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.

Vote-by-mail ballots for the June 3, 2014 election must be posted in time to be received by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters by 8:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 3.   Post marks are not relevant.

 The three cards comprising the ballots are so heavy they require postage of  91 cents.  

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.

Alan Harvey Theater:  Costs and Alternatives

With approximately two weeks left before the June 3 election on Piedmont ballot Measure H, preferences are heating up.

After the Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) approved $100,000 of Modernization Funds  for conceptual design and planning of safety and accessibility improvements of the Alan Harvey Theater (AHT), a contract was signed with Quattrocchi Kwok Architects (QKA), the selected finalist. A preliminary construction budget of $5 million was established by PUSD in 2012,  anticipating providing safety and accessibility improvements, the PUSD May 23, 2012 stated goal. The cost of the  improvements escalated to the currently proposed $14.5 million after conceptual drawings led to further improvements and expansion. (The bond issue is for $13.5 million.) Originally the AHT was included in the Seismic Safety Bond, but was removed when engineers assured PUSD that structurally it met “life safety” seismic standards.

The Yes on H campaign has garnered solid support from the school community and performing arts enthusiasts, engendering a comprehensive campaign including signage, phone calls, and glossy literature. The No on H campaign has attracted individuals concerned about the high costs of the “renovation” and the need for further evaluation prior to approving the bond measure.

Yes on H – pro:

• “All Measure H funds will stay in our community to benefit Piedmont students.”
• “State modernization funds and private donations will reduce the cost to homeowners.”
• “An independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee will ensure funds are properly spent.”

No on H – con:

• Piedmont should not go to the legal limit of  borrowing prior to evaluating District wide needs: all funds from Piedmont school bonds stay in Piedmont.
• Taxpayers will be responsible for repaying $13.5 million in bond funds plus interest.
• All bond instruments require compliance with bond issuance specifications.

As with most Bay Area communities, Piedmont property values have risen and exceed their prior economic downturn values.  New buyers of Piedmont homes have well established credit, assets or job security.  The additional amount on their property tax bill to pay for theater renovations will be minor when added to their parcel tax obligation of $10,000 to $20,000 plus per year.  The following information on tax amounts was provided by the School District:

“What impact will Measure H have on my taxes?

……the actual tax rate will not be determined until the bonds are sold. Based on current projections, and a 13-year repayment schedule, the District estimates an increase of $17 per $100,000 of assessed value in the first six years. After existing bonds are paid off in 2020-21, the estimated tax rate would be $50 per $100,000 of assessed value in the remaining seven years.”

Calculations indicate a property valued at $1 million would pay $500 per year in the final 7 years of the bond.

Long time Piedmonters, tax conscious residents, retirees, and others view the additional burden of the bonds as not reasonable or appropriate. Piedmonters currently pay over $2,400 per parcel per year for school operations alone and hundreds more for the interest and principle on existing school bonds used for prior rebuilds and renovations.  Piedmont school parcel taxes are currently the highest in the Bay Area. Opponents of Measure H want the School District’s evaluation of alternatives and priorities to occur before a bond is approved by voters.

Accessibility issues have been a primary driver of the theater renovation because of antiquated restrooms, steps prohibiting wheelchair movements, seating problems, and stage configuration limiting performers.  Those involved with the schools and theater arts have pointed out the desirability of an enhanced theater for both students and the community.

Architects differ on correcting the problems to achieve an appropriate, high-level theater renovation. Some Piedmont architects have found the plans wanting and deserving of revisions prior to approval of the bond measure. While others approve the plans as presented to the School Board.

Vote by or on Tuesday, June 3. Remind your friends and neighbors to vote.

Most Piedmonters will vote by absentee ballot.  Ballots must be received by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters or your local polling place no later than 8 p.m., June 3, 2014. Post marks are not sufficient.  Postage has increased to $.91 to mail your ballot.

Click for more information on where and how to vote.

Read more from advocates on both sides of Measure H:

Theater usage by “Yes on H”

Improvements by “Yes on H”

Understanding accessibility by “Yes on H”

Why No by “No on H”

Renovation cost by “No on H”

Accessibility requirements by “No on H”

Editors’ Note:  The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office.  Comments are welcomed below.  

