Polling Place Locations

There will be six polling places in Piedmont on Primary Election Day June 7, 2016.  Polls are open until 8:00 p.m. Vote-By-Mail Ballots may be dropped off at any Alameda County polling location until 8:00 p.m. the day of the election.

 The polling locations are as follows:

YOUR POLLING PLACE LOCATION MAY HAVE CHANGED.

Check your sample ballot or the My Voter Profile page to find out which polling place is yours.

General Information

If you have any questions regarding your voter registration, your sample ballot, or your polling place location, please contact the Alameda County Registrar of Voters Office at (510) 272-6933.

Piedmont Parcel Tax Measure F on the June 7, 2016 Ballot

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

Editors’ Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.  PCA does not support or oppose ballot measures and accepts opinions both pro and con.

It is time to prepare for 2016 November Election!

All ballot measures and candidates for the Piedmont City Council and the Piedmont Unified School District board need to adhere to the November 8, 2016 General Election timeline.

OPEN SEATS 

The Council and School Board each have an open seat because a member is termed out and cannot seek re-election.  On the Council, Margaret Fujioka will retire and on the School Board Rick Raushenbush will retire. 

Candidates seeking election to the City Council or School Board can file papers beginning July 18 and ending August 12, 2016.

BALLOT MEASURES

“Should the Council wish to place a measure on the November ballot, there would be little additional charge to do so.”

“Should the Council wish to place a measure on the November ballot, two readings of the ordinance placing said measure on the ballot must occur prior to requesting the services of the County to conduct the election, which must occur on or before August 12, 2016. Therefore, the Council would need to conduct the first reading of an ordinance no later than July 18th and the second reading no later than August 1st in order to meet the deadline.”

The cost of the November election will either be borne completely by the City or divided between the City and the School District, if they have a competitive election.

As previously quoted by the Registrar of Voters, the cost for this election will be between $4 and $6 per registered voter in Piedmont, which number approximately 8,300.

Timeline for the November 8, 2016 Election:

• Deadline to Publish or Post Notice of Election: July 18, 2016
• Nomination for Candidates Period: July 18 – August 12, 2016 
• Deadline for Ballot Measures: August 12, 2016
• Deadline for Direct Arguments on Ballot Measures: August 19, 2016
• Deadline for Rebuttal Arguments on Ballot Measures: August 26, 2016
• Last Day to Register to Vote: October 24, 2016
• Early Voting at the Registrar of Voters’ Office October 10 – November 8, 2016
• Election Day November 8, 2016
• Read the Staff report here. 
• Read the Agenda for the June 6 Council meeting here.

Beginning at 7:30 p.m. the City Council will take up its regular agenda in the Council Chambers.  Agenda items include: (Click on items to read the reports.)

06/06/16 – Receipt of a Report on the Timeline for the November 8, 2016 Regular Municipal Election

06/06/16 – Receipt of a Report on the 2016 Annual Adjustment to Trash, Greenwaste and Recycling Service Rates 

06/06/16 – PUBLIC HEARING Regarding the Proposed Budget and Fee Proposals for FY 16-17 and the Levy of the Municipal Services Tax and Sewer Tax

a. Presentation of Report from the Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee

b. Report on the FY 16-17 Budget Proposal 

06/06/16 – Consideration of Direction to Staff Regarding the Inclusion of Projects Recommended by the CIP Review Committee in the FY 16-17 Budget Proposal

The public may comment on any agenda item during the meeting or on a non-agenda item during the Public Forum. You may choose to write comments to the Piedmont City Council, c/o City Clerk, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611 or send an email to: >  jtulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us. All comments submitted will become part of the public record and may be posted to the City’s website.

The meeting, open to the public, will be broadcast live, and recorded.  Go to Cable Channel 27 and the City website under videos to view the meeting. 

Read the full agenda here.

The East Bay Express Editors recommend a “No” vote on Measure F and wrote:

“The City of Piedmont hopes to re-up an existing municipal tax, which expires next year, with Measure F. The plan is to increase parcel taxes in the city for four years, so as to defray the costs of police, fire, paramedics, and parks and public places. The tax requires two-thirds of voters’ approval. The catch is that Measure F is also a thirty percent increase over the existing parcel tax — a detail that the Piedmont city attorney just so happened to gloss over in its impartial analysis for voters. The Express urges a no vote on this flawed tax.”

Read the complete editorial here.

The East Bay Times recommends a “No” vote on Measure F and wrote:

“Piedmont Measure F: NO

Piedmont’s Measure F would increase that city’s parcel tax by 30 percent. But the ballot language doesn’t mention an increase. And City Attorney Michelle Marchetta Kenyon’s “impartial analysis” does not provide the magnitude of the hike.

That’s inexcusable.

 In material mailed to voters, the 30 percent figure is finally found in the opponents’ ballot arguments. We verified it with other city documents.

