Resident objects to proposed parcel tax structure-

November 16, 2012

Dear School Board Members:

I attended Wednesday night’s meeting and was pleased with the free exchange of decidedly held opinions about the proposed new school parcel tax.  Your decision to limit any new tax to an 8-year duration is a positive move.

Piedmont can be justifiably proud of the quality of its schools and I think that almost everyone at the meeting was strongly supportive of keeping the schools adequately funded.  I am in that group.

I was surprised that the issue of our current tax structure and its regressive nature, both addressed by my previous email to the board and expressed by others, was not included in the discussion. Although the to-be-implemented SSI exemption in the new tax is largely symbolic, it does recognize those on limited incomes which is a burden that falls disproportionately on seniors.

I think that perpetuating the inequitable and regressive method of a flat dollar amount of tax by tiered property size is wrong.  Let me demonstrate from the rates being proposed for single dwellings which will be voted upon in March 2013:

          DWELLING LOT SIZE     PROPOSED TAX

• 0 – 4,999 sq ft                                                $2,088 per parcel
• 5,000 – 9,999 sq ft                                          $2,372 per parcel
• 10,000 – 14,999 sq ft                                      $2,706 per parcel
• 15,000 – 19,999 sq ft                                      $3,107 per parcel
• More than 20,000** sq ft                                $3,547 per parcel

(** This should read “more than 19,999 sq ft” or “20,000 sq feet or more”.  As written, 20,000 sq ft lots are technically not included.)

This means that:

•   4,500 sq foot lots will pay $0.464 per square foot.
•   7,500 sq foot lots will pay $0.316 per square foot.
• 10,000 sq foot lots will pay $0.271 per square foot.
• 12,500 sq foot lots will pay $0.217 per square foot.
• 15,000 sq foot lots will pay $0.207 per square foot.
• 17,500 sq foot lots will pay $0.178 per square foot.
• 20,000 sq foot lots will pay $0.177 per square foot.

In other words, a 4,500 sq foot lot will pay 2.62 times the rate of a 20,000 sq foot lot.

As an aside, I believe that the smallest lot in Piedmont is about 2,000 sq ft and the largest is over 80,000 sq ft.  The tax rate difference between these two extremes (1.04 vs 0.04 cents) is astounding:  26 times!

I fail to see the equity in this perpetuation of the status quo.  This is nothing more than a regressive tax on the smallest sized lots in Piedmont which are most probably owned by people with a lower income base.  Why should smaller sized lots effectively subsidize much larger sized ones?

Equitability would be served if a square footage rate of between 22 and 27 cents was adopted.  I base this on a back-of-the-envelope calculation assuming a $9.5 million tax revenue target from 3,750 lots with approximately 34.4 million total square footage.

I disagree strongly with your decision to effectively not provide a full or partial voluntary senior exemption.  The age at which a homeowner is eligible for Social Security is an objective measure.  A member of the board advanced the argument that Prop 13 is the senior exemption.  It is an unwarranted assumption that everyone over 65 has paid lower property taxes because of Prop 13. Those properties with Prop 13 advantaged tax rates belong to residents who have maintained property ownership stability for more than 30 years (Prop 13 was adopted on June 6, 1978).  Is not “stability” a desired outcome of lengthening the time before school parcel taxes are submitted for a new vote? Why is it a negative when it comes to length of home ownership?

Over these 34 years, all homeowners have paid a full slate of school parcel taxes as assessed and many of these same citizens have not used the Piedmont school system while paying these taxes.  Are they now to be penalized for living here a longer time and paying more school parcel taxes than people who do not have similar residency and may pay higher property taxes?

Please don’t incent people to work against what is essentially a good thing by not adopting a more fair and equitable approach.

Thank you.

Jim McCrea, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note: The opinions express are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

On Thanksgiving morning, Thursday, November 22, 2012, the annual Turkey Trot 3-mile run/walk will be held on the streets of Piedmont, from 8:30 – 9:30 AM.  Sections of the course will be posted, “No Parking” and vehicles may be towed for violation of the posted signs.  There will be temporary road closures during the race to allow for runner safety.  Drivers are asked to plan accordingly.  Check the Turkey Trot website http://piedmontturkeytrot.com for additional information and to see a map of the course.

Letter to School Board Members:

Comments on Proposed School Parcel Tax Measure

Dear President Raushenbush and members of the Board of Education:

The League of Women Voters of Piedmont appreciates this opportunity to provide comments as you develop the school parcel tax proposal this month. On November 7, Katy Korotzer briefed our Board members on various options you are considering. Her presentation and insights were very helpful. To the League, the most significant issue seems to be the term of the tax: whether it should again be four years, “permanent,” or perhaps something in-between.

When the League decides whether to take a position on a ballot measure, the Board looks to the League’s formally-adopted policy positions and weighs all that apply. Education has been a high priority for our League at least since 1948, when it decided to “[s]upport a high level of education within the Piedmont Unified School District.” Based on this position, the League has
endorsed every school bond and tax measure within memory. However, the League also has a strong statewide position in favor of including sunset
provisions in all dedicated tax measures (LWVCalifornia Position on State and Local Finances, paragraph 4h).

