Piedmont property owners face important property tax deduction changes on their 2018 income tax statements. 

This site does not provide tax advice, however there is information to indicate paying the full  2017-18 property tax by December 29, 2017 (Friday) may save taxpayers money because of the IRS deductibility rule changes for 2018.

Some property owners have wondered if they can pay even further ahead for 2018-19 taxes.  According to Alameda County Tax Collector Henry Levy, the answer is NO.  See below. 

Read an article regarding Alameda County Property Tax payments HERE.

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors. 

Dear Piedmont City Council Members,

In addition to questions of propriety and potential tricky First Amendment issues with the City being the Landlord for a press organization, and the potential optics of the Council being seen to essentially provide a subsidy to a news organization, both of which are very important to consider, I have some core public policy concerns around the decision to allow the Piedmont Center for the Arts  (PCA) to sublet City space to any commercial entity at market rates.

1. The PCA has apparently stated to the Council that it cannot survive without this Sublet Rent

This in itself raises some very troubling questions about the financial stewardship and oversight by the Board of the PCA.  If this is true, it begs the question of whether the City needs active oversight of the PCA.  Here are the facts sourced from the Form 990 filings of the PCA, all which would seem to indicate that it is more than financially viable:

–          In its first 4 years of operations, the PCA was more than self-sustaining with income of $10,000 – $33,000 a year (average of $19k a year from 2012 – 2015)

–          Since its inception, the PCA has had an annual fund raising campaign with active solicitation letters and mailers sent out broadly to residents; the most recent one that I am aware of was in Oct/Nov 2015

–          The PCA has raised, on average, approximately $20k a year in donations from the community, separate and distinct from any revenue from program events, i.e. pure charitable contributions

–          During these years, its rental income from subleasing the space, was not that substantial: Bay Area Children’s Theater was paying $7,200/ year (through 2015)

Therefore, if something changed dramatically in 2016 that no longer makes the PCA financially viable, it begs the question as to what has changed so dramatically in programming and/or community support (donations)?  Either should be cause for concern for the City because one of the main contentions of the PCA when it was established was that it would be self-sustaining and would require no further support from the City.

2. The PCA received a very generous donation of $100,000 in 2012, which more than guarantees its financial independence

In 2012, the PCA received $100,000 from the Thornborrow Foundation, in the form of an unrestricted grant.  This grant was invested and, to the best of what I can gather from the 990s, has over the years grown to $135,000 plus.

Given this more than generous endowment, and the fact that most of the PCA’s programming is self-sustaining (and if it is not, that raises the question of what has changed in the PCA’s mission), does it not raise the question of why the City of Piedmont should be further subsidizing the PCA to the tune of $50 – $70k a year?

In other words, if the PCA needed $x a year to be financially viable, they should have put that in the original lease and the City would then have considered the implications of giving that additional subsidy to the PCA.  The whole reason that was not necessary was that it was part of the original deal that the PCA made with the City, and what the City’s (and the public’s) understanding of the terms were: give us the building, we will raise funds to renovate it and then we will be completely independent from the City and self-sustaining.

[Extra information on the PCA’s programs: Artists’ rentals (raises revenue), Music recitals (pay for themselves through ticket sales), Juried Art Show (more than pays for itself through entry fees), Theater (??)]

3. Allowing the PCA to sublet the space to a Commercial Renter is in effect the City increasing the PCA’s subsidy substantially

The financial terms of the original “contract” of the City with the PCA can best be summarized as: you, the PCA will renovate and maintain 801 Magnolia and use the space exclusively to bring Arts to the community.  In return, the City grants you use of the property for 10 years for a nominal rent.  Any way you look at it, this was the City subsidizing the PCA, albeit for a very community-beneficial cause, a cause that I fully support.  (God knows, there should be more set aside for the Arts everywhere!)  The subsidy in this instance being the rent the City could otherwise have obtained from renting out the space itself to a commercial renter for 10 years.

