I estimate that taxpayer expenditures total $1,806,845 (taxpayer cost estimate updated on Feb. 26, 2016 to $1,640,000 -see comment below) directly related to the Piedmont Hills Undergrounding District (“PHUD”). This is public money for private benefit as Appeal Courts have found in other cases. As litigation is concluded, it seems appropriate to close the undergrounding debacle with transparency and not bury it in bedrock. I base my total on the following direct expenses and credits:
- Nov. 16, 2009, taxpayer cost to repair Crest Road: $275,000
- Dec. 12, 2009, Council gives $1,004,832
- Feb. 6, 2010, Council gives $1,127,013
- Litigation expense up to Sept. 30, 2012 is $118,739
- I estimate additional litigation cost at $298,260 to Feb. 2016.
I put a letter in to City Council asking for the total litigation cost with no response. I speculate the $417,000 Harris settlement covers litigation cost. Credits include $917,000 litigation settlements and PHUD offered to contribute $100,000.
$616,491.50 cost for another private underground district –
Additionally there is $300,000 in City litigation cost plus $316,491.50 settlement cost for $616,491.50 total taxpayer expense for the neighboring Sea View Undergrounding District that fortunately did not go forward. How many millions more would we have spent excavating bedrock next to PHUD had Bert and Deborah Kurtin not brought suit to stop that District?
A Feb. 6, 2010, City Council Resolution states: “WHEREAS, while the City Council requests that any funds expended by the City for completion of the construction project that are not recovered from legal actions against responsible parties be contributed by residents of the District.”
There is no action on or acknowledgement of this resolution.
This June a 30% higher parcel tax will be put before voters.
Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
The Piedmont City / School Liaison Committee will consider topical subjects impacting both the City and School District. Consensus is frequently reached in an open exchange of information. Decisions are not finalized during the meeting, as they must be referred to the appropriate elected body for action. Individuals interested in the subjects can participate at the meeting.
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
4:00 p.m.
City Hall Conference Room, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA
The meeting is open to the public. The meeting will not be broadcast or recorded for future viewing. Agenda:
Materials for the meeting have not been publicly disseminated, however they can be obtained at the meeting or prior to the meeting through the City or the Piedmont Unified School District.
At the February 1, 2016 Council meeting starting at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, the Council will hold a second reading of the ballot proposal for renewal of the parcel tax with a 30% increase on the June Primary Election. The ballot argument process and procedural matters for the ballot proposal will be considered at the meeting.
Last on the agenda is an update on the implementation of the Grand Avenue pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements that the City Council adopted in 2014 as part of the Pedestrian/Bicycle Master Plan. Piedmont’s implementation will occur in two phases, not yet scheduled. Oakland will soon replace four travel lanes on Grand Avenue with two travel lanes plus bike lanes and a two-way center turn lane.
Agenda staff reports:
The meeting is open to the public and will be broadcast live via cable channel 27 and on the City website.
Renewal and increase of Piedmont property tax to be considered by the Council.
The first reading of language to be placed on the June 7, 2016 Primary Election ballot will be considered by the Council on Monday, January 18. The meeting will be held in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue. The meeting is open to public participation and will be broadcast via the City’s website and on Cable Channel 27 starting at 7:30 p.m. A second reading by the Council is required prior to placing the tax measure on the June 2016 ballot.
During discussions the Council determined that the current parcel tax rate should increase by 30%. With a unanimous vote at the January 4 meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare language for the ballot measure with the 30% tax increase.
Under California laws, tax approval requires a yes vote by 66 1/3 % of those voting on the ballot measure for the tax to go into effect.
Information on the details of the proposed tax can be found in the full staff report. Read the staff report here.
Read City Council January 4, 2016 meeting minutes here.
Community input is being solicited to assist in identifying needed school facility renovations and/or additions at each Piedmont school campus.
Superintendent Randall Booker announced the following:
The Piedmont Unified School District is in the process of developing a Facilities Master Plan. Over the past several months, we’ve held staff, student, and community workshops in preparation for the development of the Facilities Master Plan. I want to thank those of you who have participated. Your feedback has been invaluable.
On January 12th and 19th, we are hosting Community Outreach Meetings to solicit additional input. We encourage anyone from the community to attend.
These meetings will occur in the Piedmont High School Student Center on:
January 12th – 7:00pm – 8:30pm, and
January 19th – 7:00pm – 8:30pmThe final PUSD Facilities Master Plan is scheduled to be presented at the February 10, 2016 Board of Education Meeting.
To learn more about the Facilities Master Planning Process and review a variety of support documents, including a draft of the Facilities Master Plan, please click here to visit the PUSD Facilities Master Plan page on the PUSD Website.
The Facilities Master Plan process combines the goals of PUSD’s Education Specifications and the information collected by the design team (including facility assessments) into a comprehensive plan for the schools of the Piedmont Unified School District. The main product of the facility needs assessment and Facilities Master Plan is a detailed proposal for renovations and/or additions to be made at each school campus.
