Politics & Government

The Measure A 'Counterpoints' and a Bit of Controversy

A memo prepared by city staff provoked a flurry of emails about its origins

Measure A, the sewer tax surcharge on the Feb. 7 Piedmont Municipal Election ballot, has generated considerable controversy, both on its merits and on news coverage of the issue.

One item in dispute has been the preparation of a memo prepared by the city's public works director, Chester G. Nakahara, entitled "Counterpoints to Arguments Against Measure A Sewer Surtax."

Piedmont resident Thomas Clark,  an opponent of Measure A, has said that the memo was prepared as a result of an unpublished letter to the editor he sent to the Piedmont Post on Jan. 5, which he believed was forwarded to Piedmont city staff by the Post. (You may read Clark's letter original letter and a follow-up letter here.)

Find out what's happening in Piedmontwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

While it appears likely that the memo was a direct result of Clark's letter -- the document is labelled "Counterpoints to PCA/Tom Clark's Letter" -- Piedmont City Manager Geoffrey Grote told Piedmont Patch that city staff saw the letter on the Piedmont Civic Association website, where it was published on Jan. 6.

"It's not the case that the Post gave the letter to the city," Grote said.

Find out what's happening in Piedmontwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

"We do give staff support to the Municipal Tax Review Committee, but it had nothing to do with the Piedmont Post."

Points raised in the memo have been included in opinion pieces written by proponents of Measure A.

Editor's note: The "Counterpointpoints" document below was prepared by Chester G. Nakahara, City of Piedmont Public Works Director, and was provided to Piedmont Patch by him on request.

COUNTERPOINTS TO ARGUMENTS AGAINST MEASURE A SEWER SURTAX

1. EPA Order to remain on the “ambitious schedule” to replace 100% of the city’s sewer mains

The requirement to CONTINUE, NOT ACCELERATE, the future phases for the sewer system rehabilitation is described in the Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). By reference, the EPA Stipulated Order (S/O) states in Section 71, “Maintain Current Program: The City of Piedmont shall implement the programs for controlling SSOs and reducing I & I set forth in its SSMP.”

It is recognized by all parties concerned that the best way to control overflows and reduce inflow/infiltration is to install new pipe.

The EPA S/O requires that the city perform a number of tasks to test, monitor, report, clean, repair and replace our sanitary sewer system which is IN ADDTIION to continuing the sewer rehabilitation program as identified in the SSMP. The cost of this additional work including the related professional consulting, technical advisory, and legal costs is what the Sewer Surcharge addresses. Don’t confuse EPA compliance costs with the sewer rehabilitation costs.

2. Deadline for the Sewer Rehabilitation Completion and 10 year Surcharge Term

The EPA is requiring that we follow the schedule as outlined in our SSMP (see above), which projects 3 more phases to be complete in approximately 10 years. MTRC surmised that if we continued as planned with the sewer rehabilitation program, that in approximately 10 years, a case could be made to the EPA to reduce our compliance requirements and costs. Thus, the 10 year life of the surcharge was proposed.

The EPA, MTRC, nor city staff ever recommended an acceleration of the sewer rehabilitation project. The MTRC did ask the question of whether a more aggressive approach to combine the 3 remaining phases into one large project of $10.5 million dollars would be more cost effective and have less fiscal impact. Analysis from Mark Bichsel, our Finance Director showed that the up-front costs to process the loan application would exhaust available funds, thus creating repercussions for annual on-going sewer related direct costs. Thus, the
MTRC recommended staying on the schedule as outlined in the SSMP.

3. Pay for EPA Compliance Costs with the existing available funds and extend the rehabilitation projects.

Under the current sewer tax rates, the existing revenue cannot cover existing costs AND the EPA compliance costs, which average $800K per year for the first 4 years. Previous council action to NOT assess the sewer tax at the full rate depleted the fund balance to the point where action is needed now. Without the proposed surcharge, the sewer fund balance will be in the red $350K in FY 12/13, and is projected to further go into deficit in subsequent years.

From a practical point of view, the older the system gets, the more difficult it is to maintain. The number of overflows and blockages will increase, and more staff time will be spent on “putting out fires” instead of preventing them in the first place. This was proven true at the time of the Consent Decree. With the progress of the rehabilitation projects, the number of overflows has been reduced from 13 in 2005 to 3 in 2011. That is a 400% improvement. Additionally, emergency replacement is much more expensive than planned rehabilitation, so in the end, no significant money is saved by delaying the rehabilitation projects. Think about your roof. If it is new, you do not have to constantly fix leaks. If your roof is old and you don’t want to replace it, you will spend every winter patching leaks. If it should get beyond patching, the cost to replace your roof will be higher because it will probably be during the winter when the price of roofers are high, and you will have no choice unless you want to ruin all of your contents.

4. Transparency of MTRC Meetings and Impacts of the Private Sewer Lateral Ordinance

All MTRC meetings were open to the public. Chairman Rancer insisted and it was approved to move the meetings to the council chambers so they would be filmed and proceedings viewed by residents not able to attend the meetings. The MTRC considered many iterations of the sewer tax scenario, but came to the conclusion that a surcharge was necessary, but with the condition that it be for a finite period of time.

The private sewer lateral ordinance was not required by the city council. It is part of the Stipulated Order (Section 74). All seven satellites are under this requirement because leaking laterals are estimated to be at least 50% of the entire regional problem. The cost of replacing the lateral should be viewed similar to a pest control report at the time of sale.

5. Final Word

We must find a way to pay for the additional costs of the EPA compliance requirements. We must continue replacing our sanitary sewer system because it is not only the right thing to do, but it will have a positive direct impact on the cost of complying with the EPA requirements. If we reach our goals, the council has the ability to lower or even eliminate the surcharge if it deems appropriate while still meeting all of our requirements.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here