November 10 was the final day the Piedmont Avenue Branch Library operated in the library building on 41^st Street at Piedmont Avenue.

The branch library will reopen on Tuesday, November 27, at 80 Echo Avenue, behind the Piedmont Avenue Elementary School.  The City of Oakland leased the modular unit (with Measure Q funds) from the school for five years as the temporary home for the library.  In preparation for the library, the modular unit was painted white, and a new access ramp and stairway were constructed, also using Measure Q funds, the parcel tax that supports extended branch library hours.  (Read More about the Piedmont Avenue Branch Library move.)

Two-Thirds Majority OK  City Parcel Tax –

After a spirited discussion among residents about the state of Piedmont finances, Piedmont voters approved Measure Y  by 68.33% .  To pass the parcel tax 66 2/3% Yes votes were required. The measure extends the Municipal Services Tax four more years to June 30, 2017.  The tax funds will go into Piedmont’s General Fund to support city services.

For the first time in memory, there were lawn signs supporting the passage of Piedmont’s parcel tax.   The green signs with white lettering posted throughout the City urged renewing the existing parcel tax, while opponents hung door hangers urging a No vote on Measure Y.

The Alameda County Registrar of Voters reports the “final preliminary result” of the vote on Measure Y:

Yes  4549    68.33 %

No 2108      31.67 %

Additional information can be found on The Patch.

Updated 11/21/12

And Abolishes Citizens Advisory Committee Independence –

At its meeting on Wednesday, October 24,  the Piedmont School Board, in ongoing efforts to grapple with significant  and ongoing budget shortfalls, directed School District staff to draft a tentative resolution to restructure Piedmont’s parcel tax as a permanent “evergreen” tax, possibly with an annual escalator of 2%. The Board also directed staff to draft a resolution to abolish the Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC) as an independent oversight entity, and to prepare an additional “flat tax” proposal in case Proposition 30 fails to win a majority vote in the Nov. 6 election.

The Board requested public input before its next November 14 meeting when the  two draft resolutions will be presented.  President of the Board, Rick Raushenbush, noted that public input on the alternative tax structures has been “all over the map.”  Click here to send email all School Board Members

Draft Resolutions to be discussed Nov. 14      

• PERMANENT  TAX of $2,088 – $3,547 per parcel
• 0% 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
    
• LOW INCOME EXEMPTION based on SSI Income limits
  
• RESTRUCTURE INDEPENDENT CITIZENS’ ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC)
  • Convert to subcommittee of the Budget Advisory Committee (rather than independent oversight committee)
  • Members appointed by President and Vice President (rather than Board)
    
  • Limit to 3-5 members (rather than at least 7)
    
  • Past District staff permitted to serve on CAC subcommittee (if resident of Piedmont)
•  POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY TAX
  
  • Flat $275 per parcel for 4 years

A Major Restructuring of Piedmont School Parcel Tax

The proposed draft will provide for a permanent tax, eliminating city-wide votes held every 4 years to determine the amount of the tax.  Board members Raushenbush, Andrea Swenson, and Roy Tolles strongly urged a flat tax with no escalator because the District will be asking voters to approve a permanent (“evergreen”) tax.   Other members were willing to support an escalator of “up to 2% increases” annually to allow for inflation and mirror the Proposition 13 limit on other property taxes.  Limiting the escalator to “the lesser of” 2% or the CPI was also mentioned.

Raushenbush noted that he had received a call from former School Board President June Monach, who reminded him of the District goal of reducing the parcel tax as a percentage of the school budget.  If state funding continues to be flat, an escalator will result in local taxpayer support increasing above the current 33% of the District’s budget. 

The level of the permanent tax would be the current Measure B tax, plus an anticipated 5% increase in June 2013, for a total amount of $2,088 – $3,547 per parcel.   (The discretionary 5% increase, previously authorized by the 2009 Measure B, will be voted on by the Board in March 2013.)  The restructured Measure B would become effective on July 1, 2014 when the current 4-year measure expires.

No enhanced notice of increases

While  some Board members expressed a desire for greater accountability through annual public forums, polls, surveys, or other options, the Board, via its President, directed staff not to change current notice requirements for annual tax increases. If an escalator is ultimately included, the draft resolution will permit tax increases to be levied annually without specific prior written notice to taxpayers. As under the Current Measure B, two public School Board hearings would be required prior to any  increases.  Annual increases levied by the School Board would be discretionary and not automatic.  However, the Board has imposed the maximum allowed increase each time prior measures authorized an increase.

