Following the Labor Day holiday, the City Council will hold its first September meeting on Tuesday.  In closed session they will meeting with labor negotiators and also confer with legal counsel concerning anticipated initiation of litigation.

The public session will begin at 7:30pm with two items on the agenda: recruitment of a City Administrator and resolutions to be presented at the annual League of California Cities meeting.  The public is welcome to attend in the Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue.

Grote to retire after 25 years of service to Piedmont – 

It was January 30, 1989, when Geoffrey L. Grote became Piedmont’s City Administrator. Grote was raised in Pleasant Hill, graduated from the University of the Pacific in Stockton and received his Juris Doctor from Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington.  Before coming to Piedmont, Grote was city manager of Ojai, California  where he initiated several major projects including the Ojai Arcade and the remodeling and expansion of Ojai’s City Hall. Prior to that he had been  Assistant to the City Administrator and Assistant City Attorney in San Luis Obispo. He was founding member and President of the Santa Barbara Area Joint Powers Insurance Authority.

At the October 1989 Piedmont Civic Association Annual meeting, Grote, as the recently hired City Administrator, spoke to the group on taxes, zoning, safety, planning, libraries, utility undergrounding, trees, playfields, and views.  Most of these issues continue to be of great interest to Piedmonters.

Grote was hired by the City Council in 1989 at a salary of $72,000 plus benefits including a car allowance.  He was chosen from among 100 applicants.

When Grote retires at the end of January 2014, he will have served as City Administrator for 25 years.  Both in Piedmont and elsewhere, the position of City Administrator or City Manager is known for frequent turn overs. His longevity speaks to his ability to work with City Councils, the public, and Piedmont employees.

Numerous City municipal service taxes were passed during Grote’s tenure with only one defeat.  The recent sewer tax proposal was defeated in 2012 followed by voter approval of another municipal service tax. 

During recent years Grote was faced with more than the usual budget balancing, public safety and planning issues. Retirements required hiring a new Police Chief, Fire Chief, City Attorney, Public Works Director, Finance Director, and City Clerk.

Vexing to the City administration, citizens and Council was the City’s assumption of risk for the private Piedmont Hills Underground Utility District resulting in a $2.5 million dollar burden on all taxpayers.  The matter remains in legal limbo as the City attempts to recover payment from the project designers and engineers.

Many say the most divisive issue to confront Piedmont in recent years was the proposal by Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) to develop an extensive sports complex for soccer and other grass-based sports in Blair Park bordering Moraga Avenue.  Although the project proposal was ultimately withdrawn by PRFO and a cancellation of Council approval, it cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and diverted hundreds of hours of City staff time. 

Pension liabilities, changes in personnel, funding, planning, public safety – all were prominent in Grote’s responsibilities. Grote has been acclaimed for his willingness to sit down with citizens, improvements to City facilities and pleasant demeanor.  New residents and visitors to Piedmont frequently remark on how beautifully maintained they find the City. Considering Grote’s knowledge of the City and its employees, the next City Administrator will have large shoes to fill.

At the City Council meeting of August 5, the following statements were made:

“I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest appreciation to the Mayor and Council, the residents of Piedmont, and the dedicated City staff for their support and assistance these almost 25 years that I have served as City Administrator,” said Grote.

“These years have been with filled with joys and disappointments, but what I will remember most vividly are the extraordinary people that I have come to know in Piedmont, residents and staff, who have worked so hard to preserve and improve this beautiful community. It has been a privilege to have been a part of that work”

“Piedmont has benefitted from Geoff’s leadership over the nearly quarter century he has served the City,” said Mayor John Chiang. “His efforts to maintain high service levels, excellent public facilities, and make Piedmont a better place for its residents will not soon be forgotten.”

Mr. Grote will remain with the City until the end of January 2014 and, according to a City press release, the recruitment process for a new City Administrator has commenced.  As an “at will” employee, Grote’s agreement with the City required him to provide 6 months of notice prior to retirement or leaving his position, hence the August 5 announcement.  Grote’s replacement could occur prior to his designated retirement date. Alternatively, there is an option of a temporary extension of his employment agreement. 

At the August 5 City Council meeting, Geoffrey Grote Piedmont’s long time City Administrator announced he would retire effective February 2014.   Grote came to Piedmont almost 25 years ago and has steered Piedmont through many events and changes.

More information on Grote and his retirement will be published when available.

Questions persist on Brown Act compliance.

Violation of the Brown Act by Council members’ contiguously and jointly meeting with Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) leaders depends on the subjects discussed in the meetings, links of the various meetings, participants at the meetings and the possibility of staff acting as an intermediary.

The Brown Act (CA Gov. Code § 54952.2 (b)(1))  “A majority of the members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting authorized by this chapter, use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.”

