Some Property Owners Will Pay More, Some Less Under Measure A-

On March 5, Piedmont voters will consider a school parcel tax, Measure A.  Taxpayers are asking what impact Measure A’s $2,406 per year for 8 years will have on their tax bill.

You can determine your current school tax by referring to your Alameda County Secured Property Tax Statement.  This is the annual statement sent to all property owners from the Alameda County Tax Assessor.  It has a two part payment schedule and lists the various taxing agencies.

– On the left side  of the tax statement are:

• Countywide Tax  – this county property tax begins at 1% of assessed value or purchase price (for the base year) by Proposition 13.  The assessed value generally increases 2% per year.
• School Bond debt service assessment  – This amount pays off multiple voter approved school bonds used to retrofit and rebuild schools recently and in the past.  The funds go to the Piedmont Unified School District.
•  Other assessments are also listed under debt service.

– On the right side of the statement are the “Special Assessments” (parcel taxes).  All of these taxes were approved by 2/3rd’s of those voting on the tax.

• Sewer Tax – Piedmont voters turned down a proposal to double this tax amount in a recent election.  The current tax is higher than the recently approved Measure Y, Municipal Service Tax.  This money goes to the City of Piedmont.
• School Measure B – Measure A on the March ballot, if passed, will replace this tax with the flat amount of $2406 for all Piedmont property owners.  If measure A should fail, the School Board has indicated its intention to increase the Measure B amount by 5% for the 2014 tax year. Add 5% to your statement to determine your 2014 tax.  This money goes to the Piedmont Unified School District.
• Municipal Services Tax – A parcel tax for the City of Piedmont which was just renewed for 4 years by the voters. This money goes to the City of Piedmont.
• Other taxes are also listed.

To determine how much of your property tax is going directly to the Piedmont schools add the debt service for school unified tax and the special school parcel tax (School Measure B or A).

Under the proposed new Measure A tax, every parcel in Piedmont, regardless of size and use, will be taxed at the rate of $2,406 per parcel for 8 years.   This includes commercial property and vacant parcels.   The School Board will be able to increase the base tax amount by 2% per year (compounded) during the 8 year term.

To determine if your property tax will go up or down with the passage of Measure A, look at your current Measure B tax, add 5%, and then compare the amount to $2,406.    Approximately, 78 % of  residential property owners will find their tax to be more under Measure A, while approximately 22 % will find their taxes reduced. 

Total number of residential parcels  = 3,764

 + Parcels under 5,000 square feet = 993

 + Parcels between 5,000 square feet and 9,999 square feet = 1,953 

  – Parcels 10,000 square feet or over = 818

Total residential parcels paying more under Measure A = 2,946

Total residential parcels paying less under Measure A = 818

The following information is on the Piedmont Civic Association website.

• A 4-part series describing Piedmont taxes, increases and comparisons to other school districts in the area.
• School Budget News (see left sidebar) has articles on how the school tax was developed.

Editors’ correction noted in purple above made on 1/29/13.

Difference Between Types of Exemptions- 

Dear Editor:

The supporters of Measure A are incorrectly characterizing one of the points made by the opponents of this proposal. The Proponent ballot rebuttal to the Measure A opponent argument states:  “The opponents simply have their facts wrong.  Low-income seniors are exempt from Measure A.”  The Argument Against Measure A makes this point:  “Piedmont does not have a senior exemption and this must be included. The proposed SSI (Supplemental Security Income) exemption for low-income seniors is meaningless in Piedmont.”

There is a substantial difference between a senior exemption and a low-income senior exemption.  In our region alone there are at least 35 school districts with age 65-only qualification for 100% senior exemption; the age 65 only qualification is common and most school districts use this straightforward qualification. Piedmont is 3^rd in the top 10 list of California school districts by Academic Performance Index (API) and only Piedmont does not offer an Age 65 senior exemption if a school tax is present. The details for these two points are contained at http://tiny.cc/36xyqw.

Local school districts define “very low income” using Federal classifications and on a very different basis from what the proponents feel is right for Piedmont:

• Berkeley USD:  household income below $37,400.
• Moraga SD:  household income below $32,350 to $49,850, depending on household size.
• Oakland USD:  household income below $31,250 to $58,950, depending on household size.
• Orinda Union SD:  household income below $46,150 to $60,950, depending on household size.

 Regarding Piedmont’s SSI qualification as a senior exemption, regardless of even the extremely low income levels of SSI, a person is not eligible if resources exceed $2,000 (exclusive of residence and car). The high cost of living in Piedmont virtually ensures any senior with a home will not qualify for SSI. The reality is that there is no meaningful senior exemption with Measure A.

To reiterate the closing statement of the Opponents to Measure A:  “Vote NO on Measure A. Instead, let us vote for a tax in November that is equitable, has genuine citizen oversight, and a meaningful senior exemption.”

Thank you,

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 League of Women Voters (LWV) will hold a forum in City Hall for representatives of the pro and con sides of the proposed $2,406 per year for 8 years Measure A School Tax.

Editors’ Note:  The Piedmont League of Women Voters  has endorsed the School Tax, Measure A.

The Piedmont Civic Association is a non-partisan organization and does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates. 

Following is the LWV announcement.

LWV Piedmont Election Forum

Measure A – School Parcel Tax: Pros and Cons

The League of Women Voters of Piedmont will host an election forum in advance of the March 5, 2013 special election in Piedmont.  Measure A, the Piedmont Unified School District parcel tax measure, is the only item on the ballot. The forum will take place on Thursday, February 7, 2013, from 7:30-8:45pm at City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue in Piedmont.  Panelists Doug Ireland and Jonathan Davis, replacing Katie Korotzer, will present the argument for Measure A, with Tom Clark and Rick Schiller presenting the argument against.  Audience members are invited to submit questions for the panel.  Jan Zovickian will serve as moderator for the evening. The community is cordially invited to attend and learn more about the school parcel tax. Those unable to attend are invited to view a simulcast of the event on KCOM-TV, channel 27.

Piedmont resident Rick Schiller compares high-scoring California school districts API scores, school parcel tax and exemptions for property owners 65 or older.

Top Ten California School Districts by Academic Performance Index (API). All have Age 65 only to qualify 100% Senior Exemption except Piedmont.

35 Regional School Districts have age 65 Senior Exemption

Local Schools with age 65 Senior Exemption and “very low income” Verification

 Berkeley USD –below $37,400 per household to qualify

Moraga School District – below $32,250 to $49,850 depending on household size to qualify

Oakland USD – below $31,250 – $58,950 depending on household size to qualify

Orinda Union SD – below $46,150 to $60,950 depending on household size to qualify

 The Federal poverty definition for a single person is below $11,170

 Piedmont’s “low-income” Senior Exemption defined as SSI “qualified”

Disqualified above SSI $730 monthly / $8,760 annual unearned income limit Disqualified from SSI if resources exceed $2,000

Editors’ Note:  The chart is the research product of the author and not the work of the Piedmont Civic Association.

Letters to PCA Support Measure A on March Ballot – 

Dear Editor,

Court of Appeals agreed to Alameda School Board Petition for Rehearing

In an article by John Fensterwald of Ed Source Today, a website utilized by educators, Piedmont’s “jaw-dropping” proposed school parcel tax is mentioned in regard to school district tax alternatives and tax rates.  The article is made available here  to increase understanding of the dilemma faced by Piedmont School District policy makers in their effort to comply with the recent court ruling on the city of Alameda Unified School District’s parcel tax plan. 

On December 6, 2012, the state Court of Appeals found in favor of Alameda large commercial property owners and invalidated parts of Measure H (a school parcel tax approved by Alameda voters 2008) that taxed commercial parcels of more than 2,000 square feet 15 cents a square foot, capped at $9,500 annually. The Appeals Court struck down part of the measure’s rate structure, leaving only the flat $120 rate paid by Alameda residential property and small commercial property owners valid.

On December 12, 2012, the Alameda School Board voted to challenge the Appellate Court December 6, 2012 decision and filed a petition for a rehearing.  On Monday, January 7, 2013, in response, the Court of Appeals agreed to rehear the appeal of the trial court decision upholding Measure H, which the Appellate Court had overturned in part.

If the ruling stands after rehearing and any subsequent appeal, the Alameda School District “may have to reimburse businesses several  million dollars that Measure H raised illegally during the three years it was in effect”.  

See Ed Source Today article.

See First District Court of Appeals decision in Borikas vs Alameda Unified

Rational classification among taxpayers or types of property supported in new bill –

On Monday, January 7, 2013, Assembly member Rob Bonta of Oakland introduced AB 59, which clarifies that existing law authorizes school districts to assess parcel taxes in accordance with uniform property classifications.  If it ultimately passes, Piedmont and other cities could classify commercial and residential property separately for school taxes.  It also specifically allows rational classification among taxpayers or types of property.  Sections of particular interest to Piedmont include:

“The provisions in this section requiring uniform application of taxes shall not be construed as limiting a school district from assessing taxes in accordance with rational classifications among taxpayers or types of property within the school district. This subdivision is declaratory of existing law, and shall apply to transactions predating its enactment.”

Read Assembly Bill  number  AB 59

New Uniform Tax Structure of $2,406 Per Parcel Would Begin July 2013-

At its December 11 Special Meeting, the Board of Education voted unanimously to replace the District’s current tiered parcel tax with a flat uniform tax proposal for all Piedmont parcels.   If approved by a two-thirds majority of Piedmont voters in March 2013, a tax of $2,406 will be levied annually on all parcels, regardless of size or use, beginning  July 1, 2013.  This includes undeveloped parcels, parcels with multiple units, and commercial properties. The term of the new tax will be for 8 years, beginning in July 2013, with a potential 2% inflation increase by the School Board permitted each year.  The final year of the existing Measure B tiered tax would be rescinded.  The term of the tax is to be eight (8) years with the expiration date of June 30, 2021.

