Piedmont’s Measure F would increase the parcel tax property owners pay for city services by at least 20%.
But nowhere in the official ballot materials for Measure F do city officials simply tell voters what’s going on. Indeed, a plain reading of City Attorney Michelle Marchetta Kenyon’s “impartial analysis” indicates there would be no new tax increase.
It’s a shame. Residents of the high-wealth city have been consistently generous at the polls, approving the highest supplemental property taxes by far in the East Bay for schools and city services combined. At the very least, they deserve straightforward information on the ballot and in the official voter guide.
City promotional material clearly states that Measure F would raise the parcel tax for city services by 20%. But, somehow, that key piece of information never made it into the most important publication — the county-issued voter guide that goes to every voter — nor into the wording on the ballot. Instead, to know how much of an increase the tax represents, voters would have to pull out their property tax bills and their calculators.
Maybe the amount doesn’t matter to most Piedmont residents. But there’s a transparency principle here that should even apply to a high-income community.
This isn’t the first time city leaders have used misleading ballot materials. In 2016, the ballot wording and Kenyon’s impartial analysis also omitted the size of the increase, which was then 30%. Voters should not stand for this continuing deceit. They should vote no on Measure F.
Especially because, in addition to the deception about the amount of the increase, the city is also increasing the renewal period for the tax from the current four years to 12, with inflation adjustments each year. That means voters won’t get another chance for more than a decade to review whether the money is being used wisely or whether the amount of the tax is justified.
The tax is based on the size of a parcel of property. That’s unlike many voter-approved parcel taxes that are based on the floor area of the building. For Piedmont, the parcel tax rates for single-family homes are in five tiers. For the current 2023-24 fiscal year, they range from $595 for a lot smaller than 5,000 square feet to $1,005 for over 20,000 square feet.
The tax allows for a cost-of-living adjustment of up to 4%. When the ballot measure was prepared, drafters assumed that the amount for 2024-25 would be 4% higher. Then the amounts for 2025-26, when Measure F takes effect, would be an additional 20%, bringing the amount for the smallest lot size to $743 annually and the amount for the largest residential lot size to $1,254. Those dollar amounts are written into the new tax rate chart that’s included in the full legal text of the measure.
It turns out that city officials are now forecasting that the amount of the inflation increase for 2024-25 will be only 2.6%, according to City Administrator Rosanna Bayon Moore. That, in turn, means that the numbers in Measure F would amount to a 22% increase from 2024-25 to 2025-26.
Related Articles
Editorial: Ballot plan shows California school construction inequities
Editorial: East Bay voters should OK only one of four school bond plans
Editorial: Only two of four East Bay school parcel tax measures honestly portrayed on ballot
Editorial: Pamela Price backers and critics should back recall reform plan
Gov. Newsom’s Proposition 1: Complete coverage of the California mental health measure and our recommendation
Even though Measure F would allow the 22% increase, Moore says the city would only increase the tax 20% for 2025-26 if the measure passes. But whether the increase turns out to be the 22% the measure allows or the 20% Moore promises, nothing on the ballot or in the official voter guide indicates the scale of the increase.
As for City Attorney Kenyon’s impartial analysis, she makes no mention of the size of the increase and writes, “The measure would increase the tax rate schedule set forth … in the City Code to reflect previous authorized annual increases, but would not otherwise increase the tax rate.”
Kenyon’s law partner, Lee Burdick, claims the wording is a legally accurate description of the measure but acknowledges that it doesn’t include reference to the 20% tax increase and that “reasonable people can disagree on what it means.”
That’s inexcusable for the impartial analysis, which should, with clarity, help voters understand the measure. Kenyon could have solved the problem by simply stating that Measure F would increase the parcel tax rate by at least 20%.
It’s past time for Piedmont officials to be start being straight with their residents.