Election Campaign Begins November 30 –

The Board of Education members at their Special Meeting on Wednesday, November 28, voted unanimously to approve a resolution and place a new School Parcel Tax Measure on the March 5, 2012 ballot.  Concerns regarding tax deductibility were overridden by the need for school funding.  The current tiered-rate structure will be retained, allowing a lower tax for smaller parcels, rather than implementing a flat rate per parcel charge.  The ballot measure requires a 2/3rds vote to pass. 

The School Parcel Tax measure includes:

• A tiered parcel tax at an initial $2,000-$3,500 per year
• An 8 year term
• Up to a 2% increase per year allowed (if levied by the School Board) 
• SSI recipient exemption
• No senior or low income discounts or exemptions
• Tax oversight will be provided by a subcommittee of the Budget Advisory Committee rather than the current independent committee.  Any interested citizen or staff may attend as a member of the public.
• Oversight subcommittee members must be Piedmont homeowners and not a current member of PUSD staff; former staff will be permitted.
• Oversight subcommittee members will be limited to 3 to 5 members selected from the Budget Advisory Committee by the President and Vice President of the Board of Education.
• An oversight subcommittee charge will be approved by the Board at a future time.
  
• Oversight subcommittee meetings and Budget Advisory Committee meeting will be publicly noticed and open to the public.
  
• A tiered parcel tax based on current parcel size ranges will be retained, rather than changing to a per square footage charge for structures or lots or a flat rate per parcel.
  

Final refinements to the resolution and ballot measure will be made by the Superintendent prior to submitting them to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters and Alameda County Board of Supervisors.  The Board thanked the numerous individuals who communicated with the Board, the Advisory Committee and the Chairs of the Parcel Tax Campaign Committee.  The kick off for the campaign begins on Friday, November 30.

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

Resident Urges School Board to Reconsider Tax Basis-

Dear School Board Members:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,

Jim McCrea, Piedmont Resident

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

The technical answer to your question would require a legal opinion.  My understanding, however, is that a Board Resolution reflects the Board’s direction to the District Administration, which would stand until the Board gave the District Administration different direction.  A voter-approved tax measure would be binding upon the Board and the District during the term of the measure.  The tax measure requires at least one public hearing. The Resolution directs the District Administration to hold two public hearings, which is consistent with the Board’s practice at least since I joined the Board in 2008 and I am told before then as well.

There is a balance between setting minimum requirements in the tax measure and leaving room for the Board to refine and improve the oversight process based on experience.  The tax measure requires creation of the Parcel Tax Subcommittee, consisting of 3 to 5 tax-paying members of the BAC selected by the President and Vice-President of the Board, preparing a report to advise the Board, making a presentation at the first public hearing on levying the tax.  Whether the Parcel Tax Subcommittee members are solicited and selected at the first or a later meeting of the BAC, whether there will always be 5 members, etc. are issues where experience may teach us which is the best approach, and therefore the Board, the President and Vice-President have some flexibility in determining how to best accomplish the Parcel Tax Subcommittee goals set forth in the tax measure.  

I have read the concerns about a conflict of interest, but do not agree with them.  The concern is that former District employees have an interest in current District budgets because those budgets could affect them financially.  That is possible, but not very likely.  As for actual pensions, the District has no control over Cal STRS pension benefits or contributions, which are set by state law–once an employee is retired, the employee receives payment from STRS, not the District.  As for other benefits, retired employees are entitled to the benefits available to them under the collective bargaining agreements in place when they retired.  As a result, when the Board capped health insurance contributions for current District employees starting in 2011-12, retirees under CBAs that give retirees what current employees receive also were capped, while retirees under CBAs that gave them what they had received when they retired were not affected.  All District retirees lose District-paid health insurance when they reach Medicare eligibility age and, as of July 1, 2014, will be limited to no more than 5 years of District-paid health insurance or until they reach Medicare eligibility age, whichever comes first.  Unlike the City of San Jose, which sought to change retiree benefits based on economic infeasibility, the District does not have outstanding pension obligations and only a relatively small exposure to paying health insurance benefits for retirees temporarily.  The financial interest of a former District employee as a result of their former employment almost certainly is less than their interest as a taxpayer, i.e. they would save more by opposing the tax than they would gain by supporting it.  I also note that every taxpayer has a financial interest in the Board’s decision.  Ultimately, the Parcel Tax Subcommittee only provides advice to the Board–and the elected Board members will decide on the parcel tax levy and all other budget issues.

All community groups are entitled and encouraged to provide their views to the Board on the parcel tax levy as well as other issues.  The BAC, as a group of individuals who follow the District’s budget throughout the year, provided their view on the need for the levy.   Ultimately, the elected Board members take into account all public comment in exercising their responsibility to decide whether to levy the parcel tax.

The CAC’s work assessing the District’s budget and the need for a parcel tax levy occurred during roughly the same time frame because the Governor’s budget is delivered in January, thus providing at least some idea of the amount of State funding that likely will be provided to the District.  The remaining role of the CAC was to provide information of interest and use to the Board, which has consisted of long-term trends in funding and compensation, and how the District compares with other comparable Districts.  If the tax measure is adopted by Piedmont voters, the Board will decide whether to ask the Parcel Tax Subcommittee if it is willing to update such reports (and prepare any others that the Board may find useful) and the Subcommittee members will decide whether they can devote the time and energy to do so.

As noted above, certain fundamental requirements for a Parcel Tax Subcommittee are included in the tax measure.  The Board has that ability to ask the Parcel Tax Subcommittee to do more, or even to set up other committees, if it feels that oversight needs are not being addressed.  Ultimately, however, the elected Board members are responsible for oversight, including determining the need for parcel tax funding and ensuring the funds are well-spent.

Email input to the Board of Education can be provided at the following addresses:

• Richard (Rick) Raushenbush
  President rraushenbush@piedmont.k12.ca.us
• Andrea Swenson
  Vice President aswenson@piedmont.k12.ca.us
• Sarah Pearson   spearson@piedmont.k12.ca.us,
• Ray Gadbois  rgadbois@piedmont.k12.ca.us
• Roy Tolles  rtolles@piedmont.k12.ca.us

Role of New Parcel Tax Subcommittee –

Piedmont Civic Association periodically publishes “questions and answers” on community issues.  The following responses to PCA questions were provided by School Board President Rick Raushenbush regarding the proposed  role of a new parcel tax subcommittee as part of the Board’s Budget Advisory Committee. The subcommittee would replace the independent Citizens Advisory Committee that reviews the $9.5 million in local school parcel tax levy spending each year.  (See original article.)

I am responding based upon my understanding of the function of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee, the Board’s public comments and the text of the proposed Resolution.  As you know, the Board itself does not take positions other than through properly noticed action items on its Agenda.  

• Why does the Board resolution propose to significantly and permanently reduce the CAC’s charge?

In the Board’s view, the proposed resolution does not significantly change the function served by the CAC, but rather moves it to the Parcel Tax Subcommittee of the longstanding Budget Advisory Committee.  The CAC was first created by the Board 4 years ago as part of the last parcel tax measure for various purposes, among them (a) to determine if the trigger for levying the Measure E emergency tax was met; (b) to provide advice on whether to levy some or all, or increase, the Measure B tax based upon consideration of whether the District needed the funds to provide its educational program; and (c) to serve as a resource to the Board by preparing a longer term trend analyses of the budget.  Measure E no longer exists.  The proposed new Parcel Tax Subcommittee will serve the remaining purposes.

• Why is the number of independent citizen oversight members reduced from “at least 7” to as few as 3, while the parcel tax is expected to continue to increase?

It is the quality of the participating citizens, not their numbers, that matters.  In my experience, both the CAC and Citizens Oversight Committee for the Seismic Bond had difficulty in obtaining sufficient volunteers able to commit  the time necessary to serve on the Committees.  Fortunately, some citizens have been willing to serve multiple terms rather than rotate off the Committees, but that has not served the purpose of obtaining different citizens’ viewpoints as well as I would have liked.  Setting the number of the Parcel Tax Subcommittee between 3 and 5 seems likely to ensure a sufficient number to provide diverse viewpoints and collaboration in the work.

• Why will former District staff members be permitted to serve on the subcommittee?

