Transparency once more a question in Piedmont, as meetings are not broadcast and are held in small venues. – 

June 26, Thursday, 7:30 p.m. in the small Council Conference Room in City Hall, a Capital Improvement Projects Review Committee (CIP) meeting will discuss how to spend $507,325 WW Bond money. The meeting is running partially concurrent with a Planning Commission “Town Hall” meeting held in the Police Department Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Both meetings are important to future Piedmont decisions. There will be no broadcast of either meeting. Beginning at 5:30 p.m. the Public Safety Committee will be meeting in the Council Chamber with a long agenda.

The CIP Committee has learned how tight the schedule is to identify, qualify, and complete construction of a project or projects to use Piedmont’s entitlement of $575,000 WW East Bay Regional Park District Ballot measure funds. Piedmont is the only city in the District that has not received its money as no Piedmont project has been put forward. The City staff and CIP Review Committee and City Council are eager to meet the strict deadlines, allowing Piedmont to receive funding without forfeiture of the money.

Projects associated with school uses do not qualify, nor do median strips. “The District requires that the Grantee have authority to use the property for public recreation for at least 25 years of land tenure from the date of Application.”  Read the grant application required documents.

Prior CIP funds have been primarily used for sports facilities – Havens Playground, Coaches Field, Moraga/Blair Park sports complex proposal, and others.  Read the 2011 CIP report.

The City has announced another “regular meeting” of the:

CIP Review Committee

Thursday, June 26, 2014

7:30 p.m.

City Hall Conference Room, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA

The agenda includes:

1. Selection of the Committee Chairperson

2. Discussion of Possible Projects Eligible for Measure WW Funding

Various projects have been mentioned in recent years as ways to spend $575,000 in WW Funds.  Some would not qualify; others might receive approval by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Board.

• Improvements to Blair Park per recently approved plans
• Improvements to Hampton Field to correct drainage
• Senior Center, possibly in the 801 Magnolia Ave. – Arts Center extra room
• Expansion of Coaches Field
• Bocci Ball court
• Croquet lawn
• Correction of tennis court problems at Hampton Field
• Correction of drainage issues at Dracena Park’s former quarry area

Those with other projects to suggest should attend the meeting. Read a list of ineligible project categories provided to the Committee at the June 19 meeting.

Years have passed and there remains no resolution to issues surrounding the undergrounding debacle costing Piedmont taxpayers over $2 million. The City has filed law suits against the City’s engineers in an attempt to recover the lost millions. “The Court has ordered the parties to engage in settlement discussions, and a mediation likely will be scheduled this summer.” Attorneys representing the City, Lombardi, Loper and Conant, LLP, “anticipate that the trial date ultimately will be in Spring 2015.“

The following information is from the City:

At an open and broadcast meeting on Wednesday, June 25, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue, the School Board will consider the following items:

• CONDUCT SECOND PUBLIC HEARING to ADOPT 2014-15 DISTRICT GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ALL BUDGETS OPERATED BY THE DISTRICT; AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 13-2013-14
• “AUTHORIZING YEAR-END BUDGET TRANSFERS”

 Parcel Tax support has been an essential component of the District’s revenue for the maintenance of programs for students. It has grown from being approximately 11% of the District’s total revenue in 1985 to 31% in 2013-14 from Measure A as approved by voters in March, 2013 for eight years (expires June 30, 2021). Since it represents such a substantial portion of the District’s operating expenses, it is recommended that the renewal request to the community is early enough (no later than Spring 2019) to incorporate the outcomes in the multi-year budget projections.

 Funds raised by Parent/Support Groups to support programs remain an integral part of the District’s budget, representing over $1.55M per year. 

 The Piedmont Educational Foundation Endowment Fund support is provided at $250,000/year.

District enrollment has been increasing slightly.

The District will present a revision to this Adopted Budget (called the Revised Budget) within 45 days that will provide a clearer picture.

 The State has provided Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) for 2014-15 in the amount of 0.85%. COLAs for 2015-16 (2.19%) and 2016-17 (2.14%) are incorporated as part of the District’s multi-year projections.

