Proponents of Measure CC overstate the ambiguity of the City Charter.
First, the Charter defines two job categories: officers (department heads) and employees (everyone else). The current Charter is clear that Council hires/fires and provides direction to officers. The Charter does not say that Council will “manage” departments.
For the City Administrator, the Charter states:
“The City Administrator shall be the chief administrative officer of the city and shall be responsible to the City Council for the administration of all City affairs placed in his/her charge by or under this Charter.
The administrator shall have the following powers and duties:
(1) Shall appoint, discipline, and, when deemed necessary for the good of the City, suspend or remove City employees except as otherwise provided by law, this Charter or personnel rules adopted pursuant to this Charter.
(2) Shall supervise the administration of all departments, offices and agencies of the City, except as otherwise provided by this Charter or by law and except further that the internal administration of each department shall remain with each department head.”Two points. Google “chief administrative officer” – by definition it says this position does not have the authority to dismiss department heads. All other authority is clearly defined in the Charter – the City Administrator supervises all departments and can fire employees while department heads administer their departments.
So drafters of the Charter crafted a very specific management structure for the city, yet proponents claim this is not how City Hall is run. If so, is the question really that of an ambiguous Charter or City Council and City Administrator who aren’t following the Charter?
Department heads have been disciplined by Council and Council implemented a performance appraisal program to evaluate department heads. Specific examples of problems with the management structure would help voters understand why they need change it.
And judging by the satisfaction most Piedmonters state with city services, they don’t want a change.
Vote NO on CC.
Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont City Council Member
Who are the Politicians in Piedmont?
BB seeks to prevent the “recycling” of politicians which leads to the question – who are these politicians in Piedmont? Measure BB defines politicians as termed-out councilmembers running for office again 4 years after stepping down. By that definition there are only two at the moment in Piedmont – myself and John Chiang, both termed-out from Council in 2014. Over the past 50 years in Piedmont, only one termed-out councilman has run again after 4 years and he lost. So BB is a red herring – termed-out councilmembers rarely if ever run again in Piedmont.
A look at candidates over the past 20 years in Piedmont (see table) shows that incumbency and campaign contributions are likely the biggest impediment to first-time candidates. Two trends are evident – candidates with established volunteer records win and first-time candidates with no or nominal volunteer experience have to raise from $12,000 – $20,000 to run and in some cases, that was not enough to win. First-time candidates face the greatest hurdles from sitting councilmembers, not termed-out councilmembers. Limiting that incumbency and campaign spending would be the best way to encourage first-time candidates but BB does neither.
|
Election |
Candidate |
Campaign Contributions |
Election |
Candidate |
Campaign Contributions |
Election |
Candidate |
Campaign Contributions |
|
2000 |
Matzger |
4589 |
2006 |
Allen |
2349 |
2012 |
Fujioka |
22,336 |
|
Labadie |
4838 |
Chiang |
10,333 |
McBain |
10,773 |
|||
|
Friedman |
9000 |
Rood |
18,553 |
|||||
|
Keating |
2959 |
Bostrom |
ND |
|||||
|
2002 |
Friedman |
12335 |
2008 |
Fujioka |
19,334 |
2014 |
King |
11,741 |
|
Wieler |
9461 |
Gilbert |
28,275 |
Rood |
4872 |
|||
|
Bruck |
1701 |
Barbieri |
13,957 |
Wieler |
950 |
|||
|
Rapson |
4134 |
2010 |
Wieler |
7065 |
2016 |
McBain |
8651 |
|
|
Chiang |
8415 |
Cavenaugh |
16,115 |
|||||
|
2004 |
Barbieri |
ND |
Keating |
3154 |
Levine |
6256 |
||
|
Watters |
8608 |
Bostrom |
ND |
If there are politicians in Piedmont, they are not returning to run again so BB is unnecessary. In fact, one could say that wanting to serve again is the sign of a volunteer – most politicians move on. Another sign of politicians is that they show their true colors once elected – why weaken voter choice by limiting who can run against such candidates?
BB is not needed and in fact will strengthen incumbency, making it harder for first-time candidates. BB does not “modernize” Piedmont’s charter – only one other city in California was found to have this 8-year rule.
Vote in favor of Piedmont volunteers and vote NO on BB.
Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont City Council Member
The ongoing School Board election campaign has resulted in misrepresentations about the District’s sale of Capital Appreciation Bonds during the seismic bond program, and the refinancing of those bonds.
