HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09251990 - IO.2 I .O.-2
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �``F_` ;L� °• Contra
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Costa
September 24, 1990
County
DATE:
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING ALLOCATIONS FROM THE COMMUNITY
SUBJECT: SERVICES BLOCK GRANT AND PROPOSED EVALUATION PROCESS FOR
COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT (CSBG) CONTRACTORS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)8,BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Concur with the emphasis the Community Services Department
and Economic Opportunity Council are placing on Broadening
the Resource Base, the Homeless and Youth at Risk, as is
reflected in the attached report from the Community Services
Director.
2. Concur with and encourage linkages with United Way of the
Bay Area in its effort to identify and assess the health and
human services needs in Contra Costa County, which needs
closely parallel those being pursued by the Community
Services Department and Economic Opportunity Council in an
effort to leverage additional funds, maintain the integrity
of existing community agencies and work more closely with
other agencies and the private sector to insure an
integrated, coordinated and carefully managed effort to
identify and plan a strategy for meeting the needs of the
low-income communities in Contra Costa County.
3 . Request the Community Services Director to prepare a letter
to the President of the Board of Directors of North Richmond .
Neighborhood House (NRNH) and authorize the Chair of the
Board of Supervisors to sign such a letter, calling on the
Board of Directors of NRNH to make use of a dispute
resolution process designed to insure that the Board of
Directors of NRNH is responding to the identified needs of
the community they serve and to resolve any problems which
may currently exist in this regard.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENTeS YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOAR MI TEE
APPROVE OTHER
CMA^C/V y'1
SIGNATURE(S): SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK TOM POWERS
ACTION OF BOARD ON September 25, APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: ATTESTED 25��� =Z
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Please see Page 2 .
M382 (10/88) BY DEPUTY
4 . Authorize the Community Services Director to prepare a
Request for Proposals to issue to community agencies in the
County for use of the available Community Services Block
Grant funds for federal fiscal year 1991, as is outlined in
the attached report from the Community Services Director.
BACKGROUND:
On December 19, 1989 the Board of Supervisors referred this issue
to our Committee. We last reported on this matter to the Board
of Supervisors on March 6, 1990, at which time we had recommended
that we await the outcome of the strategic workshop being held by
the Economic Opportunity Council (EOC) in May.
As is reflected in the attached report from the Community
Services Director, the EOC has agreed to pursue three of the
State' s Priorities, as is reflected in Recommendation # 1 above.
Specifically, these activities will focus . on Resource Development
and Technical Assistance (Broadening the Resource Base) ,
supporting the Homeless Management Team ( the Homeless) and the
Expanded Youth Services Board (Youth at Risk) .
Our Committee is particularly interested in seeing the Community
Services Department cooperate fully with the United Way of the
Bay Area in their efforts to assess and agree on a strategy for
meeting the identified needs of the at-risk populations in this
County in the health and human services areas. The availability
of funds from United Way and their contacts with the private
sector should allow the Community Services Department to leverage
their very limited funds from the Community Services Block Grant
in such a way as to make the maximum use of the available funds
and leverage other funds to benefit the target populations.
Our Committee is also concerned about the current controversy
between the North Richmond community and the Board of Directors
of the. NRNH. We believe that the use of a trained dispute
resolution expert, possible from the Human Relations Commission,
may be able to bring the community and the Board of Directors of
NRNH together in a cooperative' effort to identify and resolve
whatever problems are now keeping them from making full and
positive use of the resources which are available to them to
respond to the needs of the community.
It is clear to our Committee that the decreasing funds available
to the Community Services Department from the Community Services
Block Grant will no longer allow the Department to address the
problems of the community in the direct service ways that have
been used in the past. The strategy and directions outlined in
the attached report from the Community Services Director, which
reflect decisions agreed to by the Economic Opportunity Council,
should allow the Department to make better use of the available
funds and work closely with other agencies which can assist in
meeting the identified needs of the community. We applaud the
work which has been done in the past several months and look
forward to some innovative work in the coming months.
cc: County Administrator
Community Services Director
County Counsel
David Carrillo, County Senior Vice President
United Way of the Bay Area
10.70 Concord Avenue, Suite 270
Concord, CA 94520
Community Services Department Concommunity Action 646-5544
Child Development 646-5540
2425 Bisso Lane,Suite 120tri Energy Programs 646-5544
Concord,California 94520 Costa
�ij (415)646-5544 County
Fax:(415)646-5551
Joan V.Sparks, E
Director
September 18, 1990 y'"``' L ;
`���,.
