To the Piedmont City Council:

        Move Piedmont’s election date to the November General Election date.  Alternatives presented in the staff report notwithstanding, none outweigh the value of increasing voter turnout in our local election.  The most recent election turnout supports this – an incumbent, two popular candidates and a measure guaranteed to save money and yet voter turnout was only 37%.  All good governance organizations support consolidating elections with the General Election so that turnout is enhanced. As to the concerns of PUSD, there is always access to the June primary ballot, as is currently being done with Measure H.

       I think the concerns about a November election raised by the City Clerk are fairly minor.  Placement on the ballot card and voter fatigue are offset by receiving the ballot through the mail. Indeed, most Piedmonters may have selected this option so that they can have a more informed reading of the ballot at home.  Getting precinct  results less rapidly, while creating more election-night drama, would have no effect on the outcome of an election.

       Finally, analysis of a VBM option should not be based on the statistics from the most recent election (as presented in the staff report) because of the exceptionally low turnout. Turnout statistics from a General Election would be more appropriate for this assessment.

                        Garrett Keating, former City Council Member

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

Blair Park has long been the stepchild among Piedmont parks and public areas, ignoring pedestrians, dogs, and regular maintenance.

Beautification projects are found in most of our parks and street medians, particularly in central Piedmont, but the most visible Piedmont park, seen by thousands of passersby daily, remains in a neglected state. Piedmont public areas are generally regularly maintained and enjoy swept walkways, weed abatement, and regular tree trimming, while Blair Park has received little attention despite its prominence at an entrance to Piedmont on Moraga Avenue.

For decades weeds have grown uncontrollably, with ivy invading native species. Trees, ill-maintained, have been left to fall apart and present potential hazards to park users and passing vehicular traffic. There are no sidewalks within or bordering Blair Park.  Pedestrians or joggers going to and from upper Moraga Avenue are forced to either dodge traffic, stumble over uneven surfaces, or slog through mud within the park during wet weather. Students residing in the area have no sidewalks upon which to walk.

There is no fence between busy Moraga Avenue and the off-leash dog area in the park to keep dogs or children from running into the roadway.  

Piedmont is currently considering a comprehensive bike and pedestrian plan; the proposed plan offers little to increase pedestrian safety in and next to Blair Park.  The Park Commission, when reviewing the recently approved plan for Blair Park, expressed concern over safe access to the park.

During consideration of a sports complex proposal, many people expressed a love of the natural, open beauty found in the park. Numerous people residing in the Moraga Avenue area requested a well-maintained park with sidewalk access.

Why has Blair Park been neglected for decades?

The answer goes to what propels many park and public projects developed in Piedmont.  Prior to the recently failed proposal to build the imposing sports complex in the park, no organized group had pushed for park maintenance and improvements in Blair Park.  

Many special projects are found throughout Piedmont parks and public spaces that have reaped the benefits of both public and private funding. Friends of Moraga Canyon settled a law suit with Piedmont over Blair Park issues by requiring $15,000 be spent on a plan to maintain and improve the park. In January, 2014, the City Council accepted Phase I of the Blair Park Landscape Improvement Plan by consultant Restoration Design Group and authorized completion of construction documents for solicitation of bids from contractors.  A land survey noting the boundaries of the park is not available. The plan, while approved by the City Council, has yet to be funded.

On Saturday, April 5, one block of Vista Avenue in front of City Hall became a street fair for public safety with two jumpy houses, free hot dogs & chips, and “Sparky” the firefighter mascot.

An emergency preparedness kit was displayed in a car.

The family fun had a serious purpose with experts and information on disaster preparedness and public safety. The “Safety House” trailer stressed fire prevention and offered methods for improving residential structure survival of earthquakes.

Firefighters showed off their quick response (down the pole!) responding to an emergency. Also in the emptied fire station garage, were displays, experts and informational brochures on disaster preparedness and fire prevention.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) exhibited earthquake hazards, and PG&E brought exhibits on electrical and gas emergencies.

The fair was a joint effort of the Piedmont Fire Department and the Piedmont Public Safety Committee. Fire Chief Bud McLaren, Police Chief Rikki Goede and former chair of the Public Safety Committee Michael Gardner were present.

