The Board of Education has announced requests for applications to be presented for the Arthur Hecht  2014 Volunteer of the Year Award.

Sixteen years ago, the Board of Education established the “Arthur Hecht Volunteer of the Year Award” in honor of late Piedmont community member Arthur Hecht. This award is presented annually to individuals who have volunteered their efforts over a period of time and made a difference because of their involvement and commitment to Piedmont’s youth.

The following is a listing of past recipients:
1998 Hunter McCreary
1999 Ann Chandler
2000 Ruth Cuming
2001 Lisa Lomenzo
2002 Cathie Glettner / Marion Souyoultzis
2003 Fritz and Mary Wooster
2004 Elizabeth (Betsy) Gentry
2005 Cynthia Gorman
2006 Grier Graff
2007 Julia Burke
2008 Maude Pervere
2009 Anne-Marie Lamarche / Mark Menke
2010 Janiele Maffei Tovani
2011 Andrea Swenson
2012 June Monach
2013 Mary Ireland / Bill Drum

The Piedmont Unified School District is in the process of seeking nominees for this year’s award. Staff, students,and community members are invited to submit an application. A copy of the application is below.   The deadline for submitting a nomination is Monday, March 10 by 4:30 p.m.

The awardee will be announced in late March, and the awardee will appear at the May 14, 2014 Board of Education meeting where their good works will be acknowledged. At the meeting, the awardee will also receive the gift of a work of student art. The student artist will be presented with a monetary gift and commendation from the Board.

              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Application:

PIEDMONT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
2014 Arthur Hecht Volunteer of the Year Award
For Service to Youth of the Piedmont Unified School District

Name of Proposed Recipient:

__________________________________________
Activities and awards engaged in or received by recipient:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Reasons for recommendation:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Please attach any additional information that you feel would be helpful in evaluating the individual, including the names of any other individuals who support this recommendation.

Sponsor Name: (please print)

_________________________________

Signature___________________________

Date:_______________________

Nomination forms can be: a) hand-delivered in a sealed envelope, marked “Hecht Award Nomination,” to the Superintendent’s Office, Piedmont Unified School District Administration Office, 760 Magnolia Avenue, Piedmont; or b) emailed to sspiker@piedmont.k12.ca.us. All forms must be received by the deadline of 4:30 p.m. on Monday, March 10, 2014.

In springtime, a School Board’s fancy turns to thoughts of next year’s budget…

Here in Piedmont, a significant piece of that budget is funded by our local “School Support Tax.” The current version of that tax is the Measure A parcel tax approved last spring by 76% of Piedmont voters.  In response to court decisions, this tax was converted from its traditional graduated structure to a flat tax that has been $2,406 per parcel in 2013-14.  Measure A authorizes the School Board to increase the tax by up to 2% per year (lower than the 5% annual cap in earlier parcel taxes).  It also provides for an independent citizen oversight and advisory group — presently an independent Support Tax Subcommittee of the District’s Budget Advisory Committee, which replaced an earlier Citizens’ Advisory Committee.  I serve on the current Subcommittee, and served on the earlier Committee as well.

At last week’s School Board meeting, I presented this year’s Support Tax Subcommittee report (approved unanimously by our members, who also included Peter Freeman and Amal Smith).  We recommended that the District:

(1)   levy Measure A taxes at their maximum level in 2014-2015, including the maximum permissible increase of 2%;

(2)   deposit the $188,160 increase in a parcel tax reserve account, and spent as necessary during the life of Measure A (through 2020-2021).

If accepted, these changes would increase total Measure A revenues from this year’s$9,408,025 to $9,596,185.  For each individual property owner, that would mean an increase of $48, from $2,406 to $2,454.

Our Subcommittee report notes that state revenue support for local schools is improving (for the first time in years), but still below levels before the Great Recession.  We also note that the current discussion in Sacramento calls for funding increases — but that state revenues themselves are subject to big swings:  Prop 30 tax surcharges expire in 4 and 7 years, before the end of local Measure A’s 8 year term; and state personal income taxes are at a high point this year, because of IPOs by Facebook and other companies.  It seemed to us that the District can’t afford to take Sacramento’s hints of growing support at face value, and needs to continue to work its way out of deficit spending, and to rebuild its reserves.  Our full report is available online atwww.piedmont.k12.ca.us/aboutpusd/agenda.minutes/2-12-14-packet.pdf (in pages 10-14 of the Board meeting agenda packet), and my presentation is on KCOM.

The School Board will consider our report over the next several months while it prepares its parcel tax levy decision and budget for 2014-15.  I hope PCA’s readers will consider these questions, and develop and submit their own views.  While you’re doing so, you should also consider City parcel taxes, and property taxes associated local bond measures (including the pending vote on bonds to modernize the Alan Harvey Theater at Piedmont High School).

