Drop your unstamped Ballot in the new Ballot Drop Box added to the center of Piedmont next to the mailboxes and library book drop box on Highland Way.

Ballot Drop Box on Highland Way in the Center of Piedmont

Ballot Drop Box on Highland Way

June 7, 2016 – Last Day to Vote

Submitting Stamped Ballots Through the US Postal Service:

Vote-by-Mail Ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received by the Registrar of Voters office no later than 3 days after Election Day.

Submitting Ballots Without Postage:

Vote-by-Mail voters who do not want to mail in their ballot can DROP their voted ballots in the 24-hour outdoor Ballot  drop-off box in Piedmont behind the Wells Fargo Bank on Highland Way.  (Ballot Box is pictured in the photos above.)

Other 24-hour outdoor Ballot  drop-off boxes are in downtown Oakland at the corner of 12th Street and Oak Street or at the ramp at 1225 Fallon Street.  There is also a Ballot drop-off box inside the courthouse next to the Sheriff’s check-in station, Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5:00pm.

Deliver in Person:

On Election Day, June 7, Ballots may be dropped off at any polling place in Piedmont or Alameda County from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 

Vote-by-Mail Ballots may currently be delivered in person to the Registrar of Voters Office 1225 Fallon Street during business hours; 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Councilmembers Wieler and McBain accuse Measure F opponents of misrepresenting the facts and direct voters go to the city website for more information.

We encourage voters to do so as well, and we provide the following references to help voters learn the facts.  We summarize Wieler and McBain’s arguments and hope voters will visit the links to determine what information is accurate.

 ___________

1.    Wieler and McBain claim that the 2007, 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC)and 2015 Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) recommend that the City establish reserves.  True. But MTRC 2007 and 2011 did not advocate for a tax increase like the BAFPC does.  Rather these committees recommend spending controls – 2007 MTRC proposed a trigger mechanism to NOT levy the parcel tax based on property and transfer tax revenues (http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/mtrc-report.pdf, p.46) and the 2011 MTRC proposed a cap on employee benefit levels (http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/09-06-11/mtrc.pdf, p.6).

Rather than propose to raise taxes, these committees saw that the City could budget conservatively and put away reserves when the real estate market was good.  Since 2012, Council has followed this sound advice by transferring $3M to the facility maintenance fund.

 ________

2.    Wieler and McBain claim the recommendations of the 2011 MTRC have been accomplished.  False.  The MTRC recommended a cap of employee benefit levels (pension and health benefits), a “mission critical” analysis of City services and staffing levels and establishment of a facility maintenance fund (http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/09-06-11/mtrc.pdf, p. 7, 28, 42). Since 2013, the City has reduced the growth rate of its annual pension payments by requiring that employees share increases in CalPERS rates.   To cap health benefits, the 2015 BAFPC proposes a “cafeteria” benefits plan (http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/2015-12-07/parceltaxreport.pdf, p.5). Council has yet to act on that. The facility maintenance fund has been established and $1M has been spent on projects like electrical upgrades and there’s $2M in reserve for leaky roofs  (http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/2016-02-16/midyearfiscal.pdf, p.7).  The analysis of City services and staffing levels has not been undertaken.

 ___________

3.    Wieler and McBain claim the cafeteria benefits plan is “irrelevant”.  False.  Adoption of such a plan for City employees is recommended by the 2015 BAFPC (2015 BAFPC, p.5) and the substantial savings that would be achieved are documented in the report. Wieler and McBain claim such savings will help control personnel costs but can’t be used for facility maintenance; this assertion ignores the fungible characteristic of the City budget. Annual savings in employee benefits costs will be available for transfer to facility and equipment reserves – this is in part how the current facility maintenance fund has grown to $2M.  The current contract with city employees expires in June 2017 and now is the time for Council to adopt the cafeteria plan in the next contract.

 _____________

4.    Wieler and McBain claim the Athletic Facilities Maintenance Fund (AFMF) and SchoolMates Fund can’t be used for facility maintenance. False.  The AFMF was used for the resurfacing of Linda Beach Field and just last month $200,000 was allocated from this fund for Hampton Field maintenance (http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/2016-04-18/hamptonpark.pdf, p.5).  The SchoolMates Fund has always been used for upkeep of those buildings.

 ___________

5.    Wieler and McBain claim $450K is insufficient for annual facility maintenance. False. This is the average level of facility maintenance spending determined by the 2011 MTRC and 2015 BAFPC.  Costs for long-term deferred maintenance are currently being refined by City staff (2105 BAFPC, p. 24).  When finished, there likely will be a need to allocate more funds for facility maintenance but the extent to which the parcel tax needs to be raised will depend on whether the cost saving recommendations of the MTRC and BAFPC are implemented.

