The City Council on November 7, 2016 will consider joining a program to procure electricity for Piedmonters.  The following is a staff notice describing the program.

Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) is a program that enables local governments to aggregate electricity demand within their jurisdictions in order to procure electricity for its customers while maintaining the existing electricity provider (e.g., Pacific Gas & Electric Company or PG&E) for customer billing, transmission and distribution services. By the end of 2014, CCAs were serving nearly five percent of Americans in over 1,300 municipalities in seven states, including California. CCA’s offer local governments the opportunity to aggregate regional energy demand, set local energy goals, develop energy efficiency and demand reduction programs, and negotiate directly with energy suppliers and developers rather than the traditional utility business model that relies more heavily on fossil fuels.

The State of California passed legislation in 2002 (Assembly Bill 117) that permits local agencies to form CCA programs. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in June 2014 authorizing the Community Development Agency to investigate the implementation of a CCA program for Alameda County and its cities and authorized the formation of a Steering Committee to advise the Board in this effort.

The Steering Committee has held monthly public meetings since June 2015 to direct and review consultant work on a Technical Study, Joint Powers Agreement, and other elements of the proposed CCA program in Alameda County, known as East Bay Community Energy (EBCE). On October 4, 2016, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors formally took action to create the East Bay Community Energy Authority and requested that each of the cities that are considering joining the JPA to schedule the item for consideration by their respective City Councils by the end of November 2016. This schedule allows time for the necessary steps for the Authority to begin delivering power to customers in the fall of 2017.

Piedmont’s City Council has been actively interested in considering membership in a CCA since its 2010 adoption of the City’s Climate Action Plan, in which Measure BE-6.2 directs the City to research the feasibility of joining a Community Choice Aggregation. On May 5, 2014, during its discussion of the City’s Climate Action Program, the City Council directed staff to explore the feasibility of a CCA in Piedmont. On April 6, 2015, the Council appointed Council Member Tim Rood to represent Piedmont as a member of the Steering Committee providing guidance to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors regarding the formation of a CCA forAlameda County. On April 18 and October 17, 2016, the City Council received an update from County staff and consultants on the progress of the CCA formation, a technical/feasibility study and a joint powers agreement.

On November 7, 2016, the City Council is expected to consider authorizing the implementation of a Community Choice Aggregation Program in Piedmont and the Joint Powers Agreement for the East Bay Community Energy Authority.

Here is the November 7^th  Council meeting > agenda  and > staff report. 

You are encouraged to attend the City Council meeting and participate in the public hearing. If you would like to submit any written comments to the City Council, please send those to: City Clerk John Tulloch at jtulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us or 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.

Current and previous reports to Council and videos of the Council meetings are available on the City’s website, http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/citycouncil/

For more information about CCA in California and how it works, visit the “Frequently Asked Questions” at www.acgov.org/cda/planning/cca/index.htm.

You can also find more information on the website of East Bay Community Energy,http://www.ebce.org/

Written by: Kevin Jackson, AICP, Planning Director, City of Piedmont, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611    Tel: (510) 420-3039  Fax: (510) 658-3167

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.

Today, I encountered several extremely over-sized campaign signs promoting the latest excursion into the pockets of Piedmont’s taxpayers, Measure H1 on the November 8 election ballot.  I was overwhelmed by the size (about six feet tall) and their garish appearance.

I thought there was a limit to the size of such signs; but no such luck.  The City Clerk informs me that political signs on private property are not subject to such limits that apply to commercial signs.  They just must be removed within 10 days following the election. 

My question: Will such outlandish signage become commonplace for the future in Piedmont?  If it does, those responsible for this trash will be held to never-ending criticism by the citizens of Piedmont!

Appalled Piedmont Resident – George Childs

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

Student Election Opinion: Re-elect Andrea Swenson

When scrolling through the Piedmont Civic Association’s site, I almost always see election endorsements and opinions written by Piedmont parents. It makes sense– most high schoolers my age either can’t or don’t vote, so there aren’t many of our opinions out there. However, I think it’s ludicrous that input from students regarding elections that are so closely tied to them, like School Board elections, is kind of unheard of. That’s why I want to take some time away from my daily homework and college apps to tell all of you why I, a Piedmont High School senior, endorse Andrea Swenson for the School Board.

