The City is in the process of developing a Request For Proposals (“RFP”) for a new Waste Collection service provider, and has retained R3 Consulting. My 1/15/2017 letter to Council is attached. I have requested an Age 70 Senior and Disabled “accommodation” to be included in any RFP; the accommodation is backyard service at curbside rate. This would be opt-in and you can default to curbside. I feel the small cost of this minor subsidy can be off-set if needed by (1) an overall slight total contract cost increase (2) a marginally higher backyard rate for non-seniors though overall a larger premium for backyard service is needed than our current contract, or (3) have a higher rate for zone E (> 20,000 to 100,000 + square feet) properties.

My research found the senior age 70/disabled accommodation in nine Marin County cities. On 1/17/17 Councilman Rood asked Garth Schultz of R3 Consulting about this as Schultz had included this in his slideshow to Council. Mr. Schultz stated this senior 70/disabled accommodation is “standard” and is offered in other venues when backyard service is otherwise not provided. The Senior 70/disabled accommodation is evidently quite normal.

While outside of Piedmont controlling costs for fixed income seniors seems nearly universal, Piedmont is entirely devoid of any senior cost considerations. Our School Tax exceeds other School taxes by minimally double to literally one hundred times, and many other school taxes having a senior exemption.

How to support the Senior 70/Disabled accommodation:
1. Attend the Thursday Feb. 2 7pm Town Hall meeting at the Veteran’s Hall to support the accommodation. This is a good opportunity.
2. Take the city survey and include the accommodation as a comment:http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/input-sought-on-waste-collection-contract/   I suggest also supporting curbside service as the default. This will keep overall cost down.
3. Write letters in support to the Piedmonter  jkawamoto@bayareanewsgroup.com or the Post atnews@piedmontpost.org   Keeping to 200 words increases publication chances.
4. Likely Council will approve the RFP early in March as it is scheduled to be issued March 13. A letter or better yet an appearance before Council is most effective.

A few other fundamentals concerning Waste Collection cost: to date the City survey on Waste Collection of 650+ responses shows 67% of residents supporting a curbside default. 45% of residents have been using the backyard service and 46% are willing to pay double for backyard over curbside; the current backyard premium is $5 monthly. On 10/17/2016 City Administrator Benoit reported to City Council that for Republic Services to continue “would require a significant rate increase, perhaps in the range of 30% to 40% (and) Republic Services could not sustain the current level of backyard service and that it would have to be substantially reduced.” Unmistakably, backyard service and the too low premium for it in our current contract is a major cost driver. My survey shows the backyard premium is often in the $15 monthly range or higher in other Cities.

Overall the R3 Consultant found Piedmont’s Waste Collection fee to be 20%+ higher though exact comparisons are sometimes difficult with different service packages in different Cities. While Piedmont’s Trash Collection is expensive, it is a comprehensive and appropriate package of services for Piedmont; I am hopeful most elements can be retained at a competitive cost and continuing good diversion rates for recycling. And the time is well past for backyard service at curbside rates for age 70 seniors and disabled.

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

 Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

The following letter was sent to all school parents and guardians.  The letter is now addressed to all Piedmonters.

November 21, 2016

Dear Piedmont Neighbors,

Reactions to the national election and recent alarming acts of prejudice and bigotry in Piedmont have led us to reflect on our values and who we are as community leaders. While we may have differing political, religious, social, or sexual orientations, we each feel strongly that, at our very core, we value diversity, respect, and inclusivity.

We, along with Piedmont Unified School District and City of Piedmont staff, are committed to fostering a safe, inclusive and civil community through our policies, our programming, and our leadership. We stand firm in our collective belief that a safe and civil environment in our schools and across Piedmont is paramount.

To be clear, we will stand firmly united to promote acceptance and kindness, and we will stand up to bigotry, hatred, intolerance, and violence. We will stand in support of our diverse community, honoring and protecting every resident regardless of race, creed, color, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, orientation, or identity. We will strongly uphold our established policies prohibiting discrimination, hate-motivated incidents and hate crimes, hazing, harassment, intimidation, bullying, cyberbullying, and other disruptive or violent behaviors in our schools and our city.

