How should Sewer Fund money be used?  

In the 1980’s, Piedmont voters approved a special parcel tax to pay for sanitary sewer rehabilitation of Piedmont’s aging sewer system.  Voters were informed that the tax was needed specifically for updating the sanitary sewer system.  (Sewer Tax amounts can be found on property owner’s Alameda County property tax statement.)

Sewer tax revenues were and are deposited into Piedmont’s Sewer Fund. However, soon after establishing the Sewer Fund, Piedmont needed additional revenues to support City services. Items historically paid for with General Fund monies were reallocated to the Sewer Fund; for example street sweeping, some tree maintenance, staff salary and other ad hoc public works maintenance activities. Records of hours worked by public works employees and projects completed using Sewer Fund money were not kept.

Over the years, more money was taken from the Sewer Fund to pay for ongoing public works maintenance items, rather than primarily being reserved for costs associated with rehabilitation of the sanitary sewer main system, emergency repairs, and maintenance of sanitary sewer mains.

Transferring funds from the Sewer Fund to the General Fund to pay for ongoing City services has allowed General Fund monies to be freed up and available to pay for other items. In recent years these have included employee benefits, utility undergrounding payments ($2.5 million), special capital projects (Blair Park $800,000 and Civic Center Development plans), and increases to the General Fund Reserves.

The FY 2014-15 Budget proposal continues the practice of transfers from the Sewer Fund to the General Fund with a $780,000 allocation.

“The City reviewed the transfer from the Sewer Fund to the General Fund and made some adjustments based on actual costs. First, minor sewer maintenance were being charged to the General Fund for approximately $150,000 and reimbursed through the transfer. The City will begin charging these costs directly to the Sewer Fund in FY 2014-15. Second, after reviewing time spent by the Public Works Department, maintenance and fuel costs for vehicles, and administration costs; the transfer is estimated at $780,000. Staff will continue to refine the estimate as this is the first year using this process.”  Excerpted from the City Administrators report

In 2012, the City proposed a ballot measure consisting of a large increase in the Sewer Fund parcel tax to cover capital improvements to the sanitary sewer mains. At the time, no suggestion was made that the City should or could cease the heavy draw down on the Sewer Fund monies to pay for normal City services.  The increased sewer parcel tax was not approved by voters.  Yet, the City continues to consider the Sewer Fund a source of monies for regular ongoing maintenance items rather than primarily a fund to pay for EPA required sewer rehabilitation.

The recently presented FY 2014-15 Piedmont Budget Proposal states:

The City of Piedmont is in a financially sound and stable position. As was the case in Fiscal Year 2013-14, we are projecting a positive net income for FY 2014-15. This net income is estimated at $699,687 and will bring the projected ending General Fund  [Reserve] balance to $4,232,099, which is 19.1% of total expenditures, inclusive of debt service.

In addition to the above noted measures, the City continues to enjoy a strong and improving economy which is driving a robust real estate market, resulting in Real Property Transfer Taxes (RPTT) projected at $3,000,000 for FY 2013-14.

Overall, the proposed budget ensures no reduction in the range and quality of services which City of Piedmont staff provide to the community. Importantly, it also ensures our ability to continue to set aside funds for the maintenance of our city facilities and equipment replacement needs. Excerpts from the City Administrators report. 

The City Council’s Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) optionally suggests increased taxation to accelerate sewer rehabilitation. Alternatively, the BAFPC suggested a temporary $1.2 to $1.4 million loan from the General Fund to the Sewer Fund in order to replace the remaining one-third of sewer lines ahead of schedule. (The most problematic lines have been replaced first-175,000 lineal feet of the total $269,000 feet.)  Nevertheless, the Council’s Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) found the Sewer Fund has adequate funds to proceed on schedule to meet the requirements of the Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) for rehabilitation of the old sanitary sewer mains.  

The BAFPC concluded:

“The net result of our analysis is that the Sewer Fund does not have an operating deficit problem or a long term revenue problem, but a short term capital need for the replacement of the remaining original sewer system.”

To accelerate the scheduled completion of sanitary sewer ahead of the EPA requirement, the BAFPC looks to additional funding or loans. Projecting future construction costs, it is anticipated there would be a cost saving by replacing the remaining older lines not in one early phase, but in three equal phases over the next 12 years.

A significant part of the Public Works Department’s budget comes from the Sewer Fund.  The BAFPC noted the $300,000 emergency repairs budget for the Sewer Fund without indicating if the tasks performed are emergency repairs or potential General Fund expenses.

It is unknown if the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee considered the appropriateness of current drafts made on the Sewer Fund to cover Public Works Department expenses.  

The Council will consider the Sewer Fund at their May 19 meeting.

Read the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committees Report to the City Council.

Read the City’s proposed budget for 2014-15.

