Parcel tax measures G+H were on the November 5 ballot and passed with strong margins. We are grateful for the continued support this community has given to our schools.

We are especially grateful to G+H campaign chairs Hilary Cooper, Doug Ireland, and Christine Wente von Metzsch who graciously stepped in to lead the campaign. This win is a direct reflection of their tireless effort in setting the vision, rallying the volunteers, and filling in to work on the ground whenever necessary. They were wonderful ambassadors to talk up what is remarkable about our school district.

A successful campaign needs boots on the ground. Thank you to the myriad volunteers who heeded the call for help by showing up for phone banks, neighborhood walks, and other as needed duties.This campaign relied on hours and hours of volunteer time, and each week a cohort of G+H supporters gave their own talents and energy.

Another big thank you to Larry Tramutola, June Monach, and Christian Garcia for yet another Piedmont campaign to which they provided their expertise, common sense, wisdom, and energy. Our community is very lucky that Larry and June call Piedmont home, and we have benefitted many times over from their talents and support.

And last, but never least, thank you to the educators in our learning community, our teachers, staff, and administrators. They are dedicated to their vocation, skilled craftspeople who are on the front line every day to teach and nurture our children and build them into responsible citizens. They model what it means to be life-long learners in their willingness to learn new skills and share what they know. These measures passed because this community recognizes and appreciates their talents and energy.

To borrow from Mr. Rogers, “We live in a world in which we need to share responsibility. It’s easy to say, ‘It’s not my child, not my community, not my world, not my problem.’ Then there are those who see the need and respond. I consider those people my heroes.”

Thank you, Piedmont, for sharing in this responsibility!

PUSD Board of Education Sarah Pearson, Megan Pillsbury, Cory Smegal, Amal Smith, and Andrea Swenson

Measure G

YES                3,655             82.88%

NO                     755              17.12%

Measure H

I am so thrilled to report that the Piedmont Community passed both Measures G and H.

Your continued commitment to a robust public education is incredible! I want to thank the countless parent, staff, and student volunteers for all of their support and civic engagement over the past few months. It was encouraging to be a part of a community-wide conversation about our schools and how we support teaching and learning.

I fully recognize and am grateful for the commitment that families have made in our school system. I will continue to work closely with the Board of Education, teachers, staff, families, and students to ensure that Piedmont’s schools not only continue to provide excellence in education, but that we also continue to grow and improve in how we educate students.

Please join me in also thanking and acknowledging the election staff from the City of Piedmont. Their efforts ensured a smooth election day!

On behalf of all of the teachers, support staff, and administrators, thank you for your support and engagement with our incredible district.

Sincerely,

Randall Booker, Superintendent of Piedmont Unified School District

Piedmont voters cast their votes on Measures G and H at the November 5, 2019 Special Election for the Piedmont Unified School District parcel taxes.  Both Measures G and H readily received the required 2/3 rds (66 2/3%) approval by those voting continuing the Piedmont tradition of strong local support for Piedmont schools. Approval for the measures was:

82.69% for Measure G  

74.34% for Measure H

Measure G is essentially a continuation of the existing parcel tax of $2,763 per year per parcel with a likely 2% increase each year over the eight year term of the measure.

Measure H is a new and additional flat tax based on the habitable space on each parcel in Piedmont taxed at 25 cents per square foot of improved habitable space on a parcel during the eight year term of the measure.

Community volunteers supporting the measures, primarily  parents of students, made an all out effort to personally contact each Piedmont voter, in addition to sending several glossy mailers to all voting households explaining the reasons to support the measures for the schools. Lawn signs for G & H were placed throughout the city. 

No opposition was officially filed against the measures, although opposition was explained through various media sources, including editorial disapproval by some regional newspapers emphasizing funding disparities with other school districts. 

Concern was also expressed over the demands placed on taxpayers, particularly seniors, and the fact that the parcel taxes under new federal tax laws were unlikely to be tax deductible. 