The City and the School District share these values. The City Administrator and the School Superintendent collaborate to ensure that our community is welcoming and works together for the betterment of its citizens. Our Police and Fire Departments, along with all City Department Services, work in concert to keep our residents safe and secure. Our teachers are holding age-appropriate discussions with students, including reminders about the importance of reflection, respect, and civic engagement. They teach our students the skills, attitudes, and competencies to stand in the shoes of others; exercise empathy; speak out against bullying; make responsible, caring choices; solve problems peacefully; and, as they grow up, become the architects of a better world.

We recognize that we live in challenging times and navigating the waters ahead may not always be smooth. We want to reassure our community that we will take care of each other, we will respect each other, and we will not tolerate the intolerable. By focusing on our shared values of respect and inclusivity, we have an opportunity to come together to be our best selves, to support each other, and to strengthen our community.

Sincerely,

Piedmont Board of Education

Andrea Swenson, President

Sarah Pearson, Vice President

Amal Smith, Member

Doug Ireland, Member

Rick Raushenbush, Member

Cory Smegal, Member-elect

~~~~~~~~~~~

Piedmont City Council

Jeff Wieler, Interim Mayor

Robert McBain, Vice Mayor

Teddy Gray King, Councilmember

Jonathan Levine, Councilmember

Tim Rood, Councilmember

Jennifer Cavanaugh, Councilmember-elect

Signed by, Randall Booker, Superintendent of Schools

Now that H1 has passed, let us refocus our efforts on seeing that our new facilities are fastidiously maintained.  A certain amount of the tackiness, general seediness and carpet smell in certain areas comes from a low level of janitorial care.  Smudgy windows and chipped paint take very little effort to correct.

The slightest nick in the indoor trim at the White House has somebody with a tiny paintbrush, the size found in a child’s watercolor paint box, meticulously dabbing on a swoosh of white paint.  All the trim in the White House is white and of the same shade to facilitate this low-tech remedy.  If it’s good enough for the White House, it should be good enough for the schools of Piedmont.

With the tens of millions of dollars that are going to be spent, it’s not too much to expect, that our new facilities will have somebody assigned to administer the “white glove” test to every room the way they do at the Ritz. Our students and faculty deserve the best, as well as the generous citizens of Piedmont that are paying for it.

   Sunny Bostrom-Fleming, Piedmont Resident

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Dear Piedmont:

The last three months have been an incredible experience. Running for office has been exciting and exhausting, sometimes both at the same time, but always enjoyable.

 I’ve loved meeting new friends and neighbors throughout Piedmont, residents who care deeply about our community and are willing to invest the time and energy to continue to make it a better place to live for all of us. Piedmonters are thoughtful and sincere and full of great ideas and suggestions to consider. The desire to connect with that passion is part of why I decided to run for City Council in the first place.

 I want to thank my fellow candidates for their energy and commitment to our city.  It was really a pleasure and an honor to campaign with such committed community volunteers.  And I want to thank the many community volunteers who work tirelessly on behalf of Piedmont. Thank you for all you do to make our city great.

 I’m grateful to my family, my campaign committee, and my team of volunteers, donors, letter writers, door knockers and others who’ve helped in so many ways big and small — I couldn’t have completed this journey without you. Please know that I have given this effort my all.  Win or lose it’s been an amazing experience, and I feel very confident about the future of our hometown.

 Sincerely,

Jen Cavenaugh, Candidate for City Council 2016

Editors Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.  PCA does not support or oppose candidates for public office. 

A Piedmont resident makes a request for the City Council and residents to receive more information prior to Piedmont joining a potentially costly new energy Authority.

On Monday, November 7th, the City Council will consider the First Reading of an ordinance authorizing the City to join the Alameda Clean Energy Joint Powers Authority.  This is called CCE East Bay establishing a Consumer Choice Aggregation for the electric bills of all Piedmonters.

Regardless of your wishes, you will be switched to the Alameda Consumer Choice Aggregation (CCA) for the source of your electrical supply and its cost.  Your contract with PG&E will be terminated and you will have a new supplier for your electricity if the City Council passes this and you do nothing.   You will continue to receive a bill from PG&E (which will still operate the grid and transmission lines & maintain them).  But the actual electrons for your house will be purchased for you by the CCA and billed to you as a new line item on your bill without your consent.