Citizens’ Advisory Committee loses independence 

The Board President directed staff to abolish the separate independent structure of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC) oversight, despite some members noting it had provided “valuable input” to the Board.  The draft proposal will restructure the CAC as a small 4-5 member sub-committee of the Budget Advisory Committee (BAC).

This change has additional impacts.  Members of the CAC subcommittee are appointed by the Superintendent, rather than the Board.  Persons previously on the District staff will be permitted to serve on the CAC if they are a Piedmont resident.  Currently, district staff serve on the BAC, while the CAC consists of Piedmont residents, enabling resident input with no conflicts of interest when advising the Board on parcel tax levies.

The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was mandated by the 2009 parcel tax measures and established as an independent Board-appointed committee.  The Committee is charged with “conducting an independent examination of the District’s budget“.  (See, as an example, the 2012 CAC report.)  It prepares an annual comprehensive report with recommendations on the appropriate parcel tax levy amount and:

“a high level, comprehensive analysis of the District’s budget, including relevant metrics, historical trends, and comparisons with similar school districts, that provides an analytical basis for the Committee’s recommendations.”

While the Budget Advisory Committee has traditionally been allowed to make recommendations to the School Board on the budget, the extent to which the CAC could analyze and make recommendations on program and personnel costs was challenged by district personnel.  In response to these concerns, the School Board previously clarified the CAC’s charge and limited its ability to analyze district costs and make recommendations to the Board.

BAC members, who are selected by the Superintendent, are not listed on the PUSD website or the Piedmont Portal and not generally made publicly available.  The  PUSD website describes the BAC as “representatives from each school site, employee associations (APT  for teachers and CSEA for classified staff), administration, support groups, the community at-large, and the Board of Education.  Members serve for one to two years.”  The number of voting members is not specified, nor the number of votes required to make a recommendation to the Board.  Minutes of the meetings are not posted online.  However, the Superintendent has noted the BAC is subject to notice and other “sunshine” provisions of the state Brown Act and that the district complies with the Brown Act.  In September, the Superintendent indicated that, in contrast to past practice, a person from each representative group has not necessarily been appointed to the BAC in recent years. 

An “SSI” Low-Income Exemption

A “senior” exemption to the school parcel tax based on age will not be included in the draft resolution.  However, an exemption based on meeting the income limitations for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) will be included.  This provision was supported by 4 Board members.  Eligibility would be established by the taxpayer’s annual “SSI Award” letter from the local Social Security office, rather than determined by the Piedmont Unified School District.  In 2012, SSI was limited to those with less than $1,010 of gross monthly income.  Earned, unearned, in-kind, social security, and deemed income, as well as assets, are considered, making it unlikely that many Piedmont residents, even seniors on fixed incomes, would qualify.  

Additional 4 Year Flat Tax Possible if Proposition 30 Fails

The Board also directed staff to prepare a second parcel tax resolution for an emergency tax.  If Proposition 30 fails in the November 6 election, the Board may ask voters to approve this additional funding before reducing costs.  The emergency tax would be a flat, annual $275 per parcel for 4 years.  (In contrast, the prior “one-time emergency” Measure E was a 3-year tax of $249 per year.)   A “SSI” exemption would be included.

The $275 tax will generate $1.5 million, designed to match the automatic one-time 2012 trigger cuts of $1.5 million which will occur if Proposition 30 fails.  However, the new temporary measure is proposed for a term of 4 years, not 1 year.

According to Hubbard, contract negotiations with employee unions will be opened the day after the vote on Proposition 30 (Nov. 7, 2012) in an effort to eliminate a $1.2 million shortfall in Piedmont’s 3 year budget plan, restore a state mandated reserve of 3% (almost $1 million), and if Proposition 30 fails, address an additional $1.5 million shortfall, for a total potential $3.5 million deficit.  District is currently borrowing and repaying funds from the School Bond Fund to cover cash flow issues.  School Superintendent Constance Hubbard previously identified $4 million in ongoing District operating cost reductions which have not been implemented.

The District engaged an outside consultant to conduct telephone interviews with 200 residents selected “from all areas of Piedmont.”  Parents and non-parents were included, though the ratio of parents to non-parents was not reported.  The full results of the survey were not reported in writing.  Staff indicated residents were asked if they “supported” various aspects of the District program (e.g. teacher development) without specific cost information, and asked about possible tax structures.

On November 14, the School Board will review the draft language of the two tax resolutions and determine whether or not to impose an escalator of up to 2%, rather than proposing a flat tax. The Board will continue to take public comment on the draft resolutions.  However, staff has indicated there will not be sufficient time to make major revisions and still meet deadlines to place them on the March 2013 ballot.  The Board continues to ask for public input prior to their final approval.  Comments may be sent to the Board members at their email addresses.  (See below.)

