A recent news article on the history of playfield development in Piedmont provided a superficial review of the facts and left out a lot of the context. The 1986 Grass Playfield Committee proposed new playfields at Hampton and Linda Fields, Dracena Park, Moraga Canyon and Witter Field, to be funded by an annual tax of $90 per household. Within a year of the defeat of that proposal at the ballot, City Council convened the Turf Field Task Force, which, through an extensive series of public meetings, scaled backed that proposal and recommended mitigations to address the concerns of neighbors of the new facilities. Two of these were no field lighting at Coaches Field and no field development in Blair Park. Contrasting that process with how the Blair Park proposal was vetted may explain the different reaction of the neighbors then and now. Rather than focus on the reaction of neighbors, a more useful exercise might be to evaluate how the Blair Park proposal was managed and communicated to the public by city staff and project proponents. As the saying goes, those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
One positive outcome of the Blair Park process was a field design that shows how a 300×150 foot multi-use field can be built at Coaches Field without relocation of the City’s Corporation Yard to Blair Park. One element of the defeated 1986 playfield proposal was a grand plan for Moraga Canyon that proposed a football/baseball field at what is now Coaches with relocation of the Corporation Yard to Blair Park. Logically the best solution for Piedmont’s field needs, it’s cost likely doomed it at the ballot. The new proposal by resident Chuck Oraftik shows how a multi-use field can be built with minimal impact to the Corporation Yard. And in light of Mountainview Cemetery’s proposal for the adjoining land, adding additional field space to Coaches is a real possibility.
Residents interested in the future of playfield development in Piedmont should participate in upcoming public hearings on how to expend $500,000 the city has received for the development of recreational facilities. Coming from a voter-approved ballot initiative, City Hall seems to be advocating for using these funds on the renovation of Hampton Field, which does need some repair. But these funds can also be used for expansion of Coaches Field and other facilities. City Council needs an objective analysis of how improvements at different fields in town will increase the overall hours of use of the city’s recreational facilities.
Garrett Keating, City Council Member
As negotiations continue, riders and taxpayers focus on BART employee compensation. Could there be another BART strike on Monday, August 5 ?
SEIU 1021 President Roxanne Sanchez complained about the “unwillingness to bargain” of Thomas Hock, BART management’s chief negotiator. “Thomas Hock has been involved in negotiations that resulted in seven other transit system strikes over the past 11 years.”
As the threat of a renewed strike looms over riders, media and others have taken the opportunity to examine some of the issues finding large disparities in BART compensation with comparable workers in other transit systems. BART employees are currently the “highest-paid transit operators in California” according to the San Jose Mercury News report on July 27. In addition to making no contribution to their pension plans, the article finds the average gross pay for blue collar union employees (excluding BART police and executives) was $76,551 in 2012. “BART’s top-paid train operator grossed $155,308 … BART had offered a wage increase of 5 to 8% … Unions had countered with a pay increase of 20.1% over three years…”
Comments to the BART Board of Directors may be emailed through the following link: http://www.bart.gov/about/bod/contact.aspx
BART riders are asked to comment on “the fleet of the future” –
Until Friday, August 2, a scale model of the proposed BART train cars will be exhibited in the main hall of Oakland’s MacArthur Station. According to BART, the 1972 train cars are the “oldest railcars in the country right now.” They require more maintenance than newer cars and replacement parts are increasingly hard to locate. The design of the $3.4 billion fleet of new cars is by Bombardier Transportation, a Canadian company that was selected through a bidding process in 2012.
If the budget allows, the replacement cars would go into service over the period 2017-2023. Ridership has been increasing and is expected to top 500,000 passengers a day by 2018. To meet the added demand, the new cars would increase capacity with 10% more standing room and additional hand rails. The doors would dampen the noise for a quieter ride. The proposed cars feature three doors instead of two doors in each car to ease entering and exiting from the trains. The seats will be one-and-a half inches higher to provide leg room while reducing the spacing by an inch, have center armrests to clearly define passenger territory, and be cleanable vinyl to reduce replacement cost required by currently upholstered seats.
At the MacArthur Station a customer service representative has been present to take comments. Riders are invited to email comments to BART at: http://www.bart.gov/siteinfo/comments.aspx
Scrutiny of Piedmont finances leads to consideration of bonds to pay off CalPERS “Side Fund” pension obligation.
After Detroit’s fiscal crisis, Time magazine and the Wall Street Journal mention Oakland, Philadelphia and Chicago as cities facing large fiscal challenges. The cover of the August 5 issue of Time asks, “Is Your City Next?” The lead article warns:
“Though nearly everyone agrees that Detroit is in particularly bad shape, many of its underlying issues — crushing debt and unfunded and unsustainable retiree benefits — are not unique. And those legacy costs are at the heart of what many experts believe is a coming municipal-finance crisis in the U.S. …Battles are already under way to decide if bankruptcy will let Detroit escape its pension commitments and turn away creditors. Promises, it must be said, will be broken; the questions now are which ones and how badly.”