City Council Report March 2014

by Ann Chandler, Piedmont League of Women Voters Council Observer

As we greet a new City Administrator, a new mayor, and a new Council in March 2014, we should take a moment to look back at two years of important work by the previous City Council. In November 2011, Council member John Chiang created a matrix of suggestions made by the City Council Audit Subcommittee (which had looked at the utilities undergrounding project that had gone $2 million over budget), The League of Women Voters Task Force on Governance (originally formed following the same utilities undergrounding fiasco), and the Municipal Tax Review Committee (which had concluded that the municipal services parcel tax was important but that there were many policy improvements the Council should make before asking voters to renew the parcel tax). Altogether, there were over 30 suggestions in these 3 reports, many of them overlapping.

In February 2012, John Chiang was elected mayor and the next month the City Council appointed a Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (5 residents) to look at the city’s annual budget, its 5-year projections, and its funding for long-term capital projects, equipment replacement, and facilities maintenance/replacement. The committee also reviews any new commitments in excess of $250,000 in one fiscal year, comments on the Finance Director’s Mid-Year report to the Council in January, and meets again April through June each year as the budget is being finalized for the fiscal year starting in July. As approved, the committee will end on June 30, 2015 unless extended.

In April 2012, the Council rescinded its 2011 approval of the Blair Park project, which ended the suit against the City brought by Friends of Moraga Canyon. (The litigation which the City brought against two engineering companies involved in the Piedmont Hills Utilities Undergrounding is still pending.)

One of the strongest themes in the Municipal Tax Review Committee’s suggestions, taken up by the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee, was a need to gain control over personnel costs, particularly the cost of fringe benefits. The first step in that direction occurred in June 2012 when the Council approved a new “Tier 2” of miscellaneous employees hired after August 3, 2012. We now have 3 Tiers of miscellaneous employees, and 3 Tiers of safety employees, meaning 6 different retirement and benefit packages. Control of personnel costs is still a large issue.

In July 2012, an Athletics Facilities Preservation Fund was established. It charges sports clubs (but not school teams) for use of city and school sports facilities. The income from this fund alone is not enough to maintain or replace athletic facilities, but creation of the fund was one step toward addressing the subject of athletic facilities preservation.

In December 2012, the City contracted with Janae Novotny, a lawyer specializing in public employee negotiations, to represent the city in all labor negotiations beginning in January, 2013. A year later the city completed four-year contracts with all bargaining groups. There were raises for the first time in four years, but also increased deductions for benefits.

In January 2013, the city started development of a long-term Facilities Maintenance Program identifying needs, cost estimates, and potential funding sources. In June the document received final approval.

It is a 5-year plan looking at what needs to be done in fiscal years 2013-2017 to sewers, sidewalks, streets, buildings, parks, fields, etc. Although flexible, the plan gives a priority to each project within each facility, and a suggested time table. The exception to this is the Aquatics Facility. Although there is a list of things that need to be done, there are no cost estimates, no potential funding sources, and no timetable, leaving one to wonder what is next for the pool.

It was also in January 2013 that the first draft of a Risk Management Policy for Major Capital Projects came before the Council. The League of Women Voters Task Force on Governance was one of the groups that had recommended this, and the Task Force and League board members made comments and written suggestions on several drafts of this policy during 2013. In January 2014, Piedmont adopted a Risk Management Policy for Major Capital Projects.

One of the suggestions of the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee was that the city refinance the PERS Side Fund at a lower interest rate. Piedmont’s charter requires a vote of the people to do that. In the February 4, 2014 municipal election, the electorate gave the City Council overwhelming approval (82.6%) to refinance the Side Fund. Final discretion as to whether and when to do such a refinancing rests with the newly elected City Council.

In many ways it seems that an effort has been made to get Piedmont’s fiscal and legal house in order before proceeding with any large, creative new projects. This work has been started but not completed.

Controlling personnel costs is a long-range project, very much influenced by trends in the rest of the Bay Area and the state. But over the past two years, Mayor Chiang and City Administrator Geof Grote, both of whom left their positions in February, took these important steps to put Piedmont on the right path.

Reprinted from the Piedmont League of Women Voters bulletin,“The Voter”, with permission

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

The following two letters from Tom Clark and Bruce Joffe were sent to PCA. On February 4, Piedmont voters overwhelmingly approved Measure A, the restructuring of Piedmont’s CalPERS side fund pension obligation. See previously published letters on the PCA Opinion page.

 Mr. Mix, very well done!

I commend your standing firm in your reply to the response by Piedmont Council member Wieler.

As a member of the public you deserve respect when you speak to important public issues such as the Piedmont pension bond measure, particularly when, as here, you obviously have sought out the relevant facts, focused on the issues and made your public comments with all the intentions of a good, conscientious citizen.  This is all true notwithstanding that  I don’t agree with all of your comments and that yesterday I voted Yes on the Piedmont bond measure.

