Press release from Recreation Department ~

The Piedmont Recreation Department (PRD) is seeking broad-based community input on current and future programming. The PRD is seeking feedback from ALL community members, regardless of whether you currently participate in PRD activities.

Your input is invited in a number of ways:

Online Survey: An online survey will be available from March 4 to March 31, 2015 at the following web address: http://catalystmr.com/piedmont You can also access the link from the  <click

City of Piedmont website: http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/  <click

For those who would like to participate in the online survey but do not have access to a computer, we will have computers and assistance available at the Community Hall on Wednesday March 11 between 10:00 a.m. and noon. Please contact Cora Wood (420-3070) to reserve a space on March 11 or to schedule an appointment to complete the survey over the phone or in person.

Town Hall Meetings: Recreation Director Sara Lillevand will host two Town Hall meetings at the Piedmont Community Hall in Main Park. These events are interactive and open to all.

–  March 21 from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.

– March 25 from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.  

Please RSVP with the date you plan to attend: PRD@ci.piedmont.ca.us

Email Feedback: The PRD has a dedicated email address for sending feedback about current programming and ideas about future programming. The email address is:

PRDFeedback@ci.piedmont.ca.us

Feedback by US Mail: You are welcome to send comments via U.S. Mail to PRD Feedback c/o Piedmont Recreation Department, 358 Hillside Ave., Piedmont, CA 94611.

Questions ? – Contact Recreation Director Sara Lillevand at 510/420-3070

The Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Committee will be meeting in the City Hall conference room on Thursday, February 19 at 7 p.m. The meeting will not be broadcast or recorded, but is open to the public. The CIP Review Committee is composed of seven members, 4 appointed by the City Council, chairs of both the Recreation and Park Commission, plus the current President of the Piedmont Beautification Foundation, a private organization benefiting Piedmont.

The Committee  makes recommendations to the City Council on Piedmont’s major improvement projects. Citizens may propose projects on a Citizen Proposal Form, available from City Hall. Many past projects have originated from the City staff and the Piedmont Beautification Foundation.

The February 19 CIP agenda includes:

Public Forum – When anyone may address the Committee on a matter not on the agenda.

1. Welcome and introductions

2. Election of Chair

3. Committee Roster, length of terms – The newly constituted Committee membership has not been made public.

4. Charge to the Committee, process, purpose, structure, objectives, etc.  This will be a staff report with information available at the meeting.

5. CIP project status report –  The project list can change from prior years depending on current preferences, funding, and completion of projects.

6. Review of proposed work schedule and CIP tour –  Last year, a tour was held at various sites resulting in a recommendation to the City Council that Hampton Field should be the priority for the use of Piedmont’s $500,000+ entitlement from the voter approved East Bay Regional Park District bond funds.

In the past, staff proposals have included various projects from curtains to medians.

7. Future meeting dates – Staff has proposed a list of meetings and bench marks.

Hand outs will be made available to those present at the Committee meeting.

For questions or additional information on the CIP Review Committee, contact Mark Feldkamp, Parks and Project Manager at  510/420-3064 or mfeldkamp@ci.piedmont.ca.us

No longer under consideration are a senior facility, Piedmont Aquatic Center, Blair Park, expansion of Coaches Field and numerous other projects.  

At the September 15, 2014 City Council meeting, three of the City Council members voted to accept the limited list of 5 projects proposed for use of $507,325 in voter approved WW East Bay Regional Park bond money. This Piedmont entitlement is annually paid for by each property owner in the amount of $10 per $100,000 appraised value.

The Council singled out one project, hardscape and partial drainage control at Hampton Field, specifically for the tennis and basketball courts.  The area has been in need of safety improvements for years.

Various speakers addressed transparency and selection criteria by the Capital Improvement Projects Review Committee (CIP).  Some noted they had been present at the meetings and found them transparent. The meetings were open to the public, however only those present at the meetings had the advantage of knowing how decisions were reached, as there are no recordings of the meetings, minutes, or broadcasts of the proceedings.

The  screening criteria chosen by the CIP Committee was:

 Is the project “shovel ready”?  

Two projects met this criteria. Hampton Field and Blair Park; however, Blair Park improvements were not on the list because it was determined by the Committee to be too controversial.  Construction plans are available for Blair and Hampton.

