On Tuesday, November 4, Piedmonters voted by a margin of 94.6% to 5.3% in favor of  changing our local election calendar from February to November concurrent with the California General Election. (Only a simple majority was required to change the City Charter.)  Measure GG was put on the ballot by the Piedmont City Council.  The measure not only moves the date of the City’s election, it also changes the Piedmont Unified School District Board of Education annual election of its President and Vice President.

Piedmont poll workers reported a quiet but steady arrival of voters during the morning and early afternoon, with many simply dropping off their “Vote by Mail” ballots rather than filling out their ballots at the poll or posting them.

Voting on Highland Ave

Read about the effects of Measure GG and its full text here.

The following is an announcement from the League of Women Voters of Piedmont (LWVP):

~~~~ Deconstructing the Mid-terms ~~~~

LWVP Election Debrief

Piedmont Community Center

711 Highland Avenue 

Monday, November 17

7:00 – 9:00 p.m.

Please join the League of Women Voters of Piedmont  for a lively discussion of the mid-term election and the impact it has on our state and country.

Our guest speakers include three respected political insiders: former White House correspondent and KRON 4 reporter, Terisa Estacio; veteran political reporter and KQED senior editor, John Myers; and Josh Richman, political reporter for the Bay Area News Group.

Join us for an insightful evening of conversion and analysis.

This event is free and open to the public.

Terisa Estacio John Myers Josh Richman

Election Day is Nov. 4 !  Time to cast Vote-By-Mail ballots !

Voters who have registered for Vote-By-Mail ballots should have received their ballots by now.  Vote-By-Mail ballots must be received at the Registrar of Voters,  1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, Piedmont’s City Clerk, or a polling location no later than 8:00 p.m on Tuesday, November 4, Election Day.  Post marks are not sufficient. 

Voters may turn in Vote-By-Mail ballots to the Piedmont City Clerk’s Office, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, during regular business hours up to and including Election Day. Voters may also turn in Vote-By-Mail ballots to any polling place in Alameda County on Election Day. 

Early voting ballots are available for registered voters at the Registrar of Voters Office at 1225 Fallon Street in downtown Oakland. The office is open for early voting Monday through Friday and on Saturday, November 1st and Sunday, November 2nd from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

On Tuesday, September 23, 2014, around 8 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue, the Piedmont Unified School District School Board will review potential improvements for Piedmont High School’s Alan Harvey Theater.  The staff report states there will be:

“ Progress report on improvements supported by donor pledges
Staff will review the recommendations from the Steering Committee as to the priority projects in progress to maintain use of AHT.

 First of many opportunities for community input as to next steps
Community will have an opportunity (one of many) to provide feedback to the Board as to next steps. No Prop 39 bond measure may be brought for consideration in odd-numbered years. Therefore, 2016 is the first year a bond could be considered.”

Read the staff report pages 15 and 16.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some questions arose when voters recently* defeated the $13 to $15 million parcel tax measure for bonds to upgrade the Alan Harvey Theater:

1.  What is the total amount of existing Piedmont school bond obligations?

2.  Frequently, the School District mentions a State limitation on the amount school districts can borrow.  What is this limit for Piedmont and does it change annually as property values appreciate?

3.  Is the State limitation on Piedmont School District borrowing impacted by existing non-school (City, County, special districts) bond obligations?

4.  Why does an auditorium renovation cost $15 million when we were able to build an entire school (Havens) for $24 million?

5.  What will the total long and short term cost of borrowing $15 million dollars be?

6.  Some of the finest theaters in Europe use wooden seating for sound enhancement.  Since the current seating is in disrepair, has wooden seating been considered?  What other alternatives were considered?

7.  Were more modest alternatives thoroughly considered prior to the School Board decision to accept the proposed $13 – $15 million renovation plan?

8.   External community groups have expressed interest in use of the theater after it is renovated.  The School District will be faced with similar maintenance issues as with playfields and other school facilities.  Since the District, by State law, cannot charge users to maintain the facilities, what funding source will the District use to maintain the enhanced and larger theater plus new classrooms?

9.   Shouldn’t the seating capacity be increased rather than decreased?

10. Might there be an opportunity for the School District to obtain outside funding for the proposals?

11.  When designing the proposal, was thought given to increased community participation by architects, performers, and interested residents ?

