|
The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of Piedmont and asked of all candidates for this office.
See below for questions on
City Budgeting,
Civic Engagement,
2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee recommendations,
Piedmont City Sewer Tax,
Employee Fringe Benefit Costs
Click on a name for candidate information. See also more information about this contest.
 |
1. Are you in favor of multi-year budgeting for the City? Please explain your reasons.
|
Answer from Margaret Fujioka:
I believe multi year planning is important. The City has a significant investment in capital assets that needs to be monitored and protected. Multi year planning will allow the City to evaluate and prioritize the assets that need upgrading, to estimate the cost of such upgrades, and to plan for such capital outlays. The allocation of funds will depend on the overall condition of the City's budget and a recognition that revenues fluctuate from year to year.
Answer from Tim Rood:
I am strongly in favor of multi-year forecasting of City revenues and expenditures to better inform the annual budgets adopted by the Council. It's critical that the Council fully understand the long-term consequences of its spending decisions, including staff compensation and fringe benefits, as well as the long-term costs of new programs such as aquatics. I support the immediate appointment of a standing Municipal Finance Review Committee to advise the Council on major expenditures and new programs and project the City's finances five years out, as recommended by the Municipal Tax Review Committee.
The Council should have acted months ago, when it received the MTRC report, to begin the process of forming this committee so that it could have participated in the mid-year budget review and the review of the draft 2012-13 budget.
|
2. Recent issues in the city have created tensions and polarized the community. As a Piedmont City Council member what would you do to foster civic engagement and dialogue?
|
Answer from Tim Rood:
Mutual respect between citizens and elected officials is essential for the proper functioning of a representative democracy. This is a two-way street--elected officials must respect their fellow citizens if citizens are to respect their elected officials.
Unfortunately, the Piedmont City Council has not set the best example of mutual respect in recent years. Certain members have rudely dismissed citizen input during public hearings and in the media. Council members should maintain their dignity, especially under pressure.
The Council has also not reached out to citizens as it should. Although Piedmont has a General Plan that involved citizen input, the Council has substituted other priorities. Too many decisions are made behind closed doors. Understandably, citizens sense that the Council is not really listening to divergent views or constructive criticism.
We need more public forums to encourage candid and thoughtful discussion. Three minutes at the Council podium is not the best means to a meaningful dialogue. Most important, the Council should regularly ask all Piedmonters (including those previously uninvolved), "What are your priorities for Piedmont? What projects and problems should we be tackling together?"
In my 15 years as a professional city planner, I've worked with more than 35 cities to help citizens and elected officials genuinely listen to one another and have led over 100 community workshops. I'll bring that experience to the Council.
Answer from Margaret Fujioka:
I will continue to listen to all viewpoints with an open mind, communicate with citizens in a respectful way, and encourage others to do the same. I will continue to bring a thoughtful, common sense approach to making decisions that are in the best interests of our entire community and do so in an inclusive and collegial way.
|
3. The 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee made several important recommendations to the Piedmont City Council and requested action before renewal of the parcel tax. List three of the requested actions and state what position you would take on each if you were on the Piedmont City Council.
|
Answer from Margaret Fujioka:
The City Council voted to implement 2 of the Committee's recommendations: 1) Placing the Sewer Tax on the Feb. 7th ballot, and 2) Deferring placement of the Parcel Tax on the general election ballot until June or November 2012. The Council is thoughtfully and prudently considering other recommendations and has adopted a time-line for action. The Committee stated in its report that the first and primary issue that must be addressed by the City Council is employee benefits. The City is currently in negotiations with employee labor units, which negotiations are in closed session pursuant to State law. I am hopeful that we will reach an agreement that will be fair to employees and the City alike.
I have consistently taken a fiscally prudent approach to reducing labor costs, and I support increased employee contributions to benefits and a two-tier benefit system for new employees.
Answer from Tim Rood:
To get our city's finances on a sustainable path, I support these crucial reforms:
Identify and prioritize our essential public services, such as police and fire.
Extend the annual budgeting process to include five years of planning.