 Does the project require an extensive CEQA review process?

Both Hampton Field and Blair Park have met CEQA requirements. The projects are not considered a change of use.

 Has the project been fully vetted and likely to be supported by Piedmont residents?

Hampton Field has long been on the list of projects.  Blair Park continues to fester in the community according to committee members and others who want the park to be used for purposes other than the Council approved Phase I Maintenance plan.

 Does the project enhance revenue generation for the City of Piedmont?

Measure WW is being paid for by taxpayers making some question the criteria of commercializing recreation and park projects as a money source.

 Are there possibilities for a public/private partnership that the City has used so successfully in the past?

This criteria appears to apply to all proposals.

 Is it possible to phase the project?

This criteria could apply to most proposals.

Tim Rood was the only Council member to vote against proceeding until further information had been developed.  He disagreed with use of WW funds in a manner designed to produce income as not in keeping with original bond language and wanted the process to be more transparent.

Old wounds continue with Blair Park.  Controversy was used as a reason not to improve the park. 

CIP Chair John Wilson stated that Blair Park was eliminated from the list because of controversy in the community.  This was further emphasized by Vice Mayor Jeff Wieler, who did not want the money spent there, despite prior Council approval of a Phase I Maintenance project.  He noted that according to those opposed to the failed Sports Complex Proposal, there was no safe way to get pedestrians to the park when crossing Moraga Avenue.

Former Councilmember Garrett Keating spoke to the list and noted that Blair Park was not found on the list despite Council approval of a Phase I Maintenance project to improve the park.  He stated controversy was not a specified criteria.  Later in the meeting, Rood described prior Council action including resolution numbers prescribing actions to fund and improve Blair Park.

No public input.

Without benefit of public comment on the elimination of projects, the Council moved ahead to remove projects from the CIP Committee list.

A new entrance to Dracena Park was the first to fall, with comments such as: the public had not been involved; and there was no Master Plan.  This idea had come from staff member Mark Feldkamp.  Next, went renovation of the Recreation Department and adjacent play structure.  Again, there was no Master Plan for the projects and some thought any changes should await improvements suggested for the Aquatic Center/ Piedmont Pool.

Improvements to the Court Yard next to the Community Center was met with ideas of fundraising, rather than using WW funds.

The last project standing was Hampton Field.

All Council members present approved moving ahead with Hampton Field. The thought was to focus on “one signature project” that could be proposed to the East Bay Regional Park District in early 2015 (the next submittal opportunity) for approval, constructed in 2016 or 2017, and receipt of WW funds prior to the entitlement deadline at the end of 2018.

The Hampton tennis courts have been in dangerous disrepair for years and are in need of drainage work to correct design flaws.   This will require retaining wall work, drainage and improved hardscape areas.  A play structure used regularly by the Piedmont Play School was questioned as too expensive and not essential. Regular maintenance of Hampton Field is provided by Cleary Brothers at a cost of approximately $24,000 per year with additional cost incurred during rainy weather when water runs uncontrolled to inappropriate areas.

The softball outfield, known to turn into a marsh during wet weather, is not part of the Hampton Field proposed project. Fundraising may support improvements in the outfield area.

The City has CIP Fund reserves in the amount of approximately $400,000.  This unrestricted source of funding can be used to cover the cost of other projects including maintenance and construction drawings.

There was no mention of opening up the process to a public hearing. Councilmember Bob McBain was absent at the September 15 meeting.

On Monday, July 14, the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Review Committee will gather at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Conference Room, City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue. The purpose of the meetings is to tour sites proposed for improvement using $575,000 of WW bond funds and the City’s Capital Improvement Projects Fund.  The CIP Review Committee has been tasked with making recommendations to the City Council.

The tour and meeting is open to the public.

– CIP Review Committee Agenda –

1. Tour of Sites to be Considered for Possible CIP Funding

a. Piedmont Park; Community Hall Plaza, Amphitheater, and Terraces

b. Veterans Hall

c. Piedmont Community Pool

d. Dracena Park (Entry Way at Park Way & Dracena Avenue)

e. Coaches Field / Blair Park

f. Linda Beach Playfield (Howard Avenue Entrance)

g. Linda/Kingston Triangle

h. Crocker Park

i. Hampton Field

The sites will be visited in the order listed above. Each site visit will take approximately 15 minutes.