I served on the School Board during the seismic program, but anyone can review the meeting agendas and materials to understand the facts. A good place to start is the 2014 Seismic Safety Bond Program Financial Summary, http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/bond/SSBP_Finance_Summary.pdf. Below are some relevant facts:
First, the District and the School Board clearly understood the difference between Current Interest Bonds (CIBs) and Capital Appreciation Bonds (CABs), as well as Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCBs) and Bond Anticipation Notes (BANs). These financing mechanisms, their pros and cons, were discussed in public meetings back to 2006. Very roughly speaking, CIBs reduce total interest payments by levying taxes at a higher rate to pay down the debt starting immediately, while CABs reduce the immediate tax rate at the cost of greater total interest payments by deferring repayment of the debt. Board carefully considered which options were feasible and prudent under the circumstances, and made financing decisions following public discussion.
Second, the Board authorized the sale of CABs (Series E) to allow seismic renovation work at Wildwood and Beach Schools to proceed, rather than defer such work for years until older bonds were paid off, which would have left our children in seismically unsound buildings, increased construction costs, and lost access to the “replacement school” in Emeryville. (If you want more detail, the CABs were sold to repay the BANs that were sold to allow the District to obtain QSCBs—see SSBP Financial Summary. QSCBs were near-zero interest bonds that must be repaid in 15 years and saved the District about $40 million, http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/aboutpusd/agenda.minutes/QSCB_012511_presentation.pdf ). Pursuant to statute, anticipated tax rates to repay bonds issued under Measure E were limited to $60 per $100,000 in assessed value. The District could not have sold CIBs to fund this work as the tax rate to repay the bonds would have exceeded the limit. Selling CABs deferred the repayment, and the taxes to make repayment, until other bonds were paid down and thus complied with the limit. See, e.g.,
http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/aboutpusd/agenda.minutes/2011_12/050813packet.pdf at pp 2-3.
I do not recall anyone, including current School Board candidates, appearing before the School Board at the time to argue that Wildwood and Beach work should be deferred for years to reduce total interest payments. Wildwood and Beach parents vocally supported proceeding with the work.
Third, refinancing bonds to save money is not a new concept. Even before the CABs were sold, the Board and District anticipated re-financing them as soon as it was possible to do so (call dates were set as soon as feasible given market requirements). See May 8, 2013 Minutes at 3-4, http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/aboutpusd/agenda.minutes/2011_12/050813minutes.pdf. The District and Board had a history of refinancing older bonds when interest rates come down, and had done so in 2009 and 2014. See http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/aboutpusd/agenda.minutes/2014_15/10-22-14_Packet.pdf. The Board refinanced Series B CABs in 2015. http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/aboutpusd/agenda.minutes/2-11-15_Agenda.pdf.
In Fall 2017, the Board and District identified options for refunding the 2013 Series E CABs and held two public meetings to obtain input.
http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017-CAB-Refunding-Options-Summary.pdf
The Board elected to refinance the 2013 CABs with CIBs, saving Piedmont taxpayers $26.1 million.
http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/blog/2017/12/15/district-saves-taxpayers-more-than-26-1-million- with-bond-refinancing/. According to Minutes of the Nov. 8, 2017 meeting, however, “Hari Titan encouraged the Board to wait for at least a year on CAB refinancing.” https://agendaonline.net/public/Meeting.aspx?AgencyID=1241&MeetingID=12755&AgencyTypeID=1&I sArchived=True. Fortunately, the Board correctly chose to proceed with the refinancing in December 2017 as interest rates have continued to climb.
Fourth, the School Board, well aware that CABs keep current tax rates lower only by increasing total interest payments, has chosen CIBs over CABs when available. In 2014, when proposing a bond measure to fix Alan Harvey Theater, the Board ruled out using CABs as the feasible tax rate supported the CIB option. No one on the Board was advocating CABs. See January 8, 2014 Minutes at 7-9, http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/aboutpusd/agenda.minutes/2012_13/1-8-14_approved_minutes.pdf.
In short, claims about misuse of CABs in the past do not reflect the facts. This School Board election should focus on solving real challenges to maintaining Piedmont’s high quality educational system.
Rick Raushenbush, Former Piedmont School Board Member
The League of Women Voters of Piedmont is hosting an election forum in advance of the November 6, 2018 General Election.
The Forum will feature candidates for City Council and School Board, as well as speakers for and against changing the Piedmont City Charter – ballot measures BB & CC.
