WELCOME TO THE OPINION PAGE
The following letters and other commentary express only the personal opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Piedmont Civic Association.
Submit a letter, opinion, article, etc. | Receive email notice of new articles
June 30th is the deadline for terminating the exemptions to the School Support Tax, Measure A.
Otherwise, the District will lose another $130,000 in revenue in FY 2016-17. Fear of a lawsuit is the explanation given to me for continuing the unlawful exemptions, but I believe this fear is unfounded.
The bottom line is that Measure A is the law and it allowed no such exemptions.
I take no great pleasure in finding fault with the District. But what I first thought was a simple accounting error has morphed over time into gross negligence and an appalling indifference to the law.
William Blackwell, Piedmont Resident
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
At the Planning Commission’s meeting on May 9, 2016, the commissioners reviewed proposed changes to houses in Piedmont, considering their effect on the neighborhood and the city. The Planning Commision meets once a month to make sure that individuals who modify their residences don’t change Piedmont’s image or feel. On May 9th, two families house modifications were reviewed.
The residents at 122 Monte Ave were proposing building a new multiple car garage under their house. Trellises were being proposed to hide this new addition, but one neighbor objected saying that this garage would look unsightly and that someone pulling out of it may scrape his car. The Commission approved this addition, but suggested that pavers be introduced to reduce the hardscape.
However, another proposal for 132 Hillside Ave was denied. The residents of 132 Hillside wanted to increase the footprint of their guest house and of their main house. This would require the removal of one of the sycamore trees.
Multiple neighbors spoke out and said that these additions would greatly increase the bulk of the house and obscure views from their houses. The neighbors did not want their names mentioned.
I spoke at this point, expressing my concern that one of the sycamore trees was to be removed. I think that sycamore trees are a major part of Piedmont and characterize the city and it would be wasteful and unsightly to destroy an old tree for a larger garage.
The Planning Commission denied the proposal because they too thought that the sycamore tree should be preserved and the house would become too bulky after the additions.
After the meeting, I interviewed the architect for the 132 Hillside proposal, Gary Parsons, and he explained that many plans get denied and that he would rather see the plans denied than see the relationships between the neighbors ruined. He intended to revisit the plans with the owners and perhaps modify the drawings.
By Oliver Hsu, Piedmont High School Senior
On May 9th, 2016, I attended a Planning Commission meeting in order to protest the housing modifications that the owners of 132 Hillside Avenue were proposing. The Planning Commission is a group of Piedmont representatives that make decisions on proposals for housing modifications and any construction projects that may come to fruition. The Commission meets on the Monday of the second week of every month in order to settle disputes between neighbors and, most importantly, come to compromises that will benefit the entire public rather than just one party.
During this meeting, there were two major proposals, both involving modifying the structure of the current house in order to construct a bigger, more modern garage. The owners of the 122 Monte Avenue had their plan approved with some minor changes to further comply with the wishes of some neighbors, who argued that the garage would look aesthetically unattractive.
However, I focused more on the project that was being proposed by the owners of 132 Hillside Avenue, whose plan entailed cutting down a California Sycamore tree. The owners, who spoke at the meeting, expressed their desire to construct a bigger garage, that also doubles as a guest house, while demolishing their older, smaller garage.
During this process, the plan was to move the separate garage structure forward, while also enlarging the structure by one hundred and nine square feet, which, from the point of view of their neighbors, would create a bulky, not to scale garage. The residents of 138 Hillside Avenue argued that the house at 132 Hillside Avenue already sticks out due to how big it is compared to the houses on the street and creating an even bigger structure would accentuate that characteristic.
Moving their garage structure forward would not only make the facade of the owner’s house much larger but it would also mean that a California Sycamore would be cut down in the process. California Sycamores are an iconic symbol within Piedmont and, as I stated in the meeting, the, “cutting down of the Sycamore should be avoided at all costs.” Sycamores are precious and should not be cut down just to benefit one party’s wishes for a third garage space but should instead be seen as a relic of the past in need of being conserved.
Commissioner Ode and Ramsey expressed their support of this argument by ordering the owners and architect to change the plan to better accommodate the concerns of the entire public.