2. Working Lunch at Piedmont Park Tea House (Open to the public)

 There will be no public broadcast of the tour or the later CIP Review Committee discussion held over lunch at Piedmont’s Main Park Tea House. To learn about the issues, individuals should plan to attend the meeting and tour. Transportation from site to site has not been announced.

To date, none of the CIP meetings have been publicly broadcast.

The Brown Act precludes the committee members from holding discussions amongst themselves prior to reconvening in a meeting at the Tea House when consideration of the various sites will take place.   This will allow all committee members and the public to hear the deliberations.  During the tour, inquiries made to staff for a better understanding of issues and plans are permissible.

Given the complicated hoops to be jumped through to receive WW funds, the Council is likely to pursue one project rather than several. Two primary projects recently discussed by the City Council are:

– Renovation of Hampton Field’s grass playfield and tennis courts –

The City has invested in Beach Playfield, Coaches’ Field, Havens Playground, Witter Field, Hampton Field and Dracena Park.  All of which provide space for youthful activities.  Hampton Field, however, has not held up well over the years.  During wet weather, drainage is very poor significantly restricting playfield usage and causing debris to flow to a street surface.  The ever problematic tennis courts at Hampton have for decades been vulnerable to cracking with drifting sand creating hazards for players.  The City has an approved environmental document on record for Hampton Field and has recently acted to obtain construction documents to make the necessary improvements.

– Council approved enhancements and clean up of Blair Park –

Blair Park built on fill land was for generations used as a dumping ground for leaves and chipped trees. Invasive plants have damage trees and left much of the park area unusable.  The City recently took an emergency action to remove some unhealthy trees and branches that presented hazards to vehicles and park users.  Many remaining trees need attention to maintain their overall viability.  A sidewalk inside and along the roadway has been suggested as a way to enhance the park and encourage use while maintaining its open space character.  The City Council has approved a plan for Blair Park.  The park is a major gateway to Piedmont passed daily by thousands of individuals.

There are many desired projects, however some would not meet the criteria and timing required for WW bond funding.

Updated 7/14/14

Proposals for the $507,000 WW Bond Funds will be the immediate focus of CIP Review Committee in order to meet EBRPD deadlines.  –

At its June 26 meeting, the CIP Review Committee (CIPRC) elected John Cooper as its Chair. Cooper invited the citizens in attendance to present their project ideas.

Former Council member Garrett Keating provided the CIPRC with photo montages illustrating his proposal of a 300 by 150 foot multi-purpose sports field, expanding Coaches Field into the existing parking area. In order to replace lost parking, Keating showed a section of Blair Park converted to a parking lot that could be accessed via a traffic circle with pedestrian operated signal. Keating emphasized the pressing need for more sports fields for the youth.

Long time Piedmont resident, Pat Markovich-Treece said the City had repeatedly focused on sports fields and neglected the members of the population who would use other kinds of recreational parks. She mentioned the shortfall in quality of life for citizens who prefer non-organized sports in their outdoor recreational activities. For example, she called for passive park environments such as Blair Park could become.

Last year, the Council approved a plan for Blair Park improvements and directed the CIPRC to include funding consideration in the Capital Improvement Projects assessment. A Committee member pointed to the Restoration Design Group Blair Park plan on the list (see below) as a passive recreation project.

Despite numerous public statements and information asking for use of the locked and vacant large room in the Piedmont Arts Center as a Senior Center, the Recreation Department did not add this to their wish list.  The prior City administration would not allow the Piedmont Center for the Arts to assume responsibility for the room and instead advocated that the facility be used for childcare.  The result has been no use of the room. 

WW funds are specifically authorized to be used for Senior Centers. Piedmont is unique in the region in not offering a facility for seniors. Some have found it unusual that Piedmont, with the largest percentage of seniors in Alameda County, offers few programs for this group of residents.