To: Operations Committee of the
Board of Supervisors
Through: Claude Van Marter
From: Joan Spark Director .
Subject: Membershi of the Economic .Opportunity Council and the
Criteria for determining allocations -from the CSBG and proposed
evaluation process for CSBG contractors
In September, 1989, the State of California Department of
Economic Opportunity found that the .Economic Opportunity Council
membership was out of compliance with its By-laws. The By=laws
of the EOC needed to be revised to conform to present standards
and codes under the law.
The Economic Opportunity Council, with the assistance of County
Counsel revised the By-laws to conform with State laws and
regulations. The revised By-laws have been approved by the State
Department of Economic Opportunity.
During the process of revising the by-laws, County Counsel
requested copies of all -prior Board Orders .•acted .on the Board of
Supervisor related to membership on the EOC. After researching
the Clerk of the Board' s records, the only. document found was a
resolution issued on September 15, 1964. A copy of the resolu-
tion is attached. The problem arising from this discovery is
that, by law; the EOC is. to be comprised of a three part body,
public sector, private sector and low income sector. In
addition, the current make up, of the EOC includes eight in-
dividuals representing the public sector, the five Board of
Supervisors representatives and three local government represen-.
tatives, City of -Pittsburg, City of Richmond and City of Clayton.
After much discussion with County Counsel, Counsel was concerned
that there was no objective process on how one city could serve
over another. For example, if the City of Richmond were to sit
on the EOC why not San Pablo; why Pittsburg and not Brentwood;
why Clayton and not Concord. The County Counsel recommended that
the EOC be. comprised of 1. Public Sector: the five Board of
Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer
Page 2
Supervisor representatives; 2. Private Sector: five community .
organizations representatives; and 3. Low Income Sector: five low
income individuals selected from Head Start area councils.
A resolution superceding any previous resolutions in the matter
of membership on the Economic Opportunity Council is attached for
your consideration'.
1991 Evaluation and Honitorina Plan
The 1991 evaluation- and monitoring plan is an outgrowth of a new
effort begun in 1990. That effort is reflected in a newly
designed evaluation tool. The evaluation tool is being used
with eight community based organizations selected to perform
specific services for the low-income community with CSBG funds.
On May 9, 1990, CSD staff held a training. session with CSBG
contractors, ' explaining the use of the tool and stressing the
need for evaluation. A copy is attached.
EVALUATION PROGRAM
CSD will evaluate those organizations in three areas, i.e. , their
ability to manage/plan, administer, and carry out programmatic
responses to the problems indicated in their contracts with CSD.
The Service Plans for the contracts will outline required CSBG
goals and objectives for each of the service providers in the
1991 fiscal year. The Service Plans will include a monitoring/
evaluation schedule that will. require at least quarterly visits
by EOC and staff members over the course of the contract year.
Fiscal reports are required from. each contractor on a monthly
basis. Programmatic -reports are required on a quarterly basis.
Monitoring visits will be coordinated time-wise to verify not
only specific programmatic and administrative areas of concern
based upon BOC direction, but the accuracy,_ timeliness and
quality control of the data submitted for the preparation and
submission of DEO-required reports.
Monitoring teams will be staffed by BOC members and County
employees. %,he findings of each monitoring visit will be
documented in writing to the . contractor and the EOC. In the
event that corrective action by the contractor is required, the
contractor will be given specific instructions on the program/
I
i
Page three
fiscal areas where a problem or problems were noted, the correc-
tive action required and a specific deadline for correction and/
4 or resolution of noted problem areas.
Training and technical assistance will be provided by the County
when requested by contractors or when, in the opinion. of the EOC
or the County, it is considered necessary.
It is the intent of the County to ensure that all Department of
Economic Opportunity-required reports are prepared and submitted
in a timely manner, and that the information submitted is
accurate. This requirement is included in each of the CSBG
contract service plans with local CSBG service providers and will
be strictly enforced.
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA & NEED
The base data for the 1991 needs assessment begin with a review
by staff of statistical data provided from three separate
sources, the 1980 census, a 'report prepared in 1984 by the
Association for Bay Area Governments and United Way entitled
"Contra Costa County Social Area Analysis", and the 1988-89
"Annual Planning Information" provided by the Employment
Development Department for the State of California.
In order to be consistent, the most current available data was
used for review and discussion purposes.