 ___________

6.    Wieler and McBain claim the $11M pension surplus shouldn’t be used for facility maintenance. True, but that’s a claim opponents never made (http://www.piedmontcivic.org/2016/05/15/election-opinion-piedmont-voters-should-not-approve-an-increase-in-the-parcel-tax/).  Opponents said these funds could be used for the increasing CalPERS pension obligation that the City faces.  Instead, Wieler and McBain claim these funds should be used to pay for long-term underfunded retiree health benefits. Either way, upcoming negotiations that cap benefit levels will add to the growing surplus.

 ____________

7.    Beyond our analysis of cost, we have always maintained that City revenues are more than sufficient and enjoy regional upward pressure on a continued robust revenue stream. Wieler and McBain are entirely mute on this important half of the tax equation.  The 2015 BAFPC Report (p.11) uses a 15 year time frame for the Transfer Tax, going from $2,287,982 to $3,901,252 and the Report states a 4.3% compound annual increase.  Proponents then state the erratic nature of the Property Transfer Tax yet ignore the 35 year history of the transfer tax. 1980 – 2015 the compounded annual rise is 6.45% annually.  We estimated the transfer tax in five years at $3.8 Million and we use Proponents conservative $2.8M estimate as a starting point rather than the last five-year $3.3M average.  No one can question the robust nature of the ever growing Property Tax. From 2001 to 2015 the tax grew at a compound rate of 5.1% with no down years. We estimate property tax revenue at $13.9M in five years. Proponents make no comment.

 ____________

8.   Critically, Wieler and McBain fail to mention the $1.3M additional available funds coming online in 2020 when the Pension Side Fund debt ends.

_____________

Wieler and McBain accuse Measure F opponents of inaccuracies and misinformation, but voters can judge for themselves by reading the reports.  These reports call for two basic actions by City Council – the capping of benefit levels and the establishment of facility maintenance reserves.  The extent to which a parcel tax increase is needed will depend on whether the City adopts the cost-saving measures recommended by the MTRC and BAFPC. 

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont Councilmember 

 Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors.  PCA does not support or oppose ballot measures and accepts both pro and con opinions.

Piedmont’s taxpayers have paid over $2 Million in excessive costs for City projects due to poor management ($1.3 M from the Undergrounding fiasco, $400,000 from Blair Park’s so-called “gift,” $340,000 from purchasing police radios that are incompatible with Alameda County).

While the City has some new senior-level employees, the consequence of past incompetence requires greater disclosure and transparency to re-establish taxpayer confidence that Measure F’s increase in taxation is really necessary.  Measure F asks for a 30% tax increase without specifying what exactly would be done, while  underestimating property tax revenues in spite of a 25-year trend of increasing revenue.

Approval from two-thirds of the electorate should require two ballot measures, one to maintain service at the current tax rate, and another to increase service with specific projects at an increased tax rate.

If Piedmont voters reject Measure F now, the pair of measures could be placed on the November ballot without danger of current services being interrupted, because the existing tax doesn’t expire until June, 2017.

Bruce Joffe, Piedmont Resident

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

June 7 –  Piedmont Parcel Tax Election – Measure F and local matters.

Editor of East Bay Times (former Oakland Tribune) says “NO” to Piedmont Parcel Tax Measure F.

Click below to read the recommendation from the East Bay Times:

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/my-town/ci_29873551/editorial-no-piedmont-oakley-parcel-taxes-yes-fremont

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

League of Women Voters Forum reported by the Mercury News:

Click below to read the report:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_29880540/piedmont-muni-services-tax-before-voters

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

View the entire Piedmont League of Women Voters Forum:  State Senate Candidates, Measure AA and Piedmont Measure F > here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Editors’ Note: The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose candidates for public office or ballot measures.  Pro or con opinions and articles on ballot items can be submitted via email for publication by clicking below:

editors@piedmontcivic.org

Personal attacks are not published. 

The June 7 election has important consequences for Piedmont. Measure F on the ballot proposes to raise the municipal services tax (aka the parcel tax) by 30%. 

The parcel tax was adopted in 1981 to make up for Piedmont tax revenues reduced by the passage of Prop 13 and is critical to providing the excellent services and amenities we enjoy in Piedmont. The 30% increase is claimed to be needed for long-term maintenance of city facilities and sports fields.

No increase in the tax is needed and residents may vote No on Measure F and still renew the current parcel tax before it expires in June 2017. 

