Jul 19 2021

Dear Piedmont City Council,

Back in the spring, we approached the City about sharing the results of the calculations we had been working on since the fall about the feasibility of designing a pool facility that created zero carbon emissions in its operation. We were asked by the City Administrator to prepare a summary report, with the idea that we’d follow it up with an in-person (Zoom) meeting. We understand that the City Administrator’s leave may have been what prevented this from happening, but we still would like the opportunity to present our feasibility study. We find it concerning that our input has basically been ignored, as evidenced by the draft RFP for a pool design team, which makes no reference to Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan or to the energy and GHG calculations that are needed if the City is going to follow the CAP and aim for a zero or very low emissions pool facility.

To summarize, our analysis of the 2017 Conceptual Design found that, even with its proposed use of solar tubes, the new pool facility would need 46% more natural gas to operate than the old pool facility needed in 2019. This is clearly not in line with our CAP targets of reducing our emissions by 40% below 2005 levels by 2030 and 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. Piedmont Connect did some preliminary calculations to determine if it would be possible to design a pool heating system that uses zero natural gas. We found that it would, indeed, be possible, using primarily a combination of efficient electric air-to-water heat pumps powered by solar PV. We estimated the annual operating costs of two such systems — one using a heat pump with a COP (Co-efficiency of Production) of 4 and one using an even more efficient heat pump with a COP of 6.  And we compared these two zero emissions options with an all-gas option and the solar tube option presented in the 2017 Conceptual Plan.

 All-gas

 Solar tubes

   COP 4 Heat   Pump

  COP 6 Heat  Pump

Annual C02 emissions

 494 MT*  C02

  68 MT  C02

   0 MT C02

  0 MT C02

Annual operating cost

 $169,924

 $ 93,220

 $165,744

 $132,211

*MT = Metric Tons

As you can see, the operating cost of the system using a COP 6 Heat Pump is only about $39,000 more per year AND it delivers on having zero emissions, in line with meeting our CAP goals. The solar tube-based design of the 2017 Conceptual Plan, as we say above, would increase pool emissions by 46% over 2019 levels, making it impossible for the municipal sector to meet Piedmont CAP targets. (Since heating the old pool constituted around 67% of overall municipal emissions, there is just no room to increase these emissions and meet our CAP targets.) These numbers are preliminary, and an updated conceptual design would need to do further analysis.

Please do not approve this RFP until the Climate Action Plan targets and the necessity of aiming for a  zero carbon pool water heating system and pool building are thoroughly integrated into the expectations we have of bidders.

Sincerely,

Piedmont Connect’s Pool Committee

Indira Balkissoon

Garrett Keating

Margaret Ovenden

Tom Webster

Jul 19 2021

Dear Council, Staff, and Members of the Pool Advisory Committee,

My sense from last week’s Pool Advisory Committee and from speaking with Council Members is that everyone involved in this project wants a pool facility that emits as few carbon emissions as possible. But the schedule and work plan presented at last week’s Pool Advisory Committee meeting, as well as the draft RFP for a project design team before you tonight have me deeply concerned that we are not on track to do this. I believe that right now we are in danger of being lulled into a design process that is biased, inadequate, and likely to lead to failure. I urge you to send this RFP back to the drawing board and to re-evaluate the project timeline and milestones.

Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan

How we set up the design process for the pool facility now will determine whether or not we are able to make its operations as close to zero carbon as feasible. From the looks of the RFP, we aren’t making a serious attempt at all. First of all, why is there absolutely no mention of Piedmont’s 2019 Climate Action Plan in the RFP? The CAP is a guiding document for the City, developed by staff with community input and approved by Council. If we aren’t going to pay attention to it now, for the first new major municipal construction project since it was passed, why did we bother investing our time and energy to develop it? Why don’t we just admit to the world that we in Piedmont value our comfort and convenience over making a serious effort to reduce our GHG emissions? An explanation of the Climate Action Plan and Piedmont’s GHG emissions targets needs to be part of  the “Background” section of the RFP, and it needs to be made clear to potential bidders that their proposals need to clearly explain how they will approach reaching these emissions reduction targets.