Your comments on important matters of public interest in Piedmont are, and always will be, greatly appreciated by me and many other Piedmont residents.  We don’t have to agree with you to show you decency and respect for your efforts. The only way our democratic system works is for individuals, like you, to remain forever vigilant to uncover the truth behind the conduct and representations of public officials. Many public officials want only to hear and read praise, and talk (in the words of George Orwell) in a manner “designed to make lies sound truthful . . . and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”.  With the best of our wonderful democratic heritage in mind, I want to express my respect for those like you who are not afraid to stand up to the powers that be and comment publicly, in good faith and directly on point, eye-to-eye on public issues to public decision makers.  Moreover, I appreciate your gift of an outline to which Piedmont residents can refer when the pension refinancing appears on the Piedmont Council agenda.

For all that you have done, you should not to be scolded.  You should be applauded.

And let’s take just a brief look at the record of the Piedmont Council of experts touted by Council member Wieler.

This is the Council of experts that wasted over $2 million in badly planned and poorly executed electric line undergrounding projects, including being forced by court order to pay with taxpayer funds the legal costs by objectors to one project because of the City’s legal defense.  This is the Council of experts that rushed through approval of an out-of-scale city sports complex (Blair Park) that Council members and City staff promised would cost taxpayers nothing, but when the badly planned project crashed and burned it left Piedmont taxpayers holding a bag with hundreds of thousand dollars of losses.  This is the Council of experts that tried to scare the community into voting for an unnecessary tax increase for the sewer fund, a fund from which the Council transfers large amounts for unsubstantiated  overhead to the general fund and uses the money to cover such things as the Blair Park sports complex losses and the electric undergrounding losses.  We proved with the City’s own public records that City officials violated the Brown Act and used public funds to promote the sewer tax ballot measure. We proved that failure of the tax would not, contrary to these expert officials’ false claims, make the city a sewer outlaw before EPA and leave our gutters running brown.  Our grass roots disclosures and opposition killed the tax and proved that Piedmont’s sewer system was fully in compliance with all relevant laws and EPA mandates. Our sewer system have worked fine and our gutters have remained clean without the new sewer tax.

Thank you very much for your time and effort in speaking out to our local government and voters.  Your future involvement on public issues in Piedmont and elsewhere is most welcome.

Tom Clark, Piedmont Resident

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

Hi Tom,

It’s too bad we didn’t have this conversation a few weeks before the election.  I read Mayor Chang’s reply on Piedmontcivic.org and voted Yes because it looks like we’d be paying lower interest, and that our city council is not stepping into the CAB trap.  This is complicated stuff for folks who don’t regularly travel along bond-financing highways, and we have to trust our city council members to do the deep studying and find the best approach for Piedmont citizens.

Unfortunately, the mistakes outlined by Tom Clark have eroded confidence that our city council has the knowledge and capability to make the right decision.  Well, looking forward, a sage once observed that “Good judgement comes from experience, but experience comes from bad judgement.”  Let’s hope our city council has learned from past experiences.

Bruce Joffe, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

Grote to retire after 25 years of service to Piedmont – 

It was January 30, 1989, when Geoffrey L. Grote became Piedmont’s City Administrator. Grote was raised in Pleasant Hill, graduated from the University of the Pacific in Stockton and received his Juris Doctor from Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington.  Before coming to Piedmont, Grote was city manager of Ojai, California  where he initiated several major projects including the Ojai Arcade and the remodeling and expansion of Ojai’s City Hall. Prior to that he had been  Assistant to the City Administrator and Assistant City Attorney in San Luis Obispo. He was founding member and President of the Santa Barbara Area Joint Powers Insurance Authority.

At the October 1989 Piedmont Civic Association Annual meeting, Grote, as the recently hired City Administrator, spoke to the group on taxes, zoning, safety, planning, libraries, utility undergrounding, trees, playfields, and views.  Most of these issues continue to be of great interest to Piedmonters.

Grote was hired by the City Council in 1989 at a salary of $72,000 plus benefits including a car allowance.  He was chosen from among 100 applicants.

When Grote retires at the end of January 2014, he will have served as City Administrator for 25 years.  Both in Piedmont and elsewhere, the position of City Administrator or City Manager is known for frequent turn overs. His longevity speaks to his ability to work with City Councils, the public, and Piedmont employees.

Numerous City municipal service taxes were passed during Grote’s tenure with only one defeat.  The recent sewer tax proposal was defeated in 2012 followed by voter approval of another municipal service tax. 

During recent years Grote was faced with more than the usual budget balancing, public safety and planning issues. Retirements required hiring a new Police Chief, Fire Chief, City Attorney, Public Works Director, Finance Director, and City Clerk.

