“Piedmont has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.”

Piedmont Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee report

Some highlights from the April Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee  (BAFPC) meeting:

Four Year Capital Improvement Program: 

Estimates to replace/renovate Essential Services facilities, City hall basement and Recreation Building:     $16, 450,000. – 52,585,425.

STAFF INCREASES:

Proposed FY23-24 will include a part-time Facilities Project Manager:            $100,000/year

Increase in Planning Department Part-time staff:                                           $180,400

Increase in Planning Department Supplemental and Consulting service:       $519,000

Consulting for Moraga Canyon Specific Plan:                                                  $700,000

2 new dispatch positions Police Department:       $282,000, 5-year cost = $1, 518,000

TAX INCREASES:

2 new dispatchers would require a 11% increase in the parcel tax.

TAX REVENUE:

Property taxes receipts were 8% above the previous year (well above expected) and the real property transfer tax for 20222/23 was projected to come in at $4.7M, almost $1M above estimates.

For more details email Finance Director Michael Szczech, mszczech@piedmont.ca.gov.

In year’s past, City Council would have the assistance of two citizen committees to assist in reviewing these spending and tax increases.   The Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC) would meet every two years prior to the parcel tax being put on the ballot for renewal. The MTRC held public meetings and met with all department heads to review service levels and department needs.

The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC ) has replaced the MTRC but is not conducting the comprehensive review of city departments the prior committee once did. With the addition of the Measure UU assessments, the likely increase in the parcel tax, and a possible new bond for essential service buildings, the BAFPC should revisit its 2018 study of taxes in comparable cities to assess the long-term impact of these new tax adoptions on Piedmont.  That study found Piedmont’s tax levels acceptable based on comparison with Hillsborough.

The other committee was the Capital Improvement Projects Committee (CIP) which reviewed staff and citizen proposals for capital improvement projects.  With Piedmont’s conservative budgeting, there’s always a surplus in city revenues at the end of the year and CIP annually met to review proposals for capital projects from staff but also from residents.  Residents filled out a form and presented to the committee. The Indian Road, Ronada/Ramona and Kingston traffic islands all were initiated through the CIP process.  CIP seems to have been disbanded after COVID – the committee is no longer listed among the city’s commission and committees.  In my experience, the CIP provided a good reality check to staff proposals.  For example, in response to a question from a BAFPC committee member, staff said the primary criteria for CIP is safety and that is true.  This year’s top CIP project is the Piedmont Park – Guilford stairs at the cost of $388,000.  That project was initiated by a fall on the stairs and what could have been addressed with a handrail has morphed into a major beautification project.  Has this project diverted funding from other safety projects like Park Way and Highland where a pedestrian was hit by a car? A CIP committee asking these questions earlier in project development would provide significant cost savings.

The opening line of the first BAFPC report was: “Piedmont has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.”  That was speaking to the payroll and benefits obligations of the city at the time.  Piedmont is receiving record tax revenue and should reconvene the CIP and MTRC committees so it doesn’t slip back into a spending problem.

Garrett Keating, Former Member of the Piedmont City Council

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

 On Tuesday May 9, The Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) will meet again at 6:00 pm in the EOC (Emergency Operations Center  of the Piedmont Police Department at Highland and Vista Avenues.)

The important BAFPC meetings, unlike Piedmont Commission meetings, are not broadcast or video recorded by the City. Minutes are not kept of the Committee meetings, although required by the City Charter.  The public may attend and participate in the meetings with a right to obtain all materials distributed to the Committee members. The public has a right to make audio and video recordings of the meetings.

City Council makes appointments to Commissions & Committees from a talented pool of 37 applicants.

The Piedmont City Council made 22 appointments to fill vacancies for City Commissions, Committees, and appointed volunteer positions at a special meeting on April 4, 2023.

