Apr 7 2016

June 7 City Parcel Tax Election: Support and Opposition Statements

City Parcel Tax Measure F awaits Piedmont voters’ decision.

Piedmont will hold a Special Election on June 7, 2016, at the California Primary Election.  Statements in support and opposition are printed below. Prior to the election, this information can also be found in the Voter’s Information Pamphlet sent to every voter’s home address.

Support for Measure F:

Measure F provides funding to maintain Piedmont’s excellent public services.  This is not a new tax.   For the past 36 years, Piedmont voters have approved the Municipal Services Tax (“the Parcel Tax’).  The Parcel Tax is indispensable to maintaining the quality services Piedmont residents appreciate.    These services include responsive police and fire, attractive parks and robust recreational programs.  Our City looks and works as well as it does because of the Parcel Tax.   The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (“BAFPC”) recommends that the Parcel Tax be renewed and increased by approximately $150 per parcel.   The BAFPC said, “The continuation of the Parcel Tax at least at its current level is critical for the City to continue to provide the services that Piedmont residents enjoy today.”    The BAFPC added, “The committee believes the City is still significantly underfunding its facilities maintenance and replacements needs.”  To meet these needs, the Parcel Tax should be increased.  The Parcel Tax was last increased in 2004. Piedmont needs to address long‐standing deferred maintenance of its facilities and update the City’s aging infrastructure. The City must take on projects like replacing old wiring in the police and fire stations.   Our technology infrastructure is antiquated, unreliable and insufficient for the 21st century.   This isn’t about new facilities.  This isn’t about increasing staff or benefits.  This is about plumbing, roofs, safety and electrical.  This is about the nuts and bolts of the City.  We must act  now to make repairs and improvements to ensure the City can support its residents. Many recommendations of the 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee were implemented that strengthened City’s finances, controlled costs and addressed long‐term liabilities.    Now we need to follow the BAFPC recommendations and invest in Piedmont’s facilities.  Unanimously approved by the Piedmont City Council.  Vote Yes on F.     

Signed by:

John Y. Chiang, Former Mayor

Bill Hosler, Chair, Budget and Financial Planning Committee

Valerie Matzger, Former Mayor

Andrea Swenson, President, PUSD Board of Education

Jeff Wieler, Vice Mayor

Opposition to Measure F:

This proposition not simply a renewal of Piedmont’s Municipal Services Special Tax, it adds a 30% increase. The need for such a dramatic increase has not been substantiated by the City Council nor by the Budget Advisory Financial Planning Committee’s report. That report severely underestimates expected revenue from property transfer taxes and the post-transfer reassessments which will continue to increase property tax revenue. Piedmont’s rising property values assure rising tax revenues. There is no need to raise taxes at this time. The report actually admits that it discounted the facts that (1) retirement of the City pension “side fund” debt in FY 2020 will free up additional cash resources to cover projected increased expenses, and (2) the significantly over-funded Police and Fire Pension Fund can be rededicated to Other Post-Employment Benefits expenses. Raising our parcel tax is unjustified. Even if the unlikely pessimistic revenue estimates turn out to be true, Piedmont’s Reserve Fund, currently funded near its legal limit, can make up the difference until a truly justified parcel tax measure goes before the voters. This proposition implies that without passage, municipal services would be reduced. Yet, it fails to detail how much new tax revenue would go to facility maintenance, how much to pension liabilities, and how much to unspecified services, compared to the current budget. Piedmont has one of the highest tax rates in the state. The current tax continues until June, 2017. At this time, there is no need to scare Piedmonters with service reduction. Vote against this proposition now, so that a more reasonable and justified parcel tax measure can be considered next time.

Signed by:

Bruce Joffe, Piedmont Resident

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

Support for Measure F Rebuttal:

The Parcel Tax opponents are wrong and miss the point. The 7 year projections show property tax revenue growing at the same pace as the last 10 years. Transfer tax has always been volatile. The 2011 MTRC recommended against projecting a growing transfer tax and this year transfer taxes are running 30% behind last year through February. Opponents are betting that real estate prices will continue to increase and that large numbers of homes continue to sell. This is unsupportable given history and an irresponsible way to plan for the future. The City Council took important steps to improve the City’s financial condition: refinancing the sidefund, establishing prudent reserves and managing expenses. The opponents misrepresent the BAFPC report, arguing that sufficient funds are available to maintain services and make needed investments in the City’s infrastructure. This isn’t true. The shortfall is significant and growing. The BAFPC, and prior tax committees, strongly recommended the City reduce this shortfall and take immediate steps to address the City’s aged infrastructure in a planned and affordable manner. BART’s recent problems show the impact of deferred maintenance, obsolescence and making patch work fixes. Piedmont must avoid those problems. City services will be degraded and unreliable without renewed investment in the city’s infrastructure. These aren’t scare tactics. This is just about basic arithmetic and what it takes to repair and maintain Piedmont. And the 30%: that’s about $150 per parcel. This is an investment in your City and its future. 

Signed by: 

John Y. Chiang, Former Mayor

Bill Hosler, Chair, Budget and Financial Planning Committee

Teddy King, Councilmember

Andrea Swenson, President, PUSD Board of Education

Tim Rood, Councilmember

Opposition to Measure F Rebuttal:

An honest proposition would inform the voter of a tax increase. Measure F masquerades as a simple renewal, but contains a 30% increase. To justify this tax increase the City underestimates new revenue coming into Piedmont from ever increasing tax reassessments. And growth rates in the transfer tax are well above what the BAFPC projects. The BAFPC estimates the transfer tax at $2.8M but the last two years are $3.9M and $4M. And this spring the average Piedmont sale price is $2.75M indicating a record revenue season is again likely. This healthy revenue stream is back-stopped by a City $4.5M reserve, Pension funds with a $10M surplus, and the Facilities Maintenance Fund at $1.94M. In 2010 reserves were 13%. In 2015 they are 21%. The 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee recommended the city undertake long-term financial planning and facilities maintenance, streamline city services, and cap employee and retiree benefit levels. Instead Measure F increases taxes and spending on facilities without having the other goals in place. Rather than asking for a tax, the City should continue to press for increased cost sharing and capping of employee benefits costs in this summer’s contract negotiations. We support improving Piedmont’s facilities but Piedmont’s taxes are among the State’s highest. Let’s not add an unneeded increase to the tax burden of young families and seniors. Vote NO on Measure F.

Signed by:

Garrett Keating, Former City Councilman

Kathleen Quenneville, Piedmont Resident

Jim McCrea, Piedmont Resident

Impartial Analysis of Measure F

by City Attorney 

Measure F proposes to adopt an Ordinance that amends Chapter 20B of the Piedmont Municipal Code authorizing the collection of a Municipal Services Tax (“Tax”), which has been collected in the City of Piedmont since 1981. Revenue from the Tax goes to the City’s General Fund and is used to finance Municipal Services such as police and fire protection, street maintenance, building regulations, library services, recreation, parks maintenance, planning, and public works. The current Tax will expire on June 30, 2017. Measure F authorizes the continuation of the Tax until June 30, 2021, and proposes to increase the maximum Tax rate in accordance with the rate schedule set forth in Section 20B.4 of the proposed Ordinance. The maximum Tax rate will vary by parcel depending on parcel size and the nature of use (i.e., residential/commercial). Measure F would correspondingly increase the appropriations limit under Article XIIIB of the California Constitution. Pursuant to Measure F, the City can only levy the Tax if in any fiscal year the City Council determines that municipal services are necessary for the public good, and that the cost of providing such services will exceed the amount of funds generated from revenue sources other than the Tax. The Tax collected during that tax year, if any, may not exceed the maximum Tax rate established in the Ordinance. Under Measure F the maximum Tax rate will be adjusted on an annual basis by an amount equal to the percentage increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, California area, as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Measure F authorizes the Tax to be collected by the Tax Collector of the County of Alameda.

A “Yes” vote on Measure F means the voter is in favor of continuing the existing tax with the proposed increase.

A “No” vote on Measure F means the voter is opposed and the tax would no longer be collected.

Two-thirds (66%) of the qualified voters casting a vote must vote “yes” for Measure F to pass. Measure F, or any provision thereof, may only be amended or repealed by approval of a two-thirds majority of the voters voting on the proposition at any initiative or referendum election. The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure F. The full text of Measure F is printed in the Voter’s Information Pamphlet and is also available on the City of Piedmont’s website at: http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us.

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

Additional Measure F information from the City can be found here.

Editors’ Note:  The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office. 

Apr 2 2016

Piedmont Unified School District Facilities Master Planning: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions March 2016

Information from Piedmont Unified School District Superintendent Randall Booker – 

What is “Facilities Master Planning”?

Piedmont Unified School District is assessing whether its facilities support changing educational programs and goals, and making plans to ensure that facilities enhance educational programs now and in the future. This process, called “facilities master planning,” is intended to further the District’s fundamental goal of educational excellence.

Why is Facilities Master Planning needed?

Educational programs and objectives must keep pace with the changing needs of the world outside the classroom. Readiness for higher education and future careers requires different types of knowledge, different educational experiences, and a different set of skills than in the past. To serve the needs of students, it is essential to offer students a broad range of educational opportunities. For example, students must have the opportunity to: learn through project-based exploration, collaboration, and presentation;; investigate the connections among the sciences, and develop and test hypotheses;; work individually, in small groups, and in large groups;; complete service projects;; and take full advantage of modern educational technologies.

The purpose of the Facilities Master Plan is to address current and future educational needs of students and ensure that facilities provide both the functionality and capacity to support educational excellence.

Haven’t the schools been modernized?

Yes and no. Piedmont Unified recently completed seismic safety and technology modernization programs. The elementary schools were renovated or rebuilt to better withstand earthquakes, and all facilities have new technology infrastructure. Nonetheless, the middle and high schools have not been modernized, and many of their building systems have reached the end of their useful life and must be replaced. Also, educational needs have changed since these schools were constructed, and both additional and different kinds of facilities are needed.

How have educational needs changed?

Since the middle and high school buildings were constructed, course offerings have become more varied and some courses require specialized classrooms and labs – particularly in the fields of science, technology and engineering. Course work now incorporates collaboration in small groups and presentations, but undersized classrooms and heavy, inflexible furnishings make it difficult to reconfigure classrooms to support these activities. Lab work requires safe and suitable space for group projects and project storage, and inadequate labs, in fact, constrain teaching and learning opportunities. Additional specialized facilities are needed to offer or expand courses in film, web design, theater arts (including set and lighting design), graphic arts, culinary arts, and sports medicine, among others.

Why fix something that isn’t broken?

Piedmont Unified provides an excellent education, so some have asked whether facilities upgrades are really needed. There are significant reasons for investing in facilities improvements:

  • ●  Investment in facilities at the middle and high schools is now overdue and unavoidable. These schools have antiquated mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems that have reached the end of their useful life. These systems are inefficient and expensive to operate, and require either overhaul or replacement.
  • ●  The middle and high schools do not have a sufficient number of classrooms to support current and projected enrollment. The middle school needs at least three additional classrooms, and the high school needs at least two additional classrooms and one additional science lab.
  • ●  The District has identified a range of vital educational needs — from the need to provide extended-day kindergarten to the need for modern science labs and maker spaces — that can be addressed only through facilities improvements.
  • ●  Serious deficiencies that distract from and undermine the learning environment include poor sound insulation, poor ventilation, poor climate control, and insufficient restrooms. At the middle and high schools, noise transfers among rooms, making it difficult for students and teachers to hear each other. At all schools, climate control measures and improved ventilation are needed to prevent classrooms from overheating in warmer months.

● Modernization of antiquated facilities is needed to keep pace with surrounding public and private schools, which are investing millions of dollars in STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) facilities. These schools include: Miramonte High School (Orinda);; Campolindo High School (Moraga);; Skyline High School (Oakland);; Monte Vista High School (Danville);; San Mateo Union High School (San Mateo);; Bishop O’Dowd (Oakland);; Head Royce (Oakland);; Bentley (Lafayette);; College Preparatory School (Oakland);; Redwood Day School (Oakland);; and De La Salle High School (Concord). The project costs are not available for all of these, although Cahill Construction reported that De La Salle’s new STEAM building cost $18.5 million to construct, Head Royce invested $33 million in capital improvements, and Oakland Unified School District recently invested $55 million in new science and classroom facilities.

How was the Facilities Master Plan developed?

❏ Assessment of whether Facilities Support Educational Goals

During the fall of 2015, nearly 30 District educators and administrators met four times to discuss the educational programs and goals, and the educational appropriateness of the existing facilities.1 The group discussed: current and future educational needs of students;; classroom functionality and capacity;; whether the school sites provide an environment that is appropriate, comfortable and conducive to learning, including classroom size, acoustics, air quality, ventilation, and climate control;; student safety and security;; and current and future facilities use by the broader Piedmont community. The group consulted with the Piedmont Police Department, Piedmont Recreation Department, and school security professionals.

This team included: Randall Booker, Superintendent;; Song Chin-Bendib, Chief Business Officer;; Pete Palmer, Director of Maintenance, Operations & Facilities;; Dr. Cheryl Wozniak, Director of Curriculum & Instruction;; Stephanie Griffin, Director of Instructional Technology;; Michael Brady, Director of Alternative & Adult Education;; Julie Valdez, Director of Special Education;; Brent Daniels, Principal of PHS;; Ken Taylor, Elementary Admin Rep;; Sati Shah, Principal of MHS;; Ryan Fletcher, Principal of PMS;; Courtney Goen, Virginia Leskowksi, Marna Chamberlain, PHS Teacher Reps;; Ken Brown, MHS Teacher Rep;; Amy Savage, Carolyn White, Logan Medina, PMS Teacher Reps;; Ras Medura, PUSD Custodian;; Mike Wong, PMS Classified Rep;; Lydia Adams, Kelly Wallis, Havens Teacher Reps;; Lianne Morrison, Kathleen Schneider, Wildwood Teacher Reps;; Anne Valva, Raul Jorcino, Beach Teacher Reps.

❏ Assessment of Physical Condition of Facilities

During the same time period, a team of architects and engineers assessed the condition of each school facility including: educational appropriateness;; mechanical and plumbing systems;; safety and security;; energy efficiency;; and fire/life/safety and accessibility code compliance. This team consulted with the Piedmont Police Department, Recreation Department, Department of Public Works, and school security professionals concerning site security and community use. The team also developed a “solar master plan” with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to generate enough solar power to offset all of Piedmont Unified’s energy use.

This assessment was informed by California Department of Education (CDE) standards and guidelines concerning classroom size and features.2 The project team also consulted with the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS), a non-profit organization that specializes in school design that is versatile, energy-efficient, and provides a healthy educational environment. For example, CHPS has developed models for: maximizing flexibility of classrooms so they can be easily reconfigured for project-based learning and other purposes;; integrating outdoor space for educational purposes;; and incorporating natural light and energy-efficient materials. The team also reviewed school specifications promulgated by Makers groups.

❏ Community Meetings at each School Site

Piedmont Unified hosted a series of facilities tours and public meetings at each school site to gather community input concerning the adequacy of school facilities.3 Educators, students, families, and the broader Piedmont community were encouraged to participate.

For example, CDE recommends at least 960 square feet of classroom space for a class of 25-30 students, and at least 1350 square feet for a kindergarten class. For a science classroom, CDE recommends at least 1400 square feet but prefers at least 1600 square feet.

The recommended ventilation for classrooms is eight “outside air changes” per hour. Without adequate air changes, air becomes stagnant and carbon dioxide accumulates. At the high school and middle school, there are classrooms with zero air exchanges per hour. In some of these classrooms, the only ventilation is to open a window, but cold temperatures preclude this for part of the year.

The recommended acoustics (or “sound transmission”) rating for classrooms is at least 50, but at the middle school and parts of the high school this rating is zero. This means that measurable background noise, which is supposed to be at or below 25 decibels, is typically above 35 decibels.

The school site meetings were held as follows: PHS (10/26/15);; PMS (11/2/15);; MHS (11/5/15);; Havens (11/12/15);; Wildwood (11/19/15);; Beach (11/30/15);; and PHS/MHS (12/1/15).

❏ Board of Education Meetings

In addition to receiving progress reports at its regular meetings, the Board of Education held a special meeting on December 14, 2015 to review all input received at the school site meetings. As with the site meetings, the December 14 meeting was publicized in the school bulletins, school newspaper, and local newspapers, and all members of the public were encouraged to participate.

Following this meeting, the District created a draft Facilities Master Plan that combined (1) the assessment of the educational appropriateness of facilities with (2) the assessment of the physical condition of facilities and (3) community input received. The project team also developed two illustrations — for purposes of discussion and soliciting further community input — demonstrating different approaches to implementing the Plan. The draft Plan was presented at three public meetings (to date), on January 12, January 19, and February 10.

The Board of Education will hold additional meetings on the draft Plan in the coming months, and will likely finalize and adopt the Plan in April 2016.

What needs are identified in the Facilities Master Plan?

❏ Piedmont Middle and High Schools

● To accommodate current and projected enrollment, the middle school needs at least three additional classrooms and the high school needs at least two additional classrooms and one additional science lab.

● To support STEAM education, labs must be configured with sufficient preparation, collaboration, project, presentation, and storage space.

Piedmont Unified has two high schools and one middle school, clustered together at 740-800 Magnolia Avenue. Piedmont High School has 39 classrooms, roughly 110,000 square feet of building space, and 871 students enrolled for 2015-16. PHS consists of several separate facilities that were constructed in the 1920s, 1930s, 1960s, and 1970s, and includes classroom buildings, the Student Services building, Binks Gym, Alan Harvey Theater, and the Witter Field complex. Millennium High School is an alternative high school that shares space with PHS and the District’s administrative offices. MHS has 4 classrooms (1 that is shared with PHS) and 80 students. Piedmont Middle School has 33 classrooms, roughly 85,000 square feet of building space, and 683 students enrolled for 2015-16. PMS buildings were constructed in the 1970s and 1990s and include the Science Building and Morrison and Redford Gyms.

  • ●  To provide an educationally appropriate, comfortable and secure learning environment, sound insulation, ventilation, climate control, and additional restrooms are needed.
  • ●  To support a range of teaching strategies — including quiet study, research, small-group collaboration, project work and exploration, presentations, and formal instruction — classrooms must be modernized and furnished for maximum versatility.
  • ●  Antiquated mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems must be replaced.
  • ●  To sustain, improve and expand course offerings, specialized facilities are needed:
    • ➢  The high school cafeteria, Piper Cafe, is used as the culinary arts classroom and for conferences, presentations, professional development programs for educators, and parent education programs. Nonetheless, use of the Cafe kitchen for career technical education programs in culinary arts means that the kitchen is not available for its original cafeteria purposes during class time. For this reason, the Cafe kitchen can support one section only of the culinary arts class. Also, the cafeteria is not well-suited for conferences and presentations due to poor acoustics. Additional teaching, conference, and presentation space is needed.
    • ➢  Alan Harvey Theater is used daily as a classroom, as well as for assemblies, rehearsals, performances, and community events. The Theater lobby is also used on a regular basis for small group meetings and rehearsals. The Theater is undersized for the current school population, does not adequately support the performing arts programs and needs for performance space, does not support Community needs for presentation and performance space, and does not comply with current fire/life/safety and accessibility codes. Additional seating capacity and additional teaching, rehearsal, and ancillary backstage spaces are needed.
    • ➢  Course offerings in sports medicine and related fields require dedicated space and equipment that support instruction in physiology, athletic training, nutrition, preventative care, and rehabilitation techniques. This space differs from typical classrooms, in part because training tables and equipment storage is needed.
  • ●  The turf on Witter Field has reached the end of its useful life and must be replaced. In addition, underground drainage is inadequate and must be improved to protect the new turf from stretching and tearing due to the pooling of water from Bushy Dell Creek under the surface. These improvements are critical to preserve and enhance student athletics.
  • ●  To support the social and emotional health of students, additional, private meeting space is needed at the middle school for Wellness Center programs.
  • ●  To the extent feasible, parking and traffic issues should be mitigated. The District has been working with the City of Piedmont to reduce traffic congestion along Magnolia Avenue during drop-off and pick-up times with new parking zones, permits, and signage. Off-street, paved parking is desirable for faculty, staff and visitors although the constrained area around the middle and high school campuses makes this difficult. The District and the City are continuing to explore possible solutions for Magnolia Avenue.

❏ Piedmont Elementary Schools

  • ●  Extended-day kindergarten is needed to better serve students. The District currently offers half-day kindergarten due to space constraints. Nonetheless, a growing body of research suggests that extended-day kindergarten produces greater learning gains than half-day programs. Furthermore, elementary school curriculum is developed based on the assumption that kindergarten is a full day, so offering half-day-only kindergarten necessarily means that students are not covering all recommended curriculum. For these reasons, additional kindergarten classrooms are needed.
  • ●  Climate control measures are needed to prevent classrooms from overheating and provide a comfortable learning environment. Ambient classroom temperatures exceed 80 degrees at least 30 school days per year.65 Piedmont Unified School District has three elementary schools. Beach Elementary (100 Lake Avenue) has 18 classrooms, roughly 35,000 square feet of building space, and 334 students enrolled for 2015-16. Beach was modernized and seismically strengthened in 2011 and 2012. Havens Elementary (323 Highland Avenue) has 23 classrooms, roughly 51,000 square feet of building space, and 498 students enrolled for 2015-16. Havens was built in 2009. Wildwood Elementary (301 Wildwood Avenue) has 15​ ​classrooms, roughly 20,000 square feet of building space, and 311 students enrolled for 2015-16. Wildwood was modernized and seismically strengthened in 2010.All elementary classrooms were supposed to get air conditioning and climate control features when they were renovated as part of the seismic safety program. However, in order to ensure completion of the seismic work, the installation of air conditioning units was deferred for budgetary reasons.

● All three elementary schools need additional shade for the outdoor recreational areas.

❏ All School Sites

  • ●  Additional support spaces and meeting rooms are needed to meet current teachingneeds.
  • ●  To the extent feasible, each campus should have a secure perimeter and administrative oversight over the access points to enhance safety and security. At the same time, facilities such as fields and playgrounds should be unlocked and open for community use and enjoyment during non-school hours.How will the Facilities Master Plan be used?The Facilities Master Plan is a long-range planning document that will guide short-term and long-term facilities improvements. Piedmont Unified cannot afford to address everything in the Plan ​at one time​, and that is not the intent. Instead, the District will have to prioritize the work and propose a series of bond measures over time, seeking voter approval to make these improvements in phases.How will the District prioritize the work?Piedmont Unified’s Board of Education will prioritize improvements based on educational needs and goals, considering input from the school community, broader Piedmont community, and City of Piedmont. The Board is soliciting public input on the priorities and will conduct a public opinion poll in the next month. Additional public meetings concerning priorities for near-term facilities improvements will be held throughout the remainder of this school year. These meetings include Board of Education meetings on March 23, May 11 and 25, and June 8 and 22, and a community town hall meeting in April or May (date to be determined).In addition, the District’s Facilities Steering Committee is meeting regularly to develop options for the Board to consider when setting priorities for implementation.

What will it cost to implement the Facilities Master Plan?

District staff worked with architects, engineers, and three general contractors, each with extensive experience in public school construction, to develop detailed cost estimates for implementing the Plan. I​f all work identified in the Facilities Master Plan were to be addressed in a single (multi-year) phase, the estimated cost is $137 million​. This includes hard costs (cost of construction), soft costs (architectural and engineering fees, state design review fees, inspection and permit fees, utilities fees, estimated price escalation over the next few years, and furnishings, fixtures, and equipment), and contingency funds. Nonetheless, Piedmont Unified cannot afford to address everything in a single phase. Instead, the Plan will be implemented in phases and actual cost will depend on the scope and sequence of each phase, which have yet to be determined.

How will these improvements be funded?

In California, school districts typically finance capital improvements by issuing bonds. To issue bonds, approval by 55% of local voters is required. In addition, aggregate debt issued by the district (or “bonding capacity”) may not exceed 2.5% of assessed value of the district’s taxable property. Also, bonds may be issued only if the estimated t​ax rate ​levied to repay the bonds does not exceed $60 per year per $100,000 of assessed value of the taxable property.7

Piedmont Unified’s bond financing consultant, KNN Public Finance, recently reported that the District’s bonding capacity is now roughly $66 million, and this number will increase over the next few years as previously-issued school bonds are retired. To see KNN’s presentation to the Board of Education on January 13, 2016, click here: http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/aboutpusd/agenda.minutes/2015_16/Piedmont_2016_Bond_Mea sure_Presentation_1_13_2016.pdf

The District will likely propose a series of bond measures over time to make these improvements in phases.

California Education Code section 15270 imposes these limits on the sale of school construction bonds.

Is the District eligible to receive State funding for these projects?

The District is likely eligible for state matching funds to help pay for modernization of the middle and high school facilities. Eligibility is based on the age of buildings, student population, and past receipt of state modernization funds. The District estimates that it is eligible to receive between $4.8 million and $6.47 million in state funds, provided that Piedmont Unified offers a 40% match.

The actual amount of the state modernization grant would depend, in part, on the extent of accessibility and fire life/safety code compliance work that is required by California’s Division of State Architect (DSA) in the final project scope. In addition to State ​modernization​ funds, Piedmont Unified is eligible to receive state grants for water and energy conservation projects. The District will receive a $650,000 DROPS (Drought Response Outreach Program for Schools) grant for water conservation enhancements on the high school campus, and $420,000 over five years for energy efficiency and conservation improvements across the District.

After the Facilities Master Plan is adopted, will there be continuing community involvement in implementation of the Plan?

Yes. To be most effective, facilities projects require ongoing community involvement and oversight. Piedmont Unified has long relied on a steering committee to oversee both the Seismic Safety Bond Program (SSBP) and the Modernization Program (MP), and both programs were completed on time and on budget. Specifically, the SSBP Steering Committee and the MP Steering Committee met regularly with District staff, architects, and construction managers to oversee planning and management of individual projects and program financing. Members of these committees contributed significant professional expertise and helped guide these programs to successful completion.

In the next few months, the Steering Committee will study the Facilities Master Plan, and help prioritize and phase the work in anticipation of one or more facilities bond measures. The Steering Committee will also oversee implementation.

The community members currently serving on the Steering Committee are: Grier Graff;; Brad Hebert;; Robert Hendrickson;; John Gibbs;; Sally Aldridge;; Angel Fierro;; and Bernard Pech. District staff who serve on the Committee include: Superintendent Randall Booker;; Assistant Superintendent Song Chin-Bendib;; Director of Facilities Pete Palmer;; and Board of Education Members Rick Raushenbush and Doug Ireland.

When the Facilities Master Plan is implemented, would students have to be relocated during construction? If so, would the relocation site be outside of Piedmont?

Whether temporary relocation of ​middle and high school s​tudents will be needed would depend on the scope and sequence of campus improvements, and these have yet to be determined. The work identified at the ​elementary​ campuses could be completed over summers, when no students are on campus, so there would be no relocation issue.

The District hopes to avoid relocation of middle and high school students to a temporary school site for several reasons. Relocation adds considerable expense to construction projects and can be disruptive for students and staff. Also, as a practical matter, there are few, if any, appropriate relocation options within or close to Piedmont. The District hopes to avoid relocation through careful sequencing of the implementation plan. For example, the Facilities Master Plan calls for additional middle and high school classrooms and labs to ease overcrowding and meet program needs. If new classrooms and labs are constructed first, the new facilities could then be used as “temporary housing” while older buildings are modernized. If phased properly, students could be cycled through the new facilities throughout the renovation, so all students would remain on the Magnolia campus.

A few years ago the District proposed a bond measure to renovate Alan Harvey Theater and voters did not approve the measure. Will improvements to the Theater be included in the Facilities Master Plan?

Yes. Alan Harvey Theater is undersized for the current school population, does not adequately support Piedmont Unified’s performing and theater arts programs, and does not comply with current fire/life/safety and accessibility codes, so the Facilities Master Plan includes these improvements.

The District received a range of feedback about why voters did not support the Alan Harvey Theater measure. Many voters questioned how the proposed theater improvements fit within an overall plan for facilities, particularly plans for STEAM labs and for modernizing antiquated classrooms at the middle and high schools. Based in part on this feedback, Piedmont Unified has now undertaken this comprehensive Facilities Master Plan.

