Resident Believes Parcel Tax is Not the Problem-

Employee benefit liabilities and costly missteps recently made by city officials are cause for community concern, but the [City] parcel tax is not the culprit.

The parcel tax contributes to the revenue that enables the city to provide above-average municipal services. A decade ago it did allow generous (competitive) compensation packages for city employees. The parcel tax, however, is not a slush fund. Nor is it onerous, amounting to about five percent of annual property taxes for most households. The school tax is five times that amount.  > Click to read more…

Piedmont’s Election Forum on Thursday, October 11, from 7:30 to 9 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Piedmont City Hall, will include:

• Measure Y, City of Piedmont Parcel Tax
• Measure A1, Alameda County Oakland Zoo Parcel Tax
• Measure B1, Alameda County Transportation Sales Tax

The League of Women Voters of Piedmont will host the Forum, with speakers presenting  both “pro” and “con” positions concerning the local ballot measures.  Audience questions may be submitted following the presentations.

All are invited to attend the Forum or watch it live via KCOM-TV Channel 27 and the City’s website http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/video/ .

Resident Rebuts Council Member’s Assertions –

Editor,

Piedmont City Councilman Jeff Wieler has recently argued that a reduction of one firefighter per shift in Piedmont would result in a lower rating for the city’s fire protection by the Insurance Services Office (ISO), and a higher insurance cost for homeowners.

This is absolute nonsense and another example of Measure Y proponents’ scare tactics.  > Click to read more…

Parcel Taxes Unfairly Based on Parcel Size –

 Dear Fellow Piedmonters,

On September 19th, I received a “Vote Yes on Measure Y” mailer from Mayor 
John Chiang. The proponents keep “spinning” the talking point that Measure Y is not a new tax, but just 
a continuation of a old tax for General City Services. This is not true.  > Click to read more…

Resident Wants “Transparency and Honesty”-

City Council gave $2.45M of taxpayer money to the Hills undergrounding district. City Council then authorized each other to investigate themselves. Naturally, they found no fault with themselves. City Administrator Grote was the staff for the “audit” and investigated himself. Repeated requests for an independent investigation were responded to with silence.  > Click to read more…

Piedmont resident thinks financial oversight and accountability are still missing –

Yes, I appreciate the high level of city services that Piedmont provides, and I’m willing to pay for them.  And yes, it is a fact that complex public works projects often have unforeseen problems that must be solved.

Clearly, the Undergrounding fiasco showed that the City’s management team failed to solve the problems, which cost Piedmont taxpayers millions.  But, what has been learned from this failure?  > Click to read more…

Letter from Member of the Municipal Tax Review Committee on Measure Y –

The refrain will be heard repeatedly over the coming weeks: It’s a renewal, not a new tax, only $9 per week and necessary to maintain vital services. In truth, the parcel tax is unnecessary, wasteful and has nothing to do with funding essential services.
Despite what is stated in the ballot argument for Measure Y, the proposition does not even have the unanimous support of the City Council.  > Click to read more…

A letter from a member of the Municipal Tax Review Committee on whether vital City services will be cut – 

The wasteful spending of the Piedmont City Council in the last 4 years is indefensible so the proponents of extending the “Municipal Services Tax” (Measure Y on the November ballot) have retreated to their last refuge: predictions that defeat of the tax will reduce “vital services.” Other than claiming that paramedic services will be reduced (a ridiculous idea since nobody, but nobody, would entertain such a cut), their definition of “vital services” is utterly vague.  > Click to read more…

PIEDMONT ELECTION FORUM

• Measure A1, Alameda County Oakland Zoo Parcel Tax
• Measure B1, Alameda County Transportation Sales Tax
• Measure Y, City of Piedmont Parcel Tax

The League of Women Voters of Piedmont will host a General Election Forum on Thursday, October 11 from 7:30 to 9 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Piedmont City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue.  Moderated by Jan Zovickian, the Forum will present both “pro” and “con” positions concerning local ballot measures.  The community is cordially invited to attend and hear the measures evaluated, as well as submit questions to the scheduled speakers.

Bill Hosler and Steve Hollis, members of the Piedmont Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee, will review Measure Y, Piedmont’s Parcel Tax, and the reasons to pass it, followed by Michael Rancer, Chair of the 2011 Piedmont Municipal Tax Review Committee, and Tim Rood, also of the Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee, who will explain reasons to vote against the measure. Time will be granted for audience questions.

Dr. Joel J. Parrott, Executive Director of the Oakland Zoo, will discuss reasons to vote for Measure A1, the Oakland Zoo Parcel Tax, and Laura Baker of the East Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society will speak against Measure A1 and the Zoo’s expansion plan.

Presenting the reasons to support Measure B1, the Alameda County Transportation Tax, will be Union City Mayor Mark Green, Chair of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, and Christopher J. Pareja, a small business owner and former congressional candidate in District 15, will outline the details for voting against it.

The League welcomes all to attend the Forum in person, or watch the live KCOM-TV broadcast on Channel 27 to learn more about the ballot measures before casting one’s vote on Tuesday, November 6.  Visit www.lwvpiedmont.org for more information.

A Letter Points Out the 16 Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC) Recommendations to the Piedmont Post –

To the Editor of the Piedmont Post

Dear Sir,

Not having heard from you, I was pleased to see that you not only printed my letter, but took the time to add an editor’s note disputing its accuracy – the first such note I’ve seen in any newspaper in my 46 years.

Since your note indicates that you were unable to find the 16 unanimous MTRC recommendations I referred to by searching the City website, may I direct you to pp. 6-8 of the MTRC report, which can be found on the City website at http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/09-06-11/mtrc.pdf.  > Click to read more…