…

The ballot wording states that Measure F is needed to prevent the loss of “essential” city services. But the city’s own financial forecasts don’t support that, although there are concerns about the city’s backlog of deferred maintenance.

The current parcel tax doesn’t expire until next year. If city officials believe it must be increased, we suggest trying again in November with a transparent ballot measure.”

Read the complete editorial here

~~~~~~~~~~

The Piedmont League of Women Voters Forum on Measure F as reported by the Mercury News:

Read the report here:

___________

View the entire broadcast of the Piedmont League of Women Voters Forum:  State Senate Candidates, Measure AA and Piedmont Measure F > here.

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

June 7, Tuesday, Election Day is the last day to vote in the California Primary Election.

For holders of a VOTE BY MAIL BALLOT,  your ballot must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received at the Alameda County Registrar of Voters no later than three (3) days after Election Day.  You may also turn in your ballot by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day, June 7, at any Alameda County polling location, including Piedmont’s, or into the drop-off box in Piedmont behind the Wells Fargo Bank on Highland Way any day when the drop-off box remains in place.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Editors’ Note: The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose candidates for public office or ballot measures.  Pro and con opinions and articles on ballot items are welcomed and can be submitted via email for publication by clicking below:

editors@piedmontcivic.org

Personal attacks will not be published.

Learn more about a survey the Piedmont Unified School District commissioned to find out if Piedmont voters would support a new local school bond measure, possibly in November 2016, to improve school facilities.  The survey is called Bond Feasibility Survey. The conclusion from the survey was that 70% of voters in Piedmont would support a new and additional school bond ballot measure.

“Is a bond measure to repair and improve Piedmont schools feasible for the November 2016 ballot?   Yes.”

“Voters have an exceptionally positive opinion of the quality of education provided by the Piedmont Unified School District and they consider maintaining the quality of education in local public schools to be the most important issue facing the community—more important than maintaining local streets and roads, protecting the environment, preventing local tax increases, and other benchmark issues. These sentiments translate into strong natural support (70%) for a $65 million bond to repair and modernize aging classrooms and school facilities including repairing deteriorating roofs, plumbing, heating, ventilation, and electrical systems, improve student safety, campus security, and access for the disabled, and acquire, renovate, construct and equip classrooms, facilities, science labs, and technology to support advanced programs in math, science, engineering, arts and technology.

“The results of this study suggest that, if structured appropriately and combined with an effective public education effort and independent campaign, the proposed school bond measure has a good chance of passage if placed on the November ballot. Having stated that a bond measure is feasible, it is important to note that a recommendation to place a measure on the ballot comes with several qualifications and conditions. Indeed, although the results are promising, all revenue measures must overcome challenges prior to being successful. The proposed measure is no exception.”

Read the complete survey – methodology, questions posed to potential voters, and conclusions  here.

Piedmont Connect’s Garden Ramble was a success.

The Park Commission heard this request and also heard from adjacent neighbors. Originally in the strip there were American Elm trees planted and residents at 208 Ramona received permission to remove them, but there was significant sucker growth afterwards. The City in managing that created a hedge of elm suckers. Those suckers were damaging properties on Ramona and the City removed the elms and replaced the planting area with low Agapanthus.

In 2012, after review by Commissioners, the end results were that several Commissioners were going to research drought-tolerant shrubs in lieu of planting street trees or possibly a Bay Friendly landscape installation and at that point there was no additional action taken except that the Agapanthus were installed.

Since that time, the fence which residents did not like at the end of Lorita had been replaced and the Agapanthus has been watered by one of the adjacent neighbors. Before the Commission today is a petition to have the City review existing street trees which are Ginkgoes and determine whether they can infill as well as remove the Agapanthus and put street trees in that strip.

Staff was on site talking with neighbors and held an informal meeting with the owner of 36 Monticello who volunteered to pay for 5 new street trees on the Lorita frontage of his property. Even though the petition did not include this address, since it takes up half of that side of Lorita Avenue, the Commission can consider whether it wants to accept the donation of 5 street trees and install them.

Regarding the existing number of trees, Ms. Kent stated on the east side of the street approximately every home could handle 2 trees which is the existing pattern.

Staff has also received additional correspondence, one from a resident at 28 Lorita Avenue with a pledge to water anything that is planted in the non- irrigated replacement strip. Also in the packet are two resident letters whose rear yard borders on the end of Lorita and they sent comments with concerns that if street trees were planted at the end of the street, it would add shade to their rear yard. They asked that plant materials be installed that would only rise to the height of the fence.

Staff suggested a substitution in the packet and said several residents are present to speak.

Public testimony was received from:.

Maggie Spencer, Devan Joseph, Andrew Coleman, and Patricia Makinen voiced their support for the petition. They stated their belief that the addition of new trees and removal of acacia trees to Lorita Avenue will beautify the street and give it more of a neighborhood feeling.