Voting results based on those voting:

G   YES   3,416   82.69%    NO   715   17.31 %

H   YES   3,059  74.34%     NO  1,056  25.66%

There are 8,647 voters in Piedmont, of which 7,066 are permanent vote by mail voters, or 81.7 % of the Piedmont voters. Over 4,000 Piedmont voters cast their ballots on November 5, 2019 making the turnout by voters close to 50%.  A small number of provisional ballots are yet to be counted.  Updated 11/8/19

UPDATE: NOVEMBER 8, 2019 – The following percentage of  Piedmont voters is incorrect, as reported by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters. For no known reasons, the Registrar combined voters in Dublin with those in Piedmont, therefore disregard the following data.

Alameda County Registrar of Voters Reported:

The League Offers Arguments in Support of Ballot Measures G and H.

The League of Women Voters Piedmont has prepared a Pros and Cons for Piedmont voters regarding Measures G and H here.  After engaging in a discussion regarding Measures G and H, the Board voted to support these measures which align with the League’s policy to support a high level of education in the Piedmont Schools.

Measure G would continue financial support for District programs for students in Piedmont schools. The measure, with a new eight (8) year term, intends to provide the District and its taxpayers both stability and predictability in base parcel tax support. The proposed parcel tax will replace the local funding approved by the voters of the District on March 5, 2013, as Measure A, which will otherwise expire as of July 1, 2021. This Measure will provide continuing local revenue that cannot be taken by the State and will fund programs in math, science, technology, engineering, English, music, and arts, keep textbooks and instructional technology up to date, maintain smaller class sizes, and attract and retain qualified teachers (“Measure G Programs”).

Measure H would authorize the District to impose a special parcel tax with a rate of $0.25 per square foot of building improvements per year, to be levied against each taxable parcel of land located wholly or partially within the boundaries of the District. The Special Tax would have a term of eight (8) years, commencing on July 1, 2020, and ending on June 30, 2028, to be collected by the Alameda County Tax Collector, as applicable based on parcel location, at the same time, in the same manner, and subject to the same penalties as general property taxes collected by said tax collector.

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the Piedmont League of Women Voters Board of Directors. Publicly noted Board members are President Nancy Beninati, Piedmont Resident, Vice President Lorrel Plimier, Oakland Resident, and Membership Chair Linda McClain, Oakland Resident.

PCA does not support or oppose ballot measures.

Dear Editor,

I’m writing to express my strong support for Measures G&H. As a realtor and a grandmother of children attending the Piedmont schools, I understand the importance of our Piedmont schools on many levels.

Every day, I work with families who want to buy homes in Piedmont because they know that our community offers a great education for their children. The strength of our schools directly affects the value of Piedmont homes.

I am proud to live in a community that values education, and I’m thrilled that my grandchildren attend the Piedmont schools. I know that they are receiving an outstanding education that includes small class sizes and access to art classes, libraries, current technology, and eventually AP classes and a range of electives. This breadth of programming exists because Piedmont has consistently passed school parcel taxes for over 30 years, helping to address the lack of state funding for education. In addition to preserving our educational program, we also need to support the teachers who work hard every day to teach our students. Measures G&H will allow us to preserve our educational programs and properly compensate Piedmont teachers.

All of the money raised by our school parcel taxes stays here in Piedmont. Even if you don’t have children who attend the Piedmont schools, Measures G&H are a wise investment because they help protect and improve our property values. The Piedmont schools have been the centerpiece of our community for decades. I encourage Piedmont residents to join me in voting Yes on Measures G&H in order to keep our schools strong.

Sincerely,

Anian Pettit Tunney, Piedmont Resident

Broker Associate , The Grubb Co.

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

We all benefit by increased real estate values substantially created by our excellent
Piedmont Schools. Normally larger homes increase in value more than smaller
homes. A single progressive Per Square Foot of Building Tax, a PSFBT, is the best
tax solution for each of us to fairly contribute to our schools based on property
value increases.

