May 13, 2015                                                        

The Piedmont School District’s attorney stated that by the Boricas decision the only uniform rate tax permitted was a flat rate on every parcel. This is the most regressive possible tax structure. The Piedmont School Support Tax is by far the most expensive in the state and is more than double to one hundred times higher than any other school tax. The high expense, flat rate and lack of a low income based senior exemption means the Piedmont tax is financially difficult for many young families, the less affluent, and those on a fixed income. The previous tiered tax structure was somewhat progressive, but every legal opinion states the tiered structure is illegal, as it taxes the same square foot differently for each tier, and is not a uniform rate by the Boricas decision.

On June 5, 2003 the Emery Unified School District (“USD” Emeryville) passed a School support tax based solely on square foot per building. Renewed in 2007 and 2009, the tax was up for renewal again in 2014. Emery USD relied on their highly regarded legal counsel of Fagan, Friedman, Fulfrost, LLP; yes, this is the same law firm used by Piedmont USD. To be as secure from litigation as possible, Emery USD also sought legal review from Attorney Harold Frieman of Lozano, Smith, an expert in school tax challenges and Boricas. He is familiar to many, as the City of Piedmont used Mr. Frieman’s services creating the PRFO Blair Park EIR.

Confident in the legal advice they received from two sources, the Emeryville Board placed the renewal of their building square footage tax on the November 7, 2014 ballot. Measure K passed with 86% approval and imposes “fifteen cents of building area per square foot” for 20 years. Significantly, no one including Boricas attorney David Brilliant has legally challenged any of the per square foot taxes of Emery USD. Mr. Brilliant filed a number of other lawsuits against School Districts after his successful Boricas litigation. All suits filed by Mr. Brilliant are on behalf of commercial property owners and concern non-uniform taxation; the Emeryville tax is a single uniform rate for all. The many Emeryville commercial businesses have large school tax bills and ample legal budgets, yet no lawsuit is filed.

No emergency existed that forced the Piedmont Unified School District to levy the most regressive tax in the state with a mere 24 hour notice when the existing tax had 18 months to run. At taxpayer expense, the District issued a letter stating 30% of teachers would be let go if the tax didn’t pass; this fear tactic was patently false considering the time remained on the existing tax. At the same time in Emeryville, a progressive per square foot tax happily existed unchallenged, a tax reviewed by the same law firm that the Piedmont District uses.

Perhaps our School Board was not given complete information, or another agenda was in place, or the legal landscape has firmed up concerning Borikas. Regardless, the regret expressed by some Board members about imposing the very regressive Piedmont tax can now be corrected with a per square foot of building tax.

Rick Schiller, taxpayer

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Friends of Moraga Canyon will hold its third Blair Park work day on

Saturday, May 9, from 10 a.m. to noon.

Everyone over age 12 is welcome to come and help clean ivy off of oak trees and weed around the base of trees at the foot of the hillside.

Wear work gloves, and bring clippers and rakes if you have them. Refreshments and snacks will be provided. Street parking is available on Moraga Ave. at the east (upper) end of Blair Park.

The appearance of the park has improved in recent months, largely due to the cleanup work by dedicated volunteers. The diseased and dying Monterey pines on Moraga Avenue are scheduled to be cut down by the city of Piedmont in May or by June 30.

For more information on the workday, email marjb@sbcglobal.net

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

                      Piedmont’s School Support Tax

Piedmont’s current school tax is perfectly legal, but is an unfair tax because (1) it increased the tax on smaller lots while reducing the tax on larger lots, and (2) because owners of two-parcel lots pay twice as much as others. This tax was hastily approved for the ballot by the School Board at a Special Meeting two years ago following a State Appeals Court ruling that school taxes must apply uniformly to all taxpayers.

I am proposing a more equitable replacement tax based on the Alameda Unified School District’s successful tax that, with minor changes, is also perfectly legal.

Alameda’s tax is a uniform rate per square foot of building that applies to all taxpayers without regard to size or use of parcel. It was approved more than three years ago by Alameda voters and remains intact to this day. Owners of residential and commercial properties pay in proportion to the size of buildings, which favors the smaller over the larger, the reverse of Piedmont’s regressive tax.

Given the economic vitality of this community, it is unconscionable that we raise more money for our schools from the owners of small lots than from the owners of large lots. There is time now to place a measure on the June 2016 ballot that will enable this “Alameda-like” tax to become effective in Piedmont for FY2016-17, but only if our School Board delays no longer an open public process with unbiased information.