There is no good reason to exclude former District staff members who live in Piedmont and pay the School Support Tax from the Parcel Tax Subcommittee.  They have no personal conflict of interest as the current budget of the District no longer benefits them.  If a former District employee meeting those requirements wants to serve, they are entitled to express their view as a taxpaying Piedmont citizen as much as anyone else.

• How can the parcel tax oversight group be a subcommittee under the BAC  and at the same time report directly to the Board of Education?

The proposed Resolution provides that the Parcel Tax Subcommittee reports directly to the Board.  The Subcommittee will provide its report to the Board and one of the Subcommittee members will present the report at a public Board meeting.  It is a BAC subcommittee in that its members must be members of the BAC, and thus have made a commitment to be educated about the Districts finances and budget.  However, being a BAC subcommittee does not block its reporting to the Board.

•  How can a determination on the need for a levy and 2% annual increase occur without an independent review of the budget?

The Board of Education, whose members are elected by the vote of Piedmont residents, makes the determination whether there is a need to levy the base tax and whether to levy an up to 2% annual increase.  The Board members independently review the budget.  In addition, the Parcel Tax Subcommittee members will independently review the same information and provide advice to the Board about the levy. Thus your assumption that there is no independent review of the budget is mistaken.

• Why will the CAC no longer exist as an independent body permitted to acquire information on the need for the $9.5 million tax obligation?

The CAC is simply the name given to the citizens’ advisory committee regarding the current parcel tax.  The Parcel Tax Subcommittee will be the name given the citizens’ advisory committee under the proposed resolution.  The Parcel Tax Subcommittee is an independent body just as the CAC has been–a group of citizens, who commit to being informed, who will provide advice to the Board.  The key difference is that the Parcel Tax Subcommittee members will be members of the Budget Advisory Committee, who have thereby committed to attending the BAC meetings to learn about the District’s budget.  BAC members have always had the right to ask questions about the budget, and still will have that right.  Moreover, I note that the District’s budgets, and presentations about them, are available to the public on the District’s website.

• Why will the Board President and Vice President approve nominees, rather than a review by the entire Board and the usual public hearing process?

The Board President and Vice President reviewed and approved the proposed members of the CAC and are proposed to perform the same function for the Parcel Tax Subcommittee members.  There has never been any public comment or Board dissent with respect to the members of the CAC or the Citizens Oversight Committee for the Seismic Bond.  As I previously noted, to my knowledge, we have never turned away any volunteer who was able to make the time commitment from either committee.  No one on the Board felt a need to have the Board as a whole review and approve the volunteers rather than to delegate that task to President and Vice-President.

• What is the distinction in “resident of Piedmont” (BAC qualification)  and Piedmont “homeowner” (parcel tax subcommittee qualification)?

A Piedmont homeowners will pay the School Support Tax if the measure passes whereas a Piedmont resident who rents a place to live does not.  The goal was to have those who pay the tax on the Parcel Tax Subcommittee.

• Previous CAC membership has generally been for multiple years, while the proposed change requires an application be made annually.  Will continuity be lost and require an increased learning curve?

Because Parcel Tax Subcommittee members will be BAC members, they all should have the necessary information about the District’s finances and budget, and the State’s system of education funding, to perform their function.  This is one of the key benefits of having the Parcel Tax Subcommittee be members of the Budget Advisory Committee.  Moreover, annual applications may result in a diversity of viewpoints due to the shorter term whereas the experience with multi-year commitments is that we have very few volunteers for the committees.

• What is the meaning of  ”determine” in the ballot measure language? What will the subcommittee’s role be in determining the tax levy?

The proposed Resolution says “report to the Board of Education at the first public hearing held each year to determine the subsequent year’s levy.”  That is simply setting the meeting at which the Parcel Tax Subcommittee is making its report.  The determination whether to levy the base tax, and whether to increase the tax by up to 2%, will be made by the elected members of the Board of Education.  The Parcel Tax Subcommittee, like the CAC now, will provide advice to the Board, but, like the CAC now, will play no role in determining the levy.

Richard Raushenbush, President, Piedmont Board of Education

News Release from Friends of Moraga Canyon-

Piedmont and Friends of Moraga Canyon Agree to Settle Lawsuit.

