Should voters decide?

There was no Council call to inexpensively add the short term rental decision to the upcoming November 2018 City ballot, allowing Piedmont voters to decide whether or not short term rentals were appropriate for the City. 

A short term rental (STR) is the rental of a living space, sleeping room, accessory housing unit, apartment, or a house for a period of under 30 days.

In a surprise rejection of the Piedmont Planning Commission and staff recommendations to prohibit short term rentals (STRs), the majority on the City Council decided the commercial use of Piedmont homes for hotel/condominium style short term rentals should be allowed.

Mayor Robert McBain stood alone on the Council in opposing the short term rentals, stating he did not believe the rentals were in keeping with the residential character of the City and agreeing with the Planning Commission and Planning Commissioner Eric Behrens, who detailed the numerous reasons to ban the STRs.

The STR matter had been pending for City Council action since 2014.  The Planning staff informed the Council that the emphasis in Piedmont planning ordinances and the General Plan had been to permit accessory housing units to meet regional demands for housing, not provide for STRs.

Stories of recent police STR problems, changes to neighborhood feel, loss of privacy as renters came and went at all hours, lack of familiarity with Piedmont standards for quiet, further parking demands proved of little concern to the Council majority who wanted to be part of the larger community and offer hotel style short term rental of Piedmont rooms, living spaces and homes.

Those in favor stated:

• Council resignations led to a policy change
• No studies supported resident or Planning Commission concerns
• People should be able to rent their homes as a hotel/resort
• No hotels are available in Piedmont for guests
• Vacationing Piedmonters want someone to occupy their home
• Home buyers need to offset high Piedmont taxes with STR rental revenue
• Piedmonters had already begun to rent their homes/rooms
• Piedmont would be elite and unneighborly if it excludes STRs.
• Neighbors could inform the rental property owner if there were problems caused by renters.
• Few people would want to rent their homes or rooms
• Piedmont is not a tourist destination
• Trying the STR system would determine if problems presented themselves

The Council majority took little heed to those opposing STRs with concerns of:

• Commercialization of Piedmont homes
• Costly City administrative functions to oversee rentals
• Safety and security concerns with ever changing unknown renters
• Prior robbery and illegal activities already on record
• Traffic impacts from those unfamiliar with Piedmont streets
• Loss of privacy and quiet in neighborhoods
• Change to the character of the community
• Inconsistency with residential zoning per the City Charter
• Contrary to the General Plan and zoning ordinances
• Property owner requirement to carry commercial business insurance
• Irregular hours of clients/renters both night and day
• Demand for more parking in many areas
• Disruption of the fabric of the City
• Piedmont, as a residential City, was not designed for commerce and businesses in homes with narrow, curvy streets
• Additional demands for City services
• Changing Piedmont focus from education to commercial activities

One Piedmonter on La Salle Avenue stated she needed the income and had purchased her home with intent to rent space and commercialize the home.  Over 80 people had stayed in her home.

Another resident complained of high taxes and the need for someone to stay in their home when they vacationed in France.

The many pleas to keep STRs out of Piedmont were not persuasive to  the Council majority, nor was the possibility of permitted accessory housing units flipped to STRs of concern.

The Council was in a quandary over what to do, because no ordinance language had been drafted to allow STRs.  City Administrator Paul Benoit stated he was getting an idea of what the Council wanted and Councilmembers could send him items to be included in a draft ordinance permitting STRs.

The Council as a whole did not want the matter to be returned to the opposed Planning Commission for their renewed consideration of draft ordinance proposals.

There was NO call for the public to submit comments or ideas on the matter, only for the Council’s input to Benoit. There was no discussion of a ballot measure to allow Piedmont voters to decide to ban or permit STRs.

Anyone interested in STRs may send a comment directly to the City Council and City Administrator Paul Benoit to the links below:

Comments may be sent directly to City Administrator Paul Benoit by clicking his link >  pbenoit@piedmont.ca.gov

_____________________

_________________

Comments may be sent directly to Councilmembers by clicking on their links below:

Read East Bay Times report HERE.

Planning for the Linda Beach Playground will be discussed with the community 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 18 in the Piedmont Community Center, in Piedmont Main Park , 711 Highland Avenue.

All interested community members are encouraged to attend and participate.

Read the announcement by clicking below.

