The December 4th, 2017, Piedmont City Council meeting started with a lovely ceremony recognizing the Piedmont High School’s men and women varsity cross country teams, and quickly descended into incomprehensible tedium. Although the purpose of public council meetings is, at least theoretically, to allow the citizens to participate in and check the power of the government, these meetings have astoundingly little transparency.
After the ceremonial matters, which were moved up on the agenda so the cross country teams could go back home, the Council moved on to the Consent Calendar, a portion of the meeting in which the Council votes on (and largely approves) items that are uncontroversial and uninteresting to the public. That’s all fine and good, but that simple explanation is never actually given to the public attending the meeting; I saw many confused faces in the audience.
The agenda, given online, is also fairly difficult to parse, simply because of the bureaucratic language used. As part of the Consent Calendar, the council discussed the setting of fines for specific code violations, things like permit issues, individuals leaving their property in their yard, and other minor aesthetic breaches. After that scintillating episode, it was time for the Public Forum for items not related to the agenda, which in this case, mostly meant Civics students attempting to get an “A” on the very assignment this article is for. The disparity was honestly pretty funny; personally, I attempted to make a joke and had my bit fail spectacularly.
Multiple students spoke about actual issues, such as lack of stop signs on a certain blind corner, or Piedmont’s status as one of the only Alameda county cities that is not a sanctuary city. Unsurprisingly, there was also a slew of Civics students talking about traffic around the school.
Once the Public Forum was done, the first thing on the official schedule was the issue of refunding bonds. As a seventeen year old with little (read: no) financial experience, this was fairly difficult to follow, but apparently few others could parse it either, because there was only one public comment for this section.
One woman asked how much the process would cost the city, as well as homeowners, and the response was that the $29,500 would come out of bond proceeds, and thus not cost the City anything. Again, I really had no idea what was going on for that part. Those three bond assessments were voted on (three aye votes, one abstention, and one recusal).
The next agenda item, and final one that I was present for, was the Piedmont renewal of its contract with Richmond Sanitary Services. This was by far the most difficult thing to make it through, and I actually had some interest in the topic before the dull droning of various city staff thoroughly killed any attention span I had.
Essentially, because Republic Sanitary is the only one being considered for the contract, and because Piedmont does such a stellar job of caring for its residents, Richmond Sanitary is not planning on renewing its contract without more money. That seemed reasonable to me, especially because I happened to know beforehand that, in the past few years, Piedmont residents have been foregoing curbside pickup in lieu of a service in which the collectors can bring one’s cans down from wherever they may be.
The issue is that that on premises or backyard service is predominantly meant for those who physically cannot bring their own cans down to the curb, either the elderly or the disabled, and so it was priced for a small subset of customers.
Currently, about half of Piedmont residents use the on premises service, and the company is not being paid adequately for it. This was another technical issue that was mostly commented on by city staff and other professionals involved in the process.
The public, far from being uninterested, was instead just lost in the hour of commentary on an issue that, in my admittedly unprofessional opinion, probably could have been abbreviated. I do understand that there isn’t really a good solution to the disconnect between the Council and the public, but that doesn’t mean I can’t complain about it without offering any real solutions. After all, that’s what democracy is about, right?
by Sylvie Srinivasan, Piedmont High School Senior
Piedmont’s City Council met on Monday, November 20th, when the main point of discussion was the question of whether to approve the addition of a cell tower across from 314 Wildwood ave. (above Witter field, beside Wildwood Elementary School and the entrance to the dog park).
After a brief public forum and ceremonial kick-off for the Toys for Tots program as well as the Thanksgiving book drive, the Council turned to the issue most people in the room were there for – the cell tower. Although it is true that Piedmont’s code does protect the city against large, obstructing objects, if the Council finds that the benefits of the object outweighs the negatives, the Council may allow the object to be placed. In this case, the object would be a large “wireless communication facility” and the reason for approving it would be an apparent coverage gap in cellular service in Piedmont.
