Is there misinformation in mailer and Superintendent letter?

Both the letter of January 25th sent by Superintendent Constance Hubbard, and the Proponents mailer and website state that without Measure A funds, the Piedmont Unified School District would need to reduce personnel by one-third.

In fact, in the event of Measure A failing, Measure B continues to July 1, 2014. > Click to read more…

Many Piedmonters have already voted on Measure A through the absentee ballot process, but it is not too late to register to vote in the March 5 election.  Measure A is the proposed 8-year tax of $2,406 on all Piedmont parcels with a possible 2% increase each year.

If you or someone you know has not yet registered to vote, registration continues through February 18.  Information on the Patch website tells you how to register.

For the ballot measure to pass, two-thirds of those voting must approve the measure.  There are no other measures and no candidate races on the ballot.  The election is a special election held only in Piedmont.

We’ve all been moved to tears looking at a photograph, felt our hearts race listening to music, been entertained by theater and movies. The Arts are how we talk to each other — how we speak about things for which we cannot find the words. Why would we not want this for our children? We proudly support Measure A & all the teachers who enable our children to explore our world through the arts.

 Pete & Amanda Doctor, Piedmont Residents

__________________________________________________________

I just finished reading the Final Summary Report of Piedmont’s Seismic Safety Program.

It was great to see what a diverse collection of citizens supported the good work of the school district at various points in its progress. Once again I feel blessed to live in a community where PUSD leadership and citizen participation combine for a positive outcome.

I am equally encouraged to know that PUSD Administrators have made oversight and accountability a major consideration for passage of Measure A, the school support tax, by specifically soliciting citizens to serve on a subcommittee of 3 to 5 Piedmont taxpayers who will review and report on Measure A revenue and expenditures.

Dana Serleth

____________________________________________________________

With a real estate practice in Piedmont, we are particularly tuned in to the direct effect high achieving school districts have on real estate values. The relationship between housing prices and local public schools and services has been widely studied and established. In an economic downturn, Piedmont homes have maintained value in large part because we are a community that prioritizes high quality services for all our citizens, including, our youth, our seniors and every age in between.

 Measure A will keep Piedmont schools strong by renewing a stable, locally controlled source of funding. All money raised by Measure A will stay in Piedmont to support our local schools. It cannot be taken away by the State or used for other purposes.

 Join us in voting YES on Measure A.

 Debbi Di Maggio and Adam Betta, Piedmont Residents

Editors’ Note: The opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association. PCA does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office.

At the February 13 Piedmont Board of Education meeting in Council Chambers, City Hall,  the Board will consider the following:

DISTRICT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM:

DEVELOPING COMPLETE COST INFORMATION

Memo from Constance Hubbard, Superintendent
Michael Brady, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
Randall Booker, Assistant Superintendent, Educational Services

I. SUPPORT INFORMATION
The Seismic Safety Bond Program (SSBP) was completed on time and within the
Program Budget of $69,156,161, which included $56 M in local bonds, City and
community funds of $1.2 M, and State “matching” modernization funds of $12.7 M.
The final budget for the SSBP was presented and approved at the Board Meeting of
January 23, 2013.

Because the District received more than the $12.7M in State Modernization funds
including allocations for new construction and AB 300 seismic funds, the District
was able to address issues in site projects either during the seismic work or
immediately following completion of the seismic project. For example, some
technology and communication infrastructure work was completed while the seismic
issues were addressed at each of the elementary sites. It made sense to address
issues beyond the minimum seismic strengthening requirements while walls were
open. Likewise funds were used or are earmarked for HVAC systems and roofs that
were not required to be addressed as part of the SSBP. The Board also authorized
the development of design work on Alan Harvey Theater to address accessibility
issues as well as its use as a teaching and learning facility. Fencing, key/locks
systems, integrated fire alarm systems, non-structural seismic hazards were also
addressed concurrently with the SSBP, using the additional Modernization Funds
received from the State.

Until the SSBP was finalized and the additional high-priority issues were completed,
the requests for additional projects to be addressed have been put on hold. The
projects under consideration by the Board include:
 Pay down of debt-service on bonds
 Address safety issues K-12 including fencing, communications systems
 Upgrade of the District Technology Infrastructure
 Retaining wall on Bonita Avenue
 Gardens/Playgrounds at Elementary sites
 Learnscape at PMS
 Construction of Alan Harvey Theater design proposal

The Board has heard presentations on some of these possible projects, including:
paying down debt-service; technology infrastructure; PMS Learnscape (this
evening); enhancing school security; and roof replacement. Information on
gardening and playgrounds, additional safety needs as they are identified, and the
Alan Harvey Theater design are in process/scheduled to be presented to the Board
for consideration over the next two months.

Now that the Seismic Safety Bond Program has been completed, use of the
remaining State modernization money — for the projects mentioned above or any
other projects identified by the Board – will be under the new “District Modernization
Program.”

