Oct 16 2022

Housing Element Consideration by the Piedmont Council Postponed Again

The City Council meeting of October 3, 2022 was cancelled because the City Administrator had a family emergency.  Now, the previously announced October 17, 2022 City Council consideration of the Housing Element is not on the Council agenda for the meeting.

The Housing Element adding 587 new dwelling units in Piedmont is one of the most pressing issues facing Piedmont’s future as a city, but has apparently, though unannounced, hit another snag.

Many Piedmonters had not realized the importance of the issue until recently. It appears both the Piedmont Planning Department and the City’s planning consultants misunderstood the State’s Housing Element deadline.   Piedmont and its costly consultants failed to realize January 2023 may be the deadline rather than May 2023 for submittal of the Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for consideration.

Upon hearing from the public, the City Council required the Administration and Planning staff, along with the $1M consultant to answer a number of questions prior to further consideration of the Housing Element.  Information was to be presented and considered at the Council meeting on October 17.  There  has been no announcement or information on when the Housing Element will be publicly considered.

October 17, 2022  AGENDA HERE.

 

Oct 16 2022

OPINION: ANDERSEN, LONG AND RAMSEY For City Council

The Piedmont City Council Election this year is critically important for the future of our City. Climate Change, the Housing Element, and the City’s Infrastructure needs are certainly at the forefront, and I want a City Council that can best deal with these and other issues in a way that preserves what I love about Piedmont while improving it where needed.  I urge you to join me in voting for the 3 candidates I think can best take on these Herculean problems: Betsy Smegal Andersen, Jen Long, and Tom Ramsey.

BETSY SMEGAL ANDERSEN:  It is rare in Piedmont to think that a single person deserves the most credit for a single accomplishment, but that is surely the case for our soon to be built swimming pool complex.  The need for the Council to ride herd on that project to completion by itself compels the re-election of Betsy.  But there are so many other reasons to vote for Betsy.  With grace and sharp intellect, Betsy has tackled every issue the Council has faced.  Her roots in Piedmont are deeper than any other person presently on or seeking to join the Council.  We are so very lucky that Betsy is willing to stand for another term.

JEN LONG:  The City Council made a terrific decision when it appointed Jen to fill the vacancy on the Council.  It is indeed noteworthy that the Council chose Jen because she was the only candidate whom all the Council members felt they could support.  We the Voters should now ratify that decision.  In her short tenure, Jen has exhibited thoughtful analysis of the issues, a balanced approach to solutions, and a terrific capacity for hard work.  A resounding election victory for Jen would demonstrate to the world that the Piedmont of 2022 bears no resemblance to the city that ran its first Black residents out of the community years ago.

TOM RAMSEY:  Tom has demonstrated his ability to handle highly sensitive planning issues at a time when the Housing Element is the issue most immediately demanding solutions.  As of this writing, 14 of the 15 cities in the Bay Area that have submitted their plans to the State have had them rejected.  Make no mistake, unless we do this right the State will do it for us.  The chance that we will like what the State does to us is ZERO.  Tom’s experience as a planner is sorely needed on the Council.  His experience on the Planning Commission has demonstrated his ability to balance issues to assure that solutions further the goal of protection of the City that we love.  His 7 years on the Planning Commission provide the experience that will guarantee his effectiveness on the Council right from the start.

Electing all 3 of these candidates is the best way to assure a Council competent to navigate the uncharted seas which lie ahead.

Cameron Wolfe, Jr, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Oct 2 2022

HOUSING: Piedmont City Administrator Letter Arrives on the Eve of City Council Election

Why does the City not want a new City Council to consider the Housing Element?

The City is planning to have the proposed Housing Element approved prior to the November 8, 2022 Election and has agendized consideration of the Housing Element for the October 17, 2022 Council meeting.

The City is moving ahead of the City Council election to approve the Housing Element.  The regular October 3, 2022, City Council meeting was cancelled without explanation* during the contested City Council campaign when candidates and the public could have recorded their opinions at the meeting on the Housing Element or other issues.  The City Council during their regularly scheduled, but cancelled, meeting on October 3 could have amplified Housing information and made factual corrections to City positions.

Residents of Piedmont received the unprecedented City Administrator’s letter dated September 30, 2022 approximately a week before voters may begin voting in the election.  The letter disparages the positions of certain candidates and supports the positions of other City Council candidates, while claiming to provide factual information about the Housing Element. 