During the just-past election, the Leagues of Alameda County declined to endorse the county-wide transportation tax measure precisely because it would have implemented a permanent tax. The League adopted a “neutral” stance.

When the LWVP Board evaluates the school tax ballot measure, it will have to weigh both of these positions in deciding whether to support, oppose or remain neutral.

We understand the Board of Education’s desire to avoid the uncertainty and expense of seeking ballot approval of the parcel tax every four years. We urge you to consider the alternative of perhaps an eight-year tax.

Our members suggested several reasons why this might be a reasonable term, and better than a permanent tax. First, conditions change: State funding, the composition of the Board of Education, the district administration, and the very nature of education might well change significantly over the next couple of decades.

Second, having a school parcel tax on the ballot makes the whole community focus attention on the schools and their current issues, which seems to be a good thing.

Finally, if “only” eight years have passed since the last school tax ballot, there should still be “community memory” about how to rally the public to get the tax passed. A longer term would make this more problematic.

Thank you for this opportunity to give our perspective. We will be following
developments closely. We appreciate all you are doing for the schools and our community.

Very truly yours,

Julie E. McDonald
President, LWVPiedmont

cc Constance Hubbard, Superintendent
Katy Korotzer

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  

During the recent Measure Y campaign, the Piedmont Civic Association (PCA) received numerous Comments and Opinions, some of which have raised the need to restate our publication guidelines.  PCA encourages reasoned discussion of civic issues through Comments and Opinions, and readers’ responses to specific Comments and Opinions are welcomed when they further debate and discussion. Personal attacks directed at individuals, however, do not meet PCA guidelines.

PCA is pleased to provide a public forum for Piedmont residents to  express their views. Ideally, opinions, comments, and responses to comments offer thoughtful insights and add new perspectives. Often, the most persuasive arguments acknowledge the valid concerns and objectives of those on the other side.

The PCA  goal is “to  maintain and enhance Piedmont as a desirable community through the informed participation of its residents.”  Comments and opinions that do not comply with PCA guidelines cannot expect to be published.

. . . Or a 2% Annual Escalator?

The Piedmont School Board has requested public input before its next meeting on Wednesday, November 14, on a new draft resolution for a permanent (“evergreen”) school parcel tax to which the League of Women Voters has expressed objections. The primary decision on the 14th will be whether to propose a measure to approve a flat permanent tax . . . or a permanent tax with a 2% annual escalator.  Another important decision will be whether to abolish the Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC) as an independent oversight entity.  Final revisions to the permanent tax resolution will made on Nov. 14 to allow staff to prepare language for a final vote on Nov. 28. (Further details.)

Click here to send email to all School Board Members.

A second draft resolution, for an additional emergency tax in case Proposition 30 failed, has been dropped following the passage of Prop. 30.

Draft Resolution

• PERMANENT  TAX of $2,088 – $3,547 per parcel  (no voter approval required in the future ) two public School Board hearings prior to Board determination of tax levy
  
• FLAT OR UP TO 2% ANNUAL ESCALATOR  (to be decided by Board on Nov. 14)
  • no increased written or public notice to taxpayers of proposed increases
  • continue existing notice at two public School Board hearings prior to increases
• LOW INCOME EXEMPTION BASED ON SSI INCOME LIMIT
• RESTRUCTURE INDEPENDENT CITIZENS’ ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC)
  
  • Convert to subcommittee of the Budget Advisory Committee (rather than totally independent oversight committee)
  • Members appointed by Board President and Vice President
    
  • Limit to 3-5 members (rather than at least 7)
  • Allow past district staff (who are residents of Piedmont)

A Close-Up Look at Piedmont School Finances

• Part 1:  A $1 Million Problem – Temporary or Ongoing?
• Part 2:  Piedmont Parcel Tax Facts
• Part 3:  Piedmont Schools Face a Quandary
• Part 4:   The Ongoing PUSD Deficit

School Board Members:

• 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

Updated 11/13/3012

A member of the School District Citizens’ Advisory Committee comments on the proposal for a “permanent” school parcel tax –

Outlined herewith are my serious concerns regarding this proposed new parcel tax:

• First, I am distressed and appalled by the prospect of making the parcel tax permanent.

• Without a doubt, future Boards and administrations will become so accustomed to such a permanent tax that it will simply fade into the basic tax structure that will no longer have the special importance as it does today.  It will be treated in the same manner as the advalorem tax is today.

• Once the “permanent” tax is no longer sufficient to satisfy the ever growing needs of the District, there will, without question, bring forth appeals for more “special” or “emergency” parcel taxes to heap on the taxpayers of Piedmont.  Just look no further than the so-called “emergency” tax proposed with this round of measures if State Proposition 30 had not been approved. There’s no doubt in my mind that this will happen once the state politicians figure out how to redirect any $$$$$ from Prop. 30 receipts to other priorities in a year or so!

• The only part of this proposed measure that I can support is the limitation of the annual escalator to 2%, mirroring the Prop. 13 limitation on assessed value growth.