Appoint an impartial, expert citizens' finance review committee to review proposed major expenditures.
Rebuild our reserves by setting aside funds in every budget, including funds needed to maintain our existing City buildings and facilities.
Ensure that any new commitments for costly new facilities or services are fully understood, including independent assessment of construction, operation and maintenance costs.
Until the City has sufficient funding to sustain its current facilities and services and adequate reserves, ensure that any new commitments for costly new facilities or services are paid out of user fees or dedicated parcel taxes, rather than General Fund revenues.
Commission an independent, expert analysis of our employee benefit obligations and publicly adopt a clear limit consistent with the long-term financial viability of the City.
Establish procedures to ensure professional management of our public works projects, with independent assessment of their construction and maintenance costs, as recommended by the League of Women Voters' undergrounding report.
Adopt a clear policy that no public funds be expended for the benefit of private entities or individuals.
The Council has not adopted a timeline for implementation of any of the MTRC recommendations, other than placement of the sewer tax surcharge but not the parcel tax on the February ballot.
|
4. The ballot measure in February asks for a 50% increase in the Sewer Tax. This will cost homeowners several hundred dollars per year for the next ten years. Do you support or oppose the Sewer Tax measure?
|
Answer from Margaret Fujioka:
The Municipal Tax Review Committee unanimously recommended the City impose the Sewer Tax. I agree. It is necessary to meet the regulatory requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency, will provide residents with more efficient sewer functioning, decrease the risk of costly and potentially damaging problems, and minimize runoff of sewage into the Bay.
Answer from Tim Rood:
As reluctant as I am to ask Piedmonters to raise their taxes during these difficult economic times, after careful research I am supporting this measure. The Municipal Tax Review Committee concluded that additional funding is necessary to complete Piedmont's Sewer System Master Plan on schedule and help prevent expensive and environmentally damaging overflow events. Piedmont's master plan is a component of the EPA Stipulated Order compliance agreement jointly developed by the EBMUD satellites at considerable expense. Once it is adopted, this agreement will enforceable by EPA fines of $2,000 per day if we are not in compliance.
If I am elected, I will request that staff provide detailed information about all feasible options for fulfilling our regulatory requirements while minimizing the additional burden on taxpayers. This will be particularly important if the voters do not approve the surcharge and the schedule for mainline sewer replacement has to be extended. If the surcharge is approved, I will use this information to advocate for minimizing the amount of the annual surcharge levied.
|
5. Employee fringe benefit costs currently equal 53% of the City's salary budget, up from 33% in 2006-2007. As a Piedmont City Council member would you vote to cap fringe benefit costs at their current level or allow them to continue to increase as a percentage of salary? Why or why not?
|
Answer from Tim Rood:
Absolutely. I will not vote for any collective bargaining agreement that does not cap fringe benefit costs at no more than their current level. This is a critical step to get the City's finances back on a sustainable path, because annual spending on employee benefits has increased from $1.4 million in 1996 to $5.2 million today. This represents an average increase of 10% per year, several times the rate of inflation. For every dollar Piedmont spends on staff salaries, we now spend another 53 cents on fringe benefits, up from only 33 cents just eight years ago.
I also believe the Council should commission an expert, independent analysis of our employee benefit obligations.
I do not believe it is inappropriate for an incumbent Council member seeking reelection to state a position on a policy issue of such importance to voters. Setting policies for what the City can afford will help ensure productive labor negotiations. In general, I favor greater transparency in advising taxpayers of the parameters and status of our labor negotiations, as other jurisdictions have done.
Answer from Margaret Fujioka:
Given that the City is currently in negotiations with employee unions, it would not be appropriate for me, as a sitting Council Member, to address how I would vote. I will continue to work to reach an agreement with employees that is, hopefully, fair to employees and the City alike.
Responses to questions asked of each candidate
are reproduced as submitted to the League.
Candidates' answers are presented as submitted.
The order of the candidates is random and changes daily. Candidates who did not respond are not listed on this page.
|
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