Questions have been raised by citizens regarding the right of Council members together with the City Administrator to meet, without public notice, with individuals to discuss “any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.”

On January 31, April 11, and June 17, 2013 at various times three members of the City Council met with signers to an agreement between the Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) and the City.  Because staff and Council members had indicated the intention to meet with PRFO to discuss the outstanding unpaid reimbursement balance, these meetings are  presumed to involve settling the payments owed by PRFO.  No other agenda has been offered for the three meetings with the PRFO leaders, but if no City business was discussed, no public notice was required.

At the meetings PRFO was represented by two leaders in each meeting and a third PRFO leader joined one meeting.  The City was represented by the City Administrator and the Mayor alone or with an additional Council member or by a third Council member alone. This composed a majority of the Council and the principals of PRFO meeting for the purpose of negotiating the amount of money owed to the City of Piedmont for expenditures on behalf of PRFO’s Blair Park project. 

In a statement in the July 5, 2013 , Piedmonter,  Assistant City Attorney Rafael Mandelman said,  “We take the Brown Act seriously.  I looked into (the matter) and it doesn’t seem to me there was a violation. There was never any deliberation among a (City Council) quorum or any discussion about what other council members said.  The elements don’t seem to be there.”

Piedmonter and former Planning Commissioner Melanie Robertson wrote, “..at the end of the three meetings, three of the five City Council members–Mayor Chiang, McBain and Fujioka–in addition to Grote, had met with PRFO officials Havian and Menke about the PRFO debt but without public notice, participation or comment.  The Brown Act provides that the three members of the council ‘taken as a whole invovles a majority of the body’s members.’ thus, the three meetings combined, as defined in the Brown Act, clearly constitute serial meetings and therefore are in violation of the Brown Act.”

It is not known what has been deliberated, but negotiations have been acknowledged in emails between the participants, which includes a majority (quorum) of the Council.   If the private negotiation meetings produced any conclusory information or direction, this has not been publicly announced.  Serial private meetings by a majority (quorum) of an elected body involving  negotiations, unless specifically exempted under the law, constitute a violation of the Brown Act.  It is unknown why the matter has not been placed on a public agenda for consideration and public input on the facts.   

During the review of  the development of Blair Park on Moraga Avenue in Piedmont by PRFO, an agreement to reimburse City expenses, for legal work and other consultants, was struck outside of public meetings between PRFO and the City.  The project was approved.   Following litigation brought by Friends of Moraga Canyon (FOMC) and objections by the City of Oakland, on May 7, 2012, the Council rescinded its approval. 

After the City’s costs were itemized, PRFO evidently contested some of the charges.  Details on the matter have been questioned and requested to be publicly discussed.  Costs, if not borne by PRFO, will fall to the City’s taxpayers through the City General Fund.

In response to a citizen inquiry, the City Administrator asserted that the private meetings supported by City staff are legal under the Brown Act. Tim Rood had observed that the meetings appeared inconsistent with the Brown Act.

The following links are provided for more information on the Brown Act:

http://www.cacities.org/UploadedFiles/LeagueInternet/86/86f75625-b7df-4fc8-ab60-de577631ef1e.pdf

http://www.asnc.us/2004-archives/Special-2004/0805-CityAttnyOpinionReNCs-BrownAct.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Act

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

Strike continues as BART attempts to hold costs down, and unions press for increased compensation and work condition changes in their contracts. –

Ever increasing costs of health care  and pensions have placed a heavy burden on the public sector paid for by taxpayers.  BART  and other public employee benefit costs have been significant in budgets. The disparity between the benefits of an average private sector worker and public employee has been growing, as taxpayers become increasingly aware of issues such as some free pensions and lifetime health benefits.

During the bargaining process (including the strike period), employee proposals and management proposals are not open to the public due to labor laws. However, some information has become available on what is being discussed in the bargaining process.

According to an AP article on Saturday, June 29:

The unions want a 5 percent annual raise over the next three years.  Currently, train operators and station agents are paid in the low $60,000 range. Employees average $16,590 in overtime annually and pay a flat $92 monthly fee for health insurance.

Meanwhile, BART has offered a 1 percent raise annually over the next four years and for employees to contribute to their pensions. Yahoo.com

Unlike most private employees, public employees have enjoyed guaranteed pensions, to which many have made very low or no contributions.  Most retirees in the private sector, vigilantly watch their expenses, IRA’s or 401 Ks.  Public employees need not worry about the stock market or investments made by their pension provider, as their pension amounts are guaranteed during all economic periods.  This pension guarantee received little notice by the public until recently when CalPERS funds, where BART’s retirees are vested, took a nose dive.  The drop in value of the CalPERS funds, caused participating agencies such as Piedmont and BART to increase contributions to meet beneficiary costs.