Three residents from the Kingston/Linda/Rose neighborhood advocated safety measures for the intersection. Crosswalks from Rose Ave. and Kingston Ave. across Linda Ave. and a stop sign on southeast bound Linda at Rose were suggested to reduce speeding traffic coming from Piedmont Ave. Mark Feldkamp, City staff liaison to the CIPRC, assured residents that there will be a traffic safety study in the Fall and the triangle median he is designing will include lighting to improve safety at night. “It is a great project and we’re pushing it very hard.” In the Spring, the Piedmont Beautification Foundation will raise money to contribute to the cost of constructing the triangle.

However, Cooper pointed out that the Kingston/Linda/Rose triangle does not qualify for WW funds. Feldkamp concurred, saying he had specifically asked about the project and Jeff Rasmussen of the East Bay Regional Park District said the triangle would not qualify.

Although resident William Blackwell was not present at the meeting to present it, his proposal for an expanded sports field in Coaches Field was included in one of the staff lists.

The meeting was designed to urgently emphasize use of WW funds prior to their expiration, yet some of the projects found on the Recreation Department and Park Department lists would not qualify for WW funds.  Which ever project or projects are chosen, stringent requirements including compliance with California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be faced.  Given the restricted time line and requirements, some of the proposed projects will be eliminated. 

The CIPRC heard the Recreation Department wish list:

Hampton Field renovation, including tennis courts

Renovation of the Recreation Department building, moving registration and main office downstairs

Rehabilitation of Community Hall

New aquatics facility, includes new pools and locker rooms

Repair current pools and also build a new aquatic facility at another location

New draperies for the Community Hall, maybe new painting and wallpaper plan

Deck expansion off the back of the Community Hall

Redo Amphitheater area in Main Park

Replace the bleachers next to Recreation Department and pool

New play structure in Recreation Department tot lot

New play structure in Main Park tot lot

Redo benches around Main Park tot lot damaged by sand and stain

New picnic tables and BBQ pit next to Recreation Department tot lot

Re-surface basketball courts between tennis courts and pool

Recreation Department/Carriage House parking lot re-surface, including removal of pine tree

Removal or repair of large metal storage unit located behind BBQ area next to Recreation Department

Feldkamp provided an additional CIP wish list generated by the Park Department:

Piedmont Park Community Hall Plaza renovation $150,000 to $200,000

Piedmont Main Park Amphitheater renovation $250,000 to $300,000

Rear terrace Community Hall Piedmont Park renovation $300,000 $350,000

Hampton Park improvement (Harris Plan) $1,900,000 to $2,000,000

Linda/Kingston triangle $175,000 to $200,000

Coaches Field improvements (Blackwell Plan) $900,000 to $1,000,000

Dracena new entry at Park Way & Dracena Avenue $300,000 to $350,000

Blair Park improvements (RDG Plan) $800,000 to $900,000

Howard Avenue entrance to Linda-Beach Field $1,500,000 to $2,000,000

Crocker Park renovation $250,000 to $300,000

Piedmont Park Exedra Plaza Phase IV $500,000 to $600,000

Aquatic Center improvements $200,000 to $250,000

Veterans Hall improvements  $150,000 to $200,000

Residents may suggest other ideas on how Piedmont should spend the $575,000 in WW bond funds and help prioritize expenditures for future Capital Improvement Projects.  Send correspondence to:

CIP Review Committee c/o mfeldkamp@ci.piedmont.ca.us

Questions may be addressed to Mark Feldkamp (W) 420-3064

The Piedmont City Council has a full and important agenda at their meeting on Monday, June 2, starting at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue.

Click on items below to read staff reports.

Budget Approval Hearing; 

Staff report on budget.

Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee Report: 

Police Officer Body Cameras:

Use of WW Funds of over $500,000 for parks, senior facility, pool or other recreation purposes

Emergency Tree Removal in Blair Park 

Additional Sewer Tax 

Election Date change to State General Election Date: 

Full agenda 

At the Council’s annual sit-down with City staff, Saturday, May 10,  9 a.m., the Council will review the City Administrator’s proposed 2014-15 Budget.  It has been the practice for the Council to hold the Budget Session in the Emergency Operation Center in the Police Department on Highland Avenue. The location provides a “round table” casual atmosphere leading to budget adoption. Nevertheless, these proceedings will not be recorded or broadcast for offsite viewing.

Those interested in hearing and learning first hand discussions and presentations on where City money might be spent, should attend the meeting.  There will be opportunities for the public to speak and ask questions.  In the past, coffee and donuts have been made available to attendees.