As background, since 2011, finance review committees comprised of Piedmont residents have convened annually to look at city finances and have concluded that three goals must be achieved for Piedmont’s fiscal sustainability:

• A cap on employee pensions and benefit levels
• Staffing and organizational changes that reduce the compensation growth rate a facility maintenance plan and reserve fund
• A facility maintenance plan and reserve fund

The first two goals have yet to be achieved. The last goal has been implemented and is stated as triggering the tax increase to raise $450,000 for annual and deferred maintenance.

 But does the City have to raise taxes to implement facility maintenance?  The answer depends in part on how much city revenues will grow over the next 5 years.  This year’s committee took a conservative approach and assumed the transfer tax – the 1.3% tax paid at time of house sale – will stay flat at $2.8M annually for the next 5 years. History shows the transfer tax has increased at an annual compound rate of 6.45% over its entire 35-year history. In five years the transfer tax is estimated to be $3.8M. 

 The Committee also examined the largest source of City revenue, the property tax, over a 13 year time period. With no down years and a 5.09% annual compound growth rate, this source of revenue is rock solid and is estimated to grow in five years to $13.9M from 2015’s $10.9M.

The Committee’s overly conservative approach of underestimating revenue is unneeded as the City’s reserves are healthy.

Since 2012 the Facility Maintenance Fund has allocated over $1M for maintenance projects and currently has over $1.5M in reserves.  Other maintenance funds, like the Athletic Facilities Preservation and Schoolmates Program Funds, grow annually from user fees and are currently over $400,000. Combining State gas tax receipts and Alameda County Measure B funds, the city receives over $1M annually to maintain our streets and sidewalks. Annual facility maintenance costs are estimated at $450,000; so even with flat revenues there are sufficient funds for maintenance until 2020. Worst case scenarios by tax proponents are rendered mute by the ultimate backstop, the $4.1M General Fund reserve.

The positive revenue will continue and grow, as by 2020 the city will no longer be paying off the Pension Refinance Bonds approved by voters in 2012; this frees up

$1.2M a year to divert to other city needs.  Likewise, the city has an $11M Pension Fund surplus that will not pay out and can be diverted to meeting Piedmont’s rising CalPERS pension obligations, freeing up funds for maintenance and other programs. 

Since 2011, our volunteer finance review committees have proposed caps on benefits to minimize future liabilities.  This year the Committee recommends the city adopt a “cafeteria” benefits plan, a plan that caps benefit levels but gives employees leeway on how they spend their benefit dollars. Wanting more control over health care and benefit costs, many Bay Area cities and agencies have established cafeteria plans. The City has yet to adopt this important cost savings which would save the city $500,000 annually by 2025 and over $1M by 2035. 

The extent to which Piedmont needs to raise the parcel tax for facility maintenance can largely be determined by the cost controls Council achieves in the current contract negotiations.  A tax increase should await resolution of these cost issues so these costs are not passed on to future taxpayers.  

Renewal of the parcel tax at the existing rate should be put on the November 2016 ballot so Piedmont can maintain services until all financial sustainability goals are met.

Garrett Keating, Former City Councilmember and Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors. The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose ballot measures. 

New School Facilities Bond measure poll results, final Public Hearing on increasing the parcel tax for school operating costs to $2,553.26 per year per parcel, Volunteer of the Year Award, Graduation dates, and Wellness Center report – 