12.  How could accessibility issues be addressed in a more cost-effective manner?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The School Board meeting is open to the public.  It will be broadcast on Channel 27 and live streamed from the Piedmont website.  Recordings and minutes will be available following the meeting.

* In June 2014 Measure H was defeated with 1683 (52.40%) voting “No” and 1529 (47.60%) voting “Yes”.

Piedmont’s much belabored efforts and those by other public entities to meet legal obligations to reduce sewage inflow and spills into San Francisco Bay has resulted in a settlement agreement.  

Weeks prior to the settlement, the City Council had considered whether or not to place an additional tax before the voters for approximately $1 million derived from an increased Real Property Transfer Tax. When the Council learned of significant unexpected funds garnered from existing Real Property Transfer Taxes, they decided it was not appropriate to ask voters for more money.

The EPA law suit and overstated sewer costs were used as the impetus to ask Piedmont voters to increase taxes in 2012.

 In February 2012, the City Council asked Piedmont voters to double their already high sewer property tax to gain $11 million to increase the  Sewer Fund.  When citizens calculated the City’s sewer cost numbers and discovered large overstatement of costs through miscalculations and unsubstantiated EPA threats, Piedmont voters rejected the heavily endorsed 2012 Sewer Tax Measure.

Questions remain on the large differential from $11 million to the now $1 million to accomplish the same amount of sewer replacement work.  The city has recently stated costs were miscalculated.

Sewer Fund expenditure records were previously not kept in a manner to verify proper use of the Fund.

The City now states that the current funds generated by the ongoing Sewer Tax will allow rehabilitation to proceed in a timely and cost-effective manner without additional tax revenues.  

There have been no statements by the City on the long term impact of sewer rehabilitation on the sewer tax amount.  Will the sewer tax be reduced once sewer lines are updated and operating properly? 

The consent decree imposes civil penalties on EBMUD and seven communities totaling $1.56 million to be paid to the US EPA and the California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB). The civil penalties to be paid to the US EPA are identical to the penalties due to CWQCB except that Oakland is penalized $850,000 by US EPA and EBMUD is penalized $170,800 by US EPA and $30,800 by CWQCB.  Piedmont’s penalties are approximately $20,500 to CWQCB and the same amount to US EPA for a total penalty of approximately $41,000. 

The Council’s consideration of the Consent Decree and Piedmont’s Sewer System Management Plan revisions are on the August 4 Council meeting agenda. There are three staff reports related to Piedmont’s sewer system.

http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/2014-08-04/consentdecree.pdf

http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/2014-08-04/ssmp.pdf

8/4/14 – Consideration of a Revised Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) Pursuant to the Consent Decree and the State Sewer Audit of June 26, 2014

The  7:30 p.m. meeting in the Council Chambers will be recorded and broadcast.

– READ MORE BELOW – 

EPA press release of 7/28/2014 follows:

Historic Clean Water Act settlement will prevent millions of gallons of sewage discharges into San Francisco Bay

Seven East Bay communities and municipal utility district to repair systems and pay civil penalties

SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced a Clean Water Act settlement requiring the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and seven East Bay communities to conduct extensive system repairs aimed at eliminating millions of gallons of sewage discharges into San Francisco Bay. Under today’s agreement, EBMUD and the communities will assess and upgrade their 1,500 mile-long sewer system infrastructure over a 21-year period. 

The work is expected to cost approximately $1.5 billion. The entities will pay civil penalties of $1.5 million for past sewage discharges that violated federal environmental law.

Since 2009, EPA, state and local regulators and environmental groups have worked to reduce sewage discharges from East Bay communities. During that period, interim actions required EBMUD and the East Bay communities to improve their sewer maintenance practices and gather information to identify priorities for investment. 

The San Francisco Bay covers 1,600 square miles and is the largest Pacific estuary in the Americas, a host for millions of migratory birds and a hub of commerce and recreation for more than 7 million Bay Area residents. 

Unfortunately, the Bay is under threat from many sources of pollution, including crumbling wastewater infrastructure that allows sewage to escape from the system. During rainstorms, in particular, older sewer systems can be overwhelmed, releasing rivers of sewage before being fully treated.

In addition to polluting waterways, raw and partially treated sewage can spread disease-causing organisms, metals, and nutrients that threaten public health. Sewage can also deplete oxygen in the bay, threatening fish, seals and other wildlife.

