A recent article by the East Bay Express reports attorney and elected AC Transit Board Member Joel Young may have acted in a conflict of interest and used District resources for personal gain.  Young is an At-Large member of the Board, representing the entire AC Transit District, including Piedmont. 

Young was originally appointed by the Board of Directors in February 2009 to fill one of the District’s two At-Large positions.  He was subsequently elected by the voters in 2010 for a four year term expiring December 2014.   Young earned a Bachelors Degree from the University of California, Berkeley and a J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Boalt Hall).

Click to view Young’s Conflict of Interest Filings.

Young can be contacted at Email: jyoung@actransit.org, Telephone: (510) 891-7146, or Fax: (510) 891-4705.

The East Bay Express article is available here.

In the fall of 2012, Wall Street Journal’s Julia Angwin reported on license plate-tracking technologies (license plate readers /LPRs), the use of the information gathered, and how long it stays in various databases.  One of the people she interviewed was Mike Katz-Lacabe in San Leandro, California.   “In 2010, Mr. Katz-Lacabe filed a California Public Records Act request for his data from the local police. He received a report containing 112 images of his vehicles dating to 2008.”

Angwin also interviewed San Leandro Police Chief Sandra Spagnoli, who told her the department plans to retain the photos indefinitely.  And in some rare circumstances at least, police have  used their LPRs illegitimately.  In 1998, according to surveyofone.com, a Washington, D.C. police lieutenant plead guilty to extortion after looking up the plates of vehicles near a gay bar and blackmailing the vehicle owners.

Origins of LPRs

But it was not police departments that first used the technology over wide regions.  It was repo guys, the automobile repossession agents who locate and tow cars that are being repossessed for non-payment of car loans.  Repossession agents have used their LPRs to photograph vehicles in cities and areas that still don’t have any public entity LPRs .  Solutions Today Final Notice & Recovery LLC tows an average 15 vehicles most nights covering the Maryland and Washington, D.C. region.

Most repossession agents’ upload their LPR photos to one of the national private databases. Vigilant Solutions has more than 700 million vehicle photos, license plates with location, time, and date in its national private LPR data base.  On its website it explains, “The National Vehicle Location Service (NVLS) is Vigilant’s National LPR Data Repository.  NVLS aggregates ANPR / ALPR data from various sources – law enforcement agencies, private systems for asset recovery and access control, and others.”

In the 1960’s LPRs began being used by police.  To photograph drivers violating red lights, cameras were installed at some intersections.  Using the resulting photos, the police issued tickets to the car’s owner and collected significant fines.  More recently, LPRs have been effective at locating and towing abandoned stolen cars and booting cars with multiple unpaid parking tickets.

Piedmonters have been assured by Police Chief Rikki Goede in public meetings presenting the LPR program that vehicle photos and data will only be retained for one year and that it will only be available to law enforcement agencies.

On June 3 the City Council will consider a contract with 3M Company to purchase 39 Automated License Plate Reader cameras for installation at 15 sites in Piedmont. Citizens have expressed varying opinions about the proposal:

Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Councillors:

 

Thank you for so promptly attending to the fundamental issue of placing License Plate Readers at various entrances to Piedmont, which we are very much in support of.

As residents who live very close to the Oakland/Piedmont border, as well as to Scenic avenue (which has seen much crime activity lately) we urge that you consider placing a License Plate reader at the entrance to Piedmont from Blair/Harbord Avenue.

This will act as a major deterrent to criminal elements entering our city through this vital choke point.

Additionally we request that you place a prominent street sign at that point indicating that

” You are now entering Piedmont” so that intruders may be deterred from entering at all.

 

Best Regards

Stavros and Amanda Gougoumis

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear City Council Members:

 

I am sorry to be writing you so late, but I have been travelling a lot and just haven’t had time to sit down and give you my thoughts on this important fiscal and crime issue.

 

I am very concerned that the positive response to License plate readers is a knee jerk response to our crime increases without sufficient study or documentation to determine if they in fact have any positive effect upon crime prevention or arrests. Early on, Chief Goede testified in front of you indicating that in Claremont, CA. they installed readers throughout the city. She gave statistics of 26 and 22 million “hits” over two years (2012 and 2011) with 166 arrests over that period. That is statistically irrelevant. It is 0.000003 arrests per hit. Statistically, there could have been that many arrests with or without the readers in place.  Crime is certainly a concern in town, but we don’t know if we had an unusual number of incidents in a short period or if it is really getting worse.

