We’ve all been moved to tears looking at a photograph, felt our hearts race listening to music, been entertained by theater and movies. The Arts are how we talk to each other — how we speak about things for which we cannot find the words. Why would we not want this for our children? We proudly support Measure A & all the teachers who enable our children to explore our world through the arts.

 Pete & Amanda Doctor, Piedmont Residents

__________________________________________________________

I just finished reading the Final Summary Report of Piedmont’s Seismic Safety Program.

It was great to see what a diverse collection of citizens supported the good work of the school district at various points in its progress. Once again I feel blessed to live in a community where PUSD leadership and citizen participation combine for a positive outcome.

I am equally encouraged to know that PUSD Administrators have made oversight and accountability a major consideration for passage of Measure A, the school support tax, by specifically soliciting citizens to serve on a subcommittee of 3 to 5 Piedmont taxpayers who will review and report on Measure A revenue and expenditures.

Dana Serleth

____________________________________________________________

With a real estate practice in Piedmont, we are particularly tuned in to the direct effect high achieving school districts have on real estate values. The relationship between housing prices and local public schools and services has been widely studied and established. In an economic downturn, Piedmont homes have maintained value in large part because we are a community that prioritizes high quality services for all our citizens, including, our youth, our seniors and every age in between.

 Measure A will keep Piedmont schools strong by renewing a stable, locally controlled source of funding. All money raised by Measure A will stay in Piedmont to support our local schools. It cannot be taken away by the State or used for other purposes.

 Join us in voting YES on Measure A.

 Debbi Di Maggio and Adam Betta, Piedmont Residents

Editors’ Note: The opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association. PCA does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office.

Due to technical difficulties some of the links on the Piedmont Civic Association website are not operating properly.  Until the problems are corrected, please send OPINIONS, INFORMATION, and ARTICLES to www.editors@piedmontcivic. org.

We apologize for any inconvenience and if we have missed any submittals, be assured our goal is to receive and publish information in a timely manner.

Thank you,

PCA Editors

Resident explains reasons to vote No on School Support Tax

The PUSD Board is a body of elected members who are ultimately responsible for the activities, results, and fiscal strength of Piedmont’s schools. They have proposed in Measure A, that a so-called “independent” subcommittee (The Parcel Tax Advisory Subcommittee) of the Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) be formed to review the School Support Tax uses, and to recommend the subsequent year’s levy. The Subcommittee members would be chosen from BAC members and approved by the President and Vice President of the Board. To me, this doesn’t look like an independent review of the PUSD’s operations and finances. It looks like a situation in which the Subcommittee members, who were approved by the Board, might feel obliged to agree with and endorse the Board’s predilections.

Why is a truly independent review important? Piedmont ranks third highest of the State’s top 10 Academic Performance Indicator scores. Yet, the proposed tax ($2,406) is more than twice that of top-rated San Marino ($1,169), while all of the other top 10 districts’ tax rates are under $700. Is Piedmont’s school district being managed efficiently? It takes a truly independent review to determine this.

We recently suffered a similar situation with our City Council. They presided over a multi-million dollar public works fiasco which might have been prevented had there been some kind of independent oversight of the project. Let us learn from that disaster and build into Measure A, and future taxes, a more robust review and oversight mechanism.

I want Piedmont’s schools to be top-ranked, and I am willing to pay taxes to achieve this. But I need to know that our tax money is being used as efficiently and effectively as possible. It would behoove our School Board to secure a truly independent review and oversight of activities and finances for which they are responsible.

Proponents for Measure A argue that voting “No” will damage our schools. In fact, the current school tax doesn’t expire until the end of June, 2014. A better tax measure could go on the ballot in June 2013, or November 2013, or March 2014. We don’t need to approve the deeply flawed Measure A at this time.

Another flaw in the current Measure A is its unequal taxation. With a single tax amount per parcel, irrespective of the parcel’s size, this tax charges small parcel owners as much as 40 to 80 times more per square foot than large parcel owners. A fair and uniform tax would levy the same amount per square foot. The Board’s advisors think that the recent Borikas v Alameda Unified School Board decision by the Court of Appeals restricts a uniform size-based tax. Others disagree. On January 7, 2013, the Court of Appeals agreed to rehear the appeal of the trial court decision, thereby, the previous decision is now vacated. And, on the same day, Assembly member Rob Bonta of Oakland introduced AB 59, which clarifies the existing law. So remedies for a fair and uniform tax are on the way.

It would be unfair to lock in a tax that is higher for nearly 3,000 owners of smaller parcels while reducing the tax on approximately 800 of the largest parcels, compared with the current tax charge. There is adequate time to fix this inequity before Piedmont needs to approve another school tax.

Proponents of Measure A point out that Piedmont’s excellent schools raise our property values over similar homes in other cities. Indeed, if all properties enjoy the same percentage of increased value, the larger properties receive a much larger dollar amount of this benefit. Shouldn’t they pay a larger amount of the school tax? A uniform tax based on parcel size would be fair and equitable.

Let’s vote NO on A now, so that we can vote YES on a tax measure that assures efficient management and that taxes us equitably.

Bruce Joffe Piedmont resident, home owner, and concerned citizen.

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association (PCA).  PCA does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office.

Measure A Supports School Arts Programs – 

Dear Editor,

 As an artist and as the Program Director for the Piedmont Center for the Arts, I have a unique perspective on the importance of arts education in our town. One reason that the Piedmont Center for the Arts has been a phenomenal success is because Piedmonters understand that engagement with the arts opens up our perceptions and allows us to discover new possibilities in our self and the world around us. We know that children naturally have an enthusiasm for discovery of self.  Self discovery is enhanced through the arts and is imperative to their overall development.

The PUSD has been able to maintain a comprehensive program in visual and performing arts, and in music, due in large part to the dedication of district leadership and the overwhelming community support for the school support tax for the past 27 years.

Difference Between Types of Exemptions- 

Dear Editor:

The supporters of Measure A are incorrectly characterizing one of the points made by the opponents of this proposal. The Proponent ballot rebuttal to the Measure A opponent argument states:  “The opponents simply have their facts wrong.  Low-income seniors are exempt from Measure A.”  The Argument Against Measure A makes this point:  “Piedmont does not have a senior exemption and this must be included. The proposed SSI (Supplemental Security Income) exemption for low-income seniors is meaningless in Piedmont.”

There is a substantial difference between a senior exemption and a low-income senior exemption.  In our region alone there are at least 35 school districts with age 65-only qualification for 100% senior exemption; the age 65 only qualification is common and most school districts use this straightforward qualification. Piedmont is 3^rd in the top 10 list of California school districts by Academic Performance Index (API) and only Piedmont does not offer an Age 65 senior exemption if a school tax is present. The details for these two points are contained at http://tiny.cc/36xyqw.

Local school districts define “very low income” using Federal classifications and on a very different basis from what the proponents feel is right for Piedmont:

• Berkeley USD:  household income below $37,400.
• Moraga SD:  household income below $32,350 to $49,850, depending on household size.
• Oakland USD:  household income below $31,250 to $58,950, depending on household size.
• Orinda Union SD:  household income below $46,150 to $60,950, depending on household size.

 Regarding Piedmont’s SSI qualification as a senior exemption, regardless of even the extremely low income levels of SSI, a person is not eligible if resources exceed $2,000 (exclusive of residence and car). The high cost of living in Piedmont virtually ensures any senior with a home will not qualify for SSI. The reality is that there is no meaningful senior exemption with Measure A.

To reiterate the closing statement of the Opponents to Measure A:  “Vote NO on Measure A. Instead, let us vote for a tax in November that is equitable, has genuine citizen oversight, and a meaningful senior exemption.”

Thank you,

Jim McCrea,  Piedmont Resident

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

Piedmont resident Rick Schiller compares high-scoring California school districts API scores, school parcel tax and exemptions for property owners 65 or older.

Top Ten California School Districts by Academic Performance Index (API). All have Age 65 only to qualify 100% Senior Exemption except Piedmont.