When the City Council considered the appointment of a chairperson for the Public Safety Committee at their March 17 meeting, various council members recalled conducting their selection of commission and committee members in Closed Session.  However, Piedmont’s Acting City Attorney Michelle Kenyon informed the Council that the Brown Act, California’s sunshine law, had no exception for consideration of appointments to committees or commissions, including a chairperson, to be held in a Closed Session.

Kenyon’s legal opinion was questioned by Vice Mayor Jeff Weiler, who informed Kenyon that the Council had always had their deliberations on applicants in Closed Session. Councilmember Bob McBain stated that the interviews were held in a de facto Closed Session.

Weiler probed Kenyon to opine on whether the Council had previously been breaking the Brown Act law, but she declined, stating she did not have all of the facts.

The Brown Act is the backbone of public involvement in public decisions. The Brown Act details what can and cannot be discussed in Closed Session, what agendas must specify, when agendas must become public information, and requires prompt reporting of action taken in Closed Session.

“In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”

Ralph M. Brown Act

http://www.brownact.4t.com/

Recently, some Council watchers have noticed the Brown Act being more closely followed in Piedmont.  Agendas now include more specific descriptions of what is being discussed by the Council in Closed Session.  Also, the legally required reporting of action taken in Closed Session has become more explicit and timely.

Previously, undisclosed Closed Session discussions and actions alarmed some residents during consideration of the Blair Park sports complex development. Only through a public records request were facts and actions revealed. A legally binding agreement between the City and Piedmont Recreation Facilities Organization (PRFO) had been approved without notice to the public. The City Council had been meeting with attorneys representing project proponents PRFO in Closed Session.

http://www.piedmontcivic.org/2013/07/14/brown-act-compliance-issues-continue/

http://www.piedmontcivic.org/2011/10/29/city-attorney-responds-to-pca-articles-on-brown-act-disclosure/

Charges of Brown Act prohibited serial meetings by council members have been made in the past.  Violations can occur when an external “point person” speaks to more than two council members and relays the information amongst the majority or three council members. Council members are prohibited from collaborating with more than one other council member.  Chains of communication, relaying information one member  to another, are also not allowed.   With specific exceptions, the law requires decisions impacting the public to be considered in public to allow the public to provide input on decisions, view considerations, and have access to information upon which decisions are based.

http://www.piedmontcivic.org/2013/07/01/opinion-council-violated-brown-act/

Workshop for Council and appointees ?-  

Piedmont has new Council members and soon newly appointed committee and commission members. A suggestion calls for a workshop involving all elected and appointed individuals to be conducted by the Acting City Attorney on the Brown Act, the City Charter, adopted Rules of Parliamentary Procedures, and Conflicts of Interest. 

Updated 4/9/2014

– In a novel Piedmont proceeding, the City Council deliberated publicly as to who should be the chairperson of the now permanent Piedmont Public Safety Committee (PSC). –

The PSC resolution adopted by the Council on January 6, 2014 calls for the Council to make a selection of the chairperson. (See Council minutes )  The resolution is unusual because the chairpersons of other Piedmont commissions and committees are chosen by the group, rather than the City Council. Additionally, the term of the chairperson of the PSC is three years, rather than a typical one year term for chairpersons.

Acting City Attorney, Michelle Kenyon’s instructions on the long established sunshine law, the Brown Act, prohibited the Council from moving the committee and commission selections to a Closed Session.  The selection process was awkward, as the Council for years had become accustomed to discussing and choosing among the committee and commission candidates outside of public view in “Closed Sessions”.  (see PCA article) .

The PSC charge requires the chairperson to participate in the selection and interviewing of prospective new members of the Committee. As the interviews for the Committee are to be held on March 31,  the Council moved ahead with the selection of a new chairperson.

Sue Lin, current PSC member and applicant for the chairperson position, stated the current chairperson, Michael Gardner, completes his term at the end of March, leaving a question of the necessity to replace him prior to the interview and selection date on March 31.

The Council discussed the two candidates, Sue Lin and Lyman Shaffer, giving both high praise and exclaiming how fortunate it was to have two experienced and capable individuals interested in becoming chairperson of the PSC. There were no negative comments made about either candidate. Statements by the Council emphasized the need to further develop emergency preparedness and increase collaboration with the schools.