 

Please don’t make a significant financial mistake and proceed with the readers without more information. Unfortunately, Piedmont has had a record of “ready, fire, aim” which resulted in financial disasters over recent years including undergrounding expenditures and unreimbursed Blair Park costs. Both of those could have been averted with proper oversight, documentation and research.

 

Let’s not let this happen again. I urge you to study this situation more and get better  facts  and  research  before  spending  such  a  significant  amount  of  money.  Just because the City coffers are flush right now is no reason to spend money foolishly. There may be better and more efficient ways to control our crime issues.

 

Very Truly yours, Joseph Hurwich, CPA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Writing in The Piedmont Highlander, Piedmont High School student Kate Bott described the License Plate Readers proposed project as moving Piedmont closer to “the Big Brother scenario George Orwell describes in 1984…” 

~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

I’m emailing to voice my support for installing License Plate Reader Cameras at each entrance and exit point of the city. Please make this part of the record.

Regards,

Mary Peek

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Dear City Council,

          Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are not a crime preventative tool. As Chief Goede stated referring to ALPRs: “Its not a crime prevention tool, its more of an investigative tool on the back end.” At the Public Safety Committee meeting Chief Goede stated there have been no studies showing a correlation between the implementation of ALPRs and a reduction in crime.

         While convicting and sentencing criminals is desirable, criminals are unaware of which cities have a high conviction rate. So the high cost of the ALPRs is simply not justified even as a peripheral conviction tool. The primary function of the ALPRs is evidently to find stolen cars, but no assumption can be made that every criminal entering Piedmont is in a stolen car. And we have yet to be provided with the effectiveness of the single existing mobile ALPR that has been in service. Additionally, a person intent on committing a crime is likely unaware they are about to do it in Piedmont so even if criminals were aware of a high Piedmont conviction rate, they are likely unaware they are in Piedmont.

          “Force multiplier” is the use of digital information to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of Police. A direct means of implementing Police force multiplication is the use of predictive policing programs such as PredPol. Although in the testing phase, PredPol’s initial results have been positive in assigning probabilities of crime in space and time, implementing situational crime prevention and aiding in the most effective use of Police resources. Before our City spends $678,613 plus about $115,000 annually for a civilian ALPR monitor plus the unknown annual maintenance costs plus the thousands annual in connectivity costs plus the installation costs not covered in the 3M contract, the effectiveness of a predictive policing program should be considered.

Police patrolling is the backbone of good police work that stops crime. Criminals seeing officers patrolling is the most effective deterrent available. Can the efficiency of officer placement be enhanced by the use of predictive software? Regardless, Piedmont Police statistics consistently show a high incidence of burglaries and similar crimes committed during weekday daylight hours. Putting another officer on during these hours and in high crime areas would require about 1.66 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Officers; the cost is about $300,000 but would not require the annual $115,000 non-sworn ALPR hire. Adding an additional officer when needed is less expensive than the ALPRs and directly more effective as a crime deterrent. We still do not have a good handle on the ongoing recurring maintenance costs of the ALPRs.

A guaranteed read rate is not specified in the 3M contract. Other companies that provide the ALPRs have such a specification. I ask Council to query the 3M representatives what the guaranteed read rate is of the cameras they are supplying.

We are all alarmed by the increase in crime and we all want to prevent crimes. We need directly preventative tools, not ALPRs.

Respectfully,

Rick Schiller

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

Please add my name to support for license plate cameras & more street lighting on border streets.

Patricia Markovich

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

Too Much Money, Too Few Facts, Too Soon

Before spending more than $1 million, the City should research the effectiveness of license plate readers.

Is there any reliable evidence that license plate readers reduce crime?  If so, what is it?

What are other less expensive alternatives?  How about a cost/benefit analysis of the proposal and other altematives?

How would this unanticipated expenditure affect already-budgeted items?

