Dear Fellow Piedmonters,
Let me explain why I am advocating for and endorsing Measure Y – the renewal of Piedmont’s Municipal Parcel Tax. Measure Y is neither a new nor tax increase, and every dollar collected stays in Piedmont to benefit Piedmont citizens.
The $1.63 million generated from the 32 year old parcel tax is critical to balancing the City’s $22.4 million budget, at a cost of less than $9 per week for most households.
Some have asked what would be cut if the existing parcel tax, representing 7.28% of the City’s budget, is not renewed. This would ultimately be decided by the City Council, after much public input. Let’s look at some of the possible cuts:
- Eliminate Library Services - $350,000
- Eliminate or reduce funding for equipment and facilities reserves - $900,000
- Draw down the City’s $2.8 million General Fund reserve
- Reduce police and fire staffing to generate $1.63 million, representing 16.5% of the $9.9 million personnel budget – translating to a headcount reduction of about 9 employees
- Cut salaries of every employee by over 15% or $1.63 million of the $10.7 million salary budget
- Reduce maintenance services for public parks, facilities and fields
None of the above options will be easy to implement and many would be very unpopular. How realistic are these choices?
- Reduce or eliminate equipment and facilities reserves funding - is counter to the Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC) recommendation, is not prudent, and robs from the future to pay for current costs, with failure to replace public safety equipment and maintain buildings impacting service levels
- Draw up to $1.63 million of General Fund reserves - would leave the City with under a 6% reserve, far below the MTRC recommended 15%
- Reduce public safety staffing - would impact the quality of services and reduce safety levels
- Reduce employee salaries by over 15% - will take time, be subject to good faith bargaining and labor laws, with potential turnovers impacting service levels
The City Council has and will continue to take proactive steps to deal with the complexity and rising cost of employee benefits over time, with the goal that any future increase in benefit costs will be covered by employees. We will be hiring an employee benefits consultant to identify additional options.
The bottom-line - The City needs the renewal of the parcel tax to remain financially sound and to maintain Piedmont’s high quality services.
Please vote yes on Measure Y.
Respectfully,
John Chiang, Mayor
Editor's note: Letters to the editor are published at the discretion of Piedmont Patch's editor in accordance with the site's Terms of Use. If you have a letter you would like to have considered for publication, please e-mail it to dixie.jordan@patch.com. Letters should be no longer than 600 words and will not be posted anonymously. Please include a daytime phone number with your email in case we need to contact you for verification or questions. Your phone number will not be published.
Don't miss a day of Piedmont news, opinion and events. Sign up for the Piedmont Patch e-newsletter here. And 'like' us on Facebook!
Further, my opinions about both the opponents and the necessity of passing Measure Y are neither inappropriate nor unfounded. I have watched the people who are currently opposing this measure for 8 years since I paid attention to city council proceedings, and I believe they are pushing their own various agendas at the expense of the city as a whole. And, 12 years ago if the Piedmont EMT's had not arrived at our door in less than three minutes and been incredibly effective in reviving my husband, he wouldn't be here today. The doctors at the hospital told me this. If I'm not entitled to an opinion on that then who is? Those who want to defeat Measure Y may want to experiment to see which services will be cut, how bad the effects will be and take their chances, but I'm not willing to do that and I don't think it's fair for them to impose their experiments on the rest of us.
I really don't see how you can stand by that comment. It' fine to debate the issues and but to label others as "detractors" who don't have the city's best interest at heart - that is an attack on character and is out of line.
It is instructive to note who is leading the campaign in support of Measure Y and who is leading the opposition. In active support of Measure Y are nine former Piedmont mayors and the current Piedmont Mayor, John Chiang---all of whom have had actual responsibility for running the City of Piedmont and providing for Piedmont's fiscal health. Leading the opposition are two men, Ryan Gilbert and Tim Rood, who each ran for City Council and lost. They are two men whose ideas and proposals were rejected by the voters. They are two men who have never governed in Piedmont [or anywhere else, for that matter]. But having been unable to obtain majority votes for City Council, in the grand tradition of Howard Jarvis, and aided by the Proposition 13's 2/3 super-majority voting requirement, they want their minority ideas about budget management to hamstring Piedmont city government and diminish the type of city services that have made Piedmont the envy of every community in Northern California. There is absolutely no chance that Rood and Gilbert's fiscal ideas will ever represent a majority in Piedmont and there is no chance that Measure Y will obtain less than a majority of votes in this year's election. But what Rood and Gilbert are counting on is that by getting 1/3 of the votes, plus one, they can put themselves in the position to dictate fiscal policy for Piedmont and enforce their minority ideas. We shouldn't let that happen.