2017 Conceptual Design 

Planning for serious GHG emissions reductions in line with California and Piedmont emissions reduction targets has not been part of the conversation about the new pool facility to this point — not in the conceptual design process (at least rigorously), not in the UU campaign, not in the interviews for Pool Advisory Committee members. Granted, the early stages of this process were before the completion of our 2019 CAP and before the developed world started to experience widespread and unmistakable climate disasters. Now that we know how concertedly we need to act to mitigate climate change, we cannot move forward assuming that the 2017 conceptual design is the project “bible” and that everything must be planned around it. I am very concerned, based on information presented at the first PAC meeting and in this RFP, that staff and the project management team see that conceptual design as already being locked in.

Previously, Connect was told that the 2017 conceptual design was just a placeholder and that it would be thoroughly re-done when the actual project began. However, the information presented at the PAC meeting seemed to indicate that this 2017 conceptual design is what will be taken before the public for “validation.” Since it’s old, the conceptual design doesn’t take into account the emissions reduction targets set by Piedmont’s 2019 CAP. Its “green tech” elements are simply outdated and inadequate. It proposes to accomplish 55% of the pool water heating with a solar tube array (passive solar), leaving 45% of the pool water heating to natural gas. Since the proposed new facility will triple the pool area of the old facility, the 2017 design will still lead to an increase in the facility’s natural gas usage, despite its “green tech” features. The design would significantly (likely irreparably) set back the City’s GHG emissions reduction efforts. (For more details about the problems with the 2017 conceptual design in terms of emissions reductions, see page 3 of the April report Piedmont Connect prepared at the request of the City Administrator.)

The RFP appears to deepen this problem by paving the way for an early ruling out of attempting a zero emissions design. Instead of starting the project by figuring from scratch how to design a zero emissions facility, it calls for working backwards from the (flawed) 2017 conceptual design to see if it can be made zero emissions. If this is how we go about it, the answer will likely be, “no, it’s impossible.”

If the facility is truly going to achieve as few emissions as possible, the specific emissions reduction technologies that could achieve this need to be incorporated into the conceptual design from the beginning, as the space they would occupy will be part of the space of the overall facility and thus influence its layout (these technologies would likely include high efficiency air-to-water electric heat pumps, powered by on-site solar PV, passive solar elements, etc., all of which need dedicated space). If we try to reverse our way out of the 2017 design, we are almost guaranteed failure.

Emissions Calculations

While those of us in Connect who have been analyzing the possibilities for a zero emissions facility have called for doing the emissions calculations early, we were not asking for what the RFP calls for (“an in-depth feasibility and cost/benefit analysis to determine if the facility can reach a Net Zero Energy for construction, operations and maintenance of the facility. This analysis shall be performed in the Preliminary stage of design to make an early determination of the feasibility of this goal.”). The way the thinking of project managers seems to be going, the zero net carbon features are being seen as add-ins, frills that would be nice to have, but not essential to the project. With this mindset, zero carbon technologies will be first on the chopping block when it comes to value engineering. Instead, they need to be non-negotiable, and, if value engineering is needed, some of the actual frills of the project should be what we cut until we can get to them later. A pool energy system is not something that can easily be revised later. We may need to incorporate some of the elements in stages, but we need to plan for them from the beginning.

In addition, the type of GHG emissions analysis Connect has been calling for is not a simple cost-benefit analysis. This analysis will require a separate team of experts in complex energy and emissions calculations (so this team needs to be added to the RFP’s list of consultants who will be needed). These are not calculations that a team coming at the issue from a cost/benefit perspective will have the expertise to do correctly. They will be unfamiliar with the newer technologies that will be needed in a zero carbon design, and, as such, they could easily rule them out without understanding their role.

CEQA

Another big flaw in the RFP is that the section on CEQA submittals (1.3.4.1) does not reference the GHG assessment that is now part of CEQA (as of 2019). Here’s a link to the new language: https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_FINAL_TEXT_122818.pdf  

In summary, “The revision of CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4 clarified several points, including the following:

  • Lead agencies must analyze the greenhouse gas emissions of proposed projects. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (a).)
  • The focus of the lead agency’s analysis should be on the project’s effect on climate change, rather than simply focusing on the quantity of emissions and how that quantity of emissions compares to statewide or global emissions. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (b).)
  • The impacts analysis of greenhouse gas emissions is global in nature and thus should be considered in a broader context. A project’s incremental contribution may be cumulatively considerable even if it appears relatively small compared to statewide, national or global emissions. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (b).)
  • Lead agencies should consider a timeframe for the analysis that is appropriate for the project. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (b).)
  • A lead agency’s analysis must reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (b).)
  • Lead agencies may rely on plans prepared pursuant to section 15183.5 (Plans for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gases) in evaluating a project’s greenhouse gas emissions. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (b)(3).)
  • In determining the significance of a project’s impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s long-term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the agency’s analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project’s incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project’s incremental contribution is consistent with those plans, goals, or strategies. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (b)(3).)
  • The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (c).)

LEED Certification

In the RFP and in the project management team’s presentation at the PAC meeting, when LEED certification was brought up, it was made to sound like LEED would apply to the entire facility. In my understanding, there’s no LEED certification system for pool water heating systems (I’d love to be proved wrong). LEED may perhaps apply to the pool structure, but it’s the pool water heating that will be by far the major source of the facility’s GHG emissions (unless we eliminate natural gas usage). It’s disingenuous (greenwashing) to label the entire facility as LEED certified, if this leaves out the major source of GHG emissions. In addition, for the structural elements of the pool (such as the pool house), why would we limit ourselves to LEED Silver? Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum LEED standards are older standards and mainly focused on energy efficiency and sustainable building materials. We should be aiming, instead, for the newer LEED Zero Carbon standard, which accounts for energy sources and verifies net zero goals. We strongly urge you to aim for LEED Zero Carbon, for the applicable parts of the project. Even if we can’t reach LEED Zero Carbon in the end, we need to set an ambitious goal to start with, rather than admitting defeat from the beginning.

This can be a pool facility for the 21st century, if we put our minds and wills to it. It’s time to pause and re-do the design team RFP as well as the project work plan and timeline.

Margaret Ovenden, Piedmont Resident

Jul 19 2021
Jul 19 2021

To the Piedmont City Council:

To date, the City has engaged the community in the design and funding of the new pool but has yet to assess community sentiment for building a pool that will not add to Piedmont’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  All of California and indeed the world are experiencing the early stresses of unchecked climate change and I think most Piedmonters do not want to build a pool that will add to that problem for their children.

The establishment of the Pool Advisory Committee offers the City the opportunity to have this community engagement about the proposed pool’s impact on climate change. To that end, selecting the right Project Architect will be essential to engaging the PAC and community in designing a pool that offers creative options but also tradeoffs to achieve the 2030 and 2050 GHG reduction targets set forth in Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan (CAP).

Unfortunately, the Griffin template used for the RFQ/P is inadequate for soliciting proposals to conduct this engagement and creative pool design.  For example, the staff report states that the “Scope of Services and Work Plan notes the City’s environmental goals” but that is not true; nowhere in the request for proposals do the words “Climate Action Plan” occur.  GHG reduction is without question the City’s most urgent environmental goal, yet there is no condition in the RFQ/P seeking services to assist the City with meeting it’s 2030 and 2050 targets.

The only concession to city environmental goals appears to be the incorporation of LEED silver design principles, outdated principles that do not address GHG reduction, rather than LEED-Zero, the latest LEED standards that incorporate renewable energy into the design.  Similarly, the RFQ/P calls for a Net Zero Energy (NZE) assessment of the conceptual facility, not Net Zero Carbon (ZNC)-driven design that could help achieve the city’s CAP goals. The RFQ/P should at least acknowledge the 2030 and 2050 reduction targets as project goals and solicit proposals that show how the new pool will integrate with the city-wide GHG reduction targets.

Staff gave assurances that if the RFQ/P does not solicit adequate proposals then additional rounds of solicitation will be undertaken. Unfortunately, this RFQ/P starts on the wrong foot and should be re-drafted to seek stronger proposals that deliver the services the city needs to achieve CAP goals.  The staff report acknowledges that the original date for issuance of the RFQ/P was August 2.

I suggest that Council take no action this evening [July 19] and instead give direction to staff to incorporate stronger language into the RFQ/P requesting proposals address GHG reduction of the conceptual design through design and energy infrastructure.  The current conceptual design fails to show any GHG emissions calculations so the City can obtain this analysis by having consultants do this in their proposals.

