Jul 28 2016
City Council will tour Hampton Field Renovation Project and Review Project Progress (No Action Will Be Taken).
This Special Meeting is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
Special City Council meeting will be held on Friday, July 29, 2016, 3:30 p.m., Hampton Field, Hampton Road and La Salle Avenue.
“The $2 million project was approved by the City Council in late April. The large-scale improvements are being financed by a combination of public and private funds. The city is using $507,000 in Measure WW park bond money, $417,000 from the legal settlement with Harris & Associates over the Piedmont Hills undergrounding project and about $390,000 in private donations. The city is backfilling the remaining cost for now from the athletic facilities preservation fund and the general fund. Other donations may roll in reducing the city’s obligations, City Administrator Paul Benoit said.” Piedmonter
Read the entire Piedmonter article > here.
Piedmont News Release and Photos of Hampton Field Project > here.
Jul 23 2016
-
School Bond Measure Deadlines –
-
Wednesday, August 17, 2016: Last day to File Direct Arguments For/Against a Measure for the November 8, 2016 General Election
-
Monday, August 22, 2016: Last day to File Rebuttal Arguments For/Against a Measure for the November 8, 2016 General Election
Guidelines for arguments > here.
Guidelines for ballot measures > here.
Piedmont Unified School District information: Click below.
http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/21-2015-16-Calling-Bond-Election.pdf
Ballot arguments related to the Piedmont Unified School District ballot measure must be filed with the Alameda County Registrar of Voters.
Editors’ Note: The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose ballot measures. Information on the ballot measure is welcomed and can be sent to editors@piedmontcivic.org.
| Ballot Measure Argument Deadline |
Wednesday, August 17, 2016 |
| Ballot Measure Rebuttal Argument Deadline |
Monday, August 22, 2016 |
| Public Examination Period |
Monday, August 15, 2016 through Thursday, September 1, 2016 |
Jul 9 2016
The following letter was sent to the Piedmont Planning Commission re: July 11 Agenda Item 9; City Code Chapter 17 Modifications proposals.
Honorable Commission,
The City Charter states “no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election (p. 22).” The staff report recommends allowing in Zone B “for-profit entities because the City may want to allow a community-serving business, such as a local newspaper or beverage stand, to operate out of a City building (p3 of 2016-07-11 Report)”. Currently for-profit entities are not allowed in Zone B in the public zone. As zoning is the critical mandate in controlling land use, I believe a City wide vote is needed to allow this fundamental change to allow for-profit in Zone B.
I ask for clarification and I ask the Commission to obtain clarification from staff as to what is the threshold and definition of zone reclassification and why the addition of “for-profit” is not reclassification.
Should a for-profit business be allowed, there are deserving segments of our community that have been identified in the General Plan. The 801 Magnolia building might be ideal for a teen or senior center. Additionally, a café for the Piedmont Center for the Arts also has wide appeal.
The term “community-serving business” must also embody that all segments of the community are given equal treatment. The reference in the staff report to “local newspaper” can only be the wholly Piedmont serving local newspaper, the Piedmont Post. While the Post does a proper job of reporting sports and social events, Piedmont Post publishing ethics do not include objective reporting on the passage of taxes, potential taxes and how tax dollars are used. The Piedmont Post has a sharply skewed editorial bias in support of City Hall actions. Those who oppose city taxes are shut out from virtually any space in the Post and/or opposition comments are grossly misreported. The many who opposed the partially taxpayer funded “no taxpayer cost” Blair Park Sports Complex were denied equal access in the Post.
I suggest removing the recommendation for a “local newspaper” in Zone B. Another option in the interest of transparency is to substitute “Piedmont Post” for “local newspaper” and remove “community-serving business.”
Respectfully,
Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Jul 5 2016
Nomination papers for prospective candidates for November 8, 2016 General Municipal Election will be available from the City Clerk, John Tulloch –
Beginning Monday, July 18, 2016 and must be returned no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 12, 2016
If an eligible incumbent fails to file, the deadline is extended to August 17, 2016 (Elections Code Section 10225.)