Now the PCA has come to the City and said that the best use for a part of the space is for it to be rented out commercially.  The City’s rationale in providing a heavily rent-subsidized property to the PCA was to facilitate the bringing of Arts to the community, which the PCA has done an admirable job of.  That was the underlying rationale for the economic subsidy (rent-free for 10 years).  Hence the initial sublet clause in the original lease was that any rental would be aligned to the mission of PCA, i.e. bringing arts to the community (and which was the case from 2012 – 2106).  If that whole use condition is removed, and the space can now be sublet to any commercial renter, the entire public policy rationale of giving subsidized rent to the PCA, on that portion of the property, goes away.  Put another way, by allowing the PCA to sublet out space that it is receiving from the City at a heavily subsidized rate (under one pretext), to a commercial entity (whose purpose is completely unrelated to the PCA’s mission), at market rates, is tantamount to the City providing the PCA a substantial, additional subsidy. 

The question for the City Council then is this: shouldn’t the revenue that the City could obtain from itself renting out this portion of 801 Magnolia (and other parts of the building which it has exclusive use of), be part of the City’s overall budget and spending priorities?  Why is a decision to grant the PCA a further subsidy of $50k – $70k a year being taken outside of the context of several other more crucial spending priorities of the City?

My issue is not whether or not the City should be subsidizing an arts organization – God knows we need more of that!  The issue is that this is taxpayer money, valuable revenue that could be used to defray the cost of other City services. Whether or not it is appropriate for the City to spend that much to subsidize the Arts is a question that is most appropriately considered along with other budget priorities of the City, in a more considered process, open to public comment like any other spending priority.  If fact, the very decision by the City to allow a tenant to lease space commercially is an economic decision that the Council and Staff should have vetted no differently than they vet any other spending decision by the City.  Secondly, given the size of the subsidy here, if the PCA is no longer financially viable as they now claim, should there not be oversight of how this money is spent?  Essentially, the City is handing over $50 – $70k worth of potential taxpayer monies to the PCA Board, without any accounting for how that money will be spent.

4. Any appearance that the Piedmont Post is not paying Market Rent implies that the City is Subsidizing a News Organization

Is Council aware of the actual terms of the sublease between the PCA and the Piedmont Post?  If the Post is not paying what would be considered “market rent” for use of space in the heart of the city, with two parking spaces, then essentially the City, as the landlord, would be subsidizing the Post, which exposes the City to a potential First Amendment lawsuit and the Council members to potential accusations of conflict of interest.  The same holds to a lesser degree to any other commercial lessee, i.e. the City will be subsidizing the entity if it is not paying “market rent”.

Respectfully,

Gautam Wadhwani

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Newspaper had already received pre-approval from City Administrator for a sublease of the public property at 801 Magnolia that houses the Piedmont Center for the Arts.

At the December 18, 2017  Council meeting starting at approximately 10:00 p.m., the Piedmont Center for the Arts was given approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) allowing space to be sublet to one local news organization, The Piedmont Post. The Council approval was on a narrow vote of 3 for and 2 against.

Voting for the motion to approve were Mayor Robert McBain, who praised the newspaper, Vice Mayor Teddy King, who was eager for  approval, and Council Member Betsy Andersen, the newly appointed member of the Council, who inquired about the hours of operation.

Voting “no” on the motion to approve the CUP were Council Member Tim Rood, who had noted his disapproval of the Post and Jen Cavenaugh, who had many lingering unanswered questions regarding the lease and potential of gifting valuable city resources to a business.

Unbeknownst to the public, and evidently, the Council,  City Administrator Paul Benoit had already given permission to the Arts Center to sublet their space to the Post if approval of a Conditional Use Permit was granted by the Council.  Benoit stepped into the Council discussion supporting the Post’s usage of the building.

Numerous questions went unanswered: basis of the lease to the Arts Center’s ability to sublet or use the City’s property at 801 Magnolia for profit businesses, while denying non-profit usage, ability of City Administrator to grant permission to sublet the property without public involvement, hours of operation, unknown sublease conditions, amongst other matters.

The City Code and lease were recently changed by the Council to allow businesses in the Arts Center building.

Findings of the Planning Commission are in error, consequently the decision should be put over to a later date.

Dec. 16, 2017

Piedmont City Council

Dec. 18, 2017

RE:  801 Magnolia Avenue: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Lease approval for Piedmont Post newspaper.

 Dear Mayor McBain and Council,

          CUP Findings CUPs require that the “use is primarily to serve Piedmont residents.” The Dec. 18, 2017 Piedmont Staff report states that “The Piedmont Post . . . provides a forum for the exchange of ideas and public engagement” at Finding Two. The Dec. 11, 2018 CUP staff report to the Planning Commission states, this CUP “Should not be decided based on the content of the Piedmont Post.” Therefore, it is valid to examine whether the Post provides a forum as it is not an examination of content.          

          A forum is “A medium (such as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas” (Merriam-Webster); it is a “Public medium . . . used for debates in which anyone can participate” (Business Dictionary). The Post commonly denies letter space to many Piedmont residents. The Post does not provide a forum by any reasonable and commonly understood definition of what a forum is. Finding Two is in error.

The CUP should be rejected as it does not serve Piedmont residents unless the City’s intent is to not serve all residents. Alternately, the CUP can be sent back to the Planning Commission for further community input on whether the Post does provide a forum.

         Approval of the Lease. The City has not determined if it is appropriate to have a relationship with a commercial media firm by leasing space to it on public property.  A media outlet can move elections; therefore it is critical to determine how closely aligned the City should be to a media outlet. The Post views City Staff, elected and appointed officials as “colleagues.” (Paisley Strellis, former Post News Editor and Writer quote at her July 23, 2016 City sponsored retirement party held on public property); the relationship is unacceptable.           

          Is Council equitably representing residents and getting maximum value?  The Piedmont Center for the Arts (PCA) at 801 Magnolia Avenue is subsidized by $75,000 to $100,000 annually by taxpayers. Will there be a gift of public funds as a pass-through subsidy to a commercial media outlet? 

          The applicant states the sub-let will be at “top dollar.” What is this amount? How was “top dollar” rate determined? What efforts were made to obtain a tenant other than the Post? 

          There is a conflict of interest. Given the close relationship of the Publisher/Owner to PCA, this appears to be a sweetheart deal that does not serve taxpayers.

          Deny the CUP and disapprove the sub-let. Minimally, as many families are involved in Holiday celebrations, kindly put this matter over to a later date.

Respectfully, Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident 

Cc: Paul Benoit
John Tulloch 

 Kevin Jackson, Planning Director

 Editors Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Proposed Conditional Use Permit for 801 Magnolia by the Piedmont Post

Monday, December 11, 2017

Dear Mr. Kevin Jackson, Piedmont Planning Director:

I live on Vista Avenue and I am a neighbor to the Piedmont Center for the Arts.  I have been invited by the City to comment on the use of 801 Magnolia by the Piedmont Post.  I am completely against the Piedmont Post using this location.

As I understand it,  the hours of operation include the middle of the night.  My house is very close to this location and I strongly object to the noise of trucks, cars and people in this area at all hours, including the evening, night and early morning.

 By granting this permit you will have impacted my quiet enjoyment of my home and that of  my neighbors.  Such use may well constitute a nuisance.  I request that this permit be denied.  I do not believe a business should be in this public arts space.

 Sincerely,

Rachel Asa, Piedmont Resident

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Dec. 10, 2017

Piedmont Planning Commission
c/o Kevin Jackson, City Planner

Re: Dec 11 CUP Hearing, sub-let 801 Magnolia Ave by Piedmont Post.

