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.

Renovation plans significantly reduce audience capacity.

The bird calling contest.  Musicals.  Drama.  A Capella.  Dance.  Band and orchestra. Community theater.  The Alan Harvey Theater is home to all of these, often with sell-out crowds or standing room only.  Which is why I have serious concerns over the proposed renovation of the theater that substantially reduces its capacity and why I believe we need to take an intermission and reconsider what’s being proposed.

Currently the Alan Harvey theater has 500 seats.  Yet the proposed renovated theater would have only 365 seats, a decrease of 27% in the theater’s capacity.  I’ve never attended a performance at the Alan Harvey Theater where 27% of the seats were empty.  There simply won’t be enough room to accommodate parents and friends who want to attend these performances.  And there won’t even be enough room for school assemblies, which, according to the design program, require a minimum of 400 seats.

One of the main reasons being given in support the current plan is that Piedmont High School would focus on becoming a performing arts school, and there’s no arguing that the proposed renovations would create a very attractive venue with ancillary spaces, but it’s not the only solution.  Why are we considering reducing the size of the theater rather than maintaining its current size or enlarging it?  Are we going to be satisfied, after spending at least $14.5 million, that our theater will be 27% smaller than it is now, meaning fewer people will be able to attend those performances?  In addition, because of this, box office revenues would plummet because of fewer ticket sales, decreasing revenues unless ticket prices skyrocket.

We all want to support Piedmont High School’s performing arts students.  So let’s not short-change them and our community by turning away fans and substantially shrinking audiences by building a theater that is way too small.  Think about the effect of removing 135 seats before the upcoming spring drama festival, dance showcase, a capella review, and orchestra and band concerts.  The 135 people turned away won’t be happy, and there will be much less applause in the theater.

Other design solutions exist where at least 500 seats can be maintained.  Let’s get it right and come back from our intermission with a new approach for renovating the Alan Harvey Theater.

Melanie Robertson, AIA, Former Chair of the Piedmont Planning Commission

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

Vote-by-mail ballots for the June 3, 2014 election must be posted in time to be received by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters by 8:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 3.   Post marks are not relevant.

 The three cards comprising the ballots are so heavy they require postage of  91 cents.  

To the Piedmont City Council:

        Move Piedmont’s election date to the November General Election date.  Alternatives presented in the staff report notwithstanding, none outweigh the value of increasing voter turnout in our local election.  The most recent election turnout supports this – an incumbent, two popular candidates and a measure guaranteed to save money and yet voter turnout was only 37%.  All good governance organizations support consolidating elections with the General Election so that turnout is enhanced. As to the concerns of PUSD, there is always access to the June primary ballot, as is currently being done with Measure H.

       I think the concerns about a November election raised by the City Clerk are fairly minor.  Placement on the ballot card and voter fatigue are offset by receiving the ballot through the mail. Indeed, most Piedmonters may have selected this option so that they can have a more informed reading of the ballot at home.  Getting precinct  results less rapidly, while creating more election-night drama, would have no effect on the outcome of an election.

       Finally, analysis of a VBM option should not be based on the statistics from the most recent election (as presented in the staff report) because of the exceptionally low turnout. Turnout statistics from a General Election would be more appropriate for this assessment.

                        Garrett Keating, former City Council Member

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

Alan Harvey Theater:  Costs and Alternatives

With approximately two weeks left before the June 3 election on Piedmont ballot Measure H, preferences are heating up.

After the Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) approved $100,000 of Modernization Funds  for conceptual design and planning of safety and accessibility improvements of the Alan Harvey Theater (AHT), a contract was signed with Quattrocchi Kwok Architects (QKA), the selected finalist. A preliminary construction budget of $5 million was established by PUSD in 2012,  anticipating providing safety and accessibility improvements, the PUSD May 23, 2012 stated goal. The cost of the  improvements escalated to the currently proposed $14.5 million after conceptual drawings led to further improvements and expansion. (The bond issue is for $13.5 million.) Originally the AHT was included in the Seismic Safety Bond, but was removed when engineers assured PUSD that structurally it met “life safety” seismic standards.

The Yes on H campaign has garnered solid support from the school community and performing arts enthusiasts, engendering a comprehensive campaign including signage, phone calls, and glossy literature. The No on H campaign has attracted individuals concerned about the high costs of the “renovation” and the need for further evaluation prior to approving the bond measure.

Yes on H – pro:

• “All Measure H funds will stay in our community to benefit Piedmont students.”
• “State modernization funds and private donations will reduce the cost to homeowners.”
• “An independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee will ensure funds are properly spent.”

No on H – con:

• Piedmont should not go to the legal limit of  borrowing prior to evaluating District wide needs: all funds from Piedmont school bonds stay in Piedmont.
• Taxpayers will be responsible for repaying $13.5 million in bond funds plus interest.
• All bond instruments require compliance with bond issuance specifications.

As with most Bay Area communities, Piedmont property values have risen and exceed their prior economic downturn values.  New buyers of Piedmont homes have well established credit, assets or job security.  The additional amount on their property tax bill to pay for theater renovations will be minor when added to their parcel tax obligation of $10,000 to $20,000 plus per year.  The following information on tax amounts was provided by the School District:

“What impact will Measure H have on my taxes?

