The historical record demonstrates that Hari Titan is not spreading falsehoods (nor widely). While I’ll refuse to respond tit-for-tat to the semantical hair-splitting to which this debate has descended (and the careful use of ellipses to cloud the discussion), I firmly and confidently state that Hari’s positive influence on improving PUSD’s financial decision-making when it comes to bond financing, is neither a myth, nor false, nor exaggerated, nor can it be overstated.
The School Board may have fully understood that the financial impact of 2013’s Series E CAB sale was expected to be an incremental $18.8M in interest payments for Piedmont taxpayers and rationalized those excess costs as a ‘necessary evil’. However, denying responsibility for that decision by declaring that there was no opposition to it at the time is tantamount to deflecting culpability on the public (which was, indeed, ignorant about the significant trade-offs CABs entail, even if the School Board was not).
It is abundantly clear, and is supported by the historical record, that Hari Titan single-handedly (and unpopularly) discovered the use of CABs, dug in and did his homework to understand the long-term financial ramifications, and explained the issue clearly to the voting public. It is also clear that once the public was aware of the use of this ‘creative’ financing mechanism, public opposition to the continuing or future use of CABs was broad-based, vocal, and vehement. I admire Hari’s courage in vigorously waving the cautionary flag to prevent further sale of CABs*.
It is also obvious from the historical record that the School Board was open to considering continuing use of CABs in spite of this opposition. CAB’s were presented as a financing option to refurbish the Alan Harvey theatre (the topic became moot when the bond proposition was not passed by voters**).
CABs remained in the School Board’s consideration set for use in the most recent $60M bond approval. Board members rationalized keeping CABs ‘on the table’ as a financing vehicle because CABs provide the District ‘flexibility’ to continue spending on construction projects while delaying payments on them (no downpayment! 0% financing!). The fact that current and recent School Board members claim victory for deciding NOT to continue using CABs after 2013 belies the fact that the School Board may very well have utilized CABs as a financing instrument if it were not for the fierce opposition raised by Hari Titan’s public education on the subject and the consistent and vocal preference declared by many, many Piedmont parents, taxpayers and voters for the use of more classical, steady-handed, disciplined financing methods.
Hari will also receive my vote for PUSD’s School Board.
*It is germane to this point that shortly after the 2013 sale of CABs by PUSD, the CA legislature outlawed the sale of those same CABs to CA School Districts because the usurious rates charged on them had nearly, or actually, bankrupted many school districts state-wide who were similarly ham-strung by the Recession’s impact on school district finances.
**It is worth noting, for those unfamiliar with Measure H history, that Measure H, a $13-15M bond placement to refurbish Alan Harvey Theatre, was rejected by Piedmont voters, primarily due to the courageous communication and diligent research supplied by Hari Titan and Alicia Kalamas, which credibly questioned the District’s plan to renovate, rather than demolish and rebuild, PHS’s existing theatre. Their time-consuming, competitive research provided local case-study evidence inferring that the proposed Alan Harvey Theatre project was projected to be excessively costly yet yield a facility with inferior amenities compared to the recent construction costs and designs of other Bay Area high school theaters.
Hope Salzer, Piedmont Resident
In Rick’s [Raushenbush] Piedmont Civic Association Oct 17, 2018 article he makes the following statements that I challenge or refute below. I copied and pasted his comments and have my own numbering. See his original opinion article for additional context.
- 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. — Rick Raushenbush 2018
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.”
Rick Raushenbush never contacted me about his beliefs but my responses are below.
Hari Titan’s Responses
- Rick did not produce any links to public discussions back in 2006. Although technically these discussions are open to the public most of the public is unaware of what they are about. His 2018 “roughly speaking” description is to this day overly simplified and misses key financial concepts, the absence of which mislead the public regarding the negative side of CABs. For example Rick does not mention any of the following: compound interest, negative amortization, balloon payments, above market interest rates, increasing debt, non-productive debt. I have been educating the public about these aspects which led to the vast majority of the public not wanting CABs.
- In the October 11, 2017 meeting to refinance the 2013 CAB at H:M:S 1:35:16 – onwards, it is revealed that as long as there are savings to the public from a refinance, the new refinance can go over the prior $60/$100k AV limits. This was new information from district bond counsel that was not discussed (and likely not known) at the May 8, 2013 board meeting prior to issuing the 2013 CAB.