Dear Chairman Ramsey and Planning Commissioners,

The taxpayer funds used to purchase 801 Magnolia Avenue, renovate the deteriorated property and provide low/no cost space to the Piedmont Center for the Arts (“PCA”) has been money well spent. The July 11, 2016 Staff Report recommended the change to allow commercial use: a beverage service or local newspaper. A beverage service would provide a complimentary benefit to PCA visitors. However, a newspaper is not politically neutral as a beverage stand is and the violation of our Constitutional rights is serious. Leasing space to the Post has involved rezoning public property in violation of the Charter and violations of our State and Federal Constitutional rights to be free of government support for a partisan point of view on matters of public importance.

The Piedmont Post has provided community benefit in its reporting of non-political issues such as art, entertainment, culture and life events. Regardless, for critical Civic issues the Post is Piedmont’s own Fox News. This particularly partisan newspaper provided a weekly forum for our recently disgraced and resigned Mayor Wieler, supported the failed Blair Park sports field, will not provide equal space to opposing resident viewpoints, sought to distort facts in support of the failed 2012 sewer surcharge tax; and has disgracefully attacked our School Board. The Post has a right to take, and disseminate these partisan positions but not from City property. That is a clear violation of our Constitutional rights.

While the First Amendment allows the Post to commonly distort and omit facts to the detriment of many residents, good government requires that the City treat all residents equally. Sub-leasing to the Post on public property violates that essential equal treatment. This public property is paid for and subsidized equally by all taxpayers.

PCA Board Vice-President Nancy Lehrkind has stated the lease will be “at top dollar.” We are entitled to see the terms of the sub-lease and the City is obligated to disclose them before approval is given for the CUP application. What rent will the Piedmont Post pay? What assurance do we have that this is not a below market rent? Will comparable space at 801 Magnolia be made available on comparable terms to other parties who wish to communicate their public positions on matters of public importance? What assurances does the City have of this from PCA? Is this assurance in the City’s lease with PCA? Where is the space and what are the terms?

The applicant states: “#9. Benefit to Piedmont residents: Residents writing articles.” As the Post has denied many resident articles and letters that do not support the Post’s editorial agenda, the Post is not consistent with #9. The intent of Sec 17.020.010.B.7 is to allow commercial use which will serve the residents of the City. By denying print space to a significant number of residents, the Post and this application by PCA are not in compliance with the City Code.

The Post does not comply with the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics that “. . . public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues (and) strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty.”

In important civic issues, matters that require a City Council resolution, the Post acts as the Media Outlet of City Hall and falls far short of the Journalist Code of Ethics. City Hall’s support of the Post threatens local democratic government.

Former Post City Editor Paisley Strellis verified the partisan mission of the Post on its June 29, 2016 front page: “I consider many members of the city staff and the city’s elected and appointed officials to be colleagues.”

Having the Piedmont Post located on public property directly behind City Hall is an affront to decency and good government.

The CUP should be denied.

Respectfully,

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

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:

Read prior PCA article with links to the Staff Reports and extensive details on the contract and points of consideration. HERE

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. The staff report has a projection showing that Waste Management is actually cheaper than Republic in 2018-2019. WM did not bid, claiming worker comp costs associated with backyard service were too high but based on the projection and asssuming 50% backyard service, approx $865,000 would be available to get backyard cans to the street for WM to pick up (131-91 x 12 x (3600 x 0.5) – see table in staff report. That’s a lot of funds for a sub-contracting service to get the backyard cans to the street.

   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.

4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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

a. Introduction and 1st Reading of Ord. 737 N.S. Granting a Franchise to Republic Services for Solid Waste Services and Approval of a Collection Services Agreement 

a1. Introduction and 1st Reading of Ord. 737 N.S. Granting a Franchise to Republic Services for Solid Waste Services and Approval of a Collection Services Agreement (Supplemental)

b. Consideration of a Policy Allowing Residents with Certain Physical Limitations to Receive “On-Premise” (Backyard) Service at Curbside Rates 

Read the Dec. 4, 2017 meeting agenda HERE.