• APPROVE SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR ALL UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES OF THE DISTRICT (ASSOCIATION OF PIEDMONT SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS AND SUPERINTENDENT) CONSISTENT WITH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING GROUPS

It is requested that the Board approve the one-time payment for a furlough day in 2013-14; an increase to the salary schedules of 3%; and the increase in the District contribution to medical benefits – as agreed to for APT – for unrepresented employees. The costs associated with the increase have been incorporated into the 2014-15 Adopted Budget as presented this evening.

Pension Costs are projected to rise dramatically.

STRS (State Teachers Retirement System) Employer Rates were proposed from the current 8.25% to 9.50% (in 2014-15), 11.10% (in 2015-16), and 12.70% (in 2016-17), increasing incrementally thereafter to 19.1% by 2020. These rates have been modified somewhat, with employers taking a proposed smaller step in the first year, but continuing to increase until the 19.1% rate is reached in 2020-21. As specified in Assembly Bill 1469, employer contribution rates would be as follows: from 8.25%to 8.88% (in 2014-15) to 10.73% (in 2015-16), and 12.58% (in 2016-17). As of this writing, the rates have not been finalized, so they are not included as part of the 2014-15 Adopted Budget.

The California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) for classified employees is also projected to increase incrementally from 11.7% in 2014-15 to 20.4% by 2020. Before the implementation of LCFF, CalPERS adjustments were made to school district revenue limits. Now any increases in CalPERS contribution rates will have a direct impact on the budget.

The effect of increasing employer contributions for both CalSTRS and CALPERS (without additional State funding to support these increases) will be most profound in the District’s multi-year projections. 

Governor’s Budget: 

The 2014-15 State Budget contains a number of controversial provisions, specifically a requirement that districts “substantiate” the need for an “unassigned or assigned ending fund balance” above the required minimum reserve (beginning with budgets adopted for the 2015-16 fiscal year). At the public hearing for budget adoption or revision (as described above), districts would need to substantiate the reasons for any “excess,” and the Alameda County Office of Education (ACOE) would be required to determine whether the District complied with these requirements.

If the Governor’s “Rainy Day Fund” is approved by voters in November, in the year following a deposit into the Proposition 98 portion of the “Rainy Day Fund,” districts would not be able to have reserves more than twice the minimum required by state regulation, which for the Piedmont Unified School District would amount to 6 percent (twice the 3% minimum). ACOE could provide PUSD an exemption under “extraordinary fiscal circumstances,” but only for up to two consecutive fiscal years within a three-year period; in the third year, or in any year a district does not receive an exemption, a district would need to spend down its reserves to the new maximum or below. The language was amended between its drafting and its adoption to clarify that the reserve cap is only active in the year immediately after a fiscal year in which the state makes a deposit into the Proposition 98 reserve.

The Board packet can be read here.

The Planning staff and Commission have scheduled a “Town Hall” meeting inviting citizen input on plans to change Piedmont’s General Plan to accommodate increased low income and affordable housing, apartments above commercial buildings, and increased housing density.  New benefits are intended to increase second units to house low and very low income families. The June 26 meeting will take place in the lower level of the former Veterans Building in the Emergency Operation Center (EOC) of the Piedmont Police Department at 6:30 pm.

The General Plan changes proposed could affect every area of Piedmont.

The State is pushing all cities to increase housing density and to provide more low income and affordable housing.  In Piedmont, this is an especially difficult challenge because of land scarcity, high costs of properties, and desires to keep the community an essentially single family residential city per the City Charter.

Past recommendations to the City Council from the Planning Commission on General Plan changes have been accompanied by a list of previous briefings open to the public where information was presented. Few or no public individuals have attended recent briefings.  When recommendations are presented to the Council, they project that the public agrees with the changes.  Previous changes have been primarily staff and consultant developed.

 Additional information can be found on the City’s Housing Element page.

In an unusual “Town Hall” meeting format, there will be no public broadcast of the meeting.  Interested individuals need to attend the meeting to view the proceedings. Space and seating in the EOC is very limited.  

