Sep 24 2020

New Pool Can Serve All User Groups

We’ve known for 20 years or more that the beloved Piedmont pool was wearing out.

I first got involved in 2005, when my kids were small, by joining the board of the Piedmont Swim Club. The antiquated private nonprofit model, with a City-imposed restriction to Piedmont residents and cap on the number
of members, wasn’t a good fit for an obsolescent facility that needed a lot of capital investment.

Following the City takeover in 2011, a thorough and inclusive master planning process developed a practical and detailed master plan for a much larger new facility that can meet the needs of the entire Piedmont community as well as comply with current health, safety and accessibility codes.

Many different user groups use the pool – kids, families, swim lessons, teens and young adults, PHS and private swim teams, middle and high school PE class, adaptive PE, the PHS water polo teams, adult fitness swimmers, and senior water aerobics – and none of these activities can continue in Piedmont without a new aquatics facility. And because of its age and condition, continued repairs to the existing facility couldn’t address all the code issues, would likely involve unplanned closures, would not be cost-effective, and wouldn’t address the accessibility issues or the simple lack of water space for all the currently programmed activities.

The master planning process included an operational analysis by an expert aquatics consultant, which found that the new aquatic center can come close to covering its operating costs by accommodating many more users at the same time. The new aquatic center will have much more water space, including a large shallow area with zero depth entry for babies and smaller kids that’s connected to a “medium pool” area for older kids and lessons. A completely separate competitive pool with a moving bulkhead can accommodate lap swimming and team practice at the same time.

Piedmont needs to completely replace the pool, and Measure UU is the way to make that happen. Please join me in voting Yes on UU to build an aquatic center that will serve the community for another 50 years or more.

Tim Rood
City Councilmember

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Sep 21 2020

The “facts” presented by the pro UU swim people aren’t all facts.

Like so many other things in Piedmont, we continually say it’s for the kids or it’s for our property tax values. This time the facts just don’t support that notion.

The numbers I am quoting were received from the City Administrator or the Arguments for UU.

1. The bond issue is for $19,500,000, but there are no bids. That is based upon estimates from 2010-12 inflated to today. It could cost significantly more and there is no source for additional funds.

2. UU estimates the cost per home of the bond issue at $0.75 per day ($274/year). That’s based upon an assessment of under $1 million. According to Redfin, the average price of a Piedmont home last month was $2,420,000! The tax on $2 million is around $540 per year or twice what is advertised by UU.

3. The City budget already subsidizes the pool for around $250,000 per year or $65 per home.

4. Approximately 35% of the pass users are non-Piedmont residents. Non-resident passes cost $100 more (only 11%) than resident passes but they won’t pay anything towards the bond issue.

5. Of the 65% of Piedmont users there are approximately 491 household passes for the pool. That is roughly 13% of the homes in Piedmont. The pass holders are very frequent users so it appears that very few residents actually use the pool but the ones that do, use it frequently. Should everyone pay for the benefit to a very small portion of the population who are avid swimmers?

6. Water aerobics accounted for only 45 passes (families or individuals) and water polo accounted for 51 passes (families or individuals) and we don’t know how many of those are non-Piedmont residents but certainly some are non-residents. Let’s assume that swim team and swim club accounts for another 10% of usage and that it is all Piedmont residents. That makes a total of 23% usage by Piedmont families.

If the pool was used by ½ of the residents, it would make sense for it to be publicly financed, but why should 100% of the families pay for a pool that is used by less than ¼ of the residents and is used by a significant % of non-residents?

VOTE NO ON UU.

Joe Hurwich, Piedmont Resident

Editors Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Sep 5 2020

On Tuesday, September 8, 2020, following the Labor Day weekend, the City Council will be updated by the staff on keeping the pool  closed at this time.  A staff report informs the public and Council that the condition of the Piedmont Municipal Pool is in disrepair, including a broken heater and other factors, making it inappropriate for the pool to be reopened at this time.  The City Council will consider the matter at the September 8 meeting. 

Read the staff report for the September 8th meeting:  >Pool 92020 Update

Piedmont Municipal Pool

Council Meeting, September 8, 6:00 PM,  Read how to watch and participate in the meeting by clicking the link below:

https://piedmont.ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/City%20Council/Agenda/council-current-agenda.pdf

Aug 24 2020

Piedmont voters will decide on November 3 two ballot measures taxing Piedmont properties.  Both measures were approved for the ballot and are supported by the Piedmont City Council.  There is official opposition to both ballot measures. The two measures will be located near the end of Piedmont ballots.

The arguments for and against the measures are linked below.

Each measure has an analysis by Piedmont’s attorney linked below.

Measure TT  increases the Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT) on the sale of Piedmont residences to fund general City purposes.

Measure UU is a bond to fund the reconstruction of the Piedmont Municipal Pool and build new associated facilities.

