According to former Mayor Alice Creason, the “revision” of Chapter 17 of the City Code includes zoning language and intent contrary to the 1980 voter approved Piedmont City Charter requiring changes of use/classifications and zone sizes to be approved by Piedmont voters. Voter approval for proposed zoning changes is not being sought by the City Council.

On March 17, 2017 Creason submitted a notarized declaration to the City Council and others showing the correct interpretation of the City Charter, as approved by voters.  See detailed explanation below.

Creason a former Piedmont mayor (1982-84), Planning Commissioner (1976-78), liaison to the Planning Commission, participant in the development of the revised City Charter (1977 – 1980), and Council member (1978 -1986) states that the City is not adhering to the intent and actual language of the City Charter which requires Piedmont voter approval for specific zoning changes. The City Council has been or desires to change uses within Zone B (public) and Zone D (commercial) without Piedmont voter approval.

In a cover letter to the Council, Creason states that the City Council can:

1.  Submit the proposed zoning changes to Piedmont voters for approval OR
2.  Revise the City Charter to allow the Council to make the desired changes without voter approval.

The Creason cover letter to the City Council can be read by clicking > img023 .

The Creason Declaration explaining the City Charter intent and required voter approval can be read by clicking > img025.

The opposite interpretation by Piedmont’s new contract attorney can be read by clicking > img026 .

Actual zoning language in the City Charter below:

ARTICLE IX. General Provisions

SECTION 9.01 GENERAL PLAN The City Council shall adopt, and may from time to time, modify a general plan setting forth policies to govern the development of the City. Such plan may cover the entire City and all of its functions and services or may consist of a combination of plans governing specific functions and services or specific geographic areas which together cover the entire City and all of its functions and services. The plan shall also serve as a guide to Council action concerning such City planning matters as land use, development regulations and capital improvements.

SECTION 9.02 ZONING SYSTEM The City of Piedmont is primarily a residential city, and the City Council shall have power to establish a zoning system within the City as may in its judgement be most beneficial. 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; provided that any property which is zoned for uses other than or in addition to a singlefamily dwelling may be voluntarily rezoned by the owners thereof filing a written document executed by all of the owners thereof under penalty of perjury stating that the only use on such property shall be a single-family dwelling, and such rezoning shall not require a vote of the electors as set forth above.

 Read the > City Charter 

An underlying goal of the building code changes (Chapter 17) is to increase housing density in lower Piedmont and provide more affordable housing.

On Monday, March 20, 2017, the Council plans to approve an ordinance that will mean more houses, more apartments, and reduced parking requirements in Piedmont. The City Council on March 6, approved the first reading of the massive rewriting and changes to Chapter 17 of the Piedmont City Code.  The second reading is planned at the March 20 Council meeting.

Council members are convinced that Piedmonters have been informed and engaged in the process.

In a cursory survey of Piedmonters, few had any substantive knowledge of the proposed changes with the exception of changes to Grand Avenue and short term rentals.

On March 6, the Council members decided to remove consideration of short term rentals and commercial property regulations on Grand Avenue pending further input from the public.

The Grand Avenue neighbors have been active and organized in attempting to make new regulations compatible with the neighborhood.

Civic Center Apartments

One citizen, Ted Kinch, referred to the 92% of Piedmonters who responded to the heavily relied upon 2007 Survey, who expressed their preference to keep the small town feeling of Piedmont.  Kinch emphasized the potential problems from adding apartments in the Civic Center – above the Wells Fargo Building and Mulberry’s.  He mentioned that watching children walk to school was refreshing and should not be threatened by increased traffic and parking.

Council approved the proposed building code changes for apartments to be permitted in the Civic Center.  There has been no organized opposition from any neighborhood group, school representative, or emergency service person in regard to traffic, safety, or congestion next to emergency services and schools in the Civic Center.

Inquiry

Only a few of the numerous code revisions received inquiry by the Council members.  The exception was Council member Jen Cavenaugh, liaison to the Planning Commission, who questioned reduced off-street parking requirements for residences and businesses, structures allowed to be built up to the property line, and for profit businesses in public buildings, amongst other issues.