Before the members of the community were invited to speak on the matter, Sharon James, a representative from Crown Castle (the company responsible for installing the tower), rose to the podium. Ms. James remarked that in this day and age efficient cell service is a necessity. After Ms. James spoke on behalf of the tower, numerous residents stood up to protest the installation. Included in the more than twenty residents who spoke was a real estate broker who attested to the decline in property values if the tower was to be put in, a scientist who acknowledged the potential health hazards of having a tower so close to people’s homes and schools, and a lawyer who remarked that under federal law there is, in fact, enough coverage provided in the city. Many other residents continued to address similar issues about declining property values, health risks, disturbance to the beautiful aesthetics of the city, and noise pollution. The general rallying cry of the residents who spoke against the tower was “Don’t let the corporations win.”
Among these residents was Joe Ahashi* who spoke on behalf of his wife who was unable to attend the meeting herself. Previously uninvolved with the issue, Mr. Ahashi was playing catch up at and right before the meeting. He remarked afterwards that what he learned and what remains at the heart of the problem in his opinion is what exactly constitutes a “coverage gap”. “There are many ways you can measure a gap- based on what customers say, or what industry peers say. I want to know what was the methodology, how did they collect that information [etc.]” And it is true that although representatives from Crown Castle claimed that there is in fact a coverage gap, many residents came forth with anecdotal stories of how they do not know of anyone who has coverage issues in Piedmont.
The real data regarding this supposed coverage gap, as far as Mr. Ahashi understood, was undisclosed to the public, making it a future plan of Mr. Ahashi’s to reach out to members of the council and ask whether this data could be revealed to the public. He said, “We, as citizens, should be able to weigh in, particularly if it’s going to really limit the city council in what they can do in future.” Like most of the other attendees at the meeting, Mr. Ahashi was disappointed with the council’s decision to approve the structure. Despite the abundance of residents in opposition to the tower, Mayor McBain announced that in this case, the Council must not merely base their decision on the opinions of the community, but on the rules and regulations. With that thought in mind, the Council unanimously approved the measure.
In my personal opinion, the tower should not have be put up based on the amount of dissent from the residents who will actually have to deal with the disturbance in their front yard and by their children’s school. I do not believe it will make as huge a difference to every-day life as some people were arguing. However, the evidence provided did not seem clear enough to convince me that it was absolutely necessary.
by Claire Hanke, Piedmont High School Senior
~~~~~~~~~~
On the evening of November 20 at 7:30 p.m., the Piedmont City Council met in Piedmont City Hall’s City Council Chambers. The principal issue on the agenda of the Council, which meets on the first and third Mondays of every month, was the consideration of an application to install a new, small-cell wireless communication facility.
Other topics scheduled for deliberation included the content of memoranda to both the Piedmont Police and Firefighters unions from the Council, the purchase of a new ambulance for the city, conditions of agreement with a company to redesign Piedmont’s official civic website, and the possible adoption of the Information Technology Strategic Plan.
Proceedings regarding the communication facility proved time-consuming, mainly due to the amount of citizens who spoke to the issue. During the recess that followed the discussion of the communication facility, I stole away from City Hall into the November night, but not before the clock hand had past 9:30 p.m.
The meeting opened with the Council unanimously approving the minutes from the October 16 meeting. The floor then opened for general commentary, which was followed by ceremonial proceedings: Fire Chief Bud McLaren announced the commencement of the annual Toys for Tots drive and Councilmember Jennifer Cavanaugh announced the Thanksgiving Book Drive Kick-Off.
These introductory matters did not, however, indicate the parade of boiling tempers and accusatory tones that would soon be slung from the small wooden podium on the eastern wall of the Piedmont City Council Chamber.
Planning Director Kevin Jackson began the discussion on the application for the new communication facility at the prompting of Mayor Robert McBain, by giving an explanation of the facility’s location, design, purpose, and where City Council was thus far in their proceedings regarding the approval of the facility.
The application for the proposed wireless communication facility, dubbed a ‘small cell’, is intended to be installed across from 314 Wildwood Avenue, near the Wildwood entrance to Piedmont Park. Site PHS 09 is one of nine “small cell” wireless communication facilities locations proposed by Crown Castle, a wireless infrastructure provider based in Houston, Texas.
