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

Learn How the Money Comes and Goes-

The five-member Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) will hold its third meeting on Wednesday, May 8, at 7:00 p.m. in the Police Department Emergency Operations Center to continue their analysis of City revenues, expenditures and five-year financial planning.

May 8, BAFPC meeting:

1. Presentations on refinancing the Side Fund
2. Update on the Sewer Fund

The BAFPC will then meet jointly with the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Committee on Thursday, May 9 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall to discuss the proposed installation of License Plate Readers at City access points.

On Saturday, May 11, at 9:00 a.m. the City Council will hold its annual budget work session in the Police Department Emergency Operations Center.

All of the meetings are open to the public. However, meetings held in the Police Emergency Room historically have not been broadcast on KCOM or recorded. Those interested may attend and participate.

Three topical issues will be taken up by the City Council on Monday, May 6, 2013: proposed installation of License Plate Readers (LPR) at 15 Piedmont access points; a public hearing on the use of the east wing of the city-owned building at 801 Magnolia Ave.; and an initial presentation of the City budget for fiscal year 2013-14.  The public meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. in Council Chambers at Piedmont City Hall.  The meeting will be televised and made available through the internet.

License Plate Readers

Police Chief Ricki Goode is recommending that License Plate Readers be installed by 3M Company at 15 intersections around the City for a cost of $673,274. Acknowledging that “cost may still be a prohibitive factor,” Chief Goode ranked the 15 intersections (without naming them) in order of her priority, and has asked the Council for direction on future steps to take.

It is unlikely the Council will take any action Monday night, as a joint meeting of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee and the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee has been set for Thursday, May 9, in the Council Chambers to consider potential funding of the License Plate Readers. The committees will make a recommendation to the City Council.

Staff report and letters to the Council.

801 Magnolia Avenue – East Wing – Former Sunday School Section – Public Hearing

A lengthy staff report explains the tug of war that has emerged over use of the currently empty wing of 801 Magnolia Avenue, adjacent to the popular Piedmont Center for the Arts.   In January, Recreation Director Mark Delventhal proposed creating a child-care center for youngsters in the space.  After Piedmont senior citizens spoke up regarding the lack of meeting and social activity space for their age group, Delventhal modified his plan to the extent that his current staff report states that proposed design improvements will allow the room “to be as flexible as possible. Child care today, a community meeting tonight, adult exercise, reading room, seniors area, or whatever in the future.”

At the same time, the Arts Center has come forth with its own proposal for the space, including paying in full for all renovation, operation costs and insurance.  Other plans for the room have also been submitted.

If licensing and other requirements are met, home child care is legal in Piedmont.

Staff Proposal

Piedmont Center for the Arts Proposal

Makers Proposal

Salzer Proposal

Residents Comments

The final agenda item, the Fy 2013-14 Piedmont Budget, will be presented at the meeting, and an online link to the document will be activated after the meeting.  There is no information available on the budget at this point.

Agenda