Special Meeting of the Piedmont Planning Commission

Thursday, June 26, 2014

6:30 to 8:00 p.m.

 Police Department Emergency Operations Center (EOC)

403 Highland Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611

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

“TOWN HALL MEETING ON HOUSING ELEMENT – The City’s Housing Element consultant will introduce the project, review the scope and purpose of the workshop, present a summary of Piedmont’s demographics and housing needs, as well as the State requirements for the Housing Element. The City’s existing housing policies and

The purpose of the Town Hall meeting is to invite input from Piedmont residents on the steps the City can take to better meet Piedmont’s housing needs during the next eight years. By law, Piedmont must demonstrate that it can accommodate 60 new housing units by 2023, including 38 units affordable to low and very low income households. Most of the meeting will focus on a discussion of how the City can meet State requirements for affordable housing during the next 8 years, with a particular focus on second units. Housing conservation, housing production, and housing for Piedmont residents with special needs will be discussed. Comments from current owners and tenants of second units, as well as the general public, are encouraged.”

_____________________________________________________

“Dear Piedmonter,

I am writing to encourage you attend a “Town Hall” meeting on housing, hosted by the Piedmont Planning Commission on Thursday June 26, 2014.  The meeting will take place from 6:30 to 8:00 PM in the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) meeting room on the lower level of the Police Department at 403 Highland Avenue in Piedmont. Light refreshments will be provided.

The purpose of the meeting is to invite input from Piedmont residents on the steps the City can take to better meet Piedmont’s housing needs during the next eight years.  All cities in the Bay Area are required by State law to adopt a new Housing Element by January 31, 2015.  The Housing Element sets forth goals, policies and action programs to ensure that Piedmont is doing its fair share to meet the region’s housing needs.  It addresses housing conservation, housing production, and housing for Piedmont residents with special needs.

Since October 2013, the Piedmont Planning Commission has held five study sessions on the Housing Element.  The City Council convened a study session on the Housing Element in May, 2014.  Both the Planning Commission and the City Council are expected to take action on a Working Draft of the Housing Element this summer, with adoption of a Final Housing Element by the end of the year.

The Town Hall meeting will include a short presentation on Piedmont’s demographics and housing needs, as well as the State requirements for the Housing Element.  The City’s existing housing policies and programs will be reviewed.   Most of the meeting will focus on a discussion of how the City can meet State requirements for affordable housing during the next 8 years. By law, Piedmont must demonstrate that it can accommodate 60 new housing units by 2023, including 38 units affordable to low and very low income households.  Most of this need will be met through second units.

The City has established a link on its webpage with additional information about the Housing Element.  Please visit www.ci.piedmont.ca.us for additional information, or call me at 420-3063.

Please feel free to email comments to me at kblack@ci.piedmont.ca.us, send them via US mail to Planning Commission, c/o Kate Black, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611, or drop them off at City Hall.”

                  Kate Black, Piedmont City Planner

For more information go to:

Piedmont’s Housing Element 

The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) water distribution system includes about 4,100 miles of pipe with the average age being 53-years-old. According to Director of Engineering  Xavier Irias, “50 years is not old for a pipe. It’s just middle-aged. Some pipes last for 100 years. Ripping out everything and starting over doesn’t make sense.”

The infrastructure renewal program is mostly based on leak rate, not age of pipe. Cast iron pipes from the 1930’s, 1940’s and 1950’s leak more than the very thick-walled cast iron pipes from the late 1800’s. Asbestos cement pipe is more age sensitive than cast iron pipe; over time calcium leaches out of asbestos cement pipe, accelerating its deterioration. Slip-lining is a possible rehabilitation option for the asbestos cement pipe when the hydraulics allow for a reduction in pipe diameter.

The single most important cause of pipe failure is unstable soil; for example, in filled land or land slide areas. Each year EBMUD replaces less than .2% of the total network, a replacement cycle of 400 years. Of the current 10 miles per year, one to two miles will be replaced using horizontal directional drilling in place of open trench installation, but only in flat residential neighborhoods with straight pipe alignments and minimal utility conflicts. Over the coming decades the goal is to increase the annual replacement rate to 40 miles of pipe per year, or 1% of the pipe system.