Cavenaugh questioned the likelihood Estates Zone residents would want their neighbors building up to the property line, “Not wanting people to be on top of each other in that way.”

There has been no indication that Piedmont residents in lower Piedmont (Zone A) would accept their neighbors building a structure up to the property line. Planning Director Kevin Jackson claimed the intent was to encourage property owners to build garages and structures at the back of the lot to leave more open space.

Mayor Jeff Wieler was concerned about the reduction in Zone A (residential) lot size from 10,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet.  He stated,  “Our lords and masters in Sacramento… we’re suddenly changing our zoning to satisfy some bureaucrat up in Sacramento. I resent it.”

Council members Teddy King and Tim Rood quickly defended the reduction in parcel size in lower Piedmont as an effort by Piedmont to assist in supplying the area with more housing plus more affordable housing.

King stated, “This is actually a component of the entire revision process (Chapter 17) so that we meet the requirements and spirit of the housing needs in the Bay Area. … To the extent that some of the controversial elements in this proposal have caught the attention of Piedmonters, it is important to explain that many of these changes we didn’t dream up. They are tied to other efforts put in place by State and Federal authorities. We don’t conceive of our own housing and density in a vacuum.”

Parking

Although a lack of adequate off-street parking has been a major issue in numerous Planning Commission applications, King and Rood liked reducing the off street parking requirements to encourage a reduction in automobile usage and an increase in transit ridership. Bedroom additions will no longer necessarily trigger the need to provide off-street parking.

The Planning Commission has been responsible in the past for determining if traffic, parking and safety impact applications, yet traffic and parking studies are not required by the process potentially leaving the matter to subjective opinions.

Short term rentals deferred once more.

A short term rental (under 30 days) prohibition was held for further consideration maintaining the status quo of no City enforcement of ongoing short term rentals. According to Piedmont’s existing Home Occupation Ordinance, all home businesses, including airbnb, require homeowners to obtain a business license and Home Occupation Permit. Short term rentals currently do not qualify for a home occupation permit because the home business owner cannot use a residential property addresse in advertisements or for client access. Organized interest by promoters of short term rentals has been active. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to prohibit short term rentals.  Seeking further input, the Council has not acted on the pending short term rental issue during a three year period.

The Council meeting will be held on Monday, March 20, 2017 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber to act on the ordinance changes.  Viewing is available on Channel 27 and from the City website.

Staff report for Item #7 on the agenda.

Draft minutes of March 6, 2017 Council meeting when zoning issues were previously considered.

Agenda for March 20, 2017 Council meeting

Opportunities to serve Piedmont in important volunteer positions!

Be a part of Piedmont’s decision processes!

Application Deadline:

Monday, March 20th – 5PM

The School Board meeting held on March 8, 2017 addressed a variety of issues, including the nomination of a contractor to oversee the H1 Bond measure, a recap of the past and upcoming events at the high school, and a presentation regarding the newly proposed specifications of a healthy relationship and healthy student curriculum in the middle and high schools.

    Chris Delong presented to the School Board recapping the state requirements and allocation specifications for schools to receive state funding. Mr. DeLong noted how the newly passed proposition (Prop 51) has three avenues for schools to receive state funding: new construction  ($3 billion in state budget), modernization ($3 billion), and career, technology, and charter schools ($500 million). Mr. deLong also mentioned that in the H1 Bond measure, the state will grant no more than 60% of the proposed renovations, leaving the school responsible for raising the other 40%.

    The recap of high school related events included the recent plays of “Sense and Sensibility” and “The Clearing,” performed on March 9-12 by Piedmont’s advanced acting class. There was also mention of the school’s March Madness 3v3 Basketball Tournament, PHS’ first ever night rally, and a summary of recent sporting events and accomplishments.

    Finally, Mr. Brady, head of the Wellness Center, gave an informative recap of a proposed curriculum the wellness center is trying to initiate at the High School. The curriculum involves a survey called The Healthy Kids Survey, which is given to all high school students every other year. This survey asks students about their drug and alcohol use, as well as their feelings about the safety and security on campus. Using this information, the Wellness Center was able to craft a customized and modern code for its wishes on the well-being of PHS students.