The City Administrator, Sara Lillevand and Mayor Teddy Kind are responsible for setting the Council meeting agendas. Lillevand has announced her retirement by April 2022 and King, is a “lame duck” and will no long be on the Council following the certification of the November 8 election.

Correction and amplification of information sent to voters by the City Administrator on September 29, 2022:

  • The Charter states the Council shall proposes a zoning plan, but where zoning is proposed to be changed as within the proposed Housing Element voters must approve the zoning changes.
  • An approved Housing Element is not just a plan to sit on a shelf, for the State requires implementation and developers and property owners gain legal rights.
  • The Housing Element once approved by voters and the Council becomes law in Piedmont with all incumbent factors, such as lawsuits, site locations, property rights, and the rule of law.
  • The City Council members and the City staff do not have the authority under the City Charter to change the zoning as proposed.  The Piedmont City Charter states clearly, “The Council may classify and reclassify the zones established, but no existing zones shall be reduced or enlarged with respect to size or area, and no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election. No zone shall be reduced or enlarged and no zones reclassified unless a majority of the voters voting upon the same shall vote in favor thereof;”
  • Only the voters per the City Charter have a right to approve the proposed Housing Element zoning changes.
  • The City owns much of the property proposed to receive a zoning change, but changes will need voter approval, if the City Council adheres to the City Charter.
  • Referring voters to the City website leads to false and incomplete information.
  • No written legal opinions on Piedmont voters rights, density, single-family housing, classifications, reclassifications, or Piedmont liability have been provided publicly, indicating legal problems, and avoidance of providing points and authorities for public consideration.
  • Despite threats to Piedmonters, the Piedmont City Council and City staff have known of the need for voter approval of proposed zoning changes and failed to date to schedule voter consideration to meet the State deadline of May 23, 2023.
  • The loss of local control by the City’s rejection of legally required voting over zoning is happening now in Piedmont, not because of Sacramento, but because the Piedmont City Council is not following  the City Charter and scheduling the required timely local election for continued voters control of zoning in Piedmont.
  • The City continues to spend well over a million dollars on banners, consultants, puzzles, incorrect flyers, staff time, and a letter thwarting Piedmont’s City Charter and voters rights, while complaining about potential election costs.
  • Sending a City letter to Piedmonters shortly before an election regarding  a contested campaign issue is legally questionable particularly by using false and incomplete factual information.
  • The City Administrator’s letter mentions nothing about the duty of the City Administrator to uphold the City Charter as requiring voter approval of the proposed zoning changes.

 For decades, a core principle of PCA is following the rule of law and upholding voters rights. 

  • UPDATE: The City Clerk announced on 10.3.2022, “The City Council meeting scheduled for Monday, October 3rd has been cancelled due to a medical emergency in the City Administrator’s family.” 
Sep 24 2022

OPINION: Pool Complex Cost Overruns Threaten Financial Crisis in Piedmont

Piedmont City Council and City Staff need to take Project Management Seriously –

“…, we have exceeded the original $15M estimate by a whopping $7.5M or 50%.” 

While cost overruns on public projects are sadly nothing new, the Pool project’s overrun before construction bids have been received and after scope reductions have been made is hard to fathom and extremely disappointing. 

With that in mind, consider that the City will soon have to face up to the State’s mandate to bring Essential Services Buildings or ESB ( police, fire and city offices ) up to State code requirements.    For comparison, consider that the Pool project is heading toward a $22-23M price tag while the ESB project costs, as compiled by the City Staff in April, 2020, was estimated to be between $80 to 100M – and that was with very preliminary plans and scope.  Without vastly better methods of cost control for the ESB projects, overruns of the scale of the pool project could easily cause a financial crisis for our small town.

A little background.   In the lead up to Measure UU, the Pool project was represented as a $ 15M project with a $4.5M Contingency added to cover latent conditions, change orders, scope changes, etc.  That resulted in the $19.5M Measure UU Bond. The $4.5M Contingency was prudent and warranted given the status of the plans at the time.

Now plans have been fully developed (and modified once to reduce the cost) and yet residents are still being asked to fund an additional $2.6M to complete the project.  There is also a separate special funding plan seeking $500K to install Heat Pumps to make the project all-electric.  So the project is currently about $3M over budget.   If we add the original $4.5M Contingency to the current $3M overage, we have exceeded the original $15M estimate by a whopping $7.5M or 50 %.   That is quite a miss and underscores my main message – that Piedmont must adopt a more rigorous and professional Project Management model.

