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

At the City Council 2013-14 Budget Work Session on May 11, information and questions were presented.

During the public forum, Tim Rood asked when Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) was going to repay the City for the $125,000 expenses promised in regard to Blair Park.  He also wanted to know when the City planned to spend its $500,000 portion of the Measure WW Park Bond funds.   And he inquired when the Piedmont Hills Utilities Undergrounding District (PHUUD) Board was going to pay their pledged amount of $1o0,000 to the City.  The City had contracted for the undergrounding project and allowed the risk and unexpected cost of  approximately $2.5 million to fall to all City taxpayers rather than the property owners in the PHUUD benefiting from the project.

City Administrator Geoff Grote, in his overview of the budget, emphasized the generally strong financial condition of the City.  Much of the City’s improved fiscal condition can be attributed to increased property tax revenues, the passage of the City parcel tax measure, and revenues from the property transfer tax.  As properties change hands, the City reaps a benefit of new valuations of property, plus the transfer tax.

The Police Department is proposing a new civilian position to handle administrative and Information Technology (IT) functions.  On June 3, a comprehensive Facilities Maintenance Inventory and Implementation Plan is due and will allow assessment of future needs.

Employee benefits and compensation costs continue to require control and monitoring. The City Sewer Fund, long a source of  funding for the Public Works Department and implementation of federally required improvements related to water quality, is experiencing a decreasing balance.  More information on the fund will be developed to allow the Council to consider further steps to remain in compliance with federal laws.

During the budget review, the Council directed staff to provide the following information:

• Recreation Department — include on a City Council agenda for next October, a report detailing: the impacts of the proposed increases in aquatic fees;  swim lesson revenue; a breakdown of aquatic City Council Budget Work Session related expenses; the cost associated with having the pool open for so many hours/days during the year; and how many lap swimmers utilize the pool on a regular basis.  The Schoolmates program does not pay for itself, consequently consideration will be given to increasing the hourly charge to users.

• Police Department  — consider for next fiscal year (FY 14-15) increasing Animal Control Officer fees for the City of Emeryville.

• Fire Department  – determine the cost effectiveness of modifying the
Department’s apparatus bay doors and driveway in order to increase the number of manufacturers that would be able to supply a fire ladder truck to the City and, as a consequence, generate more and potentially lower bids for fire truck purchase.  The fire house doors are lower than standard thus requiring custom built ladder trucks.

• Public Works Department – provide the number of miles of paved streets in town and how many of these streets were paved over the last 10 years.  Residents have frequently wondered when streets in disrepair would be repaved.

• Administration-- provide: historical data regarding full and parttime employee positions; a list of staffing positions that are currently vacant; cost estimates for: a City “mail-in ballot” process for municipal elections; and consolidating the City’s municipal election with the State’s general election; check with the County Registrar’s office if the City could have both a “mail-in” ballot process along with one polling place within the City.

• Non-Departmental — determine if: the proposed 5% increase in Workers Comp. Insurance premiums is sufficient for FY 13-14; whether the City has the option of being self-insured for Unemployment Insurance; and re-examine if the FY 11/12 figure
of $352,841 for Library is correct (page 2-a under Tab 1)

The Council appointed Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) has held several meetings to examine budget details.   CalPERS side fund, sewer fund, license plate readers, and other issues are being examined.  The BAFPC will make a formal recommendation to the City Council to be considered at the budget public hearings.  The Council’s first hearing is scheduled for June 3 and second June 17, at which time the budget is expected to be approved.

Comments on budget considerations can be sent to the City Council at:

Or email the entire City Council via the City Clerk at: tulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us

Click here to view the proposed budget.

Public Misses Out on Background of Issues -

Public meetings in Piedmont must meet the California Brown Act, known as a “sunshine” law. The City of Piedmont and the Piedmont Unified School District regularly provide required notice and agendas of meetings, and most City Commission, School Board, and City Council meetings can be viewed by the public at home via KCOM or live streaming through the City’s website.  These meetings are informative and important to public policy decisions.

A number of other public meetings, however, are not broadcast, primarily because the City Council Chambers at City Hall is the only public space equipped for KCOM broadcast.  Additionally, for some meetings, there are no minutes taken, audio recordings, or records kept.  Nonetheless, recommendations arising from these meetings often are the foundation of decisions by the City Council and the School Board.