LBMP Community Meeting 2 Announcement

Dear Piedmont City Council Members,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,

Gautam Wadhwani

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

The following public documents are published to help readers consider the issue of a sublet of the Piedmont Center for the Arts to the Piedmont Post newspaper that is before the City Council on their Monday, December 18 agenda:

Original City lease with the Arts Center Section 14:

Tenant shall not voluntarily assign or encumber its interest in this lease or in the premises, or sublease all or any part of the premises, or allow any other person or entity (except Tenant’s authorized representative) to occupy or use all or any part of the premises, without first obtaining Landlord’s written consent. Any assignments, encumbrance, or sublease without Landlord’s consent shall be voidable and, at Landlord’s election, shall constitute a default. No consent to any assignment, encumbrance, or sublease shall constitute a further waiver of the provisions of this

paragraph.

“The lease amendment before you tonight is drafted to allow for more flexibility in the terms of usage of the premises. The intent of the revised language is to allow the PCA to manage the facility with a higher degree of independence and to accommodate reasonable requests for facility usage without first having to obtain the written permission of the City Council. Given the PCA’s proven ability to professionally and responsibly manage the leased premises, I believe that this amendment is in the best interests of both the City and the PCA.It allows the PCA to more nimbly respond to requests from outside groups to use the facility, and allows for greater control in the scheduling of events and activities. For the City, the amendment acknowledges our confidence in the PCA’s abilities and keeps minor, operational issues from having to be acted upon by formal Council action.”

 

Section 14 – Of the Lease is hereby modified and restated as follows: Tenant shall not assign, transfer, convey, encumber or sublease (collectively, a “Transfer”) its interest in this lease or the Premises without the prior written consent of Landlord, which consent shall be within the sole discretion of Landlord. For purposes of this provision, a Transfer shall be considered to include any assignment to an entity related to Tenant or a change of ownership or control of Tenant. Any Transfer without Landlord’s consent shall be voidable and, at Landlord’s election, shall constitute a default. Prior written consent of Landlord is required for all Transfers. Consent to a prior Transfer shall not be construed as consent to any future Transfer.

On Monday, December 18, for a rushed Council consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application of The Piedmont Post newspaper to rent space in the Piedmont Center for the Arts Center at 801 Magnolia Avenue, a City property leased to the Arts Center with adherence to all City, State and Federal laws as well as restrictions on activities and hours.

The Council meeting will start at 7:30 p.m. in City Hall. Consideration of the sublease of the Arts Center is late on the agenda.  The meeting will be broadcast on Channel 27 and via the City website under videos. Read the agenda HERE.

The City of Piedmont appears ready to become the landlord of one of Piedmont’s local newspapers, the Piedmont Post.  Other media outlets have reported the sub-leasing story, yet the Post has failed to notify residents of the proposal and the unique scheme to rent the subsidized City arts space to the newspaper.

The City Council has full authority under the Arts Center $1 per year lease to determine who sublets the City owned and subsidized property.

The subleasing of public property at the subsidized Arts Center has drawn growing attention as residents begin to learn of the proposal. Numerous residents who are critical of the Post’s politicized editorial practices have stepped forward. Praise has also come to the Post from residents, particularly beneficiaries of the Post’s coverage.

According to correspondence received by the City in regard to the application to house the local newspaper in a Piedmont government owned building designated for the arts, the City will receive more “bad press.”  The Piedmont Post, is owned and operated by Gray Cathrall, a founder and recent Board member of the Piedmont Center for the Arts.

A number of residents including a former School Board member, candidate for City Council and a City Commissioner, a former President of the Piedmont Education Foundation, and Arts Center neighbors, to name a few,  have come forward decrying the notion of the Post as a renter of a subsidized City building. Some opponents of the proposal are intimidated by the Post and have been afraid to come forward with their names.

Written comments were presented to the Planning Commission and are included in the staff report linked at the bottom of this article.

One detailed comment is copied below:

Dear City Council,

 

As a long-term Piedmont resident, I am strongly opposed to providing space in the PCA to the Piedmont Post Newspaper.  There are several factors behind this. First of all, it is an egregious conflict of interest for a sitting Advisory Board Member to simultaneously be the leader (editor) of the proposed tenant. Even if that Board Member is completely recused from the decision, the other Board Members undoubtedly have a close relationship with the Editor and cannot possibly render an unbiased decision regarding potential tenancy.