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. 

– Should a nonprofit organization endorsing and participating in a ballot measure campaign be allowed to use taxpayer funded public facilities and resources to disseminate information at an “impartial” forum? –

New legislation approved October 12, 2013, prohibits campaigning nonprofit organizations from using public resources and facilities.   Sections 54964.5 and 54964.6 went into effect on January 1, 2014:

This bill would prohibit a nonprofit organization or an officer, employee, or agent of a nonprofit organization from using, or permitting another to use public resources received from a local agency for campaign activity, as defined, and not authorized by law. This bill would define, among other terms, “public resources” to mean any property or asset owned by a local agency and funds received by a nonprofit organization which have been generated from any activities related to conduit bond financing by those entities subject to specified conduit financing and transparency and accountability provisions, and “nonprofit organization” to mean an entity incorporated under the Nonprofit Corporation Law or a nonprofit organization that qualifies for exempt status under the federal Internal Revenue Code of 1986, except as specified.

Election after election, Piedmont’s League of Women Voters (PLWV) has been allowed to use City or school facilities to conduct “forums” on ballot measures, which the League has already taken a publicized political position.  In recent years, the PLWV has not only been allowed to conduct these events in Piedmont City Hall, but also had them video-taped, recorded, and disseminated using public taxpayer funds via Piedmont’s cable station KCOM and website.

(7) “Public resources” means the following:

(A) Any property or asset owned by a local agency, including, but not limited to, cash, land, buildings, facilities, funds, equipment, supplies, telephones, computers, vehicles, travel, and local government compensated work time that is provided to a nonprofit organization, except funds received in exchange for consideration for goods or services.

The League considers itself to be nonpartisan because it is not affiliated with a particular political party or candidate. However, the League is partisan in its support of numerous City, County and State ballot measures.  As members know, their Piedmont League of Women Voters membership dues are not tax deductible because of the League’s political advocacy, actions and positions for and against ballot measures and legislation. Read current League of  Women Voters “Take Action” instructions.

On April 7, the Piedmont League of Women Voters Board of Directors held a private debate in the home of their president and new Piedmont resident Hope Salzer on the pros and cons of the Alan Harvey Theater School Bond, Measure H.

“Measure H is a Piedmont Unified School District bond measure. It seeks voter approval to authorize the District to issue and sell bonds of up to $13,500,000 to finance modernization of the Alan Harvey Theater at Piedmont High School. To pass, the measure must be approved by 55% of the voters.”

Unknown to the majority of approximately 150 Piedmont League members and the public, the Board undertook a controlled debate on Measure H.  Invited to a portion of the meeting was a Piedmont Post reporter, who was present during the debate. No other media representatives were included.

Presentations were made to “twelve” board members on the pros and cons of the measure.  The League Board was joined at the “debate” by League member and Board of Education Vice President Andrea Swenson, who is supportive of Measure H although not currently a League Board member.  Swenson responded to questions after the debate, but, according to reports, did not vote.

The League Board is entitled to make endorsements without general membership approval, notification, knowledge or participation. Only current Board members are allowed to vote on endorsements.  The Board members’ votes were made in private and have not been disclosed publicly, but according to the Post report, support for Measure H was not unanimous, however endorsement of Measure H by the League was won.

The League’s endorsement of Measure H is considered a campaign activity making the League a partisan nonprofit organization prohibited from using public facilities.

An exception in the legislation for the use of public resources is made for the presentation of impartial information.

“(c) This section does not prohibit the use of public resources for providing information to the public about the possible effects of any ballot measure on the activities, operations, or policies of the state or a local agency, provided that the informational activities meet both of the following conditions:

(1) The informational activities are not otherwise prohibited by the California Constitution or the laws of this state.

1. The information provided constitutes an accurate, fair, and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an informed judgment regarding the ballot measure.”

Significantly, the Piedmont League’s public notice of their May 1 forum in City Hall acknowledges League support of Measure AA, a Healthcare Safety Net, while making no mention of the Piedmont League of Women Voter’s support and endorsement of Measure H.