Piedmont Election Forum
Thursday, Oct. 11, 2018
7:00 pm – 9:00 pm
Piedmont City Council Chambers
There are four candidates for City Council and four candidates for School Board who will present their positions and take questions from the audience.
Names are listed below in the order found on the ballot.
Candidates for City Council are:
Tim Rood Incumbent
Betsy Smegal Andersen Appointed Council member
Teddy Gray King Incumbent
Sunny Bostrom-Flemming
“
Candidates for Board of Education are:
Julie Caskey
Megan Pillsbury
Hari Titian
Amal Smith Incumbent
“
Measures BB and CC
Presentations will be made for and against Measures BB and CC, the proposed City Charter changes, followed by questions from the audience.
Home viewers can tune in live to the Forum on Piedmont Cable Channel #27 or by going to the City of Piedmont website under videos. The Forum will be available after October 11 on the City website under videos: League of Women Voters, October 11 Forum.
Dear Editor:
I am grateful when quality school board members decide to run for re-election. As the only incumbent, Board Vice President Amal Smith will continue to bring a K-12 perspective to board deliberations and decision-making, keeping the needs of all students first.
In addition to the fiduciary experience she has gained in her first term, Amal brings a wealth of knowledge to the Board with 28 years of higher education budget, finance, and management experience.
Most importantly, Amal brings an unwavering commitment to working collaboratively with others to solve problems with thoughtfulness, common sense, and an open mind.
Please join me in voting for Amal Smith on November 6th. Thank you.
All the best,
June Monach
Former School Board President and Trustee
Bret Black is scheduled to be appointed by the Piedmont City Council as Piedmont Fire Chief at a starting salary of $193,164. The appointment and employment conditions resolution will be considered at the Monday, September 17, 2018, Piedmont City Council meeting, 7:30 p.m., City Hall. The meeting will be broadcast live via Cable Channel 27 and the City website under videos. See full employment agreement linked below.
The Council selected Black after interviewing two of the 27 applicants for the position of Fire Chief. Upon Council appointment, Bret Black will serve as Fire Chief, effective October 1, 2018.
The Fire Chief vacancy occurred when Fire Chief Warren “Bud” McLaren announced his intention to retire, effective July 6, 2018. McLaren had served the City of Piedmont for thirty years.
The City Council retained the services of Peckham & McKenney, a Sacramento based executive search firm. Peckham & McKenney advertised the employment opportunity extensively, using personal outreach, traditional print and electronic marketing, as well as social media. As a result of the recruitment efforts, 27 applicants submitted resumes for consideration. After reviewing each of the resumes and conducting on-line research on applicants who appeared most qualified, the recruiter selected twelve candidates to undergo screening interviews.
The City Council interviewed two pre-screened finalists and selected Bret Black.
“The employment resolution proposed for Council consideration contains all elements common to other Department Heads. The proposed annual salary is $193,164, which is the amount earned by Chief McLaren upon his retirement. Should the City Council approve the appointment and the resolution, Mr. Black’s first day with the City will be on Monday, October 1, 2018.”
“The City Council wishes to acknowledge the special public service rendered by the City’s management personnel. Management personnel consists of all department heads and the City Administrator. Under the operational coordination of the City Administrator, management personnel are responsible for producing the quality and effectiveness of City services, as required by the City Council.”
There will be a 3% annual salary increase for Black during the term of the resolution.
3.1 Salary – Monthly: The monthly rate of pay for the Fire Chief is $16,097. The rates of pay shown reflect the following cost-of-living increases during the term of this Resolution:
- % Increase Monthly Effective 7/1/2019 3% $16,580
- Effective 7/1/2020 3% $17,078
- If, during the term of this Resolution, any other bargaining unit is offered a cost of living increase greater than the increases shown above for the same fiscal year, then the difference between the increase for the other bargaining unit and the increase provided under this Resolution will take effect for the Fire Chief.
The City Administrator will make recommendations on future compensation for consideration and action by the City Council.
THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ADHERES TO THE CITY CHARTER BY STATING COUNCIL AUTHORITY FOR BOTH HIRING AND FIRING OF THIS KEY EMPLOYEE.
“10.2 Termination: Pay Upon termination or resignation requested by the City Council, the City will provide the employee at least one (1) month’s pay and benefit coverage as set forth in Sec. 3 hereof, or more at its discretion. This section would not apply in the event of the employee’s voluntary resignation or removal from office involving conviction of a felony, gross negligence or dereliction of duty, dishonest or immoral conduct, intemperance which interferes with job performance or conviction of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.”