 

Second, the longstanding biased Editorial bent of the Piedmont Post should not be condoned by the city.  The Post has gone out of its way to malign certain arbitrarily non-favored candidates, coaches, etc. The maligning bent in some instances has been severe and toxic.

 

Third, the Post is run with mysterious finances.  Although there are some subscriptions, there is also a long-term use of “underwriters” as the mechanism of funding the Post.  How exactly this additional money is used is unknown, and, certainly, having underwriters who provide large cash payments seems inherently biased — one would presume that large donations would inherently introduce biased coverage. 

 

If Piedmont truly had an unbiased, subscription-based, jewel of a local paper, then placing it in the PCA would be suitable.  Instead, we have a highly biased, donation-based, and occasionally mean-spirited paper, and thus placing it in the PCA and providing public support to it is clearly the wrong thing to do.  It would not be in the community interest.

 

Tim McCalmont, Piedmont Resident and former President of the Piedmont Education Foundation

City of Piedmont as landlord to a newspaper.

The original lease for the City’s property at 801 Magnolia housing the Arts Center specifies  hours of operation, adherence to all City, State and Federal laws, notices to be provided to the City, etc. See copy linked below.

The sublet lease was not provided during Planning Commission consideration.  One lease condition proposed to be breached by the sublet is allowing hours past 11:00  p.m. bringing great concern to neighbors with school age children and senior residents desiring quiet late nights contrary to the proposed late night business activities running until 12 midnight on school nights. 

Many have expressed concern that Piedmont government facilities should only be rented for community wide services, as originally allowed for the arts.   Additionally, the newspaper is not accepted by all as a public service because of “egregious acts” against the schools, individuals, candidates for office, news manipulation, and being a bad influence on Piedmont youth.

Those attempting to find out more about the unusual transaction that would allow one local newspaper to receive a subsidized, government rental space leased for $1 per year have yet to receive complete answers to the following:

• What is the financial condition of the Arts Center ?
• Why wasn’t the space advertised locally to encourage other renters of the highly desirable central Piedmont location ?
• Why did the Center break from a singular use as an Arts Center?
• Did the Center’s Board hear from their former Board member  and potential renter at a Board meeting gaining an inside opportunity?
• Could the City of Piedmont use the space rather than have it sublet?
• Why was there no notice in the Post of the application or the timing of the hearings?
  
• Why wasn’t there ever a meeting with neighbors to learn about their concerns in regard to parking and late night business meetings on school nights?
• Why is the matter being considered so hurriedly over a 7-day holiday period with many Piedmonters away or preoccupied?
• What is the rush?
• How long has the proposed space not been used and available?
• At the time the zoning was changed on the property was the space available?
• Why wasn’t notice given to the residents of Piedmont at large for alternative use of this important Piedmont property?
• What is the relationship between the City and the newspaper such that the newspaper receives preferential treatment over other media outlets?
• What will the rent be?
• Has the City Council been provided with the proposed sublease?

At the December 11, 2017 Piedmont Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Director provided advice, plus public comments were received. The Commissioners, without hearing from the business owner or whether the proposed usage complied with the requirements placed on the Center in their lease, recommended approval of a sublease for part of the Piedmont Center for the Arts for the Piedmont Post newspaper.  

City Council decides what can be in the Arts Center building.

The lease conditions were changed in 2016 to allow uses allowed in the public zone which soon opened the ability to sublease the property to a for-profit entity.   The Council revised the City Code in 2017  to allow for-profit businesses to be in the  Public Zone.  The change from non-profit zone uses to for- profit uses in the Public Zone was never put on a Piedmont ballot per Charter requirements to obtain Voter approval. Piedmont voters were not allowed to rule on the significant change.

The intent of the Charter was never pursued by the City, despite receiving an affidavit from a former mayor and an email from another former mayor informing the City Council that the intent of the Charter was being misinterpreted. The zoning change was singularly approved by the City Council, and without extensive reporting, was largely unrecognized by Piedmont voters.

There was concern at the time of the zone change allowing businesses in the Public Zone, such as a newspaper office or other commercial enterprise, in the scant public space available.

In 2011 when 801 Magnolia Avenue was developed as the Arts Center, the City Council, did not offer the property to various potential users of and acted to permit the Piedmont Center for the Arts.  Strict, limited hours of operation were incorporated into the lease agreement in consideration of the location next door to a home and in a school/residential neighborhood.  Center founders Gray Cathrall,  editor and owner of the Post, and Nancy Lehrkind, now Vice President of the Center Board, fostered the Center lease through the City Council.