The facilities master planning process takes into account all of the information on the District’s facilities, the needs and desires of faculty, staff and the community and projections about future District needs and creates a comprehensive plan for each campus that addresses these issues. The plan looks at issues holistically and creatively to find unique and inventive solutions that fit the specific needs of each campus and community. The final Facilities Master Plan document provides a clear narrative and graphic summary of the proposed facilities improvements for each campus and also provides the detailed information necessary to successfully plan and implement the improvements.
Please contact Mr. Pete Palmer, Director of Facilities at PPalmer@piedmont.k12.ca.us if you have any questions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Facility Site Assessment
“QKA Architects, Pete Palmer – PUSD Director of Facilities, and PUSD Maintenance staff performed a facility site assessment at each campus. The purpose of the assessment is to identify those improvements and remedial up-grades, along with their associated costs, required to provide safe, secure and well-maintained campuses, appropriate to the needs of current and future educational programs for the foreseeable future.”
Read more on the DRAFT FACILITY PLAN: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-vdk-LUzFEkNHhxc2tuZHU3bUU/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-vdk-LUzFEkeWJOejE0eHNlTVE/view
Garrett Keating contends the City will have adequate revenue without the jump up in the Parcel Tax rate and funds are needed for school improvements.
In his last published column, Councilman Jeff Wieler challenged readers to propose changes to municipal services in lieu of supporting the proposed increase in the parcel tax. To have that discussion, it would be nice if the Councilman stopped his harangue of others who don’t share his views. The ink isn’t even dry on the proposal and Councilman Wieler already characterizes other views as “perverse” and negative.
The basis of his column is the proposal from the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) that the annual parcel tax be raised by as much as 50%. BAFPC analyzed the city’s facility maintenance needs and conservatively estimates that $0.5M is needed annually for deferred maintenance. Likewise, the city recently completed a review of its information technology and found that conservatively $0.5M is needed annually to upgrade its IT systems. As an aside, these are “spreadsheet spending” analyses that need more work before they are used as the basis for a tax increase. So a 50% increase in the annual $1.8M parcel tax brings in about the $1M needed to start facility maintenance and IT upgrades.
The basis for the BAFPC recommendation is a projection showing that implementing this new spending will deplete the General Fund reserve by 2020. The BAFPC estimates that over this 5-year period, annual transfer tax revenues will be $2.8M, the average value for the transfer tax from the past 10 years. Alternatively, using the 25-year trend in transfer tax increase, the tax has increased 10% annually to its present day value of $3.9M. At that rate, the transfer tax will tax be $6.3M by 2020. Even at 5%, the transfer tax will be $4.5M in 2020. Transfer tax revenues for the past three years have been $3.2, $4.0 and $3.9M, respectively.
And there is no estimate in the BAFPC projection for the increase in revenue from property reassessment nor tax revenue from 8 new residences coming to Piedmont. For example, there are 1000 properties in Piedmont assessed under $500,000 and if just 5% of those sold for $2M today (median 2015 Piedmont price), those sales alone would generate close to $1M in new revenue. This property tax increase, coupled with the 25-year trend in the transfer tax growth, could likely exceed the revenue the BAFPC proposes to collect with the new tax.
As it happens, at its Monday meeting, the Council chose to go with only a 30% increase in the parcel tax, raising $500K annually with an increase of about $150 for the average Piedmont household. The parcel tax increase will be on the June 2016 primary ballot and Piedmonters should review the BAFPC report and recommendations available on the city website:(http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/2015-12-07/parceltaxreport.pdf).
As the debate heats up, consider these points. First, disregard any statements that not voting for the tax increase will lead to a reduction in public safety. City reserve funds are at their maximum and the current parcel tax carries on until June 2017, leaving ample time to renew the tax should it fail in June. References to cuts in public safety are simple fear-mongering. Second, the spending estimates that justify the tax have not been fully researched and may be overstated. As an example, estimates that the Sewer Tax needed to be increased by 50% were subsequently found to be inaccurate.
Finally, Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) is currently conducting a facilities assessment and will likely have a ballot initiative on the November 2016 ballot. I hope the School Board brings forward a proposal to not only maintain school facilities but to modernize them. Science and media laboratories, performance spaces and classrooms have all been identified as needing upgrades.
Actually, maintaining the status quo with the city parcel tax and encouraging residents to support new school revenue might be the best strategy for the city. Demand for Piedmont schools drives up housing prices leading to the historic increases in the city’s transfer tax receipts.
Councilman Wieler misses the point. Opponents of the proposed tax increase don’t oppose better city services, they just don’t see why the tax need be increased when current and projected revenue will do the job. Rather than argue about cuts, maybe we should be discussing revenues.
Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont City Councilmember
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
City Council Meeting – January 4, 2016 –
To Fill a Planning Commission vacancy, a Special Meeting will be convened at 6 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room.