READ the full staff report and proposed compensation agreement linked below:
http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/2018-09-17/appoint-fire-chief.pdf
Bidding procedures, Council authority regarding Council-hired key employees, candidates for City Council, meeting requirements, etc.
On their November 2018 ballot, Piedmont voters will have two ballot measures, BB and CC, proposing changes to Piedmont’s City Charter. To become law, changes to the City Charter require a majority of Piedmont voters voting on the measures to approve the measures. The proposed changes are extensive, ranging from how Piedmont government operates to bidding requirements.
Arguments for and against the City Charter changes have been filed by proponents and opponents.
Click below to read the pro and con arguments to be printed in voter information pamphlets.
~~~~~~~
Measure BB – Reduction in bidding requirements, procedural changes, candidacy for City Council, meeting requirements, etc.
CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE BB “Shall the measure amending the Charter of the City of Piedmont to modify procedures for filling of vacancies in elected offices for City Council and Board of Education for the Piedmont Unified School District, modify term limits for the City Council, and making other clarifying amendments regarding City recordkeeping, format of City ordinances, public posting, City contract approval, operation of City Council meetings, and other minor technical amendments, be adopted?”
- Direct Argument in Favor < In Favor of Measure BB
- Direct Argument Opposed < Opposed to Measure BB
- Rebuttal to Argument in Favor < Opposed to Measure BB
- Rebuttal to Argument Opposed < In Favor of Measure BB
~~~~~~
Measure CC – Eliminates Council authority over Council-hired key employees –
CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE CC “Shall the measure amending the Charter of the City of Piedmont to clarify the duties and reporting structure for officers and employees of the City be adopted?”
- Direct Argument in Favor < In Favor of Measure CC
- Direct Argument Opposed < Opposed to Measure CC
- Rebuttal to Argument in Favor < Opposed to Measure CC
- Rebuttal to Argument Opposed < In Favor of Measure CC
City Charter Measures BB and CC will be on Piedmont November 6, 2018 Ballots.
Updated 8/29/18
Council would hire, but could not fire.
Facing a strong Administrative staff proposal to diminish the Piedmont City Council’s authority and control, the Council appeared confused, lacking clarity or direction. Council members questioned issues as basic as whether the Council or the City Administrator should hire and fire the City’s top managers – Police Chief, Fire Chief, Finance Director, etc.
The City Council had paid little attention to the City Charter until there was a desire to accumulate ever greater amounts of revenue in reserve, without clear and specific purposes.
Overriding the unlimited reserve issue became the Administrative staff desire to change how Piedmont is governed.
The review and changes to the City Charter had been pushed by former and resigned mayor, Jeff Weiler, who wanted the City to not only have a permanent, potentially escalating parcel tax, but who wanted the City to garner and retain in the General Fund Reserves unlimited amounts of revenue.
The City Council asked the Administrative staff to look at the City Charter and propose changes. The Council was eager to allow the staff to construct their proposals independent of Council originated ideas. Individual Council members were to privately, outside of Council meetings, submit to the City Administrator Charter changes they wanted.
The Administrative staff came up with a monumental proposed change to Piedmont’s long-held system of governance. The Charter changes proposed will significantly reduce Piedmont’s City Council’s long-held authority and Council responsibility for City services.
City Administrator, Paul Benoit, proposed that the City Council should no longer appoint top Department Heads, Police Chief, Fire Chief, Finance Director, Public Works Director, etc., he, the City Administrator, should have complete hiring and firing authority.
The Council did not totally accept Benoit’s proposal and chose to continue their long-held practice of hiring key positions. The Council however, relented on Benoit’s proposal to allow him, the City Administrator, to be the sole individual authorized to fire key staff members hired by the Council.
The Council, in deference to Benoit, who is well liked by the Council, was also willing to forfeit their right as a Council to direct the Police Chief, Fire Chief, etc. The Charter revisions as proposed will require all Council direction to go through the City Administrator, even if the Administrator position is vacated or terminated. If there is a conflict with the City Administrator and a Council hire, the only choice the Council will have is to fire the City Administrator.
Mayor Bob McBain wanted to totally relinquish to the City Administrator the Council’s hiring and firing authority, but this was not supported by other Council members.
The City Administrator proposed governance is a form of governance traditionally found in cities with directly elected mayors who have more executive authority than Piedmont’s largely ceremonial Council-selected mayor, rotating among their members with limited powers as set out in the City Charter.