When I first met Andrea Swenson, I was struck by her knowledge and professional attitude, even under pressure. The first Board meeting I went to, the Board was discussing the budget for this year, which had a surprising number of state funding cuts and extra burdens on the District. In fact, the PUSD is going to have to pay up to almost two million dollars more for teacher pensions in a few years because of it. Even in the face of this major setback, Swenson was both calm and optimistic. I wasn’t surprised– she was ready for anything the state could throw at her because she had been the President of the Board the past four years. I learned later that she also has a background in finance– which is not something I usually enjoy in a person, but in the next coming years, her know-how will prove key to maintaining the strength of Piedmont’s programs even though the budget is facing some difficulties.

What I appreciate the most about Swenson is that she genuinely cares about student life and input. When I proposed a homework and stress reducing plan for Piedmont High School, she showed genuine interest in my ideas and gave me suggestions on who else I could to talk to in order to make it happen. She was just as courteous and kind to the proposals of other community members, but I felt really touched that she took students so seriously. I feel good knowing that I have a Board President that will listen to my peers and me.

In all, I feel confident endorsing and campaigning for Andrea Swenson because I have seen her excel as a public servant. I know I’m leaving the District in June, but I have a younger brother that has just started at Piedmont High School that I have to think about. I hope that he has the same level of professionalism, knowledge, and care that I have had, and I hope that Swenson is the one that guarantees that.

Amelia Henry, Piedmont High School Senior

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

Measure H1 School Parcel Tax:  

Piedmont’s School Facilities Master Plan Bond Measure is on the November 8 ballot.

For: ——————–

Supporters of Measure H1 ask Piedmont residents to support H1 to permit critical repairs, renovations, and upgrades to all of Piedmont’s schools.

The supporters of Measure H1 have provided information here, which includes potential parcel tax rates.  Facilities Plan here. 

The final tour of H1 needs is Thursday, October 27 at the Piedmont High School Student Center, 800 Magnolia Ave.  A 4:00 pm informative presentation with Q&A will be followed at 5:00 pm by a Campus Tour.

Against: —————-

Opponents of Measure H1 note Piedmont has the highest school taxes in California and Measure H1 would significantly increase school taxes potentially deterring home buyers.  The opponents also claim that the measure is in violation of Article XIII- A of the California Constitution because it does not identify the specific projects to be funded.

A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds be used only for the purposes specified in Article XIII A, Section 1(b)(3), and not for any other purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries and other school operating expenses.

(B) A list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded and certification that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education has evaluated safety, class size reduction, and information technology needs in developing that list.

The opponents of Measure H1 have provided information here.

To gain further information, Piedmont residents can read the voter pamphlet, go on a school tour (see above), read the background on the Facilities Master Plan here,  read about opposition to the bond measure, and consult websites.

Editors Note: PCA does not support or oppose ballot measures.

What happened at the Recreation Commission meeting?

Student Reports on the Piedmont Recreation Commission Meeting of Oct. 19, 2016

   I went to the Recreation Commission meeting on Wednesday, October 19 at 7:30 p.m. in the Piedmont City Hall. The Commission meets every third Wednesday of the month at 7:30 p.m. The Commissioners meet to discuss recreation projects and improvements that are being done around the city, as well as work with the Recreation Department on sports and other programs.

    The major subject addressed in the meeting was the topic of a new play structure that is going to be placed next to the Rec Department and the Community Pool. This structure will have two slides, a tire swing, a small climbing wall and two decks respectively of 3 and 4 feet high.  Kit Stephens, the man who presented the model, is a Piedmont resident and works for a company that makes play structures. The estimated cost of this structure is about $63,000, which will be able to be moved and bolted into a new location once the pool goes under reconstruction. The benches surrounding the area will stay the same and they tried hard to paint the structure natural colors so that it would blend into the environment.

     I asked the Commissioners and Stephens whether the building of this structure would be environmentally friendly. I brought up the fact that they used recycled and some natural materials while renovating Havens School and I wondered if they would do the same in this situation. The answer I received was that, due to regulations, it is difficult to reuse things like swings and metals because they do not meet current standards. They are using recycled materials to make the roofs over the platforms as well as make the structure movable to lengthen its possible lifespan.

     All the Commissioners approved the recommendation of the play structure. I felt that they could have tried a little harder to repurpose the old play structure in other objects or in the new one, but unfortunately too often the environment is placed on a back burner due to financial and logistical reasons.