What is that model?  It is one where the design team, the project management team and the estimating team all have equal weight and input into the project from the very early stages.  The team needs to avoid iterative design exercises – where a design is completed and then estimated and then often redesigned and estimated again.  The design and estimating processes must go forward simultaneously.  This management model is not new.  It is a model used by most major corporations or entities which have a significant building programs.  But these are top down decisions.  The Owner, in our case the City Council, must lead and require this model of Project Management if the City hopes to avoid replicating the Pool experience in the future.

Regarding the Pool project, it is up to the City Council to establish accountability for how the Pool project got to where it is.  I maintain that the issue is poor project management and definitely not hyperinflation as claimed by some.  ( Hyperinflation is defined as monthly inflation of 50% or more.- we are not experiencing that. )  No, our problem, our issue to resolve, is our current method of Project Management.   It is not serving us well.   We should not, cannot, continue to exceed our budgets and then go hat in hand to our residents to bail out our projects.

How Piedmont manages the Pool project moving forward and the ESB projects in the very near future will depend largely on the will of the City Council and City Staff to chart a different path.

Respectfully submitted,

Donald Chandler  AIA, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Sep 22 2022

OPINIONS: Housing Questions and Answers

Questions on the proposed Housing Element were posed by Garrett Keating followed by Answers from the City Planning Department, plus Interpretations.

  1. Is the relocation of the Corporation Yard to Blair Park being considered as part of the Moraga Canyon Site Assessment?

Answer:  City staff considered the broader policy issue of identifying City parkland in the Housing Element sites inventory, starting on page 157 of the Draft Housing Element. Ultimately, staff recommended a Draft Housing Element that did not include parkland in the sites inventory as a primary site. Blair Park was identified as a possible “alternative site” in the text description of the sites inventory. Dracena Park and all City parks were considered for housing sites during the development of the sites inventory in the Draft Housing Element.  On August 1, 2022, the City Council directed staff to include Blair Park in the sites inventory as a primary site as part of a proposed Moraga Canyon Specific Plan study in order to consider all of the interrelated changes that may be necessary to locate housing in Moraga Canyon and improve City facilities at the same time.

The Moraga Canyon Specific Plan study will start with a request for proposals (RFP) or request for qualifications (RFQ). The RFP or RFQ will include a project description for the types of land uses and changes to be considered.

  1. The Housing Element 102 presentation projected 82 units for the Corporation Yard.  Does that assume the Corporation Yard is relocated to Blair Park? If not, can you tell me the acreage that is available for housing in the Corporation Yard and how you arrived at 82 units for the Corporation Yard (50+32)?

Answer: Here is some background about the corporation yard site for the purposes of the Housing Element sites inventory. The corporation yard, alone, is approximately 13.6 acres. It is an approximate number because this land is also steeply sloping in some areas, and it has existing uses and facilities. Of the 13.6 acres, 3.7 acres are expected to yield 132 housing units. 100 of the 132 would be multifamily residential units at approximately 50 dwelling units per acre.  Please see Figure B-1 from the Draft Housing Element below.

On August 1, the City Council directed staff to re-distribute the housing units identified for sites in the civic center area. It is possible that some of the housing units (mainly moderate and above moderate housing units) could be added to the corporation yard site and a new Moraga Canyon Specific Plan study. These units would appear, if necessary, in the next iteration of the Draft Housing Element sites inventory this fall. Also on August 1, the City Council directed staff to include Blair Park in the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan study area.

Interpretation:  relocation of the Corporation Yard to Blair Park is currently not being considered in the identification of housing sites in the Housing Element.  The map shows that the Corporation Yard is to be maintained and staff does not indicate that they are considering it for housing.

  1. The City Administrator discussed the income levels required for new residents to be eligible for low-income housing.  The City Administrator presented income data for city/PUSD employees, citing the number of employees that fall into the 4 categories between $69,000 and $150,000. I believe she concluded that 80% of city/PUSD employees are considered low-income.  Is that correct?  The income eligibility levels are based on the income for a family of 4.  Did the city administrator’s presentation account for this – are the employee numbers she presented for employees with families of 4 (or more) or were those incomes for individuals?

