Event will honor recipients of the Betty C. Howard Award –

The Piedmont Recreation Commission has announced that community volunteer Kim Kellogg and Recreation Department staff member Jessica Pomey have been awarded the Betty C. Howard Recreation Awards for 2012.

The awards will be presented on Thursday, May 30, 2013 at 6:30pm in the Piedmont Community Hall as a part of the City of Piedmont Annual Volunteer Awards Reception.

Kim Kellogg is being recognized for her 14 years of volunteer service and support of the annual Harvest Festival in Piedmont. She has become a mainstay of the Harvest Festival providing promotion, event supervision and enthusiastic leadership and motivation to all.

Jessica Pomey has been a member of the Recreation Department staff since 2004 in the capacity of an administrative assistant. She has provided vital and highly important staff and program support in a variety of program areas including Schoolmates, Special Events and Pre-School programs. Her organizational and computer skills have had a remarkable and vital positive impact on the work of the Recreation Department. Jessica has also provided positive and informed interface with many children and their parents and caregivers.

In its 34th year, the Betty C. Howard Award was created in 1979 upon the retirement of longtime Recreation Department Secretary Betty C. Howard, who served Piedmont and the Department with great distinction and dedication from 1950 to 1979. The award honors dedicated and loyal service to the Recreation Department and the community of Piedmont.

School Board Acts on Outstanding School Bonds – 

Repayment options for Bond Anticipation Notes (BANs) were considered by the School Board at its May 8 meeting, and use of funds for modernization needs was deemed to be the best option.

Superintendent Hubbard explained that the Bond Appreciation Notes (BANs) held by the District must be converted to bonds by 2015, and now is the earliest opportunity to do this; furthermore, it is the best time to convert while interest rates are low.  She noted the need to determine whether to set aside any modernization funds to pay down interest on the notes prior to the issuance of the bonds so the total amount to be financed can be determined.

Assistant Superintendent Brady noted $56 million in bond debt was approved by voters under the Seismic Safety Bond Program. The District structured the debt very carefully, working with Kelling, Northcross and Nobriga (KNN) on how to secure the money while remaining compliant with the law.  The money was borrowed in “pieces” as it was needed.

Ruth Alahydoian of KNN explained that the $12 million in BANs have a five-year term and must be repaid in 2015, but can be repaid now.  She presented a chart showing the bonds issued and their maturity and repayment ratio (the ratio of debt service vs. principal borrowed).  She showed that without counting the BANs, the repayment ratio is 1.82:1, which according to her was favorable; by comparison the repayment ratio for a 30-year mortgage is 2.0:1.

According to the draft May 8 School Board minutes:

Bond repayment needs to be payable based on the tax rate and cannot exceed $60 per $100,000 A.V. (assessed property value). The State Senate is reviewing Assembly Bill 182, which has passed the House. This legislation was written in response to some school bonds that had extreme repayment ratios and repayment periods as long as 40 years. The key provisions of AB 182 are to limit bond repayment to 25 years and maximum interest rates to 8%, to limit the ratio of debt service to principle for each series of bonds to 4:1, and to make CABs (Capital Interest Bonds) callable in 10 years. If it passes the Senate, AB 182 will not go into effect until December, 2013, and will provide waivers for districts such as Piedmont, which issued CABs under a different set of circumstances.

Ms. Alahydoian reviewed the options for the district.

Option 1 is to issue CABs at current interest rates. Interest on these CABs is paid as older bonds are paid off; the sooner a CAB is paid off, the less interest is owed. Although they would mature in 25 to 40 years, chances are they would be refinanced. At current rates, the repayment ratio under this option would be 5.6:1.

Option 2 is to use approximately $1.7M of the modernization funds on hand to cover accrued interest and reduce the overall cost of the
CABs. This would result in a repayment ratio of 4.04:1.

Option 3 is more complicated, though it could be a very viable alternative: to restructure already issued bonds (Series A & B) along with the BAN replacement (Series E). This is not a perfect scenario as the repayment period is more than 25 years and the District would have to reissue some CABS, but it would reduce the repayment ratio to 4.26:1 and might help the District over the long term. This only makes sense if it would result in lower interest rates for Series A & B bonds.

