We’ve all been moved to tears looking at a photograph, felt our hearts race listening to music, been entertained by theater and movies. The Arts are how we talk to each other — how we speak about things for which we cannot find the words. Why would we not want this for our children? We proudly support Measure A & all the teachers who enable our children to explore our world through the arts.

 Pete & Amanda Doctor, Piedmont Residents

__________________________________________________________

I just finished reading the Final Summary Report of Piedmont’s Seismic Safety Program.

It was great to see what a diverse collection of citizens supported the good work of the school district at various points in its progress. Once again I feel blessed to live in a community where PUSD leadership and citizen participation combine for a positive outcome.

I am equally encouraged to know that PUSD Administrators have made oversight and accountability a major consideration for passage of Measure A, the school support tax, by specifically soliciting citizens to serve on a subcommittee of 3 to 5 Piedmont taxpayers who will review and report on Measure A revenue and expenditures.

Dana Serleth

____________________________________________________________

With a real estate practice in Piedmont, we are particularly tuned in to the direct effect high achieving school districts have on real estate values. The relationship between housing prices and local public schools and services has been widely studied and established. In an economic downturn, Piedmont homes have maintained value in large part because we are a community that prioritizes high quality services for all our citizens, including, our youth, our seniors and every age in between.

 Measure A will keep Piedmont schools strong by renewing a stable, locally controlled source of funding. All money raised by Measure A will stay in Piedmont to support our local schools. It cannot be taken away by the State or used for other purposes.

 Join us in voting YES on Measure A.

 Debbi Di Maggio and Adam Betta, Piedmont Residents

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

Pro and Con Speakers Spark Serious Discussion – 

A lively debate ensued at the February 7 Piedmont League of Women Voters (LWVP) Forum on the proposed school tax, Measure A.  Both the pro and con speakers  presented their arguments, followed by questions submitted from the audience.

Measure A, if approved by voters on March 5, will impose a $2,406 property tax on all Piedmont parcels for 8 years starting in June of 2013.  An additional 2% per year increase can be added by the Piedmont Board of Education, with a potential total tax of slightly more than $20,000 during the term of the tax.

Measure A supporters, represented by Doug Ireland and Jonathan Davis, focused on the City’s schools being the reason families move to Piedmont, the ongoing reduced State funding for schools, and the need for funds to  maintain Piedmont schools at a high performance level.  The amount expected to be generated by the tax in fiscal year 2013-14 is approximately $9.5 million, with the money going primarily to pay for teachers and to retain current programs and smaller class sizes.  The 8-year term was settled on by the Piedmont Board of Education to ensure a stable source of funds for budgeting and planning purposes.  Additionally noted were the expense and volunteer effort required to run a school tax campaign every 4 years, a practice for decades, considered onerous.   All funds from Measure A will be retained in Piedmont.

Measure A  opponents, represented by Tom Clark and Rick Schiller, focused on the inequities of the tax as regressive  for 78% of taxpayers and fixed-income seniors are especially burdened financially, noting that voluntary senior tax exemptions are provided by a number of other outstanding California school districts.   They criticized as inappropriate the jump in tax increases for the smallest residential parcels, while large parcels and commercial properties will benefit from significant tax reductions.  They pointed out the lack of urgency to pass the tax now since the current $9.5 million tax Measure B does not expire until July 2014, 17 months away.  They stated a No vote was the best choice for voters, as it would allow the School Board to await clarity about the progress of proposed school tax legislation pending in the State Assembly.  The School Board could then devise an equitable tax and allow public participation in their proposal.

Much of the debate centered on Measure A’s “senior exemption” as not applicable to Piedmont seniors due to its extremely low SSI income ceiling.  In the Bay Area and throughout the State, school parcel taxes are significantly lower than Piedmont’s and  “commonly” include a  senior exemption.  The Piedmont School Board determined early on that an exemption or lower tax rate for seniors would place too great a burden on non-seniors.  A square footage tax on property and/or on structures was a suggested alternative by the opponents. 

Both the pro and con speakers agreed that the City’s schools are vital to Piedmont and neither side disagreed on the appropriateness of the total amount sought by the District.

If Measure A fails, the current tax (Measure B) will remain  in effect until July 2014.  