Council questions regarding Charter language stating the Council has authority “to direct” their appointees led to further Council confusion. Despite specific existing language in the City Charter stating Council members as individuals are not allowed to direct staff members, Benoit argued he did not want the Council as a whole to be able to direct staff members even during Council meetings or emergency situations.
Individual Council members have been known to direct staff without the knowledge of the Council as a whole perhaps encouraged by a City Administrator. It can be easier and faster for an administrator to gain direction from one person, a Council member, the mayor, than from a majority of the Council as required by the City Charter.
The City Council and the City Administration, including the City Attorney, in recent years have not been attentive to the intent or language in the City Charter. Since Piedmont’s long-term attorney retired, a great amount of knowledge on the City Charter has apparently been lost or ignored.
In considering proposals for changing Piedmont’s City Charter, the City Council has held a number of poorly attended, fragmented public meetings. No independent committee, as in previous years, was formed to carefully consider the complex and important City Charter despite a number of citizen requests. Because of various voids in the questionable proposals, it is obvious the entire Charter was not carefully considered nor discussed leaving many questioning the process and the proposals.
Significant current issues were never considered during the Council Charter review process.
Some examples are:
- requirement for voters to make zoning changes
- borrowing money for more than one year
- Council officer vacancies
- bid advertisements and notifications
The Council agenda for Monday night appears to acknowledge that the Council, City Administrator, and City Attorney have not upheld Piedmont’s City Charter.
The Council agenda items for the Monday, July 16, 2018 meeting rebuffs the City Charter when it states “Conform to Modern Practice.” No one would want the City Charter to perpetuate unlawful practices; however, “Modern Practices” infers and confirms non-compliance with Piedmont’s long successful and practical City Charter. Prime examples of ignoring the Charter are the usurpation of Council authority, borrowing money, and negation of voter approval for zoning changes.
The Council decided to separate the governance issue from the remainder of the Charter revision proposals after sensing the potential opposition to turning over long-held Council authority to the City Administrator. Piedmont voters will find little transparency in the attempt to change Piedmont governance as noted in the staff report below:
Council dropped notion of unlimited General Fund Reserves.
When Kathleen Quenneville, a local authority on civic governance, told the Council that the Charter proposal to eliminate the cap on General Fund Reserves would not be supported by voters, the Council promptly removed the proposal, as it is their desire to not initiate opposition to Council proposals since a prospective voter approved future facilities bond measure is being considered. Concern was expressed by Council members wanting to keep voters positive about Council actions and proposals, leading to the unlimited General Fund Reserves being dropped, and the separation of City Administration governance from other proposals.
This article does not describe the many other proposals suggested by the Council, however urgency does not appear to be present. Items continuing to be of concern are:
- Inconsistencies between the School Board and Council elections – School Board members could seek re-election after sitting out for 4 years, whereas City Council members must sit out for 8 years, unknown in other communities
- Extension of time to fill Council vacancies from 30 days to 60 days
The Charter change matter will be considered by the Council at 7:30 p.m., Monday, July 16, 2018 in City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue. The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable Channel 27 and from the City website under videos.
Comments can be made to the City Council as below:
Robert McBain, Mayor rmcbain@piedmont.ca.gov (510) 420-3048 2nd Term Exp. 11/20 Teddy Gray King, Vice Mayor tking@piedmont.ca.gov (510) 420-3048 1st Term Exp. 11/18 Jennifer Cavenaugh jcavenaugh@piedmont.ca.gov (510) 420-3048 1st Term Exp. 11/20 Tim Rood trood@piedmont.ca.gov (510) 239-7663 1st Term Exp. 11/18 Betsy Smegal Andersen bandersen@piedmont.ca.gov (510) 420-3048 Unexpired Term Exp. 11/18
Below are the staff reports:
PIEDMONT CITY COUNCIL TO HOST TOWN HALL MEETING ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE PIEDMONT CITY CHARTER
Monday, June 25, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers
Comments in this article are in response to the City’s public notice and were written by the Piedmont Civic Association aggregating some of the comments by Piedmonters knowledgeable and concerned about the proposed Piedmont City Charter changes.
The City’s meeting notice was provided by Piedmont City Administrator Paul Benoit and John Tulloch City Clerk /Assistant City Administrator, a recently created position,
Town Hall Meeting – Monday, June 25
“The Piedmont City Council will hold a town hall meeting on Monday, June 25, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers to receive public input on possible amendments to the City Charter, which may be placed before the voters at the City’s General Municipal Election in November 2018.”