State law requires that nomination papers be issued in person by the City Clerk. Also, papers must be returned to the City Clerk, who will stamp the documents as received. Because of these requirements, the documents required for candidacy will not be posted to the web site.
The purpose of the General Municipal Election scheduled for November 8, 2016 is election of two (2) members of the City Council, for a regular term of four (4) years, and three (3) members of the Piedmont Board of Education for a regular term of four (4) years.
Also, on the November 8 ballot is a bond measure for the Piedmont Unified School District.
Candidate Deadlines –
- Monday, July 18, 2016 First day to File Nomination Papers for the November 8, 2016 General Election <
- Friday, August 12, 2016 Last day to File Nomination Papers for the November 8, 2016 General Election <
-
School Bond Measure Deadlines –
- Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Last day to File Direct Arguments For/Against a Measure for the November 8, 2016 General Election <
- Monday, August 22, 2016 Last day to File Rebuttal Arguments For/Against a Measure for the November 8, 2016 General Election <
Read City staff report here. <
For more information, contact City Clerk John Tulloch at 510/420-3040.
Jul 5 2016
After many years of planning and community participation, the Piedmont City Council approved the construction and implementation of the long awaited traffic, pedestrian safety and beautification project at Linda, Rose and Kingston Avenues. Ray’s Electric, a misnomer for the construction company, was awarded the contract to fully construct the project with hardscape, electrical work, plantings, and irrigation. Former Mayor Craig Lundin of Tree Sculpture is donating trees for the project. The total cost authorized is $ 283,594.
Residents involved in the project development and fundraising gave a round of applause to the Council for their foresight and approval of the project at a Piedmont entry providing both safety and beauty.
Read the prior PCA article for details on the project here. <
Jun 26 2016
After assessing Piedmont Unified School District needs and the ability by law to further indebt the residents of Piedmont, the Piedmont School Board on June 22, 2016 voted to place a $66,000,000 bond measure on the November 2016 ballot. Actual cost of the bonds including interest is estimated at $118,729,017 with a term not to exceed 30 years.
Unlike the recently approved City parcel tax ballot measure, school bonds require 55% by approving voters rather than 66.6% required for the City tax measure.
A survey conducted by the District showed 70% support of a bond measure indicating the bonds will likely be approved by Piedmont voters.
Piedmont Unified School District Measure
(Information provided by the School District)
2016 General Obligation Bond
November 8, 2016
Tax Rate Statement
An election will be held within the boundaries of Piedmont Unified School District (the “School District”) on November 8, 2016 to authorize the sale of up to $66,000,000 in bonds to finance facilities as described in the proposition. If the bonds are approved, the School District expects to sell the bonds in multiple series. Principal and interest on the bonds will be payable from the proceeds of tax levies made upon the taxable property located within the School District. The following information is provided in compliance with Sections 9400-9404 of the California Elections Code.
1. The best estimate of the tax rate which would be required to be levied to fund this bond issue during the first fiscal year after the sale of the first series of bonds, based on estimated assessed valuations available at the time of filing of this statement, is 6.0 cents per $100 ($60 per $100,000) of assessed valuation in fiscal year 2017-18.
2. The best estimate of the tax rate which would be required to be levied to fund this bond issue during the first fiscal year after the sale of the last series of bonds, based on estimated assessed valuations available at the time of filing of this statement, is 6.0 cents per $100 ($60 per $100,000) of assessed valuation in fiscal year 2021-22.
3. The best estimate of the highest tax rate which would be required to be levied to fund this bond issue, based on estimated assessed valuations available at the time of filing of this statement, is 6.0 cents per $100 ($60 per $100,000) of assessed valuation in fiscal year 2021-22.
4. The best estimate of total debt service, including principal and interest, which would be required to be repaid if all the bonds are issued and sold is $118,729,017. This estimate is based on the assumption there will be no bonds issued with a term over 30 years.
Voters should note that the estimated tax rate is based on the ASSESSED VALUE of taxable property on the County of Alameda official tax rolls, not on the property’s market value. Property owners should consult their own property tax bills to determine their property’s assessed value and any applicable tax exemptions.