The City of Piedmont has its own Master Plan. How is Piedmont Unified School District’s Facilities Master Plan related to the City’s Plan?

The City of Piedmont and the Piedmont Unified School District are distinct legal entities, and the regulatory oversight for their capital improvements and funding are separate. For example, all proposed public school construction in California must be reviewed and approved by the Division of State Architect (DSA), which has the authority to require that school projects include accessibility and life safety improvements to bring school facilities into compliance with current building codes. City projects are not subject to this DSA review.

Although the City and the School District capital programs are subject to different rules, procedures, and oversight, there is a commitment to confer and collaborate to the greatest extent possible. Specifically: there are regular liaison meetings between the City Council and School Board, and master planning is a key topic this year;; Pete Palmer, Piedmont Unified’s Director of Facilities, participated in the City’s planning group concerning the aquatic center, and contributed to the City’s pedestrian and traffic safety plans;; Chief of Police Rikki Goede and Recreation Director Sara Lillevand have consulted on the schools’ Facilities Master Plan;; Fire Marshall Dave Swan worked with Piedmont Unified on a comprehensive fire/life/safety assessment and participates in active fire drills at the school sites;; Director of Public Works Chester Nakahara consults on parking and pedestrian safety as well as storm drains, utilities, and other improvements that are coordinated between the City and School District.

What if the community does not support bond measures to improve facilities?

Many of the improvements outlined in the Facilities Master Plan will have to be done eventually, and, in the interim, students will continue to experience sub-standard learning conditions.

● The District would need to spend significant resources to operate inefficient and ineffective mechanical, electrical, plumbing and heating systems, pouring good money into failing equipment that will ultimately have to be replaced. If deferred, the cost of replacement will likely escalate.

● Spending money on failing equipment and systems, such as inefficient boilers and deteriorating sewer lines, would mean diverting money from the District’s general fund that would otherwise be available for educational programs.

● Middle and high school students would remain in overcrowded, undersized classrooms that fail to provide an educationally appropriate, comfortable or secure learning environment. Poor sound insulation, ventilation, and climate control would continue to undermine learning.

  • ●  The District would remain constrained in the range of courses and opportunities it offers students, particularly in STEAM education and career technical pathways.
  • ●  The District would remain unable to offer extended-day kindergarten due to space constraints.
  • ●  Elementary school students would remain in overheated and uncomfortable classrooms.
  • ●  Piedmont Unified would fail to keep pace with surrounding public and private high schools that are investing millions of dollars in STEAM facilities and modernization.What do Piedmont Unified’s teachers say about Facilities Master Planning?Piedmont Unified’s teachers provided numerous specific examples of how the proposed facilities improvements would remove real constraints on teaching and learning, and create new possibilities for 21st Century learning. Some examples from middle school teachers follow:“If the walls were soundproofed, I could have more experiential and collaborative activities in my classroom without worrying about disturbing the classes next to my room. My students would also be able concentrate and learn much better if they were not distracted by noise from other classrooms. If I had more space, students would have room to collaborate, make presentations, or participate in experiential activities without tripping over each other’s backpacks or being hindered by furniture. This would allow them to be more creative and innovative.”If my classroom had adequate space I could use the space to create learning environments for specific purposes. Here are four examples using expanded space which my students could use NOW:
    • ●  “Experts Center. Students teaching students new technology skills. For example, Adam Seville is teaching two students in my social studies class to use Wevideo (think Chromebook “IMovie”). They will produce a “Ken Burns style” presentation that includes selected video clips about the Terra Cotta warriors of the Qin Dynasty. In an “Experts Center” they could teach other students these new skills, and those students could continue passing on these skills throughout the class.”
    • ●  “Conference Center. Students could meet in small discussion groups for literature circles/book clubs or with partners to collaborate on writing. Currently students are writing scripts to demonstrate three ancient Chinese philosophies in a contemporary family setting, and this is very difficult in our crowded setting of table groups.”
    • ●  “Project Center. Students could work on designing and building models and projects that demonstrate their knowledge. If we had this space students could build a 3D model of the lost wax and piece methods of bronze casting. Currently they are limited to 2D presentations due to lack of storage and design space.”

● “Independent Work Center. We need a quiet corner for independent work and reading. There is substantial current research on the need to provide alternatives to group work for students. Our school psychologist has shared this research to encourage us to balance group work and independent classwork.”

“If my classroom were large enough to include shelving and supply cabinets all around the room I could display student work to serve as models and inspiration and store projects in progress. There are multiple classes that use every room, so project based learning is limited. Increasing storage for projects and materials would allow me to integrate more student initiated three dimensional art and design experiences into our daily curriculum.”

“If my classroom had space for ongoing student work, I could dramatically increase opportunities for differentiation, personalized learning, student choice, and “passion based learning” – I need the flexibility to respond to student interests and needs.”

“If my classroom had more space I could use small rolling white boards and table size projection screens for group work. Currently we have no space for maximizing the potential of our current tech resources, so students are limited to doc sharing on individual screens when they collaborate.”

“If the library were modernized to include moveable walls/whiteboards, I could change up the space to accommodate whole classes and small groups, and my students could have a more options for collaborative workplaces. If the library were modernized with better sound-proofing, I could be heard without competing with surrounding classrooms/ 201 meetings/classes, and my students could better focus on the tasks at hand.”

Editors’ Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Mar 22 2016

Opinion: Piedmont School Tax Exemptions

Why are some properties not taxed for the Piedmont School Support Tax?

Over the last several months, PUSD has received inquiries about our collection of the School Support Tax (Measure A) that was passed with resounding support by the community in spring of ’13.  In question is whether the district is applying the tax to all the appropriate properties.

Let me start by saying, the district administration and school board is appreciative of the overwhelming support we receive.  The community contributes substantially to maintain our excellent schools and we are grateful for that. We do not assume it will be forever thus and we aim to earn your support at every election and with every decision. Where we fail, we hope to learn and improve.

And vigilant community members play a vital role keeping a watchful eye on our performance. It is a healthy process that we appreciate.

The parcels in question fall into four categories for potential assessment or exemption. They include; church parcels, public parcels, “minor” parcels adjacent to existing taxed parcels and parcels straddling Piedmont and Oakland.

Our law firm, Fagen, Friedman and Fulfrost has worked closely with district staff, our financial agents NBS and the County Assessor to review the parcels in question and the prevailing jurisdiction.

Having reviewed their opinions, having ourselves investigated the parcels in question and legal precedent, we are convinced of the proper performance of the parties to assess and collect the appropriate monies. It breaks down like this:

-Under the California Constitution and Revenue Code, church properties used for religious worship are exempt from property tax. While the School Support Tax is a parcel tax, it is also a property tax and therefore exempt.

-City of Piedmont properties are similarly exempt.

-With respect to “minor” parcels in Piedmont, the owners of homes including such parcels already pay the School Support Tax on their main parcel–the question is whether they should pay twice. Under Government Code Section 53087.4, parcels created under the Subdivision Map Act are treated as a single tax assessment unit and other parcels are treated as separate tax assessment units only if deeded separate from adjoining parcels. Moreover, property owners can simply combine their minor and principal parcels through the assessor’s office, as they surely would if the District attempted to tax them twice.