Questions on the ballot >  Notice of Election – Measures

Measure TT – Transfer Tax Increase on Real Property Sales

Measure UU – Pool Construction Bonds 

Aug 22 2020

Alameda County Issued Revised Shelter in Place Order – 

Piedmont to Consider Whether Pool Reopening is Practicable  – 

On Friday evening, August 21st, the Alameda County Health Official issued a revised Shelter in Place order, which, effective August 28th, allows the reopening of outdoor pools, permission for outdoor personal care services, and permission for outdoor tasting at wineries. A summary of the order is available on the County’s web site.

As this is the first guidance issued by Alameda County for the reopening of pools, the City will spend the next two weeks determining whether the conditions imposed by the order can be applied in a way that makes sense to reopen the Piedmont Community Pool. Staff had previously developed reopening frameworks based upon guidance from other health jurisdictions. The City understands the importance of the pool to the community and will examine whether reopening under the requirements imposed by the order is practicable. It is likely that a decision on whether to reopen the Piedmont Community Pool will be considered by the City Council at its meeting of September 8th. –

August 22, 2020 – Press Release

Contact: John O. Tulloch     (510) 420-3041     jtulloch@piedmont.ca.gov

Jul 26 2020

Interested in running for the School Board or the City Council?

It’s Time to File!

On November 3, 2020 Piedmont voters will support or reject the $19 million Municipal Pool Bond Measure, increase the Real Property Transfer Tax when selling their homes,  and choose the future City Council and School Board.

Piedmont voters who are interested in seeking election or reelection to public office on the City Council or School Board must file their candidacy documents by August 7.  City Clerk John Tulloch must be contacted to learn specifically what documents must be completed.  Contact # 510/420-3040

 Nomination Filing Period ends August 7, 2020

___________

Real Property Transfer Tax Increase and Pool Bond Measure for New Aquatics Center

Piedmonters wanting to file an argument for or against the Real Property Transfer Tax Increase or the Municipal Aquatics Center bond measure must meet the deadlines by contacting the City Clerk. 

Contact City Clerk John O. Tulloch at 510/420-3040 for updated information, dates, and specific qualifications to file an argument for or against the ballot measures.

Deadline for Direct Arguments on Measures – August 14, 2020 ?

 Deadline for Rebuttal Arguments on Measures – August 21, 2020 ?

Two seats on the City Council  will be elected on November 3.   Mayor Robert McBain having served two 4 year terms is not eligible to seek re-election.   Council member Jen Cavenaugh has taken out papers for another 4 year term.  Conna McCarthy has filed her City Council candidacy papers. Connie Herrick and  N.”Sunny” Rhodes Bostrom-Fleming have taken out candidate papers.

Three positions on the School Board will be chosen. Two School Board members, Andrea Swenson and Sarah Pearson, will  have served two 4 year terms and are not eligible to seek re-election. A third School Board member, Cory Smegal, is eligible to be re-elected to another 4 year term.  Those who have taken out papers as of this date for the School Board are: Veronica Anderson, Hilary Cooper, Jason Kelley, Hari Titan, Dr. James Crawford-Jakubiak, and N. “Sunny” Rhodes Bostrom-Fleming.

Sunny Bostrom-Fleming, who has taken out papers for both the School Board and the City Council, will only be allowed to file papers for one of the positions.

For the most updated information on candidates, click below:

https://piedmont.ca.gov/cms/one.aspx?portalId=13659823&pageId=16885057

_________

Staff report: Approval of a Resolution Setting Procedural Details for the General Municipal Election of November 3, 2020

SECTION 7. There shall be no filing fee for candidates for office in the General Municipal Election.

SECTION 8. The candidates’ statements shall be limited to a maximum of 200 words.

SECTION 10. The nominations for the General Municipal Election are open and close no later than 5:00 pm on August 7, 2020, unless extended pursuant to Elections Code Section 10225.

For all election related questions, contact City Clerk John O. Tulloch at 510/420-3040. 

Jun 30 2020

At a Special City Council meeting on June 29, the Council listened intently for hours to staff reports and numerous swimmers about the closed Pool operation and maintenance needs. Opinions varied: close the pool and let Piedmonters know how important an updated pool is, close the pool and put in commercial businesses to increase sales tax, repair the pool and let swimmers continue to use the pool, etc.

COVID-19 has made pool use complicated, but the Recreation Staff has devised ways to make limited use of the pool if allowed to reopened under County approvals.

An ongoing long term issue has been water leaking from the pool.  The solution was indicated as a new pool.

The Council by consensus directed the City Staff to return, as soon as possible, with further information on costs and options for reopening the pool, even if on an interim basis.

Jun 30 2020

Council Seeks Ways for Both Real Property Transfer Tax and General Obligation Bond on November Ballot.