Council member Teddy King made a motion to appoint Lin as chairperson for which there was no second until Mayor Margaret Fujioka asked Counsel Kenyon if she could second the motion. Upon permission, Fujioka seconded the motion. She then called for the vote, which failed with Rood, McBain and Weiler voting no.  A second motion to approve Shaffer as chairperson passed with aye votes from Rood, McBain, Weiler, and King. Fujioka voted no to the Shaffer appointment.

http://www.piedmontcivic.org/2012/03/31/council-appoints-residents-to-commissions-and-committees/

– Now is your chance to get involved and give back to Piedmont. –

Application Deadline: 03/25/14 at 5 p.m.

City Council Report March 2014

by Ann Chandler, Piedmont League of Women Voters Council Observer

As we greet a new City Administrator, a new mayor, and a new Council in March 2014, we should take a moment to look back at two years of important work by the previous City Council. In November 2011, Council member John Chiang created a matrix of suggestions made by the City Council Audit Subcommittee (which had looked at the utilities undergrounding project that had gone $2 million over budget), The League of Women Voters Task Force on Governance (originally formed following the same utilities undergrounding fiasco), and the Municipal Tax Review Committee (which had concluded that the municipal services parcel tax was important but that there were many policy improvements the Council should make before asking voters to renew the parcel tax). Altogether, there were over 30 suggestions in these 3 reports, many of them overlapping.

In February 2012, John Chiang was elected mayor and the next month the City Council appointed a Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (5 residents) to look at the city’s annual budget, its 5-year projections, and its funding for long-term capital projects, equipment replacement, and facilities maintenance/replacement. The committee also reviews any new commitments in excess of $250,000 in one fiscal year, comments on the Finance Director’s Mid-Year report to the Council in January, and meets again April through June each year as the budget is being finalized for the fiscal year starting in July. As approved, the committee will end on June 30, 2015 unless extended.

In April 2012, the Council rescinded its 2011 approval of the Blair Park project, which ended the suit against the City brought by Friends of Moraga Canyon. (The litigation which the City brought against two engineering companies involved in the Piedmont Hills Utilities Undergrounding is still pending.)

One of the strongest themes in the Municipal Tax Review Committee’s suggestions, taken up by the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee, was a need to gain control over personnel costs, particularly the cost of fringe benefits. The first step in that direction occurred in June 2012 when the Council approved a new “Tier 2” of miscellaneous employees hired after August 3, 2012. We now have 3 Tiers of miscellaneous employees, and 3 Tiers of safety employees, meaning 6 different retirement and benefit packages. Control of personnel costs is still a large issue.

In July 2012, an Athletics Facilities Preservation Fund was established. It charges sports clubs (but not school teams) for use of city and school sports facilities. The income from this fund alone is not enough to maintain or replace athletic facilities, but creation of the fund was one step toward addressing the subject of athletic facilities preservation.

In December 2012, the City contracted with Janae Novotny, a lawyer specializing in public employee negotiations, to represent the city in all labor negotiations beginning in January, 2013. A year later the city completed four-year contracts with all bargaining groups. There were raises for the first time in four years, but also increased deductions for benefits.

In January 2013, the city started development of a long-term Facilities Maintenance Program identifying needs, cost estimates, and potential funding sources. In June the document received final approval.

It is a 5-year plan looking at what needs to be done in fiscal years 2013-2017 to sewers, sidewalks, streets, buildings, parks, fields, etc. Although flexible, the plan gives a priority to each project within each facility, and a suggested time table. The exception to this is the Aquatics Facility. Although there is a list of things that need to be done, there are no cost estimates, no potential funding sources, and no timetable, leaving one to wonder what is next for the pool.

It was also in January 2013 that the first draft of a Risk Management Policy for Major Capital Projects came before the Council. The League of Women Voters Task Force on Governance was one of the groups that had recommended this, and the Task Force and League board members made comments and written suggestions on several drafts of this policy during 2013. In January 2014, Piedmont adopted a Risk Management Policy for Major Capital Projects.

One of the suggestions of the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee was that the city refinance the PERS Side Fund at a lower interest rate. Piedmont’s charter requires a vote of the people to do that. In the February 4, 2014 municipal election, the electorate gave the City Council overwhelming approval (82.6%) to refinance the Side Fund. Final discretion as to whether and when to do such a refinancing rests with the newly elected City Council.