This year some of the items likely to be considered by the Council are:

• Hampton Field and tennis court reconstruction
• Roadway pavement, sidewalk and gutter improvements
• Employee benefits and salaries
• Staffing levels
• Piedmont pool maintenance and improvements
• Pedestrian and Bike Plan implementation
• Facility repair and maintenance
• Additional license plate readers
• Use of sewer fund monies and alternatives
• Reserve Funds
• Capital improvements
• Retirement costs
• Blair Park regular maintenance and improvements

Prior to adoption of the FY 2014-15 Budget, there will be two City Council public hearings.

– The City Council will consider a range of issues during their Monday, October 21, meeting. –

In an atypically detailed description,  the Closed Session segment of the meeting’s agenda includes two subjects. The first item, U.S. v. City of Alameda, et al, was previously discussed in closed session by the City Council on June 21, 2010, September 7, 2010, January18, 2011, and July 1, 2013. The second closed session item is labor negotiations with Janae Novotny representing the City in bargaining with SEIU Local 1021, Childcare, Professional/Technical, Confidential, Mid Management (Police Captain, City Planner, Parks & Project Manager, Building Official).

The regular agenda begins at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue. The meeting includes:

– Update on Alameda County Waste Management Authority’s Household Hazardous
Waste Service Fee options and possible direction on the City’s position on said options

– Update on the City’s participation in the Mandatory Recycling Ordinance approved by the
Alameda County Waste Management Authority

– Update on the Pool operations

A 20-page, close-up view of Piedmont’s fiscal health will be presented to the City Council on Monday, June 3, by its Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC).

The five-member committee, made up of Piedmont residents with diverse fiscal expertise, focused its analysis on the City’s financial outlook for the next five years, potential financial risks regarding employee healthcare and retirement costs, the Sewer Fund, and some specific steps the Council can take to save money and reduce risks.

Here are a few of the report’s highlights.

First the good news: “Overall, the City looks to be in improving financial shape,” the report states,  “recovering as expected from the recent recession, and appears able financially to continue to provide exceptional basic public services.  However,” it warns, “there are still risks facing the city in retirement costs as well as sewer replacement and operating costs that need to be addressed.”

City Employee Retirement Costs  

In an effort to reduce “uncontrollable retirement benefit costs,” the Committee recommends: 1) the Council refinance the CalPERS pension side fund and negotiate a lower corresponding cap from City employees; 2) compensate employees in ways that do not contribute to their retirement costs, such as giving bonuses instead of salary increases; 3) continue to bargain for caps and sharing on pension retirement costs with new and current employees; 4) reduce current and retiree healthcare cost coverage to 75% of costs or lower, down from 100%, extend vesting of retiree healthcare benefits to 20 years instead of current 5 years;  and investigate putting more burden on “Tier 1 retirement employees” (current, long-time employees), if possible.

The report notes the importance of controlling these costs in light of the fact that, “The City faces the likelihood of substantial turnover in the next 5-10 years, as 23 employees have over 20 years of service and an additional 28 have over 10 years of service. We estimate that approximately 40 of the City employees are likely to retire over the next 10 years, with a significant portion in the next 5 years.”

Aquatics

The Committee notes that in FY12/13, expenses of the City-owned pool exceeded revenues by $158,000.  Based on the FY13/14 aquatics budget, the Committee projects pool expenses will cost Piedmont taxpayers $200,000 per year in the next 5 years.  The Committee also points out that the School District currently does not pay for pool use, and the private Piedmont Swim Team pays a below-market rate for pool use of about $17,000 per year.  The Committee “recommends that, regardless of the policy with respect to the School District, proper accounting should reflect the capital/operational costs per user which includes the School District usage as a footnote to the budget.”

Sewer Fund

The Committee recommends the City restart phased sewer replacement of the remaining 93,000 feet of Piedmont’s mainline sewer in order to save substantial costs over the currently planned small-scale, emergency repair/replacement strategy. Committee members unanimously recommend obtaining a low-interest State loan to restart the phased rehab and investigate potential funding sources — either through a temporary sewer surcharge measure or borrowing from the City’s General Fund — in order to address the projected temporary shortfall in the Sewer Fund beginning in 2016-17.