In the event Council decides to proceed with the RFQ/P, consider the following changes:

Acronyms/Definitions: add a definition for “building” to this section to clarify that the term includes the pool house and the pools.  GHG emissions from the pools vastly exceed those of the pool house and must be included in any LEED or NZE analysis for the facility.

1.1 Basic Services:  Don’t specify LEED silver as the design goal. First, this bar is too low and it sends a signal to consultants that they can achieve this project objective without appreciably addressing GHG emissions.  State instead that the city seeks the highest LEED certification for the pool and let consultants compete by submitting creative proposals.

1.2.12 Value Engineering: This is a very important element of the work plan as there are numerous redundancies and inefficiencies in the current conceptual design. Language should be added to this section stipulating that value engineering be initiated during the conceptual design phase so changes can be presented during the community outreach phase.

And some clarification may be needed in the RFQ/P.  The first table below is from the feasibility assessment of the pool presented on the City website during the community pool bond initiative.  The second table below is that presented in the RFQ/P (page 6).  While the total lap pool area is the same (9600 sq. ft) there is a discrepancy in the number and length of swimming lanes.

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont Council Member

Inline image

Inline image

8. Consideration of the Issuance of a Request for Qualifications/Proposals for Architectural/ Engineering/Planning and Design Services of the Piedmont Community Pool 0270-1022 https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=17851805

Jul 18 2021

Special Closed Session 6 pm

Special & Regular Session 6:30 pm

Consent Calendar

1. Approval of Meeting Minutes for 05/22/2021, 06/07/2021, and 06/21/2021

2. 2 nd Reading of Ord. 761 N.S. Renewed and Amended Lease for the Piedmont Educational Foundation at 401 Highland Avenue 0705, 0045  https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=17851807

3. Approval of an Agreement with the Local Government Commission for a the Placement of a Civic Spark Fellow for FY 2021-2022 0045

4. Receipt of a Report on the City’s Investment Portfolio 0475-3070 https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=17851792

5. Approval of the Replacement of Two Police Department Unmarked Vehicles 0045

6. Approval of a Renewed Agreement with Alameda County Regarding the Collection of Taxes 0045

Public Forum This is an opportunity for members of the audience to speak on an item not on the agenda.

Ceremonial Items Introduction of New Employees

Regular Agenda

7. Consideration of the Designation of Four Parking Spaces on Bonita Avenue as Ninety Minute Parking and an Agreement with East Bay Community Energy for Electric Vehicle Charger Funding 0045, 0735  at this point  https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=17851796

8. Consideration of the Issuance of a Request for Qualifications/Proposals for Architectural/ Engineering/Planning and Design Services of the Piedmont Community Pool 0270-1022 https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=17851805

9. Consideration of an Agreement with the University of Texas, San Antonio to Conduct Data Analysis of Piedmont Police Department Calls for Service 0045 https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=17851788

10. Consideration of Memoranda of Understanding with the Following Labor Groups for the Period of 07/01/2021 through 06/30/2025: a. Piedmont Firefighters Association b. Piedmont Police Officers Association 0045  https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=17851800

Reports from Councilmembers

Announcements

Old business and consideration of future agenda items

Adjourn

Agenda and participation via teleconference below:

https://piedmont.ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/City%20Council/Agenda/council-current-agenda.pdf

More staff reports > https://piedmont.ca.gov/government/city_council/staff_reports

 

Jun 21 2021

– Need for more action, Climate Action Committee, net zero carbon Pool  –

City Council: The report on the 2019 Green House Gas (GHG) Inventory is alarming for two reasons. First there has been virtually no change in city’s GHG emissions from 2018 to 2019 which indicates the city is not making progress towards the reduction targets. Second, the inventory indicates the transition to renewable energy provided by EBCE will not provide sufficient GHG reduction for the city to meet those targets.

The report shows the only way for Piedmont to achieve the 2030 and 2050 targets is through reduction (and possibly elimination) of the use of natural gas and the transition to electric vehicles.

The report may lead some to suggest there has been progress in that the GHG contributions of the residential sector have been reduced as a percentage of Piedmont’s total GHG emissions (figure 2 from the GHG report). That change is based solely on the assumption that all electricity currently provided to Piedmont from EBCE is renewable.

