What is fact?   What is fiction?  –  

Without a commonly shared base of information on Piedmont’s sewer requirements, community discussion becomes difficult and informed decisions cannot be made by voters or Council members.  In the interest of creating a shared factual basis within the community on sewer issues, excerpts from the Piedmont Post article of February 15, 2012 are followed by facts.

_________

1. Intended Purpose of the Sewer Surcharge?
2. The EPA Mandate
3. The Vactor Truck Required – Yes or No?
4. Enough Money to do Mains Replacement:  Now or Future
5. Sewer Work Halted?
6. Budget Authority:  First Yes, Then No
7. Sewer Mains Remaining:  33% or 40%?
8. Possible EPA Waivers?
9. MTRC Sewer Recommendation – Why Not Unanimous?
10. Use of Sewer Fund Revenues
11. The History of Sewer Replacement
12. A Choice of Future Time Frames

> Click to read more…

The following open letter to the community was sent to the Piedmont Civic Association and the City Council on March 16, 2011 –

Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members:

Re: Draft Sewer Asset Management Implementation Plan (AMIP) on City Council’s April 16, 2012 Meeting Agenda

This letter contains my detailed written comments on the City Council Agenda Report and attached AMIP for the Council’s Monday, April 16, 2012 meeting. (City Council Agenda Report from Chester Nakahara, Public Works Director, “Subject: Review an advanced copy of City’s Sewer Asset Management Implementation Plan prepared in response to the EPA [sic] Stipulated Order Compliance Requirement, Section XI, Subsection 73”. (The subject Stipulated Order is not, as incorrectly stated in the agenda report, an “EPA Stipulated Order”, but it is, instead, a Stipulated Order for Preliminary Relief > Click to read more…

Monday, April 16 City Council Meeting –

The City Council will consider a variety of issues on their Monday, April 16 meeting starting a 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue.

The Council will review Piedmont’s newly revised Draft Sanitary Sewer Asset Implementation Plan dated 4/16/12, which is due to be submitted to the EPA in July 2012.  It will lay out Piedmont’s plan for rehabilitating, monitoring, and reporting on the city’s sewers during the next 10 year period. It must include new reporting and monitoring requirements (at a cost of $164,000 per year). The plan does not require the replacement of all sewer mains within the ten year plan period. > Click to read more…

 Measure A Opponent Explains its Defeat –

The Measure A Sewer Surcharge Tax failed by the largest margin anyone can recall. Remarkably, no one at the City and not a single Measure A proponent has ever publicly countered the objections that led to the voters’ rejection.

> Click to read more…

Municipal Tax Review Committee Chair Proposes Review of Substantive Issues Raised During Election –

Council Members:

On behalf of the Municipal Tax Review Committee, I am writing to recommend that you call the MTRC back into session to address the issue of sewer fund financing in the wake of the Measure A failure.  The defeat of Measure A still leaves the city to face increased sewer management requirements with accompanying long term financial obligations.  Although MTRC undertook a review of these issues as part of its overall work plan last year, a significant number of substantive questions arose during the community debate over Measure A between December and the election last Tuesday.  The run-up to an election is a poor time to be answering these types of detailed challenges dealing with finance, legal mandates and multi-jurisdictional decision-making.  If the city is to have any chance at fully funding its sewer program in the next few years, it is essential that these questions get answered in a thoughtful, comprehensive way.

I am therefore proposing that you call MTRC back into session beginning around the middle of next month.  As before we would meet biweekly or twice monthly, depending on availability of the Council chamber.  Given the controversies around Measure A, I believe we should continue the practice of meeting in the chamber, with KCOM coverage, so that our analyses, discussions, deliberations and decisions are open to the whole city.  In between the meetings, a research sub-committee could work with city staff to compile all the relevant questions that have arisen or that are brought to our meetings by interested citizens, and help assemble required background materials, including planning reports, financial data and legal documents.  I think it is possible that we might also invite representatives from the regional EPA office, East Bay MUD and possibly even some of the other satellite cities so that they can share with everyone at the same time their answers to key questions about which they might have particular knowledge.

The anticipated outcome would be a comprehensive report covering the major facets of the city’s sewer management and financing needs, addressing as well the questions that have arisen in the last couple of months.  MTRC would also produce a fresh assessment of the anticipated shortfall in the current revenue stream, and make one or more recommendations as to how to cover any shortfall that is verified.  The final recommendations might include proposals concerning the existing sewer fund budget, a new proposal for a temporary surcharge (surely much less than the one the voters just turned down), or a combination of the two.  I am hopeful we could complete our work within 90 days, giving the Council a chance to consider our recommendations at the time you act on the 2012-13 budget, and also giving you sufficient lead time before the November election, if we were to recommend another ballot measure.

Before posting this message to you, I have advised the MTRC members of my intention to send in this recommendation.  No one on the committee has indicated an unwillingness to resume work on this critical subject.  On the assumption that Mr. McBain will be joining the Council next month, I assume he would not continue as a member of MTRC; the Council could decide either to continue with the remaining eight members, or to add a ninth member.  I have no preference on that matter.

The MTRC looks forward to hearing from the Council in the near future, and to developing a workable resolution to the multiple challenges of sewer system management, EPA compliance, and mains replacement.

Sincerely,

Michael Rancer
2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee Chair

Sewer Fund money is allocated to City Maintenance workers –

The full time equivalent of more than 5 maintenance employees is paid by using the Sewer Fund. (See chart below; see City sewer transfer charge detail.)   City documentation for 2010-11  indicates that the time of 4 of these employees is charged exclusively to the City sewer system.  Although not shown here, there is an additional charge made to the Sewer Fund for the compensation of administrative staff. > Click to read more…

Throughout the history of the Sewer Fund, there has been tension between spending for sewer maintenance versus spending for sewer mains replacement (rehabilitation).  (See sewer history article.)

In 2000 the sewer tax was tripled.  The increase was to comply with a Cease and Desist Order requiring the replacement of 54% of the Piedmont sewer main in 3 phases and, eventually, replace 100% in 4 additional phases if needed.  The EPA required phases I, II, and III were completed as of 2006, representing 54% of the sewer system.  Rehabilitation work then paused for a number of years. (See chart below.)   Phase IV was not completed until 2010. > Click to read more…

Cost projections replace 60% of Piedmont mains – but only 40% are left to complete –

The City has provided cost projections for Piedmont’s sewer replacement projects that show the “worst case” (maximum) spending in all 3 of the following separate categories for sewer main replacements:

• general sewer projects
  
•  EPA “set aside”
  
• Phases V, VI, and VII 

The City has offered these projections to voters to demonstrate the need for a new sewer surcharge, Measure A.  But together these worst case projections estimate the cost of replacing 60% of the City’s sewer lines over the next 10 years, while in fact the City has only 40% of its sewer mains left to replace.  > Click to read more…

Hidden Choices:  Draining the Sewer Fund to Fund General Fund Activities-

Where did the 2000 sewer tax increase go?

Replacement of Piedmont’s sewer mains has been a long-standing goal.  In 2000 the sewer tax was almost tripled to pay for mains replacement.  Where did the money go? > Click to read more…

Response to EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld’s letter in January 25 Piedmont Post – 

Editor’s Note: The following open letter to Piedmont residents was distributed to local news outlets including PCA.  The letter, written by an opponent of Measure A, the Sewer Surcharge, has been edited slightly to comply with PCA guidelines: > Click to read more…