Council might back off of a tax measure for new money to fix sewers.

Recent information from Alameda County  shows an unprecedented increase in the Real Property Transfer Tax flowing into Piedmont’s budget causing the City Administrator and Council to take another look at placing a sewer tax measure on the November 2014 ballot.  The City has been considering a ballot measure to generate new money derived from an increase in the tax on real estate transfers. For cost effectiveness and water quality, the City seeks to expedite the 30% remaining of the sanitary sewer rehabilitation  program.

The matter will be considered at a Special Meeting of the City Council in the Council Chambers on Tuesday, June 24 starting at 7:30 p.m. The meeting, open to the public, will be broadcast on KCOM Channel 27 and available live streamed from the City’s website.

“At the June 2nd meeting, the staff report for the first public hearing on the 2014-15 Budget included an update to Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT) receipts. Based on the information provided by Alameda County through May 15, 2014, the City was estimated to receive
approximately $2.95 million and on pace to have a record year. At that time, staff continued to propose that funds in excess of budgeted amounts be allocated for unfunded retiree medical liabilities, facilities maintenance, and equipment replacement.

Based upon receipt of new data provided by the Alameda County Assessor’s Office, FY 2013-14 will be unprecedented, with RPTT receipts through June 9th at $3.78 million. This is largely due
to an historic total of approximately $972,000 for the month of May. The total for May is only $43,000 less than what the City received for April through June combined for Fiscal Year 2012-13. The previous record for a single month of transfer tax was June 2006, with receipts of $694,840.”

City Administrator Paul Benoit’s Report to the Council

The voter approved Sewer Fund originally was intended to rebuild and maintain Piedmont’s sanitary sewer system, however it was soon changed to include the City’s storm drain system. Both systems are recognized as important to protecting waterways from damaging effluent.

Historically, the City has used excess General Funds for purposes other than sewers: beautification projects, recreation facilities, employee compensation,  $2.5 million for private undergrounding problems, etc.

The City Council offered a 2011 ballot measure to complete the remaining 30% of the aged sanitary sewers. The tax proposed would have essentially doubled property owners ‘ Sewer Fund Taxes from $471 to $849  and $707 to $1,274 depending on lot size. Piedmont voters rejected the tax increase when they learned of errors in the City’s cost estimates and incorrect statements on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements.  Supporters of the sewer tax were undeterred by the new information and continued to support the sewer ballot measure that would have provided the City with new funds of approximately $11 million.

In a recent turn around on how much money was needed to accomplish EPA requirements, the City reduced the needed amount from approximately $11 million to approximately $1 million. City explanations of the dramatic change in needed funds to complete the sewer rehabilitation included overstated and incorrect calculations.

For years records were not kept by the Public Works Department on specific work hours or various projects charged to the Sewer Fund.  Council members did not have information on the actual work charged the Sewer Fund.

A priority list weighing various uses, including sewers, with available City funds has not been produced by the Council.

Former Mayor Al Peters stated in an opinion:

“The City has an annual general fund budget of approximately $22 million.  Allocating two percent a year to this project for three years would produce over $1.3 million.  As of June 30, 2013, the City had over $10 million in reserves, including over $4 million undesignated and an additional $4 million set aside for capital improvements and equipment replacement.  Why not use a portion of these funds to loan to the Sewer Fund rather than requesting an additional tax?  If reserves are inadequate, the Council should address that issue in a comprehensive way, not by this piecemeal approach.”

As the City looks for new money for sewers, it places other projects ahead of sewers.

Capital Improve Project (CIP) funds are generally used for special projects. There is no information indicating the City  prioritizes projects based on unavoidable expenses such as the completion of EPA required sewer work.