Ms. Alahydoian does not anticipate any issue exceeding debt capacity, which is 2.5% of total assessed property value. The District is well within its debt capacity. As debt is paid down, capacity grows even if assessed value does not. The assumption is also that property values will grow over time at a 5% average, due to approximately 2% in annual increases and additional property being taxed.  Resolutions are scheduled to be  brought back to the Board at the next meeting (or subsequent meeting) to approve issuance of Series E Bonds for replacement of the BANs and to approve refunding (for the purpose of restructuring) of Series A & B bonds.

Board Member Ray Gadbois noted that if some of the modernization money is used to pay down the interest, it will not result in a substantial reduction to taxpayers for 20-25 years and will reduce the District’s ability to perform modernization projects currently under consideration. He summed up the Board’s opinions by stating converting the BANs to bonds as quickly as possible since interest rates are likely to rise and in the event interest rates go down, they can be refinanced. In regard to Option 2 (paying down the debt with the $1.7M), taxpayers would see no benefit for a long time because of the bond structure; we are unlikely to get more modernization money from the State, and we have modernization needs that will benefit students and the community now and in the long term; therefore it makes sense to use the $1.7M on modernization projects.

Superintendent Hubbard will ask Ruth Alahydoian to prepare two resolutions: one for sale of the BANs as soon as possible and one to structure the sale to include refinancing of Series A and B bonds. The sale will not include any use of the modernization funds, which will be retained for identified school modernization projects,  rather than repaying existing bonds.

At the City Council 2013-14 Budget Work Session on May 11, information and questions were presented.

During the public forum, Tim Rood asked when Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) was going to repay the City for the $125,000 expenses promised in regard to Blair Park.  He also wanted to know when the City planned to spend its $500,000 portion of the Measure WW Park Bond funds.   And he inquired when the Piedmont Hills Utilities Undergrounding District (PHUUD) Board was going to pay their pledged amount of $1o0,000 to the City.  The City had contracted for the undergrounding project and allowed the risk and unexpected cost of  approximately $2.5 million to fall to all City taxpayers rather than the property owners in the PHUUD benefiting from the project.

City Administrator Geoff Grote, in his overview of the budget, emphasized the generally strong financial condition of the City.  Much of the City’s improved fiscal condition can be attributed to increased property tax revenues, the passage of the City parcel tax measure, and revenues from the property transfer tax.  As properties change hands, the City reaps a benefit of new valuations of property, plus the transfer tax.

The Police Department is proposing a new civilian position to handle administrative and Information Technology (IT) functions.  On June 3, a comprehensive Facilities Maintenance Inventory and Implementation Plan is due and will allow assessment of future needs.

Employee benefits and compensation costs continue to require control and monitoring. The City Sewer Fund, long a source of  funding for the Public Works Department and implementation of federally required improvements related to water quality, is experiencing a decreasing balance.  More information on the fund will be developed to allow the Council to consider further steps to remain in compliance with federal laws.

During the budget review, the Council directed staff to provide the following information:

• Recreation Department — include on a City Council agenda for next October, a report detailing: the impacts of the proposed increases in aquatic fees;  swim lesson revenue; a breakdown of aquatic City Council Budget Work Session related expenses; the cost associated with having the pool open for so many hours/days during the year; and how many lap swimmers utilize the pool on a regular basis.  The Schoolmates program does not pay for itself, consequently consideration will be given to increasing the hourly charge to users.

• Police Department  — consider for next fiscal year (FY 14-15) increasing Animal Control Officer fees for the City of Emeryville.

• Fire Department  — determine the cost effectiveness of modifying the
Department’s apparatus bay doors and driveway in order to increase the number of manufacturers that would be able to supply a fire ladder truck to the City and, as a consequence, generate more and potentially lower bids for fire truck purchase.  The fire house doors are lower than standard thus requiring custom built ladder trucks.

• Public Works Department — provide the number of miles of paved streets in town and how many of these streets were paved over the last 10 years.  Residents have frequently wondered when streets in disrepair would be repaved.

