Tax Committee Delivers Closing Statements

Before the unanimous vote to forward the report to City Council, the members of the Municipal Tax Review Committee, along with the city council members and the city administrator who have been following along with the development of the document over the past five months, went around the table at City Council chambers Wednesday putting in their final two cents.

Eric Lindquist kicked things off with a question for Councilman Jeff Wieler about :

"There is something that I don't understand, and that is the comment that financially Piedmont is in, 'terrific shape.' ... [The tax committee's report] would not summarize by saying Piedmont is financially in, 'terrific shape.' ... I'd be interested in why you feel that way and where you feel this committee is wrong with regard to the recommendations it has made which go contrary to that statement."

Councilman Jeff Wieler replied:

"We're not laying off police, we're not closing firehouses, our parks are in good shape, we're maintaining our streets, and we have substantial reserves. Most cities would kill to be in our financial position. ...

"I also agree with you that there are ... financial issues that need to be addressed. For example, we need to be budgeting for equipment replacement, facilities maintenance, we need to rein in employee compensation, we can't take on exciting new ventures, as much as we might want to."

Linquist's rebuttal:

"However you might term the city's finances, there are storm clouds on the horizon. ...

I hope that the things that we are recommending to the City Council actually take place. ... [Then] maybe four years from now we might actually be able to say financially Piedmont is in, 'terrific shape.'"

Robert McBain then picked up the baton:

"I do kind of agree with Jeff ... that this has been tough times for many many cities, and counties, states, whatever, and we're kind of weathering the storm here. That should suggest that we have good people and we have good management.

McBain was the first to bring up the Piedmont Hills utility undergrounding project, which went awry, costing the city millions and rattling confidence in city leadership's ability to handle big projects.

"That was a big blow, but we survived that. … There's a lot of talk about the and , … I would hope that the city, the community, doesn't think as a whole that the city can't take on projects. … That would be a wrong thing.

"The city did do two undergrounding projects that didn't cost a lot of money. We did redo Dracena Park. … Every year we do the streets as far as I know. … We are capable of doing things that are constructive for the city."

Steven Hollis, who leaned toward giving the city leadership more leeway in deciding how to resolve Piedmont's financial issues during the committee's debates, was next:

"The unanimous recommendation of this committee is that this parcel tax is an essential part of the city's budget going forward for the forseeable future until and unless the basic property tax revenue reasserts itself.

"Where we differed was on ... how best to encourage the City Council to take our financial management recommendations seriously. ... It was disheartening to discover that so many of our citizens … have lost so much trust and confidence in our elected officials that they think the only way that we can encourage the city to adopt these recommendations would be to oppose the vote unless those recommendations were adopted."

Tamra Hege was one of the four committee members who signed on to an insisting that City Council take the committee's advice before they endorse the parcel tax:

"I'm not against new things in town, I just want to be sure everybody looks at it and says, well, how much is this going to cost over the next 10 years. … I think it's really important for us to look forward and plan." 

David Brown didn't sign on to the letter, but he made his concern perfectly clear:

"I don't like the condition of the city now financially. We're doing some things that we shouldn't be doing. I don't take comfort in the fact that we're less worse off than somebody else, that's not the city that I live in, I have higher expectations than that. … I believe it's now incumbent on the city council to make some hard choices. …

"This committee is very different than the others. … [Both of the previous committees] said the city needs the money, we're doing a good job, let's pass the parcel tax. That's not the conclusion we've come to."

Stephen Weiner identified himself as another of the committee members who's lost confidence in City Council. He alluded to how the council dealt with for additional playing space and in Moraga Canyon and the to prevent another debacle like the Piedmont Hills undergrounding:

"I don't see a council that's listening very carefully or open-mindedly. ... I don't sense that the council is particularly good at learning from mistakes. ... I think the council can do better. I think the council has to do better. I hope that in response to the report that I will be surprised … I'd like to be surprised."

Weiner looked over at Councilman Wieler and Councilman John Chiang as he delivered that last line.

Ryan Gilbert put in a reminder about the committee's recommendation for a —the supporting material for which he helped write. 

"I really hope that regardless of the outcome of the parcel tax … that nothing is done by anyone to delay the sewer tax … so [City Administrator Geoff Grote] and [Public Works Director Chester Nakahara] and the team can get on with the job."

Councilman John Chiang took note of the fact that this tax committee was not like the others.

"Of all the [municipal tax review committees] I've been involved with, I'd say this one takes the cake in terms of  the talent, and the effort and the fine report that's been written."

He gave a thumbs up to the committee's ideas for a standing budget advisory committee to help consider financial decisions strategically, for multi-year planning, and for a 15 percent general fund reserve target.

As for the making sure that the city has knows how it got saddled with the bill for undergrounding overruns and takes measures to avoid such debacles in the future, Chiang said that's not up to the Audit Subcommittee that he sits on. He said it's up to the council.

"It's something I feel needs to be done at the council level and the council giving direction to the staff. I will definitely take a very strong approach and voice in terms of making things happen … I'll make that commitment."

City Administrator Geoff Grote underscored the gravity of the issues raised by the committee's report.

"To the extent that discussions of how to best protect all expenses at Blair Park or have no expenses for the pool ... become litmus tests, I think could … be the difference between whether or not the 66.66% (needed for passage of the parcel tax) is achievable. …

"If the tax fails ... one can close the pool and stop the contract for library services with Oakland and be lucky to save $800,000 of the $1,550,000 that is brought in by the parcel tax. That other half would have to come from the things that everybody in the room believes in—fire and police and public works maintenance."

Michael Rancer, the committee chairman, had the last word.

"The tax is now a given. How do we live within the tax … in what has really become an era of limits—that's the thrust of our report. … I'll be watching very closely what the council does before making a decision on an endorsement of a ballot measure."

City Council picks up the discussion Tuesday when the committee's report will be on the agenda.