To watch and hear firsthand a video of the entire LWV Measure A forum,  click here  or log onto the City’s website at www.ci.piedmont.ca.us: on the right hand side of the homepage under the “City Council” heading, click on the “Online Video” link, then search the archive for “LWV Election Forum”, click on the “Argument for Measure A” and/or “Argument Against  Measure “click on the “Video” link and watch.

Want more information?

A number of written questions submitted by the Forum audience were not asked due to the program’s time constraints.  In the interest of further informing the community,  PCA will seek answers to questions residents may still have.  You may submit a question or comment in the comment area below or submit a question or information to www.editors@piedmontcivic.org.

Editors’ Note:  The Piedmont Civic Association (PCA) is a non-partisan non-affiliated, non-commercial, Piedmont volunteer organization.   PCA does not endorse, support, or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office.  Participation in PCA is free and open to all Piedmonters.

Property owners are challenging “split roll” School Parcel Taxes that charge a flat tax for some properties and square foot tax or different flat taxes for other properties.

The December California 1st District Appeals Court decision against Alameda Unified School District‘s former parcel tax (Measure H), although vacated, has inspired challenges in other School Districts of parcel taxes approved in November, 2012 elections.  David Brillant, attorney for plaintiffs in the original 2008 Alameda School District case, now represents the plaintiffs in the four new cases filed in January 2013, within 60 days of certification of the election results.   Plaintiffs are requesting that illegally charged amounts be refunded.  The Court of Appeals favored remedy in the Alameda case was to grant “those taxpayers, who had been assessed the higher rate, a refund based on the difference between the lower rate and the one under which they were assessed.”

The school parcel taxes being challenged differentiate between and imposed different tax rates in one or more of the following :

• charge a flat tax for some parcels (residential and/or small commercial and/or vacant) while charging a square foot tax to other types of parcels (commercial, industrial or multi-family)
• charge different flat or square foot rates to different types of properties. 
  

School Taxes Challenged

San Leandro – voters approved  a five-year tax, charging homeowners $39, multi-family rental properties with five units or more $19 per unit, and commercial property owners $0.02 per square foot of land area.  Commercial property owners are challenging the November 2012 tax, San Leandro’s first school parcel tax.

West Contra Costa school district  –  the school parcel tax charges all property owners $0.072 cents per square foot of building area, except that unbuilt lots are taxed a flat rate of $7.20 per parcel.

Davis Joint Unified School District – a four-year tax charges that most property owners a flat tax of $204 per parcel, except multifamily residential properties are taxed $20 per unit.  

Centinela Valley Union High School District –   charges residential property owners $0.02 per square foot and commercial property owners $0.075 cents per square foot.  Two homeowners are challenging this tax.

The Alameda School District’s 2008 Measure H charged residential property owners $120 each per parcel, while charging and large commercial property owners $0.15 cents per square foot up to a cap of $9,500.  It was replaced in 2011 with a building square foot tax on all types of properties.

All five of these school parcel taxes provide an exemption application for seniors and disabled SSI recipients.  The 2008 lawsuit challenged the Alameda exemptions because “they discriminate among senior taxpayers and disabled taxpayers and thus do not apply uniformly to all senior and all disabled taxpayers.”  The exemption found in section 50079 of California statutes only applied to seniors until 2006 when an additional exemption for “persons receiving SSI for disability, regardless of age” was added.  Piedmont’s Measure A exempts only owner- occupant disabled SSI recipients of any age and not non-disabled seniors.

State Assemblyman Rob Bonta of Oakland is promoting an assembly bill AB 59 that would allow school districts to charge different tax rates on different types of property.  Bonta has argued that this flexibility is necessary to let school districts appropriately tailor their taxes to the local community.  The original Appellate Court decision pointed out that the State Legislature can broaden school district taxing authority.

Resident explains reasons to vote No on School Support Tax

The PUSD Board is a body of elected members who are ultimately responsible for the activities, results, and fiscal strength of Piedmont’s schools. They have proposed in Measure A, that a so-called “independent” subcommittee (The Parcel Tax Advisory Subcommittee) of the Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) be formed to review the School Support Tax uses, and to recommend the subsequent year’s levy. The Subcommittee members would be chosen from BAC members and approved by the President and Vice President of the Board. To me, this doesn’t look like an independent review of the PUSD’s operations and finances. It looks like a situation in which the Subcommittee members, who were approved by the Board, might feel obliged to agree with and endorse the Board’s predilections.