• Administration-– provide: historical data regarding full and parttime employee positions; a list of staffing positions that are currently vacant; cost estimates for: a City “mail-in ballot” process for municipal elections; and consolidating the City’s municipal election with the State’s general election; check with the County Registrar’s office if the City could have both a “mail-in” ballot process along with one polling place within the City.

• Non-Departmental — determine if: the proposed 5% increase in Workers Comp. Insurance premiums is sufficient for FY 13-14; whether the City has the option of being self-insured for Unemployment Insurance; and re-examine if the FY 11/12 figure
of $352,841 for Library is correct (page 2-a under Tab 1)

The Council appointed Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) has held several meetings to examine budget details.   CalPERS side fund, sewer fund, license plate readers, and other issues are being examined.  The BAFPC will make a formal recommendation to the City Council to be considered at the budget public hearings.  The Council’s first hearing is scheduled for June 3 and second June 17, at which time the budget is expected to be approved.

Comments on budget considerations can be sent to the City Council at:

Or email the entire City Council via the City Clerk at: tulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us

Click here to view the proposed budget.

Public Misses Out on Background of Issues –

Public meetings in Piedmont must meet the California Brown Act, known as a “sunshine” law. The City of Piedmont and the Piedmont Unified School District regularly provide required notice and agendas of meetings, and most City Commission, School Board, and City Council meetings can be viewed by the public at home via KCOM or live streaming through the City’s website.  These meetings are informative and important to public policy decisions.

A number of other public meetings, however, are not broadcast, primarily because the City Council Chambers at City Hall is the only public space equipped for KCOM broadcast.  Additionally, for some meetings, there are no minutes taken, audio recordings, or records kept.  Nonetheless, recommendations arising from these meetings often are the foundation of decisions by the City Council and the School Board.

Brown Act qualifying meetings typically not recorded or broadcast are:

City Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee

The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee was formed by the City Council to review and provide comment on five year projections contained in the City’s annual budget proposal, the proposed funding and expenditures from several long term funds, and the proposed mid-year budget adjustments. It also provides a financial review of new programs in excess of $250,000 per year. Click here to read the committee’s charge.

Council Liaison: John Chiang (H) 655-2959

Members: Mary Geong, Steven Hollis, Bill Hosler, Tom Lehrkind, Tim Rood

City CIP (Capital Improvement Projects) Review Committee  –

The CIP Review Committee makes recommendations to the City Council regarding the expenditure of the capital budget (construction, repair or rehabilitation of city facilities).

Council Liaison: Robert McBain (H) 547-0597
Staff Liaisons: Chester Nakahara (W) 420-3061 & Mark Feldkamp (W) 420-3064

Members: John Cooper, Ryan Gilbert, Nancy Lehrkind, Jeffrey St. Claire

City Council Budget Work Session –

The City Council meets with the City staff and discusses the staff proposed budget for the coming fiscal year. Summary minutes are approved by the City Council. 

Council: Mayor John Chiang, Vice Mayor Margaret Fujioka, Council members, Garrett Keating, Jeff Weiler, and Bob McBain

School District Budget Advisory Committee –

Under the direction of the Superintendent, a Program/Budget Advisory Committee reviews the financial health of the District’s General Fund budget, shares information with constituent groups, and makes recommendations for Board consideration in the budget development process. Members of the committee include representatives from each school site, employee associations (APT for teachers and CSEA for classified staff), administration, support groups, the community at-large, and the Board of Education. Members serve for one to two years. Those interested in serving on the standing committee should contact the Superintendent’s office.

List of members are not publicly released.

School Support Tax Advisory Subcommittee –

The committee  was required to be established by approval of  the SCHOOL SUPPORT TAX MEASURE A, MARCH 5, 2013 ELECTION.  This is a new committee and therefore has no  broadcast or recorded history.

The Subcommittee is an independent subcommittee of the PUSD Budget Advisory Committee (“BAC”). The BAC serves as a community forum for interested community members to receive up-to-date information about the District’s budget. All stakeholder groups, including the Parent and Support Clubs, Employee Associations (APT, CSEA and APSA), Piedmont Educational Foundation, and the community at large, are invited to participate in the BAC.