The reductions assigned to in the residential and municipal facility sectors in the 2019 GHG report have yet to be achieved although it may be appropriate to account for them at this time. Doing so now means that the City will achieve no further GHG reductions through ECBE’s greening of the grid and will need to find reductions in other ways.

This is evident in Figure 17 (from Attachment A) – electricity emissions are now essentially zero while natural gas emissions have gone unchanged for 3 years now. EBCE renewable energy has produced a reduction of only 2000 MT.

There is much greater reduction to be achieved through natural gas. This “reduction” in the residential sector may also lead some to think we need to focus instead on transportation. While transportation is important, market forces are driving the adoption of EV’s and in fact the city can do very little to affect this change. Instead, the City needs to focus on reducing the community sector GHG emissions through more REACH Codes, incentives and bans on use of natural gas in new construction and residential additions. On this last point, the City is in an excellent position to lead by example for the community.

Adoption of EV’s in the municipal fleet would be a visible statement by the city on its commitment to reducing GHG. But a city action of even greater relevance would be the building of a net zero carbon pool. The current pool is the largest municipal user of natural gas in the city and the conceptual design for the new pool will at least double that usage.

During the upcoming public engagement on the pool design, the city should advocate for a ZNC pool and provide designs and cost estimates of a ZNC pool during the public process. It is a stated goal of CAP 2.0 for the City to have net zero carbon operations by 2050.

Finally, staff suggests Council consider the establishment of Climate Action Committee to provide technical advice to the City on implementing the CAP and to serve as a liaison to the community. Virtually every other Bay area municipality has done this. Given that the city’s GHG reduction has stalled, innovative ideas will need to be vetted and Piedmont as a wealth of energy expertise that can assist staff. And as we saw with the REACH codes, the community wants these new proposals from staff presented at public hearings and a Climate Action Committee would provide that venue. Give direction to staff to report back to Council with concepts for such a committee in the near term.

 

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont Council Member

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
May 24 2021

Zoom meeting details 2021-05-25 Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee Agenda

  1. Election of a Chairperson
  2.  Fiscal Year 2020-21 Financial Update
  3.  Review Proposed Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget and Consideration of FY 2021-2022 Budget Report
  4.  Review Long Range Financial Plan

Distributed presentation >2021-05-25 Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Presentation

 

Apr 21 2021

Get Involved in the Community Pool Complex Planning!

The deadline to be a member of the Pool Advisory Committee is May 5th at 5 pm. 

The City Council will hold a special evening meeting on Monday, May 10th  to interview applicants. Go to the links below for detailed information.

2021-04-20 Pool Advisory Committee Recruitment

Notice of Appointive Vacancies 2021 – Pool Advisory Committee

Commission Application 2021 – Pool Advisory Committee

For questions, contact the City Clerk at 510/420-3040.

Apr 12 2021

 A Look at the California Electrical Grid Evolution  –

I got interested in studying the California electric grid as the result of the passage of Measure UU. The amount of energy consumed by an aquatic facility is significant:  in 2019 the existing pools used 25,396 therms of gas and 110 MWh of electricity a year, equivalent to 854 MWh (1MWh = 1,000 kwh). The new Piedmont aquatic facility is planned to have three times the surface and therefore could need as much as three times more energy in a steady state.

Clearly the new facility ought to minimize greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions.  Given the expected lifetime of the future facility, it makes sense to look forward and consider its GHG footprint in the long term in the context of the evolution of the grid, the City Climate Action Plan and the State 2050 decarbonisation goals.

I built a simulation engine for the California grid based on the hourly empirical data available for the year 2019 from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and the California Public Utility Commission. It simulates the way the energy available from various in-state and out-of-state sources are fed into the grid to meet demand. Increase in wind and solar supply is assumed to be based on scaling existing farms, therefore resulting in a proportional increase in such hourly energy offered to the grid. Demand is scaled based on the projection of the adoption of electric vehicles, the construction of new all-electric homes, and the conversion to electricity of residential, commercial, and industrial natural gas usage. Each sector has its own specific hourly demand distribution.

Wind and solar are energy sources with very large down and up swings.