……the actual tax rate will not be determined until the bonds are sold. Based on current projections, and a 13-year repayment schedule, the District estimates an increase of $17 per $100,000 of assessed value in the first six years. After existing bonds are paid off in 2020-21, the estimated tax rate would be $50 per $100,000 of assessed value in the remaining seven years.”

Calculations indicate a property valued at $1 million would pay $500 per year in the final 7 years of the bond.

Long time Piedmonters, tax conscious residents, retirees, and others view the additional burden of the bonds as not reasonable or appropriate. Piedmonters currently pay over $2,400 per parcel per year for school operations alone and hundreds more for the interest and principle on existing school bonds used for prior rebuilds and renovations.  Piedmont school parcel taxes are currently the highest in the Bay Area. Opponents of Measure H want the School District’s evaluation of alternatives and priorities to occur before a bond is approved by voters.

Accessibility issues have been a primary driver of the theater renovation because of antiquated restrooms, steps prohibiting wheelchair movements, seating problems, and stage configuration limiting performers.  Those involved with the schools and theater arts have pointed out the desirability of an enhanced theater for both students and the community.

Architects differ on correcting the problems to achieve an appropriate, high-level theater renovation. Some Piedmont architects have found the plans wanting and deserving of revisions prior to approval of the bond measure. While others approve the plans as presented to the School Board.

Vote by or on Tuesday, June 3. Remind your friends and neighbors to vote.

Most Piedmonters will vote by absentee ballot.  Ballots must be received by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters or your local polling place no later than 8 p.m., June 3, 2014. Post marks are not sufficient.  Postage has increased to $.91 to mail your ballot.

Click for more information on where and how to vote.

Read more from advocates on both sides of Measure H:

Theater usage by “Yes on H”

Improvements by “Yes on H”

Understanding accessibility by “Yes on H”

Why No by “No on H”

Renovation cost by “No on H”

Accessibility requirements by “No on H”

Editors’ Note:  The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office.  Comments are welcomed below.  

Facts show Piedmont is not acting to constrain housing production according to the City’s planning consultant, Barry Miller.

Piedmont’s design review, site improvement requirements, bonding requirements, permit fees, impact fees and permit processing fees, while all potential constraints are not functioning to constrain new housing production in Piedmont. It is not the Charter or City zoning, but the restricted land available, cost of construction, single family housing demand, etc., that limit housing production. The City’s fees are lower than the fees of surrounding communities and the requirements are simpler and more streamlined.

Piedmont’s second units were a focus of the consultant’s presentation: the occupancy levels of legal units; how to identify the illegal units; and preventing displacement of low-income renters in second units. Some of the rent-restricted affordable second units produced during the current 2007-14 period will expire during the upcoming 2015 -2022 period.  Staff will develop ways of encouraging the owners to continue the rent restrictions voluntarily to avoid expelling the low-income renters. Staff suspects there are also unregistered second units and vacant permitted second units. There will be an outreach program to suspected illegal second units to bring them into the program. Piedmont prohibits short-term rental of Air B& B type units, but some are listed online.

Although Piedmont is required to submit an updated Housing Element to the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by January 31, 2015, compliance is not required to be completed by that date. Piedmont’s current Housing Element was approved three years ago, four years after the beginning of the period.

The Planning Department wants input on the Draft Housing Element.  On June 26, a community meeting is scheduled to be held in the Emergency Operations Center of the Police Department.  Since the meeting is not expected to be broadcast, interested individuals should attend the meeting.

A suggestion was made to send June 26 meeting invitations to second unit property owners and their tenants, requesting attendance at the meeting to describe their experiences with second units.  Notifying second unit neighbors was not suggested. 

By October the consultant hopes to have a review letter from HCD on the working draft of the updated Housing Element, as staff moves ahead to have an approved Housing Element ahead of schedule.

Piedmont’s Fire Chief Warren (Bud) McLaren has issued a press release.

The Piedmont Fire Department reminds residents that the 2014 Fire Season has been declared and that creating and maintaining Defensible Space is critical for the protection of their homes.

“This year we are preparing for the increased fire risk due to lack of rainfall and resulting drought conditions.” said Fire Chief Bud McLaren.

Piedmont Fire inspectors will be educating residents and evaluating properties to make sure they are in compliance with Piedmont’s city ordnance for fire hazard abatement.

Here are some tips that can help homes survive wildfires:

• Maintain a Defensible Space around all structures.

• Clear all needles and leaves from roofs, eaves and rain gutters.

• Trim branches 6 feet from the ground.

• Landscape with fire resistant and drought tolerant plants.

• Trim branches away from roofs, and 10 feet from the chimney.

• Keep wood piles and flammable materials 30 feet from the home.

• Use fire resistant building materials.