The March 18 staff report implies that buying readers has been decided and it is just a matter of how fast it can be implemented:  “The ‘tum key’ approach should be given serious consideration from the standpoint of time and efficiency necessary to complete the project.”  (Page 2 of the staff report.)  Staffs outreach to 3M for bids after the Council meeting is more evidence.

Instead of making a decision for the Council by presenting only one altemative, staff should have offered altematives to the Council for public consideration  The staff report does not precisely define the problem or explain how readers work to reduce crime, and it does not present any altematives.  There is no analysis.  The report gives the Council no real choice.  Nor does it support its recommendation  with any data whatsoever about the effectiveness of the single solution proposed.

It looks and feels as if the decision had been made before the Council even started its consideration in public.

The Public Safety Committee should ask staff for (1) deeper and broader analysis of multiple options to reduce crime and for (2) an analysis of the effect of pulling $!million out of the budget for this unforeseen expense–before the Committee reports back to the City Council.

Linda Roodhouse Loper

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~

On January 21, 2013 two Piedmont families were victims of violent “take-over” home invasion robberies by gun point. BULLETS were fired at them! Home invasions, crime and its impact has escalated over the years in Piedmont and especially along our city border-line with Oakland. Over the years “Proactive Patrolling, Police Presence, Response and Chase” along Piedmont’s 24 entry points and high crime Baja neighborhood’s has diminished to unacceptable levels.

Piedmont police…..willingly………..”broke off chase”……… of the home invasion suspects. At the February 12, 2013 public meeting, Chief Rikki Goede admitted:

Piedmont’s Police Department policy is…..NOT TO CHASE CARS OR SUSPECTS.

The City of Piedmont website states: “Patrol is the Backbone of Policing”

There are over 7500 law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. Many of them proudly agree and say the exact same phrase that “patrolling” is the backbone of policing.

How much time can officers devote to patrolling?

Answer: Responding to assigned calls and conducting general surveillances by “patrolling” are the two most time consuming sorts of patrol activities. In most places assigned calls take considerably less than half of officers work time. Patrolling the beat usually takes a higher proportion of time. (Whitaker Study 1982)

On the average, about 5 hours of an officer’s 8-hour shift are spent at the officer’s discretion, while 3 hours are spent on assigned tasks. (US Dept. of Justice-National Institute of Justice)

How many miles should patrol officers drive-per shift?

Answer: There are 1000’s of rural & metro law enforcement agency’s in the United States.

The “miles driven” answer is derived & recognized in several ways. Most large (spread- out) police departments have no minimum or maximum driving expectations (miles) of their patrol car officers. Their patrol officers will be patrolling 100’s of miles. But, the smaller departments (under 20 officers) tend to have unwritten policies and practices related to minimizing or maximizing mileage patrol goals. There are frugal police department’s that mandate their patrol vehicle’s sit idle for 10 minutes of each hour to save on high fuel costs.

Less patrolling miles result in fewer arrests and less impact to the city’s overall budget. But, reading the law enforcement literature, surveys, and studies, the general accepted rule & practice is a metro patrol officer should be “patrolling” 8 miles for each hour worked. If a patrol officer in Piedmont works 10 hours then his/her odometer should register and record 80 more miles on that vehicle. A large segment of patrol officers across the country, routinely clock in, as many as 100-150+ “patrolling” miles per work shift.

(officer’s.com, realpolice.net, policechiefmagazine.org)

How many miles have Piedmont police cars been patrolling?

Answer: Piedmont replaced several of its patrol police cars in 2010. They had been used for 51 months and the average mileage on each car was 45,000 miles. So Piedmont patrol cars had been driven an average of 29 miles per (24 hour) day. In a 24 hour period this is 1.2 miles per hour of patrol function. Human walking speed is about 3+ miles per hour.

Conclusion:

Police officers and Command Staff are compensated quite well in Piedmont considering the small size of the City. The compensation packages include lucrative Pension and Benefits which are unsurpassed in California. Given the cost, the Department should adhere to the  “recognized” standard that “Patrol is the backbone of policing”. The law enforcement patrolling expectations in Piedmont should match the minimum practices in use across the country. Piedmont’s small footprint of 1.658 sq. miles and nonexistent traffic congestion creates a unique situation of straightforward and uncomplicated Police patrol capability.

