Nov 12 2012

OPINION: Concerns Raised by a Permanent School Tax

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.

Nov 4 2012

School District Considers New Permanent And Emergency Parcel Taxes

And Abolishes Citizens Advisory Committee Independence –

At its meeting on Wednesday, October 24,  the Piedmont School Board, in ongoing efforts to grapple with significant  and ongoing budget shortfalls, directed School District staff to draft a tentative resolution to restructure Piedmont’s parcel tax as a permanent “evergreen” tax, possibly with an annual escalator of 2%. The Board also directed staff to draft a resolution to abolish the Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC) as an independent oversight entity, and to prepare an additional “flat tax” proposal in case Proposition 30 fails to win a majority vote in the Nov. 6 election.

The Board requested public input before its next November 14 meeting when the  two draft resolutions will be presented.  President of the Board, Rick Raushenbush, noted that public input on the alternative tax structures has been “all over the map.”  Click here to send email all School Board Members

Draft Resolutions to be discussed Nov. 14      

  • PERMANENT  TAX of $2,088 – $3,547 per parcel
  • 0% to 2% ANNUAL ESCALATOR  (to be decided by Board on Nov. 14)
    • no increased written or public notice to taxpayers of proposed increases
    • continue existing notice at two public School Board hearings prior to increases
  • LOW INCOME EXEMPTION based on SSI Income limits
  • RESTRUCTURE INDEPENDENT CITIZENS’ ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC)
    • Convert to subcommittee of the Budget Advisory Committee (rather than independent oversight committee)
    • Members appointed by President and Vice President (rather than Board)
    • Limit to 3-5 members (rather than at least 7)
    • Past District staff permitted to serve on CAC subcommittee (if resident of Piedmont)
  •  POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY TAX

    • Flat $275 per parcel for 4 years

A Major Restructuring of Piedmont School Parcel Tax

The proposed draft will provide for a permanent tax, eliminating city-wide votes held every 4 years to determine the amount of the tax.  Board members Raushenbush, Andrea Swenson, and Roy Tolles strongly urged a flat tax with no escalator because the District will be asking voters to approve a permanent (“evergreen”) tax.   Other members were willing to support an escalator of “up to 2% increases” annually to allow for inflation and mirror the Proposition 13 limit on other property taxes.  Limiting the escalator to “the lesser of” 2% or the CPI was also mentioned.

Raushenbush noted that he had received a call from former School Board President June Monach, who reminded him of the District goal of reducing the parcel tax as a percentage of the school budget.  If state funding continues to be flat, an escalator will result in local taxpayer support increasing above the current 33% of the District’s budget. 

The level of the permanent tax would be the current Measure B tax, plus an anticipated 5% increase in June 2013, for a total amount of $2,088 – $3,547 per parcel.   (The discretionary 5% increase, previously authorized by the 2009 Measure B, will be voted on by the Board in March 2013.)  The restructured Measure B would become effective on July 1, 2014 when the current 4-year measure expires.

No enhanced notice of increases

While  some Board members expressed a desire for greater accountability through annual public forums, polls, surveys, or other options, the Board, via its President, directed staff not to change current notice requirements for annual tax increases. If an escalator is ultimately included, the draft resolution will permit tax increases to be levied annually without specific prior written notice to taxpayers. As under the Current Measure B, two public School Board hearings would be required prior to any  increases.  Annual increases levied by the School Board would be discretionary and not automatic.  However, the Board has imposed the maximum allowed increase each time prior measures authorized an increase.

Citizens’ Advisory Committee loses independence 

The Board President directed staff to abolish the separate independent structure of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC) oversight, despite some members noting it had provided “valuable input” to the Board.  The draft proposal will restructure the CAC as a small 4-5 member sub-committee of the Budget Advisory Committee (BAC).

