Nov 12 2012

Last Chance to Provide Input: A Flat Permanent School Tax

. . . Or a 2% Annual Escalator?

The Piedmont School Board has requested public input before its next meeting on Wednesday, November 14, on a new draft resolution for a permanent (“evergreen”) school parcel tax to which the League of Women Voters has expressed objections. The primary decision on the 14th will be whether to propose a measure to approve a flat permanent tax . . . or a permanent tax with a 2% annual escalator.  Another important decision will be whether to abolish the Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC) as an independent oversight entity.  Final revisions to the permanent tax resolution will made on Nov. 14 to allow staff to prepare language for a final vote on Nov. 28. (Further details.)

Click here to send email to all School Board Members.

A second draft resolution, for an additional emergency tax in case Proposition 30 failed, has been dropped following the passage of Prop. 30.

Draft Resolution

  • PERMANENT  TAX of $2,088 – $3,547 per parcel  (no voter approval required in the future ) two public School Board hearings prior to Board determination of tax levy
  • FLAT OR UP TO 2% ANNUAL ESCALATOR  (to be decided by Board on Nov. 14)
    • no increased written or public notice to taxpayers of proposed increases
    • continue existing notice at two public School Board hearings prior to increases

    • Convert to subcommittee of the Budget Advisory Committee (rather than totally independent oversight committee)
    • Members appointed by Board President and Vice President
    • Limit to 3-5 members (rather than at least 7)
    • Allow past district staff (who are residents of Piedmont)

A Close-Up Look at Piedmont School Finances

School Board Members:

Updated 11/13/3012

2 Responses to “Last Chance to Provide Input: A Flat Permanent School Tax”

  1. All info. reads as if the School Bd made up their minds for a perm. tax from the beginning & “hearings/meetings” were to just find out which arguments to counter for March election.

  2. Thank you for informing the public about what is under consideration by the Board. However, a few corrections are needed. First, IF the proposed measure includes a 2% growth factor, then there obviously would be public notice of any proposed increase through the Board’s agenda for public hearings on whether to approve such an increase. Second, moving the review and advise function from the Citizens Advisory Committee to a sub-committee of the Budget Advisory Committee appointed by the Board President and Vice-President efficiently utilizes the knowledge of BAC members. Contrary to your article, the proposed measure expressly states that these individuals must be Piedmont homeowners paying the tax and may NOT be current PUSD employees. The subcommittee is tasked with reporting directly to the Board before the first public hearing where the Board considers whether to levy the tax, in whole or in part. Rick Raushenbush

Leave a Comment