The purpose of “small cell” facilities is to provide faster, more reliable coverage and a higher capacity to areas of dense population. Crown Castle’s Government Relations Manager, Sharon James, explained that the planned design for the small cell conformed to city landscaping and design regulations, and will function as an attachment to a street lamp. The street lamp was modeled after the fixtures on Oakland Avenue in an attempt to avoid corruption of Piedmont’s cityscape aesthetic.
Site PHS 09 was the last of the nine applications for Crown Castle wireless facilities to come before the council, five of the previous applications having been denied, and three having been approved. Before even reaching the approval vote phase, Site PHS 09 had already been subject to twenty-six conditional limitations constructed by the city’s Planning Commission in accordance with state, city, and federal laws and regulations.
At the meeting, representatives from Crown Castle, the applicant, were the first to speak, defending the application. Sharon James provided statistics concerning the usefulness of thorough data coverage, stating that 77% of Piedmont citizens have mobile devices and 50% don’t even have wired lines in their homes.
The opposition to Site PHS 09 came from citizens voicing a number of concerns ranging from noise pollution, the dangers of harmful emissions, the degradation of park aesthetic, to the moral corruption of Piedmont at the hands of corporate capitalism.
Piedmont resident Sherry Newman warned against the possibility of a 20% reduction in home values near Site PHS 09, which realtor Anian Tunney, acting as representative for the residents of 314 Wildwood Avenue, repeated. Newman suggested a “citywide vote” that would enable the citizens to decide the fate of the application directly.
Former Piedmont resident Peter Harvey claimed he moved out of Piedmont after decades of citizenship due to the installment of new cell towers near his home. Resident Jeanie Alvis brought up the possibility of toxic emissions, and asked if an independent contractor oversees the annual testing of emission rates. The Council responded, stating that the applicant is responsible for the testing. Wildwood Avenue resident Indira Balkerson pleaded with the Council to “not let capitalism win,” and avoid endangering the school-aged children.
Up to Ms. Balkerson’s time on the stand, I had been relatively uncertain of what to say. I could see both the arguments of the citizens and the goals of the applicant, and more importantly, the City Council. There was also a particular facet of the Site PHS 09 plans that many weren’t understanding. A number of citizens who had spoken, including Sherry Newman, Jason Malk, Caroline Jung, and Emmy Wiesner all referred to the Site PHS 09 small cell as a ‘monstrosity.’ However a ‘site’ is exactly what PHS 09 is right now-just a location. No lamppost has gone up, as the plans have been awaiting approval by the Council.
Mayor McBain repeated three times that the structure currently standing across from 314 Wildwood Avenue was a story pole, the framework of construction, not the actual “small cell” facility. Nevertheless, the word ‘monstrous’ continued to be used. To me, it seemed like the citizens demonstrated their ability to rabble rouse and convey threatening tones, but had shown up to do just that, without much regard for what either the Council or the applicant had to say, no matter how legitimate the response.
As much of the commentary seemed to insinuate the Council’s desire to put children in harm’s way, I chose to speak in defense of the Council’s character, stating that “the Council has an interest in maintaining the lifeblood,” or the safety of the young people, “of the community.” I also referenced Ms. Balkerson’s claim that the Council was endangering the young people, and pointed to the unreasonable nature of her assertion. The Council, I noted, would never forfeit the best interest of the people who voted for them to adopt merely a single small cell wireless communication facility.
After the meeting, I spoke to the Crown Castle representative Sharon James. “We are here as representatives of the applicant,” stated James, adding that the problem with the opposition is that “both federal and state laws apply” and protect the implementation of a new small cell facility. James was surprised the plans were met with such strong objection from the community, admitting that she “thought Piedmont would be more open.” The bottom line, James pointed out, was that “laws allow for telecommunication facilities.” “There are twenty-six conditions on the facility already,” James said, assuring me that Crown Castle would “address appeals with [their] legal department.”
The result of the issue? Wildwood Avenue residents should anticipate the ‘monstrosity’ to soon appear on their block. Mayor McBain expressed on behalf of the Council, “we make legally defensible choices,” before voting in favor of the applicant along with every other councilmember.
It looks like in this match, with the backing of city regulations and federal and state law, Crown Castle captured the king.
by Andrew Hansen, Piedmont High School Senior
Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors.
Piedmont Center for the Arts Application for Conditional Use Permit –
The recent posting by Garrett Keating contains several inaccuracies which I would like to correct. The most important one is the fact that The Piedmont Center For The Arts, Inc. has applied to the City of Piedmont for a Conditional Use Permit to allow THE CENTER to sub-lease space to a commercial sub-tenant. Garrett has represented that The Piedmont Post has applied for this Conditional Use Permit and would become a “tenant” of the City in a City-owned building. In truth, it is The Piedmont Center, which has a right to sub-lease some of its space to a tenant of its choosing, that has applied to the City for a permit, in accordance with the new zoning laws requiring this procedure.
Garrett also represents that Gray Cathrall, Editor of The Piedmont Post, is on the Board of The Piedmont Center. This is untrue. Gray was termed out and resigned from the Board last summer. He was a major contributor to the formation and ongoing publicity needs of The Center.
The Piedmont Center For The Arts has a lease with the City of Piedmont covering a portion of the space in the building at 801 Magnolia. The initial lease was effective on May 2, 2011 and it has been amended several times. The original lease DID restrict any sub-tenants to non-profit entities. In the Lease Amendment effective August 31, 2016, that restriction was removed by amending the Lease to allow The Center to rent to any tenant in accordance with Piedmont’s zoning law.
Why does The Piedmont Center need a tenant? A good question to consider and the answer is simply money! In the original business plan for The Center, the opportunity for rental income from the old Christian Science Reading Rooms was intended as a cash flow which would subsidize all of the arts activities. It was intended to pay all of the overhead and maintenance costs plus a little extra for unforeseen expenses and upgrades.
For the bulk of our tenancy, the Bay Area Children’s Theatre rented our extra space. They were an ideal fit as a sub-tenant because The Center has to have some partial use of these rented rooms & BACT was a very compatible and easy-going group. The extra space at The Center can only be rented as a “shared space” with no exclusive access by either party. During the year, The Center uses those back rooms as the “Green Room” for all theatre productions (make-up, costumes, changing rooms, entrances & exits), the on-going artists’ exhibitors use these rooms to store their wrappings, all Center users utilize the smaller back room for their catering needs, and musicians use them to store their clothing & instrument cases.
Bay Area Children’s Theatre moved out of the building last summer (when they were able to rent an entire vacant church in Montclair) and we have been trying to find a tenant(s) ever since. The problem is that they all want exclusive use, locked doors, a separate alarm system and no use by The Piedmont Center for its programs.
In order for The Piedmont Center to be able to sub-lease even shared space to a commercial tenant, The Center has to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. The Board realized that The Piedmont Post office would be a sub-tenant who would not increase congestion, noise or parking around our building and they are willing to lease on a “shared space” basis at top dollar. That was the kind of sub-tenancy we were looking for.
Nancy Lehrkind, Vice President
The Piedmont Center For The Arts
Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Regarding the proposal to move The Piedmont Post newspaper into 801 Magnolia Avenue – the Piedmont Center for the Arts Building (public space) –
On the Monday, December 11 Planning Commission agenda is an application by The Piedmont Post to sub-lease office space from the Piedmont Center for the Arts (PCA) in the 801 Magnolia building. Some background/history: The editor of The Post serves on the PCA board.
PCA was given an essentially rent-free lease for half of the 801 Magnolia Building by the City Council in 2010 as a non-profit with the authority to sub-lease to other non-profit organizations. As the city owns the building, it is public space and private for profit uses were prohibited. PCA has certainly earned that status as a public space given the arts activity it has brought to Piedmont.
Last spring, the City Code (Chapter 17) was revised by the Council to allow private for-profit uses in public spaces. Private businesses are required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit, one criteria for which is that “the intent is to allow commercial uses which will serve the residents of the City” as opposed to regional users.
City staff explicitly recommended “newspaper” as an acceptable use in its report to Council at the time. In The Post’s application for a Conditional Use Permit, it addresses this intent requirement with the following response: “It will be very convenient for students and residents to file sports stories, notice cultural events, to pick up copies of the weekly newspaper, and provide photographs, etc.”
The Post has been publicly critiqued by Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) School Board members for its biased reporting on school bond measures and stories maligning PUSD staff and hires.
If the use permit is granted, such conduct will continue from taxpayer-supported office space. Comments on this matter can be sent to Kevin Jackson, Planning Director, at kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us or City Council at citycouncil@ci.piedmont.ca.us.
By Garrett Keating, Former City Council Member
Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
On December 4, 2017, the City Council listened to long and detailed staff and consultant explanations of the proposed ten-year contract with Republic Sanitary Services, the sole bidder to provide solid waste services for Piedmont. Republic is Piedmont’s current provider. The Council asked a few questions at the meeting, having gone into greater detail at the off-camera “Study Session” the prior week.
Approximately 3% of service provided in Piedmont is subsidized by the ratepayers to cover the total cost for school and City waste disposal requirements. It was explained that this practice is one of the unique features of Piedmont’s service contract. Most cities and schools pay for their own waste collection services separate from ratepayer fees.
The Council approved the first reading in the two part ordinance approval process. As suggested by Mayor Bob McBain, the second reading will not take place until the Council meeting of January 16, 2017 to allow further input from residents.
Council member Tim Rood requested that the over 5% Piedmont franchise fee, be reduced to approximately 2%, allowing the residential rates to be slightly lower. Prior to the second reading and adoption, staff will come back to the Council in January with a chart of the impacts to the City revenue and ratepayers.
The proposed rates for a curbside 35 gallon cart, which includes unlimited recycling carts, will go from $55.11 per month to $84.60 per month. The rate for premises/backyard 35 gallon cart service, plus unlimited recycling carts, will go from $61.08 per month to $126.93 per month.
Under the proposed plan those wishing to slightly reduce the charges, can opt for a 20 gallon cart rather than a 35 gallon cart. There is also an option to prepay the full year charge in order to reduce the fee by 8%, gaining essentially a free month of service.
Policy for those physically limited
A policy allowing those who are physically unable to place their carts at curbside was approved by the Council. On an annual basis, those residents with specific limitations may attempt to qualify for receiving on premises or backyard service for the same rate as those placing their carts at the curb. Those residents will file an application with the City signed by their doctor or present their handicapped vehicle placard to gain qualification to receive on-premises, backyard pick up, at the curbside rates.
Privacy of the physically limited residents’ information was not discussed.
There will be no reduced rates for seniors, unless within their household no one, including themselves, is able to place carts at the curb.
Republic Services representative informed the Council that there are 11 employees picking up waste in Piedmont 5 days a week. The typical period of their pick up runs from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m.
As in many Bay Area neighborhoods, the hilly, curvy, narrow streets in Piedmont make service more difficult and expensive than flat, broad streets where commercial structures and residences are conveniently spaced.
Comments may be sent to the City Council as follows:
| Robert McBain, Mayor | rmcbain@piedmont.ca.gov | (510) 547-0597 | 2nd Term Exp. 11/20 |
| Teddy Gray King, Vice Mayor | tking@piedmont.ca.gov | (510) 450-0890 | 1st Term Exp. 11/18 |
| Jennifer Cavenaugh | jcavenaugh@piedmont.ca.gov | (510) 428-1442 | 1st Term Exp. 11/20 |
| Tim Rood | trood@piedmont.ca.gov | (510) 239-7663 | 1st Term Exp. 11/18 |
| Betsy Smegal Andersen | bandersen@piedmont.ca.gov | Unexpired Term Exp. 11/18 |
Read prior PCA article with links to the Staff Reports and extensive details on the contract and points of consideration. HERE
On November 20, 2017, the City Council interviewed a number of applicants to fill the Recreation Commission vacancy created when Betsy Andersen was appointed to the City Council. Conna McCarthy was chosen by all Council members to become a member of the Piedmont Recreation Commission. McCarthy had also applied to replace Jeff Wieler upon his resignation for the Council
McCarthy has long been involved in Piedmont activities, particularly recreation, encouraging youth to become active in athletic programs and fundraising.