William Blackwell

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

– Protests from across California did not sway the Water Board –

Meeting on Tuesday, May 5, the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) criticized the lack of urban water conservation in March 2015; the reduction compared with March 2013 was only 3.6%. The economic analysis, commissioned by the Water Board, estimated water agencies would lose $500 million in 2015 if all the state targets are met.

Local water officials protested that the board’s proposed regulations were “draconian, and in some cases unattainable”. Some communities have long reduced water consumption to the minimum and feel further reduction is unfair. “Still others warned of increased fire risk or asked the board to exempt certain public buildings such as jails.” according to the Sacramento Bee.

Nine tiers of water agencies were approved by the Water Board on Tuesday, with targeted reductions of 8% to 36%. For example, the Vaughn Water Company serves a population of more than 30,000 residents who used a daily average of 507 gallons per person in July, August and September, 2014. Their target is a reduction of 36% to 325 gallons per person per day.  San Diego residents used a daily average of 82 gallons per person over the months of July, August and September, 2014. Their target is a reduction of 16% to 69 gallons per person per day.  Arcata residents used a daily average of 43.5 gallons per person over the months of July, August and September, 2014. Their target is a reduction of 8% to 40 gallons per person per day.

East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) residents used a daily average of 94 gallons per person over the months of July, August and September, 2014.  The assigned target is a reduction of 16% to 79 gallons per person per day.  However, EBMUD announced a stricter goal of 35 gallons indoors per person per day on April 14, 2015. (See PCA report)

The Water Board will modify targets wherever food processing plants are threatened with shutdown if water use is reduced.

The Water Board was ordered by Governor Jerry Brown to impose restrictions to achieve a statewide 25% reduction in potable urban water usage through February 28, 2016. Initially, the Water Board proposed a requirement of 25% water use reduction on all urban and suburban customers.

On Saturday, April 18, the State Water Resources Control Board lowered its demands for several areas of California and raised others above 25%  The proposed water consumption reduction requirement for Arcadia and Beverly Hills was revised up to 36%. The district Piedmont is in was lowered to 16%, thanks to its high level of conservation since 2013.  The Board rejected calls to create easier targets for communities that have been conserving since before the drought.

More than 250 protests of the proposed conservation levels and the use of 2013 as a baseline have been received by the Water Board as of April 17. (See PCA report) Piedmont, in particular, suffers from the use of  2013 as the baseline, since Piedmonters have been cutting their water consumption for a decade or more. While some urban and suburban residents have been ordered to reduce daily per person consumption to 79 gallons, other communities’ residents are allowed to use over 300 gallons daily under the new Water Board requirements. The Board preferred not to impose an equal per person daily gallon limit on all urban and suburban residents in California.

If a city or water district falls short of its target, the Water Board threaten stiff unspecified fines. Governor Brown proposes up to $10,000 a day beginning later this summer for the most wasteful districts.

Read the Sacramento Bee report

See new Water Board conservation targets

Piedmont’s City Council will hold  an informal discussion with City staff, Saturday, May 16 at  9 a.m. on the City Administrator’s proposed 2015-16 City Budget.  The Budget Session will again be held in the Emergency Operation Center in the Police Department on Highland Avenue. The location provides a “round table” casual atmosphere leading to budget adoption, following two City Council public hearings on June 1 and June 15, 2015.

The Saturday workshop will not be recorded or broadcast for offsite viewing. Those interested in hearing and learning first hand discussions and presentations on where City money might be spent, should attend the meeting.  There will be opportunities for the public to speak and ask questions.  In the past, coffee and donuts have been made available to attendees.

– First Look at the Proposed City Budget –

The Proposed FY 15-16 Budget for the City of Piedmont will be presented at the City Council meeting on Monday, May 4 at 7:30 p.m..  The FY 15-16 budget is not yet available online. However, Piedmont’s City FY 14-15 Budget contains estimates for the FY 15-16 Budget on pages 9 and 13, as well as projected fund balances for 6/30/15, the end of the current fiscal year. Citizens are invited to attend, to speak to the Council, or observe in the City Hall Council Chambers at 120 Vista Avenue.

The May 4 Council meeting can be observed via the City website or on KCOM.  Recordings are made of the meeting for later viewing from the City website.

Traditionally, there is an informal Saturday discussion of the budget between the City Council and City staff. This meeting is open to the public, however typically no broadcast or recordings are made of the meeting. Prior to adoption of the FY 2015-16 Budget, there will be two City Council public hearings.

