Oct 12 2020

Pool Bonds: Measure UU: Yes or No ?

While support signs for UU are seen throughout Piedmont – letters mailed, opinions voiced, editorials, questions and comments opposing and supporting Measure UU continue.  For approval of the $19.5 million in 30 year bonds, 2/3rds of those voting on the pool bonds must vote yes. 

YES -Pool proponents have stated Piedmont needs a working, non-leaking municipal pool, and it is timely and cost-effective to issue the bonds to allow the designing and building of two enlarged pools and Aquatic Facilities.  Pools were costing the City $1,000 per day prior to the closure by Alameda County COVID-19 mandate.  Proponents note the new pool facility will be used by the schools, swim teams, Recreation Department, and the general public. The added operating costs of the Facility are projected to be covered by an increase in community-at-large usage. 

NO – City records show tens of millions of dollars in outstanding City financial obligations, and opponents state the City should first fund current obligations and needed Police and Fire facilities before a yet-to-be-designed expensive multi-pool Aquatic Facility.  A lack of prioritization of City needs, increased congestion next to schools, higher taxes, poor economic timing,  environmental impacts, financial money-pit, mis-management, oversized costs, and Covid -19  are noted as negatives.

Voters are encouraged to read and consider available official information linked below.

Official Measure UU – Pool Construction Bonds information

*The “City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis of Measure UU” is provided by Piedmont’s contract City Attorney.

Measure UU is found near the end of Piedmont voters ballots.

2 Responses to “Pool Bonds: Measure UU: Yes or No ?”

  1. As compared to the school district which has borrowed up to the maximum allowed by state law, the city has been relatively prudent. In fact, there is NO general obligation bond debt for the city. It is disingenuous for Measure UU opponents to try to equate normal, future city employee retirement obligations with bond debt. They are completely different. As long as the retirement obligations are being funded at an actuarially competent rate, the employee pensions and other post-employment benefits, while expensive, should not be equated with bond indebtedness. That’s more like knowing that you will have to pay for your rising PGE and EBMUD bills in the future. While a sizable expense, do you consider those future expenses to be debt?

  2. To my knowledge Michael is correct – the city is not carrying any bond debt. But, no pun intended, the city could go from 0 to 60 by this time next year. The ball park numbers of bonds for the pool, police and fire buildings is about 20M per facility – 60 total. Council indicated that it would be back in March 2021 with a ballot measure for the public safety buildings. I recall hearing at the BAFPC that the district and the city could both bond up to about $60M. The BAFPC also recommended that the city communicate with the school district about its bond plans so as not to impact school needs.

    It would inform the current discussion of bonds for the pool if the City or proponents would clarify this point about more bond measures in March.

Leave a Comment