City Administrator Grote & Chief Goede need to prepare a new “policy” paper and directive as to “Patrolling Practices, Expectations & Recording” of all Piedmont patrol officers.

This new “Patrolling” directive should include and outline these minimum requirements:

1. Patrol officers will log/record odometer readings at the start & end of each day work shift.

2. PPD (Chief Goede) will collect data and prepare/present monthly accounting log and report of the total miles driven by “all” patrol cars, areas driven, responding to calls, etc…….

3. All collected patrol data information will be posted on the City’s website.

License plate readers are a bureaucratic gimmick to give tax-payers a false sense of security. There is no substitution for proper (pro-active) police patrol on the street.

Piedmont should direct & invest its limited resources on proper police patrol procedures and hiring another patrol officer…..for the street.

Thank You,

Neil Teixeira

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Dear City Councilmembers:

In evaluating whether license plate readers are worth the capital and ongoing investment, and recognizing that such investment takes funds away from other worthy projects in the CIty, I request that you consider whether the license plate readers are effective in preventing or deterring crime, and then, secondarily, whether they help catch criminals after a crime has been committed. Question that need to be answered:

(1) I gather that the LPRs can quickly identify whether a recorded license plate is on a “hotsheet” of stolen vehicles. Aremost crimes committed by criminals driving stolen vehicles? (If no, then the utility o fthe LPRs is less for prevention; if yes, finding the stolen vehicle after a crime is less likely to find the criminal).

(2) If crimes are committed by people driving stolen vehicles, how quickly do our surrounding cities get the license numbers of stolen vehicles into the database checked by the LPRs? We read that Oakland’s limited police force is focused on violent crimes. If so, does it take hours or days for a stolen vehicle’s license plates to get in the database?

(3) If crimes are committed in Piedmont by people driving stolen vehicles, how long before they commit a crime does such a person steal a vehicle? Are they stolen the same day that the thief plansto to commit a burglary or robbery in Piedmont? If so, what is the chance that the vehicle’s license plate number will be in the stolen vehicle database?

(4) If a crime is committed in Piedmont, and no stolen cars show up through the LPRs, what use does the PoliceDeptintend to make of the LPR data? Is there a database of former felon’s license plate numbers to see if a former felon drove through town that day? Would the Police Dept have the man power to follow up such leads? What other use could be made of the data to catch the criminal?

(5) What other City projects need funding that will not receive it if the LPRs are funded?

(6) If the funds for the LPR were devoted to hiring another police officer, how many years salary and benefits would be covered by those funds?

I look forward to your deliberations.

Richard W. Raushenbush

“The Crowd and the Mob: Opportunities and Cautions for Constant Video Surveillance“

An opinion by Camille Crittenden, Deputy Director of Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society (CITRIS) at U. C. Berkeley appeared on the Berkeley Blog:

“In addition to facilitating the “wisdom of crowds,” technology grows more sophisticated for automated surveillance, including face recognition and gait analysis. In the last decade, many cities have accelerated implementation of surveillance systems, capitalizing on advances in computer technology and funds available from the Department of Homeland Security and other public sources. Yet whether considering fixed cameras or citizen footage, the effectiveness of surveillance for crime prevention is mixed.”

Read the complete opinion.

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

.

Council member Garrett Keating Disputes Piedmontage Article –

Last month’s Piedmontage (Piedmont Post column by Council member Jeff Weiler) compared the solid waste JPA (Joint Powers Authority)  that Piedmont is a
 member of to the social service JPA, JCAP (Associated Community Action Program)  that became insolvent some months 
ago.  That’s like comparing Councilmember Jeff Wieler to Andrew Weiner, the
congressman who disgraced himself on Facebook.  StopWaste is in no way like
 JCAP, especially so in that Piedmont sends council and staff to monthly 
meetings of StopWaste, an oversight function apparently not carried out with
JCAP.  And StopWaste administrative staff did not act unilaterally in
approving the benchmark fee for conducting annual waste audits. As the Piedmont representative to the Board, I and a solid majority approved this
 fee.  The benchmarking fee is a $2/year fee that will be used to analyze
 waste going to the landfill to determine what recyclable materials are being
 disposed of improperly.  After the first year, residents can opt out of the
 fee.  In Piedmont¹s case, recommendations of the Environmental Task Force
 and the Climate Action Plan call for increasing the city¹s landfill 
diversion rate (currently at 69%) and utilizing public outreach efforts to
 do so.  Hard to do that without information on Piedmont¹s waste stream and
though dirty work, someone has to do it.

