City Hasn’t Made Progress on Reforms-

I received our property tax bill this week. Included is $471 for the Municipal Services Tax. In the big scheme, it’s not a lot of money. Oh, I know that the entire $6 million raised over the last several years with the current parcel tax was wasted on an undergrounding project and an aborted sports field project, and was misspent on excessive employee compensation, especially fringe benefits. But that’s water under the bridge. Institutions, including City Councils, make mistakes. As long as they learn from their mistakes, progress, albeit costly, has been made. But wait – What project management practices have been put in place so these mistakes are avoided in the future?

And wait – What about the $40 million unfunded liability for future employee benefit costs that I’ve been reading about? That’s not water under the bridge; it is a torrent of water rushing at and possibly devastating the bridge. Who’s going to pay for that? That’s $10,000 per household. What happens when that bill comes due?

The City Council says we’re making good progress. A two-tier pension system for newly hired employees that will not have a material effect for 10–20 years and will have no effect whatsoever on the $40 million unfunded liability for current retirees or the 94 current employees. Doesn’t appear to be much progress to me. The City Council notes employees are paying $100 per month towards their retiree health benefit.

Let’s see:
That’s $112,000 per annum applied against a taxpayer funded benefit package of $5.7 million. Not much progress there. Employee contracts expire soon; for miscellaneous, non-safety employees in December 2012 and for fire and police in June 2013. Let’s see what progress can be made by our City Council in labor negotiations to rein in benefits costs funded by taxpayers.

If the City Council moves to lessen the burden on taxpayers for employee benefits and develops a plan for fiscal responsibility, the Municipal Services Tax can be put up to a vote in early 2014. This coincides with the next City Council election and provides an opportunity to vote on candidates and the tax at the same time.

So, for now, I’ll vote NO on Measure Y.

It is not “business as usual”.  It is time to demand fiscal responsibility from our elected officials. Visit www.NoOnMeasureY.com.

Eric Lindquist
Member, 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee

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.

Recommended postage for ballots ranges from $.45 to $1.50 –

The instructional insert sent with absentee ballots calls for  $.85 postage for Piedmonters’ vote-by-mail ballots for the November 6 election. However, the weight of the 2 ballots, plus envelope, for Piedmont voters is less than 2 ounces, for which the Post Office requires $.65 (one $.45 first class stamp plus a $.20 extra ounce stamp), not $.85.

The Alameda County Registrar of Voters website recommends the following postage for the November ballot:

Recommended Postage:
$ 0.85 for 2 to 3 ballot cards
$ 1.50 for 4 ballot cards

In Berkeley, there has been considerable confusion among Berkeley voters about how much postage to use for  their envelope containing four ballot cards.  The Berkleyside website has posted several articles on the subject.

“City Manager Christine Daniel said the vote-by-mail ballot requires $1.50 in postage, according to County Registrar of Voters Dave Macdonald. … Mayor Tom Bates said he asked his wife, Senator Loni Hancock, to ask Secretary of State Debra Bowen about the mail-in ballots, and Bowen said a regular first-class stamp would do the trick.”

Berkeley Councilwoman Susan Wengraf  reported that, “I did call Dave Macdonald,” adding that he told her that, “regardless of what was on the ballot, it will be delivered.”

Voters confused by the postage issue can drop off their ballots at the office of the Alameda County registrar of Voters in Oakland, at 1225 Fallon St.  On election day, Nov. 6, voters can drop off ballots at any polling location until 8 p.m.

Measure Y  a Regressive Tax –

I imagine you have now received your 2012-13 property tax statement. Have you looked at the 15, yes 15, fixed charges? Well, we collectively voted for these, one way or another.

Now, to many in Piedmont, these charges represent the cost of providing excellent services, a theme endlessly repeated but nevertheless true.  > Click to read more…

Parcel Tax Defeat Will Not Solve Problems-

 I too have been reading the pamphlets and news articles searching for the logic behind a no vote for Measure Y.  The opponents have cited three main reasons to vote no:

1. A few years ago the staff and council was in charge of an undergrounding project that went very wrong;

2. Employee pension obligations are unsustainable;

3. The tax is unnecessary because it won’t lead to cuts in emergency services.

I don’t dismiss the importance of these three issues, but nixing the parcel tax cannot address the first two and is beside the point on the third.

Money lost on the undergrounding fiasco can’t be recovered, and so we must learn from our mistakes and move on. I guess the idea with a no vote is to “send a message” to elected officials and department heads.  But if the council didn’t hear the message loud and clear by now, then we need a new council (see below).

Secondly, like many local governments across the state the city employees’ compensation seems to be out of scale with revenue and public support and probably should be adjusted downward. But negotiating with employees and their unions is a long-term process that can’t be fixed in a single year. So if we can’t afford to keep them with present revenues, how are further cuts going to make things better?  The city has already taken steps to reduce its future obligations and may need to follow that course of many years if not decades.

Lastly, the idea that a defeat of Measure Y won’t cut police and fire services suggests that the rest of city government is unimportant. As is typical in cities around the country, when cuts finally are made, it is fire and police services that are the last things to be touched. Which means that everything else is on the chopping block, from recreation programs (including the pool) to street maintenance.  And I think Piedmont is a great city because of ALL the city services, not just its 911 services.

If this debate has taught us anything, it is that financing a city is complicated.  But you cannot “vote with your pocket book” to change government policy.  The way to change that is by electing hard working and intelligent leaders to make good decisions.  I think we have some of those kinds of people running the city right now, but if you disagree, you’ll have your chance to change that when the next election rolls around.

Tom Gandesbery, 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.

As election day approaches I am urging people to use their heads and not their emotions and to vote No on Measure Y.

Why?  I have yet to hear an honest, forthright response from the City Manager or the City Council to requests for factual information on exactly which essential city services would suffer or be cut out if Measure Y fails to pass.

An informed electorate deserves facts, not half-truths nor appeals to “doom and gloom” scenarios.  No one has provided me or the rest of the voters with information from responsible sources that can be used to assist voters in their choice at the polls on November 6^th.  Surrogates with opinions abound, but responsible city governance has been factually silent.

I believe in responsible city government with the best interest of the taxpayers, not vested interests, at heart.  Until I see this happen, I will vote No on Measure Y and urge other Piedmonters to do the same.

Jim McCrea, 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. 

Comments From Measure Y Supporters-

One thing that makes Piedmont exceptional is our commitment to excellence in public services, parks and facilities. Measure Y, with no increase in taxes, simply renews the revenue raised by the municipal parcel tax to ensure Piedmont maintains this commitment.  At approximately $9 a week, the parcel tax is less than similar taxes in comparable cities. While it is laudable and important to address concerns over public spending, Measure Y, the municipal parcel tax renewal, is a good deal in these fiscally difficult times.  Maintain our legacy and vote Yes on Measure Y.

> Click to read more…

Vote No on Y to stop City intimidation and silencing of residents –

For the first time in my 21 years as a Piedmont resident, I will vote against the city’s parcel tax. I do so for several reasons that other dissenting voters have described at this website and elsewhere.  These include reckless growth in the cost of city government and incompetent management of capital projects.   But another reason arises from a darker, more insidious circumstance that I, perhaps like other Piedmonters, had until now chosen to ignore rather than confront.  I refer to the City Council’s use of its privileged position and of city resources to intimidate citizens who speak out against Council catering to special interests.  The most egregious example of this reprehensible behavior came when a Piedmont homeowner objected to the Council’s attempt to manipulate the results of a neighborhood vote on utility undergrounding.  After the Council refused to comply with its own rules on the fraction of positive votes needed to implement undergrounding, a homeowner in the proposed district went to court to ask for relief.  Rather than defending the city’s interests in the suit, the Council instead chose to counter sue under provisions that would have inflicted heavy financial penalties on the homeowner.  The court, in ruling for the homeowner, noted that no competent lawyer would have brought the city’s suit.  The Council, however, included 3 presumably competent lawyers and had a City Attorney on staff.  As Piedmonters, therefore, we can draw no inference other than the Council intended to intimidate the homeowner, and any others who resisted undergrounding, into silence.  That attempt to intimidate a citizen cost Piedmont taxpayers over $600,000 in legal fees and settlement costs.

> Click to read more…

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…

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.

Opponents’ Claims Defy Logic –

We’re fortunate to live in a city that has beautiful, well-maintained parks, a superior recreation program for our kids, wonderful fire and police protection. I don’t know why anybody would want to jeopardize the excellent services we have by voting against measure Y. Opponents of the tax claim all they want is that services would not have to be cut if the city budget was cut by more than 7%, but their claims defy logic.

> Click to read more…