Pro and Con Speakers Spark Serious Discussion – 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Want more information?

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

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

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

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

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

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

School Taxes Challenged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resident explains reasons to vote No on School Support Tax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

School District ballot language for Measure A 

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

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

The following report was prepared by the Police Chief for the Council meeting of February 4, in City Hall.  

City of Piedmont COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT : February 4, 2013

FROM: Rikki Goede, Chief of Police

SUBJECT: Update to Council and Community on Police Department Response toCrime and Consideration of Authorization to Hire Ahead of Known and Probable Vacancies

RECOMMENDATION

Authorize the Chief of Police to immediately begin the process to hire ahead of known and probable vacancies within the Department to minimize gaps in patrol services.

DISCUSSION

On January 21, 2013, two armed home invasion robberies occurred within thirty minutes of each other. The first robbery occurred on Estates Drive and, while officers were investigating that crime, a second occurred on Arroyo Drive. The same suspects are believed to be involved in both robberies. These two incidents, combined with an increase in residential and auto burglaries have,understandably, increased the fear of crime within the community of Piedmont and has the residents demanding to know what steps are being taken by the police department to address the crime issues. This report will serve to update the Council and community on the actions taken by the police department in response to these crimes.

BACKGROUND

Upon assuming the Police Chief role on January 22, 2013, I immediately began an assessment of the Department’s staffing. The Department is authorized 28 full time employees, including 20 sworn personnel. Due to a combination of retirements, disability status, and frozen positions, the Department is currently at 22 full time employees. Without question this has hindered the Department’s ability to effectively respond to and investigate criminal activity. It also impacts the Department’s ability to maintain a minimum on duty staffing of one sergeant and two officers that is critical to the safety of our officers.

With regard to the aforementioned, the Department has taken the following immediate actions:
 Overtime has been authorized to backfill positions and ensure the minimum
staffing is met at all times.
 The number of paid reserves (primarily retired officers) has been increased from two to five allowing for more patrol resources.
 I have reached out to two local Bay Area departments who have provided investigative resources to assist our detective in the investigation of the home
invasion robberies. Additionally, we are working with Oakland investigators who
are following up on home invasions in their city with similar suspect descriptions
to the two committed in Piedmont.
 Overtime has been authorized for two officers to continue the investigative efforts on the other open criminal investigations.
 The determination of the benefit to offering a reward will be discussed with the investigators as well as the timing of such.
 Currently, the Department has two new officers in the final hiring process who are anticipated to begin field training next month. It is important to understand that field training for the aforementioned new hires will take a minimum of four
months and up to six months to complete. These officers have already completed
a police academy or that time would be extended by another four to six months.
 The Department is seeking Council authorization to actively begin hiring ahead for anticipated vacancies in an effort to minimize potential patrol gaps. Given that the Department is anticipating the possibility of five retirements in the coming year, it is important to prepare and minimize any gaps in patrol services these retirements will cause.
 The Department has already met with a vendor that provides license plate
reader/video surveillance services and is waiting for a final cost estimate from the
vendor to report to Council.

Finally, I want to reiterate that Piedmont remains a very safe community, however, it is not immune to the same issues facing every city in the state. For this reason, community collaboration and vigilance are essential to maintaining our safety. Neighborhood Watch programs have never been more necessary, and I will be working very closely with the Public Safety Committee and the community at large to increase participation in this valuable tool. Without question, 11,000 pairs of eyes watching out for the community are better than 20.

Ellen Driscoll Playhouse on February 3 – 

The public is invited to join the Piedmont Asian American Club and Piedmont Language School to celebrate the Lunar Year of the Snake on Sunday, February 3, from 12:30 to 3 pm at the Ellen Driscoll Playhouse, Highland Ave., Piedmont.  The program will include: Chinese folk dance, Taiko drummers,  calligraphy, and Lunar New Year arts and crafts. Light refreshments will be served.  Admission is $8 for members of the Piedmont Asian American Club & Piedmont Language School, and $10 for general admission at the door.

More information is on the flyer.

Difference Between Types of Exemptions- 

Dear Editor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,

Jim McCrea,  Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

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

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

35 Regional School Districts have age 65 Senior Exemption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two more home invasions in Piedmont -Sturdy front door and locks advised

On Monday, January 21, 2013 at 6:12 a.m., Piedmont Police received a report that unknown person(s) rang the doorbell of a home in the 100 block of Estates Drive at about 6 a.m. There was no description of the person(s).
At 6:20 a.m., Piedmont Police received a report that three tall black male adults, in their early to mid-20’s, wearing dark clothing and bandanas over their faces had kicked in the front door of another home in the 100 block of Estates Drive. One suspect with a short barreled rifle or shotgun confronted one resident in the home. Another suspect with a semi-auto handgun confronted the other resident. Both residents were told to “lay down” while the suspects ransacked the home. Suspects looked for and asked about money, which was not available. Suspects took change, a computer monitor and a small jewelry box.

Oakland Police officers  in the Estates Drive area were contacted.  They advised Piedmont officers that they were searching for subjects fitting the description of the robbery suspects because of a suspicious persons call in Oakland near the Piedmont border.