- My proposal was not to defer the work and financing in 2013 but to use CIBs by getting a new voter authorization, see my article here. In the May 2013 board meeting, KNN Public Finance confirms that a new voter authorization would provide a new $60/$100k AV limit, see:http://piedmont.granicus.
com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3& clip_id=916 Minute 1:06 - Maintaining the no-refinance clause to 10-years per market demands for CABs is not the same thing as planning to do a refinance of the CABs. There is no record of board members actually stating their wish for refinancing the upcoming August 2013 CAB in their May 2013 board meeting:http://piedmont.
granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php? view_id=3&clip_id=916 Check Minutes 0:44 – 1:07 . In fact, we did the 2017 refinance of the 2013 CAB before the 10-year no-refinance clause expired. Board members at the time did not balk at or comment on the high repayment multipliers from 4:1 to 5.6:1 and only CABs were on the table at that time. - Measure H had CABs as Option 1 even though there was no existing $60/$100k AV limitation. The board voluntarily put CABs on the table and then removed it in favor of CIBs. It shows that the board was not just putting CABs on the table because they thought they were forced to by Prop 39 but instead that they were relying on what I would say is a faulty presentation of present value arguments that don’t apply to taxpayers but apply to bond investors. Andrea Swenson invited KNN Public Finance and another community member to do the advocating for CABs. I was the only community member to oppose CABs at this meeting and a few earlier meetings. Here is the video to follow along with the proponents of CABs:http://piedmont.granicus.
com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3& clip_id=1042 see Minutes 2:00 – 2:41 - The minutes of the meeting ignores that I changed my opinion in that meeting based on new information from KNN Public Finance. Here is a link to the actual video of the meeting: http://piedmont.
granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php? view_id=3&clip_id=1688 Initially at minute 54 second 47 I say: “Even if the Fed dot plot is correct and the interest rates will go up 75 basis points next year, it may be well worth just waiting to see if that is really going to happen. We have a new Fed chairman who has made verbal statements to not increase rates…. we could wait and monitor interest rates.” However at minute 1:25, based on the new information provided by KNN I switch my recommendation to: “I’m with Cory given this new information… maybe the best thing for the community is to take action now and go with Option B… I would give a thumbs up if the board took action now.” In summary, the Board in 2013 missed 2 approaches to avoiding the 2013 CAB. One approach was to get a new voter authorization and another approach was to consult with bond counsel and find out if a new voter authorization was even required.
Furthermore and consistent with the above video evidence, KNN Public Finance told me that they were not asked to run numbers for a CIB option in 2013 because the board was not interested in CIBs at that time.
The actual moment the $18.8 million was lost was at 1 hour and 6 minutes into the May 8, 2013 board meeting when KNN points out (in response to Tolles) that a new voter authorization would grant a new $60/$100k AV limitation. Nobody on the board asked if such a new voter authorization would allow CIBs back on the to table and what those savings would be.
Hari Titan, Candidate for Piedmont School Board
Hari Titan is running again this year for a school board seat. I admire his tenacity and his continued interest in the issues with the schools. But Hari is making claims on fliers he is distributing that are overblown and saying things about me that are patently not true.
He claims he “spearheaded” the transition to extended day kindergarten, “lobbied” for supplemental STEM curriculum, “exposed” interest penalties on CAB bonds and “saved” the citizens millions in interest payments. To claim each of these as accomplishments is to argue that having an opinion gets things done. The truth is we’ve had teachers clamoring for extended day kindergarten for years, students, parents and teachers all want more STEM emphasis and the board has been closely monitoring the structure of our bond portfolio. So while these initiatives are being implemented, his influence has been minimal.
Hari has indicated that I profited from the issuance of the District’s CABS for my personal investment portfolio and am somehow conflicted by the decisions we’ve undertaken regarding them. That is simply not true. To me, distributing this information is beneath the standard held by our community and should disqualify any candidate stooping to such a tactic.
While the self-proclaimed “citizen watchdog” has been lobing criticism and claiming influence, he has not exhibited the true community leadership required of a school board position. I encourage you to go elsewhere with your votes.
Doug Ireland, Member of the Piedmont School Board
Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
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
I am writing to ask my fellow Piedmonters to re-elect Amal Smith to the Piedmont School Board. First, Amal has demonstrated here commitment to Piedmont’s children for over 18 years. Beginning as a room parent volunteer when her children went to Beach, Amal’s commitment continued as she served in leadership positions on the Beach Parents Organization, the Piedmont Education Foundation, as member of the District Budget Advisory Committee, and as a member of the PUSD Wellness Center Advisory Board.
With over twenty eight years of experience in the field of higher education, currently as the Associate Dean of Financial Affairs at the School of Medicine at UCSF, Amal brings a wealth of financial management experience to the school board. More importantly, over the last four years as a school board member, Amal has demonstrated her strong leadership skills as she has navigated a variety of issues including our district’s financial challenges and curriculum transitions.
Amal is working to serve ALL of Piedmont’s children and takes her responsibility very seriously. She is open, honest, and smart. We need people like Amal on our school Board. Please join me in voting for her on November 6 th .