This change has additional impacts.  Members of the CAC subcommittee are appointed by the Superintendent, rather than the Board.  Persons previously on the District staff will be permitted to serve on the CAC if they are a Piedmont resident.  Currently, district staff serve on the BAC, while the CAC consists of Piedmont residents, enabling resident input with no conflicts of interest when advising the Board on parcel tax levies.

The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was mandated by the 2009 parcel tax measures and established as an independent Board-appointed committee.  The Committee is charged with “conducting an independent examination of the District’s budget“.  (See, as an example, the 2012 CAC report.)  It prepares an annual comprehensive report with recommendations on the appropriate parcel tax levy amount and:

“a high level, comprehensive analysis of the District’s budget, including relevant metrics, historical trends, and comparisons with similar school districts, that provides an analytical basis for the Committee’s recommendations.”

While the Budget Advisory Committee has traditionally been allowed to make recommendations to the School Board on the budget, the extent to which the CAC could analyze and make recommendations on program and personnel costs was challenged by district personnel.  In response to these concerns, the School Board previously clarified the CAC’s charge and limited its ability to analyze district costs and make recommendations to the Board.

BAC members, who are selected by the Superintendent, are not listed on the PUSD website or the Piedmont Portal and not generally made publicly available.  The  PUSD website describes the BAC as “representatives from each school site, employee associations (APT  for teachers and CSEA for classified staff), administration, support groups, the community at-large, and the Board of Education.  Members serve for one to two years.”  The number of voting members is not specified, nor the number of votes required to make a recommendation to the Board.  Minutes of the meetings are not posted online.  However, the Superintendent has noted the BAC is subject to notice and other “sunshine” provisions of the state Brown Act and that the district complies with the Brown Act.  In September, the Superintendent indicated that, in contrast to past practice, a person from each representative group has not necessarily been appointed to the BAC in recent years. 

An “SSI” Low-Income Exemption

A “senior” exemption to the school parcel tax based on age will not be included in the draft resolution.  However, an exemption based on meeting the income limitations for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) will be included.  This provision was supported by 4 Board members.  Eligibility would be established by the taxpayer’s annual “SSI Award” letter from the local Social Security office, rather than determined by the Piedmont Unified School District.  In 2012, SSI was limited to those with less than $1,010 of gross monthly income.  Earned, unearned, in-kind, social security, and deemed income, as well as assets, are considered, making it unlikely that many Piedmont residents, even seniors on fixed incomes, would qualify.  

Additional 4 Year Flat Tax Possible if Proposition 30 Fails

The Board also directed staff to prepare a second parcel tax resolution for an emergency tax.  If Proposition 30 fails in the November 6 election, the Board may ask voters to approve this additional funding before reducing costs.  The emergency tax would be a flat, annual $275 per parcel for 4 years.  (In contrast, the prior “one-time emergency” Measure E was a 3-year tax of $249 per year.)   A “SSI” exemption would be included.

The $275 tax will generate $1.5 million, designed to match the automatic one-time 2012 trigger cuts of $1.5 million which will occur if Proposition 30 fails.  However, the new temporary measure is proposed for a term of 4 years, not 1 year.

According to Hubbard, contract negotiations with employee unions will be opened the day after the vote on Proposition 30 (Nov. 7, 2012) in an effort to eliminate a $1.2 million shortfall in Piedmont’s 3 year budget plan, restore a state mandated reserve of 3% (almost $1 million), and if Proposition 30 fails, address an additional $1.5 million shortfall, for a total potential $3.5 million deficit.  District is currently borrowing and repaying funds from the School Bond Fund to cover cash flow issues.  School Superintendent Constance Hubbard previously identified $4 million in ongoing District operating cost reductions which have not been implemented.

The District engaged an outside consultant to conduct telephone interviews with 200 residents selected “from all areas of Piedmont.”  Parents and non-parents were included, though the ratio of parents to non-parents was not reported.  The full results of the survey were not reported in writing.  Staff indicated residents were asked if they “supported” various aspects of the District program (e.g. teacher development) without specific cost information, and asked about possible tax structures.