The Municipal Pool, recreation tennis courts, and the schools all limit their operation hours to accommodate neighbors and minimize intrusive neighborhood night light pollution, noise, traffic, parking in the immediate vicinity of the Center.  No traffic studies of the proposed new tenancy were produced.

At the December 11, 2017, Planning Commission meeting few questions were asked regarding the application before the recommendation of approval to the City Council.   Commissioners relied on the narrow consideration factors presented by the planning staff.  The leases between the City and the Arts Center were not presented to the Planning Commissioners during their consideration.   Commissioners indicated neighbors could expect noise and traffic from schools without regard to the existing limitation on late night hours.

The integrity and character of the newspaper was not part of the Planning Commission consideration, although both pro and con opinions of the newspaper were presented at the meeting. The City Council is in a different position being the landlord of the property.

Arts Center Board member, Nancy Lehrkind, addressed the need for more revenue to support the Arts Center programs, while noting the incompatibility of joint use of spaces by various businesses or organizations.  No information indicating the space was  advertised to potential market rate renters.  No financial statements of the viability of the Arts Center were provided to the Commission. Lehrkind stated the Post would pay “top dollar” for the space, however the rental fee was not disclosed.

The Post on the application signed by Post owner Gray Cathrall stated the gross annual revenue of the Post equals $380,000.

The staff report includes comments/letters, documents, leases and the recommendation. READ the staff report HERE.

Comments can be sent to the City Council at the links below:

All Council members will receive comments sent to the City Clerk at jtulloch@piedmont.ca.gov

Recent news article by The Piedmonter newspaper can be read HERE.

Residents have raised issues in the past regarding City buildings not being appropriate for political activities nor for allowing businesses with potential conflicts of interests.

The Piedmont Post is an independently owned private newspaper supported by donors, advertisers, official City notices, and subscribers.  The for-profit business entity is currently located in Oakland on Boulevard Way. The Post, contrary to City laws, uses a Piedmont residential address on Oakland Avenue as the business address.

There is no information available as to a business license in Oakland, Piedmont, or a Piedmont Home Occupation Permit as a business location on Oakland Avenue.  There are no published documents available indicating the financial status of the newspaper. The application states a gross income of $380,000 per year.

The application indicates a need for more Art Center income to support the activities of the Center, however no documentation or audit has been publicly released to show the financial status of the Art Center.

Piedmont Center for the Arts Application for Conditional Use Permit – 

The recent posting by Garrett Keating contains several inaccuracies which I would like to correct.  The most important one is the fact that The Piedmont Center For The Arts, Inc. has applied to the City of Piedmont for a Conditional Use Permit to allow THE CENTER to sub-lease space to a commercial sub-tenant. Garrett has represented that The Piedmont Post has applied for this Conditional Use Permit and would become a “tenant” of the City in a City-owned building.  In truth, it is The Piedmont Center, which has a right to sub-lease some of its space to a tenant of its choosing, that has applied to the City for a permit, in accordance with the new zoning laws requiring this procedure.

Garrett also represents that Gray Cathrall, Editor of The Piedmont Post, is on the Board of The Piedmont Center.  This is untrue.  Gray was termed out and resigned from the Board last summer.  He was a major contributor to the formation and ongoing publicity needs of The Center.

The Piedmont Center For The Arts has a lease with the City of Piedmont covering a portion of the space in the building at 801 Magnolia.   The initial lease was effective on May 2, 2011 and it has been amended several times.  The original lease DID restrict any sub-tenants to non-profit entities.  In the Lease Amendment effective August 31, 2016, that restriction was removed by amending the Lease to allow The Center to rent to any tenant in accordance with Piedmont’s zoning law.

Why does The Piedmont Center need a tenant?  A good question to consider and the answer is simply money!  In the original business plan for The Center, the opportunity for rental income from the old Christian Science Reading Rooms was intended as a cash flow which would subsidize all of the arts activities.  It was intended to pay all of the overhead and maintenance costs plus a little extra for unforeseen expenses and upgrades.