-There are parcels sitting astride Oakland and Piedmont. Historically, homeowners have the option to pay one or the other, and are assessed by Piedmont only if they chose to take advantage of our school system.  Those parcels straddling the border with children in the PUSD schools pay our School Support Tax.  One might argue that the option of sending children to Piedmont’s fine schools represents an intrinsic value to their home and should therefore be responsible for the tax. But it goes against precedent and would potentially invite litigation that the district, mindful of ongoing budget constraints, is loath to take on for the modest additional revenue it may represent.

We seek to comply with the law while avoiding potential litigation pitting us against the Piedmont residents we serve.

We hope this makes sense to the community. The Superintendent and the Board will continue to run our schools to the best of our ability with prudence and good judgment. Thank you for your ongoing interest and support in our efforts.

Douglas M. Ireland, Piedmont Unified School District Board Member

Editors’ Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Read William Blackwell’s opinion here.

Mar 17 2016

Report: Increasing CalSTRS, Master Facilities Plan, STEM vs. STEAM

CalSTRS contribution rates increase –

Students raise issues of school buildings overheated and underheated,  a fence around the high school would imply danger, smaller classrooms and more warning about SAT Subject Tests. Parents express concern about reduced art class time in the STEM vs STEAM debate.

March 9, 2016 School Board Meeting Report –

    At this School Board meeting, five members of the School Board met to discuss progress on the Second Interim Report, Master Facilities Plan, and Instructional Program Design for the elementary schools. These members include School Board President Andrea Swensen, Amal Smith, Doug Ireland, Superintendent Randall Booker, and Assistant Superintendent, Business Services Song Chin-Bendib. As noted on their agenda, the School Board’s mission is to “cultivate a learning community where students are engaged in their learning, strive for excellence, and are supported to achieve to their potential.” In other words, their purpose is to improve and maintain the schools in the Piedmont Unified School District. To fulfill this purpose, they meet every month, and sometimes even more frequently than that.

Student Recommendations 

    First, students spoke out about community issues they wished the board to address. Piedmont High School (PHS)  senior Meredith Aebi was called first, and expressed concern about the school’s heating system. She believes the language building is underheated while the 30s building is overheated. Next, PHS senior Maggie White spoke out against the idea of a fence around the high school, noting that it would make her feel less safe because it implies there is something to be protected against. PHS senior Allie Frankel then addressed the Master Facilities Plan, and argued for more, smaller classrooms over less, larger ones. PHS senior Lizzie Bjork supported this notion, and cited that her AP English class is too large, creating a burden on the grading agenda of her teacher. Ashley Gerrity and I also spoke during this public comment portion, and argued that students should be given more warning about SAT Subject Tests. While most students are familiar with the SAT, many do not find out about Subject Tests until their senior year of high school. Since many colleges require that students submit 2-3 tests, seniors must then go back and re-learn materials from their sophomore or junior year in order to prepare. We asked that teachers notify students in February and March about the Subject Tests in June so that even underclassmen students, who may be unfamiliar with the college application process, can take Subject Tests immediately after taking the class instead of re-learning the material in senior year. We believe that this simple act of informing students about the tests would make a significant difference in stress during senior year and improve SAT Subject Test scores for students. After this public comment section, School Board president Andrea Swenson thanked us for our input and said she would consider it in the future.

  Next,  Song Chin-Bendib spoke about the Second Interim Report, which detailed the PUSD budget for the next quarter. She hoped the Board would approve the report with a positive certification in order to pass it. Chin-Bendib described how costs to the District would increase within the next quarter because of the increasing CalSTRS contribution rates. This would mean an increase in cost of $330,000 to $334,000 to the District. The main topic of discussion was the CalSTRS On-Behalf Payment, which meant the District had to deposit $35,000 to the reserve due to a State measure. Swensen expressed her frustration with this measure, as it led to more money tied up in the bank, to which Chin-Bendib agreed. Despite the minor discontent, the School Board all voted to approve the Second Interim Report with positive certification.

  Next, Superintendent Booker discussed the Master Facilities Plan for Piedmont High School. He noted that the new plan’s goals are to not only improve the physical learning environment, but also ensure the District is a “21st century learning environment.” According to Booker, this means courses should include more preparation for college and careers along with flexible classrooms that could be adapted for many subjects. For example, a science classroom that is suitable for chemistry, engineering, and biology. Booker also expressed that in the future, he wants to incorporate more STEM facilities to keep up with private schools. School Board member Doug Ireland agreed with Booker, and noted that he had toured some other impressive private school STEAM facilities too, and would like to see them implemented in PHS. Booker then stated that we wanted the community to get involved with the Master Plan as well, and would consider taking parents on tours of the school to give them a better idea of the amenities needed.

    Finally, the principals of Havens, Beach, and Wildwood elementary schools gave a presentation on their plan for next year’s elementary school schedule. With their new plan, they hope to create opportunities for integration of curriculum, support flexibility and creativity, and minimize transition times. They also would like to implement a “STEAM rotation” where grades 2nd through 5th would take classes on computer science, arts, and basic engineering. The School Board requested that the principals provide a detailed schedule with the minutes of each class. However, they were unprepared to do so. Instead, they argued that they trust the teachers to teach equal proportions of each core subject and cover the material needed. After the principals presented their work on the elementary school plan, the School Board allowed for public comment.

    First, president of PAINTS Hillary Davis expressed her concern with the new elementary school schedule. With the increased focus on the “STEM” of “STEAM,” the schools were planning to cut art time for students. She said she was appalled at the fact that six elementary school art assistants were fired and replaced with one certified instructor. Yet Booker said that this was false information as no one was fired and no new teacher was hired yet. Despite this correction, Davis was still upset over the cut in art hours. Next, Piedmont High School teacher and Piedmont parent Auben Willats affirmed the concern about reduced art hours. She noted that her children love art at school, and would be upset to see it cut. Community member Cami Cobb then also agreed that art at school is important and should be preserved during school. Finally, John Chaney continued the pattern of upset over reduced art hours and supported the idea of more poetry, art, and reading time in school.

I also believe that art in school is important, yet STEM programs are also equally and perhaps even more crucial. In elementary school, I enjoyed art class, however I do not believe school is the only place for art. Rather, I often did art at home as well with plenty of free time in elementary school. However, STEM subjects are not typically available at home. Parents are more likely to gift their children crayons instead of a microscope set, and therefore the community should recognize that it is the school’s responsibility to focus on subjects that cannot be learned at home. The community members also may have overlooked the fact that STEM subjects can involve creativity. For example, most computer programming learning websites and resources for kids are very visual and involve plenty of creativity. With further education on the content of the STEM classes, perhaps the community members would be more receptive to a “21st century learning environment.”

After the meeting adjourned, I interviewed Auben Willats about her concern about the reduced art hours. She stated that she volunteers at after-school art classes, and came to the meeting because she believes her daughters will be fine academically, and, therefore, could benefit from more art. Willats also noted that Wildwood currently has the most art hours, and hopes that the other schools will rise up to meet those hours rather than having Wildwood sink down. In order to further express her concern, she will attend a meeting on March 17th about art in school, and also inform the other third grade and kindergarten parents.

