The Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC) is appointed every 4 years and has an important charge –

The MTRC was not put in place to “offer suggestions and ideas”.   The MTRC, appointed by Council every 4 years for some 20 years now, does a thorough review of city operations to determine the level at which to set the parcel tax for the next 4 years.   It goes through an intense period of meetings with city department heads and provides Council a parcel tax rate structure.   At the same time, it makes recommendations about city operations and financial management.   For example, the 2011 MTRC compared Piedmont’s operational costs to other cities, which can be found on page 22 of the report.

As to the parcel tax, the 2011 MTRC made the following statement:

“Although the committee in concept supports renewal of the parcel tax to be levied in its full amount and structure, the committee had much discussion concerning whether or not conditions should be placed on its recommendation.

Fundamentally, the City’s projected revenues and current expense commitments don’t align and the committee recognizes that passing the current parcel tax without addressing expense commitments is not fiscally prudent. Further, the committee understands that certain expense reductions recommended above will take time and negotiations to implement – more time than is provided by the committee’s current schedule for submitting its report. The committee has grave concerns that without implementing the above steps, not only will the parcel tax not cover planned expenditures, but also that renewal itself is at risk if the public lacks confidence in the City’s fiscal management.”

That is a very qualified endorsement of the parcel tax and I think it is inappropriate to accuse members of “changing their minds”.  I, for one, appreciate the unprecedented advice of the Committee that we consider public confidence before putting the tax on the ballot.  That is why I did not endorse the parcel tax and directed voters to read the MTRC and BAC reports. I think a goal of both reports was to alert the public to the $40M unfunded pension/benefits liability the city is facing. A majority of the MTRC does not think Council has taken sufficient action to address that problem and that renewing the tax at this time is imprudent.

Piedmont Council Member Garrett Keating

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

Respect the Facts, Vote NO on Y.

Rather than implement needed cost cutting measures, the City Council has put Measure Y on the ballot and supported it with a “gloom and doom” scenario should the tax fail. First we hear the three-minute ambulance response is at risk, then the Oct. 18 Piedmonter cited Mayor Chiang: “public safety services will be preserved.” Proponent “facts” are constantly shifting.

In 2004, City Hall chose the most expensive Pension plan in the state. Our compensation plan is so generous that a recent Piedmont Police Chief retired at an initial monthly pension of $18,918, 28% more than the final monthly salary of $14,791. This type of spending is wholly unsustainable, yet the City Council refuses to take meaningful action.

Beyond the structurally unsound compensation system, financial missteps have exacerbated the failing financial picture. Six weeks into the Undergrounding Debacle, the overruns were already $161,000 more than the contract amount and contingency! City Hall’s response: don’t tell anyone and keep digging. Total taxpayer cost: $3,100,000 in overruns and litigation costs.

Not learning from its mistakes, the City Council then approved the failed Blair Park Sports Fields with the same lack of risk assessment that had taxpayers picking up overruns in the Undergrounding.

Failure of Measure Y will leave Piedmont’s quality of life entirely unaffected and will encourage the Council to implement needed cost cutting measures.

Respect the facts, ignore the scare tactics and vote NO on Measure Y.

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

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

Vice Mayor Fujioka Describes City Actions –

As a member of the Piedmont City Council since 2008, I have tried to be a voice of reason and to act in the best interests of our entire community. Recently, we have witnessed a spirited discussion about whether the Municipal Services Tax (Measure Y) should be renewed. I am concerned that the “big picture” (the City’s fiscal health) has been lost in the heat of the moment. Vocally opposing Measure Y are Ryan Gilbert and Tim Rood, both of whom I ran against in 2008 and 2012, respectively, in two of the most hotly contested races in recent Piedmont history. From those two campaigns, I know we share an interest in strengthening the City’s financial condition. The most fiscally responsible means to that end is to pass Measure Y. Here are some important facts that I hope will be useful in making an informed choice.

The City’s successful negotiations with labor unions resulted in recently executed contracts without costly litigation or disruptive labor strikes. Negotiations with the firefighters’ union were difficult and protracted. They took over one year, went to impasse, and a state mediator was brought in because the City held firm in its demand for concessions. Labor contracts cannot be changed overnight or unilaterally. They must be negotiated within legal constraints of confidentiality and good faith bargaining which was done.

The City froze employee salaries for the 4th straight year, increased employees’ contributions to pensions, and instituted a two-tier system where new hires receive reduced pension benefits. As the Council begins negotiations for the next round of labor contracts, we will continue to work hard to reduce pension and benefit costs.

The City Council has made fiscally responsible decisions that saved the City hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Council voted to eliminate two positions which saved over $400,000 per year. It voted to share the City’s fire chief with the City of Albany for a savings of approximately $140,000 per year. It approved contracts with the City Clerk and Public Works Director that saved $60,000. It established a 5 year fiscal plan and created a Budget Advisory Committee which recommended renewal of the parcel tax. The City took over management of the pool and realized a surplus of over $31,000 in 2011-12. If sales of passes continue on the same trajectory, the City will break even or realize a modest surplus in 2012-13.