On November 14, the School Board will review the draft language of the two tax resolutions and determine whether or not to impose an escalator of up to 2%, rather than proposing a flat tax. The Board will continue to take public comment on the draft resolutions.  However, staff has indicated there will not be sufficient time to make major revisions and still meet deadlines to place them on the March 2013 ballot.  The Board continues to ask for public input prior to their final approval.  Comments may be sent to the Board members at their email addresses.  (See below.)

School Board positions and Draft Resolution (based on direction to staff – no vote taken).

 

Oct 30 2012

Part 4: A PUSD Deficit: $1 million – or potentially $3.5 million

Part 4:   A Close-Up Look at Piedmont School Finances

In March 2012, Superintendent Constance Hubbard brought a 3-year budget plan before the School Board with a $2 million structural deficit: $1 million ongoing shortfall faced as of 2013-14 and $1 million in reserves will be exhausted by June 2013.  As this structural deficit manifests itself in 2013, residents will be voting on the renewal of a school parcel tax(es) in March.

Revenues Threatened

In addition to this initial deficit, a potential revenue issue has also arisen.  The School District budget being developed in early 2012 included $1.5 million in revenues from the State that were threatened with elimination.  State revenues allocated to Piedmont of $1.5 million will be cut automatically from the Piedmont budget if Proposition 30 fails.  (Although some replacement may come from the passage of Proposition 38 or the legislature acting to  restore funds).

Passage of Proposition 30 does not result in any “new funds” for the Piedmont School District because the threatened funds were already included in budget projections.

$2 million expense growth  +  $1.5 million revenue threat = $3.5 million problem

If passage of Proposition 30 or 38 preserve existing PUSD revenue, Piedmont schools must still address the district an unresolved $2 million in personnel expense growth that exceeds existing revenue.

In March 2012, when explaining the Board’s intention to approve a budget that included an ongoing $2 million structural deficit, some Board Members expressed the opinion that this “deficit budget” approach would create less turmoil than making cuts and later restoring them when new revenues (not in the budget) materialized – i.e. increased state or local revenues above existing projections.  The comparative impact of early adjustments if new or existing revenues did not materialize was not discussed at the March meeting. 

In September, at the first 2012 Budget Advisory Committee meeting, Superintendent Hubbard explained that, when developing PUSD budget projections in early 2012, staff had viewed the State threats to reduce existing funding as a political tactic intended to “frighten taxpayers.”  She further noted that, in her experience, contingency plans create discord and injured feelings when discussed before it is certain that adjustments will be required, even if funding is later restored and actual cuts do not occur.

According to Superintendent Hubbard, employee contract negotiations will be re-opened the day after the vote on Proposition 30 and 38 to resolve the District’s $2 million structural deficit –  and a potential total $3.5 million shortfall.  Potential cost reduction options totaling ~$4 million were identified during 2011 contract negotiations to address the district’s structural deficit, but not yet implemented.   And, if Proposition 30 and 38 both fail, the State could take affirmative action to restore state funding before actual revenue losses occur.

During the March 2012 budget discussion, Board Members did not discuss implementing $4 million in remaining potential cost reduction options identified during 2011 contract negotiations to address the district’s structural deficit.  (Action had previously been taken in 2011 to slow the projected growth of expenses by $3 million and raise parcel tax revenues by $1.2 million; additional potential cost reductions of $4 million were not implemented; as a result, a $1 million deficit was not resolved and $1 million of reserves not maintained.) 