Although CIP funds and General Funds can be used for sewers, it is unknown if CIP allocations for sewer projects will be considered by the City Council.  As of this writing, the significant infusion of funds supplied by the Real Estate Transfer Tax changes the budget numbers. Without a new sewer tax, it appears special projects could be implemented and the Sewer Fund could be provided with the funds necessary for renovation of the remaining sanitary sewers in a cost effective, expeditious manner.

To read detailed analysis on Piedmont’s Sewer Fund, go to the left side of this page and click on “Sewer Fund”.

Read the City Administrator’s Report to the Council

Piedmont has been slow to apply for its Measure WW bond funds.

The June 19 meeting of the CIP (Capital Improvement Projects) Review Committee was moved from the City Hall Council Conference Room to the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in the Police Department to accommodate more people. It began with a presentation by Jeff Rasmussen of the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) on the program requirements for Measure WW bond funds.  No video or broadcast of the meeting was produced. 

Piedmont is the only city in the District that has not submitted an application for the funds it is entitled to receive. Since there are strict timing constraints, it is important to move ahead to have construction completed and approved before the end of fund dispersal. Each year applications can only be submitted from February 1 to March 31 in any year. Before the end of the application year, EBRPD will determine eligibility of the project or projects. The completed project construction must be documented, submitted and approved for payment before the last WW funds are paid out by December, 2018.

The numerous required application documents for each project include CEQA clearance of the project and a City Council resolution approving the project applications.

Rather than discussing the many eligible projects under the program, Rasmussen presented some major categories of ineligible projects to save the CIP Review Committee time when considering citizen suggestions for the $575,000 set aside for Piedmont. No more than 20% of a project’s pre-construction cost can be covered by WW funds.

Some Projects Ineligible under the WW fund program include:

• Libraries
• School facilities not associated with a parks and recreation facility (limitations on school use apply)
• Street medians
• Street and highway beautification
• Master Plans
• Movable equipment such as trucks, mowers, etc
• Removable recreational equipment such as soccer goals
• Recreational programming and staffing
• Normal maintenance
• Repairs with a life of less than 25 years
• Classes that are part of a school curriculum
• School sports programs

The EBRPD Board makes the final determination of a project’s eligibility.  Once constructed, the project must be open to the public, maintained and operated only for the purpose for which the grant was awarded.

On June 24, at a Special Meeting, the Council will consider a process for reviewing the candidates for the position of new Recreation Director.  Fifty timely applications were submitted.  To narrow the candidates, the recruiting firm of Peckham and McKenney will conduct preliminary interviews with 10 – 15 leading candidates followed by an internet based screening.

Paul Benoit, City Administrator recommends next steps:

“First, I will engage a small number of individuals (up to five) – likely comprised of representatives from the Recreation Commission, Department Heads, and an outside recreation professional, to assist in narrowing the field presented by Peckham and McKenney. That narrowed field of finalists would be limited to the most qualified candidates, as determined by breadth of experience, education, recommendations and background checks. Those individuals, ideally not more than six, would then be vetted through a formal interview process.

Prior to interviews by the full Council, I would anticipate having two interview panels – one comprised of Department Heads and one comprised of a mix of Community members (Recreation Commission member(s), citizen(s)-at-large) and a recreation professional(s). In addition, I would conduct “one-on-one” interviews with each finalist. Through that process, I would anticipate having consensus on the top two or three candidates who would then be interviewed by the Council, which will select the new Recreation Director.”

The meeting will be broadcast on KCOM Channel 27 and via the City’s website.

Read the full City Administrator’s Report here.

– Meeting of the Piedmont CIP Committee to learn about WW funds and elect a chair person. –

The City lists the meeting as a “regular meeting” of the Capital Improvement Project Review Committee on June 19, 2014, in the Council Conference Room, 120 Vista Avenue, at 5:30 p.m. The agenda was posted approximately 48 hours prior to the meeting time. The agenda may be viewed here.