For more information on preparing for Fire Season and Defensible Space contact:

Piedmont Fire Department or visit the Fire Station at:

Piedmont Fire Department

120 Vista Avenue

Piedmont, Ca 94611

510-420-3030

Any day from 8:00 am through 6:00 pm

Planning Commission to Hear Housing Element Update

5:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers

I’m writing in support of Measure H to complete the rehabilitation of our school facilities.

I think the District’s track record in funding and managing capital projects speaks for itself, and it’s telling that both proponents and opponents of the measure agree that the current 40 year-old Alan Harvey Theater facility is coming due for a major overhaul. Where they seem to disagree is on whether the proposed theater project is delivering good value compared to other recently build high school theaters. I believe it is.

The $10.5 million estimated construction cost (less contingencies and soft costs) seems to be roughly on par with the other theater projects. As an architect, I know that every building and every construction project is different. While comparisons are helpful for context, there is no set formula for dollars per square foot, per theater seat, or any other measure, because there are so many possible choices of building configuration, construction type, structural systems, finish materials, and theater amenities – not to mention a dynamic bidding environment.

Some opponents seem concerned that the project is an expansion and renovation of the theater, as opposed to a complete teardown. As a LEED-accredited processional, I want to point out that reusing buildings is generally “greener” than tearing them down and starting over.

The most comprehensive analysis to date of the potential environmental benefits associated with building reuse, a 2012 study by the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Green Lab, examined cumulative life-cycle impacts over a project 75 year period for six different building types, including a school building. For most building types, including schools, adaptive reuse of older buildings was found to yield measurable – and sometimes impressive – green benefits. The study found it can take 10 to 80 years for a new building that is 30 percent more efficient than an average-performing existing building just to overcome the negative climate change impacts related to the construction process. In the words of architect Carl Elefante, “the greenest building is the one that is already built.”

Of course, rehabbing an older building also uses environmental resources. The best way to minimize the impact is to choose materials and building systems carefully. Fortunately, our new state building code incorporates many green features, and the theater architects are also designing to performance criteria set out by the Collaborative for High Performance Schools to conserve energy, water and materials.

I believe renovating and expanding the theater is the right thing to do – for education, for accessibility, and for the environment.

Tim Rood, Piedmont City Councilmember

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association (PCA).  We invite various points of view on civic subjects.  PCA does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office.  COMMENTS may be made below.  Longer OPINIONS may be submitted using the link on the upper left side of this page. 

Vote No on Measure H, the $14.5 million Piedmont High School Theater Renovation Dear Neighbors,

If you subscribe to the Piedmont Post, you may have read many articles about the proposed renovation of the Piedmont High School Theater (the Alan Harvey Theater). Many questions have been raised and there is an on-going debate in the community about what to do.

You probably have received two fliers from the “Yes on H” campaign. You hopefully will get from us a postcard which encourages you to visit our website:www.NOOonH.org (note the three Os).

Please take a good look at the issues. Measure H will impact the way future capital projects are conceived by the School Board and the District. In our view, the Board has been blinded by the success of the Havens School rebuild. The Board should have pushed the pause button once it became clear that the initial concept for the theater renovation as proposed by Mr. Becker turned out to be twice as expensive as expected (construction cost rising from $5 million to $10 million).

 We all know that the theater needs work. The Superintendent has set aside a budget of $500,000 for changing the seats, replacing the HVAC, and fixing lighting for safety (such as adding footlights at the edge of the stage). We present our case in the Why No page.

• If you are a performing arts lover, you should vote No as the proposed project will not fix the major issues with the Theater: its low ceiling and its poor acoustics due to the large bay windows. It is also clear that the renovation is overpriced when compared to a new construction.

• If you feel, as I personally do, that the additional educational value for kids performing in public under expensive LED lights and a new control room is not worth the extra expenditure, you should vote No. Why waste money when since 2008 school programs have been cut, class sizes increased, and total instructional days decreased? Yes, capital money and operation money do not mix, but they do come from the same wallets! We need to nurture community goodwill so that taxpayers respond generously to the next State school budget cuts.

• Finally, if you are concerned about all the other needs that are in line for capital expenditure on the High School campus, you should request that the Board set priorities for big capital expenses based on a long term vision rather than letting nuts and bolts issues dominate and through scope creep be turned into big projects.

We also are annoyed by the tactics used by the proponents. Scare tactics distort the public debate, undermine trust, and take Piedmonters for granted. Please take a look at our web page on accessibility. The theater will not be closed due to lack of ADA compliance and it can be made more accessible at a low cost. Let us not have these tactics impair our judgment, as the matter is most important for our students.

Let me know if you want to participate in our No campaign. Whichever position you end up taking, make sure you cast your vote. You can vote using snail mail by registering with the County before May 27, 5 pm by calling  (510) 272-6973 to request a ballot to be mailed to you.

Sincerely yours,

Bernard Pech

Piedmonter since 1983.

Piedmont Citizens Against Measure H – An informal organization for now.  For this campaign, contact me through the email: bjalbums@gmail.com

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association (PCA).  We invite various points of view on civic subjects.  PCA does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office.  COMMENTS may be made below.  Longer OPINIONS may be submitted using the link on the upper left side of this page.