“For many years, the health of San Francisco Bay has been imperiled by ongoing pollution, including enormous discharges of raw and partially treated sewage from communities in the East Bay,” said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “Many of these discharges are the result of aging, deteriorated sewer infrastructure that will be fixed under the EPA order.”

Today’s settlement is the result of a Clean Water Act enforcement action brought by the EPA, U.S. Department of Justice, State Water Resources Control Board, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board, San Francisco Baykeeper and Our Children’s Earth Foundation.

“This settlement will result in major reductions of sewage discharges into the San Francisco Bay,” said W. Benjamin Fisherow, Chief of Environmental Enforcement in the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “These improvements will help reach our goal of eliminating pollution in the neighborhoods in these cities and in the Bay so that citizens may rest assured that they reside in a safe, clean environment.” 

The seven East Bay communities in the EBMUD settlement are:

City of Alameda
City of Albany
City of Berkeley
City of Emeryville
City of Oakland
City of Piedmont
Stege Sanitary District (serving El Cerrito, Kensington, and a portion of Richmond) 

“The public has been required to repair their own sewer laterals for over two years now, so it is past time that the local agencies aggressively repair their sewer systems,” said Bruce Wolfe, Executive Officer of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board. “This settlement spells out how the agencies will work with the public over the next 21 years to do just that and protect the Bay.”

“Baykeeper will be watching the progress of these repairs closely to ensure that pollution of San Francisco Bay is reduced and eventually eliminated, and we will take action if the repairs fall short,” said Baykeeper Executive Director Deb Self. 

On an annual basis, hundreds of millions of gallons of raw and partially treated sewage are discharged directly to San Francisco Bay. Also, as much as 600,000 gallons of raw sewage from community sewer systems is first discharged onto streets and other public areas—through outlets such as manhole covers—before it drains to the Bay.

As part of the agreement, EBMUD and the seven communities will:

repair and rehabilitate old and cracked sewer pipes;
regularly clean and inspect sewer pipes to prevent overflows of raw sewage; 
identify and eliminate illegal sewer connections;
continue to enforce private sewer lateral ordinances; and
ensure proactive renewal of existing sanitary sewer infrastructure.

EBMUD will also immediately begin work to offset the environmental harm caused by the sewage discharges, which are expected to continue until these sewer upgrades are completed, by capturing and treating urban runoff and contaminated water that currently flows to the Bay untreated during dry weather.

Keeping raw sewage and contaminated storm water out of the waters of the United States is one of EPA’s National Enforcement Initiatives.

The proposed settlement is subject to a 30-day public comment period and final court approval. 

Read the settlement at: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html

Learn more about the settlement and earlier EPA wastewater enforcement in the East Bay at:http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/npdes/compliance.html#ebmud 

EPA is working to restore San Francisco Bay, learn more at: http://epa.gov/sfbay-delta 

Learn more about EPA’s national wastewater enforcement initiative at: http://go.usa.gov/5pak

Contact Information: Suzanne Skadowski, 415-972-3165 (d) / 415-265-2863 (c), skadowski.suzanne@epa.gov

Excerpts from the decree follow:

“11. No later than 30 Days after the Effective Date of this Consent Decree, each Defendant identified below shall pay to the Water Boards the sum appearing next to its name, as a civil penalty, together with interest accruing from the date on which the Consent Decree is lodged with the Court, at the rate specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1961 as of the date of lodging:

City of Piedmont $20,519 “

Following is Piedmont’s  July 29 press release:

“City and EPA Agree to Consent Decree Regarding Sewer Suit

The following letter was sent to the Piedmont Unified School District Superintendent by a Piedmont resident involved in the Measure H discussion:

I reviewed the results of the analysis done by the structural engineer on Havens posted on page 19 of the web document at http://pusdbond.org/documents/Havens_Final_Report.pdf. I note the report of the engineer on the danger of collapse for two classrooms: “The most seriously deficient structural elements are the rod bracing located on both sides of the corridor of each classroom wing. These are greatly over stressed and would very likely fail in a major earthquake, leaving the classroom wings vulnerable to collapse.”

