“At the open, public special meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, January 4th, the City Council appointed current Alternate Tom Ramsey to the regular seat on the Planning Commission vacated by the resignation of Philip Chase. Aradhana Jajodia was appointed to the alternate position vacated by Mr. Ramsey.”

Garrett Keating contends the City will have adequate revenue without the jump up in the Parcel Tax rate and funds are needed for school improvements.

In his last published column, Councilman Jeff Wieler challenged readers to propose changes to municipal services in lieu of supporting the proposed increase in the parcel tax.  To have that discussion, it would be nice if the Councilman stopped his harangue of others who don’t share his views.  The ink isn’t even dry on the proposal and Councilman Wieler already characterizes other views as “perverse” and negative.  

The basis of his column is the proposal from the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) that the annual parcel tax be raised by as much as 50%.  BAFPC analyzed the city’s facility maintenance needs and conservatively estimates that $0.5M is needed annually for deferred maintenance. Likewise, the city recently completed a review of its information technology and found that conservatively $0.5M is needed annually to upgrade its IT systems.  As an aside, these are “spreadsheet spending” analyses that need more work before they are used as the basis for a tax increase.  So a 50% increase in the annual $1.8M parcel tax brings in about the $1M needed to start facility maintenance and IT upgrades.    

The basis for the BAFPC recommendation is a projection showing that implementing this new spending will deplete the General Fund reserve by 2020. The BAFPC estimates that over this 5-year period, annual transfer tax revenues will be $2.8M, the average value for the transfer tax from the past 10 years.  Alternatively, using the 25-year trend in transfer tax increase, the tax has increased 10% annually to its present day value of $3.9M.  At that rate, the transfer tax will tax be $6.3M by 2020.  Even at 5%, the transfer tax will be $4.5M in 2020.  Transfer tax revenues for the past three years have been $3.2, $4.0 and $3.9M, respectively.

And there is no estimate in the BAFPC projection for the increase in revenue from property reassessment nor tax revenue from 8 new residences coming to Piedmont.  For example, there are 1000 properties in Piedmont assessed under $500,000 and if just 5% of those sold for $2M today (median 2015 Piedmont price), those sales alone would generate close to $1M in new revenue.  This property tax increase, coupled with the 25-year trend in the transfer tax growth, could likely exceed the revenue the BAFPC proposes to collect with the new tax.

As it happens, at its Monday meeting, the Council chose to go with only a 30% increase in the parcel tax, raising $500K annually with an increase of about $150 for the average Piedmont household.  The parcel tax increase will be on the June 2016 primary ballot and Piedmonters should review the BAFPC report and recommendations available on the city website:(http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/2015-12-07/parceltaxreport.pdf). 

As the debate heats up, consider these points. First, disregard any statements that not voting for the tax increase will lead to a reduction in public safety.  City reserve funds are at their maximum and the current parcel tax carries on until June 2017, leaving ample time to renew the tax should it fail in June.  References to cuts in public safety are simple fear-mongering.  Second, the spending estimates that justify the tax have not been fully researched and may be overstated.   As an example, estimates that the Sewer Tax needed to be increased by 50% were subsequently found to be inaccurate.  

Finally, Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) is currently conducting a facilities assessment and will likely have a ballot initiative on the November 2016 ballot.   I hope the School Board brings forward a proposal to not only maintain school facilities but to modernize them.  Science and media laboratories, performance spaces and classrooms have all been identified as needing upgrades. 

Actually, maintaining the status quo with the city parcel tax and encouraging residents to support new school revenue might be the best strategy for the city.  Demand for Piedmont schools drives up housing prices leading to the historic increases in the city’s transfer tax receipts.

Councilman Wieler misses the point.  Opponents of the proposed tax increase don’t oppose better city services, they just don’t see why the tax need be increased when current and projected revenue will do the job.  Rather than argue about cuts, maybe we should be discussing revenues.

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont City Councilmember

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

The Piedmont Park Commission will meet on Wednesday, January 6 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue.  The meeting is open to the public and will be broadcast live.

Agenda for the meeting:

• Public Forum
• Report on PG&E Tree Pruning
• Public hearing on the requested removal and replacement of 12 street trees in the 1100 block of Warfield Avenue by residents
• Street lighting options for Linda/Kingston Triangle
• Update on replacement of Tea House oak tree
• Update on Hampton Sports Field project
• Update on Arbor Day April 27, 2016
• Monthly Maintenance report

Read about removal of the  Tea House oak tree and Hampton Sports Field project in the October 7, 2015 Park Commission minutes.