In a win for preservation of Piedmont’s Blair Park in Moraga Canyon, the City of Piedmont and the non-profit Friends of Moraga Canyon (FOMC) have reached agreement to settle a lawsuit filed by FOMC against the City Council for approving a sports field project in the park. The Council rescinded its approval of the project in May 2012, and the City and FOMC subsequently agreed to negotiate a settlement of the lawsuit outside of court.

The agreement calls for the City to pay a total of $30,000: $15,000 to cover a portion of FOMC’s attorney fees, and $15,000 to retain a landscape consultant to develop a landscape improvement plan for Blair Park and to implement the plan.

The intent of the plan is to preserve the park’s healthy native trees, remove dead or dying trees, and gradually replace removed trees with more appropriate species.  The plan will include improving the existing pedestrian trail, eradicating invasive plants, and identifying drought-tolerant plants and ground covers to “create an attractive setting for park users and enhance habitat for birds and other wildlife.”

The landscape consultant selected by the City must have experience in “creating and/or implementing plans for natural ‘open space’ parks similar to Blair Park.” FOMC will have an opportunity to comment on the scope of the consultant’s work plan and on the plan, itself, before it is approved or implemented.  Once the landscape plan is approved, the City will use remaining funds from the settlement agreement — and any additional money the City decides to allocate — to implement the plan.

“We are very pleased with this agreement,” said FOMC President Jim Semitekol. “Our goal from the outset has been to save Blair Park as a small slice of natural open space for all Piedmont residents and visitors to enjoy, to preserve the habitat for wildlife, and provide an attractive gateway to the City of Piedmont.

“We are grateful to have the lawsuit behind us,” he added, “and we look forward to working with the City to develop and implement a successful plan that truly preserves and enhances Blair Park.”

The $30,000 settlement agreement will be paid out of funds previously deposited with the City by the Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO), the organization that proposed developing the Blair Park sports field project.  As part of an agreement for project approval, the City required PRFO to reimburse the City for costs in developing the project and to indemnify the City for potential legal actions against the project approval.

To see the full Settlement Agreement and City of Piedmont News Release, go to: www.ci.piedmont.ca.us

Will Decisions on Oversight Procedures, Appointments, and Charge Be Taken Out of the Board’s Hands?

Piedmont Civic Association (PCA) readers have raised a number of questions regarding the proposed demise of the School District’s independent Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), which since 2010 has studied and analyzed the school parcel tax levy and reported its findings directly to the School Board. The CAC has consisted of 7 to 10 Piedmont residents, appointed by the School Board, who have provided vigilant oversight of parcel tax expenditures.

Under the proposed school parcel tax ballot measure presented to the School Board by staff on November 14, the CAC will be replaced by a 3 to 5 member parcel tax subcommittee of the District’s Budget Advisory Committee (BAC).  The BAC currently consists of up to 32 members, including School District employees, union representatives, and parents.

While the BAC is open to the general public, the District Superintendent selects the Committee members. According to the Board resolution, parcel tax subcommittee nominees will be “identified” (presumably from BAC members) prior to being “approved” by the School Board President and Vice President.  The process required by the resolution has the potential effect of limiting subcommittee members to persons selected by the Superintendent and allowing District staff to participate in the selection of their own oversight.

Unlike the CAC, former District staff members may serve on the parcel tax subcommittee (provided they are Piedmont homeowners).  

A More Limited Charge?

 The CAC’s current charge is not only to advise on the tax levy, but also to:

“. .  . help review and project the financial needs of the PUSD with respect to the levy”

“conduct an independent examination of the District’s budget”, and

submit an annual report on “The amount of funds collected and expended from the proceeds of school parcel taxes  . . .” 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.” 

See charge.

In contrast, the language of the proposed parcel tax ballot measure creates a “parcel tax subcommittee” with a more limited charge, without the option to adjust or expand that charge through Board action over the next 8 years:

“. . . review School Support Tax uses and report to the Board of Education at the first public hearing held each year to determine the subsequent year’s levy.”

At the November, 14, 2012 Board meeting, School Superintendent Constance Hubbard proposed the changes to the CAC structure, stating she felt staff time would be saved by reducing  the number of required Brown Act notices and avoiding duplicate staff presentations.  Reasons for the limited charge, reduced number of members, and altered selection procedures were not offered or discussed at the meeting. The proposed ballot measure language basically takes decisions on the Committee composition, appointment procedures, and charge out of the Board’s hands. 