Members of the Subcommittee shall be active members of the BAC so that they will have current information and understanding of the District budget. However, the Subcommittee will operate independently of the BAC and report directly to the Board of Education.  In addition to the budget information provided to the BAC, the Subcommittee may request additional information relating to the budget or School Support Tax from the Assistant Superintendent for Business Services, who will be the primary point of contact for the Subcommittee.

The Subcommittee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Board of Education to help review and project the financial needs of the PUSD with respect to the levy of the voter approved School Support Tax. The Subcommittee shall conduct an independent examination of the District’s budget and related documents prior to making formal recommendations in its annual report to the Board.

The scope of work for the Subcommittee shall be limited to advice on whether and to what extent to levy the School Support Tax.

At this time appointments to the Subcommittee have not been made.

Procedures to be followed for Brown Act qualifying City and School meetings include:

Agendas and notices:

Legislative bodies of local agencies covered by the Brown Act must post an agenda for their meetings in a place that is freely accessible to members of the public at least seventy-two hours before the meeting. It also requires the legislative body to mail a copy of the agenda to anyone who has requested notice in writing. (A fee may pertain.)

Documents used during a meeting:

All public participants are entitled to inspect any writing or document distributed to members during a meeting. If a document was prepared by the governmental body itself, you are entitled to inspect it at the time of the meeting. If a document was prepared by someone else, you are entitled to inspect it after the meeting.

Documents distributed to a legislative body:

Distributed documents including emails, letters, memos, staff reports, consultant reports and other written methods are available to the public when requested.

 

Resident Urges City Council to Consider A Police Patrol in High Crime Areas –

The following is an open letter to the Piedmont City Council.

Dear City Council,

I. Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are not a preventative law enforcement tool.  Chief Goede referred to ALPRs in a KRON-TV interview: “Its not a crime prevention tool, its more of an investigative tool on the back end.” Additionally, Chief Goede was candid at the Piedmont Safety Committee meeting that there have been no studies showing a correlation between the implementation of ALPRs and a reduction in crime.

Preventative enforcement tools stop crime before it occurs.  I doubt criminal offenders track which cities have a high conviction rate. Criminals likely do not know they are in Piedmont; they are more aware of the apparently higher value “pickings.”

So implementing ALPRs, while a “feel-good” response to the abhorrent home invasions that occurred recently in town, is at best only a peripheral deterrent tool that may aid in a higher conviction rate at a significant financial cost.

II. Emphasis and resources should be allocated to what prevents crime before it occurs.  More police patrolling and current officers patrolling more vigorously are preventative measures. Council is to be commended for authorizing forward Police hiring and generally there is a perception that the Piedmont Police Department is patrolling more vigorously. Instead of using the funds for the ALPR, put another patrol officer on where crime is most concentrated.

Baja Piedmont has taken the lead in organizing neighborhood watch groups; hopefully the rest of Piedmont will follow in organizing neighborhood watches. Neighborhood Watch Groups can be uniquely effective given the relatively homogeneous nature of Piedmont’s populace; neighbors know neighbors.

III. Other troubling issues with the ALPR process.
A single company was contacted who then became the ad hoc consultant creating the specifications and then bid on their plan. This is not a robust Request for Proposals (RFP) process.  The company chosen does not have a guaranteed camera percentage read rate. Because the Digital Age has reduced privacy expectations, we must be ever more vigilant in protecting our Constitutional Rights. The City intends Policy to be that protection; many instances of failed Policy in Piedmont (the  Piedmont Hills Underground Utility District (PHUUD) debacle, the Crest Road gifting of the sewer fund, withheld reports on Blair Park and signed reimbursement agreements with Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) not being enforced) suggest that Policy may again fail residents with misuse of ALPR information.

IV. Spend taxpayer money on what is directly preventative, more Police patrols and active involvement with neighborhood watch groups.

Respectfully,
Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

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

Police Department Targets Impaired Drivers with Checkpoint – .

The Piedmont Police Department will be conducting a DUI/Drivers License checkpoint on Friday, May 24, 2013 in the evening hours. In an effort to reduce the number of persons killed and injured in alcohol involved crashes, DUI checkpoints are conducted to identify offenders and get them off the street, as well as educate the public on the dangers of impaired driving.

This checkpoint is a part of the “ Alameda County Avoid the Twenty-one” program. The goal of this countywide , cooperative, multi-agency campaign is to publicize the combined efforts of the participating organizations to raise the awareness of the general public regarding the problems associated with impaired and unlicensed driving. All too often, members of our communities are senselessly injured or killed on local roadways by impaired drivers. This DUI/Drivers License checkpoint is an effort to reduce those tragedies, as well as insuring drivers have a valid driver’s license.

A major component of these checkpoints is to increase awareness of the dangers of impaired driving and to encourage sober designated drivers. A DUI checkpoint is a proven effective method for achieving this goal. By publicizing these enforcement and education efforts, the Piedmont Police Department believes motorists can be deterred from drinking and driving. Traffic volume and weather permitting, all vehicles may be checked and drivers who are under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs will be arrested. Our objective is to send a clear message to those who are considering driving a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol and/or drugs – Drunk Driving, Over the Limit, Under Arrest.

The public is encouraged to help keep roadways safe by calling 911 if they see a suspected impaired driver.

Funding for this operation is provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

 

Applications to the Recycling Board due June 14 –

OAKLAND – The Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board has two vacancies, one in the category of “an Environmental Educator employed as such on a full-time basis” and another in the category of “a representative of the recyclable materials processing industry.” The appointees must live in Alameda County. Appointment terms are two years, and Board Members are eligible for re-appointment to one additional two-year term.

The Recycling Board administers the voter-approved Waste Reduction and Recycling Initiative, which levies an $8.23 per ton landfill disposal fee that generates approximately $8.0 million per year for waste reduction and recycling programs in Alameda County. Fifty percent of the money is returned to local jurisdictions on a per-capita basis. The balance is appropriated by the Board for countywide source reduction and recycling programs, public education, recycled product procurement, market development and grants to community organizations.

To be considered for appointment to the Recycling Board as “an Environmental Educator employed as such on a full-time basis” or “a representative of the recyclable materials processing industry,” please submit a resume and cover letter stating qualifications to: Kevin Jenkins, 1221 Oak Street, Suite 536 – Oakland, CA 94612, faxed to 510-271-5151 or emailed toKevin.jenkins@acgov.org with the subject line “Recycling Board Vacancy.” The deadline for application is June 14th, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. Minority and female candidates are urged to apply.

Questions regarding the application process may be addressed to Kevin Jenkins at 510-268-5376.

Questions regarding the Recycling Board may be addressed to Tom Padia or Gary Wolff at(510) 891-6500 or email at tpadia@stopwaste.org or gwolff@stopwaste.org.

About The Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board 

The Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board (Recycling Board) was created by the voters of Alameda County through passage of Measure D, the Alameda County Waste Reduction and Recycling Act of 1990.  Statutory authority for the Board resides as part of the Alameda County Charter.  Staff for the Recycling Board is provided by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority, and legal counsel is provided through the Alameda County Counsel’s Office.  The Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board and the Alameda County Waste Management Authority operate jointly as one public agency under the name StopWaste.Org.

The Recycling Board is comprised of 11 members:

• Five members are elected public officials appointed by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority from among its Board of Directors.

• Six members are appointed by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.  Appointees must reside in the county and be a representative of a particular constituency, as specified in the Act.

Pursuant to the county charter, the Recycling Board established a goal of reducing the waste stream going to landfill by 75 percent and beyond (using 1990 as a base year) and is mandated by law to provide:

1. Countywide programs for source reduction; recycled product market development; and grants to non-profit organizations engaged in waste reduction activities.
2. A recycled product purchase preference program within Alameda County government.
3. Allocation of 50 percent of funds received for continuation and expansion of municipal recycling programs, which must include curbside pickup of recyclable materials and a commercial recycling program.

Recycling Board programs are funded by an $8.23/ton landfill disposal surcharge collected at landfills in the unincorporated portion of Alameda County (Altamont Landfill and Vasco Road Landfill).

The Recycling Board normally meets on the second Thursday of each month. Board members are paid $100 per meeting.