Mark Williams of Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP, legal counsel to the Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD), explained that both the existing Measure B tax and the proposed measure should be brought into compliance with a recent court decision impacting the Alameda Unified School District. The court ruled that school parcel taxes must be levied equally on all parcels.  Taxing on the basis of tiers or “per square foot” of lot or structure would not comply with the court decision.

To generate Piedmont school parcel tax revenue of $9.5 million, the District proposed a flat rate of $2,406 per parcel for 2013-14.  This flat amount incorporates a 5% increase over current 2012-13 revenues.  The proposed measure will permit up to 2% annual increases each year thereafter by the School Board without further approval by voters.

Upon voter approval in the March election, the new parcel tax will increase $318 for smaller parcels, while decreasing up to $1,141 on the largest parcels and $2,899 on commercial parcels.  Board members noted their displeasure with making the decision to make the tax a flat rate for all sizes and uses of lots, establishing a “regressive tax,” but felt they had to comply with the court decision to avoid jeopardizing school revenue.

The appellate court decision upheld a senior exemption, following a lengthy examination of legislative history and intent which noted “the rationale for allowing that [senior] exemption is that senior citizens receive less direct benefit from schools than other citizens.”   However, the Piedmont Board did not pursue a PUSD senior exemption, asserting that most seniors already receive a significant tax break from Prop. 13.   Additionally, the Board emphasized District revenue needs and were reluctant to transfer tax burdens from some households to other households.   While a total senior exemption is legal, the PUSD counsel Mark Williams considered a partial or optional senior exemption riskier in terms of legal compliance.

Rather than delaying the vote on the tax measure until June, staff advised bringing District parcel taxation into compliance immediately, as of July 2013, by proceeding with a March ballot measure, as budget decisions must be made in the near future.

Board members received numerous emails in support of the flat tax and only a few opposed.  They noted that if there are changes in  financial circumstances or laws, the Board can reduce the level of the tax or place a new tax measure before voters.

Click here for more details on the tax in the Piedmont Patch.  Current school parcel tax rates can be found in this article.

Campaign efforts have begun on the passage of the March 5, 2013 school parcel tax measure.

I request that the Board get a hold of its senses and not try to impose, on 24 hours notice, a 9 year escalating extremely regressive new flat parcel tax on Piedmont taxpayers.  The proposal on your special meeting agenda tonight should be rejected.

Court Decision Spurs Change in School Tax Measure –

The Piedmont Unified School District Board is holding a Special Meeting on Tuesday, December 11,  to consider amending both its current and proposed School Parcel Tax measures to the uniform rate of $2,406 for all parcels in the city of Piedmont to comply with a recent court decision.

The Open Session portion of the agenda at 7:00 p.m. will consider the agenda item:

A. Approve Resolution 10-2012-13 “Modification and Amendment to Qualified Special Tax and Establishing Specifications of the Election”

A decision by the Court of Appeals governing Alameda County in the case Borikas v. Alameda Unified School District, was issued on Friday (12/7/2012) afternoon. The Court’s decision requires the Board to consider a change to the Piedmont Unified School District’s (PUSD) proposed school support tax measure, scheduled to appear on the March 5, 2013 special election ballot.

The proposed modification of the tax structure to a flat rate of $2,406 per parcel is a change from the current tiered method based on lot sizes and taxes all parcels at the same rate of  $2,406.  The result reduces the tax for larger parcels and increases the tax for smaller parcels.

The measure would also replace Measure B with the flat $2,406 per parcel rate starting in 2013, increasing taxation for smaller parcels by approximately $400 a year and reducing the tax on largest parcels by approximately $1,000.

The Special Board meeting will be held in the Council Chambers, City Hall at 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, at 7:00 p.m.  The meeting is open to the public. A closed session will precede the open meeting to confer with legal counsel Mark Williams, Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP on anticipated litigation  (Based on significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) on Government Code Section 54956.9: 1 case).

See the Board Agenda | Packet.  

The California First Appellate District Court decision in Borikas vs Alameda Unified School District stated:

“…Measure H’s [ Alameda Unified School District ballot measure] property classifications and differential tax burdens exceed the District’s taxing authority under section 50079…Measure H’s exemptions for senior and disabled taxpayers are permissible under the statute.”

“School districts did not …seek language that would allow for the classification and differential tax treatment of parcels by size or use.”  (Footnote 24 in the opinion.)

“The trial court is directed to enter judgment declaring the special tax imposed by Measure H invalid to the extent it imposes a tax other than $120 per parcel, unless the parcel is exempt from the special tax under the provisions of the measure, in which case, no tax may be imposed.”

Email comments to members of the Piedmont Board of Education:

• Richard (Rick) Raushenbush
  President rraushenbush@piedmont.k12.ca.us
• Andrea Swenson
  Vice President aswenson@piedmont.k12.ca.us
• Sarah Pearson   spearson@piedmont.k12.ca.us,
• Ray Gadbois  rgadbois@piedmont.k12.ca.us
• Roy Tolles  rtolles@piedmont.k12.ca.us