Jun 19 2018

City staff together with Groundworks Office, outside consultants for the Linda Beach Plan, have developed a framework to guide the next iteration of the Linda Beach Plan.

Based on robust feedback from the community, Park Commission, Recreation Commission and City Council on the 35% Linda Beach Master Plan Concept, City staff together with Groundworks Office has developed the following framework to guide the next iteration of the plan.

1. The Skate Spot will be removed from the master plan and a subcommittee of the Recreation Commission will study other spaces in Piedmont to potentially serve this need.

2. The Tot Lot will:
a. be designed to primarily serve children under the age of 5
b. be similar in size to the existing facility
c. keep kids contained in a safe area
d. have natural shade
e. be readily accessible by stroller with adequate stroller parking
f. have access to restrooms and changing tables

3. How and where to best serve the emerging desire for Pickleball in Piedmont will be studied by a Recreation Commission Subcommittee. In the meantime, Pickleball will be removed from the master plan.

4. Two Tennis Courts will remain in the plan but not at full regulation size. North-South orientation is preferred but not necessary.

5. Multi-age recreation opportunities (eg. bocce ball) will be explored for incorporation in the park.

6. Design will emphasize Linda Avenue as the main entry to the park including moving ADA access from Howard Avenue to Linda Avenue.

7. We will continue to examine opportunities for indoor recreation program space.

8. The park will include picnic tables and an area suitable for small gatherings like birthday parties.

9. Significant landscape buffers will be included along Howard Avenue.

10. A stormwater plan will be refined and clarified.

11. The park will be designed such that it can be closed and secured at night.

12. The Master Plan will acknowledge sensitivity to existing trees clearly identifying trees that will remain as well as conceptually noting replacement trees.

The City staff and Groundworks staff are currently working on adjustments to the Linda Beach Park project schedule, but tentatively, the next iteration of this plan is scheduled to be presented at a joint meeting of the Park and Recreation Commissions on September 5, 2018.

1 Comment »
Jun 10 2018

Piedmont’s “new waste disposal contract” with Republic Services relies heavily on the company’s ability to properly recycle garden cuttings, kitchen waste, paper, plastics, glass, etc.  Questions have arisen as to whether Piedmont’s waste is actually being recycled or is merely headed to a landfill site?

Republic Services apparently was sending recycling to China. Recently China has decided to stop accepting it and our “recycling” will end up in landfill. At premium prices!

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/09/568797388/recycling-chaos-in-u-s-as-china-bans-foreign-waste

“Western states, which have relied the most on Chinese recycling plants, have been hit especially hard. In some areas — like Eugene, Oregon, and parts of Idaho, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii — local officials and garbage haulers will no longer accept certain items for recycling, in some cases refusing most plastics, glass and certain types of paper. Instead, they say, customers should throw these items in the trash.”

