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 concerned about seniors and tax deductions-

Re: Nov. 28 Board Meeting consideration of the  Mar. 6, 2013 School Tax Election

President Raushenbush and Honorable Board Members,

As the Piedmont school tax is already far more expensive than virtually all of the other 245 school support taxes in the 1,045 public school districts in the state, I am troubled that soon this tax will be even more expensive by a likely lack of tax deductibility. Fortunately, the Board can adopt a “like rate” tax. Doing so will allow sufficient funding as the Board deems appropriate, create a far more equitable tax system and most likely maintain the tax’s deductible status.

A “like rate” tax was approved in the recent November election for Measure CL in Los Angeles at 2 cents per square foot. Since 2004, West Contra Costa Unified has Measure G on the books, based on 7.2 cents per building square foot, renewed again this November. Alameda Unified School District Measure A, at 32 cents per building foot, passed March 2011. The “like rate” methodology, especially utilizing the building square foot approach, is far more equitable than our current tiered system which is sharply regressive to small home owners. Another advantage to the “like rate” tax structure is the apparently permanent deductibility.

All taxes mentioned above include a senior exemption, and all high ranking California districts have a senior exemption except for Piedmont, which is alone in denying compassion and equality to those who need it most, seniors on fixed incomes. I urge you to add a senior exemption to Measure A. The lack of a senior exemption is troubling and especially regressive as the Piedmont tax is so much higher than other school taxes. One example is the Piedmont tax being up to 2,493% more than the San Ramon Valley school tax with its accompanying senior exemption. That a person in the twilight of their life would be forced out of the community and home they love because of a lack of a senior exemption, when such an exemption is far more the rule than the exception, I find regrettable.

As to the low-income SSI exemption, quite literally no one can afford to live in Piedmont with the $2,000 SSI resource limit. Therefore the SSI exemption is a meaningless gesture, and the Board should seriously consider a senior exemption and dropping the pointless SSI exemption.

Just and equitable solutions have been presented that leave the Board with sufficient funding and, if enacted, will demonstrate that this Board can both provide Piedmont with a quality school system and equity for all residents.

Respectfully,
Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

Resident objects to proposed parcel tax structure-

November 16, 2012

Dear School Board Members:

I attended Wednesday night’s meeting and was pleased with the free exchange of decidedly held opinions about the proposed new school parcel tax.  Your decision to limit any new tax to an 8-year duration is a positive move.

Piedmont can be justifiably proud of the quality of its schools and I think that almost everyone at the meeting was strongly supportive of keeping the schools adequately funded.  I am in that group.

I was surprised that the issue of our current tax structure and its regressive nature, both addressed by my previous email to the board and expressed by others, was not included in the discussion. Although the to-be-implemented SSI exemption in the new tax is largely symbolic, it does recognize those on limited incomes which is a burden that falls disproportionately on seniors.

I think that perpetuating the inequitable and regressive method of a flat dollar amount of tax by tiered property size is wrong.  Let me demonstrate from the rates being proposed for single dwellings which will be voted upon in March 2013:

          DWELLING LOT SIZE     PROPOSED TAX

• 0 – 4,999 sq ft                                                $2,088 per parcel
• 5,000 – 9,999 sq ft                                          $2,372 per parcel
• 10,000 – 14,999 sq ft                                      $2,706 per parcel
• 15,000 – 19,999 sq ft                                      $3,107 per parcel
• More than 20,000** sq ft                                $3,547 per parcel

(** This should read “more than 19,999 sq ft” or “20,000 sq feet or more”.  As written, 20,000 sq ft lots are technically not included.)

This means that:

•   4,500 sq foot lots will pay $0.464 per square foot.
•   7,500 sq foot lots will pay $0.316 per square foot.
• 10,000 sq foot lots will pay $0.271 per square foot.
• 12,500 sq foot lots will pay $0.217 per square foot.
• 15,000 sq foot lots will pay $0.207 per square foot.
• 17,500 sq foot lots will pay $0.178 per square foot.
• 20,000 sq foot lots will pay $0.177 per square foot.

In other words, a 4,500 sq foot lot will pay 2.62 times the rate of a 20,000 sq foot lot.

As an aside, I believe that the smallest lot in Piedmont is about 2,000 sq ft and the largest is over 80,000 sq ft.  The tax rate difference between these two extremes (1.04 vs 0.04 cents) is astounding:  26 times!

I fail to see the equity in this perpetuation of the status quo.  This is nothing more than a regressive tax on the smallest sized lots in Piedmont which are most probably owned by people with a lower income base.  Why should smaller sized lots effectively subsidize much larger sized ones?

Equitability would be served if a square footage rate of between 22 and 27 cents was adopted.  I base this on a back-of-the-envelope calculation assuming a $9.5 million tax revenue target from 3,750 lots with approximately 34.4 million total square footage.