A fee increase currently before the StopWaste board has to do with the Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Program.  Several HHW facilities operate around the county and accept paint, pesticide, batteries and other hazardous chemicals from the public at no charge.   The facilities are supported by a fee on landfill tonnage but as the economy has slowed, revenue to this 
program has declined, and StopWaste has brought several proposals to the
 Board, some calling for a fee increase, others reducing the extent of the
service.  The recommendation of StopWaste staff is to attach $5/year fee to 
the property tax bill of county residents to maintain the current service 
level. Piedmonters interested in this issue should follow City Council over
the next several meetings as this matter is discussed.

Garrett Keating, Piedmont City Council member

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

Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) -Tuesday, May 21

The BAFPC will continue its assessment of  financial direction and strategies for Piedmont’s financial future at its Tuesday meeting, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Police Department, Emergency Operations Center, 403 Highland Avenue, Piedmont.

The Sewer Fund, although currently funded, shows long term deficits to cover replacement of more than 30% of the remaining sanitary sewer pipes.   Additionally, the City draws money from the Sewer Fund to maintain storm drains, which is done by Public Works staff.  Piedmont is in compliance with Federal refurbishing requirements at this time.  Financing to complete all sanitary sewer improvements, while continuing to use funds for storm drains, is under study and will be considered in detail by the BAFPC prior to their recommendation to the City Council.

Refinancing of the CalPERS Side Fund either with low-interest pension obligation bonds or a loan from a private institution is being recommended to the City Council by the BAFPC  in an effort to reduce Piedmont’s current 7% interest payments to CalPERS for the City’s pension obligations.

With the upturn in Piedmont’s revenues, primarily from real estate sales and new valuations, the FY 2013-14 budget looks balanced while allowing funding of long term maintenance needs. The BAFPC examination of 5 year projections will look at current and 5 year revenues and expenses.

Long term retiree pensions and health benefits weigh heavily on the City’s ongoing obligations.  The Committee is expected to recommend a viable course to the City Council.

The BAFPC provides an important part in recommending direction for Piedmont finances.  Broadcasting on KCOM, live streaming via the City website, or recording of the meeting is not available.  The meeting is open to the public.

Regular Agenda

1. Review the Committee’s Sewer Fund Projections

2. Approve the Committee’s recommendation to City Council on refinancing the CalPERS Side Fund

3. Review the Committee’s recommendation on the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget & 5 year projections

4. Discuss Long Term Pension and Retiree Healthcare costs

Members of the BAFPC are: 

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

Council Liaison: John Chiang (H) 655-2959

Comments to the BAFPC may be sent via City Clerk John Tulloch at jtulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us

Funding limits and recommendation to City Council.

The Council looks to the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee to advise them on financial issues and capital expenditure related to the proposed License Plate Readers.  The unique joint meeting of the two committees will take place in the Council Chambers starting at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 9. The public can participate in addressing the issues at the meeting.  Broadcasting of the meeting has not been announced.

Agenda

1. Presentation on License Plate Reader proposal from Police Chief Rikki Goede
2. Joint discussion of License Plate Reader proposal by the Committees
3. Consideration of recommendation to City Council on License Plate Reader proposal by CIP Review Committee
4. Consideration of recommendation to City Council on License Plate Reader proposal by Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee

Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee Members:

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

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee Members:

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

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~

Previous Comments on License Plate Readers have varied from support for the original Proposed installation at all City entrances:

 I am very much in favor of this idea. It is about time we start doing something to control the increasing crime rate and robberies in our community. How many home invasions should be tolerate before taking the next step! It is an appropriate response to an unfortunate situation.  Streets are public places and there should be no expectation to privacy when entering or exiting the City boundaries.