At 6:53 a.m., while officers were still investigating the home invasion robbery on Estates Drive, Piedmont Police received a report from a resident in the unit block of Arroyo Avenue — on the opposite side of Piedmont from Estates Drive– that three to five black male adults in their early to mid-20’s had kicked in the front door of the residence. Most suspects were described as thin, one as heavy set. One adult resident was confronted by a suspect who was armed with a hand gun. This resident screamed and was punched by the suspect, and forced to the floor. One additional suspect was armed with a short barreled rifle or shotgun. Another suspect locked the other resident in the basement when he tried to come upstairs to assist. The suspects ransacked the home, attempting to take computer and video equipment. They attempted to remove a safe.  The other victim escaped the basement and went to a neighbor to call the police. A black female adult suspect waiting in a silver or gray, newer-style full-size SUV, similar to a Suburban with left front damage, apparently called the suspects in the home by cell phone. The suspects fled the home. When the first victim tried to follow, a suspect fired a shot toward the residence. This shot passed through the glass of a front window of the residence before exiting through a rear window to the outside.

Previous home invasions occurred in Piedmont on the evening of January 7 in the 100 block of Indian Road  and the evening of December 12 in the 100 block of  Scenic Avenue.  These types of crimes are also on the rise in nearby communities. Piedmont Police are working cooperatively with robbery investigators throughout Alameda County.  Residents are encouraged to check the quality of their door and window locks, ensure they have ample motion sensor lighting on their homes, consider an alarm system, and to report suspicious activities to the police immediately. If all of this fails to discourage criminals and you are the victim of an armed crime, do not risk the safety of yourself or your family members. When the criminals have left the area, immediately phone 9-1-1 to request assistance.

If you have any information that may help investigators identify these suspects or if you would like to sponsor a neighborhood watch meeting to help keep residents informed and involved, please call Detective George Phifer at (510) 420-3013.

New community asset receives 10,200 visits –

Since opening its doors in September 2011, Piedmont adults and children have made more than 10,200 visits to various musical and theater performances, art exhibits, classes and activities at the Piedmont Art Center during its debut year.

Nancy Lehrkind, President of the Arts Center, enthusiastically notes, “Our design was for an arts organization, which would grow organically out of community need and usage.  Clearly there is demand for a full-on Arts Center in Piedmont.  We have recently formed the Piedmont Players acting troupe and will be producing two nights of plays in April.  The Center has also acquired a wonderful film projector and will be sponsoring a community film series, as well as hosting a screening from Colin Trevorrow (Piedmont grad) on his award-winning film.  More and more community members realize they have their own Arts Center and can use it for whatever artistic purposes they dream up!”

Lehrkind stated that Piedmont Art Center events and activities over the past year have included:

• Authors Series and Speakers series
  • authors such as Nate Verkus and Anna Quindlan attended by more than 290 adults
  • speakers such as U.S. Ambassador to Australia Jeff Bleich, Peter Doctor, Pixar Animator and Film Director, and Steve Ellis, Bain and Company worldwide director, attended by more than 240 people
    
• Weekly theatrical and musical performances
  • average attendance of 70 people for a total of 3,640 people
• Art Gallery Exhibits every 2 weeks and Artists’ Receptions twice a month
  • average 25 visitors (open 3 afternoons per week), for a total of 650 people
  • average 80 visitors to the twice a month Artists’ Reception, for a total of 2,000 people
• Ongoing Children’s Theater and Singing Classes
  • 5 classes per week from September through June  (including Saturday) for 20 children
  • 3 performances with 200 in attendance
• Summer Camps utilized by 100 children
  • 2 different summer camps (one of which had a waiting list)
  • 3 performances of Annie by the children’s theatre group with over 275 adults attending.
• Special Events and Activities
  • Artisanal Brewing Competition attracted 170 people
  • Ann Martin counseling services
  • Periodic Writing Class

The non-profit Piedmont Arts Center was granted a 10-year lease of the West Wing of 801 Magnolia for $1 per year, based on its agreement to renovate the deteriorated West Wing space.  Under its agreement, the Arts Center has provided interior paint, carpeting, installed 12 new double-paned windows, installed extensive drainage under and around the building ($10,000), performed seismic work and asbestos abatement, added air conditioning, and new electrical and plumbing for the West Wing, as well as installing a new furnace and ducting, and refurbishing wood floors. In addition, it has provided new landscaping, a new roof over the West Wing, and exterior paint for the entire building.  In the East Wing, the Arts Center installed an interior fire wall and ADA-compliant bathrooms, which serves the entire building.

To date, the total investment by the Arts Center in Magnolia property renovations and improvements total $136,000, funded through a combination of private donations and capital contributions provided by the Arts Center founders.  An additional $30,000 was spent to bring the East Wing bathrooms up to code, and the Arts Center anticipates spending a further $15,000 shortly to install an ADA compliant ramp or lift in the East Wing.  The City of Piedmont has paid for the replacement of sewer lines under the building.

All who pass the building at Magnolia and Bonita Avenue have noticed the dramatic changes in the city-owned property.  In addition to the freshly painted exterior, the lawn has been replaced with  lovely, well-maintained  landscaping.  The Arts Center paid Cleary Brothers to demolish and remove all old trees, remove shrubs, remove sod, prepare the soil, and install new sod, while the City provided 10 Cape Magnolia trees, 2 Dogwood trees, and 5 espalier plants for the patios.  In-ground lighting was provided by the Arts Center, and rear benches and other improvements added through more than 7 Eagle Scout and Boy Scout projects.  The City has generously continued to provide additional plant materials, garden improvements and landscape maintenance, making the property an attractive addition to the Piedmont Civic Center.  The City also provides trash service and building maintenance to 801 Magnolia.  (Trash service is generally provided to all city buildings without separate charge under standard city garbage franchise agreements.)

801 Magnolia after Renovations

Front entrance to 801 Magnolia before renovations

Rotted windows prior to renovation