At the Special Council meeting on June 29, 2020, the Council met a complicated set of financing options to deliberate.   After several hours of considering the pool closure and alternatives, a lawyer, financial advisor, Director of Finance, City Administrator and the Council attempted to provide a way of financing improvements to City facilities.

The Community Pool was considered primarily for a bond measure, however many roadblocks arose on the timing and advisability.  The cost for a new Aquatic Center has been roughly estimated up to twenty million dollars.

Some wanted public safety needs to be on the ballot separately from the recreation facility improvements, while others wanted all desirables together on the ballot.

Complex financing mechanisms were suggested from Certificates of Participation to lease back of City facilities. Problems with a bond measure preparation and timing appeared to be disappointing news for the Council, most of whom seemed unfamiliar with the various financing mechanisms.

It was noted that Piedmont would receive a AA+ rating for bonds, as “the City does not hold any debt.”  No mention was made of the money currently borrowed from the State to finance Piedmont’s sewer rehabilitation projects.

The Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT) increase was discussed and is likely to be approved for the ballot.  Council members noted the RPTT  is levied only at the time a property is sold bringing them to believe the one time expense would be acceptable to voters.

A poll was professionally conducted to determine if voters would likely approve the taxes, and the poll showed passage would be difficult to pass at the 66 2/3 rds level.

Facing a tight August deadline for putting any tax measures on the November ballot, the Council will consider the measures at upcoming meetings.

Jun 29 2020

Recreation projects should be separated from fire and police measures.

Because of COVID- 19, ballot measures in November will not allow for full community discussion of City projects and needs.

Letter sent to the Piedmont City Council:

Based on the survey results and the limitations to public participation brought on by the pandemic, November 2020 does not seem like an appropriate time to put these two initiatives on the ballot, especially the facilities matter.

Every indication suggests a second wave of the pandemic will occur in the fall and these questions should not be put before Piedmonters under constraint.   “Robust resident education will be needed” – that will be a very difficult undertaking during the pandemic and should not be rushed or forced.  The typical forums available for voter education like League of Women Voters, house parties, clubs – won’t be available or will see reduced participation.

And, if put on the ballot, can the public outreach activities staff had planned before the pandemic go forward – it gives the appearance of city staff campaigning for the ballot.  Council should do as it did with the public safety contracts – postpone these ballot questions until more normal conditions return. Two years from now has the added advantage that three council seats – a majority – will be up for election, allowing for the community to send a clear signal of whether it supports these initiatives.

The polling results indicate that well over 60% of Piedmonters consider facilities as excellent, good or average.  The City Administrator concluded that Piedmonters do not clearly understand their facility needs but is that true?  Piedmonters are familiar with the facilities they use and see – recreation and park facilities – and not with the ones they don’t – the police and fire buildings.  The polling results indicate that most Piedmonters like what they see and it’s really up to the city to explain why these facilities need replacement.  Piedmonters understand the maintenance issue with the pool – it has been studied and discussed for years.  The proposals for the pool, Linda Beach and Coaches are for replacement, not maintenance, and looked at this way, the results could indicate that residents do not want these replacements.  To determine if that is the case, it would be better to have the public safety facilities and recreation facilities presented as separate ballot initiatives.

Finally, at a Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) meeting I attended, the Assistant City Manager/City Clerk indicated that General Obligation bonds might require two votes under the City Charter. The BAFPC suggested a way to avoid two votes would be to establish a Community Facilities District (CFD). I think the staff report is inaccurate when it states the BAFPC “favored” CFD bonds, though it did support a parcel-based tax assessment compared to an ad valorem one:

“The Committee recommends pursuing a parcel-based tax assessment. This is preferable to an ad valorem tax given that the facilities to be funded include primarily (or potentially exclusively) essential public services buildings benefiting all Piedmont residents.”

I think it is inaccurate to conclude that the facilities to be funded are primarily “essential public services”.  While I’ve enjoyed the recreation facilities in Piedmont, it is clear that not all residents utilize these facilities, especially so over the next 30 years as Piedmont “ages in place”.  Police and Fire are, of course, essential, so again, consider placing the public safety facilities and recreation facilities on separate ballot initiatives.

Garrett Keating, Former Member of Piedmont City Council

Jun 27 2020

The Community Pool was operated for decades at no cost to the City by the Piedmont Swim Club, a non-profit organization.  It was used by the community, Swim  Club members, the Piedmont Recreation Department, Piedmont schools, and the Piedmont Swim Team.  The Piedmont Unified School District teams were incorporated into the lease of  the pool starting in 1998.  The Piedmont Swim Team, (separate from the School District), submitted a letter supporting continued operation and funding by the Piedmont Swim Club.

In 2010, the Piedmont Swim Club wanted to continue to operate and pay the expenses for the pool; however, in a closed, private meeting, the City Council decided not to renew the $1 lease with the Club and the City assumed the full expense of operating and maintaining the pool.

