At the June 2 City Council meeting, the Council is expected to place on the November 2014 ballot a City Charter change to require Piedmont’s General Election to be concurrent with the State’s General Election in November of even number years and also to change School Board reorganization dates.

A question on the proposed Charter language has arisen.

The questionable language was added to facilitate the extension of terms, but possibly could have other implications. The language states:

“They shall hold office for four (4) years or until their successor is sworn into office.”

There is the possibility that an elected candidate, prior to being sworn into office, could not serve because of death, disqualification or withdrawal. The proposed language could extend the term of a termed-out Councilmember until a successor is chosen. If there is more than one termed-out Councilmember, which one would remain on the Council “until a successor is sworn into office?”  

The language “or until their successor is sworn into office” appears to presume there is a designated seat for each elected member of the Council. In Piedmont, individuals on the Council are elected at-large by all voters.  There are no designated seats to be filled “until their successor is sworn into office.”

Current office holders on the Council and School Board will have their terms extended from March to November of their term, an approximate 8 month extension.

The changes are being made to gain greater participation in Piedmont elections, remedy School Board reorganization dates, and reduce the cost of Piedmont elections.

Read the staff report and proposed language. 

It’s not too late to sign up!  

Alameda County is in need of poll workers for next week’s election.   Workers are paid for their service and bilingual workers get an additional stipend.  Please see the link below for more information:

http://www.acgov.org/rov/workers.htm

Those with questions may contact Amy Shrago, Health & Legislative Policy Analyst, in the office of Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson, at 510-272-6695 or Amy.Shrago@acgov.org

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.

– Extended terms of office or appointed positions? Date to choose Board officers? – 

The date for Piedmont’s election of the School Board and City Council is set by the Piedmont City Charter for the first Tuesday in February of even number years.  The City Council and School Board have been considering ways to increase voter participation and reduce costs associated with Piedmont elections. Changing the date of Piedmont elections requires changing the Charter by approval of a majority of the voters voting on the change.

In November 2012, Piedmont consolidated with the General Election for a City ballot measure. Great savings were achieved, as the cost per registered voter was $1.10. Piedmont’s current stand alone election in February 2014 cost $9.89 per registered voter.

Twelve of Alameda County’s thirteen cities hold their elections at the November General Election of even numbered year.  Piedmont is the only city with a stand alone election.

The Charter also prescribes when the reorganization of the Board’s officers occurs. The current date is out of step with the Board election by months creating a potentially awkward period for the Board.

A report to the Board prepared by Board President Rick Raushenbush and Superintendent Constance Hubbard states in part:

The City Council found that consolidating the City Charter election date for Council members and Board members with the State’s November general election date would provide the greatest cost savings and the most voter participation. Moving the election date to November would require existing Council and Board members to extend their terms to the new November election date rather than the current February election date.

If the Board supports the change of the election date, the Superintendent will work with the City Clerk to submit wording that will delineate reorganization requirements in keeping with Education Code requirements. It will also add flexibility if the Board does not need to have a meeting in July.

Term extensions for an additional period from March to December or appointments to vacancies are also mentioned in the report:

The alternative to extending the terms of current officials is that a Board Member could resign their position and the Board would go through the process outlined in Board Bylaws 9110 (4) which state, “A vacancy on the Board shall be filled by appointment by a majority vote of said Board, with the appointee holding office for the remainder of the unexpired term or until the general municipal election. If a vacancy in the Board continues for thirty days, the vacancy shall be filled by an appointment made by the President of the Board.”

If the appointed person serves more than eighteen months of an unexpired term, such person shall be considered to have served a full term.

Historically, appointments to vacant seats on elected boards or councils provide an advantage to the appointed incumbent at the upcoming election. “Self-perpetuating” is a term that has been used when elected bodies fill a vacancy with their personal choice immediately prior to an upcoming election.

At their Wednesday, May  28 meeting in the Council Chambers, the Board will be asked to give direction to the Superintendent on the following items or provide other alternatives:

(a) Change of date of election for School Board Members to November

(b) Extension of term of current members from March to November

(c) Request change in City Charter to change reorganization requirements for

Read the documents on the election date item pages 3-10 of the Board packet.

Full agenda of May 28 Board meeting.

Out of town on Tuesday, June 3?  No Vote-By-Mail ballot? Forgot to mail your ballot by May 29? There are other solutions to make your vote count.

The last date to request a Vote-By-Mail ballot is Tuesday, May 27. (Requests online, by mail, or phone 272-6973 must be received in the Registrar of Voters office no later than 7 days before an election by 5:00 p.m.)

For registered voters who will be out of town next week but haven’t received a Vote-By-Mail ballot, early voting in person the weekend before the June 3 election is an option. The Registrar of Voters Office. 1225 Fallon Street, Room G-1, will be open for early voting through Monday, June 2, including Saturday, May 31st and Sunday, June 1st from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

If you have your Vote-By-Mail ballot but you failed to post it by May 29, on the day of the election, June 3, you can deliver your ballot to your polling place.  Your vote will be counted.

Not registered to vote? The voter registration deadline was Monday, May 19. 

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. 

       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. 

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.