Jon Elliott, Member School Support Tax Subcommittee

Editors Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

The Piedmont Unified School District has announced a Special Meeting of the Board of Education to swear in the new members of the Board. Amal Smith and Doug Ireland will take the places of retiring Board members Ray Gadbois and Roy Tolles, both of whom have served two terms for a total of 8 years each.

The meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 26 in the School District offices, 760 Magnolia Avenue, at 4 p.m. and last until approximately 4:30 p.m.   The meeting is open to the public.  Due to the location of the meeting, broadcasting is not expected.

A reorganization of the Board will also occur at the meeting. 

Pursuant to Education Code Section 35143, in a year in which a regular election for governing board members is conducted, the meeting shall be held on a day within a 15-day period that commences with the date upon which a governing board member elected at that election takes office. The Board will now take action to elect the Board President, Vice President and Secretary to the Board for the period of February 26, 2014 through July 2014.

Read the agenda. 

Pedestrians, cars, and bikes are part of a developing plan for Piedmont. The plan, as designed, will be implemented over 10 or more years and could cost over $3 million dollars.  The City wants your input on the plan.  Do you think bulb outs at intersections improve safety or create hazards?  Are island medians a good idea?  Are alterations planned for your intersection or street? See the plan.  Take the survey.

Attend the workshop in the Piedmont Community Hall (Piedmont’s Main Park), Monday, February 24, at 7:00 – 9:30 p.m.

–  Voter approved school parcel tax requires a tax review committee to evaluate annual school needs for the tax. All meetings of the committee are currently held outside of public view. – 

When Piedmont taxpayers voted to approve the annual parcel tax of $2,406, the ballot measure called for a property owner committee composed of three members to annually review the School District’s need for levying the parcel tax and the level of the tax prior to School District action to impose the tax.
Questions prior to the election concerned whether the appointed  committee would be independent in its evaluation of School District fiscal matters.

Implementation of the approved school parcel tax requires a subcommittee of the Budget Advisory Committee (BAC), an amorphous group of individuals composed of teachers, community members, school administrators, and typically a member of the Board of Education.  The Tax Review Subcommittee (TRS), a subcommittee of the much larger BAC, does not open their meetings to the public.  The currently selected subcommittee  members are John Elliott, Peter Freeman, and School Board Member elect Amal Smith.

Jon Elliott, representing the Subcommittee (TRS), noted at the February 12, 2014 School Board meeting, that the structure of the tax reviewing committee avoids the Brown Act. The meetings are not broadcast or recorded, no agendas are created for public review and meetings of the Subcommittee are not open to the public.  Elliott, who had been concerned about the independence of the review committee prior to approval of the parcel tax, voiced his current approval of the process noting his participation on the Subcommittee.

Referring to the Tax Review Subcommittee (TRS),  Superintendent Constance Hubbard stated the School District was relieved of producing agendas, scheduling public meetings and complying with Brown Act deadlines because the TRS is a subcommittee of the Budget Advisory Committee.

The Subcommittee’s recent extensive report recommended levying the full $2,406 per parcel plus an increase of 2% for the 2014-15 tax period.  The report also notes an action to confirm the prior  year’s tax levy. The following are excerpts from the report:

The School Support Tax Advisory Subcommittee recommends that the District levy the Measure A School Support Tax (Parcel Tax) at its maximum level in 2014-15, including assessment of the maximum two percent (2%) increase above the rate in 2013-14. This amounts to $9,408,025 (2013-14 amount) million plus $188,160 (2%) for a total of $9,596,185. Based on the latest available budget projections — including indications that state funding will improve significantly for at least this next year — the Subcommittee recommends that the $188,160 raised by the 2% increase be directed to a parcel tax reserve account to be available during subsequent years during the term of Measure A (through 2020-21). Although financial trends presently are positive, considerable uncertainties cloud these projections, and the District has drawn down its reserves in recent years close to statutory minimum levels.

Review of 2013-2014 Parcel Tax Levy

In order to levy Measure A taxes in 2013-2014, the School Board was required to approve the levy before July 1, 2013. Although this Subcommittee was not formed until October 2013, we reviewed 2013-14 budgeting, revenue and expenditure documentation from the District. The District adopted a budget assuming $31,733,656 in revenue from all sources (including $9,408,025 from Measure A and $1,550,000 in community contributions), and expenditures of $32,630,183, for a deficit of $896,527. This budget continues to include cost- containment and program preservation priorities. As of the First Interim report in December 2013, actual revenues and expenditures are close to these adopted amounts. After this review, the Subcommittee confirms the appropriateness of the Measure A levy for 2013-14.