The Piedmont Civic Association made an inquiry to Piedmont’s provider, Republic Services in Richmond, asking about the destination of Piedmont’s recyclable waste.  There has been no response.  Our email, which was copied to the City Council, is below:

~~~~~~~

PCA

PIEDMONT CIVIC ASSOCIATION

June 1. 2018

——Media Inquiry—–

Republic Services

3260 Blume Drive, Suite 100

Richmond, CA 94806

piedmont@repsrv.com

Manager: Richmond, California, Republic Services

RE: Actual disposition of Piedmont, CA recyclable waste

Recently, the Piedmont Civic Association was informed, as validated by the New York Times on May 29, 2018, that much of Republic’s collected recyclable waste is going to landfills rather than going to reuse.

We are asking what is the disposition of Piedmont recyclables including glass, paper, plastic, etc.

The residents of Piedmont have exceeded their goals set for recycling waste materials and keeping reusable materials out of the landfills.

Please promptly reply to our inquiry so we may include your response in the forthcoming article on our well established website:

www.piedmontcivic.org

Thank you,

PCA Editors

editors@piedmontcivic.org

 

1 Comment »
Jun 10 2018

Flawed process for changing the Piedmont City Charter has produced new issues and unknown rationale.  Concerns have focused on such proposals as: Unlimited reserve funds, changes to management of employees, elimination of Council bimonthly meetings, elimination of posted notices, and questionable designations of City officers. – 

The following letter was sent to the Piedmont City Council –

TO: City Council at citycouncil@piedmont.ca.gov
RE: Comments Regarding Proposed Changes to City Charter June 3, 2018

Dear City Council:

I am writing to oppose the proposal to amend the City Charter, for two reasons: 1) process, and 2) substance.

PROCESS

I respectfully submit that the process is flawed and should be revisited. Here are some thoughts in that connection:

First, what is the problem we are trying to solve? Although the June 4, 2018 Staff Report states that the City Council has been discussing changes to the Charter since June 2017, it does not contain reasons for the proposed changes. Without a “statement of the problem,” how does the Council know what changes need to be made? And if we make changes to solve undefined problems, might the proposed changes create unintended consequences?

Second, what are the pros and cons of the proposed solutions to the problem? The Staff Report does not provide pros and cons, or alternative solutions to address perceived problems with the current Charter.

Third, shouldn’t workshops be held to determine the level of public support for the changes before they are submitted to Piedmont citizens for a vote? Deciding to put the Charter changes on the ballot without adequate public input is a backwards process.

SUBSTANCE

In addition to having serious concerns with the process the Council is following in this regard, I also have some substantive issues and questions:

Section 2.03. Because the Staff Report does not indicate what problem this “out of office” change attempts to solve, it’s not clear that this change is needed. If there is indeed a problem to be solved, and there’s public support for such change, a corresponding change should be made in Section 7.02 concerning the School Board.

Section 2.07 would delete the current requirement that the Council meet at least twice a month, and instead would only require that the Council meet “regularly.” This is totally inadequate. While I can understand that a twice monthly meeting requirement might be out of step with what is currently considered good governance and might make it difficult for some otherwise qualified candidates to serve on the Council, this change goes too far and could allow meetings only every other month, or quarterly. At a minimum, this section should provide for regular monthly meetings.

Section 2.08 states how the Mayor is selected. Should we consider having the Mayor be elected by the voters, as in many other communities?

Section 2.12(D) would eliminate the requirement to post ordinances on bulletin boards, in favor of using the City website. To ensure that citizens know they should look on the website for ordinances, I suggest that the City also be required to post a notice describing the ordinance (if not including the entire ordinance) in one or more newspapers of general circulation.

Article III’s changes are problematic. First, I’m not sure it is a good idea to give the City Administrator so much power without Piedmont having a citizen-elected Mayor to partner with the City Administrator. If public input indicates support for giving the City Administrator the power to manage and dismiss all City officers, but having the Council keep the authority to eliminate or consolidate these officer positions, then this Article should be overhauled completely (for instance, deleting from the Charter the listing of City officers, since if the Charter states that the City “shall” have certain officers, it’s unclear that the Council could eliminate such positions without an amendment to the Charter).

Section 4.03 proposes to eliminate the 25% ceiling on the General Fund Reserve. This proposal is outrageous. Piedmont’s taxes are much higher than those in comparable cities. Many (those on fixed incomes, or young couples, for instance) struggle to afford the current rates. While keeping adequate reserves is important, there’s been no case made by Staff or the Council that the City needs more than 25% in reserves. The cap should stay.

Section 4.10 governs franchises. It’s unclear what this section is intended to cover. Is this a section that should be considered for updating or deletion?

Section 4.11 proposes to eliminate the requirement that all public projects be competitively bid. This is unacceptable. A requirement to competitively bid ensures that public funds are spent wisely. Competitive bidding should be the rule, and deleting this language opens the door to wasting public funds.

Article V. If the Charter is being examined fully, the Council might consider whether most of the provisions of Article V belong in the Charter, or could instead be moved to an ordinance. While the updating of Section 5.02 is admirable, the law keeps changing. To eliminate the need to constantly update the Charter, it might be easier to simply say that the City will not discriminate on any prohibited basis.

Sincerely,
Kathleen Quenneville, Piedmont Resident

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author. 
7 Comments »
Jun 10 2018

End of the year letter …

Dear Families and Community,

It’s hard to believe the school year has come to an end! As we reflect on the 2017-18 school year, educators across the District are feeling great pride in the academic and social-emotional growth of students. Together, let us celebrate students’ hard work and engagement in their learning process.

Please click on the following link for a year-end report that highlights many District initiatives from this year. The District’s ultimate goal is to provide an extraordinary education for all students. Each initiative furthered this goal in one of the following ways: updating and refining our curriculum and instruction; promoting deeper levels of student engagement, critical thinking, and inquiry; providing a safe, appropriate and inclusive learning environment for all students; or adapting our administrative practices and structures to better meet the needs of students and better support educators.

I would like to thank our teachers, staff and administrators for their incredible dedication and for all they do on behalf of our students. They are making a remarkable team of professionals who continually strive to improve teaching and learning. I would also like to thank the many organizations, families, and volunteers who partner with the District to enhance and expand opportunities for our students. I am grateful for this breadth and depth of community support for public education, and proud of what we have accomplished together this year.

Have a wonderful summer!

Sincerely,

Randall Booker
Superintendent of the Piedmont Unified School DistrictMay 31, 2018

Jun 10 2018

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON INTENT TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT  FOR CONSTRUCTION OF  ENERGY CONSERVATION FACILITIES

The Board of Education of the Piedmont Unified School District (“Board”)
shall hold a public hearing to authorize the award of one contract for construction of energy conservation facilities. (“Contracts”) Pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 4217.12 (a), the Board will determine whether it is in the best interests of the Piedmont Unified School District to enter into the Contracts.

Date: June 13, 2018
Hearing Body: Piedmont Unified School District Board of Education
Time: 7:00 p.m., during a Regular Board of Education meeting
Place: PUSD District Office, 120 Vista Avenue, (Board Room)

Jun 5 2018

Piedmont’s Short-Term Rental Ordinance Requires Immediate Action to Avoid $1,500 or $5,000 Fine

On May 7, 2018, the City Council approved a short-term rental ordinance requiring operators of Air BNB type rentals within Piedmont to obtain a permit from the City beginning on June 6, 2018.  Owners or tenants of single-family dwellings must obtain a permit to operate hosted or non-hosted short-term rentals. The rental dwelling must be the owner or tenant’s primary legal residence.

The following limitations apply:

  • Short-term rentals must be a minimum of two consecutive nights, but not more than thirty days.

  • Short-term rentals may be rented for a maximum of sixty days per calendar year.

  • Short-term rentals may not be rented for events, parties or gatherings.

  • Only single family dwellings may be used as short-term rentals. Accessory dwelling units and multi-family dwelling units are prohibited from use as a short-term rental.

  • Revenue generated by short-term rentals is subject to the City’s rental tax.

  • Residents operating a short-term rental without a permit or in violation of the ordinance will be subject to a $1,500 fine for the first offense and fines of $5,000 for any subsequent offenses.

The  Short-Term Rental Permit Process

Short-term rental hosts must pay an application fee of $300, have met all safety requirements, provide several city ordinances to tenants, and pay rental income tax to the City on the gross receipts from the rentals.

Short-Term Rental Permit Application