Vexing to the City administration, citizens and Council was the City’s assumption of risk for the private Piedmont Hills Underground Utility District resulting in a $2.5 million dollar burden on all taxpayers.  The matter remains in legal limbo as the City attempts to recover payment from the project designers and engineers.

Many say the most divisive issue to confront Piedmont in recent years was the proposal by Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) to develop an extensive sports complex for soccer and other grass-based sports in Blair Park bordering Moraga Avenue.  Although the project proposal was ultimately withdrawn by PRFO and a cancellation of Council approval, it cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and diverted hundreds of hours of City staff time. 

Pension liabilities, changes in personnel, funding, planning, public safety – all were prominent in Grote’s responsibilities. Grote has been acclaimed for his willingness to sit down with citizens, improvements to City facilities and pleasant demeanor.  New residents and visitors to Piedmont frequently remark on how beautifully maintained they find the City. Considering Grote’s knowledge of the City and its employees, the next City Administrator will have large shoes to fill.

At the City Council meeting of August 5, the following statements were made:

“I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest appreciation to the Mayor and Council, the residents of Piedmont, and the dedicated City staff for their support and assistance these almost 25 years that I have served as City Administrator,” said Grote.

“These years have been with filled with joys and disappointments, but what I will remember most vividly are the extraordinary people that I have come to know in Piedmont, residents and staff, who have worked so hard to preserve and improve this beautiful community. It has been a privilege to have been a part of that work”

“Piedmont has benefitted from Geoff’s leadership over the nearly quarter century he has served the City,” said Mayor John Chiang. “His efforts to maintain high service levels, excellent public facilities, and make Piedmont a better place for its residents will not soon be forgotten.”

Mr. Grote will remain with the City until the end of January 2014 and, according to a City press release, the recruitment process for a new City Administrator has commenced.  As an “at will” employee, Grote’s agreement with the City required him to provide 6 months of notice prior to retirement or leaving his position, hence the August 5 announcement.  Grote’s replacement could occur prior to his designated retirement date. Alternatively, there is an option of a temporary extension of his employment agreement. 

Piedmont has an ongoing Smoke testing program to test for and detect infiltration and inflows (I/I) in your Personal Sewer Lateral (“PSL”). An inflow is water entering your PSL by an illegal connection that was formerly legal by decades old construction methods. The most common would be a cross-connection from your roof gutters. This can literally add hundreds if not thousands of gallons of water in the rainy season from a single home.

An infiltration is a crack or offset in your PSL. A PSL is often buried at up to six feet down and the amount of water let in by a crack can be negligible, literally a miniscule fraction as compared to an illegal inflow connection. The smoke testing will detect all I/Is and be reported to the City for correction.

Virtually all clay pipe PSL have some displacement and will fail the test even if no cross connection is present. EBMUD Manager of Wastewater Environmental Services Ben Horenstein stated that a clay system is better entirely replaced than repaired. Many steel PSL’s may have a displaced hub and this will require repair or replacement. The displacement inflows are negligible compared to an illegal cross-connection, yet the homeowner will have to bear the cost of entire replacement, normally starting at $5,000.

EBMUD has recently dramatically increased its rates; they do not intend to increase the capacity of their treatment plants. The reason our PSL’s are being tested is the result of a 2011 and 2012 Stipulated Orders (“SO”); the primary focus of these SOs is to stop the EBMUD treatment plants from becoming overwhelmed and discharging waste water into the Bay. Certainly, illegal inflows should be stopped, but I question the wisdom of forcing a complete PSL replacement on the many older homes that contribute negligible and inconsequential amounts to the overflow.

Of the seven public agencies affected by the Stipulated Orders, Piedmont is at 65% of mainline sewer replacement and second only to Emeryville at 70%. Piedmont is far ahead of the other cities in terms of mainline replacement. Berkeley has made significant progress and has a bit over a third of their mainline sewer replaced. Emeryville is an anomaly as their system is even older than Piedmont’s and their farsighted vision of attracting Big Box retail required properly working infrastructure. There is no resident sewer parcel tax in Emeryville.

Piedmonters have one of the highest sewer taxes (and the very highest school tax) and City Hall has attempted dramatic and questionable increases of the sewer tax. $900,000 of out $2.1M sewer tax revenue is transferred to General Funds annually with no time sheet system in place for the $900,000 transfer. Other costs taken from the Sewer Fund include storm drain work and, in some instances, the cost of repairing private party expenses as in the PHUUD Undergrounding Crest Road collapse. Eventually, that $275,000 was replaced by other taxpayer money from the General Fund; I would characterize this as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Those at City Hall who lament that Piedmont is no longer in the lead in improving the environment miss the total picture, or do not care to see it. Our mainline replacement is far ahead of other cities and close behind Emeryville (with no sewer parcel tax). Piedmonters are replacing PSLs at a higher rate than other cities as a higher percentage of Piedmont residents can afford this “luxury.” We continue to take the lead in the complex issue of keeping the Bay and environment clean.