According to an article in the Mercury News:

The average BART worker — including management and non-union employees — made $83,157 in gross pay in 2012, up from $80,588 in 2010, according to an analysis of payroll records by this newspaper. An 8 percent wage bump, on top of a 1 percent pay increase already set to kick in Monday, would push the average BART employee’s gross pay to about $90,600 in 2016.

BART spokesman Rick Rice said they also offered “meaningful reductions” to employee pension and health care contributions compared to what agency officials had proposed earlier. Pay, pension contributions and medical costs are the three big issues left, and unions were set to review the latest proposal Saturday night.

Rice said that their latest offer would give workers enough money to see a “net increase” in total compensation even with workers contributing more to their health care and pension plans.

Union leaders have said they were willing to budge on the issues of pensions and health care benefits but it’s unclear how far they’re willing to go. Currently, BART workers don’t pay toward their pensions and give $92 a month toward their medical benefits, regardless of the number of dependents. Including pay and benefits, the average cost for BART for each employee was $116,309 last year, up from $110,017 in 2010.  Mercury News

AC Transit continued service on Monday, July 1, requiring many bus drivers and employees to work extra hours to provide needed transportation support.   In some cases, these employees receive time-and-a-half or double-time compensation.  It is unknown at this point if AC Transit, whose contract has also expired, will go on strike simultaneously with BART.  Negotiations are continuing.

June 24th

President Raushenbush and Members of the Board:

It’s with considerable anxiety that I see that you will be asked to adopt Resolution No. 22-2012-13 calling upon the State Legislature to once again challenge Proposition 13 !

As I see it, this action, if adopted by the legislature, will be just one more of the never ending attacks on property owners of California; intended to eventually cause the demise of Prop. 13.  The politicians of California won’t ever be satisfied until they have overturned this protection for all property owners, commercial or residential.

Reject the proposed resolution.

George Childs, Piedmont Resident

Reversal returned public access to records to the status quo –

Senate Bill 71 and Assembly Bill 76, if approved, possibly would have limited public access to information including details on governmental decisions, public employee compensation, benefits and pensions costs. The outcry against the bills from media and good government advocates has been significant.  Recently in Piedmont, Public Records Act requests have revealed inappropriate use of monies for surface water runoff work, private contracts, and CEQA work not provided during public hearings.

Senate Bill 71 (SB 71) was introduced in the California Senate by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review on January 10, 2013, and amended on June 12 and passed by the Senate on June 14.  Assembly Bill 76 (AB 76) was passed on June 14.  The Senate version was amended in the Assembly on June 12 and 19.   SB 71 now excludes the AB 76 section 3 language:

“This bill would, commencing on the effective date of this bill, make compliance with certain provisions of the CPRA, which among other things relate to the delivery of electronic data, optional for local agencies.”

Late Thursday,  June 20,  Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker John A. Perez released the following statement:

“We agree there needs to be both an immediate fix to ensure local entities comply with the California Public Records Act and a long term solution so the California Public Records Act is not considered a reimbursable mandate. Accordingly, the Senate will take up the amended SB 71 passed by the Assembly today that removed changes in the budget regarding the California Public Records Act. As the Senate advances its proposed constitutional amendment, the Assembly will work with them throughout its process to give voters the chance to make clear that good government shouldn’t come with an extra price tag.”

Supporters of the rejected language may introduce it in the future as a cost-saving measure for local governments and agencies.

Assembly Bill 76 text

Senate Bill 71 text

Public Misses Out on Background of Issues –

Public meetings in Piedmont must meet the California Brown Act, known as a “sunshine” law. The City of Piedmont and the Piedmont Unified School District regularly provide required notice and agendas of meetings, and most City Commission, School Board, and City Council meetings can be viewed by the public at home via KCOM or live streaming through the City’s website.  These meetings are informative and important to public policy decisions.

A number of other public meetings, however, are not broadcast, primarily because the City Council Chambers at City Hall is the only public space equipped for KCOM broadcast.  Additionally, for some meetings, there are no minutes taken, audio recordings, or records kept.  Nonetheless, recommendations arising from these meetings often are the foundation of decisions by the City Council and the School Board.

Brown Act qualifying meetings typically not recorded or broadcast are:

City Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee

The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee was formed by the City Council to review and provide comment on five year projections contained in the City’s annual budget proposal, the proposed funding and expenditures from several long term funds, and the proposed mid-year budget adjustments. It also provides a financial review of new programs in excess of $250,000 per year. Click here to read the committee’s charge.

Council Liaison: John Chiang (H) 655-2959

Members: Mary Geong, Steven Hollis, Bill Hosler, Tom Lehrkind, Tim Rood

City CIP (Capital Improvement Projects) Review Committee  –

The CIP Review Committee makes recommendations to the City Council regarding the expenditure of the capital budget (construction, repair or rehabilitation of city facilities).