“The discussion of possible Charter amendments began in June 2017 and Council has subsequently discussed the issue at meetings on February 5, 2018, March 5, 2018, April 30, 2018, and June 4, 2018.”
BIG CHANGES TO THE CITY CHARTER
The proposed City Charter changes were devised by the City Administrative staff and the Piedmont City Council to potentially be voted upon by the Piedmont electorate at the General Election in November 2018. For the proposed changes to take effect, Piedmont voters must approve the changes. All portions of the Charter were not considered in the Charter review. For instance, Piedmont’s method of borrowing money was not taken up, nor was a clarification on the controversial zoning language in the Charter. Also, when a mayor recently resigned, the Council arbitrarily created a new position outside of the Charter called an “Acting Mayor.” These items and others were not addressed in the proposed changes.
A number or Piedmonters and the Piedmont League of Women Voters had asked the Council to involve the community in the City Charter changes, however all considerations were made at the Council level garnering little public participation and no input from City commissions, committees, or a special committee charged with assessing potential City Charter changes.
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES
Administrative changes, although de-emphasized in the City’s presentations on proposed Charter changes, represent the greatest alterations to Piedmont’s form of City Administrator government. Piedmont has had the City Administrator form of government for generations, and most would agree Piedmont has done well during those many years under the City Administrator form of government. As will be read below, authority historically held by the City Council is being transferred to the City Administrator.
The proposals to change the City Charter would take authority from the City Council and transfer it to the City Administrator.
The Council would retain authority to hire Department Heads, such as the Police Chief, City Clerk, Fire Chief, Finance Director, but the Council could not fire their appointees. The Department Head termination authority would be granted solely to the City Administrator, presenting a new and different complexity to Piedmont governance.
The City Administrator in Piedmont, by the current Charter language, has the responsibility for the administration of the City – the day to day operations and administration of the City. The City Administrator reports to the Council on employee performance. The current Charter language states the Council can direct top managers, however the Charter also makes it clear the Council members are not administrators and as individuals cannot act to “direct” the managers or the City Administrator.
Taking the authority to direct Department Heads from the Council, as a whole, and bestowings the authority solely upon the City Administrator, is governance commonly considered a City Manager form of government with a directly elected mayor, which Piedmont does not have,. In Piedmont, the Council appoints from their members an individual to be Piedmont’s Mayor. Piedmont’s mayor has essentially the same authority as the other four Council members other than what is allowed by the Charter or granted by the Council. In recent years, Council observers have noted more authority has been given by the City Administrator to mayors than the Charter allows without consideration by the Council as a whole.
UNLIMITED RESERVES
The original idea for reviewing the City Charter arose at a Council meeting when it became apparent Piedmont revenues greatly exceeded the Annual Budget 25% limit in the General Fund Reserve. One or more Council members wanted to accumulate larger amounts of money in the General Fund Reserve. The Charter limit on reserves was intended to stop Councils from excessively taxing Piedmont property owners.
Much of the increase in Piedmont revenues stems from the sale of property resulting in transfer taxes and a higher basis on Piedmont property taxes. To retain the excess revenues when the 25% General Fund Reserve limit had been met, the Council has directed the excess revenue into various newly established reserve funds, At the same time, the City Council has continued to levy the full voter approved property tax, plus an annual percentage increase regardless of the windfall tax revenues. The practice of placing excess revenues into special reserve funds has been put into practice without changing the City Charter.
The following language in quotes is from the City notice followed by PCA comments:
“At its June 4th meeting, the City Council directed staff to schedule a town hall meeting in order to allow residents an additional opportunity to review the changes that have been discussed at previous Council meetings. This is an opportunity for residents to ask questions and express their opinions on the proposed Charter amendments prior to the Council placing a measure on the November ballot.”
Unlike past reviews of the City Charter, there has been no comprehensive look at the entire Charter nor an independent committee focused on the pros and cons of the proposed Charter changes.
Presumably, the Council does not want to put something on the ballot that is likely to be rejected by Piedmont voters. Yet, the Town Hall Meeting comes after Council decisions have essentially been made regarding proposed changes to the City Charter. The Council must now decide if their proposals will be accepted by Piedmont voters and if it is timely to place the proposals before the voters. Each time the Charter is placed on a ballot, it incurs cost for the City.
