2,842 / 59.8% Yes votes ...... 1,908 / 40.2% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

Voters may choose to reduce City services to a very basic level of services by passing only Measure S or they may choose to preserve current services levels by passing both Measure S and Measure T. Measure T will provide $300,000 each year which is needed to maintain current service levels. Although no one can state with certainty which City services will be reduced without this tax, failure to raise these funds will cause changes in the operation of the City.

This situation may be further impacted by the loss of state revenues from Vehicle License Fees. This major loss of revenue was not taken into account by the Municipal Services Tax Committee. The City Finance Director estimates that this could cost the City approximately $450,000 each year and would increase the projected City deficit by $1,800,000 over the next four years.

Measure T cannot be passed without Measure S. Voters wishing to continue City services at their current level must vote for both measures. Without the passage of both measures, the City may well be forced into very significant reductions in City services.

s/GEORGE S. PEYTON, JR.
City Attorney

LWV Piedmont Pros & Cons Presentation Thursday, February 5, 2004 at 7:30 PM Piedmont Community Center

This program was taped by KCOM and will be rebroadcast. Check Piedmont's Web site http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us for the KCOM schedule.

Piedmonter

• Parcel taxes debated - February 13, 2004
• Officials stump for measures - February 6, 2004
• Seven additional neighborhood meetings - 1/30/04

Measure T will help maintain the services that make Piedmont special+well-groomed parks and medians, quality recreation programs for children and adults, access to fine library systems, and properly maintained street and sidewalks. Part of your home's value is directly attributable to the beauty of our City along with its reputation for providing a level of services not found elsewhere in the East Bay.

As this ballot argument is being written, the Governor has reduced the Vehicle License Fee (VLF). Money raised by the VLF has always gone to local governments for emergency and public safety services. Unless the State somehow finds billions of dollars to "backfill" local governments, Piedmont will lose $450,000 a year. Even if we receive funding this year, the State's ongoing budget problems mean that VLF funds will remain at risk.

Measure T will raise up to $300,000 annually. If our city no longer receives full VLF funding, Measure T funds will be needed to support core police, fire and paramedic services instead of the intended park, street, recreation and library services.

Your City Council is committed to keeping taxes as low as possible. Historically, if the full amount of the parcel tax is not needed, the council has reduced the annual levy.

The Municipal Tax Review Committee determined that Measure T revenues are essential. The City Council agrees but is providing voters with a choice in these difficult economic times.

Please vote yes on Measures S and T.

s/VALERIE MATZGER, Mayor
s/JOHN CHIANG, Chair,
2003 Municipal Tax Review Committee
s/ABE FRIEDMAN, Councilmember
s/CARLW. ANDERSON, Piedmont resident
s/LINDSEY MEYERSIECK, Piedmont resident

The financial need for the two taxes arises because of huge new pension commitments the city has made to its employees. While those commitments are in the public record, supporters of the taxes will not admit to them in the ballot arguments. Instead, Measure S is presented as being essential for public safety and Measure T is tied to city beautification.

The reality is that the money generated by both taxes will go into the State's public employees retirement fund, where it will be invested until needed for the pensions of City workers years into the future. None of the money from these taxes will be used for public safety, city beautification or other services. Please vote no on both measures and send a message to the Council that a doubling of parcel taxes is an unacceptable solution to the pension problem the City has created.

s/MICHAEL RANCER, Professional Budget Director
s/ROYCE A. CHARNEY, President,
Trust Administrators Inc.
s/BAYARD J. YOUNG, Securities Broker
s/NANCY YOUNG, Psychologist
s/LEONARD TOM, Professional Public Finance Manager

Please vote "no" on both measures. We in Piedmont value our public services, we value the employees who provide those services, and we have shown ourselves willing to pay the taxes necessary for the services. We have shown this willingness by voting for a level of taxation that is among the highest in the Bay Area. But in greatly enriching employee benefits and then proposing this latest pair of taxes, Council members have said to Piedmont that they are unwilling or unable to manage within the funds they have+that the only way to pay for these increased employee benefits is with yet more taxes. In a city with Piedmont's sophistication this is unacceptable.

Please send a message to the Council that it needs to show more imagination in the management of city finances beyond simply adding new, higher taxes to our bills. It is especially important to send this message today, in view of other measures on the ballot that voters will decide, including a proposed increase in the county sales tax (to make it the highest in the state). Thank you.

s/MICHAEL RANCER, Professional Budget Director
s/GEORGE SHEARER, Small Business Owner
s/JUDY ZOLLMAN, Teacher/Literacy Consultant
s/PEDER S. SORENSEN, Systems Analyst
s/NANCY YOUNG, Psychologist

• The City Council has already cut more than $500,000 from this year's anticipated deficit.
• The current city parcel tax which provides $900,000 annually expires on June 30, 2005.
• Piedmont's annual pension cost will increase by $600,000 due to past losses suffered by the State pension fund. This additional expense has nothing to do with new benefits.
• Piedmont potentially faces more than $400,000 per year in new State takeaways.
• The State has already taken more than $1,000,000 in annual revenues that once belonged to Piedmont.
• We can't maintain city services if Piedmont is going to lose $900,000 from the current parcel tax, pay for $600,000 in additional, unavoidable pension costs, and in addition replace Piedmont tax dollars taken by the State ($1,000,000 annually from past State raids plus the anticipated loss of more than $400,000 in new takeaways).
• The resident volunteers on the Municipal Tax Review Committee who closely studied Piedmont's finances and the City Council believe that asking the average homeowner for an additional $24 per month is the only realistic way to maintain the Piedmont we all cherish.

s/VALERIE MATZGER, Mayor
Piedmont City Council
s/MICHAEL BRUCK, Vice Mayor
Piedmont City Council
s/ABE FRIEDMAN, Councilmember
Piedmont City Council
s/NANCY McENROE, Councilmember
Piedmont City Council
s/JEFF WIELER, Councilmember
Piedmont City Council