The application requirements include: proof of residency, proof of insurance, every online listing of the rental including personal webpages.  If a building inspection is necessary, there is an additional fee of $200 added to the $300 application fee. Download and complete the five page application here.

For more information, contact the Piedmont Planning Department at 510/420-3050.

Jun 5 2018
     In reply to Superintendent Booker’s response to my recent article “A Costly Mistake”, the salient issue is whether or not the high school can get by without adding eight portables for a period of three years. I am not an educator, but I can add and subtract.

    The high school now has 39 designated classrooms on the campus, two of which are used for other purposes. A normal school day includes seven periods. The Administration building currently has 8 classrooms used by 12 teachers for a total of 52 periods a day, nearly 100 per cent utilization of the 56 total periods. When the Admin building is demolished, there will be 31 classrooms remaining on the campus with a total of 217 teaching periods in each school day.

    The PHS Staff Directory provides the specific classroom and number of periods assigned in that classroom for each member of the faculty. My tabulation shows that at present the Math Science building has a surplus of 8 periods, the Library has a surplus of 18 periods, and MHS has a surplus of 28 teaching periods. If the district temporarily cancels out ceramics, MHS will have a surplus of 32 periods. Total underutilization will then be 58 of the 217 periods, six more than the 52 needed to accommodate all of the teachers on the staff including those displaced by demolition of the Admin building. The 31 remaining classrooms will be no more heavily used than are the existing classrooms in the Admin building — and for 1.5 years under my proposal instead of 3 years.

    Making enhanced use of the library conference room and subdividing just one of the existing classrooms into 4 smaller seminar rooms would provide additional flexibility. The PHS principal’s office can be conveniently relocated across the arcade to the rooms now occupied by the teacher’s lounge and teacher’s resource room in the library. Teachers might, in fact, benefit by sharing the student lounge with the students. And storage space, even if temporarily rented, is relatively easy to provide.

    Other issues may need to be resolved, but the high school can get by without adding eight portable classrooms, and the district could proceed now with the demolition of the Admin building. That much is indisputable.

William Blackwell, Piedmont Resident

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Jun 2 2018

Piedmont City Council to Consider Proposed Charter Changes June 4, 2018, 7:30 p.m. City Hall:

If the City Administrator’s requests to change the City Charter are approved, the City Council could take a back seat in Piedmont’s governance.

Piedmont City Administrator Paul Benoit proposed eliminating the long-time appointment power of the City Council in the City Charter. 

The City Council has always appointed and hired key administrative positions – Police Chief, Fire Chief, City Clerk, Finance Director, Public Works Director, etc. However, the Council told Benoit on April 30, 2018 they wanted to retain the Council’s hiring authority per the City Charter.  Yet Benoit apparently convinced the Council that he, the City Administrator, should be the sole individual authorized to fire or terminate key managers, taking authority away from the Council in an unusual change to Council authority.

Readers will find the administrative changes repeatedly diminish the authority of the Council forfeiting their authority to the City Administrator.

The form of government proposed by Benoit is usually termed a City Manager form of government joined by a strong mayor, which Piedmont does not elect.  Oakland has a City Manager form of government as does Alameda and Astoria, Oregon, where Benoit was employed for many years prior to coming to Piedmont. Each of these cities have a separately elected Mayor.  Piedmont’s mayor is elected from within the Council  by the five Council members. 

Many are familiar with Oakland struggles, but perhaps less familiar with Alameda’s recent troubles when the Council terminated their City Manager over a hiring situation. Piedmont has not had such disruption and the City Council has worked collaboratively when selecting officers such as the Fire Chief, Police Chief, and others.  It has been stated that it is better to have 5 members of the Council selecting  the City officers rather than one unelected person – the City Administrator – making the selections and terminations.

Despite pleas for an independent committee to study and evaluate proposed changes to the Piedmont City Charter, none was formed by the City Council.  The Administration driven proposals have moved forward following a Council Study Session.  

This PCA article points out some of the critical issues, but as with any City Charter the devil is in the details, of which there are many.  The Council, apparently, will be presenting forums after they decide what should be placed on a Piedmont  November 2018 election ballot to seek required ratification