Why is a truly independent review important? Piedmont ranks third highest of the State’s top 10 Academic Performance Indicator scores. Yet, the proposed tax ($2,406) is more than twice that of top-rated San Marino ($1,169), while all of the other top 10 districts’ tax rates are under $700. Is Piedmont’s school district being managed efficiently? It takes a truly independent review to determine this.

We recently suffered a similar situation with our City Council. They presided over a multi-million dollar public works fiasco which might have been prevented had there been some kind of independent oversight of the project. Let us learn from that disaster and build into Measure A, and future taxes, a more robust review and oversight mechanism.

I want Piedmont’s schools to be top-ranked, and I am willing to pay taxes to achieve this. But I need to know that our tax money is being used as efficiently and effectively as possible. It would behoove our School Board to secure a truly independent review and oversight of activities and finances for which they are responsible.

Proponents for Measure A argue that voting “No” will damage our schools. In fact, the current school tax doesn’t expire until the end of June, 2014. A better tax measure could go on the ballot in June 2013, or November 2013, or March 2014. We don’t need to approve the deeply flawed Measure A at this time.

Another flaw in the current Measure A is its unequal taxation. With a single tax amount per parcel, irrespective of the parcel’s size, this tax charges small parcel owners as much as 40 to 80 times more per square foot than large parcel owners. A fair and uniform tax would levy the same amount per square foot. The Board’s advisors think that the recent Borikas v Alameda Unified School Board decision by the Court of Appeals restricts a uniform size-based tax. Others disagree. On January 7, 2013, the Court of Appeals agreed to rehear the appeal of the trial court decision, thereby, the previous decision is now vacated. And, on the same day, Assembly member Rob Bonta of Oakland introduced AB 59, which clarifies the existing law. So remedies for a fair and uniform tax are on the way.

It would be unfair to lock in a tax that is higher for nearly 3,000 owners of smaller parcels while reducing the tax on approximately 800 of the largest parcels, compared with the current tax charge. There is adequate time to fix this inequity before Piedmont needs to approve another school tax.

Proponents of Measure A point out that Piedmont’s excellent schools raise our property values over similar homes in other cities. Indeed, if all properties enjoy the same percentage of increased value, the larger properties receive a much larger dollar amount of this benefit. Shouldn’t they pay a larger amount of the school tax? A uniform tax based on parcel size would be fair and equitable.

Let’s vote NO on A now, so that we can vote YES on a tax measure that assures efficient management and that taxes us equitably.

Bruce Joffe Piedmont resident, home owner, and concerned citizen.

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

This chart was prepared for the Piedmont Board of Education with analysis by Michael Brady, Assistant Superintendent.

How did the Piedmont Unified School District Board determine the Measure A first year amount of $2,406 per parcel? 

First,  $9.5 million, stipulated by School Board members as the necessary funds, was the approximate amount of revenue generated by the current Measure B 2012-13 parcel tax and adding an additional 5% increase for 2013-14, which the School Board planned to levy for 2013-14.  (December 11, 2012  PUSD minutes)

Second, the School Board divided the number of parcels (3,920) into approximately $9.5 million to determine the $2,406 tax per parcel tax proposed in Measure A.  Below are the number of Piedmont parcels in each category as defined by the School District under the current Measure B tax, which is based on parcel size.

3,764 – Residential

 11  – Commercial

 39 – Multi-family

  11 – Multiple parcel

  95 – undeveloped

    Total: 3,920

Under the proposed Measure A flat tax, approximately, 78 % of  residential property owners will find their tax increased, while approximately 22 % will find their taxes reduced compared to current rates.

Total number of residential parcels  = 3,764

  993 – Parcels under 4,999 sq. ft. tax will increase

1,953 – Parcels between 5,000 sq. ft. and 9,999 sq. ft. tax will increase

   818 – Parcels 10,000 sq. ft. or over tax will decrease

 2,946 – Total residential parcels taxed more under Measure A 

818 – Total residential parcels taxed less under Measure A 

 50 – Commercial/multi-family parcels taxed less under A

95 – Undeveloped parcels taxed more under Measure A 

Multi-family and commercial parcels (50) will be assessed significantly lower parcel taxes, since the owners will pay one flat tax of $2,406.  (For example, owners of the several nine-unit rental apartment buildings in Piedmont will pay one flat tax instead of a PUSD tax on each unit.)  Owners of undeveloped parcels (95) will experience a doubling of their tax from $1009 to the flat rate of $2,406 the first year with the potential 2% annual increase during the eight year period.

Below are the per parcel projected 8-year Measure A payments.  These figures include a 2% increase per year for each parcel.  By the end of the tax 8-year term the total for each parcel would amount to $20, 651.

2013                       $2,406

2014    plus 2%      $2,454

2015    plus 2%      $2,503

2016   plus 2%       $2,553

2017   plus 2%       $2,604

2018   plus 2%      $2,656

2019   plus 2%         $2,710

2020  plus 2%          $2,764

            Potential Measure A total 8 year assessment per parcel

= $20,651

Additional tax rate information is available on the Patch.      

The Alameda School Board replaced its flat school tax with a square foot tax, but its former tax is still in court –

In 2011, Alameda Unified School District replaced its challenged parcel tax (a flat tax for more than 90% of taxpayers and a square footage tax for a few large commercial property owners) with a square footage rate for all properties.  Alameda’s Measure A has been in effect since July 1, 2011, replacing Measure H, which has been under legal challenge since 2008.*

The current Alameda Measure A subjects all buildings (whether commercial, industrial or residential) on developed parcels to an annual tax of $0.32 per square foot up to a maximum of $7,999 per parcel.   (A 2,000 square foot house in Alameda is taxed at $640.  The same house in Piedmont will be taxed $2,406 under the proposed Measure A.)  

Exclusions are offered by the current Alameda school tax, both to single family residences owned and occupied by persons 65 or older (“senior exemption”) and by disabled recipients of SSI of any age (“disability exemption”).  Parcels without buildings are taxed at a flat $299 per parcel rate.  In March 2011, the new Measure A  was approved  by 68% of Alameda voters to replace the challenged Measure H.  

* The former City of Alameda Measure H school tax was approved by voters in June 2008.  It charged a flat rate of $120 to all single family residential properties and the vast majority of commercial parcels, while charging a few owners of large commercial or industrial parcels at the rate of $0.15 per square foot up to a maximum of $9,500 per year.  The tax was promptly challenged in August 2008 by a large commercial property owner objecting to the assessment of tax per square foot on his commercial property while all residential and all smaller commercial properties were taxed at a flat rate of $120.  The trial court upheld Measure H.  The tax was recently struck down by the Appellate Court as failing to be a “uniform tax rate”.

Measure A = $2,406 tax for 8 years =  approximately $20,000  per parcel

On March 5, 2013, Piedmont voters will be asked to consider ballot Measure A to allow every parcel to be equally taxed $2,406 for 8 years to support the Piedmont schools.  (To find the tax rate in the official documents, read to the end of the official materials and look under RATES.)  If the tax plus the allowed 2% annual increase is levied every year during the 8 year term, the total for each property will be  approximately $20,000 per parcel.  The official ballot material states:

School District ballot language for Measure A 

To prevent local school funding from expiring and to maintain the quality of Piedmont’s schools, to attract, train and retain qualified teachers, to protect programs in math, science and technology, to continue funding for music, visual and performing arts programs, and to keep textbooks and instructional technology up-to-date, shall the Piedmont Unified School District continue to levy a special tax as specified in the voter pamphlet, with all funds staying in Piedmont to benefit our schools?

Voters are to cast their vote either yes or no. > Click to read more…

Measure A Supports School Arts Programs – 

Dear Editor,

 As an artist and as the Program Director for the Piedmont Center for the Arts, I have a unique perspective on the importance of arts education in our town. One reason that the Piedmont Center for the Arts has been a phenomenal success is because Piedmonters understand that engagement with the arts opens up our perceptions and allows us to discover new possibilities in our self and the world around us. We know that children naturally have an enthusiasm for discovery of self.  Self discovery is enhanced through the arts and is imperative to their overall development.

The PUSD has been able to maintain a comprehensive program in visual and performing arts, and in music, due in large part to the dedication of district leadership and the overwhelming community support for the school support tax for the past 27 years.