According to the July 21 Wall Street Journal article, “After Detroit, Who’s Next?“:
“Take Oakland, which is Detroit’s doppelganger on the West Coast. The run-down Bay Area city, which has the highest crime rate in California, recently laid off more than 100 police to fund retirement benefits and pension-obligation bonds. Murders and robberies shot up by nearly 25% last year. To avert steeper cuts, the city borrowed an additional $210 million to finance pensions.”
Early in 2013 it appeared that paying off Piedmont’s CalPERS $8 million Side Fund obligation by refinancing it at a lower interest rate through a bond issuance would offer pension cost savings. The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee investigated refinancing options and heard presentations by two investment banking firms with experience refinancing CalPERS Side Funds.
For pension obligation bonds expected to be issued on June 30, 2014, Piedmont’s Finance Director, Erick Cheung, recommended that the City Council approve agreements with the law firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe for ballot language and bond counsel in an amount not to exceed $40,000, and, if required, validation action** not to exceed $10.000. The investment banking firm Cheung recommended is Brandis Tallman, to be paid an amount not to exceed $40,000 for a private placement or 1% of the par amount of a public offering of bonds. At its July 1 meeting the City Council approved agreements with Brandis Tallman and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe on these terms.
At the June 17 City Council meeting, Brandis Tallman stated that interest rates had risen and the annual savings for Piedmont would be $82,000 at current rates. Presentations on May 8 by investment bankers Raymond James had estimated an annual savings of $210,000 assuming the 7.50% CalPERS interest cost were replaced with 2.89% interest cost.
*The Side Fund obligation of $8M was created by CalPERS in 2003 when it merged all agencies (including cities) with fewer than 100 employees into pools with shared risk. Each member of a pool was assigned a share of the unfunded liability in its pool.
** If the refinancing were approved in a Piedmont election by a majority vote falling short of 2/3, a validation action is filed with the State to confirm that the refinancing fits an exception to the State requirement of a 2/3 vote approving multi-year indebtedness. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe suggested the action would add at least 45 days and perhaps six months delay to the refinancing. Issues related to Piedmont’s City Charter have yet to be resolved.
SECTION 4.14 BONDED DEBT LIMIT
The City shall not incur an indebtedness evidenced by obligation bonds which shall in the aggregate exceed the sum of twenty (20) percent of total assessed valuation for purposes of City taxation, of all the real and personal property within the City, exclusive of any indebtedness that has been or may hereafter be incurred for the purposes of acquiring, constructing, extending or maintaining municipal utilities, for which purpose a further indebtedness may be incurred by the issuance of bonds, subject only to the provisions of the State Constitution and of this Charter.No bonded indebtedness which shall constitute a general obligation of the City may be created unless authorized by the affirmative votes of a majority of the electors voting on such proposition at any election at which the question is submitted to the electors and unless in full compliance with the provisions of the State Constitution, other State laws and this Charter.
Some months ago, the Piedmont Recreation Department staff recommended use of the East Wing of the Arts Center as a childcare facility. After protest by community members and the Arts Center, the City Council directed staff to meet with the Arts Center leaders to determine how the City and Center could resolve issues surrounding the use of the East Wing. Negotiations broke down when the City’s requirements for expensive changes and new costs exceeded the Center’s abilities.
Piedmont citizens have voiced concern that the Recreation Department lacks sufficient programs for adults. The senior activity program proposed by the Art Center was a twice weekly mid-day activity.
During a public meeting, residents testified that after raising families and residing in Piedmont for decades, many miss seeing familiar faces and friends on a regular basis. The potential for using the room at the Center for activities such as travel programs, board games, computers, literature, book reviews, exercise, arts, and leisure was welcomed by seniors and adults.
Piedmonters have questioned, “Why isn’t there a place for seniors to gather on a regular basis in Piedmont?” “With all of the activities planned for children by the City, adults who have long supported Piedmont through taxes and donations, should be given greater consideration.” Others have mentioned that there are already childcare facilities established by the City, while there is no on-going facility for adults to gather.
Further public consideration of the Arts Center East Wing use has yet to be scheduled on a Council agenda.
Turning on porch lights and strolling the neighborhood to prevent crime –
The National Night Out celebration on the first Tuesday in August has gained popularity throughout the United States over its three decades. It began in 1984 in neighborhoods experiencing a sudden crime wave. As a crime prevention tool, the goal was to strengthen neighborhood unity and spirit, and develop partnerships between city personnel and communities. The event brings together residents with their neighbors, law enforcement, fire personnel, community groups, businesses, neighbor organizations and local officials. In 2012 more than 37 million people in 15,000 communities in all 50 states participated, U.S. territories and Canada.