• As to the so-called “Low Income Exemption for SSI Recipients”, I see this as very close to meaningless.  How many, if any, Piedmont property owners fall within these circumstances?  Few I wager!  A more realistic “senior citizen” or “lower income” provision should be incorporated into the measure.

• In relation to the proposed abolishment of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), I see this as an unfortunate loss of the public’s ability to view the activities and results of the use of the taxpayers’ money.  The current CAC is obliged to provide an independent report of its findings annually.  The proposal to fold the CAC duties into the Budget Advisory Committee is unlikely to provide such clarity.

• Based on my concerns indicated above, I must strongly urge that the Board reconsider the measure described.  If not, I will find it necessary to strongly and actively oppose the adoption of this parcel tax.  We must retain the ability to have the voters review the performance of the District and this Board at least every 4 years.

• And to the likely argument that the voters could, by initiative, reverse the proposed measure in the future, I would counter with my view that any such effort would be unlikely to muster an effective campaign.  Reversing a law, no matter how unpopular, is seldom, if ever, possible to accomplish.

George Childs

Piedmont Resident and member of the School District Citizens Advisory Committee

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

Recreation Commission Seeks Input –

The Piedmont Recreation Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday,  November 15,  at 7:30 pm in the City Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue, continuing its consideration of use patterns and restrictions at Beach Playfield.  Feedback from neighborhood residents is particularly encouraged.

On Nov. 15 the Commission will consider limiting full-field adult play to certain hours and restricting play at all other hours to half-field play only. Two fields of equal sizes would be created in the East to West orientation (Linda Avenue toward Howard Avenue) with one of the fields designated for use by children and families only.

Beach playfield use has been the subject of ongoing hearings for several years.  Previously, in July and September, 2007, the Recreation Commission held public hearings that ultimately resulted in new rules for adult use of the playfield. “In February 2008, the City Council approved these modifications, which included new rules limiting adult use of the playfield by groups of 12 or more persons 21 years of age or older concurrently participating in the same activity (ies) or game (s) including substitutes or alternatives but excluding coaches or spectators.“

The Recreation Commission held additional public hearings in November 2010 and 2011. Further rule changes or modifications were delayed, pending the implementation of a park monitor program to document use patterns.

Neighborhood concerns include safety and field access for children and families on weekends after organized use by the Piedmont Soccer Club/Baseball­-Softball groups.   The Commission previously conducted public hearings on July 18 and September 19, 2012.  The Commission’s recommendations will go to the City Council for final action on the matter.

Public testimony and commentis encouraged. Written comments should be directed to Dick  Hunt, Chairman, Piedmont Recreation Commission, 358 Hillside Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611 or by email to:  mdelventhal@ci.piedmont.ca.us

The hearing will be televised live on KCOM Channel 27 and will also be available through streaming video on the City Web Site under “on-line video.”

For further information, contact Recreation Director Mark Delventhal at 420-3073.

Register now for the Turkey Trot –

Piedmont’s 11th Annual Turkey Trot will take place on Thanksgiving Day, November 22, beginning promptly at 8:30 a.m. at Piedmont High School. Participants who register by Sunday, November 18, on www.Active.com receive the lower registration fee of $25 for adults; $15 for kids 12 and under.  Registration in person will be held at Piedmont High School,  November 21, Wednesday  3 – 6 p.m. and Thanksgiving Day prior to the race when fees increase to $35/$25.

The 3-mile run/walk through Piedmont is a great way to begin Thanksgiving Day and support the Piedmont High School cross-country and track teams.   Long-sleeve technical shirts for the first 1500 registered participants will be distributed. Avoid the rush on Thursday morning and stop by for the pre-race distribution of shirts and bibs on Wednesday, November 21 from 3 to 6 p.m. at Piedmont High School.

For more information, see www.piedmontturkeytrot.com.

November 10 was the final day the Piedmont Avenue Branch Library operated in the library building on 41^st Street at Piedmont Avenue.

The branch library will reopen on Tuesday, November 27, at 80 Echo Avenue, behind the Piedmont Avenue Elementary School.  The City of Oakland leased the modular unit (with Measure Q funds) from the school for five years as the temporary home for the library.  In preparation for the library, the modular unit was painted white, and a new access ramp and stairway were constructed, also using Measure Q funds, the parcel tax that supports extended branch library hours.  (Read More about the Piedmont Avenue Branch Library move.)

Two-Thirds Majority OK  City Parcel Tax –

After a spirited discussion among residents about the state of Piedmont finances, Piedmont voters approved Measure Y  by 68.33% .  To pass the parcel tax 66 2/3% Yes votes were required. The measure extends the Municipal Services Tax four more years to June 30, 2017.  The tax funds will go into Piedmont’s General Fund to support city services.

For the first time in memory, there were lawn signs supporting the passage of Piedmont’s parcel tax.   The green signs with white lettering posted throughout the City urged renewing the existing parcel tax, while opponents hung door hangers urging a No vote on Measure Y.

The Alameda County Registrar of Voters reports the “final preliminary result” of the vote on Measure Y:

Yes  4549    68.33 %

No 2108      31.67 %

Additional information can be found on The Patch.

Updated 11/21/12