2013 Harvest Festival scarecrows

Piedmont’s Harvest Festival returns on the last Sunday of September. The festival was founded 16 years ago by enthusiastic gardeners Susan Hill and the late Bill Drum to showcase and encourage the produce from neighborhood gardens. The festival includes: food vendors, jazz, growing and cooking contests, scarecrows, Farmers’ Market, carnival, art show in the Tea House, disaster preparedness fair, fix-it clinic, as well as local foods and lemonade.

“Unlike earlier festivals, this event will run until 4 p.m. to accommodate the food/artist vendors, but many other festival activities will terminate at 3 p.m.”

For additional information go to  http://piedmontharvestfestival.org/

On Sept. 15, 2014 the Piedmont City Council voted to consider adopting secondhand smoke protections in outdoor public spaces and in common areas of multiunit housing. This was great news to me since I have had asthma for much of my adult life, caused by being exposed to heavy smoking during my childhood. I now take daily medication to control my asthma, but I remain highly allergic to tobacco smoke which literally takes my breath away. Rather than quietly accept my asthma diagnosis, I chose to put my efforts into volunteering for over 30 years for the American Lung Association and work towards supporting their fight for healthy air and lungs – from combatting air pollution and secondhand smoke to preventing children from ever starting to smoke.

By adopting these secondhand protections Piedmont will be joining the rest of the County as well as San Francisco and over 100 California cities which already have these protections.

The evidence is clear. Secondhand tobacco smoke kills 42,000 non-smoking Americans every year and sickens hundreds of thousands more, causing asthma attacks and worsening other conditions like diabetes, cancer, lung and cardiovascular diseases.

Most vulnerable are young children whose growing bodies absorb twice the toxins than adults do.

Children exposed to secondhand smoke are absent from school more frequently and are more likely to do poorly on tests than are children who are not exposed.

While smoking has been prohibited in most indoor workplaces since 1995, outdoor protections statewide have been limited to doorways of government buildings and around play structures in parks. It has been up to local cities to adopt additional protections like smoke-free parks, bus stops, dining, and doorways, to ensure that residents can safely enjoy public spaces.

Researchers have found that outdoor smoke, depending on proximity and weather conditions, can reach harmful levels to nearby non-smokers. All of the cities in Alameda County with the exception of Piedmont have adopted some outdoor smoke free air protections.

I was also pleased to see that our city leaders have agreed to consider including a smoke free buffer zone around our schools and electronic smoking device emissions in the smoke protections. While it is illegal to sell or furnish these devices to anyone under 18 in California, their use among children as young as 11 has tripled over the past three years, threatening to undermine 25 years of tobacco prevention education and policies which have cut the smoking rate in half in Alameda County.

Over 65 local California communities have added e-cigarette regulations into their existing secondhand smoke protections including Hayward, Dublin, San Leandro, Berkeley, Union City, El Cerrito, Walnut Creek, and Richmond.

I not only urge Piedmont residents to support the Council’s efforts to protect all residents from outdoor secondhand smoke, but to also urge the school community to explore how they can partner with the City in keeping tobacco and nicotine out of our shared air and out of our lungs.

Michael Gardner, Piedmont Resident and Member of the Piedmont Public Safety Committee

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

Park Commission Meeting – Wednesday, October 1, 5:30 p.m. City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue.  The meeting will be live streamed on the City website and broadcast on Channel 27.  This public meeting will be recorded and minutes will be produced.

The Park Commission will receive an update on Measure WW funding based on Council action.  Linda-Kingston Triangle landscaping plans will be updated.  A drought update on EBMUD’s revised water restrictions will be provided.

The status of Hampton Field construction drawings will be considered.

At the September 15 City Council meeting, it was indicated by staff that work on plans for Blair Park has continued and there are some cost estimate revisions.  This item is not on the Park Commission’s October agenda.

In his latest account of the WW Park Bond saga, Councilman Jeff Wieler made several misstatements about the process. “Dozens of people” did not participate at the meetings (I attended two), a statement that could be corroborated had minutes been taken or the meetings videotaped.   The total cost for Blair Park is estimated at $900,000, but it is a phased project by design with the Phase 1 cost of $300,00 well under available WW funds of $507,325.  Applying the same logic to Hampton Field ($1.3M total) would make it ineligible.

As liaison to the Capital Improve Projects (CIP) Review Committee, Councilman Wieler could do everyone a service and explain why Blair Park was not considered as a phased project.   A lengthy CEQA process would not be required of Phase I for Blair Park, which is simply a rehabilitation of the natural area  – no change to existing use. A negative declaration is more likely and the CEQA analysis for Blair Field would more than address any impacts for the current park proposal.  The city has in its possession an analysis by LSA that
shows that a crosswalk to Blair Park is feasible and in any event, a crosswalk is not called for in Blair Park Phase I.  A principle FOMC [Friends of Moraga Canyon] argument was to maintain Blair Park as open space with better access – the threat of a lawsuit is a red herring.

The drainage problem at Hampton Field is largely going unaddressed – no drainage improvements to the play field will be made.  The “improved drainage” is actually a 4-foot plantar wall intended to screen a cell tower proposed for the slope above the courts.

“Negativity“ gets raised in lieu of informed discussion. Rather than resort to the ghost of Richard Nixon and Proverbs, Councilman Wieler should listen to Piedmonters.

The number one capital improvement project supported by residents in the 2007 General Plan Survey was improvements to the pool, a project considered not eligible for WW by the CIP Committee (It is eligible – look at the WW project list on the EBRPD website).  Moraga Canyon residents have been asking for decades that Blair Park be improved.  Citizen committees convened to study play field needs in town have consistently determined that access to Blair Park for parking or city operations is needed to expand Coaches Field.

The Recreation and Planning Commissions recommended that alternatives to the failed Blair Field proposal be considered for Blair Park.  Most of all, sports clubs have asked for increased field access, a concern Mr. Wieler claims to share. Yet with all that, WW is being used for routine court maintenance and park beautification instead of as leverage for new open space and recreation in Piedmont.  But as the Bible says:  “They know not, nor do they discern, for he has shut their eyes, so that they cannot see, and their hearts, so that they cannot understand.”  (Isaiah 44).  Ears too, it seems.

Garrett Keating, Former Councilmember

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

On Tuesday, September 23, 2014, around 8 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue, the Piedmont Unified School District School Board will review potential improvements for Piedmont High School’s Alan Harvey Theater.  The staff report states there will be:

“ Progress report on improvements supported by donor pledges
Staff will review the recommendations from the Steering Committee as to the priority projects in progress to maintain use of AHT.

 First of many opportunities for community input as to next steps
Community will have an opportunity (one of many) to provide feedback to the Board as to next steps. No Prop 39 bond measure may be brought for consideration in odd-numbered years. Therefore, 2016 is the first year a bond could be considered.”

Read the staff report pages 15 and 16.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some questions arose when voters recently* defeated the $13 to $15 million parcel tax measure for bonds to upgrade the Alan Harvey Theater:

1.  What is the total amount of existing Piedmont school bond obligations?

2.  Frequently, the School District mentions a State limitation on the amount school districts can borrow.  What is this limit for Piedmont and does it change annually as property values appreciate?

3.  Is the State limitation on Piedmont School District borrowing impacted by existing non-school (City, County, special districts) bond obligations?

4.  Why does an auditorium renovation cost $15 million when we were able to build an entire school (Havens) for $24 million?

5.  What will the total long and short term cost of borrowing $15 million dollars be?

6.  Some of the finest theaters in Europe use wooden seating for sound enhancement.  Since the current seating is in disrepair, has wooden seating been considered?  What other alternatives were considered?

7.  Were more modest alternatives thoroughly considered prior to the School Board decision to accept the proposed $13 – $15 million renovation plan?

8.   External community groups have expressed interest in use of the theater after it is renovated.  The School District will be faced with similar maintenance issues as with playfields and other school facilities.  Since the District, by State law, cannot charge users to maintain the facilities, what funding source will the District use to maintain the enhanced and larger theater plus new classrooms?

9.   Shouldn’t the seating capacity be increased rather than decreased?

10. Might there be an opportunity for the School District to obtain outside funding for the proposals?

11.  When designing the proposal, was thought given to increased community participation by architects, performers, and interested residents ?

12.  How could accessibility issues be addressed in a more cost-effective manner?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The School Board meeting is open to the public.  It will be broadcast on Channel 27 and live streamed from the Piedmont website.  Recordings and minutes will be available following the meeting.

* In June 2014 Measure H was defeated with 1683 (52.40%) voting “No” and 1529 (47.60%) voting “Yes”.

No longer under consideration are a senior facility, Piedmont Aquatic Center, Blair Park, expansion of Coaches Field and numerous other projects.  

At the September 15, 2014 City Council meeting, three of the City Council members voted to accept the limited list of 5 projects proposed for use of $507,325 in voter approved WW East Bay Regional Park bond money. This Piedmont entitlement is annually paid for by each property owner in the amount of $10 per $100,000 appraised value.

The Council singled out one project, hardscape and partial drainage control at Hampton Field, specifically for the tennis and basketball courts.  The area has been in need of safety improvements for years.

Various speakers addressed transparency and selection criteria by the Capital Improvement Projects Review Committee (CIP).  Some noted they had been present at the meetings and found them transparent. The meetings were open to the public, however only those present at the meetings had the advantage of knowing how decisions were reached, as there are no recordings of the meetings, minutes, or broadcasts of the proceedings.

The  screening criteria chosen by the CIP Committee was:

 Is the project “shovel ready”?  

Two projects met this criteria. Hampton Field and Blair Park; however, Blair Park improvements were not on the list because it was determined by the Committee to be too controversial.  Construction plans are available for Blair and Hampton.

 Does the project require an extensive CEQA review process?

Both Hampton Field and Blair Park have met CEQA requirements. The projects are not considered a change of use.

 Has the project been fully vetted and likely to be supported by Piedmont residents?

Hampton Field has long been on the list of projects.  Blair Park continues to fester in the community according to committee members and others who want the park to be used for purposes other than the Council approved Phase I Maintenance plan.

 Does the project enhance revenue generation for the City of Piedmont?

Measure WW is being paid for by taxpayers making some question the criteria of commercializing recreation and park projects as a money source.

 Are there possibilities for a public/private partnership that the City has used so successfully in the past?

This criteria appears to apply to all proposals.

 Is it possible to phase the project?

This criteria could apply to most proposals.

Tim Rood was the only Council member to vote against proceeding until further information had been developed.  He disagreed with use of WW funds in a manner designed to produce income as not in keeping with original bond language and wanted the process to be more transparent.

Old wounds continue with Blair Park.  Controversy was used as a reason not to improve the park. 

CIP Chair John Wilson stated that Blair Park was eliminated from the list because of controversy in the community.  This was further emphasized by Vice Mayor Jeff Wieler, who did not want the money spent there, despite prior Council approval of a Phase I Maintenance project.  He noted that according to those opposed to the failed Sports Complex Proposal, there was no safe way to get pedestrians to the park when crossing Moraga Avenue.

Former Councilmember Garrett Keating spoke to the list and noted that Blair Park was not found on the list despite Council approval of a Phase I Maintenance project to improve the park.  He stated controversy was not a specified criteria.  Later in the meeting, Rood described prior Council action including resolution numbers prescribing actions to fund and improve Blair Park.

No public input.

Without benefit of public comment on the elimination of projects, the Council moved ahead to remove projects from the CIP Committee list.

A new entrance to Dracena Park was the first to fall, with comments such as: the public had not been involved; and there was no Master Plan.  This idea had come from staff member Mark Feldkamp.  Next, went renovation of the Recreation Department and adjacent play structure.  Again, there was no Master Plan for the projects and some thought any changes should await improvements suggested for the Aquatic Center/ Piedmont Pool.

Improvements to the Court Yard next to the Community Center was met with ideas of fundraising, rather than using WW funds.

The last project standing was Hampton Field.

All Council members present approved moving ahead with Hampton Field. The thought was to focus on “one signature project” that could be proposed to the East Bay Regional Park District in early 2015 (the next submittal opportunity) for approval, constructed in 2016 or 2017, and receipt of WW funds prior to the entitlement deadline at the end of 2018.

The Hampton tennis courts have been in dangerous disrepair for years and are in need of drainage work to correct design flaws.   This will require retaining wall work, drainage and improved hardscape areas.  A play structure used regularly by the Piedmont Play School was questioned as too expensive and not essential. Regular maintenance of Hampton Field is provided by Cleary Brothers at a cost of approximately $24,000 per year with additional cost incurred during rainy weather when water runs uncontrolled to inappropriate areas.

The softball outfield, known to turn into a marsh during wet weather, is not part of the Hampton Field proposed project. Fundraising may support improvements in the outfield area.

The City has CIP Fund reserves in the amount of approximately $400,000.  This unrestricted source of funding can be used to cover the cost of other projects including maintenance and construction drawings.

There was no mention of opening up the process to a public hearing. Councilmember Bob McBain was absent at the September 15 meeting.

– Current and former councilmembers raise transparency issues – 

Piedmont looks at spending $507, 325 in WW bond funds plus $400,000 in Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) funds on unidentified projects. 

How are the various projects under consideration chosen? Who proposed the various projects? Did the public have an adequate opportunity to add items to the list?  How was the general public informed about how decisions were reached? 

Records of CIP Review Committee meetings and their decision making processes are missing.

Those interested in how government decisions are reached frequently rely on broadcasts, recordings of meetings, and minutes of meetings. This was not possible during the recent Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Review Committee meetings. Interested individuals who could not be physically present found it difficult or impossible to learn which committee members were present, what materials were presented, and how decisions were reached.

The CIP Committee was tasked with determining qualifying projects to use $507,325 of WW bond funds.  The Committee came up with their own criteria resulting in a  list of five projects. Former Councilmember Garrett Keating and current Councilmember Tim Rood noted there was no matrix or transparent record of how the projects were chosen.

– Meetings dealing with money – 

The CIP Committee is not the only City Council appointed committee lacking regular records and minutes of their meetings.  The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee is not broadcast or recorded.

The Piedmont City Charter specifies:

SECTION 6.05  PUBLIC RECORD

Minutes for each of such boards and commissions shall be kept as a record of its proceedings and transactions. Each board or commission shall prescribe its own rules and regulations which shall be consistent with this Charter and with City Council ordinances and resolutions, and copies of which shall be kept on file with the city clerk.

The Public Safety Committee’s meetings are recorded and minutes are prepared.

– “California will no longer be the only Western state that does not manage its groundwater,” said Senator Fran Pavley. –

The precise number of wells in Piedmont is not recorded. In most of the City the water table is more than 20 feet below ground level. Piedmont’s 2005 General Plan refers to the existing wells as being used for non-potable water purposes, such as watering lawns and flowerbeds.  Some old wells may have gone dry as the water table dropped.

Will the remaining private wells in Piedmont ultimately come under government monitoring or management following the state government’s new regulatory authority over groundwater use? Up until now well owners have been free to pump as much water as they wished. Last year the State Water Resources Control Board proposed the creation of “sustainable thresholds” of groundwater use. Ten new state regulators will focus on curbing groundwater depletion.

California established surface water rights in 1914. On Tuesday, September 16, Governor Jerry Brown signed historic legislation to strengthen local control and monitoring of groundwater use.  The three bills signed by the Governor – AB 1739 by Assemblymember Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) and Senate Bills 1168 and 1319 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) – create a framework for sustainable, local groundwater management for the first time in California history. Groundwater is a critical element of the state’s water system, making up more than one-third of California’s water supply. The bills establish a definition of sustainable groundwater management and initially focus on groundwater basins consumed by agriculture and industry but lay the predicate for monitoring all groundwater use.

“Ensuring a sustainable supply of groundwater is a critical element of addressing the water challenges facing California,” said Assemblymember Dickinson. “Over drafting our groundwater leads to subsidence and contamination; consequences we cannot afford. With these new laws in effect, California will take important steps to ensure we are protecting our valuable water supply for years to come.”

Groundwater is a critical element of the state’s water system, making up more than one-third of California’s water supply. The bills establish a definition of sustainable groundwater management and require local agencies to adopt management plans for the state’s most important groundwater basins.

The legislation prioritizes groundwater basins that are currently overdrafted and sets a timeline for implementation:

• By 2017, local groundwater management agencies must be identified;
• By 2020, overdrafted groundwater basins must have sustainability plans;
• By 2022, other high and medium priority basins not currently in overdraft must have sustainability plans; and
• By 2040, all high and medium priority groundwater basins must achieve sustainability.

The legislation provides measurable objectives and milestones to reach sustainability and a state role of limited intervention when local agencies are unable or unwilling to adopt sustainable management plans.

On the same day the Governor signed two other groundwater related bills focused on individual communities:

– AB 2453 by Assemblymember Katcho Achadjian (R-San Luis Obispo) – Paso Robles Basin Water District.
– AB 1043 by Assemblymember Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park) – Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006: groundwater contamination.

For full text of the bills, visit: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Governor Brown has called on all Californians to reduce their water use, including private wells, by 20 percent and prevent water waste.  SaveOurWater.com and  Drought.CA.Gov provide information on conservation and the effects of the drought.

Former Council Member Garrett Keating finds Committee rejection of proposals inappropriate . 

It was revealed by the chair of the CIP Committee [Capital Improvement Program Review Committee] at the September 15, 2014 Council meeting that the Blair Park proposal was not even evaluated for WW [East Bay Regional Park District Bond Funds worth $507,325] eligibility, because it was considered too controversial.

The charge from the City Council to the CIP Committee was to evaluate the eligibility of staff and public proposals for WW funding, and the Council repeatedly stated that no proposals were to be prejudged. On several occasions, this intention was explicitly stated to Moraga Canyon residents requesting improvements to Blair Park. It is unfortunate that the Committee chose to categorically dismiss the Blair Park proposal, which on paper would seem to be the most appropriate use of WW funds.

Public comments solicited for last night’s meeting were strongly in favor of improvements to Hampton Field, but the only improvements being considered at this time are to the tennis and basketball courts and the play structure.   And under the current design, converting the outfield to artificial turf will not be possible because of insufficient pervious surface.

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont Council Member and Current Member of the Piedmont Public Safety Committee

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  There are no recordings or minutes of the CIP meetings.

Where is the public?

A rare opportunity for Piedmont to use $507,325 appears to be lacking general public input.

Will the City Council at their September 15 meeting open up the consideration process for comprehensive public input?

When Piedmont voters approved the East Bay Regional Park District WW Bond Funds tax measure, there was the promise that funds would be available through 2018 to improve Piedmont recreational facilities, a senior center, or parks.  Time has been slipping away as a result of delays.

With the exception of Livermore, which did not vote on the measure and will not benefit from the funding, Measure WW was approved by 72% of voters in Alameda and Contra Costa counties in November 2008.  To receive the funds requires no matching funds. Annually, every property owner in a participating jurisdiction, such as Piedmont, is required to pay $10 per $100,000 of assessed property value to provide the WW funds.

Piedmont delays in utilizing the funds originated primarily from staff and others intentions to use the money for night lighting at Coaches Field on Moraga Avenue; however, there was never a specific public hearing on the use of WW money for that purpose. There has never been a general public hearing or workshop on how Piedmonters want their $507,325 entitlement in WW money to be used. Some have likened the lack of early public participation in the decision to the controversial, failed Blair Park /Moraga Canyon sports complex proposal.

Unlike the outreach for Piedmont’s Draft Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan, there have been no community meetings or general public outreach to hear from Piedmonters on their preferences. No surveys, no Town Hall meetings, and no public hearings prior to the winnowing down to “five qualifying projects.”

Will Piedmonters be allowed to have a community voice in how to spend the fast approaching deadline for the $507,325 entitlement? 

The task of determining what should be done with the money has largely been delegated by the City Council to their appointed Capital Improvement Program Review Committee (CIP).  This select group of well intentioned members have been meeting to discuss which projects would qualify and have selected five non-prioritized projects.

The CIP meetings have been held in the City Council Conference Room, a small room near the Council Chambers, and at a meeting in the Main Park.  Those who wanted to know what was discussed at the meetings were unable to obtain meeting minutes or view the proceeding from their homes.

Interested residents concerned about Blair Park improvements, long term correction to the dangerously cracked tennis courts at Hampton, and expansion of Coaches Field have been challenged by the decision process.

Mark Feldkamp lends staff support to the CIP meetings.  Suggestions on how to spend CIP money have ranged from curtains in the Community Center to replacing Main Park’s stone walls, daylighting the stream down the center of Dracena Park and drainage issues.  Feldkamp recommended, much to the disappointment of some, that some projects were not advised.  He has encouraged the Park Commission to be present at the September 15 Council meeting to participate in the decision process. 

It is unprecedented for Piedmont to receive $507,325 to spend on unspecified recreation facilities, a senior center, or parks.

Some public frustration is evident from the emails found in the staff report and emails . There are competing interests for sports, beautification, recreation and park improvement. Blair Park’s Council approved plans are not on the list for funding.

The five projects chosen by the CIP committee are listed below.

Partial staff report for September 15 City Council meeting:
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARKS MEASURE WW NON-PRIORTIZED PROJECT LIST

Piedmont Community Hall Plaza and $600,000 to $700,000
Connector Pathway Renovation:
This project would replace the broken and stained aggregate concrete in the Community Hall front plaza area with the existing brick paving spokes left intact. The likely material to be installed in place of the concrete would be a cut stone surfacing mortared on a steel
reinforced concrete slab that would aesthetically tie in with the existing stone pavement improvements located throughout Piedmont Park. Staff would propose to install electricity under the slab and install decorative lighting to the specimen Yulan Magnolia
located in the center of the island. This area is used extensively for parties and large functions that generate much needed revenue for the city. The improvements would also include the installation of several removable decorative metal bollards limiting the vehicular damage caused by cars and trucks that now use the plaza as a turn-around and
drop off zone.
The project would also complete the final phase of the Exedra Master Plan as recommended in prior CIP proposals. This portion of the project combines several prior projects, including the installation of a new swings for older children, new lawn area and seating along the bicentennial wall, new walkways that would replace the existing asphalt roadway, lighting along the walkway leading to the Exedra Plaza, modifications to the overlook area including improvements to better accommodate movies in the park and improvements to the driveway that leads to the amphitheater.

Hampton Park Improvements (Harris Plan) $1,500,000 (construction costs only): [Phased approach not encouraged by staff.]
The Master Plan was approved by the Park & Recreation Commissions and City Council in 2007. City Council approved funding for the completion of the construction documents that are due by November 2014 and possible bid in January 2015. The Landscape Architect has recently submitted the 30% Design Development working drawings.
Public support from the Hampton Park improvements has been strong and staff is exploring possible private funding opportunities. This project could be broken into phases, depending on the budget constraints. Project phases could include the refurbishment of all of the hardscape areas including the tennis, basketball and handball
courts. This in conjunction with the improved drainage in these areas could serve as one phase. Another phase could include all improvements at the baseball field, including all new drainage system, turf, new warning track and site furnishings. The Landscape
Architect is prepared to package the construction drawings and bid documents that would be compatible with the proposed construction budget. A decision will be needed to address what items would be in each of the construction phases.

Dracena Park, New Entrance $300,000 to $350,000
at Park Way and Dracena Avenue:
Develop an in-house master plan for a new entry patio and walkways at the corner of Park Way and Dracena Ave. The construction of the new pedestrian bridge at Dracena Park has brought to the forefront the need for a new pedestrian entrance and gathering spot at this corner of Dracena Park. The existing connector walkways to the new bridge are in need of a complete over-haul. The existing landscaping should be enhanced and an efficient irrigation system installed.

Renovation and Rehabilitation of the Recreation Building $100,000 to $150,000:
The existing structure is very antiquated and a Master Plan is needed to make better use of the existing space. As part of an overall Master Plan, staff proposes to relocate the registration and main offices downstairs to the first floor. This arrangement would be more user-friendly allowing the public to have direct and unimpeded access to
Department staff. The construction would include not only renovated office spaces but also provides improvements to the existing HVAC systems, lighting and internet services. The Recreation Department provides a wide variety of city functions and the working environments should meet these needs, allowing staff to efficiently serve Piedmont residents.

New Play Structure at the Recreation Center $75,000 to $100,000:
The existing play structure is antiquated and is in need of replacement. A new play structure would provide ADA access for all users and would invite and encourage a safe play environment. The design would have areas for all age groups encouraging the children to use their imagination as well as providing physical challenges. This play structure is in a prime central play location that serves numerous groups on a daily basis.

Read the staff report and emails for the September 15 City Council meeting agenda.

The Council meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. in City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont. The use of WW Bond Funds falls well into the agenda of the September 15 meeting. Home observers can tune into Channel 27 or go to the City website on line to view the proceedings.