The Committee believes that the total cost to the City of a “logically phased rehabilitation program” would be lower than making incremental repairs because of 1) lower cost per lineal foot of larger-scale projects;  2) low interest State loans, currently at 1% interest; 3) lower risk of costs escalating if the rehab is done sooner rather than over decades; and 4) less risk of not meeting EPA regulatory requirements.

Conclusion

The report concludes that the City is in a “relatively strong financial position compared to the recent past.  However, the risks to the city still exist and Council must stay vigilant to find ways to adequately compensate employees in a controllable way and continue to work to improve the stability of the City’s finances.”

BAFPC REPORT

At the City Council 2013-14 Budget Work Session on May 11, information and questions were presented.

During the public forum, Tim Rood asked when Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) was going to repay the City for the $125,000 expenses promised in regard to Blair Park.  He also wanted to know when the City planned to spend its $500,000 portion of the Measure WW Park Bond funds.   And he inquired when the Piedmont Hills Utilities Undergrounding District (PHUUD) Board was going to pay their pledged amount of $1o0,000 to the City.  The City had contracted for the undergrounding project and allowed the risk and unexpected cost of  approximately $2.5 million to fall to all City taxpayers rather than the property owners in the PHUUD benefiting from the project.

City Administrator Geoff Grote, in his overview of the budget, emphasized the generally strong financial condition of the City.  Much of the City’s improved fiscal condition can be attributed to increased property tax revenues, the passage of the City parcel tax measure, and revenues from the property transfer tax.  As properties change hands, the City reaps a benefit of new valuations of property, plus the transfer tax.

The Police Department is proposing a new civilian position to handle administrative and Information Technology (IT) functions.  On June 3, a comprehensive Facilities Maintenance Inventory and Implementation Plan is due and will allow assessment of future needs.

Employee benefits and compensation costs continue to require control and monitoring. The City Sewer Fund, long a source of  funding for the Public Works Department and implementation of federally required improvements related to water quality, is experiencing a decreasing balance.  More information on the fund will be developed to allow the Council to consider further steps to remain in compliance with federal laws.

During the budget review, the Council directed staff to provide the following information:

• Recreation Department — include on a City Council agenda for next October, a report detailing: the impacts of the proposed increases in aquatic fees;  swim lesson revenue; a breakdown of aquatic City Council Budget Work Session related expenses; the cost associated with having the pool open for so many hours/days during the year; and how many lap swimmers utilize the pool on a regular basis.  The Schoolmates program does not pay for itself, consequently consideration will be given to increasing the hourly charge to users.

• Police Department  — consider for next fiscal year (FY 14-15) increasing Animal Control Officer fees for the City of Emeryville.

• Fire Department  — determine the cost effectiveness of modifying the
Department’s apparatus bay doors and driveway in order to increase the number of manufacturers that would be able to supply a fire ladder truck to the City and, as a consequence, generate more and potentially lower bids for fire truck purchase.  The fire house doors are lower than standard thus requiring custom built ladder trucks.

• Public Works Department — provide the number of miles of paved streets in town and how many of these streets were paved over the last 10 years.  Residents have frequently wondered when streets in disrepair would be repaved.

• Administration-– provide: historical data regarding full and parttime employee positions; a list of staffing positions that are currently vacant; cost estimates for: a City “mail-in ballot” process for municipal elections; and consolidating the City’s municipal election with the State’s general election; check with the County Registrar’s office if the City could have both a “mail-in” ballot process along with one polling place within the City.

• Non-Departmental — determine if: the proposed 5% increase in Workers Comp. Insurance premiums is sufficient for FY 13-14; whether the City has the option of being self-insured for Unemployment Insurance; and re-examine if the FY 11/12 figure
of $352,841 for Library is correct (page 2-a under Tab 1)

The Council appointed Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) has held several meetings to examine budget details.   CalPERS side fund, sewer fund, license plate readers, and other issues are being examined.  The BAFPC will make a formal recommendation to the City Council to be considered at the budget public hearings.  The Council’s first hearing is scheduled for June 3 and second June 17, at which time the budget is expected to be approved.

Comments on budget considerations can be sent to the City Council at:

Or email the entire City Council via the City Clerk at: tulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us

Click here to view the proposed budget.