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

The Committee is to be informed by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) on how Piedmont’s entitlement of over $500,000 from the voter approved Measure WW bond funds. The funds had been publicly mentioned as a source of funding for lights at Coaches’ Field and more recently as a way to supplement the costs associated with improving the drainage at Hampton Field’s grassy area regularly damaged during heavy rain. Members of  the community have made other suggestions for the Measure WW funds including improvements to: the Piedmont Pool, the former Sunday School room of the Arts Center for seniors, Coaches’ Field to accommodate another play field, etc.

“Measure WW was approved by 72% of the voters in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in November 2008. The measure extended Measure AA, approved in 1988, to help the Park District meet the increasing demand to preserve open space for recreation and wildlife habitat. In addition, Measure WW made funding available directly to cities and special park districts for high priority community park projects. Locally, Piedmont voters overwhelmingly approved the measure. Piedmont’s allocation of funds totals $507,325. The spending deadline for all projects is December 31, 2018. This means that the project(s) must be completed, billed and paid by that date.”

City Administrator’s Report 

With the Blair Park and Moraga Avenue sports complex brewing for years and the hope by many promoters to use the WW funds to support the complex, no community meetings were held by the Council to discuss the use of WW funds. With  time beginning to run out on the use of the funds, the CIP committee members have been charged with familiarizing themselves with how the funds can be used and coming up with a priority list of projects. Jeff Rasmussen of the East Bay Regional Park District will present information on the Measure WW funds available to Piedmont at the CIP meeting.

The Committee will also elected a chair person.

“The members of the committee represent a cross-section of the community, and it includes members of the Park Commission, Recreation Commission, and the Piedmont Beautification Foundation.”

City Administrator’s Report 

The Committee is composed of three individuals who have been a part of the Piedmont Beautification Foundation and five individuals who have been or are on City Commissions.

PUBLIC MEMBERS APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL (4):  John Cooper, Ryan Gilbert, Bobbe Stehr and Jamie Totsubo

PIEDMONT GARDEN CLUB’S PIEDMONT BEAUTIFICATION FOUNDATION REPRESENTATIVE (1): Michelle Winchester

PARK COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE (1): Sue Herrick

RECREATION COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE (1): Nick Levinson

COUNCIL LIAISON, as observer: Vice Mayor Jeff Wieler, alternate Councilmember Teddy King

STAFF LIAISONS: Chester Nakahara (W) 420-3061 & Mark Feldkamp (W) 420-3064

No broadcast from the conference room is expected.  Space and seating is limited in the meeting room. Those interested should attend the meeting. 

Updated 6/19/2014

– The Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s sunshine law, was strengthened by the June 3, 2014 voter approval of Proposition 42. – 

California voters in an overwhelming victory for open and transparent government approved a Constitutional amendment requiring public meetings and records to be open and available without State reimbursement of costs.

Many public entities, including the City of Piedmont, had regularly submitted claims to the State for reimbursement of costs associated with notifying the public of public meetings.  During the recent deep recession, Governor Jerry Brown suspended the State’s reimbursement of the costs. Piedmont officials agreed to continue compliance with the Brown Act; however, some jurisdictions decided not to comply when funding was terminated.

The voter approval of Proposition 42 by  2,399,314 /61.9% Yes secures and further embeds the Brown Act into the California Constitution while no longer requiring State reimbursement of costs. 

The measure requires all local governments and agencies to comply with the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) and with any subsequent changes to the acts, thus guaranteeing a person’s right to inspect public records and attend public meetings. Proposition 42 also made these laws core government responsibilities, ensuring taxpayers are not paying for items local governments have a duty to provide on their own.

The California Public Records Act (CPRA)  provides that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of state or local agencies that retain those records and that every person has a right to inspect any public record. The act also requires agencies to establish written guidelines for public access to documents and to post these guidelines at their offices.

The California Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) requires local legislative bodies to provide notice of the time and place for holding regular meetings and requires that all meetings of a legislative body be open and public. The act also permits all persons to attend any meeting of the local legislative body, unless a closed session is authorized.

The measure was sponsored in the California Legislature by State Senator Mark Leno (D-11) as Senate Constitutional Amendment 3.

http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_42,_Compliance_of_Local_Agencies_with_Public_Records_(2014)

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/california-voters-check-yes-42