~~~~~~~~~~~
A Special Meeting will be convened at 6 p.m. in open session in the City Hall Conference Room to consider filling the vacancy on the Planning Commission. The opening is a result of the recent resignation of Commissioner Phillip Chase. No staff report on the vacancy or public notification soliciting applicants is available. The Special Meeting will not be broadcast nor recorded, however, it is open to the public. Piedmont’s City Charter states that Special Meetings may be called by the Mayor or three or more members of the Council with 24 hours notice.
The regular meeting will be convened at 6:30 p.m. with a Closed Session, also in the City Hall Conference Room on two subjects: performance evaluation of the City Administrator and litigation with Harris & Associates.
At 7:30 p.m. the City Council will take up its regular agenda in Open Session in the Council Chambers, Monday, January 4, 2016. The meeting is open to the public, broadcast live and a copy of the meeting will be retained in the city’s archives.
Read the full agenda.
Available staff reports follow:
01/04/16 – Award of Contracts for Aquatics Center Maintenance as follows:
a. Replacement of Locker Room Floors to MC Construction Services
b. Replacement of the Main Pool Filter to Aquatic Commercial Industries
01/04/16 – Consideration of Authorization for the City to Join the ICLEI Compact of Mayors
Read previous article on marijuana issue in Piedmont.
Read previous articles on Piedmont Municipal Services Special Tax.
Read previous articles on Hampton Field.
City revenues from Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT) have far exceeded projections.
The following is a letter sent to the Piedmont City Council.
Jan 2, 2016
Piedmont City Council
Re: Jan 4 Agenda Item 5: Parcel Tax
Dear Mayor Fujioka and Council,
The 1990-1991 Real Property Transfer Tax (“RPTT”) was $384,494 (2007 MTRC Report attached). The 2014-15 RPTT is $3.9M (Eric Cheung 20151102 attached). This steady, inexorable 10.13% annual increase is omitted from the 2015 BAFPC Report and at this rate the RPTT will be over six million dollars in five years.
There are many more up years than down years for the RPTT and the increases include 43%, 50%, and 94%. From 1991 to 2007 the largest decrease is -16%. (2001-2011 City table and 2011-2015 Budget material attached).
While the 2015 Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) Report is admirable in some respects, the bias is a conservative approach from both a demand and supply perspective. The future may hold more financial demands on the City and the BAFPC is prudent here. However, the supply side of taxpayer funding is presented in an overly conservative approach by underestimating RPTT and real property tax revenue. Staff estimates support this approach; a recent example is the $2.8M estimated for 2014-15 RPTT in the proposed budget when the actual figure is $3.9M.
The BAFPC is overly conservative in estimating ever increasing revenues in other areas. The BAFPC uses a $1.6M estimate for average Real Property value in town which is inconsistent with recent sales data which reveals the average Piedmont home sold for $2.13M and the median sale was $2M. Coming online are eight new homes in Piedmont, the seven Piedmont Station units and the Lexford Road project. And as the aging-in-place Proposition 13 residents die off, their low value homes will be sold and represent a much higher tax revenue basis.
Even during the worst economic downturns, Piedmont property values do not plummet like so many other Cities and regions. There is a flattening out and slowdown of sales. And then the inexorable march upwards begins again. (The largest decrease in the RPTT from 1990 to present occurred from 2006-07 to 2007-08 at a negative 32%.)
Regionally Oakland has become a destination and is enjoying increasing home values as those wishing to live in San Francisco are priced out. This is fostered by tech companies moving to Oakland. Piedmont continues to be the premier sought after location, especially for the increasing number of affluent Techies flocking to Oakland.
No increase in the Parcel Tax is warranted or can be reasonably justified. Despite the City Hall and the Post attempting to take advantage of a tax compliant resident base, as with the ill-conceived Sewer tax of 2012, taxpayers saw through that scheme and taxpayers will view any increase in the parcel tax in the same manner. I find it odd that the asked for $11M increase of the 2012 Sewer Tax was never explained, given that the same sewer mainline completion and EPA compliance is now being accomplished for $1M.
With revenues as robust as they are today, I ask the Council to forgive the coming year’s Parcel Tax.
Respectfully,
Rick Schiller, Piedmont taxpayer
http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/2016-01-04/parceltax.pdf
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
The Committee will consider recommendations to the City Council on the Special Municipal Services Tax.
The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee continue work on a proposed Piedmont Municipal Services Special Tax (MSST) at their meeting Tuesday, December 15. They will consider what MSST rate to recommend to the City Council. From the current parcel tax increases being considered range up to 50%.
In making recommendations to the City Council, the committee is charged with considering the need for a voter approved parcel tax, the amount of the tax, and the proposed duration of the tax.
The public can attend and participate in the 7 p.m. meeting held in the Police Department Emergency Operations Center, 403 Highland Avenue.
Some written materials have been disseminated. No broadcast via the internet or cable TV will be available.
Content on the PCA website by Piedmont Civic Association is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Some icons are Copyright © Yusuke Kamiyamane