    Another issue addressed was recreation basketball. The Recreation Director Sara Lillevand brought up the issue that out of the 2nd grade class there were 72 boys playing basketball and only 5 girls. This disparity was unusually high even though boys generally have a higher participation level. Student Will McDonald suggested that in order to raise awareness and boost enthusiasm the Rec Department could host a viewing of the WNBA finals to encourage girls to play basketball and get the community involved.

    They also addressed the progress of Hampton Field. The back section is completed and they are finalizing the field portion and the infield. Student Michael Hebert asked if they are going to refurbish the tennis courts which the Director confirmed has already been done. Student Andrew Meredith asked if the field will be able to host games for older ages (above 5th grade). Due to the field size, they will not be able to have older teams play.

    Commissioner Glyn Burge asked many questions throughout the meeting, clarifying information, and also somewhat critical to discussion. At the same time, the Director spoke throughout most of the meeting, more so than the Commission Chair. The Director had all the updates about events, progress, and finances. It was impressive that she was so organized and interested in her job that seemed like a hefty amount of work.

    Jen Cavanaugh, City Council candidate, was at the meeting as well, and we got to hear some of her views. She said that she was there to advocate for the elderly who pay taxes for the Recreation Department, yet often feel that most of the money goes towards programs for younger people like children and toddlers. She also wanted to voice opinions on whether the new Hampton Field would be hosting softball, because when her daughter played she never got the chance to play on Hampton Field. The Commissioners answered this by saying that the field schedules are split up by the coaches and teams and then divided so it is not discriminating against gender, and it is coincidental.

Yuka Matsuno, Piedmont High School Senior

______________________

Student report:

The Recreation Commission met on Wednesday, October 19 starting at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. The purpose of this particular meeting was to consider the recommendation of a new children’s playground and to discuss updates on various recreational improvement projects throughout the city. The Commission meets once a month allowing for enough time to pass to give updates on recreational projects.

During the meeting there were 6 major issues being discussed. The first issue on the agenda was the consideration of the “Tot Lot” play structure at the Recreation department. For this topic the owner of Miracle Playsystems, Kit Stephens was in attendance. Mr. Stephens presented a slideshow for the Commission and answered many questions coming from the Commission members. He talked about the need for the play structure, the old one had been previously torn out due to being outdated. He stated that the new structure is much safer and can accommodate more children playing at once. Also he said that the structure is removable so if the upcoming pool plan goes through the structure can be relocated very easily. From the audience Piedmont High’s own Yuka Matsuno spoke asking the Commission and Mr. Stephens about the environmental effects of the project and if the environment was being taken into account. Mr. Stephens went into detail about all of the recycled materials used in the making of the play structure. The structure was recommended for approval by all of the members of the Commission.

The next item on the agenda was an update about the Hampton Park improvement project. The project is aimed at fixing the drainage of the sports field, resurfacing the tennis and basketball courts, and making the area into more of a park area. Everything is on track and going as planned with the proposed opening date to be February 18 right in time for the upcoming baseball season.

Jen Cavenaugh asked a good question about the usage for the new playing field asking if it is for baseball and softball or just baseball like it has been in the past. Commission Chair Betsy Anderson addressed this by saying that it is planned to be utilized by both baseball and softball.

Personally, I love the new plan for Hampton Park. I grew up playing sports there and the drainage was always an issue as well as bad weather. I think it is wonderful what the Rec Department has done/is doing in terms of making the space more park-like and fixing problems that definitely needed to be fixed.

The third item was an update on the Recreation Department/Veteran’s Hall plan. In this plan the Commission talked about the two buildings having a lot of open space and how they would like the space to be used. Although no official plans have been drawn up there are many proposals being considered and voted upon. Also they are looking to do more safety inspections and retrofitting periodically.

The fourth item addressed was an update on the ongoing search for a new Aquatics Coordinator. The Commission stated that all of the interviews have been concluded and by the next meeting the position will be filled.

The next topic was an update on the Aquatics Master Plan Conceptual Design. The Master Plan conceptual design is (hopefully) coming to the City Council in November at one of the two City Council meetings that month. Also the Plan has been shared and talked over with the neighbors of the area, showing them the plans and taking into account what they had to say. Overall the plans are going well and one member of the Commission asked what the timeline looked like and Commissioner Glyn Burge replied, “probably won’t be on the Rec Commission when it’s finished,” which leads me to believe the process will take a long time to complete.