The May 11, 2016 Piedmont Unified School District will meet at 7:00 p.m. Regular Session in the Council Chambers, City Hall 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont.

~~~~~~~~~~~

PUSD Facilities Master Plan Community Polling Presentation and Results  [Potential Parcel Tax Funding]

The Piedmont Education Foundation, the Piedmont Unified School District contracted with True North Research to conduct a community poll that gauges voters’ interest in supporting a local bond measure to fund school facility repairs and improvements.  Dr. McLarney will provide an overview of the polling methodology organization, and results.

~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

PUSD Wellness Center – Student Leadership Programs

PHS Counselor Amanda Carlson and student representatives from the PUSD Wellness Center Leadership Programs will present on the positive impact of the Peer Advisor and Youth Educator programs at PHS, MHS, and PMS will present information of the Wellness Center, which has provided opportunities for students to engage in Peer Education and Leadership programs that significantly enhance overall student health and community.  These include peer mediation, peer advisement, and Youth Educator programs at Piedmont Middle School and Piedmont/Millennium High Schools.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The PMS 8th Grade graduation will be held Wednesday, June 8th at 5 p.m. at Witter Field. The Millennium High School graduation will be held on Wednesday, June 8th at 1:00 p.m. at Veterans Hall. The Piedmont High School graduation will be held on June 9th at 5 p.m. at Witter Field.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Near the end of the meeting the Board will: Conduct 2nd Public Hearing and “Approve” the Proposed Levy of Current School Support Tax, Measure A, to be Levied in 2016-17

School Parcel tax is to be increased to $2,553.26 per parcel for 2016-17. 

The Board of Education will discuss the option to continue the levy at its current rate or to increase the levy up to the statutory level of $2,553.26 per parcel, which represents a 2% increase from the current rate of $2,503.20 per parcel.

The Board will discuss and receive public input regarding the proposed levy of the school support tax for 2016-17. This is the second and final public hearing. The Board will take action on any levy and increase after the second public hearing.

Read prior article on school parcel tax levy here.

The public is invited to provide comment at the Board meeting or prior to the meeting by email to the Board of Education at aswenson@piedmont.k12.ca.us

The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable Channel 27 and from the City’s website under online videos.  The meeting, open to the public, begins at 7:00 p.m. on May 11, 2016. 

May 11 Agenda < read the full agenda

Piedmont parcel taxes are an issue for all Piedmont Voters on their June 7 ballot.

$ $ $ $

Every four years Piedmonters get to consider whether or not an additional parcel tax warrants their support.  The ballot measure proposed by the City Council at the June 7 Primary Election is known as Measure F and renews the four year parcel tax plus a 30% increase.  Unlike recent City parcel tax measures, the tax proposal has not only proponents but opponents to the measure.

Opponents point to a lack of justification for the 30% increase, especially considering the substantial windfall of funds coming from the real property transfer tax and subsequent upping of property values and tax revenue. Millions of new and unexpected dollars from these taxes have led to significant expenditures by the City, special projects and heavily funded reserve funds.  The threat by proponents of cuts to public safety is used to scare voters when there is more than sufficient funding for the primary responsibility of the City public safety without the 30% increase in the tax.

Supporters call for the parcel tax renewal and its 30% increase to continue the flexibility to fund desired projects and to keep the City financially stable with a ready and reliable income source.   The increases to the various reserve funds and funding of special projects has been accomplished because of the windfall revenues from property transfer taxes and increased property tax revenue. The parcel tax should be renewed as the City faces large unfunded needs.

Both those in favor and opposed to Measure F agree that an on-going four year parcel tax is appropriate for Piedmont.  Those opposed to the ballot measure state the revenue currently being generated is sufficient to fund City needs and the parcel tax  30% increase is not justified, while those in favor of the ballot measure find the additional revenue appropriate and returning with another ballot measure to be undesirable. 

All voting Piedmonters will have an opportunity to make their voices heard on June 7 or through vote by mail ballots beginning May 9. 

For Measure F to pass requires approval by 2/3rds of those voting on the measure.

Read information on voter registration and election information here.

Read official Measure F support and opposition statements here.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON AMOUNT OF SCHOOL TAX LEVY

The Board of Education will discuss the option to continue the levy at its current rate or to increase the levy up to the statutory level of $2,553.26 per parcel, which represents a 2% increase from the current rate of $2,503.20 per parcel.

 The first of two public hearings is on April 27.

In compliance with Government Code Section 6061 and ballot language, the Board of Education will hold a public hearing and take action on the levy of Measure A for the 2016-17 fiscal year at the Board meeting of April 27, 2016 starting at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Piedmont City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, California. The public is invited to provide comment at the Board meeting or by email to the Board of Education at aswenson@piedmont.k12.ca.us.

Randall Booker, Superintendent

The Board will discuss and receive public input regarding the proposed levy of the school support tax for 2016-17. 

The Board will take action on any levy after the second public hearing.

The required second Public Hearing on the parcel tax levy will take place on May 11, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. 

The public is invited to provide comments at the Board meetings or to the Board by email addressed to the Board at aswenson@piedmont.k12.ca.us and received prior to the second public hearing on May 11.  All information sent to the Board becomes public information.

Background information provided by the District:

 VII_A_1BackgroundPublicHearingOnParcelTax

VII_A_2SupportTaxSubcommitteeReportToBoard

 VII_A_3ExhibitAMeasureATaxLevy

VII_A_4ExhibitBMeasureATaxLevy

VII_A_5ExhibitCMeasureA SubcommitteeTableOfReserveProjections_

The meeting and hearing will be broadcast live

April 27, 2016 starting at 7:00 p.m

 on Cable Channel 27 and via the City website under videos.