For the bulk of our tenancy, the Bay Area Children’s Theatre rented our extra space.  They were an ideal fit as a sub-tenant because The Center has to have some partial use of these rented rooms & BACT was a very compatible and easy-going group.  The extra space at The Center can only be rented as a “shared space” with no exclusive access by either party.  During the year, The Center uses those back rooms as the “Green Room” for all theatre productions (make-up, costumes, changing rooms, entrances & exits), the on-going artists’ exhibitors use these rooms to store their wrappings, all Center users utilize the smaller back room for their catering needs, and musicians use them to store their clothing & instrument cases.

Bay Area Children’s Theatre moved out of the building last summer (when they were able to rent an entire vacant church in Montclair) and we have been trying to find a tenant(s) ever since.  The problem is that they all want exclusive use, locked doors, a separate alarm system and no use by The Piedmont Center for its programs.

In order for The Piedmont Center to be able to sub-lease even shared space to a commercial tenant, The Center has to obtain a Conditional Use Permit.  The Board realized that The Piedmont Post office would be a sub-tenant who would not increase congestion, noise or parking around our building and they are willing to lease on a “shared space” basis at top dollar.  That was the kind of sub-tenancy we were looking for.

Nancy Lehrkind, Vice President
The Piedmont Center For The Arts

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

The long awaited garbage/solid waste contract will be presented to the City Council off-camera in the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) on November 27. 

Every property owner in Piedmont must subscribe to the contracted services. 

Residents eager to learn what the City Council has in store for them may want to attend a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, November 27, 2017, in the Police Department, Emergency Operation Center (EOC), 403 Highland Avenue.

Public meetings held in the EOC, do not lend themselves to video recordings and broadcasting, making the important information and subsequent Council discussions not easy to be observed or to be understood by the vast majority of residents.

Residents complained when the preliminary waste collection service cost estimates indicated substantial increases of 60% for curbside service and 120% for backyard service. 

Of great concern to many following the contract development has been the high cost of the proposed service compared to other cities. Those needing backyard/side yard service, such as the elderly, will face significantly higher fees and cumbersome government reviews.

The City of Piedmont budget gains from the mandatory fees under the proposed contracted. The fees are used to pay for City services and staffing.  In some cities, municipal garbage services are factored into the overall cost of running their city, making the garbage collection costs tax deductible for property owners.  This has not been proposed in Piedmont, nor was tax deductibility of the service considered for inclusion in the recent voter approved municipal property taxes.

Read previous articles here and here and here.

The City notice states:

The Piedmont City Council will consider adopting a Solid Waste Services Agreement with Richmond Sanitary Services (dba Republic Services) at its regular meeting scheduled for December 4, 2017.

Prior to the December 4, 2017 Regular meeting, the City Council will hold a study session on November 27^th to be briefed on the terms of the agreement.

Please visit the City’s website, where you will find more information and links to copies of the staff report, to which the proposed agreement is attached, and a slideshow presentation for the Council’s study session.

Relevant Documents:

• December 4, 2017 City Council Staff Report regarding a Solid Waste Services Agreement with Republic Services

• November 27, 2017 Slide Presentation regarding a Solid Waste Services Agreement with Republic Services

To learn more about current solid waste services in Piedmont visit: www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/recycling-waste.shtml

If you have comments about the solid waste services agreement, please send them to the City Council at citycouncil@piedmont.ca.gov.

If you have questions about the agreement or approval process, please contact Assistant Planner Chris Yeager at (510) 420-3067 or cyeager@piedmont.ca.gov.

Special City Council Meeting Agenda

Monday, November 27, 2017 6:30 p.m.

Open to the public

Emergency Operations Center (EOC), Police Dept., 403 Highland Avenue, Piedmont, CA

 1. Presentation on the Proposed Franchise & Solid Waste Collection Services Agreement with Republic Services 

The Council may adopt a new Solid Waste Services Agreement with significant changes at their December 4th meeting. Find out about the contract at the City Council special study session on November 27, 2017. 

Piedmonters have complained that the current rates for waste collection are too high, but under a new contract increases will be significant.  Republic Services, Piedmont’s current collector and the only bidder responding to Piedmont’s RFP, would begin charging the new rate and offering the modified services as of July 1, 2018.   Negotiations of the contract with Republic Services began two months ago. The resulting proposed contract will be presented and discussed by the City Council at a special study session on Monday, November 27^th at 6:30 p.m. in the Emergency Operations Center.  The public is invited to attend.

Highlights of changes to be presented: