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.

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.

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.

Latest version of draft Climate Action Plan available for citizen review below.

Gunshots fired into a home on Moraga Avenue in Oakland. 

Piedmont is once more in the local TV news. Piedmonters regularly pass the location of the incident on Moraga Avenue in Oakland as they go from the center of Piedmont via Moraga Avenue toward Piedmont Avenue.  A neighbor across the street from the shooting is in custody for the crime.

On Tuesday, 11/28/17, at approximately 5:45PM, Piedmont and Oakland Police officers responded to the 4400 block of Moraga Avenue following multiple reports of gunshots in the area. Oakland Police officers located and arrested the suspect, who was responsible for discharging the firearm into the air and into a nearby home. As the entire event took place within the City of Oakland, OPD is the investigating agency. No one was injured during the incident.  City Clerk of Piedmont.

Watch a television report here.

Piedmonters are concerned about the home invasion robbery that occurred in October on Oakland Avenue in Piedmont.  The well-traveled street would seem to be an unlikely spot for an intrusive, violent crime.

The perpetrators turned off the PG&E electrical supply to the home at the unlocked meter.  When the homeowner exited their home to examine their meter, the perpetrators overtook the man and threatened him with their gun, while causing physical harm to him.

Before leaving the scene, the criminals stole numerous valuables from the homeowners.

Watch the KTVU news coverage of the robbery by clicking below:

http://www.ktvu.com/news/piedmont-police-release-surveillance-video-in-home-invasion-robbery

Contact the Piedmont Police Department with any leads or observations regarding this crime plus any suspicious activities seen in Piedmont at 510/420-3000.

Proposed revisions to Piedmont City Code Chapter 17, Planning and Land Use.

On Monday, December 4^th at 7:30 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, the City Council will consider revisions to City Code Division 17.48 to regulate cannabis cultivation and facilities in response to changes in State Law.

December 4, 2017 City Council Agenda

Report to City Council regarding regulations related to Cannabis

On November 13, 2017, the Piedmont Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council adoption of an ordinance amending Division 17.48 of the City Code to regulate private cannabis cultivation and commercial cannabis facilities in response to changes in State law. In order to maintain local control over all cannabis land uses to the fullest extent allowed by law, the recommended regulations will:

1. a)Continue the current prohibition of all commercial cannabis facilities for cultivation, distribution, transportation, storage, manufacturing, processing, and sales in all zones;
2. b)Allow personal cannabis cultivation inside private residences, subject to reasonable restrictions; and
3. c)Allow the delivery of cannabis and cannabis products to individuals within the City limits, subject to reasonable restrictions.

More information on this issue is provided on the City’s website.

Public Participation

Members of the public are encouraged to participate throughout this process by submitting comments and attending the meetings. Written comments may be submitted to the Council via email at citycouncil@ci.piedmont.ca.us or via US Mail addressed to City Clerk John Tulloch at 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611. All meetings are publicly noticed. In addition, staff maintains a list of community members who wish to receive email notification of proposed revisions to land use regulations in Chapter 17. Contact Planning Director Kevin Jackson at kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us or (510) 420-3039.  Fax: (510) 658-3167

This meeting will be broadcast live on Cable Channel 27 and via the City website under videos.

Piedmont Unified School District Superintendent Booker responses to Tim Rood’s request that all PUSD personnel, including teachers, receive sexual harassment prevention training.  (Read Rood’s letter here.)

Mr. Rood-

Thank you for your recent inquiry around the District’s Sexual Harassment Training.

You are correct to state that the law requires that all PUSD employees in a supervisory role receive sexual harassment training every other year.  PUSD Administrators and Supervisors complete sexual harassment training every other year and beginning in 2017 have moved to annual training.

While the law requires mandatory training, my administrative team welcomes the professional development in support of staff and students and does not see it as “unpopular” in the least bit.

In the future, please feel free to contact me directly with any questions or concerns.  I’m happy to walk you through the District’s policies and procedures.

Sincerely,