The City has enough money to pay for sewers.

I listened with interest to the Piedmont City Council’s discussion on financing future sewer projects at its May 19^th meeting.  In response to the Council’s request for community input, I have the following comments:

The Council should explain why voters were asked to pass an $11 million tax for sewer repairs a little over two years ago, and after that measure failed, are now considering a $1.2 million tax measure to complete the very same work.  This is a significant issue and needs to be addressed, particularly if the Council chooses to place a tax on the November ballot.

The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee’s recommendation is that the Sewer Fund needs a one-time infusion of cash of at least $1,000,000 over the next 3 years to maintain a prudent Sewer Fund balance.  The Fund would then have the seed money to proceed with replacing all the remaining substandard sewer lines during the next 20 years.  In my judgment, the Council should fund this request out of current general fund revenues. Instead, the Council is considering seeking passage of a tax measure which would increase most homeowners’ property taxes from $120 to $150 a year for 3 years or by adding a surcharge to the already steep real estate transfer tax.

The City has an annual general fund budget of approximately $22 million.  Allocating two percent a year to this project for three years would produce over $1.3 million.  As of June 30, 2013, the City had over $10 million in reserves, including over $4 million undesignated and an additional $4 million set aside for capital improvements and equipment replacement.  Why not use a portion of these funds to loan to the Sewer Fund rather than requesting an additional tax?  If reserves are inadequate, the Council should address that issue in a comprehensive way, not by this piecemeal approach.

Al Peters, Former Mayor of Piedmont

May 22, 2014

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

Good government depends upon open transparency.

We citizens must see how government actions are decided in order to keep our public servants accountable.  This requires public access to the same information that government agencies use to conduct their duties, with delimited exceptions to protect our common security and individual privacy.  This is all spelled out in the California Public Records Act (sections 6250-6270 of the Government Code).

Nevertheless, last June, some politicians tried to make the Public Records Act (PRA) optional, which would have blocked our access to our governments’ records.   Fortunately that scheme was busted, busted by an open and alert press.

To prevent similar schemes in the future, Proposition 42 is on the ballot.  It assures that public records and open meetings are not closed to the public on the excuse that Sacramento hasn’t reimbursed local governments for the cost of complying with the PRA.  It is perfectly reasonable that each governmental agency’s response to public record requests be a normal cost of doing business.

Do vote YES on Prop. 42.

More information at:
http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/facs-guide-to-prop-42-the-publics-right-to-know-act/

Bruce Joffe, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office.  Comments are welcomed below. 

Former Council Member Garrett Keating comments on the City Council’s May 19 consideration of funding for sewers, maintaining recreational facilities, employee health benefits, the Budget and General Fund Reserves.

Sewers:

Council chose not to go forward with the “no tax”option and will likely choose one of the two tax options at the next Council meeting, June 2.

 The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) had no issues with the no tax option, so it is odd that Council felt there was some risk associated with it.   Other reasons were offered to accelerate the replacement program by adopting a tax rather than draw from the General Fund.  Environmental stewardship?

Sewer emergencies are declining and honestly, those concerned with Bay water quality would do better to contribute to the repair programs of other cities that are far greater polluters than Piedmont.

Maintain recreational facilities?  The biggest recreational need for Piedmont is field space and hours of use, not maintenance, but there are no proposals for that before City Council.

Increased contributions for retiree health benefits? A definite problem for the city.   Staff suggested Council would not address this need until 2021.

The Sewer Fund only needs $1M within the next 3 years, after which it is quite stable and an accelerated replacement program can likely be achieved. Piedmont has historically maintained high reserves, 20% of the General Fund. The current reserve for 2014-2015 is estimated at 21.5% and this would decline to 15% with the $1M loan from the General Fund.

The General Fund dropped $1M between 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 with virtually no impact on city services and $2M was found in city accounts to address undergrounding over-runs. There are more than adequate reserves to address this short-term loan. And Council could lower that need even more when year end transfer tax receipts come in. Transfer tax receipts are headed for $3.4M and Council has budgeted for $2.8. That $0.4 – 0.6 excess could be transferred to the Sewer Fund and offset a loan from the General Fund. That excess will manage to find its way into city balance sheets, no doubt, but Council could help that “15%” by using it to reduce this new tax.

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

Prior PCA article.

       I agree with Mr. Keating in urging both the City Council and School Board to support a Charter amendment to move the council and school board elections to November of the even years. As mentioned in the staff report, this will save more than $70,000 in public funds compared to the February special election where turnout is typically much lower than November. The February 2014 turnout (even with contested Piedmont campaigns) was just 36% and while the Clerk could confirm this figure, I expect that the typical November turnout is significantly higher than 60%.

         Please see the attached resolution and impartial analysis from 2008’s Measure C which moved the election to February in the first place. As noted in the highlighted portion, this was done to reduce costs and increase turnout, both of which would be accomplished by canceling the future February elections and consolidating with November.

              The “disadvantages” to a November election listed in the staff report are honestly quite weak from a public policy perspective (Is it really worth $70K+ a year to appear on the front side of the ballot card? Voters are smart enough to turn their ballots over). None of these factors outweigh the combination of lower cost and higher turnout that would come with a November election.

         Thank you,

                     Barry Barnes, Piedmont Resident

Prior Council Resolution changing election date 

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

The following letter was sent to PCA:

As an actively involved member of the community for the past 24 years, I am dismayed at the tactics employed by the opponents of remodeling Piedmont High’s Alan Harvey Theater.

A small band of Measure H opponents has brought public discourse in Piedmont to a new low.

This group’s latest salvo is to misappropriate a quotation by a school board member – who is in fact a strong proponent of the measure – and, taking her words out of context, they have used the attributed quotation on their “No on Measure H” printed materials and website.  This tactic has the effect of suggesting that the school board member in question opposes Measure H, when in fact the opposite is true.  These Measure H opponents have also ignored the school board member’s request that her quotation and name not be used in their material.  Further, the graphic this group is using on their printed materials, website and in an email campaign is crude and offensive.  These folks seem desperate.

Piedmonters, please do not allow yourselves to be manipulated.  Vote FOR Measure H.  Piedmont’s arts are the centerpiece of a public education of which we can all be proud.  That education ensures your property values remain strong.  The aging theater needs to be renovated – both because it is in tatters (the stuffing and springs are popping out of the front row seats!), and because disabled folks cannot reach the seats or use the bathrooms.  If you don’t believe me, check it out yourselves.

But whatever you do, vote YES on Measure H.

Sincerely,

Anne-Marie Lamarche, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office.  Comments are welcomed below. 

The following opinion was sent to PCA:

Dear Editor:

Measure H is a critically important local measure to repair and renovate our 40 year old Piedmont High School theater.

I am deeply dismayed by the recent advertisements and flyers from certain opponents of Measure H. While people may have differing opinions regarding the measure, deliberate dissemination of false information is unacceptable.

School Board Vice President Andrea Swenson is being quoted in the opponent’s political campaign communications and made to appear an opponent of the measure. She is not. She has asked for her quote and name to be removed from the opposition material.  As of May 15th, this has not been done.

Whenever any one has asked to use my name for any reason, they have asked my permission. Any citizen of Piedmont would expect the same.

As a former elected official and long-standing member of our community, I find it sad that the opposition is playing politics to defeat Measure H. We don’t need mean spirited campaigns in Piedmont.

As a community, we deserve better.

Sincerely,

Sue Smegal, Former School Board Member and Middle School Teacher

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office.  Comments are welcomed below. 

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.

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.

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.