Answer: To follow up the email I sent on Monday, I confirmed that the income categories described on slide 10 of the presentation on August 18, 2022, were based on a family of 4 people and that the City and PUSD employees’ incomes were evaluated against this baseline family income. The analysis did not base the employees’ income categories on the size of their actual families.

Interpretation:  Using individual income levels of city/PUSD employees to characterize those employees’ eligibility for different low-income family housing overstates their eligibility.

  1. The Planning Director presented a new total for ADUs of 142 and a new income distribution of 84/42/16 = 142. He attributed this new distribution to guidance from HCD and ABAG.  Can I obtain a copy of that guidance from the two agencies or can you direct me to a s source for it? 

Answer: Click on the following link to review the ADU projected income levels from ABAG guidance from June 2022: https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-06/ADUs-Projections-Memo_final.pdf

Interpretation:  These new ADU allocations help Piedmont in that they count towards the city’s low-income unit target, lessening the need for low-income units elsewhere.  It should be noted the City has very little control over the actual rental or monthly rent of these units.

 Would moving the Corporation Yard to Blair Park make that side of Moraga Avenue more eligible for development.

“It is our understanding that a number of these facilities have significant capital deficiencies and that they are likely to require substantial renovation and/or replacement at some point in the near future. Because these sites are in strategic locations, it will be possible for the City to engage with the private sector to establish partnerships that would lead to the redevelopment of these facilities along with the identified housing programs.  These sites have value that the City can potentially leverage to attract private partners and to move forward on the basis of a public-private partnership that meets the community’s needs for improved facilities, along with the provision of additional housing.” From the City FAQ about Civic sites:

Both sides of Moraga Avenue can accommodate housing but on which side does the City have more leverage to improve facilities and add housing?  Working with developers, the City can certainly add low income housing to Blair Park but there are no facilities on that side of Moraga to improve, with the exception of the park.  The Corporation Yard offers multiple upgrade options. The City intends to expand Coaches Field to a 150 x 300 multi-purpose field and major reconfiguration of the space is needed.  The Corporation Yard itself is outdated – would a developer contribute to its relocation to eastern Blair Park for the right to develop the site?  The Moraga Canyon Specific Plan needs to include this analysis to achieve the best return to the community on the public land that will be converted to housing.

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont City Council Member

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author and the City of Piedmont Planning Department.

READ PROPOSED  HOUSING ELEMENT :>  LWC_Piedmont_HEU_PRD_040822-compiledfix

Sep 18 2022

OPINION: Piedmont Street Sweeping Should Be Professionally Run

Dear City Administrator  City Council, and Public Works Director,

While street sweeping is conducted by a Public Works Department professional driving a very expensive street sweeping machine, our city’s street sweeping program is run like an amateur volunteer activity.  Effective street sweeping requires that the machine sweeps up fallen leaves in the gutters, otherwise those leaves wash down into our storm drains and clog them.  Yet, cars routinely park on streets scheduled for sweeping, so the machine just sweeps around them, missing most of the gutter leaves.

Why do cars remain on streets during sweeping days?

The answer is because clearing the streets depends upon an intensive and frustrating volunteer effort.  Local residents have to find out and remember when their street is scheduled for sweeping.  Then, volunteer residents have to tie or tape floppy cardboard “no parking” signs to trees or poles in front of their houses.  Then, they have to call the Public Works department to report and register that they have mounted the temporary signs.  Oh, and the report must be made three full days before the scheduled street sweeping day.  Then, on street sweeping day, the volunteer has to check to see if any cars are parked where the signs were posted, and if so, call the Piedmont Police to report a violation.  Then, this is the frustrating part, they have to wait to see if a cop will come out to ticket the violating parker.  Sometimes a parker has moved his car before a cop comes out.  Often, someone will park in the empty space after the cop has left, causing the volunteer to call the police department again to request street sweeping enforcement.

Whew!  It has taken a lot of time just to describe the process.  Most of our neighbors don’t have time to actually go through this process.  Last year, my wife, Karen, followed the city protocol – to the letter – because a lot of leaves have been accumulating.  She even raked the leaves away from the gutter into the street to help the machine collect them.  In spite of her efforts, four cars parked on the street, ignoring the signs she posted.  This is not the way to run a professional city service, and, the lack of adequate sweeping costs our city extra expense to clean out clogged storm drains.

The solution is not rocket science; it just requires looking at what most other cities do.

(1)    Establish a regular schedule for sweeping each street.