School Board positions and Draft Resolution (based on direction to staff – no vote taken).

• Richard (Rick) Raushenbush
  President rraushenbush@piedmont.k12.ca.us
• Andrea Swenson
  Vice President aswenson@piedmont.k12.ca.us
• Sarah Pearson  spearson@piedmont.k12.ca.us,
• Ray Gadbois  rgadbois@piedmont.k12.ca.us
• Roy Tolles rtolles@piedmont.k12.ca.us
• (may also cc  Superintendent Constance Hubbard)  chubbard@piedmont.k12.ca.us 

Rewarding Friends and Punishing Critics –

Organized opposition to Piedmont’s parcel tax makes it very clear that the City Council presides over a divided electorate.  This divide opened only in the last 5 years after two decades of relative harmony.  Why?  Because many Piedmonters believe that the Council majority allocates benefits to friends at the expense of the rest of the community.  Under circumstances still unexplained, the Council provided utility undergrounding to the city’s most exclusive neighborhood at a cost of $2.3 million paid by the remainder of Piedmonters. The Council also gave a $2 million subsidy to sports lobbies by building a soccer complex at Havens School, paying consulting and legal fees for a private scheme to build another soccer complex in Moraga Canyon, and assuming responsibility for a swim facility.  And city staff, despite the recession, continued to enjoy benefit packages that two Council-appointed committees reported we could not afford.

Mere profligacy might not have evoked organized opposition, but resistance emerged when the Council majority began using its privileged position to punish those who questioned pork barrel politics. The Council spent hundreds of thousands of tax dollars for lawsuits to intimidate homeowners who resisted utility undergrounding.  Council members used their access to the local newspaper to attack citizens who dared criticize subsidies to sports lobbies, and to chastise voters who spoke out against the failed sewer surtax.

Now this abusive and divisive Council wants 66% of Piedmont voters to extend the city parcel tax.  The Council, however, continues to give voters new reasons to reject the tax.  The Council majority allowed those who wrote the ballot argument in favor of the tax to falsely claim that the Council unanimously endorsed the tax.  Council members have kept opponents of the tax from speaking at Council meetings, resumed attacking critics in public fora, and tried to extort support by threatening to cut police and fire services if the tax fails. The Council shamelessly persists in this extortion despite the fact that proceeds from the tax since the last extension have gone for undergrounding utilities in our wealthiest neighborhood, subsidizing private sports clubs, and pursuing vicious legal action against homeowners.

The Piedmont City Council, in short, continues to behave in ways that make it unfit to manage the proceeds of a voluntary surtax.  Those proceeds have become nothing more than a “slush fund” used to reward friends and punish critics. The residents of Piedmont deserve better governance and should withhold this tax until we get it.

 Ralph Catalano, 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 candidates or ballot measures.

Thefts Plagued the Start of Halloween Week –

Harvest Festival scarecrows

PCA has received reports of five, life-size artistic, handmade scarecrows disappearing from front yards in the nights leading up to Halloween.

Four had been purchased at the Harvest Festival scarecrow auction that raises money for the schools each September.  The scarecrow display and auction is a popular part of Piedmont’s annual harvest celebration.  All the scarecrows are handmade, many by students as classroom projects.  One of the stolen scarecrows was a family project for three little boys and their parents– a masterpiece, with doorknobs for eyes.

Long-Time Resident Voting NO on Measure Y-

Having lived in Piedmont for over 40 years and thus placing a high value on the services provided by the city, I am concerned about the controversy surrounding the parcel tax renewal. Over the last few months I have attempted to educate myself regarding the arguments posed by both sides of this important public policy issue.

The supporters of Measure Y have insisted that it is necessary to pass Y to ensure continuation of the essential services that the citizenry of Piedmont have come to expect. Opponents of Measure Y contend that the City will be able to provide the necessary services without the revenue from the parcel tax. Furthermore, their view is that the city council and the city administration need to be held to account for the mistakes over the last few years that endanger the future financial well-being of our community.

It is clear to me that the council and the administration have not performed up to expectations in recent years. The undergrounding debacle that cost the citizens of Piedmont several million dollars and the attempt to create athletic playing fields in Moraga canyon in the face of significant detrimental environmental impacts are but two examples of poor decision-making on the part of the City. In addition, failure to deal adequately with the looming employee benefit crisis reinforces my concern regarding the management of the city’s resources.

To arrive at these conclusions I have relied on, among other sources, Michael Rancer’s comprehensive assessment of Piedmont’s financial situation made when he was Chair of the 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee. In particular, Rancer’s analysis suggests that the current administration has failed to address the escalating costs associated with City employees’ salaries and benefits. These costs have increased by over $6.4 million over the last decade, an amount greater than the overall increase in city expenditures.