Attention of all voters is directed to the fact that the foregoing information is based upon the School District’s projections and estimates only, which are not binding upon the School District. The actual tax rates, debt service and the years in which they will apply may vary from those presently estimated, due to variations from these estimates in the timing of bond sales, the amount of bonds sold and market interest rates at the time of each sale, and actual assessed valuations over the term of repayment of the bonds. The dates of sale and the amount of bonds sold at any given time will be determined by the School District based on need for construction funds and other factors. The actual interest rates at which the bonds will be sold will depend on the bond market at the time of each sale. Actual future assessed valuation will depend upon the amount and value of taxable property within the School District as determined by the County Assessor in the annual assessment and the equalization process.
Read the School Board Resolution authorizing the ballot measure and further information > here.
Read the Bond authorization information > here.
Jun 20 2016
Piedmont voters will be asked to approve a $66 million school bond at the General Election on Tuesday, November 8, 2016.
Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) Board member Rick Raushenbush noted that the $66 million figure will not cover all the unmet needs. The campaign in support of the vote for the bond will be co-chaired by Claire Amo and Chad Olcott.
Also on the November ballot will be the election of two PUSD Board members.
Finalization of the Bond Measure will be considered by the Board at approximately 8:00 p.m., Wednesday, June 22. The meeting open to the public will be broadcast live from City Hall on Channel 27 and also from the City website under online videos.
Read the full > agenda and staff reports for the June 22, 2016 Board of Education meeting.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Residents may comment to the School Board by sending an email to the link below:
Read East Bay Times report > here.
Jun 18 2016
On Monday, June 20 starting at 7:30 p.m. in City Hall, the City Council will adopt the FY16-17 Budget, levy the FY 16-17 Municipal Services Tax and Sewer Tax, approve “other Funds Budget” and fees, make year end appropriations, carryforwards, and reclassifications, approve Project Sport closure of southbound Grand Ave on August 13 and other agenda items.
June 20, 2016, Council meeting agenda items can be viewed by clicking on the individual items below:
06/20/16 – Approval of a Renewed Agreement with Alameda County Regarding Collection of Taxes
06/20/16 – Approval of a Street Use Request from Project Sport, LLC Regarding Use of Grand Avenue on August 13, 2016 to Conduct a Portion of “The Town’s Half Marathon”
06/20/16 – Consideration of FY 15-16 Year-End Appropriations, Carryforwards, and Reclassificiations
06/20/16 – Consideration of a Resolution Implementing Employee Payment of an Additional Portion of the PERS Employer Paid Member Contribution for Miscellaneous Employees as Previously Agreed to by the City Council and Employee Groups
06/20/16 – PUBLIC HEARING Regarding the Proposed Budget for FY 16-17 and the Levy of the Municipal Services Tax and the Municipal Sewer Tax and Consideration of the Following:
a. By Resolution, Adopt the FY 16-17 Operating Budget
b. By Resolution, Adopt the FY 16-17 Other Funds Budget
c. By Resolution, Approve the FY 16-17 Schedule of Fees and Charges
d. By Resolution, Confirm the City’s Annual Appropriation (Gann) Limit
06/20/16 – Consideration of a Resolution Levying the FY 16-17 Municipal Services Tax
06/20/16 – Consideration of a Resolution Levying the FY 16-17 Municipal Sewer Tax
The meeting will be broadcast live on Channel 27 and from the City website under online videos.
Read the entire agenda > here.
To send an email to the City Council click below:
Jun 7 2016
Piedmonters, once more, vote to approve a parcel tax to support City services, reserves, and facilities.
Measure F was given support by approximately 70% of Piedmont voters. Measure F insures that the current property tax plus a 30% increase will continue for 4 years starting in 2017.
The Measure F election produced both pro and con activity. Piedmont’s elected officials were vocal about the need to increase reserves, maintain and improve City facilities, while keeping City services at a high level.
Following analysis of the City budget and financial projections, those opposed to the ballot measure took issue with the need for a 30% tax increase to achieve City goals.
Final vote count will not be available for days, if not weeks. Election results will not change.
| Yes |
2485 |
70.64 |
 |
| No |
1033 |
29.36 |
|
|
|
For the latest Measure F election results, click here