Read the full report of the Tax Review Subcommittee found on page 10 of the February 12, 2014 School Board agenda packet.  

Article updated February 23, 2014.  Changes are noted in blue lettering.

– Confusion Continues on Proposed New Property Tax Item of $9.55 Per Year Per Residential Unit for Hazardous Waste –

Questions continue to arise regarding the  $9.55 per year  for 10 years charge by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (ACWMA,) imposed as  a new item on property tax statements.  The tax/ “fee” is be charged to residential properties per residential unit. However, detailed documentation states multiple residential units will only be charged only one unit fee as a single residential property. The justification is that multiple units in one building would generate no more hazardous waste than a single family home. The reasoning conflicts with the plan to tax each condominiums within one building on one parcel with the $9.55 fee.

Can property owners vote against the tax? Not even that is clear. According to the ACWMA, residential property owners may protest the charge by following directions on the protest card sent to all property owners.  Are protests tabulated and does the protest card represent a poll of respondents? 

The rational for the tax/fee is a loss of revenues arising from a reduction in waste going to the landfill and the concurrent weight-based dumping fee. Great efforts toward recycling have been successful, resulting in a major loss of funding from the landfill fees. 

The Alameda County Grand Jury has repeatedly charged the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (ACWMA) with creating an unnecessarily large agency.  Since the entire budget of the ACWMA is involved, information on current allocation of all resources might provide property owners with an informed decision on the necessity of the 10 year $9.55  tax per year fee.

The following information is on the City of Piedmont website:

ACWMA Considers Household Hazardous Waste Fee; Sends Benchmark Report

Piedmont has been informed that the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (ACWMA), will consider adopting a fee of $9.55 per year per residential unit, collected through the property tax roll, at a public hearing on March 26, 2014. Residents may also comment in person at either the February 26 ACWMA Board meeting or at the hearing on March 26. Both meetings will take place at 3:00 p.m. at 1537 Webster St., Oakland.

A BART train derailed on the Pittsburg Bay Point line near the Concord Station at 6:30 pm on Friday evening, February 19.  The train had no passengers on board because it was headed to the Concord Yard.  The lone driver was not injured.

The cars of the train blocked tracks in both directions and overhung the elevated support. Service disruption on the Pittsburg Bay Point line is expected to continue at least through the weekend. The train was removed from the track with a crane on Saturday. Work then began on repairing the damaged tracks and the third rail. As of Saturday night Concord station remain closed and service adjustments in effect. BART announced an estimate to return to normal service on the Pittsburg Bay Point line on Sunday, February 23.

Read more and see photos on San Francisco Chronicle website.

– Piedmont’s Community Hall overflowed with well-wishers at the retirement of the Mayor and one Council member, swearing-in of newly elected Council members, and election of the new Mayor and Vice Mayor. –

Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson in speaking to the gathering noted that retiring Mayor John Chiang and the entire Council had served Alameda County as well as their city. Assembly member Nancy Skinner complemented Chiang and retiring Council member Garrett Keating on their service.

Keating reviewed his experiences and advised the next Council to seek public support before embarking on major projects and to vigorously enforce the new risk management plan. He concluded by noting that Piedmont’s “debt is real” and the government is not financially sustainable.

Chiang recalled his service on the Alameda County Transportation Commission, Municipal Tax Review Committee, the projects accomplished in partnership with the Beautification Foundation and his great expectations for the new City Administrator.

Teddy King, Tim Rood and Jeff Wieler were sworn in by City Clerk John Tulloch.

Jeff Wieler nominated Margaret Fujioka as Mayor, seconded by Teddy King and approved without objection. King nominated Wieler as Vice Mayor, seconded by Bob McBain, also approved unanimously.

The newly elected Council members each spoke, beginning with King. She complemented Piedmont’s smart, sophisticated voters, noting that many of her voters had never voted for Council before. She is inspired by her heroine, the late Democratic Governor Ann Richards of Texas.

New Council member Tim Rood thanked his supporters and noted the loss of community volunteers Steve Weiner and Bill Drum. He pledged to address Piedmont’s unfunded liabilities, to work for safer walking and biking in Piedmont and provide robust discussion of issues facing the City. He affirmed the legitimacy of citizens’ voices, even when their viewpoints are unpopular.

Re-elected Council member Jeff Wieler promised his remarks would be short and brief. He complemented Piedmont’s public works, police, fire, and recreation departments. He also thanked retiring City Administrator Geoff Grote, noting that all Piedmont’s streets are now as “smooth as a baby’s bottom.” He thanked Chiang for acting as his campaign treasurer and congratulated the two new Council members.