(2)   Post permanent signs saying “No Parking” on those specific dates and times.

(3)   Deploy police to enforce the regularly scheduled “no parking” rules.

(4)  Empower the street sweeping machine operator to report parkers to the police, for ticketing.

This is similar to the way Oakland conducts its street sweeping parking restrictions on Linda, Kingston, and other nearby streets in that city.

My wife and I are not going to continue performing this tedious volunteer work to aid the city’s street sweeping.  Many of our neighbors don’t do so either, because they are not home during sweeping times or because it is too much of a burden.  It is long past time for Piedmont to run its street sweeping operation professionally.

Taxpayers paid a lot of money for the street sweeping machine, and that money is wasted if the machine can’t clean the gutters because cars are parked on sweeping days.  This year, as street sweeping begins, please implement these suggestions and run our City maintenance program professionally.

Bruce Joffe, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Sep 18 2022

Reach Codes, Current Housing Report, Waste Pickup Performance, Police Calls Evaluation

The Piedmont City Council starting at 6:30 pm will consider the following at their Monday, September 19, 2022 meeting. Full staff reports are linked below the various noted items.

“In 2021, six small accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in Piedmont that received final building permit inspection would likely have rents affordable to residents earning low-income wages. Three ADUs finaled in Piedmont would likely have rents affordable to moderate income residents. Three new ADUs are so small (336 s.f. or less) that they would likely rent at rates affordable to households earning very low incomes, and another two ADUs (337 s.f. and 901 s.f.) were approved under prior City ordinances and have restrictions limiting occupants’ incomes and rents to very low rates for a period of 10 years. Finally, two new ADUs would likely rent at rates above moderate income due to their size and number of bedrooms. There were no single-family residences completed in Piedmont in 2021. For addresses, sizes, and numbers of bedrooms, see the list of completed ADUs for 2021 below.  See full staff report linked above.

“During the calendar year 2021 the City of Piedmont gave final inspection approval to building permits for 16 new accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in 2021. In addition to the 16 that received final inspection approval, the City of Piedmont issued building permits for 23 new ADUs. Zero (0) building permits were issued for new single-family homes, bringing the total number of building permits issued during the 2015-2023 term up to 96 permits. The City’s issuance of building permits for new housing units exceeds the overall goal set by the State of California in the RHNA for the 5th Cycle Housing Element by 36 housing units. However, production of very low-income units has lagged, resulting in a total since 2015 of 18 building permits for very low income units, where the RHNA goal is 24. The following staff report provides background and analysis on the annual progress report.” Staff report.

Agenda and participation details:

>  https://cdn5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/City%20Council/Agenda/council-current-agenda.pdf?v=T0ocGxUAQ

Sep 18 2022

Piedmont Street Sweeping Schedule and Protocols: 2022-23

Street sweeping for the winter begins this Monday, September 19, 2022.

Street sweeping is critical for keeping our storm drains clear during leaf drop season.

Please help by moving cars and any other obstacles off the street on street sweeping days. Take these steps to get ready now:

On your street sweeping day:

  • move your vehicle off the street
  • remove any obstacles blocking access to the curb, including green waste, recycling, and trash cans

Thank you for helping to keep our streets clean and protect our storm drains.
Email alerts
You can now sign up for email reminders about upcoming street sweeping dates.

On weeks that we’re doing street sweeping, we’ll send a reminder to the street sweeping email list on Sunday with the schedule.
SUBSCRIBE TO STREET SWEEPING ALERTS
This list will be used only to send street sweeping calendar information.
Sep 15 2022

Piedmont City Council Candidates: Photos and Statements

There are 6 candidates seeking election to 3 seats on the Piedmont City Council. Voters can vote for up to 3 of the candidates. The election is on Tuesday, November 8, 2022. The candidates are shown below in alphabetical order with their ballot statements copied beside their photographs.