Therefore, this plan was rejected and the Planning Commission prompted the owners and architect to revise the project so that the garage structure is less bulky and forward, which included suggestions such as: making the in-ground pool smaller, reducing the square footage of the structure and not including the third garage space in the plan.
After the meeting I interviewed the architect for the plan, Gary Parsons, who was there to give the Commission a proper overview of the plan and to find a compromise that would benefit both the owners and the neighbors. After hearing the verdict he did not seem to be surprised, stating, “[we] heard what they said and we will be back here with a revised plan but it is the [owners and neighbors] that need to come to a solution.”
by Chris Driscoll, Piedmont High School Senior
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
The Piedmont Unified School District’s Board of Education met on April 27, 2016 at Piedmont City Hall for its monthly meeting. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:02 pm and began with open session. The first speakers, Claire Reichle and Emilia Rivera, discussed a lack of emotional based learning in Piedmont’s school systems.
Sean Rodriguez spoke about the amount of time required to play a sport at Piedmont High School. He stated that on average, basketball players would be at practice for three hours a day during the week, and up to five hours on Saturdays. He suggested having a maximum of two hours each day for practice, allowing student athletes to have more time to rest and study.
Later, Tom Jara suggested that Piedmont High School should have accessible condoms for students to encourage and make safe sex an easy and available option for students.
Sierra Singer wanted to reduce the price of salads at Piedmont High School. She stated that the Piedmont School District has always advocated healthy eating, but a salad is more expensive than chicken tenders and pizza at the high school’s cafeteria. Due to this, students feel more inclined to eat cheaper, unhealthy foods.
After open session, the School Board discussed the Piedmont Unified School District’s budget. The Board discussed that the District is in debt and that money is very tight. They suggested a new tax called the School Support Tax for 2016-2017. The purpose of this tax is to raise money for the District, allowing it to pay off its debt and continue providing high-grade equipment for the schools.
Piedmont High School’s Vice Principal, Ms. Munoz, came to the stand to propose a new computer class for the High School. The class would be labeled the Advanced Placement Computer Science Principles Course. This class would allow students to expand their knowledge of computer programming and prepare students for computer science related majors and jobs after graduation.
Mr. Mattix, a Piedmont High computer teacher, also spoke about the new computer class. He stated that this class would replace the current Mobile Applications computer class. Mr. Mattix and Ms. Munoz also explained that nearly 100 students have already expressed interest in the new class.
Nearly 50% of the interested students are female. This is a key point for Piedmont High School, as the High School has been trying to encourage girls to pursue computer science and even out the percentage of boys and girls interested in programming.
Personally, I believe this is a good addition to Piedmont High School’s computer science department. As a junior, I took Advanced Placement Computer Programming. After completing that course, however, I did not have another course to take as a senior. It appears that Advanced Placement Computer Principles is a course that furthers the knowledge learned in the Computer Programming course I took. If this class is approved, it will allow students to get more practical experience with their computer skills, as well as learn new information, making them strong candidates for future computer programming jobs.
In an interview with Mr. Mattix, he stated that he was at the meeting to help Ms. Munoz answer questions about the newly proposed Advanced Placement Computer Science Principles class. He also wanted to inform the Board of the astonishing number of people interested in the class, as well as mention that the population of female programmers is nearly even with the amount of male programmers at Piedmont High School. Mr. Mattix sees this as an accomplishment, as only two girls were enrolled in advanced placement computer science courses his first year teaching at Piedmont. When asked what he would do next, Mr. Mattix stated, “There is no next step for me. I have helped prepare the class and proposed it to the Board.” The decision to approve the class is now in the hands of the Board.
Piedmont High Vice Principal Munoz also proposed new math courses at Piedmont and Millennium High Schools. These courses, Integrated Math 2, Integrated Math 2A, and Integrated Math 2B/3, would cover material in Model Mathematics II and III courses in the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics in California Public Schools.
A Piedmont Middle School teacher spoke out on this topic. She claimed that middle schoolers would be prepared to take these classes. Piedmont High math teacher, Mr. Marthinsen, spoke against this proposal. He believed that students should not have more high level math classes to worry about. He suggested that Piedmont ban all Advanced Placement and Honors classes. He feels that students are under too much pressure, and are unable to truly process information or enjoy learning due to the tremendous amount of pressure and work given.