Currently a quarter of the city budget goes to pay for employee benefit costs. A “No on Y” vote will begin the process of holding the council and the administration accountable for bringing costs under control and laying the groundwork for a sound fiscal future for Piedmont.

Ken Jensen, 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 candidates or ballot measures.

With respect to Vice Mayor Fujioka’s recent opinion piece on Measure Y, I’d suggest that threatening yet again the ambulance service brings to mind Ronald Reagan’s famous comment in his debate with Jimmy Carter: “There you go again.”

Any Council member who says the ambulance service is on the chopping block is basically telling the voters that the service isn’t important enough to be among the top 93% of the City’s priorities.  So in the final days of this contentious election, let’s try to keep a grip on the reality of budget making.

I honor Vice Mayor Fujioka’s stated commitment to make necessary changes, but the evidence of real progress is minimal 14 months after MTRC delivered its final report.  Short term agreements have been reached with some City employees, but when the contracts were brought to the Council, no savings were projected.  The two-tier pension system will have no significant effect for maybe a decade, while our pension liability grows unchecked.

The Council chose to proceed with  the Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC) report’s sewer tax surcharge and parcel tax recommendations, and not the recommendations on controlling spending.  Although the MTRC endorsed the sewer tax surcharge, the voters disagreed.  We’ll see on November 6 what they think about renewing the parcel tax without significant progress on reining in spending.

A core issue is benefits whose costs have been growing at double digit rates for the last ten years.  Today for every $10,000 of salary we pay a public safety employee, we incur at least $6,600 in benefit costs.  For a public works employee, every $10,000 in salary can mean $8,000 in benefits.  And these costs keep on growing as does our future liability, so that one day we may see benefit costs greater than salaries.  These are not only staggering numbers, but they are double the size of anything that is considered reasonable in other cities.

Some may think that those opposing Measure Y don’t care about Piedmont.  On the contrary, it is because we love this town that we volunteered to help with City governance.  And our involvement has caused us to conclude that the only way to get significant movement on this problem is to turn off the spigot until the problem is addressed, because uncontrolled benefits spending is a major risk to our valued public services.  It doesn’t mean the City will lose the parcel tax forever, or even for 4 years.  With meaningful Council initiative on the spending problem, maybe it only means for one year, which the City can easily weather with reserves.

A “NO” vote on Measure Y supports Piedmont’s long-term financial health by sending the Council a message that stopgap fixes are unacceptable.

Kathleen Quenneville, Piedmont Resident, Member of Undergrounding Task Force

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 candidates or ballot measures.

Resident urges discussion of financial issues, not “punishment” –

Parcel tax dollars not being spent on vital services –

The proponents of Measure Y have adopted the “Chicken Little” strategy: the sky will fall if Piedmonters decline to spend an additional $1800 over the next four years for a tax, intended to be temporary, that some now wish to treat as permanent. Yet, curiously enough, supporters of Measure Y can’t specify a single vital service (police, fire, paramedic, streets, sewers) that would be cut if Measure Y is defeated.

The reason? It is simply that our parcel tax dollars are not spent on vital services. They are being devoted to an out of control and unsustainable rise in city employee and health care costs. Both the Municipal Tax Review Committee and the Budget Advisory Committee (both appointed by the City Council) have expressed alarm about the resulting dangers to the future of our city. Yet, the City Council has failed to provide a plan that will reduce these constantly escalating costs that now constitute a $40,000,000 unfunded liability ($10,000 per household) for Piedmont taxpayers. In response, the Council says “trust us” when they have taken no action to warrant that trust.

Current contracts with city employees expire either in December of this year or July of next year. Thus, the Council has an immediate opportunity, in negotiating new contracts, to demonstrate that they can rein in employee benefit costs by insisting upon substantially larger employee contributions. The wise course of action is to defeat Measure Y and then hold the Council to its promise of greater fiscal responsibility in the future.

Lincoln famously said, “You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Let’s prove Lincoln right by voting no on Measure Y. For more information, visit www.NoOnMeasureY.com.

Steve Weiner, 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 candidates or ballot measures.

PCA readers desiring to review the numerous pro and con opinions, news and comments on the November election, particularly Piedmont’s Measure Y, can click on Election News (Measure Y) found on the left side of the PCA home page.  Scroll through the Opinions and information.  To read Comments submitted in response,  click on the article or opinion, and the comments will appear at the bottom of the piece.

Editors’ Note:  All opinions and comments are unsolicited.  The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose candidates or ballot measures.