In 1980, of the estimated 655,387 County residents, approximately
132,090 individuals were near, at, or below the poverty level. Of
this number, 32,605 were classified at poverty level or below,
with the balance considered at the "low-income level". The
estimated number of people now living in poverty is in dispute.
' It is generally believed that the actual number for 1989 is at
least double - the 1980 estimate. It is believed that many of the
individuals counted at the "low-income level" in 1980 have since
fallen to or below the poverty guidelines. The geographical
distribution of the population in poverty is still in two major
areas of the County; the Richmond-San Pablo-Rodeo areas in West
County, and the West Pittsburg-Pittsburg-Antioch areas of East
County. While small pockets of poverty exist in other regions of
the County, such as in the cities of Concord and Martinez and the
rural area east of Antioch, the predominant areas remain Richmond
and Pittsburg and the communities that surround them.
The information listed below comes from the "Contra . Costa County
Social Area Analysis", prepared by ABAG, 1984.
CSD is using Social Area G: Poverty Areas; and Social Area F:
Low-Income Households in the listing of the following facts using
the Area Analysis nomenclature: (see County Area Map)
Page four_.._.... ._..
Social Area G.
• Contains 8 census. tracts out of 150 in this county
Contains the poorest population by all measures
• Highest proportion of Blacks at 85%
Lowest mean family income of $14,348, or 54% of county mean
• 25% have incomes below the poverty level
• A majority of 52.8% live on less than 200% of the poverty
level incomes
• Has the highest proportion (in the 'county) receiving public
assistance over 32%
• Population projection is expected to rise from 32,605 in 180
census to 38,586 by 190 census
Sub Area Gl: West Richmond
• Contains 7 census tracts
— --- - Mean family income $16,572 ---
• 32% of population receive public assistance
Sub Area G2: No. Central Pittsburg
• Contains 1-census tract
• Mean family income $9,491.
• 44% of population receive public assistance
Social Area F: Low-Income Households
• Contains 24 census tracts
Sub Area F1: Richmond-San Pablo 6 census tracts
F2: Downtown Martinez 1 census tract
F3: West Concord 3 census tracts
F4: West Pittsburg-Antioch 8 census tracts
F5: East County Rural 6 census tracts
37% did not finish high school
• Mean family income $21,339, or 30% below county-wide average
• Mean household income $17,319
• 18% receive public assistance
• 13% below the poverty level
(See county area map)
Of the 1980 Census data, it was estimated that 39.12% of the
families in poverty in Contra Costa were supported by female
heads of household. 19.35% of the population in poverty were
comprised of older adults (55 years and older) ; 35.75% of the
population in poverty were youth (18 years and younger) .
I
i
X0
Rage five
E i AON
w
•� a �Y' N l•r�tr t�� � ! O yy+,,
.. ?j'[�'r•'' �;�' rN,•,
ACE'Vit•
OR1 _ r �r�� •'• �t � a
tilt
on o
.• tit:•'' - _ ''"•
La a
c t r. 4 Q
v -
Oo
rT
wo
y.
•> t V a
}{t
ALL. '
•• « w o
w /
M
r
It,
�• /�
• Pagd six •.
,{ Unemployment figures for the county have been -projected to
increase. In 1987, EDD reported an unemployment rate of 4.1%,
but projected an increase to 4.7% in 1989. The increase is based
on projected decreases in available jobs, combined with a growing
county population.
While the unemployment rate islow for the whole county, labor
force participation rates . are low in Social Areas G and F. In
Social Area G the rate is 60% for males and almost as low in
Social Area F.
Other factors affecting unemployment estimates in Contra Costa
County . include the lack of an adequate transportation system.
This makes it very difficult for low-income persons to travel to
San Francisco/Oakland, where the majority of the available jobs
are. The kinds of jobs available are either low end positions
that do not pay enough to get a family out of poverty, or high
tech positions for which many individuals lack the minimum skills
needed.
CSD RESPONSE TO.THREE STATE PRIORITIES
EOC has accepted three priority areas listed by the State Depart-
ment of Economic Opportunity, which are: Broadening the Resource
Base, .Homeless Individuals and Families, and Youth At Risk.
Broadening the Resource Base
With the help of the Board of Supervisors in 1990, in addition to
CSBG funds, $66,000 was added to our resource pool for the
.. support of our low-income population.
As part of CSD's strategic plan we will increase our networking
with other County .departments, cities and local community service
agencies to develop more effective means to locate and share
limited County resources, current information as to the source
and availability of non-County funding sources, and a means by
which CSD can link with other agencies in obtaining funds for
projects of mutual benefit.
A Resource Center for Human Service Agencies, funded with
Community Development Block Grant money, will provide technical
resources to local non-profit and public sector agencies. This
center will be designed to help these agencies to better be able
to raise funds for support of human services to low-income
residents of the County. The. -Center will contain a current
collection of reference material, socio-economic data, and RFP's
from government as well as foundations. There will be data
relating to fund raising and the marketing of services. The
Center will be located in the County's Main Library.
Page seven
CSD and BOC are in the process of -developing a strategic work t
plan for the period of 1991 through 1993. The goal of this plan
is to identify and develop options that will provide reasonable
opportunities to broaden our resource base.
CSD sponsored a Grantsmanship Workshop for representatives from
non-profit service provider agencies to help them in their search
for non-CSBG funds. This was the first of four training sessions
organized to improve the understanding of resource development
issues facing local non-profit agency personnel operating in
Contra Costa County.
Further, staff is reviewing Federal RFP's daily, and have sent
copies to appropriate contracting agencies so they would be aware
of current funding opportunities. This process will continue as
part of the strategic plan, and with the hope we will find some
RFP's appropriate for CSD.
_-. The Homeless --- —
The incidence of homelessness in the county, as with all other
Bay Area counties, is on the increase. In 1988 it was estimated
that approximately 2,200 homeless individuals resided in the
county. This estimate is very conservative, and the actual
number is probably much higher.
CSD has determined to continue providing care for homeless
individuals and families as a priority in 1991. Toward that end
CSD is an active participant in the Homeless Management Team,
comprised of the County departments of Social Services, Community
Development, Housing Authority, Veterans' Services and Community
Services, which pool financial resources to fund five shelters--
two armory programs in East and West County, West County Shelter
and Martinez Shell Avenue Shelter. This team is obtaining HUD
funding to provide a year-round modular shelter facility and
.program to serve 56 homeless adults in the most needy Richmond
area.
CSD works with Battered Women's Alternatives, Shelter, Inc. ,
Volunteers of America, Salvation Army, etc. , to fund and provide
care for the homeless.
Youth At Risk
Our Local Plan accepts Youth at Risk as a priority for 1991-93.
CSD operates a County-wide Head Start program, which provides a
wide range of services to those children at risk because of
poverty, substance abuse, physical abuse/neglect, emotional
disorders and developmental disabilities. In 1991 this program
will be increased to 700 children.
- j
i
Page eight
We have applied for a grant from the State of California Criminal
Justice Department for a Substance Abuse Prevention program for
children and their parents. .
Currently we have applied for a child care development program
which we plan to pick up from the Richmond Unified School
District. The program will supervise children before and after
school and will serve a low-income population. This program is
for parents who are working, in training, are disabled, and/or
who need child protective services.
These programs, if funded, will begin operation July 1, 1990.
The abuse prevention and child care programs will involve an
addition of 600 children we will supervise.
CSD is a part of the County Expanded Youth Services Board, which
develops priorities and will make County policy for youth at
risk. This Board is comprised of staff from Social Services,
Community Services, Probation, the Superior Court Judge in charge
of the Juvenile Court, Health Department and a cross section of
agencies and programs responsible for dealing with youth in need.
The above show some of the methods we will use to prioritize
Youth at Risk in 1991 and ensuing years. Apart from those
methods, CSD will use CSBG monies to fund eight community
services agencies to provide needed services to low-income Youth
at Risk.
This 1991 local plan is being considered an ongoing process and
,Js part of the CSD and EOC three-year strategic plan. Elements
of that strategic plan were put in place on 5-12-90 at a special
meeting held for this purpose. This process included a staff
review of previous needs assessments, questionnaires, EOC
minutes and reports, CSBG quarterly reports and various other
programmatic information.
The County's review identified for the poor the following needs:
Lack of meaningful employment
Lack of education, or educational opportunities
Substance abuse
Limited access to health care
Lack of housing or substandard housing
Insufficient food supplies
- Inadequate nutritional information
Transportation problems
Homelessness
Those resources available to the poor to confront these problems
are the County (Community Services, Social Services, Health
Services, Mental Health Services, Private Industry Council,
Superintendent of Schools, etc. ) and local community based
organizations.