By Rachel Fong, Piedmont High School senior

Editors’ Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Mar 17 2016

Report: Student Recommendations, School Taxation, Budget, STEM

Board of Education Hears Reports on Voice Cooperative, Food Drive, SAT Testing, PUSD Budget, STEAM, Taxation for Facilities Master Plan, and  Student Recommendations –

    On March 9, 2016,  the Piedmont Board of Education held one of their bi-monthly meetings that take place on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall.  The Board of Education meets to discuss various aspects of the Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) to ensure the best possible learning community, where students are engaged and have the support to reach their full potential.

    This meeting began with Jenny Hosler, a representative to the Board from Piedmont High School, giving a brief update on what is going on at the High School this month.  She described Voice Cooperative, a student run club that brings in inspiring speakers for lunchtime talks, the two plays that are being performed this week, and the food drive for the Alameda County Food Bank.  Hosler announced that Piedmont High School is the Alameda County Food Bank’s second biggest donor, only after Safeway, averaging 12,000 pounds of food each year.  This year, it is now possible to donate online, so the hope is to reach out further into the community for donations.

Student recommendations

    Board President Andrea Swenson then opened the floor for public comments.  Four groups of high schoolers shared their perspectives on current matters that are being discussed.  Ashley Gerrity and Rachel Fong addressed SAT subject testing, saying they wished teachers would suggest that underclassmen take the corresponding SAT subject test to their AP and Honors classes while the material is still fresh in their minds.  Meredith Aebi brought up the heating system that is possibly broken in the 10s building of the High School and proposed a solution.  Maggie White explained how she believes building a fence around the school would have a negative impact on the learning environment; and finally Lizzie Bjork and I spoke of our positive experiences with small class sizes.

Budget

    Assistant Superintendent Song Chin-Bendib then gave the 2015-16 Second Interim Report.  She spoke of long term budget changes and about how the PUSD budget is in its 3rd year of funding under the Local Control Funding Formula.  She explained the burden of the CalSTRS (California State Teachers Retirement System) payment, which now due to the “phantom” pension expenditure, causes the District to have to record a reserve of money of $1,692,093 as an expense.  She also stated that there is still over half a million dollars set to be used for the 2017-18 school year.  After this budget summary, Board member Amal Smith mover to approve the budget for the 2015-16 school year and for two fiscal years, seconded by Board member Doug Ireland, which was approved by the Board.

Taxation for Facilities Master Plan

    Superintendent Randall Booker spoke next of the Facilities Master Plan, which will be discussed in greater depth at the next meeting.  He gave an overview of some of the major themes that are emerging from meetings with staff and students as the most important goals for this Facilities Master Plan.  The first goal he spoke of was improving the physical learning environment, which includes updating the antiquated energy system as well as making changes to transition to a 21st century learning environment that preps students for future college and career readiness.  The key for this change is to have spaces that are ready for maximum flexibility, like a science room that can be used for chemistry as well as engineering or outdoor space that is ready for experiential learning.  He also spoke of the interest in improving the athletic facilities and changes to mitigate parking.  He announced that the goal to have completed by the April 27th meeting is to partner with the community to create a survey to find out what the appetite is for these changes and for taxation, so that at that meeting there can be discussion about what changes the community really will want to implement and what the priorities are.  President Swenson then emphasized that these changes will not happen without community support and urged the community to email, call, attend meetings, share opinions, and show support in any way possible.

Elementary School Program Design – STEAM

    The Educational Service Report followed, given by the three elementary school principals, Michael Corritone, Anne Dolid, and Carol Cramer.  They spoke of the Instructional Program Design that they have been working on for the elementary schools and where they are in the process.  They have been conversing with a consultant for over a year and are developing in depth prototypes.  Some of the main aspects that they are including in the prototypes are STEAM rotations, allowing every student to be taught art and computer science by a specialist in grades 2-5.  The idea of these STEAM rotations is to create a system where art and computer science are integrated into the curriculum, and these STEAM rotations would be taught by certified specialists.  The principals also explained other opportunities that have grown from the prototypes in the works, like a library commons system and a full kindergarten day.

President Swesen then opened the floor to public comments again, and Hilary Davis, the president of Paints, an organization that strives to promote art in the schools stepped up to the podium.  She said that she was shocked to hear that with these prototypes, all six art specialists had been let go with the plan to hire one certified specialist and that the time for art in schools had been cut in half.  Superintendent Booker then spoke, wanting to assure everybody that nobody had been let go yet, and there are contracts that go until the end of the year.  Auban Willats then stood to state her concern as a parent for what seems like a drastic reduction in art and music education in these prototypes.  Elementary school art teacher, Kammy Cobb then stood to share her expert opinion that cutting art class to 40 minutes does not allow enough time to accomplish everything that goes into an art class, like a demo and clean up.  Finally, John Chainey, a Wildwood parent, stood to state his support for more art, music, writing, and poetry in the schools, and brought up the idea of bringing the resource of the talent of the community into the schools.

After the meeting, Suzie Skugstad, shared her cause for attending in an interview.  She is one of the Wildwood art teachers who is being let go, since she is not officially certified.  She believes that these new prototypes will “decimate the art program by cutting the amount of time the kids will get art to less than half and maybe even one third.”  She believes that the prototypes are also cutting out “art for art’s sake,” by making much of the art tied into other subjects and assessed and critiqued.  I agree with her that while integrating art into the curriculum can enrich the materials of the other subjects, it is also extremely important to have art alone, solely for the sake of creating art.  Her next step is to attend the March 17 meeting and find out if the prototypes are available to parents online.

Allie Frankel, Piedmont High School senior

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Mar 10 2016

Piedmont History Walking Tour March 25 and April 2

Then and Now Walking Tour of Piedmont and the Mountain View Cemetery

The Piedmont Historical Society and the Piedmont League of Women Voters are sponsoring free walking tours of Piedmont’s “rich and colorful history.” The three mile walks on March 25 and April 2 will focus on Piedmont pioneer Walter Blair.

Piedmont “Then and Now” Walking Tour Details
On Friday, March 25, the Piedmont League of Women Voters, in collaboration with the Piedmont Historical Society, will launch the first in a series of free, guided walks featuring Piedmont’s rich and colorful history. The first walk will be repeated on Saturday, April 2.

In addition to offering brisk, outdoor exercise, the series of “Then and Now Walks” will cover Piedmont’s growth from a few scattered ranches in the mid-1800’s to an incorporated city, providing fascinating background on early residents, as well as on water and transportation infrastructure, parks, architecture and more.

Both the March 25 and April 2 walks will begin at 10 a.m. at the corner of Highland and Blair Avenues and end at the starting place by noon. The approximately 3-mile walk will cover the northwest portion of pioneer Walter Blair’s 650-acre ranchland, which stretched from what is now Scenic Avenue down to Grand Avenue, encompassing much of today’s Piedmont.

On the walk, guides Chris Read and Marj Blackwell, will point out the site of Blair ‘s one-room cabin, his dairy farm, his rock quarry in Dracena Park, and — after traversing Piedmont neighborhoods that once were ranchland — head into Mountain View Cemetery to see where Blair is buried.

The return walk will head back uphill on streets adjacent to Moraga Avenue, where Blair’s streetcar line ran from downtown Oakland to the entrance to his park at Highland Avenue. The walk will end on Waldo Avenue, the site of Blair’s spacious ranch house and formal gardens.