35 Regional School Districts have age 65 Senior Exemption

Local Schools with age 65 Senior Exemption and “very low income” Verification

 Berkeley USD –below $37,400 per household to qualify

Moraga School District – below $32,250 to $49,850 depending on household size to qualify

Oakland USD – below $31,250 – $58,950 depending on household size to qualify

Orinda Union SD – below $46,150 to $60,950 depending on household size to qualify

 The Federal poverty definition for a single person is below $11,170

 Piedmont’s “low-income” Senior Exemption defined as SSI “qualified”

Disqualified above SSI $730 monthly / $8,760 annual unearned income limit Disqualified from SSI if resources exceed $2,000

Editors’ Note:  The chart is the research product of the author and not the work of the Piedmont Civic Association.

Letters to PCA Support Measure A on March Ballot – 

Dear Editor,

Urges Steps to End Senseless Violence –

On Friday, 12/14, a few hours after learning about the senseless shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., I was prompted to take a long walk in our small town. The walk provided much-needed silence and space to reflect on the horrific tragedy that has touched so many.

On my way home, I walked past our lovely elementary school, Frank C. Havens and through an open window in the school’s auditorium I could hear the clear and truly enchanting voices of children practicing a song for their upcoming Winter Concert. I paused and listened, as the singing voices made me smile and feel hope.

Immense hope, in fact, that even in the face of random acts of unthinkable violence perpetrated against the most vulnerable in our communities: our children, that to be human is to love deeply and passionately — and we have the power to bind together and collectively upend the interests of the few who gain so much in making weapons that eviscerate the innocent http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/12/14/parents-advocacy-groups-outside-white-house-today-is-the-day-for-action-on-gun-control

Denise Bostrom, Piedmont resident

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

Editor’s Note:  “Like-rate” generally refers to a flat charge,  for instance $100 per parcel.  Legal counsel to the Piedmont school district has advised that, to the extent the school levy is tiered or graduated (based on square footage or otherwise), the levy risks being considered an ad velorem tax, which is illegal and subject to challenge by any taxpayer as unconstitutional.  (See School Board discussion of the tax levy of October 10, 2012.)

Resident Urges School Board to Reconsider Tax Basis-

Dear School Board Members:

I strongly urge your reconsideration of the basis for the new parcel tax you are recommending for the March 2013 special election.  We are all working toward the goal of continued adequate, equitable and defensible school funding.

Equity and tax deductibility are of primary concerns to me, and, I believe, most of the Piedmont voters.  The November 18^th issue of the Piedmont Civic Association highlighted a matter of increasing concern:  that ongoing tax deductibility of parcel taxes that are NOT based on “a like rate on owners of all properties in the taxing authority’s jurisdiction,” as outlined in a recent IRS opinion letter is questionable. What you are proposing stands a good chance of failing the “like rate” test and could result in Piedmont residents receiving a “Notice of Additional Tax Due.”  Furthermore, the PCA article pointed out that “an aggressive stance by the FTB could not only impact the deductibility of Piedmont’s proposed 8-year school parcel tax of $2,000 to $3,500, but other city parcel taxes that are also based on parcel size.”

A like rate will ensure equity for all Piedmont homeowners, i.e., the same amount per square foot of property or habitable space.  It will stand a strong chance of passing future FTB or IRS tests.

A parcel tax is based on the characteristics of the parcel and, as such, permits differing rates for residential and commercial parcels.

A Local Classrooms Funding Authority parcel tax (Measure CL) was approved on the November 6^th  ballot for voters in Los Angeles County in the Lawndale, Hawthorne, Wiseburn, Lennox and Centinela Valley school districts.  Measure CL levied a parcel tax of 2¢/square foot for residential property, and 7.5¢/square foot for other types of property.

The West Contra Costa Unified School District has a parcel tax rate of 7.2 cents per square foot, which was extended until 2018 by the voters (Measure G) in the November 6^th election by a vote of 75% to 25%.

Both of these school funding sources have seen the wisdom and advantage of using a “like rate” per square foot form of parcel tax.  Piedmont needs to consider the same approach in order to ensure equity irrespective of property size, and ongoing tax deductibility of this and future parcel taxes.

Thank you,

Jim McCrea, Piedmont Resident