The calculations themselves are not included in the report, but the word of a professional structural engineer is good enough for me. In the end it is a matter of judgment made by people with experience as clearly stated in the professional literature. As an example, refer to the Purdue University article: ‘ASCE-31 and ASCE-41: What Good Are They?’ at http://tinyurl.com/nhtanmm – “The Universal building code uses an R factor as a demand reduction coefficient (divisor, ranging from 2.2 to 8.5) and the new ASCE-31 uses an m factor (ranging from 1.2 to 12) as as capacity increase coefficient (multiplier). These factors are rather arbitrary and the civil engineer selects them based on guidelines and experience.”

In the heat of the Measure H campaign, I somewhat overreacted in my response to your “opinion” published in the Piedmont Civic (http://www.piedmontcivic.org/2014/05/29/opinion-havens-faced-a-catastrophe/), and I can understand your reaction to the E Boyer satire, given your responsibility toward parents as a superintendent. So I offer you my apologies. But I do think that E Boyer has a point: Why sell a project on fear? Why use a alumnus withLou Gehrig’sdisease as the poster student for a campaign?

My disappointment with the Piedmont Parents leadership is their use of mainly negative arguments to justify projects rather than first focusing on the incremental educational value that a given project brings to our students. In the future, given the age of the High School, any building can be found not to be up to code and therefore be the basis for some group’s narrow agenda. The community should be sold on “hope” rather than “fear”, on clearly stated and measurable incremental educational value rather than playing with parents emotions.

Bernard Pech, Piedmont Resident

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

On June 24, 2014, at a Special Meeting, the Council voted to direct staff to cease action to place the sewer tax surcharge on the November 2014 ballot.  With a large surge in Real Property Transfer Tax revenue, the windfall of money produces sufficient funds to cover the cost of an expedited rehabilitation of Piedmont’s sanitary sewer system. 

Council members Teddy King, Bob McBain and Tim Rood addressed potential lack of voter support, use of available funds, and advice of the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee.  Mayor Margaret Fujioka joined the majority with her vote. Vice Mayor Jeff Wieler advocated the tax should continue to be pursued to build up City reserves, and he did not support the motion to cease action on the sewer tax surcharge.

Council might back off of a tax measure for new money to fix sewers.

Recent information from Alameda County  shows an unprecedented increase in the Real Property Transfer Tax flowing into Piedmont’s budget causing the City Administrator and Council to take another look at placing a sewer tax measure on the November 2014 ballot.  The City has been considering a ballot measure to generate new money derived from an increase in the tax on real estate transfers. For cost effectiveness and water quality, the City seeks to expedite the 30% remaining of the sanitary sewer rehabilitation  program.

The matter will be considered at a Special Meeting of the City Council in the Council Chambers on Tuesday, June 24 starting at 7:30 p.m. The meeting, open to the public, will be broadcast on KCOM Channel 27 and available live streamed from the City’s website.

“At the June 2nd meeting, the staff report for the first public hearing on the 2014-15 Budget included an update to Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT) receipts. Based on the information provided by Alameda County through May 15, 2014, the City was estimated to receive
approximately $2.95 million and on pace to have a record year. At that time, staff continued to propose that funds in excess of budgeted amounts be allocated for unfunded retiree medical liabilities, facilities maintenance, and equipment replacement.

Based upon receipt of new data provided by the Alameda County Assessor’s Office, FY 2013-14 will be unprecedented, with RPTT receipts through June 9th at $3.78 million. This is largely due
to an historic total of approximately $972,000 for the month of May. The total for May is only $43,000 less than what the City received for April through June combined for Fiscal Year 2012-13. The previous record for a single month of transfer tax was June 2006, with receipts of $694,840.”

City Administrator Paul Benoit’s Report to the Council

The voter approved Sewer Fund originally was intended to rebuild and maintain Piedmont’s sanitary sewer system, however it was soon changed to include the City’s storm drain system. Both systems are recognized as important to protecting waterways from damaging effluent.

Historically, the City has used excess General Funds for purposes other than sewers: beautification projects, recreation facilities, employee compensation,  $2.5 million for private undergrounding problems, etc.

The City Council offered a 2011 ballot measure to complete the remaining 30% of the aged sanitary sewers. The tax proposed would have essentially doubled property owners ‘ Sewer Fund Taxes from $471 to $849  and $707 to $1,274 depending on lot size. Piedmont voters rejected the tax increase when they learned of errors in the City’s cost estimates and incorrect statements on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements.  Supporters of the sewer tax were undeterred by the new information and continued to support the sewer ballot measure that would have provided the City with new funds of approximately $11 million.