In many ways it seems that an effort has been made to get Piedmont’s fiscal and legal house in order before proceeding with any large, creative new projects. This work has been started but not completed.

Controlling personnel costs is a long-range project, very much influenced by trends in the rest of the Bay Area and the state. But over the past two years, Mayor Chiang and City Administrator Geof Grote, both of whom left their positions in February, took these important steps to put Piedmont on the right path.

Reprinted from the Piedmont League of Women Voters bulletin,“The Voter”, with permission

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

February 6, 2014

Mr. Gary Wolff, Executive Director

Alameda County

Waste Management Authority

1537 Webster Street

Oakland, CA 94612-3355

       Re: Proposed Household Hazardous Waste Collection and      Disposal Fee

Dear Mr. Wolff:

       As you will recall I spoke to you recently by phone  concerning the above captioned matter. Firstly, there are a couple of housekeeping issues. (1.) I never received a so-called ballot regarding the proposed fee and as reported by several other people. And despite my request, I have not been provided one.  (2.) The phone number listed in the material (1-877-786-7927) continually rings “busy”. It clearly does no good to list an “information” number and never pick it up – a complaint expressed by several other people. (3.) The two different dates, February 26, 2014 and March 26, 2014, is confusing – again, a common complaint by several others.

       The Proposed Fee:  As you will recall, during our conversation I took the position that the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (ACWMA) lacked the required legal authority to either ballot for (conduct an election) or impose any such fee. Your position was and I presume still is, to the contrary. During our conversation you were insistent that the matter and the particular issues were thoroughly reviewed and approved by legal counsel. You also insisted that the proposal is by the authority and under the provisions of particular California State Statutes and applicable laws.

     However, when I asked that you provide copies of the material and documents supporting your position, you blatantly refused. Further, neither the enabling Ordinance, No. 2014, nor the Resolution # WMA 2013-06 (and as amended by Resolution #WMA 2014-02) cite any such legal authority, state statutes, laws, or codes.

     The only codes cited in the material are Government Code, section 6254, dealing with “public records”,  section 6066, concerning “notice publication”, and CEQA Regulations, section 15378(b)(4), and 15308, “project exemption”.

     We therefore take the position that the ACWMA lacks any and all legal authority to either, ballot the Alameda County electorate, residents, citizens, taxpayers, property owners, or otherwise, in order to impose a tax, fee, assessment, charge, or otherwise, or to “impose” (regardless of the outcome of a vote or an election) a fee, tax, assessment, charge, or other remuneration under the guise of a “Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Disposal Fee.”

     Please take notice that this correspondence is a formal complaint and notification that we seek immediate termination of the ACWMA proposal and of our intent to take whatever action deemed necessary in order to adequately protect our interest.

     Your immediate attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

               David E. Mix

The following two letters from Tom Clark and Bruce Joffe were sent to PCA. On February 4, Piedmont voters overwhelmingly approved Measure A, the restructuring of Piedmont’s CalPERS side fund pension obligation. See previously published letters on the PCA Opinion page.

 Mr. Mix, very well done!

I commend your standing firm in your reply to the response by Piedmont Council member Wieler.

As a member of the public you deserve respect when you speak to important public issues such as the Piedmont pension bond measure, particularly when, as here, you obviously have sought out the relevant facts, focused on the issues and made your public comments with all the intentions of a good, conscientious citizen.  This is all true notwithstanding that  I don’t agree with all of your comments and that yesterday I voted Yes on the Piedmont bond measure.

Your comments on important matters of public interest in Piedmont are, and always will be, greatly appreciated by me and many other Piedmont residents.  We don’t have to agree with you to show you decency and respect for your efforts. The only way our democratic system works is for individuals, like you, to remain forever vigilant to uncover the truth behind the conduct and representations of public officials. Many public officials want only to hear and read praise, and talk (in the words of George Orwell) in a manner “designed to make lies sound truthful . . . and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”.  With the best of our wonderful democratic heritage in mind, I want to express my respect for those like you who are not afraid to stand up to the powers that be and comment publicly, in good faith and directly on point, eye-to-eye on public issues to public decision makers.  Moreover, I appreciate your gift of an outline to which Piedmont residents can refer when the pension refinancing appears on the Piedmont Council agenda.

For all that you have done, you should not to be scolded.  You should be applauded.

And let’s take just a brief look at the record of the Piedmont Council of experts touted by Council member Wieler.