The local school parcel tax was raised as an issue,  including the possibility of placing a new parcel tax structure before the voters for approval.  (See PCA article on Board new tax proposals for a permanent parcel tax and an extra “emergency” tax.)   Recently, the Board has asked for public input on a new parcel tax and a possible emergency tax.  changes that could include:

  • A permanent tax or a 6-8-10 term
  • Flat tax with no escalator (not more than $2,088-$3,547 level)
  • Possible escalators (2-3% cap or an inflation index)
  • 2-part tax (a permanent baseline flat base tax and a supplemental tax)
  • “large” supplement if state tax measures fail (on the scale of $3 million Measure E)
  • Exemptions based on age or income
  • Legal restrictions on parcel size-based tax
  • Continuation of Citizens Advisory Committee
  • 4-year renewal

The past 2 Measure B parcel tax measures were structured (for 2006 and 2009) authorized interim annual tax increases by the School Board of up to 5% per year.  Pursuant to this authorization, the Piedmont School Board levied the maximum 5% tax increases 5 times – each year it was permitted to do so – between June 2007 and June 2013.   These annual increases did not require annual written notification mailed to taxpayers.  The Board complied with legal notice requirements by placing the item “parcel tax levy” on its agenda twice prior to an increase:  first to allow discussion and then to vote. The opportunity to increase accountability for annual increases through polls, surveys or an annual public meeting was raised at the October 3, 2012 School Board meeting.

Temporary Emergency Tax Replaced with Ongoing Taxes 

As of 2001 Piedmont school parcel taxes generated $2.5 million or 12% of the budget.  The levy has since tripled and now generates $8.5 million, or about 33% of the school budget.

The current 33% level of support will continue despite the expiration of the emergency Measure E tax.  While the temporary $1 million Measure E levy expired as of June 2012, new Measure B annual 5%  increases are now generating $800,000 more each year.  If a third potential increase is imposed in June 2013, it will bring the total new Measure B funding to over $1.2 million per year.  These funds replace the lost Measure E funding.

Piedmont School Bond assessments (a separate levy) have been growing due to recent School construction and renovation work, and will continue to do so.  (For more details on future bond assessment increases, see How do School Bond assessments fit into the picture.)

Discussions on the amount and structure of the 2013 parcel tax will be occurring at the upcoming School Board meeting on November 14, and the  School District urges public input before or at this meeting.  A decision by the Board is planned for November 28 to place the new school tax measure on the ballot March 5, 2013.  Piedmont residents wishing to provide input on the tax may contact School Board Members by email (below).

The public is also welcomed at District Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) meetings, where discussions on the parcel tax are also anticipated.  (See schedule of BAC meetings.)

Click here to send email all School Board Members

 

 

Oct 28 2012

Part 3: Piedmont School District Facing a Quandary

Part 3:   A Close-Up Look at Piedmont School Financial Decisions 2000 to 2011 –

Following Proposition 13, Piedmonters rallied behind the City’s public school district to enact a school parcel tax. Voters rallied once again to triple the Piedmont school parcel tax over 6 years (2006 to 2011) to maintain Piedmont per-student spending.  The Piedmont tax is now $1,000 to $2,500 more than any other school district in Alameda or Contra Costa counties, including Lafayette, Moraga, and Orinda.

Continued growth in the Piedmont school parcel tax has been deemed unsustainable by school leaders.  Local taxpayer funding has grown at an annualized rate of 15% from 2000 to 2011.  On September 16, 2010, Piedmont School Board members “thanked the community for its financial support for education, including the emergency parcel tax, but all agreed that relying on private funding and temporary fixes is not sustainable — a more permanent solution is needed.” (See September 2010 Piedmont Neighborhood News article.)  The Citizens Advisory Committee for the School Parcel Tax (CAC) recognized the need for support will be intense (at p. 6), but states, the “historical rates of increases in parcel taxes cannot be sustained in the future, and that existing levels may already impose unsustainable hardships on fixed-income and low-income taxpayers.”

A District Goal since 2006 has been “to establish a long term financial plan” which would “address annual budget shortfalls”.  (At p. 31-33.)

Today, the district faces a quandary:  a highly effective education for a relatively stable student population based on current financial resources has not yet been achieved, despite this being a District goal since 2006.  (See report at p. 15.)   The District faces a growing gap, which Board Members and CAC members feel cannot be bridged by a continued rapid growth in parcel tax rates. 