Brown Act qualifying meetings typically not recorded or broadcast are:

City Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee

The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee was formed by the City Council to review and provide comment on five year projections contained in the City’s annual budget proposal, the proposed funding and expenditures from several long term funds, and the proposed mid-year budget adjustments. It also provides a financial review of new programs in excess of $250,000 per year. Click here to read the committee’s charge.

Council Liaison: John Chiang (H) 655-2959

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

City CIP (Capital Improvement Projects) Review Committee  -

The CIP Review Committee makes recommendations to the City Council regarding the expenditure of the capital budget (construction, repair or rehabilitation of city facilities).

Council Liaison: Robert McBain (H) 547-0597
Staff Liaisons: Chester Nakahara (W) 420-3061 & Mark Feldkamp (W) 420-3064

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

City Council Budget Work Session –

The City Council meets with the City staff and discusses the staff proposed budget for the coming fiscal year. Summary minutes are approved by the City Council. 

Council: Mayor John Chiang, Vice Mayor Margaret Fujioka, Council members, Garrett Keating, Jeff Weiler, and Bob McBain

School District Budget Advisory Committee -

Under the direction of the Superintendent, a Program/Budget Advisory Committee reviews the financial health of the District’s General Fund budget, shares information with constituent groups, and makes recommendations for Board consideration in the budget development process. Members of the committee include representatives from each school site, employee associations (APT for teachers and CSEA for classified staff), administration, support groups, the community at-large, and the Board of Education. Members serve for one to two years. Those interested in serving on the standing committee should contact the Superintendent’s office.

List of members are not publicly released.

School Support Tax Advisory Subcommittee -

The committee  was required to be established by approval of  the SCHOOL SUPPORT TAX MEASURE A, MARCH 5, 2013 ELECTION.  This is a new committee and therefore has no  broadcast or recorded history.

The Subcommittee is an independent subcommittee of the PUSD Budget Advisory Committee (“BAC”). The BAC serves as a community forum for interested community members to receive up-to-date information about the District’s budget. All stakeholder groups, including the Parent and Support Clubs, Employee Associations (APT, CSEA and APSA), Piedmont Educational Foundation, and the community at large, are invited to participate in the BAC.

Members of the Subcommittee shall be active members of the BAC so that they will have current information and understanding of the District budget. However, the Subcommittee will operate independently of the BAC and report directly to the Board of Education.  In addition to the budget information provided to the BAC, the Subcommittee may request additional information relating to the budget or School Support Tax from the Assistant Superintendent for Business Services, who will be the primary point of contact for the Subcommittee.

The Subcommittee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Board of Education to help review and project the financial needs of the PUSD with respect to the levy of the voter approved School Support Tax. The Subcommittee shall conduct an independent examination of the District’s budget and related documents prior to making formal recommendations in its annual report to the Board.

The scope of work for the Subcommittee shall be limited to advice on whether and to what extent to levy the School Support Tax.

At this time appointments to the Subcommittee have not been made.

Procedures to be followed for Brown Act qualifying City and School meetings include:

Agendas and notices:

Legislative bodies of local agencies covered by the Brown Act must post an agenda for their meetings in a place that is freely accessible to members of the public at least seventy-two hours before the meeting. It also requires the legislative body to mail a copy of the agenda to anyone who has requested notice in writing. (A fee may pertain.)

Documents used during a meeting:

All public participants are entitled to inspect any writing or document distributed to members during a meeting. If a document was prepared by the governmental body itself, you are entitled to inspect it at the time of the meeting. If a document was prepared by someone else, you are entitled to inspect it after the meeting.

Documents distributed to a legislative body:

Distributed documents including emails, letters, memos, staff reports, consultant reports and other written methods are available to the public when requested.

 

Resident Urges City Council to Consider A Police Patrol in High Crime Areas -

The following is an open letter to the Piedmont City Council.