The Elementary Design Program then proposed a new schedule for Piedmont Elementary schools. The Design Program argued that the current schedule has too many transitions in the day, making it difficult for younger children to stay on task and work efficiently. Due to this, the Design Program stated that too much time is being wasted, not allowing enough time for core academic instruction and learning. The Design Program’s new schedule would also provide ample opportunities for integrated learning, arts, and technology. The proposed schedule limits interruptions throughout the week by having a similar class schedule everyday. By having a similar class schedule everyday, students’ lives will be less chaotic as they can plan to learn certain subject at a dedicated time each day.
by Sean Rodriguez, Piedmont High School Senior
On the eve of balloting for Measure F, proponents again ignore growing City revenue and make a number of false claims about the opposition.
May 25 Councilman Wieler wrote that opponents’, “Revenue estimates are overblown.”
FALSE. Opponents highlight that the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) has been overly conservative and contradictory within its own report concerning revenue going forward.
At p.10 of the BAFPC Report the Committee uses a 4.3% transfer tax growth rate over 15 years and then at p.29 states a flat $2.8M transfer tax through 2022 with no growth rate. Opponents examined the entire 35 year history of the transfer tax to 2015 and found a 6.45% compound annual increase.
While facility maintenance costs are rising, ever increasing City revenues assure that the 30% tax increase is not needed. Proponents estimate an unrealistic and overly conservative flat transfer tax going forward.
Despite the last five years $3.3M transfer tax average, the committee uses a flat, no growth transfer tax estimate of $2.8M through 2022. This unrealistic view is the questionable justification for the 30% parcel tax increase. Using either the committee’s stated 4.3% transfer tax growth rate or the more robust 6.45% lifetime rate, in 5 years the transfer tax will be minimally $3.5M to $3.8M. The committee only projects $2.8M.
Proponents ignore fundamental macro-economic forces that ensure an escalating revenue stream for the most desirable and expensive City in Alameda County. The Committee projects the 2022 Property tax at $14.8M, a 33% increase from 2016, but the committee does not project the commensurate transfer tax increases.
Proponents ignore the Pension Sidefund payoff in 2020, freeing up $1.3M annually. Substantial additional revenue will be available for facility maintenance. Throughout the Measure F campaign proponents have never addressed nor provided counter information to our examination of the robust quality of revenue going forward.
Wieler continues on May 25: “The current transfer tax is coming in low”.
FALSE. The Feb. 15, 2016 2016 mid-year Fiscal Report shows transfer tax receipts at $1,449,618 which is 53% of the proponents $2.8M projection.
Invariably the spring selling season accelerates sales as is again occurring this year. The just released June 6, 2016 City budget report shows the transfer tax revenues at $2,367,798 July-April. With 83% reporting completed the tax is at 85% of the conservative $2.8M with the two busiest months of May and June yet to be booked. The transfer tax is not “low.”
Tax proponents claim opponents state the City has excessive employee staffing.
FALSE. Opponents have never made this claim. We ask that the 2011 MTRC staffing/service analysis be done so a determination is made.
Tax proponents accuse opponents of stating: “A $120,000 Special Election is needed if Measure F fails”:
FALSE. Opponents have never asked for a special election. Historically, failed parcel tax proposals have been scaled back and placed on the next regular ballot at minimal cost. The November ballot is available.
Both the East Bay Times and East Bay Express note the lack of transparency and recommend a NO vote on Measure F because the City Impartial analysis and Ballot question do not state the 30% increase.
Transparency is missing as are realistic estimates of revenue going forward.
Vote No on Measure F.
Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident
Councilmember Bob McBain and Vice Mayor Jeff Wieler in last week’s Piedmonter severely criticized former Councilmember Garrett Keating and Piedmont resident Rick Schiller’s opposition and analysis of the June 7 City parcel tax, Measure F, for concluding that a 30% parcel tax increase (never mentioned in the ballot summary or “impartial” City Attorney analysis) is unnecessary. Just as Schiller had warned in 2012 that the proposed $11 million Measure A Sewer Tax was unnecessary, he has once more informed voters of Measure F failings.
Who should we believe?
The 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee including the Bob McBain and Ryan Gilbert, Sewer Subcommittee, recommended a $11 million Sewer Tax increase, but Gilbert withdrew his support when public documents disclosed no factual or legal justification for the tax. However, McBain and Wieler remained fervent Sewer Tax supporters.