The rates and sources of supply of the Alameda CCA are not regulated by the California Public Utility Commission (as PG&E’s are).

Once the City Council agrees to join this Alameda County CCA, you will be sent letters for opting-out of the CCA and remaining with PG&E.  But if Piedmonters don’t know what all of this is about, there is a risk we will just ignore the letters sent out (as 75% of Richmond residents did with the Marin CCA) and they will automatically be switched to this Alameda County CCA.  At later dates, customers will be able to pay the CCA an administrative fee to get out of the deal.

Is this the best course for our environment?  Piedmont, as a city, has already achieved its goal of a 15% reduction by 2020 of GHG emissions.  According to numbers released by the California PUC (and independently verified), PG&E’s GHG emissions will be reduced to 209 co2/MWh by the year 2020.

PG&E is doing an admirable job in increasing electricity from renewable sources (Their success in this has been a 7% contributor to Piedmont’s 18.7% GHG emissions reductions.).  As of this time, 33% of PG&E’s electricity is from renewable sources; by 2020 (3 years from now), they project it will be 50%.  PG&E has started a Solar Choice Program under which consumers can elect to receive 50% or even 100% of their electricity from solar panel fields installed in Lodi, Manteca, Sacramento, among other locations, for an added cost to the consumer choosing this plan of 3.5 cents/KWh.

Have the City Council’s considerations of joining the Alameda County CCA included a presentation by PC&E?  Other cities considering joining the Alameda County CCA, including Hayward, have arranged such presentations for their City Councils.  As a matter of procedure, it seems odd not to have the major player here address the Council.

And what will obtaining power from a local Alameda CCA cost?  They claim the new power will only cost one penny more per KWh than what PG&E charges, but this opinion is based upon many assumptions and the rates are basically unregulated.  The expense of establishing a new, large bureaucracy (start-up costs estimated by Alameda County at $3.25 million; their plan is to raise $50 million for working capital, to be paid back in 5 years from rate revenue.) and the ongoing costs of paying them to administer the CCA program seems not to be justified by the claimed small reduction in GHG emissions

They claim that this CCA will bring many jobs to Alameda County, but, other than the Administrative jobs, the Feasibility Study points to non-Alameda county-located wind and solar farms.

The independent Feasibility Study commissioned by Alameda County cites many variables (such as the PG&E exit fee, the “PCIA” which must be charged to all CCA customers when they exit PG&E–so that their departure cannot cause the rates of the remaining bundled utility customers to go up), which they say could have an effect on the electricity rates charged by the CCA for our electricity (and such rates are not subject to PUC regulation as are PG&E’s).  Neither the benefits, costs nor projections of joining this Alameda CCA are clear, making the risks considerable.

For more information, I urge you to check out these internet sites:
www.ci.piedmont.ca.us  Council ( Search agenda and report)
www.acgov.org/cda/planning (What are CCA’s?)
apps3.eere.energy.gov (What are CCA’s)
pge.com
resource-solutions.org

Nancy Lehrkind, Piedmont Resident

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Piedmont had excess budget revenue of $2.4M confirming tax objectors projections.

“The City is doing very well when it comes to revenue.”

A Response to Attacks on Measure H1 – 

Measure H1, if approved by voters, will provide funds for needed improvements in our school facilities.  Anyone who has visited Piedmont High School recently is aware of the need.  In recent editions of the Piedmont Post, various writers have raised questions about Measure H1.  I’d like to address the matters raised.

First, there are complaints that Measure H1 does not provide sufficient specificity about the specific projects that will be funded.  In fact, Measure H1 is quite specific, starting with “Construction of a new Piedmont High School building, focused on Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics (“STEAM”) with size, scope and location to be determined following additional public input,” and going on to list expenditures all of which focus on school facilities.  See page A-3, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-vdk-LUzFEkMFlKS1RpeGNFOGc/view.  Further details are found in the Facilities Steering Committee Recommendation, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-vdk-LUzFEkSXg2cDVfWTg0dTA/view.