Page nine
As a result of this review, it also became clear to staff that
while the CSBG program was properly concentrated in the right
areas of the county and while many of the services provided were
the ones most beneficial to the poor, some of the 1990 priorities
were not operationally feasible, given the CSBG funding avail-
able.
In addition, it was also clear that not enough economic/resource
development is being performed by the agencies or the department
to expand the capacity to deliver additional services to the
poor, and that an expansion of the present network of available
services to the poor via our delegate agencies is required..
With this information in hand, staff developed a proposed plan
for the 1991 CSBG program. Staff then surveyed members of the
ROC, directors of CSBG-funded programs, department staff, County
staff and other interested parties on the proposed plan.
Upon receipt of this information, the 1991 Local Plan was revised
to reflect the direction of the comments and advice given.
The Local Plan was presented to the public by the Program
Development Committee of the EOC on May 16, 1990, at a scheduled
Public Hearing. Comments from EOC and the public were taken and
incorporated into the final draft of the 1991 Local Plan. The
191 Plan represents the first step of our strategic three-year
plan and was approved by the EOC at its special meeting of June
6, 1990.
IDENTIFIED NEEDS AND RESOURCES FOR 1991
The EOC selected and approved a total of eight primary needs/
goals for the 1991 Community Services Block Grant program for
which resources will be specifically targeted. They are:
• Resource Development
• Youth at Risk
• Homeless and Housing
• Employment
Education
• Prevention of Starvation and Malnutrition
• Better Use of Available Income
• Substance Abuse
EOC (CSD) intends to use the RFP process in the selection of sub-
contractors (service agencies) to be awarded contracts for 1991.
Because of the limited funds, it is EOC's intention that funds
awarded will be for providing services and not administrative
costs. Further, consideration may be given only to those sub-
contractors highly skilled in a specific area of service which
fits into the areas of priority.
Page ten
As part -of its strategy EOC (CSD) will -continue to work with
other County departments and service groups in the attempt to
solve special needs, e.g. , the Homeless Management Team, Youth
Service Board, etc. The focus on special needs means that CSD
will have to reserve funds in the proposed budget to help pay for
such services as Coordinators for the Homeless and the Youth
Board. This then will lessen the amount of funds available to
buy the services of sub-contractors. CSD will use such devices
.as the Resource Center, Grantsmanship Workshops, using of its
staff to remain current and timely federal RFP's and share that
information that is pertinent with the appropriate service
agencies in our attempt to close the gap that will be caused with
our suggested reallocation of funds.
REPORT ON STRATEGIC PLAN OF 5-12-90
On 5-12-90, the EOC held an all-day training session facilitated
by Jim Masters from the Center for Community Futures. The
purpose of this meeting was to introduce to the EOC the concepts
and methods of multi-year strategic planning as it relates to
community action agencies.
The Board was carried through a process that went like this + Why
Develop a Strategic Plan 4 Limitations 4 What is Strategic
Planning 4 A Planning Process 4 Mission Statement, etc. The
Board was given several work experiences to carry out, both as a
group and as individuals.
Other topics covered incident to strategic planning, were:
Major. Trends and Opportunities
Major Problems in Human Services
Public Policy on Social Issues
Community Action: Historic Self-Image
CSBG Spending Patterns
The New Emphasis on the Family
Who will Help Solve These Problems
Reality Test and Future Roles of CAA's
A copy of Mr. Masters' package of the materials used is attached.
The training session was a success in that it helped EOC see the
continuity of CAA's historically, and the need for planning now
and in the future.
- - It became apparent to EOC and staff that the amount of material
covered was too much for a one-day session.. It is recommended
. that another session be requested. The cost is little for the
benefit to be derived.
A three year strategic plan is in the process of development for
the period of 1991 through 1993. The first elements of that plan
can be viewed in LSD's 1991 Work Plan to the State of California
Page eleven
DEO, as approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19, 1990.
Key elements in the plan coincide with Contra Costa County's
- present effort in getting the various County departments together
and, with other interested groups, to •pool both talent and
financial resources together to expand the effect and impact for
the low-income in this county: examples - Homeless Management
Team,. Expanded Youth Services Board, etc.
It is felt necessary to continue the RFP process for 191 and that
it may be necessary to limit - both the number and kind of sub-
contractor (community service agencies) . We are looking for
other sources of funding for CSD and the community service
agencies.
Intelligence obtained leads CSD to believe that •91 federal
funding of the CSBG will be increased by 2% in 191 over 190.