Council Liaison: Robert McBain (H) 547-0597
Staff Liaisons: Chester Nakahara (W) 420-3061 & Mark Feldkamp (W) 420-3064

Members: John Cooper, Ryan Gilbert, Nancy Lehrkind, Jeffrey St. Claire

City Council Budget Work Session –

The City Council meets with the City staff and discusses the staff proposed budget for the coming fiscal year. Summary minutes are approved by the City Council. 

Council: Mayor John Chiang, Vice Mayor Margaret Fujioka, Council members, Garrett Keating, Jeff Weiler, and Bob McBain

School District Budget Advisory Committee –

Under the direction of the Superintendent, a Program/Budget Advisory Committee reviews the financial health of the District’s General Fund budget, shares information with constituent groups, and makes recommendations for Board consideration in the budget development process. Members of the committee include representatives from each school site, employee associations (APT for teachers and CSEA for classified staff), administration, support groups, the community at-large, and the Board of Education. Members serve for one to two years. Those interested in serving on the standing committee should contact the Superintendent’s office.

List of members are not publicly released.

School Support Tax Advisory Subcommittee –

The committee  was required to be established by approval of  the SCHOOL SUPPORT TAX MEASURE A, MARCH 5, 2013 ELECTION.  This is a new committee and therefore has no  broadcast or recorded history.

The Subcommittee is an independent subcommittee of the PUSD Budget Advisory Committee (“BAC”). The BAC serves as a community forum for interested community members to receive up-to-date information about the District’s budget. All stakeholder groups, including the Parent and Support Clubs, Employee Associations (APT, CSEA and APSA), Piedmont Educational Foundation, and the community at large, are invited to participate in the BAC.

Members of the Subcommittee shall be active members of the BAC so that they will have current information and understanding of the District budget. However, the Subcommittee will operate independently of the BAC and report directly to the Board of Education.  In addition to the budget information provided to the BAC, the Subcommittee may request additional information relating to the budget or School Support Tax from the Assistant Superintendent for Business Services, who will be the primary point of contact for the Subcommittee.

The Subcommittee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Board of Education to help review and project the financial needs of the PUSD with respect to the levy of the voter approved School Support Tax. The Subcommittee shall conduct an independent examination of the District’s budget and related documents prior to making formal recommendations in its annual report to the Board.

The scope of work for the Subcommittee shall be limited to advice on whether and to what extent to levy the School Support Tax.

At this time appointments to the Subcommittee have not been made.

Procedures to be followed for Brown Act qualifying City and School meetings include:

Agendas and notices:

Legislative bodies of local agencies covered by the Brown Act must post an agenda for their meetings in a place that is freely accessible to members of the public at least seventy-two hours before the meeting. It also requires the legislative body to mail a copy of the agenda to anyone who has requested notice in writing. (A fee may pertain.)

Documents used during a meeting:

All public participants are entitled to inspect any writing or document distributed to members during a meeting. If a document was prepared by the governmental body itself, you are entitled to inspect it at the time of the meeting. If a document was prepared by someone else, you are entitled to inspect it after the meeting.

Documents distributed to a legislative body:

Distributed documents including emails, letters, memos, staff reports, consultant reports and other written methods are available to the public when requested.

 

Public Hearing on water and wastewater rate increases –

The hearing will be held Tuesday, June 11, 2013, at 1:15 p.m. in the EBMUD Board Room, 375 11th Street, in Oakland.  Fee increase protests must be in writing and follow EBMUD procedures.

Every property owner and tenant within the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) should have received in the mail a detailed explanation of significant changes to the fees charged for both their water usage and wastewater services.

The overall proposed rate increase for water usage is 9.75% in the first year and 9.50% in the second year.  The overall proposed rate increase for wastewater is 9.00% in the first year and 8.50% in the second year. The proposed increase will be effective for services provided and billed on or after July 1, 2013 and July 1, 2014, respectively.

Concerned individuals can contact www.ebmud.com for more information related to the proposed fees.    Phone 1-866-403-2683.   Formal protests must be in writing and sent to EBMUD at:

EBMUD, MS 218, PO Box 24055, Oakland, CA 94623-1055

or present protest in person at 375 11th Street, Oakland, CA

See EBMUD mailing for specific information required in any protest.

Piedmont’s elected representative on the EBMUD Board, Katy Foulkes, can be contacted directly at kfoulkes@ebmud.com.

City’s Proposed Policies Get Tough Review-

Risk management policies for future, major Piedmont projects sparked a wide-ranging, sometimes argumentative but ultimately conciliatory discussion at the Monday, April 1, City Council meeting. In the end, the Council  supported the policies proposed by Public Works Director Chester Nakahara for “non-routine” projects costing over $300,000,  but also asked him to consider numerous changes recommended by speakers at the meeting.  A final version of the policy document is to be brought back to the Council at a date to be determined. > Click to read more…