Dear City Council,

I. Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are not a preventative law enforcement tool.  Chief Goede referred to ALPRs in a KRON-TV interview: “Its not a crime prevention tool, its more of an investigative tool on the back end.” Additionally, Chief Goede was candid at the Piedmont Safety Committee meeting that there have been no studies showing a correlation between the implementation of ALPRs and a reduction in crime.

Preventative enforcement tools stop crime before it occurs.  I doubt criminal offenders track which cities have a high conviction rate. Criminals likely do not know they are in Piedmont; they are more aware of the apparently higher value “pickings.”

So implementing ALPRs, while a “feel-good” response to the abhorrent home invasions that occurred recently in town, is at best only a peripheral deterrent tool that may aid in a higher conviction rate at a significant financial cost.

II. Emphasis and resources should be allocated to what prevents crime before it occurs.  More police patrolling and current officers patrolling more vigorously are preventative measures. Council is to be commended for authorizing forward Police hiring and generally there is a perception that the Piedmont Police Department is patrolling more vigorously. Instead of using the funds for the ALPR, put another patrol officer on where crime is most concentrated.

Baja Piedmont has taken the lead in organizing neighborhood watch groups; hopefully the rest of Piedmont will follow in organizing neighborhood watches. Neighborhood Watch Groups can be uniquely effective given the relatively homogeneous nature of Piedmont’s populace; neighbors know neighbors.

III. Other troubling issues with the ALPR process.
A single company was contacted who then became the ad hoc consultant creating the specifications and then bid on their plan. This is not a robust Request for Proposals (RFP) process.  The company chosen does not have a guaranteed camera percentage read rate. Because the Digital Age has reduced privacy expectations, we must be ever more vigilant in protecting our Constitutional Rights. The City intends Policy to be that protection; many instances of failed Policy in Piedmont (the  Piedmont Hills Underground Utility District (PHUUD) debacle, the Crest Road gifting of the sewer fund, withheld reports on Blair Park and signed reimbursement agreements with Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) not being enforced) suggest that Policy may again fail residents with misuse of ALPR information.

IV. Spend taxpayer money on what is directly preventative, more Police patrols and active involvement with neighborhood watch groups.

Respectfully,
Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

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

The Piedmont Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) will meet Tuesday, May 14, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall.

The agenda includes:

1. Review Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget 
2. Review 5 year projections 
3. Review recommendation to City Council on refinancing the CalPERS Side Fund 
4. Discuss Long Term Pension and Retiree Healthcare costs
5. Date of future meetings
6. Consideration of future agenda items and deliverables

At its May 8 meeting, the BAFPC heard presentations from two bond counseling firms on how Piedmont could save an estimated $1.5  million over the next 7 to 9 years by refinancing its “side fund,” i.e. its unfunded employee pension obligations.

Currently, Piedmont pays CalPERS 7.5% interest on a $10.3 million loan to pay its unfunded pension obligations.   The CalPERS loan dates back to  2003 when the state’s giant public employee pension fund merged all of its member agencies with less than 100 employees into “risk pools.”  The goal was to reduce the contribution rate volatility for employers with a small population base (such as Piedmont).  CalPERS then assigned each member agency a share of the then-existing unfunded liability, which it identified as the “side fund,” and set a fixed 7.5% interest. Piedmont’s side fund payments to CalPERS for its retired public safety employees for the next 7 years now total $7.1 million. For retired miscellaneous employees, for the next 9 years, the payments total $3.2 million.

In the meantime, short-term interest rates have dropped significantly, giving cities an opportunity to save a lot of money by refinancing their side funds with private loans from institutions or through offering publicly traded pension obligation bonds. Many cities up and down the state have already done this, and, although the BAFPC recommended the City do it last year, Piedmont is coming late to the party.

Last week, the BAFPC Committee heard from the bond counselors the pluses and minuses of obtaining a private loan from a bank versus offering publicly traded bonds. The committee did not decide which avenue to take, but voted to recommend that the Council begin a course of action.

At a separate, joint meeting of the BAFPC and Capital Improvement Program committees on May 9, the two committees recommended the City Council implement Police Chief Ricki Goede’s plan to install License Plate Readers at 15 entry/exit points in Piedmont.

The BAFPC is responsible for assessing financial information and providing in depth analysis of Piedmont’s financial stability, including five-year projections.   The Committee members are selected for their financial experience and expertise and make recommendations to the City Council.