Cathy Michelotti Glazier, Piedmont Resident
We have lived in this beautiful city of Piedmont for twenty years. As working professionals, we don’t have hundreds of hours to attend long board meetings and read dense financial reports filled with complex financial calculus. That’s how Dr. Titan found out about the expensive financing schemes that did not improve the schools but cost taxpayers unnecessarily high interest charges. We’re grateful to Dr. Titan, a father and mathematician, for devoting his time and interest on the finances of our schools since 2013. He helped save us $26 million once and he might save an additional $26 million dollars! Piedmonters will be well served with Dr. Titan on the School Board.
Sincerely,
Wayne Leong and Suzanna Chan, Piedmont Residents
Renovations are projected to cost millions.
On September 17th of 2018, the Piedmont City Council met in the Council Chamber of City Hall. The meeting opened with a designated ten-minute period of open comments, where community members can speak on items not listed on the general agenda.
Mr. Maganas, a longtime resident of Piedmont, highlighted a lack of knowledge among parents and students concerning the Peralta Community College system offering college-level classes such as Calculus I and II through Berkeley City College, Laney College, and three others. The Peralta Colleges offer a valuable resource to students hoping to challenge themselves academically with advanced courses. Maganas hoped to increase awareness of this resource among high school students and parents.
Mayor Robert McBain declared September a month of Suicide Prevention Awareness, as a part of the national effort to reduce suicide and self-harm, especially among teens. Council members, such as Teddy King, voiced unwavering support for McBain in raising this issue, as she has lost family members in the past to suicide.
Next, an East Bay Regional Park District Board Member, Dee Rosario gave the Council a report on Measure FF. Measure CC, which passed in 2004, stipulates that twelve dollars a year are received from properties and used for park infrastructure, ecological projects, electrical maintenance, fuel reduction, sewage cleanup, and restroom repair; for example, the Crab Cove Visitor Center is now open year-round thanks to funding from Measure CC, as opposed to only a few months or a season at a time. Measure CC has been rebranded as Measure FF and falls under the same stipulations for funding. Measure FF has been renewed for the next twenty years.
The Council then discussed the consideration of appointing a new Piedmont Fire Chief. After a lengthy vetting process by two separate panels composed of respected Piedmont residents and others working in law or government, City Administrator Paul Benoit had presented to the City Council the narrowed field of two applicants.
The Council then interviewed the two finalists, selecting Bret Black, currently serving in Clovis, California. This comprehensive search arose following the retirement of beloved community-member Bud McLaren, who faithfully served as Fire Chief in Piedmont for five years. Following a unanimous vote among the City Council members, Bret Black was hired to fill the Fire Chief position beginning October 1st with a starting annual salary of $193,164.
Closing out the agenda, two architects from the Bay Area firm Siegel & Strain – Larry Strain and Roland Lazzarotto -presented a report on potential renovations of Piedmont’s Recreation Center and the Piedmont Veterans’ Hall. Both buildings, are seventy-years old or older and are in dire need of renovation and remodeling.
Though not dilapidated, the floor plan of the Recreation Center is considered archaic, and the plans presented outline a better use of square footage and increased operational efficiency for educational use and programs.
For example, Lazzarotto drafted plans to reorganize the building layout, moving the preschool away from the entrance. In the event of an intruder, the rooms should be ordered in a fashion keeping the youngest children farthest from the main door.
Similarly, Lazzarotto proposed ripping out the driveway and replacing the space with a fenced off play area with shade and soft ground. Lastly, he proposed renovating the defunct attic into an office space and conference room, while installing an elevator to access all three main floors. On each floor, bathrooms would either be renovated or torn out, and modified to meet ADA accessibility standards.
In the case of the Veterans Hall, Lazzarotto sought to maximize efficiency in a similar manner: rip out the stage to create a larger ballroom, while establishing smaller classrooms and multi-purpose rooms on the side. The kitchen would be renovated and brought up to modern standards, in hopes of accommodating future weddings in the new space.
Before he left, I had the opportunity to briefly interview Mr. Lazzarotto about his role at the meeting tonight. He noted that his group, Siegel and Strain, focused on providing sustainable and affordable projects.
During the presentation, Councilwoman Jen Cavenaugh questioned the environmental sustainability of the building, and Mr. Larry Siegel- Lazzarotto’s companion – highlighted their plan to reuse the wood and install new windows, both reducing carbon emissions and waste.
The Recreational Center was in immediate need of increased accessibility; for example, the reception desk lies on the second floor, and is not wheelchair accessible.
Both buildings have outlived their functional use and require restructuring and renovation to meet the accessibility and safety standards of today. Now that the City Council has reached a general consensus and approval of the layouts, Lazzarotto will in the future provide drafts and layouts to City Administrator Paul Benoit.