In a testament to the spirit of volunteerism embedded in this community, 37 residents applied to serve on City of Piedmont bodies during this year’s recruitment. Applicants spanned all ages and stages of life, ranging from 5th generation Piedmonters to those who arrived less than two years ago. During interviews with the City Council on April 4th, prospective Commissioners were united in their passion for service and love for the city they’ve made home. With only 5 minutes to make their case, they spoke movingly of their appreciation for Piedmont’s “small town” feel, how much they value the outstanding services they receive, and their desire to give back. The nearly three hours of interviews painted a positive and hopeful picture of Piedmont’s future, with a deep and talented pool of residents eager to use their skills.

Click below to read the names of the appointees:

2023-04-13 Commission and Committee Appointments

The City’s planning staff will bring the updated Housing Element to the City Council for adoption at their regular meeting on Tuesday, Monday, March 20^th.

Since receiving comments on the City’s draft Housing Element from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on February 16^th, staff and consultants have been working to address the issues raised by State reviewers – primarily adding clarity, elaboration, and definitive scheduling for a number of the proposed programs.

The revised Housing Element is a 630 page document available here.

The document was published by 9am on Friday, March 17^th as part of the agenda packet for the March 20^th Council meeting. Changes from the previously published draft Housing Element are shown in track changes.

For example, on page 329 under

Emergency Shelters/Low Barrier Navigation Centers

the lines of red text with slash through are cut and replaced with adjacent blue text.

AGENDA:  March 20, 2023 Meeting:

https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/City%20Council/Agenda/council-current-agenda.pdf?v=QH2wsa4Z2&v=QH2wsa4Z

 Application deadline 5pm on Wednesday, March 29th

The City of Piedmont is now accepting applications to fill upcoming vacancies on several Commissions and Committees. Applications can be completed online and are due by 5:00 p.m., March 29, 2023. Mandatory in-person interviews will be held the evening of Tuesday, April 4th.

Serving on a Commission or Committee helps keep Piedmont moving forward. Piedmont is a city of volunteers of residents who serve on one of the City’s 13 volunteer Commissions, Boards, and Committees. The Piedmont residents entrusted to serve on these bodies act as the City’s eyes and ears, listening to community input, identifying and studying percolating issues, and making recommendations to the City Council for action. Many of the programs that Piedmonters enjoy today were initiated and/or first reviewed by Commissions, including pickleball at City courts, Heritage Trees, annual Planning Commission design awards, and the Map Your Neighborhood program.

Apply Online by March 29th

To apply, submit an online application by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 29th. When applying, you’ll be asked to provide contact and basic background information (education, occupation), select which body or bodies you would like to apply to serve on, then provide brief written answers to three questions:

• What experience do you have related to this appointment?

• Why are you seeking this appointment?

• What will you bring to this Commission or Committee?

The application also asks whether you have previously attended or watched a meeting of the body you’re applying to serve on. Archived meeting videos are available streaming on the City’s website.

Interviews on Tuesday, April 4th

To be considered for appointment, applicants must attend an in-person interview at City offices in the evening of Tuesday, April 4th. Interviews will be conducted by the City Council and will last roughly 5 minutes each. The interview schedule will be provided to applicants on Friday, March 31st.

Applicants needed for vacancies on seven bodies

This year, there are vacancies to fill on seven Commissions and Committees, as well as two additional appointed volunteer positions. For most bodies, members are appointed to 3-year terms, with a limit of two consecutive terms.

Commission/Committee Duties and additional information provided in link below:

2023-03-06 City Seeking Volunteers to Serve on Commissions and Committees

Starting March 1, 2023, the City of Piedmont will discontinue remote participation for most
Commission and all Committee meetings. Community members will still be able to comment
remotely via Zoom for City Council and Planning Commission meetings. Park Commission and
Recreation Commission meetings will continue to be broadcast live on KCOM and streamed on the
City website.