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

July 21, 2013

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association. 

On June 3 the City Council will consider a contract with 3M Company to purchase 39 Automated License Plate Reader cameras for installation at 15 sites in Piedmont. Citizens have expressed varying opinions about the proposal:

Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Councillors:

 

Thank you for so promptly attending to the fundamental issue of placing License Plate Readers at various entrances to Piedmont, which we are very much in support of.

As residents who live very close to the Oakland/Piedmont border, as well as to Scenic avenue (which has seen much crime activity lately) we urge that you consider placing a License Plate reader at the entrance to Piedmont from Blair/Harbord Avenue.

This will act as a major deterrent to criminal elements entering our city through this vital choke point.

Additionally we request that you place a prominent street sign at that point indicating that

” You are now entering Piedmont” so that intruders may be deterred from entering at all.

 

Best Regards

Stavros and Amanda Gougoumis

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear City Council Members:

 

I am sorry to be writing you so late, but I have been travelling a lot and just haven’t had time to sit down and give you my thoughts on this important fiscal and crime issue.

 

I am very concerned that the positive response to License plate readers is a knee jerk response to our crime increases without sufficient study or documentation to determine if they in fact have any positive effect upon crime prevention or arrests. Early on, Chief Goede testified in front of you indicating that in Claremont, CA. they installed readers throughout the city. She gave statistics of 26 and 22 million “hits” over two years (2012 and 2011) with 166 arrests over that period. That is statistically irrelevant. It is 0.000003 arrests per hit. Statistically, there could have been that many arrests with or without the readers in place.  Crime is certainly a concern in town, but we don’t know if we had an unusual number of incidents in a short period or if it is really getting worse.

 

Please don’t make a significant financial mistake and proceed with the readers without more information. Unfortunately, Piedmont has had a record of “ready, fire, aim” which resulted in financial disasters over recent years including undergrounding expenditures and unreimbursed Blair Park costs. Both of those could have been averted with proper oversight, documentation and research.

 

Let’s not let this happen again. I urge you to study this situation more and get better  facts  and  research  before  spending  such  a  significant  amount  of  money.  Just because the City coffers are flush right now is no reason to spend money foolishly. There may be better and more efficient ways to control our crime issues.

 

Very Truly yours, Joseph Hurwich, CPA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Writing in The Piedmont Highlander, Piedmont High School student Kate Bott described the License Plate Readers proposed project as moving Piedmont closer to “the Big Brother scenario George Orwell describes in 1984…” 

~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

I’m emailing to voice my support for installing License Plate Reader Cameras at each entrance and exit point of the city. Please make this part of the record.

Regards,

Mary Peek

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Dear City Council,

          Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are not a crime preventative tool. As Chief Goede stated referring to ALPRs: “Its not a crime prevention tool, its more of an investigative tool on the back end.” At the Public Safety Committee meeting Chief Goede stated there have been no studies showing a correlation between the implementation of ALPRs and a reduction in crime.

         While convicting and sentencing criminals is desirable, criminals are unaware of which cities have a high conviction rate. So the high cost of the ALPRs is simply not justified even as a peripheral conviction tool. The primary function of the ALPRs is evidently to find stolen cars, but no assumption can be made that every criminal entering Piedmont is in a stolen car. And we have yet to be provided with the effectiveness of the single existing mobile ALPR that has been in service. Additionally, a person intent on committing a crime is likely unaware they are about to do it in Piedmont so even if criminals were aware of a high Piedmont conviction rate, they are likely unaware they are in Piedmont.

          “Force multiplier” is the use of digital information to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of Police. A direct means of implementing Police force multiplication is the use of predictive policing programs such as PredPol. Although in the testing phase, PredPol’s initial results have been positive in assigning probabilities of crime in space and time, implementing situational crime prevention and aiding in the most effective use of Police resources. Before our City spends $678,613 plus about $115,000 annually for a civilian ALPR monitor plus the unknown annual maintenance costs plus the thousands annual in connectivity costs plus the installation costs not covered in the 3M contract, the effectiveness of a predictive policing program should be considered.

Police patrolling is the backbone of good police work that stops crime. Criminals seeing officers patrolling is the most effective deterrent available. Can the efficiency of officer placement be enhanced by the use of predictive software? Regardless, Piedmont Police statistics consistently show a high incidence of burglaries and similar crimes committed during weekday daylight hours. Putting another officer on during these hours and in high crime areas would require about 1.66 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Officers; the cost is about $300,000 but would not require the annual $115,000 non-sworn ALPR hire. Adding an additional officer when needed is less expensive than the ALPRs and directly more effective as a crime deterrent. We still do not have a good handle on the ongoing recurring maintenance costs of the ALPRs.