Professionally, McCarthy is an attorney and works with her husband in their San Francisco law firm Craigie, McCarthy and Clow.
Recently McCarthy initiated activism against former mayor, Jeff Wieler, for his hateful and sexual statements found on line. Wieler ultimately resigned his position on the Council as Piedmont’s Mayor.
McCarthy is the daughter of former California Lt. Governor, Leo McCarthy.
I went to the Piedmont School Board meeting of November 8, 2017. There were a total of 5 Board Members including a high school student. During this meeting, the Board discussed new tax reforms for the upcoming year, as well as the proposed Piedmont school schedule modifications and fire relief donations for Sonoma. In the beginning of the meeting, the Board addressed the topic of the resignation of teacher Mr. Cowherd. They stated that their first priority is for the students to feel safe at all times, but also added that they would not be able to fire a teacher off of the first complaint.
The next topic the Board talked about how to react to the new tax reform. The tax reform debate was an in-depth analysis on two different plans. The first plan the Board was considering would not allow them to switch plans until 2035 and they would stay on the current plan. If the Board chooses this option, there is a chance they would lose money depending on the new tax reform bill President Trump is evaluating. There were two men from the community who spoke in support of this plan and both worked in the financial industry. The second option could force them to make a decision as to whether to switch to a new tax plan in the next month.
There was another resident, who also worked in finance, that promoted this plan and he came prepared with a long slide show of how the taxes could change in upcoming years. In the end, the Board concluded that they would schedule an emergency meeting in the upcoming weeks to decide which plan they would choose.
I think that the Board should push for the second option which is switching the plans now. It seemed that Piedmont would save more money if they chose the second plan because they don’t know what changes Trump’s proposed taxes will have on the community and it may lose a lot of money on the current plan.
The next topic the Board discussed was related to the Piedmont school schedule. They decided to permanently change the yearly schedule which continues to allow finals to be given before Winter Break. A positive factor for this new schedule is that students get a full week off during Thanksgiving since the school was losing money when kids took the whole week off while school was in session.
I was torn between which schedule I liked best, because I really like the current schedule, but I also enjoy having a week off for Thanksgiving. I spoke on the topic of the schedule and pushed for the schools to stay on the same schedule they are on currently. Though after hearing what the Board had to say, I definitely do not mind switching because finals are still before Winter Break and students get a whole week off for Thanksgiving. I also really like how the Board chose to keep block scheduling because it allows students to have more time to work on their homework. Kids have so many other activities going on besides school that it can be hard to complete all the homework and with this schedule, it allows kids to get their homework done and have extracurriculars.
Another topic discussed was the fire in Sonoma. Piedmont has been raising money for the past month to help the fire victims and ended up raising a lot of money. The representative speaking for this topic was Heather Frank and she stated that they have raised 1.8 million dollars. She said that only a small portion of the population had donated and Piedmont could do a lot better if everyone participated.
The last topic that citizens spoke about was in regards to Mr.Littlefield, the new Piedmont High School principal. It was very challenging for Mr. Littlefield in his first year as principal at Piedmont to manage the recent issues around charges of Mr.Cowherd’s harassment of students. A community member, Ms. Cooper, talked about a recent article written by the journalism class at Piedmont where students spoke about how great Mr. Littlefield is and how well they believed he handled the situation. I agree with the student who wrote this statement. I think Mr. Littlefield did a great job handling the Cowherd situation and I also believe he is a really good principal in general. He shows a lot of school spirit and always talks during school wide assemblies which shows that he cares about the students’ learning environment.
I interviewed Ms.Cooper in reference to her comments about Mr. Littlefield and how well he handled the sexual harassment situation. She was there to give credit to the students who wrote the article and to compliment Mr. Littlefield as well. She enjoyed the meeting and was glad to get her opinion heard. In the situation Mr. Littlefield was put in, there are a lot of ways to slip up and make a big mistake and it was nice to hear someone complimenting him.
As a high school senior, I have never been to a School Board meeting and I actually really enjoyed it. I learned how decisions are made in the community and how easy it is to make an impact on our community. Attending this meeting will have an impact in regards to my involvement in the communities in which I live down the road.
by Kai Zimmer, Piedmont High School Senior
Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Open letter to Tim Rood regarding sexual harassment prevention training.I’d like to thank you, on behalf of the School Board, for your input on sexual harassment training in the District. Earlier this fall, the District began to take steps to update sexual harassment policies to ensure they are consistent with Title IX, Ed Code and best practices under the law; and to outline procedures for providing staff training and professional development on sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and Title IX. The District expects new policies will be in place for Board review early in 2018.Currently, and in accordance with Ed Code, all District administrators and/or supervisors are required to participate in sexual harassment training every two years. The District will change the frequency to every year. As you may already know, sexual harassment training for our union employees is part of contract negotiations.Respectfully,Amal Smith, School Board Member
A 35 gallon cart with curbside pick-up will annually cost over $1,000 per residence and over $1,500 annually for on premises or backyard pick-up.
Council to consider 10-year waste disposal contract Monday, December 4, 2017
Council Chambers, City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable Channel 27 and on the City website under videos.
In an off-camera presentation to the City Council in a special study session on November 27th in the Emergency Operations Center, Piedmont’s consultant and City staff advised approval of the large increase in rates proposed by waste disposal company, Republic Services.
According to those who attended the study session few members of the public were present.
Numerous suggestions have been made regarding the proposed contract. The final proposal was unknown to the public until the recent meeting.
No attempt was made by the City to make the waste disposal fee tax deductible by including it in the Municipal Services Tax.
Much of the increased cost results from the resident fee covering the City’s own significant waste disposal needs, a municipal service.
Unlike other cities, Piedmont’s proposed contract fees will not be tax deductible. The City of Piedmont takes money from the fees to cover the cost of the City’s municipal waste disposal and City staffing costs. It has been suggested that if the City needs the money to pay for its own waste disposal, the funding should come from the City of Piedmont’s lucrative tax funds and numerous reserve funds garnered from property taxes, utility user fees, real property transfer fees, etc.
Public suggestions have been made to send out another Request for Proposals (RFP) that is more appropriate for Piedmont or ask for the same rates and service contract as the City of Oakland. Many have compared similar Oakland services provided by Waste Management, as more inline with services needed in Piedmont at dramatically lower costs.
Seniors, who can no longer navigate getting their carts to the curb and back to storage, will be tremendously disadvantaged unless they obtain an annual disability medical release from their doctor. The City professes an “age in place” goal to help seniors remain in their homes, however policies to implement this goal have been few and the large increase in waste disposal fees or the physical challenge of dragging heavy carts to the curb pose barriers for seniors who to wish to remain in Piedmont.
Concern has been raised regarding disability privacy issues and the City’s Disability Qualification processes. Some individuals who have a hidden disability do not want their health information and physician’s name held in City records. Additionally, the laborious task of certifying on an annual basis each household’s qualifying disability adds additional staff cost to Piedmont’s administrative overhead – pensions, benefits, office provision and technical expenses.
Read the physical limitations qualifications for backyard service at curbside rates > – b. Consideration of a Policy Allowing Residents with Certain Physical Limitations to Receive “On-Premise” (Backyard) Service at Curbside Rates
The following are some of the comments and suggestions made by residents.
- The proposed rate increase is outrageous. If Oakland’s rates are substantially less, then maybe Piedmont needs to go in on the Oakland contract instead of going it alone and missing out on economies of scale.