This format change was prompted by changes to State regulations governing public meetings,
which had been relaxed at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to support remote participate
for members of legislative bodies. Governor Newsom has announced his intention to rescind the
COVID-19 State of Emergency at the end of February 2023, at which point members of City
Councils, Boards, Commissions, and Committees statewide will be required to attend meetings in
person, with limited exceptions.

At their January 17, 2023, the City Council was briefed on changes to teleconference regulations
and was asked to give direction to staff on whether to continue providing remote participation
options for community members at Council, Commission, and Committee meetings.

After a detailed discussion, the Council chose to continue offering remote public comment for City
Council and Planning Commission meetings only, due to low remote participation for other bodies
and the strain on staff resources required to support hybrid meetings. Each remote or hybrid
meeting requires an additional staff member, working overtime, to manage the logistics and
operations of the virtual meeting.

More information is available in the agenda report, minutes, and meeting video for the January 17th City Council meeting.

City Press Release – February 14, 2023

The City of Piedmont expects to receive written comments on the Draft Housing Element from the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) this week, following the
conclusion of the State’s 90-day review period.

Since the City submitted the Draft Housing Element for review on November 18, 2022, HCD
officials have been studying the document to assess how it addresses each item on the State’s list of
more than 100 specific requirements. Planning staff have been in active communication with State
officials during this period, holding multiple meetings to answer questions about the City’s plan
and taking the City’s reviewer on personal tour of the city to showcase the sites listed in the sites
inventory. An analysis of how the City’s proposed Housing Element addresses each of the State’s
requirements is available at PiedmontIsHome.org.

The City expects that HCD’s written comments will request some technical revisions to the Draft
Housing Element, as has been the case for most every other city. Planning staff will work with
HCD to develop any necessary amendments, then bring the proposed updates to City Council for
approval. Staff anticipate bringing the Housing Element to City Council for adoption in late
February or March.

Planning & Building Director Kevin Jackson will provide a verbal update on the status of the
Housing Element at the February 21, 2023 City Council meeting.

After adoption, City will have three years to implement new Housing Programs
If City Council adopts the Housing Element by May 31, 2023, the City will have three years to
implement a substantial number of the proposed programs and regulatory changes outlined in the
document. Some of this work has already begun – the City is currently soliciting proposals for a
consulting firm to lead the preparation of the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan, one of the core
elements of the City’s plan to accommodate 587 new homes by 2031.

For more information about the Housing Element update, visit PiedmontIsHome.org. With questions, email PiedmontIsHome@piedmont.ca.gov.

City of Piedmont Press Release – February 13, 2023

Agenda item for January 17, 2023 –   >council-agenda 1.17.23

Staff report:

“Consideration of a Change to the Regular Meeting Time of the City Council to 6:00 p.m.”

RECOMMENDATION

By motion, approve changing the start time of regular City Council meetings from 7:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and authorize the City Clerk to amend all documents which refer to this time.

BACKGROUND

State law and the City Charter require the City Council to hold regular meetings at a set time, place, and date to ensure the public’s ability to participate in city government decisions. Currently, by resolution, the City Council’s regular meetings are scheduled for the 1st and 3rd Mondays of the month at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.

Shortly after the beginning of the pandemic, the Council temporarily adjusted the start of its meetings to 6:00 p.m. to better accommodate the changed work environments of the community, Councilmembers and staff. This change has continued for the duration of the pandemic and received compliments from the community. Staff is recommending that it be made permanent.

Should Council approve this change, staff will update the appropriate documents and publicize the new time.

By: John O. Tulloch, Assistant City Administrator / City Clerk”

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

The time change is a good idea IF City Council maintains the current teleconference access to all public meetings so the public can participate in meetings and comment remotely.  If not, this time change would reduce community participation in public meetings.  The 6:00 time is not optimal for in-person attendance, and it appears the pandemic is not going away.

The traditional 7:30 meeting time was intended to accommodate the family dinner hour and help with homework, late SF commuters and councilmember work schedules.  A 6:00 start time will conflict with much of that but if the public has teleconference access to all city meetings, it can juggle those commitments and still participate in meetings.