I disagree strongly with your decision to effectively not provide a full or partial voluntary senior exemption.  The age at which a homeowner is eligible for Social Security is an objective measure.  A member of the board advanced the argument that Prop 13 is the senior exemption.  It is an unwarranted assumption that everyone over 65 has paid lower property taxes because of Prop 13. Those properties with Prop 13 advantaged tax rates belong to residents who have maintained property ownership stability for more than 30 years (Prop 13 was adopted on June 6, 1978).  Is not “stability” a desired outcome of lengthening the time before school parcel taxes are submitted for a new vote? Why is it a negative when it comes to length of home ownership?

Over these 34 years, all homeowners have paid a full slate of school parcel taxes as assessed and many of these same citizens have not used the Piedmont school system while paying these taxes.  Are they now to be penalized for living here a longer time and paying more school parcel taxes than people who do not have similar residency and may pay higher property taxes?

Please don’t incent people to work against what is essentially a good thing by not adopting a more fair and equitable approach.

Thank you.

Jim McCrea, Piedmont Resident

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

Letter to School Board Members:

Comments on Proposed School Parcel Tax Measure

Dear President Raushenbush and members of the Board of Education:

The League of Women Voters of Piedmont appreciates this opportunity to provide comments as you develop the school parcel tax proposal this month. On November 7, Katy Korotzer briefed our Board members on various options you are considering. Her presentation and insights were very helpful. To the League, the most significant issue seems to be the term of the tax: whether it should again be four years, “permanent,” or perhaps something in-between.

When the League decides whether to take a position on a ballot measure, the Board looks to the League’s formally-adopted policy positions and weighs all that apply. Education has been a high priority for our League at least since 1948, when it decided to “[s]upport a high level of education within the Piedmont Unified School District.” Based on this position, the League has
endorsed every school bond and tax measure within memory. However, the League also has a strong statewide position in favor of including sunset
provisions in all dedicated tax measures (LWVCalifornia Position on State and Local Finances, paragraph 4h).

During the just-past election, the Leagues of Alameda County declined to endorse the county-wide transportation tax measure precisely because it would have implemented a permanent tax. The League adopted a “neutral” stance.

When the LWVP Board evaluates the school tax ballot measure, it will have to weigh both of these positions in deciding whether to support, oppose or remain neutral.

We understand the Board of Education’s desire to avoid the uncertainty and expense of seeking ballot approval of the parcel tax every four years. We urge you to consider the alternative of perhaps an eight-year tax.

Our members suggested several reasons why this might be a reasonable term, and better than a permanent tax. First, conditions change: State funding, the composition of the Board of Education, the district administration, and the very nature of education might well change significantly over the next couple of decades.

Second, having a school parcel tax on the ballot makes the whole community focus attention on the schools and their current issues, which seems to be a good thing.

Finally, if “only” eight years have passed since the last school tax ballot, there should still be “community memory” about how to rally the public to get the tax passed. A longer term would make this more problematic.

Thank you for this opportunity to give our perspective. We will be following
developments closely. We appreciate all you are doing for the schools and our community.

Very truly yours,

Julie E. McDonald
President, LWVPiedmont

cc Constance Hubbard, Superintendent
Katy Korotzer

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

A member of the School District Citizens’ Advisory Committee comments on the proposal for a “permanent” school parcel tax –

Outlined herewith are my serious concerns regarding this proposed new parcel tax:

• First, I am distressed and appalled by the prospect of making the parcel tax permanent.

• Without a doubt, future Boards and administrations will become so accustomed to such a permanent tax that it will simply fade into the basic tax structure that will no longer have the special importance as it does today.  It will be treated in the same manner as the advalorem tax is today.

• Once the “permanent” tax is no longer sufficient to satisfy the ever growing needs of the District, there will, without question, bring forth appeals for more “special” or “emergency” parcel taxes to heap on the taxpayers of Piedmont.  Just look no further than the so-called “emergency” tax proposed with this round of measures if State Proposition 30 had not been approved. There’s no doubt in my mind that this will happen once the state politicians figure out how to redirect any $$$$$ from Prop. 30 receipts to other priorities in a year or so!

• The only part of this proposed measure that I can support is the limitation of the annual escalator to 2%, mirroring the Prop. 13 limitation on assessed value growth.

• As to the so-called “Low Income Exemption for SSI Recipients”, I see this as very close to meaningless.  How many, if any, Piedmont property owners fall within these circumstances?  Few I wager!  A more realistic “senior citizen” or “lower income” provision should be incorporated into the measure.

• In relation to the proposed abolishment of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), I see this as an unfortunate loss of the public’s ability to view the activities and results of the use of the taxpayers’ money.  The current CAC is obliged to provide an independent report of its findings annually.  The proposal to fold the CAC duties into the Budget Advisory Committee is unlikely to provide such clarity.

• Based on my concerns indicated above, I must strongly urge that the Board reconsider the measure described.  If not, I will find it necessary to strongly and actively oppose the adoption of this parcel tax.  We must retain the ability to have the voters review the performance of the District and this Board at least every 4 years.

• And to the likely argument that the voters could, by initiative, reverse the proposed measure in the future, I would counter with my view that any such effort would be unlikely to muster an effective campaign.  Reversing a law, no matter how unpopular, is seldom, if ever, possible to accomplish.

George Childs

Piedmont Resident and member of the School District Citizens Advisory Committee

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

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.

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.