 

The Piedmont Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) will meet Tuesday, May 14, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall.

The agenda includes:

1. Review Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget 
2. Review 5 year projections 
3. Review recommendation to City Council on refinancing the CalPERS Side Fund 
4. Discuss Long Term Pension and Retiree Healthcare costs
5. Date of future meetings
6. Consideration of future agenda items and deliverables

At its May 8 meeting, the BAFPC heard presentations from two bond counseling firms on how Piedmont could save an estimated $1.5  million over the next 7 to 9 years by refinancing its “side fund,” i.e. its unfunded employee pension obligations.

Currently, Piedmont pays CalPERS 7.5% interest on a $10.3 million loan to pay its unfunded pension obligations.   The CalPERS loan dates back to  2003 when the state’s giant public employee pension fund merged all of its member agencies with less than 100 employees into “risk pools.”  The goal was to reduce the contribution rate volatility for employers with a small population base (such as Piedmont).  CalPERS then assigned each member agency a share of the then-existing unfunded liability, which it identified as the “side fund,” and set a fixed 7.5% interest. Piedmont’s side fund payments to CalPERS for its retired public safety employees for the next 7 years now total $7.1 million. For retired miscellaneous employees, for the next 9 years, the payments total $3.2 million.

In the meantime, short-term interest rates have dropped significantly, giving cities an opportunity to save a lot of money by refinancing their side funds with private loans from institutions or through offering publicly traded pension obligation bonds. Many cities up and down the state have already done this, and, although the BAFPC recommended the City do it last year, Piedmont is coming late to the party.

Last week, the BAFPC Committee heard from the bond counselors the pluses and minuses of obtaining a private loan from a bank versus offering publicly traded bonds. The committee did not decide which avenue to take, but voted to recommend that the Council begin a course of action.

At a separate, joint meeting of the BAFPC and Capital Improvement Program committees on May 9, the two committees recommended the City Council implement Police Chief Ricki Goede’s plan to install License Plate Readers at 15 entry/exit points in Piedmont.

The BAFPC is responsible for assessing financial information and providing in depth analysis of Piedmont’s financial stability, including five-year projections.   The Committee members are selected for their financial experience and expertise and make recommendations to the City Council.

The public can attend the meeting and provide input to the Committee.  Plans to broadcast or record the proceedings have not been announced.

Final decision rests on funding –

After hearing a detailed presentation by Police Chief Rikki Goede recommending installation of 39 License Plate Reader (LPR) cameras at 15 Piedmont entry points, and listening to speakers on both sides of the issue, the City Council came down unanimously on the side of installing the LPRs.  They deferred a final decision until two committees — the Budget and Financial Planning Advisory Committee (BAFPC) and the Capital Improvement Committee (CIP) — discuss the financial impacts of the $700,000-plus project on the City’s budget at their joint meeting on Thursday, May 9. The Committees are to make a recommendation to the City Council on the LPRs.

Council members made the point that they have hired a professional police chief and feel they should follow her recommendations.

Chief Goede noted that the LPR system won’t solve crime by itself. “It’s a tool,” she said. “You have to have a three-pronged approach of officers, technology, and neighborhood watch. Technology complements ‘boots on the ground’.”  She explained that the license plate data is kept for one year and then destroyed if there is no connection to criminal activity.  “The data is only for license plates,” she said, “not individuals.”   She also pointed out it can take six months to have data analyzed for burglaries and home invasions, the most common crimes in Piedmont, since they are lower priority than homicides and other serious felonies.

Regarding whether LPRs are more effective than hiring another police officer, Councilman Jeff Weiler said, “It costs $165,000 (per year) to hire a new officer. Multiply by five equals $825,000. Isn’t it better to have the LPRs do the work of another officer?”   Chief Goede replied that “Technology is a force multiplier, but with or without the LPRs, we will still ask for more investigative help.”

Several speakers questioned the feasibility of the LPRs. A 2000 Piedmont High School graduate, now a juvenile defense lawyer in Oakland, said, “This could be an overreaction. The message might be Piedmont doesn’t want you. It could have unintended consequences.”