City Council Meeting – January 4, 2016 –

To Fill a Planning Commission vacancy, a Special Meeting will be convened at 6 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room.

~~~~~~~~~~~

A Special Meeting will be convened at 6 p.m. in open session in the City Hall Conference Room to consider filling the vacancy on the Planning Commission. The opening is a result of the recent resignation of Commissioner Phillip Chase.  No staff report on the vacancy or public notification soliciting applicants is available. The Special Meeting will not be broadcast nor recorded, however, it is open to the public.  Piedmont’s City Charter states that Special Meetings may be called by the Mayor or three or more members of the Council with 24 hours notice.

The regular meeting will be convened at 6:30 p.m. with a Closed Session, also in the City Hall Conference Room on two subjects: performance evaluation of the City Administrator and litigation with Harris & Associates.

At 7:30 p.m. the City Council will take up its regular agenda in Open Session in the Council Chambers, Monday, January 4, 2016. The meeting is open to the public, broadcast live and a copy of the meeting will be retained in the city’s archives.

Read the full agenda.

Available staff reports follow:

01/04/16 – Award of Contracts for Aquatics Center Maintenance as follows:

a. Replacement of Locker Room Floors to MC Construction Services

b. Replacement of the Main Pool Filter to Aquatic Commercial Industries

01/04/16 – Award of Contract to Cleary Brothers Landscape, Inc in the Amount of $12,250 for Blair Park Tree Removal

01/04/16 – Consideration of Acceptance of the 100% Complete Construction Documents and Specifications; Authorization to Solicit Bids for the Hampton Field Renovation Project; and the Phasing of the Project

01/04/16 – Consideration of Direction to Staff Regarding the Placement of a Municipal Services Special Tax Measure on the June 7, 2016 Presidential Primary Election Ballot

01/04/16 – Consideration of Ord. 720 N.S. Amending Chapter 17 of the City Code to Preserve Local Control by Prohibiting the Cultivation, Delivery and Dispensing of Marijuana

01/04/16 – Consideration of Authorization for the City to Join the ICLEI Compact of Mayors

01/04/16 – Introduction of the Concept of Building Energy Savings Regulations and Direction to Staff on Further Steps

Read previous article on marijuana issue in Piedmont.

Read previous articles on Piedmont Municipal Services Special Tax.

Read previous articles on Hampton Field.

Playground Hazards in Lower Dracena Park,  by Piedmont Resident Bernard Pech –

I took my 14 month old granddaughter to the playground in lower Dracena Park a while back and was dismayed by how poorly the playground is designed. The sand box is located in the middle of other play structures and at the same level as the ground around, resulting in sand being dragged all over. Apart from the poor look, it creates a dangerous situation, in particular on the concrete slope nearby surrounding the slide.

​

Dracena Park concrete slope

The sandbox needs to be deep and isolated on the side. Take a look for example at the  Presidio Heights Playground in San Francisco:

​

Presidio Heights Playground

​

​Given the push of dog lovers to expand the leash-free dog run area at Dracena, a redesigned park needs to relocate the playground out of the way of free running dogs and to surround the playground with a fence. The  Piedmont Director of Recreation (who I have contacted and was very responsive) should take a good look at the Presidio park, which was clearly very well thought out.

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

City revenues from Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT) have far exceeded projections.

The following is a letter sent to the Piedmont City Council.

Jan 2, 2016

Piedmont City Council

Re: Jan 4 Agenda Item 5: Parcel Tax

Dear Mayor Fujioka and Council,

The 1990-1991 Real Property Transfer Tax (“RPTT”) was $384,494 (2007 MTRC Report attached). The 2014-15 RPTT is $3.9M (Eric Cheung 20151102 attached). This steady, inexorable 10.13% annual increase is omitted from the 2015 BAFPC Report and at this rate the RPTT will be over six million dollars in five years.

There are many more up years than down years for the RPTT and the increases include 43%, 50%, and 94%. From 1991 to 2007 the largest decrease is -16%. (2001-2011 City table and 2011-2015 Budget material attached).

While the 2015 Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) Report is admirable in some respects, the bias is a conservative approach from both a demand and supply perspective. The future may hold more financial demands on the City and the BAFPC is prudent here. However, the supply side of taxpayer funding is presented in an overly conservative approach by underestimating RPTT and real property tax revenue. Staff estimates support this approach; a recent example is the $2.8M estimated for 2014-15 RPTT in the proposed budget when the actual figure is $3.9M.

The BAFPC is overly conservative in estimating ever increasing revenues in other areas. The BAFPC uses a $1.6M estimate for average Real Property value in town which is inconsistent with recent sales data which reveals the average Piedmont home sold for $2.13M and the median sale was $2M. Coming online are eight new homes in Piedmont, the seven Piedmont Station units and the Lexford Road project. And as the aging-in-place Proposition 13 residents die off, their low value homes will be sold and represent a much higher tax revenue basis.

Even during the worst economic downturns, Piedmont property values do not plummet like so many other Cities and regions. There is a flattening out and slowdown of sales. And then the inexorable march upwards begins again. (The largest decrease in the RPTT from 1990 to present occurred from 2006-07 to 2007-08 at a negative 32%.)

Regionally Oakland has become a destination and is enjoying increasing home values as those wishing to live in San Francisco are priced out. This is fostered by tech companies moving to Oakland. Piedmont continues to be the premier sought after location, especially for the increasing number of affluent Techies flocking to Oakland.

No increase in the Parcel Tax is warranted or can be reasonably justified. Despite the City Hall and the Post attempting to take advantage of a tax compliant resident base, as with the ill-conceived Sewer tax of 2012, taxpayers saw through that scheme and taxpayers will view any increase in the parcel tax in the same manner. I find it odd that the asked for $11M increase of the 2012 Sewer Tax was never explained, given that the same sewer mainline completion and EPA compliance is now being accomplished for $1M.

With revenues as robust as they are today, I ask the Council to forgive the coming year’s Parcel Tax.

Respectfully,

Rick Schiller, Piedmont taxpayer

http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/2016-01-04/parceltax.pdf

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