The public can attend the meeting and provide input to the Committee.  Plans to broadcast or record the proceedings have not been announced.

Final decision rests on funding -

After hearing a detailed presentation by Police Chief Rikki Goede recommending installation of 39 License Plate Reader (LPR) cameras at 15 Piedmont entry points, and listening to speakers on both sides of the issue, the City Council came down unanimously on the side of installing the LPRs.  They deferred a final decision until two committees — the Budget and Financial Planning Advisory Committee (BAFPC) and the Capital Improvement Committee (CIP) — discuss the financial impacts of the $700,000-plus project on the City’s budget at their joint meeting on Thursday, May 9. The Committees are to make a recommendation to the City Council on the LPRs.

Council members made the point that they have hired a professional police chief and feel they should follow her recommendations.

Chief Goede noted that the LPR system won’t solve crime by itself. “It’s a tool,” she said. “You have to have a three-pronged approach of officers, technology, and neighborhood watch. Technology complements ‘boots on the ground’.”  She explained that the license plate data is kept for one year and then destroyed if there is no connection to criminal activity.  “The data is only for license plates,” she said, “not individuals.”   She also pointed out it can take six months to have data analyzed for burglaries and home invasions, the most common crimes in Piedmont, since they are lower priority than homicides and other serious felonies.

Regarding whether LPRs are more effective than hiring another police officer, Councilman Jeff Weiler said, “It costs $165,000 (per year) to hire a new officer. Multiply by five equals $825,000. Isn’t it better to have the LPRs do the work of another officer?”   Chief Goede replied that “Technology is a force multiplier, but with or without the LPRs, we will still ask for more investigative help.”

Several speakers questioned the feasibility of the LPRs. A 2000 Piedmont High School graduate, now a juvenile defense lawyer in Oakland, said, “This could be an overreaction. The message might be Piedmont doesn’t want you. It could have unintended consequences.”

Bob Cheatham, who said his home had been burglarized recently, questioned why there has been no organized study of other possibilities, such as hiring civilians to help watch the city. “Are we in that big of a hurry? Are we sacrificing privacy for security?” he asked.

Leon Bloomfield said he thinks the LPRs are “premature and maybe misguided. It doesn’t do anything for crime prevention. I hope you will do other things before you commit $1 million to this project. Technology doesn’t answer all the questions.”

Speaking in support of the LPRs, John Ehrlich, a retired San Francisco police officer, said the LPRs “will help prevent crime. If criminals know there are cameras, they will go someplace else.”

Lyman Schafer added, “Oakland has a serious crime problem. I feel a sense of urgency.”

The Council members agreed. Council member Garrett Keating noted, “Crime has been rapidly increasing in Piedmont in the past two years. This is an important tool we need to invest in.  There has been an increase in the brazenness of crime.  Echoing the comments of the other Council members, he said,  “The Chief recommends this, and I support it.”

Seniors/Adults or Child Care Use Discussed - 

The May 6th City Council meeting engendered long deliberations and lively public participation — but no final decision  —  on the use of the east wing of the city-owned building at 801 Magnolia Avenue.  Currently, the west wing and some of the east wing houses the Piedmont Center for the Arts.

The Arts Center has proposed, at no cost to the City, to provide improvements and management of the facility and to continue with their goal of providing art-focused activities, along with a regular time for seniors to use the facility twice a week, a place for Piedmont historical records, arts programs, and an ability to accommodate diverse interests.

Two other proposals were made.  One could be combined with the Arts Center usage and the other dealt primarily with children and required extensive equipment.

City Recreation Director Mark Delventhal and City Administrator Geoff Grote strongly recommended that the City retain usage of the facility rather than relinquishing it to the Arts Center.  They envisioned the space for child care and made available for other purposes when not in use for child care.  Delventhal acknowledged that transforming the room for other purposes would likely require a janitor, for instance, to roll up rugs, move furnishings, and child equipment.   It was pointed out by speakers that a child care program conflicts with the current use of the Arts Center and questioned the joint use of restrooms and other features of the building.