The 91-93 Strategic Plan as--is being developed will be a dynamic -
document. It will be continually reviewed and modified as a
means to provide, guidance in the realistic development of
resources for Contra Costa County's CSD as the agent for its low-
income residents.
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of Establishing )
an Economic Opportunity Program ) RESOLUTION•N0. *3355
in Contra Costa County. )
WHEREAS S. 2642 has been enacted by the Congress of the
United,-States; and
WHEREAS the purpose of S. 2642 is to mobilize the human
. .and f;nancial resources of the nation to combat poverty; and
WHEREAS Contra Costa County, California desires to
participate in the Econamic •Opportunity-program outlined in
S. 2612; and
WHEREAS Contra Costa County, California desires to act
throui a community action program, as specified in Title II of
S. 2642; and
WHEREAS the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County
has been requested by the Contra Costa Mayoral Conference and the
Contra Costa Council of Community Services to act as the sponsoring
agency for the Economic Opportunity Program in Contra Costa County;
and
WHEREAS several county departments are involved in
existing programs aimed at alleviating adverse socio-economic con-
ditions; and
WEMMS the provision of greater economic opportunity
may provide a better, and fuller life for residents of Contra Costa
County receiving public assistance and health, medical, and pro-
bation services; and
WHEREAS the elimination of poverty would be beneficial
to all county residents;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby agree to serve as
the sponsoring agency for the Economic Opportunity Program in
Contra Costa County; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the formulation of a county-
wide economic opportunity plan will be the responsibility of an
Economic Opportunity Council which shall be representative of the
various agencies and groups in the county concerned with the
elimination of poverty, said Economic Opportunity Council to be -
organized by the Contra Costa Council of Community Services; and
RESOLUTION NO. 3355
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a Board of Supervisors
Advisory Committee on the Economic Opportunity Program is hereby
created to advise the Board of Supervisors on policy, fiscal and
other aspects of the program; said committee shall consist of
the following:
1. Two Supervisors selected by the Chairman
• of the Board of Supervisors, T. J. Coll
and M. F. Nielsen;
2. Mayor of the. City of Richmond;
3. Mayor of the City of Pittsburg;
4. Mayor of the City of Walnut Creek;
5. Representative of the East Contra Costa
Citizens Committee for Migrants;
6. County Auditor-Controller;
7. Representative of the ,Contra Costa Council
of Community Services..
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that each member of the
Board of Supervisarsl Advisory Committee for the Economic Oppor-
tunity Program shall designate one alternate, and the County
Administrator shall 'serve as secretary to the- Committee.
PASSED AND ADOPTED.this 15th day of September, 1964,
by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors James P. Kenny, Mel F. Nielsen,
Thomas John Coll, Joseph S. Silva,
Edmund A. Linscheid.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
.I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and
correct copy of a Resolution entered on the minutes of said Board
of Supervisors on the 15th day of September, 1964,
Witness my hand and the Seal
of the Board of Supervisors affixed
this 15th day of September, 1964.
_. W. T. PAASCH, CLERK
By, 42Z2 i�sJ
Deputy Uierk
Coco Appointees
RESOLUTION N0. 3355
WE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COMM, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on , by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SUBJECT: In the Matter of Membership )
on the Economic Opportunity ) 'RESOLUTION NO.
Council )
WHEREAS, the. purpose of .the Economic Opportunity Council is to
advise the Board of Supervisors on Community;Action Programs; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 12752.1(a)(1)
. requires. that the Economic Opportunity Council consist of one-
third elected public officials or their representatives, one-
third persons who represent the poor in the areas served, and
one-third private sector representatives.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Economic Opportunity
Council shall consist of one representative for each of the five
members of the Board of Supervisors- who is to be appointed by
the Board member and who is to serve at the Board member's
pleasure; five persons who represent the poor in the areas
served, who are to•be elected or selected by local policy
committees of the five Head Start delegate agencies as provided
in the Economic Opportunity Council's by-laws and who are to
serve for a term of two years but for no more than three
consecutive terms;'.and five private sector representatives, who
are to be selected by the board of directors or equivalent
decision-making body of private sector groups who are interested
in being represented on the Economic Opportunity Council as
provided in the Economic Opportunity Council's by-laws and who
are to serve for a term of two years but for•no more than three
consecutive terms.,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution supercedes any
previous resolutions adopted regarding the composition of the
Economic Opportunity Council..
PSA/jh
. J-lr\ataeaoo�c.paa