PSFBT is used in Alameda since 2011, Emeryville since 2007, Berkeley since 2010, and W. Contra Costa since 2004. Instead our School District has chosen to keep our large regressive flat tax and add a small progressive PSFBT.

March 2013 the School District replaced the existing tax that had “a variety of
progressivity to it” (Board President Raushenbush 12/12/2012) with a
regressive flat rate tax. This resulted in 76% of Piedmont taxpayers on parcels less
than 10,000 square feet (“sf”) paying 6% to 21% more. However 24% of
taxpayers, owners of large parcels, commercial buildings and multi-unit buildings
pay 7% to 80% less. Some large parcels over 20,000 sf go untaxed.

The District commissioned a survey of voter preference. Presented April 24 2019 to
the School Board, the Final Ballot Result compared a single progressive PSFBT that
generates 125% of current revenue to a regressive flat rate tax at 115% of
revenue. The Survey concluded that 73.4% of Piedmont voters definitely/likely will
vote for a 125% progressive PSFBT. The 115% flat rate tax received 62.1%
support. 66.7% is needed to pass.

Initially, I suggested a 115% progressive PSFBT which would likely poll above 74%
and I’m disappointed by the District unfairly comparing a progressive 125%
revenue tax to a regressive 115% tax. Despite this headwind the progressive tax
polled 11.3% higher. Rather than follow voter preference the District created a two
tax Special Election at a cost of $125,000 versus General Election cost of $35,000.
Additionally, as Piedmont taxes and bond obligations are already as expensive as
any in the State and proper funding is critical for Piedmont Schools, the School Tax
conversation should be revisited every four years.

So what is the tax cost to homeowners of a single progressive per square foot of
building tax (“PSFBT”) versus Measures G and H? Proponents state “Measure G will
cost all homeowners $2,763 per year. The cost to homeowners for Measure H will
be 25 cents per square foot of their home.” Measure H generates an additional 25%
in revenue so a single $1.25 per square foot of building tax will generate the same
total revenue as Measures G and H. While I advocated a 115% revenue increase, I
will compare the tax cost of a 125% progressive PSFBT to Measures G and H:

If your home is smaller than 2,763 square feet you will pay less under a single
progressive tax. The median size home in Piedmont is about 2,400 square feet. I
estimate that under a single progressive PSFBT 63% of homeowners will pay less
than with Measures G & H. Mindful of an excessive cost to large homes, Alameda
uses a $7,999 cap and I suggested a $4,999 cap in Piedmont.

Likely you are among the 76% who paid more after 2012 and are in a home smaller
than 2,763 square feet. Additionally according to the District’s own data 73.4% of
residents support a single progressive PSFBT School Tax.

Proponents state: “If Measures G and H do not pass, up to 100 teacher positions will be eliminated.” This outcome would be awful and fortunately our current tax runs through June 2021 so there will be no revenue loss should G and H fail. There will be no teacher eliminations.

Vote NO on Measures G & H so the District will put before us our preferred
choice: a single progressive tax.

Rick Schiller
Piedmont taxpayer

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

News coverage against Measure H, “No on Piedmont’s school tax increase,” was published in the East Bay Times, the former Oakland Tribune.  Click below to access the full article.

“Voters in the Nov.  5 special election should approve Measure G, which would extend what district officials have said is the largest parcel tax in the state.  But voters should reject Measure H, which would add a new one. “

“This district isn’t suffering.  At a certain point, residents need to ask district officials how much is enough.”

  https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/10/12/editorial-piedmont-voters-should-reject-increase-to-record-tax/

Editors’ Note: PCA does not support or oppose ballot measures.

Check your mail carefully for your “Vote by Mail” ballot. To some receiving their ballots in the mail, the  ballot envelope looks like an advertisement.  

At this election, no postage is required to cast your ballot via the mail.

Click the link below to read an opinion in support of Measures G and H submitted by Piedmont resident Hari Titan.

>Vote_YES_on_Measures_G_and_H

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.  PCA does not support or oppose ballot measures.