Read the complete City Council agenda.

– Two Committees Discuss City Spending on

Tuesday, May 5

While the Capital Improvement Projects Review Committee (CIP) is meeting at 7 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room, the Budget and Financial Planning Committee will meet from 7:30 to 8:30 p.m. in the Police Department Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Both meetings are on Tuesday, May 5.

Neither meeting will be broadcast or recorded. Citizens interested in the City’s finances are welcome to attend one of the meetings.

School Board Meeting of April 22, 2015

by Piedmont High School student Claire O’Connor –

On April 22, 2015, the School Board gathered (as they do bi-monthly) to talk about issues concerning the K-12 schools in the Piedmont Unified School District.

The major issues discussed at this particular meeting concerned several main topics: the Piedmont Educational Foundation Endowment Fund for 2015-2016, the new weight training and fitness class at Piedmont High School (PHS), the parcel tax adjustments necessary for upcoming years, the approval of sending out “RFP’s” or Request for Proposals for district facilities, Piedmont Bonds, an “internship” program to help train educators, and other problems brought forth by members of the audience.

Mary Ireland was in the audience, but spoke representing the Piedmont Educational Foundation Endowment Fund. This year, she announced, they will be giving $275,000 from the endowment to the schools in the district. Additionally, the endowment has almost accumulated 6 million dollars.

Assistant Superintendent, Randy Booker, announced that Piedmont now offers, and will continue to offer, a weight training & fitness class as a Physical Education class offering for upperclassmen at PHS. Piedmont High School’s Principal, Brent Daniels, stepped in to further elaborate on this class and noted that this class will teach students the skills necessary to maintain fitness throughout the rest of their lives while also learning how to avoid injury. He also said that this course was not an option for freshmen. Robbie Diaz also commented from the audience that this class had been extremely beneficial to him and has helped his health and other aspects of his life in a multitude of ways.

Assistant Superintendent, Randy Booker, announced that Piedmont now offers, and will continue to offer, a weight training & fitness class as a Physical Education class offering for upperclassmen at PHS. Piedmont High School’s Principal, Brent Daniels, stepped in to further elaborate on this class and noted that this class will teach students the skills necessary to maintain fitness throughout the rest of their lives while also learning how to avoid injury. He also said that this course was not an option for freshmen. Robbie Diaz also commented from the audience that this class had been extremely beneficial to him and has helped his health and other aspects of his life in a multitude of ways.

Tam Hege and Gautam Wadhwani gave a very thorough overview and pros & cons list of the proposed increased levy of the “Support” or parcel tax (Measure A) for the school system. Apparently, because the State is not funding Piedmont schools nearly enough, and will not for potentially up to 6 years from now, we need to increase the tax by approximately $49.00 per parcel. This would allow us to have a more comfortable reserve and would allow us to be more flexible in paying unforeseen costs.

Michael Brady, also an Assistant Superintendent, asked for approval of sending out RFP’s to architectural firms. He hopes to get estimated costs from interested firms within the next month. He also noted that this does not come out of the District’s General Fund. He also spoke later in the meeting that there were many investors interested in Piedmont bonds, and that our bonds have never had higher ratings, so therefore, we are in a really good place.

Superintendent Constance Hubbard shared her idea that Piedmont should get interns for our district. That way, we would have better access to fully qualified educators by having them trained & ready by our amazing teachers.

From the audience, Arthur Weil, a WW2 veteran wants to come to our schools and share his story and was not getting his calls returned by Principal Brent Daniels, so he thought this was a better way of getting his message across. Luke Smith wants the teachers at PHS to create a master schedule to help organize and coordinate with each other. Sofia Mills would like the school to be careful about how PHS uses water, and would like for the school to stop selling plastic water bottles. Apryl Hsu wanted to call attention to the lack of parking availability for PHS students who commute to school everyday. Abby Hansen asked for more trash, compost, and recycling bins around the PHS campus to help stop the ongoing littering problem. Mr. Blackwell, who   came to a previous meeting requested a reform in the support tax system, and claimed that a much more equitable form of taxing would be based on a home’s square footage.

I also interviewed Assistant Superintendent Randy Booker. He was at this meeting because he is required to be present. He brings up issues surrounding curriculum instruction; for example, the weight training curriculum, and teacher evaluation issues. Once he brings up his problems, the School Board can then choose to act collectively as the School Board.

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.