Betsy Andersen

Betsy Smegal Andersen

City Council Member

My education and qualifications are: My priorities on the Piedmont City Council have been community health and safety, financial stability, and strong city-school relations. During my time on Council, we have renovated Hampton Park and the Corey Reich Tennis Center, invested $3.75M for future pension needs, facilitated in-town COVID-19 testing, allocated funds to modernize police and fire dispatch, and maintained a balanced budget. Currently, we are rebuilding the city-owned Piedmont Community Pool, thanks to voter-approved Measure UU. As a lifelong resident, I appreciate the challenges and opportunities as we develop strategies to meet our climate action goals, address the state housing crisis, and replace aging infrastructure. Prior to serving on Council, I volunteered on the Public Safety Committee to promote emergency preparedness and chaired the Recreation Commission with a focus on improving recreational facilities and opportunities for all ages. I attended Piedmont public schools, majored in Public Policy at Duke, earned my law degree from UCLA, and practiced law for nearly two decades. My husband, Robert, and I raised our daughters here, Jane (PHS ’18) and Ellie (PHS ’21). If re-elected, I will continue to listen thoughtfully to all voices as we work together to strengthen the community we call home

Sonny Bostrom-Flemming

 

Nancy “Sunny” Bostrom-Fleming

My education and qualifications are: Once upon a time there was a chubby little rich boy who lived in a mansion. He was driven in a limousine to school where he faced name calling, shoving, pinching. His mother sang, taught him piano & knitted him sweaters. He earned two doctorates. One music, one in theology, trained as a Presbyterian minister, married, had two children, four grandchildren, & millions of stepchildren. You might be one of them. His name was Fred Rogers and he lives in your heart. He never forgot the pain he experienced when he was helpless as we all have been or will be. His sweater is at the Smithsonian. My name is Sunny. I ran before. I promoted cameras at Piedmont’s entrances that keep your family & pets safer. My father taught me to swim when I was six months old. When I went to Katrina to help I realized that African-Americans are at a great & deadly disadvantage as far as swimming education is concerned. We can start a program to promote water safety for all children in America, saving thousands of lives. The issues before us are among the most important in our histor

Jennifer Long

Jennifer Long

Appointed City Council Member

My education and qualifications are: I am running for City Council to serve our beautiful community and maintain its greatness as it grows and evolves. With an impending pool build, critical infrastructure repair (and or replacement) and housing development, Piedmont is poised to be a city with the future in mind. In these unprecedented times, our city needs leaders who understand the interests of our citizens to maintain its excellent schools and outstanding public services such as the police and fire department. My perspective as a current member of the council and my direct engagement with the Piedmont community allow me to get to the essence of what is needed to create and maintain a safe, inclusive, and fiscally-sound community. My experience as a current city council member, attorney and life coach provide me with a solid foundation to tackle the matters that lie ahead for Piedmont. Through my work in various community organizations and with my connections to a variety of community members from sports teams to schools, I have a deep understanding of what makes Piedmont the outstanding community we all love and how to make it evolve into a city we will continue to be proud of in the future.

Bridget Harris

Bridget McInerney Harris

Estate Planning Attorney

My  education and qualifications are: I seek election to the City Council to serve the community with a strong commitment to public safety, fiscal discipline, realistic growth and common sense. I believe we can improve our community’s engagement regarding the increased housing requirement imposed by California by introducing more public forums and clear accessible diagrams of what is being discussed and debated. Importantly, I would advocate that all residents should vote before any park or city land is used for multi-family units within the city of Piedmont. Another top priority is public safety with additional support for the police and fire departments; improving both facilities and funding. I would be honored to put my knowledge, work ethic, and love for Piedmont to work as your City Council member. I earned my B.S. from the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, my JD from Gonzaga University, and my Taxation LLM from Georgetown University. I have practiced tax law locally for more than 40 years. We have resided in Piedmont since 1986, raising our four children here. I serve on the Executive Boards of the Piedmont Boy Scouts and Order of Malta Clinic in Oakland, a provider of free medical care to uninsured patients in our community.

Tom Ramsey

Tom Ramsey

Architect

My education and qualifications are: Piedmont’s a great town. 25 years ago, my family moved here for the public schools, and now that our daughters graduated PHS, we stayed for the friendships, location, and services delivered by the city. I value safe neighborhoods, and I expect fiscal responsibility. Our town does have work to do. We have a pool to build as construction costs increase. We have public facilities with deferred maintenance issues. We have the difficult task of navigating the state mandates for housing density in a small town already built out and full of beautiful historic homes and civic buildings. I’m an architect, a problem solver and for over 30 years I’ve been building and leading diverse teams around the Bay Area. I’ll leverage my professional experience and my seven years on the planning commission to continue to accommodate growth while preserving Piedmont’s physical character. I’ve served on committees: Seismic Advisory, Design Guidelines, Measure A1 and I’ve worked with Piedmont’s youth through Scouting’s Community Service Crew for over a decade. I’m confident that when our town is fully engaged and works together, we can successfully resolve the issues in front of us; that’s what makes Piedmont a great town. vote4tomramsey.com

