Important Council Meeting June 3, 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. 

The City Council will hold the first of two public hearings on the FY 2013-14 Budget at its Monday meeting.  The Council’s Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) has been meeting for weeks,  examining the proposed annual budget, five-year projections, and the City’s overall financial health.  The Committee’s detailed report  with specific recommendations will be presented at the meeting.  

The Budget, along with fee proposals, the levy of the Municipal Services Tax and the Sewer Tax are all part of the Public Hearing. Staff Report.  Budget.

License Plate Readers in Piedmont have made Bay Area news and are supported by a number of Piedmonters.  Increasingly aggressive crimes led Police Chief Rikki Goede to recommend placing cameras at fifteen entrances to Piedmont.  Although controversial to some, the Piedmont Public Safety Committee, CIP Review Committee, and the BAFPC have recommended the City Council approve $678,613 from the CIP fund to cover the cost of the cameras for use in the project.  Staff Report.

Eagle Scout candidate, Cole Becker, has proposed overseeing and fund raising for a footbridge in Dracena Park.  The footbridge will replace a bridge demolished over 50 years ago.   The location connects a path near Park Way to a path used by dog walkers crossing over the path through the redwood canyon.  The Park Commission has recommended approving the footbridge, conditioned upon certain requirements.   Staff Report.

As an outgrowth of BAFPC recommendations, the City Council will discuss an ongoing  plan  to project future needs and to allocate funds for facilities maintenance.

For more information, call the City Clerk’s office at (510) 420-3040.

As Police Departments Shrink, New Software Seems to Aid Crime Prevention

Tight budgets have forced many California cities to reduce the size of Police Departments.  At the same time crime rates are rising. To offset the loss of police officers some cities are turning to Predictive Policing (PredPol), a predictive analytics technology tool developed in California and named one of the “Best Inventions” of 2011 by Time magazine. Using the crime date, time and address data already recorded by police departments the software analyzes it and forecasts the time and location for the same crime in the future.

Small and medium cities using PredPol —  including Alhambra, Campbell, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, Salinas and Santa Cruz—are reporting reduced burglaries. The Santa Cruz police personnel decreased by 20% in 2011 while crime increased by 30%.  After the first year using PredPol printouts of predicted hotspots at the start of each shift, Santa Cruz Police reported a 19% reduction in burglaries and added predictions of bike thefts, battery, assault and prowling in late 2012.

Putting visible police patrols in the locales at times when burglaries are most likely is thought to be the reason burglaries are prevented.  Predictive Policing is applied to the most frequent crimes in each community and is dependent on the specific crime patterns of each city.  The goal is to make the best use of available police officers.  According to Co.Exist Fast Company, “Predictive Policing is charging cities based on population, with costs ranging from $25,000 to $250,000 per year for the largest cities.”

The Alhambra Police Department explains their decision:

“Developed over a period of six years by cops, mathematicians, criminologists and anthropologists, PredPol is a predictive policing program that looks at burglaries and car thefts and other crimes in a similar manner as predicting aftershocks from an earthquake.  Agencies that have deployed the PredPol tool have seen marked reductions in targeted crimes.  PredPol gives medium sized cities like Alhambra access to complex, large analytic capabilities normally only available to big cities or massive corporations.  The inputs are straightforward: previous crime reports, which include the time and location of a crime.  The software is informed by sociological studies of criminal behavior, which include the insight that burglars often ply the same area.”

Los Angeles experimented with Predictive Policing in just one precinct—Foothill—for six months.  At the end of the trial, the Police Department reported that burglaries in the Foothill precinct decreased 36 percent while crime rose across Los Angeles over the same period. 

Read “Don’t Just Map Crime, Predict it”

The Piedmont Police Department made no DUI arrests at its weekend checkpoint on the 1200 block of Grand Avenue near Ace Hardware.  The checkpoint took place Friday, May 24, starting at 7:30 p.m. and ended at 1:30 a.m. Saturday morning.

Following is the Police Department report:

At the multi-jurisdictional Sobriety and Driver’s License Checkpoint on May 24, 2013, officers screened five hundred and nineteen (519) vehicles, interviewed twenty-five (25) drivers, conducted eight (8) field sobriety evaluations and arrested (0) no drivers on suspicion of DUI. Four (4) drivers were issued citations for not being properly licensed to drive and no (0) vehicles were towed.

For further information, contact Sergeant Michael Munoz at (510) 420-3017.

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.

Police Department Targets Impaired Drivers with Checkpoint – .

The Piedmont Police Department will be conducting a DUI/Drivers License checkpoint on Friday, May 24, 2013 in the evening hours. In an effort to reduce the number of persons killed and injured in alcohol involved crashes, DUI checkpoints are conducted to identify offenders and get them off the street, as well as educate the public on the dangers of impaired driving.

This checkpoint is a part of the “ Alameda County Avoid the Twenty-one” program. The goal of this countywide , cooperative, multi-agency campaign is to publicize the combined efforts of the participating organizations to raise the awareness of the general public regarding the problems associated with impaired and unlicensed driving. All too often, members of our communities are senselessly injured or killed on local roadways by impaired drivers. This DUI/Drivers License checkpoint is an effort to reduce those tragedies, as well as insuring drivers have a valid driver’s license.

A major component of these checkpoints is to increase awareness of the dangers of impaired driving and to encourage sober designated drivers. A DUI checkpoint is a proven effective method for achieving this goal. By publicizing these enforcement and education efforts, the Piedmont Police Department believes motorists can be deterred from drinking and driving. Traffic volume and weather permitting, all vehicles may be checked and drivers who are under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs will be arrested. Our objective is to send a clear message to those who are considering driving a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol and/or drugs – Drunk Driving, Over the Limit, Under Arrest.

The public is encouraged to help keep roadways safe by calling 911 if they see a suspected impaired driver.

Funding for this operation is provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

 

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.”

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

Piedmont House “For Sale” attracts Unlikely Buyer – 

On Thursday, April 25, a Piedmont resident noticed a young man lingering in front of his house shortly after 7:30 a.m.  A short time later the homeowner went out to his car and the young man surprised him by asking to tour the house.  The house had just been listed for sale that week and had a “For Sale” sign in the front yard.  The young man told the homeowner he was interested in buying it.  Aside from the unconventional hour, the homeowner was not convinced he was a likely buyer and called the police. 

A few minutes later, Officer Kristina Foster arrived at the house to find the young man taking photos of several houses. When Foster engaged the young man in conversation, he said he is a student at Laney College and lives in Emeryville. He did not repeat his interest in buying the house as the reason for standing there. Instead, he told the police his reason for being on that residential street in the center of Piedmont was simply to take a walk. Foster checked and found he was not in the police information system, either for BOLOS (Be On the Look Out) or any previous arrests or convictions.  When Foster received his permission to look inside his backpack, she found contraband. He then was taken into custody by Foster and 2 other officers who responded to the scene.  

Because of recent home invasion robberies in December and January, the Piedmont Police Department has urged all residents to contact the department at 911 when suspicious activity arises in the City.  The Department is receiving many helpful calls.  According to the Police Chief, these calls are invaluable in protecting the City.