McBain signed the Sewer Tax ballot arguments and Wieler vigorously continued support for the Sewer Tax, however informed Piedmont voters soundly defeated the new Sewer Tax.
Wieler then predicted disaster, writing in The Piedmont Post, page 21, February 29, 2012: “Unfortunately, without the additional revenue that Measure A [Sewer Tax] would have provided, it is impossible to imagine how the remaining unimproved 40% of Piedmont’s sewer system can be rehabilitated in the next 10 years.”
McBain’s and Wieler’s predictions predictably crashed. Schiller had been right.
On Oct. 6, 2014, the Piedmont City Council, with Councilmember McBain and Vice Mayor Wieler voting yes, loaned $800,000 from other City funds to the Sewer Fund to complete the sewer rehab. The failed Measure A Sewer Tax was needed only in McBain’s and Wieler’s thoughts.
While promoting a stunning 30% parcel tax increase in Measure F, the team of Wieler and McBain should provide a credible explanation for their past performance before denigrating Keating and Schiller.
Thomas D. Clark, Piedmont Resident
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author. PCA does not support or oppose ballot measures and accepts opinions both pro and con.
Councilmembers Wieler and McBain accuse Measure F opponents of misrepresenting the facts and direct voters go to the city website for more information.
We encourage voters to do so as well, and we provide the following references to help voters learn the facts. We summarize Wieler and McBain’s arguments and hope voters will visit the links to determine what information is accurate.
___________1. Wieler and McBain claim that the 2007, 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC)and 2015 Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) recommend that the City establish reserves. True. But MTRC 2007 and 2011 did not advocate for a tax increase like the BAFPC does. Rather these committees recommend spending controls – 2007 MTRC proposed a trigger mechanism to NOT levy the parcel tax based on property and transfer tax revenues (http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/mtrc-report.pdf, p.46) and the 2011 MTRC proposed a cap on employee benefit levels (http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/09-06-11/mtrc.pdf, p.6).Rather than propose to raise taxes, these committees saw that the City could budget conservatively and put away reserves when the real estate market was good. Since 2012, Council has followed this sound advice by transferring $3M to the facility maintenance fund.________2. Wieler and McBain claim the recommendations of the 2011 MTRC have been accomplished. False. The MTRC recommended a cap of employee benefit levels (pension and health benefits), a “mission critical” analysis of City services and staffing levels and establishment of a facility maintenance fund (http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/09-06-11/mtrc.pdf, p. 7, 28, 42). Since 2013, the City has reduced the growth rate of its annual pension payments by requiring that employees share increases in CalPERS rates. To cap health benefits, the 2015 BAFPC proposes a “cafeteria” benefits plan (http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/2015-12-07/parceltaxreport.pdf, p.5). Council has yet to act on that. The facility maintenance fund has been established and $1M has been spent on projects like electrical upgrades and there’s $2M in reserve for leaky roofs (http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/2016-02-16/midyearfiscal.pdf, p.7). The analysis of City services and staffing levels has not been undertaken.___________3. Wieler and McBain claim the cafeteria benefits plan is “irrelevant”. False. Adoption of such a plan for City employees is recommended by the 2015 BAFPC (2015 BAFPC, p.5) and the substantial savings that would be achieved are documented in the report. Wieler and McBain claim such savings will help control personnel costs but can’t be used for facility maintenance; this assertion ignores the fungible characteristic of the City budget. Annual savings in employee benefits costs will be available for transfer to facility and equipment reserves – this is in part how the current facility maintenance fund has grown to $2M. The current contract with city employees expires in June 2017 and now is the time for Council to adopt the cafeteria plan in the next contract._____________4. Wieler and McBain claim the Athletic Facilities Maintenance Fund (AFMF) and SchoolMates Fund can’t be used for facility maintenance. False. The AFMF was used for the resurfacing of Linda Beach Field and just last month $200,000 was allocated from this fund for Hampton Field maintenance (http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/2016-04-18/hamptonpark.pdf, p.5). The SchoolMates Fund has always been used for upkeep of those buildings.___________5. Wieler and McBain claim $450K is insufficient for annual facility maintenance. False. This is the average level of facility maintenance spending determined by the 2011 MTRC and 2015 BAFPC. Costs for long-term deferred maintenance are currently being refined by City staff (2105 BAFPC, p. 24). When finished, there likely will be a need to allocate more funds for facility maintenance but the extent to which the parcel tax needs to be raised will depend on whether the cost saving recommendations of the MTRC and BAFPC are implemented.___________6. Wieler and McBain claim the $11M pension surplus shouldn’t be used for facility maintenance. True, but that’s a claim opponents never made (http://www.piedmontcivic.org/2016/05/15/election-opinion-piedmont-voters-should-not-approve-an-increase-in-the-parcel-tax/). Opponents said these funds could be used for the increasing CalPERS pension obligation that the City faces. Instead, Wieler and McBain claim these funds should be used to pay for long-term underfunded retiree health benefits. Either way, upcoming negotiations that cap benefit levels will add to the growing surplus.____________7. Beyond our analysis of cost, we have always maintained that City revenues are more than sufficient and enjoy regional upward pressure on a continued robust revenue stream. Wieler and McBain are entirely mute on this important half of the tax equation. The 2015 BAFPC Report (p.11) uses a 15 year time frame for the Transfer Tax, going from $2,287,982 to $3,901,252 and the Report states a 4.3% compound annual increase. Proponents then state the erratic nature of the Property Transfer Tax yet ignore the 35 year history of the transfer tax. 1980 – 2015 the compounded annual rise is 6.45% annually. We estimated the transfer tax in five years at $3.8 Million and we use Proponents conservative $2.8M estimate as a starting point rather than the last five-year $3.3M average. No one can question the robust nature of the ever growing Property Tax. From 2001 to 2015 the tax grew at a compound rate of 5.1% with no down years. We estimate property tax revenue at $13.9M in five years. Proponents make no comment.____________8. Critically, Wieler and McBain fail to mention the $1.3M additional available funds coming online in 2020 when the Pension Side Fund debt ends._____________Wieler and McBain accuse Measure F opponents of inaccuracies and misinformation, but voters can judge for themselves by reading the reports. These reports call for two basic actions by City Council – the capping of benefit levels and the establishment of facility maintenance reserves. The extent to which a parcel tax increase is needed will depend on whether the City adopts the cost-saving measures recommended by the MTRC and BAFPC.
Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont Councilmember
Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident
Piedmont’s taxpayers have paid over $2 Million in excessive costs for City projects due to poor management ($1.3 M from the Undergrounding fiasco, $400,000 from Blair Park’s so-called “gift,” $340,000 from purchasing police radios that are incompatible with Alameda County).
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, while underestimating property tax revenues in spite of a 25-year trend of increasing revenue.
Approval from two-thirds of the electorate should require 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.
If Piedmont voters reject Measure F now, the pair of measures could be placed on the November ballot without danger of current services being interrupted, because the existing tax doesn’t expire until June, 2017.
Bruce Joffe, Piedmont Resident
Examples of supplemental math programs –
The father of a family who recently moved to Piedmont from another State contacted me to help him find Math programs to supplement PUSD [Piedmont Unified School District] education. He was aware of the Khan Academy, but would like to put his 9 year old in a group of like-minded students led by a professional teacher.
I gathered the following information through Elwyn Berlekamp, a Piedmont long time resident and retired Math UC Berkeley Professor.
There are several possibilities for such students. 1) and 2) are focussed on extra-curricular math rather than attempting to directly reinforce whatever happens in the regular school curricula.
- Berkeley Math Circle. One evening meeting every week on Berkeley campus. Has several dozen regular students, mostly 5th thru 10th graders, organized in three separate tracks with transferring in between as appropriate. The book “Circle in a box” is recommended reading for parents and students interested in math circles.
- Firecracker Math, a more personalized Piedmont-centric program. Classes are held at the Kehilla Community Synagogue. The founder is Eva Levine who earned an MS in applied mathematics from the Moscow Petrochemical University.
- Proof School. That’s a private junior high school now located at 555 Post Street in San Francisco (not cheap). They may be moving to another location in downtown SF (hopefully nearer to BART) sometime next year. They teach a full curriculum including all subjects, with a very strong emphasis on math. Their headmaster is Sam Vandervelde, who was the author of the book on how to organize a math circle; it’s been a big force in the formation of over 100 math circles nationwide in the past decade since the first circle started in Berkeley.