“Because the Charter is effectively the City of Piedmont’s constitution, the City Council wants to receive as much resident input as possible on the proposed amendments.”
The Town Hall meeting will not include a comprehensive discussion and exchange of ideas on the Charter changes – the pros and cons – for each public speaker is typically given only 3 minutes to address even this voluminous subject. Decisions were made by the City Council and staff on the proposals to be considered at the meeting.
Depending on citizen input on the proposals, the Council may or may not decide to place the changes on the November ballot. The Council could defer action pending further consideration of unintended consequences and/or benefits to Piedmont.
Some of the proposed amendments to the Charter are as follows: [The order of the City changes has been changed here to prioritize important issues first. The most significant proposed changes were previously placed by the City staff toward the end of their announcement, which might lead readers to assume the administrative changes are minor.]
- ” In Article 3 – Administration, several changes are proposed to clarify reporting structure for the Officers of the City (Department Heads). At the April 30th meeting, Council directed staff to clarify sections in this article to make clear that the City Council appoints Department Heads, but that they are directed by and serve at the pleasure of the City Administrator.”
This is one of the most important, if not the most important change being proposed to the City Charter. The above statement by the City hints at the split authority of the Council. For example, the Council would appoint Department Heads, but the Council could not dismiss problem Department Heads, creating confusion and potential problems for the City Administrator, who would be the sole authority in dismissal, “serve at the pleasure of the City Administrator.”
Department Heads in Piedmont have always served at the pleasure of the City Council and could be directed by the Council as a whole, but not by individual Council members. For example, the Council might direct the Police Chief to step up night patrols: the Council might direct the Finance Director to find ways to save the City money; the Council might direct the Recreation Director to develop more programs for senior citizens. The Department Heads were held accountable to the City Council with advice from the City Administrator.
In meeting identified needs of citizens, the change proposed totally eliminates the Council’s authority to direct Department Heads. The Council authority would be transferred to the City Administrator.
Piedmont, as a small city, has thrived under the City Administrator form of government; the City Manager form of government found in other, many larger, cities, with a directly elected mayor, has the potential for creating new problems regarding Council authority and responsiveness to citizens.
- ” In Section 4.03, the limit on the General Fund Reserve of 25% is proposed for removal. In addition, an aspirational minimum for the General Fund Reserve of 15% of the General Fund operating budget is inserted.”
The General Fund Reserve limit of 25% originated from concern to not levy more taxes than was necessary to operate the City while providing an emergency reserve during an economic slump or great emergency. The City Council and City staff in recent years have diverted excess revenues from the significant property and transfer tax windfall into various fund reserves. There is no language proposed to limit the Council’s ability to tax property owners.
- ” In Section 4.11, bidding requirements are changed to remove a low threshold for costly formal bidding requirements, rather leaving it to the Council to set the thresholds for formal bidding by ordinance.”
Bidding requirements are one way to publicly open up the procurement of public services, consultants, contractors, and other City needs rather than continuing with current contractors on a long term basis without going through an open bidding process. Most cities and the state encourage open bidding to benefit taxpayers and the community at large.
- “The Council also directed staff to prepare amendments to several other sections of the Charter to remove outdated provisions and modernize language.”
This part of the City Charter proposals presents many questions for it is largely unidentified. What provisions and what antiquated language? Why not list the outdated provisions? New Department Head positions have been added with no general public notice. Is Piedmont’s bureaucracy inadequate to serve our small community? Once new positions are added to the Charter, employment cost can be greater and more permanent.
- ” A modification of City Council term limits to lengthen the period of time during which a former Councilmember is ineligible to run for office again from four to eight years after leaving office. (Section 2.03)”
The change listed above is of little impact for the City Council has only had two Council contenders seeking re-election after a 4 years hiatus. One contender was elected, the other was not. Changing this in the Charter is of debatable value.
- “An amendment to the provision for filling of vacancies on the City Council to allow the Council sixty days to fill a vacancy. If the Council doesn’t act within those sixty days, a special election would be called to fill the vacancy. Under current provision, the Council has thirty days to make an appointment and if it doesn’t act, the Mayor can make an appointment. (Section 2.05(c))”
A thirty day period in which to fill a vacant Council seat is common for elective bodies. Waiting 60 days to fill a vacant seat potentially leaves the Council vulnerable to inaction on important civic issues when there are only four members of the Council and a split vote occurs. There has never been a time when the Council could not fill a vacant seat during the mandated thirty day period.