Council direction on continuing to teleconference public meetings appears later on Monday’s agenda which is unfortunate.  It would be a more fruitful discussion to have both issues addressed in the same agenda item.  Staff understandably wants the 6:00 start time but that will interfere with prime family time.  A 7:00 start time might be more attractive to younger community members who want to participate in meetings and potentially serve on Council.

Being on the Consent Calendar, this item won’t be open for public discussion unless a councilmember or member of the public requests that it be taken off the Calendar.  That can be done by attending the start of the meeting at 6:00 and requesting this item be pulled from the Consent Calendar.

Attend the Council meeting via Zoom:  https://cdn5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/City%20Council/Agenda/council-current-agenda.pdf?v=5Zo1Ykv8r&v=5Zo1Ykv8r

Whatever time the Council selects, hopefully it will stay in the 21st century and maintain public participation in all city meetings through teleconference.

Garrett Keating, Former Member of the Piedmont City Council

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

Hello City Council:

I’ve reviewed the staff report and draft RFP for the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (MCSP) and submit the following comments and questions. Hopefully you can delve into them.

The MCSP is good planning, but clearly the RFP is being developed to expedite a City application for Measure A funds by 2024.  Perhaps for that reason, the RFP is short on explaining how the plan addresses important city policies.  Table 2 list these policies but the RFP states that these policies “may” be considered and only stipulates that the consultant team will demonstrate “professional experience and knowledge of the personnel general principles and background law applicable to specific plans, land development and affordable housing development requirements”.   There are important sustainability policies outlined in the General Plan and Climate Action Plan and the City should stipulate this a credential it seeks on the consultant team.  Does the team have a sustainability expert like our City does?  Traffic safety is another core credential that should be requested.

The staff report and RFP suggests that additional environmental review beyond the programmatic EIR will be conducted based on the impacts of the specific projects in the MCSP.  That makes sense but is predicated on a robust programmatic EIR which has yet to be released.  Without the programmatic EIR being public at this time, the generalities of that assessment may be used to gloss over specific impacts of the projects at a later date.  One way to alleviate this concern is to assure that the programmatic EIR will have a response to comments process as a project specific EIR does.  Staff should confirm this publicly.  Subsection m. in scope of services should clarify this point as well.

One important EIR consideration is whether an assessment of GHG emissions will be undertaken in the MCSP.   This assessment may occur in the “built out” programmatic EIR so this may not be a factor but without that document, who can say?   To resolve this question, staff should clarify whether these GHG emission calculations are being conducted as a part of the programmatic EIR.  According to state guidance, GHG emissions are to be part of a CEQA analysis: CEQA GHG.  However, based on certain criteria, affordable housing projects under 100 units are exempt from CEQA and staff should clarify this as well CEQA Housing. Indeed, staff should clarify whether CEQA is applicable to all the projects being considered in the MCSP, particularly the low-income housing projects.

The staff report and RFP do not clarify whether the relocation of the Corporation Yard will be studied as part of the MCSP.  The only possible reference to this is that “replacement” of the Corporation Yard be considered.  The City should clarify this in the RFP so as to provide consultants the widest latitude to develop creative proposals for the canyon.  Indeed, this latitude may provide for the subdivisions of parcels and development standards that are attractive to builders of housing at all income levels. As staff envisioned with civic center sites, the City could leverage better housing for the project if the Corporation Yard is moved to less desirable building site in the canyon.

Following are more specific comments/questions to the RFP:

The project timeline on page 5 of the staff report is particularly short on detail.  The City seems not to have identified the type of public process it intend to conduct. 

Under “Specific Plan for Success” there is no mention of field lighting as part of the recreational facilities to be developed.  Is it the intent of the City and this Council not to proceed with the installation of lights at Coaches Field?  There is some precedent for this.