In a recent turn around on how much money was needed to accomplish EPA requirements, the City reduced the needed amount from approximately $11 million to approximately $1 million. City explanations of the dramatic change in needed funds to complete the sewer rehabilitation included overstated and incorrect calculations.

For years records were not kept by the Public Works Department on specific work hours or various projects charged to the Sewer Fund.  Council members did not have information on the actual work charged the Sewer Fund.

A priority list weighing various uses, including sewers, with available City funds has not been produced by the Council.

Former Mayor Al Peters stated in an opinion:

“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.”

As the City looks for new money for sewers, it places other projects ahead of sewers.

Capital Improve Project (CIP) funds are generally used for special projects. There is no information indicating the City  prioritizes projects based on unavoidable expenses such as the completion of EPA required sewer work.

Although CIP funds and General Funds can be used for sewers, it is unknown if CIP allocations for sewer projects will be considered by the City Council.  As of this writing, the significant infusion of funds supplied by the Real Estate Transfer Tax changes the budget numbers. Without a new sewer tax, it appears special projects could be implemented and the Sewer Fund could be provided with the funds necessary for renovation of the remaining sanitary sewers in a cost effective, expeditious manner.

To read detailed analysis on Piedmont’s Sewer Fund, go to the left side of this page and click on “Sewer Fund”.

Read the City Administrator’s Report to the Council

– The Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s sunshine law, was strengthened by the June 3, 2014 voter approval of Proposition 42. – 

California voters in an overwhelming victory for open and transparent government approved a Constitutional amendment requiring public meetings and records to be open and available without State reimbursement of costs.

Many public entities, including the City of Piedmont, had regularly submitted claims to the State for reimbursement of costs associated with notifying the public of public meetings.  During the recent deep recession, Governor Jerry Brown suspended the State’s reimbursement of the costs. Piedmont officials agreed to continue compliance with the Brown Act; however, some jurisdictions decided not to comply when funding was terminated.

The voter approval of Proposition 42 by  2,399,314 /61.9% Yes secures and further embeds the Brown Act into the California Constitution while no longer requiring State reimbursement of costs. 

The measure requires all local governments and agencies to comply with the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) and with any subsequent changes to the acts, thus guaranteeing a person’s right to inspect public records and attend public meetings. Proposition 42 also made these laws core government responsibilities, ensuring taxpayers are not paying for items local governments have a duty to provide on their own.

The California Public Records Act (CPRA)  provides that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of state or local agencies that retain those records and that every person has a right to inspect any public record. The act also requires agencies to establish written guidelines for public access to documents and to post these guidelines at their offices.

The California Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) requires local legislative bodies to provide notice of the time and place for holding regular meetings and requires that all meetings of a legislative body be open and public. The act also permits all persons to attend any meeting of the local legislative body, unless a closed session is authorized.

The measure was sponsored in the California Legislature by State Senator Mark Leno (D-11) as Senate Constitutional Amendment 3.

http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_42,_Compliance_of_Local_Agencies_with_Public_Records_(2014)

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/california-voters-check-yes-42

School Theater Bonds Fail –

Measure H would have allowed the Piedmont Unified School District to issue school bonds valued at $13,500,000 plus interest for remodeling and improving Piedmont High School’s Alan Harvey Theater.   New classrooms, refurbished seating, accessibility, and other improvements were the basis of the plan.

Concern had been expressed over the reduction in seating capacity and inefficient use of taxpayer money. Opponents argued for an improved plan, use of resources on academic subjects including science, technology, and math, and increased community input into the design.  Others warned against borrowing the maximum amount allowed under State law, as Piedmont was already heavily in debt for school bonds.

At 8:06 p.m. election night, June 3, with only absentee votes counted, the results were:

NO = 745    50.13%

YES = 741   49.87%

“So goes the absentee vote, so goes the election,” has been a tradition in Piedmont for decades. The end results proved the old saying to be true.

Although the final vote count will not be certified for days, with all Piedmont precincts counted the unofficial results as of 11:09 p.m., June 3, were:

NO = 1317    51.41%

YES = 1245   48.59% 

School bonds require 55% voter approval by those voting on the measure.

Mail in ballots left at polling places will be added to the count.  These are not expected to change the results.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As of June 7, the updated unofficial final results were:

NO = 1683    52.40%

YES = 1529    47.60%