League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Alameda County, CA February 7, 2012 Election
	Tim Rood Answers Questions Candidate for Council Member; City of Piedmont

The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of Piedmont and asked of all candidates for this office.
Read the answers from all candidates (who have responded).

Questions & Answers

1. Are you in favor of multi-year budgeting for the City? Please explain your reasons.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

---

Responses to questions asked of each candidate are reproduced as submitted to the League.  Candidates' answers are presented as submitted.

Read the answers from all candidates (who have responded).

Candidate Page || Feedback to Candidate || This Contest
SmartVoter Home (Ballot Lookup) || About Smart Voter

---

Created from information supplied by the candidate: January 22, 2012 19:49
Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund   http://www.lwvc.org
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.