Ken Lewis

Some comments questioned / wondered how License Plate Reader Systems will reduce crime:

I want to know how license plate readers would solve the problem …

Kathleen Quenneville

 

Having moved to Oakland I have become acutely aware of the crime situation. Homeowner’s Associations are hiring private patrols, setting up cameras etc.

One issue you should look into regarding the installation of license plate reading cameras is the question of how many crimes involve an automobile that has either:
1. no plates (removed or covered or coated so that they cannot be read by a camera)
2. stolen plates
3. the automobile was stolen immediately before the crime for that purpose.

So plate readers may help, but are certainly NO PANACEA!
The rate of unuseful plate #’s in Oakland is high. And I have discovered that many of my well-educated neighbors here in Oakland aren’t even aware that Piedmont is a separate city, so how many criminals know that??

Susan R. Schroeder

Others questioned cost and methodology and ask for statistics:

There are three separate ideas here:

1) Camera
2) License plate recognition
3) Checking plates to a database

Can we do this one step at a time?  Item 1: Costs less than $1,000 for each self-contained multi-camera station sold at Costco.  Items 2 and 3 can be done manually after crimes are committed. This is similar to what they do when for photo-enforcement of traffic light violations, where a person’s image is manually matched to a license plate.

Garret Keating posted:
“Cameras that store data can provide video for post-crime analysis – that may require additional investigative resources … the Juvenile/School Resource Officer may be able to take on this responsibility. There were zero investigations in the minor offender program last year.”

As the “Pincher House” said on another post, cameras can be a “deterrent pre-crime and a potential aid post crime … [but] They will not PROTECT people. … No tech is flawless. No response time is guaranteed. No camera will be a silver bullet to our problem.”

Particularly if there are statistics that back up the effectiveness of automated license plate readers, they can be a good idea and I would be for it, but not if their elevated cost results in the whole camera project being scrapped.

We simply need cameras (currently we have nothing) so all suspects entering and leaving Piedmont either on foot or on the road can leave a visual footprint. Once one person is prosecuted using the technology, word will spread.

John Roberts

There was discussion of single source bidding of the project:

I want to know … why a single source contract is considered the best alternative. The reason competitive bidding is generally required for governments is to make sure need analysis is done by the public entity and there is competition in pricing.

Kathleen Quenneville

What is the City’s current Request for Proposal Policy? The last Council meeting brought forth a million dollar project – Automatic License Plate Readers – that had no RFP. The single vendor contacted conducted the assessment of what is needed and then produced a preliminary bid.

Rick Schiller

As I understand it, the single source contract is due to the fact that 3M is the ONLY company providing access to a server that contains the “NICRICS” data.The chief indicated that this was the most comprehensive data set for stolen/felony license plates used to check vehicles against. Such data is public domain and it may just be a matter of time before other companies upload data or develop software to provide access to this data. That said, competitive bidding is essential. I think in this case, we would be comparing the 3M system to another system of different capability.

Garret Keating

Piedmont Unified School District Names Two Recipients of 2013 Arthur Hecht Volunteer of the Year Award-

The recipients of the 2013 Arthur Hecht Volunteer of the Year Award are Bill Drum (posthumously) and Mary Ireland. The award will be presented to Ms. Ireland and the family of Mr. Drum at the May 8, 2013 Board of Education meeting. > Click to read more…

City’s Proposed Policies Get Tough Review-

Risk management policies for future, major Piedmont projects sparked a wide-ranging, sometimes argumentative but ultimately conciliatory discussion at the Monday, April 1, City Council meeting. In the end, the Council  supported the policies proposed by Public Works Director Chester Nakahara for “non-routine” projects costing over $300,000,  but also asked him to consider numerous changes recommended by speakers at the meeting.  A final version of the policy document is to be brought back to the Council at a date to be determined. > Click to read more…

City Considers Purchase of Fixed LPRs at Piedmont/Oakland Borders and Additional Mobile LPRs in Police Cars –

At its Thursday, April 4, meeting, the Piedmont Public Safety Committee considered the proposed License Plate Reader (LPR) project.  The City Council had requested the Committee to discuss the proposal and make a recommendation to the Council. > Click to read more…