Bob Cheatham, who said his home had been burglarized recently, questioned why there has been no organized study of other possibilities, such as hiring civilians to help watch the city. “Are we in that big of a hurry? Are we sacrificing privacy for security?” he asked.

Leon Bloomfield said he thinks the LPRs are “premature and maybe misguided. It doesn’t do anything for crime prevention. I hope you will do other things before you commit $1 million to this project. Technology doesn’t answer all the questions.”

Speaking in support of the LPRs, John Ehrlich, a retired San Francisco police officer, said the LPRs “will help prevent crime. If criminals know there are cameras, they will go someplace else.”

Lyman Schafer added, “Oakland has a serious crime problem. I feel a sense of urgency.”

The Council members agreed. Council member Garrett Keating noted, “Crime has been rapidly increasing in Piedmont in the past two years. This is an important tool we need to invest in.  There has been an increase in the brazenness of crime.  Echoing the comments of the other Council members, he said,  “The Chief recommends this, and I support it.”

Seniors/Adults or Child Care Use Discussed – 

The May 6th City Council meeting engendered long deliberations and lively public participation — but no final decision  —  on the use of the east wing of the city-owned building at 801 Magnolia Avenue.  Currently, the west wing and some of the east wing houses the Piedmont Center for the Arts.

The Arts Center has proposed, at no cost to the City, to provide improvements and management of the facility and to continue with their goal of providing art-focused activities, along with a regular time for seniors to use the facility twice a week, a place for Piedmont historical records, arts programs, and an ability to accommodate diverse interests.

Two other proposals were made.  One could be combined with the Arts Center usage and the other dealt primarily with children and required extensive equipment.

City Recreation Director Mark Delventhal and City Administrator Geoff Grote strongly recommended that the City retain usage of the facility rather than relinquishing it to the Arts Center.  They envisioned the space for child care and made available for other purposes when not in use for child care.  Delventhal acknowledged that transforming the room for other purposes would likely require a janitor, for instance, to roll up rugs, move furnishings, and child equipment.   It was pointed out by speakers that a child care program conflicts with the current use of the Arts Center and questioned the joint use of restrooms and other features of the building.

Residents Hedi Gerken, Margie Bowman, and Bob Cheatham stated it was time for the City to consider adults in their programing, noting their need for a place to gather and be with contemporaries.  Delventhal acknowledged the need in stating the once a month program dedicated to seniors had high usage of approximately 70 participants.

Nancy Lehrkind, President of the Board of the Piedmont Center for the Arts, presented the Arts Center’s offer to pay for all needed improvements, including windows, flooring, cabinets, furnishings, paint, and a new  sink, estimated at $25,000.  Additionally, the Arts Center would provide management and scheduling of the facility at no cost to the City. The highly successful Center has drawn over 10,000 to its events.  Lehrkind, although  initially requesting a concurrent lease with the use of the west wing, was amenable to a trial period of approximately 3 years, to permit amortization of improvement expenses.  The Arts Center has already invested approximately $125,000 to reroof, replace windows, paint, remodel restrooms, landscaping, and make other improvements to the previously neglected building.

Council member Garrett Keating during prior Council consideration had requested staff to provide specific numbers on the cost of the City’s proposed child care plan, but none were provided.  The costs to the City were loosely estimated at $125,000 to $150,000.  The number of children served would be in the range of 20 – 30.

Council member Jeff Weiler wanted to know if the Arts Center had complied with its current lease.  Grote stated the lift for disabled access to the rest rooms had not been installed.  Lehrkind, surprised at the question, informed the Council the installation had been held off by staff pending a decision by the Council’s on how to use the east wing. In February she had presented plans and specifics, requesting these be provided to the Council.  The Arts Center has reserved funding to fully comply with providing the needed restroom access via a lift or a ramp.

Weiler, who has a disability, spoke of the importance of having disabled restroom access in the building. The Americans with Disability Act requires access in new or  remodeled public facilities.

Because of the high demand for use of the space and conflicting opinions, the Council attempted to reconcile proposals by asking the staff to meet with the Arts Center leadership and attempt to work out a plan to satisfy both the City’s and the Arts Center’s concerns.   Action on the matter was deferred until further information is available.