The final topic addressed was the upcoming Piedmont Recreation Department Haunted House on October 26-28. The Haunted House is going to be very similar to the last few years offering more and more scary options with the first, least scary option on the 26th. Not much will change from previous years.

After the meeting was adjourned, I had the pleasure of interviewing Commissioner Glyn Burge. I asked him why he was a part of the Commission and he replied, “I was asked by other members and decided it would be nice to be a part of the actual decision making process.” When asked about how he would get his concerns addressed, he told me that the people on the Commission don’t have all that much power or pull, however discussing and recommending items to the City Council allows his views and opinions to be heard.

Andrew Meredith, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors.

VOTE FOR ONE, TWO, OR THREE!

If you have not yet decided which candidates for School Board or City Council to vote for, the following links beside each candidate’s name will provide the latest information from the candidates.  

Voters are not required to vote for two or three candidates in each race. Depending on a voter’s choice, a voter can cast a vote for only one candidate in each category.

CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES

  You are allowed to vote for 2. 

Sunny Bostrom-Fleming – > information

Jen Cavenaugh – > www.Jen4Piedmont.com

Jonathan Levine – > www.levineforpiedmont.com

Bob McBain – > www.mcbaincitycouncil.com

~~~~~~~

CANDIDATES FOR BOARD OF EDUCATION

You are allowed to vote for 3. 

Julie Caskey – >  julie4piedmont.com

Sarah Pearson – >www.VoteforSarahPearson.com

Cory Smegal – > www.voteforcorysmegal.com

Andrea Swenson – > swensonforschoolboard.org 

Hari Titan – > HariTitan.com

~~~~~~~

Watch the Piedmont League of Women Voters forum by clicking > here. 

Editors Note:  The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose candidates for public office or ballot measures.  PCA remains neutral on ballot measures and is not a partisan either for or against ballot measures. Further, PCA has no affiliation with political parties or politically associated organizations. Information provided on this website is for the benefit and engagement of Piedmont residents. 

Council learned of Piedmont robbery increase, approved plan to reduce cost of Piedmont waste disposal contract, supported methods of fundraising for Hampton Field, encouraged collaborative energy savings ….

Student Report of October 17th, City Council Meeting

    On Monday October 17, the Piedmont City Council met at City Hall to discuss an array of issues. The purpose of this meeting was to cover four topics: the possibility of renewable energy in Piedmont, the third quarter crime report, the renovation of Hampton Field and finally the possibility of a contract negotiation with the current waste collector for Piedmont.

    The most discussed issue was regarding joining Alameda County’s Community Choice Aggregation program. Bruce Jensen gave a presentation on the topic complete with graphs, hypotheticals and facts. This program would allow local governments to develop renewable power on public facilities, residences and businesses. The proposed plan would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs and provide cheaper energy than PG&E. This in turn would save the city and it’s residents money. If residents decided they were not interested, they could opt out of the plan and continue using PG&E as their power supplier.

    Following the clean energy presentation, Chief of Police Rikki Goede presented the third quarter crime report. She started by mentioning the increase of robberies in recent months; the numbers were up from 42 burglaries by the third quarter of 2015 compared to 52 burglaries by the third quarter of 2016. With this, she stressed the importance of locking windows and doors and looking out for and reporting any suspicious activity. On a brighter note, she commended the work of her officers in enforcing traffic laws on busy streets and writing 433 traffic citations. Following her presentation, Councilwoman Teddy King thanked the Police Department for their vigilant effort in protecting the community.

    The next topic covered was the renovation of Hampton Field. Members of the Piedmont Recreation Facilities Organization (PRFO) spoke about fundraising for the project. The proposed budget for the renovation is $1,978,760 with the PRFO helping tremendously to raise additional funds. They are offering donation gifts ranging from personalized bricks all the way to naming rights of the baseball field. I am excited to see this project come to fruition after so much hard work and generosity from our community.

    Lastly, discussion on what company should be used for waste collection was brought up. The contract with the current provider, Republic Services, is coming to an end. Council members and other city officials have been considering changing waste collection companies as a contract extension from Republic Services would cause rates to increase anywhere from thirty to forty percent. Furthermore, the company would have to cut the backyard service they provide as workers have been getting injured lifting heavy trash cans up and down stairs. All members of the council were open to looking into alternatives and plan to begin the search for a new waste collector.

The City Council members meet twice per month, on the first and third Mondays.

Nick Perkocha, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.