A guaranteed read rate is not specified in the 3M contract. Other companies that provide the ALPRs have such a specification. I ask Council to query the 3M representatives what the guaranteed read rate is of the cameras they are supplying.

We are all alarmed by the increase in crime and we all want to prevent crimes. We need directly preventative tools, not ALPRs.

Respectfully,

Rick Schiller

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

Please add my name to support for license plate cameras & more street lighting on border streets.

Patricia Markovich

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

Too Much Money, Too Few Facts, Too Soon

Before spending more than $1 million, the City should research the effectiveness of license plate readers.

Is there any reliable evidence that license plate readers reduce crime?  If so, what is it?

What are other less expensive alternatives?  How about a cost/benefit analysis of the proposal and other altematives?

How would this unanticipated expenditure affect already-budgeted items?

The March 18 staff report implies that buying readers has been decided and it is just a matter of how fast it can be implemented:  “The ‘tum key’ approach should be given serious consideration from the standpoint of time and efficiency necessary to complete the project.”  (Page 2 of the staff report.)  Staffs outreach to 3M for bids after the Council meeting is more evidence.

Instead of making a decision for the Council by presenting only one altemative, staff should have offered altematives to the Council for public consideration  The staff report does not precisely define the problem or explain how readers work to reduce crime, and it does not present any altematives.  There is no analysis.  The report gives the Council no real choice.  Nor does it support its recommendation  with any data whatsoever about the effectiveness of the single solution proposed.

It looks and feels as if the decision had been made before the Council even started its consideration in public.

The Public Safety Committee should ask staff for (1) deeper and broader analysis of multiple options to reduce crime and for (2) an analysis of the effect of pulling $!million out of the budget for this unforeseen expense–before the Committee reports back to the City Council.

Linda Roodhouse Loper

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~

On January 21, 2013 two Piedmont families were victims of violent “take-over” home invasion robberies by gun point. BULLETS were fired at them! Home invasions, crime and its impact has escalated over the years in Piedmont and especially along our city border-line with Oakland. Over the years “Proactive Patrolling, Police Presence, Response and Chase” along Piedmont’s 24 entry points and high crime Baja neighborhood’s has diminished to unacceptable levels.

Piedmont police…..willingly………..”broke off chase”……… of the home invasion suspects. At the February 12, 2013 public meeting, Chief Rikki Goede admitted:

Piedmont’s Police Department policy is…..NOT TO CHASE CARS OR SUSPECTS.

The City of Piedmont website states: “Patrol is the Backbone of Policing”

There are over 7500 law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. Many of them proudly agree and say the exact same phrase that “patrolling” is the backbone of policing.

How much time can officers devote to patrolling?

Answer: Responding to assigned calls and conducting general surveillances by “patrolling” are the two most time consuming sorts of patrol activities. In most places assigned calls take considerably less than half of officers work time. Patrolling the beat usually takes a higher proportion of time. (Whitaker Study 1982)

On the average, about 5 hours of an officer’s 8-hour shift are spent at the officer’s discretion, while 3 hours are spent on assigned tasks. (US Dept. of Justice-National Institute of Justice)

How many miles should patrol officers drive-per shift?

Answer: There are 1000’s of rural & metro law enforcement agency’s in the United States.

The “miles driven” answer is derived & recognized in several ways. Most large (spread- out) police departments have no minimum or maximum driving expectations (miles) of their patrol car officers. Their patrol officers will be patrolling 100’s of miles. But, the smaller departments (under 20 officers) tend to have unwritten policies and practices related to minimizing or maximizing mileage patrol goals. There are frugal police department’s that mandate their patrol vehicle’s sit idle for 10 minutes of each hour to save on high fuel costs.

Less patrolling miles result in fewer arrests and less impact to the city’s overall budget. But, reading the law enforcement literature, surveys, and studies, the general accepted rule & practice is a metro patrol officer should be “patrolling” 8 miles for each hour worked. If a patrol officer in Piedmont works 10 hours then his/her odometer should register and record 80 more miles on that vehicle. A large segment of patrol officers across the country, routinely clock in, as many as 100-150+ “patrolling” miles per work shift.

(officer’s.com, realpolice.net, policechiefmagazine.org)

How many miles have Piedmont police cars been patrolling?

Answer: Piedmont replaced several of its patrol police cars in 2010. They had been used for 51 months and the average mileage on each car was 45,000 miles. So Piedmont patrol cars had been driven an average of 29 miles per (24 hour) day. In a 24 hour period this is 1.2 miles per hour of patrol function. Human walking speed is about 3+ miles per hour.