Questions to the School Board regarding the proposed change of the Citizens Advisory Committee to a Parcel Tax Subcommittee: 

• Why does the Board resolution propose to significantly and permanently reduce the CAC’s charge?
• Why is the number of independent citizen oversight members reduced from “at least 7” to as few as 3, while the parcel tax is expected to continue to increase?
• Why will former District staff members be permitted to serve on the subcommittee?
• How can the parcel tax oversight group be a subcommittee under the BAC  and at the same time report directly to the Board of Education?
•  How can a determination on the need for a levy and 2% annual increase occur without an independent review of the budget?
  
• Why will the CAC no longer exist as an independent body permitted to acquire information on the need for the $9.5 million tax obligation?
• Why will the Board President and Vice President approve nominees, rather than a review by the entire Board and the usual public hearing process?
• What is the distinction in “resident of Piedmont” (BAC qualification)  and Piedmont “homeowner” (parcel tax subcommittee qualification)?
• Previous CAC membership has generally been for multiple years, while the proposed change requires an application be made annually.  Will continuity be lost and require an increased learning curve?
• What is the meaning of  “determine” in the ballot measure language? What will the subcommittee’s role be in determining the tax levy?

 Proposed ballot measure language:

“(e) Parcel Tax Subcommittee: An annual written report shall be prepared and submitted to the Board of Education by the School Support Tax Subcommittee (“Subcommittee”) of the Budget Advisory Committee (“BAC”). All residents of the Piedmont Unified School District are eligible to apply for membership on the BAC on an annual basis. Members of the Subcommittee must be homeowners in the Piedmont Unified School District community and subject to the School Support Tax and not current employees of PUSD. Each year there shall be no fewer than three (3) and no more than five (5) volunteers identified by November of each year to serve on the Subcommittee. It is the responsibility of the District Superintendent or designee to verify eligibility of the volunteers. The President and Vice President of the Board of Education shall approve all nominees to the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee shall work directly with the Chief Business Officer of the District to review School Support Tax uses and report to the Board of Education at the first public hearing held each year to determine the subsequent year’s levy. Members of the Subcommittee commit to regularly attend meetings of the BAC.”

Very Low Income Residents Who are Blind, Disabled or Over 65 Exempt from Parcel Tax-

New language in a  resolution to be voted on by the Piedmont School Board on November 28 substantially expands the exemption from the proposed new school parcel tax.  The revised resolution contained in the November 28 School Board packet now covers all persons on Supplemental Security Income for any reason.  The exemption will be available to low- income residents who are blind, disabled, or over 65.

The resolution language previously presented to the Board on November 14 offered a narrower “disability” exemption which applied only to residents who were both low income and disabled.

The new SSI exemption is still discretionary, rather than mandated.  If made available by the District, eligibility will be established by the taxpayer’s annual “SSI Award” letter from the local Social Security office.  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.

A “senior” exemption to the school parcel tax based on age will not be included in the draft resolution. 

11-28-12 Proposed Resolution Language 

Parcel Tax Exemptions: Homeowners who are residing on their property and qualify for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) may be exempt. This could apply to adults who are blind or disabled, with limited income and resources, as well as to people 65 years of age and older without disabilities who meet the income limits prescribed by SSI. Individuals seeking such exemption must submit an application to the District, including proof that the individual has been determined to be eligible for SSI by the Social Security Administration, on or before July 1 of each tax year. The District shall provide a list to the Tax Collector on an annual basis, on or before a date established by the Tax Collector of each year, of the parcels which the District has approved for the SSI Exemption, as described herein.

See full resolution in 11-28-12 packet

The City of Piedmont has recently updated available legal documents associated with the lawsuit against consulting engineers to the Piedmont Hills Underground Utility District (PHUUD).

The cost overruns and street collapse arising from the private undergrounding of utility services in the Glen Alpine and Sotelo Avenues area have resulted in City General Fund expenditures of approximately $2. 5 million on behalf of the PHUUD.   Legal documents can be viewed here.  The City is hoping some of the loss can be recovered through the litigation.