Jeanne Solnordal

Jeanne Solnordal

Broker

My education and qualifications are: I am running for the City Council to bring a much-needed perspective and balance to our beautiful city. Many voices are underrepresented, especially those residents who oppose the plan to add 587 units of affordable housing to Piedmont at a cost of around $850,000 per unit. I am well-educated, having earned a Juris Doctorate degree in 1994 after working for the IRS for 18 years. In 1994 I obtained a Broker’s license and established a property management company which I still run. My legal (landlord/tenant) and tax accounting experience will be very helpful to Piedmont going forward. I will work to prioritize the city’s needs and will be fiscally responsible with your hard earned taxpayer dollars. My family has lived in Piedmont since 2002 and our children attended Piedmont schools. I served as a Girl Scout leader, President of Millennium Parents Club, a school volunteer, and assisted in organizing the Spring Flings and Harvest Festival. Currently, I am serving on the Public Safety Committee. Piedmont is a unique and desirable place to live. Let’s keep it that way.

The League of Women Voters Piedmont is holding a virtual City Council Candidates’ Forum:

When: Thursday, September 22, 2022 @ 7:30 pm
Where: online via Zoom and YouTube

Register to receive a link to join the live Zoom webinar. This event will also be live-streamed on YouTube and the recording will be available there for future viewing.

Register

Editors’ Note: The League of Women Voters and the Piedmont Civic Association (PCA) are separate community organizations. PCA does not support or oppose candidates for public office.  All candidates and the community are invited to submit information about candidates, including endorser lists to the link on left side of this page.

Sep 14 2022

Piedmont Budget: $$$$ Revenue and Expenditures- Thurs. Sept. 15 6 pm

City of Piedmont Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee

Thursday, September 15, 2022 6:00 p.m. Via Teleconference

Agenda and Participation >- 2022-09-15 Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee Agenda

1. Review of FY 2021-22 Revenue and Expenditures: Actual vs Budget

FY 2021-22 Highlights

 Revenue exceeded annual budget by $5.9 million

Major variances include:

• Transfer tax receipts totaled $6.0 million,

• $3.2 million HIGHER than budget, but $0.3 million LESS than last year

• Home sales 11% LESS than last year (152 vs 170)

• Average Sales Price increased 6% to $3.0 million

• Recreation revenue up $0.9 million as programs and facilities rentals returned to normal levels versus conservative budget.

• Building Permits and Planning Fees $0.5 million higher than budget

• Mutual Aid \ Strike Team revenue was $0.5 million as we participated in battling the seasons severe wildfires.

• Property taxes exceeded annual budget by $0.3 million

2. Review of Proposed FY 2022-2023 General Fund Transfers

Year End General Fund Transfers • Projecting Ending Balance of General Fund to be $10.1 million.

Staff recommends the following:

• $1.7 million to the Facilities Maintenance Fund.

• $1.0 million to the Equipment Replacement Fund.

After transfers, General Fund will be $7.4 million, or 24% of Expenditures.

READ the full staff report on revenue and expenditures:   >BAFP_Meeting_09-15-2022

Available records of the BAFP Committee have been limited and minutes are not kept and approved by the Committee.  Those interested in the subject matter are advised to participate in the meeting as noted in the Agenda > 2022-09-15 Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee Agenda

“SECTION 6.05 PUBLIC RECORD Minutes for each of such boards and commissions shall be kept as a record of its proceedings and transactions. Each board or commission shall prescribe its own rules and regulations which shall be consistent with this Charter and with City Council ordinances and resolutions, and copies of which shall be kept on file with the City Clerk.” City Charter

READ the full Piedmont City Charter >charter

Committee Roster –

  • Andrew Flynn
  • Cathie Geddeis
  • Deborah Leland
  • Robert McBain
  • Paul Raskin
  • Frank Ryan
  • Vanessa Washington
  • Alice Cho (Alternate)

Council Liaison: Jennifer Cavenaugh | jcavenaugh@piedmont.ca.gov | (415) 215-6933
Staff Liaison: Michael Szczech | mszczech@piedmont.ca.gov | (510) 420-3045

« Previous Page | Next Page »