Following the Seismic Safety Bond Program Model
The SSBP is an excellent model for the District Modernization Program. In the
SSBP, the Project Team developed detailed budgets, sources of revenue, and
schedules for each project, and used that complete information to make decisions
about the scope and sequencing of the overall Program. Also, much of the success
of the SSBP is attributable to the professional construction management services
and State funding consultants who shepherded the SSBP from start to finish, and to
the SSBP Steering Committee which regularly reviewed decisions concerning
individual projects with a view of the overall program.

To achieve the same high quality work, timely completion, and maximization of
State matching funds in the new Modernization Program, the District hopes to
follow the model set by the SSBP — developing complete information for each of the
possible projects before defining the scope and schedule of the overall program;
and using the same team of construction management and finance consultants to
help manage the program.

Developing Complete Cost Information
The scope and sequence of each proposed modernization project, including cost
projections that include construction and non-construction costs, have not yet been
clearly defined. All projects require some degree of design and construction
management that is in addition to that which District personnel have the expertise
or time to devote. The costs associated with design, construction management,
debt-service management and associated fee requirements (e.g., Division of the
State Architect processing fees) need to be considered as the Board considers
whether and how to proceed with the proposed modernization projects. Although
some projects, including the Alan Harvey Theatre and school gardens, may involve
private fundraising to augment District funding, that private funding may not cover
the District’s non-construction costs.

All proposals are being considered by the Modernization Steering Committee that
includes: two Board Members, Rick Raushenbush and Roy Tolles; Assistant
Superintendent Michael Brady; Grier Graff, Architect and Chair of the SBBP
citizens Oversight Committee; Construct Manager, Pete Palmer of Vila
Construction; Julie Moll for communication and coordination; and architectural and
design professionals as needed. The Steering Committee is developing complete
cost information so that the Board can consider all of these possible projects at
once.

The Board may wish to schedule a Special Meeting to discuss all of the options to
provide direction to staff for the development of the Modernization Program. The
Board will be requested to approve a Program that details each project to be
considered, defined scope and sequence, budget allocations that include
contingencies and all associated costs, and a timeline.

II. RECOMMENDATION: REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
The Board will be requested to review the proposal for the development of the
Modernization Program and to provide direction to staff as to next steps.

Information from January 23, 2013 Board Meeting detailing origins of $5 million.

http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/aboutpusd/agenda.minutes/2011_12/1-23-13background.pdf    Scroll down to  Superintendent’s REPORT ON COMPLETION OF SEISMIC SAFETY BOND PROGRAM  

Immediately following the Seismic Safety Bond Program report is a Superintendent’s report: REVIEW REPAYMENT OPTIONS FOR BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES

Pro and Con Speakers Spark Serious Discussion – 

A lively debate ensued at the February 7 Piedmont League of Women Voters (LWVP) Forum on the proposed school tax, Measure A.  Both the pro and con speakers  presented their arguments, followed by questions submitted from the audience.

Measure A, if approved by voters on March 5, will impose a $2,406 property tax on all Piedmont parcels for 8 years starting in June of 2013.  An additional 2% per year increase can be added by the Piedmont Board of Education, with a potential total tax of slightly more than $20,000 during the term of the tax.

Measure A supporters, represented by Doug Ireland and Jonathan Davis, focused on the City’s schools being the reason families move to Piedmont, the ongoing reduced State funding for schools, and the need for funds to  maintain Piedmont schools at a high performance level.  The amount expected to be generated by the tax in fiscal year 2013-14 is approximately $9.5 million, with the money going primarily to pay for teachers and to retain current programs and smaller class sizes.  The 8-year term was settled on by the Piedmont Board of Education to ensure a stable source of funds for budgeting and planning purposes.  Additionally noted were the expense and volunteer effort required to run a school tax campaign every 4 years, a practice for decades, considered onerous.   All funds from Measure A will be retained in Piedmont.

Measure A  opponents, represented by Tom Clark and Rick Schiller, focused on the inequities of the tax as regressive  for 78% of taxpayers and fixed-income seniors are especially burdened financially, noting that voluntary senior tax exemptions are provided by a number of other outstanding California school districts.   They criticized as inappropriate the jump in tax increases for the smallest residential parcels, while large parcels and commercial properties will benefit from significant tax reductions.  They pointed out the lack of urgency to pass the tax now since the current $9.5 million tax Measure B does not expire until July 2014, 17 months away.  They stated a No vote was the best choice for voters, as it would allow the School Board to await clarity about the progress of proposed school tax legislation pending in the State Assembly.  The School Board could then devise an equitable tax and allow public participation in their proposal.

Much of the debate centered on Measure A’s “senior exemption” as not applicable to Piedmont seniors due to its extremely low SSI income ceiling.  In the Bay Area and throughout the State, school parcel taxes are significantly lower than Piedmont’s and  “commonly” include a  senior exemption.  The Piedmont School Board determined early on that an exemption or lower tax rate for seniors would place too great a burden on non-seniors.  A square footage tax on property and/or on structures was a suggested alternative by the opponents. 