  • On the down side in 2019 the wind and solar offering fell below 5% of hourly demand 19% of the time. Such intermittent power needs to be backfilled on a real time basis by dispatchable sources to match demand. Dispatchable energies are generated by power units able to vary output to follow demand, such as natural gas, hydroelectric, nuclear and geothermal plants. The utilisation factor of such traditional plants diminishes with intermittent energy use, but the plants cannot be decommissioned because their full power is needed for the several hours a year with high demand and lack of wind and sun.

  • On the up side, wind and solar energy production has to be curtailed whenever its hourly generation exceeds demand (minus a dispatchable energy floor to ensure reliable service). As the proportion of wind and solar power offered to the grid relative to demand increases, the proportion of such refused energy relative to the one offered increases.

The graph below is the result of running scenarios on the simulator corresponding to the projected demand in 2045. Note that the projection does not take into account converting industrial natural gas use (768,188 million cubic feet a year) to electricity, equivalent to 225 TWh a year assuming all industrial usage is for heating (one TWh equals 1,000,000 MWh).

The refused wind and solar energy could be converted to hydrogen through electrolysis rather than curtailed and used either to power hydrogen cars, to generate dispatchable electricity through hydrogen turbines and/or to be mixed with natural gas for distribution through the existing gas network.  See  below: Looking at the various possible evolutions of the mix of energy sources in the grid, I was hoping to calculate the sweet spot on the blue lines in the chart for the ratio of wind and solar power offered relative to demand that would optimize all life cycle costs and service reliability. But I failed because of the large uncertainties on many parameters which would allow me to reach any conclusion that I am biased towards, in particular:

  • Cost of upgrading the natural gas distribution network to handle hydrogen.

  • Life cycle cost of new nuclear and hydrogen dispatchable power plants.

  • Life cycle cost of new solar and wind farms with potentially lower level of utilization than currently accounted for.

  • Life cycle cost of traditional power plants operated at much lower utilisation factor, but still needed to power the grid in the hours with no wind and solar.

  • Energy efficiency in the electricity-hydrogen- electricity life cycle.

  • Life cycle cost of batteries.

Politics will drive where the grid ends up. Currently intermittent energy sources are favored over dispatchable non-fossil power plants as they create jobs all over California rather than in a few places and have a projected low life cycle cost.

With regard to the design of the new aquatic facilities, I would favor a single smaller pool focused on sports rather than recreation because of my belief that frugality is essential to meet the climate challenge. In any case, I know that a competent team focused on sustainability is working on the design of a “green” pool and I am confident that the promises of Measure UU will be achieved to the satisfaction of our community.

Bernard Pech, Piedmont Resident

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Mar 21 2021

Piedmonters will get a rare at home view of the all important Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee considerations.

Tuesday, March 23, 2021 3:00 p.m.  by Teleconference and Zoom

Taxes, tax measures, the budget and large expenditures are funneled through the Committee.  Historically minutes and video recording have NOT been made of the Committee’s meetings.  Typically, a report has been drafted by the Chair and reviewed by the Committee after a number of meetings.  

The March 23rd agenda includes the Municipal Pool, PERS pension project costs, and the annual budget actuals.

Stay up to date:

  • Call to Order Public Forum This is an opportunity for members of the audience to speak on an item not on the agenda. The 10 minute period will be divided evenly between those wishing to address the Committee.

Regular Agenda

  • 1. Update on FY 20-21 General Fund Revenue and Expenditures: Projected Actual vs Budget

  • 2. Presentation of Ten Year Projections of CalPERS Pension Costs

  • 3. Update on Piedmont Community Pool Project and Bond Oversight Committee

Read Agenda and Participation >2021-03-23 Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee

 To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can participate in the meeting in several ways:  Computer or smart phone: Click https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89251231925  Telephone: Dial (669) 900-9128 and enter webinar/meeting number 892-5123-1925 To participate in the meeting by providing public comment, members of the public may use the ZOOM platform to make live, verbal public comments. To speak to the Committee click the “Raise Your Hand” button when the item on which you would like to comment is called. If you are connected to the meeting by phone, please dial *9. When it is your turn to speak, the City Clerk will call your name and unmute your line, at which point you will have three minutes to address the Committee. After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted.

Instructions of how to “Raise Your Hand” is available at https://support.zoom.us/hc/enus/articles/205566129%0D-Raise-Hand-In-Webinar