- Julia Robinson Mathematics Festivals and Celebration of Mind events. These attract both 6th graders and younger kids. But they are isolated one-day or half-day events. There are a handful of them scattered throughout the Bay Area throughout the year.
1) and 3) may already be winding down for the summer. Most years there is a 2 to 3 week intensive summer program at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI) mostly focussed on high school Olympiad students.
I hope this information is helpful to our community.
Bernard Pech, Piedmont Resident
The June 7 election has important consequences for Piedmont. Measure F on the ballot proposes to raise the municipal services tax (aka the parcel tax) by 30%.
The parcel tax was adopted in 1981 to make up for Piedmont tax revenues reduced by the passage of Prop 13 and is critical to providing the excellent services and amenities we enjoy in Piedmont. The 30% increase is claimed to be needed for long-term maintenance of city facilities and sports fields.
No increase in the tax is needed and residents may vote No on Measure F and still renew the current parcel tax before it expires in June 2017.
As background, since 2011, finance review committees comprised of Piedmont residents have convened annually to look at city finances and have concluded that three goals must be achieved for Piedmont’s fiscal sustainability:
- A cap on employee pensions and benefit levels
- Staffing and organizational changes that reduce the compensation growth rate a facility maintenance plan and reserve fund
- A facility maintenance plan and reserve fund
The first two goals have yet to be achieved. The last goal has been implemented and is stated as triggering the tax increase to raise $450,000 for annual and deferred maintenance.
But does the City have to raise taxes to implement facility maintenance? The answer depends in part on how much city revenues will grow over the next 5 years. This year’s committee took a conservative approach and assumed the transfer tax – the 1.3% tax paid at time of house sale – will stay flat at $2.8M annually for the next 5 years. History shows the transfer tax has increased at an annual compound rate of 6.45% over its entire 35-year history. In five years the transfer tax is estimated to be $3.8M.
The Committee also examined the largest source of City revenue, the property tax, over a 13 year time period. With no down years and a 5.09% annual compound growth rate, this source of revenue is rock solid and is estimated to grow in five years to $13.9M from 2015’s $10.9M.
The Committee’s overly conservative approach of underestimating revenue is unneeded as the City’s reserves are healthy.
Since 2012 the Facility Maintenance Fund has allocated over $1M for maintenance projects and currently has over $1.5M in reserves. Other maintenance funds, like the Athletic Facilities Preservation and Schoolmates Program Funds, grow annually from user fees and are currently over $400,000. Combining State gas tax receipts and Alameda County Measure B funds, the city receives over $1M annually to maintain our streets and sidewalks. Annual facility maintenance costs are estimated at $450,000; so even with flat revenues there are sufficient funds for maintenance until 2020. Worst case scenarios by tax proponents are rendered mute by the ultimate backstop, the $4.1M General Fund reserve.
The positive revenue will continue and grow, as by 2020 the city will no longer be paying off the Pension Refinance Bonds approved by voters in 2012; this frees up
$1.2M a year to divert to other city needs. Likewise, the city has an $11M Pension Fund surplus that will not pay out and can be diverted to meeting Piedmont’s rising CalPERS pension obligations, freeing up funds for maintenance and other programs.
Since 2011, our volunteer finance review committees have proposed caps on benefits to minimize future liabilities. This year the Committee recommends the city adopt a “cafeteria” benefits plan, a plan that caps benefit levels but gives employees leeway on how they spend their benefit dollars. Wanting more control over health care and benefit costs, many Bay Area cities and agencies have established cafeteria plans. The City has yet to adopt this important cost savings which would save the city $500,000 annually by 2025 and over $1M by 2035.
The extent to which Piedmont needs to raise the parcel tax for facility maintenance can largely be determined by the cost controls Council achieves in the current contract negotiations. A tax increase should await resolution of these cost issues so these costs are not passed on to future taxpayers.
Renewal of the parcel tax at the existing rate should be put on the November 2016 ballot so Piedmont can maintain services until all financial sustainability goals are met.
Garrett Keating, Former City Councilmember and Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors. The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose ballot measures.
Content on the PCA website by Piedmont Civic Association is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Some icons are Copyright © Yusuke Kamiyamane