Both the pro and con speakers agreed that the City’s schools are vital to Piedmont and neither side disagreed on the appropriateness of the total amount sought by the District.

If Measure A fails, the current tax (Measure B) will remain  in effect until July 2014.  

To watch and hear firsthand a video of the entire LWV Measure A forum,  click here  or log onto the City’s website at www.ci.piedmont.ca.us: on the right hand side of the homepage under the “City Council” heading, click on the “Online Video” link, then search the archive for “LWV Election Forum”, click on the “Argument for Measure A” and/or “Argument Against  Measure “click on the “Video” link and watch.

Want more information?

A number of written questions submitted by the Forum audience were not asked due to the program’s time constraints.  In the interest of further informing the community,  PCA will seek answers to questions residents may still have.  You may submit a question or comment in the comment area below or submit a question or information to www.editors@piedmontcivic.org.

Editors’ Note:  The Piedmont Civic Association (PCA) is a non-partisan non-affiliated, non-commercial, Piedmont volunteer organization.   PCA does not endorse, support, or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office.  Participation in PCA is free and open to all Piedmonters.

Want to become more involved with your community?  Piedmont needs residents to serve on committees and commissions.

Application Filing Deadline: Friday, March, 1st

Property owners are challenging “split roll” School Parcel Taxes that charge a flat tax for some properties and square foot tax or different flat taxes for other properties.

The December California 1st District Appeals Court decision against Alameda Unified School District‘s former parcel tax (Measure H), although vacated, has inspired challenges in other School Districts of parcel taxes approved in November, 2012 elections.  David Brillant, attorney for plaintiffs in the original 2008 Alameda School District case, now represents the plaintiffs in the four new cases filed in January 2013, within 60 days of certification of the election results.   Plaintiffs are requesting that illegally charged amounts be refunded.  The Court of Appeals favored remedy in the Alameda case was to grant “those taxpayers, who had been assessed the higher rate, a refund based on the difference between the lower rate and the one under which they were assessed.”

The school parcel taxes being challenged differentiate between and imposed different tax rates in one or more of the following :

• charge a flat tax for some parcels (residential and/or small commercial and/or vacant) while charging a square foot tax to other types of parcels (commercial, industrial or multi-family)
• charge different flat or square foot rates to different types of properties. 
  

School Taxes Challenged

San Leandro – voters approved  a five-year tax, charging homeowners $39, multi-family rental properties with five units or more $19 per unit, and commercial property owners $0.02 per square foot of land area.  Commercial property owners are challenging the November 2012 tax, San Leandro’s first school parcel tax.

West Contra Costa school district  –  the school parcel tax charges all property owners $0.072 cents per square foot of building area, except that unbuilt lots are taxed a flat rate of $7.20 per parcel.

Davis Joint Unified School District – a four-year tax charges that most property owners a flat tax of $204 per parcel, except multifamily residential properties are taxed $20 per unit.  

Centinela Valley Union High School District –   charges residential property owners $0.02 per square foot and commercial property owners $0.075 cents per square foot.  Two homeowners are challenging this tax.

The Alameda School District’s 2008 Measure H charged residential property owners $120 each per parcel, while charging and large commercial property owners $0.15 cents per square foot up to a cap of $9,500.  It was replaced in 2011 with a building square foot tax on all types of properties.

All five of these school parcel taxes provide an exemption application for seniors and disabled SSI recipients.  The 2008 lawsuit challenged the Alameda exemptions because “they discriminate among senior taxpayers and disabled taxpayers and thus do not apply uniformly to all senior and all disabled taxpayers.”  The exemption found in section 50079 of California statutes only applied to seniors until 2006 when an additional exemption for “persons receiving SSI for disability, regardless of age” was added.  Piedmont’s Measure A exempts only owner- occupant disabled SSI recipients of any age and not non-disabled seniors.

State Assemblyman Rob Bonta of Oakland is promoting an assembly bill AB 59 that would allow school districts to charge different tax rates on different types of property.  Bonta has argued that this flexibility is necessary to let school districts appropriately tailor their taxes to the local community.  The original Appellate Court decision pointed out that the State Legislature can broaden school district taxing authority.

Residents can pin point criminal activity with regularly updated Piedmont Police Department on-line information.

Submit a secure “tip” to Police Department

View Piedmont’s interactive Crime Map.

Due to technical difficulties some of the links on the Piedmont Civic Association website are not operating properly.  Until the problems are corrected, please send OPINIONS, INFORMATION, and ARTICLES to www.editors@piedmontcivic. org.

We apologize for any inconvenience and if we have missed any submittals, be assured our goal is to receive and publish information in a timely manner.

Thank you,

PCA Editors