At the June 29, 2020 Special Meeting, the Piedmont City Council will consider ceasing the pool operation. Discontinued pool operations will likely be coupled with any tax increases on a November 2020 ballot measure.  The cost of a new “Aquatic Center” has been roughly estimated to cost $15,000,000. 

The following article was published on this site by the Piedmont Civic Association on Aug 14, 2010. _____________

Piedmont Swim Club Pools Open but Lease Still in Limbo

Aug 14, 2010

The Swim Club’s lease expires on June 30, 2011.  At that time, unless a new lease has been signed, the facility will revert to the City.   It would then be up to the City to either shutter it or find the funds to operate it.  Without a lease, the Swim Club would be forced to dissolve.  The Swim Club Board is actively negotiating with the City for a new long-term lease.   According to Tim Rood,  Swim Club President:

“In 2008, we successfully negotiated a 3-year extension that removed the requirement for the Swim Club to pay a minimum cash rent, saving the members $114,000 over the three years.   Following a meeting to discuss lease terms with the City Manager and City Attorney, on March 30, 2010, we sent the City a proposal for a 15-year lease, offering to continue to maintain the facility and provide the same, mostly unpaid use by the Piedmont Swim Team, the schools and the Recreation Department – estimated at over $70,000 at prevailing facility rental rates.”

After working on it in closed session, the City returned a mark-up of the lease proposal on May 7.  Rood reports the City indicated that it wants to require the

Swim Club:
– to pay rent, but not how much;
– to contribute to a capital improvement fund, but not in what amount;
– to turn over any funds remaining upon expiration of the lease to the City (which conflicts with Club by-laws);
– to submit to periodic review and arbitration of the longstanding use arrangements during the term of the lease;
– to purchase additional liability coverage and earthquake insurance at considerable expense and questionable benefit.

The City Council further stated that “there are some other items that the Council may want to propose changes on, but they want to think them over further.”

The Council also asked the Recreation Commission to review the use arrangements that have been in effect since 1998.  The Commission recommended to keep school use more or less at current levels and not to add the additional school aquatic programs that the School District had requested.  The Piedmont Swim Team has previously submitted a letter of support for a new Swim Club lease.

In response, the Swim Club Board began preparing long-term financial projections and estimates of the value of the community use provided, obtaining quotes on the additional insurance coverage the City requested, and researching facility rental costs and recreational/lap swimming costs at competing facilities.

In 2006, a consultant studied the option of converting to a City operated pool and determined it would have required annual subsidies from the City’s general fund of $127,000 to $327,000 in excess of revenues from pool operation.  Considering the City’s recent budget deficit situation, the Swim Club Board expects to resolve the contract, avoiding this new expense to the City. Source: October 3, 2006 City Minutes, Consultant’s Report, and Staff Report)  [2020 NOTE: City reports no longer available.]

A significant change from previous leases is found in 9(c) of the Swim Club’s proposed lease, which opens the Swim Club to 130 non-Piedmont residents, expanding possible membership total to 650 from the current approximate 500.

The recent closure required by Alameda County Department of Environmental Health for non-compliance with California State Law AB1020 at the height of summer added to the ongoing stress on the Swim Club membership and the City. Read more about closures.

For additional information on this issue, Mr. Rood recommends a recent article by Linda Davis of the Piedmonter summarizing the complexities of the pool closure and lease negotiations.”

City Administrator Sara Lillevand states in her 2020-2021 Budget overview:

“We are nearing a decision point regarding the future of the Community Pool. The present facility is more than 50 years old and no longer meets the needs of the community. Given its age and the lack of substantial investment over its life, the pool has become increasingly costly to maintain. We completed a comprehensive condition assessment of the entire facility and associated operating systems in 2018. The report indicated an investment of approximately $350,000 will be required to keep the aquatic facility safe and operational in its current form for the next 3-5 years, and an additional minimum investment of approximately $1.5 million to extend its life up to ten years. These renovation and repair costs are in addition to the rising subsidy required to operate the pool. For 2020-21 we are budgeting a decrease in revenue due to poor trends and an increase in operating costs of $120,000. Overall, we are projecting an operating loss of $368,000. In order to maintain a reasonable reserve of approximately $66,000 in the Aquatics Fund, we propose a subsidy transfer from the “General Fund of $300,000, which is $50,000 higher than last year.” May 6, 2020

On Monday, June 29, 2020, 7:30 p.m., at a Special Meeting of the Piedmont City Council, the Council will consider whether or not to discontinue use of the Community Pool because of ongoing maintenance and expense issues.

Links for participation and information are below: 

PCA council-current-agenda (1) 6292020 < Agenda

PCA Continued Operation of the Piedmont Community Pool < Staff Report

Budget Overview –