Residents Hedi Gerken, Margie Bowman, and Bob Cheatham stated it was time for the City to consider adults in their programing, noting their need for a place to gather and be with contemporaries.  Delventhal acknowledged the need in stating the once a month program dedicated to seniors had high usage of approximately 70 participants.

Nancy Lehrkind, President of the Board of the Piedmont Center for the Arts, presented the Arts Center’s offer to pay for all needed improvements, including windows, flooring, cabinets, furnishings, paint, and a new  sink, estimated at $25,000.  Additionally, the Arts Center would provide management and scheduling of the facility at no cost to the City. The highly successful Center has drawn over 10,000 to its events.  Lehrkind, although  initially requesting a concurrent lease with the use of the west wing, was amenable to a trial period of approximately 3 years, to permit amortization of improvement expenses.  The Arts Center has already invested approximately $125,000 to reroof, replace windows, paint, remodel restrooms, landscaping, and make other improvements to the previously neglected building.

Council member Garrett Keating during prior Council consideration had requested staff to provide specific numbers on the cost of the City’s proposed child care plan, but none were provided.  The costs to the City were loosely estimated at $125,000 to $150,000.  The number of children served would be in the range of 20 – 30.

Council member Jeff Weiler wanted to know if the Arts Center had complied with its current lease.  Grote stated the lift for disabled access to the rest rooms had not been installed.  Lehrkind, surprised at the question, informed the Council the installation had been held off by staff pending a decision by the Council’s on how to use the east wing. In February she had presented plans and specifics, requesting these be provided to the Council.  The Arts Center has reserved funding to fully comply with providing the needed restroom access via a lift or a ramp.

Weiler, who has a disability, spoke of the importance of having disabled restroom access in the building. The Americans with Disability Act requires access in new or  remodeled public facilities.

Because of the high demand for use of the space and conflicting opinions, the Council attempted to reconcile proposals by asking the staff to meet with the Arts Center leadership and attempt to work out a plan to satisfy both the City’s and the Arts Center’s concerns.   Action on the matter was deferred until further information is available.

Public invited to attend budget workshop when Municipal Service Tax and Sewer Tax will be considered. -

The Piedmont City Council will discuss the annual budget for fiscal year 2013-2014 at a  work session in the Police Department Emergency Operations Center on Saturday, May 11,  beginning at 9:00 a.m.  There will be no public broadcast of the meeting.  At the work session, the City Administrator and  city department heads will present their  proposed budgets, and the Council will ask questions about the proposals.

Use of the Piedmont Pool by the Piedmont Unified School District students for physical education and sports activities has been allowed since the pool was built.  This past week, due to pool conflicts, the following announcement was sent to all Piedmont Middle School seventh graders and parents:

I’m sorry to inform you that our swimming unit planned for next week has been canceled.  After a month of careful planning, I was notified today that the Piedmont Community Pool is unable to accommodate our physical education program this year.  Please come to the locker room for our normal PE classes.

Mr. Lane, PE Instructor

The Recreation Department was unable to accommodate the seventh grade PMS PE (Physical Education) Swimming Unit this year.  Pool costs are carefully monitored as the City attempts to reduce the burden of taking over the pool management from the Piedmont Swim Club, that had assumed all expenses of running and maintaining the pool. A concern expressed after the management change was that the School District might not be able to continue the long standing practice of periodic pool usage for District athletics and PE.

City Recreation Director Mark Delventhal offered an apology to the Middle School for informing the PE department at the last minute that they could not use the pool.  He noted, “A PE swim unit in March [rather than May] is much more realistic for us.” He said “a much more robust swim program (masters/swim aerobics/tiny tot lessons) [had] use of the pool from essentially 8am to 3pm for a full week.”

 Delventhal wrote to the Middle School, “No two organizations have had a better, more cooperative and supportive relationship over the years than has PRD [Piedmont Recreation Department] and PMS [Piedmont Middle School].  Please be assured we have no intention of allowing that to change.   Period.”

For decades Piedmont Middle School has been the beneficiary of the Piedmont Recreation Department’s provision of after school sports programs.  The School District has saved significant costs through this arrangement, yet the programs offered by the Recreation Department charge student athletes to participate.  This is an atypical arrangement for a school district, but has allowed the programs to continue at no cost to the School District.

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