Efforts to Match Spending Growth with Revenue Growth

Over the past decade, the District has taken some steps to slow the growth of expenses – but has passed on other opportunities.  Even though state revenues have dropped from $5,837 per student in 2008 to $5,255 in 2012, a drop of 10%, per student expense has increased slightly from $11,074 in 2007 to a projected $11,546 in 2014.*   This is an increase of under 1% per year.  Parcel taxes have increased substantially to fill the loss in state revenue and to fund growing salary and benefit costs.   School Board President Richard Raushenbush noted at a recent School Board meeting on October 24, 2012 that earlier in the decade, district pay was raised substantially, not anticipating State revenue cuts.  Despite State cuts, from 2000 to 2011 total district revenues have increased at an annualized rate of 5.4%, and expenditures at 5.6%.

Overall, PUSD spending almost doubled from 200o to 2010 (increasing $13 million), while state and federal funding increased 1% per year (increasing $5 million).   

In a 2006 report to the School Board, Superintendent Hubbard pointed out,  “Since 2000/1, well over $1 million dollars in operating cost reductions were made.”  (At p. 32.)  This was a 1% reduction in spending growth on expenditures of $170+ million during the period 2000 to 2006. 

In 2006, following voter approval of a parcel tax increase to $1,000+ per parcel, the School Board gave Hubbard a specific District goal:  establish a sustainable “long term financial plan” (at p. 32-33) based on the increased level of local funding.  (For comparison, Moraga, Lafayette and Orinda parcel taxes (including Acalanes Unified School District) were around $500 at the time for K-12 education.  As of  2011, the level of Piedmont funding had climbed to $2,000 to $3,000 higher per student than Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda.)

In 2009, following voter approval of an additional 3-year emergency parcel tax, the District made some budget adjustments, including:

  • For 2009-10, the School District noted overall expenditures of $30 million had been reduced by 2.41% (See report at p. 15), while per-student spending continued to increase (by less than 1% per year).
  • As of June 2009, Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) to salaries were frozen, but teachers remained eligible for salary increases based on length of employment and additional education (“Step & Column”); benefit cost increases continued.
  • For 2010-11, rather than reducing on-going expenses, the District balanced its budget through “one-time revenue increases and spending cuts, and dipping into District reserves” according to Superintendent Hubbard.  (See report at p. 15.)

The Outcome of 2011 Employee Contract Negotiations

New employee contracts in June 2011 allowed an opportunity for budget adjustments since salary, benefit, and pension costs for personnel represent about 90% of District spending:

 “In the short term, the District’s single most important opportunity for adaptation is the set of three labor contracts being negotiated between the District and employee groups for the three fiscal years 2011/12 through 2013/14.”  (CAC at p. 1.)

The School Board adopted a policy to “fully balance the District budget over the 3 fiscal years ending 2013-14”, providing specific guidance to Hubbard and the other District negotiators. (CAC report at p. 5)

To achieve this goal, Superintendent Hubbard identified specific options capable of generating $8 million in budget adjustments within 2 years.  Most were ongoing rather than one-time adjustments.   Cutting an ongoing expense creates an ongoing budget benefit, while a one-time expense cut affects the budget only one year.   When early opportunities for ongoing adjustments are bypassed, options for saving a particular sum become more difficult.  (Click to enlarge chart showing projected impact on budget.)

Source: Superintendent’s report in agenda packet of September 16, 2010, p. 21. ; see also 9/23/10 Budget Advisory Committee PowerPoint Presentation

Revenue enhancements fully implemented, but not all spending reductions implemented

Revenue enhancement options were fully implemented.  The parcel tax levy has been increased twice by the School Board since 2010, adding the full (compounded) $1.2 million cumulative parcel tax revenue in 2 years.  (See Options Chart.)