As the discussion and presentation came to a close among the Council, student Mia Horvath asked City Administrator Paul Benoit- who had been working in conjunction with Siegel and Strain – how renovations and construction would affect public access to the space; for example, the Recreational Center sits at a major thoroughfare that parents drive by to drop off their kids at the Middle and High School. Though the Council did not have an immediate solution, Mayor McBain affirmed that a well-planned schedule would be released in the future to ease traffic and pedestrian flow.
Tim Rood mentioned that these renovations would mean losing access to the services of the Recreational Center for months on end, but Paul Benoit noted that it would be possible to relocate these offices and services for the duration of construction. The plans are currently in development and in their drafting phase, so all propositions and suggestions are subject to change.
The City Council meets on the 1st and 3rd Mondays of each month to discuss, consider, and announce citywide events, issues, notices, and more.
by Aaron Moy, Piedmont High School Senior
Dear Editor,
Two School Board positions are open for election. In addition to Julie Caskey, I will vote for Hari Titan. Hari is a Ph.D. computer scientist who has worked in the financial industry. Since moving to Piedmont ten years ago, Hari has deeply researched the bond financing methods our School Board used to pay for voter-approved seismic repairs and building construction.
Burrowing in, he discovered that the School Board refinanced the 2006 Seismic Bond from a CIB (Current Interest Bond) to a CAB (Capital Appreciation Bond) in 2013. The CIB’s simple interest on the $12 million spent retrofitting Havens school would have cost a total of $19.8 million. The refinanced CAB deferred payment, resulting in compound interest costing a total of $64 million. Why did the School Board refinance with a bond that cost more than three times the original bond?
Hari asked that question and dug deep into documents. He calculated that the refinanced CAB would cost us $44.2 million more than necessary, and he shared that finding with other Piedmont taxpayers. Finally, in 2017 concerned Piedmont citizens convinced the School Board to refinance again, back to a CIB bond. This current CIB bond saves us $26 million compared with the CAB bond. It didn’t save us the entire $44.2 million because the CAB had a 10-year no-refinance provision. The CAB investor gets to keep $18.8 million of our tax money with no discernible benefit to Piedmont. But thanks to Hari, our loss has been minimized.
We need Hari Titan on the School Board to make sure the Board doesn’t try some other bonehead financing scheme with the recently-approved $60 million H1 Bonds. We need transparency in school bond finance decision-making. Board members should commit to NOT using the CAB bond financing method without public disclosure, input and approval. With our votes Hari Titan will be the School Board watchdog.
Bruce Joffe, Piedmont Resident
The League of Women Voters Piedmont devised voter issues and questions for School Board and City Council November 6, 2018 candidates.
Press Release:
Earlier this summer, LWVP newsletter readers provided 33 responses to our poll regarding issues and questions for City Council and School Board candidates. Four LWVP board member volunteers then ranked 20 questions from the poll and submitted the top 8 to:
Voters Edge website (https://votersedge.org/ca).
We highlight the 3 most important issues selected and list the top 4 questions for each race. We also attach more detailed summaries of the poll and of the ranking process as well as the questionnaires used.
The list of issues in the poll were taken from a July 19th, 2018 Piedmont Civic Association website article entitled “TIME to RUN: Contested or Uncontested Piedmont City Council and School Board Elections” This list of issues is licensed under a Creative Commons License and was sorted alphabetically.
For the 33 respondents, chosen from many choices, the top 3 issues for City Council candidates were:
- Citizen involvement – open participatory processes
- Environmental matters
- Taxation increases
The top 4 questions submitted on the Council topics were:
- What plans do you have to support the many different populations of Piedmont with city programs and city facilities? And, how do you plan to promote and actively support inclusive practices within city government?
- How will you be responsive to citizens and to support and improve citizen involvement in city government?
- How can and will you mediate between different interest groups in Piedmont, including evaluating how representative the concerns of vocal minorities might be?
- How should the city decide whether and how to plan and pay for a new swimming pool or pools? How important is this to you?
For the 33 respondents, the top 3 issues for School Board candidates were:
- Personnel selections
- School construction within constraints of bond funding limits
- Revenues sufficient to support operations and programs
The top 4 questions for School Board candidates were:
- The District has a history of hiring staff and teachers with personal connections to Piedmont and current district staff. How will you reassure city residents that new hires are the best choice for students and the school and that hiring is not unduly influenced by personal connections?
- How could and would you increase transparency in district decision making?
- How could and would you continue or improve the recruitment and retention of excellent teachers?
- If elected, what would be your budgeting priorities? How can the school district prepare for increased pension liabilities? Can you identify areas in the budget when savings are possible?
Read the PCA article “TIME to RUN: Contested or Uncontested Piedmont City Council and School Board Elections
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
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