~~~~~~~~~~~

Below are various changes noted by City staff as substantive.  Readers will note in the full draft linked below there are many other important issues.

   The pros and cons of the changes have not been presented by staff.

Important administrative changes of the Charter were listed last in the staff report linked below. The order has been changed here. 

  • ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROVERSY: Council would hire top managers, but could not fire them. In Article 3 – Administration – Council directed staff to clarify sections in this article to make clear that the City Council appoints Department Heads, but that they will be directed by and serve at the pleasure of the City Administrator.
  • The Council acted against the recommendation of the City Administrator and decided to retain their long held ability to select and appoint (hire) Department Heads per the current Charter requirement appointments for Department Heads, while letting the City Administrator be the only individual who fire the Department heads.
  •   ISSUE: The Council relinquishment of their ability to also terminate (fire) Department Heads –  the Police Chief, Fire Chief, Finance Director, City Clerk, etc. presents potential new problems for the City Council authority.
  • New positions have been added to the list of permanent City of Piedmont positions.  The number of  Department Head employeeswill be permanently placed in the City Charter potentially making it more difficult to consolidate or eliminate positions. 
  •  ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLITICAL;  NO LIMIT ON AMOUNT OF RESERVE FUNDS. In Section 4.03, the limit on the General Fund Reserve of 25% is proposed for removal. In addition, an aspirational minimum for the General Fund Reserve of 15% of the General Fund operating budget is inserted.
  • Elimination of the amount of money the City can place in reserve, while continuing to tax property owners has been one of  the more noticed proposed changes to the City Charter.  The original goal of limiting reserves was to control taxation without a purpose. In recent years, the Council and Administration has circumvented the limitation by building up reserves in numerous specials funds presenting a bountiful amount of money stored by the millions for special purposes.   The change appears arbitrary. 
  • ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLITICAL: BIDDING and PURCHASING:  In Section 4.11, bidding requirements are changed to remove a low threshold for costly formal bidding requirements, rather leaving it to the Council to set the thresholds for formal bidding by ordinance.
  • Many City service providers are currently not obtained through a formal bidding process. Regardless of cost to the City, old friends, contractors,  and work companions often continue for years without ever going through a formal procurement process.  Some suggest Piedmont has not always performed due diligence with the millions of dollars spent for outside services and have suggested stronger language rather than more relaxed requirements. Piedmont adopted a stronger procurement, liability and project policy led by the League of Women Voters of Piedmont.  There has been no comment on the impact of the proposed Charter change to the policy. 
  •  
  •  The proposed amendments also modernize the prohibition against employment discrimination to include all classes protected under U.S. and state law. (Section 5.02)  This makes Piedmont Charter language compliant with U.S. and state law without impacting Piedmont’s current compliant practices.
  • The provision for filling vacancies on the Board of Education is changed to match the proposed amendments for the City Council, as described above for Section 2.05 (c). Staff consulted with the Piedmont Unified School District which agreed that this amendment, along with one other technical amendment to Article 7 should be included in the proposed amendments. There is no validation provide for the Board of Education position on the Charter change. 

POLITICAL: LIMITING SERVICE BY FORMER COUNCIL MEMBERS.  The proposal would increase the period of time during which a former Councilmember is ineligible to run for office from 4 to 8 years after leaving office.

 Only two Council members have in the past 3 decades attempted to be re-elected following 4 years of ineligibility.  One former Councilmember was not re-elected, another was elected, but recently resigned over a scandal.  A local newspaper’s publicity for those two candidates influenced the election more than the candidates’ efforts.

POLITICAL: HOW LONG SHOULD THE COUNCIL HAVE TO FILL A COUNCIL VACANCY.   An amendment to the provision for filling of vacancies on the City Council would be extended to allow the Council 60 days rather than just 30 days to fill a vacancy.

 Recent history has proven the Council has been able to readily fill numerous Council vacancies within the allotted 30 day time period. The intention of the Charter was to expeditiously fill a vacancy for a full Council composition of 5 members rather than unnecessarily remain at 4 or fewer members. 

  • CONTROVERSIAL: WHEN TO HOLD COUNCIL MEETINGS A requirement that the Council hold two regular meetings per month is eliminated. The proposed language would require the City Council to hold meetings on a regular basis.

    Change could be arbitrary. 

    Residents often plan their public participation schedules around knowing when the Council will meet  – the first and third Mondays of each month. With recent changes to the Zoning Code, not knowing when the Council will next meet to consider a matter opens up conflicting issues. From high school students to public participants, having regularly scheduled meetings, a standard for most cities,  is beneficial.  If three (the required amount) Council members cannot attend a regularly scheduled  meeting, then the meeting would fall to the next day or week. Going on the City Council is known to require certain meetings per month thus allowing the Council and public set dates for planning purposes. Scheduling of matters can be crucial to the consideration of many issues and the orderly functioning of government.  Reducing the frequency of Council meetings puts them at a disadvantage in providing the leadership the citizenry expects of their elected officials.

Amendments are also proposed to a number of other sections of the Charter to remove stated outdated provisions and modernize language. Click to read a marked up version of the Charter containing each of the proposed Charter amendments.

READ the full STAFF REPORT > HERE.

Citizens are invited and encouraged to comment at this meeting. Written comments may be submitted to the City Council at citycouncil@piedmont.ca.gov or by US Mail to City Clerk, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA  94611. All comments submitted will become part of the public record.

The meeting will be televised live on KCOM-TV, Channel 27, the City’s government TV station and will be available through streaming video on the City’s web site www.ci.piedmont.ca.us.

For further information, contact Assistant City Administrator/ City Clerk John O. Tulloch via email at cityclerk@piedmont.ca.gov or via phone at (510) 420-3040.

4 Comments »
May 31 2018
A Costly Mistake

On November 8, 2016, following a well-orchestrated campaign, 73% of Piedmont voters supported a $66 million bond issue to modernize and add classrooms to the high school campus, which includes the Millennium High School.