Some, but not all, spending reductions were implemented.  A cap was placed on further employee medical benefit increases.  (CAC 2012 report at p. 2.)   Some furlough days were implemented (reducing expenses by reducing instructions days).   Teachers remained eligible for Step and Column salary increases ($300,000 per year cost); COLA salary increases continued to be frozen. Medical retiree benefits, an estimated $4 million unfunded liability, were reduced by $100 per month for retirees.  CalSTRS pension contributions are not on the option list because they are set by the State and cannot be altered.  Of the projected cost reductions identified, about $3 million were implemented and about $4 million were not.

As a result, the next 3-year budget plan Superintendent Hubbard presented the School Board (in March 2012) did not balance.  It projected reserves would be exhausted in year 2 (June 2013) and an ongoing $1 million shortfall was anticipated in year 3 (2013-14) and every year thereafter.  This left the School Board in the position of certifying a budget to the Alameda County Superintendent of Education as “Positive” (i.e. vouching that the district had the ability to pay its bills) based on its ability to lay off 32 teachers in June 2013.  (See here and School Board hearing discussions.)  County authorities were consulted to determine whether the School Board could provide this certification with projections showing a deficit and no reserves (a 3% reserve is normally required by law).  The PUSD received the necessary reassurance.  Appropriate certification of the budget by the School Board is important to avoid a potential State takeover of a school district.

What Lies Ahead

Uncertain State funding has not made the District’s budgeting easy.   State revenue limit funding to Piedmont has decreased from $5,837 per student in 2008 to $5,255 in 2012, for a reduction of $582/student and a cumulative loss of $7 million.  This $7 million loss has been offset by an increase in Piedmont parcel taxes:  a $3 million emergency parcel tax (Measure E) plus increases in the regular (Measure B) parcel tax since 2008.  Local taxpayer funding has increased from 12% in 2000 – to 33% of the district operating budget in 2008 – to 39% as of 2012 to offset the loss of State funds.  Despite the state revenue drop, overall PUSD per-student spending has remained relatively flat, increasing by less than 1% per year since 2008.

Over the past decade, local parcel taxes have covered both loss of state revenues and growth in PUSD personnel costs.  With the approval of the School Board, the PUSD has not built up reserves, in line with the PUSD Superintendent’s “philosophy of spending all the revenue” each year and maintaining 3% reserves.  In contrast, some other districts have built up substantial reserves, e.g. Walnut Creek up to 37%. 

Previous choices during 2011 contract negotiations made by Superintendent Hubbard and the School Board have left the PUSD with a $1 million ongoing structural deficit and $1 million in missing reserves.  The Piedmont Board of Education states it is “committed to making policy and financial decisions that enable the school district to provide quality educational programs and services to all students of our community.”   Piedmont’s class sizes, classroom support para-educators, library, counseling and other student support services have been reduced instead of eliminated as in other districts.  The District remains at the National Average in per pupil spending and in the top ranks of student achievement as measured by standardized testing.

And now the District faces a new potential $2.5 million revenue loss problem  . . . see Part 4.

 

*Enrollment has dropped from a high of 2700 in 1998/99 and has remained relatively flat since 2007/8.


Read More in this series of articles examining Piedmont School Finances:

Oct 19 2012

School Board Considers Major Changes to School Parcel Tax

Permanent or long-term tax is on the table –

At its meeting on October 10, the Piedmont School Board discussed the next school parcel tax measure, which may have a much different structure than in the past.  Immediate public input was urged repeatedly, prior to the Board’s anticipated final approval of the ballot measure on November 28.  Changes will be difficult after that date.  (Emails provided below.)

Changes and options discussed by School Board members included:

  • Permanent tax
  • Tax with a 6, 8, or 10 year term
  • Flat tax with no escalator (not more than $2,088-$3,547 level)
  • Possible escalators (2-3% cap or an inflation index)
  • 2-part tax (a permanent baseline flat base tax and a supplemental tax)
  • “large” supplement if state tax measures fail (on the scale of $3 million Measure E)
  • Exemptions based on age or income
  • Legal restrictions on parcel size-based tax  
  • Continuation of Citizens Advisory Committee
  • 4-year renewal

Each School Member offered his or her preliminary thoughts.