     Another area of concern for the Wellness Center was addressing healthy relationships at both the High School and Middle School. Seeing the term “relationships” as an ambiguous phrase, the Wellness Center is doing its best to come up with a curriculum that best addressed the ever-changing expectations and norms with teenage “relationships.”

How did you end up working at the wellness center?

    Mr. Brady was kind enough to answer some questions following his presentation, and reflected on his desire to pursue a leadership role in the Wellness Center. “l’ve been in the District since 2003, when l was hired as the Millennium High School principal.  Since then, l have held a number of positions in the District, including the Assistant Superintendent for Business Services until 2014.  I have also been in charge of Adult Education Programs in PUSD for as long as I have been here, and since 2014, my “official” title is Director of Alternative/Adult Education (which includes serving as the Director of the Wellness Center).”

   Brady further stated,  “l have also been recently appointed by the Board of Education to serve as the program coordinator for the measure H1 Bond program.  So, in essence, l will be overseeing all of the newly planned renovations for the Piedmont High School campus.  That is why you saw me introduce our state funding consultant and answer questions about the selection of the District’s architect last night.”

Additionally Brady noted, “When l was the Assistant Superintendent, l coordinated the rebuilding of Havens Elementary, seismic strengthening at Beach, Wildwood, and PHS, and the modernization of our technology infrastructure.  I have always been in contact with the Wellness Center (since its inception in 2006), but it was in my role as the District’s Business Manager.  l worked to secure funding for the Wellness Center through grants and through the amazing support of parents who raise funds each year to sustain our program.  In my early days in education, l was a classroom teacher (high school english), high school counselor, and high school administrator.  I believe in the mission of the Wellness Center, and when former director Ting Hsu Engleman resigned, l was happy to step into the role.”

    Mr. Brady’s role in creating a platform for healthy relationships at the High School was noted by audience member Danny DeBarre, who noted that another great tool for the education of healthy relationships is the consent assembly. As a member of the acting class, Danny has had the privilege of performing in the assembly on numerous occasions, and has seen adaptations annually to address the changes in our society on the matter. Danny noted that these adaptations to the assembly are what makes it powerful each and every year, and sets a wonderful precedent for students to know exactly what it means to be in a happy and consensual relationship.

Sarah Pearson, School Board President, mentioned how much she appreciates student input on matters that the School Board may not have known without that student sacrificing his or her own time for the good of the community.

    In terms of healthy relationships, I totally agree that Piedmont must establish a curriculum to address this issue. With the ubiquitous storyline of rapes and title IX violations across college campuses, Piedmont must stop the issue before it infects the students at our very school. One way we can learn ways to implement a curriculum is through a summit called “That’s not cool” in the Presidio each year. In attendance, there were many great ideas presented illustrating the variety of means schools have used to create healthy relationship awareness in their districts.

    The School Board is responsible for collecting community input on the District, managing the budget, and overseeing all academic related events in the dDistrict. The School Board meets on the second and fourth Wednesday of every month at 7 pm in the Council Chambers at City Hall.

by Jordan Marcus, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Proposed changes to the future waste collection contract include: variable optional charge for backyard pickup (except for disabled customers), trash collection to start at 6 am,  Large Item Collection pickups for multi-family dwelling residents, hazardous waste collection events at an additional fee.  Citizens are invited to comment on the RFP by March 31, before it is distributed on April 11. [Read RFP Here.)

Announcement:

The City of Piedmont is seeking comment on the Draft Request for Proposals (RFP) and Draft Franchise Agreement (FA) for solid waste collection services from members of the community. This opportunity to comment is extended to better inform the City of the community’s needs and desires for solid waste collection services prior to the issuance of the RFP.

Please note that these documents are still under review by the City Attorney and City staff. Staff will make changes to the documents and address comments as they are submitted, leading up to the City Council meeting scheduled for Monday, April 3rd. At that meeting, the City Council will be asked to consider approval of the RFP package, which, if approved, will be released on Monday, April 10th.

What Is Included in the RFP Package?

• RFP Document describing the solid waste collection services sought for the City of Piedmont;
• Draft Franchise Agreement for solid waste collection services in the City of Piedmont; and
• Other RFP Attachments, including specified forms bidders must fill out and submit with their proposal, in addition to informational documents bidders are to review.

Potential Changes Under Consideration

• Curbside vs backyard solid waste collection service offerings (RFP, Section 3.2);

  • Curbside collection will be the new standard method of service;
  • Backyard collection will remain a service option for customers who wish to “opt-in;”
  • The additional cost for backyard collection will be a function of cart elevation (change in grade level) and distance from the curb to cover the cost of additional labor related to providing such service;

• Additional recycling and organics carts to be provided at an additional cost (RFP, Section 3.2);

• Disabled customers unable to place carts at the curb for collection will receive backyard service and pay the standard curbside rate. Proof of disability must be provided (RFP, Section 3.2);

• Cell phones and CFL bulbs may be placed on top of carts along with batteries for collection (these items must be enclosed in a transparent plastic bag) (RFP, Section 3.2);

• On-call, door-to-door household hazardous waste pickup service or periodic household hazardous waste collection events may be proposed, if companies wish. Such services will be proposed at an additional fee not included in the rates proposed (RFP, Section 3.6);

• Multi-family dwelling residents will now receive Large Item Collection pickups (RFP, Section 3.3); and

• Collection start time to be earlier, beginning at 6am rather than 7am, to alleviate traffic concerns (RFP, Section 3.9).

  • DRAFT Request For Proposals Dated March 13, 2017
  • Attachment A – DRAFT Collection Services Agreement
  • Attachment B – DRAFT RFP Proposal Forms A-L
  • Attachment C – DRAFT RFP Proposal Forms K
  • Attachment D – Example RRI Calculator
  • Attachment E – Existing Contract with Richmond Sanitary Service
  • Attachment F – Alameda County Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for Waste Management
  • Attachment G – Alameda County Integrated Waste Management Plan
  • Attachment H – ACWMA Ordinance Prohibiting the Disposal of Certain Items in Alameda County Landfills
  • Attachment I – ACWMA Mandatory Recycling Ordinance
  • Attachment J – Chapter 9 of the Piedmont City Code

  How to Submit Your Comments

  Please submit your comments no later than March 31st regarding the potential changes to solid waste collection services to the City Clerk’s Office at cityclerk@ci.piedmont.ca.us or via US Mail to City Clerk’s Office, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.

  Residents with questions are encouraged to contact Associate Planner Jennifer Gavin at jgavin@ci.piedmont.ca.us or via phone at (510) 420-3050.

    On March 8th, 2017, the School Board had its monthly meeting at City Hall. The School Board meets to talk about issues and events that relate to the Piedmont Unified School District. There were a few major issues discussed at this meeting.

   The beginning of the discussion was a round of announcements about current events by the members of the Board, such as Max Miller (Millennium High School representative), Superintendent Randall Booker, School Board President Sarah Pearson, and others. Much of the discussion was about the H1 Bond (School Facilities), which was voted on by Piedmont and passed recently. A man came up to the podium to talk about bonds for the H1 funding, talking about state grants and programs such as the Career Technical Education program. Board member Cory Smegal also talked about interviewing architects for the building at the high school which is partially what H1 does.

    Aside from H1, a variety of other things were touched upon. Many members of the Board praised Piedmont High School plays, and said that they brought the community together.

    The Wellness Center was also mentioned multiple times, and was also praised by the Board members.

    Towards the end of the meeting a man came up and gave a powerpoint about sexual assault prevention and healthy relationships. There is a plan to give surveys to students about sex, rape, contraceptives, pornography, STI’s, etc. There was a debate on if the survey should be given to middle schoolers or just high schoolers. Personally, I think that it should be given to middle schoolers because despite our youth at that time, we are more knowledgeable than adults seem to realize about those topics.

    Before the meeting, I was able to interview Mr. Dimitri Magganas. Mr. Magganas is a regular at city meetings, citing an interest in dealing with city issues. He is mostly interested in H1, which he is in favor of. Despite being in favor of it,  we talked for a long time about the difficulty of finding a contractor, and how the time and cost of building is rising in the east bay.

    In the meeting however, Mr. Magganas went to the podium to talk about International Women’s Day and not H1, as he said in my interview, he was not worried about getting involved with H1 until later on in the process.

    During the middle of the meeting, my kindergarten teacher’s death was mentioned, as there was a memorial service that night. I had gone to the service before the meeting, and decided to speak about her. I was nervous to speak, but was glad I was able to talk about her as she had a big impact on me as a little kid.

By Sam Williamson, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Report showed an increase of School District revenue by $378,166, or nearly one percent of the total $39,253,395 District Budget revenue taken in during the period.  Tax exempt parcels raised once more as a funding issue.   

The PUSD Budget Advisory Committee met on Thursday, March 2, at the School District offices to review their second Interim Budget Report for the 2016-2017 PUSD budget.  Those in attendance included three PHS students, five district-affiliated persons, not including the presenter, Assistant Superintendent Song Chin Bendib, and one private citizen.

    The purpose of the meeting was to understand the District’s finances, and how they have changed recently, and how they will continue to change over the next few years.  The second interim report showed an increase of District revenue by $378,166, or nearly one percent of the total $39,253,395 Budget revenue taken in during the period.  Of this increase, nearly 60% percent came from fees or donations paid to the District for programs such as sports teams, field trips, PAINTS, CHIME, and other similar groups.  This income can only be reported after it is collected by the District, and, according to Bendib, cannot be used to offset other District costs, or saved in the General Fund.  The remaining 40% percent of revenue increases came from the State of California, in the form of one hundred nine thousand dollars of aid.  Expenditures grew by $369,689 in the same interim period, a smaller amount than the increase due to specialty payment revenue.  This reduced the District’s previous interim deficit of $869,467 to $860,990 in the second interim budget review.

Spending for books and materials increased nearly eight percent, or about $80,000, in the second, or mid school-year, interim.  Maintenance and services costs increased by nearly $200,000 during the period, an increase that Bendib attributed to so-called “discretionary spending” of the income from athletic, arts, and field trip donations.  Bendib indicated that neither the increases in maintenance expenditures, nor those on books and materials reflected long-term growth of expenditures.  The increase in income in the period, however, did not reflect a reliable increase or a growth trend either.

The author wonders why spending increased for books and materials in the middle of the school-year, surmising that most textbooks and materials are purchased at the beginning of the school-year or over the summer.  Additionally, the author believes that the income for special-interest programs like arts and athletics should not be added to the same data used to compute changes in the General Fund, especially if said income cannot be used for general spending, and represents reliable growth in neither revenues nor expenditures.

Further increase in expenditures resulted from PUSD staff that changed health insurance status.  The District, instead of paying a two thousand dollar adjustment to staff who paid for their own health insurance or received insurance through a spouse’s employment, must now pay around $7,000, for an individual, to provide full health insurance.  This puts the District’s health insurance payments on par with the most expensive insurance available in Alameda County, according to “Health Insurance Companies and Plan Rates for 2016,” a report by government-established marketplace, Covered California.

The outlook for the next few years was then presented.  The District is required to have a reserve of 3% of its projected budget every year.  For the 2016-2017 budget, there is a projected reserve of almost 4%, but for the following two years, that is the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 budgets, the projected reserves fall short at 2.7% and 1% respectively.  This is due to a decreased outlook, by $465,000, for state LCFF funding.  This amount of funding has yet to be finalized by the governor in his May revise of California’s budget.

PMS teacher Annie Holland asked a question to make sure that the numbers shown in the meeting did not indicate, or would not be seen to indicate, an increase in teacher salaries.

Private citizen William Blackwell asked that the Committee look into parcel tax exemptions.  He stated the the number of parcels in Piedmont multiplied by the flat parcel tax per parcel amounted to more than the parcel tax revenue reported by the district.  The gap, according to him, is nearly $114,000 dollars per year, and is caused by unlawful exemptions to the tax claimed by some parcel owners.  Blackwell said that several lawyers have looked into this and agree with him, including a former PUSD School Board member.  Bendib responded that the District has looked into the issue and that the District’s lawyers have advised that there is nothing illegal about the exemptions.

When asked if he learned anything from the meeting, he responded that he has attended PUSD Budget Advisory Committee meetings for four years trying to get the District to claim the money that he purports is owed to the District.  He said “I’ve heard almost the same presentation every year,” Blackwell says.  He claims that “there is a discrepancy [of] about forty-four parcels… that should be paying the taxes [and are] not.”

Blackwell also believes that paying for maintenance of current buildings using H1 Bond money will make maintenance more expensive in the long run.  He would like to see “a mandatory set-aside for maintenance every year… [that] would not be kicked down the road.”  Blackwell is disappointed by the District’s lack of action on the issue and plans to meet with Superintendent Randall Booker and other PUSD officials to discuss the issue.

by Grady Wetherbee, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Pension costs continue to place a burden on School District budgets as operating reserves are reduced. School Board will review the budget on March 15, 2017.  

    The Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) Budget Advisory Committee meets about five times each fiscal year to examine and discuss PUSD’s budget. On March 2, 2017, at 3:30 PM in the District Conference room, Assistant Superintendent Song Chin-Bendib made a presentation to the committee covering PUSD’s budget and changes during the 2016-2017 fiscal year, as well as the multi-year projection report looking ahead to the 2018-2019 fiscal year.

    In terms of changes since the first interim of the 2016-2017 Fiscal Year, both revenues and expenditures have increased. Revenues increased by $378,166 due to both state and local funding. There was an additional $109,000 from state funding as parts of the College Readiness Block Grant, ROP funding, and special education funding. Local revenues were generated by school athletics, various Piedmont High School ASB funds, and fundraising groups such PAINTS. Expenditures also increased, by $369,689, as a result from shift in certified and classified salaries because of vacancies in the payroll, employee benefits especially healthcare, and services, operating expenses, and capital outlay.

    Moving on to look at the multi-year projection report, we looked at the District reserves which are required to be around 3-4%. We have the required reserves for the 2016-2017 fiscal year, however already in the 2017-2018 fiscal year the budget projects only 2.7% reserve (short $108,602), and by the 2018-2019 fiscal year to only have about 1% reserve (short $796,384). These shortages starting in the 2017-2018 fiscal year result from assumptions provided by the state, and the most recent information projects less increase than was originally expected. Furthermore the multi-year projections show these shortfalls to grow in the 2018-2019 fiscal year. These issues are stemming from increasing School District payment rates for CalPERS and CalSTRS teacher pension programs, as a result of the CalPERS board voting to lower the expected rate of return from their investments.

     Some options to confront the 2017-2018 fiscal year shortfall include waiting until May to confirm if the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) reduction projections are in fact true, expenditure reductions, or revenue enhancements. The Piedmont School Board meeting on March 15, 2017 will review the budget and address deficits.

    After the meeting came to a close, I had the opportunity to speak with Amy Aubrecht, treasurer of the Wildwood Parents Club, to gain some additional insight on the effects of the Piedmont District budget. Aubrecht’s duty as treasurer was to understand the bigger picture of the Piedmont budget so that she is able to wisely and effectively support her local school budget. In regards to the upcoming shortfall in funding, Aubrecht knew and predicted some of the significant problems with the CalPERS pension funds, and now says her priorities are to maintain all the core programming at Wildwood. When delegating money, she plans on being cautious and conservative, but is not too alarmed yet. Aubrecht predicts that much of the parent club money will go to Tier II funding for some of the discretionary spending that might otherwise get cut.

     It is crucial that we as the Piedmont community are well aware and informed so that we can contribute to maintaining and improving our schools and city.

by Kailee Lin, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Off budget revenue from local sources provide an offset to expenditures, however Governor’s Restrictive Budget continues to be an important factor in Piedmont Schools funding future.  

     The Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) Budget Advisory Committee held a meeting on March 2, 2017 at the PUSD District Conference Room at 3:30 p.m. to discuss their upcoming budget proposal to the school board. Song Chin Bendib, the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services, led the meeting, which covered the changes in the PUSD budget that have occurred between their last meeting before the First Interim, which ended on December 14, 2016, and the Second Interim, which ended on March 8, 2017, as well as changes in the coming three years.

    Between the First and Second Interim Review,  PUSD’s revenue has grown from $38,875,229 to $39,253,375, an increase of $378,166. This revenue is broken down into approximately $109,000 from the State of California, $75,000 from the College Readiness Block Group, $37,000 from the Regional Occupation Program (ROP), $4,000 for Special Education spending. The largest subdivision in revenue is the approximate $252,000 from “local revenue”, which comes from various activities such as field trips, athletics, the Speech and Debate Club among other sources. However, this source of revenue does not count towards the final budget line as this revenue is spent immediately on the supplemental activities they were designated for. Essentially, this fund accounts for any money coming in to pay for supplemental activities; for example, the money collected to pay for the AP European History field trip to Europe would count towards this revenue fund, but would not go to the District, rather would just be used to pay for the field trip.

     However, this was offset by an increase in spending of $369,986. The most notable factor in the increase in spending was an approximate $127,000 increase in employee benefits, which was primarily due to increases in healthcare costs, said Chin Bendib.  This increase is caused by employees upgrading their healthcare plans from single to married, or married to family, which costs the District more.

    In addition to this hurting PUSD’s budget, the California State Government also revised their proposed budget, providing less funding than originally expected in December. Governor Brown implemented a 5.8 billion dollar decline in revenue, resulting in a $465,000 decline in revenue for PUSD alone. This decline in revenue was partially due to CalPERS and CalSTRS being deep in debt, and Governor Brown cutting funding for schools to help remedy this issue.

     After Chin Bendib questioned why Governor Brown would not just dip into his large rainy day fund to help bail out these programs. She argued that this is what the fund is for, and that there is no reason to continue saving when there are issues now. And although I agree that there are issues with the current budget and within the school system, I do not think that the government should dip into its rainy day fund in order to address this issue. The rainy day fund should be reserved for emergencies and catastrophe, not for smaller, systemic issues like the cutting of school funding. This debt that caused the funding cut seems to be systemic and simply bailing it out with the rainy day funding does not appear to be sustainable. Besides, using the money now would justify spending in many other areas and for other smaller issues, thus making it not a rainy day fund, but rather a fund to correct mistakes, which would not be sustainable for very long.

    In looking at projected long term budgets, PUSD also looked to be short of breaking even. The State of California requires school districts to plan out projects budgets for the next three years. The State also requires that school districts have a ‘cushion’ fund equivalent to 3 to 4% of the school’s expenditures. PUSDs budget met this requirement for the 2016-2017 fiscal year, but will fall $108,602 short of the requirement for the 2017-2018 fiscal year and $796,384 short in the 2018-2019 fiscal year.

     During the meeting, I interviewed a member of the audience. Sixth grade teacher at Piedmont Middle School Gabriel Kessler, who also serves as the Vice President of the Teacher’s Union, attended the meeting to better fulfill his positions, but also to be better informed as a citizen. Kessler believed that all people should be involved in civics, and that more people should come to these meetings. “People should go to these government meetings,” Kessler said. “It is important to be involved in government and informed.”As for his reaction to the meeting, Kessler did not have any huge reactions, other than slight concern, stating that, “It’s concerning to see [that the budget is short of requirements], but it will be interesting to see how they [address the issue].” Kessler plans on attending more city governments and continuing to be informed, but has no other plans to take action on the budget.

     He also asked a question and got the paraphrased response.“Is the May revise an event that occurs every year and is required, or is it optional? If so, how often does it occur?”

    Song Chin Bendib responded by saying that the May revise is not required, but it occurs fairly commonly. This year, the proposed budget is expected to pass through the California state budget, thus not necessitating a May revise. The May revise is essentially intended to allow the Governor one final chance to change the budget before it becomes final for the remainder of the fiscal year. This year’s May revise is of particular importance to the District because the Governor unexpectedly slashed funding to the schools to pay off other debts. The May revise represented the last chance for Governor Brown to back off those funding cuts and thus help PUSD balance their budget, but Chin Bendib was doubtful that the change would occur. I asked a question in order to clarify the board on the history of the May revise and whether it was a rare occurrence or an annual tradition. However, despite its common occurrence, a May revise does not seem likely for this fiscal year.

by Maxwell Lee, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.