And, while being misinformed and not understanding the facts, your letter was mean-spirited. Demand fiscal responsibility from our elected officials. Vote No on Measure Y
You and I have known each other since grammer school, we have a lot of years (decades) in this little town, we all care about Piedmont. In your letter, you use of the phrase "stick it" and you claim that the No on Y people are just a "small" group that does not have the best interests of our community at heart. Lets all review the reality of facts and arithmetic: 144 of your PHUUD little group got bailed out to the tune of 2.5 million. Bad legal advise (Kurtin lawsuit) from your group cost us $685,000 Crest Road wash out costs $300,000.....plea from your group....again. Blair Park gift......(after Nov 6 vote) it will be $350,000...your group again. You were a member of the PRFO legal team? etc, etc, etc............... You stated that Piedmont has a reputation for great services and schools. Karen, you forget to mention Piedmont also has the reputation of a Ol two-tiered City where a small group (larger lot owners) of citizen's has a unfair/unhealthy influence on the administration, direction and decisions at City Hall. The math record (2+2=4) tells us: its your group that is "sticking it" ! The whole "Let Them Eat Cake" social culture-club is bankrupting Piedmont. So Karen, who really has.....the best interests of our whole community at heart? Vote No on Y Neil Teixeira
Thanks, Dixie J.
As to Mr. Saperstein’s comments concerning the City’s ill-advised Anti-SLAPP motion against the Kurtin’s, it is unfortunate the City was not afforded Mr. Saperstein’s expert opinion requiring “ten minutes of legal research” as the total taxpayer bill was in excess of $600,000. Perhaps City attorney Peyton should have advised appropriately. A web search reveals a letter on Mr. Saperstein’s letterhead cautioning Bert Kurtin and others that “Any attempt to stop this [undergrounding] project at this late date by litigation also would put you and your clients at risk pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute.” URL: http://bkurtin.wordpress.com/. Letter: http://bkurtin.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/saperstein-threat.pdf As Mr. Saperstein states, the City could not avail itself of Anti-SLAPP. Were the undergrounding districts contemplating an Anti-SLAPP motion in the event of litigation? I would appreciate clarification of the apparent contradiction in Mr. Saperstein’s May 2009 letter and his Patch comment now.
There is some irony in this whole affair which you are missing. Kurtin had a dead-bang losing case on the merits---no chance whatsoever of prevailing. But when the city brought the losing Anti-SLAPP action, it gave Kurtin leverage in the litigation he never would have had and ultimately forced the city to abandon the litigation on the merits, thus sinking the Seaview undergrounding district, which had obtained a clear majority in voting. Thus, while opponents of undergrounding complain about the city's Anti-SLAPP action, it was, in fact, the reason why Kurtin's otherwise losing lawsuit was able to override the clear majority of his neighbors' support for undergrounding.
In Mr. Saperstein’s signed letter to me on his very stylish letterhead prior to the filing our lawsuit against the City, he wrote that “We wish to warn you that any such action would risk incurring millions of dollars in damages to the neighborhoods for which you would be held responsible.” Not shy about tooting his horn, he bragged to me that he “once obtained more than a million dollars in damages and attorneys fees in an anti-SLAPP action.” Mr. Saperstein might now claim that he was just offering a bit of friendly advice in trying to dissuade us from doing what we did, but there is no way that anyone could possibly construe his words as anything but a threat. An accomplished attorney such as Guy Saperstein should know that when he either blatantly lies or can’t recall the facts, he no longer is credible.
I wonder why no one called John on his proposed alternative of lowering employee salaries by 15%. Public employees have contractural protection written into the State constitution. I had worked for four differerent East Bay jurisdictions for collectively 41 years and I never once saw an employee's salary go down. In budget crunches, those with the least senority and lowest salaries get laid off while the rest go right on with their step raises built into their contracts. Piedmont salaries are high but not out of line according to the prevailing wage surveys. That is how salaries and benefits are set in local government. It's not a good system because it bears no relationship to the economic viability of the respective jurisdictions. But the public employee's unions in Sacramento have been calling the shots since before Willie Brown was Speaker of the Assembly. And they will remain in charge until some measure like Prop 32 finally passes. Cities that have tried to save money by just asking employees to contribute more to their pensions or health plans are being sued. Even the Governor's recent Anti final year salary spiking is being challenged in court.