Renewal of the parcel tax will generate approximately $1.63 million per year or over $6.5 million over 4 years. These funds pay for our police, fire, and paramedic services, maintenance of streets, sidewalks, parks, playgrounds, and public buildings. The revenue supports other services that make Piedmont safer, including the City’s new Email Alert System, crossing guards for our school children, traffic studies, and public education on crime prevention and disaster preparation.

The revenues from the parcel tax will stave off painful cuts. This is not a “scare tactic.” It is arithmetic. The City cannot sustain the loss of $6.5 million in revenue over 4 years without cuts. If Measure Y fails, cuts could come from our facilities (pool, civic buildings) and equipment (ambulance, fire trucks) replacement funds which the Municipal Tax Review Committee strongly recommended be funded. Maintenance of public spaces may be reduced and library services eliminated.

If you think the tenor of our public dialogue has deteriorated over Measure Y, imagine the rancor that will occur when citizens are pitted against each other to save their favorite service or program.

Engaging in public discourse on the City’s spending priorities is healthy for our community, but denying it an essential source of revenue is not. I urge you to vote “yes” on Measure Y.

Margaret Fujioka
Vice Mayor

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

City Hasn’t Made Progress on Reforms-

I received our property tax bill this week. Included is $471 for the Municipal Services Tax. In the big scheme, it’s not a lot of money. Oh, I know that the entire $6 million raised over the last several years with the current parcel tax was wasted on an undergrounding project and an aborted sports field project, and was misspent on excessive employee compensation, especially fringe benefits. But that’s water under the bridge. Institutions, including City Councils, make mistakes. As long as they learn from their mistakes, progress, albeit costly, has been made. But wait – What project management practices have been put in place so these mistakes are avoided in the future?

And wait – What about the $40 million unfunded liability for future employee benefit costs that I’ve been reading about? That’s not water under the bridge; it is a torrent of water rushing at and possibly devastating the bridge. Who’s going to pay for that? That’s $10,000 per household. What happens when that bill comes due?

The City Council says we’re making good progress. A two-tier pension system for newly hired employees that will not have a material effect for 10–20 years and will have no effect whatsoever on the $40 million unfunded liability for current retirees or the 94 current employees. Doesn’t appear to be much progress to me. The City Council notes employees are paying $100 per month towards their retiree health benefit.

Let’s see:
That’s $112,000 per annum applied against a taxpayer funded benefit package of $5.7 million. Not much progress there. Employee contracts expire soon; for miscellaneous, non-safety employees in December 2012 and for fire and police in June 2013. Let’s see what progress can be made by our City Council in labor negotiations to rein in benefits costs funded by taxpayers.

If the City Council moves to lessen the burden on taxpayers for employee benefits and develops a plan for fiscal responsibility, the Municipal Services Tax can be put up to a vote in early 2014. This coincides with the next City Council election and provides an opportunity to vote on candidates and the tax at the same time.

So, for now, I’ll vote NO on Measure Y.

It is not “business as usual”.  It is time to demand fiscal responsibility from our elected officials. Visit www.NoOnMeasureY.com.

Eric Lindquist
Member, 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee

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

Recommended postage for ballots ranges from $.45 to $1.50 –

The instructional insert sent with absentee ballots calls for  $.85 postage for Piedmonters’ vote-by-mail ballots for the November 6 election. However, the weight of the 2 ballots, plus envelope, for Piedmont voters is less than 2 ounces, for which the Post Office requires $.65 (one $.45 first class stamp plus a $.20 extra ounce stamp), not $.85.

The Alameda County Registrar of Voters website recommends the following postage for the November ballot:

Recommended Postage:
$ 0.85 for 2 to 3 ballot cards
$ 1.50 for 4 ballot cards

In Berkeley, there has been considerable confusion among Berkeley voters about how much postage to use for  their envelope containing four ballot cards.  The Berkleyside website has posted several articles on the subject.

“City Manager Christine Daniel said the vote-by-mail ballot requires $1.50 in postage, according to County Registrar of Voters Dave Macdonald. … Mayor Tom Bates said he asked his wife, Senator Loni Hancock, to ask Secretary of State Debra Bowen about the mail-in ballots, and Bowen said a regular first-class stamp would do the trick.”

Berkeley Councilwoman Susan Wengraf  reported that, “I did call Dave Macdonald,” adding that he told her that, “regardless of what was on the ballot, it will be delivered.”

Voters confused by the postage issue can drop off their ballots at the office of the Alameda County registrar of Voters in Oakland, at 1225 Fallon St.  On election day, Nov. 6, voters can drop off ballots at any polling location until 8 p.m.