- ” A requirement that the Council hold two regular meetings per month is eliminated. The proposed language would require the City Council to hold meetings on a regular basis. (Section 2.07 (a))\”
Councils throughout the area hold two or more regular Council meetings per month. Language could be proposed to accommodate changes in schedules.
- ” The proposed amendments also modernize the prohibition against employment discrimination to include all classes protected under U.S. and state law. (Section 5.02)”
Prohibition against employment discrimination is the law and does not require a Charter change. Including the proposed language in the Charter will make no change to how Piedmont handles employment discrimination because Piedmont honorably and consistently follows state and federal laws barring discrimination.
- ” The provision for filling vacancies on the Board of Education is changed to match the proposed amendments for the City Council, as described above for Section 2.05 (c). Staff consulted with the Piedmont Unified School District which agreed that this amendment, along with one other technical amendment to Article 7 should be included in the proposed amendments.”
The Board of Education must take a position on the City Charter changes by resolution. The details of the proposed changes are not noted here.
- “A marked up version of the Charter containing each of the proposed amendments is available on the City’s web site at http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us. Pursuant to section 9.07 of the Charter, any proposed amendments must be presented to the qualified voters of the City for approval.”
The marked up version has been difficult to follow, making the sweeping changes difficult for the public to understand.
- “Public comment is invited and encouraged at this meeting. Written comments may be submitted to the City Council at citycouncil@piedmont.ca.gov or by US Mail to City Clerk, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611. All comments submitted will become part of the public record.
- The meeting will be televised live on KCOM-TV, Channel 27, the City’s government TV station and will be available through streaming video on the City’s web site www.ci.piedmont.ca.us.For further information, contact Assistant City Administrator/ City Clerk John O. Tulloch via email at cityclerk@piedmont.ca.gov or via phone at (510) 420-3040.”
The full staff report for the meeting can be accessed > HERE.
COMMENTS MAY BE SENT TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AS BELOW:
Robert McBain, Mayor rmcbain@piedmont.ca.gov (510) 420-3048 2nd Term Exp. 11/20 Teddy Gray King, Vice Mayor tking@piedmont.ca.gov (510) 420-3048 1st Term Exp. 11/18 Jennifer Cavenaugh jcavenaugh@piedmont.ca.gov (510) 420-3048 1st Term Exp. 11/20 Tim Rood trood@piedmont.ca.gov (510) 239-7663 1st Term Exp. 11/18 Betsy Smegal Andersen bandersen@piedmont.ca.gov (510) 420-3048 Unexpired Term Exp. 11/18
Piedmont’s “new waste disposal contract” with Republic Services relies heavily on the company’s ability to properly recycle garden cuttings, kitchen waste, paper, plastics, glass, etc. Questions have arisen as to whether Piedmont’s waste is actually being recycled or is merely headed to a landfill site?
Republic Services apparently was sending recycling to China. Recently China has decided to stop accepting it and our “recycling” will end up in landfill. At premium prices!
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/09/568797388/recycling-chaos-in-u-s-as-china-bans-foreign-waste
“Western states, which have relied the most on Chinese recycling plants, have been hit especially hard. In some areas — like Eugene, Oregon, and parts of Idaho, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii — local officials and garbage haulers will no longer accept certain items for recycling, in some cases refusing most plastics, glass and certain types of paper. Instead, they say, customers should throw these items in the trash.”
The Piedmont Civic Association made an inquiry to Piedmont’s provider, Republic Services in Richmond, asking about the destination of Piedmont’s recyclable waste. There has been no response. Our email, which was copied to the City Council, is below:
~~~~~~~
PCA
PIEDMONT CIVIC ASSOCIATION
June 1. 2018
——Media Inquiry—–
Republic Services
Richmond, CA 94806
Manager: Richmond, California, Republic Services
RE: Actual disposition of Piedmont, CA recyclable waste
Recently, the Piedmont Civic Association was informed, as validated by the New York Times on May 29, 2018, that much of Republic’s collected recyclable waste is going to landfills rather than going to reuse.
We are asking what is the disposition of Piedmont recyclables including glass, paper, plastic, etc.
The residents of Piedmont have exceeded their goals set for recycling waste materials and keeping reusable materials out of the landfills.
Please promptly reply to our inquiry so we may include your response in the forthcoming article on our well established website:
Thank you,
PCA Editors
Content on the PCA website by Piedmont Civic Association is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Some icons are Copyright © Yusuke Kamiyamane