Conclusion:

Police officers and Command Staff are compensated quite well in Piedmont considering the small size of the City. The compensation packages include lucrative Pension and Benefits which are unsurpassed in California. Given the cost, the Department should adhere to the  “recognized” standard that “Patrol is the backbone of policing”. The law enforcement patrolling expectations in Piedmont should match the minimum practices in use across the country. Piedmont’s small footprint of 1.658 sq. miles and nonexistent traffic congestion creates a unique situation of straightforward and uncomplicated Police patrol capability.

City Administrator Grote & Chief Goede need to prepare a new “policy” paper and directive as to “Patrolling Practices, Expectations & Recording” of all Piedmont patrol officers.

This new “Patrolling” directive should include and outline these minimum requirements:

1. Patrol officers will log/record odometer readings at the start & end of each day work shift.

2. PPD (Chief Goede) will collect data and prepare/present monthly accounting log and report of the total miles driven by “all” patrol cars, areas driven, responding to calls, etc…….

3. All collected patrol data information will be posted on the City’s website.

License plate readers are a bureaucratic gimmick to give tax-payers a false sense of security. There is no substitution for proper (pro-active) police patrol on the street.

Piedmont should direct & invest its limited resources on proper police patrol procedures and hiring another patrol officer…..for the street.

Thank You,

Neil Teixeira

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Dear City Councilmembers:

In evaluating whether license plate readers are worth the capital and ongoing investment, and recognizing that such investment takes funds away from other worthy projects in the CIty, I request that you consider whether the license plate readers are effective in preventing or deterring crime, and then, secondarily, whether they help catch criminals after a crime has been committed. Question that need to be answered:

(1) I gather that the LPRs can quickly identify whether a recorded license plate is on a “hotsheet” of stolen vehicles. Aremost crimes committed by criminals driving stolen vehicles? (If no, then the utility o fthe LPRs is less for prevention; if yes, finding the stolen vehicle after a crime is less likely to find the criminal).

(2) If crimes are committed by people driving stolen vehicles, how quickly do our surrounding cities get the license numbers of stolen vehicles into the database checked by the LPRs? We read that Oakland’s limited police force is focused on violent crimes. If so, does it take hours or days for a stolen vehicle’s license plates to get in the database?

(3) If crimes are committed in Piedmont by people driving stolen vehicles, how long before they commit a crime does such a person steal a vehicle? Are they stolen the same day that the thief plansto to commit a burglary or robbery in Piedmont? If so, what is the chance that the vehicle’s license plate number will be in the stolen vehicle database?

(4) If a crime is committed in Piedmont, and no stolen cars show up through the LPRs, what use does the PoliceDeptintend to make of the LPR data? Is there a database of former felon’s license plate numbers to see if a former felon drove through town that day? Would the Police Dept have the man power to follow up such leads? What other use could be made of the data to catch the criminal?

(5) What other City projects need funding that will not receive it if the LPRs are funded?

(6) If the funds for the LPR were devoted to hiring another police officer, how many years salary and benefits would be covered by those funds?

I look forward to your deliberations.

Richard W. Raushenbush

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.

Resident Urges City Council  to Reconsider Risk Management Policies – 

The following is an open letter to the Piedmont City Council.

Re: Risk Management Policies

To the Piedmont City Council:

I urge you to reconsider some of your members’ stated opposition to reviewing the risk management oversights which were made in connection with the City’s consideration of the Moraga Canyon project, as understanding how and why they occurred will help guide your review and consideration of the recently proposed risk management policies.

As a preface, these issues are independent of the political wisdom for or against the Moraga Canyon project. They deal solely with the project risks presented, some of which were similar to the risks which surfaced in the Piedmont Hills Undergrounding project. I will confine my comments to three principal aspects of the project: 1) The contracting arrangement was not legal because Blair Park LLC was not properly licensed; 2) design responsibility and liability was omitted from the agreements; and 3) the bond requested was not required to be posted by the proper party and so would have not protected against the appropriate risks.

First, while creating a new entity – Blair Park LLC – to be the contracting party was apparently done in an attempt to insulate the City from potential construction cost overruns, because Blair Park LLC was agreeing to cause to have the complex constructed, it was required to be a licensed contractor, but was not. It was immaterial that all the actual construction work was to be performed by Webcor, a licensed contractor. Vallejo Development Company v. Beck Development (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 929, 941 (“The fact that [the developer] subcontracted with licensed contractors to provide the actual labor, equipment and materials to construct the infrastructure improvements is irrelevant. [Business & Professions Code] Section 7026 plainly states that both the person who provides construction services himself and one who does so ‘through others’ qualifies as a ‘contractor’. The California courts also long held that those who enter into construction contracts must be licensed, even when they themselves do not do the actual work under the contract.”) Because Blair Park LLC was the contracting party with the City, it was obligated under California Business & Professions Code Section 7028 to be licensed.