Second, one writer contends that the District has provided “no cost estimates.”  Not true.  Following the year-long Facilities Master Planning process, a conceptual Master Plan was prepared, and a cost estimate to accomplish what is in that Master Plan is posted here, http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/facilities/pusd-facilities-master-planning/.  Because the estimated cost to accomplish everything in the Master Plan is more than the District can afford, the District convened a Facilities Steering Committee, including community experts, to review the Master Plan, consider conceptual designs and priorities, and make recommendations to the Board.  The Committee’s recommendation led to Measure H1’s priority list and the desire for community input on how best to meet our priority needs within budget.

Third, a writer suggests the District should have a specific design for voters to review, asserting: “Make the supporters come back with a specific plan and viable cost estimates.  The rebuild of Havens Elementary School worked out just fine and within budget.”  In fact, what happened with Havens is what would happen here if H1 is approved.  Just like with the Seismic Bond program, the District has no money to pay for even conceptual design drawings unless and until a bond measure is approved and bonds sold.  Even more to the point, the history of the Havens rebuild is as follows–the voters approved the Seismic Bond, community input was sought, community member Mark Becker stepped forward with a great design, and community member Andy Ball agreed to a maximum guaranteed price that allowed the Board to go forward knowing that sufficient funds would exist for all three elementary schools.  It is exactly that kind of community engagement the Board hopes to see.  We have a lot of smart, creative and civic-minded people in Piedmont, and we want their participation in developing the facilities to educate our children for the coming decades.

Fourth, FIDES (whoever they are) claims that teachers, students and parents had limited opportunities for input into classroom and facility needs.  Not so.  Rather, teachers were deeply engaged in the process, see Appendix C of the Educational Specifications Report,http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2.1-Piedmont-Ed-Specs_FINAL-2016.02.10..pdf .  The District held eight meetings for parents, students, and the public to provide input, held at each school site, plus two community engagement meetings.  In addition, a Board workshop and multiple Board meetings sought input on facility plans.  See page 25 of http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/aboutpusd/agenda.minutes/15-16/FacilitiesMasterPlanPres2015.10.28%20PUSD_Board.pdf.  In short, there were numerous opportunities to provide public comment.

Fifth, FIDES asserts that the “full master plan” is not “cost effective,” based upon on a comparison to construction of unknown facilities in unknown other states.  This makes no sense.  Detailed design and competitive construction bids will ensure that the District obtains needed facilities with proper quality at the market price.  The claim that Measure H1 creates “wasted spending” is incorrect.  FIDES asserts that Alan Harvey Theater (AHT) was “made compliant,” but is “slated for demolition in the published plan.”  AHT was not “made compliant,” but rather had its seats, stage floor and some equipment improved with donated funds.  If AHT is demolished (as yet unknown), the seats and equipment can be re-used.  The FIDES assertion that $3 million in “furniture, fixtures and equipment purchased under recent renovations” will be replaced is dubious.  Very little of Piedmont High School (PHS) was renovated under the Seismic Bond program, and PHS will be the focus of work under Measure H1 if it passes.  Some Internet cabling may be replaced, but routers, servers, etc. can be re-used until obsolete.

Finally, FIDES complains about a lack of “clarity,” asserting that the published plan is “no longer current.”  In fact, the published conceptual plan remains exactly that, one conceptual plan.  Additional concepts are discussed in the Facilities Steering Committee’s report, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-vdk-LUzFEkSXg2cDVfWTg0dTA/view.  Further concepts almost certainly will be proposed in the community engagement that would follow a community vote in favor of Measure H1.  This should be celebrated, not feared.  When this community works together to achieve a goal, it can achieve great things.  There was angst regarding Havens Elementary School—whether to renovate or replace, what would a replacement look like, and what would it cost.  After a lot of discussion and community involvement, we have a beautiful new Havens Elementary School and beautifully renovated Wildwood and Beach Elementary Schools.

I encourage everyone to vote in favor of Measure H1.

Rick Raushenbush, Member of Piedmont School Board

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.  PCA does not support or oppose ballot measures.