Teddy King, Tim Rood, and Jeff Wieler have been elected to the Piedmont City Council; Doug Ireland and Amal Smith have been elected to the Board of Education; and Measure A received the required number of votes for approval.

On Tuesday, February, 18, at 6:30 p.m. in the Piedmont Community Hall, 711 Highland Avenue, the newly elected members of the City Council will be sworn into office.  The meeting agenda includes the certification of the final election results and an opportunity to acknowledge the outgoing members of the council, John Chiang and Garrett Keating.

Following the seating of the new council, the election of a new mayor and vice mayor will be determined by council vote.  The positions have had two year terms.

“SECTION 2.08 MAYOR  [City Charter]

Following each general municipal election, the City Council shall elect from among its member officers of the City who shall have the titles of mayor and vice-mayor, each of whom shall serve at the pleasure of the Council. The mayor shall preside at meetings of the Council, shall be recognized as head of the City government for all ceremonial purposes and by the Governor for the purposes of military law, but shall have no administrative duties. The vice-mayor shall act as mayor during the absence or disability of the mayor. In case of the temporary absence or disability of both the mayor and vice-mayor, the Council shall select one of its members to serve as mayor pro tempore.”

More than one third (3,030) of Piedmonts’ 8,268 registered voters cast ballots in the February 4 election. The election results are noteworthy for selective voting in the category of City Council. Although voters were given the opportunity to cast a vote three times (for a total of 9,090 votes) in the uncontested council race, most chose only one or two of the three candidates, amounting to 3,356 undervotes.  The contested school board ballot had 1,088 undervotes.

Measure A, the bond measure to pay down the CalPERS side fund with a lower interest rate, passed readily with approximately 83% approval. Two hundred forty voters omitted the measure voting neither yes or no.  Tax measure approval is based on the number of voters voting on each specific measure rather than the number of voters submitting a ballot.

View the election results in detail.

Board of Education members will be separately sworn in on at a future date and a different location. 

February 6, 2014

Mr. Gary Wolff, Executive Director

Alameda County

Waste Management Authority

1537 Webster Street

Oakland, CA 94612-3355

       Re: Proposed Household Hazardous Waste Collection and      Disposal Fee

Dear Mr. Wolff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

     Your immediate attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

               David E. Mix

At the February 12, School Board 7 p.m.meeting in City Hall, the Board will consider how to comply with the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP).  Compliance correlates with funding for the School District.

“The Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) is a critical part of the new Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). Each school district must engage parents, educators, employees and the community to establish their LCAP. The plan will describe the school district’s overall vision for students, annual goals and specific actions the District will take to achieve the vision and goals. The LCAP must focus on eight areas identified as state priorities, demonstrate how the district’s budget will help achieve the goals, and assess each year how well the strategies in the plan were able to improve outcomes.”

The state’s eight priority areas required in the LCAP are:

• student achievement;
• student engagement;
• other student outcomes;
• school climate;
• parent involvement;
• implementation of academic standards with a focus on English learners; course access;
• facilities,  qualified teachers and instructional materials.

Read the Fact Sheet on the State funding priorities.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union:

“The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) increases school funding and directs more resources to CA’s highest-need students.  It requires districts to develop Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) that establish annual goals for all students,describe what actions will be taken to achieve these goals, and detail how funds will be spent to increase or improve services.”

Read the Board packet.

Read the  agenda.

After 25 years as Piedmont’s City Administrator, Geoff Grote was honored February 7 at the Piedmont Community Center by a large gathering of well wishers,  who payed $25 each to attend his retirement celebration.

Grote’s longevity in the top job of a public entity is an anomaly.  The position of City Administrator or City Manager has generally been known as short-termed. His long tenure speaks to his ability to work with a wide range of individuals.

Grote, who came to Piedmont in 1989, worked with many councilmembers and mayors, staff members and the community.   Those present at his retirement celebration gave him a grand sendoff with praise and gratitude. Past and present staff members applauded his abilities and work ethic.  Resolutions from elected officials were read by Mayor John Chiang, who was later praised by Grote as a true leader. Chiang is also soon to retire from the City Council.

Grote was given a blue vase replicating the blue vase in Piedmont’s Exedra.  Many of Piedmont’s mayors who Grote had worked under gave him a gift certificate to the French Laundry restaurant in Yountville.

Administrative Assistant Lisa Argue, who has been working in her position for two years, praised Grote for handling all individuals in a professional manner. She noted that in the time she has sat outside his office,  Grote has always been respectful to others, never giving her any sense of his personal view of those with whom he met. 

Retired Recreation Director, Mark Delventhal, was given surprise recognition by former mayor Susan Hill, Council member Bob McBain, and Piedmont Post Editor and Publisher, Gray Cathrall, who thanked him for him for his over 40 years of service to Piedmont. Delventhal had turned down an opportunity to have his own retirement celebration.  The crowd greeted him with applause.

Ever present at City celebrations was retired City Attorney George Peyton, tending the wine table, while retired City Clerk Ann Swift kept the buffet tables full of her prepared delicacies.

Grote did not indicate his plans while in retirement.

– Late night ad for loading up on debt – 

I just listened to the portion (from hour 2 to 2:30) of the Piedmont Unified School District January 22, 2014 Board meeting recording where Mr. Gautam Wadhwani, Financial Officer for the Piedmont Arts Center and a Finance professional, gives advice to the Board about which bond option to select for financing the Alan Harvey Theater (AHT) renovation.

The speech reminded me of 2007 late night TV advertisements encouraging homeowners to load up on debt and take second mortgages or interest-only first mortgages with balloon payments.

“I will encourage you to borrow as much as you can in a low interest environment.”
“We should not worry about debt being a bad thing.”
“Educated voters are a minority of the populace.”
“If you agree that we are in a low interest environment, you want to borrow for as long as you can.”
“It is always better to defer taxes.”
“Every dollar that I save in not paying taxes, I can use … to make my wife happy.”
“You want to borrow interest only.”
“It is good economics and good finance for everybody.”

During the Board meeting, Hari Titan made an appeal to modify the text of the June ballot measure to exclude the use of creative financing instruments. I do not know if the Board adopted his suggestions, but I strongly urge it to do so if there is still time. Please join me in doing so.

Am I alone in suspecting that the whole AHT project has been approached upside down? “What is the maximum amount of money the District can borrow? Get that money from the voters. Design a project that spends the money.”  We all know that every education dollar counts! Think what one million three hundred thousand dollars (the additional amount saved downsizing from a $14 to $13 million project – slide 9 KNN Consultants December 11, 2013 Presentation) would do to improve education in Piedmont classrooms?

Bernard Pech, Piedmont Resident

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

After much consideration by teachers, school staff, students and parents, the School Board is set to approve the Instructional Calendar for school year 2015-16.   The calendar starts and finishes the year slightly earlier than the current year.  The first day of school is August 19, 2014 and the last day is June 9, 2015.

Formal adoption of the calendar is scheduled for the February 12 meeting starting at 7 pm in City Hall.

Read the Board packet.

Read the full agenda.

Discussion of School Parcel Tax Levy for 2014- 15 – 

The School Support Tax Advisory Subcommittee of the Budget Advisory Committee is recommending that the School Board levy the full property tax approved by voters in March 2013 of $2,406 plus the allowed 2% increase per parcel for the 2014-15 tax year. The School Board will consider the report and recommendations at the February 12 Board meeting. There will be public hearings on the matter prior to final Board action.

The required Measure A Subcommittee of the Budget Advisory Committee is composed of Jon Elliott, Peter Freeman, and School Board member elect Amal Smith.

“(1) levy Measure A taxes at their maximum level in 2014-2015, including the maximum permissible increase of 2%;

(2) deposit the $188,160 increase in a parcel tax reserve account. ”

“ Actual revenues may rise or fall compared to projections. The terms of the LCFF are still being debated, and changes in formulae may change Piedmont’s allocations. The Governor’s latest proposals may yield additional revenues, although leaders in the Legislature seem to have different priorities. And, of course, the School Board may decide to change the Measure A levy.

 Actual expenses may rise or fall. Ongoing contract negotiations are private, so this Subcommittee has no ability to predict changes in personnel costs that may result from the new contracts. However, employee representatives have been clear about their desire for increases in compensation.”

The report explains the Subcommittee’s after the fact confirmation* of the 2013-14 parcel tax levy:

“Review of 2013-14 Parcel Tax Levy

In order to levy Measure A taxes in 2013-14, the School Board was required to approve the levy before July 1, 2013.  Although this Subcommittee was not formed until October 2013, we reviewed 2013-14 budgeting, revenue and expenditure documentation from the District.  The District adopted a budget assuming $31,733,656 in revenue from all sources (including $9,408,025 from Measure A and $$1,550,000 in community contributions), and expenditures of $32,630,183, for a deficit of $896,527.  This budget continues to include cost-containment and program preservation priorities.  As of the First Interim report in December 2013, actual revenues and expenditures are close to these adopted amounts.  After this review, the Subcommittee confirms the appropriateness of the Measure A levy for 2013-14.”

The full report is available. See School Board packet for the February 12 meeting :*Review Report and Recommendations of the School Support Tax Advisory Subcommittee for Levying for Fiscal Year 2014-15 and Review of Fiscal Year 2013-14 .

The February 12 Board meeting begins at 7 pm in City Hall and will be broadcast live on KCOM Channel 27 with live streaming from the city website.

The full agenda of the meeting. 

*Updated 2/24/14

Piedmont’s Planning Commission will hold a study session hearing and discussion concerning the General Plan Housing Element Site Inventory on Monday, February 10, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611. The Site Inventory is currently being drafted for Chapter 4 of the Housing Element and will be circulated later in February.

The Association of Bay Area Governments has decided Piedmont’s Required Housing Needs Allocation for 2015-2022 is 60 new housing units: 7 above moderate income; 15 moderate income; 14 low income; and 24 very low income. The City is not required to produce the 60 new housing units but only to provide circumstances that allow private developers to produce them.

The sites inventoried are: existing vacant lots; lots that can be created through subdivision; underutilized sites for multi-family housing; public land; and houses without second units.

The staff expects to submit an updated draft of the Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development in June 2014. During the summer and fall the staff would work with State reviewers  to revise the Housing Element and have it ready for City Council adoption by the end of the year. Bay area cities are required to adopt Housing Elements to cover the period 2015-2022 by January 31, 2015.

This study session is third in a series of sessions, and follows the introduction of the update to the Planning Commission on October 14, 2013, and a review of demographic changes and housing needs in Piedmont during the last decade on January 13, 2014.

The public is invited to provide ideas on housing policy and suggest sites for new housing.

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

 Mr. Mix, very well done!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Clark, Piedmont Resident

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

Hi Tom,

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

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

Bruce Joffe, Piedmont Resident

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

–  Enrollment Opens March 6 –

The following is a Piedmont Unified School District announcement: