax.

The City has an annual general fund budget of approximately $22 million.  Allocating two percent a year to this project for three years would produce over $1.3 million.  As of June 30, 2013, the City had over $10 million in reserves, including over $4 million undesignated and an additional $4 million set aside for capital improvements and equipment replacement.  Why not use a portion of these funds to loan to the Sewer Fund rather than requesting an additional tax?  If reserves are inadequate, the Council should address that issue in a comprehensive way, not by this piecemeal approach.

Al Peters, Former Mayor of Piedmont

May 22, 2014

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

Good government depends upon open transparency.

We citizens must see how government actions are decided in order to keep our public servants accountable.  This requires public access to the same information that government agencies use to conduct their duties, with delimited exceptions to protect our common security and individual privacy.  This is all spelled out in the California Public Records Act (sections 6250-6270 of the Government Code).

Nevertheless, last June, some politicians tried to make the Public Records Act (PRA) optional, which would have blocked our access to our governments’ records.   Fortunately that scheme was busted, busted by an open and alert press.

To prevent similar schemes in the future, Proposition 42 is on the ballot.  It assures that public records and open meetings are not closed to the public on the excuse that Sacramento hasn’t reimbursed local governments for the cost of complying with the PRA.  It is perfectly reasonable that each governmental agency’s response to public record requests be a normal cost of doing business.

Do vote YES on Prop. 42.

More information at:
http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/facs-guide-to-prop-42-the-publics-right-to-know-act/

Bruce Joffe, 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 ballot measures or candidates for public office.  Comments are welcomed below. 

“The Budget Advisory Committee meeting on the calendar for May 22 will not be held. The final meeting of the BAC for the year will be held on Thursday, June 5, 2014 from 3:30 to 5:00 p.m. in the District Office conference room.

In preparation for the meeting, please review any information that comes your way regarding the LCAP (Local Control & Advisory Plan) as it relates to the school budget.”

                                                            Notice provided by the School District

How should Sewer Fund money be used?  

In the 1980’s, Piedmont voters approved a special parcel tax to pay for sanitary sewer rehabilitation of Piedmont’s aging sewer system.  Voters were informed that the tax was needed specifically for updating the sanitary sewer system.  (Sewer Tax amounts can be found on property owner’s Alameda County property tax statement.)

Sewer tax revenues were and are deposited into Piedmont’s Sewer Fund. However, soon after establishing the Sewer Fund, Piedmont needed additional revenues to support City services. Items historically paid for with General Fund monies were reallocated to the Sewer Fund; for example street sweeping, some tree maintenance, staff salary and other ad hoc public works maintenance activities. Records of hours worked by public works employees and projects completed using Sewer Fund money were not kept.

Over the years, more money was taken from the Sewer Fund to pay for ongoing public works maintenance items, rather than primarily being reserved for costs associated with rehabilitation of the sanitary sewer main system, emergency repairs, and maintenance of sanitary sewer mains.

Transferring funds from the Sewer Fund to the General Fund to pay for ongoing City services has allowed General Fund monies to be freed up and available to pay for other items. In recent years these have included employee benefits, utility undergrounding payments ($2.5 million), special capital projects (Blair Park $800,000 and Civic Center Development plans), and increases to the General Fund Reserves.

The FY 2014-15 Budget proposal continues the practice of transfers from the Sewer Fund to the General Fund with a $780,000 allocation.

“The City reviewed the transfer from the Sewer Fund to the General Fund and made some adjustments based on actual costs. First, minor sewer maintenance were being charged to the General Fund for approximately $150,000 and reimbursed through the transfer. The City will begin charging these costs directly to the Sewer Fund in FY 2014-15. Second, after reviewing time spent by the Public Works Department, maintenance and fuel costs for vehicles, and administration costs; the transfer is estimated at $780,000. Staff will continue to refine the estimate as this is the first year using this process.”  Excerpted from the City Administrators report

In 2012, the City proposed a ballot measure consisting of a large increase in the Sewer Fund parcel tax to cover capital improvements to the sanitary sewer mains. At the time, no suggestion was made that the City should or could cease the heavy draw down on the Sewer Fund monies to pay for normal City services.  The increased sewer parcel tax was not approved by voters.  Yet, the City continues to consider the Sewer Fund a source of monies for regular ongoing maintenance items rather than primarily a fund to pay for EPA required sewer rehabilitation.

The recently presented FY 2014-15 Piedmont Budget Proposal states:

The City of Piedmont is in a financially sound and stable position. As was the case in Fiscal Year 2013-14, we are projecting a positive net income for FY 2014-15. This net income is estimated at $699,687 and will bring the projected ending General Fund  [Reserve] balance to $4,232,099, which is 19.1% of total expenditures, inclusive of debt service.

In addition to the above noted measures, the City continues to enjoy a strong and improving economy which is driving a robust real estate market, resulting in Real Property Transfer Taxes (RPTT) projected at $3,000,000 for FY 2013-14.

Overall, the proposed budget ensures no reduction in the range and quality of services which City of Piedmont staff provide to the community. Importantly, it also ensures our ability to continue to set aside funds for the maintenance of our city facilities and equipment replacement needs. Excerpts from the City Administrators report. 

The City Council’s Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) optionally suggests increased taxation to accelerate sewer rehabilitation. Alternatively, the BAFPC suggested a temporary $1.2 to $1.4 million loan from the General Fund to the Sewer Fund in order to replace the remaining one-third of sewer lines ahead of schedule. (The most problematic lines have been replaced first-175,000 lineal feet of the total $269,000 feet.)  Nevertheless, the Council’s Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) found the Sewer Fund has adequate funds to proceed on schedule to meet the requirements of the Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) for rehabilitation of the old sanitary sewer mains.  

The BAFPC concluded:

“The net result of our analysis is that the Sewer Fund does not have an operating deficit problem or a long term revenue problem, but a short term capital need for the replacement of the remaining original sewer system.”

To accelerate the scheduled completion of sanitary sewer ahead of the EPA requirement, the BAFPC looks to additional funding or loans. Projecting future construction costs, it is anticipated there would be a cost saving by replacing the remaining older lines not in one early phase, but in three equal phases over the next 12 years.

A significant part of the Public Works Department’s budget comes from the Sewer Fund.  The BAFPC noted the $300,000 emergency repairs budget for the Sewer Fund without indicating if the tasks performed are emergency repairs or potential General Fund expenses.

It is unknown if the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee considered the appropriateness of current drafts made on the Sewer Fund to cover Public Works Department expenses.  

The Council will consider the Sewer Fund at their May 19 meeting.

Read the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committees Report to the City Council.

Read the City’s proposed budget for 2014-15.