On a scale of 1 (easy) to 5 (more difficult), this walk is rated a 3 in difficulty.

The League’s “Then and Now Walks” are open to all but are limited to the first 30 who sign up. To RSVP, email marjb@sbcglobal.net by March 23 for the Friday, March 25 walk, and by March 31 for Saturday, April 2 walk.

If heavy rain cancels the walks, participants will be notified by or before the morning of the walks. Piedmont maps and historic information will be available for sale at the walks.

In late April, a second walk will focus on development of central Piedmont, including the popular Piedmont Springs Hotel, which burned down in 1898, the Sulphur Springs in Piedmont Park, historic houses built by prominent residents Jesse Wetmore and Hugh Craig, and classic Victorian houses on Rose and Kingston Avenues. Dates and details will be forthcoming.

Future walks may feature Piedmont’s underground springs — the only source of early residents’ water; transportation, from horse-drawn wagons to streetcar lines, and Piedmont homes designed by prominent architects, then and now. For more information, email marjb@sbcglobal.net .

PCA Piedmont Photo 316

Feb 23 2016

Enrollment for Piedmont Elementary Schools: March 8

Announcement:

Piedmont Unified School District

 TK-5 Elementary Enrollment Day

Please join us for the

PUSD Elementary Enrollment Day on March 8th.

Location: Ellen Driscoll Playhouse:

325 Highland Avenue

To minimize wait time, please sign up in advance to confirm your time slot:

http://data.piedmont.k12.ca.us/elementary/

Please visit the district website for more information on enrollment, required documents and other information: www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/district-info/enrollment

Feb 22 2016

OPINION: School Tax Not Assessed on Some Piedmont Parcels

No tax on parcels results in over $1 million School District revenue loss.

On February 11th at the invitation of Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) Superintendent Randall Booker, I met with PUSD attorney Mark Williams to hear his perspective on issues I had raised about the legality of exempting certain assessors’ parcels from payment of the school support tax, Measure A. The discussion turned out to be relatively pointless, however, since the District had already quietly decided to continue all current exemptions based on Mr. Williams’ assurances that these exemptions would withstand a legal challenge. This was done with the concurrence of the School Board in spite of a substantial loss in revenue.

His presentation was thorough — although at times confusing, especially on points seemingly irrefutable. Nine months ago Mr. Williams himself said only owners who qualified for SSI were legally exempted. He now believes the other Piedmont exemptions are perfectly legal, based on his review of case law. However, the relevance of case law is questionable. The very court filing that necessitated Measure A in the first place said, “The courts cannot recalibrate the taxing power statutorily delegated to local entities;; any adjustments in that regard must be made by the state Legislature.”

There was a lengthy discussion about exemptions given to church-owned parcels. The State Board of Equalization defines Measure A as a special assessment tax and not a property tax, and makes it clear that churches, while exempt from property taxes, are not exempt from special assessments. A clause initially in the proposed measure that would have allowed this exemption was not in the full text of the final measure. My research shows that other churches in Alameda County cities are indeed paying their respective school taxes as a special assessment.

The attorney did not cite a law that allows a property owner to exempt only the Piedmont school tax from his other special assessments such as the city municipal services tax. Also, the exemption given to small, unimproved second parcels, which enable an owner to pay the school tax only once, may be an equitable district policy but is evidently not a law that would take precedence over Measure A. After the measure became effective, three owners legally combined their two parcel lots into one, and thereby avoided paying the tax twice without need of an exemption.

The meeting was ended without discussing the single parcel lots that have an Oakland street address but are also partially in Piedmont. According to the measure, parcels partially in Piedmont are to be taxed. Two are paying the tax but ten are not.

In summary, I heard scant justification for continuing the exemptions that I believe to be unlawful based on the documents I have read. The measure itself allowed no such exemptions, and would be unlawful if it had.

Several questions remain unanswered. Why are some parcels in a given group exempted but others are not? For every parcel that is being exempted, I have identified a similar one that is not being exempted — several even side-by-side on the same street. Only 15 of the 77 vacant residential parcels are exempted. The district is well aware that these exemptions are being made but no one has as yet taken responsibility for making them.

At the very least, Piedmont Unified School District owes the taxpayers a plausible explanation as to why it makes sense to continue these exemptions. Seven more parcels have been added since the measure became law. What does the district gain in exchange for giving up more than a million dollars in revenue over the eight-year life of the measure?

William Blackwell, Piedmont Resident

Read prior Blackwell article. 

Editors’ Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Feb 6 2016

Planning Commission: Undergrounding of Utilities near 408 Linda Avenue Removed from Agenda and Project Reviews for Annual City Design Awards

The developers of the 408 Linda Avenue condominium project have asked that their request to eliminate utility undergrounding of overhead utilities serving the properties across Linda Avenue not be considered at the Monday, February 8, 2016, the Planning Commission meeting.  The condominiums are under construction on the site of the former PG&E building site next to the Oakland Avenue bridge.  In the past, the issue has proven to be controversial.

The agenda had listed the item as:

MINOR AMENDMENT TO A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP

408 Linda Avenue

“An application for Minor Amendments to an Approved Tentative Map has been submitted by Piedmont Station LLC, project developers of the Piedmont Station Townhouse development proposed at 408 Linda Avenue (the site of a former PG&E Substation). The Application seeks to modify the utility plan of the approved Vesting Tentative Map so that overhead utilities serving the properties across Linda Avenue remain in place on the project’s Linda Avenue street frontage, and to modify Condition SUB-5 placed on the approval of Vesting Tentative Map (Application #11-0062).”

The Planning Commission meeting is an open public meeting and broadcast live on Cable Channel 27 and live streamed on the City website.

The Planning Commission annually presents design awards to selected projects constructed during the prior year.

The Regular Session  of the Commission will start at 5 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers and will be suspended for a “Special Session,” open to the public, in the City Hall Conference Room at approximately 6:30 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. during the time when the Commission takes their dinner break. During their break, the Commission will review projects completed in 2015 for the City’s annual Design Awards program, and will select winners for the March 14th Design Awards Presentation and Reception.

The “Special Session” will not be recorded or broadcast.  The Regular Session will resume immediately after the Special Session dinner break.

 

Feb 1 2016

Dracena Park Off-leash Dog Area: Wed. Feb. 3 Park Commission Public Hearing

The Piedmont Park Commission will meet on Wednesday, February 3 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue.

The Commission will discuss the issue of the Dracena Park off-leash dog area and make a recommendation to the City Council.  To date there have been differing opinions on how the upper grassy area and redwood dell of Dracena Park should be used.

The public is invited to contribute to the discussion.

February 3 Agenda:

Public Hearing on Dracena Park off-leash dog area

Update on Crocker Park Garage Pool Equipment Relocation

Update on Hampton Park, Brick Donation Fund Raising

Update on Crocker Park Garage

Update on Highland Garden Walk

The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable Channel 27 and via the City of Piedmont website. < click

Read detailed Dracena Park staff report and history here. 

Read previous article on Dracena Park off-leash dog area here.

Read GUIDELINES FOR ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF SUCCESSFUL OFF-LEASH DOG EXERCISE AREAS here.

« Previous Page | Next Page »