This is the Council of experts that wasted over $2 million in badly planned and poorly executed electric line undergrounding projects, including being forced by court order to pay with taxpayer funds the legal costs by objectors to one project because of the City’s legal defense.  This is the Council of experts that rushed through approval of an out-of-scale city sports complex (Blair Park) that Council members and City staff promised would cost taxpayers nothing, but when the badly planned project crashed and burned it left Piedmont taxpayers holding a bag with hundreds of thousand dollars of losses.  This is the Council of experts that tried to scare the community into voting for an unnecessary tax increase for the sewer fund, a fund from which the Council transfers large amounts for unsubstantiated  overhead to the general fund and uses the money to cover such things as the Blair Park sports complex losses and the electric undergrounding losses.  We proved with the City’s own public records that City officials violated the Brown Act and used public funds to promote the sewer tax ballot measure. We proved that failure of the tax would not, contrary to these expert officials’ false claims, make the city a sewer outlaw before EPA and leave our gutters running brown.  Our grass roots disclosures and opposition killed the tax and proved that Piedmont’s sewer system was fully in compliance with all relevant laws and EPA mandates. Our sewer system have worked fine and our gutters have remained clean without the new sewer tax.

Thank you very much for your time and effort in speaking out to our local government and voters.  Your future involvement on public issues in Piedmont and elsewhere is most welcome.

Tom Clark, Piedmont Resident

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi Tom,

It’s too bad we didn’t have this conversation a few weeks before the election.  I read Mayor Chang’s reply on Piedmontcivic.org and voted Yes because it looks like we’d be paying lower interest, and that our city council is not stepping into the CAB trap.  This is complicated stuff for folks who don’t regularly travel along bond-financing highways, and we have to trust our city council members to do the deep studying and find the best approach for Piedmont citizens.

Unfortunately, the mistakes outlined by Tom Clark have eroded confidence that our city council has the knowledge and capability to make the right decision.  Well, looking forward, a sage once observed that “Good judgement comes from experience, but experience comes from bad judgement.”  Let’s hope our city council has learned from past experiences.

Bruce Joffe, Piedmont Resident

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

Mayor Chiang:

     What first caught my attention was the “majority” voter requirement reported in the Montclairon. As it turns out, you and the City Council had full knowledge of the 2/3’s requirement back in June of last year, by Finance director, Erick Cheung’s Council Agenda Report (June 17, 2013) where you and the Council were clearly advised that the measure would require a 2/3’s voter approval.  Why the ballot language indicating otherwise and that only a majority vote would be required remains quizzical.

     As I said previously, whether the City will actually save money remains to be seen. However, the measure’s language (“to do any and all things they [City Council] deem necessary”) is clearly an unrestricted Blank Check.  But, you say, there will be no future need for a subsequent bond offering. That is not accurate – considering the proposed bonds will Not completely satisfy the “side fund”, but only 90% and an additional actuarial adjustment will surely be encountered at the end of the terms (7 and 9 yrs), more than likely a great deal more money will be owed to satisfy the UAAL at that time.

    Contrary to the Ordinance, the side fund does not equal the unfunded liability of each plan.  It may have at the commencement of the risk pools but as time has passed it surely has grown out of balance where now more money is owed. Additionally, the unfunded liability is a moving target and continually moving forward with time. You equate it with a simple home mortgage but it is more akin to a mortgage with an unknown balloon payment at the end and with continuing and increasing neighborhood association fees forever after.

    The City’s pension liability will never go away – it continues with time.  Conceptually, money can be invested with enough anticipated earnings (PERS 7.5%) to satisfy all future liabilities. But, the past decade has clearly proven how unreliable that notion is. Further, PERS bench mark is only 90% of full funding, so you never catch up. Also, your proposed “lump sum” bond measure is based on outdated unrealistic fixed interest rates and questionable employer contribution growth rates.

    You are correct in that I am certainly aggravated with Oakland’s frivolous pension bond activities but unfortunately, despite your protestations, there are many parallels with Piedmont. Most noticeable is the lack of information and not being forthcoming with critical details – and as they say, the devil is in the details.

     Lastly, you rely heavily on bond counsel, the City attorney and brokers while ignoring the obvious – they all work for the City, well paid and with an undeniable vested interest.

David E. Mix