In the past, the League has attempted to hide their campaign endorsements prior to and during forums.  Yet currently, the public has been notified in a local newspaper of the League’s ballot measure support position revealing  the League’s partiality. 

The League states it will hold a “completely neutral” forum “so that citizens can hear arguments for and against” their supported ballot measures.  The forum is to be recorded, broadcast, rerun, and held at taxpayers expense. 

The previous privately held debate on the local tax measure by the League Board of Directors is in contrast to Piedmont League public forums.  The private debate allowed presentations both pro and con followed by unscreened questions. Providing an opportunity for impartiality at the public forums, audience members who have a question must submit their questions in writing or by text message to a League committee to be screened privately prior to a question being asked of presenters.  Not all questions are publicly asked.

The League has taken a political position and is involved in current election campaigns raising the question of compliance with the new definitions and requirements in California law.  Voters and City officials know the League’s political positions on ballot Measure H and now Measure AA.

Does the May 1 forum meet legal requirements?

Can a nonprofit organization supporting ballot measure campaigns use public resources for a political forum?  

Would the City permit any nonprofit organization’s use of City taxpayer resources, if the organization was opposed to a City supported tax measure, even if the organization promised impartiality? 

Editors’ Note:  The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office.  The article above is not intended as opposition to Measure H.  

In springtime, a School Board’s fancy turns to thoughts of next year’s budget…

Here in Piedmont, a significant piece of that budget is funded by our local “School Support Tax.” The current version of that tax is the Measure A parcel tax approved last spring by 76% of Piedmont voters.  In response to court decisions, this tax was converted from its traditional graduated structure to a flat tax that has been $2,406 per parcel in 2013-14.  Measure A authorizes the School Board to increase the tax by up to 2% per year (lower than the 5% annual cap in earlier parcel taxes).  It also provides for an independent citizen oversight and advisory group — presently an independent Support Tax Subcommittee of the District’s Budget Advisory Committee, which replaced an earlier Citizens’ Advisory Committee.  I serve on the current Subcommittee, and served on the earlier Committee as well.

At last week’s School Board meeting, I presented this year’s Support Tax Subcommittee report (approved unanimously by our members, who also included Peter Freeman and Amal Smith).  We recommended that the District:

(1)   levy Measure A taxes at their maximum level in 2014-2015, including the maximum permissible increase of 2%;

(2)   deposit the $188,160 increase in a parcel tax reserve account, and spent as necessary during the life of Measure A (through 2020-2021).

If accepted, these changes would increase total Measure A revenues from this year’s$9,408,025 to $9,596,185.  For each individual property owner, that would mean an increase of $48, from $2,406 to $2,454.

Our Subcommittee report notes that state revenue support for local schools is improving (for the first time in years), but still below levels before the Great Recession.  We also note that the current discussion in Sacramento calls for funding increases — but that state revenues themselves are subject to big swings:  Prop 30 tax surcharges expire in 4 and 7 years, before the end of local Measure A’s 8 year term; and state personal income taxes are at a high point this year, because of IPOs by Facebook and other companies.  It seemed to us that the District can’t afford to take Sacramento’s hints of growing support at face value, and needs to continue to work its way out of deficit spending, and to rebuild its reserves.  Our full report is available online atwww.piedmont.k12.ca.us/aboutpusd/agenda.minutes/2-12-14-packet.pdf (in pages 10-14 of the Board meeting agenda packet), and my presentation is on KCOM.

The School Board will consider our report over the next several months while it prepares its parcel tax levy decision and budget for 2014-15.  I hope PCA’s readers will consider these questions, and develop and submit their own views.  While you’re doing so, you should also consider City parcel taxes, and property taxes associated local bond measures (including the pending vote on bonds to modernize the Alan Harvey Theater at Piedmont High School).

Jon Elliott, Member School Support Tax Subcommittee

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

The Piedmont Unified School District has announced a Special Meeting of the Board of Education to swear in the new members of the Board. Amal Smith and Doug Ireland will take the places of retiring Board members Ray Gadbois and Roy Tolles, both of whom have served two terms for a total of 8 years each.

The meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 26 in the School District offices, 760 Magnolia Avenue, at 4 p.m. and last until approximately 4:30 p.m.   The meeting is open to the public.  Due to the location of the meeting, broadcasting is not expected.

A reorganization of the Board will also occur at the meeting. 

Pursuant to Education Code Section 35143, in a year in which a regular election for governing board members is conducted, the meeting shall be held on a day within a 15-day period that commences with the date upon which a governing board member elected at that election takes office. The Board will now take action to elect the Board President, Vice President and Secretary to the Board for the period of February 26, 2014 through July 2014.

Read the agenda. 

–  Voter approved school parcel tax requires a tax review committee to evaluate annual school needs for the tax. All meetings of the committee are currently held outside of public view. – 

When Piedmont taxpayers voted to approve the annual parcel tax of $2,406, the ballot measure called for a property owner committee composed of three members to annually review the School District’s need for levying the parcel tax and the level of the tax prior to School District action to impose the tax.
Questions prior to the election concerned whether the appointed  committee would be independent in its evaluation of School District fiscal matters.

Implementation of the approved school parcel tax requires a subcommittee of the Budget Advisory Committee (BAC), an amorphous group of individuals composed of teachers, community members, school administrators, and typically a member of the Board of Education.  The Tax Review Subcommittee (TRS), a subcommittee of the much larger BAC, does not open their meetings to the public.  The currently selected subcommittee  members are John Elliott, Peter Freeman, and School Board Member elect Amal Smith.

Jon Elliott, representing the Subcommittee (TRS), noted at the February 12, 2014 School Board meeting, that the structure of the tax reviewing committee avoids the Brown Act. The meetings are not broadcast or recorded, no agendas are created for public review and meetings of the Subcommittee are not open to the public.  Elliott, who had been concerned about the independence of the review committee prior to approval of the parcel tax, voiced his current approval of the process noting his participation on the Subcommittee.

Referring to the Tax Review Subcommittee (TRS),  Superintendent Constance Hubbard stated the School District was relieved of producing agendas, scheduling public meetings and complying with Brown Act deadlines because the TRS is a subcommittee of the Budget Advisory Committee.

The Subcommittee’s recent extensive report recommended levying the full $2,406 per parcel plus an increase of 2% for the 2014-15 tax period.  The report also notes an action to confirm the prior  year’s tax levy. The following are excerpts from the report:

The School Support Tax Advisory Subcommittee recommends that the District levy the Measure A School Support Tax (Parcel Tax) at its maximum level in 2014-15, including assessment of the maximum two percent (2%) increase above the rate in 2013-14. This amounts to $9,408,025 (2013-14 amount) million plus $188,160 (2%) for a total of $9,596,185. Based on the latest available budget projections — including indications that state funding will improve significantly for at least this next year — the Subcommittee recommends that the $188,160 raised by the 2% increase be directed to a parcel tax reserve account to be available during subsequent years during the term of Measure A (through 2020-21). Although financial trends presently are positive, considerable uncertainties cloud these projections, and the District has drawn down its reserves in recent years close to statutory minimum levels.

Review of 2013-2014 Parcel Tax Levy

In order to levy Measure A taxes in 2013-2014, the School Board was required to approve the levy before July 1, 2013. Although this Subcommittee was not formed until October 2013, we reviewed 2013-14 budgeting, revenue and expenditure documentation from the District. The District adopted a budget assuming $31,733,656 in revenue from all sources (including $9,408,025 from Measure A and $1,550,000 in community contributions), and expenditures of $32,630,183, for a deficit of $896,527. This budget continues to include cost- containment and program preservation priorities. As of the First Interim report in December 2013, actual revenues and expenditures are close to these adopted amounts. After this review, the Subcommittee confirms the appropriateness of the Measure A levy for 2013-14.

Read the full report of the Tax Review Subcommittee found on page 10 of the February 12, 2014 School Board agenda packet.  

Article updated February 23, 2014.  Changes are noted in blue lettering.