Andrea Swenson:  “hopes for” a flat tax of 6-8-10 years or permanent, preferably with an income exemption.

Rick Raushenbush:  “open to” a long-term or permanent tax; noted it was a problem to have both a long-term tax and an escalator; noted legal issues with exemptions.

Ray Gadbois:  pointed out advantages to stability of a longer-term tax; “open to” different options for an escalator at a lower growth rate tied to inflation index, noted opportunities to increase accountability through polls, surveys or annual public meeting; noted legal problems with an income-based exemption and parcel-sized based tax.

Roy Tolles:  Mentioned a 6 year or permanent tax, a 3% cap, making increases more “upfront”, and limiting exemptions to the supplement above a baseline tax.

Sarah Pearson:  “leaning toward” a permanent tax, may be time to test the voters

An additional “large” supplement if Propositions 30 and 38 fail?

Consideration of a “large” supplemental parcel tax on the scale of the $3 million Measure E if state tax measures (Propositions 30 and 38) fail was mentioned repeatedly by Board members.  Options previously identified by Superintendent Constance Hubbard to create $3-4 million dollars in additional cost reductions were not raised by any Board member. 

The Board encouraged the public to participate at the next Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) meeting on October 23, as well as the next 2 Board meetings on October 24 and November 14.  The BAC meeting offers a relatively informal format for public input.  It was noted that, after November 28, changes will be difficult to make.

Comments offered by each Board Member: > Click to read more…

Oct 19 2012

School District Budget Advisory Committee Oct 23

A special meeting of the Piedmont Unified School District Budget Advisory Committee will be held Tuesday, October 23, 2012 from  6:00 – 7:30 p.m. in the District Office Board Room, 760 Magnolia Avenue.

The meeting scheduled for Thursday, Oct. 25, was canceled and rescheduled for Tuesday, October 23. The evening meeting will provide an opportunity for the community to give input on the proposal for the School Support Tax.  Recommendations for the tax will be discussed and referred to the School Board for consideration at their meeting on Wednesday, October 24, 2012.

AGENDA
1. Welcome – Superintendent Constance Hubbard
2. Discussion of School Support Tax Election – March 2013

The public is invited to attend and participate in this meeting.

 

Oct 16 2012

Test Scores Up at Piedmont Middle School

Good News from STAR Test Results –

Message from Jeanne Donovan, Principal Piedmont Middle School

We have great news to report regarding the STAR results for the 2011-12 school year at Piedmont Middle School:

PMS’s Academic Performance Index score (API) from last spring’s STAR testing increased from a score of 943 to 966, a 23-point gain. The API is a single number that ranges from 200 to 1000, and reflects a school’s performance level based on the results of statewide testing. Its purpose is to measure the academic performance and growth of schools. PMS also met all Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) criteria including participation rate, percent proficient, and API score.

I attribute our success in the STAR results to many factors.  Our teachers have embraced a more collaborative teacher evaluation system, and are taking advantage of common planning time to share strategies and learn from each other’s successes.  Throughout the school there is an increased focus on collaboration within and between departments, in order to improve student learning.

Teachers are also using our data management program, Data Director, to look closely at the specific data within content clusters of the STAR test.  Looking closely at these data helps teachers develop, refine, and restructure their teaching in order to address specific areas of need.

The extremely generous contributions of parents are also a huge factor in our success.  Given the uncertainties of funding from the State, it is the parent contributions that allow us to continue to improve our excellent program.  Donations to the Giving Campaign, the School Support Tax, the Piedmont Education Foundation, and ongoing parent support of state funding initiatives are all vital to the strength of our program.  Adding to this are the countless hours and amazing dedication of our parent volunteers.  It is this partnership between parents, school and administration that leads to success.

Please keep in mind that STAR is only one indicator of either our school’s or any individual student’s annual academic progress. Teachers also look at other forms of assessment, such as common assessments, formative assessments, and benchmark assessments.  As seriously as we take grades and test scores, it is of equal importance to our staff to stay focused on the healthy emotional, physical, and social development of our students.