Subsequently, the Board approved selection of an architectural firm (HKIT) and proceeded with a plan focusing on two major projects: a new STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics) Building that is expected to cost $37.5 million, and a new Alan Harvey Theater costing $16.3 million. Together these projects, including necessary demolition, account for 81.5% of the $66 million bond and will take about three years to complete, during which time the schools will be without a theater. The STEAM building includes 19 classrooms, and the theater adds a drama classroom. Eight existing classrooms will be demolished, so the net gain will be 12 new classrooms, a 30% increase in the number of classrooms but with no new teachers added and only a modest increase projected in high school enrollment. The balance of the bond money will be spent on modernizing existing classrooms and other needed improvements on the campus.

In sequence, the approved plan is to demolish the theater in the summer of 2020, and construct a new three-story STEAM building on its site. When STEAM is completed, the existing Administration Building will be demolished, and a replacement theater with a drama classroom will be constructed on its site.

Well before the election, Superintendent Booker established a Facilities Steering Committee to report directly to him. This committee, a mix of school staff and Piedmont residents, reviewed the Facilities Master Plan prepared by QKA Architects that included a list of needed school projects that totaled an estimated $137 million, twice the district’s current bonding capacity. Hence, the list had to be cut in half. The committee then decided that the highest priority should be given to the high school and its need for more and better classrooms. After thoughtful deliberation, the committee decided on three site plan options for consideration, and these were the only options open for discussion at three Town Hall Meetings held in April, 2017.

At some point in the process, the committee was told, mistakenly in my opinion, that if the Administration building was demolished before the STEAM building was completed, the high school could not function without first installing eight portable classrooms at a cost of $5 million. This effectively eliminated one of the three options, and ultimately led to the Board’s adopted plan. Board President Sarah Pearson said, “One of the reasons rebuilding a new theater [on the site of the Administration building] became such an attractive option was because of the cost of interim housing and not having much space. It was the most pragmatic decision — not to put money in portables.”

The fact is that a careful review of the high school teachers and their assigned classrooms showed that the school could function perfectly well without the need for costly portables during construction.

My detailed analysis found that of the 39 designated classrooms, eight in the Administration Building are nearly fully utilized, but the remaining 31 are typically underutilized. In fact, one designated classroom is now being used for storage and another for school publications. There would be some minor inconveniences, but these are far outweighed by the multiple advantages of constructing a new STEAM building on the site of the existing Administration Building, and a new or revamped theater at its present location.

Total construction time and campus disruption would be cut in half from 3 to 1.5 years, a significant saving in construction cost escalation.Moreover, there is no immediate need to replace the theater. ADA access and other suggested improvements could be made at a cost of less than $10 million. Only minor structural upgrade is needed. If theater replacement is deferred until additional bonding capacity is available, first phase funds would be available to address the much-needed Middle School upgrades, a rational trade-off.

In December 2017, I sent an e-mail to the Board and staff outlining in detail how this could be accomplished. To date, I have received no substantive reply, except a comment by Dr. Pearson that it is too late to make these changes. I do not believe this. It took only about 4 months for the construction documents for the Alan Harvey Theater to be prepared in 2014. Similarly, HKIT could most assuredly revise the construction documents needed for the two buildings in a relatively short period of time. They would not be starting from scratch. Even if the two projects have already been submitted to the State Division of Architects — and I don’t know that they have— it is not too late to consider revisiting the issue and make these siting improvements given the multiple advantages of time and cost.

 William Blackwell, Piedmont Resident

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
2 Comments »
May 29 2018

The next meeting of the Piedmont Public Safety Committee will on May 31, Thursday, at 5:30 pm.  This meeting is open to the public in the Council Chambers at City Hall.

The agenda includes updates on

  • Get Ready, Piedmont Guides and Checklist
  • School Liaison Activities and Campus Safety Preparedness
  • Crime Prevention/Community Outreach
  • Neighborhood Meetings
  • Year End Crime Report
  • Boy Scouts and Map Your Neighborhood Project
  • Public Safety Cameras

Discussion of

  • Public Safety Committee page on City Website 
  • Public Safety Open House

Draft Minutes of March meeting below:

Public Safety 2018-03-29 DRAFT