Originally, it was simply a call to turn on porch lights at sunset and leave them on until 9 pm, while sitting on the porch or strolling the block to greet other neighbors. This year National Night Out falls on Tuesday, August 6 and will be celebrated in many of Piedmont’s neighboring communities. To date with Piedmont’s historically low crime rates, it has not been observed in our city.
The City of Oakland will be participating in National Night Out on Tuesday, August 6.
Re: Blair Park City-PRFO Negotiations and Brown Act
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members:
“It’s time to assure city residents that council members will stop acting on their own to advance their personal agendas, bolster their pet projects or benefit their political backers.”
(Oakland Tribune Editorial, Friday, July 19, 2013)
We suspect, after review of public records and past practices, another Piedmont City Council majority’s violation of the heart of the Brown Act. “A majority of the members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting authorized by this chapter, use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.” (Gov. Code Sec. 54952.2(b)(1))
The Council majority met at least 3 times with PRFO. Council members discussed, coordinated and then negotiated. The only possible closed sessions were without subject matter information to the public or required Brown Act notice. But for information pried loose by Tim Rood, the public has been locked in the dark about the PRFO $200,000+ bad debt.
The City-PRFO agreement requires PRFO to pay City project costs and an $118,000 security deposit, and authorized termination of City participation if the deposit ceased covering City costs. Ineptly or intentionally, City leadership spent beyond the deposit without requiring its replenishment and then inexcusably has sat on the arrearage for over a year.
City leadership has taken pains to avoid admitting negotiations occurred, pretending the meetings were merely “constituents … discussing issues with their elected officials” (Grote’s July 5 letter to Tim Rood).
Call it pork, or call it ham, City emails show both negotiations and most elements of a Gov. Sec. 54952.2(b)(1) violation: discussion of negotiating strategy among Council members and the City Administrator; involvement of PRFO’s President Menke, PRFO’s General Council Havian and Ellis, PRFO’s Chair-Fund Raising Committee; City Council subject matter jurisdiction — PRFO’s bad debt.
It is highly unusual for a public agency’s majority to be negotiating, especially without its lawyer when the other party’s (PRFO’s) lawyer is always present. This raises a strong potential for Brown Act violations. Were the negotiations for a public relations campaign to cover an already-made Council majority decision for non-payment?
Shrouded in darkness, the negotiating Council majority’s support of the City-PRFO partnership and marching banner –“Say Yes to the Gift! No Taypayer cost!”– has become a civic monument to deception and poor planning. It has cost taxpayers many $100,000s and become one of most divisive events in Piedmont history.
Before the 2012 sewer surtax election we confronted the Council with uncontroverted City records: a 3-member Council majority (Barbieri, Chiang and Weiler), in violation of Sec. 54952(b)(1), and with the City Administrator as intermediary, privately prepared and approved rebuttal ballot arguments to the surtax opposition. We suspect an illegal pattern and practice by a Council majority, now with a different majority, but with the same City Administrator intermediary.
City leadership replaced open government with back-room dealing and, when challenged, has responded with calculated obfuscation. Taxpayers risk even greater financial loss from more of this bad behavior. Replace this all too-cute tap dance around the Brown Act with a demand for immediate payment of PRFO’s bad debt and, if necessary, pursuit of legal collection.
Very Truly Yours,
Thomas D. Clark
Rick Schiller
Piedmont residents
Editors’ Note: The opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.
The Piedmont Unified School District has announced the following:
The Piedmont Unified School District will be selling a series of Measure E Seismic Safety Bonds during the week of August 5. These general obligation bonds will refinance bond anticipation notes sold by the school district in 2010. The expected principal amount of the bonds is $12 million. Residents who are interested in purchasing a portion of the bonds are invited to contact the bond underwriter using the following link:
http://share.syllc.com/xythoswfs/webui/_xy-3733067_1-t_Gy8USxBL
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.
Tired of paying for E-books? The Oakland Public Library offers those with a library card on-line download of books from their E-library. The library purchases a limited number of the E-books. A person might have to wait their turn to borrow an ebook and adhere to the seven day time limit on each use. The City of Piedmont annually pays the City of Oakland $350,471, which allows Piedmonters access to all services provided by the Oakland Public Library.
To find out more about E-books go to……http://www.oaklandlibrary.org/online-resources/e-books-and-downloadable-audiobooks
To learn more about the many other services offered by the Oakland Public Library go to: http://www.oaklandlibrary.org/online-resources/e-books-and-downloadable-audiobooks
Piedmonters can return borrowed books by placing them in the library drop box outside of Wells Fargo Bank next to the mail boxes.
Content on the PCA website by Piedmont Civic Association is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Some icons are Copyright © Yusuke Kamiyamane