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

Oct 11 2012

Budget Advisory Committee Meeting Changed to Evening of October 23

October 25th meeting has been rescheduled to October 23 – 

The date and time for next week’s Piedmont Unified School District Budget Advisory Committee meeting scheduled for Thursday, Oct. 25 at 3:30 p.m. has been changed to Tuesday, Oct. 23 from 6:00 – 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be held in the District Administration office 760 Magnolia Avenue.   This change has been made to accommodate those who are unable to attend an afternoon meeting and to provide for a meeting before the next Board of Education meeting, which will be held on Wednesday, Oct. 24. This meeting will provide an opportunity for members of the community to give input on the proposal for the School Support Tax Election.

The following are other scheduled meetings of the School District Budget Advisory Committee:

Oct 11 2012

OPINION: School Board Urges Yes Vote on Props 30 and 38

School District Counting on Voter Support-

The Piedmont Unified School District supports the passage of both Proposition 30 and Proposition 38 because each would provide needed revenue to public schools.

Since the onset of the state‘s fiscal crisis in 2008, public schools statewide have experienced unprecedented funding reductions and apportionment deferrals totaling more than $20 billion. State funding to Piedmont has decreased from $5,837 per student in 2008 to $5,255 in 2012, for a reduction of $582/student and a cumulative loss of $7M in State funding since 2008. California public schools now rank 47th out of the 50 states in average per-pupil spending, and Piedmont receives even less than the California average.

The 2012-13 California state budget is predicated on voters approving Prop 30 on November 4. Failure of Proposition 30 will trigger automatic cuts to K-12 education throughout California. The effect on Piedmont will be an immediate reduction of an additional $1.1 million dollars annually from the state. Passage of Proposition 38, which is also on the November ballot, would direct billions of dollars to public schools, although we would still have the trigger cuts described above. If both measures pass, then the one with the most votes would go into effect. Voters will not be taxed twice.

Because the Piedmont Board of Education is committed to making policy and financial decisions to help the school district provide quality educational programs and services, we support both measures that provide funding for public education.

Andrea Swenson,

Trustee and Vice President, Piedmont Board of Education

Link:  BOARD RESOLUTION

Editors Note: The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose candidates or ballot measures.

 

Oct 7 2012

Now is the Time Urges Superintendent Hubbard

Speak Up on School Parcel Tax Proposal –

School Superintendent Constance Hubbard is urging the public to provide early  input on the next school parcel tax proposal.

“It is important for the public to understand that now is the time to give suggestions and feedback [on the next school parcel tax], and not wait until Nov. 28 when the proposal is up for vote.” (At p. 5.)

Hubbard pointed out that input can be offered to the Board through phone calls and emails, as well as speaking at the Oct. 10, Oct. 24 and Nov. 14 School Board meetings.  Hubbard noted the public should “not wait until the November 28 meeting when the proposal is up for vote.”

An official Piedmont School Board goal is to develop and implement a sustainable plan to balance the District budget based on the principle of, “Over the long term, stabilize the local taxpayers’ share (percentage) of funding the District’s budget by reducing the growth rate of local parcel taxes.” (At p. 5.)  Superintendent Hubbard noted the PUSD is “looking at holding on to what we have.”

Timeline:

  • Oct. 10 – Present options to the School Board and community regarding amount, duration beyond 4 years, escalation options, and exemptions
  • Oct. 24 – School Board provides direction to staff on a draft resolution
  • Nov. 14 – Draft resolution presented to the Board
  • Nov. 28 – Special Board meeting to approve the resolution and ballot
  • Jan. 2013  – School Tax Campaign Committee begins campaign
  • Mar. 2013 – School Parcel Tax Election
  • Nov. 2013 – A second opportunity, if the first parcel tax proposal fails

School Board contact information:

Click here to email all School Board members

 

« Previous Page | Next Page »