Jun 7 2016
Big Win for Increase in Piedmont Parcel Tax: Measure F
Piedmonters, once more, vote to approve a parcel tax to support City services, reserves, and facilities.
Measure F was given support by approximately 70% of Piedmont voters. Measure F insures that the current property tax plus a 30% increase will continue for 4 years starting in 2017.
The Measure F election produced both pro and con activity. Piedmont’s elected officials were vocal about the need to increase reserves, maintain and improve City facilities, while keeping City services at a high level.
Following analysis of the City budget and financial projections, those opposed to the ballot measure took issue with the need for a 30% tax increase to achieve City goals.
Final vote count will not be available for days, if not weeks. Election results will not change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
For the latest Measure F election results, click here
It was an interesting contrast in transparency in the voting booth last evening – Measure AA clearly stating that it was seeking a $12/year parcel tax for wetlands protection while Measure F made no mention of the parcel tax increase it will invoke. If $15/month is so trivial, why was it not mentioned in the ballot statement?
I’d love to hear from voters who were not aware that an increase was proposed, particularly since the proponents argument in favor explained why an increase was being requested. The new rate schedule was listed in the ballot measure.
http://www.acgov.org/rov/elections/20160607/documents/MeasureFv3.pdf The percentage increase varied slightly by lot size and I am told that the City Attorney’s impartial analysis, under a strict text limit, would not normally include a discussion of the amount of the increase.
Opponents immediately brought the 30% increase to voter’s attention. Any voter that didn’t know might have only read Proponent material, the City Impartial Analysis or Piedmont Post coverage. Or as some voters do, only the Ballot question which certainly should have contained the 30% language.
Cal. Election Code 9860 states: “The city attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure.” A 30% increase is certainly a fundamental “effect.” Sec. 9860 limits analysis to “500 words.” The City chose to direct voters to a schedule within the legal analysis rather than simply stating “a 30% increase.” While likely legally defensible by the City, the lack of transparency is indefensible. East Bay Times and East Bay Express came to that same conclusion in advising a No vote on Measure F.
I was contrasting the text on the ballot handed to voters before going into the booth – Measure AA cited the annual and monthly cost of the parcel tax. Measure F did not. The text Tim is referring to is not on that ballot but is in other voting information. But why not include that simple information in the ballot statement? Many impartial analyses discuss the cost of measures to government, specifically the operational cost. Just seems odd that taxpayers who contribute to those operational costs aren’t so informed.