Newly elected Mayor Margaret Fujioka presented five priorities for her mayoralty: strengthen Piedmont’s finances; improve public safety; repair the City’s aging infrastructure; enhance communications through technology; and encourage civic engagement by initiating a new annual award for volunteerism and holding a first ever women’s forum. (See video of the Council meeting.)

Paul Benoit will assume the duties of City Administrator on March 1.  He attended the meeting to meet the new Council members and introduce himself to the gathered Piedmonters.

Teddy King, Tim Rood, and Jeff Wieler have been elected to the Piedmont City Council; Doug Ireland and Amal Smith have been elected to the Board of Education; and Measure A received the required number of votes for approval.

On Tuesday, February, 18, at 6:30 p.m. in the Piedmont Community Hall, 711 Highland Avenue, the newly elected members of the City Council will be sworn into office.  The meeting agenda includes the certification of the final election results and an opportunity to acknowledge the outgoing members of the council, John Chiang and Garrett Keating.

Following the seating of the new council, the election of a new mayor and vice mayor will be determined by council vote.  The positions have had two year terms.

“SECTION 2.08 MAYOR  [City Charter]

Following each general municipal election, the City Council shall elect from among its member officers of the City who shall have the titles of mayor and vice-mayor, each of whom shall serve at the pleasure of the Council. The mayor shall preside at meetings of the Council, shall be recognized as head of the City government for all ceremonial purposes and by the Governor for the purposes of military law, but shall have no administrative duties. The vice-mayor shall act as mayor during the absence or disability of the mayor. In case of the temporary absence or disability of both the mayor and vice-mayor, the Council shall select one of its members to serve as mayor pro tempore.”

More than one third (3,030) of Piedmonts’ 8,268 registered voters cast ballots in the February 4 election. The election results are noteworthy for selective voting in the category of City Council. Although voters were given the opportunity to cast a vote three times (for a total of 9,090 votes) in the uncontested council race, most chose only one or two of the three candidates, amounting to 3,356 undervotes.  The contested school board ballot had 1,088 undervotes.

Measure A, the bond measure to pay down the CalPERS side fund with a lower interest rate, passed readily with approximately 83% approval. Two hundred forty voters omitted the measure voting neither yes or no.  Tax measure approval is based on the number of voters voting on each specific measure rather than the number of voters submitting a ballot.

View the election results in detail.

Board of Education members will be separately sworn in on at a future date and a different location. 

February 6, 2014

Mr. Gary Wolff, Executive Director

Alameda County

Waste Management Authority

1537 Webster Street

Oakland, CA 94612-3355

       Re: Proposed Household Hazardous Waste Collection and      Disposal Fee

Dear Mr. Wolff:

       As you will recall I spoke to you recently by phone  concerning the above captioned matter. Firstly, there are a couple of housekeeping issues. (1.) I never received a so-called ballot regarding the proposed fee and as reported by several other people. And despite my request, I have not been provided one.  (2.) The phone number listed in the material (1-877-786-7927) continually rings “busy”. It clearly does no good to list an “information” number and never pick it up – a complaint expressed by several other people. (3.) The two different dates, February 26, 2014 and March 26, 2014, is confusing – again, a common complaint by several others.

       The Proposed Fee:  As you will recall, during our conversation I took the position that the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (ACWMA) lacked the required legal authority to either ballot for (conduct an election) or impose any such fee. Your position was and I presume still is, to the contrary. During our conversation you were insistent that the matter and the particular issues were thoroughly reviewed and approved by legal counsel. You also insisted that the proposal is by the authority and under the provisions of particular California State Statutes and applicable laws.

     However, when I asked that you provide copies of the material and documents supporting your position, you blatantly refused. Further, neither the enabling Ordinance, No. 2014, nor the Resolution # WMA 2013-06 (and as amended by Resolution #WMA 2014-02) cite any such legal authority, state statutes, laws, or codes.

     The only codes cited in the material are Government Code, section 6254, dealing with “public records”,  section 6066, concerning “notice publication”, and CEQA Regulations, section 15378(b)(4), and 15308, “project exemption”.

     We therefore take the position that the ACWMA lacks any and all legal authority to either, ballot the Alameda County electorate, residents, citizens, taxpayers, property owners, or otherwise, in order to impose a tax, fee, assessment, charge, or otherwise, or to “impose” (regardless of the outcome of a vote or an election) a fee, tax, assessment, charge, or other remuneration under the guise of a “Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Disposal Fee.”

     Please take notice that this correspondence is a formal complaint and notification that we seek immediate termination of the ACWMA proposal and of our intent to take whatever action deemed necessary in order to adequately protect our interest.

     Your immediate attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

               David E. Mix