- The published City of Oakland rates for July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 for the basic three cart 32 gallon service is $44.93 for curbside and doubles to $88.21 for backyard. The Piedmont service does include some extras such as unlimited green and recycling pickup that are extra cost with the Oakland service.Backyard service at curbside rates for Seniors is a common practice in the region, as stated by the City’s own consultant. The City has declared this common practice legally questionable and disallowed it.
-
Judging from staff report, it is not clear whether staff and a select sub-committee considered this option:
“An evaluation panel comprised of the Directors of Public Works and Planning, community members John Chiang and Patty Siskind, and former City Council Member Jeff Wieler met on
June 15, 2017 and June 27, 2017 to discuss Republic Services’proposal and options for moving forward for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council. The evaluation panel considered the two primary options for moving forward with the procurement process, either: 1)
canceling this RFP and issuing another RFP(s) with parameters that would encourage submittals from additional proposers, or 2) accepting Republic Services’ proposal and proceeding with contract negotiations.The possible parameters to encourage greater responses by means of a new RFP that were considered included:
A modified backyard service requirement that would reduce or eliminate the provision of backyard services. The high proportion (~50%) of Piedmont residences currently receiving backyard service, as well as input from the community indicating a high degree of support for backyard service, suggested that this option would not be preferred.
Splitting a new solicitation into two RFPs separating the collection component of services from the disposal component of services. Considering the efficiencies achieved by having
one provider of all the requested services, this approach would be unlikely to result in lower rates even if it resulted in additional proposals. ”Based on the projections, it seems the “splitting” option should be investigated as an alternative.
- The aspect of all this that I find most disturbing is the opaque “evaluation panel.” The community was not consulted and past ballot arguments show two of the three panel members, Wieler and Chiang, to have never seen an increase in taxes and subsequent resident cost they didn’t love and support. Perhaps a more even toned panel would have come to a different conclusion and been more open to other than the single bidder contract with Republic Services that the Council is about to pass.To be very clear, Waste Management, Oakland’s provider, had two issues. The first is the backyard service and Waste Management does provide that in Oakland; perhaps Waste Management would have wanted more than a higher markup in Piedmont. The other Waste Management issue, not named in the City documentation but contained in the Waste Management response letter, is whether the City was willing to go to an automated lift system. This is simply a different type of collection cart that mates to a lift on the truck. As the City is expecting Republic to provide new trucks, this was already baked into the cake.
- Certainly any documents or supporting materials used by the evaluation panel should be made public, attached to the two staff reports leading to this option. R3, the consultant, participated in the evaluation committee – they likely presented materials to the community members.
- Was Garrett Keating contacted by the City to be on the Evaluation Committee? Keating was on the Council for 8 years and the Council Liaison to Stopwaste providing more experience in this particular field than the other three Committee members.
- Keating was not asked to be on the Committee. Why did Councilman Rood not participate in the Evaluation Committee? He is the city’s current representative to StopWaste and would seem a logical choice.The evaluation committee cites the efficiencies of one provider but all that is needed to enlist Waste Management (VM) is to get the bins to the street – all other efficiencies that WM would bring could then be achieved. Lacking any substantive report from the committee, it seems the city may have lost an opportunity for some real savings here. Can anyone from the committee or city staff explain why WM can provide curb and backyard service in Oakland at such lower rates? Did anyone from staff or R3 inquire about this?
Piedmont Staff Reports:
12/04/17 – Consideration of the Following Actions Regarding the Granting of a Franchise for Solid Waste Collection Services
Read the Dec. 4, 2017 meeting agenda HERE.
At the City Council meeting on Monday, December 4, 2017, the Council will consider adopting a new policy for determining the location of “Stop Signs” and crosswalks. When numerous stop signs were recently installed on such streets as Wildwood Avenue and Hampton Road, some Piedmonters objected to their location.
This item is the last one on the meeting agenda.
Read the proposed policy HERE.
Content on the PCA website by Piedmont Civic Association is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Some icons are Copyright © Yusuke Kamiyamane