Indeed, under Business & Professions Code Section 7028.7, the City itself could have been issued a citation and fine by the State Contractors License Board Registrar for entering into a contract with an unlicensed contractor. A contract with an unlicensed contractor is considered to be illegal and unenforceable. I brought this issue up with the City staff and the project proponents prior to the Council meeting at which the project was approved.

Second, notwithstanding the fact that Blair Park LLC had design/build responsibilities, because the City’s proposed agreement with Blair Park LLC, and Blair Park LLC’s conditions of contract with Webcor were apparently modeled on the Webcor-Havens School contract model (under which the school district owner provided the design, unlike here where Blair Park LLC was obligated to provide the design), the agreements and conditions for approval and site Lease completely omitted any reference to design liability and professional liability insurance. Public owners are used to providing the design, and being responsible for it, so it is perhaps easy to understand how this important risk factor would get completely overlooked when the City was contemplating the use of a different contract delivery model (i.e., design/build), but it also highlights why a risk management assessment of not just the detailed procedures but also more importantly, the big picture items, is so important.

Lastly, although the contract required Webcor to obtain a performance bond (and there was to be a further requirement to provide unspecified neighboring property damage security regarding potential future damage to houses), the exact risk which was at the center of Piedmont Hills Undergrounding – unforeseen subsurface conditions requiring extra work – was a Blair Park LLC risk, not a contractor risk, and would therefore not be covered under Webcor’s performance bond. Blair Park LLC was responsible for providing the design of the significant retaining walls, which design was necessarily dependent on unknown subsurface conditions.

Webcor was to be responsible for constructing what was depicted in the design and shown on the plans. If the subsurface conditions actually encountered were different than what was shown on the plans, and the design had to be modified and required extra work, those extra work claims – that cost over $2.5 million on the Piedmont Hills Undergrounding project – would not have been covered by Webcor’s performance bond (nor any damage security bond). Blair Park LLC was the only party to have design responsibility, and it was not required to post any performance bond. By analogy, requiring the undergrounding contractor on Piedmont Hills to post a performance bond did not mitigate its $2.5 million in extra work claims. The City had to pay for the extra work to complete the undergrounding because it could not leave the streets with open trenches. So too on Moraga Canyon, if the contractor encountered unknown subsurface conditions requiring extra work in the middle of constructing the retaining walls and re-routing sewers, somebody would be required to pay for the extra work because the work would have had to have been completed for safety reasons. Blair Park LLC was not required to provide any security demonstrating any ability to pay beyond the agreed upon contract construction costs. As occurred on Piedmont Hills, the City, as owner, would have been responsible to cover the extra costs to allow the construction to be completed. However, the City has demonstrated that it cannot even recover from the project proponents its out of pocket consultant costs under the Indemnification Agreement. There was no agreement to cover this real risk. Thus, while the Moraga Canyon project called for a bond, it was the wrong party being required to post the bond, and so the City remained at risk if the project required extra work to deal with unforeseen subsurface conditions. This was a repeat of the same exact risk as on Piedmont Hills.

These risk issues could have and should have been caught and addressed in a risk management analysis. The presently proposed Risk Management Procedures did not, and would not have caught these material oversights. As the old cliché provides, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. If these types of risks were not addressed on the Piedmont Hills Undergrounding project, or on the proposed agreements for the Moraga Canyon project, on what basis does the Council think the present City project team, procedures and proposed risk management policies will catch them in the future? A change in paradigm is needed if one wants a different result. Learning from past mistakes is more productive than simply trying to ignore them, and focusing on minutiae to the exclusion of understanding the big picture is bad policy.

Respectfully submitted,

Rob Hendrickson

cc: Piedmont Civic Association

Piedmont Patch

Piedmont Post

Piedmonter

LWVP

Editors Note: The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

City’s Proposed Policies Get Tough Review-

Risk management policies for future, major Piedmont projects sparked a wide-ranging, sometimes argumentative but ultimately conciliatory discussion at the Monday, April 1, City Council meeting. In the end, the Council  supported the policies proposed by Public Works Director Chester Nakahara for “non-routine” projects costing over $300,000,  but also asked him to consider numerous changes recommended by speakers at the meeting.  A final version of the policy document is to be brought back to the Council at a date to be determined. > Click to read more…

Future City Projects May Get a Closer Look – 

The City Council will discuss adoption of a  Risk Management Policy for major Piedmont capital projects at its meeting on Monday, April 1.  The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. in Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue.

The City’s Public Works Director will present a revised version of his draft risk management policy, which he presented to the Council in January.   Since then, a Task Force on Civic Governance formed by the Piedmont League of Women Voters has developed  an alternative risk management policy for the City, which it submitted  to the Council for consideration. Both the April 1 Risk Management > Click to read more…