Jun 1 2016

VOTE: Piedmont Measure F Attracts Attention from Publications

The East Bay Express Editors recommend a “No” vote on Measure F and wrote:

“The City of Piedmont hopes to re-up an existing municipal tax, which expires next year, with Measure F. The plan is to increase parcel taxes in the city for four years, so as to defray the costs of police, fire, paramedics, and parks and public places. The tax requires two-thirds of voters’ approval. The catch is that Measure F is also a thirty percent increase over the existing parcel tax — a detail that the Piedmont city attorney just so happened to gloss over in its impartial analysis for voters. The Express urges a no vote on this flawed tax.”

Read the complete editorial here.

The East Bay Times recommends a “No” vote on Measure F and wrote:

“Piedmont Measure F: NO

Piedmont’s Measure F would increase that city’s parcel tax by 30 percent. But the ballot language doesn’t mention an increase. And City Attorney Michelle Marchetta Kenyon’s “impartial analysis” does not provide the magnitude of the hike.
That’s inexcusable.
 In material mailed to voters, the 30 percent figure is finally found in the opponents’ ballot arguments. We verified it with other city documents.

The ballot wording states that Measure F is needed to prevent the loss of “essential” city services. But the city’s own financial forecasts don’t support that, although there are concerns about the city’s backlog of deferred maintenance.

The current parcel tax doesn’t expire until next year. If city officials believe it must be increased, we suggest trying again in November with a transparent ballot measure.”

Read the complete editorial here


The Piedmont League of Women Voters Forum on Measure F as reported by the Mercury News:

Read the report here:


View the entire broadcast of the Piedmont League of Women Voters Forum:  State Senate Candidates, Measure AA and Piedmont Measure F > here.


June 7, Tuesday, Election Day is the last day to vote in the California Primary Election.

For holders of a VOTE BY MAIL BALLOT,  your ballot must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received at the Alameda County Registrar of Voters no later than three (3) days after Election Day.  You may also turn in your ballot by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day, June 7, at any Alameda County polling location, including Piedmont’s, or into the drop-off box in Piedmont behind the Wells Fargo Bank on Highland Way any day when the drop-off box remains in place.


Editors’ Note: The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose candidates for public office or ballot measures.  Pro and con opinions and articles on ballot items are welcomed and can be submitted via email for publication by clicking below:


Personal attacks will not be published.

2 Responses to “VOTE: Piedmont Measure F Attracts Attention from Publications”

  1. Reject Measure F now, put two measures on the November ballot

    After extensive discussion with City Council member Jeff Wieler, I am more convinced than ever that the current version of Measure F should be defeated.

    Piedmont’s taxpayers have paid over $2 Million in excessive costs for City projects due to poor management by senior staff and acquiescent supervision by the City Council ($1.3 M from the Undergrounding fiasco, $414,000 from Blair Park’s so-called “gift,” $340,000 from purchasing police radios that are incompatible with Alameda County and now have to be purchased again). Mr. Wieler has publicly challenged these figures, saying they were wrong, yet, when asked if an independent accounting audit of these fiscal fiascos had been conducted, he demurred.

    Without an audit, how can these previous problems be understood? Without understanding the problems, how can institutional learning take place? Without institutional learning, how can Piedmont’s taxpayers trust the City Council saying that the current tax increase is justified and this time, that the facilities maintenance projects will be managed differently and better?

    While the City has some new senior-level employees, the consequence of past incompetence requires greater disclosure and transparency to re-establish taxpayer confidence that Measure F’s increase in taxation is really necessary. Measure F asks for a 30% tax increase without specifying what exactly would be done. Proponents have underestimated property tax and transfer tax revenues in spite of a 25-year trend of revenues increasing by over 6% annually.

    It would serve all of Piedmont’s citizens to have a full accounting of the previous fiascos, and to have a thorough and specific plan for future projects that accurately anticipates their costs and details how they will be managed to prevent similar unanticipated, but not unusual, costs from reoccurring.

    Being able to communicate and coordinate with police departments in Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro, and even Pleasanton and Livermore is a realistic expectation for our Police department. Large fires and earthquakes are not uncommon here, and coordinated emergency response with both our Police and our Fire departments is necessarily required among emergency responders and with the County Emergency Operations Center. The failure to anticipate such coordination and communication when making a major radio purchase is a disgraceful failure of the City Council.

    Measure F should be separated into two ballot measures, one to maintain service at the current tax rate, and another to increase service with specific projects at an increased tax rate. These can be put on the November ballot at no additional cost to Piedmont’s taxpayers. Current City services are in no danger of being interrupted, because the existing tax doesn’t expire until June, 2017.

  2. I agree with the argument opposing this measure that raising the tax by 30% is unjustified. A NO vote on Measure F is warranted.

Leave a Comment