The landscape plan makes no mention that it is to comply with the City’s municipal Bay Friendly Landscape Ordinance which has specific criteria for vegetation and water use.

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont City Council Member

Moraga Canyon Plan Consultant 1.17.23

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

Another Consultant is proposed to be hired at an unspecified cost to produce a Moraga Canyon specific plan.

“The RFP does not set a price, but … [in 2019]  … the preparation of a specific plan cost an average of $544,237.”  according to ABAG.

On the Council Agenda, Tuesday, January 17, 2023 the City of Piedmont returns to the previously unexamined, controversial legal opinion of the Piedmont City Charter when the City Attorney dismissed the specific language within the Piedmont City Charter of requiring voter approval of proposed zoning changes. Agenda > >council-agenda 1.17.23

 This program requires an amendment to the City’s General Plan and the preparation of a specific plan to accommodate the density and create development standards for the unique site conditions. The required amendments would be reviewed by the City Attorney for conformance with the City Charter and other legal requirements. If it is determined that it is infeasible to develop this site during the planning process, the City will consider utilizing other City-owned properties as alternative sites (see Appendix B).

Funds generated by General Plan Maintenance fee instituted by the City on July 1, 2019 will provide significant funds for General Plan costs – plans and zoning changes. 

Currently, the fee is $0.013 x the construction cost valuation on building permits. The fee  generated $427,000 in FY 21-22 and the City expects a similar amount this fiscal year. The funds must be spent on updates and amendments to the General Plan and other auxiliary  documents (e.g., Climate Action Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Hazard Mitigation Plan, and a  specific plan). The City Council might consider increasing this fee to help cover the rising costs of land use planning.

READ the full staff report in the link below:

Moraga Canyon Plan Consultant 1.17.23

Stay Informed about the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan

After the City adopts a 6th Cycle Housing Element, a key piece of the implementation process will be the creation of a Moraga Canyon Specific Plan. This initiative will study all City-owned land in Moraga Canyon with the goal of creating a detailed plan for how to maintain and improve existing amenities while also incorporating new housing in the area.

The City expects to issue an RFP in late January seeking professional services to lead this process. Stay informed by subscribing to our Moraga Canyon Specific Plan email list.

Will the Council revert back to not recording, broadcasting, or archiving video recordings of certain public meetings?  The cost of transparency via video broadcasts has proven to be minimal given the City budget. On the council-agenda 1.17.23

The California Brown Act has been amended and provisions changed.

NEW REQUIREMENTS:

If members participate remotely using the just cause or emergency provisions, the following additional rules apply:

• The legislative body must provide a way for the public to remotely participate in the meeting and must provide notice of how to access the meeting and offer comments

• The public must also be permitted to attend the meeting in person

• The body cannot require public comments to be submitted before the meeting but rather must be allowed in real time.

• Remote members must participate through both visual and audio (i.e. cameras and microphones on)

• Before any action is taken, remote members must disclose whether any other people over 18 years old are present in the room at the remote location and the general nature of the member’s relationship with the individual

Editors’ Note:  The Piedmont Civic Association has long advocated maximum adherence to Brown Act applicable public meetings such as commissions, committees, and City Council.  The Piedmont City Charter prescribes these meetings are to keep minutes, which has not been adhered to for even critically important Council appointed committees such as the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee. 

The Public Safety Committee during the COVID protocols was newly recorded and live streamed.  Some meetings, the Annual City Budget Workshop and the interviewing of candidates for City Council, commission and committee appointments have historically not been recorded, broadcast, or archived leaving access to only those present at the meeting.

Transparency and accountability are important to the public and should be maximized by the City Council by improving the archiving of recordings, providing minutes, and live streaming of public meetings.

READ the staff report linked below:

Changes to Brown Act and Next Steps 1.17.23

League of California Cities – report > https://www.calcities.org/news/post/2022/12/15/brown-act-changes-are-coming-to-cities-in-2023.-here-is-what-to-expect