Measure Y  a Regressive Tax –

I imagine you have now received your 2012-13 property tax statement. Have you looked at the 15, yes 15, fixed charges? Well, we collectively voted for these, one way or another.

Now, to many in Piedmont, these charges represent the cost of providing excellent services, a theme endlessly repeated but nevertheless true.  > Click to read more…

Parcel Tax Defeat Will Not Solve Problems-

 I too have been reading the pamphlets and news articles searching for the logic behind a no vote for Measure Y.  The opponents have cited three main reasons to vote no:

1. A few years ago the staff and council was in charge of an undergrounding project that went very wrong;

2. Employee pension obligations are unsustainable;

3. The tax is unnecessary because it won’t lead to cuts in emergency services.

I don’t dismiss the importance of these three issues, but nixing the parcel tax cannot address the first two and is beside the point on the third.

Money lost on the undergrounding fiasco can’t be recovered, and so we must learn from our mistakes and move on. I guess the idea with a no vote is to “send a message” to elected officials and department heads.  But if the council didn’t hear the message loud and clear by now, then we need a new council (see below).

Secondly, like many local governments across the state the city employees’ compensation seems to be out of scale with revenue and public support and probably should be adjusted downward. But negotiating with employees and their unions is a long-term process that can’t be fixed in a single year. So if we can’t afford to keep them with present revenues, how are further cuts going to make things better?  The city has already taken steps to reduce its future obligations and may need to follow that course of many years if not decades.

Lastly, the idea that a defeat of Measure Y won’t cut police and fire services suggests that the rest of city government is unimportant. As is typical in cities around the country, when cuts finally are made, it is fire and police services that are the last things to be touched. Which means that everything else is on the chopping block, from recreation programs (including the pool) to street maintenance.  And I think Piedmont is a great city because of ALL the city services, not just its 911 services.

If this debate has taught us anything, it is that financing a city is complicated.  But you cannot “vote with your pocket book” to change government policy.  The way to change that is by electing hard working and intelligent leaders to make good decisions.  I think we have some of those kinds of people running the city right now, but if you disagree, you’ll have your chance to change that when the next election rolls around.

Tom Gandesbery, Piedmont Resident

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

As election day approaches I am urging people to use their heads and not their emotions and to vote No on Measure Y.

Why?  I have yet to hear an honest, forthright response from the City Manager or the City Council to requests for factual information on exactly which essential city services would suffer or be cut out if Measure Y fails to pass.

An informed electorate deserves facts, not half-truths nor appeals to “doom and gloom” scenarios.  No one has provided me or the rest of the voters with information from responsible sources that can be used to assist voters in their choice at the polls on November 6^th.  Surrogates with opinions abound, but responsible city governance has been factually silent.

I believe in responsible city government with the best interest of the taxpayers, not vested interests, at heart.  Until I see this happen, I will vote No on Measure Y and urge other Piedmonters to do the same.

Jim McCrea, Piedmont Resident

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

Comments From Measure Y Supporters-

One thing that makes Piedmont exceptional is our commitment to excellence in public services, parks and facilities. Measure Y, with no increase in taxes, simply renews the revenue raised by the municipal parcel tax to ensure Piedmont maintains this commitment.  At approximately $9 a week, the parcel tax is less than similar taxes in comparable cities. While it is laudable and important to address concerns over public spending, Measure Y, the municipal parcel tax renewal, is a good deal in these fiscally difficult times.  Maintain our legacy and vote Yes on Measure Y.

> Click to read more…

Vote No on Y to stop City intimidation and silencing of residents –

For the first time in my 21 years as a Piedmont resident, I will vote against the city’s parcel tax. I do so for several reasons that other dissenting voters have described at this website and elsewhere.  These include reckless growth in the cost of city government and incompetent management of capital projects.   But another reason arises from a darker, more insidious circumstance that I, perhaps like other Piedmonters, had until now chosen to ignore rather than confront.  I refer to the City Council’s use of its privileged position and of city resources to intimidate citizens who speak out against Council catering to special interests.  The most egregious example of this reprehensible behavior came when a Piedmont homeowner objected to the Council’s attempt to manipulate the results of a neighborhood vote on utility undergrounding.  After the Council refused to comply with its own rules on the fraction of positive votes needed to implement undergrounding, a homeowner in the proposed district went to court to ask for relief.  Rather than defending the city’s interests in the suit, the Council instead chose to counter sue under provisions that would have inflicted heavy financial penalties on the homeowner.  The court, in ruling for the homeowner, noted that no competent lawyer would have brought the city’s suit.  The Council, however, included 3 presumably competent lawyers and had a City Attorney on staff.  As Piedmonters, therefore, we can draw no inference other than the Council intended to intimidate the homeowner, and any others who resisted undergrounding, into silence.  That attempt to intimidate a citizen cost Piedmont taxpayers over $600,000 in legal fees and settlement costs.

> Click to read more…